well today i was headed to o'rielly to get a new water pump...(weep hole is leaking in old one) and i see this olds 442 that ive seen many times before and driven by the guys house a few times (he lives in a neighborhood that one of my friends lives in)

so we turn on the cypress north houston from telge and im trying to pace with him and as i get to the rear qrt panel he jumps and runs up to about 70 or 80 then starts to slow so i caught up and LUCK would have it (im nv lucky) we catch a stop light right up ahead

Two lane road, im on the left hes in the right...i try to shift back into D1 but my shifter gets stuck bc i lost the retaining clip on my shift ****

i push down on the shifter, hear the click, slam it back into first just as the light switches and i floor it

car takes just a second to kick in and i didnt hear him roar off either i think he was expecting a little 305 tbi or something giving me the go...he never caught up i ran it to about 80 and let off had atleast 2 cars on him the entire time

at the next light i wanted to give him a but there were cars in the right lane and he was turning to go to his subdivision so i couldnt talk to him or givem a

last bit...my gfs older sister's EX is boasting now that he got a 2000 mustang GT...he wants to run me for slips yeah you can already tell he is a dumbass

ive lost to a GT (dont know if or how well modified) from a 15mph roll by 2 or 3 cars TPI SUCKS but anyhow i think i could have done much better from a dig (i took my friends Lt1 camaro from a dig by a length+1/2)...anyways his car sounds pretty good just the normal mustang flowmaster sound im sure...if i run him ill def do it from a dig

chances of winning???

k&N filter
flowmaster exhaust
aluminum rad (not perf just listing whats not stock)
guy who sold me car thinks it has a shift kit (shifts hard for sure)
350 TPI

 

Nice run! I always liked those old 442's.

I wouldn't count on a victory against the stang. Your best chance is from a dig but from a roll you will most likely lose.

 

yes he will lose from a roll.

 

You took an LT1? Must have one VERY STRONG L98, and that LT1 must have been really really dogged out.

I beat my friend when my LT1 was basically stock by a few car lengths up to 110, and he has a cam/headers/muffler/chip in his L98.

 

yeah from a dig that stang might not have a chance till about 60 but might take you after that. from a roll, he has you.

you need atleast some exhaust/headers and air intake box gutted out to hang with them. get some gears too and you should be ok

 

my friends lt1 was stock we did it twice from a light...he also had a passenger so take that into account...first time i took about 1/2 a car lead off the go and he caught me at the top of second and passed me

the second light he wasnt watching the crosslight well (he has a.d.d) and i got a good jump on him and he never caught up raced up to about 65 or 70 trying to be careful of speed in a 45mph zone and had him by a length or so

 

don't forget the broken lifter i had when we ran and it wasn't even a car length

 

haha i was about to call on that sorry but Lt1s just arent that fast stock im not saying l98s are either but lt1s arent much more superior and im sure a well functioning cammed and exhaust l98 could take a stock lt1

my l98 is strong but its still basically stock with no major mods...my friend got lazy on the light but he still never caught me top end

 

ever seen a comparison dyno graph between an LT1 and a L98? the LT1s power curves ARE superior in every way. in fact, the LT1 makes peak torque SOONER than an L98, and holds that torque peak past 4000rpms. i dynoed my old 93' Vette, and it made just over 300rwtq from 2300 all the way past 4500. ill do the L98 a favor and not even mention the hp curves
this, however, is true. a cammed and full exhaust equipped L98 should be capable of 12s with tuning... a stock LT1 (fbody) wont come close to that E/T

 

compare a f-body auto lt1 to an f-body auto (of course) l98 heck use a 92 l98 and a 93 lt1 (closest years to eachother) not to mention the cars are differant weights. race them


I bet you will be surprised


lt1 will win but not by much in the 1/4

 

BS you dunno when you broke it. And it was at LEAST a length. I'll run you and beat you again when it gets fixed... beotch.

And for GodSpeedGTA, HERE is an LT1 dyno graph. In his defense, his IROC is not tuned, only has a hypercrap chip. And his cam is small, it's the stock ZZ4 cam.

Like the curves? hehe.

 

ill race ya urban

 

what year 442?

 

Me too! Oh wait.....

