• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

What Will It Run?

Looking forward to your results. My combo is the same compression cam is almost exact and Victor heads, with a super Victor and 1050.
 
After a very long, very frustrating, and VERY expensive saga, I finally have a running motor back in my car, complete with new block and new heads. I will spare you the gory details, but here are the spec's of what I have now:

440 based 512
12.7:1 compression
indy -1 heads
indy 440-25 intake
dual eddy 750's
comp cams camshaft 683int/668exh, 274int/282exh, 108lsa
1.5 T&D Rockers
5,000 rpm stall
4:30 gears
29in tall radial slicks
3418 with fuel and me in it

Not sure when I will get to the track to test, but anyone want to take guess. Previous best was 10.22 with 12.7:1 comp, edelbrock victor heads, and smaller cam.
0505241442.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think 5000 may be tight on the converter. Other than tat get your welder out and weld the hood shut.
Doug
 
Sorted & after tune, I don't see why it won't run 9.99 or better...
after been a long (expensive) haul & learning curve

Good luck, you deserve a lil' glory
 
Made it to the track last night. I left very disappointed and frustrated.

Made 3 runs and then packed up.

60' 1.468 1.491 1.487
330 4.257 4.301 4.284
1/8 6.650 6.714 6.686
mph 102.39 101.32 101.90
1000 8.740 8.825 8.785
1/4 10.527 10.633 10.583
mph 125.59 124.18 124.79

For perspective, the same bottom end with a smaller cam (spec'd for the motor when it had 10.5:1 compression) and the Edelbrock Victor heads went 10.22 @ 129.53 and was consistently in the mid 10.20's.

I have a couple of thoughts on why it may have performed so poorly, but otherwise, I am at a loss. First, the fuel I was running (110 octane race gas) had been in a fuel can in my shop for about 6 months. Could that have been an issue? Second, the carbs could have been gunked up from sitting for months. I did pull the tops off and do a light cleaning of them prior to reinstalling and didn't notice anything obvious that could have caused a performance issue.
 
I realize you spent a pile of money getting the engine back together, but……to this point at least……… your experience highlights the fact that no matter how much “better” a particular combo looks on paper, unless you’re duplicating a proven package(to the letter), then you don’t really know what you have until you test it.
Had it been put on the dyno(the same one as before), if the new combo made less power, then a slower on track performance would have been expected.

As it stands now, you’re back to a point of trying to determine where the missing ET went.
Is the engine making less power than before?
Or is it something else entirely?

I’d def start out by cleaning out the carbs and getting fresh fuel.
Go thru the valve lash, double check timing, make sure you’re getting full throttle, etc.

FWIW, I’ve only tested one engine with the Indy box ram on it.
That motor just kept responding to more and more jet.
It had Carter 750’s on it.

Does the car have a wide band gauge in it?

Does the converter seem to flash as high as it did with previous combo?
 
Last edited:
All of the incrementals look correct for the the ET's. so it doesn't look like you are running out of gas, misfiring, or spinning. Double check wide open throttle and timing. Maybe shift points ?? but that would not effect 60ft and those 60ft's translate to 10.50's+ so that probably not the issue. FWIW I have run old race gas (7 months 0ld) with no noticeable problems. Did the motor feel lazy? Slow to Rev?
 
It has been a while since I have updated this thread. Not much has changed. ET's have settled into the high 10.40's to low 10.50's. However, I may have a glimmer of hope regarding performance. I was playing around with the Wallace ET Conversion calculator and plugged in the air data from the best run I have achieved with the current combo with the air data from the best run I had made before some of the changes were made. You can see the difference in the air from the screen shot below. The baseline results were [email protected], the conversion based on new air data comes to [email protected]. Is it possible that the difference in air in the two runs compared made that much of a difference?

Wallace Conversion.jpg


When I run the conversion backwards, if I take run 2 (which I know resulted in a run of [email protected]) and compare it to the air used in run 1, I get [email protected]. Would it be safe to assume that the changes I made actually resulted in a .2 ET improvement but I just have not run in comparable air, or is the calculator not that accurate?

wallace 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I find four tenths awful hard to believe.... but then again my car was four tenths slower at Palmdale at 4200 feet (or whatever it was) than it was at pomona (somewhere around 12-1500 feet, but downhill)
But that is actual altitude difference. Is air quality adjustment directly related? I honestly don't know.
Edit: five and a half mph would indicate a bunch of power difference.

I defer to @dvw for the correct answer.
 
Not sure where that missing time got to on your set up. I haven’t re-read the post but a bad converter sure can eat up lots.

Over the winter I freshened my engine, needed a different block due to finding a main web crack. Anyways, my season started off slow too after the freshening, 60 some lbs lighter and a 3” hemi scoop instead of the previous 4.5” But I instantly found it by making a pass without the air cleaner on. I went from a 10.14 pass to a 9.90. I messed around with a different filter but whenever the filter lid was off the car woke up. Anyways, the lid is gone and now my 3” air filter seals to the bottom of the hood scoop, the car will run into the 9.80’s. Added weight, timing and low rpm shifts is my means of being on the right side of 10.00 now.

Sure would be nice if you found your missing time the same way Ksurfer2. Good luck!
 
Regarding your “conversion” results, is it possible that you used relative pressure verses actual barometric pressure? It seems unlikely to be at an elevation of 2200ft and have an absolute pressure of nearly 30.0 in.hg.

If that is the error, it will essentially double the result difference.
 
Last edited:
Take the 2 runs and go here US Tracks « Air Density Online to find your air data. Click on the correct track you were. Then click on Historical and find the correct date and time. I've never seen the barometer that good. We are lucky to see 29.2.
Doug
 
Same. 28.8 to 29.1, and we’re at 1000 ft
 
dvw said:
Take the 2 runs and go here US Tracks « Air Density Online to find your air data. Click on the correct track you were. Then click on Historical and find the correct date and time. I've never seen the barometer that good. We are lucky to see 29.2.
Doug
Click to expand...
The site you referred to is the one I used to get my weather data from.
 
ksurfer2 said:
The site you referred to is the one I used to get my weather data from.
Click to expand...
But you still did not say which barometric pressure you used in the calc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ksurfer2
Tire Selection
Replies
4
Views
2K
33 IMP
33 IMP
ksurfer2
Dana 60 Gear Selection
Replies
8
Views
3K
65Fury440
65Fury440
B
  • Locked
FOR SALE 1964 Dodge 330
Replies
1
Views
4K
Babblingtabbies
B
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top