Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Whew! It's good that something redeeming has come out of this thread. This one hit the crapper real quick and I thought it was going to be another high school smackover.

Bill D. - I read your entire post. I know you have a lot of time one your hands, but I didn't know you knew that many words to be able type that long without going to sleep.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I hope somone at NHRA reads this post and gives this combo 15 hp. This is what is wrong with stock to day. What are you saving it for 2020? This combo is so under factored, My 305 wagon is rated @253 and your 350 is rated @ 260 or something crazy like that. Give me a brake. You guys are a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Dwight,

Your grasp of the gist of that boost problem is impressive. Thanks for telling us what you know about it.

Ferreting out the more subtle nuances of the way this business is being run cannot always be done in 100 words, or less...

Bobby had some No-Doz left over from Memphis... I took those. :)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

The problem with turbo cars is the staging and launch with an auto trans. The racers that have these do so either because they are not willing to drive a stick or believe that you need to brake stall and balance the brakes and boost level while staging for"maximum boost". That's all well and good but I'll tell you that as soon as you drop the clutch on a turbo car and put a load on the engine / turbo, that the boost gauge climbs faster than the tach needle. So if you have the engine set for 20 PSI boost, it's there instantly. I suppose that's assuming the car will launch properly.
With an auto trans they make every effort to stage without over-riding the brakes while trying to obtain a certain level of boost; most likely less than maximum boost especially if the engine is heavily boosted. Then you hae the transition from launch boost to max boost. All of which leads to launch consistancy problems and ET will suffer accordingly.
The problems I had with consistancy would be attributed to the racer (me) playing with the car, naturally that would be inconsistant. Also, things like blowing off vacuum lines or having not enough fuel and melting heads & pistons. That also made the car inconsistant. But most of the time it was as consistant as anybody else's car at the track.

Regarding the comparrison to a 350 TPI and a 305 TPI, addmitedly I have never messed with one. And I don't know and won't even bother learning all the specs that seperate the two. However, I feel confident that ANY Stock Eliminator should produce in excess of .75 HP per CID with regard to NHRA factored HP levels. Do the math on any engine out there and you'll see that .75 is extremely conservative. An AMC 390 with an anemic Autolite shows 292 HP. A 302 Chevy shows 226 HP with a good carb. A 427/425 shows 320 HP with a good carb, same even if it was a 427/335 small carb. No regards to equipment, only cubic inch and it's only a starting point.
Now I'm reading the 305 / 350 TPI is basically the same other than CID. Stands to reason the 350 is underrated if accessed the same HP factor. But by how much? Since the 350 TPI racers have apparently held back performance showings and the 305 TPI racers have apparently shown their potential, you have something to go off. Assuming the 260 +/- HP on the 305 TPI is reasonably accurate then I can't see an argument for keeping the 350 TPI at it's present level. The question is how much? Then I believe an arbitrary number based on the CID difference is acceptable. Remember these two engines are in the same class.
Really good stock engines produce in excess of 1.25 HP per CID. I can't imagine any well thought out / well built engine in stock that only makes .75 per CID. Maybe a few but not the norm. Or use .50 per CID. Doesn't really matter. There just should be some basis for assigning HP factors as obviously some are trying to skew the averages by asking others to lay down and play dead.
Sorry to offend, but this is supposed to be a performance based class, not a statistical average class.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I really was not going to respond to this but since Jeff did I feel I must once again set the record straight. Jeff your over simplification of the lack of consistency with the turbo cars astounds me. Especially since you used to race one. Maybe your answer was meant to be a joke but it did not come across as such. A stick car is more consistant than an auto? I don't think so, maybe if you run a clutchless Jerico such as yours but certainly not a FWD manual tranny. Also both you and Bill are dead wrong about boost lowering when you improve air flow. It increases boost, up to the maximum efficiency of the turbo. Example: If I change from a 2.5" downpipe to a 3" boost will increase by about 2lbs. without changing anything else. Better flow = more boost. Just an example.
Bill said:
"I realize that this is a gross over-simplification, but the idea is this:
The guy with the tuurbo car has EVERY OPTION afforded the normally-aspirated car, to make his car faster, PLUS, possibly one the normally-aspirated car does NOT have: BOOST INCREASE"

Really Bill? EVERY OPTION? How fast do you think RWD combos would run if they had to run the stock rear gear ratio? Say a 3.73 as compared to a 5.13? How about tranny ratios? FWD cars are forced to use STOCK transmission gear ratios which hinder them greatly. Most came with a 3.23 final ratio. This is just one example. There are many, but this is not the thread for this and I am sorry if this has hijacked a good thread for this kind of BS. Bottom line, if you think it is so easy and adventageous to run a turbo car, what's stopping you? Why do you think there are so few of them out there? Hmmm? I never realized you guys were such "turbophobes". You both are intelligent guys and this is very disappointing to me. Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jeff,
Thanks for the Turbo/Transmission explanation. What you said makes sense that keeping a consistent boost pressure on launch would be more difficult.
The 350 TBIs also have bigger valves so flow should be better than the 305. But giving them horsepower just because some 305s are rated at about 260 is not the way to do it. Based on your theory, using year 1990, rating of horsepower the 350 should be: 241/305 = 0.79 Therefore 350x 0.79 = 277 hp
Bumping up the horsepower to 277 for the 350 TPI seems like a fair number, but that's not how NHRA arrives at these ratings. They would have to completely revise the way they factor engines. If they did that nobody would be happy. Just think if they rated the 302 based on the 327s or the 350's.
I think that the way it's done now is the best way to make it fair. If it runs too fast, give it horsepower and make it run in the next higher class. The problem is the people that intentionally run slow just to stay in their class.

