Re: Little engines that can
 

I'll bet about half of the reason that Chevelle runs as well as it does is that it's not quite the porker most people would expect it to be. Less weight means you go fast on tiny horsepower, but 373 horses out of a 230 horse rated 283 is nothing to sneeze at. Kudo's to the owners and engine builders on the super low et.

Re: Little engines that can
 

The power figures are legit. The wink was a nod to the efficiency of the package, that's all. When the vehicle itself is scienced out to the "nth" it doesn't take that much power to run quickly.

I have a friend with a Fox body Mustang that used to be a magazine project car. At the starting line it weighs right around 3000 lbs. The engine is a ridiculously mild carbureted 302, and at the time it was backed up with a prepped OEM 5 speed and a Ford Motorsports Dana rear with a 4.5X gear. On 26X9 tires it ran 11.80's at 110-ish. On a chassis dyno it barely cracked 300 HP. (It now runs a prepped C4 and is a tad slower due to other issues)

Remember, stock eliminator cars literally leave nothing to chance, every inch of the car is scienced out to provide the most efficient use of power possible. If you took that engine & trans out and put it into a similar weight streeter it would probably be at least 2 seconds slower just because the car doesn't work as well.

FWIW, another well-known racer I know once ran a 283 in Super Stock trim--i.e. fully ported/welded heads, roller cam, any intake (but OEM carb), every trick in the book internally, etc. and it made ~480.

Re: Little engines that can
 

Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what ya' see ...

Re: Little engines that can
 

To be that quick with 373hp, the Chevelle must be on the light side (per NHRA) and they REALLY have the car's chassis combination set up perfect. Great article!

Kurt [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

On a side note, Jerry Frailey has a friend running a 80's Malibu with a 305 in Stock Eliminator and I believe he's in the low 11's......Crazy. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: Little engines that can
 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VintageMusclecar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The power figures are legit. The wink was a nod to the efficiency of the package, that's all. When the vehicle itself is scienced out to the &quot;nth&quot; it doesn't take that much power to run quickly.

I have a friend with a Fox body Mustang that used to be a magazine project car. At the starting line it weighs right around 3000 lbs. The engine is a ridiculously mild carbureted 302, and at the time it was backed up with a prepped OEM 5 speed and a Ford Motorsports Dana rear with a 4.5X gear. On 26X9 tires it ran 11.80's at 110-ish. On a chassis dyno it barely cracked 300 HP. (It now runs a prepped C4 and is a tad slower due to other issues)

Remember, stock eliminator cars literally leave nothing to chance, every inch of the car is scienced out to provide the most efficient use of power possible. If you took that engine &amp; trans out and put it into a similar weight streeter it would probably be at least 2 seconds slower just because the car doesn't work as well.

FWIW, another well-known racer I know once ran a 283 in Super Stock trim--i.e. fully ported/welded heads, roller cam, any intake (but OEM carb), every trick in the book internally, etc. and it made ~480. </div></div>

Still, there's something just a little fish going on? Even by you own example, the light weight Fox/302 combo was right there. I could see low 12's, but mid 11's!!! Seems be a stretch with what is posted.

I know how we set up our cars, and what we do to get there with our power. ET calculators are way outta wack on ours too. I have friends and have helped on TAFC, TFD, IHRA/NHRA P/S, as well as some other high-end fact class cars. My buddies SN95 Mustang IS the worlds fastest, N/A SB car in the world @ 2750lbs (with a 7.68). I have a NHRA 500 incher in my car and my crew chiefs car has an Aussie 400 P/S in it as well. He also has a current 2015 IHRA P/S car too.

We go through things like Cryo'ing, coating, ceramic bearings, Ti wheel studs and you name it. Usually the best of the best in what we do. We also look for every 1/100th and add them up. Ever been crossing the line with engine singing at 9500+ and ZERO oil pressure??? That's what it's like with 0W2 oil, and that we only push to 2 runs MAX!

So with that background of looking for each and ever hundredth we can find, I still find this one a bit difficult to see?????

Sorry that just me.

