Wow. No small blocks on there. Surprise, surprise. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: My car ran consistent mid 1.90's with a best of 1.900 at Norwalk one time with the smaller cam in it. Would have been a great 1/8 miler. Sitting duck at half track, though.
OOPS, missed that one. That car really flies! I see you made last year's list, Donny. Cool. You must have been close this year they way your car's running now. I had a 2.08 at Stanton this year. Most impressive one there is Paul Vitale's. Car only ran 100 MPH, so hp was down from the others, but the 60 footer was right in there. Unbelievable for a car that big and heavy. :beers2:
Yeah, I got clase, a pair of 2.02's on Friday, and best on Sat of 2.05..... I was working it a little too hard trying to get out in front of Rinke...the man can drive and I think I was getting the R's up a little high. I know Paul loved his 1.94 on Friday, that big Chevy hooks.
And I think we have to give props to the Buick and Olds which made the lists using a 3.42 gear. I guess there really is something to that legendary torque. :TU:
Yes, Buick and Olds do very well with torque. The bottom line is every car at the PSMCDR can make a sub 2.00 sec 60' time almost regardless. It's the cars ability to stick.(car setup/Driver) For a 3650lb car to 2.00 it only takes 200horsepower. Here is the calculator to support my claim. Like I say car setup and driver!!!!:Comp: Jim http://www.wallaceracing.com/calc60hp.php
I had my best 60ft on Friday, I went 1.977 on my way to a 13.059 pass. Not too shabby for a 3858 Lb car with a 350 Pontiac. The track surface was defiantely in better shape on Fri, but the air was better on Saturday. I did discuss some ideas with the starter on Thursday before the Pure Stock Drags and they may try them for next year......:3gears:
Looks like I am the Biggest length wise,Heavyest weight wise,Slowest time wise, and lowest MPH .. Not bad for the tenth car on that list lolol.. The old girl does have a big fat a$$ thats for sure.. Thanks for the aknowldegement 22 years of beating the pi$$ outta her paid off at the light ... Paul
I wish such HP calculators would give their basis. Mathematical formula based on physics? Empirical data? Regardless, it's worth noting the calculator is reading rear-wheel HP, not flywheel, and also that most cars, no matter what gear, are not making peak horsepower anywhere within the first 60 feet. But just for grins, I plug in my 4050 lbs and 1.85 60-foot -- actuals for my '70 W-30 -- and it gives me 288 HP. If we assume 20% drivetrain loss, that puts me at 360 HP at the flywheel. Hmmmm, pretty much where Olds rated it .....
7 cars that were 72 and up made over 50 horses over their net ratings and 10 cars that were 71 and older made over 50 horses over their gross rating.........
Did you use the 12% factor as the chart indicates or another factor? Is the 12% number the "norm" when calculating? Just curious.
I just used the numbers off the chart RWHP - factory rating. I am coming in at 62 hp less than factory rated - I guess I still have a lot of tuning to do If I could just make the rated horse power, the calculator says I should do 12.28 @ 110.10
Just do what I do... Leave half of the car at home. :bla: :3gears: The chart RWHP numbers are very generous compared to the chassis dyno numbers I have. Who knows? o No:
