V8 Archie Dyno Vid (Page 10/45)
Rare87GT JUN 09, 01:43 PM
I went 12.0 @ 118mph on a L67 just a few weeks ago. Just wanted to add that to the thread. Oh yeah, my car has never been dynoed. Ok I'm out.


Later.

------------------

1 of 2: Graphite Grey Pearl 87 GT 5 spd: 2.8L (Best 1/4 mile: 15.57@87mph, 2.0 60ft)
2 of 2: Ferrari Red 88 Formula/4T65EHD: 97 GTP Motor (Best 1/4 mile: 12.09@115mph, 1.89 60ft w/True Street Radial Tires not Drag Radials!)

My CarDomain Site
My Friend Garrod's CarDomain Site

[This message has been edited by Rare87GT (edited 06-09-2007).]

ryan.hess JUN 09, 02:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by Formula88:How much money would you spend on advertising if you already had people lined up outside the door waiting to get in? Judging from all of the threads I've seen Archie post, he's always got multiple projects running. Spending a wad of cash on a halo car for advertising is throwing money away if you're already doing good business.



Business 101: Advertise, Advertise, Advertise.

If he has people lined up outside the door, he needs to hire more people and get a larger shop.

Your comment is like asking why Coca Cola spends money on TV ads. "Why? Everyone knows about it already!" I guarantee, if I walked around a car show that Archie himself attends, and asked 100 people, 99 of them would never have heard of him. This is the difference between being a hole in the wall and being Jack Roush, CEO of a multimillion dollar company that bears his name.
ryan.hess JUN 09, 02:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
What kind of power does Bob Rutz' (rgeeinc) ZZ430 put out? Archie did that install, don't know if he did any special tuning to the engine.



I wouldn't know. Here's Lemma's that uses an Archie kit, but Jon/Rockcrawl did the install (I'm sure Hugh had a good reason):


http://fieroaddiction.com/SBCTa.html

It uses a 4t65e and porsche CV joints with custom 30mm axles. Not a manual, because they blow up. I have no idea why there wouldn't be something like this in Archie's stable.
Fastback 86 JUN 09, 02:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


What kind of power does Bob Rutz' (rgeeinc) ZZ430 put out? Archie did that install, don't know if he did any special tuning to the engine.



Bob has done a ridiculous amount of work to his car outside of Archie's shop. Aftermarket computer and a lot of tuning.
Fastback 86 JUN 09, 02:41 PM

quote
Originally posted by Oreif:

Archie says all they did was correct a rocker issue and ran it on a more accurate dyno and got 250rwhp. So it's not 9 hp less and 10 hp more, it's more like 29 hp less and 10 hp less. Which makes a [dennis mode] stock dinosaur pushrod engine fueled by an antiquated carb [/dennis mode] more powerful than a "state-of-the-art" Multi-valved, dual overhead cam, modern EFI engine that has been highly modified. For someone seeking max power, What would that person pick? The 240rwhp already highly modified V-6 or the 250rwhp stock V-8 that has no mods but a very huge and popular aftermarket?
Remeber for many years when the F-body and Mustang "HP wars" were going on, a mere 5-10hp difference in the motors was enough to draw in buyers away from the other.



Who's comparing apples to oranges? Comparing a "stock dinosaur pushrod engine fueled by an antiquted carb" to a modern, nearly stock, DOHC engine. Except its a V6 to a V8. With 8 less valves, 2 less cylinders, and 2.3 LESS liters of displacement. You're telling me that it takes the equivalent of an extra 4-bangers displacement to make 10-30 more horsepower? What a deal! How bout we compare something a little closer? Say DOHC V8 to Pushrod V8. N* numbers kick the crap out of the numbers Archie put down.
fierobear JUN 09, 02:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:

Bob has done a ridiculous amount of work to his car outside of Archie's shop. Aftermarket computer and a lot of tuning.



Yes, understood. I was talking about the numbers "out of the box".
Oreif JUN 09, 03:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by ryan.hess:

The point isn't that "a basic SBC has 230 rwhp and is garbage because a highly modified 3.4 can make the same RWHP", it's that the 3.4 doesn't require a $1000 adapter. The only thing "not stock" about Steven's 3.4 is the K&N filter and short runner intake [and the rebuild, which I would hope the other engine has anyways]. I would assume the 305/350/377 or whatever it is now has a K&N filter too.




No it didn't require $1000 adapter, But how much do you think it cost to get the block bored, The heads shaved, the whole thing balanced/blueprinted and a new set of pistons?? Rebuild is one thing but his engine is modified from stock.

So now If the block is bored, balanced/blueprinted and the heads are shaved it is still considered stock???



quote
Originally posted by Steven Snyder:

How is my motor highly modified? It's a careful rebuild with a modified factory intake manifold and a ricer-style "cold air intake" with a K&N filter that hasn't been cleaned in 3 years. I didn't do anything else performance-wise.



Shaving heads .014 is a performance modification. It reduces the chamber size of the heads.
Boring the cylinders and using performance pistons is a modification. .030 larger cylinder/piston with reduced head chamber size = more power.
Balancing and blueprinting is a performance modification. Allows the engine to spin easier throughout the RPM range.

People usually consider an engine highly modified when the internals of the engine have been modified beyond stock specs.


quote
Originally posted by Steven Snyder:
Ok, rebuild the bottom end on the SBC, cut 8 inches off the intake runners, leave everything else stock including the carb and intake manifold..... I bet it would make LESS power because it can't be revved high enough (and doesn't have the head flow) to take advantage of zero runner length it would end up with.



