here is a pic of my old camaro and it only 60ft at 1:57 :cheers:

 

HOT DAYUM Corky!!!

:smash: :thumbs:

 

jd i was telling ralph my old car left hard as hell and it only 60ft at 1:57 and the vette did a 1:48 and feels nowhere as violent as the camaro did :cheers:

 

Thats why the vette needs a 4-link and 9".

IRS stink, we're loosing alot there.

 

Mackey, i think Corky's point was that the Vette (IRS) was 60 footing better without all the violence.

Corky nice picture. That car looks like it was fun to drive. I think what you are seeing is that the vette is transfering more power into forward motion, while the Camaro was lifting and twisting. The vette is more efficient.


[Modified by ralph, 8:59 AM 8/20/2003]

 

I need to think about that. I'm not sure.

 

1.4s sound quicker than 1.5s but then again I think the Vette has more hp than the camaro above. Is that right?

Nice pic Corky

 

You sure you weren't tripping the 60' lights with the REAR tires? Nice pic!

 

Its my belief that the vettes are more efficient off the line than most cars.

Not only has Corky shown that with his camero, but my Fathers Chevelle with identical power to my vette, at only 100lbs more, only pulls mid 1.6 60 times. We are currently working the suspension over in his car, to make things better. But he too has the same "twisting" the camero shows.

My car just barely getting the tires off, doesn't twist on bit. Perhaps that is why its so hard to get the tires off the ground in these cars, since it has to pull both front tires off at once. Its hard to see in the picture of corks car, but that passengers side tire is at some point still on the ground when the other tire is off the ground. In other words, if you could measure the load on each back wheel you would most likely see a huge loading difference. Which could results in a less traction.

Also isn't every twisting member of a car, rubber bushing, frames, control arms robbing power from the motor? The energy that is required to bend, twist and distort the before mentioned has to come from somewhere. That is why the 1/2 back car made of chro-moly are so awesome. Now only the weight difference, but they are unforgiving to the forces of twisting. Bang, everything is planted to the ground and used as efficently as possible. Through talking with Leo on Dads car, he said to even eliminate the rubber/poly bushing. Use metal bushings in his control arms etc. Every bit helps.

I am perfectly happy with the 60 ft times the vettes pull. Not to say I'm not gonna try to improve it a little. But I think we are leaps and bounds ahead of the other street cars.

:cheers:

PS Corky that wheelie is cool!
[Modified by ski_dwn_it, 3:58 PM 8/20/2003]


[Modified by ski_dwn_it, 3:59 PM 8/20/2003]

 

Why? Isn't all that hang time just wasted power anyways?

 

EDGAR I THINK THE CAMARO HAD MORE POWER ALOT MORE TOP END MPH ALMOST THE SAME ET THO :cheers:

 

I WOULD LIKE TO THINK IT DID BUT I DO NOT THINK IT CARRIED THEM THAT FAR :cheers:

 

Corky

I agree... The Vette is much more efficient leaving the line.. example, my stock motored Vette was lifting both tires (only 2") and 60' in 1.65 (best) but would usually 60' in 1.68-1.72 but it only ran 108 - 109 mph.

My point is it had GREAT traction, and got good ET (12.3s) but low MPH... because of its low HP

 

Corky, the answer is simple.......that motor you have in the vette is no good for drag racing......it doesn't even pull the wheels. However, since i'm such a great guy, i'll take it off you hands so you can move on to something worth bringing to the race track. Please have it cleaned and crated up for next Saturdays race at etown.......Do you think it will fit in the hatch? Keep the crate as small as possible.

 

:D :cheers:

 

Hey, I agree, they're junk racing motors, so I call 2nd dibbs on it if you can't make it fit in Ralphs hatch.... or better yet, I'm sure Jesse has realized his must be junk too, so I'll just take that one instead. :lol:

cheers,
Beach Bum


[Modified by Beach Bum, 10:16 PM 8/20/2003]

 

:nono: :D :thumbs: