Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

They make them for ford, mopar, and chevy. They all have 67 cc chambers, and 2.08, and 1.60 valves. Edelbrock makes a comparable AMC head I believe. You have to let backhalfed cars in. Where else you going to get the car count? That's my opinion. You have a better idea on heads? Let's hear it.

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

Other than a Comp or SG, chassis I think if you limit the motor ANY car can then be used.
50 lb less for early Body, Except vega or vette. PG or turbo 100 lb less. Stock or SS cars are sitting waiting for this opening. One cubic inch limit, one wt per cubic. No computer, crank trigger not a problem they are everywhere. Pan access, pull the manifold to check pistons, No Hood Scoops...imo Still want them to fit a current class so they run the day it starts on at least a points meet basis and ask later for Heads up at the event on Friday or Sat AM. Local meets would spring up...

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

Dick, I think you hit the nail on the head. Chassis is overated as far as one against another. I'm personally not afraid of a pro chassis, as long as they make minimum weight.I personally want a scoop, but it won't be the deciding factor on whether I race or not. I think one weight,such as 3000lbs. At say, 9 lbs. would be 333 c.i. min.wt.and cube.

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

They would have to have a scoop to have a chance to qualfy for any modified vstock class. Also, no engine smaller then 333 c.i., none larger then 360.

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

Hell I ran a back halfed car in A/SM (11.5 tire rule) for the 1980 season in NHRA. As long as you adhere to whatever tire & suspension rule is formulated what's the problem?

MK

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

Growing up in the 70s, there was a pretty large contingent of C/SM cars in the Northwest, so this proposed class is very intriguing to me.
Seeing as I am in the process of turning my old 66 Acadian (Nova to our south of the border friends)bracket car into a Super Stocker, This could be a slightly different direction for me.
The idea of the spec head is a good one but the claimer aspect will be a little difficult to control with 3 different engine combinations. Wouldn't you just have the guys with one combination sharing a really good set of heads and just taking turns using them?
I think keeping modifications allowed to a minimum would be the best route to go, periodic random tear down to check cc's, valve dia and valve angles. If you have the field covered by .20 or if your heads look like they may have been messed with they go back to the manufacturer to be probed and checked.
If it was 4.060" max bore size and say 365 maximum cubic inches, it would keep the oddball big bore short stroke combinations out of it.
A flat top 5cc piston would net 10.28-1 compression at 365 cubic inches or if milling was allowed, 60 cc chambers would net just over 11-1.with this compression, a properly prepared short block with roller valvetrain, stud rockers, 750 cfm carb and a cast manifold should be easily capable of low 10s or high 9s at 3000 lbs.
Teardown would consist of pumping the engine, pulling a head and ccing ports and chamber, check valve dia. and angle and check bore dia.
As far as the clutch actuated shifting, I know there are a lot of super stock cars that have gone to clutchless transmissions and really, how many stick stockers touch the clutch pedal on gear changes? My opinion is as long as it is a non planetary transmission it should be allowed.
If this becomes more than a pipe dream, I may have to have a change in direction!
Oh and one more thing....no sandbaggers!

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

You don't have to have a claimer head, it was just an idea. They let brodix inspect them in the roundy rounders. But they limit the ports, which is fine with me. They allow polishing the combustion chamber, and angle milling. It just makes it easier to police when they are totally looking at the ports. The way we stopped them from shifting clutchless, was had a roll bar mounted camera available for a $25 dollar protest, and protested car would have a chance to make 3 runs, and one must be within.001 in 60 ft, and .002 in the 1/8th mile to be legal. We had a 10.5 lbs. car that had 1/8th mile times that computed to a 9.89 1/4 time, so an 8lb. car should go 9.40's or better. I believe you could approach 700 hp with a 365 c.i. We had 592 out of a 289 c.i. I think making all drivers hit the clutch, makes all drivers better, and may make the auto wt. break obsolete.
i do believe if given the chance, and you do have to have a way to keep the cost down, this class would be big. You would not have just 2 or 3 guys swapping heads, if you drew similiar car numbers out of a hat each event.

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

Randy,
are these the heads ? http://www.brodix.com/heads/spec.php
looks like a fair shake between the ford chev mopar. However, how fast do we want to go? an example... SS/H 327/299 4 speed car is roughly 336 cu.in at 3020 give or take a few, (at 336 in and a 9 lb break thats 3024, a good example) and they are running high nines and low tens on a good day. has basically the same shortblock we are talking here, (supermod) how fast will it go with these brodix heads, generally available manifold, and 750 holley? Same full bodied back half car, perfect for the class. add a fiberglass hood w/ scoop and there you go..
maybe it will go too fast for the older guys, below 9.99 its neckbrace, gloves, comp license etc. I'd support a cam max lift rule at around .550 to .575 to keep the expense and maintenance down and keep the cars in the 10's

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

I don't know if this was posted or discussed on here yet but here's a link anyways...

http://www.eddyvilleraceway.com/pages/class-racing.html

Re: Bring back super/mod...
 

The Eddyville deal is good, but not at all similar. Steve Thompson ran there with the cobalt 3 times, and runner-upped twice, and was either no.2 or 1 quaqlifier each time. I had the 69 nova on the youtube stuff built at LA Automotive a few years back. But that class is open, and ended up with a 358 pro stock motor, and an Al Parker SB2, plus other high dollar stuff. We ran a dart buick by Al Parker and were very competitive, but this is not what we're after. It's dying because of the cost. I first introduced a spec deal, and went to the racers meeting, and all agreed it was good, but after it was excepted, the same guy who tried to destroy Bethany bent their ear, and this is what they ended up with, and we still supported it, till it died. But back to an earlier question, yes, these cars at 9 lbs. will be deep in the nines. I don't think that's all bad, but I'm open for suggestions. I was thinking .700 lift at the valve. A set of K-motion springs will live there. What say you all?