Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: MULTIENGINES!

  1. #1
    Van Addict
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    woodstock GA U.S.A.
    Posts
    421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    ive always been intrigued by the art of multiengines. i watch tractor pulls, and have heards of multiengined drag racers, but there isint much info availible. now heres what im thinkig of doing. get another 108 chevy van, put another crossmember behind the first motor, bolt the second motors crank to the flywheel of the first, bolt it in and put a trans behind it [racing 700r4].
    what other things would i have to do??? i think it would give me more horsepower and double torque. what do you think???? please reply.

  2. #2
    VCVC Charter Member Vanner68's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kimball MI USA
    Posts
    13,389
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Truckin Magazine did exactly that, plus a 6" roof chop, in the 80's with a 108". I don't remember exactly when it was done, but it was called "Two Bad". It had 4 4" unmuffled pipes stickin straight up thru the roof! I remember it was up for sale, price dropped from $14k to $10k before ad was dropped. Anybody seen it since?

  3. #3
    VCVC Member TurboVan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Ojai, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,422
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy

    A 700R4 would not be a good tranny choice. They are not capable of handling high torque/horsepower. (see The Driveline Page at Vannin.com) A better choice would be a Turbo 400. GO FOR IT!

  4. #4
    Van Addict
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    woodstock GA U.S.A.
    Posts
    421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy

    thanks for the trans info, would have screwed up and bought a real expensive one.

  5. #5
    VCVC Charter Member Vanner68's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kimball MI USA
    Posts
    13,389
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb

    If you need overdrive, get a gear vendors unit. Expen$ive, but almost indestructible. see it in Jan 2001 Car Craft. By the way, you should all subscribe to Car Craft. True, it's not a "van" mag, but so much good tech in there you can't beat it!

  6. #6
    VCVC Member TurboVan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Ojai, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,422
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy

    Correction: I meant to say The Drive TRAIN Page. The author, Ken Bachellerie,says the 700R4 can only handle 250HP. But if you go to 700r4.com, they (Bow Tie Overdrives) say this tranny can take 600HP. Jet Performance says they can take 450 foot pounds of torque. Now I don't know what to think! I've got a fresh 700 waiting to drop in my '65 behind the 327 turbo motor, so I was unsure if it could take it (400HP). Guess I'll find out soon enough. Wish me luck.

  7. #7
    Certifiable Vanatic
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    CARLISLE ONTARIO CANADA
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    I DON'T WANT TO RUFFLE ANY FEATHERS HERE BUT HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. THE 700R4 WAS THE TRANNY OF CHOICE FOR GENERAL MOTORS TOP PERFORMANCE VEHICLES FOR HOW LONG. VETTES FIREBIRDS CAMAROS. WHY WOULD THE PUT A TRANNY INTO A VEHICLE AT THE FACTORY IF IT WASN'T GOING TO DO THE JOB. I HAD AN '84 VETTE, STAGE TWO CHIP GUTTED CATALITIC CONVERTER ROLLER ROCKERS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER GOODIES. DID ALL THIS THRU A 700R4 TO THE TUNE OF 168MPH, AS OFTEN AS I COULD FOR CLOSE TO SEVEN YEARS THEN I SOLD THE CARS. I HAVE RECENTLY PURCHASED A 65 FLAT GLASS WITH A 350/350HP WITH 700R IN IT. HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY AND BREAK IT YET, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE. THE 400 IS A GOOD TRANNY, FOR A TRUCK. WEIGHS A TON AND WILL NOT OUTPERFORM A 350 TO ANY GREAT DEGREE. BUT THEN A BEEFED UP POWERGLIDE WILL TAKE 700HP, IF YOU ONLY WANT TWO GEARS.
    PUT IN THE 700R4 AND ENJOY!

    AJAX

  8. #8
    VCVC Charter Member Vanner68's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kimball MI USA
    Posts
    13,389
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Ajax has a good point here. We tend to think everything built after 73 is low performance junk. A lot is, but in the last 10 yrs HP ratings have surpassed even the best musclecars from the 60's. The cars then were also rated in GROSS HP, not NET HP as now. There can be as much as a 20% difference between the two. Car Craft recently reprinted HP and 1/4 mile times from a bunch of cars they tested in the 60's, and I'll tell ya what, a 93 5.0 Mustang will spank any of them, even the Hemi. This is obviously times for stock vehicles, with crappy 60's vintage bias plies, so the drive trains on newer cars have to be tougher still because the new tires really hook.
    Also, and I am NOT knocking anybodies engine, but unless you have put your stuff on a dyno you are guesstimating your HP. And we all like to brag a bit anyway. A co-worker spent $5000 having a 350 built for his Camaro that was supposed to be 450HP. It sounded good, but when he would nail it it sounded like it was struggling a bit. I raced him in my bone stock 93 Dodge p/u and kept within 1/2 car length for over a mile. Accordint to Chrysler, my 318 put out 220hp in a 4300lb truck. I'd say that the 350 in his Camaro was likely doing about the same. Turns out his cam wasn't degree'd in properly, the HEI was giving up around 5500rpm's his torque converter had too low a stall speed, and the rear gearing was all wrong for a high rpm motor. After taking care of all that, he ran a legit 11.23 b1/4 mile. Oh, yeah- the trans was a beefed B&M 700R4.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •