Eagle SBO 3.75 Crank
January 4th, 2013, 10:25 AM
#84
Registered car nut
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 1,146
but it's still the original block in the car, and it was given to me for my 19th birthday by my grandma, who bought the car new in April of '85. So I'd like to keep it almost 100% stock looking under the hood, but it really needs more torque. And I don't want to put in a different motor if I can help it.
Look at 455 Buick. They have no issues with enough torque.
Do what feels good to you but I would do an engine swap and keep the 307 as a keepsake in the garage.
January 4th, 2013, 10:59 AM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 2,807
The class car had heavy stock weight rods and pistons
The other engine had lighter pistons and pins How light I do not know. Both cars are heavy running factory sheet metal and a full factory interior. I have read on ROP that the block starts to fail when you start running 10's and based on the weight of these cars they would be well into the 10's in a lighter car.
The other engine had lighter pistons and pins How light I do not know. Both cars are heavy running factory sheet metal and a full factory interior. I have read on ROP that the block starts to fail when you start running 10's and based on the weight of these cars they would be well into the 10's in a lighter car.
January 4th, 2013, 11:05 AM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 2,807
Up to you of course, but I'd swap a 403 if your after torque. The whole stroke equals torque thing doesn't always add up.
Look at 455 Buick. They have no issues with enough torque.
Do what feels good to you but I would do an engine swap and keep the 307 as a keepsake in the garage.
Look at 455 Buick. They have no issues with enough torque.
Do what feels good to you but I would do an engine swap and keep the 307 as a keepsake in the garage.
January 4th, 2013, 11:49 AM
#88
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 2,807
When I posted about the buick 455 engine over the olds 455 this was based on stock class racing ET and mph.
Last edited by Bernhard; January 4th, 2013 at 11:57 AM.
January 4th, 2013, 12:22 PM
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,591
Torque is a product of multiplying the force on the piston created with the distance from the connecting rod end to the centerline of the crank. Thus, ft*lbs, or N*m. Nothing more.
An engine with a smaller diameter crank (thus shorter stroke) will generate less torque out of the force applied to the piston, due to multiplying with a smaller distance.
When changing nothing else, a larger crank will supply more torque - and torque multiplied by rpms is horsepower.
To make BB torque in a SB engine, you need to either apply significantly more force to the piston, or put in a bigger crank - or both. Lighter parts will only mean that less energy goes to waste in the reciprocal mechanism.
An engine with a smaller diameter crank (thus shorter stroke) will generate less torque out of the force applied to the piston, due to multiplying with a smaller distance.
When changing nothing else, a larger crank will supply more torque - and torque multiplied by rpms is horsepower.
To make BB torque in a SB engine, you need to either apply significantly more force to the piston, or put in a bigger crank - or both. Lighter parts will only mean that less energy goes to waste in the reciprocal mechanism.
January 4th, 2013, 12:29 PM
#90
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 2,807
Torque is a product of multiplying the force on the piston created with the distance from the connecting rod end to the centerline of the crank. Thus, ft*lbs, or N*m. Nothing more.
An engine with a smaller diameter crank (thus shorter stroke) will generate less torque out of the force applied to the piston, due to multiplying with a smaller distance.
When changing nothing else, a larger crank will supply more torque - and torque multiplied by rpms is horsepower.
To make BB torque in a SB engine, you need to either apply significantly more force to the piston, or put in a bigger crank - or both. Lighter parts will only mean that less energy goes to waste in the reciprocal mechanism.
An engine with a smaller diameter crank (thus shorter stroke) will generate less torque out of the force applied to the piston, due to multiplying with a smaller distance.
When changing nothing else, a larger crank will supply more torque - and torque multiplied by rpms is horsepower.
To make BB torque in a SB engine, you need to either apply significantly more force to the piston, or put in a bigger crank - or both. Lighter parts will only mean that less energy goes to waste in the reciprocal mechanism.
