Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1008 NA Horsepowers, with a warranty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1008 NA Horsepowers, with a warranty

    https://www.thedrive.com/news/42786/...-powerful-ever

    Yes, please.
    Doing it all wrong since 1966

  • #2
    Oh yes, and it runs on 93 octane.
    Doing it all wrong since 1966

    Comment


    • #3
      more details
      https://www.motortrend.com/news/chev...-crate-engine/
      Doing it all wrong since 1966

      Comment


      • #4
        Out of my price range, no doubt. But interesting.

        Dan

        Comment


        • #5
          12-1 compression on pump gas! Technology, I was running 12-1 back in the late seventies using Amaco 100 octane, it wouldn't even poot on anything less
          Pt 2010, Long Haul 2011,12,13,14,15,16,17, 18, 19
          If you wait, all that happens is that you get older

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by corvettedad View Post
            12-1 compression on pump gas! Technology, I was running 12-1 back in the late seventies using Amaco 100 octane, it wouldn't even poot on anything less
            I'm running 11.5:1 in my Corvette.... with much better aluminum heads, EFI and computer controlled ignition... it works fine. In the MT article it talks, briefly, about the head design... suspect that just the heads alone would get much of the gain on any BBC. The other thing was the smaller bore/long stroke... that motor is begging for a turbo - lower the compression but that thing would be insane....
            Doing it all wrong since 1966

            Comment


            • #7
              Drag race ONLY in the story I read elsewhere. But you know it's gonna end up in street cars.
              Act your age, not your shoe size. - Prince

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by studemax View Post
                Drag race ONLY in the story I read elsewhere. But you know it's gonna end up in street cars.
                lol. right. my motor. my car. I'm more concerned it won't fit under the hood of my Corvette.... you know, the one I ONLY use for drag racing purposes... wouldn't dream of doing anything else. ever. believe you me.



                *let's not forget the original 572 came in street and drag flavors.... but all work on 93 octane. so weird GM would mess up like that...
                Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; October 20, 2021, 12:53 PM.
                Doing it all wrong since 1966

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why limit yourself to just 632 inches?

                  https://www.enginebuildermag.com/201...itrous-engine/

                  Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Beagle View Post
                    Why limit yourself to just 632 inches?

                    https://www.enginebuildermag.com/201...itrous-engine/


                    i see your 959" and raise you 41+ cubic inches....

                    https://www.sonnysracingengines.com/...r-1005-2100-hp

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One of the more interesting comments:

                      "This just points out how silly the "No Replacement for Displacement" statement is. It has nearly 3 liters more displacement but only produces 4 more horsepower and 74 lb/ft less of horsepower than the Hellephant. Imagine what Mopar would have produced with 3 more liters at its disposable and then strapped the Hellephant's supercharger to it.".
                      Ed, Mary, & 'Earl'
                      HRPT LongHaulers, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.


                      Inside every old person is a young person wondering, "what the hell happened?"

                      The man at the top of the mountain didn't fall there. -Vince Lombardi

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oletrux4evr View Post
                        One of the more interesting comments:

                        "This just points out how silly the "No Replacement for Displacement" statement is. It has nearly 3 liters more displacement but only produces 4 more horsepower and 74 lb/ft less of horsepower than the Hellephant. Imagine what Mopar would have produced with 3 more liters at its disposable and then strapped the Hellephant's supercharger to it.".
                        someone was going on about wanting to race a Hellaphant. Told him he'd get him for sure, not because the hellaphant isn't competitive but Mopar was a bit premature in proclaiming that they had fixed the cam tunnel problem. The scuttlebutt is all of them are defective.... just rumor, hearsay.... but still,

                        So just imagine

                        but more to the point, comparing a NA motor to a blown motor isn't comparing the same things. First is getting the larger package to fit, second is complexity, third is NA motors last longer because of less moving parts.....

                        even taking your point, so what, I think that motor would be amazing with turbos because it's a BBC with LS flow and substantially larger displacement.
                        Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; October 21, 2021, 07:32 AM.
                        Doing it all wrong since 1966

                        Comment


                        • #13

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X