1960 283 chevy
Now that the captain his a three speed will NHRA add hp to that combo? When that combo was factored originally it was rated with a power glide trans only and was rated accordingly to with that trans. Now that this has changed do to new information, NHRA should add 3 to 5hp to this combo to make up for this new performance enhancing information. When they changed the rule and let big block Chevy’s use different heads they rated them differently. This deal with the 1960 283 is rally no different. Sorry captain that just the way I feel. :D
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
i think nhra should allow its great invention the ahfs to correct this issue... and i think charlie bob should keep his worries to his own class and them farm tractors... or he might be walking to dancers this year :)
captain jack |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
If he goes too fast he will automaticaly get the HP. Unless you have a really good 3 speed it will not run faster than a good PG.
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
I still want one for my 66 283.(now i'm crying) lol !
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
I think that the NHRA technical department owes the good Captain (and everyone else running a '57-61 Chevy with a rules-mandated Powerglide) a written apology, published in National Dragster, for waiting FIFTY TWO YEARS to legalize three speed automatics in these cars. Thousands of Turboglide cars were sold, beginning in '57, and they ALL had 3-speed planetaries in them.
How competent is a "tech department" that lets something like this "slide" for over FIFTY F****n' Years?????? :( There's NO TELLING how many races were lost, that might have been won by these cars, if they'd been allowed the 3-speed "replacement" transmission that was rightfully (and legally) theirs to use. Instead of a heartfelt apology for their gross incompetence, they issue a terse acknowledgement that NOW (fifty years later) the 3-speed is "legal." and expect the Captain to feel like he's been handed a gift. The ignorance of some people is only exceeded by their arrogance. They owe him an apology for this long-standing mistake. Do I think he'll get it???? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!!! Hold your breath... |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Bill, I find myself agreeing with you more and more lately! This is scary! You go Captain Jack! Jim
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
Any data to back that up? I'm curious. Anyone? |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
The data was provided by Superstock and Drag Illustrated magazine many years ago. Granted the car in the article wasn't a 60' 283 car,, but a typical (at the time) small block Superstock 69 Camaro. The 'glide was quicker than the TH350.............................Danny Durham
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Jim,
I don't remember us DISAGREEING on anything but "factory" figures on boost and monitoring it; how, why, and when, and if you'll remember, I eventually came around to ~your~ way of thinking on that subject after about ten thousand pages of posts.... so, I think that whatever "issues" we had dissipated when the dust settled. I don't know if you knew it, or even cared, since it's not a Class car, but my street/strip/ "bracket" car is a daily-driver '72 Valiant 4-door sedan with a Vortech boosted 360 Magnum that is good for about an 11.80 @ 118 in the quarter, with 3.55 gears, which really isn't very fast, but adequate on the street, for a 70 year old geezer with an attitude... LOL! Just telling you that because you seemed to think that ~I~ thought that "boost" was a dirty word. Nope; it's "addicting"... need I say more???????? :) |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
I built a '91 Camaro for a customer, it is a low 10 second small block footbrake car. We broke our turbo 350 on Saturday, changed to a powerglide on Sunday and went back to the same track to test. Car was over a tenth slower with the 'glide. I built both trannys myself, the turbo was a stock 2.52 low and the glide was a 1.76, using the same torque converter. Car suffered out of the hole and lost most of the et. by the 330, I was driving the car myself. I think the biggest problem was the loss of gear ratio with that 1.76 low, probably would not have been near as much a difference if we had a 2.08 first gear. But that was what I saw in the comparison with a 3200 lb. car on 9 inch tires.
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
The heavier the car the more et will be gained using a 3 speed trans. Since Jack's car weighs 4,000 plus pounds it should really pick his car up. Going from a 2.18 low gear to a 2.75 or lower first gear should really help get the car moving and not having a big drop when you shift should help it down the track. I would bet it would be worth at least .15 on his car.
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Watch that tach Jack. You will be shifftin in to second gear right after the 60 foot cone,not and the end of the grandstands!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Is Jack going to use a 200 or a turbo 350?
|
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Jack,
You better look into getting some wheelie bars. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
How about in a 3300 lb 327 GT car, 2.08 low, very good PG versus a 2.52 low, very good Rossler 350? The PG is in the car and I have access to the Rossler. Any data or thoughts? |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
A powerglide versus turbo 3-spd difference is not that easy to figure out. A pure back-to-back swap won't give you correct answer. You need to optimize each setup i.e., cam, gear, tires etc.
That said, I would guess an optimized turbo 3-spd would be better due to less converter slippage and ability of trans to keep engine in a more narrow power range. There are some on this board who have good knowledge of converter efficiency, would like to hear their input... |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Bruce Fulper did a story a few years ago with regards to engine rpm and how quick an engine rev's etc.
It was with pontiac's (of course) but the gist of it was, a bigblock or long stroke/heavy rotating assembly engine rev's up slower than a lighter small block/short stroke/etc. A bigblock that prefers to spin up at 600rpm per second would be quicker with a glide due to less parasitic losses (spinning up the assembly) than a 3spd which would require 900 rpm per sec. A small block however that loves 900 rpm per sec would be slower (or at least not faster) with a glide because it doesn't have the reserve torque. Veh weight the same, gearing the same, all else the same, a slow reving (reving up) big block is quicker using torque where a quick reving smallblock needs more gears/closer ratio. More coming back to me...two 455's on a dyno, the newer one with an extra 20hp was actually slower because it was tested at 600rpm per sec and the gearing of the car and the old 455 was set up for 900rpm per sec. The new motor couldn't spin up as fast and was therefore slower on the track. Speaking of Bruce..anybody heard from him lately? Reading some old BracketRacingUSA mags the other day and came across a couple other of his stories. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
Exactly! Get that pig of a car moving as quickly as possible! If I hadn't just invested a ton of money in a 2.03 powerglide, I would have taken advantage of a th400. Big wheelies, and should be quicker. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
Get on the Pontiac Forums much? Some "questionable" business practices have hurt his reputation. Too bad, as he was one of the "go to" guys when I started getting into Pontiacs about 20 years ago. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Yeah, make sure you get your news from a bathroom wall, instead of talking LIKE a man, to a MAN.
I expected more out of you than THAT kind of gossip Jeff. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
Ed F. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
Bathroom wall? Riiight. I think you made your own bed on this one. No doubt you are great with Pontiacs. That was never the issue. Sorry you are offended. I just can't believe that ALL your naysayers are wrong. If they are, I sincerely apologize. As to me being a man, I am a man that would always make good if someone I sold parts to or did work for wasn't satisfied. I am a man that stands behind what I say and do. I am honest to a fault, even if I have to take a loss to make someone happy. I put friendships first over my ego and wallet. Sorry for derailing this thread. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Wow talk about stirring up a ****storm unintentionally!
No I've never been to a pontiac forum and I've never heard anything negative. I've read lots of his articles and he obviously knows hit stuff. Speaking of which, Hi Bruce good to see your still around. Was my memory anywhere close to what your intent of said articles was or was I out in left field? LOL! I understand what you were saying, I'm just not sure if I put it as clearly as I could have. |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
We'll just leave it at that.
I got no dog in this fight. Sorry Mr. Fulper. :) |
Re: 1960 283 chevy
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.