Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags

["Clevor" Angel]

Anyone here go to the F.A.S.T. or Pure Stock races? I've been going for 3 years and they just keep getting faster and faster. Recently there was a completely stock 1969 L88 (aluminum block 427ci/425hp engine) Corvette that went 10.97 @ 126.88 mph! ON SKINNY STOCK BIAS PLY TIRES! These cars have been running 12-11-LOW 11 seconds for years but their just now hitting the 10's. Now let me see a new Beamer sell for $6700 with 425 horsepower and turn 10 second ET's!!!

[kko]

If theyre completly stock hown do they get faster?
and 6700 dollars was more back then then it is today along with the fact the bwm's arent muscle cars so who cares. :rolleyes:

[Matra et Alpine]

6700 in 69 is about $40K now so your close to M3 territory :)
The M5 aint' gonna make it - but there again it's a different tool for the job.
How about Japanese-spec Turbo MR2 ( mates son has acquired one ) We've been doing some 'work and testing'. 4.1s 0-60 and we both ran out of courage at 160mph :D
Not bad for £4000 today !!!

[2ndclasscitizen]

4.1s 0-60 and we both ran out of courage at 160mph :D
Not bad for £4000 today !!!
4.1! 160! bloody hell! did you run out of courage or road!

what motor's it running?

[KELSA]

i've actually been to some of the classic / vintage car racing, none modified (besides some with roller cage). it was great! its actually more fun than driving a s2000 on the track.

[johnnynumfiv]

How do they keep getting faster if they are stock?
My uncle runs a 1961 impala SS with a 540ci worked motor, drag slicks, and gets about 10 sec 1/4, I don't understand how a STOCK corvette with skinny tires can be in the 10's also.

[Niko_Fx]

How do they keep getting faster if they are stock?

I was wondering the same :rolleyes:

[Rockefella]

Fleet500!?!?! Oh, nevermind. They're obviously doing something to these cars.

[Matra et Alpine]

4.1! 160! bloody hell! did you run out of courage or road!

what motor's it running?
courage, it started getting skitterish. it woudl need some erious aeor work on the front end and underbody IMHO to push it out there - or just stupidity :) So it may happen one day :D )

3S-GTE 1998cc 16v DOHC JAPANESE spec whcih pushed 240-250 versus the US-spec turbo which was only 200hp.

This one has uprated hybrid from it's time in Japan - along with LOTS of other engine and suspension work :).

He's not put it on the rolling road yet :D I'd conservatively put it in the 280-290 bhp possibly pushing 300 !!!!

[taz_rocks_miami]

I was wondering the same :rolleyes:

Ditto. Besides, BMWs aren't desinged to run the 1/4 mile. But they are desinged to run on the Autobahn at high speeds with no problem. Also, take em' to a twisty road a or a road racing track and you'll see what they are all about.

I love muscle cars but they are too one dementional for me...go fast in a straight line. European cars can go fast in a straight line also, plus corner and brake like nobodies business.

It's good to see you appreciate muscle cars Clevor, as you spend more time here, I hope you learn to appreciate non-American performance cars for what they are also...wonderfull driving machines. :)

["Clevor" Angel]

Its all in the setup, your allowed no aftermarket engine mods, no lightweight body panels, no wider tires, you can't take anything out and if you have any accessories they ALL must be hooked up. So how do they do it? Remember no AFTERMARKET modifications but luckily the Americans got it right the first time. Some of the things they do to run consistent 11's is over inflate the front tires, SLIGHTLY deflate the backs, make sure the STOCK exhaust system has pipes that fit into one another to reduce restriction, use worn out front springs so that the front end bounces up to get the weight transfer to the rear wheels, a spare tire and jack are recommended to be left in the trunk. All the power is there, its just that no one ever felt like tuning stock suspension. After all, they were made to drag race from the get go.

I'm not saying I don't like European cars, if I had my choice I'd be driving a TVR, the comparison with the beamer wasn't meant to bash Europeans in anyway. Your right, Europeans do go fast in a straight line but remember sooner or later over in Europe (Autobahn excluded of course) your going to run out of straight road. Europe has road racing, we have drag racing. (allthough road racing is much more fun to watch!) The simple fact is we have more room and more flat terrain, European roads tend to follow the terrain hence all the twists and bends. Don't know what it is but American racers don't seem to like turning, NASCAR and Drag Racing... (to quote Ron White) "p*****s."

[zilch1]

I came across this nonsense while surfing the net and simply had to respond:

First of all, an L-88 is NOT an aluminum block. The aluminum block 427 was the ZL1 and Chevy made a total of 2 production ZL1 Corvettes. They produced roughly 375 SAE NET HP as installed in the car (with engine accessories and the full factory exhaust system in place). I can prove that if required to do so. '02 - '04 Z06 Corvettes (LS6, 346 cids) are faster cars and the new LS7 Z06 (505 SAE NET HP in a 3,180 pound car) is a lot faster still.

Secondly, the ZL1 Corvette cost $6,700 in 1969, which was a lot of money then. 38 years of inflation have occurred since then, so it's ignorant to compare the price of a new BMW with that Corvette's 38 year old price.

Thirdly, cars running in the "pure stock drags" are allowed to use engines that have been MODIFIED per NHRA "stock" blueprinting specifications, which are very different than how the engines left the factories when new. The NHRA blueprinting specs permit large overbores (which add displacement and, perhaps more importantly, unshroud the valves), milled decks, milled cylinder heads, 3-angle valve jobs, thinner head gaskets, cheater cams (also known as "improved stock cams," which retain the stock lift and duration, but have much more aggressive ramping angles) and forged internals.

