Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags

[zilch1]

Pretty funny, He actually seems angry over my post! I'm pretty sure about the L88 being an aluminium block, the L89 was the aluminium headed 427 BUT I always get them confused so don't quote me. ZL1's were ALL aluminium 427's though, not just aluminium blocks.

What's "pretty funny" is that you thought (still think?) that a truly "completely stock", 37 year old Corvette could run ten second/127 MPH quarter miles.

It's also "pretty funny" that you chose to completely ignore 37 years of inflation. $6,700 in 1969 equates to ~ $36,000 today. For that considerable sum of money the customer got a fuel-swilling, poor handling car with awful brakes (by modern standards) that was completely devoid of any luxury and comfort features. AC, power steering, power windows, power locks, power seats, leather, etc. weren't available in L88 (or ZL1) cars. ABS, traction control, EFI, keyless entry, etc. were unheard of in 1969.

The L88 was a cast iron block. Anyone with internet access can verify that in 2 minutes.

Here's a rare, vintage L-88 "HOT ROD" road test. That car was fitted with after-market, 9.20" wide Firestone racing slicks for their testing. The trap speed is telling, since gear ratios have very little impact on it.

Below that is a more recent test of a vintage ZL1 Camaro, which was actually slower than my LS1 Camaro.

Bone stock, 2002 - 2004 Z06s Corvettes are faster cars than bone stock L88s and ZL1s and the latest Z06 Corvettes are faster still.

["Clevor" Angel]

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fas...b-menu/Rules02

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fas...9!OpenDocument

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fas...7!OpenDocument

Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall.
BTW, the pictures you posted are too big, the max size is 800x600 I believe.

[zilch1]

...Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall...

I posted the link to the F.A.S.T. (and "Pure Stock") rules in my first response way back in July:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...9&postcount=12

"Off a bit?" You clearly had no comprehension of the series rules when you initiated this thread.

Here's what you said:

Anyone here go to the F.A.S.T. or Pure Stock races? I've been going for 3 years and they just keep getting faster and faster. Recently there was a completely stock 1969 L88 (aluminum block 427ci/425hp engine) Corvette that went 10.97 @ 126.88 mph! ON SKINNY STOCK BIAS PLY TIRES! These cars have been running 12-11-LOW 11 seconds for years but their just now hitting the 10's. Now let me see a new Beamer sell for $6700 with 425 horsepower and turn 10 second ET's!!!

Its all in the setup, your allowed no aftermarket engine mods, no lightweight body panels, no wider tires, you can't take anything out and if you have any accessories they ALL must be hooked up. So how do they do it? Remember no AFTERMARKET modifications but luckily the Americans got it right the first time. Some of the things they do to run consistent 11's is over inflate the front tires, SLIGHTLY deflate the backs, make sure the STOCK exhaust system has pipes that fit into one another to reduce restriction, use worn out front springs so that the front end bounces up to get the weight transfer to the rear wheels, a spare tire and jack are recommended to be left in the trunk. All the power is there, its just that no one ever felt like tuning stock suspension. After all, they were made to drag race from the get go.

[nota]

Of course a factory stock vette wont run 10.59, no matter the year. The vette that did it had 650hp while looking stock. Its a F.A.S.T. racer not pure stock so the title of the thread is admittidly off a bit. Take the stick out of your arse and stop trying to prove something. I can almost garuntee you that we are the only two people looking at this thread so you might as well be preaching to a wall.
BTW, the pictures you posted are too big, the max size is 800x600 I believe.

Nope it looks like you're the one who 'tried to prove something' which by way of large understatement is now "admittidly off a bit". Thankfully the very knowledgable & informative - not to mention credible - Mr Zilch has appeared on the scene and proceeded to clarify fact from fiction

Add me to the list of those who've broadened their ken, due to his efforts .. thanks Zilch !!

[johnnynumfiv]

Pretty funny, He actually seems angry over my post! I'm pretty sure about the L88 being an aluminium block, the L89 was the aluminium headed 427 BUT I always get them confused so don't quote me. ZL1's were ALL aluminium 427's though, not just aluminium blocks.

The L89 is an aluminum head 396.

[zilch1]

Hopefully the "375 HP" L-89 made more power than this "350 HP" L-78 (actually a 402), which I obtained from an old dyno test article (quite rare for the time).

288 HP - with open exhaust manifolds. They had to change the heads, cam, intake, lifters, valve springs, install long tube headers (left open) and optimize the timing, carb jets, etc. in order to achieve the rated 350 HP.

I've got another vintage dyno test (chassis dyno, in this case) of a "335 HP" 400 cid GTO that couldn't put 190 HP down to the ground. That issue of CAR CRAFT (July '69) called that performance "about average" (for that model GTO).

Here we are nearly 40 years later and we see "pure stock" versions of these cars running elevens...

[johnnynumfiv]

Was that on an engine dyno or at the wheels? If at the wheels, somewhat understandable seeing how they were rated at the crank, not the wheels, if at the engine, something isn't right.
The engine does require some back pressure, maybe thats why the power numbers were so low because they weren't using an exhaust.

[zilch1]

Was that on an engine dyno or at the wheels? If at the wheels, somewhat understandable seeing how they were rated at the crank, not the wheels, if at the engine, something isn't right.
The engine does require some back pressure, maybe thats why the power numbers were so low because they weren't using an exhaust.

The L-78 dyno test (above) was performed on an engine dyno.

The GTO dyno test I referred to was performed on a chassis dyno.

Here's a "truly" stock 426 Hemi, which truly was "the king" - in its day. 315 RWHP on a chassis dyno, which is about what my 346 cid '99 LS1 Camaro made.

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/

Here's a good link on the ZL1. Check out the "How Much Power" box. It mades 375 SAE NET HP as delivered from the factory.

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

Sure it made more once is was tweaked and a set of open long tube were fitted. Then again, so will most other engines.

[johnnynumfiv]

It's not really fair to compare a carb'd hunk of iron to a computer controlled all aluminum block.

[zilch1]

It's not really fair to compare a carb'd hunk of iron to a computer controlled all aluminum block.

OK, then.

Let's see what a carb'd 346 cid LS1 will do with nothing more than a mild (.525" lift GMPP) cam swap, stiffer LS6 valve springs and open long tubes:

http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...s/0409sc_gmpp/

Fuel injection doesn't make any more power than EFI.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/eng...0305em_holley/

And aluminum blocks don't make any more power than iron blocks.

Huge advancements in cylinder head design is what's responsible for most of today's power gains.

[johnnynumfiv]

Thats nice, but you are still comparing an engine with 60's technology to an engine of 90's/00's technology.
It also has a few more mods than what you listed in your post.

[zilch1]

Thats nice, but you are still comparing an engine with 60's technology to an engine of 90's/00's technology.

I think that's the point.

More than 4 decades have passed since most of the muscle car engines were originally designed. Some went pretty good in their day. Time has since moved on.

Many will still make decent power (by modern standards) once they're heavily modified. What gets me is when people claim that "Stock" examples run twelves, elevens, tens, etc.

[johnnynumfiv]

I think that's the point.

More than 4 decades have passed since most of the muscle car engines were originally designed. Some went pretty good in their day. Time has since moved on.

Many will still make decent power (by modern standards) once they're heavily modified. What gets me is when people claim that "Stock" examples run twelves, elevens, tens, etc.

I agree, it's just not possible.

[zilch1]

I agree, it's just not possible.

Here's a real 10 second/129 MPH Corvette - bone stock with the exception of drag radials.

Cars like that are being built today and many "muscle car people" choose to look the other way.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1541575

[anglerfishman]

dude what the heck