Fixed my M1 / Strip Dominator

-
Drill the intake for stakes through the pop sticks? And/Or for the A/B epoxy to grip onto?
Thanks
I was thinking drilling the holes for stakes to hold the epoxy in the carb base , sideways, actually into the base, underneath the carb gasket. A guy could drill like 1/16" holes , and used a slightly bigger pin , driven in to them. Could adjust the length of the pins to the actual finished carb opening.--------think I said that right ! I never thot of using the epoxy for that, I`ll do it if I ever run across a r/b M1 cheap.
 
Had this intake for a number of years, but could never bring myself to try it. I like the tall swept runner design, but I hated the hermaphrodite spread bore square bore carb flange deal, not to mention the terrible transition from the carb flange to the plenum.
When Jim LaRoy posted that beautifully reworked Strip Dominator it inspired me to rework mine.
View attachment 1715131332 View attachment 1715131333
Instead of milling down the carb flange and building a plate like Jim I took the easy although not as trick route and welded up the carb flange.
View attachment 1715131337
Next I milled out the plenum and carb flange.
View attachment 1715131344
Coming along nicely. You can see the tremendous difference from the finished side vs the unfinished side.
View attachment 1715131355 View attachment 1715131356 View attachment 1715131357 View attachment 1715131358
Will post more as I finish up.
On a new clean manifold, this welding process would be my preferred method. Nice job.
 
as the fons would say, correcto mundo.

Fonz--lol Does that bring back memories. I went with the machining route on this older M1 Magnum. Turned out awesome. Thanks for the slick idea Mr. Laroy. J.Rob

M1mod2.jpg


M1mod.jpg
 
...but I hated the .... terrible transition from the carb flange to the plenum.
Once again, low hanging fruit for the designers to factor in when they made the casting cores! Simple stuff like this boggles the mind in the pursuit of HP. Way within the design parameters and would have even saved money in material. Did their flow bench see something worth keeping these transitions like this? Sheers for atomization?
 
What happened to the 60'? :)

Get that back and it's in the 10.3x range.

Nice change up top for sure.

I don't recall if you have a transbrake or footbrake?
Transbrake, I'd raise the launch rpm 2-300 for tq loss. Same as what we did when DA was really high.
Footbrake, needs more flash/stall...
 
Yeah it lost a little on the bottom. I have an annular discharge 950DP to try this weekend. Might make a little more top end compared to the 750 I've been running.
 
Yeah it lost a little on the bottom. I have an annular discharge 950DP to try this weekend. Might make a little more top end compared to the 750 I've been running.
Have you posted up the combo in the racers sticky section on how to run in the 10 second zone?
 
What happened to the 60'? :)

Get that back and it's in the 10.3x range.

Nice change up top for sure.

I don't recall if you have a transbrake or footbrake?
Transbrake, I'd raise the launch rpm 2-300 for tq loss. Same as what we did when DA was really high.
Footbrake, needs more flash/stall...


Your results seem different than mine have been.
The last combo i used a brake with ( well sorted out combo) would run pretty much identical numbers at all the increments leaving off the foot and brake on back to back passes.
In fact i ran a points series for years called street tire shootout series where i raced on 4/10 pro tree as a 10 flat index race using a brake, and at same event/ evening always enter car in footbrake race as well . Car ran same numbers, just a touch more consistent off the foot 60 foot wise, even though numbers were the same when it stuck(95% of the time no spin) good hook, identical timeslips.
If there is a variance, the convertor isnt right
 
I was wondering if anybody has wondered and tried.
That is all................. for now.....

image.jpg


LMAO
 
-
Back
Top