[Will]

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

...

So you don't think the "typical guy" is wanting to join here? - doesn't race? - isn't devoted to tinkering with their engines?

I think that was quite obvious by what I wrote. no. Seems most guys are perfectly happy if their engine starts and runs reliably and they can drive it to a car show or the drive in or whatever and maybe do a burnout. Beyond that, most don't really seem to give a ****. Nothing else explains the vast quantity of people on facebook bragging about their mismatched combos that they've never once driven down a track.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Well i feel it necessary to take the H-O letters and book to make a personal edit, which includes sections of mcCarty's book, Nunzie's book, and well a few notes from Spotts, Slawco, Kauffmans, Zbutler's, and my own observations.

THAT would be a read!

Also do same with CLIFFS Q-JET book and the big old Q-JET performance book, and my notes.

TH400 and 4L80 info from GM Service books, some products, and my unpublished notes,

really need the text, equations and photos loaded up in a puter! Takes cubic time!

Therefore cheaper to cut and tape into a primary book. which is what i've done.

[Half-Inch Stud]

CRTTFMF. . Cast Rods to the front my friend

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

CRTTFMF. . Cast Rods to the front my friend

had my casty's to 6000 just yesterday

Also, I'd buy you're book!

[Navy Horn 16]

Originally Posted by Will

I haven't seen anyone complaining about how he screwed them, or put together a combo that didn't work, or how his engines blow up regularly. He doesn't proclaim himself King, or tell everyone only he can do it right, or go around putting others down from what I've seen.

After seeing how many people are totally happy with their low compression stock head 455s with XE274 cams in them, I've come to realize that the majority of people don't care if their engine is totally maximized or consists of all the best parts and is the ultimate combo. If it fires up, spins the tires down the block, and sounds nice at the drive-in they're totally happy.

You hit the nail on the head, though I think you've done it inadvertently.

Sandoval is clearly a competent engine assembler. Low information/knowledge buyers who don't care and won't know the difference will be fine with something he sells them.

When Sandoval starts talking about how to make that maximized street/strip car, he shows that he is utterly clueless. He doesn't understand how/why to select proper intakes, cams or even how those selections (to include displacement) impact street performance. He also has a habit (in those forums) of insulting other people's cars/equipment and being unable to handle technical discussions.

If someone wants to hold themselves up a guy who "wrote the book on Pontiac performance", they should be able to have a nuanced discussion about street/strip performance without ducking people who can and have proven them wrong. Silencing someone doesn't make you right, it just proves you are afraid of what they have to say.

He comes off as an unintelligent person who has managed to stumble in to making some non-discerning people happy with underperforming combinations since he used high quality parts. There are easily a dozen people here who could go through this site's archives and piece together much more detailed, higher quality advice and build combinations. Slap a glossy cover on it, and you "wrote the book"!

[Formulajones]

Before you go accusing him of underperforming engines and mismatched combinations, where are some instances of these engines in use, at the track with performance data to back up the claims? Vehicle weight, ET, MPH, track conditions?? Have you seen something at the track that gives you these ideas?

I've seen the dyno numbers he advertises but until I see one at the track putting up a number it doesn't mean much. Of course this would mean the engines were installed in a car that could at least exploit more than some of the power that is in question.

Not questioning you, I would just personally like to see some track performance before forming an opinion.

Anyone can pretty much make 500hp and 600tq with these 455's with bolt on parts, and will run 11's in any 3500-4000 lbs. car if the rest of the car is decently capable of putting it to use. I mean lets face it, there are a lot of ways to arrive at those numbers with these engines, and none of them are necessarily the wrong way, just different approaches to the same goals.

[GTO JONES]

Question for Navy Horn.

How does your car run, what time does your car put down.

[Navy Horn 16]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I've seen the dyno numbers he advertises but until I see one at the track putting up a number it doesn't mean much.

Not questioning you, I would just personally like to see some track performance before forming an opinion.

I agree with you. He has neither the track performance numbers to back those up, and his advice on how to improve at the track is proven to be incorrect.

