WHO'S GOT THE FASTEST 305 TBI WITHOUT ANY POWER ADDER???? 305!!!! NOT 350!!!

 

go look on the TBI board. i know a couple of them are into the 13's.....

 

I think there is one guy that is in the 13s, high 13s if I'm not mistaken.

 

Hey, i have the poster of that '67 Camaro SS/RS that is street legal and runs 8 flat. Nice car. That i would consider extremely fast. Fast for me is mid 14 and less only because i run 16's now. If you run 14 you can beat more than half the cars on the road. I'd consider that pretty fast. Just my two pennies though.

~Matt

 

yeah let's try the TBI board....

 

i heard or soemone doing a 13.9 wiht a tbi'd 305 but i dont remember what the mods where.

 

Palric's the only guy I know personally and is on the board who had a 13.9 TBI, but not without serious modding to that engine and the car as a whole.

We're talking cam, heads, intake, headers, exhaust, traction.. the works.

My goal is a 14 maybe 13 sec TBI as well, that is my daily driver. My fun car will be a 12 sec Camaro SS or something depending on certain decisions in the coming weeks... I think I can buy one of the dealership showroom floor models I hope...

I got the stock engine to go into the 15 sec range with all smog and emissions intact. These cars do have potential, not like 350 potential, but I'll be dammed if I don't beat palric's TBI with today's modern and widely available parts, cuz he did his 10 years ago...

 

there is a difference between street legal and streetable, 11's and 10's are fast.

 

Welcome to my train of thought. Im down to tuning and traction

 

the easiest way to go about thins would be for everyone who has gone a low 14 or 13 to list their times and mods. if you know where you made mistake you may wanna mention that too so others can learn.
i went 14.20's at 96.5 mph with a stock cam and stock chip. i had edelbrock heads, edelbrock intake, ultimate mods, full exhaust, 1.6 rockers, posi w/3.54 gears, and a good road racing suspension.
if i had it to do over again i woudl definitely do a cam instead of heads and i woudl get a custom chip burned. i know the stock chip was totally holding me back from getting into teh 13's. i had to run the fuel pressure so high to keep it from leanign out at the top of third gear taht throttle response was terrible, and the stock timing tables clearly were not cutting it with teh bigger rockers.

later
tim

 

What exactly is a good racing suspension??

.....also, I didn't know a custom chip would affect the fuel pressure?

 

it was a fuyll road racing suspension.
eibach pro kit springs, bilstein heavy duty struts, bilstein race rear shocks, spohn control arms/panhard/torque arm/relo brackets(all rod ended), suspensoin techniques 35mm solid front adn 24mm solid rear sway bars(stiffer than WS6 bars), baer track kit front brakes(13inch rotors w/2piston calipers), baer track rear brakes(12inch rotors w/ single big piston calipers), 97 SS wheels with kuhmo 275/40 17 kuhmo victo racers(autocross/road race tires).
the only difference between the normal driving set up and the way it sat when i got my best et is tha ti dropped the front sway bar and used hoosiers mounted on draglites.

later tim

 

I think the next serious mod is 1.6 rockers for me.

I'm going "the cut out prior to cat with headers" route sometime this month.

NJ Speeder, what rockers and springs did you use on that stock setup?

I'm probably gonna start messing with burning my own chips later, its hard to depend on others for chip mods since these cars have so much variation in the parts that I think its best to do it yourself.

 

i used the comp cams roller tipped rockers with the springs that come on the edelbrock heads.

later
tim

 

Would those rockers work with the stock springs? I'm trying small mods here and there really, just weekend mods, this is a daily driver after all.

 

they shoudl work. but they aren't a great mod for the money. you woudl be far better served to get a cam and pull a weekend thrash instead.
like i said, they woudl have been worth more with the right chip, but you will get twice as much from a cam and the cost is similar if you use a LT1 cam. teh cam just takes 5 times as long, but in my opinion is well worth it.

later
tim

 

If I was going to rip in to do the cam, I figured I'd put in a new intake and the 670 TBI in the process...

 

HOW COME YOU GUYS ARE SAYING TO TRY THE tbi BOARD , ISN'T THIS IT???? WHAT GIVES????

 

It was moved from another board to here.....from the street racing one I think?

 

Yeah I moved it from the Street Racing board to the TBI board.

 

jarheads, jarheads,jarheads



j/k gunny sarge!

 

Oh, ok there yoohoo! This is your warning!

