Yes, I finally beat on the car today. I figured with a 454 in the garage, if I blew up the 350 I blew it up.. Carl loaned me is G-tech type gizmo so I got some numbers:
60 foot time: 2.35
0-30 2.7 seconds
0-60 7.3 seconds
1/8 mile - 10.07 / 70.5mph
1000 foot: 13.15
and the number we've all been waiting for:
1/4 mile - 15.77 / 86.4 mph
Not as bad as I expected. With those grocery getter gears I get zero tire spin when I tromp it! Once she got moving she pulled pretty good.
Just to recap here's what the car is running:
Original 350 2bbl swapped to an Edelbrock 4bbl intake/carb L79 Cam Stock THM350 trans HEI ignition Stock exhaust manifolds. Dual Exhaust 2.73:1 rear gears (non posi) 15" bias ply Wide Ovals
I bet some better gears would have gained me 4-5 tenths.
At least now when I swap the 454 I'll know what E.T I need to beat!
Good times, surprised me, but you convieniently forgot to mention the L79 cam as Carl has pointed out.
Here is a quote from a 2004 Motor Trend retrospective:
"The 389-cubic-inch, four-speed-equipped GTO we tested for our January 1964 issue went 0 to 60 in 7.7 seconds, clearing the quarter mile in 15.8 seconds at 93.0 mph."
That's pretty decent Todd considering it must be crowding 4500 pounds.
You also put in an L79 cam too, right?
The speed is on the low side in relation to the ET for the 1/8th mile.
I don't think Todd's Laurentian is that heavy. It is pretty light on options. I have a 69 428 Bonneville wagon that is loaded (A/C, power everything) and it tips the scales at about 4600 lbs. I don't think the trap speed is that low either, given the economy rear gears. I have to say I don't know too many people who think those G tech meters are too accurate. Take it to St. Thomas next year and get some real numbers the good old fashioned way.
__________________
Hillar
1970 LS4 (eventually an LS5) Laurentian 2dr hdtp -and a bunch of other muscle cars...
15.77 is pretty good! I am impressed.. With the big block stock, I bet it will go a second faster, and that would be fast for a "Heavy weight".. I have a tip to make it go another second faster... I will post a picture..lol a PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...
That's pretty decent Todd considering it must be crowding 4500 pounds.
You also put in an L79 cam too, right?
The speed is on the low side in relation to the ET for the 1/8th mile.
I don't think Todd's Laurentian is that heavy. It is pretty light on options. I have a 69 428 Bonneville wagon that is loaded (A/C, power everything) and it tips the scales at about 4600 lbs. I don't think the trap speed is that low either, given the economy rear gears. I have to say I don't know too many people who think those G tech meters are too accurate. Take it to St. Thomas next year and get some real numbers the good old fashioned way.
I'm including driver in that. Would that car not be at least 4300?
My 66 Grande Parisienne (with no air) was 4350. My 67 Grande Parisienne wagon 396, air, power options etc. was 5040 full of fuel.
__________________
1966 Strato Chief 2 door, 427 4 speed, 45,000 original miles
1966 Grande Parisienne, 396 1 of 23 factory air cars
15.77 is pretty good! I am impressed.. With the big block stock, I bet it will go a second faster, and that would be fast for a "Heavy weight".. I have a tip to make it go another second faster... I will post a picture..lol a PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...
It would have been nice to get it to the track. There's one more weekend at St.Thomas so maybe next Saturday I could go to the "Run what ya Brung" event. I have an original road test of the 66 396 Chevelle and it ran a 15.7 as well. Dave, what gears are you running in the Bel Air? I figured 3.55 or 3.73 would be the max I'd want to run.
. I have an original road test of the 66 396 Chevelle and it ran a 15.7 as well. Dave, what gears are you running in the Bel Air? I figured 3.55 or 3.73 would be the max I'd want to run.
My 86 Monte Carlo SS ran the same times as those 396 Chevelle SS cars. When yoy tell guys that and even with your car Todd they don't believe you. It seems that the "muscle car" image is these blazing fast rockets and like I posted before my Deville will walk from most muscle cars from the day. I guess at the time they were fast cars.
I saw quite the change, with addition of 327 Ventura with 3.73's I keep looking for another gear! But its does make it pulls like a BB lol The "big Boy" Chief has so much torque, that 2.73's are perfect for cruising! even gets decent fool mileage... I will try a taller rear tire to get Ventura, to get it to act like 3.55's that Dave recommends
. I have an original road test of the 66 396 Chevelle and it ran a 15.7 as well. Dave, what gears are you running in the Bel Air? I figured 3.55 or 3.73 would be the max I'd want to run.
My 86 Monte Carlo SS ran the same times as those 396 Chevelle SS cars. When yoy tell guys that and even with your car Todd they don't believe you. It seems that the "muscle car" image is these blazing fast rockets and like I posted before my Deville will walk from most muscle cars from the day. I guess at the time they were fast cars.