Also, the Corvette has a 350 TPI but that one has aluminum heads and more compression. It was also rated at 260 up until this year. This year the automatic was bumped up to 273 hp, manual version is still 260 hp.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Bill - You know I was funnin' with you. I'm glad to see you post and I read what you said with interest. These threads always seem to to get people "testy" and I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.

Jim - Please don't take offense. The paradigm of a Stock Eliminator car (V8 with lots of stuff you can buy from Moroso, Strange Engineering, and 600 other aftermarket suppliers) can narrow the vision of most racers so they really don't know the issues involved when stepping out of the paradigm. I think there are some fringe combinations that operate so handicapped that their performance is quite remarkable.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I guess Cecil gave up on trying to save his 350 TPI combo. He qualified 3rd at Atco so far.

3 1137 I/SA Cecil Frazier, Canton MA, '91 Camaro 11.265 12.60 -1.335

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

A FWD car with a stick is just as consistant as a RWD car with a stick. I know as I ran one for several years. I had many passes that were within a few hundreths of each other. That was with a stock Getrag 5-speed with 3.91 final drive ratio and your basic Centerforce II
clutch. There have been numerous world championships with stick cars in stock eliminator.

Back to the TPI, what I'm trying to empasize is this particular combination. If all else is equal (but apparently one or more 350 TPI's have even better specs) other than CID, you should be able to use a pre-determined ratio of HP increase (or decrease) from one engine to the other. I have successfully used that argument with NHRA for a HP decrease on a friends V-8 engine. And it was an engine that had seen little to none in competition in 30+ years. It was for a decrease of the 318-2bbl DCP and I used the 273 2bbl as a standard. Arguably, the 318 may need a further reduction but at least it got the ball rolling. I've asked for and received other HP decreases with NHRA. NHRA has been known to follow some degree of logic. At least that's my experience.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim Wahl posted, " Also, both you and Bill are dead wrong about boost lowering when you improve air flow. It increases boost, up to the maximum efficiency of the turbo."

Now, we have two opinions; Jim, who currently runs a turbo car and Jeff, who ran one for "years," accorfing to one of his previous posts. Who ya gonna believe?

I'll defer to the guy currently running one,for the time being.

Increased boost from engine mods could create a problem, unless you control the boost to factory specs, which is the logical thing to do, if you want to remain legal. Excessive boost (beyond facxtory specs) should only be allowed after the normally-aspirated cars figure out how to manipulate the weather to increase barometric pressure, since that's all they have pushing past the intake valve to accomplish cylinder filling.

Your mileage may vary.... that's just my opinion, again....

Insofar as chassis considerations are concerned (tranny gear ratios, and the poor (limited) final drive ratio selection), it seems to me that this "problem" hasn't manifested itself in ways that you can tell from here.

By that, I mean, if the performance-killing gearing is all that bad, WHY do turbo cars continue to domainte the #1 qualifying spot at many national events?

THEY DO!

Jim, you mentioned "the bottom line." You are also a very intellligent guy, yet, you read my post and pointed out the error in my assumption in the boost question (up, or down, with mods), and spoke of the gear ratio problems that FWD cars have that are not suffered by RWD cars, but never once mentioned the problem that was the crux of my post: IE: WHY do turbo cars, which make up probably less than two percent of the cars competing at national events, consistently nail down over twenty percent of the #1 qualifying slots, annually (and have for the last 4-5 years)???

THAT was the burning queston.... but, you chose to ignore it. At least you didn't dispute it. It's true.

It's very easy (though time-consuming) to access the archives at Fast News on the Summit website and look up the Final Qualifying for any national event within the last several years, and check to see who's the #1 qualifier at that race.. The Class will identify the car as a turbo car, if you are familiar at all with the type cars that run those classes (and, I know that you are.) I encourage anyone who doubts this scenario (the over 20-percent turbo qualifiers) to do their own investigation. If I am wrong, I will publicly apologize on this forum. I haven't investigated this year yet, since it's not over, yet.

In the spirit of fairness, how can you justify allowing ANY BOOST you can wring out of a turbo combination, when those forced induction cars are already garnering virtually ten times the number of #1 qualifying slots they would logically and numerically be entitled to, given ther "population" in Stock Eliminator????

Just tell me that, please.

