73 Duster build named Fred

-
-Boosted- said:
Great question. That was after. Before was 5790. Every pull before and after have been around 5700-5900 and that is with running it out to 7000
Click to expand...
Makes sense, no change to the cam. Should just have better numbers with more air providing capacity to carry more fuel.

Glad you’re putting stuff on hold to get the right converter…a decent number of guys would suffer through the season and deal with it over the winter, then start the next season with an untested setup and be pissed that it still isn’t right. Fingers crossed they get it right on the first try for you!
 
-Boosted- said:
5770 peak torque
Click to expand...
5800 is in the ball park for your peak torque.

my black R/T was horrible in the 60'. i had cal tracs and it didn't matter what i did, there was no change in 60'.

i talked to John Calvert several times over the phone about it. i switched to his 90/10 rear shocks and still no difference. next phone call he said i needed his front shocks. bought them, disappointed as no better in the 60'.

after 2 years and trying ever setting possible, i ended up wishing i never bought cal tracs.

i think the only way you will get your 60' to improve is a transbrake. i made the jump to TB and never will FB again. 1.39 to 1.29 is a feeling you don't forget
 
9secRR said:
5800 is in the ball park for your peak torque.

my black R/T was horrible in the 60'. i had cal tracs and it didn't matter what i did, there was no change in 60'.

i talked to John Calvert several times over the phone about it. i switched to his 90/10 rear shocks and still no difference. next phone call he said i needed his front shocks. bought them, disappointed as no better in the 60'.

after 2 years and trying ever setting possible, i ended up wishing i never bought cal tracs.

i think the only way you will get your 60' to improve is a transbrake. i made the jump to TB and never will FB again. 1.39 to 1.29 is a feeling you don't forget
Click to expand...



You couldn’t be more wrong. My son has only transbraked his car a few time because he runs an 8 3/4 with no backbrace or aftermarket caps. Ohhhhh caltracks to with stock front suspension other than 90/10 shocks and ranchos in the rear.

IMG_2507.jpeg


IMG_2706.jpeg


IMG_2703.jpeg


IMG_3427.jpeg


IMG_3560.jpeg


IMG_2426.jpeg


IMG_2425.jpeg
 
pittsburghracer said:
You couldn’t be more wrong. My son has only transbraked his car a few time because he runs an 8 3/4 with no backbrace or aftermarket caps. Ohhhhh caltracks to with stock front suspension other than 90/10 shocks and ranchos in the rear.

View attachment 1716237210

View attachment 1716237213

View attachment 1716237214

View attachment 1716237215

View attachment 1716237216

View attachment 1716237217

View attachment 1716237218
Click to expand...
I’m glad they work for you but they didn’t work on my car. 2 years of adjusting and several phones calls to Calvert himself, I gave up. Wasted a lot of time and $ with cal tracs and I will never use them again.
 
9secRR said:
I’m glad they work for you but they didn’t work on my car. 2 years of adjusting and several phones calls to Calvert himself, I gave up. Wasted a lot of time and $ with cal tracs and I will never use them again.
Click to expand...
Caltracs are not the problem on my car. Is it possible that they aren’t the problem on yours?
 
pittsburghracer said:
You couldn’t be more wrong. My son has only transbraked his car a few time because he runs an 8 3/4 with no backbrace or aftermarket caps. Ohhhhh caltracks to with stock front suspension other than 90/10 shocks and ranchos in the rear.

View attachment 1716237210

View attachment 1716237213

View attachment 1716237214

View attachment 1716237215

View attachment 1716237216

View attachment 1716237217

View attachment 1716237218
Click to expand...
No ****....rancho shocks in the rear ?
 
-Boosted- said:
Caltracs are not the problem on my car. Is it possible that they aren’t the problem on yours?
Click to expand...
I did try 2 different converters to see if it would fix the lousy 60’.
First was a TCS and the second was from Ultimate Converter Concepts.
 
put the 200#s back on and see where your at. that 200 you removed is worth just about 2 tenths in the 1/4
 
I ran two NTK sensors for three years and burned hundreds of gallons of 110 and 116 leaded fuel. They still work perfect. I also have one summer on my NOS wideband and the instructions state it is compatible with leaded fuels.
I have seen a few die on the dyno for but I didnt have any history on those units.

MOPARMAGA said:
You should use latex caulk for interior moulding, JK lol.
Isn't leaded fuel not the best for O2 sensors since eventually they'll get coated ?
Click to expand...
 
73smallblock said:
Was the 5600 stall the one I got from you when I bought the trans/converter from you?
Click to expand...

