stock turbo times... besides Ed Brewer.....?

[Blazer406]

I have read post after post about stock turbo times from Eddie Brewer...... he is the undisputed man with an 11.37 on a stock longblock. How quick has everyone else gone with their stocker. I have another turbo I had planned on installing before now.... but have been inspired by Eddie's times to sideline my turbo install until I really coax alot out of the stocker. I am still going to put the other turbo on at some point... but would like to really push the stocker before I abandon it.

I want to know... who else has made it into the 11's with the stock turbo..... and what was the combination? 60' times? ect....

I ran an untuned (first time to the track with alky) 8.24 in the 1/8 with a 1.98 60' time...... I think if I could 60' close to Eddie's (1.50).... that I could dip into the 11's..... if my math is correct. (My calculations show if I could have cut a 1.50 60', my 1/8 ET would be around 7.52 which would translate to approximately an 11.8x quarter.) My personal goal is around 11.50 before I abandon the stock turbo and step up.

Any combos and times are appreciated...... and I would love to see a stock turbo class at BG...... that would be way cool.

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

There IS a stock turbo class in BG, go to t6p.com and look at the stock class
I havent been into the 11s with the stock turbo but...


When i was running in BG a few years ago i took my "never been ported on all these parts"....
stock turbo,stock intercooler,stock injector,stock 90° elbow(with 3" kirban d.p. and a dump) stock upper and lower intake,xover,t-body,headers ect...D5

OK- it was running consistant 12.21 at 111mph on pure 110 octane with 28° of timing in 1st and 2nd, 3rd was 25° Eric Marshall tweeeeked the chip for me on the spot. My max boost was 21psi.
I did get it to run a 12.0 at 112 when i turned it up to 22psi, it got a 1.76 sixty foot and ran the 1/8th in 7.71 at 92 still leaving off zero boost.

My car was running older 26x9x15 et streets and only getting 1.80 sixty foots leaving with zero boost and rolling into the throttle.

I think if you got your boost to 21-23 and timing up with meth, your car could easily go high 11s on the stock turbo with a 1.60 sixty foot.
Tweak it and it should go 11.80s.

On a side note...
I remember 6-7 years ago my car on radial tires was running faster than Eds car with slicks and racegas...I showed Ed my timeslip at kcir when we were racing that day,and he couldnt believe my car was running 12.70 on a 255 radial and 104 octane...
I think that was around the time when Ed got gofastitis and finally turned up the wick and has proceeded to whoop my butt.
Ed is a decent honest guy, those times are real
BW

 

[c&cgn]

12.09 @ 111mph 1.69 60'

stock turbo, dutt neck stock IC, THDP. Stock tranny with art carr shift kit, stock D5 convertor. Running on MT DR's and thru the exhaust. T+ and Extender chip. That's pretty much it.

Running 22psi and I think it was 27* timing if I remember correctly. No suspension work done to the car.

With a little suspension work and a low 1.6 60', this car will go 11's on the stock turbo.

 

[bison]

11.89@111mph with meth injection on 5-22-99 an 80 degree day at 1100 elevation, 3500lbs . 110 octane, 24.5psi, 25 degrees timing 1.621 60ft. I had 29.5 in slicks on it. Admittedly i had replacement valvesprings but everything else in the engine was stock. Only picked up 20 mph from the eighth to the quarter mark. It was my 11th pass that day. I made a run about 15 min earlier but shifted into OD instead of 3rd and that one would have been an 11 sec pass also. Too bad because my 60' was 1.600 on that one and i had a longer cool down before that run. Might have went 11.70's. If someoone had their suspension right on and pulled off a 60' in the 1.40's, i suspect a 10sec run could be had at 3400lbs. That would really blow away a lot of peoples minds with the stock turbo and engine. Run as tall as possible slick and crank the boost up to 25psi. If the tune is there it will go 11's.

 

[Blazer406]

This thread is getting more valueable... with every post. I really think I am there with a good 60'..... hence why I am working on suspension before I go back to the track. The 8.24 I ran last time with the smoking 1.98 60' time... was only hours after installing an alky kit ..... so I didn't have a handle on the tune at all.... it was pig rich..... I haven't been back since... but feel over the past several months.... I have a much better tune.....

In addition.... I am installing a dutt neck i/c... HR Parts anti-roll bar.... boxing the LCA's... installing HR Parts bushings in the LCA's....moving the battery to the trunk....and removing the front sway bar..... AND I have a brand new set of 8-1/2" convo pro wheels with brand new 275/50/15 MT Drag radials..... I know they are not slicks.... but I drive to and from the track.... like 70 miles+ one way... depending on the track......

With the above changes...... I really hope I can get a good 60' time... and then a good ET.

