'67 Camaro E/SA redo

[HandOverFist]

I've been on the site Brent, but have never seen those adjustable pull-off's you speak of. I would gladly try them.

[brent flynn]

Give him a call... i have 4 of them...hehe Tell him Brent sent you... i dont discounts or anything, just want him to know that im spreadin the word...

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by HandOverFist

Thanks Alan - It's still a mystery how the car could 60' a 1.45 at one time and we have never been able to get it back near that point.

Unfortunately you've changed a lot of things since the rear end decided to go strait up, I have to ask, does the converter feel the same as it did before the rear end broke? How about drive shaft angles, it probably doesn't take much to lose your combination.

[HandOverFist]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

Unfortunately you've changed a lot of things since the rear end decided to go strait up, I have to ask, does the converter feel the same as it did before the rear end broke? How about drive shaft angles, it probably doesn't take much to lose your combination.

You are correct...I'm learning that all the stars must be aligned for one of these cars to perform as intended. I've put the car back to it's previous state as far as I can remember. All angles are still the same and the convertor was cut open/inspected. There was a slight tweak to get a little more stall, but I can't tell any difference in the way it feels. I have yet to change the way I stage/stall the car. I'm beginning to suspect that those carbs were running very rich all along and coupled with good cool air earlier in the year was the reason for the good 60' times then. I guess the summer air was a death blow for the way these carbs are set up. I have one unmolested Edelbrock Q-jet I'm working on atm and will try to set it up very lean for this summer heat.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by HandOverFist

You are correct...I'm learning that all the stars must be aligned for one of these cars to perform as intended. I've put the car back to it's previous state as far as I can remember. All angles are still the same and the convertor was cut open/inspected. There was a slight tweak to get a little more stall, but I can't tell any difference in the way it feels. I have yet to change the way I stage/stall the car. I'm beginning to suspect that those carbs were running very rich all along and coupled with good cool air earlier in the year was the reason for the good 60' times then. I guess the summer air was a death blow for the way these carbs are set up. I have one unmolested Edelbrock Q-jet I'm working on atm and will try to set it up very lean for this summer heat.

Who cut the converter? Difference in Baro and DA from Spring air to current air? What temp do you leave at? When you changed the drive shaft was there a weight difference? Always weigh every thing in the drive line, I can only imagine how critical that would be in a setup like yours.

[HandOverFist]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

Who cut the converter? Difference in Baro and DA from Spring air to current air? What temp do you leave at? When you changed the drive shaft was there a weight difference? Always weigh every thing in the drive line, I can only imagine how critical that would be in a setup like yours.

It's an ATI convertor, but was cut by PTC due to time constraints...there was nothing found askew. I know the weather conditions will have a great effect, but even in good air and track prep we saw a loss of launch performance and it has never improved to date...seems to be stuck in the 1.52 range. We did notice some tire slippage running 18psi and I recently went up to 20psi...did'nt seem to have any effect on the 60' times. As for the driveshaft I don't think there is a great difference in weight between the two.

Here's a for instance time slip. This was in pretty good conditions and before the carbs were worked on...despite the poor launch the car goes faster than it ever has before at every other point on the track. I remember these passes because the car felt like it was just driving off instead of hitting the tires hard and snapping the front-end up. If I can figure out whats going on I believe it will run 11.20's in decent air. This pass the car had the same Calvert SA shocks that it wore when it went 1.45 - 1.47 60' times...it now has DA shocks on the rear, but I'm not working the back hard enough for them to have any effect atm.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by HandOverFist

It's an ATI convertor, but was cut by PTC due to time constraints...there was nothing found askew. I know the weather conditions will have a great effect, but even in good air and track prep we saw a loss of launch performance and it has never improved to date...seems to be stuck in the 1.52 range. We did notice some tire slippage running 18psi and I recently went up to 20psi...did'nt seem to have any effect on the 60' times. As for the driveshaft I don't think there is a great difference in weight between the two.

Here's a for instance time slip. This was in pretty good conditions and before the carbs were worked on...despite the poor launch the car goes faster than it ever has before at every other point on the track. I remember these passes because the car felt like it was just driving off instead of hitting the tires hard and snapping the front-end up. If I can figure out whats going on I believe it will run 11.20's in decent air. This pass the car had the same Calvert SA shocks that it wore when it went 1.45 - 1.47 60' times...it now has DA shocks on the rear, but I'm not working the back hard enough for them to have any effect atm.

I believe the converter is a problem, as you know the converter is everything, ATI is king when it comes to duplication in my opinion, other companies not so much. I believe a clearance was possibly altered when the converter was cut open, as you said it never hit the tires the same again. You should have several ATI converters and test non stop. I always weigh my converters before the trans fluid.

[HandOverFist]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

I believe the converter is a problem, as you know the converter is everything, ATI is king when it comes to duplication in my opinion, other companies not so much. I believe a clearance was possibly altered when the converter was cut open, as you said it never hit the tires the same again. You should have several ATI converters and test non stop. I always weigh my converters before the trans fluid.

You misunderstood me...the time slip above and many like it were with the ATI convertor before it was cut open and inspected/altered. This past Saturday night was the first time the car had been run with the altered ATI convertor. I could tell no difference in the way the car reacted and I'm sure the tweak was a minor one. The only reason it was sent off to be cut/inspected was to confirm if we had a convertor problem or not. It was my partners idea to have them tweak it while open...not something I personally would have done. Anyway, I'm working on another Q-jet right now which will run much leaner than the previous carbs. It will have an experimental accell. pump mod that I will describe later if it proves beneficial.

[R. Thorne]

I make my choke pull-off adjustable by different orifice sizes drilled in a piece of round plastic (.011" to .019") inserted in 5 different hoses that slow the opening from 1 sec to 2 1/2 sec. Simple, easy, and cheap. Ron.

[HandOverFist]

I'm experimenting with accell pumps atm. Thinking cutting coils and/or using lighter duration springs will extend the duration of the fuel shot...any thoughts?



I took the experiment one step further this evening. I used the thinner/lighter return spring that is normally used under the pump rod as a duration spring. This should have a dramatic effect over the stock set-up. When this one goes together it will have 66 jets in the primary (no rods) and AY rods (567 Long) in the back...track time will tell the tale. Btw, the pump bore has been machined to the larger .730 size of the 2G carbs...probably not needed, but I wanted to play.