January 4th, 2013, 12:33 PM
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,591
Depends on the weight, drag, and how much more force the BB applies to each firing piston. But a heavier assembly takes more force to set in motion, all other things equal. This is pure theory, though, as the difference might be 5%, while you might gain something like 20% more torque.
January 4th, 2013, 12:57 PM
#92
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,547
Let me take a slightly different approach to this discussion. I'll submit that you cannot simply look at stroke only, or RPM only, or any other single metric and compare engines. The way you make HP is to move air (and the corresponding amount of fuel) through the engine. The reason a smaller engine has to rev higher is to move the same amount of air that a larger engine does at lower RPM. For example, a 350 at 7000 RPM moves just over 700 CFM (assuming 100% VE). A 455 only needs 5400 RPM to move the same 700 CFM. Theoretically both motors should make the same HP under those conditions.
Of course, this is purely theoretical and the real world is a bitc#. Obviously port size, cam profile, etc plays into this. The rest of the motor needs to be matched to the operating range of the basic design. Reciprocation mass also has an effect when it comes time to translate this steady state number into a dynamically changing environment on the drag strip, as does matching gearing and tire size. And I won't even begin to get into internal friction and other losses.
By the way, this airflow metric is also why blown motors have such an advantage over NA motors. A turbo setup at 15 psi boost (one atmosphere) effectively doubles the size of the engine, since you are now moving roughly twice as much air (and fuel) through the same size motor.
Of course, this is purely theoretical and the real world is a bitc#. Obviously port size, cam profile, etc plays into this. The rest of the motor needs to be matched to the operating range of the basic design. Reciprocation mass also has an effect when it comes time to translate this steady state number into a dynamically changing environment on the drag strip, as does matching gearing and tire size. And I won't even begin to get into internal friction and other losses.
By the way, this airflow metric is also why blown motors have such an advantage over NA motors. A turbo setup at 15 psi boost (one atmosphere) effectively doubles the size of the engine, since you are now moving roughly twice as much air (and fuel) through the same size motor.
January 4th, 2013, 04:04 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: treasure coast FL
Posts: 698
There is a lot missing... side loads to pistons due to geometry changes, Volumetric efficiency, and many, many, more variables... I was interested in torque increase when I mentioned 1.07... (increase in moment arm assuming nothing else changes..but of course it does!) That ratio worked out about right between the standard stroke 350 and the stroker 380 in my case... (I was just looking at a SWAG) truly sorry if I was leading anyone astray!
January 4th, 2013, 04:29 PM
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 1,719
How far past it? Why don't you build one then dyno it on another dyno besides yours and show us?
For the record, BTR made 545 with a 10.7:1 Edelbrock headed 496 with the exact same size cam. So you can do better/same as that with 40 less c.i. and 1 full point less compression? On ported irons? On pump gas?
http://highperformanceolds.com/phpbb...=3806&start=30
I'm all ears. Talk is cheap. If you give us a build and valid dyno sheet, you'll get my immediate congratulations, I promise.
For the record, BTR made 545 with a 10.7:1 Edelbrock headed 496 with the exact same size cam. So you can do better/same as that with 40 less c.i. and 1 full point less compression? On ported irons? On pump gas?
http://highperformanceolds.com/phpbb...=3806&start=30
I'm all ears. Talk is cheap. If you give us a build and valid dyno sheet, you'll get my immediate congratulations, I promise.
Last edited by VORTECPRO; January 4th, 2013 at 04:55 PM.
January 4th, 2013, 05:32 PM
#97
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
Your heads or Erics heads?
Show us what you got. I said if it's valid I'll be the first to congratulate you. I for one would like to see a 9.7:1 iron headed motor make 550+hp at 6600 feet with only a 238@.050 cam. Maybe it can be done on a BBC, but not an Olds.