On a lighter note; I go to breakfast with a bunch of Buick Grand National and T-Type racers (hobbyists), every Saturday. Many of them wear tee shirts that say:
"I KNEW THE LIGHT WAS GREEN; I WAS WAITING FOR THE BOOST!!!" :)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Dwight,

What makes you think I DIDN'T go to sleep while writing that over-long, wordy, diatribe???? :)

Lord knows, there was plenty of opportunity. I actually tried to borrow some NoDoz from Bobby, but, he said he'd need them this weekend at Gilliam. We old guys need a nap, now and then, you know...

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

OK, Bill, I will answer your question but I must have misread your post I thought your main concern was that the turbos can be adjusted to produce more boost and this should not be allowed. I now see that your complaint is how often turbo cars qualify #1. I will do some research and get back with you as soon as I can. I can tell you you are way off base here though. Now if you were complaining about how often Bob Dennis qualified #1 you might have a case! I really don't know why it bothers you so much though, it means nothing anymore. No points, no money, no trophy, no plaque, Occasionally it means a bye in round one, that's it. Back with you soon. Jim

Dwight,
I like the way you think, thanks.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's odd that a guy who is constantly near the top of qualifying (often #1) is pleading for others to protect his combo. First, he didn't exactly help the cause himself. Also if he is constantly towards the top, maybe his combo needs HP. I'm not saying not to strive for maximum performance, just don't cry when it leads to more factor.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

OK Bill,
Here you go. Using DRC, NHRA stats, and Joe's Stats I have come up with an answer for you. Going back to the begining of season 2004 and up to today, there have been 365 (I may have missed one or two) NHRA races where Stock has been contested, both National events and Divisional races. Out of those 365 races, Turbo cars have qualified #1 23 times. 4 of those were me. Charles Blossom has done it twice this year and he is the only turbo car this year to qualify #1. Bill this works out to right at 6% of the races in the last 5 years had turbo cars qualify #1. This is a far cry from your projected 20%. I await your answer. Jim

BTW Bob Dennis has qualified #1 more times than all turbo cars combined in the last 5 years!!!! (including this weekend)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim,

.A clarification is in order, here.

Yes, I am concerned that the turbo cars qualify #1 so very often (a lot more than their numbers would suggest should be appropriate) in that, I don't think that a lot of the cars that get shunted out of a #1 spot are lesser race cars in terms of preparation and time spent on R & D, compared with the boosted cars that are gaining the @1 position. Why is 90+-percent of the field (the normally-aspirated cars) playing second-fiddle to two or three percent of the field, twenty-percent of the time???? Makes no logical sense to me...

That is just my opinion, however, and means nothing beyond that.

BUT, I am highly suspicious that the forced induction cars that so often run far enough under their indexes to qualify number one are doing it at boost levels never seen in the facrory dyno cells, during SAE-number testing for "advertised horsepower."

A telltale boost gauge on the car(s) in question would prove me wrong, IF I am wrong.

How else will we ever know?

So, it's a two-pronged question, but inexorably intertwined.

I hope that clears up my contention, here.


To save you some time, here is a list of turbocharged cars with the name of the race, ,driver's name, class, and qualifying "under the index" time. I've included both national events and a couple of Sportsnationals, because the Sportsnationals are truly "national events" for Sportsmen, and these are Sportsman cars.

I also included two instances wherein turbo cars qualified #1 and $2 because I thought that was significant, given the relative scarcity of turbos in Stock Eliminator.

For the year 2004:
Belle Rose Ed O'Brien B/FS -1.374
Bristol Marty Buth K/FIA -1.218
Brainerd Tom Brook A/FS -1.385

For the year 2005
Belle Rose Jim Wahl C/FS -1.422
(#2 Belle Rose Bob Shaw) U/SA - 1.337
Brainerd Tom Brook B/FS -1.229
Pomona II Bill Howell D/FS -1.457

For the year 2006
Pomona I . Bill Howell D/FS -1.383
Brainerd Chas. Blossom A/FS -1.248
Pomona II Herbert Pierce C/FS -1.347

For the year 2007
Pomona I Bill Howel C/FS -1.321
Denver Tom Brook B/FS -1.586 (!)
Indy Chas. Blossom A/FS -1.468
Indy (#2 Marty Buth) J FI/A -1.296
Hebron Spts Rob Lloyd C/FS --1.588
Fontana Spts Mark Yacavonne U/S -1.194

Okay, that's fourteen #1 qualified turbo cars and two #2 qualifiers (runners-up to other turbo cars) in the last four years.

You're right; that's not 20 percent, but it's over fifteen percent.

If fifteen percent of an average nationnal event's Stockers were turbo cars, there would be a LOT of turbo cars running; maybe 20-plus at Indy. Probably eight or ten at a smaller race, such as Brainerd.

There are not.

That is my point. Most national events will have possibly three or four turbo cars, but they qualify #1 over fifteeen percent of the time.

Not right....

HOW DO THEY DO IT???????

Boost.... Lots of it... :)

My 2-cents....

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

My contention was about national events. You included points races that I had not made any reference to.

My previous post includes only national event qualifiers (unless you want to disallow the SportsNationals) and those national events is where my concern was based.

Over fifteen percent is a far cry from the demographics of the Eliminator, in regards to what percent of the cars are turbocharged.

That's my point, whether you think that has any significance, or not...

I do.

