The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Racing and high performance (trucks haulin more than hay)

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2009, 01:40 PM   #1
BigE77'
Registered User
 
BigE77''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchaca, TX
Posts: 45
Losing weight

I was wondering if anyone out there new how much time you can pick up on the 1/4 by losing weight. I have a 4500 lb truck running high 13's fully dressed. Is there a ratio like a tenth per 100 lbs or something like that?
Thanks in advance
__________________
77 Scottsdale,.454 .30 over, 10:1 flat top pistons, 480 lift comp cam, 781 heads stock valve size, some no name polished aluminumn dual plane intake advised by my machine shop to match the cam(He said is was great lol) Holley 750 vac sec, Turbo 400 built raybestos clutches and Kolene steels, Eaton Posi 3:73 14 bolt
BigE77' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 06:28 PM   #2
Alex1
Registered User
 
Alex1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,156
Re: Losing weight

I've read somewhere the same thing - about a 10th per 100lbs.

Let the hacking begin...
Alex1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 09:27 PM   #3
Wild83C10
Registered User
 
Wild83C10's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 910
Re: Losing weight

I've heard and read the same as well. My truck went on a diet awhile ago. It's down to 36xx lbs. Also remember that you are driving a "brick wall" and brick walls aren't that aerodynamic.
__________________
83 C10 Stepside (SOLD, it was a blast!)

383 MASS-FLO EFI/TKO II 600/3.90 Posi 10 bolt
S475 and C4 DM running, fine tuning
turbo=
Douchebag Racing: Runs Fine all the Time
Wild83C10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 09:44 PM   #4
BigE77'
Registered User
 
BigE77''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchaca, TX
Posts: 45
Re: Losing weight

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild83C10 View Post
I've heard and read the same as well. My truck went on a diet awhile ago. It's down to 36xx lbs. Also remember that you are driving a "brick wall" and brick walls aren't that aerodynamic.
LOL, yea on windy days I call her the Sail. Im not sure I could lose that much weight and still drive it around everyday. For a cruiser High 13's is fine by me. I appreciate the input
__________________
77 Scottsdale,.454 .30 over, 10:1 flat top pistons, 480 lift comp cam, 781 heads stock valve size, some no name polished aluminumn dual plane intake advised by my machine shop to match the cam(He said is was great lol) Holley 750 vac sec, Turbo 400 built raybestos clutches and Kolene steels, Eaton Posi 3:73 14 bolt
BigE77' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 12:58 AM   #5
Super73
Registered User
 
Super73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
Re: Losing weight

I'm not sure there is a perfect ratio.. But for your range, I'd say it's close. But, loosing weight does't always make you faster. Moving weight is just as important. So what can you move from the front to the rear.

Battery
Gas tank (if it's behind the seat).

Remember the farther back things go, the more leverage will affect things. The center of your rear tire is where a teatertoter point is. One of our members here corner scaled his truck and gave me the info. He added 175lbs to the rear. One thing I notice with that is it acted like 219lbs (125%) on the rear and took 44lbs off the nose. The 44lbs it took off the nose is in effect 25% of that weight added to the rear. Think about a battery.

Battery say 35lbs..
35 * 1.25 = 44 added to the rear
35 * .25 = 8.8lbs + 35 = 43.9lbs off the nose.

This does not include any leverage the battery has on the rear being in front of the front axle. 44lbs+ off the nose and 44lbs on the back, that will help!!

He also showed me what the scales were with and with out him in the seat. The weight change breakdown looked like this:

Front – 58.65%
Rear 41.35%

Front Driver – 47.68%
Front Passenger – 10.97%
Rear Driver – 29.54%
Rear Passenger – 11.81%

I’m thinking gas tank here, but I think yours is already under the bed. But, food for thought, anything in the cab ect would be close to that ratio. Given it might be a little different based on rake, ride height, leafspring/coil set up, but good info is just that.