Jmo
And peak torque occurs when the cylinder is filled most efficiently. I've contended for years that a BB Olds makes more low end torque, not only because of it's longer stroke vs other big blocks, but because of the port velocity that fills the cylinders better at low rpms vs other makes.
Put a set of stock C heads on a BBC and you'll see better low end torque, at the expense of high end hp.
Show me the fuel map on a well tuned EFI setup and I'll tell you within 100 rpm where the peak torque occurs.
Show us what you got. I said if it's valid I'll be the first to congratulate you. I for one would like to see a 9.7:1 iron headed motor make 550+hp at 6600 feet with only a 238@.050 cam. Maybe it can be done on a BBC, but not an Olds.
Jmo
And peak torque occurs when the cylinder is filled most efficiently. I've contended for years that a BB Olds makes more low end torque, not only because of it's longer stroke vs other big blocks, but because of the port velocity that fills the cylinders better at low rpms vs other makes.
Put a set of stock C heads on a BBC and you'll see better low end torque, at the expense of high end hp.
Show me the fuel map on a well tuned EFI setup and I'll tell you within 100 rpm where the peak torque occurs.
Last edited by cutlassefi; January 5th, 2013 at 06:35 AM.
January 4th, 2013, 07:00 PM
#98
Out of Line, Everytime😉
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melville, Saskatchewan
Posts: 8,984
High 9's, 6.40 in the 1/8. Held together till he inspected it, block was broke. 496 built by BTR with good parts but no girdle. That W30 was impressive. The other with the DX even quicker and still together.
January 4th, 2013, 08:11 PM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Erie,PA
Posts: 3,814
Even some of the best ported iron heads will barely make more power than box-stock Edelbrocks. I'm sure yours might make more power,but not murder them.
Is that W30 with the broken 496 maroon-colored,lightweight drag car? That was owned by Nate,who lives 4 miles from me. That car still had a lot more potential to go faster.We are still curious if the block was cracked or defective before,or if it was from the power and no girdle.
Is that W30 with the broken 496 maroon-colored,lightweight drag car? That was owned by Nate,who lives 4 miles from me. That car still had a lot more potential to go faster.We are still curious if the block was cracked or defective before,or if it was from the power and no girdle.
January 5th, 2013, 02:07 PM
#100
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,547
If someone is looking for a science fair project (and has an extra $30K or so lying around for parts, machining, and dyno time), try this. Build four Olds motors, a G-block 400, an E-block 400, a DX-based 400 using a short stroke BBO crank, and a 403. Use the same heads, carb, cam, ignition, etc on each. Run them and see what you get.
Yeah, the different bore/stroke combos probably want different cam profiles, and the BBO/SBO intakes will be different, but you get the idea.
Yeah, the different bore/stroke combos probably want different cam profiles, and the BBO/SBO intakes will be different, but you get the idea.
January 5th, 2013, 02:14 PM
#101
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: treasure coast FL
Posts: 698
I love the science fair project idea! Actually it would be nice to see the mechanical engineering deprtments of 4 state schools compete on this! And they would actually learn something USEFUL!
January 5th, 2013, 04:37 PM
#102
Out of Line, Everytime😉
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melville, Saskatchewan
Posts: 8,984
Nate is MadMustard, correct? Yes, Maroon W-30, serious car. Dale also bought TrailerKing's old 85? Cutlass drag car. I think the power that motor put out killed the block. It was really moving, great to see two of the fastest cars at our track, Olds powered. Of course, I made up for it, being one of the slowest
. New motor will hopefully change that. The new DX power plant dynoed at 840 hp, I believe.
. New motor will hopefully change that. The new DX power plant dynoed at 840 hp, I believe.
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; January 5th, 2013 at 04:41 PM.