 

your comparing an average driven LT1 to a well driven L98. low 14s is pretty much all your going to get out of a SD L98 fbody, but there are some LT1s (John Hunkins's stock 93 Formula comes to mind) that have run mid 13s. then factor in the 200lb weight advantage the 3rdgen has over the 4thgen and the LT1 pulls ahead even further
maybe some people would change their minds if you could overlay a graph of the L98s power curves. the difference in power production is amazing

 

Stock vs stock? Absolutely. Remember though, you're comparing two engines in which the former came with a very weak cam... and it also has a website devoted to the latter's intake (swap-wise).

Throw a ZZ4 cam into that L98, along with a Holley Stealth Ram... then dyno them one more time.

 

i thought i read somewhere the duration was similar between the 88' and up L98 cam and the LT1 cam... however, the LT1 cam has about .030 more lift. also, the ZZ4 cam isnt a good comparison to the LT1 stock cam... how bout throwing a LT1 intake and cam ontop of a TPI motor... you think itll make as much power or have similar dyno graphs? nope. why? cause of the cylinder heads

LT1 heads flow great right out of the box, in fact there are quite a few fbody and Vette guys running deep into the 11s with stock, unported LT1 heads. you will NOT see those #s with unported L98 heads

bottom line: stock vs stock, and mod for mod, the LT1 is in fact superior to the L98 in every way. except maybe price wise

 

I think you are trying to avoid the fact of what I pointed out. which was the camaro was lighter (92) and was compared to a reg, run of the mill 93 lt1 camaro. where did I say let compare one of the faster lt1's to a regular run of the mill l98

I NEVER said there power was similar which is why I used those two.

but, I will say this get over it . 9 out of 10 93 lt1 camaros are not going to run a 13. most will run anywere from a mid to low 14's most later l98 cars run high to mid 14's (see just how close that is?)

well I guess no matter what you are always right

sorry, I know better now

I give up

 

If you match the heads with that of the LT1's, of course...



No no, if I gave the impression that unported stock L98 heads were in the same league as the LT1's, I apologize. I just left out the heads, and stated that both an intake swap... and ZZ4 cam swap, on an L98, would be a much more even comparison with the LT1 (I used the ZZ4 grind, which makes up for the unported L98 head castings. Fair fight, no)?....


Agreed.

 

haha why the sarcasm? im just stating facts. its not a matter of opinion for me, just information ive gathered and am now presenting
i am not avoiding anything. yes the 3rdgen is lighter, by roughly 200lbs. i even agreed with you on that
first off, i dont know why your stuck on this 93 thing. there really isnt much difference in power for any year LT1. dyno runs between the different years dont vary more than 5 or so hp. this is also true of the L98 (and even the LS1). SD didnt net any extra power out of the cars, and im willing to bet any 87 - 92 L98 will also dyno very close
where did you get these #s from? ive observed most people on this board getting high 14s (14.7s and 14.8s) from bone stock L98s (some have even managed to run low 15s ). go over to fbody.com and browse their LT1 forum. most average stock runs there are low 14s (14.3s and 14.2s). sure there are a few L98 guys here getting mid 14s, but there are probably the same # of LT1 guys getting high 13s also. so i ask you, when is an average of a half second close?

 

because the 93 are the "slower" of the lt1's and they both are map only

they are close as in, it is not that hard to see how a mild cam l98 would take a stock lt1 which is what got this whole ball rolling


however after the 1/4 the lt1 would still have a very good chance of taking the mild cam l98

 

but then you no longer have an L98... youd have a LT1!
i think the heads would choke a combo like that, though. the lift and exhaust duration of that cam, coupled with the steathrams high rpm capabilities, absolutely scream for a better head (or at the least ported TPIs)

anyone have this particular combo with dyno results? it would be interesting to compare the power curves with a LT1

 

in fact, i agreed earlier in this thread that the setup mentioned previously should have taken Urban's near stock car (the LT1 in question)

thats not what motivated me to post concerning the LT1. what did prompt me to respond to the whole LT1 debate was this:
the above is just an uninformed statement. the dyno graphs between the 2 motors state otherwise

 

yes, you are right. I just took what you said wrong.

 

Exactly. I'm not saying that an L98 (in stock form) can compete with an LT1, as the TPI on an L98 is very limited. Even if the stock L98's cam is similar to the LT1's stock grind... the runners & plenum choke the L98 above 4500-RPM.

Absolutely, but I've already felt the difference of what a Stealthram can do for the stock L98. The L98's heads are not that bad... their not great, but their not that bad (porting always helps, of course).

 

cmon, what year was the 442???

