[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: SVO - svo Digest - V01 #63



     
Previously said:
>>     Gutted Upper
> ever think of taking that off and putting a stocker on?
     
>>The motor is just about ready to go back in the car...so i haven't even ran 
it with the gutted upper.  Is it a waist even with a lot of hogging to the 
head?<<
     
     
I can attest from my own experience that the combination of a gutted 
upper and FMS roller cam will kill your bottom end torque, since this 
is what I am currently running.  While I do not have any chassis dyno 
data to back this up, my test of how easily/long can I break the tires 
loose on a 1-2 shift shows a significant reduction.  I have yet to play 
with the cam advance/retard setting at the strip, though.  On a 
previous combination of cam/intake I was able to reduce my ET by a full 
6/10's by optimizing my cam timing using the trial and error method at 
the strip ;)

By reducing the runner length, you reduce the overall broadness of the 
torque curve for an increase in upper rpm horsepower.  This point has 
been proven by the V8 crowd on many occasion, just compare a 5.0 bread 
box intake performance to the venerable GT-40 intake on a near-stock 
engine combo.

I would, however, be interested in seeing a flowbench comparison 
between a full length upper/lower intake set vs. a hogged out 
upper/full length lower intake set.  Does anyone know if this has been 
done??

As it has been stated before, there is no ONE miracle part that will 
make our 2.3L's scream.  It is the correct COMBINATION of parts and 
CALIBRATIONS that does it.  Remember, there is no ONE way to do 
anything.

Ted
'86 SVO
"Still in search of the next level/combination of parts."

Received: from usr.com (mailgate.usr.com) by robogate2.usr.com with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.02 Enterprise) id 4957C9F0; Mon, 15 Dec 97 12:53:19
-0600
Received: from SMARTWORX.COM by usr.com (8.8.5/3.1.090690-US Robotics)
	id LAA05857; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:27:36 -0600 (CST)
Received: by SMARTWORX.COM from localhost
    (router,SLMail V2.5); Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:29:52 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list svo <svo@SMARTWORX.COM>
Sender: owner-svo@SMARTWORX.COM
Reply-To: brianm@cpl.com
Message-ID:  <34956B1F.A6581E4A@cpl.com>
Date:  Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:38:40 -0500
From: Brian McGoldrick <brianm@cpl.com>
X-Mailer:  Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version:  1.0
Subject:  Re: SVO - svo Digest - V01 #63
References:  <19971214000401.86ea6061.in@SMARTWORX.COM>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit