Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I think I had one of the few smiley faces in this entire thread a few posts up. Here is a bigger one. :D

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I'm glad that most are afraid of the new little Gen III Hemi's. Ford had to add a power booster to compete with the new Hemi.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

.....and both had to come up with bogus horsepower factors to compete with the stuff already out there.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

If you took a look outside of NHRA and IHRA racing you would see that most of the cars being racd by the younger crowd have power boosters. The younger crowd can't understand why you wouldn't want one. Ford is marketing to those guys.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Your probably correct. Me, being a grampa of 12, the older grand kids get more of a kick from my 10 second boosted 2005 Ram 4x4 pickup than the 10 second 64 Race Hemi. I'm so old school that I don't even own a cell phone, however my grandkids know they could tune a boosted Honda Civic with a Play Station. Go figure. ???

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bogus HP factors or not, I still haven't seen where the new Challenger's or Mustang's have dominated anywhere. Have you?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Maybe its because the money guys who are buying these new cars cant drive a nail with a hammer much less drive a race car? Unless its a heads up run they are dead meat. LOL

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Gone are the days (1968/1969) when the NHRA only re-factored the;
Mopar 340; from 275HP to 310HP
Ford 428 Cobra-Jet; from 335HP to 360HP
S/S AMX 390; from 340HP to 405HP.
My daughter was going to buy a bicycle to ride, but we heard the NHRA was going to re-factor it, before she ever rode it.;)
OHHH,, THE NHRA,,Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio?
PC

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg and others, where was all this grandstanding when GM told NHRA that they built '98 Firebirds and Camaros with LT1 engines? And of course, NHRA allowed it. In fact, every racer who has ever lost a round to one of these cars has lost to a paper car that was never built from the factory. I believe NHRA was driving GMC trucks during this time.

Greg, and others, does this not bother you?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

My 98 Firebird shows the LT-1 option in the owner's manual. Besides, the difference between a 97 F body and a 98 F body is body panels (the 98 is just a better looking car). :eek: At least it wasn't a car that was nearly 100HP under factored, or a car with an engine that was NEVER offered by the manufacturer in ANY car for street use, or a car that can never be registered for street use or even driven off the lot when purchased.

And I guess the 98 LT-1 F body deal in the past makes it "anything goes" in the future. :rolleyes:

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

98 Firebirds and Camaros are no different than 97's. These cars were way under rated to start with and it's taken 16 years for the LT1's to get the rating they now have. I had to race against the LS1's when they were rated at 305hp. They are now 369 or 373 in the Camaro's and Firebird's. Why do you think the fuel injected classes were implemented? It was the failure of NHRA to properly factor these cars. I have no doubt that Pontiac being the official car and GMC being the official truck was the main reason these cars didn't get properly factored. That being said this is way more bogus than anything GM did back in those days. These are cars that were never made. The rules had to be changed just to allow these cars in stock. They had an opportunity to put these crate motor cars in their own class and decided to let them run in regular stock classes with hp ratings so Bogus Ray Charles could see they weren't right.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bogus is bogus, no matter the level. Greg, you skirted my question. Why are you not grandstanding against bogus GM cars? These are cratemotor cars.

98s are different from 97s because in 98 GM used a different enigne and diffrent body work.

Alan, I would like to see one in the real world. Please post a picture of a street F-body ('98) with a factory LT1 or scan and show us where it was available in GM literature.

Greg what rule did NHRAchange?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Like Funny Car?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I have asked the same question a few times and nobody has answered: If there was a Camaro or Corvette available in the books, would we be having these posts?

On another subject, the horsepower ratings for the crate engines shown in the Ford Racing catalog are tested under SAE conditions and they do not test every engine they assemble. Just because the engine is rated at 500 hp from the factory, it does not mean you put the engine in the car and go 1.0+ seconds under the index. The HP ratings under the SAE protocol are subjective. I have seen many engines on the dyno making 500 hp and depending on the class they run, they can run from 11.70's to 10.90's depending on the weight, trans and track conditions.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I honestly believe the saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same". I know back in the '80's when I just started racing, Oldsmobile was a major sponsor and there were alot of the 307 Cutlass' that were way underfactored. Olds even listed bogus specs in the guide concerning valve lift on the 307's. In the '90's, we had the underfactored LT-1's and LS-1's, and it took quite a bit of time for the AHFS to catch up with them . I personally along with alot of others took quite a few heads-up beatings. Today, we are just starting to see the effects of the Mustangs and Challengers. Personally, I'll continue to do the best I can to be competitive. That's all I have control over.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Dean, there is no difference other than maybe a small cosmetic difference in the 97 and 98 Firebirds. I don't know why NHRA let the 98's run the LT1 but performance wise there is no difference. I know a lot of the guys claimed 98 so they could get contingency money from GM. You could walk in any Chevrolet or Pontiac dealer and buy one of these cars and drive it home.