I had a 1967 beaumont 396/325 400 turbo 273 gears, stock from carb to manifolds, best time was 15:29 91 mph
I had a 3900 lb 73 corvette convertible 454 400 turbo 323 gears, had a holley spread bore, headers and a 280 duration 526 lift cam went 13:91 102 mph,
as you can see muscle cars didn't wake up until they got headers/cam-a carb would have helped too
I don't put much stock in those magazine road tests. The cars were often "ringers", with professional drivers, optimum track conditions, at sea level tracks, etc. I relate much more to actual results from actual tracks from around here. It's good to hear results from those of you who have actually run at the track. That's how you can make valid comparisons. I haven't had the Laurentian at the track but it would probably be a good idea to get a few base runs in before I start making modifications. For what it is worth, at St. Thomas in mid July, my 97 Z28 convertible, 6 speed, 3.42 axle ratio, bone stock with 250 rwhp (dynoed) ran 14.1 @ 99 mph. Car weighs approximately 3850 lbs with 1/2 tank of fuel. It now has approximately 350 rwhp with a 3.73 rear end and I've managed to squeeze out a 12.8 @ 110, and I certainly don't profess to be a professional driver.
__________________
Hillar
1970 LS4 (eventually an LS5) Laurentian 2dr hdtp -and a bunch of other muscle cars...
We had an 87 Grand National for 9 years before trading it on the Impala.
All the magazines said about 14.20 to 14.30 stock but I think the best I ever managed with it (stock) was 14.70. Our altitude is 750 feet, so we can't use that as an excuse.
__________________
1966 Strato Chief 2 door, 427 4 speed, 45,000 original miles
1966 Grande Parisienne, 396 1 of 23 factory air cars
I don't put much stock in those magazine road tests. The cars were often "ringers", with professional drivers, optimum track conditions, at sea level tracks, etc. I relate much more to actual results from actual tracks from around here. It's good to hear results from those of you who have actually run at the track. That's how you can make valid comparisons. I haven't had the Laurentian at the track but it would probably be a good idea to get a few base runs in before I start making modifications. For what it is worth, at St. Thomas in mid July, my 97 Z28 convertible, 6 speed, 3.42 axle ratio, bone stock with 250 rwhp (dynoed) ran 14.1 @ 99 mph. Car weighs approximately 3850 lbs with 1/2 tank of fuel. It now has approximately 350 rwhp with a 3.73 rear end and I've managed to squeeze out a 12.8 @ 110, and I certainly don't profess to be a professional driver.
LT1 or was 97 already LS1 too bad its such a "non performer" and poor on fuel and has so many quality problems-should have bought something off shore to see how it would do at the track.
I don't think Todd's Laurentian is that heavy. It is pretty light on options. I have a 69 428 Bonneville wagon that is loaded (A/C, power everything) and it tips the scales at about 4600 lbs. I don't think the trap speed is that low either, given the economy rear gears. I have to say I don't know too many people who think those G tech meters are too accurate. Take it to St. Thomas next year and get some real numbers the good old fashioned way.
67BBSD wrote: LT1 or was 97 already LS1 too bad its such a "non performer" and poor on fuel and has so many quality problems-should have bought something off shore to see how it would do at the track.
Where did I say it was a "non-performer"? I bought it because I wanted a classic American rear wheel drive convertible muscle car, something the Asian market doesn't offer but you are right about quality, I put up with it in spite of it's problems, not because it doesn't have any. With just over 100,000 kms on the clock - let's put that in miles, only 65,000, so it sounds as bad as it really is, I am already on my third, THIRD! opti-spark distributor. There is a reason they call it an "opti-puke". I've also had to replace the fuel pump which involved dropping the entire rear end in order to drop the tank, or you could have cut a hole in the trunk floor to access the pump, a process GM actually recommends as the standard replacement procedure! I have also had to replace both power window motors. You should see these things, they are literally one half the size of the power window motors used in 64-72 A bodies, even though they have to lift a larger heavier piece of glass. Plus they are riveted into the door frame! You have to drill the rivets out to replace them. Before I decided to rebuild the engine it had the typical LT1 intake and rear seal leaks. Plus it has an inordinate amount of squeaks, rattles, groans, the leather seats are disintegrating,etc. Oh, did I mention the driveshaft, U joints, alternator, wiper motor? Good thing I don't abuse it by expecting it to be a daily driver! I own 8 vehicles, 7 of which are GM, but sometimes my loyalty gets pushed to the limit.
__________________
Hillar
1970 LS4 (eventually an LS5) Laurentian 2dr hdtp -and a bunch of other muscle cars...
forgot to mention the L79 cam as Carl has pointed out. 
I'd say the Bonneville is pretty neat.
