Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
11-16-2009, 10:59 AM | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wetumpka, Al, U.S.
Posts: 8,892
|
Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
My buddie got a new best 60 ft and et from his 67 camaro yesterday. This is a full bodied car. Full interior cd player amp no fiberglass no lexan 408in sbc with dart heads spraying 100 shot he went 1.449 60ft and a 6.58 1/8th mile. The car has a stock width 9 inch with 389 gears and a spool. Hoosier 275/60 drag radials, cal tracs and calvert split leafs.
__________________
Kevin Special Thanks to All who have helped on the TRUCK! My Pass Time Show http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p...Chapter1-0.mp4 So Far my best Times are: Motor only: 6.44 1/8 @ 104.13 10.39 1/4 @ 125.83 Nitrous Times: 5.785 1/8 @ 118.65 with a 1.336 60ft 9.168 1/4 @ 142.58 with a 250 shot dead out of the hole! |
11-16-2009, 03:00 PM | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
All ya need is more power 4th gen f-bodies are plenty heavy (especially boosted or with an iron block, 3900+ pounds) and they are ridiculously fast.
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
11-17-2009, 01:16 AM | #3 |
Dr. Frankenstein
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: beaverton,Or
Posts: 458
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
but they also cut through the air instead of asking it to nicely move aside..... trucks are like bricks, yes you can get something to move it along nicely but it does it very hard
__________________
I Wanna Go Fast!! |
11-17-2009, 01:25 AM | #4 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
Quote:
You know how many times I have tried to argue this point on one of my local boards.. In their mind, aero isn't that big of a deal on a drag strip. "It's not like you going that fast for very long" is more or less their arguement. It's amazing how much power is used to hold one of our trucks at a sustained speed of 65mph, let alone over 100mph. More HP required to hold a speed means less HP to accelerate with.. Simple thought IMO..
__________________
------Motor---------------Bottle 60'---1.53---------------1.41 1/8---6.58 @ 105.92----5.87 @ 118.41 1/4---10.38 @ 126.97----9.24 @ 142.49 |
|
11-17-2009, 03:36 PM | #5 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 469
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
Quote:
__________________
1982 Silverado - SBE, cleaned up GM heads, small cam, TH350, 850 Demon, 4.56 gears, and caltracs. Best time so far 11.8@XXXMPH |
|
11-17-2009, 09:23 PM | #6 |
Spanked once
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Intheshop, Indiana
Posts: 969
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
The camaro is sweet but my first real car was a red falcon like the one in background. I was fast but nothing like your buddies.
__________________
The ole 350 budget build. |
11-17-2009, 11:44 PM | #7 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
Thread was titled "heavy", not "unaerodynamic" I apologize. But y'all did buy the vehicle knowing that they're as aerodynamic as a school building. Sooo, all's fair in racing
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
11-18-2009, 03:13 AM | #8 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
not complaining really, I just tell them to make something this big and heavy go fast. Heck, the truck is still faster than 90% of them..
__________________
------Motor---------------Bottle 60'---1.53---------------1.41 1/8---6.58 @ 105.92----5.87 @ 118.41 1/4---10.38 @ 126.97----9.24 @ 142.49 Last edited by Super73; 11-18-2009 at 03:13 AM. |
11-18-2009, 09:29 AM | #9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wetumpka, Al, U.S.
Posts: 8,892
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
can you guys imagine what it would take to get one of our trucks to have a 1.449 60ft on a radial? That is just unreal to me and this car hasn't been lightened up at all. Yall don't seem near as impressed as I was for what the car ran.
__________________
Kevin Special Thanks to All who have helped on the TRUCK! My Pass Time Show http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p...Chapter1-0.mp4 So Far my best Times are: Motor only: 6.44 1/8 @ 104.13 10.39 1/4 @ 125.83 Nitrous Times: 5.785 1/8 @ 118.65 with a 1.336 60ft 9.168 1/4 @ 142.58 with a 250 shot dead out of the hole! |
11-18-2009, 10:31 AM | #10 |
mini truck racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Baytown , texas
Posts: 3,010
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
I could get the LUV to weight 2980# with me in it and although it was a truck it had some nice areo curves to it . It would hella 60' on a DR @3200# . Cal-tracs work . If they would have give me a weight break for leaf springs i would have been toe to toe .