 

i'm hoping to be around the 14s or so with my setup, anyone think it sounds about right (i know its hard to predict).

sbc 400, heads are the 882s (until i get money for vortecs)
summit 1103 cam (forget the specs)
edelbrock performer intake
ultimate tbi, afpr, open element
headman shorties & y-pipe
hooker catback
stock chip at moment, caprice cop chip for quick fix soon, custom chip down the line
turbo-350 tranny, b&m megashifter

i know i wont have the fastest, but i'm workin my way toward the front of the pack

 

CAMp3RO you should get some larger injectors with that setup.

 

The more power you make the more you gotta worry about traction... camp3ro, get some lca's, sfc's, posi, and whatever else you can do to make that stick else you're just gonna make more noise with that setup.

A higher stall is a good alternative as well as you can bypass the useless lowend torque which just makes you peel anyways.

 

well, right now i'm really just concerned about getting her running cause i need transportation while up at school. my whole deal this summer was to just get her running, which is about 95% done right now. i will eventually go up to the holley 670 throttle body for size and injectors. the 900 looked wonderful, but way outta my price range. lca's are planned soon (hopefully for xmas) and i do really want some sfc because i am blessed (and cursed) with t-tops and dont feel like seeing my car become a pretzel. i have an slp posi sitting in my room, but dont have gears for it. was goin to buy a posi/disk/3.73 rear from a friend, but ran outta cash and now reading that i should stay away from gears that high with the th350 (crusing on the highway would be a bit high).

 

this guy is runnig low 13's with a 125 shot . prob just motor he would be near high 13's ..

http://hometown.aol.com/j007golden/joerace.html

just through i would poitn this out.

 

I had the slowest TBI, probably...


I need to hit 12s this season...

:lala:

 

fyi a GUNNERY SERGEANT has three stripes up two stripes down, and cross rifles in the center. You might want to adjust your avitar or username accordingly there hard charger


and gunny sarge!? what is that army sounding filth!?




semper fi

Pablo (waits in the "green" chow line onboard a gator freighter "somewhere" in the pacific)

 

He only needs to modify the suspension if the goal is a low ET at the track. If the goal is solid passing/highway/rolling race performance (95% of what I personally encounter in the street), then he will be fine and should shoot for MPH instead of ET.

Now your second comment is what prompted the reply from me.

A torque converter is a torque multiplier (which is a valid name, by function). A high stall TC allows you to convert midrange/high end torque (see also: HP) into wheel torque at lower RPMs (similar to slipping a clutch).

Read carefully: No matter what the specs of your engine are (like the torque curve properties), you will make more wheel torque with a higher stall torque converter than a lower one, up to the point where the parasitic losses overrule the increased wheel torque from higher RPM OR when you get up to or over your HP peak RPM.

My favorite mind boggling example would probably be a Honda S2000 engine vs an L03 in an F-Body. Swap the S2000 motor (240hp, 153lb-ft both occuring way past the L03's redline) directly in place of an L03 in a 3rd gen and that 3rd gen would probably run the 1/4 a lot slower than when it had the L03. This is because the gearing (and torque converter stall) are set for the L03. Now add some 4.56 gears (or shorter) and a 5000rpm stall torque converter. You can "convert" that 153lb-ft of torque into the same (or better) wheel torque than a stock L03's wheel torque. Remember: having 150lb-ft @ 5000rpm is the same HP as having 300lb-ft @ 2500rpm. If we can get the torque converter to stall at 5000rpm in the engine with 150lb-ft there, it should theoretically have the same wheel torque as the car with 300lb-ft @ 2500, with a 2500 stall. Wheel torque is what moves the car, so once you have that, there is nothing more to need (besides traction) - the car moves out.

In short, a higher stall TC would INCREASE wheel torque and INCREASE the likelihood of doing a smokeshow when you hit the gas, NOT decrease it.

I guess I can do a better analogy...keep with the SBCs.

Take a cammed 350 vs a stock one. Depending on everything, they should have within 30lb-ft of flywheel PEAK torque as each other. More precisely, the cammed 350 will take the stock 350's torque curve, stretch it, and move it up the RPM band. Very similar peak torque though. A lower stall would render the cammed 350 pretty lifeless off the line while the stock 350 would probably beat it to 60'. Now increase the stall of the stock 350. Now it has even MORE wheel torque available when the torque converter snaps to the stall RPM. However, this is not as much as the cammed 350 will have with the same stall (depending on whether the torque band has been entered or not) because it should have the same flywheel torque, but at a higher rpm, which translates to more torque multiplication and hence more wheel torque...