One of those nights I couldn’t shut my brain down so at 2:20 am something popped into my head thinking about you not getting 5600 out of Matt’s old converter. number one he has a very proven set of heads that have preformed well on 4 different combos. But probably the biggest thing is Matt runs alcohol and alcohol raised torque which in turn raises stall. Also I forgot to mention he added sliders to his caltracks. Some do some don’t. Also his came with mono links. I bought his setup from a friend for a price that would make some of you guys cry.
 
pittsburghracer said:
One of those nights I couldn’t shut my brain down so at 2:20 am something popped into my head thinking about you not getting 5600 out of Matt’s old converter. number one he has a very proven set of heads that have preformed well on 4 different combos. But probably the biggest thing is Matt runs alcohol and alcohol raised torque which in turn raises stall. Also I forgot to mention he added sliders to his caltracks. Some do some don’t. Also his came with mono links. I bought his setup from a friend for a price that would make some of you guys cry.
Click to expand...
I do have the complete Calvert setup on my car. Mono leafs, cal-tracs, sliders, and their shocks.
 
Good work Boosted! I agree in what seems to be the theory/direction you are choosing going after the converter. No doubts the motor is making more power because the front half ISN'T there but the 660 ET/MPH is promising! While it might be interesting to know the current ICL, I'd probably leave it where it is and get the converter adjusted. I'd guess that alone will get you deep into the 6.5s Your cam is small, a bigger cam will get you another .1 easily. That would put you in the 6.3's with typical tuning IMO.
 
ValiantS said:
Good work Boosted! I agree in what seems to be the theory/direction you are choosing going after the converter. No doubts the motor is making more power because the front half ISN'T there but the 660 ET/MPH is promising! While it might be interesting to know the current ICL, I'd probably leave it where it is and get the converter adjusted. I'd guess that alone will get you deep into the 6.5s Your cam is small, a bigger cam will get you another .1 easily. That would put you in the 6.3's with typical tuning IMO.
Click to expand...
Thanks! The cam is installed at 2 degrees advanced 106 on a 108. I agree 104 might be better but I don’t think it’s the reason the car is leaving soft. I sure hope I can get the converter sorted and out of the equation so I can work on other stuff to get it dialed in.
 
Of course the wheels weren’t done turning last night and still reflecting on torque. I’m betting the alcohol is a wash when you compare a stock stroke 360 to a 408 stroker.
 
In the video from the local 1/8 mile track, it sure sounds to me like the engine is hard on the limiter at the top of 1st & 2nd.
 
You guys know I’m not big on running these horsepower apps but did anyone run any numbers from his slips, dyno numbers, flow numbers, weight and mph. Converter slip too.
 
lol, in that particular video, I was late on the shifts and did bounce off the limiter. The point I was trying to make with the video was the launch rpm. :p
 
You should get the camera set up to get a good view of the Tac.

It seems that the current trend is to run way more flash stall rpm than where the engine makes peak TQ.
I know of a few people that have tried that…….unsuccessfully.
Other aspects of the converter need to be a good match for the combo……besides just the stall speed.
 
I’m sure for the guys that run a lot of 1/8 mile, they might have a good handle on what’s a decent slip value for 660’.

Most combos will have way way more slip at 660’ compared to the full 1320’.

Myself, I have no useful data for converter slip at the 660’.
 
PRH said:
You should get the camera set up to get a good view of the Tac.

It seems that the current trend is to run way more flash stall rpm than where the engine makes peak TQ.
I know of a few people that have tried that…….unsuccessfully.
Other aspects of the converter need to be a good match for the combo……besides just the stall speed.
Click to expand...
I’m getting a loaner 5600 stall converter to try this weekend. I’ll move the camera to get better info on what everything is doing. We will see if my theory is correct. If it is, then I will know what to restall my converter to and I can confidentially start playing with everything else including degreeing the cam 2 deg more advanced and tweaking the Caltracs.
 
PRH said:
I’m sure for the guys that run a lot of 1/8 mile, they might have a good handle on what’s a decent slip value for 660’.

Most combos will have way way more slip at 660’ compared to the full 1320’.

Myself, I have no useful data for converter slip at the 660’.
Click to expand...
I race 1/4 more than I do 1/8 and will setup the car for 1/4.
 
Put a 100 shot plate kit on it and watch the stall speed go through the roof.
 
MOPARMAGA said:
I would assume a larger port in the cylinder head and more volume in the intake manifold that peak tq rpm would have raised not not lowered by 20 rpm & your compression is up .5
This is interesting
Click to expand...
Different day, different conditions. I don't put too much weight into the numbers.... especially 20 rpm. lol

Most of the pulls after the head work yielded higher rpm for the peak torque than before but not much higher. What I posted above was just where the highest numbers peaked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top