Posted: Mon Jun 13, 11 7:49 pm
I remember that Klotz car
Did the body end up getting scrapped ???
Did the body end up getting scrapped ???
Mopar Muscle Association UK
The premier Mopar club in Europe!
https://moparuk.com/forums/
Hi, just wanted to say hello to everyone here at MMA
Page 13 of 18
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 11 8:15 pm
Didnt Dave Billy have it and put the hemi in it
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 11 12:57 pm
Yes he has Guy, although i prefered the blue myself but Dave has done a very nice job of it. The motor seemed very snappy in the Fury.
Mick
Mick
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 3:31 pm
[quote="Cannonball"]
most every car i ever had i had the best time out of it first time at the track thats why i dont see i hope in hell lez cuda woulda gone quiker than a 10-5-6 on mtr unless you stroked no poked it or put better heads and more comp in it,
quote]
well its intersting to see that there seems to be a "how fast was it with Iron Heads" discussion. I guess if you know how to set a car/engine combo up its gonna go more or less its best straight away with a good track, I agree with you. Regarding the "it won't go better than 10.5-6 comment" well maybe your also right?...we'll never know will we, but just cos no-one else seems to have gone quicker, doesn't mean I couldn't have back then, I never really tried.
I was thinking of a a six-pack set up as was only flowing about 860cfm if that through that carb and still making power to 7000rpm, reckon that was worth a tenth and a bit maybe?, better fuel with a bit more lead, reckon there was a tenth or so in the chassis with adjustments, maybe more?, a proper panavec sytem for a bit more hp, dialling the cam in for optimum performance, gear ratio changes, 1.6 rockers, exhaust collector length tuning, steel shim head gasket for more comp, was only about 10:1....all these things and more was still left to do without increasing stroke/comp/or better heads, so why shouldn't it go 10.2 or better?..
If I got rid of those rods and pistons and went for lightweight rods/pistons etc with a bit more comp 9's was there with those iron heads.
Anyhow, whatever, bench racing is good
......but looking at cars like Mojo's Duster and similar spec cars in recent posts, it is strange to read that there not all running into the 9's on mtr with the big cubes/ally heads/roller cams/dominators and comp in them.....of which I had none 
most every car i ever had i had the best time out of it first time at the track thats why i dont see i hope in hell lez cuda woulda gone quiker than a 10-5-6 on mtr unless you stroked no poked it or put better heads and more comp in it,
quote]
well its intersting to see that there seems to be a "how fast was it with Iron Heads" discussion. I guess if you know how to set a car/engine combo up its gonna go more or less its best straight away with a good track, I agree with you. Regarding the "it won't go better than 10.5-6 comment" well maybe your also right?...we'll never know will we, but just cos no-one else seems to have gone quicker, doesn't mean I couldn't have back then, I never really tried.
I was thinking of a a six-pack set up as was only flowing about 860cfm if that through that carb and still making power to 7000rpm, reckon that was worth a tenth and a bit maybe?, better fuel with a bit more lead, reckon there was a tenth or so in the chassis with adjustments, maybe more?, a proper panavec sytem for a bit more hp, dialling the cam in for optimum performance, gear ratio changes, 1.6 rockers, exhaust collector length tuning, steel shim head gasket for more comp, was only about 10:1....all these things and more was still left to do without increasing stroke/comp/or better heads, so why shouldn't it go 10.2 or better?..
If I got rid of those rods and pistons and went for lightweight rods/pistons etc with a bit more comp 9's was there with those iron heads.
Anyhow, whatever, bench racing is good
......but looking at cars like Mojo's Duster and similar spec cars in recent posts, it is strange to read that there not all running into the 9's on mtr with the big cubes/ally heads/roller cams/dominators and comp in them.....of which I had none Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:12 pm
Les Szabo wrote:i see what your saying lez, but the main thing that got you that 9 was the gas,Cannonball wrote: most every car i ever had i had the best time out of it first time at the track thats why i dont see i hope in hell lez cuda woulda gone quiker than a 10-5-6 on mtr unless you stroked no poked it or put better heads and more comp in it,
quote]
well its intersting to see that there seems to be a "how fast was it with Iron Heads" discussion. I guess if you know how to set a car/engine combo up its gonna go more or less its best straight away with a good track, I agree with you. Regarding the "it won't go better than 10.5-6 comment" well maybe your also right?...we'll never know will we, but just cos no-one else seems to have gone quicker, doesn't mean I couldn't have back then, I never really tried.
