since you called "no nukes" does this mean that moab's and daisy cutters are out too?
Want to upgrade to a 4bl, need some suggestions
- Thread starter bsc1
- Start date
since you called "no nukes" does this mean that moab's and daisy cutters are out too?
since you called "no nukes" does this mean that moab's and daisy cutters are out too?
Daisy cutters are only valid if the party rides the bomb down when released, accompanying it fully to the target. The party would be killed in the process, along with the opposing party, nullifying any opinions they would have had.
1. DFV stands for "double-overhead cam-four valve" NOT double four cylinder cast into a v8...at least that is what Mr. Cosgrove called it in 1968 when they introduced it with Fords name on it in 183 cid F-1 configuration.
2. 1/4 mile drag motors don't need to last more than about 8-12 passes back then with ported top rings.
3. My R-6 Yamaha reved 15,500 @ the rev limit and it lasted just fine
And would you be so kind as to point-out WHICH item is, as you call it 'crap' and WHY you think so.
The added strength of a sleeved engine had nothing to do with it, did it? And I don't remember the weight break changing if you ran fewer cid, in 1976 a 351 c had to spot the same weight BB Chevy 37 cid. They did get weight breaks on 4 door Mavericks and at some time on the Fairmonts. And just what was the weight-per-cubic-inch for the HEMI? I remember around 1972 they were at 10 lb. and NHRA added 100 lbs. to the HEMI everytime Sox&Martin or some other HEMI racer won a race. NHRA went to the 500 cid 2000 lb. rule in a vain attempt to stop Glidden and Ford from dominating Pro-Stock.
Didn't he win 5 championships in a row in the late 80's?
In a high performance engine course Dan Perrin taught at Trident-Tech in North Charleston in 1986 he said he following:
"We all have to work within the same laws of physics....unless your name is Bob Glidden, then you have a seperate set just for you."
Better brush up on your history. Page 40, of the Book "Ford Total Performance" by Alex Gabbard said this in the second paragraph of the left column " To do so would require a vast financial commitment on Ford's part. The Engines that would carry the Ford logo included a production based 16 valve dual cam Cosworth head for its 1.6 liter, inline four, Formula 2 engine, this was the FVA and a doubled up 3 liter version called the "Double Four Valve" (DFV) , which was a 90 degree V8 engine for F1 racing." This is the engine that dominated Grand Prix racing for the next 20 years. And by the way this is a sub 10,000 rpm engine with a 2.55" stroke. Have you put 100,000 miles on your Yamaha? Didn't think so. 
a carb rated to flow 650cfm, flows 650cfm, not 85% of that. a normally aspirated street engine generally draws in 85% of its cubic inch displacement at peak torque, more as intake and exhaust efficiency is improved, and cam timing is changed, thus a 302ci engine will draw 302ci of air times the VE in its complete cycle(two revolutions) at peak torque.
Nothing to add to the historical dispute, so I'll follow up on Hack's point with my two cents.
When I changed from my stock intake and autolite 2 barrel to a basic Performer with a Holley 650 (IIRC -- carb went walkies in the midst of a nightmare restoration), I was disappointed. Not enough VROOM for the cost in fuel economy.
Yep, in a lab under controlled conditions, it will flow that at whatever vacum level Holley uses, but in YOUR car without a controlled air supply it will flow a good bit less. That is one reason Webber, S&S, Mikuni and most other carb makers do not list flow numbers, only throttle bore size, The 'CFM" numbers game is purely marketing.
NONE, as a matter of fact. Magazines are about selling product, not anything else. Ever notice how they rig the tests (especially engine tests) so you can't draw a fair comparision? Can't piss-off the advertisers, you know.
The piston speed of the R-6 at 15k is about the same as a 351 at 7k. And it is all about piston speed. And I didn't buy it for 100k I bought it for its 380 lbs and 107 rwhp @ 14.5k after the exhaust, intake, carb dial-in. Runs the 1/4 in the low 10's and goes 155 on the far end, brick wall brakes and race bike handling. Lifts the front at 8500 in 1st without trying. YOUR car won't keep-up in the mountains.
There you go again, you can't comeback with something pertinent to the conversation, so you resort to the old saying " If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull****" No one here cares about your Yamaha. Be that as it may, I'd love to get you up on Independence pass in Colorado and see how long it would take you to go flying on your bike.
As for your piston speed theory, why a motor stays together at high rpms, isn't all about piston speed, it's more a combination of the strengths and weaknesses of the combined parts and the centrifugal force that stresses them. I don't know what the stroke is of your Yamaha but I doubt you're accurate in guessing a comparison to a 351W. That was a poor choice anyway with it's too large main bearings for the rpms. Nascar and dedicated racers use the smaller 351C or 302 bearing size in aftermarket blocks to avoid this problem. Try again junior.
zookeeper
Founding Member
You sure like to hear yourself talk, don't you? Wouldn't it be nice for you if anyone else did? For Pete's sake,were talking about a simple choice of carburaters for an old car,not Einstens theory of relatvity as it applies to F1 cars, get over it already,you win, everyone else is an idiot, we should worship the keyboard you type on. Happy now?
zookeeper
Founding Member
I used to ride sportbikes as well, know what I always loved about them? Unlike cars, the rider was a huge part of the equation. Yet there was always some guy who could recite the specs of his bike like an encyclopedia but couldn't ride to save his life. Do you know him by any chance?
Bet he was the same dumbass that I saw drag racing one day. He wasn't satisfied with a 10 sec 1/4, so added "Nos" to the equation. When he hit the button going into 2nd gear, the bike left him behind litterally! (he looked so spiffy skidding on his ass down the track) And even that didn't deter him from wanting to try it again, only the massive hole in the crankcase kept him from making a fool of himself (that was the least that could happen ) again.
litterally! (he looked so spiffy skidding on his ass down the track) And even that didn't deter him from wanting to try it again, only the massive hole in the crankcase kept him from making a fool of himself (that was the least that could happen ) again. you are right zookeeper, i will take my degree in automotive technology, and my years of working on race cars and ignore him.
oh and mike, you may or may not have heard about a couple of my college instructors, denny wykopf who owns motor machine and supply here in tucson, az. he designed a camshaft selection program for any engine. and david vizard, author, engine builder, racer, and now last i heard professor at a north carolina university. don wood, owner of wood-oberholtser performance and long time racer. i learned much from these people, and have put that knowledge to good use.
I used to ride sportbikes as well, know what I always loved about them? Unlike cars, the rider was a huge part of the equation. Yet there was always some guy who could recite the specs of his bike like an encyclopedia but couldn't ride to save his life. Do you know him by any chance?
So that WAS you trying to keep up with my R150RT on the BRP a couple of weeks ago.
So a car driver doesn't have a huge part in it? Tell that to Richard Childress. How much have they won since Dale died? Or talk to anyone who raced aganist David Pearson when he would pass them while liting a Camel.
Similar threads
