Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614323
05/05/14 03:38 PM
05/05/14 03:38 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319 Puyallup, WA
StealthWedge67
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319
Puyallup, WA
|
Quote:
This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it. I'm getting drag radials. It will run well into the 13's with drag radials. Then I'm going to turn up the boost and shoot for the 12's. That is as far as I will take it with the stock motor. I ran a new Camaro ZL 1 yesterday. He didn't beat me by much. A little traction and I most likely would have beat him. He was running drag radials and the tires were more than double the width of the tires on the GLHS.
Traction is part of the package. Sorry, but especially on the street, a rear-drive car is gonna have an advantage over a FWD almost every time due to the traction issue. To say it would smoke 383 & 340 cars??? Well, you just dont have the facts to back that up. When my Satellite had the orig. 150k mile 2-bbl 383 with the basic stuff (mild hyd. cam; intake; carb; headers), it ran 13.80's. 383 Road Runners & 340 Darts are pretty much shoe-in's for a 13 second time slip. No offense, but your sons car is a full half second off that pace. The clocks don't lie, and right now its a mid 14 second car. Lack of traction isn't something specific to your car, and it isn't because you're making so much HP it cant hook up. It's the nature of FWD cars. I don't mean to flame, but I just really don't like the "It would beat this car IF" stuff.... The guy in the other lane probably has an IF too.
LemonWedge - Street heavy / Strip ready - 11.07 @ 120
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: StealthWedge67]
#1614324
05/05/14 03:44 PM
05/05/14 03:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,910 Kirkland, Washington
Pacnorthcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,910
Kirkland, Washington
|
Quote:
Quote:
This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it. I'm getting drag radials. It will run well into the 13's with drag radials. Then I'm going to turn up the boost and shoot for the 12's. That is as far as I will take it with the stock motor. I ran a new Camaro ZL 1 yesterday. He didn't beat me by much. A little traction and I most likely would have beat him. He was running drag radials and the tires were more than double the width of the tires on the GLHS.
Traction is part of the package. Sorry, but especially on the street, a rear-drive car is gonna have an advantage over a FWD almost every time due to the traction issue. To say it would smoke 383 & 340 cars??? Well, you just dont have the facts to back that up. When my Satellite had the orig. 150k mile 2-bbl 383 with the basic stuff (mild hyd. cam; intake; carb; headers), it ran 13.80's. 383 Road Runners & 340 Darts are pretty much shoe-in's for a 13 second time slip. No offense, but your sons car is a full half second off that pace. The clocks don't lie, and right now its a mid 14 second car. Lack of traction isn't something specific to your car, and it isn't because you're making so much HP it cant hook up. It's the nature of FWD cars. I don't mean to flame, but I just really don't like the "It would beat this car IF" stuff.... The guy in the other lane probably has an IF too.
x2
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: StealthWedge67]
#1614325
05/05/14 09:10 PM
05/05/14 09:10 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Quote:
Quote:
This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it. I'm getting drag radials. It will run well into the 13's with drag radials. Then I'm going to turn up the boost and shoot for the 12's. That is as far as I will take it with the stock motor. I ran a new Camaro ZL 1 yesterday. He didn't beat me by much. A little traction and I most likely would have beat him. He was running drag radials and the tires were more than double the width of the tires on the GLHS.
Traction is part of the package. Sorry, but especially on the street, a rear-drive car is gonna have an advantage over a FWD almost every time due to the traction issue. To say it would smoke 383 & 340 cars??? Well, you just dont have the facts to back that up. When my Satellite had the orig. 150k mile 2-bbl 383 with the basic stuff (mild hyd. cam; intake; carb; headers), it ran 13.80's. 383 Road Runners & 340 Darts are pretty much shoe-in's for a 13 second time slip. No offense, but your sons car is a full half second off that pace. The clocks don't lie, and right now its a mid 14 second car. Lack of traction isn't something specific to your car, and it isn't because you're making so much HP it cant hook up. It's the nature of FWD cars. I don't mean to flame, but I just really don't like the "It would beat this car IF" stuff.... The guy in the other lane probably has an IF too.