Hope that all made sense.

 

That's camaroracer1992, he ran 15.0 without the N20

 

Hate to say this but the definition of torque converter is not by any means designed to amplify torque, it can't create more torque than is generated by the engine.

That preconception actually comes from the gearing, basically where torque remains the same, but per revolution of the driveshaft and rear wheels the amount of torque per rpm changes.

Excerpt "Automatic Transmission Overhaul"

Section High-stall torque converters

"In street/strip and racing vehicles, a major disadvantage of the stock torque converter is its low stall speed. Basically, stall speed is the engine speed (in rpm) at which fluid coupling in the torque converter achieves a near lock up condition tat is theoretically so efficient that it can stall the engine when the vehicle is at a stop in ger with the brakes applied and the engine is accelerated. In practice, on most high performance engines, the brakes fail to hold the engine torque during this test and the rear wheels spin, so a better test is to accelerate the car from a stop at full throttle and note the engine rpm during the launch.
Stock converters have a stall speed of about 1200 to 1500 rpm, which provides good fuel efficiency, since converter slippage is reduced overall. Basically, on a high performance engine a higher stall speed will allow the engine to rev higher before the car must move which improves initial acceleration."

This basically sums up what I learned in school about torque converters and what applies to the real world in practice.

Torque converters DO NOT amplify/multiply torque. You'd be lucky to get even 100% efficiency out of a standard TC. (TCC's a different since they are lock up and have a built in clutch which allow for 100% power transfer) Neither do gears multiply anything for that matter. With gears torque per rpm of the wheel is altered, but the initial torque generated by the engine remains constant.

What torque converters do is the same job as a clutch, transfer engine torque to the transmission. At the rated stall speed, the power efficiency transfer of the tc will be almost 1:1 any rpm lower than that and the tc is inefficient.

A higher stall as I stated before would be beneficial only to a certain degree for a stock engine. A stock LO3 makes max torque at 2400 RPM. This is a physical limitation of the cam more than any other part of the engine. Would it be wise to put in say a 3000-3500 rpm stall? No. This is because past 2400 rpm, torque diminishes do to volumetric inefficiencies of the engine.

The thing I love about theory is that its just that.. theory... when you put things into practice you'll find that that particular theory just doesn't work.

"Remember: having 150lb-ft @ 5000rpm is the same HP as having 300lb-ft @ 2500rpm"

By your very example as well you emphasized the importance of gearing to engine's power band. The LO3's gearing is NOT geared for drag, its geared for fuel economy. The LO3 was GM's shot at a fuel efficient V8 in which I believe they succeeded in all their intents and purposes.

Just for info from my latest dyno, I'm making 150 ft/lb of torque at 5000 rpm with 255 ft/lb peak at 2400 rpm all from the rear wheels... so I'm having a hard time picturing that little honda motor motivating my 3400 lb car the same way it motivates that 2000 lb honda body...

You want to know where that example should mean, here goes...

Gearing is KEY!!!

What you want to do is place the gearing in that you end up at 1:1 ratio at the max HP of the engine you have.

Why TC's are important!

What you want is the tc to achieve 100% lockup just a tad under the max torque of the engine. That way when you hit the stall speed of the tc, you are at the engine's max torque power band.

Example why a stock 1200-1500 stall is bad for even a lo3...

max torque is made at 2400, stall occurs at 12-1500...

1:1 occurs at 1200, torque is transferred to the rear wheels 100%, wheels spin, load is placed on engine, takes longer to reach max torque...

stall at 2200-2400 rpm, 1:1 power transfer doesn't occur till 2200-2400 rpm, engine is at peak power generation, torque converter is locked up at 1:1 at that rpm, car moves with full power available at its disposal... think of it as the intital push to make a box on a floor move... you push your hardest to get the box motivated, but to keep it moving and accelerating you need less energy than the initial energy required to move the box...

Example... take a weight and pull it with using a newton meter... you'll find the intial force required to move an object from rest far greater than any acceleration after the fact you can add to make it move faster...

 

Holy shiat!! Slade just went off.....in a good way.

 

Yeah except I think some of the stuff in that reply isn't accurate. Unfortunately, I am on my way to New England Dragway, but I'll respond when I get back.

 

From what i saw on his site, he is running that 13.18 without a new cam and heads???

That's pretty good if you ask me......