I was thinking of a a six-pack set up as was only flowing about 860cfm if that through that carb and still making power to 7000rpm, reckon that was worth a tenth and a bit maybe?, better fuel with a bit more lead, reckon there was a tenth or so in the chassis with adjustments, maybe more?, a proper panavec sytem for a bit more hp, dialling the cam in for optimum performance, gear ratio changes, 1.6 rockers, exhaust collector length tuning, steel shim head gasket for more comp, was only about 10:1....all these things and more was still left to do without increasing stroke/comp/or better heads, so why shouldn't it go 10.2 or better?..
If I got rid of those rods and pistons and went for lightweight rods/pistons etc with a bit more comp 9's was there with those iron heads.
Anyhow, whatever, bench racing is good
i do know the duster is light so maybe should be in the 9,s but the bulk off stroker mtrs over here are in heavy cars and try to do it on 10.5tires stock rear ends etc
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:38 pm
I tried to post a pic but it didn't work, will try again tomorrow.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:39 pm
Yes mate, no-one is disputing that to run a 9 it needed N20 as the car was set up at that time, but you still gotta run those times gas or not. We were talking about on mtr, no nitrous set ups and getting close without N20.
Anyhow I'm not here trying to sing about how good or bad I was back then, just simply discussing points of view about racing which is always fun to do with knowledgeable peeps
Anyhow I'm not here trying to sing about how good or bad I was back then, just simply discussing points of view about racing which is always fun to do with knowledgeable peeps
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:44 pm
All I get is a pic in the pits mick?Mick wrote:Let's try this.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:51 pm
Sorry Les, it was meant to be bigger but didn't come out too well.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 4:55 pm
ok mick, sorry, I thought it was gonna be some spec on times and stuff seeing the discussion was having with cannonball......thanks for pick though...LesMick wrote:Sorry Les, it was meant to be bigger but didn't come out too well.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 5:51 pm
Dunc , it takes some doin to run into the 9s NA with a heavy car like the chally , 3800lb? , let alone you running 9.4s @ 148mph circa 900hpCannonball wrote:
i see what your saying lez, but the main thing that got you that 9 was the gas,
i do know the duster is light so maybe should be in the 9,s but the bulk off stroker mtrs over here are in heavy cars and try to do it on 10.5tires stock rear ends etc
, i can't see how a 2500lb car would have any problems running high 9s , FFS the motor only has to make around 480hp 
, no problem with a little fettleing here & there & a solid/roller cam , bottle feed it & mid nines shouldn't be an issue with 10.5 tyres & stock springs.............................SHOULDN'T NEED THE SQUEEZE with a featherweight car. ....these A bods don't know how easy they got it. 
AKA Brutus.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 6:03 pm
Other than Blue's and Jon Connolly, i would doubt there's an A body on this site that weighs less than 3000 lbs.
I would also be suprised if Duncan's orange challenger is 3800 lbs.
I would also be suprised if Duncan's orange challenger is 3800 lbs.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 6:15 pm
Lets put it this way Mick..........only requires 500 horses for a 3000lb car to run mid 10s , maybe i'm a little biased considering the aggro i had with the elephant.Mick wrote:Other than Blue's and Jon Connolly, i would doubt there's an A body on this site that weighs less than 3000 lbs.
I would also be suprised if Duncan's orange challenger is 3800 lbs.
Good goin for anyone to break into the 10s
, heavier the car the harder it is. 
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 6:19 pm
with driver mick 3,940Mick wrote:Other than Blue's and Jon Connolly, i would doubt there's an A body on this site that weighs less than 3000 lbs.
I would also be suprised if Duncan's orange challenger is 3800 lbs.
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 11 6:22 pm
Cannonball wrote:with driver mick 3,940Mick wrote:Other than Blue's and Jon Connolly, i would doubt there's an A body on this site that weighs less than 3000 lbs.
I would also be suprised if Duncan's orange challenger is 3800 lbs.