HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Unlawfl's Race & Engine Tech HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ???

Print Thread

Page 2 of 4

1

2

3

4

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: goldmember] #1288942 08/21/12 11:09 AM 08/21/12 11:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 19,318 State of confusion T Thumperdart I Live Here
Thumperdart I Live Here T Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 19,318 State of confusion	Quote: Quote: I have made 468 - 500 at the rear wheels on different dynos ..but I have gone 10.67 at 125 with a racing exhaust and 4.10 gears.. to slow the car down I put 3.73's in and my full exhaust and MT drag radials and the car went ....10.67 at 122 lol at 3750 with me ....you should see your first 10 !!!! at Norwalk and then some Yep about 470 rwhp(570fwhp-18%=470ish) would do it!Its simple math,not rocket science. My personal numbers don`t even get close.............485hp 486tq at 3200lbs on a chassis dyno and went 9.98......... 72 Dart 470 n/a BB stroker street car `THUMPER`...Check me out on FB Dominic Thumper for videos and lots of carb pics......760-900-3895.....

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Thumperdart] #1288943 08/21/12 11:48 AM 08/21/12 11:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI MR_P_BODY Master
MR_P_BODY Master Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI	Also Randy when you were on Garys dyno you had the 850 on it and we know you make more power with the bigger carb so figure that in also

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Labratt] #1288944 08/21/12 11:49 AM 08/21/12 11:49 AM
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,506 Az Crizila master
Crizila master Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,506 Az	Trying to determine HP using ET is a crap shoot at best - so - using my trusty Moroso "power speed calculator", and pluging in 3700 lbs and 500 HP, I came up with an ET of 10.95. Fastest 300

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Crizila] #1288945 08/21/12 11:55 AM 08/21/12 11:55 AM
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI MR_P_BODY Master
MR_P_BODY Master Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI	Quote: Trying to determine HP using ET is a crap shoot at best - so - using my trusty Moroso "power speed calculator", and pluging in 3700 lbs and 500 HP, I came up with an ET of 10.95. He could probably do it with 520hp being that he doesnt 60ft real well.. but that would be about the minimum... once he's rolling its fine... if he got the 60' down to a 1.50s he could bump into the 10s now(barely)

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Labratt] #1288946 08/21/12 12:46 PM 08/21/12 12:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually B BradH Taking time off to work on my car
BradH Taking time off to work on my car B Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually	Every time I see a question like this, my first instinct is always to reply "On whose dyno???" I ran 11.0s @ 121 w/ an engine that made 590 HP on one dyno, then ran 10.5s @ 126 w/ an engine that made 610 HP on a different dyno.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: BradH] #1288947 08/21/12 12:56 PM 08/21/12 12:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 865 lancaster,california johnnycuda super stock
johnnycuda super stock Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 865 lancaster,california	My 'Cuda runs 10.70's at 125,on the chassis dyno it made 495hp,my car weighs 3770 with me in it,has full length exhaust thru the Cuda tips,4.56 gear,28in tall tire,my car doesn't 60' very well,only 1.61/1.62..so obviously there's more there if I can get it to 60'.My runs were at Fontana Dragway,a little above sea level I believe. 1970 'Cuda,Lime Light,499 Indy S/R's 10.70's @125,street driven ALOT! 1966 Barracuda 360,now a 5spd,Hemi Orange,Hot Rod Air, New daily driver-2003 Ram 2500 Cummins 5.9 '69 Valiant 2-dr, sleeper! New project---1938 Dodge truck, plan is a 360 with a A500, AC, Calvert rear susp., rack and pinion front with coils.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: BradH] #1288948 08/21/12 01:12 PM 08/21/12 01:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central RobX4406 I Live Here
RobX4406 I Live Here Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central	IMO, Trying to use FWHP is a waste of time especially with an auto car. There are guys out there that are getting 9-10% parasitic loss, some even less, out of their stuff and other are lucky to get 20%. Watch "Pass Time" for a heavy dose of claimed high HP crummy running rides. Guys 3000# car makes 700 HP and runs 120mph... yeah sure it makes 700hp... LMAO Maybe it's got the worst converter in it known to man! I'll stick with my 525 guess at the wheels, whether that take 575FWHP or 650... Who knows! As mentioned the best time cutter you can get is chipping at the 60' number. If it goes 1.60 now, there's at least .10 in that, so maybe .2 off the big end.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: RobX4406] #1288949 08/21/12 01:45 PM 08/21/12 01:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 13,530 Marion, South Carolina [><] an8sec70cuda I Live Here
an8sec70cuda I Live Here Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 13,530 Marion, South Carolina [><]	My cuda went 10.40 at 129 mph at 3700# w/ 508 rwhp...on a Dynojet chassis dyno. On an engine dyno, that combo should have been somewhere around 620 hp. CHIP '70 hemicuda, 575" Hemi, 727, Dana 60 '69 road runner, 440-6, 4 speed, Dana 60 '71 Demon 340, no drivetrain, on blocks behind the barn '73 Chrysler New Yorker, 440, 727, 8.75 '90 Chevy 454SS Silverado, 476" BBC, TH400, 14 bolt '06 GMC 2500HD LBZ Duramax