The weather is improving in central Texas today, I think that I'm going to go enjoy a cruse in my Trans Am that that clown says can't exist.

[Formulajones]

He has in his signature 11.60 at 116. Pretty typical of a combination like that in what I would assume is about a 3800 lbs. car.

We built a nearly identical combo like that for your car with a 4,000 lbs race weight and it ran almost identical times. A 463 with Kauffman ported Eddy heads, Kauffman's custom hydraulic roller. The only big difference is we used the RPM intake on yours and Navy Horn is using the single plane strip dominator.

I believe this simple 455 combination has the potential to go much quicker too, we never got a chance to fully exploit it. In a lighter 1st gen platform even better.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Navy Horn 16

I agree with you. He has neither the track performance numbers to back those up, and his advice on how to improve at the track is proven to be incorrect.

The weather is improving in central Texas today, I think that I'm going to go enjoy a cruse in my Trans Am that that clown says can't exist.

That's what I'd like to see. Dyno numbers give you an idea of what you might expect, but if you see one of those high HP engines running 14's at 98 mph then we know something isn't right

[JLMounce]

Holding engine builders to an ET standard is a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Now if the trap speed is way off, that's one thing, but the engine builder likely isn't involved with the rest of the car's build.

For all the engine builder knows, he's building a 600tq monster that's going to be put in a 72 catalina with a worn out suspension and riding around on 195/70/14 tires that are 15 years old. It would be unfair to rate the engine builder's ability based off the performance of such an vehicle. This case is somewhat extreme to illustrate a point, but we see that in the street section all the time. An over-built power plant, stuffed into a car that really doesn't have the ability to utilize that much power.

What I'm more concerned about from my engine builder is the reliability of the engine. Does it produce the power that the engine builder claims? Is it sealed, without extraneous noises and vibrations? Do they stand by their work?

I don't have a single piece on my car from Paul Sandoval, so I can't comment on whether or not he's a good engine builder. All I know is that I read his first book and I thought it was okay. I liked some of the ideas put forward, but found the book lacking in the technical details to back up the ideas.

[Navy Horn 16]

Originally Posted by GTO JONES

Question for Navy Horn.

How does your car run, what time does your car put down.

The last time I went to the track, I drove from my house in Dripping Springs to Alamo City Motorplex which is 65 miles exactly from my corner gas station where I filled up.

I went through tech, made my first pass at 3:09 pm, and ran 11.72.
I realized that I'd gotten excited and forgot to take "interstate air" out of my tires. I hopped out, took out some air and went back to the line.

At 3:14pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:19pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:38pm, I ran a [email protected]

So, 4 runs in less than 30 minutes, 00.11 apart in times. And that's with a (pretty lame) best 60 foot of 1.64.

Then I drove back to the same gas station and put 6.6 gallons in the tank. So even with 4 passes at the strip, it still averaged 20mpg. I have gotten as much as 24mpg on a trip where I was intentionally trying to get max economy.

My car is not set up for the drag-strip. It has a fully stock suspension structure with the only difference is that I've got air-shocks in the back because I like being able to goof with the stance. It has all 4 seats, no cage, and my wife drives the kids to Sonic for ice-cream in it just by turning the key and putting the transmission in D, and pointing it down the road.

I think it runs pretty good. I don't know how people want to define what it is these days. Is that "street/strip" or "pro-touring"? I know that those times are good enough to have finished 2nd in my class at Drag Week the last time it was held, and I could do it without a trailer. Hell, I could do it with a suitcase and credit card. I can only go 0.11 faster before I get kicked off my track until I get a roll cage, and I'm not going to cage the car.

For a car with an "archaic induction system" (Q-Jet) as Sandovol put it, and "certain to fail" 200-4R according to some other resident experts, I think it runs pretty good. Impossible levels of performance actually, according to Sandovol.

I wanted to be able to haul ass and not lose street manners. I've accomplished that goal.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

Holding engine builders to an ET standard is a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Now if the trap speed is way off, that's one thing, but the engine builder likely isn't involved with the rest of the car's build.

