|
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Papillion, NE
Posts: 610
Likes: 242
Liked 293 Times in 65 Posts
|
![]()
My car is running about as fast as I'd expect now, but it only gets a few inches of air under the tires and that's just not gonna cut it for me so let's hear some ideas, eh?
60 foots are 1.50-1.53. 327/275, Advanced clutch, 5.38 gear, Jerico w/ 3.19 low. Car weighs 2915 with driver, no ballast, on a 2910 minimum for E. Calvert split monos, 1 step lower than stock. Rancho RS9000 rear shocks set full stiff, Calvert front shocks. Old 6 cylinder springs with I think 1/2 coil cut off. Del-A-Lum bushings in control arms. Eddie Rezac linkage kit for zero bumpsteer. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,105
Likes: 1,561
Liked 1,787 Times in 408 Posts
|
![]()
How do your incrementals compare with a fast small block E/S car?
The 60' is about where I was running with a mediocre F/S 69 Camaro 255/350. You can soften the compression damping those rear shocks some. You can loosen the extension on the front shocks some.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Langley (no igloos), British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 567
Likes: 306
Liked 279 Times in 86 Posts
|
![]()
Launch RPM?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Papillion, NE
Posts: 610
Likes: 242
Liked 293 Times in 65 Posts
|
![]()
Alan, I'm not sure how the incrementals compare - I'll do some research at Topeka this weekend. I kind of posted this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm curious nevertheless. The front shocks are not adjustable, and the rears only on extension.
Maurice - I've left at 5800 and 6200 with no noticeable difference in 60'. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fabulous Las Vegas
Posts: 114
Likes: 29
Liked 24 Times in 13 Posts
|
![]()
Me too...
__________________
Jeff Dudgeon '66 Coronet #10771 - bracket puke "the Flying Brick" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Live Reporter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hickory, Ky
Posts: 10,629
Likes: 1,919
Liked 10,680 Times in 2,222 Posts
|
![]()
Have 52% or more on the back wheels.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 311
Likes: 2
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
![]()
Use an "old school" clutch setup in it, with a 40 or 50# wheel.....it wont be the quickest but it will yank the front end the highest
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Papillion, NE
Posts: 610
Likes: 242
Liked 293 Times in 65 Posts
|
![]()
Found this photo from last July's national open at MAM...
![]() Looks better but was 3 tenths slower in the 1/8 at that time...changes since that day: More power, fresh clutch, Calvert split monos, and replaced the Moroso springs (that I cut too far) with the original worn out 6 cylinder springs in front. Oh, and new M/T 3056STs last September. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 101
Likes: 89
Liked 62 Times in 17 Posts
|
![]()
Big wheelstands are only possible with gapless rings.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 407
Likes: 126
Liked 126 Times in 40 Posts
|
![]()
Do you have a data logger on that car? Being able to dial in that first hit with an adjustable clutch is crucial for getting up on the tires. Some ballast in the rear would help too..
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|