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: an8sec70cuda] #1288950 08/21/12 02:54 PM 08/21/12 02:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,325 Clinton Twp... north of Deetro... L Labratt OP Good Ol Randy B!
Labratt OP Good Ol Randy B! L Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,325 Clinton Twp... north of Deetro...	Mike,the 440 liked your 850..and Brad's,and Russ' 950HP even more...at least at the track! Brad,Gary Jacob's(Jake68)chassis dyno is a DynoJet. Rob,the GTX usually 60's in the 1.52-1.56 range. Do you guys agree with the 80-100 hp increase from the head work? I believe,if I can get decent traction..and run 1.49-1.50's,I could hit my 10.8-10.9 goal. BTW..the engine dyno at St. Clair Engine,where I'll be running it,is a Stuska..which is a division of Power Test Inc. Anybody here know how accurate these are? Thanks! Randy 7344654-WOODWARDDREAMCRUISE2012002.jpg (151 downloads) Last edited by Labratt; 08/21/12 02:56 PM.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Labratt] #1288951 08/21/12 03:11 PM 08/21/12 03:11 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central RobX4406 I Live Here
RobX4406 I Live Here Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central	That's a pretty good 60'. Must have been something else that I saw about 1.60 time. The extra HP may help your 60's. If you hit 1.50 or better, the time you want should be in range. Dynos, both chassis and engine, are all over the map, no consistency. Tuning tool, great; reality, not so much most of the time. And EVERYONE claims the dyno used was stingy! Seen one where the engine alleged to make 560hp, 3200 pound car, ran 121-122. I'd be REALLY disappointed if that was my ride because something isn't right. Good luck, should be fun!

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Labratt] #1288952 08/21/12 03:12 PM 08/21/12 03:12 PM
Joined: Nov 2009 Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker H HYPER8oSoNic top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic top fuel H Joined: Nov 2009 Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker	Quote: Matt...GREAT running Charger! My GTX HATES Drag Radial street tires!....tried my 295/65R-15's at the track once...can't get it to hook with them! I think my best 60' was a 1.72! Just to be sure, get the car to HOOK WELL first. It should hook with a good chassis setup and weight transfer (regardless of tire). The "degree" of traction is in the tire pressure setting and/or tire compound. Horsepower is great to get you in the 10's, BUT without good weight transfer or chassis setup you are not pulling a decent 60ft time off the the line. My guess on your HP to run 10.9 - 10.8 index would be the 550-565 hp (RWHP) range (car weight depending). Just my . Nice car and good luck on the reaching the 10-sec index. Last edited by HYPER8oSoNic; 08/21/12 03:15 PM.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: HYPER8oSoNic] #1288953 08/21/12 03:42 PM 08/21/12 03:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,890 Smyrna, South Carolina STEFF master
STEFF master Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,890 Smyrna, South Carolina	Yep, a "Bad Chassis" eats HP!! Just like how your car "HATES" a Drag Radial. it's not the tire, It's that the chassis doesn't work. It's been proven may times, Drag Radials work well, with a good chassis.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: Labratt] #1288954 08/21/12 03:56 PM 08/21/12 03:56 PM
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI MR_P_BODY Master
MR_P_BODY Master Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI	Quote: Mike,the 440 liked your 850..and Brad's,and Russ' 950HP even more...at least at the track! Brad,Gary Jacob's(Jake68)chassis dyno is a DynoJet. Rob,the GTX usually 60's in the 1.52-1.56 range. Do you guys agree with the 80-100 hp increase from the head work? I believe,if I can get decent traction..and run 1.49-1.50's,I could hit my 10.8-10.9 goal. BTW..the engine dyno at St. Clair Engine,where I'll be running it,is a Stuska..which is a division of Power Test Inc. Anybody here know how accurate these are? Thanks! Randy I thought you had a 60' in the 1.6x.... according to Shawn he thinks that dyno is close to real power but is about 10-15 hp short(stingy) which I could care less about 10-15 hp as long as its real

