Re: Mustang MPH?
 

I shouldn't care but this might lead to the dodges! LOL!

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

There is no way that that should be a legal modifiaction on any supercharged entry. With more and more of these serpentine belt driven superchargers being used by the OEM's the NHRA needs to clearly state it's position. I feel that a boost enhancement of this kind is way outside of the spirit of the class.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

And THAT I will agree with! Any supercharged car that is not running factory pullies should be bounced. (once the rules are changed and pully #'s are published) This would pertain to ALL supercharged cars not a SINGLED OUT one.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Bruce,

I have stated before, and I fully agree, that the CJs are under-rated. My gripe is with the people who post without knowing the facts. This bothers me whether it is on the CJ topic or any other. Why would anyone want to come on here and make a post when they are dead wrong? It's not that hard, especially using the Internet, to do a little research and inform yourself so you can make an educated post that has some accurate facts. Why is that so difficult? I didn't mean to thrash Jim, but in my humble opinion, Jim should do his homework if he is going to chime in on a hotly debated topic. You don't hear me saying I heard this from this guys and that from another. Produce your facts and name your source!

The fact is, under-rating engines has been going on since the inception of Stock-class racing and Ford or anyone else doesn't owe it to anyone to publish real hp figures. I don't see any other racer or manufacturer doing this so why should Ford? Even if they did show you, what would that change? Do the math, these things can make more than they are showing. Everyone knows this, so who cares if it is 650, 750 or 850?

I was only hammering away because I am sick of BS posts with people speculating and/or announcing inaccurate facts. In my business we deal with proven fact. If I did my job with the accuracy of many folks posting on here I'd be fired in 10 minutes flat!

Like I said, i'd be pissed if the CJ ran in my class, but it is out there and there is nothing anyone can do accept go race them as hard as you can. If NHRA screwed up then take it up with them. I respect your opinion, but don't feel Ford, me, or anyone else should publish hp numbers.

Bruce, I obviously am tied in with Ford, but it's not like anyone gave me a CJ. Take a look at my magazine, we've modified many GT500s (similar engine) so anyone can see the potential of this combination just by doing some research. If you noticed I've only chimmed in when inaccurate facts have been posted. I've stated my opinion that the cars are under-rated, so I agree with you. But so are many other combos that are under-rated, too. If Ford slipped one past NHRA, well it is not the first time and it won't be the last.

Evan

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Evan,
99% of us are not journalists. We're just a bunch of old guys bench racing.

Sounds like your are comfortable with your position. Good luck.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Bruce,

I am quite comfortable. I know, just like everyone else, that the CJ is under-rated, but I am not NHRA. What should I do? You have made your point clear, I have come on when facts about the CJ are wrong. Why does that bother you? I have not promoted it, just cleared up fact.

You will soon have a dog in the fight and I wouldn't be happy either. The LT-1 and LS ruled the roost for years, why is this so different? The guys I feel bad for are the ones that are too far over-rated, like the Hemi and the B-Body 440-6.

Funny how I have asked a bunch of questions regarding this topic and not once has anyone had an answer.

I am sorry for slamming Jim, but you don't have to be a journalist to come on here and post things that are accurate. I guess you don't mind this since the CJ was the topic and anything that stirs the pot is good, right? But if you come on and post junk then expect to be called on it. Is it so hard to do a little homework before you start slamming keys?



Evan

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Evan,
I don't think Jim was trying to stir the pot. If anything it looked like he was supporting the Ford guys. He may have gotten the pulley deal a little messed up but that is no federal offense. I'm not for stirring the pot any more than I have to. But, then again, this is not your average, run of the mill, let's stick a car into Stock deal.

We'll know more in a couple of weeks. Good luck.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Did you really type that????????

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Ok, Evan. Here is where I was wrong. The supercharger drive pulley is a ribbed serpentine device of certain diameter. I don't know what diameter, do you? I did say "number of teeth". I knew after I read the post I was wrong but I figured everyone would know what I meant. I was wrong there also. Forgive me I guess I am still a little old school. Where I am NOT wrong and I would be willing to bet you on is that NHRA will soon come out and make it known that the stock pulley of the correct diameter and part number must be used. Now you asked me to name names. OK, here goes. When NHRA almost dissolved the FWD classes 3 years ago I was deeply involved in it's restructuring. This is widely known among the FWD guys. While working on the restructuring I spoke with many of the "upper crust" of the organization. Among other things, we decided the AF/S class weight break should be a 13lb. class and alow the newer FWD cars coming out of Detroit a place to compete. Cars such as the SRT4 Neon, SS Cobalt, Pontiac GTP and even a couple of imports. One disussion with Len Imbrogno turned to the fact that the SS Cobalt was supercharged. I asked if they (NHRA) were going to regulate the superchargers or just let the AHFS take it's course. Len informed me that Gracia had told him the president on that was set years ago (around 1957) with the supercharged Fords and Studebakers. Now granted this was a few years ago, but I would be willing to bet that he hasn't changed his opinion. Wanna bet? Now this sounds to me as reliable a source as any one you or anybody here has at this time. I'm sure you have his phone number, if not, contact me and I'll give you his cell number. I think it's great the Fords are out and running. Can't wait for the Mopars to hit the track. Oh, and no disrespect taken. I realize you do have a dog in this fight, I don't. Peace my friend. Jim

