Personal 380 SBC Dyno

[user-9274568]

The DA was 3880..

I didn't have my licence so I could run it all out to the finish line.

I ran it 2.05 out full throttle then stopped it 1/2 throttle to the finish line.

It ran 10.32.. S/G at Great Bend is 10.08..

Then the rain came.

Only one pass.

[cgarb]

What was the 60ft?

[user-9274568]

What was the 60ft?

Needs some tires broke in and about 500 more stall.

[cgarb]

.007 first hit...show off...lol.

[BigBlocksOnTop2]

.007 first hit...show off...lol.

X2... keep that up and you'll be in the driver's seat!

[maxracesoftware]

The DA was 3880..

I didn't have my licence so I could run it all out to the finish line.

I ran it 2.05 out full throttle then stopped it 1/2 throttle to the finish line.

It ran 10.32.. S/G at Great Bend is 10.08..

Then the rain came.

Only one pass.

Needs some tires broke in and about 500 more stall.

Code: Select all

1.356
3.982
6.411
99.18
8.559
10.39
122.16
The DA was 3880..

Chad, your initial 1st Run looks like it would have run these Times/MPH
or probably faster than this , because i'm just calculating ETs based-off the acceleration
from 60 FT to 330 FT ... nothing else, just to see what the acceleration rate would be by 1320 FT distance ?
.... seems already like a great SuperGas 9.90 Index Run

1320= 9.9110 133.5225

Code: Select all

   60= 1.3560  48.1505
  330= 3.9820  88.1153
  660= 6.2450  107.9927
 1000= 8.2260  124.1752
 1320= 9.9110  133.5225
 

[cjperformance]

What is your ready to race weight?
Cheers

[Carnut1]

I was really expecting the port energy non believers to have a fit with this thread. I only hear crickets. Nice work Chad.

[Frankshaft]

There still is no such thing as port energy. Its a made up dynamic. I am about 99.9% sure, port energy was NOT one of the criteria Chad used to develop that port. I am done discussing it. There is crickets because I don't really care anymore. If you want to waste your time Charlie, have fun, I have better things to do. And, I don't know, but the car seems kinda slow. Even considering the stop, using Larry's calculations. 2000 lbs, 677hp, should mph MUCH faster, which shows the real hp. Does it even weigh 2000lbs?

[Carnut1]

There still is no such thing as port energy. Its a made up dynamic. I am about 99.9% sure, port energy was NOT one of the criteria Chad used to develop that port. I am done discussing it. There is crickets because I don't really care anymore. If you want to waste your time Charlie, have fun, I have better things to do. And, I don't know, but the car seems kinda slow. Even considering the stop, using Larry's calculations. 2000 lbs, 677hp, should mph MUCH faster, which shows the real hp. Does it even weigh 2000lbs?

At some point in time every term was made up. Shaft, you love a good fight. I'm sure muzzle velocity of a projectile does not exist either. It takes energy to accelerate the intake air, the more efficiently that energy can be used to fill the cylinder the more power that can be produced. I know you don't always read every post but this run Chad lifted and half throttled it a good amount hence the eta. Yes, Shaft I am having fun and learning. an open mind is key to learning. I have received zero feedback on my Dart 247 cc curves vs. Chad's 205 cc cnc heads. True they are designed for different applications but interesting to compare. Thanks, Charlie

[Frankshaft]

For the record, I like you Charlie. I am not trying to be a dick. I just don't believe port energy is an important thing to measure. Carl Foltz, pretty sure he doesn't use it either. He had heads on what 10 of the 16 car pro stock field last weekend? Like I said, I am 99.9% sure that Chad didn't use port energy as a consideration when he did that port, or any port on any head he offers. Neither does Darin Morgan, Slick Rick, Larry Meaux, Sonny Leanord, etc. Have they maybe calculated it once or twice on something they have done after seeing it? Maybe. Here is their response. "oh, that's neat". Haven't done it since. I understand the concept, I just think its filler for a program that isn't as good as 3 or 4 that already exist.

As far as Chads roadster, ok, he has 1 pass on it, can't judge it from that, I apologize. But, 2000lbs, which I am 99% sure it weights, + or - 100 lbs, with that power, should 60ft 1.15. It went 1.34, that was with wide open throttle. It should go mid 8's or faster. We will see.

[Erland Cox]

Port energy is only a further calculation of intake velocity.
Intake velocity works just as good and I believe in KISS.
To calculate port energy is only complicating matters and to what practical use?

Erland

[user-9274568]

It's all about average velocity, no matter what you call it...

First time I have been in a car in 9 years. Left the starting line at 5000 rpm. Converter stalled 6000, which sucks at 4000 DA.

Considering the converter stalled 5300 behind the 377 that was in it that made 490/600, it did well.

And the car weighs 2300 with me in it, just took it off the scales.

[Carnut1]

Shaft, I like you too and respect your opinion. Please take a look at the comparison graphs of Chad's 205 head vs. My 247 head. There is more to it than just velocity. I actually think Chad's heads are a bit fast for his application. Thanks, Charlie

[NewbVetteGuy]

292 CFM @ 0.600" lift and 680 HP = 2.33 HP / CFM. Is this a normal kind of CFM to HP ratio? Is this just what happens when you have really high average velocities and a great combo?

A 205cc head and less than 300 CFM @ the cam's max lift and 680 HP is just an odd combo of statistics to see together.

Adam