The mods don't stop there, either. In addition to the engine enhancement, these cars are allowed to run modern, mandrel bent exhaust system, ANY axle ratio, FULLY LOCKED DIFFERENTIALS, "shift improver kits" (on automatic cars) and various other performance enhancing devices.

Many of the faster cars running in those events are little more than purpose-built drag cars that were shrewdly built around the often loosely enforced rules.

Here's the actual link to the Pure Stock Drags. E-mail the POCs if you don't believe me.

http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/cstock.html

Even the more stringent "certified stock" allows a boat-load of engine modifications.

http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/cstock.html

"We will perform an NHRA-style inspection where the engine will be checked for proper castings, part numbers, etc. We will be using the NHRA tech bulletins for specifications only, including head cc's, deck height, bore, stroke, cam lift, etc. NHRA allows the use of superceded castings and part numbers, such as heads, which could give the car an advantage over using its original parts. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS! The PSMCDR™ rules still apply requiring all engine casting numbers to be correct for the year, model, and horsepower claimed. Again, we will be using the NHRA bulletins for various engine numbers (carb., intake, heads, etc), combustion chamber cc's, piston to deck clearance, proper piston configuration, lift at the valve, valve sizes, valve head configurations, valve job, cylinder bore, stroke, head gasket thickness, etc. You are allowed to blueprint your engine to these NHRA specifications only. No NHRA engine building tricks allowed. Just go to their website at http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/index.html to find the blueprint specs for your engine."

F.A.S.T rules permit far more modifications:

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fastraces/fastraces.nsf/822dcaaaa26c6da985256dd80023623d/03bb9b1722b924978525711000709359!OpenDocument

These series do prove one thing, however: It wasn't the tires that were responsible for the relatively poor performance of the (truly) stock vehicles back in the day. Rather, it was the inefficient engines! "Old Muscle" is garbage by today's standards. Anyone who's ever driven a MODERN performance car (like my LS1 Camaro) knows that.

In the future, please research the facts before providing others with false and misleading information.


Anyone here go to the F.A.S.T. or Pure Stock races? I've been going for 3 years and they just keep getting faster and faster. Recently there was a completely stock 1969 L88 (aluminum block 427ci/425hp engine) Corvette that went 10.97 @ 126.88 mph! ON SKINNY STOCK BIAS PLY TIRES! These cars have been running 12-11-LOW 11 seconds for years but their just now hitting the 10's. Now let me see a new Beamer sell for $6700 with 425 horsepower and turn 10 second ET's!!!


Its all in the setup, your allowed no aftermarket engine mods, no lightweight body panels, no wider tires, you can't take anything out and if you have any accessories they ALL must be hooked up. So how do they do it? Remember no AFTERMARKET modifications but luckily the Americans got it right the first time. Some of the things they do to run consistent 11's is over inflate the front tires, SLIGHTLY deflate the backs, make sure the STOCK exhaust system has pipes that fit into one another to reduce restriction, use worn out front springs so that the front end bounces up to get the weight transfer to the rear wheels, a spare tire and jack are recommended to be left in the trunk. All the power is there, its just that no one ever felt like tuning stock suspension. After all, they were made to drag race from the get go.

I'm not saying I don't like European cars, if I had my choice I'd be driving a TVR, the comparison with the beamer wasn't meant to bash Europeans in anyway. Your right, Europeans do go fast in a straight line but remember sooner or later over in Europe (Autobahn excluded of course) your going to run out of straight road. Europe has road racing, we have drag racing. (allthough road racing is much more fun to watch!) The simple fact is we have more room and more flat terrain, European roads tend to follow the terrain hence all the twists and bends. Don't know what it is but American racers don't seem to like turning, NASCAR and Drag Racing... (to quote Ron White) "p*****s."

[RaceStudebakers]

Grrrrr...... :mad: I HATE a blowhard like this, so I had to respond too!

First of all, this nitwit picked the right name, couldn't have done better myself...... :o

Second of all, the big "zilch" needs to take his own advice and "In the future, please research the facts before providing others with false and misleading information", quit spewing HIS nonsense AND lose the attitude! :rolleyes:

Let me correct the big zilch's misc. ramblings.... (My corrections/comments in red)



I came across this nonsense while surfing the net and simply had to respond:

First of all, an L-88 is NOT an aluminum block. The aluminum block 427 was the ZL1 and Chevy made a total of 2 production ZL1 Corvettes. They produced roughly 375 NET HP as installed in the car (with engine accessories and the full factory exhaust system in place. I can prove that if requried to do so.

I believe you meant to say, “required”, so prove it! I KNOW you MUST have a stack of magazines with pictures somewhere, because it sounds like that's where you get informed.....

'02 - '04 Z06 Corvettes (LS6, 346 cids) are faster cars and the new LS7 Z06 is a lot faster still.

SO what! Who cares! That's not what this thread was about, try to focus zilch.....

Cars running in the "pure stock drags" are allowed to use engines that have been MODIFIED per NHRA "stock" blueprinting specifications, which are very different than how the engines left the factories when new.

I have a BIG flash for you big zilch, CARS CAME RIGHT FROM THE FACTORY WITH BLUEPRINTED ENGINES!!! Not ONLY were the R3 Studebakers TOTALLY blueprinted right from the factory, there WERE Ford, GM AND AMC cars sold that were blueprinted, RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX! Just ask me, I was THERE when they were sitting in the dealerships!