For all the engine builder knows, he's building a 600tq monster that's going to be put in a 72 catalina with a worn out suspension and riding around on 195/70/14 tires that are 15 years old. It would be unfair to rate the engine builder's ability based off the performance of such an vehicle. This case is somewhat extreme to illustrate a point, but we see that in the street section all the time. An over-built power plant, stuffed into a car that really doesn't have the ability to utilize that much power.

What I'm more concerned about from my engine builder is the reliability of the engine. Does it produce the power that the engine builder claims? Is it sealed, without extraneous noises and vibrations? Do they stand by their work?

I don't have a single piece on my car from Paul Sandoval, so I can't comment on whether or not he's a good engine builder. All I know is that I read his first book and I thought it was okay. I liked some of the ideas put forward, but found the book lacking in the technical details to back up the ideas.

That's why I said it would have to be put in a car to at least bring out some of the engines potential. I did say MPH, not just ET. If we really want to have this discussion about engine building and HP combinations and what works or doesn't work, then this is what also needs to be part of the conversation.

You pretty much stated the same concern with your own comment on what you look for in your engines "Does it produce the power the engine builder claims"
The only way you'll know that is hit the track, see what the MPH is based on vehicle weight and track conditions. That will at least give you an idea you're in the ballpark. That's what I'm trying to say. Without both this discussion has no real point.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Navy Horn 16

The last time I went to the track, I drove from my house in Dripping Springs to Alamo City Motorplex which is 65 miles exactly from my corner gas station where I filled up.

I went through tech, made my first pass at 3:09 pm, and ran 11.72.
I realized that I'd gotten excited and forgot to take "interstate air" out of my tires. I hopped out, took out some air and went back to the line.

At 3:14pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:19pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:38pm, I ran a [email protected]

So, 4 runs in less than 30 minutes, 00.11 apart in times. And that's with a (pretty lame) best 60 foot of 1.64.

Then I drove back to the same gas station and put 3.71 gallons in the tank. So even with 4 passes at the strip, it still averaged 20mpg. I have gotten as much as 24mpg on a trip where I was intentionally trying to get max economy.

My car is not set up for the drag-strip. It has a fully stock suspension structure with the only difference is that I've got air-shocks in the back because I like being able to goof with the stance. It has all 4 seats, no cage, and my wife drives the kids to Sonic for ice-cream in it just by turning the key and putting the transmission in D, and pointing it down the road.

I think it runs pretty good. I don't know how people want to define what it is these days. Is that "street/strip" or "pro-touring"? I know that those times are good enough to have finished 2nd in my class at Drag Week the last time it was held, and I could do it without a trailer. Hell, I could do it with a suitcase and credit card. I can only go 0.11 faster before I get kicked off my track until I get a roll cage, and I'm not going to cage the car.

For a car with an "archaic induction system" (Q-Jet) as Sandovol put it, and "certain to fail" 200-4R according to some other resident experts, I think it runs pretty good. Impossible levels of performance actually, according to Sandovol.

Nothing wrong with that

[Navy Horn 16]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

You pretty much stated the same concern with your own comment on what you look for in your engines "Does it produce the power the engine builder claims"
The only way you'll know that is hit the track, see what the MPH is based on vehicle weight and track conditions. That will at least give you an idea you're in the ballpark. That's what I'm trying to say. Without both this discussion has no real point.

Not only producing the power that the engine builder claims...but getting it into the ground in a car that can actually drive on the street. Everyone talks power numbers within the context of max numbers the engine can produce in a dyno room. Then you take that motor and put it in a car. The suspension to maximize track times and not have your wife complain about the ride isn't the same suspension.

The convertor to get the best track times and be fun to drive on the street isn't the same torque converter.