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: MR_P_BODY] #1288955 08/21/12 04:34 PM 08/21/12 04:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn D dragram440 super stock
dragram440 super stock D Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn	My chassis either works good or I am leaving some power on the table. Since my chassis is basically stock with stock type shocks and stock 45 year old springs I would assume it probly isnt working very good. What converter are you running in the GTX and what gear? 67' charger 499 RB 10.57 at 127

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: dragram440] #1288956 08/21/12 04:47 PM 08/21/12 04:47 PM
Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 793 Utah topbrent super stock
topbrent super stock Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 793 Utah	LabRatt, I would suspect you will have plenty of power to get the job done. However, as has been the case in several of your last track outings, chassis prep and traction issues will be the key. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdDtz30-JJ8&feature=channel&list=UL You have plenty of tire, now get the chassis as dialed as the engine. I know that in the past you haven't been too keen on the idea, but "if it were my car"..., I would install Calvert monoleafs/Cal-Tracs and be done with it. For inspiration, ActionAnge has more power and less tire and gets it done nicely with CalTracs. 7344783-1967BelvedereIIactionangewheelie.jpg (151 downloads)

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: topbrent] #1288957 08/21/12 04:51 PM 08/21/12 04:51 PM
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn D dragram440 super stock
dragram440 super stock D Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn	From what I have read on moparts is the cal tracs didnt seem to make much diffence for alot of people on here with mid to high ten secound cars. 67' charger 499 RB 10.57 at 127

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: dragram440] #1288958 08/21/12 04:58 PM 08/21/12 04:58 PM
Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 793 Utah topbrent super stock
topbrent super stock Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 793 Utah	Quote: From what I have read on moparts is the cal tracs didnt seem to make much diffence for alot of people on here with mid to high ten secound cars. Are you saying one trip down the track for glory ET testing, or consistent 60ft results over 100's of trips down the track? Sure, some folks can and do get it done really well with SS springs, but the complete Calvert package seems to be able to tame an inconsistent chassis. CalTracs are generally more tuneable and are usually more consistent. 7344800-1967BelvedereIIwheelieactionange.jpg (161 downloads)

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: topbrent] #1288959 08/21/12 05:05 PM 08/21/12 05:05 PM
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn D dragram440 super stock
dragram440 super stock D Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,058 bigfork mn	I would certainly be going with the caltracs over the ss springs. I just thought I read on here that most people with mid to high ten secound cars gained little or nothing going to the caltracs over the ss springs. 67' charger 499 RB 10.57 at 127

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: STEFF] #1288960 08/21/12 05:20 PM 08/21/12 05:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,698 NE Oklahoma V Von master
Von master V Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,698 NE Oklahoma	Quote: it's not the tire, It's that the chassis doesn't work. It's been proven may times, Drag Radials work well, with a good chassis. FWIW, I agree 100 percent. My pea shooter never hooked very well, never had much weight transfer, etc with ET radials, or slicks. The mild motor in my car right now was blowin the tires off really bad. Made some changes with the UCAs and strut rods and it dead hooks, it even actually transfers weight, etc. At a local cruise night two weeks ago, a kid in a Cummins pulls up and starts talking trash. Mashed her down, never blipped a tire. Front end came up real fast. He said.."Oh.....Never mind..." Until I made the changes in the front, it would have blown the tires smooth off. I'll have a decent motor in the car in a month or so. I "think" with some minor tweaking it will hook fine.. 72 RR, Pump gas 440, 452s, 3800 lbs, Corked, ET Radials,. 11.33@117.72. Same car, bone stock 346s, 9.5 comp, baby solid. 12.24@110.

Re: HORSEPOWER NEEDED TO RUN 10.8-10.9'S ??? [Re: dragram440] #1288961 08/21/12 05:36 PM 08/21/12 05:36 PM
Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central RobX4406 I Live Here
RobX4406 I Live Here Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,271 Overpriced Housing Central	Quote: From what I have read on moparts is the cal tracs didnt seem to make much diffence for alot of people on here with mid to high ten secound cars. I'd disagree with this from my experiences with them. A well sorted out SS spring is more difficult to improve upon. JMO, An 11.00- 123+mph car running 1.6x's in 60' is not a well sorted out car. Ask Punk/Bryan Sloan about his deal with them. Car ran pretty consistent 1.45-1.47 on SS and ran 1.40-1.42's on cal tracks with ranchos. Car recently went 1.37 with afco's and runs 10.50-10.52 IIRC It was running 10.62-10.65ish on ss springs. Leaves nice, level and straight! As Bryan has said... "I would say yes to the Caltracs and split monoleafs. They alone wont be the answer to any traction woes however. Its the total combination of carefully chosen parts." The one car I dealt with that saw no improvement was because the owner didn't want to do what was necessary to make them work. The back was less messed up than the front.

Page 2 of 4

1

2

3

4

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1