Re: Little engines that can
 

&quot;...engine singing at 9500+ and ZERO oil pressure...&quot;

I got stuck on that phrase! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/eek.gif[/img]

Re: Little engines that can
 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EZ Nova</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So with that background of looking for each and ever hundredth we can find, I still find this one a bit difficult to see?????

Sorry that just me. </div></div>

Just do a little Google search on Wade Owens Chevelle NHRA. You will find it weighs 3200 pounds and is nicknamed &quot;The Money Pit&quot;. For those of you that haven't run a high dollar Powerglide on a four link car like a Chevelle, all I can say is ~ you'll never believe how hard that combo can leave.

Re: Little engines that can
 

OK. I'll try to put this in perspective w/o typing a novel.

My friend's Mustang is nowhere NEAR maxed-out, it's just well-sorted out for the parts on the car now. It does (/did) NOT have a super-tricked out trans, just rebuilt with a few parts added for reliability (but he still managed to break it). It did NOT have a trick clutch in it, just a Ford Motorsports &quot;street/strip&quot; unit. It does NOT have trick shocks &amp; struts on it, just mid-level components. The engine is an 80K+ mile UNTOUCHED OEM roller 5.0 short block--stock rings, bearings, never been apart. It had a B303 cam in it with OEM lifters, a pair of mildly re-worked 351W heads, a Weiand dual plane and a 750 Holley. Headers were street 1 5/8&quot; units with 2 1/2&quot; pipes and a pair of Flowmasters. All fluids are ran full at all times and all are garden variety--no trick racing oils or anything like that.

It runs like it does because he's made hundreds of passes and refined everything as far as he could. He nailed down tire pressures, launch RPM, shift points, timing, jetting, etc. Speaking of shift points, he only shifts this thing at just over 6K.

Using Stan Weiss' calculator calculator and plugging in 3000 lbs and an 11.8 ET shows 360.88 HP required, pretty much spot-on for this car taking into account the typical 20% drivetrain loss from flywheel to wheel HP with a manual transmission.

Were you to leave his engine untouched and add a full race trans &amp; clutch, high end shocks &amp; struts, radial tires, zero friction suspension components, etc. the car would be at least .3-.5 quicker than it was. There's mid 11's with 300 RWHP at ~3000 lbs. The calculator says it would take 390 HP to do that, but we already know it's within reach w/o touching the engine.

Consider the Chevelle. As stated in the article, it runs right at the national record so we know it's scienced out. Minimum weight for L Stock Automatic is 3072 + 170 lbs for the driver, which is 3242 lbs. Again, I'd bet my bottom dollar that car has every trick in the book in it--lightweight low friction trans, high-$$ converter, suspension has been perfected, etc. With modifications like these, it's not uncommon at all for a Stock or Super Stock car to ET well below what HP/ET calculators predict.

Again using Stan Weiss' calculator and plugging in 3242 lbs and 11.6 ET shows a requirement of 410 HP. Since the car's scienced out, we already know it really doesn't take that much power to run that number.

Set on &quot;kill&quot; (water-thin oil, probably only 2-3 quarts in the pan, engine ice cold, etc.) I'm sure the 283 probably doesn't miss 400 HP by much, which again falls right in line with the numbers.

JMO of course. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img]

*edit* John typed his response while I was still working on mine. As usual, he's spot-on.

Re: Little engines that can
 

Re: Little engines that can
 

One more from Wade on the ST forum. Note this was posted 4 years ago:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No tricks really. Lots of testing on cams, converters and carburetors. Our spec Ross pistons, Manley rods from the NHRA approved list and Total Seal Gapless rings and pins must weigh at least 1195 grams. Our best cams are in the 262/266 @ .050 range. We have 5 or 6 cast iron intakes (we can legally run a 327/300 manifold) and randomly test at the track for which is quickest. The light oil doesnt work for us, we use 5/20 Royal Purple, 3-5 qts depending on what we're doing. Stock oil pans and stock appearing cranks also hurt us. The any valve job rule did pick our program up, though. 2.08 first gear and a 5.86 in the rear creates a 7600 finish line rpm......

That 11.46 run was 1.47 60', 7.19 660', 11.46 @ 112.99 in 2700' of air. We done this at an Indy div last year.</div></div>