Thanks for your input; I do appreciate it!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Bill,
I give up. Lets just ban all turbo cars because it upsets you. While we are at it lets ban all cars with Holley carbs because you can change jets and put more fuel in the motor than factory specs, and that upsets me. I don't think RWD cars should be allowed to run anything but a factory offered ring and pinion. That upsets me to. Non spec computers upset me.

I went way out of my way to offer you the whole big picture as far as your question was concerned but you want to cherry pick your stats. Nope I don't accept your stats. The REAL WORLD stats are less than 6%. Once again I say to you, if you really believe that turbo cars are at such an advantage, jump right in! Bill, my point here is virtually everything about race cars are more or better than factory spec. That is what makes them competitive. Bob Dennis qualifies #1 at more than 50% of the races he enters! Bitch about him. Who cares Bill? I'm finished with this now. Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim Wahl said:

>>>> I give up. Let's just ban all turbo cars because it upsets you.

It doesn't upset me; it makes me think that when 2 or 3 percent of the cars win over 15-percent of the #1 qualifying slots at national events, there's something amiss. I can't imagine that you wouldn't agree.


>>>> While we are at it lets ban all cars with Holley carbs because you can change jets and put more fuel in the motor than factory specs, and that upsets me.

But, you said you didn't care what screws were turned on carbs... has that changed?

>>>> I don't think RWD cars should be allowed to run anything but a factory offered ring and pinion. That upsets me to. Non spec computers upset me.

Why are you advocating equipment changes? I have never advocated ANY equipment change, just the addition of a gauge.


>>>> I went way out of my way to offer you the whole big picture as far as your question was concerned but you want to cherry pick your stats.

No, you changed the subject of the discussion from national event qualifying to include ALL racing, which was never a part of my contention. I NEVER mentioned points races, because there hasn't been the problem at points races that exists at national events.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I included the national event stats from EVERY NATIONAL EVENT for 2004, thru 2007. No cherry picking, just national events (ALL: of them) that were pertinent to the subject matter: #1 qualifiers at national events.

>>>> Nope I don't accept your stats. The REAL WORLD stats are less than 6%.

Not for national events. You want to throw in races that have no pertinence with this argument; Points races were never mentioned,in this discussion by EITHER of us, just national events because THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES. Introducing statistics from the Lucas Oil Series of Points Races is totally outside the framework of this argument. The qualifying anomalies that exist at the national event level are not apparent at points races. NO problem, there. Does that mean we can't consider national events as an entity unto itself? I don't think so....



>>>> Once again I say to you, if you really believe that turbo cars are at such an advantage, jump right in! Bill, my point here is virtually everything about race cars are more or better than factory spec


I wouldn't ever run a turbo car because they are too hard to dial. That is not a problem in qualifying, however, and doesn't keep them from qualifying #1, inordinately (percentage-wise, at national events.).

>>>> That is what makes them competitive. Bob Dennis qualifies #1 at more than 50% of the races he enters! Bitch about him. Who cares Bill?

I have NO quarrel with Bob Dennis and what he does. Qualifying #1 with a car that depends on boost for its power is always a sitting duck for speculation. Bob Dennis has no such Achilles Heel.

>>>>I'm finished with this now.

Thank you for your input, Jim. Your inability to explain why two or three percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator (the turbo cars) should be earning over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots at NATIONAL EVENTS tells me that either 1. You don't comprehend the inequity here, 2. Your deep involvement with turbo cars skews your judgment, or 3. You KNOW, but you rationalize that since these cars are so hard to dial, let's give them SOMETHING (like the top qualifying position) in lieu of a win. )

I hope it's not #3.

I appreciate very much the time you took to make your case, here; it is always nice talking to you.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I guess you missed my point again Bill. To bad you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I have to hand it to you, you can spin and cherry pick with the best of them! You should be a politician. Look Bill it's real simple. Turbo guys don't do anything more to gain performance than non turbo guys do. They take completely legal factory equipment and try to get the most performance out of it they can, sort of like advancing a distributor further than factory settings or jetting a carb richer than factory specs or installing a different rear end ratio than was available from the factory or putting the cam in at a different spec than a factory cam or doing a different valve job than the factory spec, on and on and on. The point that you just plain don't like turbo cars does not make the fact that the turbos are adjustable illegal! Turbos are adjustable, distributors are adjustable, carbs are adjustable, cams are adjustable. get the point? There is nothing illegal with adjusting these types of equipment to your advantage. The fact also remains that more turbo cars qualify below the 50th percentile than qualify in the top 10.

Now I want to go on the record , I have no problem with Bob Dennis either, in fact I think he is amazing and consider him a friend. However if you really had a problem with any single entity qualifying in the #1 position disproportionally, you would have a problem with him.

Now as you may or may not know I ran a FWD Cadillac Cimarron many years ago. One year I qualified #1 at 5 different NATIONAL events including Indy. At that time there were only two Cadillac Cimarrons in the country. At that time also there were only 20 National events. That means that combo in that year qualified #1 at 25% of the National events. This was NOT a turbo car. Now this car was completely legal and I set the record with this car 5 times and was torn down 19 times in 18 years. Tell me what you would try and limit on this car?