You guys keep those times coming......it really gives hope us poor people that can't afford all the big $$ parts to get that fast.....

 

[Grumpy]

stock TTA with 26X10 M&H's ..chip, aircleaner,shift kit , opened dump tube .. all stock parts 11.9s @114-115

 

[c&cgn]

....moving the battery to the trunk....and removing the front sway bar..... AND I have a brand new set of 8-1/2" convo pro wheels with brand new 275/50/15 MT Drag radials..... ...

JMHO, but I don't think relocating the battery is worth the work and/or benefits.

You can get a small lightwieght Odessey (sp ?) battery for about $100 and still save 20# off the front end. Wanna lose more weight ? Go with an F-body alum rad.....still wanna lose more? lightweight starter and RJC pulleys would all help. You could also runn skinny's up front, preferrably 28" tall for less rolling resistance.

None of those require alot of work, or need to meet NHRA specs like relocating the battery would.

Also, 28" tall slicks might be better from the standpoint that they will give you more mph, and will have more sidewall for a harder launch + they weigh less than the MT DR's. The DR's are freakin heavy !

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

JMHO, but I don't think relocating the battery is worth the work and/or benefits.

You can get a small lightwieght Odessey (sp ?) battery for about $100 and still save 20# off the front end. Wanna lose more weight ? Go with an F-body alum rad.....still wanna lose more? lightweight starter and RJC pulleys would all help. You could also runn skinny's up front, preferrably 28" tall for less rolling resistance.

Clayton is right about relocating the battery, i did that a few years ago and ended up relocating it back up to the front with a lighter weight battery....
Seemed that when going thru tech at the track, they would nit pick my car with the battery in the truck...
Once it was back up front, "sign here" right after i lifted the hood..

You would drop 15LBS by just going to the f-body radiator...

Take it easy
PS, i ported my stock turbo about 1 year ago....2 tenths just with that mod, plus an additional 2 tenths with the lower intake ported.
BW

 

[murphster]

Maybe Paul (pacecarta) will chip in here. I think he'll hit 11s on the stocker at Etown or Atco in March when the season starts. He's looking to get some weight off to see if that will make a difference. He ran some 12.0x's last year. The key was the 60ft. Get that down into the low 1.6s or high 1.5s and you've got a good start. Both of us ran a bunch of 1.6s on the same MT drag radials with the HR parts swaybar. I even have the same convo pro's.

Track time and tuning was another important thing. Getting to know the best way to launch is important. While Paul launched at almost no boost, I launched at around 5-6lbs of boost with a little higher stall converter. We both adjusted many parameters on our Turbotweak chip using Directscan, EGT, and wideband O2 (for Paul) for feedback.

I ran 3 straight 12.4s last time at the track with a disfigured stock turbo. With a good stock turbo I should be right at the cusp of 11s. We both have similar combos to you and have Razors alky kit running methanol. Also, both of us ran 28" tires and lost time. The 28" tires were a little more forgiving for me on the launch.... less likely to spin, but the 26" tires had both better 60fts and better 1/4 mile times (even with worse 60fts).

If you are poor, it could still cost a lot of $$ if you race a lot. I went through a trans, rear end, converter, and fuel pump within the last year and a half. (and I also went through a turbo by the looks of whats left of my stock turbo)

Keep in mind that Ed Brewer has a gazillion runs on his car and has fine tuned every aspect of the car and done all the little things to add .05 here and there. He's also running a transbrake, which probably makes it a little easier to get the crazy 60fts he does. If a lot of people stuck with the stock turbo and kept improving on it like Ed has and ran alky to keep the inlet temps down, I think we'd see more people in the 11s on the stock turbo. A lot of people step up to bigger turbos though. I just did that too, but I'll put a stocker back on for fun.

 

[pacecarta]

1.668 4.88 7.652 88.28 10.07 12.139 108.55
1.609 4.798 7.559 88.67 9.968 12.03 108.82
1.604 4.792 7.569 88.05 9.993 12.065 108.46
1.667 4.861 7.636 88.13 10.059 12.134 108.18
1.618 4.862 7.562 87.94 10.075 12.148 108.24
1.709 4.912 7.666 88.61 10.07 12.133 108.73

cant wait till track opens to try again ,Im hoping to be in the 11s without much changing but then Im after Eds times . he set a good bar with that 11.37 , seems like an impossible amount of tiime ill need to cut from a high 11 but will be coming off a brake , with an open dump, maybe a bigger I/C , slicks (26"), skinny fronts and less weight

times are from the last day of the season
thru the mufflers (hooker cat back), stock dutt I/C ,race weight 3670 (3/4 tank), MT et street radials (DR's) 255/50-16, motor is at 132K as it was shipped by GM back in november of 1987 with only valvesprings and a timing chain , heads and intake have never been touched or unbolted , as for the rest of whats bolted onto the motor, welll it aint stock except for the exhaust manifolds,crossover and of course turbo with stock bell (quick port to inlet and outlet )