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Thanks Bruce, you are correct. No pot stirring going on this time, just sharing some information pertinent to the subject! Jim

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Jim,

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I tire of speculation and inaccurate data as fact. I now see what you mean, and it makes sense.

Maybe NHRA will change the rule, maybe they won't. But as of now you can run any pulleys. Since I am moving to Florida later this year we can have a beer and chat about all this crap.

Evan

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

This is not really just about the new CJ's,..sure..this time around "Fordguys" and people that may have a something at stake in it (carbuilders etc.) has been some of the ones defending this...next time it could be anythimg new from Mopar or even GM(even though the economy says different)and others would "cheer" for the "new product"...It's great that new cars are getting in and i hope that more will follow ..but i think we all should set "sportsmanship" first when we think and talk about all this..is it fair to all us racers to get this treatment...new cars that just comes in and blow the competition away "at first glance"? NHRA's probably has some reasons for doing it like this though..hard to do anything about that(and probably lol at us on these boards)..and maybe it's the only reason factory's would show interest if they can go out and be fast with new products right off the bat..thats why i think they should have a class by themself...atleast until they are brought within some reason...

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Evan, harsh? Nah, your just a good soldier for your cause. I have been accused of the same thing once or twice! As for the "any pulley", nope not supercharger pulleys. Water pump, alternator, or idler pulleys yes. almost all tech guys know about the old supercharger ruling. Wanna bet? Would you believe Travis? Go ahead and call Danny, if he'll take my call he certainly will take yours! I would love to sit down with you after your move down here. Where are you planning on living? Jim

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Granted, people are allowed to change their minds and evolve with new times & ideas, but back in the mid-'90's when I ran my AF/S turbo FWD Danny Gracia was VERY clear in one of our conversations that supercharger pulleys were something that MUST remain as delivered from the factory. I always found it ironic to have that position yet not concerned about turbo boost requlations.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Another unsubstantuated rumour, but I heard they have burnt out two sets of brake light bulbs. The 1/8th and 1/4 MPH don't jive. I am a Ford guy but also think this deal smells. I'm happy they are out there but it sure has to be frustrating to the guys who have worked so long and hard to get where they have, only to be run over by a factory backed race car. JMO!!!

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Evan Smith said, relative to the horsepower output of the new CJ's:
"Everyone knows this, so who cares if it is 650, 750 or 850?"
Who cares, indeed.......

I'd bet that anyone who has spent the last 4 or 5 years and upwards of $60,000 building a competitive A or AA Stock car cares very much, as they may be looking over at one of thse rockets in the other lane for a heads up race, possibly in a final round, for the money.

Who cares? Anybody who has to race one heads up, I would think.

From the performance potential that has been demonstrated so far by these cars, it seems to me that unless NHRA wants to institute a new Stock class (AAA/S?) at 7, or even 6.5 pounds per factored horsepower, these cars rightfully belong in Super Stock, because they're obviously capable operating way outside the present-day, accepted, parameters of AA/S and AA/SA.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

This has been going on for years in the lower classes. That is how we ended up with the Fuel Injected classes for a while. It costs a lot of money to build a late model Stocker too.


True, but we have yet to see one of these cars in a heads-up run. They are already showing a little, so I really don't think that it will be long before they get some HP.


Why would a car manufacturer want to build a new AA Stocker that couldn't out run a car built in 1969? It would make zero sense. If these cars can run what everyone predicts they will get HP. We may even get a new class, but we haven't seen anything to warrant that yet.


And yes. I do have a dog in this hunt.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Bill,
A lot of us care about the Horsepower on these CJs. These CJs are really neat race cars but it was not a good idea to impose them on Stock. After just two races they have displayed great power and game changing potential. The supporters of this car keep moving the goal posts and I guess they will keep that up until we all grow tired and weary of the subject. In a way these cars coming into Stock is like discovering A Rod has been taking steroids. In fact that would be a good name for them - A Rods.

