Rob, thanks for posting that link. I've seen similar formulas before but considered them dubious without some form of explanation. As the article explains, these formulas are more empirical than theoretical -- meaning they've been tweaked to fit measured data, not necessarily derived from fundamental laws of physics. I want to hunt down that journal article to learn more about their process. Regardless of whether such formaulas and other HP calculators are talking about rear-wheel or flywheel horsepower, one of the keys to remember is that they are assuming constant average horsepower. As we all know, our engines are below peak horsepower both before and after a shift, and way below peak horsepower at launch. And since as a rule (ahem) Pure Stockers are not optimized for racing (in terms of converter, traction, and often gearing), using the Pure Stock results does not give an accurate analysis of an engine's true potential -- it just tells us about how much average horsepower it was producing under those conditions. Interesting data for bench racing bull sessions, but not particularly useful otherwise.
:Smarty: I guess we will just have to dyno all the cars next year :Smarty: I always played with this calculator http://www.corral.net/tech/brakehp.html
A four speed in a Mopar is definetly not the way to go then....if you look at three of the four Bee's listed, all automatics, they vary from heaviest to lightest by 47lb's. If you add Bowman's Bee, a four speed I believe, the heaviest to lightest range opens to 323lb's.
The B-body console, if memory serves me right, adds ~40Lbs because the upper part is cast out of pot metal (?). An 8 3/4 axle, 727 Automatic w/bench seat would seem to be the way to go.
Jeff, The Dana was standard on all A12 package SuperBee's and Road Runner's. I hate to think what my Runner is going to weigh as it is a bucket seat / console, auto w/ power steering ou:
SuperBee Look we can all most see Jim's Dana from here! Jim :beer <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/JLerum/chevellesuperbee.jpg"> Dan and Jim going at it!
What I meant is that BK has an weight advantage vs. the average American male. I have thought many times to have my brother make a pass in my car, he is the same height as I am but weighs 50 Lbs less. I might have to throw him in there some day if I end up having to go 3 rounds! :Brow:
If 100 lbs is a tenth, no mater what I do, Bob K has me by a tenth :ball: That Norwalk track was a blast!! I let Bob K drive my car for a run and it got the best 60 ft ever, a 1.80 FLAT!!! :jd: That track just plain hooks. If we ever get to run a P-S race there again, I have some ideas to get it to hook like that, maybe even better!! :Brow: Jim
:laugh: :beer :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: And everybody wondered why Rob used to drive my car? Besides being an uncanny driver, there was 100# savings there. How many deleted sway bars is that worth? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Flywheel or Rear wheel HP Dan has told me many times that he equates his hp stats to rear wheel hp. He uses two sources, a slide rule he has and the computer program, he has intimated that they turn out almost exactly the same every time. The way Scott T. raced the 455 HO T/A (4spd) this fall it had 10.9% more power on the dyno than Dan's calculation. The first pulls were done with what was run at the track. We dropped the motor in the week of the race with no tuning other than setting timing and the dist. curve. When we were done at the dyno we had gained 30 hp at the shift piont we were using. And our peak hp was up 400 rpm. So tune them up guys there is a lot in there even when you think you have them close. We dyno'd with water pump working, fuel pump on, alternator on (unplugged), and tested with the hood scope on and off. Mark
Slide rules Should take a poll to see if anyone (other than me) even knows what a slide rule is, much less how to use one! :laugh: :laugh: Still got my 5 pound yellow Pickett from Ann Arbor! Maybe I'll clip it on my belt like we used to at Engineering school! Tie it down by my knee for a quick draw calculation. Har, Har Har! "I see by your Pickett, that you are an engineer" "You see by my Pickett, I are an engineer, too" "We see by our Picketts, that we are both engineers" "If you get a Pickett, you can be an engineer, too" With a little help from Tommy Smothers.
Hey Mark, didn't get a chance to meet you, but I drooled all over your car....... In fact, I got a real nice photo of your car on the wall in my office........
