artyon:
What would it take? Only a lot of these: $$$
Sorry, but I had too.
:buhbye:

 

LOL hey i live in an cornfeild right now but when we see an vette of any year we know its fast but what im trying to get at is, is it possible for an Vette to be an sleeper? if so, ill shake your hand if you got one after i beg u to let me drive it lol

 

Simple....

 

Holy crap, did you hear the tires when he let off of that burnout!?!?!

Sick!

artyon:

 

If you wait until after your first couple million, you should be able to build a Greg Eaton style car No Problem

Traction, a compliant suspension, and sufficient torque to lift the front of the car are all thats needed. My 1998 Wrangler with a 6 inch lift could pull the front left tire off the ground on hard launches, and that was with a 4.0 liter, 220HP inline 6.

 

We'd race anything way back when...

One bud had a pure stock, pink Jeep. Just toss it in low and pop a wheelie every launch. Good for a 56mph quarter mile trap speed.

The line launch wheelies sure look good in photos, despite the crawl to the finish lights.

Elvis':

:WTF :smack

 

LOL I love Jeeps, but I don't know about that pink one:lookinup:

 

This is me in my Camaro popping a wheelie around 1977

Actually, in this pic the front end was on jackstands, but I could pull the driverside wheel off the ground a few inches when I slammed it into second gear.artyon:

 

I like the mule doing the wheelie. It sure looks like it is not his first.

 

not positive, but i read some where that the standard drive train on a vette would not hold up, therefore a strait axle would be needed to withstand the torque of doing "wheelies". probably wrong on that call......:huh:

 

well, after 2 years my desires haven't changed much:laughing:

However, I started thinking more about the physics of lifting the front end off the ground... If you assume the center of gravity to be an arbitrary 4 feet in front of the rear axle and the weight of the car to be a nice round 3000#, that's a moment of 12,000 lb-ft. We're not talking train engines here, and I don't think that's quite achievable out of standard chevy block.

That leaves me wondering what I'm missing. Would you divide that by two since you have 2 wheels? I'm sure the rear end gearing has a lot to do with it, so how do you take that into account?

Might be overanalyzing this just to get a ballpark figure of how much torque it would take, but now the engineering brain is taking over. Anybody got ideas?:huh:

 

well, after 2 years my desires haven't changed much:laughing:

However, I started thinking more about the physics of lifting the front end off the ground... If you assume the center of gravity to be an arbitrary 4 feet in front of the rear axle and the weight of the car to be a nice round 3000#, that's a moment of 12,000 lb-ft. We're not talking train engines here, and I don't think that's quite achievable out of standard chevy block.

That leaves me wondering what I'm missing. Would you divide that by two since you have 2 wheels? I'm sure the rear end gearing has a lot to do with it, so how do you take that into account?

Might be overanalyzing this just to get a ballpark figure of how much torque it would take, but now the engineering brain is taking over. Anybody got ideas?:huh:

There are novelty cars which change the center of gravity by putting weight behind the rear wheels to reduce the amount of torque needed to lift the front end. Depends if you want performance or show! :thumbsup:

 

well, after 2 years my desires haven't changed much:laughing:

Your desires have not changed much but have you made your first couple million yet? BTW: That Greg Eaton video is great!

 

Your desires have not changed much but have you made your first couple million yet? BTW: That Greg Eaton video is great!

:laughing: not quite, but at least I've got a 'vette now!

I'd definitely be looking for pure performance and not just show. That's why I'd like it to have a "relatively" stock appearance. Don't want a huge blower sticking out of the hood or wheelie bars, just want to blow the minds of every punk that pulls up and wants to race :devil:

any of you engineering guys have some light to shed on the physics of all this?

 

J,

You have the right idea. Watching that video messed up my mind. I keep tossing around ideas and can't decide if I want a mean machine or am I happy with a relatively low mileage stock cruiser. My 76' runs great, and I would get in it and drive across the country tomrrow, but it is not enough. Like you said, I want to blow the socks off of every punk that revs his engine next to me.

I have one advantage though, I have the ultimate paint color for a sleeper...............

 

J,

You have the right idea. Watching that video messed up my mind. I keep tossing around ideas and can't decide if I want a mean machine or am I happy with a relatively low mileage stock cruiser. My 76' runs great, and I would get in it and drive across the country tomrrow, but it is not enough. Like you said, I want to blow the socks off of every punk that revs his engine next to me.

That's why I'm hoping for both. My current 'vette probably won't ever see more than 350 RWHP. I'd really love to dig up a dead shell of a '69 and build it from the ground up as 69myway and dirty rat have. I'm just affraid some woman will go stealing my heart and ruin all my plans :laughing:

 

In a previous life, before I very recently came back to my Chevrolet roots, I had quite a few 5.0 Mustangs...supercharged, nitroused, and all motor. The one I just sold to fund the purchase of my 85 Vette, had a little 306 cubic inch engine that I built (complete w/stock camshaft), weighed in at 3180#, made 280rwhp/322rwtq and although twisted due to chassis flex, was able to pull the nose up fairly easily...the only factors that helped me were traction, weight transfer and no fear of launching at 5000rpm's+...Not sure how well any stock suspensioned Corvette will like all of the above, but that's how I lifted the nose in the air...(Car ran 12.40@110 w/1.66 60 foot on Hoosier Quick Time Pro DOT legal tires, btw)

While it looks neat, I had another Rustang that ran 10.20's at 132-133mph (1.51 60 foots) and wouldn't lift the front tires off the ground for nothing...

http://home.comcast.net/~novishadow/wsb/media/601222/site1045.JPG

That kind of fun doesn't come without a price...as has been mentioned above...It's a relief to finally have a nice cruiser that gets as many, if not more, looks than the louder, faster cars I had in the near past. :thumbsup:

 

ttt

 

Check out the Sept. '06 issue of Hot Rod to see Steve Hoch's home built '68 Corvette leaving the line wheels up. Steve has more money wrapped up in his rear end than I do in my engine.