Traction is part of the equation and the tires on this car are terrible. I said stock 383 and 340's. A 383 two barrel is a 15 second combo from the factory if your lucky. I seen some in the 16's over the years. I ordered tires today. This should put the car solid into the 13's. Most likely faster than 13.80's. I don't believe the fwd is what made the car so hard to get a good time slip as much as the turbo. On my 440 Cuda back in the day the first run down the track on G60 polyglas tires I ran a 14.40 blowing the tires off. But with in a few passes I was able to get the car down to a 13.60 et on the same tires.The same car ran 13.02 a couple of weeks later on slicks. The advantage of the 440 was bottom end torque. I could leave off idle and ride the clutch and the car would pull smoothly to red line. The small cubic inch turbo motor gets all its power from the turbo. When you try and leave at low RPM's it leaves like a dog until the turbo spools and then it blows the tires off. The traction issue is why back in the 70's many small blocks had a reputation of being able to beat big blocks with much more hp on the street. But if you get tires and hook the big block up the race has a totally different out come. When I say IF I mean I am going to correct the IF and go out and prove it. I'm not the guy that says things but never try's to prove them. Like the car show crowd.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: furious70]
#1614326
05/05/14 09:13 PM
05/05/14 09:13 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Buy a cheap used pair of slicks for it, but to get the most from them he's gonna have to dump it pretty high, and your axles will be on borrowed time then.
I put heavy duty after market axle in the car.
Does it still have the 525 trans in it? Does it have the girdle and other parts? I'd be more worried about it than the axles.
The original trans blew up we had to put another trans in the car. I upgraded the axles at that time to be safe.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: StealthWedge67]
#1614327
05/06/14 04:32 PM
05/06/14 04:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Traction is part of the package. Sorry, but especially on the street, a rear-drive car is gonna have an advantage over a FWD almost every time due to the traction issue. To say it would smoke 383 & 340 cars??? Well, you just dont have the facts to back that up. When my Satellite had the orig. 150k mile 2-bbl 383 with the basic stuff (mild hyd. cam; intake; carb; headers), it ran 13.80's. 383 Road Runners & 340 Darts are pretty much shoe-in's for a 13 second time slip. No offense, but your sons car is a full half second off that pace. The clocks don't lie, and right now its a mid 14 second car. Lack of traction isn't something specific to your car, and it isn't because you're making so much HP it cant hook up. It's the nature of FWD cars. I don't mean to flame, but I just really don't like the "It would beat this car IF" stuff.... The guy in the other lane probably has an IF too.
The facts are that very few 383's and 340 cars were capable of running in the 13's from the factory. I know the 340 Duster with a 4 spd and 3.91 rear was suppose to just touch the 13's because it was advertised as part of the RTS. But in reality most 340 Dusters would not run sub 14's from the factory. Here are some times I found on a website from magazine tests.
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (CL)
340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 7.0, 1/4 mile - 14.97 @ 95.4mph
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (MT)
340ci/275hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.2 @ 92mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (MT)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.8, 1/4 mile - 15.0 @ 93mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (HR)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.74 @ 98mph
1968 Plymouht Road Runner (CD)
426ci/425hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.54 @ 105.10mph
It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars. The 383 was the most disappointing motor in Chryslers high performance line up. I have driven some healthy 340's over the years but the 383 required some work to become a respectable performer. I think the cam was what held it back. Contrary to many statements from Chrysler guys I know. There is a night and day difference between the 383 and 440 in stock form. I've seen impressive running 383's but they were not stock. My Cuda 440 with a mild hyd cam intake carb and headers ran low 12's
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614328
05/06/14 05:24 PM
05/06/14 05:24 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 21,066 in a cattle trailer down by th...
Guitar Jones
Paddle faster! I hear banjo music!
|
Paddle faster! I hear banjo music!
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 21,066
in a cattle trailer down by th...
|
What those sticky tires are going to do is put that car on a trailer for the ride home. That trans is the weakest link but not the only one. Good luck in your quest but be prepared.
"Come get your wife"
'92 D250 Club Cab CTD, 47RH conversion, pump tweaks, injectors, rear disc and hydroboost conversion. '74 W200 Crew Cab 360, NV4500, D44, D60 and NP205 divorced transfer case. Front and rear disc and hydroboost conversion. 2019 1500 Long Horn Crew Cab 4WD, 5.7 Hemi.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: Guitar Jones]
#1614329
05/06/14 06:28 PM
05/06/14 06:28 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Quote:
What those sticky tires are going to do is put that car on a trailer for the ride home. That trans is the weakest link but not the only one. Good luck in your quest but be prepared.
