Diablo427

Sorry I had deleted it. Here it is again. Not a 80s thing. Don't you read the other threads? Do you not know that it is funny how anything that has the word "Pertonix" in it will get a ferocious response if there is even a hint that it will help with performance. Didn't you see the smiley face?

TCracingCA

, but if I missed any, I can go back and add them in!

You must have bought stock shares in the Company?


I have one of those quizmo type Distributors also, with the little roundy round magnetic pickup and trigger!

Back to work, I will return for Social interaction therapy at a latter time!

MikeM

It is good to see that you have loosened up a little since you joined up here. You used to get skid marks in yer britches.

jerrybramlett

I have a '65 "HG" L84 engine in one '63 Corvette test car, and an eighties LT-1 crate engine in another '63 Corvette test car. Of course I run them both with FI units only, so I guess that makes my results BS in this comparison.

On a chassis dyno, these factors make more difference in peak horsepower output than the cam and displacement differences: inlet air temperature, relative humidity, rear tire pressure, rear end ratio, tire placement on the dyno drum, tie-down strap tension, trans / rear lube viscosity, and drivetrain operating temperature. The real kicker is the IRS in any Corvette. Installing a straight axle frees up about 10 horsepower!

Driving sensation on the street is another thing, however. The LT-1 is much more fun. You really have to beat on an L84 to feel the power. I personally think the 30-30 cam is a poor choice for a street-driven car unless you run at least a 4.11 rear. Actually, a 4.56 is an even better rear for that cam.

MikeM

True statement.

Donny Brass

as promised: nudie pics

Donny Brass

I am cornfuzed..........


If a Stock 327/340 ran 110mph, how is a stock 327/350 running 105.5 such a stretch ??

vetrod62

[QUOTE=Donny Brass;1586724236]as promised: nudie pics


QUOTE]

I am impressed. With out pinned studs???????????

BTW, for others reading this thread, Cars were not that fast back then. Take a look at the results from the following July 12, 1970 printed results from Etown NJ, not a slow track. These guys raced every week.

For this thread, the Pure Stock (x/PS) times are the ones to look at.

Faster now then then, Tire compound.

MikeM

My car weighed 2750 lbs and had open exhaust. I'd bet your car is heavier than that. I think you are running closed exhaust and your car/engine is not exactly OEM stock according to postings you have made in the past.

That was how this thread started wasn't it? Stock vs. stock?

TCracingCA

[QUOTE=vetrod62;1586725509]Is the Curry Chevrolet Ad thing! It appears they were pushing Yenko cars also thru the dealership and LS-7! That dealer has never come up on my radar in all of the conversations about the heavy weight Dealerships. Unless they just never sold any of them?

In regards to the 1970 Standings. This would have to be interpreted. Technically the cars are and where classed according to mostly car weight and hp/engine displacement with the A/ class (automatic and stick) running their own classes. Thus the A/class cars were the generally quicker cars and the higher letters the less quicker cars. Thus if you take the placing and review, if a B/ class car turned slower than a C/ car then the B/ car probably lifted or wasn't run to its full potential. Thus considering the rubber and such of that era, the times in general if you put them in the proper context are fairly quick. And they were sticker on the stock back then. Now stock means blueprinted and balanced and such etc. and the tires are better. A famous example of an E/ car was the 428 Mustangs of 1968. They were rated by the factory at 335hp and ended up dominating the E/class at mid 13 sec until refactored. Thus if a 428 lighter weight type Mustang was peddling 13's then the small block were generally 14 second cars. But in the modern with tricks and such, those 14 second cars are running a whole lot quicker in the modern.

MikeM

A lot of incoherent rambling here but you are starting to catch on what's going on in this thread!

Not mention, the starting lines of the old days used to be greasy and slick. Today's starting lines will suck the tenny runners right off yer ankles if you walk out on the track!

I was doing a little web surfing yesterday trying to find out what a nominal RWHP 327/350 would be. Looks like around 270 or so would be an average number for a STOCK CAR/ENGINE! Not close to 300 unless you had been busy maximizing the factory tolerances and maybe even fudging a little.

