Any Dyno Gurus?

[George Snyder]

This post is certainly getting interesting.
Bob in ct is correct that 4k is by far better. The farther out into the engine's operating rpm range we move the peak toque the more power we will get. Unfortunately we can also move it past a point where the car isn't much use for daily street driving. We have sacrificed the low end torque to a point where we need to indle at high and drive at such high rpms to benifit from the torque our engine is producing. Peak torque at 2k Vs. 4k?

The Mustang is a good example of this fact. The Mustang's peak torque is at 2750. This may help explain why. A standard tremec 3550 bolted to an engine that the operator shifts at 5,000. The standard drop in rpms of the engine until the drive train is fully engaged in the next gear from Tremec is as follows. 1st to 2nd, etc. 2nd.(3027) 3rd(3384) 4th (3731)
5th ( 3400).
Since a car will excellerate the fastest when it is at it's peak in it's torque curve. When shifting the car at 5k at the completion of every shift we are well past the peak torque of our engine. The result is a car that gives the illunsion of being fast off the line, but really falls flat on it's face running 16 sec. in the 1/4 mile.

So just shift at 4,500? Problem is we will probally run out of gear. And also remember 5th is .68, which we should try to aviod in either case when running the 1/4 mile.

David, seems that your a / f ratio really when down hill after 4,300. Are your dual quads vacuum seconderies? If so, could 4300 be where your engine vacuum recovered enough to pull them in and make you go rich? I am not sure what caused your power drop and spike? My 1st guess would be fuel problem. Your hp numbers should get better. A lean engine produces more power than a rich one. The trick is just not too lean.

I have never seen a dual quad setup, and I am assuming that both carbs operate simutaneously vs. in secquence, correct?
I would assume that with an engine producing 250+ horse power, with that flat a torque curve will be excellent in a car as light as a cobra.
As far as the drive train loss being 49% thru a C-6. It has been a long time since I read up on this subject. If memory serves me well, power train loss is basicly caused by friction? If you were encourtering 49% loss thru your C-6 there would be so much heat generated that it would be impossiable to keep it cool.
The 18% numbers i posted earlier appear to be correct.
bud