Inline FabricationStainLess Steel MediaGraf & SonsADvertise here
Lee PrecisionTitan ReloadingRotoMetals2

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 98

Thread: Any other Jeepers here?

  1. #41
    Boolit Master






    Lloyd Smale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    12,875
    ya a supercharger sure woulnt hurt a thing. Nitrous might be a bit harder to finesse.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    Yup a better choice of engines. MAybe a power adder? Naw, just kidding ....or am I?
    Soldier of God, sixgun junky, Retired electrical lineman. My office was a 100 feet in the air, closer to God the better

  2. #42
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Nitrous wouldn't be that hard since the computer could be programed to compensate for the additional gas needed. Having said that I'm not a nitrous fan simply because when you need it the bottle is generally next to empty. The supercharger on the other hand is always ready when the need or maybe I should say the foot demands. Your the expert on turbo's since you had one on your Grand National. I'm thinking a small amount of boost around 5-6 lbs would yeald about 75-100 hp depending on the engine and won't heat up like trying to run say 18-20 lbs of intercooled boost.

    Getting back to the nitrous... I had always thought about a shot of nitrous into the intercooler to cool down the inlet air to the supercharger. God, now I'm thinking about another muscle car....

  3. #43
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    3,842
    Lloyd, I'm not trying to convince you that the old ones were better, but will you at least acknowledge that they were adequate ?

    I was with an acquaintance about a year ago that sold his like new JK back to a dealer (long story, not something I would do). The Jeep was in excellent condition, less than 20K miles and had new tires and wheels (35's I think). They handed him a check for $23,000 and then turned around and put it on the lot for just under $29,000. I'm sorry, but new technology or not, there just wasn't $29K worth of stuff between the front and rear bumpers of that vehicle.

    Yes, new vehicles have the advantage of better engineering. We are making more power while burning less fuel. We have ABS brakes, traction control, stability control and air bags. We have electronic manipulation of just about every engine function possible.
    However the price for all of that engineering is incredibly complex electrical systems, computers that are essential to the operation of that stuff and most of all - Increased cost.

    I'm not a Luddite. I do not oppose technology. However, I recognize that new technology comes at a price. The "Cool" factor of the new stuff is often way more than the actual value of that new technology.
    Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 07-15-2017 at 08:56 AM.

  4. #44
    Boolit Master






    Lloyd Smale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    12,875
    I agree theres lots of unnessisary junk on all these new vehicles but you can thank the liberals for most of it. I also agree that the old ones were adequate. Even that 4 cyl 2000 went places that would make the hair stand up on many and places not many are going to put there shinny new jk. Luckily I don't think that way. My trucks and jeeps get used as trucks and jeeps the minute they leave the dealership. Heres my take on it. If all I wanted was a third vehicle to puts around in the woods once in a while the tj would have been fine. But as a second vehicle (my primary vehicle as the wife drives the truck winter and me the jeep and then it switches in the summer) it just wasn't liveable. Fine to go to town to pick up some milk but to drive anymore then 5 miles wasn't fun on the highway. It also was down right dangerous on ice. Something the jk well not perfect at is adequate. I wouldn't in a million years make my wife drive a tj on the winter roads up here. It made me grey on a number of occasions. The jk on the other hand rides good enough and handles good enough and gets good enough fuel economy that I wouldn't hesitate a bit to take off cross country in it. I guess a lot of it comes down to what your needs are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrol & Powder View Post
    Lloyd, I'm not trying to convince you that the old ones were better, but will you at least acknowledge that they were adequate ?

    I was with an acquaintance about a year ago that sold his like new JK back to a dealer (long story, not something I would do). The Jeep was in excellent condition, less than 20K miles and had new tires and wheels (35's I think). They handed him a check for $23,000 and then turned around and put it on the lot for just under $29,000. I'm sorry, but new technology or not, there just wasn't $29K worth of stuff between the front and rear bumpers of that vehicle.

