|
Author
|
Topic: Track times with new 351C.
|
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-21-2002 10:00 AM
   
50 degree day with 25 MPH headwinds were the conditions. I ran on street tires - Hoosier quik-times. 1st run was the following: 60 foot: 1.903
1/4 mile ET: 12.763
1/4 mile MPH: 113.67 Have not quite figured out the shifting and rev points yet. Lots of tire spin in between 1st/2nd shift. I was shifting around 6400-6500 RPM's. Best run: 60 foot: 2.008
1/4 mile ET: 12.51
1/4 mile MPH: 115.89 I increased the shift points to 6700-6800 RPM's and the engine seemed to like that. It was great to hear the engine singing at 6800 RPM's!! I Definitely need to learn how to drive/launch the car at the track. Also, coming off the line I feathered the throttle and then would mash the accelerator after it felt like the car got traction. Unfortunately this would often result in a bog and stumble so I obviously need to get the carb straightened out. But all in all it was fun and now I have a good baseline to work from and hit the dyno with. ------------------
'69 Mustang Fastback, 351C, Holley 950 HP, New Parker Funnelweb,4-v quench heads ported, 10.75:1, UD pulley, windage tray, Top Loader, 3.89 9" rear
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1341
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-21-2002 10:02 AM
What were the times before the intake change?
I assume (hope actually) you went faster with the parker intake.... 
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 27499
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-21-2002 10:22 AM
 ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-21-2002 10:28 AM
No, this is the first time I've taken the car to the track and this is the only intake I've run. I just got the engine together and now it has about 750 miles on it.[This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 10-21-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1341
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-21-2002 11:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
No, this is the first time I've taken the car to the track and this is the only intake I've run. I just got the engine together and now it has about 750 miles on it.[This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 10-21-2002).]
What cam are you running?
If the mathematical HP calculators are any where near correct, you have 390hp to run the 115 MPH speed.
I assumed 3200 pounds which may be too light.
IP: Logged |
Rory McNeil
Gearhead Posts: 1687
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-21-2002 12:02 PM
BUY REAL SLICKS!! Your MPH is good for mid-high 11`s, but your 60 foots are more in line with a 13 second car.------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
59 Meteor (Canadian Ford) 2 dr sedan 332, auto
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4spd
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-21-2002 12:29 PM
Mpcoluv wrote:
"What cam are you running?
If the mathematical HP calculators are any where near correct, you have 390hp to run the 115 MPH speed.
I assumed 3200 pounds which may be too light."
-The cam is a solid roller with 234/236 duration @ .050 and .588 lift. Mild idle. I'm not sure what the car weighs but I'm assuming around 3400 lbs.Rory McNeil wrote:
"BUY REAL SLICKS!! Your MPH is good for mid-high 11`s, but your 60 foots are more in line with a 13 second car." -Yup, need slicks. 60 foots are pretty amateurish, looks like something that goes with a 13.8 quarter. I'd like to get into the 1.70's.
IP: Logged |
clevelandstyle
Gearhead Posts: 1309
From: central Indiana
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-21-2002 01:13 PM
Why stop at 1.7s. You can get better than that with the 115 mph.  ------------------
Ben
Grabber Green '70 Mach I 351C 4V
Robbin Egg Blue '79 Fairmont 351C 4V
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-21-2002 02:39 PM
Any suspension mod's I should make? Like battery in the trunk, slicks,........? I'd like to get 1.70's or better but I'm not sure my suspension is good for it. The only mod's I have are the drag shocks (80/20), Shelby under-rider bars and sub-frame connectors.
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-21-2002 04:12 PM
Your suspension will do that. When I raced my 70, it had slapper bars, 70/30's on the front, front swaybar unhooked, unknown shocks on the back, using 28x10 slicks and it would 60' in the mid 1.60's all the time. I never even moved the battery or anything like that.