Gump,
Did you give up your IHRA crate motor car for a nhra AA car?

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

I guess you guys want NHRA to break the classes out again, seems to me when the Fuel Injected GM cars came on the scene they kicking a@# and taking names but I don't remember this much of fuss.
From what I can see this car was built with off the shelf stuff, and yes it has great potential.
Why can't you guys let the AHFS do it's job, it will only be a matter of time before these god forsaken vehicles destroy themseleves then after that happens all the GM owners will be happy.
IMHO I think had this been a new Camaro running these numbers it wouldn't be nearly as much fuss. '
Heavens, if that new Challenger runs low tens the class racing world just might come to an end.
Chevy's rule the roost in a majority of NHRA classes, can some other makes dominate for once, just a little while before we are factored out?

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

I have been racing a 1995 fuel injected Firebird in Stock that I purchased new for that purpose. I currently run it as a 1998 A/FIA car in IHRA and will probably run some Division 2 NHRA stuff this year if my schedule permits. I also had a 1999 Camaro that I raced as a 1998 LT1 car for a few years. I also have another 1998 Firebird that some of the local Church kids are going to campaign in A/FIA. My only attempt at a crate motor was killed by an IHRA rule change that outlawed my combination before I ever got it finished. The project that I am working on now is for AA.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Smitty,
Check out the old Factory Experimental thread. Many of us made posts on that thread that made it very clear that we would be against any OEM pulling a stunt like this.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

NO, it must be all chebby, all the time, OR ELSE!!

How dare you think an outsider can play the same games!

For shame.....

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Sorry for the off topic but,

Evan moving to Florida??? No more MM&FF???

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Yes, by all means, let the AHFS do its job. After all, we all know how well the AHFS works, it is nearly flaw less. And NHRA is working every day to make it better, more fair, more accurate, and quicker to respond.:rolleyes:

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Alan,

Your sarcasm is exceeded only by your veracity...

Bill

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Alan! You got jokes! Jim

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

How 'bout "TROJAN HORSE"????????

Seems a little more appropos the factor debacle...

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

lol

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

amen to that

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

So I guess what a majority of you are saying is that Ford should have told NHRA to rate this combo at say 550 hp or better out the box. Did NHRA not rate the LT1 and LS1 combo's soft initially?
I don't get it, these cars have only attended two or three races and you GM guys want put the car out of the class. Ford did exactly what any other manufacturer could do, if these guys go out there and run too fast they will get horsepower. If enough of you cry NHRA might change the AHFS because of one car but how many other combos might this affect? If they did something it would have to be across the board so we would be right back where we were in the begining; the Cobra Jet at the head of the pack!
I really can't believe this car has caused this much of stir.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

RJ, there are two big differences here. 1. the Lt and LS cars were rated at a HP that was advertised and sold through showrooms. it wasn't falsely rated to give it an advantage 2. a Blower, end of story.


Its comparing apples to bananas

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

You know, I have been reading all this stuff about the CJ Mustangs for almost 3 weeks now. I really get a chuckle out of all the Crying and Bitching by the Chevy guys about how Bogus the HP rating is on the new Mustangs. What really gets me is where were all you Cry Baby's when the LT1 and LS1's were kicking *** and taking names a few years ago with Bogus HP ratings??? I didn't hear anybody from "the group" griping then.

Are the new Mustangs a little shy on the rating? Hell yes! Will it all work out? Probably will as long as there is an NHRA! Thats another subject though.

Relax, take a deep breath and it will all be OK. From what I understand the HP ratings will be going up in another 3 months or maybe sooner if one of these guys goes brain dead on a pass.

I hope to see all your smiling faces at Belle Rose in 3 weeks. I'll be glad to allow you to buy me a beer.

R J Sledge

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

>>>"Did NHRA not rate the LT1 and LS1 combo's soft initially?"

Absolutely!

Was that okay with most people?

NO!

Did it "work out?" (AHFS)

Yes.... pretty much, but it took literally YEARS to get it done. In the meantime, these undefactored G.M. cars were "making hay while the sun shone"....

And, how does this relate to the CJ deal? "Those who don't learn from experience are doomed to repeat it."

I think ~everybody~ learned something from the LS-1 experience.... and, THAT's why all the hoopla... Most folks probably don't want to see that scenario repeated.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

So the LS cars had more horsepower than advertised and the Mustang has more horsepower than advertised but it is OK for the LS but false rating when Ford does it. Is that what you are saying?

