I was not trying to pick on you did not even know what combo you ran.. The
engine I described was Turk's SBC.. I ran it on the dyno for 2 days trying to
find more power it just was not there. Did have enough to break a Richmond 6
sped though..
The 'harmony' involved is the point I was trying to get across. An engine is not
individual parts it is the sum of all the parts working together.
Dave
Jane McMeekin wrote:
>
> Dave's comments on engine size and rod ratios were really interesting
> especially when I realized that his "D" example described our Skyhawk's
> piece to a tee. We run a S.B.C. with the Dart/Buick set up using a 2.85
> crank, a 4.155 bore, and 6.125 rods. The heads are too big, the rods are
> too long, and the manifold (Dart) is designed to accommodate 355 cubic
> inches. The power is just about what Dave says it should be. The chassis
> dyno shows 475 hp and 330 ft. lbs. of torque at 8400 rpm. Using a loss
> factor of 15% we should expect about 550 hp and 380 ft. lbs. of torque
> at the flywheel, not bad, but at least 50 hp less than we expected.
>
> So in a perfect world some changes would be forthcoming. But in Don's
> world what you see is what you get. I suspect that most of us need to
> compromise here and there, but the point is we could have had a better
> car for about the same amount of money if we had been more concerned
> about "harmony" and a little less impressed with the caliber of our
> bullets. We have always prided ourselves in being reasonably well
> prepared, but I guess we booted this one.
> Don McMeekin
> McMeekin Brothers #183 Skyhawk
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
/// what is needed. It isn't that difficult, folks.
|