__________________
1949 5-window 1969 Camaro 1976 Chevy Luv yellow 1978 Chevy Luv Blue 1976 Chevy Luv Black 1979 Firebird Flooded in Harvey 1999 F350 Dually 2005 GMC Sierra 4.8 RCSB 2014 Explorer (wifes) My build :http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=399148 Build #2: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=653583 |
11-18-2009, 01:27 PM | #11 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
DJ,
I'm shooting for mid-high 1.5's on motor and mid-high 1.4's on bottle when i make it back out on a radial (315/60/15, ok it's a big radial). This will be at aprox 3,570-3,620. The car that really kill me is my buddies FC RX7 LS1 swap with a stock bottom end, very mild (218/224ish) cam and AFR 205 heads, it runs 10.7x on motor and has been 9.9x on a small shot of n20 (100 if memory serves). Weight and aero are huge IMO.. I bought my heads and cam from a buddy of mine. Our motors made with in a few hp of each other through out the full curve. It was in a 4th gen f-bod, car weighed about 3,200lbs with driver. Went spinning low 1.5 60' and 10.7x on motor with a 3.42 gear, 28" tire, with a lot more rpm to go. With a gear change I bet the car would have gone 10.5x with a few chassis changes. I now make more power than he did ith the changes i made, but i doubt i'm gonna go that fast on motor with out some drastic weight changes..
__________________
------Motor---------------Bottle 60'---1.53---------------1.41 1/8---6.58 @ 105.92----5.87 @ 118.41 1/4---10.38 @ 126.97----9.24 @ 142.49 Last edited by Super73; 11-18-2009 at 01:28 PM. |
11-18-2009, 10:49 PM | #12 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wetumpka, Al, U.S.
Posts: 8,892
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
I would imagine this camaro is in the 3400-3600lb range.
__________________
Kevin Special Thanks to All who have helped on the TRUCK! My Pass Time Show http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p...Chapter1-0.mp4 So Far my best Times are: Motor only: 6.44 1/8 @ 104.13 10.39 1/4 @ 125.83 Nitrous Times: 5.785 1/8 @ 118.65 with a 1.336 60ft 9.168 1/4 @ 142.58 with a 250 shot dead out of the hole! |
11-19-2009, 03:56 AM | #13 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
With driver?
__________________
------Motor---------------Bottle 60'---1.53---------------1.41 1/8---6.58 @ 105.92----5.87 @ 118.41 1/4---10.38 @ 126.97----9.24 @ 142.49 |
11-19-2009, 10:48 AM | #14 | |
I know the pieces fit
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MONTGOMERY, AL
Posts: 5,523
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
Quote:
That Camaro has a lot more to it than I thought and beautifully done as well. Nice car. |
|
11-19-2009, 11:07 AM | #15 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wetumpka, Al, U.S.
Posts: 8,892
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
John I didn't know you were local. I hated those guys Hurt their cars. The Red Vette made me sick. I'm sure it made him much worse than me. Introduce yourself next time you come out.
__________________
Kevin Special Thanks to All who have helped on the TRUCK! My Pass Time Show http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p...Chapter1-0.mp4 So Far my best Times are: Motor only: 6.44 1/8 @ 104.13 10.39 1/4 @ 125.83 Nitrous Times: 5.785 1/8 @ 118.65 with a 1.336 60ft 9.168 1/4 @ 142.58 with a 250 shot dead out of the hole! |
11-19-2009, 12:27 PM | #16 |
I know the pieces fit
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MONTGOMERY, AL
Posts: 5,523
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
Kevin, I wondered if I'd see your truck there and looked but only saw the tubbed square body pickup.
The 66 was just finished a few weeks back. The only mechanical damage was the driver's rear trailing arm but it's got to go back to the body shop for the works. Not sure what happened to the 68 yet. It has compression and the valve train looks fine spinning it over with the coil disconnected. We're going to pull the oil pan next when this cold snap passes. It's got to come out of the car either way, but it'd be nice to know what it needs first. He's more miffed about the little wheel hop he's got to sort out than rebuilding the motor. My sons had a great time so I'm sure we'll be back more often. Holler (PM) next time you're going. |
11-19-2009, 01:27 PM | #17 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wetumpka, Al, U.S.
Posts: 8,892
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
What was the 68? Was it a vette also? I still don't have mine back together. I'm having to do it Johnny Cash style. One piece at a time.
We may go back and play with the camaro tomorrow night.
__________________
Kevin Special Thanks to All who have helped on the TRUCK! My Pass Time Show http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p...Chapter1-0.mp4 So Far my best Times are: Motor only: 6.44 1/8 @ 104.13 10.39 1/4 @ 125.83 Nitrous Times: 5.785 1/8 @ 118.65 with a 1.336 60ft 9.168 1/4 @ 142.58 with a 250 shot dead out of the hole! |
11-19-2009, 02:42 PM | #18 |
I know the pieces fit
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MONTGOMERY, AL
Posts: 5,523
|
Re: Too bad our trucks are Heavy.
It was the blue 68 Vette with sidepipes. He kept racing that Grand National (another friend).
I never would have guessed your friend's car had a spool - he passed me on the way to the track. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|