Turbo cars are legal and are taking the same advantage of factory parts that ALL other combos are doing and NOTHING more. Admit it Bill, you ARE a turbophobe! There is help available for you. Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim,

Thanks you for your psychological analysis of my state of mind. For a "turbophobe," I have some strange habits.... my best car buddies here have a loosely-knit club that meets for breakfast every Saturday. The single thing about these guys that causes them to hang together is that they ALL drive and race turbo Buicks. They let me hang around because my car is a self-built, Vortech-blown Mopar ('72 Valiant, 360 Magnum.) I can probably outrun some of them... but, not all. Thirty pounds of boost is hard to get around...

Some set of friends for a "turbophobe," eh???

I know of two road race organizations whose sanctioning bodies require the use of telltale boost gauges on forced-induction cars in competition. There are probably more; I just ran across those two while surfing the 'net one day. Why do you think they require those?

Your Cimarron, and Bob Dennis's cars are VERY impressive, but they did it all without boost. Hard work coupled with excellent race-track savvy will get you there. A soft HP factor and / or, a cooperative index doesn't hurt.

But, these cars I cited can't ALL be under-rated, and running off soft indexes. Hard to believe that ALL o f those turbo cars' owners are that smart.... but, what's the ONE THING that can catapult an also-ran into an index-smashing STAR?

Increased boost...

That is why I am of the opinion that the boost levels in these cars are not what they were when they left the factory. And, they need to be. Normally-aspirated cars, as I have pointed out, only have the same sort of barometric pressure that was present at their SAE HP dyno pull to utilize at a race. Turbo cars make their OWN "barometric pressure." Or, at least, the pressure present at the back side of the intake valve.

To reiterate:
"Your inability to explain why two or three percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator (the turbo cars) should be earning over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots at NATIONAL EVENTS" is telling.

These guys aren't Bob Dennis... They're not Jim Wahl... They are a varierty of people with one common thread: Unrestricted boost from their turbochargers.

I feel that needs to be fixed.

As an aside, I was going to turbocharge the motor in my Valiant, but there's not much room for plumbing under the hood of that A body, so I went the belt-driven route. Sure feels good, when the boost gauge starts its climb... :)

Have a good weekend!!!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

"Some set of friends for a "turbophobe," eh???"

They must be using you as comedy relief Bill.

"I know of two road race organizations whose sanctioning bodies require the use of telltale boost gauges on forced-induction cars in competition Why do you think they require those?"

Because they want a bunch of cookie cutter cars. Until NHRA and IHRA requires your "gauge" I don't care what other sanctioning bodies do.

"But, these cars I cited can't ALL be under-rated, and running off soft indexes. Hard to believe that ALL o f those turbo cars' owners are that smart"

Yeah because everybody knows turbo guys are a bunch of low tech moronic idiots!

"That is why I am of the opinion that the boost levels in these cars are not what they were when they left the factory"

This is one of the first things you have gotten correct Bill. See the equality statement refering to other engine parts in my above post.

"Your inability to explain why two or three percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator (the turbo cars) should be earning over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots at NATIONAL EVENTS" is telling"

Oh ok, I'll tell you why. Because several extremely technologically inept moron mechanics got lucky I guess. Oh and your data base is skewed big time. I'm surprised you didn't use only the races that turbo cars competed in. Your data MUST include all races not just National events.

"These guys aren't Bob Dennis... They're not Jim Wahl... They are a varierty of people with one common thread: Unrestricted boost from their turbochargers."

Yeah, sort of like all other races who want unrestricted performance from their race cars.

"I feel that needs to be fixed."

OK Bill, other guys who actually race have a few more pressing concerns they have been trying to have resolved but I'm sure NHRA will get right back with you.

"As an aside, I was going to turbocharge the motor in my Valiant, but there's not much room for plumbing under the hood of that A body"

I have a friend who has a twin turbo setup under the hood of a 440cid A body Dart with the stock fender wells and hood. You might want to contact one of those technological moron turbo mechanics to get that done for you. On second thought, after reading this thread, I doubt they would give you the time of day.

Oh, and my psychological analysis is on the house, treatment will cost you dearly. Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I'm looking to purchase a turbo as a stocker. Yes it can probably qualify #1 during the summer weather, but my main reservation in purchasing one is the lack of consistancy. LOOK FOR #1 OR RUNNER UPS W/ A TURBO? I HAVE NOT FOUND ONE. And if there is one well, everyone needs to race one and get ready to collect their Wally.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Mr.Darts,
You are correct about consistency, it is a problem with turbo cars, sticks or autos. Intercooled turbos run better in the summer that non intercooled. They all run better in the cool weather just like non turbo cars. jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim Wahl said, "Your data MUST include all races not just National events"

Not if my contention is that an inordinate amount of turbo cars qualify #1 at national events. That statement stands on its own and doesn't include points races, BECAUSE the problem doesn't exist at points races.

Why include a set of statistics from races that have no bearing on the subject? I am only concerned with the performance of these cars at NATIONAL EVENTS. Is that so hard to understand?