The NHRA blueprinting specs permit large overbores (which add displacement and, perhaps more improtantly, unshroud the valves), milled decks, milled cylinder heads, 3-angle valve jobs, thinner head gaskets, cheater cams (also known as "improved stock cams," which retain the stock lift and duration, but have much more aggressive ramping angles) and forged internals.

This last statement is LOADED with BS...... The ONLY thing this blowhard, turnkey, bellybutton steering organism did right was give the PSMCD website links so anyone can see what the PSMCD considers "stock". It's true, you CAN punch out the engine, (as an owner could do when the car was new), you CAN blueprint the engine, (if it wasn't blueprinted from the factory), but you CANNOT do the rest of the stuff this nitwit claims. Ask me, I’VE BEEN THERE, I KNOW what the PSMCD will pass and what will NOT!

Blueprinting basically means that all of the internal engine tolerances are set EXACTLY, as perfectly as possible, to original factory specifications. It means that you are just trying to get the engine as close to perfection as it was designed, and we all know that mass produced machines are never perfect from the factory. Actual tolerances for what comes out of the factory vary greatly, even in the most modern machines.

The PSMCD specifically states that the block, heads and cam MUST BE STOCK, OR EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WAS OFFERED BY THE FACTORY FOR THAT YEAR! Get it? You CAN use what ever performance parts that were available for your car from the factory for that year! If the zilch had ANY idea about what "blueprinting" is, he might have gotten a bit closer to fact......

The mods don't stop there, either. In addition to the engine enhancement, these cars are allowed to run modern, mandrel bent exhaust system, ANY axle ratio, FULLY LOCKED DIFFERENTIALS, "shift improver kits" (on automatic cars) and various other performance enhancing devices.

Oh for cryin' out loud...... What the hell does, "modern, mandrel bent exhaust systems" mean, or REALLY have anything to do with it? Yes, the exhaust system can have larger pipes, and less restrictive mufflers, SO WHAT! That's the SAME thing that could have been done by the owner when they were runnin’ on the street the year they were made! You CANNOT run "straight through" mufflers, (Cherry Bombs, gutted, etc,), the car must have a complete, factory style/routed baffled exhaust system.

"Any axle ratio", means ANY THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CAR FROM THE FACTORY WHEN IT WAS MADE! What's the problem with that? Locking and limited slip differentials WERE AVAILABLE FROM ALL CAR MAKERS WHEN THESE CARS WERE MADE!

Ya got me, "shift improver kits" ARE aftermarket parts, BUT, they are added as much for safety as for anything else! Ever see a slipping, overheated automatic transmission blow up? You CANNOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING IF IT'S A MANUAL SHIFT CAR. Sheesh.....

Many of the faster cars running in those events are little more than purpose-built drag cars that were shrewdly built around the often loosely enforced rules.

TOTAL AND COMPLETE BS! You wanna see the ET sheets for the last three years? Check the PSMCD website, if these were "shrewdly built", "purpose built drag cars", WHY ARE THEY RUNNING THOSE ET'S?!

We run Studebakers in the PSMCD, and TRUST ME, if we thought there was a cheater in the bunch, (and everybody who races the PSMCD feels the same way), we would be ALL OVER the car/driver! It’s called, “a protest”, and that means immediate tech inspection/tear down or banishment from the PSMCD, period. The PSMCD DOES spot checks, how come you didn't mention THAT zilchmeister? A good example, we wanted to change wheel covers on one of the Studebakers, we had to have them WEIGHED by the PSMCD before they could be used!

Here's the actual link to the Pure Stock Drags. E-mail the POCs if you don't believe in.

http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/cstock.html

PLEASE DO go to the PSMCD website and you'll see for yourself how strict the PSMCD IS, and how full-o-chitt the big zilch IS.

Even the more stringent "certified stock" allows a boat-load of engine modifications........

<SNIPPED> because of total and complete stupidity>


F.A.S.T rules permit far more modifications:

So what, we aren't talking about F.A.S.T. cars..... Whooooole different venue.....

These series do prove one thing, however: It wasn't the tires that were responsible for the relatively poor performance of the (truly) stock vehicles back in the day. Rather, it was the inefficient engines! "Old Muscle" is garbage by today's standards. Anyone who's ever driven a MODERN performance car (like my LS1 Camaro) knows that.

The big zilch's post does prove one thing, however; This know-it-all, wet-behind-the-ears, blow hard, turn-key-bellybutton wheel gripper has NEVER been to a PSMCD race, has NO idea WTF he's talking about and the ONLY information that he can parrot is something he heard from a grownup somewhere, who was ALSO misinformed.....

Talk about garbage, get your greasy butt out to the track zilch, with your, (and the bank's), L-whatever Camaro and we'll SEE some MODERN garbage get taken out....

In the future, please research the facts before providing others with false and misleading information.

In the future, before you use the yardstick that you use to measure yourself on others and call people cheats and liars, or call cars worth 10 times more than the one you and the bank own “garbage”, take your own advice, lose the attitude, sit down, shut up, research the facts, (or bring YOUR garbage out to race), but just plain stick to something you know about……

Oh, and use spell check, you zilch.....

