The first thing to do regarding your torque converter is verify your slip % at the top end of the track: http://www.wallaceracing.com/converter-slip.php Anything over about 6% is getting a bit much... If it is 10% your converter is either buggered up or was crap to start with. I am using 295/55R15 MT Drag radials, and they fit perfectly on a 15X10 wheel, but if using a 8" wheel a 275 would be a better match: The 275/50R15 would help your gearing, but also give more revs on the highway vs the 275/60R15. I feel that either of those tires would give you more than enough traction at your power level. http://www.jegs.com/p/Mickey-Thompson/Mickey-Thompson-ET-Street-Radial-Drag-Tires/753925/10002/-1
Yes, you are correct in your theory there. The web site Sean was talking about is a good place to go for calculations of all kinds. I like to use Mickey T's DR's I did really good with these tires, they did not need a lot of burnout, hardly any rubber gets on the fenders and in the wheel-well. The only time they spun was when I ran the full on 125 shot of nitrous right off the line after stalling to 2800 and flooring it. You can hear that in my video, if it still works. With the nitrous on I would not drop below 5 grand after shifting. That was with the 3500 convertor I call looser than the other 3500 Hughes convertor I used. I did not lose any mph with that loose convertor as compared to the Hughes convertor. When I compare the loose convertor with the 350 trans. to the 2004r and my 3000 stall it looks like this at the track with the nitrous on. I wrote down what I did with the 350 trans and the 2004r trans. 120 shot nitrous 350 trans 3500 stall convertor (GSCA club convertor) could footbrake to 3000 looser than the Hughes 3500 stall I used before nitrous could only footbrake it to 2700 rpm I took it out simply to try and lower my 60 fts. and it worked I went 1 tenth faster in the 60 ft. (Motor only) 60ft 1.61 330ft. 4.80 1/8ET 7.52 1/8mph 89.99 1000ft ET 9.84 1/4 ET 11.87 1/4 mph 112.42 Now 2004R trans 120 shot nitrous 3000 stall Pro Torque convertor, Lockup unit set up with the nitrous in mind. This was why I dropped to 3000 stall plus the trans has a lower 1st gear. Otherwise I think it should be at 3500 stall as I have found this give me the best 60 ft time and you do not know how much this psychs people out at the line because your launch out of the hole is real good, and this is without using the bottle. 60ft 1.64 330ft 4.79 1/8ET 7.50 1/8 mph 89.97 1000ft ET 9.80 1/4 ET 11.81 114.18 Both pretty close with the 120 shot of nitrous. I also spun the tires 5 ft on both set ups MT's DR'rs 275-60 15 What is hard to do is that Wallace calculator with the convertor slippage chart. You Have to Know exactly what your rpm is going thru the traps. With the looser convertor I used on the 350 trans I had to have been going 5500 or so thru the traps since the engine would not go below 5 grand after shifting. With the 2004r trans that is a good question there I could have been going anywhere from 4800 to 5200 or a little more it is just too hard to tell when you are going that fast everything is going quickly and you are more interested in oil pressure than anything else. I can tell you this much on the two different trans and all 3 different convertors I am still with in 1-2 mph at the top end with just being on the motor. I always hit somewhere between 96-99 mph depending on the weather.
Thanks, that was a question I wanted to ask but kept forgetting. about Nittos and if anybody has used them, ok MT's it is:TU:
New carb and a set of tires. Now how much you think was gained here. Remember, both carbs are 750's should not make a whole lot of difference between the two. The tires will though. New guess 14.10 @ 95mph. 60ft 1.95. you need to be able to bring the engine rpm up to about at least 2200 rpm for a good launch. stalling to 2800 really makes things happen new intake stall that bit** to 3000 rpm shift at 6700
I installed my original Q-Jet redone by Everyday Performance, HUGE difference as far as "feel" you actually get pushed back HARD into the seat when the secondaries begin to open, and it pulls like a freight train:shock: I understand their both 750 cfm, BUT the Q-Jet is giving the engine the fuel and air it wants much much sooner, whereas the Holley didn't have the secondaries full open till 6750 rpm according to the instructions when using the lightest spring. I never was able to get the Holley to "feel" like the Q-Jet. The Holley was "ok here we go" The Q-Jet is " ok bitch lets get down to business" Now that the engine seems to produce the power it should have been Im VERY anxious to get back to the track with my drag radials and be able to bring the rpm up to 2000 plus and let the ****er rip:bla: I hope you guess is close, but Im hoping for a 13.99!!
Just a suggestion , dont be standing on the converter give it enough rpm to clear its throat 1200 or so then mat it let the converter flash and let the suspension work
I never used a vac sec Holley on mine I have a dbl pumper. So I never experienced what you did with no secondary opening. I have another Skylark that has a 350 motor and it has a Q-Jet on it. Do not know if it is an original carb will have to check the numbers on it. The car is a 1970 Custom. May have to have our guy here rebuild it and I can put it on and what happens, Maybe I will jump ship. I agree with the other poster you can come off just idle at 1200 and flash that convertor out and you can get a real good launch. Some stuff you will have to try. I go to 2000-2200 and this helps with the dbl pumper. I am using a 3000 stall.
That makes sense! Im open to all suggestions:beer We just got back from the Piston Power Show, we stopped at the Thompson Raceway Park booth, their opening day for test and tune is April 4, I plan on going. Im getting tired of looking at my Drag Radials in our front room, hahaha!
I cant honestly think of a reason to run a Holley vac. secondary carb. on a Buick. Its hard to believe I was running one all these years and not realizing the power I was leaving on the table compared to the Q-Jet. Holley Vacuum Secondary: Larger primary bores, less vacuum signal, less crisp throttle response, less fuel mileage, lazy secondary opening. It seems to be a very general use square bore vacuum secondary carb. The Q-Jet: smaller primary bores, better vacuum signal, ultra crisp throttle response, better fuel mileage, HUGE mechanical secondary throttle plates with secondary air valves the respond to engine demand. Im my weird mind, this is how I see it, tromp the throttle to wide open, carb. says, "there yah go yah bitch, suck them air valves open, go ahead pull 'em open, you want it there it is:TU: Ok, back to normal now
I think you will break 13s just with more power with the secondary reaction on the qjet. I mentioned it before to 86 that carb. I never liked it when I ran it. I didn't have crisp pimarys on my qjets but the secondarys always screamed for more. I think you will have more power lower now . first and second will pull much harder. You should see the mph in 1/4 times jump up.
Mark; did you make it back to Thompson last weekend? and how did you do? My bud is mounting my Mickeys tomorrow. My 2004r is back with lockup again. New Wix filter, fluid, TCC solenoid, and pressure switch. Had it out today, runs great. Oil & filter change tomorrow, then swap to the 850 Demon. Oh boy!!! Fun fun fun:TU:
Didn't make it Mart, they weren't open because of the weeks worth of rain, made for a mushy pit area I guess:rant: HOPEFULLY going tomorrow (Sat. 18) Suppose to be mid 60's and SUNNY!!!ray:
14.05@95 Take the Holley with you and do a comparison test. your original run was with stock tires. Now with the Drag radials you will go faster no matter what carb was on there. You are going to go to the track and run the Q-Jet then come back and tell us the carb made the car run so much faster. Do the comparison test. Then lets see
3500 stall would make it all happen get one from JW on this site they look good to and he has a very good guarantee.