The gears to get the best track times will drain your wallet if you drive it much on the street. I could put in a 3.90 rear end, traction bars, track focused shocks, a looser convertor, skinny front tires, and pull my seats out and run pretty close to 11 flat, maybe better. It would also be miserable to drive around.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Navy Horn 16

Not only producing the power that the engine builder claims...but getting it into the ground in a car that can actually drive on the street. Everyone talks power numbers within the context of max numbers the engine can produce in a dyno room. Then you take that motor and put it in a car. The suspension to maximize track times and not have your wife complain about the ride isn't the same suspension.

The convertor to get the best track times and be fun to drive on the street isn't the same torque converter.

The gears to get the best track times will drain your wallet if you drive it much on the street. I could put in a 3.90 rear end, traction bars, track focused shocks, a looser convertor, skinny front tires, and pull my seats out and run pretty close to 11 flat, maybe better. It would also be miserable to drive around.

That all requires homework and a well thought out setup. Not that hard really. There are excellent converter companies out there that can build a very good converter that will flash properly and still couple well and work nicely for normal street driving. Anyone that's been around here a bit knows that's been talked about extensively.

Suspension can be made to work and still drive very nice without a ton of money. I use adjustable shocks and just leave the front at their 90/10 setting on both cars, stock springs on one, custom on the other, and a mild traction device in the rear, either no hop bars or slapper bars depending on the design, really very basic. All I do is unhook the front sway bar at the track and it's ready to go, with 1.59 60 foot in one car with less power, and dad's car with much more power earlier last year went 1.46. We drive them everywhere as they are street cars first, track cars second.
You could ride or drive either car and never know the suspension was capable at the drag strip. They both ride extremely nice.

My bird is even more simple, so much so it's almost funny. It's all stock suspension, springs, stock shocks in rear, oil filled shocks up front. Modified front control arm bushings to allow a little more movement. Honed front sway bar frame bushings to allow the bar to move up and down freely, which allows me to keep the links hooked up at the track. The rear still has original 50 year old bushings. It goes 1.8x 60 foot times on stock rubber with a bone stock drivetrain and an engine that might make all of 350 hp? Yet I daily drive it and you'd never know it. Rides nice, handles good, fun to throw around the mountain roads. I probably enjoy racing this car more than any other, just because it's so simple, consistent, it wins a lot, and I don't have to do a damn thing to it...lol.

What I think you're talking about is higher end max effort stuff like heim joints, tubular suspension, frames tied, changed suspension mounting points, roll bars and other chassis stiffening techniques that really aren't necessary at our power levels and really starts to degrade ride quality and transmits more noise.

There is no reason one can't build a very nice driving 11 second street car, that is docile enough to daily drive, get decent mileage, ride comfortable, and do all those things you want on a daily basis. You've done it, and many have. Even a few in the 10's that are fully capable of driving anywhere comfortably.

[Formulas]

The dyno within margins of errors tells you how much power your engine makes, ET. Tells you how much power you used at a given time frame in other words how efficient you were at using that power

.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Navy Horn 16

The last time I went to the track, I drove from my house in Dripping Springs to Alamo City Motorplex which is 65 miles exactly from my corner gas station where I filled up.

I went through tech, made my first pass at 3:09 pm, and ran 11.72.
I realized that I'd gotten excited and forgot to take "interstate air" out of my tires. I hopped out, took out some air and went back to the line.

At 3:14pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:19pm, I ran a [email protected]
At 3:38pm, I ran a [email protected]

So, 4 runs in less than 30 minutes, 00.11 apart in times. And that's with a (pretty lame) best 60 foot of 1.64.

Then I drove back to the same gas station and put 6.6 gallons in the tank. So even with 4 passes at the strip, it still averaged 20mpg. I have gotten as much as 24mpg on a trip where I was intentionally trying to get max economy.

My car is not set up for the drag-strip. It has a fully stock suspension structure with the only difference is that I've got air-shocks in the back because I like being able to goof with the stance. It has all 4 seats, no cage, and my wife drives the kids to Sonic for ice-cream in it just by turning the key and putting the transmission in D, and pointing it down the road.