Sonny
Webmaster/Admin
RacingStudebakers.Com

[zilch1]

Grrrrr...... :mad: I HATE a blowhard like this, so I had to respond too!....Let me correct the big zilch's misc. ramblings.... (My corrections/comments in red)

Sonny
Webmaster/Admin
RacingStudebakers.Com

Sonny,

Dan Jensen (contact information provided below) is an organizer of and a competitor in the "Pure Stock" drags. He's considered the guru on this subject in many circles and is a straight shooter. Here is Dan's 1971 455 HO T-37 Pontiac, which he races in the "Pure Stock" drags: http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/shootout/pontiac_drag_racing/dan_jensen_t37.html

Anyone who opens the above link will see that Dan's "pure stock" 455 is actually a purpose-built 462. His 462 utilizes a custom ground Cam Motions cam (see details in next paragraph), a significantly-higher-than-stock compression ratio (9.4:1 vs. the factory's 8.4:1), forged Speed Pro pistons, forged Eagle rods, a modern, low restriction exhaust system and various carb. and ignition tweaks. Dan also degreed his cam differently than stock to better match his particular set-up. So modified, his engine requires 93 octane fuel. (The '71 455 HO ran fine on 87 octane when it left the factory.) Various other mods (e.g. after-market valve springs and push-rods) may also be present.

The original "068" '71 455 HO factory cam had a lift of .407" on both intake and exhaust and an LSA of 116 degrees. You'll see that Dan's cam has more lift and a significantly tighter LSA than the factory cam in the interest of making more power. His cam may also have wider flanks, although that's speculative on my part. (Wider than stock flanks can yield greater average valve lift while simultaneously permitting stock spec. maximum lift and duration. Such cams are therefore referred to as "improved stock" cams and are permitted in the "pure stock" drags.) http://www.webcamshafts.com/pages/cam_glossary.html

NHRA's definition of "stock" is defined by their tech bulletins and is very different than the auto manufacturer's definitions (and yours). I suggest you check the NHRA blueprinting specs - particularly the minimum allowable combustion chamber volumes. In most cases, NHRA's "stock" chamber volumes fall well below what's obtainable with factory production tolerances. (Smaller chambers yield more power via a higher compression ratio.) http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/index.html

"Pure stock" rules, which invoke the NHRA tech bulletins, allow the factory block and head castings to be machined (i.e. milled heads and decked/over-bored blocks) to those NHRA tech bulletin specs. The casting numbers must be "correct" for the car in question and no cylinder head porting/polishing is permitted. Thinner-than-stock head gaskets are also permitted in some cases. Some engines can gain up to two full points in actual mechanical compression ratio (vs.factory stock) when modified to their NHRA tech bulletins.

Even the more strictly regulated "certified stock" (a sub-group of "pure stock") permits blueprinting to the same NHRA specs:http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/cstock.html
(http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/cstock.html)
Modifications such as those discussed above (plus others, including 3 angle valve jobs) are common among the more competitive cars racing in the "pure stock drags." That explains why many of those cars today are so much faster than when they rolled off their production lines 35+ years ago.

Those are the facts, regardless of how ambiguously worded the "pure stock drag" rules might be. The fact that you're the "webmaster/admin." for a website devoted to ancient relics that virtually no-one cares about won't change those facts.

E-mail Dan and ask him if you require verification of my claims. Here is his contact information:
http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/contact.html

["Clevor" Angel]

Pretty funny, He actually seems angry over my post!:D I'm pretty sure about the L88 being an aluminium block, the L89 was the aluminium headed 427 BUT I always get them confused so don't quote me. ZL1's were ALL aluminium 427's though, not just aluminium blocks.

[zilch1]

Pretty funny, He actually seems angry over my post!:D I'm pretty sure about the L88 being an aluminium block, the L89 was the aluminium headed 427 BUT I always get them confused so don't quote me. ZL1's were ALL aluminium 427's though, not just aluminium blocks.


What's "pretty funny" is that you thought (still think?) that a truly "completely stock", 37 year old Corvette could run ten second/127 MPH quarter miles.;)

It's also "pretty funny" that you chose to completely ignore 37 years of inflation. $6,700 in 1969 equates to ~ $36,000 today. For that considerable sum of money the customer got a fuel-swilling, poor handling car with awful brakes (by modern standards) that was completely devoid of any luxury and comfort features. AC, power steering, power windows, power locks, power seats, leather, etc. weren't available in L88 (or ZL1) cars. ABS, traction control, EFI, keyless entry, etc. were unheard of in 1969.

The L88 was a cast iron block. Anyone with internet access can verify that in 2 minutes.

Here's a rare, vintage L-88 "HOT ROD" road test. That car was fitted with after-market, 9.20" wide Firestone racing slicks for their testing. The trap speed is telling, since gear ratios have very little impact on it.

Below that is a more recent test of a vintage ZL1 Camaro, which was actually slower than my LS1 Camaro.

Bone stock, 2002 - 2004 Z06s Corvettes are faster cars than bone stock L88s and ZL1s and the latest Z06 Corvettes are faster still.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HOTRODL88.jpeg

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1CD3.JPG

["Clevor" Angel]

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fastraces/fastraces.nsf/sub-menu/Rules02

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fastraces/fastraces.nsf/822dcaaaa26c6da985256dd80023623d/03bb9b1722b924978525711000709359!OpenDocument

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fastraces/fastraces.nsf/822dcaaaa26c6da985256dd80023623d/c10e85e88cc2ec19852571360045fb07!OpenDocument

Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall.
BTW, the pictures you posted are too big, the max size is 800x600 I believe.

[zilch1]

...Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall...

I posted the link to the F.A.S.T. (and "Pure Stock") rules in my first response way back in July:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=569809&postcount=12

"Off a bit?" You clearly had no comprehension of the series rules when you initiated this thread.