I'm also a firm believer that roatating weight is worth more than fixed weight.
__________________
------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; 10-10-2009 at 01:00 AM.
Super73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 10:05 AM   #6
Wild83C10
Registered User
 
Wild83C10's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 910
Re: Losing weight

Super73 you make some good points. Transfering weight maybe better then losing weight.
__________________
83 C10 Stepside (SOLD, it was a blast!)

383 MASS-FLO EFI/TKO II 600/3.90 Posi 10 bolt
S475 and C4 DM running, fine tuning
turbo=
Douchebag Racing: Runs Fine all the Time
Wild83C10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 10:40 AM   #7
Mordachai
Fat Fendered Fleetside
 
Mordachai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: WPB, S. FL, USA, Earth
Posts: 718
Re: Losing weight

^ and as super73 said also rotational mass, or rotating mass will help tons. lighter wheels, tires, rotors, driveshaft(s) etc will help get the power to the ground.
__________________
71 GMC lwb
56 Big window swb
93 GMC Sonoma (dd)

radiused fiberglass fender project for 67-72
Mordachai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 04:36 PM   #8
BigE77'
Registered User
 
BigE77''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchaca, TX
Posts: 45
Re: Losing weight

Thanks guys, it really makes sense when you look at it that way. Yea it is under the bed or both sides really. Im no pro at the strip so all these common sense things really stand out with the weight distrobution. Sometimes it makes the most sense when you get a different perspective. Again I appreciate it. Ill post some times next time I get out
__________________
77 Scottsdale,.454 .30 over, 10:1 flat top pistons, 480 lift comp cam, 781 heads stock valve size, some no name polished aluminumn dual plane intake advised by my machine shop to match the cam(He said is was great lol) Holley 750 vac sec, Turbo 400 built raybestos clutches and Kolene steels, Eaton Posi 3:73 14 bolt
BigE77' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 04:58 PM   #9
Super73
Registered User
 
Super73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
Re: Losing weight

Glad to help..
__________________
------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
Super73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009, 01:40 AM   #10
CreditGod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: dallas, texas
Posts: 90
Re: Losing weight

The loosing ration does not really matter until you get down in the 6.50's in the 1/8 mile before you star cutting anything start with the basics gear ratio, tire size, motor etc..

we have 3 cars in the low 6's and we never worry about real weight cutting until we get our cars to 7.00 1/8 mile

but 4500 pounds is still a lot of weight to be hauling down the track
CreditGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009, 11:05 PM   #11
Captainfab
60-66 Nut

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 23,252
Re: Losing weight

If it is an option for you, getting rid of the saddle tanks and installing a single tank between the frame rails behind the rear end is bound to trim a little weight as well as transfer some to the rear as Super73 posted. If you take a look at where those saddle tanks are, they are partially under the cab as well as under the bed. They are actually fairly far forward. The tanks and hangers themselves weigh a bit, and if you were to install an aluminum tank in the rear that would save some weight itself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE77' View Post
Thanks guys, it really makes sense when you look at it that way. Yea it is under the bed or both sides really. Im no pro at the strip so all these common sense things really stand out with the weight distrobution. Sometimes it makes the most sense when you get a different perspective. Again I appreciate it. Ill post some times next time I get out
__________________
Power Steering Box Adapter Plates For Sale HERE
Power Brake Booster Adapter Brackets For Sale '63-'66 HERE and '67-'72 HERE and '60-'62 HERE and "60-'62 with clutch HERE
Rear Disc Brake Brackets For Sale. Impala SS calipers HERE Camaro Calipers HERE D52 Calipers HERE 6 Lug HERE
Hydroboost Mounting Plates HERE
Captainfab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009, 11:19 PM   #12
Super73
Registered User
 
Super73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 2,841
Re: Losing weight

Also, believe it or not, the hgher the weight is, the easier it transfers.. that goes for fuel cell in the bed and motor..
__________________
------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
Super73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com