My analysis is your 60 fts. about .2 off Your 1/8 98.6 MPH shows you have some power. If its got the power to run that MPH, its got the power to get a 1.5 60 ft.

Your right, for its slow 60 ft. it does come on hard at the 1/8.

But then it does die off some on the second half. You gained 20.58, and 20.94 on your two passes. Typically a normal car at that 1/8 MPH would be netting 24.5 MPH or so on the back half.

Could that be all just the Aero effects??, not sure really. Rocky doesnt seem to have a problem getting to 99 MPH with a slow 60. I feel its more the just a aero problem.

You get that 60 ft. where its got the power to be and find another mph or two on the back half and you will have your 6.9 and 10.9 duel purpose street car. That 1/8 mile 99 MPH tells us that.

Nice cool ride, fast too. Just needs dialed in like the rest.



EDIT, Just did the math from 99 mph to 120 difference between a .65 and .5 CD with the same 25" frontal area. The difference was 43 HP If I would of used the frontal area of a Duster it would be more like your 50 Hp number that you stated. 50 HP is plenty enough to knock down your back half MPH compared to a more normal back half. But thats no cause for your .2 slow 60ft.

Mike,

Thanks! That's the kind of analysis I need. 98.66 SHOULd equate to around 124 but (if the Aero .5 vs .65 is real and it's truly like 45 hp (or 500 extra pounds) maybe it's not really that far off. What areo factor is the wallace calculator based on? (I'm assuming a .5). I'm only going through the traps at just under 6000, I'm assuming about 11% slip. If it were an A body pure race combo I'd be using an 8" converter and be hitting 1.5's all day long. So a shorter tire will increase the wheelspeed inthe traps and use more "sweet spot"....so the combo is leaving some on the table but for 1/8th mile "fun brackets" (since it's showing signs of at least being consistent) it's almost perfect as is

The motor pulls hard, it feels like it's going downhill at the shift points but it does need that bigger lift cam...I'm probably leaving 30 on the table I'm sure....but I'm not really "missing it" like I would be if it was a Pure race car to me...it's funny.

If you look at the linear HP Drag curve just for accelerating from 100 to 120 at a .65 vs a .5....it's significant for 4 seconds. You also sense the drag as soon as you let off the power, it's like a Sail...I hardly need the brakes

Mike,

Also the previous best before upgrading the fuel pump and a 2k roll-on launch was 11.39 @ 116.68 with a 1.79 60' and a 7.313 and 97.74 1/8th. The back half is at least proportional.

It's going quicker all the time, just chipping away at it!

It reminds me that my old Fluid Dynamics Professor once told us...."physics doesn't really care if you like the answer or not!"

Brad,
If you watch the car go from behind it tracks as straight as a rail, the steering is really slow so it's not over-correction prone or 'twitchy'.

It's really fun, and once people see how quick it is I can see people running back to the stands to see it as soon as I roll toward the water box,...how cool is that?...that never happened with my Road runners, Cudas or Dusters! The announcers all remark "what the h&!! Is that?" the first time too.

An air dam might not look too out of place on the sleeper.

Vid of Chip and me from Rockingham:

http://youtu.be/fbjUDUKjtrY

Needed to add that with this car, er, SUV, er Thing! Just stomping it off the line from idle or 2000 RPM is just not going to work, the wheelbase is too short and the CG is too far back (essentially right over the front leaf spring eye)...so I've got to preload it to minimize the shock. It hooks and maybe an 8" vert with about a 4400 stall is the right way to go...there really is no wasted motion because the tires hook it's just the stall is lower than the torque peak (which is till now the sacrifice I've been willing to make to get off the line straight and clean).

I have a Bullet cam with near identical @ .050 specs but Much more aggressive ramps and about .080" (.668/.645 vs .585/.570) that I think will take better advantage of the Heads...it's just hard to make the case to swap it when it runs so strong as it is. I might take the rear cargo cover off and see what it does....it couldn't hurt the Aero!

That's it exactly, mr P

On a short WB car your really driving the Pitch or the 'yaw' rather that steering it, it my ears are perpendicular to the lane I'm doing ok.

You can see in the video it tracks straight. I was really suprised to see the front tires are barely skating the asphalt for the first 40-50 feet, that tells me the motor wants a little more vert....not sure if I'm going to give in to it or not. I might try going to a dual plane to pick up 1/8th mile ET but I'll bet it may slow the mph on the big end. It's vexing....slowish out of the hole, goes like heck through the middle and then the air brake dynamics kick in on the top!

I really wish somebody make a BIG Dual Plane like the Indy 440-2D or like CHI makes for the Windsor fords. To use an Air-Gap would really be handicapping the Big 230CC ports of the Airwolfs

Well I pulled Rocky back in the Garage, this weekend I might get a wild hair and swap the cam...so easy in this thing I can probably do it in an hour or even less

Torque should be as good or better and top end should hopefully pick up some via significantly increasing the duration above .550-ish lift.

Old

261/268
107LDA/105ICL
.585/.570

New

260/269
.668/.645
108LDA/104ICL

Head flow I/E

.100. 72/65
.200. 144/108
.300. 219/146
.400. 273/174
.500 301/205
.600. 312/212
.700. 316/236

Flat solid or roller?

Both Solid Rollers but I'll bet I could probably even run hydraulic rollers on the old cam....it's really an Endurance style circle track (allegedly 358" Nascar Trucks and IROC Daytonas) cam with 360 oiling grooves on the 2 & 4 journals....it would probably make an awesome street roller cam for my new 440 incher