Here's what you said:


Anyone here go to the F.A.S.T. or Pure Stock races? I've been going for 3 years and they just keep getting faster and faster. Recently there was a completely stock 1969 L88 (aluminum block 427ci/425hp engine) Corvette that went 10.97 @ 126.88 mph! ON SKINNY STOCK BIAS PLY TIRES! These cars have been running 12-11-LOW 11 seconds for years but their just now hitting the 10's. Now let me see a new Beamer sell for $6700 with 425 horsepower and turn 10 second ET's!!!



Its all in the setup, your allowed no aftermarket engine mods, no lightweight body panels, no wider tires, you can't take anything out and if you have any accessories they ALL must be hooked up. So how do they do it? Remember no AFTERMARKET modifications but luckily the Americans got it right the first time. Some of the things they do to run consistent 11's is over inflate the front tires, SLIGHTLY deflate the backs, make sure the STOCK exhaust system has pipes that fit into one another to reduce restriction, use worn out front springs so that the front end bounces up to get the weight transfer to the rear wheels, a spare tire and jack are recommended to be left in the trunk. All the power is there, its just that no one ever felt like tuning stock suspension. After all, they were made to drag race from the get go.

[nota]

Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall.
BTW, the pictures you posted are too big, the max size is 800x600 I believe.
Nope it looks like you're the one who 'tried to prove something' which by way of large understatement is now "admittidly off a bit". Thankfully the very knowledgable & informative - not to mention credible - Mr Zilch has appeared on the scene and proceeded to clarify fact from fiction

Add me to the list of those who've broadened their ken, due to his efforts .. thanks Zilch !! :)

[johnnynumfiv]

Pretty funny, He actually seems angry over my post!:D I'm pretty sure about the L88 being an aluminium block, the L89 was the aluminium headed 427 BUT I always get them confused so don't quote me. ZL1's were ALL aluminium 427's though, not just aluminium blocks.
The L89 is an aluminum head 396.

[zilch1]

Hopefully the "375 HP" L-89 made more power than this "350 HP" L-78 (actually a 402), which I obtained from an old dyno test article (quite rare for the time).

288 HP - with open exhaust manifolds. They had to change the heads, cam, intake, lifters, valve springs, install long tube headers (left open) and optimize the timing, carb jets, etc. in order to achieve the rated 350 HP.

I've got another vintage dyno test (chassis dyno, in this case) of a "335 HP" 400 cid GTO that couldn't put 190 HP down to the ground. That issue of CAR CRAFT (July '69) called that performance "about average" (for that model GTO).

Here we are nearly 40 years later and we see "pure stock" versions of these cars running elevens...

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/350HP396DYNO.JPG

[johnnynumfiv]

Was that on an engine dyno or at the wheels? If at the wheels, somewhat understandable seeing how they were rated at the crank, not the wheels, if at the engine, something isn't right.
The engine does require some back pressure, maybe thats why the power numbers were so low because they weren't using an exhaust.

[zilch1]

Was that on an engine dyno or at the wheels? If at the wheels, somewhat understandable seeing how they were rated at the crank, not the wheels, if at the engine, something isn't right.
The engine does require some back pressure, maybe thats why the power numbers were so low because they weren't using an exhaust.

The L-78 dyno test (above) was performed on an engine dyno.

The GTO dyno test I referred to was performed on a chassis dyno.

Here's a "truly" stock 426 Hemi, which truly was "the king" - in its day. 315 RWHP on a chassis dyno, which is about what my 346 cid '99 LS1 Camaro made.

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/

Here's a good link on the ZL1. Check out the "How Much Power" box. It mades 375 SAE NET HP as delivered from the factory.

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

Sure it made more once is was tweaked and a set of open long tube were fitted. Then again, so will most other engines.

[johnnynumfiv]

It's not really fair to compare a carb'd hunk of iron to a computer controlled all aluminum block.

[zilch1]

It's not really fair to compare a carb'd hunk of iron to a computer controlled all aluminum block.

OK, then.

Let's see what a carb'd 346 cid LS1 will do with nothing more than a mild (.525" lift GMPP) cam swap, stiffer LS6 valve springs and open long tubes:

http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/induction_poweradders/0409sc_gmpp/

Fuel injection doesn't make any more power than EFI.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/

And aluminum blocks don't make any more power than iron blocks.

Huge advancements in cylinder head design is what's responsible for most of today's power gains.

[johnnynumfiv]

Thats nice, but you are still comparing an engine with 60's technology to an engine of 90's/00's technology.
It also has a few more mods than what you listed in your post.

[zilch1]

Thats nice, but you are still comparing an engine with 60's technology to an engine of 90's/00's technology.

I think that's the point.:)

More than 4 decades have passed since most of the muscle car engines were originally designed. Some went pretty good in their day. Time has since moved on.

Many will still make decent power (by modern standards) once they're heavily modified. What gets me is when people claim that "Stock" examples run twelves, elevens, tens, etc.

[johnnynumfiv]

I think that's the point.:)

More than 4 decades have passed since most of the muscle car engines were originally designed. Some went pretty good in their day. Time has since moved on.

Many will still make decent power (by modern standards) once they're heavily modified. What gets me is when people claim that "Stock" examples run twelves, elevens, tens, etc.

I agree, it's just not possible.

[zilch1]

I agree, it's just not possible.

Here's a real 10 second/129 MPH Corvette - bone stock with the exception of drag radials.

Cars like that are being built today and many "muscle car people" choose to look the other way.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1541575

[anglerfishman]

dude what the heck:mad:

[Old Sage]

Zilch, based on comments attributed to Duntov, the ZL-1 Corvette production number of 2 is probably bogus. That's how many were sold, not how many were built.

