Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

[Duke W.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Question, if someone was to build a "Cheater Motor" and it was known to the judges to be one because the owner fessed up, but on the outside it appeared like a totally stock 327 could there still be deductions made?

Mike

Fllight judging is based on what can be seen, not knowledge or rumors of what cannot be seen. I know of one case where a highly respected member and past NCRS officer built a cheater motor that may have been known to a few then current officers, but it received a Duntov Award and was the subject of a Corvette Restorer article after the award was earned that revealed all the internal engine details and included dyno test results.

Nevertheless, if one is building a cheater motor, it would be prudent to keep the internal details classified until you have finished whatever judging program you wish to participate in, assuming you do.

I was an engine system engineering advisor in the above case and designed a custom camshaft for the stroked 283. I recommended to the owner (who is also an experienced PV judge) that he only use about 3/4 throttle during the PV WOT test to 90 percent of the tach redline because any experienced PV judge would know that his engine made a lot more torque and power than the original configuration. He just laughed and said his objective during that test was to scare the hell out of the judge.

Duke

[Gene M.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Mike,

For flight judging the criteria is supposed to be appears to be typical factory production. So I don't see how a cheater motor affects that as long as all the mods are internal. For a PV, if say a roller cam is installed, I would think that would be a deduction since the engine probably does not sound stock.

Joe

I would think if one got a roller profile say 280HR and had it ground with wider lobe centers (114) it would sound closer to a L79 would sound and pass the idle sound for a PV. But as for actual performance one would have to take it a little easy as the tiger would show it's stripes........

[Tom P.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Yep Stu,
This is the one. My very first car and daily driver for over 50yrs.



The brand new 383, built from a small journal 327 with the crankcase vent hole in the rear.



This shows how I plumbed the PCV valve---------------super simple. The inlet for the crankcase is an oil filler tube up front with a vented oil fill cap.

[Joe R.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

I would think if one got a roller profile say 280HR and had it ground with wider lobe centers (114) it would sound closer to a L79 would sound and pass the idle sound for a PV. But as for actual performance one would have to take it a little easy as the tiger would show it's stripes........

Gene:

I agree with you and Duke about cam swaps and other "internal" changes. Even if the judges know in advance that internal mods have been made, the judges are supposed to base their scoring based on what they can see, hear, and feel on the day the car is presented for judging.

My sense is that unless someone is on a witch hunt, it is very difficult to determine with certainty that modest changes have been made in the cam. Every car is slightly different (even when they have the same cam), and the judges have to allow for normal variation in the idle charactistic.

For example, unbeknown to me or any judges, a previous owner had installed the L79 350 HP cam in my original 300 HP engine. It passed Flight Judging ops testing several times with that cam. I always thought that the idle wasn't quite as smooth as a stock 300 HP, but the difference was subtle and it would be hard for a judge to say with absolute confidence that the cam was not correct.

I suspect that if someone took the 280HR cam that I used and increased the LSA to 114 degrees to match the original L79 cam, no judge in the NCRS would be able to tell the difference in the idle characteristic because the overlap would be essentially identical to the L79 cam. Furthermore, I'm not sure any judge would be able to say, with confidence, that they could detect the difference between the stock L79 cam (114 LSA) and the off-the-shelf 280HR cam (110 LSA).

I think the only way to get into trouble with cam swaps is to make a dramatic change in the cam. There is a clearly audible difference between the 300 HP cam and the LT1 cam, and that would probably be detected. But, I think there is a quite a bit of flexibility to modify the cam within reasonable limits and have it go undetected in Flight judging.

[Joe C.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe,

Excellent article and very well written! However, I'm surprised that in the short block portion of your 2-part article, you didn't mention which pistons you used, as well as explaining the meaning of compression height as it impacts piston-to-deck-clearance. Given the fact that the majority of folks that populate this website have no engine building experience, alas, neither do they have much knowledge of what goes on inside of an engine, such a discussion would have proven very educational to many of the folks with "NCRS disease".