timing was 27(max of my current chip)/23 (erics marshall's chip of course )
boost was 27-28 1-2 and then 25 in third (using bstc elc boost controll to drop it)
spaying straight meth (razors) through a single m15 nozzle (set at 12:00-1:00) turn on moved to 9# , initial adjusted just a bit
launch was off footbrake holding just under stall at 2750 (zero boost ) and car still flat on ground , then on second amber light flashing converter to 4000 (4.2 tps) and let go (3750 to 4000 seems to be the ticket)
locked converter at the line (switch in console), trans left in D not OD

Ds shows things arent quite right i have a miss (o2 drop) , could be a cam lobe ,still havent opened her up to take a look
egts are 15 mid to 1600, af is high 9s low 10s only seeing mid high tens near end of run
I added even more fuel toward the end of the day (+3%) and egt went up to 1600 but hurt spoolup a little and 2-3 shift wasnt as crisp , signs of just a little too much fuel/alky

dont ask what my scanmaster shows for O2 , you would pull out looking at those numbers but no Kr
i have DS files of almost every pass made this year

here the slips with 28x10.5 -15 MT slicks a two weeks earlier
1.811 5.154 7.976 86.55 10.441 12.54 107.02
1.666 4.938 7.746 86.76 10.205 12.299 107.28
1.75 5.022 7.811 87.58 10.246 12.322 108.19
1.793 5.084 7.879 87.45 10.315 12.387 108.32

 

[Blazer406]

JMHO, but I don't think relocating the battery is worth the work and/or benefits.

I would tend to disagree.....based on my engineering experience... and an article I read sometime back in one of the hot rod mags..... The article stated that moving the battery to the rearmost part of the trunk...was roughly equavalent to moving your engine back at least 10"....... Looking at a freebody diagram of a Regal..... I am going to make a few assumptions.....

1.) the battery is around 40# about 11' in front of the rear tires
2.) the engine is around 450# about 9' in front of the rear tires
3.) the relocated battery is about 28" behind rear tires

Let's say at the instant you release the transbrake...or footbrake in my case....on your turbo Regal while spooled up to whatever launch boost you run..... the car as seen from someone outside the car beside it.... i.e. in the stands beside the starting line......the car appears to rotate about the rear tires.....front end goes up... rear bumper goes down... looking at the moment created by the 40# battery in it's stock location...... 40# x 11' = 440 ft lbs but add to that since you moved the battery behind the rear tires..... 40# x 28" (which is 2.33') = 93.33 ft lbs....+ the previous 440 ft lbs.... is a total swing of 533.33 ft lbs.....

Now... lets look at how much you would have to move the engine to make the same difference in ft lbs..... 450# engine x 9' = 4050 ft lbs ... .... soooo if we wanted the same 533.33 ft lb swing...... the new moment the engine would be 4050 ft lbs - the 533.33 ft lbs we calculated above (assuming the battery stayed up front... and we were trying to re-locate the engine rearward to achieve the same moment)....... is 3516.67 ft lbs.....therefore.. the 450 lb x ?? feet would equal 3516.67 ft lbs....... a little algebra yields 7.8142' which is a difference of..... 9' - 7.8142' = 14.23"

You can apply the same logic if you do this math about the center of gravity of the car......I think it works out the same

Anyway... if hooking is the problem..... there is no harm that can be done by removing weight off the front end... and putting it over or past the rear end......

Now my head is numb....

Did this make any sense?

Oh.... as far as passing tech...... it is possible to do it right... so that it will pass tech... just a little PITA

Removing the sway bar for track visits also helps in two ways.... it gives the front suspension more travel.... allowing the front end to rise more w/o having to lift the tires off the ground... and it removes weight off the very front of the car... that the torque doesn't have to raise either.....

 

[kshef]

we ran 12.3 @ 106, 1.78 60ft, untuned on 93 octane chip, thdp open dump, air filter, 104 octane on an otherwise complete stock(suspension, converter, unopened, no porting etc) full weight t-top GN

 

[Blazer406]

After going back through some previous calculations..... it should have been done about the center of gravity ... instead of about the rear tires....... soooo.......

Assume the center of gravity is around the ashtray..... this might not be exact... but it should be fairly close....