 

honestly my knowledge of the body style of the 442s is basically ignorant i dont really know the year but ive heard that it is a kit car from a buddy of mine...he didnt give me a for sure answer (he lives down the street from the guy who owns it) he just told me he thinks its not an original

 

well the early ones looked like early chevelles, and caprices kinda, but smaller than the caprice. The 68-72 ones look like the ls6 chevelles from the same years.

 

yes it closely resembles my same friends 71 chevelle malibu

 

looks like this

[IMG]C:/My Documents/mypictures/olds442-rear[/IMG]

 

crap sorry i dont know how to attach photos taht way GAHH anyways it had that little spoiler on the back and looks close to my friends 71 chevelle

like i said it might of been a kit car and had a smaller motor i dunno

 

the olds 4-4-2 had a 455 with 400hp and 500ft.lbs i can see how you would jump a high gear 4-4-2 off the line but to stay in front of him after 50mph is just plain odd.


well nice kill

 

i would guess its actually a kit car with a rebuilt 350 or something...i also beat my friends (the 71 chevelle) after he got a little jump on me....he has a carbed 350 and weiand intake and a few other nifties....but anyhow we were neck and neck after i jumped off the line 1 sec after he went...my error...but i caught him top end actually and started pulling after 60 mph or so...plus i had an extra 120 lbs in the car (2 passengers)....i know that if we went from a straight dig me vs him and started at the same time..id beat him off the line and put him away with about 2 lengths

so once again not sure bout the 442 but when he jetted off as i pulled up to him the first time at about 45 mph it wasnt all that impressive but it was definately a muscle V8 he was pushing under the hood

 

All hail the mighty l98! Nice kill

 

Ya know, just because it was a 442 dosent mean it was anything special. The only ones worth a damn were the 68 Hurst/Olds and the 70 W30. And I guarantee you the one you raced was neither of those. Pretty much all the rest of the 442's were 14-15 second dogs.

 

no there were other faster models than the w30

 

Like what? A 70 W-30 was a 12 second car with headers and slicks.

 

my olds was rated for 13.9 on street tires its a 455 h.o

 

the small block cutlass w-31 actually smoked the w-30 from the factory. The w-31 was lighter, had hella steep rear gears, (like 3.90's) and a four speed bolted to a 350 with a big *** cam, and no power anything. ran 13's stock. Thats why I plan on keeping my 72 cutlass a smallblock.

 

LOL...Actually, if you take a W-31 and a W-30, add a set of slicks and run them, the W-30 will smoke the W-31. If youre looking at the famous "magazine" tests, the W-31 may have had a faster ET in some tests, but take a look at the MPH. I guarantee you the W-30 trapped a hell of a lot faster. Its call bias-ply tires. You really think a 455 with 5xx lb/ft of torque is going to hook up as well as a small block on F or G-70/14 tires? I dont think so.

 

By the way, I wouldnt hold my breath if youre trying to get a 72 Cutlass with an 8.5:1 350 and crap gears into the 13's without some work. I used to have a 65 Cutlass 2-door post that I had put a 70 W-30 455 in, along with a 2200 stall and 3.42 gears. That car was running high 12's. And believe me, a 65 Cutlass is one hell of a lot lighter than a 68-72. Even the 66-67 were starting to get a little portly.

 

well the 72 has a 3.42 posi 10 bolt rear end, heads off a 66 330, that raise compression to about 9.8:1, and it runs real low 14's with the stock cam. The original heads off the 72 are getting ported before they go back on, and will be matched with mondello cam jm-18-20 (modern w-31 replacement) and probe flat top forged slugs

The w-30 was a great car, but still, in factory trim it got roasted. The w-31 used a big bore, short stroke 350, that loved to rev. It gives up 35 hp and 90 ftlb to the heavier big block. Isnt that like a 200lb weight difference? Most 442's Ive seen are pretty optioned out, so thats more weight. The w-30 also came standard with a wide ratio 4 speed, and 3.42 gears, I'm pretty sure all w-31's were equipped with close ratio 4 speeds and 3.91 posis, an optimal configuration for a high spinning smallblock.

So youre telling me that a car that is WAY heavier, with taller gears in the tranny, AND taller rear gears, is going to win on slicks just because it has 90ft lb on the lighter car? If a car loses on street tires, then it would probably lose on slicks too.

35 hp isnt much of a difference. 200 lbs is though. 200 lbs is like 2 tenths. That evens up the 35 hp difference pretty well. I also think the gearing would help make up for the 90 ftlb low end loss of having a small block, and I dare say that both cars (10.25:1 350 w/ 3.91's, 10.25:1 455 w/3.42's) would have massive traction problems on street tires.

