[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Here's mine:[/font] Weight- 2960 E.T.-11.96 MPH-113.43 RWHP-339.6 FWHP-424.5 Sounds fairly close, although it has shown less when dynoed.
Heres mine: Weight: Heavy when you're the only one pushing ET: Untill you run out of breath MPH: You kidding? More like feet per hour, couldn't push it a mile RWHP:not hooked to power source FWHP: 0 Haven't got it to turn by itself yet One manpower pushing, and not very far at that More later......
T.L I didn't mean this to be accurate this was just for fun and comparision.. maybe you should loosen up the baseball cap a little and stop being such a spoilsport.. accept it for what it is. This is nothing more then a excersize in comparision with current mph and et vrs a math problem, it doesn't count 60 foot times it doesn't need 1/8th mile it's based on flywheel hp ( the original math was) it is also intresting to see different cars with similar power and the comparision of et's and give people a idea of the power it takes to run a 1/4 mile at a time. nothing more and nothing less
To Quote a buddy of mine "If that thing had some compression ...I believe it would RUN!" The whole story about my engine is on my website.When I built the engine originally It was to have 1965 289 (54 cc) heads which were radically worked and had came from a 12.8 to 1 engine I bought from a friends race car (65 mustang ran 11.40`s no bottle) I didn`t worry about zero decking the block or anything because the 289 heads would yeild a good compression ratio with my flat topped pistons. The machine shop overlooked the crack that was in one of the heads which I discovered after the engine was running.(compression leaking into the cooling system) So...I had planned on building a 408w for the car later on and had bought a set of Victor jr. heads (60 cc). I decided to just bolt them on my 302 because they were all I had. Well when I figured the new compression ratio it was going to be in the 8.8 to 1 ballpark. I didn`t want to mill the Victor jr.s (because of the future stroker plans) SO I bought a set of Cometic MLS head gaskets with a .025 compressed thickness to try and bump the compression up that way (Fel-pro gaskets are .042 thickness) The end result is about 9.2 to 1. I`m the first to tell people that the car has a mis-matched combo ...BUT... On a 130 mile road trip the car gets 14.5 mpg on the highway with 4.11`s ,3,800 stall and 2-4 barrels . Runs on regular pump gas, is practically maintenance free...has run a best of 12.20 @ 112.35 and I know for sure it has more in it.(read the bottom of my above post) The engine runs very well around town in traffic as many members of this board have seen and the only thing close to "soggy" I guess might be the 3,800 converter but its not very noticeable. So I`m a happy guy
good deal normally a low compression on a wind up toy like that makes it a touch "soggy" around town but modern convertors make life happy good luck on that combo I had the same compression issue with my rpms vrs the heavily reworked stockers.. alas I went from having to run midgrade or better to driving around on 87.. I'll fix that next motor (331 probably)
hmmmm....I get a 50 hp differential between this calculator and Virtual Engine 2005...this one calcs higher...they both calculate over 1000 hp fwhp and almost 20% drive train loss...I can see a 25% loss in a heavier car.