You accuse me of skewing the statistics, but once again, let me say that, the foir years I posted the qualifiers for, included every national event (plus Sportsnational) and nothing else. I identified each race where the qualifying was listed. I don't know what more I could have done. I used ALL the data for those races.

I am sure that NHRA will turn their customary blind eye to this problem, since fixing it wouldn't make them another red cent. You can relax; nobody's going to take your "above factory spec" boost away from you.

As far as my car goes, I wanted to retain my power steering, power brakes and air conditioning, because it's just a street car that sees action in Brackets from time-to-time. Your friend's big block turbo car might not have such parameters, I don't know. I have seen a ProCharger in a 440 oin a Duster, but it was pretty crowded... The oil pump sticks out where my power steering pump has to go...

I did finally have to give up the A/C in the interest of weight distribution (that cast 2-cylinder pump is H-E-A-V-Y....) but, I probably won't miss it.

Thanks again for all your efforts to explain away the unexplainable; it was entertaining.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I just want to be clear on this, you have no problem with above factory spec boost at Divisional or National Open races, that's not a problem, but only at National events the boost should be restricted. Do you not see how silly this sounds Bill? BTW Bill what class do you run? I can't seem to find your name on ANY of the many qualifying sheets I have gone over. I did answer your question, you just chose not to accept it. Now I have a question for you:

Why do you believe all other combinations deserve to be able to strive to use their equipment to its maximum legal limits but turbo combos should not be allowed? Please do not say "because I don't think it's fair". That makes you sound like a real whiner.

You know throughout the history of Drag Racing there have been combos that had advantages and also disadvantages. You have to weigh both and decide if it's worth racing. Every racer wants an advantage.Turbo cars may have their advantages but they certainly have their disadvantages. You don't hear me saying "hey my turbo car is inconsistent, you need to limit your car so it is as inconsistent as mine."

I don't think there is anything in the rule book that limits the number of times freaky one off combs can qualify #1. If that were true Bob Shaw would be a golfer not a drag racer. Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Here's another answer to your question, are you ready? Here you go...... BECAUSE THEY CAN!

Race cars don't race by demographics Bill. And this "problem" affects you how? Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

No, they race by rules. Not demographics.

Rules are there to ensure parity. It's a difficult and multi-faceted job, trying to maintain a level playing field.

"Because they can...." is only part of the sentence.

The rest of it, in, "Because they can, due to their ability to make their own "atmosphere" through boost levels that are not commensurate with what the engine saw when it was tested for output by the factory." That factory figure is thrown into a cocked hat when the boost is cranked up.

The result?

A percentage of #1 qualifiers at national events that is in no way relative to the "population" in the ranks of that type of car. If ten percent of the cars running are fuel injected, the reasonable expectation is that one in ten #1 qualifiers will be injected, or at least, somewhere around that figure.

This is not the case with the turbo cars, however; they qualify #1 at at least five times the number of national events that you'd expect them to, given their (population) "numbers."

I don't know why that syndrome isn't being played out at points races, but, it's not. I don't think that including those races into the "mix" condones what is happening at the nationaals, though. It's apples and oranges, to me.

Not much else to say; we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Jim.

Happy boosting...

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Did you miss my questions Bill?
What class do you race?
How does this affect you?
And, Why do you believe all other combinations deserve to be able to strive to use their equipment to its maximum legal limits but turbo combos should not be allowed? Please do not say "because I don't think it's fair". That makes you sound like a real whiner.

Thank you, Jim

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim asked, "Did you miss my questions, Bill?"

I guess I did.... Must not have thought they were of much importance to the subject "national event qualifying as regards turbo cars."
But, the one about "What class do you run?" had already been answered on page seven when I posted: "As far as my car goes, I wanted to retain my power steering, power brakes and air conditioning, because it's just a street car that sees action in Brackets from time-to-time." Guess you missed that.

Then you asked "How does this affect you?"
It makes me sick to my stomach when I see things go on, contunuously, that are damaging to our favorite sport. Especially, things like this, that could be easily fixed, but no one in power seems to care. They either don't CARE, or they're too dense to recognize a problem when they see it. NHRA has become, over the years, increasingly profit-oriented, and the guys empowered to watch over the rulesmaking system are NOTHING like the people who did that job thirty years ago. They just don't seem to care, if it's not going to make the organization a buck, and fixing this, won't.

There is a cliche that people use (over-use) on this board that maybe some people buy into, but I think that most don't, and that is to claim that anyone who protests an injustice is "whining." It is meant to demean the person who has pointed out the problem, but what it really does is identify the accuser as a small-minded person who wants to "kill the meesenger," to attack the person instead of the cause.

Racers with any sense of fair play will tell you that to point out a problem that affects ALL national event participants in Stock, is not "whining," but is a rational approach to something that needs attention. That is what these discussion boards are for; the free exchange of ideas. Killing the messenger won't solve the problem.

I don't race a class car, and probably won't, but I love drag racing, and it needs some rule adjustments from time-to-time, and I feel that this is one of those times. It won't affect me, personally, one way or another if it gets changed, or if it doesn't.... EXCEPT that the carefully-executed fair-play that has always exemplified Stock Eliminator would be enhanced if this situation were rectified, I believe. There's no reason to allow it to continue.

