GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show

[KRatcliff]

Originally Posted by NBD MGT

I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?

Either you missed Mike Carr's post (#113) or you are being obtuse.

[FlyingW]

I agree..
First of all when you look back on the cars from 69-70 that were factory backed then.. were cars right off the assembly line. They were not custom built as RACE CARS. The motors were the same way. So when you saw that car win, you could go buy that exact package at the dealer the next day.. hence win on sunday, sell on monday. All of these cars had VIN numbers, and it was STOCK.. not STOCK appearing. I want to say if I am correct that my dads car (70 olds) was sent just a conversion kit (hood and bumpers) to turn it into a 71 and then again into a 72 package. These cars only had the advantage on the track was because of parts availabilty, and financial backing. This was the only advantage they had. The cars that are rolling off now should in my opinion be listed in super stock if they are rolling off the line with no VIN numbers because they are built for race application... or even "factory experimental".... BUT.. regaurdless.. they all need K&N FIlters!!!!
GO Team K&N!!!

Originally Posted by Monte Howard

These cars where built with all the latest racing technology, highly ported cylinder heads and everything to make these cars fast, and all that technology is what is currently being ran in Super Stock. So how in the world should any of these cars be allowed in stock eliminator is beyond me. Trust me when I say know one loves this sport more than myself, but these cars should really be in there own class. I really want to get my 67 camaro stocker back out, not sure why I should even be considering it with ford and chevy's new crate motors. If I do I believe the only way possible is to put a stick in it to stay away from them.

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by NBD MGT

I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?

~a 427/425 '69 Nova is not legal for Stock

~Yes, cars with less than a year on the track were/are kicking the ____ out of well-built older cars that have 30+ years of work, blood, sweat and tears poured into them, by several tenths of a second.

~Yes, cars had to be street-legal to be in Stock. Non-street, factory race cars were ALWAYS S/S-only, until 2008. It should still be that way.

[Dan Fahey]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

~a 427/425 '69 Nova is not legal for Stock

~Yes, cars with less than a year on the track were/are kicking the ____ out of well-built older cars that have 30+ years of work, blood, sweat and tears poured into them, by several tenths of a second.

~Yes, cars had to be street-legal to be in Stock. Non-street, factory race cars were ALWAYS S/S-only, until 2008. It should still be that way.

WOW sounds like the NHRA, AHRA Junior Stock arguments.

I agree on a some things.
Drag Racing needed new blood and from all the makers.
Think Toyota should bring one in too.
Create the FX Class again for Factory Built cars.
Even just for a marketing advantage this should be implemented.
Potential for a new type Pro Stock Class.
(which I think another racing body is doing)

They are so quick they are challenging everything performance wise in Super Stock AND somehow they are in STOCK ??

I really do not get having 8 second Stockers.
That will eventually hit 7 seconds in the future...in STOCK !!

When did Stock lose its meaning STOCK ??


Dan

[treessavoy]

Originally Posted by NBD MGT

I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?

Here's the problem for those of us with older cars, in my case a 1964 Plymouth Savoy Max Wedge 425hp which I believe is rated at 425.

John Shaul has one of the fastest Max Wedge cars in the Nation and he's in the 10.20's while new cars in the same class are deep into the nines.....who's going to win a heads up race?

Why should a car that was sold on the lot and street driven have to compete heads up with a hand built race car that was never sold off the lot and never was street legal?

In 1968 Mopar sold the Hemi Darts/Barracudas for racing and they were not street legal.....and they went straight into SS because they were not Stock cars. Why didn't the NHRA do the same thing with the new cars?

In 1965 Mopar hand built altered wheelbase cars and these cars went straight into FX class not stock, Why didn't NHRA do this with the new factory hand built cars?

During that time period NHRA required all cars in Stock to have full street equipment including mufflers, even the 1965 Hemi Coronets and Belvederes and the Tbolts could be street driven because they were street and NHRA compliant. None of the cars came with roll cages, slicks, spools, lightweight seats, headers, etc. which are standard equipment on the new factory race cars.

The simple fact is that they don't belong in Stock, if you go by the precedent set by the NHRA they should be in FX or SS and that's the cause for all this debate.

JimR

For all you guys that own and race these new cars there should be some understanding by your detractors that all you did was buy the best car that fit the class just like we used to do back in the day and despite what some might say I know you still had to put work into your combo to get it to run the numbers.

[Charley Downing]

Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.

[Jeff Teuton]

Dan, I think we all lose sight of the changes in stock over the years. In the old days, mufflers, street tires, cam duration, disc brakes, cages & roll bars, fuel, removeable weight, batteries 2 or more and in the trunk, aftermarket pistons, .060, .070, .080 over, aftermarket seats, remove the emissions stuff, lighter radiators, roller rockers, lifters, pushrods, adjustable shocks, traction masters (anybody remember them), converters, transmissions, shifters, rear seat, spare tire & jack, fuel cells, and more that even I can't remember. So this didn't just start. And Mike, I think you got your years off a little on some of that stuff. I think this argument started the day after the Cajun Sportsnationals in 2009. Doesn't seem to have ended yet. Will be 4 years in March. It is entertaining. One thing for that has always been there, we as racers are better at cheating than the officials are at catching us. Hench the natural progression.

[Michael Lyons]

I didn't say qualify #1, I said top half. In a 128 car field, 64th is top half...

And correct me if I'm wrong but if your new $105k cobra jet or copo wouldn't qualify, why would anyone buy one? Kinda defeats the whole exercise doesn't it? I think you've got a screw loose for paying that much for a stocker, a hobby car, anyways. Even if it does qualify top half.. But hey its a rich mans game, and the people that are running well have spent a ton of money and done quite a bit of work too. So unless you can match all that you are always going to be at some disadvantage.

[Dick Butler]

Originally Posted by Charley Downing

Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.

I am sure there are some very high tech 69 camaros running but the motor technology,lack of super charger etc I feel would prevent them EVER coming close at a 150,000 investment to a new camaro, Mustang etc.

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by Charley Downing

Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.

Seems like you would need to make at least 700 hp with that combo.Maybe more?