How many times have we seen this scenario? If you don't have the money to go fast safely, it's better to just go slow. I love how guys just think they can slap some nitrous or a super charger on a car and don't add any supporting mods to handle it and they think they won't blow their shit up like every other idiot that has done the same thing for the past 20 years.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Since my headgasket is blown/blowing
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by FreightTrain View PostHow many times have we seen this scenario? If you don't have the money to go fast safely, it's better to just go slow. I love how guys just think they can slap some nitrous or a super charger on a car and don't add any supporting mods to handle it and they think they won't blow their shit up like every other idiot that has done the same thing for the past 20 years.
I've done everything right except for a custom dyno tune. I guess back in the day before dyno tuning people were blowing up everywhere.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Mike I'm gonna comment on you last comment.
You knew the wb was reading something out of the ordinary, and if you didn't then you need to be better informed to run a poweradder.
You knew the car had a head gasket issue that could have been a problem , but you decided to up the power even more.
Those two issues are not exactly going to be filed under "doubt it right."
Comment
-
Originally posted by dville_gt View Postls9 gaskets1997 viper gts
1986 turbo mustang
1987 Buick grand national
1972 nova
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mark Preus View PostHaha. I agree. Mike just go ahead an put a ls motor in it. I've had several 5.0 fox's that all had nitrous or a super charger. If I could do it all again I would just put a ls motor in one. I have way more fun with my trans ams and now I'm modding my 99 SS.
Both would costs about the same, but the ls would make less power and probably be more problematic.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by 91CoupeMike View PostI'd really love to to rock a 6liter. I'm going to have fun with my sbf, and from there decide on a built dart based stroker, or a built LS.
Both would costs about the same, but the ls would make less power and probably be more problematic.Full time ninja editor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diabolic View PostMike I'm gonna comment on you last comment.
You knew the wb was reading something out of the ordinary, and if you didn't then you need to be better informed to run a poweradder.
You knew the car had a head gasket issue that could have been a problem , but you decided to up the power even more.
Those two issues are not exactly going to be filed under "doubt it right."
Itll all be double checked before the next go around, it'll have to be tuned anyways.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by 91CoupeMike View PostMy w/b at wot matches what my last dyno sheet shows. I figured its fine and reading well, at wot is where it matters most, right?
Itll all be double checked before the next go around, it'll have to be tuned anyways.Full time ninja editor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorownage View PostHCI on stock tune. Just to put a middle finger up to the haters.
Not to mention leaving a lot of power on the table with factory timing tables, I think it's like 26* total timing lol.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by 91CoupeMike View PostFuck that. Lightning MAF + 24# injectors = tune.
Not to mention leaving a lot of power on the table with factory timing tables, I think it's like 26* total timing lol.Full time ninja editor.
Comment
Comment