Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm getting a different engine built as we speak. Old engine was 615 big m steel 10.2 block, new one 632 brodix aluminum 10.2. Just setting here in lock down doing some thinking and was wondering if I should plan on a 4 link adjustment or try it as is. The weights were 1150lbs rear and 1320 front for a 53.5% 46.5% split. I'm guessing it will be roughly 51.5 48.5 with the removal of the block weight from the front. 4-link is set at 58" out and 7" up as of now. It would only pick the tires an inch or 2 and drop them with in a few feet before. Should lose roughly 110lbs and add roughly 50hp. 1.80 glide 4.56 rear gear 33x15x15 bias slicks.
 

·
T/S 368E
Joined
·
26,766 Posts
.

Damn, look at the showcar!!!

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Very nice car. Might want to leave it and see what it does before you change anything suspension wise. You might already be good to go and wouldn't know it if you changed anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,677 Posts
I did the same thing as you are doing. I haven't made any changes but was thinking about it. I just bolted lead unto the nose so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I don't mind changing it if needed. Just wondering if there is no way it will work with taking that much off then I'll make changes now. If it may work like it is then I'll try it. If never made this type of change.
 

·
T/S 368E
Joined
·
26,766 Posts
.

For the record, we took the 6.50's combo out and put a 7.50's combo in.
Didn't change a thing, nothing, not even weight.
Went right down the track just fine.
New engine was much heavier, and the nose did sit ~1/2" lower, but it ran fine.
Obviously the 1.00 60' dropped to 1.05's, but that was from having ~900 less HP.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
.

For the record, we took the 6.50's combo out and put a 7.50's combo in.
Didn't change a thing, nothing, not even weight.
Went right down the track just fine.
New engine was much heavier, and the nose did sit ~1/2" lower, but it ran fine.
Obviously the 1.00 60' dropped to 1.05's, but that was from having ~900 less HP.


.
Ah, you must be talking 1/4 mile :D
Thanks for input
 

·
T/S 368E
Joined
·
26,766 Posts
.

Yes, my junk is slow, but not that slow. :cry:

.
 

·
T/S 368E
Joined
·
26,766 Posts
.


That should be the 1st thing you do!!!!

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,054 Posts
.

For the record, we took the 6.50's combo out and put a 7.50's combo in.
Didn't change a thing, nothing, not even weight.
Went right down the track just fine.
New engine was much heavier, and the nose did sit ~1/2" lower, but it ran fine.
Obviously the 1.00 60' dropped to 1.05's, but that was from having ~900 less HP.


.
You are so full of shit it ain't even funny anymore....

You only lost 5 in the the 60' with 900 HP less.....
LMAO....
I'd love to see proof of your junk....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
I'm getting a different engine built as we speak. Old engine was 615 big m steel 10.2 block, new one 632 brodix aluminum 10.2. Just setting here in lock down doing some thinking and was wondering if I should plan on a 4 link adjustment or try it as is. The weights were 1150lbs rear and 1320 front for a 53.5% 46.5% split. I'm guessing it will be roughly 51.5 48.5 with the removal of the block weight from the front. 4-link is set at 58" out and 7" up as of now. It would only pick the tires an inch or 2 and drop them with in a few feet before. Should lose roughly 110lbs and add roughly 50hp. 1.80 glide 4.56 rear gear 33x15x15 bias slicks.
Your first set of weight split percentages seem to be a bit off. The estimated splits with a lighter engine are right on.
Using the ICx and ICy numbers, your hot rod has a pretty high anti-squat percentage which translates into just nudging the the fronts off at the hit.
It's like a bit over 100% when I match your numbers and weight split with a few judgments on CG height, tire rolling radius, estimated 60ft, etc.
The lighter front end doesn't change anti-squat much (1% higher), so it seems still way high for bias ply slicks. It will carry the fronts a bit further depending on the front shock settings.

Looking at the video in slow motion, the tires get hit hard but the shocks don't seem to move much if you watch the top of the wheel relative to the wheel opening lip.

It might be good to have a conversation with a chassis expert to see if changing a hole in the upper bars or raising ride height an inch will help you out.
At your power level, you really shouldn't be experiencing tire shake, even on Hosers. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Your first set of weight split percentages seem to be a bit off. The estimated splits with a lighter engine are right on.
Using the ICx and ICy numbers, your hot rod has a pretty high anti-squat percentage which translates into just nudging the the fronts off at the hit.
It's like a bit over 100% when I match your numbers and weight split with a few judgments on CG height, tire rolling radius, estimated 60ft, etc.
The lighter front end doesn't change anti-squat much (1% higher), so it seems still way high for bias ply slicks. It will carry the fronts a bit further depending on the front shock settings.

Looking at the video in slow motion, the tires get hit hard but the shocks don't seem to move much if you watch the top of the wheel relative to the wheel opening lip.

It might be good to have a conversation with a chassis expert to see if changing a hole in the upper bars or raising ride height an inch will help you out.
At your power level, you really shouldn't be experiencing tire shake, even on Hosers. :)
So you think a lower IC would be better? I've talked to Jerry Bickle and he was the one that got it where its at. It use to stick the tire then spin, this was as good as I could get it in current set up. They do make a newer version Hoosier 33x15x15 that works pretty well with no shake. I'm pretty local to Hoosier and they had given me some test tires when developing the new one its a much stiffer sidewall than there old version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,914 Posts
So you think a lower IC would be better? I've talked to Jerry Bickle and he was the one that got it where its at. It use to stick the tire then spin, this was as good as I could get it in current set up. They do make a newer version Hoosier 33x15x15 that works pretty well with no shake. I'm pretty local to Hoosier and they had given me some test tires when developing the new one its a much stiffer sidewall than there old version.
You need to stiffen the rebound on the shocks in the rear (assuming you have double adjustables) if the tires look like they are "chattering" which can lead to spinning. I'm assuming it will do this even at or before 60' sometimes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
You need to stiffen the rebound on the shocks in the rear (assuming you have double adjustables) if the tires look like they are "chattering" which can lead to spinning. I'm assuming it will do this even at or before 60' sometimes?
It has never done it at all with the Mickeys. It has JRI sportsman shocks on the rear.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top