Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > ASAC News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old Today, 01:45 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 472
Default

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how...ain-power-loss

Very good article on drivetrain loss. Talks about 15% is the standard but in most cases its way worse. If the average full prep engine makes 450 then its wheel hp would be 382.5.

With us running the heavy flywheels and a ford 9 inch ours is probably closer to 20% loss i think putting us at 360 whp if we had 450 at the motor.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old Today, 03:50 PM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 497
Default

Holy crap. My dry sumped LS6 on a brand new in ground dyno jet in November of 2019 made 369 peak HP and 362 peak Tq.

Back in 2012, on the dynojet at the runoffs, the non dry sumped version made 357/344.

Andy will confirm that he has NEVER pulled my car in a straight line at RA when we come out of the corners side by side. (let's not talk about unmolested exit speed.....)

Now, all dyno's lie, and the only actual way to compare car A to car B is on the same dyno, same day, same compensations, etc.

But, holy crap. I am interpreting that sheet as the 391-405 are unrestricted and the 355/360 are with the 54mm. And you expect to pick up 8 to 10 with the bigger restrictor? And you have a close ratio gear box (compared to the box in the caddy and camaro).

I'm sorry, I know where my deficiencies are, and they are all in the mirror. But if these numbers are real, it might be a similar issue.

I think your coyote is the package to have, with a full on build for the rest of the car.

I really wish we could have gotten the rules so they allowed the RP motors to drop into current FP chassis. I still feel that is a better direction than the crate. Use the restricted LS3 for all GM cars and the restricted Coyote for all ford's, allow any mod's required to properly mount, and have fun.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what my baby will do in the hands of someone faster.....
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old Today, 05:21 PM
andy mcdermid andy mcdermid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 257
Default

Scott, you car always pulls me in the straight.
Horse power sells engines, torque wins races.
That will never change.
I totally agree with RP engines in FP cars. Younger people don't even know what a carburetor looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old Today, 05:38 PM
DBailey's Avatar
DBailey DBailey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 148
Default Wow---It Continues!!

Wow! I am gone for 2 days and 4 more pages of discussions--
Since leaving A/S I have been asked to work in tech at some events--mainly because the national tech people have limited knowledge about A/S. It was very interesting-- actually not too much silliness--

David is correct about the 4.6 and coyote engines--but both can be turned above 7k and still be effecient
It's great that some will share numbers for hp and tq--even if they have held back a bit--and what I've heard here pretty much fits with my knowledge of the engines involved.
One thing about Dyno Sheets tho---They are NOT definitive in most cases, especially if from a DynoJet chassis Dyno. They are off by as much as 10%
compared to "Real" numbers.
We only dyno'd on a DynoJet once--to back to back the 3rd gen and the 4th gen. ALL tuning was done on Superflow Eddy Current Chassis Dyno. It's the only way (other than Engine Dyno's) to properly load the engine for tuning and are very accurate.

I've personally seen manipulated dyno runs to get hp figures within spec-That's the main reason I have refused to race in any class that uses Dyno sheets to adjust performance.

So any info here can be of use but is not the be all and end all.

Danny, if there was ANY way we could have made the LS1 work better we would have.. Your thinking that now is different and that the rules favor the car more just isn't the case when it comes to the reality of the build and the real performance--Please remember i've been there, done that, tried that, --we developed that car every year for 10 years--changes every single year--thousands of dollars every year--If you don't believe me try it yourself--I know exactly where the car is-- and it could be bought --not cheap--but could be bought.

I will give an example of an engine build I did that we wanted to get into A/S but was shot down This build made 450hp/450tq in a dyno sim software. Every Engine builder I have talked with has confirmed that the numbers seen in these sim programs are within about 5% of reality at worst. Remember --an engine is only a pump and therefore these sims take into account all the math of the known components..and garbage in--garbage out--.
I used head flow data published by the head manufacturer, intake was bone stock Eddy, Carb, bone stock 600,Max lift legal cam, Legal header size

This engine was built using an existing 70's vintage 4 bolt 350 block that had previously been a 302 and was already .040 over. The existing Bullitt Cam and lifters were used. We were able to use the SRP forged pistons.

New things were--minor block work, Scat LW 3.5" stroke crank, Scat 6" 7/16 rod bolt I-beam rods, True roller timing set and thrust, low tension moly rings,Trick Flow Super 23 195 heads--2.02/1.60 valves. These heads came ready to bolt on! They already had good valves, springs already for the lift involved. Compression was set to 10.3:1 by use of appropriate head gasket
New push rods, Scorpion Rockers, Bearings and gaskets and seals. All outside accessories were re-used, including the headers and exhaust.

The cost of this build--including labor and removal of the old and install of the new was 7K ---yes $7,000 For 450 hp --tq that starts at 2500 rpm and it will run for years--It was designed to have A/S max HP without the expense of high revving 302 engines. Torque started at 400ft lbs at 2,000 RPM and HP was over 400 at 7,000 RPM and DONE by 7,200. I built another version of this engine for myself in 327 form --I expect about 440hp.

This build was run at 1 race --won--and then the car owner heard about the rules and sold the car--kept the engine to put in a GT car.