As a neutral observer, I looked at the rules on http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/rules.html. They seem to meet the spirit of factory stock. To be honest, 11.54 for a heavy N/A non-nitrous L-88 Corvette is impressive by any measure, let alone with the tire limitation.

[zilch1]

Zilch, based on comments attributed to Duntov, the ZL-1 Corvette production number of 2 is probably bogus. That's how many were sold, not how many were built.

As a neutral observer, I looked at the rules on http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/rules.html. They seem to meet the spirit of factory stock. To be honest, 11.54 for a heavy N/A non-nitrous L-88 Corvette is impressive by any measure, let alone with the tire limitation.

L-88s ran mid thirteens when they were brand new - and with 9" slicks in place (see vintage HOT ROD test elsewhere in this thread).

They don't tear down the engine in "the pure stock drags" unless it's "certified stock," so no-one but the owner knows how "stock" the L88 your referred to actually is. Even "certified stock" permits a host of modications.

What the rules don't say is often times more important than what they do say, as every winning professional racers knows. Consider the following:

The 1971 Pontiac Lemans in the link below now runs mid twelves (and managed one "corrected" high 11 second pass) in the "pure stock drags." Look at the mods; the stock CR was 8.4:1; now it's 9.5:1. It was a 455 when new, now it's a 462. It uses aftermarket forged rods and crank. Even the cam is custom ground (much tighter LSA and more lift) and is significantly hotter than the "068" cam it came with from the factory.

The owner/driver of that car is Dan Jensen, who is also the organizer of the "pure stock drags."

That car would have had a hard time getting out of the 14s and breaking 100 MPH through the traps when it was new - on ANY tires. And Dan is forthcoming about his mods; many others aren't.

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/shootout/pontiac_drag_racing/dan_jensen_t37.html

[nota]

Fwiw I have an original 1967 magazine (Hot Rod iirc?) stored somewhere on the shelves which includes a road-test of a new L-88 Tri-carb 4speed convertible. Theirs did a 13.8

[zilch1]

Fwiw I have an original 1967 magazine (Hot Rod iirc?) stored somewhere on the shelves which includes a road-test of a new L-88 Tri-carb 4speed convertible. Theirs did a 13.8

The hottest tri carb engine was the L71; it became the L89 with aluminum heads.

The L88 was 4 barrel only.

The L88 was "for off road use only" according to GM literature. It made ~ 35 more HP than the L71/L89 because it had higher compression, more cam and better flowing heads. The cars themselves were stripped and weren't suitable for street driving. They required 103 octane MON gasoline per the sticker on the center console.

Despite that, they couldn't get out of the 13s - with ANY tire - in bone stock condition.

The L71, L72 and L89 were better "daily drivers," although they also lacked hydraulic lifters and required frequent valve lash adjustments.

None of those engines (or the ZL1) made more than 376 SAE NET HP as they rolled off the production line when new. The 376 HP figure is for the ZL1 (per owner dyno testing). The L88 made a few HP less and the others made less than that.

A new LS2 (364 cid base 'Vette engine) makes 400 SAE NET HP and only needs 93 octane PON. Tire for tire, it is faster than ANY vintage Corvette in "virgin stock" condition.

[Old Sage]

To be fair to that gentleman, his L-88 was torn down and it was stock and the bore must have been within 70.

Any discussion on the ZL-1 is not complete without mentioning GM's test#3 or P/B 5th test. Don't get me wrong, the LS2 is a great engine, but it's no big block Chevy.

[zilch1]

To be fair to that gentleman, his L-88 was torn down and it was stock and the bore must have been within 70.

Any discussion on the ZL-1 is not complete without mentioning GM's test#3 or P/B 5th test. Don't get me wrong, the LS2 is a great engine, but it's no big block Chevy.

How do you know it was "stock?"

The "pure stock drags" permit a HOST of engine modifications. I just showed you an example of a 1971 Lemans that's owned and raced in the "pure stock drags" by the event organizer, Dan Jensen. Here is it again:

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/shootout/pontiac_drag_racing/dan_jensen_t37.html

Do you really believe that a 1971 Lemans ran mid twelves at 110 MPH off the showroom floor when new? His does because of all the pure stock LEGAL MODIFICATIONS he made to it. He's running a 9.5:1 CR (stock was 8.4:1) a cam with more lift and a much tighter LSA, an overbore, forged rods, forged pistons, a modern, low restriction exhaust system, etc., etc., etc.

E-mail Dan and ask him about the mods that are permitted in that series. Here is his contact information:
http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/contact.html

The engines in the "pure stock drags" can be blueprinted to NHRA "stock class" specs, which are very different than how they left the factory. That means 3 angle valve jobs, overbores, cc'd to minimum chambers and aftermarket valve springs. They are also allowed to run forged cranks, rods and pistons and cheater cams (which retain close to stock total lift and duration, but feature tighter lobe angles and "fast ramping" lobe profiles.)

You don't understand the ACTUAL rules of the "pure stock drags" and are basing your opinions solely on the name of the series.

A bone stock LS2 makes more "as installed" horsepower than ANY "old school" 427 Chevy in "as it left the factory" tune.


Here are actual dyno test results of a production line stock ZL1. It made 376 HP in its "as installed" state. EVERY other 427 Chevy made less:

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

[nota]

The hottest tri carb engine was the L71; it became the L89 with aluminum heads.

The L88 was 4 barrel only.

