Re: Ok?
I don't want to step on Chuck Blossom's toes, lol. I can't imagine that 302 2 bbl going 13.85 let alone 12.85!
Dennis Breeden |
Re: Ok?
What I find confusing is that every year from 1972 through 1979 has a different hp rating. 1980 and 1981 have two different ratings of 130 and 132 each year. 1982 has two of 132 and 157 for the GT engine. 1975 has the lowest which is 129. Hope I have not confused any of this.
regards, Roland |
Re: Ok?
Quote:
|
Re: Ok?
How do you read those? Mostly reductions? I don't see seperate columns for OEM and new.
|
Re: Ok?
just *****ng great....
every year just before indy a new -2 second p.o.s. shows up in U/SA... cmon nhra don't you guys really have a clue here... use the calculator on your phone.... captain jack |
Re: Ok?
Quote:
I can't figure out what the reduction is on the 2000 LS1 though?? I wonder if NHRA realized that it did not make sense to rate a '72 Maverick, a '78 Mustang, and an '82 Mustang all at the same HP. So they rolled the HP ratings back to what they were from the factory, without realizing that the factory ratings weren't worth anything to begin with! Or is this some elaborate plan to win back Ford's support and $$$? ;) |
Re: Ok?
The 2000 LS1 reduction surprised me. I figured I was reading it wrong. The bone stock, untouched automatics made more than the factory rating, at the tires, on my chassis dyno, totally untouched. Stick cars made more, of course, than the automatics. Figure a 20% loss through the drive train. Best automatic cars make in the 330s at the tires.
|
Re: Ok?
Quote:
Sorry, I had to pull your chain. Dennis |
Re: Ok?
Quote:
|
Re: Ok?
Does anybody see what hp changed for the LS1 in Stock?
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.