Compression

Old 05-02-2009, 05:29 PM
  #41  
zipper06
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: La.
Posts: 2,890
Default

David,
looking at the difference in torque values between the last motor and this motor, you might benifit from a little tighter converter, maybe 5500 to 5800. I think i read somewhere you were running a 6200 stall.
Nice numbers though for sure.

JMO

Zip.
zipper06 is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 06:47 PM
  #42  
hammertime
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coldwater, MI
Posts: 2,998
Default

Originally Posted by BEAST477
You gotta be pleased with those numbers. 8) See ya at the track tomorrow.
see ya there
hammertime is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 06:48 PM
  #43  
hammertime
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coldwater, MI
Posts: 2,998
Default

Originally Posted by zipper06
David,
looking at the difference in torque values between the last motor and this motor, you might benifit from a little tighter converter, maybe 5500 to 5800. I think i read somewhere you were running a 6200 stall.
Nice numbers though for sure.

JMO

Zip.
Hey Zip, thanks was a 6750-6800 stall now a 6500, I run my stuff on the loose side so its not very aggressive down low.
hammertime is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 08:25 PM
  #44  
zipper06
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: La.
Posts: 2,890
Default

Originally Posted by hammertime
Originally Posted by zipper06
David,
looking at the difference in torque values between the last motor and this motor, you might benifit from a little tighter converter, maybe 5500 to 5800. I think i read somewhere you were running a 6200 stall.
Nice numbers though for sure.

JMO

Zip.
Hey Zip, thanks was a 6750-6800 stall now a 6500, I run my stuff on the loose side so its not very aggressive down low.
I guess you're right i'm just used to these heavy weights.The lightest thing i've sat in, in yrs. and that was 2750 lbs and those have all been sm/blks with not a ton of torque. The last time i put a 7" 6200 converter in my 3100lb car it slowed down 10mph and 1/2 second, so i scrapped the idea of ever doing that again.

Zip.
zipper06 is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 03:17 AM
  #45  
hammertime
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coldwater, MI
Posts: 2,998
Default

Originally Posted by zipper06
Originally Posted by hammertime
Originally Posted by zipper06
David,
looking at the difference in torque values between the last motor and this motor, you might benifit from a little tighter converter, maybe 5500 to 5800. I think i read somewhere you were running a 6200 stall.
Nice numbers though for sure.

JMO

Zip.
Hey Zip, thanks was a 6750-6800 stall now a 6500, I run my stuff on the loose side so its not very aggressive down low.
I guess you're right i'm just used to these heavy weights.The lightest thing i've sat in, in yrs. and that was 2750 lbs and those have all been sm/blks with not a ton of torque. The last time i put a 7" 6200 converter in my 3100lb car it slowed down 10mph and 1/2 second, so i scrapped the idea of ever doing that again.

Zip.
This one is 1981 with me in it a few weeks ago, I've tried a tighter converter in it last year 6100-6200 stall and it didnt like it much.
I'll have some track results today I hope
hammertime is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 03:47 PM
  #46  
hammertime
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coldwater, MI
Posts: 2,998
Default

Update you guys on the long rod and compression

Dyno Results very good ... track results its worth slim to none et wise but have seen mph difference.
I was told the long rod would look good on the dyno, so far its been [email protected] mph

I've swapped headers and 4 different converters, msd digital 7 along with coil, back tires, shift points, launch points .. all has changed nothing.
hammertime is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 08:13 PM
  #47  
zipper06
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: La.
Posts: 2,890
Default

I think the long rod motor creates a little more torgue, but would not be as evident on a light car such as a dragster, SO a tighter converter just might show improvment on the ET. I know you like to run a loose converter to keep the violence down in the first 100 ft.. Heck i'd put a 5500/5800 in it to see if it changed, the compression is not going to help on the top end unless you're running 8500 rpm.

JMO

Zip.
zipper06 is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 04:03 AM
  #48  
hammertime
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coldwater, MI
Posts: 2,998
Default

Thanks for the reply zip .. tight converter is slow and more often then not in the dragster it will be. I tried 5400/5800/6200/6700 stalls already, 6200 fastest 6700 next fastest. 5400 by far the slowest.
hammertime is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 02:57 PM
  #49  
zipper06
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: La.
Posts: 2,890
Default

Well guess you got me on that one, since you've been there. I'm more used to the high winding sm/blks and lower geared rearends.

Zip.
zipper06 is offline  
Old 07-04-2009, 09:04 PM
  #50  
michael1
Senior Member
MASTER BUILDER
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 237
Default

Hammertime, you seem to be on top of things with the horsepower and compression deal, so I would like to ask what you think. I ended up with 13.3-1 instead of 15-1 compression. I wanted to know about how much power difference do you think that is. It's a 632 with Dart Big Chiefs and two dominators. The cam is 284in-304ex @ .50 on a 114 LC. The pistons are shipping out on Monday so I can still change them if need be. Thanks
michael1 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information