The L88 was "for off road use only" according to GM literature. It made ~ 35 more HP than the L71/L89 because it had higher compression, more cam and better flowing heads.
Thanks for the info, and clarification. I haven't re-read that mag for some time. From memory that Vette was listed as 435hp ..?

:)

[zilch1]

Thanks for the info, and clarification. I haven't re-read that mag for some time. From memory that Vette was listed as 435hp ..?

:)

That's the L71. It made about 340 SAE NET ("as installed") HP, which puts it on the same level as the earlier ('97 - '99) LS1 Corvette engines.

Here's an actual engine dyno test of a ZL1, which was the absolute hotted of all the production line 427 Chevy engines. It required 103 octane per the factory sticker on the center console. It made 376 SAE NET HP in its "as installed" state:

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

Here is a dyno test of a second ZL1:

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1DYNOTEST.JPG

Here is a little (346 cid) LS1 making 503 HP with nothing more than an mild (.525" lift) aftermarket GMPP cam, LS6 valve springs and a CARBURETOR!

http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/induction_poweradders/0409sc_gmpp/

[Old Sage]

How do we know it is stock? You mean when they said it was stock, how do we know? How do we know Jim Morrison is dead? Some people would have to be called liars. Are you ready to do that?

I'll make you a fair offer, you post the entire ZL-1 dyno test, I will show you why quoting the baseline in this case is disingenuous.

[zilch1]

How do we know it is stock? You mean when they said it was stock, how do we know? How do we know Jim Morrison is dead? Some people would have to be called liars. Are you ready to do that?

I'll make you a fair offer, you post the entire ZL-1 dyno test, I will show you why quoting the baseline in this case is disingenuous.

"Stock" in the "pure stock drags" means MODIFIED per the rules of the pure stock drags, which invoke NHRA tech bulletins (i.e. blueprinting specs). It doesn't mean "stock like was when it was new."

Can you grasp that?

L88s were lower to mid 13 second cars when they were new and made ~ 370 SAE NET HP.

Here is the fastest documented test of a known production line stock L88. It ran a 13.56 @ 111 MPH - on 9" wide aftermarket slicks. The trap speed (which is largely unaffected by gearing) indicates potential high twelve second ETs with steep gears.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HOTRODL88.jpeg

Elevens ain't happening without MODIFICATIONS.

[Old Sage]

I grasp you can't understand 100% stock means just that.

Now let's move along with the ZL-1 dyno results, I look forward to your post.

[zilch1]

I grasp you can't understand 100% stock means just that.

Now let's move along with the ZL-1 dyno results, I look forward to your post.

It only means that to those who don't know any better. Still don't believe me?

E mail Dan Jensen and ask him. Dan is the ORGANIZER of the "pure stock drags," so he's the best authority on this subject. Here is Dan's contact information, as posted on the "pure stock drags" site:

http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/contact.html

Here is Dan Jensen's "pure stock" 1971 Pontiac Lemans, which he campaigns in the "pure stock drags:"

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/shootout/pontiac_drag_racing/dan_jensen_t37.html

What was an 8.4:1 455 when new in 1971 is now a fully blueprinted, 9.5:1 462 fitted with a hotter, custom ground cam, aftermarket forged rods, aftermarket forged pistons and rings, a modern high flow, low restriction exhaust system and various other modifications. Hence, what was a 14 second/100 MPH car as it rolled off the showroom floor is now a 12.5 second/110 MPH car because of those CLASS LEGAL modifications.



The "stock" L88 you're referring to competes in the same "pure stock drags" events and was undoubtedly MODIFIED - LEGALLY - in a similar manner. But it's still "stock" according to the class rules. It's just not PRODUCTION LINE STOCK. Most casual observers aren't shrewd enough to comprehend the difference and (quite laughably) think they're watching the cars as they ran when new.

Here are two ACTUAL engine dyno tests of PRODUCTION LINE ZL1s. Each of the two owners is highly respected in the ZL1 community. Bill Porterfield owns the Grumpy Jenkins racer as well as the one on the first link.

376 SAE NET HP for Bill Porterfield's ZL1: http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

420 Gross HP (with the stock exhaust manifolds and no engine accessories at all) for Pete Simpson's, which was professionally rebuilt not long before this test was performed: http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1DYNOTEST.JPG

Both engines made more power when optimally tuned, stripped of all engine accessories and air cleaner and fitted with open long tube headers, but so will most other engines.

Urban legend would have us believe that ZL1's made "575 HP." Perhaps an early development Can Am ZL1 racing engine fitted with unknown parts did make that on a GM engine dyno. The production line engines that were sold to the public (all 71 of them) made nothing close to that figure in their "as installed" condition. The two tests I just posted prove that.

The ZL1 was the king of the 427 Chevy engines. The L88 was a close 2nd and output fell off rapidly from there (L71, L89, L72, etc).

The old cylinder heads were JUNK by modern standards. They had very unfavorable valve angles and horribly inefficient combustion chambers. The cams had good specs, but they also had lazy lobe profiles. Reciprocating masses were heavy (no titanium rods then). ACTUAL (vs. "advertised") compression for the ZL1 was 10.8.1. Pete Simpson cc'd his virgin stock chambers and did the math, so he knows that to be fact. The only way to get 12:1 out of a ZL1 is to mill the heads and deck the block to its NHRA tech bulletin specs.

[Old Sage]

You don't have any real experience with these engines do you ...?

[zilch1]

You don't have any real experience with these engines do you ...?

Pal, you have NO IDEA who you are talking to.

E-mail Dan Jensen and ask him what modifications are allowed in the "pure stock drags."