As you know, I am not as much a fan of long stroked engines as I am of squeezing every ounce of torque and power from a fixed displacement. Notwithstanding the fact that displacement is proportional to torque, and that you did a fine job in designing your engine, a camshaft change alone can make a dramatic difference in torque across the entire rev range. For instance, we know that the stock 461 heads using 2.02/1.60 valves respond VERY well to mild porting and respond even more to more radical porting. I had gotten mine to flow 255/196 cfm @ .600 lift which defines the practical limit of lobe lift for a design camshaft. I can tell you that simply porting the heads as well as adding a high lift solid roller cam without any other changes will flatten and raise the torque curve across the rev range. Of course, making further changes to a small displacement engine will further raise the torque curve and sustain it to higher RPM's thus increasing peak power as well as average torque.

I look forward to your dyno results as well as your follow-up article.

[Gene M.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe R.
The engine knowledge as Joe C. points out is not consistent in NCRS judging. I could list a whole bunch of names that would discern the camshaft change as you present. The 270H flat tappet cam is "lesser" than the 280HR and it is definitely different idle sound. No doubt at all not an L79. But that is of little concern unless the judge takes deductions for it. If and/or when that day occurs be prepared to accept the evaluation. It should be treated as any other reproduction or replacement piece. But on the other hand Flight rules have a full deduction for added/deleted options. The new judging class NCRS is coming out with should fit better for engine modifications.

I like modified stuff just as well as the next guy. And flight judging also allows for it. It is called deductions.
The climate is to restore as correctly. I hope most don't think of judging as what one can get away with. But modifications are cool to just don't expect it to be scored the same as the correct present car on flight row. Most drivers have modification to the owners liking. My '65 is in that group. Hopefully the new class will get more cars like your 67 and my 65 drivers. And yes, I too am curious what the dyno will show. I suggest the run be from off idle and up. Duke likes a full picture!

[Duke W.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Gene:

I agree with you and Duke about cam swaps and other "internal" changes. Even if the judges know in advance that internal mods have been made, the judges are supposed to base their scoring based on what they can see, hear, and feel on the day the car is presented for judging.

My sense is that unless someone is on a witch hunt, it is very difficult to determine with certainty that modest changes have been made in the cam. Every car is slightly different (even when they have the same cam), and the judges have to allow for normal variation in the idle charactistic.

For example, unbeknown to me or any judges, a previous owner had installed the L79 350 HP cam in my original 300 HP engine. It passed Flight Judging ops testing several times with that cam. I always thought that the idle wasn't quite as smooth as a stock 300 HP, but the difference was subtle and it would be hard for a judge to say with absolute confidence that the cam was not correct.

I suspect that if someone took the 280HR cam that I used and increased the LSA to 114 degrees to match the original L79 cam, no judge in the NCRS would be able to tell the difference in the idle characteristic because the overlap would be essentially identical to the L79 cam. Furthermore, I'm not sure any judge would be able to say, with confidence, that they could detect the difference between the stock L79 cam (114 LSA) and the off-the-shelf 280HR cam (110 LSA).

I think the only way to get into trouble with cam swaps is to make a dramatic change in the cam. There is a clearly audible difference between the 300 HP cam and the LT1 cam, and that would probably be detected. But, I think there is a quite a bit of flexibility to modify the cam within reasonable limits and have it go undetected in Flight judging.

For a given amount of effective overlap, a longer stroke engine will have a smoother idle at the same idle speed and pull more vacuum than a short stroke engine of othewise idenitcal configuration or a lower idle speed at the same manifold vacuum or the same speed/vacuum with somewhat more overlap. Your cam appears to have about double the effective overlap of the L-79 cam - about the same as the LT-1 and Duntov cams, but with the longer stroke it may idle at 750 very similar to a L-79.. If fact, with the same cam you can use the ratio of idle RPM mean piston speeds, which is simply the inverse ratio of the strokes, to approximate the idle speed that the long stroke engine will pull about the same vacuum as the short stroke engine. If a OE L-79 idles at 14" @ 750, a 3.75" stroke engine with the same cam will pull 14" at about (3.25/3.75)750 = 656.

Ops check includes a cold start and at fast idle - about 1500 - and there's not much difference in idle behavior between a base engine engine and SHP engines. It's not apparent until the engines are fully warmed up and normal hot idle is achieved.

I recall a case circa 2001 where an owner who was scheduled for a PV at the Arizona regional asked me to evaluate the idle behavior of his 300 HP car. When I first looked at it hot idle was about 750 with a little lope. I reducing idle speed and tweaked the idle mixture screws, but the lower the idle speed the lumpier the idle, and at 500 it would barely run. I told the owner it acted like it had a L-79 cam or something close and would likely fail the PV due to idle behavior not consistent with a base engine. It turned out he had a problem on the PV field and never got off the field. Clearly he was very disappointed.

Upon returning home he removed the cam, and sure enough, it was a L-79 cam. He installed a proper 300 HP cam and passed his PV and earned a Duntov Award at the Monterey National Convention a few months later, so the story had a happy ending.

In another case an owner presented his '65 with a "327 LT-1" that was originally a L-79. With lash set to my recommended specs not all would realize that the engine had a mechanical lifter cam because the valve train is very quiet, but the hot idle will be lopier at 750, or it will have to be set at a higher hot idle speed to achieve the mild lope of the L-79 cam. He passed ops check and won Top Flight, but never presented the car for a PV.

Duke

[Joe C.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

A Corvette with a solid lifter cam with the same specs ( LSA, lift, and duration at any 2 lift points) as a corresponding hydraulic lifter cam would NOT pass a PV since most if not all PV judges are well aware of the difference in sound between the two. Just about ANYBODY should be able to recognize a 30-30 cam lashed @ factory spec because of the characteristic "clackety clack" , but a cam with tighter lash below .020" should produce a mild "singing" which is music to the ears and easily heard by a decent judge. The solid roller in my engine is lashed @ .014/.016 and in no way sounds like a hydraulic cam.

[Joe R.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

For a given amount of effective overlap, a longer stroke engine will have a smoother idle at the same idle speed and pull more vacuum than a short stroke engine of othewise idenitcal configuration or a lower idle speed at the same manifold vacuum or the same speed/vacuum with somewhat more overlap. Your cam appears to have about double the effective overlap of the L-79 cam - about the same as the LT-1 and Duntov cams, but with the longer stroke it may idle at 750 very similar to a L-79.. If fact, with the same cam you can use the ratio of idle RPM mean piston speeds, which is simply the inverse ratio of the strokes, to approximate the idle speed that the long stroke engine will pull about the same vacuum as the short stroke engine. If a OE L-79 idles at 14" @ 750, a 3.75" stroke engine with the same cam will pull 14" at about (3.25/3.75)750 = 656.

Ops check includes a cold start and at fast idle - about 1500 - and there's not much difference in idle behavior between a base engine engine and SHP engines. It's not apparent until the engines are fully warmed up and normal hot idle is achieved.

I recall a case circa 2001 where an owner who was scheduled for a PV at the Arizona regional asked me to evaluate the idle behavior of his 300 HP car. When I first looked at it hot idle was about 750 with a little lope. I reducing idle speed and tweaked the idle mixture screws, but the lower the idle speed the lumpier the idle, and at 500 it would barely run. I told the owner it acted like it had a L-79 cam or something close and would likely fail the PV due to idle behavior not consistent with a base engine. It turned out he had a problem on the PV field and never got off the field. Clearly he was very disappointed.

Upon returning home he removed the cam, and sure enough, it was a L-79 cam. He installed a proper 300 HP cam and passed his PV and earned a Duntov Award at the Monterey National Convention a few months later, so the story had a happy ending.

In another case an owner presented his '65 with a "327 LT-1" that was originally a L-79. With lash set to my recommended specs not all would realize that the engine had a mechanical lifter cam because the valve train is very quiet, but the hot idle will be lopier at 750, or it will have to be set at a higher hot idle speed to achieve the mild lope of the L-79 cam. He passed ops check and won Top Flight, but never presented the car for a PV.

Duke

Hi Duke:

According to Engine Analyzer Pro, the L79 has an effective overlap of 4.2 square-inch-degrees, while the 280HR cam is 5.9 square-in-degrees (increase of about 40%). As you note, the added displacement of the 383 will help to compensate for this, but won't fully compensate for it. I will be interested to see whether the difference from a stock L79 is discernable.

Even if it is, that's not really a problem for my particular set of design goals, which were focused on maintaining original appearance while increasing power. Since my car has already been through the formal Flight Judging process all the way to the national level, I have no plans to have it judged again. I just want it to look like an original car and be a little more fun to drive.

