what do you want for the upper intake manifold?

i was searching back through the threads & was reading how kuntzie put down 396 whp with damn near 500ft/lbs & id like to know what turbo & compression he is running, as well as cam & valvetrain work?

also i remember him posting a video of his car being dyno'd & it sounded like a damn smallblock from the back-id love for someone to help me find that video!!!

Quote from: SpeedDemon on July 04, 2004, 12:02:15 AM
To tell you the truth if he hadn't lit it up at the start he would have walked on you (although the guy seems to not know how to handle a rwd car. What a dumb ass) Next time race him for slips and give the car to someone more worthy of it, haha just kidding. You also have to put into consideration the fact the this was a 1974 camaro not a late 1960's camaro (3 years after the end of the MUSCLE CAR ERA. So don't be so disipointed). To be truthfully honest NO (I mean NO) STOCK v6 wether it be turbocharged or not, is no match for the power of any muscle car. Even my 1967 plymouth with a 318 ci engine and weight of 3800 lbs can run high 14's (not bad for 230 Hp and 340 Lb Ft of torque 2 barrel engine huh. well....... its not a 2 barrel any more 8) ) But besides all that congrats on you win, It's not every day that a turbo v6 beats a car with the kind of racing heritage as the camaro.

unless you are talking the 302 or the big block models-id be willing to bet a tgp can take/hang with most of the 67-69 camaros. considering these hp ratings were done with mostly no accessories, at the flywheel, & with very free flowing tube headers that didnt come out the back of a car.

First-generation engines

1967-1969 L26 230 cu in (3.8 L) I6 140 hp (104 kW)
1967-1969 L22 250 cu in (4.1 L) I6 155 hp (116 kW) @ 4200 rpm, 235 lb?ft (319 N?m) @ 1600 rpm
1967-1969 Z28 302 cu in (4.9 L) V8 290 hp (216 kW) (rated) 350 hp (261 kW) actual
1967-1969 LF7 327 cu in (5.4 L) V8 210 hp (157 kW)
1967-1968: L30 327 cu in (5.4 L) V8 275 hp (205 kW)
1969: OMC 307 cu in (5 L) V8 225 hp (168kW)
1969: LM1 & L65 350 cu in (5.7 L) V8 255 hp (190 kW) and 250 hp (186 kW)
1967-1969 L48 SS350 350 cu in (5.7 L) V8 295 hp (220 kW) (1969 300 hp (224 kW)) @ 4800 rpm, 380 lb?ft (515 N?m) @ 3200 rpm
1967-1969 L35 SS396 396 cu in (6.5 L) V8 325 hp (242 kW) @ 4800 rpm, 410 lb?ft (556 N?m) @ 3200 rpm
1967-1969 L78 SS396 396 cu in (6.5 L) V8 375 hp (280 kW) @ 5600 rpm, 415 lb?ft (563 N?m) @ 3600 rpm
1968-1969 L34 SS396 396 cu in (6.5 L) V8 350 hp (261 kW) @ 5200 rpm, 415 lb?ft (563 N?m) @ 3200 rpm
1968-1969 - L89 aluminum cylinder head option for the SS396/375 engine - lightened the engine by ~100 lb (45 kg).
1969 COPO 9561/L72 427 cu in (7 L) V8 425 hp (317 kW) @ 5600 rpm, 460 lb?ft (624 N?m) @ 4000 rpm
1969 COPO 9560/ZL1 427 cu in (7 L) V8 430 hp (321 kW) @ 5200 rpm, 450 lb?ft (610 N?m) @ 4400 rpm

also if i remember correctly starting in 72 the compression ratios were dropped like hell & with a tuned chip, intake, & exhaust-245 crank hp shouldnt be hard to achieve.

210 crank hp---3450lbs
245 whp-------3850lbs-rwd & torquey-burnouts galore

with a tune & light intake/exhaust mods as well as a good diver-id say the tgp is FAR from getting walked all over... im just surprised that these things will do 120 without the overdrive being on!

ive been reading a lot about effective compression ratio & boost, as well as boosting with higher compression motors. my question is-would running 92 or 93 octane with 11.5 CR, 12-13lbs of boost, & a tune for it-be possible?

im gettin contradicting info on effective compression ratio everywhere-& so far i cant seem to find anything about what is the max for 92 or 93 octane before race fuel or additives are needed.

if there are no differences why am i reading everywhere (but here of course) that the tgp cranks are hardened & etc...? is this just from the same heating process that could be done to a non-tgp crank?

im thinking about starting the long haul of buying parts for a high hp 3.1 buildup (400-450hp)-my question is, what are the tgp cranks made out of, are they forged, & has anyone pushed them past their limits so far?

all i seem to be able to find out is that they are heat treated & hardened.

this might sound like a dumb question but what do you want for the crank? i am very interested in it for a high hp buildup to take place over the next year

Quote from: flybynite on June 25, 2009, 10:03:44 AM
I am getting about 32mpg with the 5 speed, Before that about 28mpg. I would GUESS that it's fuel related. The ford injectors and known for clogging up and the end result is poor fuel economy and slight misfiring at idle...   :icon_sad:

this was in my mpg thread & i wasnt asking about anything in particular so im betting it was supposed to go to yours :)

yea you will definitely need to tune for those 302 injectors-with the stock chip running so rich & those big injectors you are most likely dumping way more fuel than whats needed-id talk to flybynight or go to moates.net & get a prom programmer for $85 and get the $40-50 worth of addons needed & then you can tune it yourself from now on when you make upgrades or change parts.

what is the most hp anyone has gotten out of one of these using a t25 & what CR was it at & at what psi?

also, with high compression & a good tune-on one of these engines (top swap or not) can a t25 push 280 crank hp without any kind of meth injection of anything higher than 93 octane?

ive heard that nowadays people are generally finding out that higher compression with less boost makes just as much power as more boost-as long as its tuned well & if the intake air temp is lowered substantially (by IC or other means that im not familiar with)-does this mean by any chance the 280 is possible out of these engines (build or no build) or is the t25 just simply too small to top anything over 260 crank hp?

very good points indeed-the big thing for me is that the stuff to make the engine handle the turbocharging & tune is going to be quite a few $$ and id like to have this thing somewhere in the realm of possibility for me even if my hp goals are a tad unrealistic. also what are you getting at with the whole torque statement? that with this topend im going to have more torque than anything due to the top end not breathing as well-which will most likely shred any non-built trans i put in this?

that thought has definitely crossed my mind since ive heard that the F40's dont like anything over 300hp so the gobs of torque from me stuffing an oversized turbo on it might make the whole thing quite the PITA. i may be wrong, but the thought has definitely crossed my mind.

i wouldnt be even slightly surprised if these fuck faces live within walking distance from me. so sad...i think ill move now

i dont expect it to last 100k, id just like it to last 20-30k until i can get the money for some stout ass h-beam rods & a cam.

i dont intend to do a top swap because id like to prove what these bad boys can do without having equipment from a different engine strapped to them-since most people seem to think that the good old fwd 3.1 is a hopeless, gutless, turd-nugget. which is BS (thats just their gaskets!! :P)

always glad to hear something positive-from what ive heard, with the exception of the pistons these engines are very stout (even the ones without forged internals altho the rods need shot peened & need arp studs)-also if your oil pickup tube came loose i am very sorry  your engine :(