He'll tell you that the engines can be fully blueprinted to their NHRA tech specs (including decked blocks and milled heads), overbored up to .070" and fitted with "improved stock" cams. He will also tell you that modern exhaust systems consisting of mandrel bent, 2.5" tubing and low restriction mufflers are permitted as well as forged aftermarket cranks, rods and pistons and various other mods.

The faster "stock" cars running in that series are little more than purpose built spec cars. Dan's own T-37 is a good example of that.

Many of the old engines can be MODIFIED to make respectable levels of power. But in production-line stock form, 375 SAE NET HP was about it for the "muscle car" engines and only the rarest and most expensive of them (L88, ZL1 and the later street hemis) could do it.

Most of the other stuff was pure junk that had difficulty putting 200 HP down to the wheels on a chassis dyno.

L-88 - production line stock circa 1969 and fitted with 9" wide slicks: - 13.56 @ 111 MPH

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HOTRODL88.jpeg

2004 Z06 Corvette - production line stock circa 2004 - 11.97 @ 118.8 MPH - on 92 octane unleaded with full power options, ABS, AC, a nice stereo and 19 city/28 highway MPG:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0410htp_2004_z06_corvette_feature/

And the new Z06 is even faster.

That's called PROGRESS. More than 40 years have passed since the big block Chevy was first introduced. Computer modeling techniques have yielded advances in engine design (particularly in the heads and chambers) that were unthinkable back then.

[Old Sage]

I don't feel like I'm your pal, but ok.

Well Mr Expert err Mr Google, then off the top of your head you should know this ...
tell me the origin of the 6.135 connecting rod



Sorry, I had to remove the hints, I almost gave you the answer.

[zilch1]

I don't feel like I'm your pal, but ok.

Well Mr Expert, then off the top of your head you should know this ...
tell me the origin of the 6.135 connecting rod

I don't care about the origins of the 6.135" connecting rod. It's the product of a bygone era where most 396 cubic inch V8s would get their doors blown off my a new V6 Camry (14.5 @ 100 MPH right off the showroom floor).

The new LS7 uses forged titanium rods that weigh a feathery 480 grams. I care about THOSE rods - not a heavy, steel rod that was designed more than 4 decades ago and without the help of CAD.

Here: Step into 2007:
http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/completebuilds_testing/0504sc_ls7/

"...the connecting rods are nothing short of exotic, being crafted from lightweight titanium, a first for a domestic production engine. Strength, fatigue life, and weight advantages make it the material of choice over the powdered metal rods used in the other current small-blocks. Rod weight is dropped to a flyweight 480 grams, a 30 percent savings in mass."

If you think 1960s technology is better than today's then go buy a 40 year old television set and watch it, go buy a 40 year old motorcycle and race a new one (e.g. Yamaha R1) or go buy a 40 year old outboard and race a similar boat with a new one.

And it you think that the faster cars running in the "pure stock drags" are ACTUALLY stock then e-mail the organizer of those events and ask him:

http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/contact.html

[Old Sage]

Wrong answer, of course it came from the 396 ... duh.

Email an engine developer or expert builder, they might tell you the answer. Then post it here as if you knew the answer
(yes, I know the games people play on forums).

I have to tell you, someone with your vast big chevy experience should have known it.

What a poser.

[zilch1]

I know you've already seen the question ... having trouble finding it on the web?

I DON'T CARE ABOUT A CONNECTING ROD THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE BBC IN THE EARLY 1960s!

That was more than 40 years ago and it's JUNK by modern standards.

Here's what a state-of-the-art, OEM Chevy V8 connecting rod looks like in 2007:
http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/completebuilds_testing/0504sc_ls7/

"...the connecting rods are nothing short of exotic, being crafted from lightweight titanium, a first for a domestic production engine. Strength, fatigue life, and weight advantages make it the material of choice over the powdered metal rods used in the other current small-blocks. Rod weight is dropped to a flyweight 480 grams, a 30 percent savings in mass."

The new LS7 makes more power than any remotely stock ZL1 or L88 could ever dream of making.

[Old Sage]

That was more than 40 years ago and it's JUNK by modern standards.


No my little friend, once again you are wrong. The LS-6/7 forged 4340 connecting rods are the same ones used today in the 454 & 502. (and unlike you, I do own a set of them)

[zilch1]

No my little friend, once again you are wrong. The LS-6/7 forged 4340 connecting rods are the same ones used today in the 454 & 502. (and unlike you, I do own a set of them)

So what?

They're still JUNK compared to titanium rods, as used in the new LS7.

Have you e-mailed/called Dan Jensen yet to ask him what MODIFICATIONS are permitted in the "pure stock drags?":confused:

Read up on the PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 1971 Pontiac 455 HO and then compare the spec's to those of Dan's MODIFIED "pure stock drags" engine. He's running more cam (with a MUCH tighter LSA), more displacement (which unshrouds the valves for better flow), higher compression (9.5:1 vs the production line stock 8.4:1), forged aftermarket rods, forged aftermarket pistons, etc.

Three angle vlave jobs are also permitted in the "pure stock drags," although that may or may not be the case with Dan's engine. Then there's the custom-made (2.5" dia. mandrel bent pipes, high flow mufflers) exhaust system and the various other tweaks mentioned inthe article.

So MODIFIED (but still "pure stock" according to the rules), what was a 14.0 sec/100 MPH car is now a 12.5 sec, 110 MPH car.

EVERY reasonably fast car in that series is running similar mods and some are running more.:eek: