Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

My question is who's going to build one? Last I looked no one wants to run those "slow" classes! The trend seems to be C/SA and faster?

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg, I think Charlie's trying to get one together. That's why he's so defensive about this.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Could be?

That combo is rated the fairest of all the new combos. The 235hp combo is not as good as the 5.? hemi, 352 ford, 428 ford, DP, super CJ or CJ combo. The 281ci 235 motor hp will make around 390hp. And will run an estimated time of 11.20s in I/SA. I have done all the homework on this car and 1.10 under the new index is about all it will go. 10.80s in I/SA is out if the question.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Most small-inch Comp motors, which don't make a lot of torque, don't have to move 3,000-lb.-plus Stockers. The Three-Valve head may flow a lot, but it is still a 281-inch engine and won't make anywhere near the torque of an LT1. A good LT1 make 480-plus hp and 450-plus torque. Anyone who knows how to build a Stock engine knows how important torque is and without cubes it's hard to make torque.

I would guess that 375-400 hp could be achieved with the Three-Valve CJ engine after some R&D. Greg, I would say that a good Stocker engine has to make more than 1.5 times the factored rating to be above average.

The Stock Three-Valve at 300 is a joke and is not competitive. Not NHRA's fault, but people will have to run it and invest in a program before the rating can come down. This engine is very efficient from the factory and will not respond like many other engines. I'll agree that the 235 rating on the CJ version might be a little light, but not by 75-to100hp.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Give the guy a break, he is off the clock. :)

I don't always agree with Even for sure, but at least he hangs his name out there.

What do you do for a living?

Maybe you should let us know so Evan can go Poop in your oatmeal. LOL.

Besides, this underwater factoring is all good to it lands in your class. There won't be any real crying until the dudes with a 2008 CJ DP or whatever similar deal gets smoked by the 2010 version. Then those guys will be upset.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg

Mark McKeown had a 4.6 2V(?) motor at Engine Masters Challenge last year with a Factory FI intake, still had the factory injectors on it but not hooked up, but with I believe a 750 Holley on it that made 465 peak hp. I talked to him about the motor and he told me it was a pretty basic piece. Now remember they are limited to compression (10.5 max) and we check the finalists. Based on his performance I would say you are very close in your observation.

We all know that the New Combo's are bogus both Ford and Mopar and probably soon to be Government Motors. The problem is how to fix it. I don't believe that the powers that be will pay much attention to anybody unless there is a plus side for NHRA. Hope to see you somewhere

Later RJ

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Two people now have mentioned the 1.5hp to factory rating to be above average. An engine that averages 500HP and has a top number of, say, 540HP is the 1.5 # used on the 500# or the 540#?????

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

You guys still don't get it. In 2010 when the factory advertises an engine makes say 300HP. It must dyno 300HP +/-3%.

Now look at the evolution of engine manufacturing and performance technology improvements over the last 40 years. Take a look at how 200ci V-6's are making as much horsepower as 400ci V8's were in the 60's. Do you really think that in Stock eliminator trim both engines have the same max power potential. If you do your morons. Current OEM technology is wringing HP out of engines the same way guys building stockers have done it for years. So an OEM engine which already comes with good valve springs, good flowing heads, roller cams, far better tuned intakes, larger TB's and a factory rating of 425HP (new car rating, not NHRAshould have an equivalent amount of inefficiency in the OEM design and power to be gained? Some of the performance vehicles offered today have tubular exhaust manifolds that rival the flow performance of a set of headers - not some junk cast iron log exhaust manifold that was designed for a utility truck 40yrs ago. Aside from the LS & LT engines from GM, prior to the CJ's and Drag Paks, what other engine combinations that have gone in the books the last 15 or so years have been able to compete when entered with the OEM advertised HP ratings? Most get submitted by someone that has no idea how NHRA's HP rating system works, the NHRA guys I doubt spend the effort to challenge an OEM submission if they think its overfactored.

I'm not defending the final numbers assigned to some of the combos as correctly factored. But if anyone thinks that they should go in with the 2010 OEM advertised HP ratings, i repeat - your a moron.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

And this little rant comes from the er uh gentleman who claimed the CJ's could never make 800 hp with those little tiny throttles. Consider the source when reading this guy's stuff. He, of all people, is no positon to be calling people morons.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Acceleration is the key to low ets. Anyone who knows anything about drag racing knows that acceleration is what moves the car down the track from the leave to the interval between gear change. Part of acceleration is the lightness of the rotating and reciprocating assemblys and the amount of friction associated with larger surface areas.