 

When there is a difference in speed between the engine and the input shaft of the tranny, the tc does amplify torque. Its just like gearing but using fluid dynamics instead. Why do you think cars unlock the tcc when passing. Its to help amplify the torque through the difference in speed.

 

Yes!!
The greater the difference in rpm of the input to output shaft of the TC, the greater the torque multiplication. I think normal street converters reach 2 to 2.5x normally, but I'd imagine a race converter could approach 4x, due to that high stall.
Following this logic, the input torque multiplication is at its highest when the output RPM is zero (when doing a brake stand).

 

Actually I think the reason the TCC is unlocked when passing is because it probably could not withstand the TQ applied to it during high acceleration.
You can make your TCC lock up at whatever time you want by doing a simple trick in the tech articles. And you notice at the bottom it gives a warning that this is very hard on the tranny, why because the clutch was not designed to be locked up for extended periods of time at high acceleration rates. Because if you do, sooner or later, most liikely sooner it will break.

Oh and slade was right, the TC does not amplify TQ, gearing does. Id does as its name implies, it converts it from the engine to the transmission. If anything its a TQ divider untill the TCC does lock up.

 

I'd like to clear something up about shifting, torque converters do not amplify torque.

The design of the torque converter is to replace the clutch of manual transmissions. It is based of a simple principle, you spin one fan blade in front of another fan blade and that fan blade will eventually rotate at the same speed as the first fan blade with the air acting as a conducter of the force.

In a automatic transmission though, the fan blades are replaced with an impeller which is connected to the engine and a turbine which is connected to the transmission. The medium which conducts the force is a fluid since gas is compressible and fluid is not.

You have confused the downshift from fourth to third during acceleration.

The TCC disengages the lockup because torque is greatly increased by a large factor from the engine. Lockup is simply not as strong as a manual clutch so slippage occurs. Also a lot of strain can be put on the bands and clutch packs of the transmission causing them to prematurely fail.

If the TCC disengages during acceleration (and decceleration for that matter) the clutch packs and bands are saved from this incredible strain and the excessive forces are thus allowed to force the impeller and turbine to rotate at different speeds rather than push the transmission to burn itself up. This makes the tc an invaulable piece in extending the life of the transmission.

That's why on the tech articles forcing a lockup will destroy your tranny.

If you don't believe me on tc design, here's a picture of the guts of a tc.

 

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=to...bnr.ca&rnum=40

And there are at least 15 more that I've read through that say the same thing.
What I have learned is that the stator design is critical in calculating the multiplication ratio of a torque converter during full stall (zero rpm output).

The TCC disengages from lockup for several reasons, one of which you mentioned. What you're saying (I think) is that the clutch, when engaged, can transmit the shock of re-applying the gas after coasting to the tranny internals. What I'm not sure about is if this is relevant or not. Let's say it is and move on.

Another reason it disengages for acceleration, and this one can be debated too, is that that the tranny pump will be spinning faster, creating a higher line pressure. If you apply too much torque to an automatic with too low an rpm (line pressure) you run the risk of the bands/clutches not holding. Then they can slip, create excess heat, wear out, etc.

3) TCC disengages because it can't handle all that much torque from the engine. I've discovered this in my own car. I can short the pins A to F (IIRC) on the ALDL and that causes the TCC to lock in gears 2, 3 and 4. I've experimented with rolling on the throttle and the TCC starts to slip almost where the disengage point is set by the ECM. Interesting. I think mine is getting old and worn though, as I can just start to make it slip while accelerating in 4th up a hill (I know it's slipping because if I let off, rpms go down 100 or 200 but my speed hasn't changed).

4) TCC disengages to improve acceleration! Yes! This is actually a reason! Now, during highway speed, you're right - I don't think the converter multiplies much at all. Here is an example:
Cruising at 70mph. With TCC on, rpms at 2000. That goes for coasting, part throttle and full throttle. Still 2000rpm @ 70mph.
Now the TCC unlocks and the RPMs vary from 2000+rpm (maintaining cruise) to 2500 (for example), while WOT up a hill, or towing - we are still going 70mph here. When at full load, 2500rpm, the torque converter isn't really multiplying input torque and sending it to the output shaft. But what it IS doing is allowing more wheel torque than you'd get with the TCC locked at 2000rpm. All you have to do is figure out that the engine is putting out more power (HP) at 2500rpm and in all likelihood, even accounting for TC slip (some of which is wasted energy), more torque is delivered to the rear wheels.
To recap, the converter is taking flywheel torque @ 2500rpm and "converting" it into more tranny torque than you'd otherwise be able to achieve with the TCC locked @ 2000rpm...and I *think* it should do this as long as the engine is at or below the HP peak.

