Dang skippy it is.What does that beauty weigh?
That's very respectable for a 340 but 340 is an engine that earns respect
Dang skippy it is.What does that beauty weigh?
That's very respectable for a 340 but 340 is an engine that earns respect
I don’t see any problem with my post. I read something I disagree so I said what my car did from foot brake to trans brake. I do believe the OP did say something about foot brake and trans brake????????Why caint we all just brag on how well his daughter drives instead of turning this into an arguing match about foot braking verses not? Who gives a flying FRIG? Yall shut that crap up and go make another thread for it. I think she's doing a great job and that's ALL this needs to be about.
I would say around 3100 with driver, have not weighed it the way it sits now, it’s all steel, still has the radio in the dash.What does that beauty weigh?
That's very respectable for a 340 but 340 is an engine that earns respect
You can laugh all you want, the time slip don’t lie. Sometimes I wonder if you have even raced in your 150 years of racing knowledge that you seem to have.if those are true, it’s by far the biggest disparity from one to the other I have ever seen or heard of. Hundredth or two or three maybe, can’t remember of hearing bigger difference than that.
The converter is gonna flash where it flashes, it could care less if you foot or Tbrake it.
it’s gonna go right to where it hits at, either way.
I gotta kind laugh at your post, but I will leave it at that
AwesomeI would say around 3100 with driver, have not weighed it the way it sits now, it’s all steel, still has the radio in the dash.
You can laugh all you want, the time slip don’t lie. Sometimes I wonder if you have even raced in your 150 years of racing knowledge that you seem to have.
You guys are gonna piss "n"match up a nice family thread.... GeezI have posted 10 times more time slips on here( at least) than I have seen from you, and I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that.
2.5 tenths difference from the foot to using a brake…never heard of it
My experience is, the faster the car is, the more disparity you’ll notice using a transbrake over footbraking. 12 second car not so much difference at all. 7 second car? I’ll leave it at that. I was merely giving credit to the young lady for having some skill. I think we can all agree on that at least, cause footbraking a 10 second car requires some.I will argue a little on foot brake to trans brake.
1.39 foot brake
1.29 trans brake
9.96 ET foot brake
9.70 ET trans brake
I’m glad I you learnt something today. Your welcome.I have posted 10 times more time slips on here( at least) than I have seen from you, and I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that.
2.5 tenths difference from the foot to using a brake…never heard of it
Exactly. I'm out.You guys are gonna piss "n"match up a nice family thread.... Geez
Her foot braking it went 1.44 sixty foot
This is my daughter driving her 1965 Signet, 340 10.6 comp KB pistons, Edelbrock heads,M1 intake. 10.70 at 123.95, and we are not done, there is more there to be had. really happy for her. She loves driving the car, went from 12s to 10s with the same block, crank, pistons, heads, intake etc...
This is my daughter driving her 1965 Signet, 340 10.6 comp KB pistons, Edelbrock heads,M1 intake. 10.70 at 123.95, and we are not done, there is more there to be had. really happy for her. She loves driving the car, went from 12s to 10s with the same block, crank, pistons, heads, intake etc...
It happened already.I can never decide if I have any love for that era of a bodies, then I see a build like that and I’m like “oh yeah!”. Very nice build!
patiently waiting for the foot brake vs trans brake thread to start