January 6th, 2013, 03:30 AM
#103
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,591
Let me take a slightly different approach to this discussion. I'll submit that you cannot simply look at stroke only, or RPM only, or any other single metric and compare engines. The way you make HP is to move air (and the corresponding amount of fuel) through the engine. The reason a smaller engine has to rev higher is to move the same amount of air that a larger engine does at lower RPM. For example, a 350 at 7000 RPM moves just over 700 CFM (assuming 100% VE). A 455 only needs 5400 RPM to move the same 700 CFM. Theoretically both motors should make the same HP under those conditions.
Of course, this is purely theoretical and the real world is a bitc#. Obviously port size, cam profile, etc plays into this. The rest of the motor needs to be matched to the operating range of the basic design. Reciprocation mass also has an effect when it comes time to translate this steady state number into a dynamically changing environment on the drag strip, as does matching gearing and tire size. And I won't even begin to get into internal friction and other losses.
By the way, this airflow metric is also why blown motors have such an advantage over NA motors. A turbo setup at 15 psi boost (one atmosphere) effectively doubles the size of the engine, since you are now moving roughly twice as much air (and fuel) through the same size motor.
Of course, this is purely theoretical and the real world is a bitc#. Obviously port size, cam profile, etc plays into this. The rest of the motor needs to be matched to the operating range of the basic design. Reciprocation mass also has an effect when it comes time to translate this steady state number into a dynamically changing environment on the drag strip, as does matching gearing and tire size. And I won't even begin to get into internal friction and other losses.
By the way, this airflow metric is also why blown motors have such an advantage over NA motors. A turbo setup at 15 psi boost (one atmosphere) effectively doubles the size of the engine, since you are now moving roughly twice as much air (and fuel) through the same size motor.
If it IS the case, then you're telling me that the SBO utilizes the power in x amount of air better than the BBO, by a factor corresponding to the size difference between the two cranks. Which would be another pretty damned strong argument to use the SBO over the BBO. O.o Of course, this is the actual reason blown motors have such an advantage over NA motors - they up the force on the piston greatly, which delivers more torque, meaning more power at lower RPMs, instead of trying to increase the stroke.
I agree though, the real world poses a LOT of other factors. But the basics boil down to stroke, force, torque and rpm, which are physical things that can be measured and interact with each other in a predictable manner. This doesn't mean that you can look up the stroke of an engine and predict the horsepower off the bat - but you can still calculate the strengths and weaknesses in each engine's base construction to determine what it'll be strong or weak at.
January 6th, 2013, 06:57 AM
#104
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
Something else to chew on guys.
Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm
Maybe here's a better quandry;
I did a cam (224/235@.050, with .510 lift) for a a guy in Australia with a 10.0:1 403 with mildly ported 4a heads and a Performer intake with a 700 Holley. It made 360hp at 4800 and 480tq and 3600.
I posted a stock iron headed 455 I did a few months ago that made approx 395hp and 495tq with 10.0:1, a 750 carb, Performer intake, 750 carb and a 228/237@.050 hyd roller. Why didn't the 455 make a whole bunch more torque? It has 50 more c.i. than the 403 as well as almost a full inch more stroke!!
Simple, both engines filled the cylinders an almost equal amount(%), period.
The fact of the matter is adding stroke is normally an easier way to increase torque, but it's not the only way.
Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm
Maybe here's a better quandry;
I did a cam (224/235@.050, with .510 lift) for a a guy in Australia with a 10.0:1 403 with mildly ported 4a heads and a Performer intake with a 700 Holley. It made 360hp at 4800 and 480tq and 3600.
I posted a stock iron headed 455 I did a few months ago that made approx 395hp and 495tq with 10.0:1, a 750 carb, Performer intake, 750 carb and a 228/237@.050 hyd roller. Why didn't the 455 make a whole bunch more torque? It has 50 more c.i. than the 403 as well as almost a full inch more stroke!!
Simple, both engines filled the cylinders an almost equal amount(%), period.
The fact of the matter is adding stroke is normally an easier way to increase torque, but it's not the only way.
