87-na vs. chevelle ss 454
03-04-05, 09:30 PM
#26
you don't have to tell me... when i got the car the diff cover had a massive leak, i pulled off the cover and about 3 tablespoons of silver metal gooey oil came out. i cleaned the carrier off with some parts cleaner and put in a detroit locker and resealed the cover. the diff howled like a **** because of the pinion backlash due to the worn bearings but i drove it like that for a good 5k miles and it never got worse, i abused the hell out of the diff, it wheel hopped like crazy at times but nothing in the rear end ever broke.
they can take a little abuse...
they can take a little abuse...
03-05-05, 12:08 AM
#28
oh, and big blocks are only good performance engines when set up properly, they can always produce massive amounts of torque but are not exactly top end performance engines. 350's wind up pretty good for a V8 but do not produce heaps of torque, which is why i decided to stroke out a small block 350, punch it out and stroke it. it had the benefits from both worlds, add in some oval track ported and polished heads and a modest cam and it brings the engine to life.
03-05-05, 03:38 AM
#29
Royale with cheese
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas, by way of Poulsbo, WA
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by comradegiant
My uncle has a 66 389 SS with a later 454 dropped in. Its a hot car, dynos 450 to the wheels. Hurst shifter, all that jazz.
You mean 396. No such thing as a chevy 389. At least not stock. And even if this kill isnt BS, I would never take an old muscle car anywhere near 140. So no **** you beat him top speed, but if you are saying you beat him from any speed to lets say 80-100 MPH, then you are either talking yourself up, or he wasnt racing.
03-05-05, 11:37 AM
#30
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hp numbers changed in 1972...so previous big hp #'s were gone.
SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.
SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Since the engine has no load on it, all of its energy can be used for making horsepower.
Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.
SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.
SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Since the engine has no load on it, all of its energy can be used for making horsepower.
Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.
03-06-05, 08:01 PM
#31
Junior Member
iTrader: (34)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 03EBZ06
Yeah but Chevelle SS is bit more heavier and has the Aero disadvantage so it is much slower than the Z06.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
how did jhonny-87-rx7 know that it was a real SS and not a clone? and which engine it had?
03-07-05, 03:01 AM
#32
coolant leak that kills
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: colorado
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not sure that the chevelle ever came with an engine that'd lose to an 87 n/a.
i drive an 87 n/a and have driven a 396-***-427 chevelle ss, and there's really not much of a comparison. granted, i have stock exhaust and a full interior, but i'd have to strap a rocket to my car for it to keep up with that chevelle.
i drive an 87 n/a and have driven a 396-***-427 chevelle ss, and there's really not much of a comparison. granted, i have stock exhaust and a full interior, but i'd have to strap a rocket to my car for it to keep up with that chevelle.
03-07-05, 08:04 AM
#34
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my dad had a 69 chevelle 396cu SS. Red with black top and black stripes. It seemed fast, but then again I was so young I couldnt see over the window sill. So I just watched him shift with an AUTO 4 on the floor. I remember him being hard on that car.
In reality though, after you hit 100-110 in them they die off bad. I meesed with an old chevelle (very good condition) and after that speed he just fell back.
What kind of gearing they have?
In reality though, after you hit 100-110 in them they die off bad. I meesed with an old chevelle (very good condition) and after that speed he just fell back.
What kind of gearing they have?
03-07-05, 02:53 PM
#36
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mtn Home, Arkansas
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was like a 71 or something like that but it was an ss 454 and im not bs'n i kept up from 0-80. like side by side but then it pulled away but after 120 i own that mother....
03-08-05, 02:00 AM
#39
Lets rock.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I'll agree this kill is a load of ****. With todays tires a '70 LS6 chevelle pulls a 13.1 stock. Shall we start the list of mods you would need to run low 13's in a N/A FC? I raced a '72 with a 307 in it and I damn near lost. Sounds like a flybye to me.
03-08-05, 11:21 PM
#40
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flamin-roids
Yeah I'll agree this kill is a load of ****. With todays tires a '70 LS6 chevelle pulls a 13.1 stock. Shall we start the list of mods you would need to run low 13's in a N/A FC? I raced a '72 with a 307 in it and I damn near lost. Sounds like a flybye to me.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...tml?page=5&c=y
"the bone-stock LS-6 ran a 13.35 at 104.16 mph"
03-09-05, 12:05 AM
#41
Lets rock.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats about right. I remember seeing track times then and now with the only difference being old tires vs new tires and the difference was huge. I've seen as low as 13.1 for the LS6 chevelle but even 13.3 would beat a stock FD. And a stock FD would rock just about every N/A FC so given the mods described he shouldn't of been able to even see the SS badge on the back of the car.
03-10-05, 09:50 PM
#45
or it was badly tuned, like i said a lot of muscle car guys don't know how to tune carbs or adjust timing curves. it could have had a tired engine, lots of variables but a good running SS you would have had no chance at keeping up with him.
only thing that would have limited him is windy roads, american muscle cars handled like a rolling brick. my elcamino handled decent but it was lighter and i did suspension mods.
only thing that would have limited him is windy roads, american muscle cars handled like a rolling brick. my elcamino handled decent but it was lighter and i did suspension mods.
03-10-05, 10:52 PM
#46
Originally Posted by 03EBZ06
Yeah but Chevelle SS is bit more heavier and has the Aero disadvantage so it is much slower than the Z06.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
03-10-05, 11:52 PM
#48
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RX-Heven
I believe those are factory numbers with the ol skinny bias plias that were available then. Those old bias-plys sure do smoke really good
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...tml?page=5&c=y
13.35 @ 104
"Testing the classics on their original bias-ply tires would have been like asking Michael Jordan to wear 30-year-old Chuck Taylors. So we evened things up by mounting brand-new, stock-size BFGoodrich Radial T/As on stock-looking wheels supplied by Coker Tire (800-251-6336), of Chattanooga, Tennessee, on all the old cars."
03-12-05, 11:32 PM
#49
Administrator
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: So. Arlington, TX!!!
Posts: 12,974
Likes: 0
Received 59 Likes
on
36 Posts
And there's even a picture of the Chevelle destroying those brand new tires, so "traction-limited" needs to be added as a descriptor to that time....bolt on something that can hook up that car and you're in the mid-twelves and spanking any lightly modded FD easy...
03-13-05, 12:47 AM
#50
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mar3
And there's even a picture of the Chevelle destroying those brand new tires, so "traction-limited" needs to be added as a descriptor to that time....bolt on something that can hook up that car and you're in the mid-twelves and spanking any lightly modded FD easy...
Also, the 104 mph won't be beating lightly modded FD's.
Some bone stock RX-7's have run 13.2's @ 104 plus.
Lightly modded rx-7? From Kevin Wyum...
"With nothing other than a precat back crush bent exhaust, everything else bone stock, incuding tires I ran 12.67 @ 111MPH."