We drive the car to the track. The trans in this car is bullet proof down to 11's. I also upgraded the axles. It should be safe for a while.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: SuperStockWagon]
#1614332
05/06/14 10:48 PM
05/06/14 10:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What those sticky tires are going to do is put that car on a trailer for the ride home. That trans is the weakest link but not the only one. Good luck in your quest but be prepared.
The trans in this car is bullet proof down to 11's.
Boy if I had a dollar for everytime I heard that! lol
I know. It should be bullet proof. When you are racing anything can happen even if you have the best parts.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614333
05/06/14 10:50 PM
05/06/14 10:50 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 484 The State of Hockey
2qik4u
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 484
The State of Hockey
|
Quote:
The facts are that very few 383's and 340 cars were capable of running in the 13's from the factory. I know the 340 Duster with a 4 spd and 3.91 rear was suppose to just touch the 13's because it was advertised as part of the RTS. But in reality most 340 Dusters would not run sub 14's from the factory. Here are some times I found on a website from magazine tests.
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (CL)
340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 7.0, 1/4 mile - 14.97 @ 95.4mph
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (MT)
340ci/275hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.2 @ 92mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (MT)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.8, 1/4 mile - 15.0 @ 93mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (HR)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.74 @ 98mph
1968 Plymouht Road Runner (CD)
426ci/425hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.54 @ 105.10mph
It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars. The 383 was the most disappointing motor in Chryslers high performance line up. I have driven some healthy 340's over the years but the 383 required some work to become a respectable performer. I think the cam was what held it back. Contrary to many statements from Chrysler guys I know. There is a night and day difference between the 383 and 440 in stock form. I've seen impressive running 383's but they were not stock. My Cuda 440 with a mild hyd cam intake carb and headers ran low 12's
Love the GLHS, but if you start making the some minor mods to the cars on the list above the are running right with the miror modded GLHS. I do agree 101 mph is impressive from a small turbo banger.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: 2qik4u]
#1614334
05/07/14 12:21 AM
05/07/14 12:21 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319 Puyallup, WA
StealthWedge67
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319
Puyallup, WA
|
"It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars." You might want to Re-Read your own statement, which was: "This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it." You never said anything about bone stock.... Listen, we're all rooting for you to go as fast as that little mopar can, but when you start calling out 383 & 440 cars from behind the wheel of a mid 14 second 4-cyl, expect some takers.... Edit: Now I've just read the term "bulletproof down into the 11's"......
Last edited by StealthWedge67; 05/07/14 12:47 AM.
LemonWedge - Street heavy / Strip ready - 11.07 @ 120
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614335
05/07/14 01:12 AM
05/07/14 01:12 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319 Puyallup, WA
StealthWedge67
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319
Puyallup, WA
|
Here are some times I found on a website from magazine tests.
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (CL)
340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 7.0, 1/4 mile - 14.97 @ 95.4mph
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S (MT)
340ci/275hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 15.2 @ 92mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (MT)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.8, 1/4 mile - 15.0 @ 93mph
1968 Plymouth Road Runner (HR)
383ci/335hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.74 @ 98mph
1968 Plymouht Road Runner (CD)
426ci/425hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.54 @ 105.10mph
It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars. The 383 was the most disappointing motor in Chryslers high performance line up. I have driven some healthy 340's over the years but the 383 required some work to become a respectable performer. I think the cam was what held it back. Contrary to many statements from Chrysler guys I know. There is a night and day difference between the 383 and 440 in stock form. I've seen impressive running 383's but they were not stock. My Cuda 440 with a mild hyd cam intake carb and headers ran low 12's
Here are some numbers I happened to run across in this months MuscleCar Review:
Car & Driver; Jan. 1969 test: 1969 Dodge SuperBee - 383 4bbl: 14.04 @ 99.5 Motor Trend; Feb 1969 test: 1969 Plymouth RoadRunner - 383 4bbl: 14.35 @ 101. Car & Driver; Feb 1970 test: 1970 Duster - 340 4-bbl: 14.39 @ 97
Guess you're not exactly "Eating" those cars, huh?
Put some sticky tires on it, see what you come up with and make sure to report back. My guess is the report will include broken parts. Oh, and by the way, it didn't take sticky tires, aftermarket transmissions, and axles to get the above cars to run these times.