Last edited by cutlassefi; January 6th, 2013 at 11:33 AM.
January 6th, 2013, 12:03 PM
#106
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
No, cylinder filling.
Talked to the guys at Mahle at the most recent PRI. They agreed, you can pretty much throw rod to stroke ratio out the window unless it's to one extreme or the other.
A 455 Buick has a rod to stroke ratio around the 403. A 455 Pontiac, also regarded as a torquey motor, has a rod to stroke ratio more towards a 454 Chevy. And we all know a 454 is known more for it's hp than it's torque.
Talked to the guys at Mahle at the most recent PRI. They agreed, you can pretty much throw rod to stroke ratio out the window unless it's to one extreme or the other.
A 455 Buick has a rod to stroke ratio around the 403. A 455 Pontiac, also regarded as a torquey motor, has a rod to stroke ratio more towards a 454 Chevy. And we all know a 454 is known more for it's hp than it's torque.
January 6th, 2013, 12:27 PM
#107
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,510
Just because the numbers are fresh in my head i thought i would put this out there.... The 62 Jetfire engine is the exact same engine as the 62 Cutlass 4 bbl engine (as far as bore, stroke, heads, compression, cam) the 4bbl engine had 185 HP with 231 torque. the Jetfire with 5-6 PSI boost and a 1bbl side draft carb was 215HP and 301 torque... I just thought it went well with talking about filling cylinders. Torque went up 70 from only 5-6 lbs of boost
January 6th, 2013, 12:28 PM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 1,719
Something else to chew on guys.
Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm
Maybe here's a better quandry;
I did a cam (224/235@.050, with .510 lift) for a a guy in Australia with a 10.0:1 403 with mildly ported 4a heads and a Performer intake with a 700 Holley. It made 360hp at 4800 and 480tq and 3600.
I posted a stock iron headed 455 I did a few months ago that made approx 395hp and 495tq with 10.0:1, a 750 carb, Performer intake, 750 carb and a 228/237@.050 hyd roller. Why didn't the 455 make a whole bunch more torque? It has 50 more c.i. than the 403 as well as almost a full inch more stroke!!
Simple, both engines filled the cylinders an almost equal amount(%), period.
The fact of the matter is adding stroke is normally an easier way to increase torque, but it's not the only way.
Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm
Maybe here's a better quandry;
I did a cam (224/235@.050, with .510 lift) for a a guy in Australia with a 10.0:1 403 with mildly ported 4a heads and a Performer intake with a 700 Holley. It made 360hp at 4800 and 480tq and 3600.
I posted a stock iron headed 455 I did a few months ago that made approx 395hp and 495tq with 10.0:1, a 750 carb, Performer intake, 750 carb and a 228/237@.050 hyd roller. Why didn't the 455 make a whole bunch more torque? It has 50 more c.i. than the 403 as well as almost a full inch more stroke!!
Simple, both engines filled the cylinders an almost equal amount(%), period.
The fact of the matter is adding stroke is normally an easier way to increase torque, but it's not the only way.
January 6th, 2013, 12:45 PM
#109
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
"Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm" I would'nt say that, I just did a 9.1 3.750 stroke small block chevy and the TQ was 495, with production iron heads and a flattappet hyd cam, although it was 406 cu in, 1.22 TQ per inch, 380 Olds 1.04 TQ per inch, so I would'nt say its comparable.
Btw how's that 455 coming you said would be done by now? You busted my chops on the one I did so I'll have just as much fun coming back at you.
Hey throw gas on anyone elses lawn lately?lol!
Last edited by cutlassefi; January 6th, 2013 at 12:48 PM.
January 6th, 2013, 12:49 PM
#110
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 1,719
So a 406 made 495 torque with 9.1:1 at 6600 feet? Head and cam specs? Got a dyno sheet cuz I don't believe a word you say. And I'll bet those heads flowed more than the ones on Daves 380, ya think?