    Yes, new vehicles have the advantage of better engineering. We are making more power while burning less fuel. We have ABS brakes, traction control, stability control and air bags. We have electronic manipulation of just about every engine function possible.
    However the price for all of that engineering is incredibly complex electrical systems, computers that are essential to the operation of that stuff and most of all - Increased cost.

    I'm not a Luddite. I do not oppose technology. However, I recognize that new technology comes at a price. The "Cool" factor of the new stuff is often way more than the actual value of that new technology.
    Soldier of God, sixgun junky, Retired electrical lineman. My office was a 100 feet in the air, closer to God the better

  5. #45
    Boolit Master






    Lloyd Smale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    12,875
    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    Nitrous wouldn't be that hard since the computer could be programed to compensate for the additional gas needed. Having said that I'm not a nitrous fan simply because when you need it the bottle is generally next to empty and ive just seen to many motors go to the graveyard because of it. The supercharger on the other hand is always ready when the need or maybe I should say the foot demands. Your the expert on turbo's since you had one on your Grand National. I'm thinking a small amount of boost around 5-6 lbs would yeald about 75-100 hp depending on the engine and won't heat up like trying to run say 18-20 lbs of intercooled boost.

    Getting back to the nitrous... I had always thought about a shot of nitrous into the intercooler to cool down the inlet air to the supercharger. God, now I'm thinking about another muscle car....
    For a jeep nitrous is a bit to abrupt unless you spend a lot on progressive controllers ect and like you said even then when you need it the bottles empty. Turbos (at least the ones ive played with) have to much lag and when they come on the come on kind of abruptly too. Not as much as nitrous but unless your going with two small progressive turbos I think it wouldn't be really useable in a hard core 4x4. Supercharging is the only replacement for displacement. Its about seamless power and its allways there especially in a roots style blower. The centrificals aren't as seamless but still much better then no2 or turbos. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything here. You've fooled with blowers more then me.
    Soldier of God, sixgun junky, Retired electrical lineman. My office was a 100 feet in the air, closer to God the better

  6. #46
    Moderator


    MaryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    7,242
    Helped a friend build a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 428cj. 12:1 compression plus nitrous. Power was great, replacing pistons after 2-3 drag races not so great...

  7. #47
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryB View Post
    Helped a friend build a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 428cj. 12:1 compression plus nitrous. Power was great, replacing pistons after 2-3 drag races not so great...
    That's because when the nitrous is used gas must also be injected. Failure to have enough gas always results in burned or blown pistons. Been there just a few times. If you want the Ford to really run you need to install a fuel injection system along with a "FAST" programable computer with all the sensors. Its not going to be a 10 second 1/4 mi car by any means in my opinion but it will run harder and faster than a carb with no 02's or other ensors.

    Lloyd, your correct. Nitrous would mean controlled injection per added controllers and electronics to run them. Turbo's as you mentioned result in excess lag. Centrifical blowers like the D1R with the helical impeller provide boost from about 2K on up. Even at 2K the boost results in uncontrollable results. Never was a fan of roots type blowers. When I was young we setup 8-71,6-71, and 4-71 blowers. The problem with them has always been heat and expansion of internal parts as a result of the heat. Some of the blower cooling was actually done with excess gas from either a single large 4 barrel or dual 4 barrels or even injection on top of the blower. The best setup is a light high horsepower engine capable of providing gobs of torque at low RPM's.

    The question of the low tech older Jeeps vers the newer ones... My answer would be low tech simple Jeeps from the 60's or 70's before the age of computers and all the added junk. If the SHTF and someone drops nuke the older ones without the computers will run and the newer stuff won't. Personally I don't need all the gadjets and trinkets the newer Jeeps have. My older Annerversary Jeep with the 304 and three speed would do fine.

  8. #48
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    473
    I was 21 when I bought a 1961 CJ5 with the Hurricane 4 cylinder engine. It did well enough for off road but I wanted more road speed. Added an overdrive and found that by shifting both levers in sequence it proved to have 6 forward gear speeds. That was fun for winning arguments about the number of of gears it had. Kept it 2 years but sold it when I got married at 23.