The rule that got changed was to allow special runs of 50 cars that need not be street legal or available to the public to be allowed in Stock eliminator. That was not in the rule book until 2007 or 2008. WTF do you mean grandstanding? All I'm doing is pointing out facts. The specs don't lie.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ford Racing catalog are tested under SAE conditions --- This a dumb statement all engines are tested to SAE spec weither it is SAE J607 ( 29.92 & 60 degress carb air) or SAE J1349 (29.234 & 77 carb air) correction

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Did someone say something about Pit Bulls earlier? What we need on this thread is a dog like Lucky, my overweight Beagle. He loves everyone in the neighborhood and for an ear scratching, he is yours. Yall all know that when GM gets around to it, there will be all kinda new stuff out there. There will be more to complain about. I think I heard this argument first when Mother Mopar made the Max Wedge 413 in 62, and it was a lot faster off the showroom than the 409 or 406. So it was underfactored some 48 years ago. Then the other stuff, the one-offs, the factory participation, the altered wheelbase(first not to obvious, then real obvious). Let's see I think Candies had one of them with Leonard Hugher, and now Candies (son of aforementioned Candies) has a new Blue Oval (that hurt my wrist to type that). It's a large wheel. It goes around. And Tech Man, I ain't that bad a driver, but then maybe so. When Woodrow Josey (stock eliminator legend) abandoned the old cars a few years ago, there was a message there. I don't even remember why I started typing this. Yall may continue the bashing now.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg, there is a huge difference in body work as the front-end parts are not at all interchangeable. Plus it's a totally different engine that was not available in the vehicle. GM submitted the paperwork to NHRA so the 98 models could be counted towards the manufacturers championship points and to have the latest car on track, even though it didn't have the engine that the public could buy the car with. And that's not a big deal to you?

So, you are saying because the performance is not an issue is it OK for NHRA to allow a car that never existed to run?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

cmon GREG youre avoiding my question... can we race your new ford mini explorer ???

and by the way greg is right, but hell ive been bitching about rampant rule revisions and the AHFS that cannot work for 5 years and no one listens...

and yeah there has been "seas of change" in the past but damn this is a tidal wave that will wipe out all previous stockers in just 5 years... yeah we can still race them kenny, we just wont be allowed to win...

captain jack

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Dumb? The SAE spec does not only establishes the criteria, but also the conditions.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jack,

You mean class or the eliminator? Besides, the doom and gloom guys tell us stock is done, its to expensive to race and no new blood is coming into stock.

If this is right, why worry about a few combos that are fast out of the thousands of combos that are racing right now. I would like to know if the CJ's and DP's are going to drive everyone out or are they to expensive to really make an impact. which is it?.

What new combo's have made your car non competitive?

Jack, I am saying this with all do respect, but are your telling me the CJ's and the DP's will ruin stock for all time?

Wow, I better not miss any races in the next few years.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ken, I will answer your question, Jeff's Challenger has made my car non-competitive! It currently runs -.75 faster than mine ever has! By his own admission there is plenty more in it. I do not begrudge him taking advantage of the situation, I am pissed that NHRA has allowed this to happen. Jim

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

And if you could show either a picture or a GM part number for the Camaro manual rack & pinion, that looks amazingly similar to a Ford Pinto rack:eek:, that would be nice as well.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Hey Plymouth Savoy-Brown,
Get into the act. Remember when they wouldn't let you run a
dual-carbed set-up on the 62' Plymouth (383/343HP). So you couldn't run the same combination as the 62' Dodge's. What was that 40+ years ago. They protested you, as soon as you beat the Chevy's.
'The more things change, the more they stay the same'
Who would've thought that they would know the difference between a
62' Plymouth and 62' Dodge. Both not pretty.
Wing-Nut called them the "Phyllis Diller's".
Paul

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jack, all we've got to do is get the Flex in the guide and we're set. Andrew's mentioned this two or three times already. I'll get the Country Dog to find us a water car and with one of these crate motors it should be killer in GT. The first Ford Flex in Super Stock. Yea that's right for all you Ford apologists I own a new Ford Flex. This whole deal is not about brand it's about NHRA properly factoring these cars. If GM had a new Camaro with the fast burn crate motor rated at 275 I would be just as pissed.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg
The rule for the "Special run must include a minimum run of 50 units of an already accepted body style, need not be showroom available." has been in the rulebook since 1998, not 2007 or 2008. This was not done for the DP and CJ as I think you stated. Could have been for the LS1 LT1 deal. Maybe Firehawks or some Hamburger special, but not the DP or CJ.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