I also ran across an old Yenko Chevrolet ad that was advertising their 427/425 '69 Camaros. Their performance time was listed as 13.2/105 for a quarter mile. Sounds mightly close to the 327/350 car in question here that is running a stock engine, stock tires, stock exhaust, etc. So someone would have you believe a car similarly equipped with a 100 less cubic inches is going to run with it's big brother. I don't think so!

You can be the judge!

Anyway, this thread was about a L 84 vs a LT 1 anyway.

vetrod62

Pure Stock meant the car had to be all stock, like it came from the factory. Stock manifolds, mufflers, carb, full interior. No slicks, all tires had to be same size. It was a class for street driven cars to compete.

Stock was for full out race cars.

MikeM

Yep!

TCracingCA

But I usually know exactly why I add something in a thread! There is nothing to caught on to! If some people aren't capable of putting it into context, then whatever! I tend to use alot of sarcasm, and some people don't handle that too well either. But so far no one has taken any shots at my replies, except you. And Mike, you generally are the odd man out on most of these conversations! So what's the point??

L84 vs LT1 is too general. If the OP started with stock L-84 vs stock LT-1, then we probably won't have traveled into areas about tuning and modifications and such! I don't see a problem pulling the L-79 into the conversation, because it is similar in configuration in alot of ways! I think the cubes would win! If you want to add in the appropriate car of the era, then the C3 weight is a factor, but still clocked faster generally than an L-84 in a C2. Some guys put modified Fuelie units (to get more than 730cfms) on LT-1's and upped the LT-1 cam and installed the 30/30. Thus best of both worlds!

I have four V-8's in my garage and will be putting one of my lessor engines (my 365hp with some tweaks, but 30/30, 461 intake, 2.02 heads, etc. ) into my C3. Thus maybe one day I can tell everyone what that C2 engine will do in my C3. But it will make my C3 the slowest thing in my car collection, but I hope one car will be more streetable-- so a solid lifter 365hp in a 1968 T-top looks like a good choice to me! The all Aluminum build that I have been working to assemble over the last bunch of years the 358 cubes- 3-1/2 crank on a 30 overbore (HP?-close to 600hp) is going into the 1964 and the 355 (525hp) is coming out to be a spare! I ran the aluminum block previously, but pulled it and have changed the build since last running it.

Barry's70LT1

I don't usually post in the C2 section, however this seemed to be sort of an invitation.
I'm an original owner of a '70 LT-1 and did some racing in the early '70s.
My best time was 13.02 @ 110.30. I could run consistent 13.1x @
108-109 mph.
Details......
- Stock LT-1, Muncie M21, 3:70
- 750 DP Holley (Choke removed)
- Runs made with air cleaner base only
- Heads "cleaned up", not ported.
- Open Headers
- F60-15 Goodyear PolyGlass (Poor Traction)
- Weight at track 3,342 lbs

Thanks

MikeM

Thanks. Open headers (real headers or dumps) could be worth .4-.5 seconds and 3-4 mph.

Donny Brass

or not................

the problem is everyone is overlooking the efficiency of the vehicle, traction, and driving ability.

I have pulled sub 1.90 sixty foot times which gives me more time to build mph. The car struggles to build speed from the 1/8th mile on.

Look that the time slip, 20mph is all I gain over the last 1/8th.......

honestly, the last time the car was on a dyno, it only pulled 276 horses, I figured the dyno was conservative. maybe not

TCracingCA

In consideration that most of us never know what we are talking about and get all off track (sorry for the pun! OFF TracK That is a classic pun!) you can't just drop build specs and times on us in this C2 section without a closing summary comment! By doing that, you just extended the thread by at least 47.3 posts in length!

TCracingCA

I think that is a really respectful time for a C3 with a small block with some mods running on stock type tires. If better hooking tires were on it, then it would have taken it into the 12's similar to times I have seen out of basically stock well tuned small blocks with headers!

MikeM

Your summary doesn't apply the OP's question. Your train seems to keep jumping off the tracks.

But that is a very decent time for that car.