Btw how's that 455 coming you said would be done by now? You busted my chops on the one I did so I'll have just as much fun coming back at you.
Hey throw gas on anyone elses lawn lately? How old are you, 12?
Btw how's that 455 coming you said would be done by now? You busted my chops on the one I did so I'll have just as much fun coming back at you.
Hey throw gas on anyone elses lawn lately? How old are you, 12?
January 6th, 2013, 12:59 PM
#111
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
They're on here, do a search. I'm tired of doing things for you. I ask you for things and you don't reciprocate. You're real good at dishing it out but your own validation seems to be lacking a bit. That tells me you could be full of it, hmmmm.
Again, throw any more gas on any other old persons' yard lately? What are you 12?
Again, throw any more gas on any other old persons' yard lately? What are you 12?
January 6th, 2013, 01:21 PM
#112
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
"Daves "stroker" 380 still only has a 3.500 stroke. But why did it make so much torque down low? I would say comparable to a "stroker" 383 Chevy with a 3.75 stroke? Hmmmm" I would'nt say that, I just did a 9.1 3.750 stroke small block chevy and the TQ was 495, with production iron heads and a flattappet hyd cam, although it was 406 cu in, 1.22 TQ per inch, 380 Olds 1.04 TQ per inch, so I would'nt say its comparable.
By "production" heads do you mean OE or aftermaket replacement heads with newer technology?
Last edited by captjim; January 6th, 2013 at 01:24 PM.
January 6th, 2013, 01:37 PM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Mark, you did not respond to this, but I will expand on it. IMO, torque is all about velocity and cylinder pressure. Cubes add torque. But all things being equal, the longer stroke and longer runners add velocity to the incoming charge. Smaller, tighter cams increase cylinder pressure which increases torque. Higher compression increases torque for the same reason, cylinder pressure. IMHO.
January 6th, 2013, 04:16 PM
#114
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 1,719
This dyno in the picture, the same SF 901 dyno that has NEVER been up on HP to any 901 that has independantly tested any of my engines, ever, and that also includes Reher Morrison's SF 901. The cylinder heads used on my 406 build were: 1969 350 255 HP 441 castings, so that means I mean OE, production heads used on a 255 HP 350 circa 1969. Flow was 243 @ .450 lift, 4.125 bore, @ 28".
January 6th, 2013, 04:34 PM
#116
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
Originally Posted by VORTECPRO;494144)Flow was [B
243 @ .450 lift[/B], 4.125 bore, @ 28".
Wanna try to beat your chest a little harder? And you still didn't answer my question, have you poured gas on anyone elses yard lately? Your local police would probably like to know.
Oh yes, and don't talk to me about a calibrated dyno. I've personally watched someone "skew" the numbers by a simple turn of a dial.
You continue to be a total jerk, but at least you're consistent!!
Last edited by cutlassefi; January 6th, 2013 at 04:43 PM.
January 6th, 2013, 04:45 PM
#117
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 1,719
So that's apples to apples with my 217@.600 headed 380 SBO? You're such a friggen jerk.
Oh yes, and don;t talk to me about a calibrated dyno. I've personally watched someone "skew" the numbers by a simple turn of a dial.
Oh yes, and don;t talk to me about a calibrated dyno. I've personally watched someone "skew" the numbers by a simple turn of a dial.
Last edited by VORTECPRO; January 6th, 2013 at 04:49 PM.
January 6th, 2013, 04:47 PM
#118
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
Seperate exhaust ports?1971four4two-, you know when you'd buy a new wallet it used to have pictures already in it? I guess this picture came with his new wallet.
January 6th, 2013, 04:49 PM
#119
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
January 6th, 2013, 04:51 PM
#120
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,872
Personally you probably should have found someone to work the heads a little more, I really thought from the start this 380 build was going to be something special, but the main thing is the customer is happy, thats the important thing. Have not gassed any lawns lately.