1.) 40# battery is about 75" in front of the Cg
2.) Engine is about 46" in front of the Cg
3.) relocated 40# battery is about 92" behind the Cg

40 x (75/12) = 250 ft lbs clockwise about the CG as viewed from outside the pass side of the car

450 x (46/12) = 1725 ft lbs also clockwise about the CG as viewed from the outside of the pass side of the car

40 x (92/12) = 306.67 ft lbs counter clock wise about the CG as viewed from the outside of the pass side of the car

Senario 1.) Battery relocated to trunk 92" behind the Cg... which is roughly where the ashtray is in the car... engine in the stock location.....

Looking at the couples (the forces both cw and ccw about the Cg) ..... 1725 (positive) + 306.67 (negative because it is ccw) = 1418.33 ft lbs (positive)... so net force is clockwise 1418.33 ft lbs....

Now...... if the battery was in the stock location..... How much would you have to move the engine back to be the same as the battery re-located to the trunk....????

Working backwards..... 1418.33 ft lbs should be the answer... so how do I get there?.... battery in stock location is 250 ft lbs (positive) clockwise...
(450# x ?? ft) + (250 ft lbs) = the answer above ... 1418.33 ft lbs..... some more algebra yields 2.5693' ..... but the original engine location was 46" which is 3.8333' which is a difference of 15.17" ....

In conclusion... you would have to move the engine back about 15" to be equivalent to moving a 40# battery to the trunk.

This should help more than you think on hooking.

 

[Blazer406]

I guess I should clarify... all my rambling and math above.... that this only helps if you can't hook up before you change this.....

That is to say.... if you hook great now.....you have no potential benifit from moving the battery to the trunk.....

Where this will help is when your car will launch on 2# but spins if you launch at 8#....... you are leaving alot of ET on the table by not being able to launch hard enough...... the battery re-location might just be what you need..... IMHO

 

[bison]

What happens if i move my seat back to the rearmost position? Im 230lbs.















j/k

 

[Blazer406]

What happens if i move my seat back to the rearmost position? Im 230lbs.
j/k

That has already been done... in my car.... and I weigh about 235# too.....

I just need to loose about 60# .... now lets see how that would effect this..... j/k

 

[John Wilde]

subscribing!!!

 

[murphster]

Blazer406, while the numbers are impressive, I still don't think its worth the hassle. Tweaking the suspension geometry will probably yield better results. Just take a look at my Lightning. Now there's a weight disparity if I've ever seen one. The gas tank is in the middle too, not even over the rear wheels. Adjustments to the suspension, including shocks, height, pre-load, etc enable these trucks to dip into the 1.6s for 60fts on a regular basis. My point is that while it will indeed make a big difference to move the battery, other things can be done to improve traction while not being such a pain in the butt. :biggrin:

On the other hand, it may not even improve traction that much. If you consider things like the torque from the engine and the actual force to the tires at launch, the CG probably plays a more minor role. Once you know where the CG is, you adjust the suspension to optimize it.

Maybe I should throw in some physics calculations to go with those engineering calcs. j/k

 

[Blazer406]

Here is a couple of articles I found online on this subject:

From:Article 1

"1 SHIFT YOUR LOAD
One of the best ways to make your Pontiac ET better is to have optimum traction. Removing weight from the front of the car, moving weight from front to back (i.e., battery relocation) or removing the front stabilizer bar, will allow the nose to rise on launch, thus placing more of the vehicle's weight on the rear tires. Good weight transfer is a Hallmark of an efficient race car. Peter Biondo shows how it's done with his 400-inch Poncho-powered late-model Firebird."


From:Article 2

"For drag racing, moving the weight toward the rear of the car can significantly improve a car's traction by improving weight transfer. The battery is an ideal candidate for relocation arrears, as it is heavy and simple to move."

Anyway... they are decent reads.....

 

[c&cgn]

I guess I should clarify... all my rambling and math above.... that this only helps if you can't hook up before you change this.....

That is to say.... if you hook great now.....you have no potential benifit from moving the battery to the trunk.....

Where this will help is when your car will launch on 2# but spins if you launch at 8#....... you are leaving alot of ET on the table by not being able to launch hard enough...... the battery re-location might just be what you need..... IMHO

No offense intended, but I didn't read all of the math in those posts....it was too much work just reading it never mind actually doing it.

To put it simply, You are trying to re-invent the wheel IMHO in regards to the battery thing. Several guys who have either been there, or found much easier ways to get their car to hook are recommending against it.

My T has had a best 60' of 1.69 on 16" MT DR's with ZERO suspension mods. Just a few simple mods will bring that down. That is not a guess, I already know this for a FACT, because I've been there/done that on my GN in the past. That car was in the low 1.5's with the front swaybar still intact and just the basic suspension mods. And there are plenty of guys doing better than me without getting fancy and relocating the battery.

Your math may be right, and it may work well, but I'll stick with what I KNOW works and is much easier to accomplish. My T will go 11's this year on the stock turbo. Best of luck on your quest.