TSP Level 2A-R Prototype Specs and testing (Larry's motor)

ok sounds good larry i cant wait to see the results ...:TU:

 

Silly question, could not find it but what plug wires are those? They look nice, kinda stock looking...

 

FYI...

The ProSystems 950 I had would exhibit "fuel slosh" characteristics during hard braking or cornering.

I would drive around town with the floats much lower, then raise them at the track (and brake with the left foot while goosing the throttle with the right foot to keep it from stalling).

My Quick Fuel 850 doesn't seem to have this issue.

 

Having that issue now with my Quick Fuel 780.I think I need to check the float levels.Thanks Yards:TU:

 

I've been busy swapping transmission after transmission!

 

Nice larry any idea when that things going back on the dyno ? It's nice to get packages in the mail isn't it ? It's like your birthday all over haha...

 

Larry,I'll be interested on knowing how the installation went and your impression overall of the Aeroquip Push Lok hose.Seems like a great product and has been copied already,it will be nice to hear from someone who has used it.Are you going to race that thing this year?Can't wait for the times.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

Larry when I made my 1/2 sender I made a 90 at the end of the pickup ran it back a few inches so it reaches the rear of tank ask around it you should do the same.

 

X2
I did the same thing. Unless you are planning on running an almost full tank of gas when at the track, you should too.

I would bet Rob C had tested this...what did he say about it?

BTW, awesome engine package, very interesing!

 

Larry,

I think they are recommending that you extend the part that goes in the tank, with a 90* end, and then point some tubing back toward the rear of the tank.. to prevent sucking air when the fuel rushes toward the back of the tank on acceleration.

This is an issue with non-California emissions equipped 70 GS's, with the stock tank.. they don't have any baffel in them. The cali-emissioned 70's, as well as the 71 and later cars had a baffel in the tank.. it was there to prevent fuel slosh into the extra vapor venting outputs on the front of those tanks, during hard braking, but works equally well in keeping fuel around the pickup in our applications.

So if your car is a 49 state emmission car, then you should extend the pickup rearward inside the tank, or replace it with a 71/2 tank. If you go with a later tank, then just plug the extra vents.

As far as Larry's next dyno date, we are all set for it here, but Tom Rix offered to come up and be a part of the session, and test one of his Super Stock Q-jets on the engine. He thought he would be coming into town in early May, I have to touch base with him and see if he has a date he will be here, so I can set a new date at the dyno shop.



JW

 

Summary rehash of design goals for this engine? (Re: Larry's motor)

Dear Larry, Jim, and V-8 Buick members,

I've been trying to follow along this thread as best I can, but I'm missing one key ingredient to make sense of it all: what were Larry's overall goals that shaped the choice of components. I assume this has been discussed somewhere on V-8 Buick, but I'm not clever enough to ferret out the thread. Can somebody point me to something describing what this engine was supposed to accomplish? How "streetable" was it supposed to be? Were there particular horsepower or torque goals? Any other criteria unique to this build?

I've got myself at the end of Jim's engine building queue for an engine with a very different application in mind. So while Jim is trying to catch up with the spring crop of engine builds, it would help me to learn a bit more of how folks worked out with Jim the specs that finally emerge in an engine like Larry's.

Thanks in advance for pointers and repetition for a newcomer to this discussion.

Cheers, Edouard :beer