 

I can't believe I'm digging up a 5 year old thread, but what the hell. I also can't believe how little I knew about cars in 2006 :crazy:

Did a little quick math assuming:
- 3000 lb empty weight,
- 200 lb driver,
- 7 gallons of gas,
- weight distribution of 50/50 (seems easily achieved based on some vehicle weights I've seen guys posting),
- 2.66 1st gear ratio (available in T56),
- 4.11 rear end gear (I'd rather stick with the IRS so we'll assume a 12 bolt for the sake of conversation),
- 98.0" wheelbase,
- infinite traction at rear wheels

it would take 1216 ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel to get the wheels off the ground.

Does that seem like a good ballpark figure? How much tq are the real drag guys putting down and through what tranny & rear end?

If those numbers are right it seems to me that it's completely unreasonable to think that a comfortably streetable 'vette could pull a wheelie.

So much for childhood dreams :laughing:

I know the link in the first post is still pending approval, so you can check out the vid here if you scroll down to the vids section at the bottom.

 

You wouldn't need anywhere near 1000ftlbs of torque to pull the wheels.

 

seems pretty high to me as well. Not sure what I might be missing. :huh:

 

Back in HS, we had a lot of cars that SHOULD have lifted the fronts but didn't but ran some awesome times. We also special built a roadster that was purposefully built to do wheelies. The one I drove for a few weeks in HS until my dad told me to get rid of it, was called "THE STUD" (get it, hey I was a cowboy). Had a 292 ford truck (torque) engine setting mid ship with a 3 speed and the seat setting just behind the rear wheels with a solid front axle. Looked like a little dragster. I could pull the front wheels off the ground at 60 MPH. Fun to drive, chick magnet, and squirrely as hell! :laughing:

To do it in a Stingray and have it really streetable, I think would be difficult! :thumbsup:

 

It is all in how the car is built, the more weight on the front and the longer the car, the harder it will be to lift the front, really has nothing to do with HP or TQ. think of it like a Sea saw when you were a kid. depends where the center balance point is if you have enouph weight on the rear you could stand the wheels up with a go cart motor.

Corvettes are harder simply because they have a LONG body, and I.R.S. and when you add big blocks to try to add the muscle to lift the front end you wind up being counter productive.

Probably the best way to try to get the front end to lift is with a Lightweight engine and removal of all things not needed in the front, atleast 4.11s in a strong rear end, and a high 1st gear. lightwegiht pizza cutter tires, removal of swaybar to assist in the front end comming off the ground, and some SOFT shocks to allow the front end to come up.

The goal with all that is to assist the front end comming up befor the tires come off the ground, that extra leverage geting the front end moving up will assist in getting the wheels up too.

of coarse you do need some HP and traction but that varies with the amount of modding. The perfrect drag car should lift the front up and slowly come back down.

 

It is all in how the car is built, the more weight on the front and the longer the car, the harder it will be to lift the front,

:agree: correct

...really has nothing to do with HP or TQ.

the overalll weight of the car and the weight distribution are the known quantities that can allow us to calculate the torque required to lift the front end. They are directly related and the engine torque is the easiest measure of what it would take. Thus, it has everything to do with torque. Horsepower is a different story since it is simply derived from torque and rpm.

Have you calculated the torque multiplication effect of that 2.66 1 st gear ratio combined with the 4.11 rear end ?. I would have thought that irrespective of horsepower, torque, gear ratio etc good and sticky tyres and a good clutch or tight auto box would allow the front-end to lift with far less torque than above

yes, I took into account the torque multiplication of the 1st gear in the transmission and the rear end. I'm totally in agreement that it shouldn't require 1200 ft-lbs to get the front wheels up, so something is amiss.

I pulled the left front wheel off the ground all the time in my '68 Camaro and I know that the 427 I had in there did not have anywhere near 1000 ft lbs torque. Best guess it was maybe 600 ft lbs torque.

that's much different than a wheelie. The transfer of torque through the drivetrain will try to twist the entire chassis. If the frame isn't rigid enough that twist alone will be enough to bring the wheel off the ground.

 

it would take 1216 ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel to get the wheels off the ground.
Have you calculated the torque multiplication effect of that 2.66 1 st gear ratio combined with the 4.11 rear end ?. I would have thought that irrespective of horsepower, torque, gear ratio etc good and sticky tyres and a good clutch or tight auto box would allow the front-end to lift with far less torque than above - it obviously wouldn't maintain the front-up attitude though with limited power.
Hot Rod Jim's 540 powered mid years over the CF pops the front end using slicks on far less torque than your calculation.

 

I pulled the left front wheel off the ground all the time in my '68 Camaro and I know that the 427 I had in there did not have anywhere near 1000 ft lbs torque. Best guess it was maybe 600 ft lbs torque.