[Duke W.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Forty percent more effective overlap offset by 15 percent greater mean piston speed at 750. I think they will sound pretty close and it may take a side by side comparison to detect a meaningful difference especially for someone who's not aware that it's not a L-79 cam or a stroker.

Duke

[Joe R.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe,

Excellent article and very well written! However, I'm surprised that in the short block portion of your 2-part article, you didn't mention which pistons you used, as well as explaining the meaning of compression height as it impacts piston-to-deck-clearance. Given the fact that the majority of folks that populate this website have no engine building experience, alas, neither do they have much knowledge of what goes on inside of an engine, such a discussion would have proven very educational to many of the folks with "NCRS disease".

As you know, I am not as much a fan of long stroked engines as I am of squeezing every ounce of torque and power from a fixed displacement. Notwithstanding the fact that displacement is proportional to torque, and that you did a fine job in designing your engine, a camshaft change alone can make a dramatic difference in torque across the entire rev range. For instance, we know that the stock 461 heads using 2.02/1.60 valves respond VERY well to mild porting and respond even more to more radical porting. I had gotten mine to flow 255/196 cfm @ .600 lift which defines the practical limit of lobe lift for a design camshaft. I can tell you that simply porting the heads as well as adding a high lift solid roller cam without any other changes will flatten and raise the torque curve across the rev range. Of course, making further changes to a small displacement engine will further raise the torque curve and sustain it to higher RPM's thus increasing peak power as well as average torque.

I look forward to your dyno results as well as your follow-up article.

Joe C:

I know that you enjoy the challenge of squeezing the maximum possible power from your stock-appearing 327, and as I recall you have hit peak numbers over 400 HP in the 7500 rpm range. Maybe you could post a short description of what you did and what the results were.

As I see it, your engine is a good example of Taylor's Similar Engine Theory that Duke has described and that I tried to summarize in my article. The basic concept is that you can get the same *peak* power out of a smaller displacement engine if you wind it higher. There are probably other NCRS members who would like to pursue getting extra power the way you did.

In my case, I really like low end torque, since 99% of my driving is at engine speeds of less than 4000 rpm. On the other hand, every once in a while I like a good old "run through the gears" shifting at redline, and I like an engine that pulls hard to 6000 rpm. So, with my 383 I'm trying hard to have it both ways, although the 6000 rpm power peak probably won't be achieved. The Engine Analyzer software that I use predicts that running through a stock exhaust system, my 383 power peak will be at about 5500 rpm. I can add more cam to try and hit 6000 rpm, but with the stock exhaust the low end torque really takes a hit, and the predicted power peak doesn't improve much. So, I compromised with the comparatively mild 280HR cam.

If I was optimizing for open headers, the cam would have been bigger and the power peak would have been higher.

Regarding your observation that my article omitted some technical details such as pistons and quench distance, I didn't think most readers would be interested in that level of detail, and the article was already kind of long. So, I focused mosty on just the displacement increase.

For those that are interested, I have Mahle forged pistons, a compression ratio of 10.2, and a quench distance (piston-to-head clearance) of about .055". The ideal quench distance is about .035", but I did not want to deck the block (gotta keep those factory broach marks!), and I did not want to use thin steel head gaskets that might not seal well on the original deck surface. So, I didn't optimize quench for this engine.

[Joe C.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe C:

I know that you enjoy the challenge of squeezing the maximum possible power from your stock-appearing 327, and as I recall you have hit peak numbers over 400 HP in the 7500 rpm range. Maybe you could post a short description of what you did and what the results were.

As I see it, your engine is a good example of Taylor's Similar Engine Theory that Duke has described and that I tried to summarize in my article. The basic concept is that you can get the same *peak* power out of a smaller displacement engine if you wind it higher. There are probably other NCRS members who would like to pursue getting extra power the way you did.

In my case, I really like low end torque, since 99% of my driving is at engine speeds of less than 4000 rpm. On the other hand, every once in a while I like a good old "run through the gears" shifting at redline, and I like an engine that pulls hard to 6000 rpm. So, with my 383 I'm trying hard to have it both ways, although the 6000 rpm power peak probably won't be achieved. The Engine Analyzer software that I use predicts that running through a stock exhaust system, my 383 power peak will be at about 5500 rpm. I can add more cam to try and hit 6000 rpm, but with the stock exhaust the low end torque really takes a hit, and the predicted power peak doesn't improve much. So, I compromised with the comparatively mild 280HR cam.