I think it runs pretty good. I don't know how people want to define what it is these days. Is that "street/strip" or "pro-touring"? I know that those times are good enough to have finished 2nd in my class at Drag Week the last time it was held, and I could do it without a trailer. Hell, I could do it with a suitcase and credit card. I can only go 0.11 faster before I get kicked off my track until I get a roll cage, and I'm not going to cage the car.

For a car with an "archaic induction system" (Q-Jet) as Sandovol put it, and "certain to fail" 200-4R according to some other resident experts, I think it runs pretty good. Impossible levels of performance actually, according to Sandovol.

I wanted to be able to haul ass and not lose street manners. I've accomplished that goal.

No offense..but 2nd in your class at Dragweek??

[Murf]

This quote contains Paul’s comments on the Qjet. Not as damning as it seemed to NavyHorn, at least not to me.

I can’t really see too much wrong with what he is saying but what do I know.

LET’S TROUBLESHOOT A POOR PERFORMING COMBO!!! It SUCKS to put so much money into an engine and have it not perform to expectation. This is where my third book will come in handy for some! Get it here: https://www.amazon.com/PONTIAC-SPEED.../dp/B08L976X18
Ok, let’s take a 469” combo that was underperforming. A problem arises when you’re not familiar with Pontiacs but worse yet, don’t know what makes power. A guy might get an off the shelf low lift hydraulic roller, some ported E-heads, a typical 4.25” stroker but top it with an archaic induction system. Now Q-jets are undoubtedly good carbs and can be made to perform VERY well, but I see some guys have a hard time with them. I’d suggest getting it worked by a professional if you’re unfamiliar with them. INTAKE MANIFOLD! This is HUGE. You can really screw the pooch on this one if you aren’t careful. Where to start??? Ok, induction and exhaust combine to create a VE (torque) curve, and IF we aren’t filling the cylinder with a well prepped charge, well, that’s a problem isn’t it? The plenum on, let’s say, a Holley strip dominator or early Torker, can create more work for you and have you scratching your head looking for help. Now if most guys have had good experiences with this combo, you’ll need to look at the builder. If that’s YOU, keep your chin up and figure it out! This is where some of the online calculators can help after the fact. Let’s take a hypothetical second gen ‘bird, let’s assume 3,800lbs with the above engine that struggles through the quarter at 112mph. That equates to 411hp... dang. While it might be argued that a street strip motor NEEDS a single plane intake, we need to remember it’s not what we want, it’s what the combo wants! If we are using a rear gear, a 3.42 for example, 5 seconds on an online calculator can tell you your approximate rpm will be about 5k at the stripe. Basically, any time we have a street gear and a 27-28” tall tire, we all know THIS IS A LOW RPM ENGINE THAT NEEDS A DUAL PLANE INTAKE. Add a large primary header and you’re the gerbil in a downtown bathhouse! Up sh!£ creek! You have NO velocity and you’ll be lucky to make .9hp/ci. “Milder” street builds with shorter duration, higher lift cams and performer RPM intakes will run in the 11’s. Its about making the most power under the curve whether its torque or horsepower we’re talking about... because they’re both interrelated. In this case, if the ‘bird is at 112mph, then the rpm will be around 5k. Sharp guys will realize we haven’t even reached the HP/TQ crossover point, meaning we should be focused on maximizing VE, compression, combustion efficiency for maximum cylinder pressure... otherwise known as TORQUE! Yes, this is pretty basic, but we aren’t judging here. This isn’t to say EVERY combo in the 12’s is underperforming, most guys do a pretty good job. This was just one specific combo. Let’s all make more power! Find all my books here: https://www.amazon.com/sandoval-pont...&rh=n%3A283155

P.S. I think almost all carburetors could be called archaic anymore.

Murf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JLMounce]

Context definitely matters. Not everyone likes the q-jet and yeah I'd agree with Murf here that you could still consider them archaic. That's an opinion more than anything, and we all know about those.

If this is the context NavyHorn is referencing, I'm not entirely sure where the animosity is coming from, considering there is a qualifier in there that even Paul things are good carbs. That seems to be the general consensus around here anyhow.