Speedvisions 'Muscle Car Shootout' over analysis :sleep: Their results: o No: Chevelle 13.953 seconds 98.83 mph AMX 14.848 seconds and 95.50 mph Hurst Olds 13.828 seconds 100.59 mph Boss Mustang 13.743 seconds 101.10 mph Buick Stage 1 13.960 seconds 98.20 mph Hemi Challenger 14.013 seconds 100.79 mph GTO Judge 14.090 seconds 98.91 mph Pure Stock Drag Results: 105 cars raced in September, and 49 cars went under the 1/4 mile times of the Muscle Car Shootout heavy hitters. 7 of the cars that were under 13.74 were small blocks cars: 350 Pontiac Custom S 350 Chevy 300 Deluxe 350 Chevy Corvette 350 Olds W31 340 Dodge Challenger 289 Studebaker R3 283 Chevy Corvette What Our Muscle Car Shootout would have looked like: Fastest AMC: 1969 S/C Rambler 13.90 Fastest Buick: 1970 Stage 1 12.68 Fastest Chevy: 1969 Camaro 12.08 Fastest Dodge: 1966 Coronet 12.89 Fastest Ford: 1969 Mustang 12.78 Fastest Mercury: 1964 Maurader 13.28 Fastest Olds: 1970 W30 12.69 Fastest Plymouth: 1963 Max Wedge 12.05 Fastest Pontiac: 1968 Firebird 12.47 Fastest Studebaker: R3 13.30 Looks like the boys at Legendary Motors don't know jack about legendary motors........ :spank:
Thanks & Clarification Donny: Thanks for including Studebakers in your list. The Studebaker running in the September 2004 Pure Stock Drags at a best of 13.30 was Ted Harbit's red 1963 Lark 2-door, The Stude Tomato. It has an R2 engine of 289 cubic inches, as you said, but it's not an R3, as stated elsewhere in the post. Ted had The Tomato Certified Stock at the September Pure Stock Drags event. To clarify: R3 engines, as in The 1964 Studebaker Challenger "Plain Brown Wrapper" we ran in June but not in September, have 304.5 cubic inches and many differences from the less-powerful R2s. The factory rated R2s at 289 HP; R3s at 335 HP. The R3 "Plain Brown Wrapper" has run a best of 12.852 in Stanton, in June 2004...accompanied by two runs of exactly 12.857 on the same weekend up there. Cheers. Merry Christmas to all. Bob Palma, Technical Editor Turning Wheels (Studebaker Club Monthly mag.)
This can be a bit of a hot button topic. There is a considerable camp out there that believes that "P/S" is just "B/S." Try as you may to defend the numbers achieved by "C/S" cars in "P/S" racing, the non-believers will tell you that these cars are not being raced as factory issued. They've had their potential maximized, are permitted certain deviations from stock, and are driven by hot shoes. (Personally, the last one's kinda' flattering don't you think!?). Anyway, the guys at LMC generally have in their inventory near 100 point cars only. These are cars that are either restored to as stock delivered, or are low mileage survivors. No effort is made to maximize performance if it means unnecessary expense that also reduces concours resale value. They don't sell much of anything under $80,000. This is the back-drop to the kind of product that was run on the track during their testing. Peter Klute himself is a proven driver. However, most of his experience comes not from the drag strip. The other factor is that he essentially had one day to learn how to drive all the different cars, each with their own quirks, limitations, strengths and weaknesses. Imagine trying to drive 8 different cars in one day and achieve their ultimate potential in only 3 passes! Hats off to him for trying. His performance numbers probably represent what the average guy buying one of these cars would have realized back in the day. That said, I think it would be great if LMC and their TV show would attend the P/S event in September to campaign a car and tape the event for an episode. Hmmmmmm..... seeing as Peter's shop is just across town from me, maybe I'll pay him a visit over the winter and plant the seed. Until then, P/S vs. LMC = Apples vs. Oranges
....... however, It is EQUALLY as frustrating to have those cars run SLOWER than Showroom stock. Of course they aren't NHRA'd out, but come on ......... :boring: That borders on folks that put headers and an aftermarket carb on their car, so that it'll be slower than stock. :sleep:
Anyone that believes P/S is a lot of B/S should come out to a P/S meet. At the worst, you'd get a lot of very savvy advice and tuning help. Then maybe those numbers would greatly improve. Right Rusty? I recall most of the magazine articles of the day had their cars "supplied" by the promo guys at the auto companies. That still goes on. Talk about being "optimized". Some even more than optimized. :laugh: :laugh: Like the Pure Oil fuel economy trials in 1963. :laugh: :laugh: C/S now stands for Certified stock, right? :TU:
Why you low-down, little... that was a personal shot at me, wasn't it! :rant: For cryin' out loud, I'm going as fast as I can!? ou: Man, ya' really gotta' watch your back around here... :spank: :moonu: :TU: