[chiefbigb]

The cv1 thread is now 100 percent with some ECM input.

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by twinturrbo406

… launch rpm and shift rpm are the same from what Mike has told me …

This doesn’t make sense? Why would he launch that car at 7000 or whatever he’s shifting at,if that’s the case that conv is wrong for that combo

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Little Jack

We went fuel injection last year. That was expensive enough.

Just new rings and bearings.

Jack,
Which system did you go with? How has the learning curve been?

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Scott Stoneburg

Depends on what the converter flashes/stalls to. My 9" converter flashes to about 4500. That's gonna fall short of my peak tq numbers by about 600 rpm. Mike could have the same issue. But it would most likely been the same with the HP heads.

Originally Posted by twinturrbo406

… launch rpm and shift rpm are the same from what Mike has told me …

Originally Posted by grandville455

This doesn’t make sense? Why would he launch that car at 7000 or whatever he’s shifting at,if that’s the case that conv is wrong for that combo

Darby,
Hopefully Bill will clarify this. But I took this to mean that the launch and shift RPM for the CV1s was the same as for the KRE HPs, not that the launch and shift RPM were the same as each other.

Stan

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Darby,
Hopefully Bill will clarify this. But I took this to mean that the launch and shift RPM for the CV1s was the same as for the KRE HPs, not that the launch and shift RPM were the same as each other.

Stan

Stan
Your probably right! I wasn’t thinking that way this morning

[twinturrbo406]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Darby,
Hopefully Bill will clarify this. But I took this to mean that the launch and shift RPM for the CV1s was the same as for the KRE HPs, not that the launch and shift RPM were the same as each other.

Stan

… that’s exactly what I meant 👍🏻 …

[Probird]

Originally Posted by twinturrbo406

…
… do I think a set of standard pushrod Eheads ported or not out run Mike’s CV-1’s in his car ?? No I do not ���� …

I was glad to see you put “In his car” at the end of that statement. There are quite a few standard port E-heads out there running faster than either set of heads he has had on the engine in his car. My little 328 cfm E-heads on my 459” stock block engine were 1/2 a second faster, than his CV-1’s on a 505. Yes I weighed less (3275), but not a 1/2 second less, and not on pump gas, but had 46 less cubic inches. My 350 cfm standard port heads are faster than the little 328s….. Now that I think about it my Dad’s 74 with a 455 and 305 E-heads and flat tappet hydraulic cam went 6.68. It’s not faster than the CV1’s but about the same as the Highports with a big solid roller. You wouldn’t think a standard port E-head would be able to run with either of these heads but they do. I know a ported standard port E-head can be faster….just not on this engine with the parts that were picked for it.

[PAUL K]

EHTTFMF's!!! ..... Just saying.


Carry on

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Probird

I know a ported standard port E-head can be faster….just not on this engine with the parts that were picked for it.

KEY STATEMENT. Hope you had a great Christmas and are having a Happy New Year.

Tom V.

[grandville455]

Well to throw some fuel on this fire lol, i ran 9.42@141.47 in 21 at cordova on pump gas with my 505 @ 3500 lbs! eldy heads flow 350 with only 2.5 minimum csa with no tuning!

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by grandville455

Well to throw some fuel on this fire lol, i ran 9.42@141.47 in 21 at cordova on pump gas with my 505 @ 3500 lbs! eldy heads flow 350 with only 2.5 minimum csa with no tuning!

Darby,
That is interesting. That would have some velocity.

Stan

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by grandville455

Well to throw some fuel on this fire lol, i ran 9.42@141.47 in 21 at cordova on pump gas with my 505 @ 3500 lbs! eldy heads flow 350 with only 2.5 minimum csa with no tuning!

See post #188


That is impressive. We have a similar combo that runs 5.0's with a shot of nitrous.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

LMFAO

Even if that is a typeo and you meant 110 MPH or 109 MPH I still call BS.

Now if the 119 MPH is your 1/4 mile number? That would be around 98 MPH @ 1/8 mile.

Stan

I found a few old time slips this weekend. On a 10.88 (119mph) pass I ran a 6.830 in the 1/8th at 98 MPH.
So its less than a tenth difference between Mikes High Port 505 combo. Still say something was not right with it.

[opeliac]

462 with cast iron HO heads, 3680lbs, working AC, 10" tire, .517 roller cam...6.66@104mph in 1991...

With modern converter technology, and modern slick compounds, it would run low 6.50s...

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

I found a few old time slips this weekend. On a 10.88 (119mph) pass I ran a 6.830 in the 1/8th at 98 MPH.
So its less than a tenth difference between Mikes High Port 505 combo. Still say something was not right with it.

So how much HP is him running something like 103.5 to 104 MPH in the 1/8 mile to your 98 MPH? The big MPH difference and the smaller et difference tell me the engine was making a good amount more HP than yours, but his car / convertor / trans etc were not working near as good as your.

Stan