IP: Logged |
madmanmike
Journeyman Posts: 18
From: brenham,Texas,washington
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 10-21-2002 10:23 PM
How do you like the funnel web? do you have anything else to compare it to? I have a tunnel ram with 2 660 centersquirters and trying to fix a bogging problem
Mike
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-22-2002 11:18 AM
Personally, I like it. I chose it because it seemed to give good torque production and throttle response along with very good high end horsepower production. Of course, all of my sources were from people who had been to a dyno and compared it the Holley Strip Dominator - I didn't do the test myself. I was concerned that the Strip Dominator was too slanted towards the top-end and sacrificed the bottom end. That's why I bought the Blue Thunder dual plane initially. However, after time I realized that this is a cleveland, and that high end horsepower is what it is all about. So I began searching again and found, from anecdotal evidence of course, that the Parker Funnelweb seemed to out perform the Holley Strip Dominator across the board. This is the most recent Funnelweb, however. I saw alot of people criticize the earlier versions. Also, some people swear the the TFC single plane Australian intake is the best. Anyway, I was sold on the concept of this intake.I have been very impressed with the intake and I attribute the high shift points (near 7000 RPM) principally to this intake and the titanium retainers, not my little solid roller. As a note, I did have the intake ports in the heads epoxied and matched to the intake. The only down-side to this intake is that it is quite tall - but if you are running a tunnel ram I guess that isn't an issue for you!! ------------------
'69 Mustang Fastback, 351C, Holley 950 HP, New Parker Funnelweb,4-v quench heads ported, 10.75:1, UD pulley, windage tray, Top Loader, 3.89 9" rear
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-22-2002 11:21 AM
Kid Vishus: thanks for the advice. I guess I'll just have to run down some slicks and some rims. Any suggestions on a size that will fit with the '69 body style? Should I get skinnies also?[This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 10-22-2002).]
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-22-2002 11:28 AM
I ran 28x10's on the back, and they fit pretty good. I dont remember exactlyt he backspacing I had, but I needed a little more to make them fit "perfectly". I never ran the skinnies on the front of my 70 (but I did run a fairly skinny normal tire), I drove it on the street too much for that.I'm hoping to do some testing of an Aussie intake vs my strip dominator on my race motor and see how they compare on the upper rpm power. But my strip dominator intake has had some work done to it, unlike the ones I bet they used for the other tests. I may be wrong, but I kind of know how they bias those tests.
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1341
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-22-2002 11:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
I ran 28x10's on the back, and they fit pretty good. I dont remember exactlyt he backspacing I had, but I needed a little more to make them fit "perfectly". I never ran the skinnies on the front of my 70 (but I did run a fairly skinny normal tire), I drove it on the street too much for that.I'm hoping to do some testing of an Aussie intake vs my strip dominator on my race motor and see how they compare on the upper rpm power. But my strip dominator intake has had some work done to it, unlike the ones I bet they used for the other tests. I may be wrong, but I kind of know how they bias those tests.
If my parker intake doesn't slow your car down, I would consider it a victory......
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-22-2002 02:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
I'm hoping to do some testing of an Aussie intake vs my strip dominator on my race motor and see how they compare on the upper rpm power. But my strip dominator intake has had some work done to it, unlike the ones I bet they used for the other tests. I may be wrong, but I kind of know how they bias those tests.
What do you think is being done?
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-22-2002 02:21 PM
My thoughts, I bet if it was the makers of the Funnelweb doing the tests, they were using a stock as cast strip dominator and using thier intake that had been ported. That's a pretty standard practice amongst manufacturers that want to show thier product is best. I very well could be wrong, but no one ever says "my product makes the second most power behind so and so's.." That's not the way to sell your product. BUT, if it was a true independant test, the results shouldnt have been biased.
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-22-2002 02:25 PM
Just for a point of reference for you about your times. When my 70 was running 12.60's, it was running mid 1.60 60' times. If you can get your 60' times down in the 1.70's, I bet high 11's would be within reach. And that's impressive. 
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
