12 Second N/A Slant 6?

-
staying updated in this thread ........................... be sure to let me know when you do
a T.T at Centerville Bill, I think that is where you will be going?..
 
I can't remember whether you raised the rocker shaft or shifted it sideways.

Without specific dimensions can you detail what was done?

I'm still leaning towards "metric" valves W/7mm stems, but longer stem length for more lift capabilities seems like a good idea.

Both. Moved the shaft closer to the valve tips AND raised it. He gets both movements from that one specific measurement he asks you to take. It has to go up because of the longer 318 valves and since the valves face away from the rocker shaft, as the shaft goes up, it moves away from the valve tips, so that has to be made up for. Do my best to get pics in a bit.
 
staying updated in this thread ........................... be sure to let me know when you do
a T.T at Centerville Bill, I think that is where you will be going?..


Yes; Centerville...

Will do, Memike!

Should be sometime in June, or maybe July (we are S-L-O-W)...:violent1:

Victoria's next.... :cheers:
 
Yes; Centerville...

Will do, Memike!

Should be sometime in June, or maybe July (we are S-L-O-W)...:violent1:

Victoria's next.... :cheers:

She (Victoria) and I are looking forward to making a pass or 3 Bill, I hope to surprise myself with a descant pass with my little 170/6, and have some fun at the light :D
On the last of June Treva and I are going to Indy together this year for MMW :cheers: her first trip there. I wounder what I can expect out of 11.27 1/8 mile car :glasses7:
 
She (Victoria) and I are looking forward to making a pass or 3 Bill, I hope to surprise myself with a descant pass with my little 170/6, and have some fun at the light :D
On the last of June Treva and I are going to Indy together this year for MMW :cheers: her first trip there. I wounder what I can expect out of 11.27 1/8 mile car :glasses7:



The Wallace Calculator page (the one I use to estimate performance; not perfect, but pretty close) says 11.27 in the eighth equals a quarter mile time if 17.8 @ 74mph.

That is respectable, and quick enough to keep up with traffic. Pretty good for a 170 that is that close to stock. That should give you a 14.82 1,000-foot time.


Hope this helps!
 
Thank you Bill it does :thumleft: I will have my new recurved distributor, correct plug wires in so I may pull of a 11.00 flat 1/8. and I could put my little 13'' tires back on for a lower gear and less weight :burnout: She will make us proud :color:
 
I have altered a set of rocker arms to yield a 1.6:1 ratio (rather then the nominal 1.5:1) and was curious as to whether the different valve lift afforded by these rockers would actually affect the total hp numbers, once installed. They would increase gross valve lift from .484" to .516."

If you are refering to the stock rockers they are more like 1.4:1.

1.36 has been measured in some cases.

Taking your .484/1.5 = .330 lobe lift x 1.4 = .462 gross valve lift.

.330 x 1.6 = .528
 
Bill Dedman 1.6 didn't make much difference but i find rocker ratio in my program usually don't make much difference so i wouldn't use that as a deciding factor especially after what PowerWagon896 said.

Just for fun i did a 170 /6, 800 cfm, 12.5CR, RustyRatRods head, Headers, and comp cams 20-231-4 specs 1.6 rockers.
306hp@7500 245ft-lb@5500
 

Attachments

  • powerwagon896 170.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 133
7500. LMAO. That's buzzin, cuzzin!
 
Tec support :thumleft:
Here in Arkansas we call that Johnny on the spot PowerWagon896 :cheers:
 
7500. LMAO. That's buzzin, cuzzin!
It is ain't it :sign7:, I like the looks of Foot lb of T. almost 250 and pulling good, I would red line it about 6.555 and be happy with 300hp :cheers: ..
Heck all I would like is 210 hp.
 
Bill Dedman 1.6 didn't make much difference but i find rocker ratio in my program usually don't make much difference so i wouldn't use that as a deciding factor especially after what PowerWagon896 said.

In the real world, rocker arm ratio make a difference.

It allows faster opening of the valves W/more lift.

In essense it gives some of the benefits of a "bigger" cam W/O the drawbacks of more duration.
 
The reving ability was why they chose the 170 for NASCAR.

HP trumps TQ on the oval track.

A far different story on the 1320'.

Knowledge I never new :blob::blob: Thank you :cheers:
So I have an engine nascar picked to use :sign7: memike like :toothy9:
 
Knowledge I never new :blob::blob: Thank you :cheers:
So I have an engine nascar picked to use :sign7: memike like :toothy9:

The Hyper-Pak was a developemnt for the canceled NASCAR "compact" class.

I think that Richard Petty was to be a driver. The Valiants W/the 170 Hyper-Pak engines dominated the Corvairs & Falcons finising in the top 7 places in the inaugural race @ an average speed of 122.282 MPH for the winning Valiant.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto...-mph-valiants-cream-the-corvairs-and-falcons/
 
Not bein a smartass......but why are you even on here askin help from us peons? You seem like a beegenius on the subject and need no help. I think we should be gettin help from you. Just sayin.


The Hyper-Pak was a developemnt for the canceled NASCAR "compact" class.

I think that Richard Petty was to be a driver. The Valiants W/the 170 Hyper-Pak engines dominated the Corvairs & Falcons finising in the top 7 places in the inaugural race @ an average speed of 122.282 MPH for the winning Valiant.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto...-mph-valiants-cream-the-corvairs-and-falcons/
 
It is ain't it :sign7:, I like the looks of Foot lb of T. almost 250 and pulling good, I would red line it about 6.555 and be happy with 300hp :cheers: ..
Heck all I would like is 210 hp.