My original argument was that the torque converter can multply torque. However, it doesn't do this ALWAYS, just when the difference between shaft RPMs is great, with the highest multiplication at zero rpm output shaft...

Quick question: Take an engine with a HP peak at 5000rpm. Torque peak at 2500rpm. Normal looking torque curve (upside down parabola shape, peaking at 2500rpm).
Say we were traveling 20mph (stick or auto) and we wanted maximum forward thrust. Would you obtain this by putting the transmission in 2nd, which would put the RPMs at 2500? Or would we obtain this by putting the transmission in 1st, which would put the RPMs at 4000rpm?

 

well.. the reason i said it disengages is because the torque converter multiplies the torque when there is a difference in speed to help in high load situations. Hypotheticly, if th torque converter just acted as a viscus form of a clutch with no torque multiplication, then it would be wise to lock the converter as soon as the vehicle got underway and design the clutch to be strong enough to take the engines full torqe capacity. Of coarse the torque converter acts as a viscus damper to smooth the operation of the trans as well.

In the honda i had, the tcc locked as soon as the car was under way and under normal driving it would say locked untill the throttle closed or the engine was under high load.

 

SO, WHO HAS THE FATSEST LO3 TBI??? AGAIN??? I THINK I SAW 2 TIMESLIPS AND 37 OTHER REPLIES. JUST ME OR WHAT??

 

16.0 i think at 87mph but that was before some mods so ill be goin to the track soon to see the difference prob like .2 or .3 well see!

 

I think I have the fastest stock engine...

Stock intake, TBI, heads, cam...

 

You only added 20 horse with that, I can guarantee you you don't have the fastest stock engine. Good torque increase though. My car was faster than that with stock cam/heads/intake.

Uh,you really need to get : headers, chip, Tbi spacer, then traction mods. then it'll move a little bit, high 14's easy, oh w/ all that torque, hook up a Torque converter lock up switch.

 

I have Stock Intake, TBI, Heads and Cam, my only major mod is the trans-go and I run low 15's. Still have the 2.73 one tire fryer, all the smog crap, ect.ect. What you see below is all I'v done.

 

I also have it fully emissions legal too

Got 3 more tests to go in the next 6 years, can't rip any of it out. My goal was to increase torque as much as I can and so far so good, she's pulling a hell of a lot more torque than ever.

With smog, with cat albeit a highflow cat, and 2 1/2 tubing all the way to the end...

I also still have an open end differential, 1 wheel peel etc...

And I did those times in 100 degree weather at 60% humidity... I can only imagine what a cold air run would be like at the moment.

I guess I should claim I have the fastest stock engine with stock emissions controls intact. No gutting of nothing, no cat back, no headers, just got creative with sandpaper when I took the heads and intake off.

I have the TCC lockup switch already.

 

Hey RS92 how on earth did u pull a 15.1 at almost 90 with just a catback and pulleys for ure hp increaase and stock gears. Thats incredible almost too good to believe. a 90 trap is like 220 hp at the flywheel and looks like ure only pushing 190. Howd yah do it gotta reveal ure secret

 

The pulley's, spacers (injector and tb) are all worth a good torque boost, while the gutted system allows for a good exhaust boost. The transgo kit lessens the loss at the tranny and the chip makes up for the ability to pull in more air and scavange it (better fuel tables than stock for WOT)

It seems all legit to me, from some other members here that have gutted the cat, the increase is substantial... remember the log headers plus restrictive piping really really hurt.

I've maxed out my exhaust... after 4200 under load (3rd gear/1:1 ratio) rpm, it backfires through the TBI.. the backpressure is ridiculously high.

 

Actually, I didn't see any gain when I gutted the cat, my time's were the same before and after I did it. I hear that it helps and also hear it causes disturbance in the flow that hurts you.
I did have a 180 stat at the time and it's not listed but I don't think that mattered much. Oh, and I run without my spare and jack.
I shift the car 5500 rpm's and most people don't go that high, and I also started flashing the converter, in the past I had been building it up to about 1200 rpm's. I get a harder launch by stomping it. Other than that I think I just got lucky and got a good lo3. I had tried an afpr and after adjusting 2 hundred times I took it off and put the stock one back. The car never ran as strong with the afpr no matter what pressure I set it at.
Two of the biggest gains I saw were with the chip and the trans go, my trans shifted really slow and sloppy.