    The sale made me so miserable the new wife allowed me to buy another CJ5, this time a used 1970 pre-Renegade - it had all the hardware for a Renegade but not the mandatory wild colors or hood stripe. This one had the Buick v-6 engine, a real power house in the Jeep. My most frequent repair was to replace clutch cables (woven wire cable with little life span). Replaced several tops and learned that the weather inside the Jeep was always the same as outside - hot or cold or wet or dry, all the same. I added an air booster (extra fan) to the heater duct and it helped some, but only a little. I rode that Jeep to work for about 28 years. Late in that span a co-worker asked why I still drove that ratty old Jeep to work. My answer was that I got married in '70 and bought the Jeep the same year, and that since that time I had decided that both the wife and the Jeep were still pretty good rides. The co-worker walked away just shaking his head. Another occasion - I was driving the Jeep on a 10-mile trip when I heard click-click-click, then knock-knock-knock, then a loud WHAM and the Jeep started free wheeling. At the sound of that last noise I glanced in the rear view mirror and saw something (?) bouncing toward the side of the road. Looking under the body I found I had lost the drive shaft. A universal joint had failed. Walked back and recovered the drive shaft. Reached into the floor and shifted the transfer case into 4WD and completed the trip. Replaced the U-joint and all was well. You gotta love the simplicity of these early Jeeps. Finally I sold the Jeep due to body rust and excessive wear from daily driving.

    Later I got a 1969 CJ5 to use for a woods buggy, kept it about 5 years before finally sending it away.

    I could go on at length about the fun Jeep riding experiences but the quick message is that these early Jeeps were versatile, usually reliable and always fun. That's good enough for me.

  9. #49
    Boolit Master






    Lloyd Smale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    12,875
    youd have to have a REAL old one. Most of them on the road at least have electronic ignitions and I guess the last consideration I give to buying a car is if Russian is going to set off a nuke above me.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    That's because when the nitrous is used gas must also be injected. Failure to have enough gas always results in burned or blown pistons. Been there just a few times. If you want the Ford to really run you need to install a fuel injection system along with a "FAST" programable computer with all the sensors. Its not going to be a 10 second 1/4 mi car by any means in my opinion but it will run harder and faster than a carb with no 02's or other ensors.

    Lloyd, your correct. Nitrous would mean controlled injection per added controllers and electronics to run them. Turbo's as you mentioned result in excess lag. Centrifical blowers like the D1R with the helical impeller provide boost from about 2K on up. Even at 2K the boost results in uncontrollable results. Never was a fan of roots type blowers. When I was young we setup 8-71,6-71, and 4-71 blowers. The problem with them has always been heat and expansion of internal parts as a result of the heat. Some of the blower cooling was actually done with excess gas from either a single large 4 barrel or dual 4 barrels or even injection on top of the blower. The best setup is a light high horsepower engine capable of providing gobs of torque at low RPM's.

    The question of the low tech older Jeeps vers the newer ones... My answer would be low tech simple Jeeps from the 60's or 70's before the age of computers and all the added junk. If the SHTF and someone drops nuke the older ones without the computers will run and the newer stuff won't. Personally I don't need all the gadjets and trinkets the newer Jeeps have. My older Annerversary Jeep with the 304 and three speed would do fine.
    Soldier of God, sixgun junky, Retired electrical lineman. My office was a 100 feet in the air, closer to God the better

