Please login or register.
Login with username, password and session length

www.capitalareacobraclub.com

May 21, 2012, 08:58:49 pm
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Wider is better...  (Read 380 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Frank

  • Frank Johnson
  • Contributing Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • I always thought I would make a good billionaire
  • View 's Album


Re: Wider is better...
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 08:01:37 pm »
You're a mad man!  BRILLIANT!!!! Good show! 
You've got a short time to live and a long time to stay dead...

WARNING:  DOES NOT PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS.

Online Ed Hunter

  • Ed Hunter
  • Contributing Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 744
    • Fredericksburg, VA
  • View 's Album


Re: Wider is better...
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2012, 12:56:31 pm »
Had the car down at Performance Autosport this weekend for it's certification dyno pulls.   I was hoping that I could pull the restrictor plate but no luck. Engine made more power this year that it did last year!  I never ran it completely unrestricted as it made too much power with the same restrictor plate I had on the engine last year.  I had decided to keep the power down and pull some of the ballast off the car, as the Toyo tires don't seem to last a whole race anyway.  Getting some weight off the tires may keep them better for longer.  So the goal was to keep the engine in check while maximizing torque.  New rules this year let us run a HP/Wt ratio of 1HP per 9lbs race weight, and a torque ratio of 1 ft/lb per 8.5lbs race weight.  The car with #150lb of lead bolted to the right rear frame rail scaled at 3240 with 1 gallon of gas in the tank and me in the car.   At 3240 that meant 380 torque and 360HP.  My first pulls were netting 365 rwhp and 365ft/lbs with a 1.5" x 4 hole restrictor plate.  Too much, esp if I wanted to drop some pounds.  I swapped in a plate w/ 1.375" holes, both HP and torque dropped just a tad.  In goes the plate with four 1.250" holes, power drops to 349rwhp, torque drops to 360ft/lbs.   I decide to leave it alone, since I left my smaller plate at home - the one with four 1.125" holes in it.  It might have been perfect, pulling HP down enough I could take all the ballast off the car....

Anyway, scaled the car last night, pulled 75lbs off, ended up with 3160lbs with approx 3 gallons of fuel in the cell.  Goal will be to come off track with only a gallon or two in the tank.  I figure if the car is running, I should be over the minimum weight. 

Overall the car made about 10 dyno pulls: Air/fuel showing rich at 12:1, but safe.   Performance Autosport posted the video to youtube, someone sent me a link... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q9FxL-FtP4&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Offline LaurenceC

  • Larry "Bitch", "Mr P", "Lare Bear" Casey
  • Contributing Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • View 's Album

    • http://www.caseydesignproducts.com

Re: Wider is better...
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2012, 01:08:30 pm »
Cool pic

Offline InProcess

  • Ken Caniglia
  • Contributing Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1906
    • Waldorf, MD
  • View 's Album

    • Ken C's Lone Star

Re: Wider is better...
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2012, 01:15:27 pm »
Restrictor plates take a on a life of there own, just ask the NASCAR guys.  Did you compare the curves to see how broad vice the peak numbers for driveability?  Interestng trades with restrictor paltes and ballast.  Good luck!


393 ci SBF Lone Star
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up