Last edited by StealthWedge67; 05/07/14 01:16 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: StealthWedge67]
#1614336
05/07/14 01:17 AM
05/07/14 01:17 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Quote:
"It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars."
You might want to Re-Read your own statement, which was: "This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it."
You never said anything about bone stock.... Listen, we're all rooting for you to go as fast as that little mopar can, but when you start calling out 383 & 440 cars from behind the wheel of a mid 14 second 4-cyl, expect some takers....
I meant stock. I wasn't calling anyone out. I was just making a statement. Are you coming to the Mega Mopar Show? Maybe we can line up a grudge race.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614337
05/07/14 01:23 AM
05/07/14 01:23 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY
Master
|
Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
"It looks like my statement was correct. The little turbo car would eat most stock 383 and 340 cars."
You might want to Re-Read your own statement, which was: "This little car would blow away 383 and 340 cars. It would take a good running 440 to beat it."
You never said anything about bone stock.... Listen, we're all rooting for you to go as fast as that little mopar can, but when you start calling out 383 & 440 cars from behind the wheel of a mid 14 second 4-cyl, expect some takers....
I meant stock. I wasn't calling anyone out. I was just making a statement. Are you coming to the Mega Mopar Show? Maybe we can line up a grudge race.
Most guys that I know that ran a 340 changed the valve springs as soon as they got the car.. that was the weak point on them... with just springs you werent touching a 340... most 440s couldnt either
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: StealthWedge67]
#1614338
05/07/14 01:29 AM
05/07/14 01:29 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703 Mohnton, Pa
DodgeCharger
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Mohnton, Pa
|
Here are some numbers I happened to run across in this months MuscleCar Review:
Car & Driver; Jan. 1969 test: 1969 Dodge SuperBee - 383 4bbl: 14.04 @ 99.5 Motor Trend; Feb 1969 test: 1969 Plymouth RoadRunner - 383 4bbl: 14.35 @ 101. Car & Driver; Feb 1970 test: 1970 Duster - 340 4-bbl: 14.39 @ 97
Guess you're not exactly "Eating" those cars, huh?
Put some sticky tires on it, see what you come up with and make sure to report back. My guess is the report will include broken parts. Oh, and by the way, it didn't take sticky tires, aftermarket transmissions, and axles to get the above cars to run these times.
Back in the day it was pretty well known that the magazine test cars were wringers. Warmed over. I seen a many of 383 car back in the day that couldn't break into the 14's. That is just the way things were.
|
|
|
Re: Car ran 101 mph quarter how hard to get in the 13's?
[Re: DodgeCharger]
#1614340
05/08/14 03:25 PM
05/08/14 03:25 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319 Puyallup, WA
StealthWedge67
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319
Puyallup, WA
|
Quote:
Back in the day it was pretty well known that the magazine test cars were wringers. Warmed over. I seen a many of 383 car back in the day that couldn't break into the 14's. That is just the way things were. __________________________________________________________________
I meant stock. I wasn't calling anyone out. I was just making a statement. Are you coming to the Mega Mopar Show? Maybe we can line up a grudge race.
I think this conversation has just about run its course. But I'll say again, that I think your sons turbo-4 obviously runs real well, and I root for you to hit your goal of getting it into the 13's. However, I also think you're underestimating what a good running 383 could do. Any half-way competent owner could have a 383 'Runner knocking on the 13 second door with a couple of small tricks. I also think that 340 A-body's were every big block guys worst nightmare and have run across PLENTY that were faster than mid-14's in stock or nearly stock trim. I'm not trying to demean your sons car, I'm merely standing up for the 60's cars.
Thanks for the invite to Mega Mopar, though. I genuinely wish I could be there, but I live in the NW and don't get to see any of these great events. Tell you what; I'll offer you a little incentive to get your goal accomplished. I'll encourage you the entire summer to do whatever you can to that stout little 4-banger. Post up your best Time-Slip with video of the car running that time to back it up, and I'll reply with a similar post up of one of my timeslips. We could call it a cross-country grudge match (??).
PS: The Satellite now runs a fairly stout 451; so you may need to wield your biggest hammer in getting the turbo car ready.
LemonWedge - Street heavy / Strip ready - 11.07 @ 120
|
|
|
|
|