  10. #50
    Boolit Master






    Lloyd Smale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    12,875
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryB View Post
    Helped a friend build a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 428cj. 12:1 compression plus nitrous. Power was great, replacing pistons after 2-3 drag races not so great...
    yup mary most power adders are not going to work with pump gas and 12:1 compression. Without some real thought out aluminum heads I doubt your going to run anymore then 11 to 1 with pump gas without a power adder. Any more then that and you need computer controlled timing curves and knock sensors. Even watch that tv show about the street racers in MO. they run some high compression nitrous stuff and have to tune for even outside temps and humidity and even then they leave parts on the road. But in a stock computer controlled car like a mustang or Camaro, challenger, vette ect. A 100 hp kit is pretty safe with no tuning other then to make sure you can flow enough fuel through your stock setup and a set of colder heat range plugs. 150hp is getting on the borderline and at that level your getting to the point you need bigger injectors. Any more then that and you need a dedicated fuel system just for your nitrous. Those guidelines pretty much are the same whether your using no2, or turbos and blowers with intercoolers.
    Soldier of God, sixgun junky, Retired electrical lineman. My office was a 100 feet in the air, closer to God the better

  11. #51
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    3,842
    Somehow I think that if a nuke goes off nearby my vehicle operation is going to be the least of my problems.

  12. #52
    Moderator


    MaryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    7,242
    We were runing mid 10's with that setup, and yes we had plenty of fuel from a dual quad setup. Thing was a beast and my friend pushed it to the limits, 428's are not designed for 7k RPM...

    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    That's because when the nitrous is used gas must also be injected. Failure to have enough gas always results in burned or blown pistons. Been there just a few times. If you want the Ford to really run you need to install a fuel injection system along with a "FAST" programable computer with all the sensors. Its not going to be a 10 second 1/4 mi car by any means in my opinion but it will run harder and faster than a carb with no 02's or other ensors.

    Lloyd, your correct. Nitrous would mean controlled injection per added controllers and electronics to run them. Turbo's as you mentioned result in excess lag. Centrifical blowers like the D1R with the helical impeller provide boost from about 2K on up. Even at 2K the boost results in uncontrollable results. Never was a fan of roots type blowers. When I was young we setup 8-71,6-71, and 4-71 blowers. The problem with them has always been heat and expansion of internal parts as a result of the heat. Some of the blower cooling was actually done with excess gas from either a single large 4 barrel or dual 4 barrels or even injection on top of the blower. The best setup is a light high horsepower engine capable of providing gobs of torque at low RPM's.

    The question of the low tech older Jeeps vers the newer ones... My answer would be low tech simple Jeeps from the 60's or 70's before the age of computers and all the added junk. If the SHTF and someone drops nuke the older ones without the computers will run and the newer stuff won't. Personally I don't need all the gadjets and trinkets the newer Jeeps have. My older Annerversary Jeep with the 304 and three speed would do fine.

  13. #53
    Moderator


    MaryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    7,242
    We were running 120 octane Av gas in that thing, pump gas was a no way. Back in the early 80's so what computers! Tune it, run it, fix it when it melted something. I don't think the nitrous kits back then added much more than 100hp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale View Post
    yup mary most power adders are not going to work with pump gas and 12:1 compression. Without some real thought out aluminum heads I doubt your going to run anymore then 11 to 1 with pump gas without a power adder. Any more then that and you need computer controlled timing curves and knock sensors. Even watch that tv show about the street racers in MO. they run some high compression nitrous stuff and have to tune for even outside temps and humidity and even then they leave parts on the road. But in a stock computer controlled car like a mustang or Camaro, challenger, vette ect. A 100 hp kit is pretty safe with no tuning other then to make sure you can flow enough fuel through your stock setup and a set of colder heat range plugs. 150hp is getting on the borderline and at that level your getting to the point you need bigger injectors. Any more then that and you need a dedicated fuel system just for your nitrous. Those guidelines pretty much are the same whether your using no2, or turbos and blowers with intercoolers.

  14. #54
    Perma-Banned



    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,727
    A pretty narrow set of naturally occurring geographic parameters have to exist to require more than naturally aspirated engines for off-roading.
    Last edited by shoot-n-lead; 07-16-2017 at 11:20 PM.

