[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Matt1970gto

What made you go with the wedge over a set of tigers? Hell I’ve been asking myself why we went the RA5 route .

I think your Father's engine turned out quite well. I would be interested in how much better you think it would have been with Tiger heads? For me the elephant in the room is. If your engine was to a sister engine to his why did it turnout so much different?

Stan

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

I think your Father's engine turned out quite well. I would be interested in how much better you think it would have been with Tiger heads? For me the elephant in the room is. If your engine was to a sister engine to his why did it turnout so much different?

Stan

Different person rework my heads & built my intake. Based on the flow #s he got he recommended the bigger cam & header tube specs.
Not sure it would’ve turned out better but it sho would’ve been cheaper. I have saw tiger builds make good power & some not make good. Our 5 builds looked good on dyno but on the track I’ve yet to see a performance upgrade. We’re at Charlotte for the 4 wide so I will have a better idea tomorrow but I ran 9.90 @ 158 here in 17 with my 535 edelbrock combo that had a 1200 quick fuel. I just put a 1175 carb on my motor so we’ll see how it does. Dad ran 8.90 @ 165 with his 535 edelbrock combo & has been 8.90 @ 165 with his 5 combo. We added 30-35 cubic inch , head flow cfm went from 420s to over 500 & both got bigger cams.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Matt1970gto

Different person rework my heads & built my intake. Based on the flow #s he got he recommended the bigger cam & header tube specs.
Not sure it would’ve turned out better but it sho would’ve been cheaper. I have saw tiger builds make good power & some not make good. Our 5 builds looked good on dyno but on the track I’ve yet to see a performance upgrade. We’re at Charlotte for the 4 wide so I will have a better idea tomorrow but I ran 9.90 @ 158 here in 17 with my 535 edelbrock combo that had a 1200 quick fuel. I just put a 1175 carb on my motor so we’ll see how it does. Dad ran 8.90 @ 165 with his 535 edelbrock combo & has been 8.90 @ 165 with his 5 combo. We added 30-35 cubic inch , head flow cfm went from 420s to over 500 & both got bigger cams.

Would happen to have a dyno sheet from that engine that you could post?

For 5 combo I get

1000 Foot ET = 7.5289
1/4 Mile ET = 8.9009
1/4 Mile MPH = 165.4635

Stan

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Would happen to have a dyno sheet from that engine that you could post?

For 5 combo I get

1000 Foot ET = 7.5289
1/4 Mile ET = 8.9009
1/4 Mile MPH = 165.4635

Stan

I doubt I still have a sheet but it made 987 hp 775 trq & mine made 974 hp 823 trq. Dad went 5.27 @ 132 1.149 60 wide open in the 1/8th on a single carb & 5.19 @ 134 w/two 1050s. I went 5.29 @ 129 1.150 60 with a single carb. Can’t remember when dads was built but I started the 2016 season with mine. Broke the crank snout doing a burnout August of 17.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Matt1970gto

Different person rework my heads & built my intake. Based on the flow #s he got he recommended the bigger cam & header tube specs.
Not sure it would’ve turned out better but it sho would’ve been cheaper. I have saw tiger builds make good power & some not make good. Our 5 builds looked good on dyno but on the track I’ve yet to see a performance upgrade. We’re at Charlotte for the 4 wide so I will have a better idea tomorrow but I ran 9.90 @ 158 here in 17 with my 535 edelbrock combo that had a 1200 quick fuel. I just put a 1175 carb on my motor so we’ll see how it does. Dad ran 8.90 @ 165 with his 535 edelbrock combo & has been 8.90 @ 165 with his 5 combo. We added 30-35 cubic inch , head flow cfm went from 420s to over 500 & both got bigger cams.

Would you happen to have a time slip from this run?

Trying to see where my simulation is off'

This what I get for the Edelbrock

1000 Foot ET = 7.4941
1/4 Mile ET = 8.9009
1/4 Mile MPH = 161.2443

Stan

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Would you happen to have a time slip from this run?

Trying to see where my simulation is off'

This what I get for the Edelbrock

1000 Foot ET = 7.4941
1/4 Mile ET = 8.9009
1/4 Mile MPH = 161.2443

Stan

Probably not it’s been 4 years since dad ran that combo . I’ll see if i can one of his old logbooks

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Would you happen to have a time slip from this run?

Trying to see where my simulation is off'

This what I get for the Edelbrock

1000 Foot ET = 7.4941
1/4 Mile ET = 8.9009
1/4 Mile MPH = 161.2443

Stan

I found a time slip with his DCI5 motor.
7.502 1000 ft
8.891 1/4
164.39 mph

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Matt1970gto

I found a time slip with his DCI5 motor.
7.502 1000 ft
8.891 1/4
164.39 mph

Thanks.

1000 Foot ET = 7.5067
1/4 Mile ET = 8.8873
1/4 Mile MPH = 164.3879

Stan

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Thanks.

1000 Foot ET = 7.5067
1/4 Mile ET = 8.8873
1/4 Mile MPH = 164.3879

Stan

Service is crap here at the track & the picture wouldn’t download. I had to dad on our last time run & the bearing came apart in the rearend right past the 330.

[johnta1]

Didn't lock up I hope?
Gonna be able to change it?

[Matt1970gto]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Thanks.

1000 Foot ET = 7.5067
1/4 Mile ET = 8.8873
1/4 Mile MPH = 164.3879

Stan

Originally Posted by Matt1970gto

Service is crap here at the track & the picture wouldn’t download. I had to dad on our last time run & the bearing came apart in the rearend right past the 330.

Had to run dad