If I was optimizing for open headers, the cam would have been bigger and the power peak would have been higher.

Regarding your observation that my article omitted some technical details such as pistons and quench distance, I didn't think most readers would be interested in that level of detail, and the article was already kind of long. So, I focused mosty on just the displacement increase.

For those that are interested, I have Mahle forged pistons, a compression ratio of 10.2, and a quench distance (piston-to-head clearance) of about .055". The ideal quench distance is about .035", but I did not want to deck the block (gotta keep those factory broach marks!), and I did not want to use thin steel head gaskets that might not seal well on the original deck surface. So, I didn't optimize quench for this engine.

Joe,

My engine appears as stock except for the headers. Here are the dyno results as they are, in the engine's present form. I do not believe that those afflicted with 'NCRS disease" would be interested in how I designed and built it. Suffice it to say that it's very driveable with plenty of torque.

In its first gestation with the simple addition of a high lift cam and the porting of the 461 heads, it had almost the same amount of low end torque as you will see in the following plot:

I can no longer post an attachment here. I'll update this thread when the Administrator fixes the issue. I posted an attachment as recently as last week.

[Duke W.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe C:


In my case, I really like low end torque, since 99% of my driving is at engine speeds of less than 4000 rpm.

That's something I've been harping on forever. More low end torque means more low end power, and it's power that accelerates a car, so low speed torque is the key for a road vehicle. The most graphic example I've ever experienced is about a week ago when I drove a new Tesla Model S P90D (Performance, 90 KWH battery and Dual motors for AWD) with the optional "Ludicrous" mode that increases allowable motor draw to 1500 amps from the normal 1300.

Peak power is in the mid-700 range and peak torque is similar or more at 0-5000 revs.

I drove it about 20 miles over neighborhood streets, boulevards, and a freeway jaunt. I didn't attempt to punch it from a dead stop because I knew traction control would intervene, but I did punch it a couple of times from about 10-15 MPH. It's probably the closest you can come to a catapult launch off an aircraft carrier (or a Top Fuel dragster or Funny Car) in a street legal vehicle. Tesla claims 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, but I think there's an AWD Lambo that supposedly does 2.7.

You control acceleration and regenerative braking with the throttle pedal, and if you do it right the brakes will probably last the life of the car. Throttle tip-in is very smooth and I liked to start very smoothly, then increase throttle with increasing speed, so accleration increases as you gain speed up to the point where you lift to maintain cruise speed - all the while leaving other traffic far behind without even trying.

The CG is very low due to the batteries being mounted below the floorboard, so it corners very flat (at up to 0.9g even with the relatively hard compound OE tires) with a firm, well damped ride that is not at all harsh.

We topped off the charge at a nearby free Tesla charging station, and the estimated range showed 288 miles, but after my 20 mile drive it showed 270, so I must have done well using with the regenerative braking feature despite the few seconds or WOT. The IP has a graph that shows the last five miles of power usage in kilowatts that I thought was kind of neat.

The only noise is a very muted whine you can sometimes hear, which is probably the reduction gear for the 15,000 rev motor. I think it's just a single stage of about 7:1 Top speed for the P90D is 155, so the motor revs are about 10 times vehicle speed, but there is no tach.

My only complaint is that the fastback body style makes rear seat headroomm on the tight side if you're six feet or more, but overall I was quite smitten. It changed my whole view of electric cars, but they don't come cheap. The base P70 is about $75K ( 0-60 in about 4.5 seconds and about 200 mile nominal range) and the P90D with optional "Ludicrous" mode is about $120K, but if you're near a free Tesla charging station the only operating expenses are license and insurance.

Duke

[Joe R.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

Joe,

My engine appears as stock except for the headers. Here are the dyno results as they are, in the engine's present form. I do not believe that those afflicted with 'NCRS disease" would be interested in how I designed and built it. Suffice it to say that it's very driveable with plenty of torque.

