Monday Morning Horsepower?

[Bobby DiDomenico]

Originally Posted by Larry Hill

I might be wrong but, I thought the six cylinder Mustang was built on Falcon based platform and the Eight cylinder Mustang used a Fairlane based platform.

Been awhile since I tinkered with a 6 cylinder Mustang. Aren't the suspension parts the same as V8's?

[Todd Hoven]

Originally Posted by F/SA TSM

Just remove heads up races.And let the birds fly !

They do, it's called Pro ET!

[Michael Beard]

Part of the "platform" issue is that some combinations receive horsepower while the same engine in a different body does not. The HP factor is an expression of an engine potential. An engine either has a certain power potential or it does not. The idea that an engine can receive HP hits in one body and it somehow makes sense that you can move that drivetrain to another body to start over with a clean slate on HP factoring is nonsensical.

While you can obviously argue that one 'platform' *utilizes* that HP more efficiently than another, it is logical that if a HP factor is raised on an engine in one platform, it should be raised on all platforms: perhaps just by a different amount. The proper way to do it would be to have the same HP across the board for a given engine combination, adjusted by a 'platform factor'. Unfortunately, this is little more than an academic discussion, despite it not really being much more complicated than they've already made it.

'Course you also have several classes in which sticks and automatics are run combined, where the automatics get a weight break in some classes, but not in others. Figure that out.

[hadtobethere]

Originally Posted by GUMP

Stock is a performance based class. Heads-up runs are the best part. Take them away and we might as well just run the local bracket race.

What he said!!!

[Jeff Teuton]

What he said X 2. Is that correct. Actually I like no platform, motor only. What has evolved is since platforms were made part of the program, like the LS1 in the Vette is 35 or so less than the Camaro. It's called "Pick & Choose Platforms" so now you can pick your friends, your nose, and your platform. Maybe not in that order.

[Rusty Gillis]

Originally Posted by Bobby DiDomenico

Been awhile since I tinkered with a 6 cylinder Mustang. Aren't the suspension parts the same as V8's?

Upper and lower control arms are the same, coil springs are different and the early ones had 4 lug wheels.

[RJ Sledge]

Problem being is that why are some "Platforms" carrying different HP rating.

My Fairlanes are completely different than a Mustang, 108"w/b to 116" wb, but I still carry the same HP rating with the 390 as a Mustang.

I also am included with the Mustang 390 when it comes to AHFS averaging and Monday morning HP additions. Just as the case of the early Camaro and Nova situation that got a lot of peoples attention.

If it works for some Combo's it needs to work on all Combo's.

NHRA needs to either make all the same for all the different cars and not a "well ....that looks and sounds right".

This goes back way before the AHFS ever came in to effect.

Jeff you must be feeling good and kicking back.

MB...."horsepower factor is an expression"....wow

RJ

[Jeff Teuton]

RJ, I am having a ball. A little background on the 'platform' issue. In 1999 Wesley and I looked and analyzed every run made in 1998 from the Final Qualifying sheet to each run in eliminations & class. All the 'platforms' fell in with the engines. If a motor was good, it was good in all classes. Then came the AHFS and initially I don't think the platforms were part of the program. If I remember right, it was NHRA's attempt to minimize the hits cause they were fast and furious. The NHRA platforms are obviously not related to the manufacturers platforms but based on what NHRA thought. I don't think there was any particular reason for the grouping, but they are what they are. I think they were roughly based on platforms and their history on that platform's performance over the years. Now that the very innovative stock and super stock racers have adapted to their decision on the platforms some problems appear. Now that two of the most popular models, the 396 and related platforms and LT1 and related platforms have crossed the line, the troops are up in arms. I think NHRA is reassessing the `1.20 under as they have already instituted 'mine shaft'. I would think that if they made a change, Fred Henson would be very unhappy. For those that don't remember, it was -1200' DA at No Problem and Fred went over 1.20 under and asked for consideration of the weather and got the 1.20 penalty instead of considertion for the street 426 hemi. Course that ain't a 396 or LT1. Maybe they run under a separate set of rules. That's what I remember, but you know how that memory thing works. One thing I do know more recently is that when a new car got smacked, the old car racers acted like the Muslims did when the World Trade Center got toppled. It just illustrates that there are way more than the new cars riding the brakes. And RJ, I think you were there. That sound about right?

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

No, I don't think that they have a list. I think that they grudgingly write down just what they NEED to write down and rely on the memories of a certain few old-timers for the rest. Plausible denial.

Yeah, I nailed it!

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Yeah, I nailed it!

Not quite. Then you have the "Billy Lynn" ruling: when NHRA first factored Billy Lynn's 305 Malibu, it was applied specifically to 1979 Malibu 2-dr coupes, nothing else. Even a 79 Malibu 4-dr sedan or a 79 LeMans 2-dr coupe with the same engine ran at a different power factor. There are still remnants of that decision floating around in the class guide. Hard to come up with pausible denial that they were targeting Billy only.