Feather-weight '69

vette427sbc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
1,034
Location
Jersey Shore
Just got back from the drag strip today and had a chance to weigh it. I was hoping for anything under 3200, and to my pleasant surprise.... it weighed in at 2936lbs :1st: This was with no driver, 1/2 tank of gas and the t-tops on. Luckily, Im a featherweight myself so even with me the car should be under 3100lbs
I didnt think I shed that much weight off the car with my mods:
Tubular front control arms
Front transverse spring
Alu. heads and intake
Electric fans
Manual Rack&pinion
No power brakes/windows
Dual mount fiberglass rear spring
No spare tire/carrier
Only insulation is on the trans tunnel
No vacuum lines, although I still have the stock headlight door mechanisms

I ended up running a 13.1 @ 111mph with a crappy 60' of 2.3- hopefully if I can learn to launch the car better I can dip into the 12's. I had a great time though and that is what matters the most :drink:
 
The Wilwood brakes would shed 40 lbs, and work better. ($25 @lb) :nuts:
 
Word. I'm at 3,100 full wet. I am not a featherweight, but "race" weight is still pretty decent.

See here for some details.

The Wilwood brake upgrade and maybe trick rotors are floating around in my noggin. I'd love to get to 2,900 wet and about 475WHP.

I'm 3,100 and 391WHP. I run 12.6@113 with a 2~ 60' at the world infamous Fontana Speedway.
 
I was also surprised I was under 3000 and 2960 also

I'll be in the 2800's pretty soon though :smash:
 
The Wilwood brakes would shed 40 lbs, and work better. ($25 @lb) :nuts:

Because that is all unsprung weight, it should make a substantial difference in ride and handling. The rule of thumb I've always read/heard is that reducing unsprung weight is roughly 7:1 more beneficial for handling than reducing sprung weight. How they come up with that exactly I'm not sure, but 40lbs off unsprung on a C3 should make a pretty good improvement in the ratio.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top