I was quite facinated with some of the pictures of the cars doing wheelies on the forum. I was curious as to how much horse power/torque would you need to get both wheels off the ground for a 70ish Cutlass size car. Can this be obtained with bold on aftermarket parts?
It's not just about hp level. It's the total package/combo. You can have all the power you can handle, but if you're not getting it to the ground, your wheels will never leave the ground. The first Buick I've ever seen yank both front tires was Keith Smiths's '70 GS(around '90-'91). It was quiet as a mouse, but had a decent rumble in the pipes. I was quite impressed with the resto on his car as it pulled to the line. On green, the car came to life and snatched both tires 1 foot off the ground and went 11.20's. At that moment I was hooked on Buicks. There were Mustang GT's there a lot louder than his car that ran 13's. It's how well your car is dialed in with your engine combo, how well it makes use of the power. Cars with less power can pull the wheels and run faster than a higher power car that's not dialed in. Too high of a wheelie can be a bad thing. You're wasting time with the front end up while you should be going forward.
Yes, I liked it. Too bad you had that accident with the one car. If you had a '72 Hurst/Olds would you restore it to its stock or put some more power under the hood? Im turning 16 and i want a project car that i could ride every once in a while during holidays and such (i think historic licenseing they call it - limited mileage) and maybe some power to show off a little.
My wifes car is all stock appearing and runs high 12s AND we drive it everywhere even on the highway. Build it so you can drive it 10 to 1 compression and a nice mild hydralic cam. It works on that car.....
i dont think it would be too hard to get 600 ft/lbs of torque with bold on parts. Maybe an edelbrock 850 cfm carb on a Edelbrock dual plane manifold, and a 72 cc edelbrock heads. Slap in a new comp cam and roller rockers and id prolly have near that power while still keeping that streatability aspect. What do you think?
The first time I saw a street car pull the wheels was Dave Sanderhauf's '67 GS 400 with a built up 455 under the hood. It was running 12 teens back in 1985 and he was running stock 5 spoke Buick Ralley Mags all around with sticky street tires. Try some Competition Engineering adjustable front shocks to dial in the amount of lift. They cost almost the same as some stock shocks but give you the ability to adjust how easy your front will rise with 3 different settings. Also an air bag inside the right rear spring will keep things straighter on launch.(They are made by "AIR LIFT") And of coarse some change to your rear control arms to change suspension geometry.(Either South Side Machine Lift Bars-also made by Jegs now, or an upper arm relocation kit.) Either of these will help your "instant center" for better launch. There is no need to run slicks on 10" wide rims if street tires on 8" or even 6" rims will get some guys off the ground. As others have noted it doesn't matter how much power you have if all you do is spin your tires. Yeah it may look cool in high school but the other guy just pulled a couple car lengths on you. Oh, 70 Olds 455 had 500ft/lbs of torque stock, right up there with Buicks. If I didn't have a Buick already my next choice would be any Cutlass/442 from '68 to '70.
I remember when I first saw Greg Gesslers 72 Stage1. Real mellow sound,hooked up real nice when the light was green. Well balanced 11 second car. Racebuicks, Love that picture if your car.
Was the difference between the 70 cutlass or other 455 500ft/lbs of torque compaired to later versions? Is it the cam and headers or is it more?
Mainly deck height to achieve over 10:1 compression and bigger valves. Also timing and distributor curving. The 71 model year was the first to have significant detuning for emissions compliance.
Where did this "Detuneing" take place. Are the blocks the same? Im guessing the smog head thing made a lower compression ratio.
The theory was that a lower CR meant less emissions (probably true). The big picture is, however, over my head. I'll bet you get some good responses here, though. Frank