  15. #55
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryB View Post
    We were runing mid 10's with that setup, and yes we had plenty of fuel from a dual quad setup. Thing was a beast and my friend pushed it to the limits, 428's are not designed for 7k RPM...
    Will all due respect as one that has raced for many many years you don't melt pistons when you have plenty of fuel. For the record....when I ran Fords I was the only one in my neck of the woods as a small racer that kept mine together at 7K plus and that was when they scattered at anything over 6K. I ran 406 Tri-power Fords and graduated to 427 side oilers and then to 427 DOHC's. I also ran my share of 428's and 460's.

    Yes, you could get way over 100HP with the Nitrous parts available back then. I hope your not trying to use a dry kit hoping that there is enough gas with the dual quads. It won't work. You will need what is called a wet kit which means when the nitrous is injected there are also gas jets to inject additional gas with the nitrous.

    I wouldn't have used aviation gas but rather a blend. Sounds like you have a few problems such as too much timing, too little gas under nitrous and general lack of knowledge. But then again that's my take on things based on 48+ years of racing off and on.

  16. #56
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale View Post
    yup mary most power adders are not going to work with pump gas and 12:1 compression. Without some real thought out aluminum heads I doubt your going to run anymore then 11 to 1 with pump gas without a power adder. Any more then that and you need computer controlled timing curves and knock sensors. Even watch that tv show about the street racers in MO. they run some high compression nitrous stuff and have to tune for even outside temps and humidity and even then they leave parts on the road. But in a stock computer controlled car like a mustang or Camaro, challenger, vette ect. A 100 hp kit is pretty safe with no tuning other then to make sure you can flow enough fuel through your stock setup and a set of colder heat range plugs. 150hp is getting on the borderline and at that level your getting to the point you need bigger injectors. Any more then that and you need a dedicated fuel system just for your nitrous. Those guidelines pretty much are the same whether your using no2, or turbos and blowers with intercoolers.
    Your right Lloyd. Generally power adders aren't used with high compression. Using a turbo, or supercharger and even nitrous requires experience and know how. Most of the idiots out there try to run platinum spark plugs with turbo's, superchargers, and nitrous. Platinum spark plugs are a big NO NO because they DO cause detonation. The ONLY exception is the FACTORY setups like GM's Cadillac and Corvette engines for example because the computers and sensors are designed for them.

    For the record Mary.... My last toy ran low compression with a D1R Procharger making 18-20 LBS of intercooled boost. The engine featured forged pistons, premium rod bolts and main bolts, LT4 heads and intake and 60lb injectors with an FMU which gave me 120+ PSI fuel pressure under boost. I ran it one time thru the 1/4 mi. I spun thru 1st and 2nd gear and managed a 10.12@138mph going thru the traps in 5th gear. I ran 7K thru the gears with the 355. After my first run I was told to leave the drag strip and not come back until I got a cage rated for my speed in it. This car had 9's easily in its grasp but I felt my grocery getter would be too hard running around thru town with the added safety features added to it. Mary, this is what experience can do for you with 9:00-1 compression with mostly stock available Chevy parts and the mild LT4 cam.

    Using power adders like a supercharger, turbo, or nitrous is basically the same as running high compression since these power adders increase compression. I'll give you a hint.... too much compression with the nitrous. Wrong fuel blend. Wrong air fuel ratio under boost. Wrong tuning.

  17. #57
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Getting back to the thread again... Any Jeepers here. Like I mentioned I owned a CJ5 and CJ7. Both were V8's. Having driven a few Jeeps I thend to think its all about the gearing. The little straight 6's had plenty of power climbing rocks using the low side of the transfer case.

    My choice between Jeeps and Scouts would have me with my old Scouts. The 4 banger I had ran thru about everything and the Ralley with the 304 automatic was a fun ride that was superior to the CJ7 304 auto that I owned.

    Engine, transmission, transfer case gearing and rear end ratio's all depend on your fun plans with your Jeep. Front lockers and rear lockers only increase your fun ratio but do take additional power. With the locking axels additional power is needed.

  18. #58
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    3,842
    6bg6ga- Couldn't agree with you more about the straight 6's (although I wouldn't call them little) and gearing.

