[mike leech]

[QUOTE=ShawnD;5156312]

Originally Posted by john marcella

I know right, I suckLOL

Yeah, that things a real turd, you better put it in my car !!! J/K

Does this count ?

Very nice mr Dixon! i love the rpm and curve. Thats a badmofo....Even more impressive its a 481!

[p4msi1]

Do we have 3 so far with some honorable mentions?

[mike leech]

If it was just about the sheet, I could have had one to post up from last year at 1050 depending on where I wanted to Dyno. This year it Will be on a known tight/accurate Dyno, and they'll probably be room to spare.

We'll know soon.

John's original question was asking for Dyno sheets. So 3

[S/st 54]

Originally Posted by p4msi1

Do we have 3 so far with some honorable mentions?

I'll give those honorable mentions the benifit of the doubt,just because they are racers.......they probably see dyno #'s as nothing more than a challenge or a bar that they try to improve on at the track.

[mike leech]

To be honest the numbers on the piece of paper don't mean much unless they match up in the car. Having a number of 971 two years ago wasn't much comfort when it only showed 920 in the car on it's best Pass ever.

That Dyno was happy. I was too that day. Not so much the rest of the year when I was chasing my tail trying to find something that wasn't there.

[bankbook]

[QUOTE=ShawnD;5156312]

Originally Posted by john marcella

I know right, I suckLOL

Yeah, that things a real turd, you better put it in my car !!! J/K

Does this count ?

NICE!!

[Badbird69]

Thanks guys for all the nice comments on the car. This was a multi-year project with many set backs, revisions and do-overs. We didn't start out to make a show car - it just kind of evolved into one and then got WAY out of hand. My wife and I are empty nesters, which made doing this a possibility. We couldn't have done this when the kids were still in school. I don't know how some of you guys do it with young families.

Also, I am in AWE of some of you younger guys going SO fast with your Beautiful Cars. You are miles ahead of where I was at when I was your age. It can only get better - it's a good time to be racing Pontiacs.

See you out there,
Dick Fulton

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by mike leech

To be honest the numbers on the piece of paper don't mean much unless they match up in the car. Having a number of 971 two years ago wasn't much comfort when it only showed 920 in the car on it's best Pass ever.

That Dyno was happy. I was too that day. Not so much the rest of the year when I was chasing my tail trying to find something that wasn't there.

I tend to agree somewhat on the numbers on a piece of paper... Dyno vs what the slide rule is telling you is merely a comparison of the dyno numbers to track numbers. They may not jive.
More important with dyno is using the same one at same calibration... improvements to power found there will be proportional and the slide rule should show the proportional change.
Regardless if the dyno reads low or high, improvements to actual horsepower made at the track(not changes beyond the flywheel that affected power applied to track) should show up proportionately on the dyno.

Track numbers only is a harder way to determine power... more importantly determinig power management. Far easier to make desired track numbers with accurate dyno numbers (as you found out Mike) but if the particular dyno you use repeats well, the actual number it gives isnt quite as important.

The track and the vehicle can have a profound difference in power shown vs power the dyno shows or the estimated power the build should produce. A build I did decades ago taught me that... initial track results I was down over 120 hp(about 5 over stock) from what the build was supposed to be... carb jetting/spacing, header tuning, more jetting, timing found me less than 30... turned out the power was in the motor... the vehicle and the driver needed the work... two seasons later same motor, same refined engine tune, same weight, the track numbers met the build expectations. A dyno would have saved me a ton of time and money in the long run.

[Jeff Kinsler]

Originally Posted by john marcella

Ill bet Jack is 400 lbs lighter than he was last year.

i will take that Bet!!!

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

To be honest the numbers on the piece of paper don't mean much unless they match up in the car. Having a number of 971 two years ago wasn't much comfort when it only showed 920 in the car on it's best Pass ever.

That Dyno was happy. I was too that day. Not so much the rest of the year when I was chasing my tail trying to find something that wasn't there.

Mike,
Using your method to determine in car HP. If a corvette, and a mini van both run 8.54 @ 158 MPH at 3250 lbs do they both produce the same in car HP?

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Using your method to determine in car HP. If a corvette, and a mini van both run 8.54 @ 158 MPH at 3250 lbs do they both produce the same in car HP?

Stan

If a Turtle and a frog Both Had A Peter which one would you like more? What are you talking about?

I know you're trying, but this isn't making you look smart. Yes they would have Close to the same horsepower within 30 Or so. What exactly is your point? Oh Calculator one?

You do realize that my car does not have the most efficient aerodynamics possible. Certainly not as good as a newer 80s +Trans Am. Right?

Aren't you tired of getting kicked in the nuts In these threads?

I know how to figure horsepower going to car and what it should run, most people on the site do, no matter what you might think.