My opinion is just that.... my opinion. So is yours. :)
.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

The rules were never designed to "ensure parity" of performance, only to be defined, acceptable modifications and a classification standard. This common misconception of fairness is a myth that empowers people to whine and gripe because they feel they are being treated unfairly if they cannot be as fast relative to their index as someone else. The major driving force for adjusting HP ratings or rules for any type of parity is to appease the racers so they will continue to come back and race. (Always follow the $$) Maybe there is still some level of actual pure competition involved in our minds, but it does not actually exist in current drag racing definition at the level of, say, Olympic games competition. It would be great if it were to move back toward that ideal, but then we wouldn't have breakout racing, would we?

The allowable modifications have always resulted in favor for some combination. And the fact that performance is defined by relative standards is another issue. If NHRA artibrarily decided that Jim's index was 11.00, he would not be in the spotlight for being able to qualify so well, would he?

Bill, the percentage comparison you state has NEVER been the case in all the years of racing I have observed. Have 73% of the #1 qualifiers been Chevrolets? I believe that the last figures I saw showed that 73% of the participants in Stock Eliminator drive Chevrolets. Bob Shaw by himself will see to it that it will never happen.

Some combinations are always in the spotlight for their ability to out-qualify the majority of the field. A few years ago, the SS/AA Hemis were consistently the top qualifiers in SS. Currently, you have Bob Dennis doing the same thing. The FI cars in Stock were the target of complaints not too long ago. The 396 Chevrolets still consistently turn in top-of-the-field performances. It all comes down to a complicated set of circumstances that includes the factors of technical advancements from the racers and rules or classification anomolies that work together to result in these performances. If you think that there is an undue advantage for the turbo cars, then write NHRA, don't gripe to Jim about it. He's just being a smart racer.

The lack of parity that NHRA will respond to will be racers in the same class with Jim who have a sufficent population of cars that cannot keep up with him. If they complain and show justifiable reason, NHRA will simply add some numbers to Jim's power factor. Of course, Jim can get that adjustment without any help from anybody else through the AFHS.

How are tech people going monitor turbo boost even with a gauge? F1 cars have computer controlled electronic waste gates that vary the boost and are adjustable from the driver's seat. Do you really think it cold be controlled?

My $.02 and ramblings.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Dwight,

I realize that most of what you say is true; that it isn't a perfect workd, and parity is never going to exist with the huge variety of cars that populate the Stocker ranks. What I see here is a situation that MAYBE could be made better through boost monitoring.

Here's how it could work, since you asked ("How are tech people going monitor turbo boost even with a gauge? F1 cars have computer controlled electronic waste gates that vary the boost and are adjustable from the driver's seat. Do you really think it could be controlled?")

The Tech department would have to find out from the manufacrurers, what the maximum boost level; was when the engine was dyno'd for its original "advertised" horsepower rating. That number, let's say, ten pounds, goes into a book that is included with the other information that is kept at the scales, along with the car's shipping weight.

When the turbo car comes in for his fuel check and to be weighed after a run, the Tech looks at the NHRA-supplied telltale boost gauge to read the number the telltale needle has stoppef at. If it's over ten pounds, the car is bounced, just like if it were too light, or had fuel that wouldn't pass.

That's all there is to it.

Maybe this is unworkable from the standpoint that some of the modiofications (LEGAL ones) might cause the boost to rise above the factory figure. I am not advocating that racers who run turbo cars should be restricted from such modifications, but, when I started advocating this idea, I was under the impression that boost levels would NOT rise with camshaft, exhaust, etc. modifications. Jeff Lee agreed with me.

Jim Wahl says different.

If he's right (and, he well may be), I would no longer advocate monitoring boost levels, because I wouldn't want to restrict otherwise legal modifications on turbo cars just because it raised the boost level beyond the original figure.

If he's wrong, I think that the simplicity of this system could actually work. It would relieve the Techs at check-in time of having to be experts in the field of identifying turbo equipment on cars that they were probably not equipped to tech. They wouldn't have to know much at all, if the boost levels are going to be minitored, anyway.

But, as yu have said, NHRA has no interest in parity, even though they will toss a car for a valve that is several thousandths of an inch too small or too large. Boost is just another way of emulating a better-breathing engine.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that the CONSISTENCY with which this anomaly occurs (turbo cars out-qualifying a huge field of normally aspirated cars at national events) doesn't seem to be going away. Maybe it just doean't matter.... There just doesn't seem to be any rational reason for it to be that way, so I thought maybe it could be "fixed."

Perhaps not.

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject; I do appreciete them!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

First, thank you Dwight. I stand on everything I wrote, even if Bill only wants to acknowledge the information and questions he chooses to. Referring to me as "Jum" Wahl only goes to show how mature Bill can be. I guess Bill needs to go to breakfast with his GN turbo buddies more often so they can explain to him how turbos work. If Bill was a class racer and owned a rule book he would know that adjusting boost to allow for weather conditions is perfectly legal.