A blower is just another engine part becoming more common of showroom available cars. I don't like blowers either but that is where the factories are going.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

The Firebirds may have been as much as 40 Horsepower soft. It took awhile before they became fast and nhra split them out until the ahfs had a chance to catch up with them. But the new CJ is a pony of a different color and should be fairly classified in a Factory class. The Firebirds were Factory Performance cars as opposed to the Purpose Built CJ for Racing only. The CJ is a purpose built race car that is 150 Horsepower soft. I know you Ford guys think we are picking on, crying, bitching and complaining about the CJs but you can bet you butts that most of us would be angry with any OEM trying to pull off a stunt like this.

Some of you guys say the Firebird was soft so why can't we do it. You say stuff like the ahfs will catch up to these cars but you know it will take years. You're not fooling any one. Some of the Ford guys want this car to run against 40 year old Camaros just to humiliate them. It's that simple. But at what price will Ford pay? What is so bad about a factory class for this car? What is so bad about it? None of you ever say why it's a bad idea. The CJs could romp all day long in a Factory class and really strut their stuff without having all the negative push-back. And the negative push-back will continue to come with each new event.

We saw this coming. The Ford guys had this whole project under wraps and still want to keep it that way. But we figured it out weeks before Pomona and put nhra on notice that we knew what they were up to. It's a bad deal for Stock. History will tell.

RJ,
You're right this whole discussion may be a moot point in 90 days.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

the LT and LS cars appeared softer than they were because the factory rating was SAE NET hp, not SAE GROSS like the older cars. so when they get thrown in with the older cars it exacerbated the amount they were under rated. I don't know why GM chose to under rate them, but i am pretty sure it was marketing related (couldn't have one make more HP than a vette) not to pull one over on NHRA. The LS motors were also a brand new platform that took some time to figure out. I will not argue that it is a very potent combo in stock, and the rest of the racing world. Ford chose to build a motor based on an engine that already existed (GT500, ford GT), then derated the living crap out if it.

The LS motors proved to be more potent than they were rated, NHRA reacted by seperating the EFI cars so they could sort themselves out. Ford and NHRA are pissing down our leg and their telling us its raining with the CJ cars

YES, there is a big difference

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Kind of a shame to see this discussion.
Sportsman racing needs INK, it needs new cars, it needs factories to be involved so THEY can pressure NHRA to show the racing on TV or at events. Many people are chosing to chose THIS car as an example and you are really shooting sportsman racing in the foot. Many sound like they have never heard of the 400 chevy deal with the wrong ccs in heads, the wrong HP rating for years. No one heard of Bob Dennis cars before, How about the oval port BBC motors which hit GT/AA for some time before being adjusted. Some never noticed the new SBC SS motors with 400 heads and Q jets on a 350. How about the turbo fords used in stock?The new camaro, Pontiac stuff for YEARS with injection.The 305 Injected motor versus the carbs.
Grossi GT/AA record.
I hate it but suggest quietly race like the past till it corrects and USE the FORD input and interest to get to the BIG STAGE at NHRA events and hope Camaro works too.
If you chose NHRA you automatically chose this kind of issues. Not that it is right but that is their method of handling Sportsman racing.
Work WITH FORD and others to get a foot in the door and hope Ford can help change the methods.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Bruce

I agree with you on a lot of what you said, and as I said in my original post about the HP being soft I meant it. Was it a little soft or a lot soft.....it was a whole lot soft. I really feel for the guys running the same class as these cars, but the only way to make them show SOME of their hand is to make them run them out. I have heard that they are basically configured to run at less than 75% of applicable power available. I don't doubt it. I hope that the AHFS (if there is one anymore) will get it figured out ASAP. I would feel like I used do when having to run against an LS1 in F/SA. It was not a good experience

I do feel that the exposure for Stock and Sportsman Racing is a plus. Maybe when the GM and Mopar products come out they will level the playing field. Only time will tell

As you said it may be a moot point considering the situation with NHRA. I would hope that they will see the light and make adjustments where it will count. It seems that they have been awfully narrow minded in the last few years. Again only time will tell, we might be doing something different in another 12 to 18 months. As a my Pa used to tell me when I was a kid....You need to know the difference between being a pig and a hog......the difference is pigs get fat (not a real bad thing), but hogs get slaughtered (a real bad thing). NHRA has been a little too greedy if you ask me and are heading for the Slaughter House door!! I hope that they wise up before its too late.

R J Sledge

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

Dick I didn't want to use Grossi as an example but you are right; they searched and found a soft combo and they are absolutely hammering the competition. Has there been an uproar about the combo, yes but not nearly what has been about the Ford. Everyone doesn't have $70k for a race car so I think the stock eliminator world is safe.

Re: Mustang MPH?
 

RJ,
Nice post.