Ahh, But that isn't all you did. I can tell you that if you shave the heads on a 350 and bore it out, port the intake, then have the engine balanced and blueprinted, The V-8 will gain at least 31 horsepower just like your engine. Shaving .014 off a stock SBC head would move the combustion chamber from roughly 96 cc's to about 88 cc's. That all by itself is good for 8-10 hp, Bore out the cylinders and replace them with decent pistons and you can grab another 10-12 hp. Port out the intake and balance the entire rotating assemble and another 8-10hp is gained.
Also please note a stock 3.4DOHC only pulled a 158 rwhp the same day on the same dyno.


quote
Originally posted by Scott-Wa:

That included pretty much all the 383 with aftermarket head ones also... 220-260 hp was about it with a carb setup.

Yeah there were race cars putting down more but I don't think I saw a carbed 350-383 in a street vehicle that made 300hp. That old school magic 1hp per cubic inch isn't really that easy to do, especially to the ground in a vehicle swinging a vacuum/mechanical advance and a carb.



Interesting, My 350 cubic inch SBC V-8 hit 309 hp to the wheels and there is another member with a ZZ4 and a carb who also dyno'd 309 hp to the wheels. All this from an off-the-shelf GM built crate engine. They both use vacuum/mechanical advance and a 4-bbl carb.


quote
Originally posted by FastIndyFiero:

Like I said, I just wondered why it dyno'd so low.



It dyno'd low for the same reason the 3.4DOHC was only 158 rwhp and the 3800SC was only 170 rwhp.
As for the exact reason nobody has been able to find out yet. (Weather, Set-up, Correction factors, operator, ETC.)
It would be nice to know why all 3 engine readings were low.
Formula88 JUN 09, 03:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by ryan.hess:


Business 101: Advertise, Advertise, Advertise.

If he has people lined up outside the door, he needs to hire more people and get a larger shop.

Your comment is like asking why Coca Cola spends money on TV ads. "Why? Everyone knows about it already!" I guarantee, if I walked around a car show that Archie himself attends, and asked 100 people, 99 of them would never have heard of him. This is the difference between being a hole in the wall and being Jack Roush, CEO of a multimillion dollar company that bears his name.



So now, in addition to not liking his swaps, or his advertising model, you now have a problem with how he staffs his shop? Bottom line, you don't like anything about the way he runs his business. Fair enough. But, hey, it's his business and if he runs it the way he wants to why should you care? More importantly, since given your complaints about him you're not likely to be a customer, why should HE care?

Not everyone wants to run a multimillion dollar corporation. Some people do what they do for a living because they love it. Jesse James once said in one of his interviews that going on TV was the worst mistake of his life. It's made him famous and rich, but all he wants to do is build cool stuff. The fame and business end of everything takes away from that.

Walk around a car show and ask how many people have heard about Ed Parks. Probably very few, even among the Fiero crowd. But I'll bet he has more fun doing what he does for a living than the CEO of Coca-Cola.

This argument taken to it's logical conclusion comes down to one thing. How we each choose to live our lives and pursue what makes us happy. For some it's the quest to be a millionaire stock broker. For others, they want to be the fastest down the quarter mile track while breathing nitro fumes. Who are we to say someone else isn't living their life correctly? If someone is racing in Super Street, do we condemn them because they should have spent more money to run Top Fuel?

Find something you enjoy in life and do it. I enjoy cars. I've had a few fast cars in my day, from a '72 Trans Am with a numbers matching 455 HO to an '87 Grand National I bought off the showroom floor. I've also had some fun cars that weren't fast, like my Fiero and my dad's '61 Corvair. My stock Formula doesn't hold a candle to my old '87 GN, but you know what - the Fiero puts a bigger smile on my face when I drive it. I never took either one to the drag strip, so what do I care what the ET is?

There are some people who only seem to derive pleasure from making fun of others. If that describes you, you know it and you're a nutswinger. And for that, you would have my pity, if I cared. But maybe one day these people will find something that makes you happy that doesn't require trying to tear someone else down. Good luck.
Oreif JUN 09, 03:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:


Who's comparing apples to oranges? Comparing a "stock dinosaur pushrod engine fueled by an antiquted carb" to a modern, nearly stock, DOHC engine. Except its a V6 to a V8. With 8 less valves, 2 less cylinders, and 2.3 LESS liters of displacement. You're telling me that it takes the equivalent of an extra 4-bangers displacement to make 10-30 more horsepower? What a deal! How bout we compare something a little closer? Say DOHC V8 to Pushrod V8. N* numbers kick the crap out of the numbers Archie put down.



The engine you used is NOT stock. (see my post above)

So what part of "A STOCK 3.4DOHC was dyno'd the SAME day on the SAME dyno and it only hit 158 rwhp" do you not understand?
Or wait lets use a STOCK 3800SC, Again same day, same dyno and it only hit 170 rwhp. There are normally aspirated production 4-cyl engines hitting that so now by those examples the 3.4DOHC and the 3800SC are garbage engines??????? Is that what you are saying? Seriously if you apply your logic for a V-8 then the same must be used when comparing the other types of engines that were dyno'd the same day right?


For the record, My normally aspirated carb'd ZZ4 V-8 unmodified from GM specs, puts out more horsepower to the wheels than the stock normally aspirated DOHC V-8 Northstar engine does. As well as 88 more rwhp than a modified 3.4DOHC engine.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 06-09-2007).]

crzyone JUN 09, 03:49 PM
This is the silliest argument I've ever read.

I lost interest after I found out why it made such low hp for a "377"