To tell you the truth I really did not know that Bill was not a class racer. If I had known that to begin with I never would have given him the satisfaction of answering his totally skewed self serving numbers and thoughts. Bill needs to go road racing where things apparently are much simpler and easier to understand. Bill is purely and clearly turbophobe. He hates turbos but surrounds himself with "friends" who have them. He wishes his car had a turbo.Love / hate / fear thing? I don't know, I will leave the diagnosis up to the readers. I call it "turbophobia".

Last, I would like to apologize to my fellow racers for hijacking this thread, which has a good amount of merit on it's own, with this ridicules waste of time between Bill and I. I am now finished with it. Dr.James Wahl Ph.D, discoverer and expert on turbophobia.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Believe me...Bill's TYPO wasn't deliberate and has nothing to do with maturity.......

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Yeah, right. Like NHRA is going to supply something like that . . .

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Jim Wahl wrote: "I stand on everything I wrote, even if Bill only wants to acknowledge the information and questions he chooses to.

There were no "questions, " only one: "Why have two or three percent of the cars (turbo cars) nailed down over fifteeen percent of the #1 qualifying slots at national events in the last four years?"

That's a simple, straightforward question. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is.... please.


Jim wrote, "Referring to me as "Jum" Wahl only goes to show how mature Bill can be."
Au contraire, mon ami, it just shows what a lousy typist/proofreader I am. I apologize for the typo in your name; it was unintentional, I assure you.



Jim wrote, " I guess Bill needs to go to breakfast with his GN turbo buddies more often so they can explain to him how turbos work. If Bill was a class racer and owned a rule book he would know that adjusting boost to allow for weather conditions is perfectly legal."

Those guys all tell me the same thing: "MORE BOOST INVARIABLY MEANS MORE POWER." That's pretty simple, too. No mystery there...

I went through my 2008 NHRA rulebook, page-by-page, scanning it for information about adjusting boost, as regards the legality of it, and I couldn't find a single word about that. Can you please tell me what page that's on? I must have missed it.

By the way, there is a separete, autonomous, part of this forum for current class racers to post. If I had a car I was unning in a class, I'd have posted this over there. I too, apologize for "hijacking" this thread; I never dreamed it would take this long to make my point.

Jim wrote, "To tell you the truth I really did not know that Bill was not a class racer. If I had known that to begin with I never would have given him the satisfaction of answering his totally skewed self serving numbers and thoughts."

I haven't had much in the way of satisfaction, because I can't seem to convince you that there is any kind of a problem, here. Maybe it's 'cause you own one of the cars that are of the type that create that problem. I have no such conflict of interest. I don't know what part of my reporting of the turbo cars that qualified #1 could be characterized as "skewed", since I reported all of the races that were in the 4-year time frame that was pertinent to the subject, which was "NATIONAL EVENT QUALIFYING." Points races are not a problem and were never a part of this discussion because of their impertinence.

Jim also wrote, "Bill needs to go road racing where things apparently are much simpler and easier to understand."

Bill's been drag racing since 1955 (no typo), and is much too old to change, now.

Lastly, the good doctor wrote, "Bill is clearly a turbohobe. He hates turbos but surrounds himself with "friends" who have them. He wishes his car had a turbo.Love / hate / fear thing? I don't know, I will leave the diagnosis up to the readers. I call it "turbophobia".

That's it; KILL THE MESSENGER, because by doing so, attention is diverted from the real issue at hand.

I hope you handle your psychology practice better than you do logic. Send the bill to Danny Gracia... It's all his fault, anyway!!! :(

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Dwight Southerland wrote, "Yeah, right. Like NHRA is going to supply something like that "

Well, if they didn't, they could require the racer to pay for it. It's not like that would be anything new.
From what I understand, they require the Sportsman racers to pay a $50 "insurance charge" at EVERY NATIONAL EVENT, to cover the cost of insurance for the PROS.... not even Sportsman coverage.
If they have the cajones to require that from everybody, a little coercion of the forced induction Stockers should be easy.

There are only a handful of turbo cars running; how expensive could it be?.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I just read the last few posts. But if nhra should check boost levels.
How about flowing a stock cylinder head and comparing it to the race version. Some of you think its fine to increase airflow in a way it benifits you. But not in a way it helps others.
In the first place a turbo car can and often do have whats called a boost spike. Especially in drag racing. So those boost thingys would be very inaccurate at best.

And I don't have a dog in this hunt. And Bill you don't either.
My car made its first under power trips down the track this weekend.
It went ,999 under And I completely forgot to bolt on a turbo. I must be getting old LOL

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art,

You suggested , "How about flowing a stock cylinder head and comparing it to the race version."

I have no problem of any kind with that. Getting NHRA to DO it would be the problem.

Congratulations on your new car's performance. What is it?

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

1664SSJA,

Your comment, "Bill-- Your last two lines were uncalled for, especially after your own "Kill the Messenger" comment."

I'll tell you what is uncalled for: Posting on here using an alias instead of your real name.

Nobody pays any attention to posts from people who haven't the character to sign their own work.

I know I don't...

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

A 4 cylinder front wheel drive NEON