Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Chris, get an old mopar racing manual and pay close attention to the front suspension section.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Drooze I saw in your post about Ex.. well I hate to tell you, but through testing some of the fast Comp cars have found a 2 step header keeps the velocity up better than the 3 step and is faster/quicker down track. What works best in theory & on a dyno, doesn't always work best in the real world.
I know you are young and have time to waste trying to re-invent the wheel.
Please do what Larry suggested. Study tried and true (already proved) ways of doing things and then after knowing how and why something works, refine and improve the application. As said in another post you aren't the first guy to dream and want to make major changes to the way things are done. I do think it is encouraging that you said you needed a good base to start from... I agree. Build a simple straight forward combination with the tried and true methods and systems. Then if you want to test a theory you have a stable base/platform to work from. Remember this sport of racing is all about making the laws of Physics work for you, not cheating them... A long time ago I was told by a very smart Engineering Professor that you couldn't cheat the laws of Physics, only use them correctly and you might get away with bending them a little before you broke them.. :~)
Good Luck....

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

I do appreciate the advice Adger, and in truth it is exactly what we did with the Mega Maniac, we started with all established items.

Even on the header side we ordered the TTI's 2 steps that everyone else was running, why because they were a known quantity.

Timing dictated the 3 steps however because delivery of the 2 steps wasnt until after we were trackside, plus being mild stell afforded us the opportunity to change them more easily.

In our scenario, the 3 steps are working better, why ? Cam profile, head flow, I dont know and havent had time to disect why.

I couldnt agree more, Dyno's are in my opinion useless except for a baseline, they do not replicate the exact conditions of accell , decel, airflow, etc. I much to our tuner chagrin, said no more Dyno, trackside, the last tune that I wrote propelled us to a 10.59, and was rough at best.

I agree Adger, it may not sound like I do but I do, I ALWAYS start with a KNOWN quantity , its part of the Scientific Method, its a control and its required. From there, we will "play" but I will have a basline to go from.

Thank you Adger, and others for your concern, our INITIAL steps , even on the DP are exactly as you said, staret with something known. From there we will diverge, I guess I havent communicated that well, and thats my fault, the DP , except headers well, its pretty much like all the others.......Now it will be changed , we learned what works and what can be improved upon, in that arena unfortunatley there have been few examples to follow early, Irv Johns, Doug Duell....well that been about it. Now its interesting to see we are having people follow things WE did, several teams.....all knowledge is bite sized pieces as it were, and Were hungry.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Drooze, I can tell you have a lot to learn about what a dyno can and cannot do and how to read the results.

Not to make you sound ignorant, but can you explain your "Scientific Method"? Is it removing and replacing parts until you see an increase of performance?

What Adger was trying to make you understand is that you need to try to match the baseline from others that are racing your same combination and start from there. Not all performance gains come from the engine itself. Try to quit re-inventing the wheel.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

"Scientific" testing. Should be A-----B-----A
Change one thing, not 2 or 3
Get a baseline.
Then make your change,
Get another baseline,
Then got back to the original setup and get a baseline.
This is how it should be done. Too many times, you make a change and something else goes away at the same time. So you can't really evaluate the change

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Chris, Not really sure what you are going to do as far as the DP but with the 72 Chally you might want to look at an --ALTERKATION--- front end that will give you coil over shocks and rack steering. ---Seen them on a bunch of mopars and owners more than happy with the product. Good luck with the the new toy.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Sorry Finespline...not legal in SS Class.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

If you want to explore the header situation, you must have this
http://www.maxracesoftware.com/pipemax36xp2.htm

This is Larry Meaux's new baby. Larry is not an engine builder but a head , intake, exhaust guy. He has spent many years working on this and is one of the smartest people I know.

Greg

If you don't know Larry , go to his forum. You ask a question and he will give you a solid answer.

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

SORRY BOUT THAT-------THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE LEANING TOWARDS A BRACKET STYLE CAR WITH THE 1972. IF SS IS THE DIRECTION THAN YOUR STUCK WITH THE TORSION BARS.:eek:

Re: Drooze has left the..........
 

Have it.....but good advice, had it since before the DP and it confirmed what I thought not to the same numbers but still an improvment over 2, but someone else said about at high rpm with 2 vs 3 and I can see that, every engine is different, we followed some peoples lead who HAVE had experience with this engine and the result on that side have been good, when everything else was/is flushed out well....the TTI's will be given a shot. Grubbs looked at my Car in Atlanta, and said, Im glad to see you have good headers....are they best ? Well find out....but its funny, I will bet dollars to dimes, a couple people who are shaking their head about my choice on the DP headers are running headers made by the same guy.