|
![]() |
#1 |
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
Posts: 7,180
|
![]()
705-710 Crank?
__________________
LGAFF 90 #966-150K miles-sold 92 #234-sold 1987 Callaway TT #17 1991 ZR-1 #1359 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Banned
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 3,674
|
![]()
WOW...
Now that's a ZR-1!!!!!!! Will we see it at BG this year?????? ![]() David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 45
|
![]()
Lee,
No - that was with the ported stock plenum and injector housings - currently on the car - exactly the way it was when it ran the 10.44 back in October. I surmise the dyno backs up the track performance. I'd think 580-585 would be possible with the Hogan from my prior experience, but I'd probably lose about 15 ft-lbs on the torque. I think that's a better match for a traditional 6-spd, but with my auto & the wide ratio gears, I think the tradeoff might be a push at the track. It probably would trap out a little higher with the Hogan, but I'm not sure the ET would change much. I do expect to be at BG - knock on wood, nothing goes wrong! Kevin |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
Posts: 7,180
|
![]()
think it would be easy to imprive the low end with the Hogans by modifying it alittle
__________________
LGAFF 90 #966-150K miles-sold 92 #234-sold 1987 Callaway TT #17 1991 ZR-1 #1359 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 45
|
![]()
Yes - could be anywhere between 650 and 710 depending on whether you believe that a given drive train costs you a fixed amount of horsepower, regardless of how much the motor makes, or if you believe the drive train is a percentage loss, where motors with more power lose more between the crank and the wheels. If you use 20% loss for an automatic - it comes out at 710 - which makes me very happy...
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|