Let's assume...bench racing a claimer motor.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SpiderGearsMan
    No Life Outside BangShift.com
    • Oct 2007
    • 22359

    #76
    6.2 comes in half tons - aluminum block - 426 hp in camaro and GXP G8

    Comment

    • dieselgeek
      Legendary BangShifter
      • Oct 2007
      • 9809

      #77
      Originally posted by JeffMcKC View Post
      It maybe like Stock cars when we raced Dirt, there was a 850.00 Claim, and we ran a 15,000 engine...... the same as everyone else.
      Hunkins was talking about *requiring* the top three finishers give up their engine for $4000. APparently it's not very popular to claim an engine in any of the existing claimer-ruled racing classes (the roundy round guys).
      www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

      Comment

      • SpiderGearsMan
        No Life Outside BangShift.com
        • Oct 2007
        • 22359

        #78
        yep , IMCA is big on claimer engines

        Comment

        • TheSilverBuick
          ALMOST Spidey !
          • Nov 2007
          • 22145

          #79
          That would be bitchen, then they could put them in appropriate magazine cars!
          Escaped on a technicality.

          Comment

          • 38P
            Banned
            • Jun 2009
            • 5738

            #80
            Originally posted by dieselgeek View Post
            You seem to know a lot about the Mark VIII motor. How would you go about building one that makes BIG torque down low, and shifts the powerband down to a peak before 6500rpm? These motors aren't typically torque monsters (until you put compressed air into them, then wow!!) but it would be kickass to show up with one that was at least a player.
            That's one of the reasons I like the twin-port B heads (other than dirt-cheap cost) . . . you've got two smaller ports to play with . . . . The mill's going to respond to intake runners, increased compression, cam timing, and port velocity . . . .

            Comment

            • 38P
              Banned
              • Jun 2009
              • 5738

              #81
              Originally posted by stangbanger View Post
              I think the variable valve timing will help the low rev torque plenty when you are dividing by cubic inches.
              2x But (1) is it legal in EMC? And (2) can you get any decent cams that work with it?

              Comment

              • 38P
                Banned
                • Jun 2009
                • 5738

                #82
                Originally posted by Bob Holmes View Post
                Nobody has run with a VVT set up yet. I can certainly say that it does a bunch to flatten the torque curve on the Ford engines that I've looked at.

                Does GM have a VVT V8? In an LSx configuration, I'm not going to try to work with a Northstar or one of the other expensive orphan, no aftermarket support, engines.
                Single cam VVT, unless you have a cam-in-a-cam, like the last Viper 'plant, leaves a lot to be desired. The real attractiveness of TiVCT is the ability to independently vary the exhaust and intake timing. Of course, one step better is V-TEC, which has a two-step lift added, but that's not on the current EMC menu.

                Comment

                • kyhunter89
                  Superhero BangShifter
                  • Jan 2008
                  • 1375

                  #83
                  Originally posted by Speedzzter.blogspot View Post
                  2x But (1) is it legal in EMC? And (2) can you get any decent cams that work with it?
                  1. no clue
                  2. not yet. Lifters are the problem people are reporting if I remember correctly, but that might not be a problem at lower (6500) rpm.
                  Si vis pacem, para bellum

                  Comment

                  • 38P
                    Banned
                    • Jun 2009
                    • 5738

                    #84
                    Originally posted by Bob Holmes View Post
                    Nice job!! Your comments about bore size and piston speed are an important part of the excercise. The biggest bore is not always the best way to go in this competition.
                    Small bores are going to be more detonation resistant on octane-limited fuel because lateral chamber distances are reduced. The tradeoff is that small bores really hurt two-valve breathing (not so much a factor when four valves are in play)

                    Comment

                    • 38P
                      Banned
                      • Jun 2009
                      • 5738

                      #85
                      Originally posted by CTX-SLPR View Post
                      Jag/Lincoln AJV8, mainly just to be different but like the Mod Motor guys, need to allow DOHC to make it compete.
                      They'll probably set the minimum cubic inch limit too high for this mill to be eligible (assumption based on the current minimum CID rules)

                      Comment

                      • 38P
                        Banned
                        • Jun 2009
                        • 5738

                        #86
                        Originally posted by kyhunter89 View Post
                        Lifters are the problem people are reporting if I remember correctly, but that might not be a problem at lower (6500) rpm.
                        Hmm? I didn't know that. I thought the main problem was piston/valve interference . . . at least one cam company was selling a VVT restrictor or lock-out so that they could peddle longer-duration profiles.

                        There is a lifter problem with the DOD lifters not working with higher-lift cams . . . But DOD isn't going to be a factor in EMC competition.

                        Comment

                        • dieselgeek
                          Legendary BangShifter
                          • Oct 2007
                          • 9809

                          #87
                          We looked into the late LS version of VVT, and were told that these systems don't work well with any kind of increased valvespring pressure.
                          www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

                          Comment

                          • 38P
                            Banned
                            • Jun 2009
                            • 5738

                            #88
                            Is the RPO L92 VVT system hydraulic?

                            Comment

                            • SuperBuickGuy
                              No Life Outside BangShift.com
                              • Jan 2008
                              • 32182

                              #89
                              Originally posted by Speedzzter.blogspot View Post
                              Is the RPO L92 VVT system hydraulic?
                              yes
                              Doing it all wrong since 1966

                              Comment

                              • 38P
                                Banned
                                • Jun 2009
                                • 5738

                                #90
                                Thanks!

                                Then I assume that if you wanted to run stiffer valvesprings, you'd have to figure out a way to bump up the line pressure to the VVT actuator to compensate for the extra torque loading on the camshaft. Not easy to do with a single-stage main-gallery mounted internal oil pump. Or you'd have to modify the VVT actuator to impart more torque to the cam when it rotates.

                                Comment

                                Working...