In its first gestation with the simple addition of a high lift cam and the porting of the 461 heads, it had almost the same amount of low end torque as you will see in the following plot:

I can no longer post an attachment here. I'll update this thread when the Administrator fixes the issue. I posted an attachment as recently as last week.

Hi Joe C:

I think even those with NCRS disease would be very interested in the details about your engine in it first incarnation (with ported OEM heads). As I recall, the only visible clue that the engine was not stock was the headers. I know you also used the LT1 intake, but that is not easy to detect with the air cleaner on.

So, with the exception of the headers, the appearance of your engine would be just fine for folks with NCRS disease, but as I recall the peak power was exceptional. It's a good example of what is possible with a vintage 327.

I think your engine is a very interesting comparison to what I am building, and is a great example of Taylor's Similar Engine Theory that Duke talks about. As I recall, your peak power is in the same range (400+) as what I hope to achieve with my 383. I'll probably have more torque at low rpm due to the larger displacement, but I may not have more peak power.

To me at least, this is all very interesting stuff.

[Joe R.]

Re: Joe Randolph's stroker article in the most recent Corvette Restorer

That's something I've been harping on forever. More low end torque means more low end power, and it's power that accelerates a car, so low speed torque is the key for a road vehicle. The most graphic example I've ever experienced is about a week ago when I drove a new Tesla Model S P90D (Performance, 90 KWH battery and Dual motors for AWD) with the optional "Ludicrous" mode that increases allowable motor draw to 1500 amps from the normal 1300.

Peak power is in the mid-700 range and peak torque is similar or more at 0-5000 revs.

I drove it about 20 miles over neighborhood streets, boulevards, and a freeway jaunt. I didn't attempt to punch it from a dead stop because I knew traction control would intervene, but I did punch it a couple of times from about 10-15 MPH. It's probably the closest you can come to a catapult launch off an aircraft carrier (or a Top Fuel dragster or Funny Car) in a street legal vehicle. Tesla claims 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, but I think there's an AWD Lambo that supposedly does 2.7.

You control acceleration and regenerative braking with the throttle pedal, and if you do it right the brakes will probably last the life of the car. Throttle tip-in is very smooth and I liked to start very smoothly, then increase throttle with increasing speed, so accleration increases as you gain speed up to the point where you lift to maintain cruise speed - all the while leaving other traffic far behind without even trying.

The CG is very low due to the batteries being mounted below the floorboard, so it corners very flat (at up to 0.9g even with the relatively hard compound OE tires) with a firm, well damped ride that is not at all harsh.

We topped off the charge at a nearby free Tesla charging station, and the estimated range showed 288 miles, but after my 20 mile drive it showed 270, so I must have done well using with the regenerative braking feature despite the few seconds or WOT. The IP has a graph that shows the last five miles of power usage in kilowatts that I thought was kind of neat.

The only noise is a very muted whine you can sometimes hear, which is probably the reduction gear for the 15,000 rev motor. I think it's just a single stage of about 7:1 Top speed for the P90D is 155, so the motor revs are about 10 times vehicle speed, but there is no tach.

My only complaint is that the fastback body style makes rear seat headroomm on the tight side if you're six feet or more, but overall I was quite smitten. It changed my whole view of electric cars, but they don't come cheap. The base P70 is about $75K ( 0-60 in about 4.5 seconds and about 200 mile nominal range) and the P90D with optional "Ludicrous" mode is about $120K, but if you're near a free Tesla charging station the only operating expenses are license and insurance.

Duke

Hi Duke:

I have had the good furtune to ride in (but not drive) a Tesla Model S. When the owner nailed the throttle I literally almost blacked out from the acceleration. It's probably a good thing that I wasn't driving!

I was actually involved with electric vehicles for the last seven years, as the volunteer Technical Advisor for my local high school's Electric Vehicle Club. The club operated out of the former auto shop at the high school, but now that space is being converted to classrooms. Kind of sad.

The EV conversions we built were not rockets (a Chevey S10 and a Mazda Miata), but they were still fun to drive. Interestingly, there is actually an organization called the National Electric Vehicle Drag Racing Association (www.nedra.com). Some of their youtube videos are amazing.

If you love torque (like I do), it's pretty impressive what an EV can generate from a standing start, especially if you are not concerned about the life of the battery pack........