I think the race results would be the same, although faster.

and on another note,

"By the way, I wouldnt hold my breath if youre..."
and
"LOL...Actually"
crap like that makes you sound like an opinionated dick. Are you?

 

well my olds has 2.73s on a 400th .I THINK A 350 MIGHT JUMP OFF THE LINE BUT AFTER 50MPH ITS TOAST MY CAR PULLS LIKE A BAT OUT OF HELL ON THE TOP END.

 

And for the record dude, the smallblock would have trapped higher because of the lack of torque. A torquey big block makes for quick et's with low mph. If I'm wrong, let me know.

 

Your perception of track times is miscued. The power output of an engine depends on how it is built. There are plenty of small blocks that would make a big block envious. Sure the big block has more potential but that doesn’t mean it is built that way.

 

I owned a 1968 W-31 Cutlass from 1974 through 1978. 1 of 701 (or thereabouts).

It had the 3.91 gear originally, 4-speed, power steering, tic-toc tach, etc., and aftermarket headers.

Ran strong but never had it on an 'official" track. It was impressive for a small-block engine.

My current '88 GTA with L98 would have smoked my W-31.

And I know my GTA runs 14.0s.

At the same time I owned my W-31 (which incidently was known from the factory as a Ram-Rod 350 in 1968), a couple of friends owned 1970 and '71 442s with the basic 455.

I could (probably) have beat them. Maybe. Smoked them? Nope.

I've kept all my magazines since the late 1960s and have buried somewhere the original tests of the W-31.

It was a low 14 second car, at best, if I remember correctly.

It ran about as well as my '68 Firebird with the 400 and automatic.

But nowhere near as fast as my SS396 '67 Chevelle (with very built 375 horse engine). Scary fun.

Just my 2cents.

jms

 

trap speed is determined by horsepower and wieght. you are wrong. hp is what makes a car fast, not torque.

example, the formula for hp is hp= 33,000 pound feet of torque per minute.
as you can plainly see, hp is a time based equation, and torque is simply rotational force. since torque is not time and force, you would have to use a measurement that utilizes time also. that would be hp=time(minute) and rotational force(torque), you can not rely on torque to describe the amount of time it would take for it to acomplish work, because work is time and force. acceleration is measured in seconds (time). if you were to determine how much torque it took to move your car, and then how long it took to accomplish a distance, you would have not found how much torque your car makes, you would find how much hp you needed to complete it in an amount of time.

and second, the was no ****ing olds small and big block. they have identicle bore spacing. bore spacing identifies a "big block".

 

Well...ShiftyCapone and Vejatabul actually took the works right out of my mouth. But I have no problem telling you that youre wrong. You are wrong.

 

Maybe I should have written that post a little differently. If 2 cars run a similar et, say one runs a 15.095, and the other runs a 14.998. Car one (high horsepower low torque gsr motor) running the 15 second run actually has a higher trap speed than the faster car in this example. Why? I have experienced this time and time again, and I believe that my et's are low for the trap speed because my motor makes lots of torque, (car 2) as opposed to a car that can't get off the line, but then starts making great power up top. I'm sure that car made way more horsepower than I did, and he was running me down quickly. In a longer race I was toast, but because my high torque engine put more power to the ground more quickly, i was good on the 1320

I'm not big on math so that hella tecnical post didnt help, it was confusing actually.

here, I'll demonstrate my understanding of horsepower as an analogy. In a fight, you can either knock someone out with a few blows, or just hit em lots and the blows will start to add up. Horsepower is how fast you are hitting, torque is how hard each blow is. If you were trying to say exert 100 lbs of force on somthing, you could exert 100lbs of force once, 25lbs of force 4 times, or 1 lb of force 100 times.

And sorry for talking ****, I just don't see the need for someone who is an authority to be making comments that seem to belittle people who may know less. Condescending comments really arent needed. I dont know if you do this intentionally, but it wasnt just on this thread that I noticed it, and other people have made comments about it too. I mean anyone with a wealth of knowledge is appreciated here, and your years of knowledge and practical experience are an asset to us all. but cmon dude, just chill a little on the attitude. Your a moderator, you are TG.org's public face. so try to go easy on the noobs.

 

It has to do with your ability to get out of the hole is all. The more you spin, the higher your trap speeds will be, relatively.