Of course it would take slightly more for the van than a Corvette,et Would be Closer than miles per hour. Geez you're not very smart for Calculator expert. Keep assuming you're the smartest guy in the room.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

If a Turtle and a frog Both Had A Peter which one would you like more? What are you talking about?

I know you're trying, but this isn't making you look smart. Yes they would have Close to the same horsepower within 30 Or so. What exactly is your point? Oh Calculator one?

You do realize that my car does not have the most efficient aerodynamics possible. Certainly not as good as a newer 80s +Trans Am. Right?

Aren't you tired of getting kicked in the nuts In these threads?

I know how to figure horsepower going to car and what it should run, most people on the site do, no matter what you might think.

Of course it would take slightly more for the van than a Corvette,et Would be Closer than miles per hour. Geez you're not very smart for Calculator expert. Keep assuming you're the smartest guy in the room.

Mike,
I ask you a few simple question about how you calculate in car HP and you answer like a @#%(*)%$#@!`~@#%^%.

Stan

[Jeff Kinsler]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
I ask you a few simple question about how you calculate in car HP and you answer like a @#%(*)%$#@!`~@#%^%.

Stan

he is pretty much telling you that he doesn't like you. lmfao

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
I ask you a few simple question about how you calculate in car HP and you answer like a @#%(*)%$#@!`~@#%^%.

Stan

No Stan, you were not asking a simple question. You were insinuating that I'm too stupid to know the difference. And apparently I'm smart enough to be insulted when somebody says something insulting to me. Sorry you're clever little plan didn't work out.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kinsler

he is pretty much telling you that he doesn't like you. lmfao

Jeff,
Thanks, that is a relief. For all of his talk about my "NUTS" I was getting worried.

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

No Stan, you were not asking a simple question. You were insinuating that I'm too stupid to know the difference. And apparently I'm smart enough to be insulted when somebody says something insulting to me. Sorry you're clever little plan didn't work out.

Mike,
You are so smart and clever that you could not answer a simple question with a YES or NO answer. Stopping my questions and posts as if you had written them.

Stan

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Using your method to determine in car HP. If a corvette, and a mini van both run 8.54 @ 158 MPH at 3250 lbs do they both produce the same in car HP?

Stan

1) We don't know what Mike's method to determine car HP is. I will assume that he knows a lot more than you think he does, given that I actually did the Aero/Drag job for several years.

2) A Mini Van and Mike's F-Bird might be close in the number. Course they might be far apart too depending on ALL of the parameters that make up the ASSUMED mini van.

3) If it were that easy "a simple question with a YES or NO answer." Stan, Ford, GM, and Chrysler as well as all of the OFF-Shore Guys would not have spend the Billions of $$$ to document and post Aero/Drag info on actual vehicles to the EPA and CARB people over the last 40 years..

So I would also agree with Mike's assertion that your question was "NOT SIMPLE"

I would also say that if you really believe that it is a simple quaestion, you need to send in your resume to the OEMs and CARB/EPA asap.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Tom Vaught

[Tom Vaught]

I have personally verified that some vehicles that "should be the same" were not actually the same when tested. Transmission guys make a "minor" change which they think should not have any affect on the vehicles Coast Down Times on the track. Well guess what, THEY WERE WRONG. More than once wrong too.

Which is why you do preliminary "before production" testing and you do "product verification" testing during the model year and at the end of the year.

Not SIMPLE at all Stan.

Tom Vaught

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
You are so smart and clever that you could not answer a simple question with a YES or NO answer. Stopping my questions and posts as if you had written them.

Stan

Stop pretending like that was not a rhetorical question. You clearly did not expect me to give you a yes or no answer to that incomplete question. If you did I would have to assume that you don't understand the questions that you're asking, but I think you do you just think you're smarter than everybody else. There's at least a dozen variables between those two vehicles that run that time that May Affect the outcome. Most people on this site are not as uneducated and stupid as you think they are, and it's really quite annoying that you make it so obvious.

Believe it or not there's a bunch of guys going fast on this site, And others That never needed your help or advice to figure out what they were doing. Do you really think all the fast guys just got lucky? Were not as inept as you think we are.

I'm sorry if I come across as brash or harsh but I have no choice but to assume that you mean this in an insulting way. I don't think I'm misunderstanding it. I think you really have no respect for Most anybody on the site, Except for maybe your pals John and George. Your Condescending nature, and insistence on proving you're the smartest man in the room is really annoying.

[65nss4spdGTO]

Originally Posted by Scott Roberts

So after 9 pages we get 2 sheets showing 1k and one of those is questioned for accuracy by John...looks like there are several that have come close but I figured we would see dozens of 1k hp e head engines from all the talk on this site..just say'n.

X2.

Dixons car is one of the baddest E-head cars out and he was just a tad shy of the 1000 HP mark.

I remember some guy who recently switched from his E-head stating "making 1000 HP is so easy, even a caveman could do it".


Calvin Hill
Hill Performance
708-250-7420