    I'm a huge fan of the in-line six and the AMC 258 was one of the best. The in-line six's made plenty of torque and gave decades of reliable service. They just couldn't be beat for longevity. The later 4.0L was sort of a reincarnation of the 258, it was a totally new design but the basic DNA was there and it also proved to be an outstanding engine.

    I've never been a fan of V-8's in Jeeps but I make an exception for the AMC 304. A V-8 is obviously shorter than an in-line six, which is an advantage in vehicle that's short to start with. You don't need a lot of horsepower in a Jeep but a little extra HP can allow for some more highway friendly gearing and still be useful on the low end. The 304, particularly the early ones, were just about right in terms of balancing size, weight, HP and torque. The little extra HP provided by the 304 allows for a little more flexibility in gearing. The 304 was compact, didn't burn a huge amount of fuel, was fairly durable and wasn't insanely dangerous in a Jeep.

    Jeep vs. Scout - They both suffer from attack by the dreaded tin worm. They used some of the same engines (AMC 232 & 258) but a lot of Scouts had the IH 4 cylinder. My former FIL had a first generation Scout (with factory rust option ) and that thing was unstoppable.
    The closed knuckles on the front axle (which Jeep also suffered from) resulted in poor turning radius but the short wheelbase helped.
    I think the Scouts may have had slightly better weight distribution which contributed to their off road ability but the Jeeps and Scouts were a close match.

  19. #59
    Moderator


    MaryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    7,242
    Think you missed the early 80's part... technology was not quite the same as it is now. Nitrous kit was basically a spacer under the carbs with a spray bar... he eventually had everything in that engine balanced so it would hold up better and yes you can melt aluminum pistons with to much gas under some circumstances... he raced every weekend locally and once a month at a big track after 2 years(and fewer engine issues as we got it tuned to survive). Local races were a section of road the sheriff closed for us, none of us were pro racers and we were learning the engines as we went! We had no fancy computers, no fuel injection that didn't cost an arm and a leg... Build it, run it , break it, fix it and learn from it. We were 20 and having fun!

    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    Will all due respect as one that has raced for many many years you don't melt pistons when you have plenty of fuel. For the record....when I ran Fords I was the only one in my neck of the woods as a small racer that kept mine together at 7K plus and that was when they scattered at anything over 6K. I ran 406 Tri-power Fords and graduated to 427 side oilers and then to 427 DOHC's. I also ran my share of 428's and 460's.

    Yes, you could get way over 100HP with the Nitrous parts available back then. I hope your not trying to use a dry kit hoping that there is enough gas with the dual quads. It won't work. You will need what is called a wet kit which means when the nitrous is injected there are also gas jets to inject additional gas with the nitrous.

    I wouldn't have used aviation gas but rather a blend. Sounds like you have a few problems such as too much timing, too little gas under nitrous and general lack of knowledge. But then again that's my take on things based on 48+ years of racing off and on.

  20. #60
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryB View Post
    Think you missed the early 80's part... technology was not quite the same as it is now. Nitrous kit was basically a spacer under the carbs with a spray bar... he eventually had everything in that engine balanced so it would hold up better and yes you can melt aluminum pistons with to much gas under some circumstances... he raced every weekend locally and once a month at a big track after 2 years(and fewer engine issues as we got it tuned to survive). Local races were a section of road the sheriff closed for us, none of us were pro racers and we were learning the engines as we went! We had no fancy computers, no fuel injection that didn't cost an arm and a leg... Build it, run it , break it, fix it and learn from it. We were 20 and having fun!
    Raced since the late 60's. Back then nitrous was somewhat new. A lot of us went to maniford runner injection down stream from the carb for the nitrous and the gas so each cylinder got its correct amount. The stuff we made was one of a kind per each engine.

    We had experimented with direct port injection only to find that it puddled and caused piston damage. We read our air/fuel ratio by what our plugs looked like before the days of computers.

    Never saw a piston melted with too much gas like you mentioned.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check