Quoting myself here :toothy9: Looks like I hit the rpm rang I was picking :cheers: when they raced these 170/6 eng.. They said in that article they ran them at 6600 rpms and ran 130 mph in these nascar races :cheers: Thank you for sharing that PowerWagon896 :toothy9:
 
Not bein a smartass......but why are you even on here askin help from us peons? You seem like a beegenius on the subject and need no help. I think we should be gettin help from you. Just sayin.

I'm here to learn.

I was a pioneer W/the LX platform.

1st to successfully change an axle ratio. I just did it & within a week I found someone to hack a TCM to make it work.

1st to run "skinnies" on an LX. There were no proper wheels available so I used adaptors W/6 cykinder LX compact spare (17") wheels & 4.50/17 x 26 M&H "Front Runners"

1st to successfully adapt a 6.1 intake manifold to a 5.7 W/O torque loss.

1st N/A 5.7 powered LX to hit 12.1s

1st 5.7 powered LX to break the 11.5 barrier. (11.30 @ 121.87 MPH)

Things have gotten rediculous in the LX world, far too expensive & I don't want to make my car into a trailer queen.

I might use it to tow my Valiant to the track though.





I'm here to gain as much information as possible & see if I can acheive the magic 12.99 in a N/A \6.

Back in '06, people doubted that a N/A 5.7 powered LX could run in the 12s.

http://www.lxforums.com/board/f71/12-second-n-mds-lx-42262/

Now 12 flat is common & a few are running high 11s W/full weight (4200# +)N/A 5.7 powered LXs.

I think I can get a 12.99 on an east coast track in the spring or fall W/a N/A \6.

It won't happen this year as I don't have the $$$ to do it all @ once.

Maybe in 2014?
 
Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and I'm glad you're a part of the slant crowd.
 
I'm here to learn.

I was a pioneer W/the LX platform.

1st to successfully change an axle ratio. I just did it & within a week I found someone to hack a TCM to make it work.

1st to run "skinnies" on an LX. There were no proper wheels available so I used adaptors W/6 cykinder LX compact spare (17") wheels & 4.50/17 x 26 M&H "Front Runners"

1st to successfully adapt a 6.1 intake manifold to a 5.7 W/O torque loss.

1st N/A 5.7 powered LX to hit 12.1s

1st 5.7 powered LX to break the 11.5 barrier. (11.30 @ 121.87 MPH)

Things have gotten rediculous in the LX world, far too expensive & I don't want to make my car into a trailer queen.

I might use it to tow my Valiant to the track though.

http://s76.photobucket.com/user/PowerWagon896/media/Mango Towing/Towsetup002.jpg.html

http://s76.photobucket.com/user/PowerWagon896/media/Mango Towing/Towsetup001.jpg.html

I'm here to gain as much information as possible & see if I can acheive the magic 12.99 in a N/A \6.

Back in '06, people doubted that a N/A 5.7 powered LX could run in the 12s.

http://www.lxforums.com/board/f71/12-second-n-mds-lx-42262/

Now 12 flat is common & a few are running high 11s W/full weight (4200# +)N/A 5.7 powered LXs.

I think I can get a 12.99 on an east coast track in the spring or fall W/a N/A \6.

It won't happen this year as I don't have the $$$ to do it all @ once.

Maybe in 2014?

:prayer: maybe with some help from you, we could see fewer LS swaps and more LX swaps!
 
Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and I'm glad you're a part of the slant crowd.

I always got a kick out of spanking SRT8s, AMG Mercedes, Big Beamers, Vettes, Mustangs, etc W/my little ol' 5.7. W/323 gears on the hi-wy, @ 55MPH it would kick down to about 4200 RPM (peak TQ) in 2nd gear & haul A$$. Top end in 3rd was about 123 if I held the gear to redline. 4th & 5th were too fast to find out, but W/a 3.23 FDR in 4th, it should have hit about 160 MPH.

A \6 won't handle the AMGs & Beamers on the hi-way, but I'll bet I can embarrass some new Camaros & Mustangs.

I can't do this W/O learning from the guys that are already here so by all means don't stop sharing your knowledge.
 
:prayer: maybe with some help from you, we could see fewer LS swaps and more LX swaps!

If anyone could figure out how to swap a 5.7 Gen III Hemi into an "A" body W/the 5-speed NAG1 LX transmission, you could run 10s on a 3.23 axle ratio & have a comfortable little monster that you could drive form New York to California & get 28 MPG on the trip.
 
At one point Ed was talking about boring the intake and exhaust ports out and replacing them with tubes. Don't know where that idea ever went. You could angle them anyway you wanted.
 
That's NOT a NAG1.

It's a truck transmission.

The NAG1 is a Mercedes transmission.

It has internal ratios of 1st 3.58, 2nd 2.19, 3rd 1.41, 4th 1:1, 5th .83

It will take 800 crank HP before modification is neccessary.
The 1st 3 ratios W/a 3.23 are almost dead nuts equal to a TH400 W/4.56 gears.

The problem is the Mercedes computer. It has to read the ABS sensors on all 4 wheels & be programed for the axle ratio.

The NAG1 is head & shoulders above ANY automatic transmission that comes in an American made car, bar none.
 
-
Back
Top