Grn92LX- I'm telling you that if I had thought for a second back when I was trying to decided what to do for a new engine that I could be in the 120mph range NA there is no doubt in my mind that I'd have built a higher compression and meaner NA setup. Unfortunately, after all my searching I only came across 2 94-95 guys with NA 8.2" deck stroker combos that were doing it. What I did find was a TON of guys that were only running the same, or a few MPH ahead of my old 302 combo. The money spent versus end result wasn't justifiable to me, so I built this to go with a power adder. I really loved being NA, but after seeing how many fast factory cars were coming out and imports I was beginning to see trapping over 120mph I just couldn't go through all this headache and spend all of this money to only go a few MPH faster. I truly thought that at best with a 363, high compression stroker that was streetable and had all the bells and whistles the car would trap 119-120. Now here I am with a mismatched combo, low compression, 30 less cubes, and I'm already at 115mph and 355rwhp. I know at Cecil this car will go 117mph already as it sits. I've raced it enough there and here to know that is a given. So I'm already thinking what will it take to have the combo I have now trap 120mph there. I need roughly 3mph. I know its not going to be easy, but I can't help but wonder what a fox 75-80mm TB, and long tubes would net me. Will it be enough... I doubt it but I think it'd put me very close. I can see with my AEM datalogs that as the RPM increases, my vacuum also goes up which is telling me I have a restriction. I'm pulling the vacuum source for the MAP sensor directly behind the TB, so my thinking is that's the restriction on the induction at this point. These AFR165 heads are also going to be replaced with a larger set, maybe that will be enough to do it...
Grady- Thanks! If it makes it any easier for you though the peak numbers are listed at the very bottom of the graphs. The RWHP peaks for the graphs pictured above are as follows:
354.99RWHP/363.24RWTQ (34* timing)
355.68RWHP/359.98RWTQ (36* timing)
352.83RWHP/365.72RWTQ (34* timing)
Based on these graphs I plan to hit the bottom end of the RPM range with 36* of timing and leave the top at 34 for now. I want to get back on the dyno and see what 32* of total timing does too. Unfortunately for me the gain I should see down low in the RPM range with the added timing will not do much for me at the track as I never see those RPM's. As for the AF, the AF I showed in my datalogs was a good bit off of what the tail pipe sniffer said on the dyno. I don't know which one to believe. I also do not know how to get rid of lean spike on tip in, I'm sure there is a setting somewhere in the AEM than will allow me to fix that, I just haven't researched it enough yet to know. I'll see if I have the SAE numbers anywhere.
Rob- Thanks man! I hope you are right. Based on these dyno results I think I need to bump my shift point just a hair higher and see how it goes. The car really isn't falling off up top as I'm still making ~350rwhp out to ~6300rpms. I just keep thinking of those 5/16" pedestal mount bolts holding everything together at those engine speeds and cringe at the thought. I know I need to launch a lot harder, I just don't know how these 7yr old ET streets are going to like it. LOL!
5spd GT- I knew you'd like the results as soon as I posted them.
I hope to swap the TB to a 75mm or larger one and see what happens. I can't help but to think that it'll pick up a decent amount. My vacuum at WOT goes from -0.08psi at 2000rpms to over -1.1psi at 6000rpms, and I'm measuring this vacuum directly behind the TB. I saw in the corral thread I linked to above that a guy picked up nearly 12rwhp switching from a 70mm to a 75mm TB on his 347 stroker. As for tricks, none were done that I am aware of other than internally balancing the rotating assembly. It took nearly two slugs of mallory to do it, but I think when building an engine of this type it needs to be done. I also upgraded the rod bolts to ARP2000 units. I'm wondering if my oil pump is actually costing me any power as I see over 50psi at idle and nearly 75lbs in the upper RPM's! I too am now wondering what a cam designed for this application would do. Hmmm....
Black95GTS- Thanks for the compliment! Lucky for me the AEM is pretty straight forward in terms of the fuel and timing tables, and I've had help from some friends that also run them. I'm SO glad that I got it. I wasn't happy when I had to buy it as I had the money set aside for a nice 6pt chrome-moly roll bar, but its better to have a car that runs without a roll bar than one that sits in my garage unable to be driven with one.
Here's the results of my best track runs:
1st pass:
60':......1.827
330':.....5.261
1/8:......8.066
MPH:.....87.56
1000':...10.476
1/4:......12.485
MPH:.....115.35
2nd pass:
60':......1.685
330':.....5.077
1/8:......7.867
MPH:.....88.16
1000':...10.266
1/4:......12.271
MPH:.....115.44
3rd pass: They said I backed up after I final staged and it redlighted me. I also missed 4th.
60':.....4.506
330':....7.857
1/8:.....10.657
MPH:....83.74
1000':...13.170
1/4:.....15.238
MPH:....111.85
4th pass:
60':......1.730
330':.....5.177
1/8:......7.964
MPH:.....87.81
1000':...10.362
1/4:......12.361
MPH:.....115.65
In full street form with my nitto DR's it went a 12.8 at 114mph with a 2.04 60'. As for the cam, I can tell you that its a 110*LSA, mid 220's duration, under .550" lift. It is not a reverse split duration cam. It is also smaller than a TF stage 2 cam which so many seem to use in 331/347 strokers that I have seen. I'm glad to hear your getting excited about this stuff again! I know its been killing me watching everyone elses builds on here recently and trying to keep the lid on what I had built.
Chris- If your surprised you should be me! When I got that first time slip and it said 110.9mph right off the bat, I knew it was going to put up some higher than expected numbers. I honestly didn't know until that very moment if this combo was faster or slower than the old setup. My fear was that this combo would be slower than the old. All I hoped was that it was as fast, or just a touch faster than the old 302 setup. By the end of that night it had gone 114mph and I knew right then and there that my fears and worries were put to rest. 114mph at my track is at least 116mph at cecil, so I got to thinking that this thing might actually be making more than 1rwhp/ci just based on the trap speeds. My friends all thought it'd put down 360+ to the wheels based on the trap speeds, but I kept telling myself that there was no way that these parts and this compression could make those numbers. I kept telling myself not to expect anymore than 330-340rwhp MAX, and the results fell in between my hope and my friend's guesses. I will tell you that I WANT to hit 360-370 with tweaks to what I have now... my power adder may have to wait a while as this is too much fun at the moment. This is what I absolutely love... getting more and more out of a combo with little changes. I like this more than anything else about this hobby.
I'm sure there will be some debates about TB sizes after this thread. I absolutely believe that it is a restriction at this point, and I truly hope to get back on the dyno with a fox TB conversion to see once and for all if there is truth to all of the hype.
As for the stock EEC with a tune, I don't know. I do know that the car "felt" faster with the stock EEC and the EEC Tuner, but I never had the chance to run it or dyno it. It felt a lot torquier (sp) down low than it does now, but I think I may have found a reason for that in the graphs above with timing. I'm sure that ditching the MAF has helped to eliminate a potential restriction, but other than that I don't know.
I'm not too far behind the rest of those numbers with no suspension and a really fat tune. LOL
