I have heard that NO2 has a cooling effect.... :eek2: Kind of like the thought of 'Team Stefina' undergarments! :moonu:
BTW Mark and everyone else concerned, you guys are always welcome here www.stockappearingdrags.com Next race November 12th at Englishtown, NJ We are getting quite a few new guys into the Factory Stock ranks from the tri-state area, and it would be great to see the midwest Pure Stock crew out here. :laugh: :Brow: The F.A.S.T guys are actually really looking forward to this November event, because, the track is very well taken care of (its literally like glue), and the weather is usually dry and cold!! And the lowest ET's are always set here. :3gears: Expect the 10.90's to be a thing of the past in F.A.S.T ------------------- I am trying to make this a 2 day event with test & tune & qualifying being held on friday and official runs on saturday. we'll see. I'm like a mosquito that the track owners just can't seem to get rid of p
Happy B-Day Gonzo Happy birthday Gonzo. I would love to make it out your way one of these days. Brian, I see a rolling tat/piercing trailer as part of your promotional scheme for Team Stefina. If your giving out Tramp Stamp tats you will have the old guy brigade at your trailer all day long watching the young girlies getting worked on. Just a thought. Mark
Gonzo A two day event would be great!Its a long haul from MN,but hitting 10.70 or 10.80 will be worth the drive even if it stays a one day event.
And on the left, my favorite "Hurstette" , Nikki Phillips. She was the event queen at the first Popular Hot Rodding Magazine meet, 1969 US131 Dragway Martin Michigan. Woweee ....... :Brow: :Brow:
RA IV Times I finally got around to pulling my race sheets and here is what John's RA IV T/A ran at the two rounds he raced it at. Factory Stk 2002 race: 12.901@107.66 Wt: 3800 lbs. He had a better mph on a different run of 107.71. Pure Stk 2001 race: 12.887@109.01 Wt: 3808 lbs. 60': 1.999 That car was awful consistant. Sure wish it was still around. I am sure he would have it really running some times now. Mark
Mark that was an informative article in MCE (read it last night). Can you recall the A/F readings on the R/A III during the pulls? I recently chassis dyno'd my ride and am interested in comparing the results given the jetting choices made. Any info you could post would be helpful. Thanks!
Fuel Ratio's RDL, three of our best pulls by the best average under the curve of tq/hp in our choosen rpm range had a brake specific range of: Start of Pull End of Pull TQ Peak HP Peak PK TQ PK HP 0.450 0.480 0.476 0.477 486.5 381.6 0.460 0.490 0.471 0.494 483.1 381.3 0.460 0.500 0.475 0.491 483.9 382.5 The jetting for all three runs on this particular motor were: Primary Jets Primary Needles Secondary Needles Hanger 70 41 CE's (.0410) P (1st run listed) L (2nd/3rd runs) Remember this is particular to this motor. Every motor likes different things. Though this one was not outside what we generally see for jetting choices. I hope this helps. Mark
Appreciate the feedback Mark. I admit to being at a loss as to how to interpret those figures. The graph I have for my application measures the ratio as 12:1, 13:1, etc. Is there a conversion formula for the decimal figures you posted? Thanks again.
Measurements They are different equations. I do not know of a conversion. Can anyone out there help us? I have a few old text books from college maybe I can see if there is a way. If I convert from the sum to a ratio it would come out on average around 2.1/1. That certianly sounds wrong. Mark
Well .... Brake Specific Fuel Consumption relates the rate of fuel used to generate the horsepower measured. The fuel is measured in mass. Likewise, air-to-fuel ratio measures both air and fuel in mass. Now since horsepower includes RPM, and each revolution moves a certain volume of air, and that volume of air has a certain mass associated with it, calaculating A/F ration from BSFC should be easy, right? :laugh: My head hurts. I'm sure there's a fomula somewhere, although it probably requires more data points like air temp and fuel specific gravity........ Wouldn't it be easier to go back to the dyno sheets? Usually they have a column for A/F just like they do for BSFC. Both quantities are calculated from measurements made by the dyno's sensors.
Dyno Sheets Dan has the disk with that info. ou: I will hit him up for it. My sheets only had the BSFC on them. I do have all the air info RDL if you are interested. Mark
RA 2 PSD dominance... Hi PSDers, First post here. I am a tried and true Pontiac dude so go easy ; ) I own a matching numbers RA II Bird (4speed, bench seat, steel wheel low option, super light). Yes perfect for PSDs. Some day... My question/comment is for Mark weymouth. Great MCE RA III vs RA IV articale mark one one that was WAYYYYYY over due. I cant say im surprised by teh results but given the comments on this thread (plus my personal bias) I woudl ABSOUTLE love to see you do a RA II vs RA IV comparison. The factory ratings for 68 RA II Birds (340) is a gut busting joke. 440+ is more like it. Any chance you have the ability to do this? seems fitting given the incredible tregth Mino and a few otehrs have shown campaigning the RA II at the PSds One thing further, I personally do NOT think its a pure weight thing why Mino and Tony can run 12.40s while a-body ra IVs run considerably slower. (why does wendlings ra iv bird not approach ra ii category?) PersonallyI believe the RA II set up (without headers ie in 'stock configuration' is FASTER, yes FASTER, than any RA IV stock configuration Pontiac ever put together (incl 69 ra iv fbodies). Sure a RA IV Poncho might come on strong relative to the RA II north of 6200rpm or so where its increased breathing capacity might trump teh ra 2 but by then the RA II has already pulled the parachute! (1/4 mi over!) ok there I said it..expecting rips from RA Iv guys so heap it on... : ) (yet another reason id LOVE to see a ra iv vs ra II dyno test so we can set this straight) anyhow glad rdl hooked me up to this page! keep up the great posts (all) and great writing/testing (mark)! RA2
The RAM AIR II probably has a more usable torque curve. Most likely due to the 1.5 ratio rocker arms and the use of the standard cast iron intake vs. the RAM AIR IV. Combine that with the lower weight of a '68 bird vs. the nose heavy '69 bird and you can see why it's a great combination. One more thing comes to mind, back in '67 when my father dyno tested the '68 RAM AIR II motors he wrote a letter to my mother which said "make sure to tell your brother about the new RAM AIR motor for '68, it made 445 HP on the dyno and we're planning to rate it at 360 HP" (in the GTO). Pontiac purposely under rated the RAM AIR II for favorable classification in NHRA competition. :3gears:
SON of cheater........... I'm surprised, Jeff........... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Your dad didn't have anything to do with the Pontiacs in the Pure Oil mileage runs they used to make, did he? This was the old test where the auto mfr's prepped and supplied the vehicles to see how far each could go on exactly one gallon of gas. Potiac was thrown out one year for having a small hidden reserve tank in the car. :Brow: :Brow:
Jeff, Thats awesome! And its the kind of info that adds to the RA II's mysterious and (growing) legendary status! WHat dept was your dad working in within PMD engineering at the time and by chance do you have/can you scan that letter in? I REALLY hope Mark Weymouth will consider doing a RA II dyno piece in one of the mags soon (vs RA IV or better yet vs a Hemi, LS6, or Stage 1) Bring on the big boys! Thanks for sharing Jeff!