The primary problem with the current A/S rules are that it favors expensive high revving older engines--and by doing this keeps the racers not willing to spend the big bucks out of the class. This class was NEVER intended to be a high dollar high revving 302 class. The displacement limits came from what was being offered in pony cars in the 80's. This class should have changed to 350 based engines in the early 2000's as the bigger engines started to be put in the newer cars. If ALL engines in A/S were at the 5.7 or 5.8 Litre size and limit it would be much easier to balance the performance. If they are all rev limited to 7,200 RPM, ALL the engines would last longer, the racing would be much closer, and those that build at home or on limited budgets could compete, and know they aren't being out spent by someone with a 8,000 rpm engine.

Tom's post pretty much puts out there EXACTLY how MANY in A/S feel about the current state of affairs.

A couple of years ago I wrote rules for the MC (Local) class here in Nor Cal--as I said earlier--last race, 5 cars-- Last year I wrote a enhanced/modified version for JB -Simpler rules,less BS, and lower costs, Now apparently dropped ---

Tell me guys---The ones who had a fit--wrote letters to the BOD--pushed to keep things exactly as they are, Are you going to continue to do this every time a rule or ruleset is proposed?? Are you going to continue to assume that this class is yours? and only yours--and that any rule changes have to be approved by you?? Are you going to continue to claim to be the keepers of the performance quotient? You don't want new engines built to your specs, you want to "bring up" the performance to match that of a 55 year old fully built race engine that's only other common useage in racing is in Vintage! Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds in 2021!!
You want the class to move forward--but with cars, components, and rules that are moving backward.

The Class NEEDS a true re-think, a revision that could allow the old to run with the new--without adding unnecessary expense- that can be done --I have proved it--Most good professional (and amateur) racing teams build to the rules--and have the ability to change when necessary--keeping up with what the Sanctioning body sets as the rules. They DON'T control the rules--
(They try in F1--and have only a voice--but regardless build to whatever changes come about--because they understand --it's good for the sport)


The Class belongs to SCCA and that is much bigger than you all! This class should be able to be thriving in every part of the country--Not just the midwest and northeast

Last edited by DBailey; Today at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old Today, 06:02 PM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 472
Default

Dean
I cannot prove as you say the performance the 4th gen RP car. I can only tell you that I have raced door to door with Amy at Pitt race and she beat me on Saturday. On top of that it was like her second race in that car and she is getting faster every weekend in the drivers seat.

The SCCA as many different classes, and it is just my opinion it is the drivers that dictate how the class rules go. The rule changes went to a vote and the majority said no. That's how it works. I will admit that I fully wanted the different gear set in the transmissions.

What you might not know is that Steve Ott and myself worked very hard on developing a way for FP engines to use the fuel injected engines in all the different chassis. I think that it is a fantastic idea. We were shot down when we went for it. You'll noticed Andy has said something similar. This would be a rule change that allows for inclusion without forcing people that want to stay FP to negate the money and time that they have spent.

I cannot wait to go up against whomever bought Scotts car and see what is up. I cannot wait to go against Drew again. I wish I could race Aaron again. I cannot wait to race door to door with Mike again now that he has more power. With Amy getting faster I know the challenge is there. I love it.

During this entire discussion the other factor that has pushed many people away that hasn't been discussed is Entry fees and the state of the world. Just adding it to the churning pot. What was the runoffs entry in 2002? a National Weekend Entry? The price of race fuel?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old Today, 08:58 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 230
Default

Great post Dean. I have been a SCCA member for a long time and I'm in the rapidly shrinking 5 figure member number club. I love the SCCA, but one thing that sets it apart from many other clubs is letting the inmates run the asylum in rule making. Letting competitors have too much sway over rule making is fraught with conflicts of interest.

American Sedan is a registered trade mark of the SCCA, and IMO the class would be better served by a dispassionate Czar making rule changes, who would look to the class health as a whole when making rule adjustments.

The following defines the class in the GCR.

Tom Himes

A. PURPOSE
The American Sedan (AS) class is intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in
lower cost V8 powered automobiles
, suitable for racing competition. Cars eligible for this class are listed
at the end of 9.1.6. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications and
alternate specifications permitted by these rules. Modifications will be grouped into two categories, “Full”
preparation and “Restricted” preparation. All modifications will specify the category to which they apply.
The Club may alter or adjust certain specifications to equate competitive potential.
B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to allow modifications useful and necessary to construct a safe, more reliable,
competition automobile. Other than those items specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part
normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle shall be disabled, altered, or removed. Cars need not
be eligible for state licensure or registration.
1. The competitiveness of any car in American Sedan shall not be guaranteed.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old Today, 10:18 PM
DBailey's Avatar
DBailey DBailey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 148
Default

Thanks Tom---

I agree that a Czar should be in charge of the rules--in this class and others as well. A knowledgeable informed individual who no longer races in the class but has the vision to see what is fair and will make the class successful--passionate but objective.

In my early years, (the early 70's) national tech was very much like that--only an occasional tech bulletin. The Tech chiefs--national, and at the regional level were very knowledgeable, and could tell when the pack was getting out of hand. And they had a lot of pressure from lots of manufacturers.

Less Rules CAN be better---IF they are the right rules.

At the present time I think SCCA is more concerned with image, and trying to bring in every dollar they can squeeze out of the participants then creating a good fair competitive set of classes.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.