People keep wanting to compare back to the LT1 and LS1 cars. I also see someone thew the pinto rack into the mix and the mysterious 98 LT1. I agree the 98 LT1 never existed and the rack isn't right either but we're going straight and steering means nothing. To me the biggest difference is that you could go to any GM dealer and buy the same car off the lot and drive it home that was being raced. You can't do the same with these cars. Also the LT1 and LS1 cars were 50hp underrated I will agree. These cars are way more than 50hp underrated. The comparison of LT1/LS1 to DP/CJ is apples and oranges at this point. I don't hate the cars I actually like them but how anyone can see that this is right is beyond me.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Clay, we are not wanting to compare, we are comparing because it is just as blatant as the current cars everyone is crying about. But those crying about teh Cj and DP cars won't admit it. Any manufacturer will get away with whatever it can and it is the sanctioning bodies job to keep it all fair. It doesn't matter what the form of racing is, and it's found in all auto racing.

How could go to the dealer and buy a car that didn't exist? Which is the case with the '98 F-body with an LT1. Also, crossbreeding parts is illegal, yet the Pinto rack is legal in a GM car. How do you explain NHRA allowing that? It is a performance advantage because a Pinto rack is lighter than the stock GM setup and removing nose weight is worth a ton in a Stocker. We all want to know why the3 GM racers aren't screaming on the Internet for over a year about that?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg, I completely understand where you are coming from...I think/know you are a really good driver and have been for awhile. I read the BS on here from other who get a lot from there daddy's and think it's totally wrong for them to even suggest otherwise. That being said, I will get to the subject of this post. A long time ago I started dreaming of the day when I could call myself a nhra class racer because itKs a fantastic community and I really enjoy the experience every time I get to participate with my father "Mike Fuller". Let me digress once again to the subject...

In my opinion NHRA HAS FAILED...They repeat their failure at luring people because they switch rules so often. Not only do they switch rules but, they do not enforce rules...Hence $5000 DOLLAR MANIFOLDS AND HEADS....

Lets be rational because stock eliminator is not! Without getting into the nitty gritty details I propose a community intervention. What would that be your job is to ask?

That intervention is abide by those rules....

The example and remedy is to quit or to pay the money to have these cj' and dp's torn down everywhere they go in my opinion.

I don't think its practical but' they need to be discriminated with NHRA'S ASSESTS AND TIME! There is glory and consequences..... I know the differnce...

I might not make sense on this forum to most but, i will impose the question....are you ready to fight the fight?

ANYWHO...I will make this sugestion one time only...discriminate! Because NHRA HAS DONE SO WITH YOU!

ANY COMMENTS OR HATE MAIL IS APPRECIATED....In honor of Dave Young...;)

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Some of you want to argue about the 98 LT-1 and Rack & Pinion,Come on,That is small compared to the lastest.

Rack and Pinion / LT-1,I would trade that for the Nice little open rules to do what ever you like to the rear suspension,nice little Intake and Oil Pan(Milodon).

I would also trade that Rack and Pinion 98 LT-1 deal for a BLOWER.

My Stocker was crushed for years by the new Camaro's and Firebird's.

Now it will be by the DP.

I was told years ago by NHRA Deal with it.

New cars are neat,but not as neat as the old muscle cars and what NHRA is doing is wrong.

The thing I love about Stock and Super Stock is going to the U.S Nationals and having a chance to win, even a chance to beat the big HITTERS,NHRA is taking that away from alot of us now.

Going to the Nationals and watching Paul Adams and Jimmy Bridges Heads-UP,Watching all the Big Block Mopar's and Chevy's go at it in A/SA -C/SA
Thats what life is all about my friends and I hope they dont ruin that.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Sure have seen it. Whatever class they have been entered into. Because of the hp rating and that alone. Put 50 on them or take 50 off their competition and see where they fall.
As the last few pages attest to, these aren't the only combos that have ever been soft.

And please don't take this as an attack on anyone who is running one of these combos. I think it is a smart move. I just don't think that making a killer combo with a pencil says much for the way our rules are being enforced.

By the way...... anybody know what taking those 3 tenths away accomplished?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Yeah, you are "wanting to compare", you are not "comparing", because you are not making a valid comparison, by any stretch. A hand grenade is closer to an M-80 than one of these crate motor cars is to a 98 LT-1 F body.

Removing nose weight isn't worth a ton in a stocker. I'm not saying a Pinto rack should be legal.

The LT-1 was already a legal engine, certified by the EPA for street use in a production vehicle for sale to the general public. Yes, technically you could make a case that a 98 LT-1 F body is a "paper car".

So what is a car that is sold unassembled, no engine, no transmission, and no rear end? And classed with an engine or engines that are not certified for safety or emissions, or installed in a street driven production vehicle, ever? A "thin air car"?

What you REALLY want to know is why some people don't think two wrongs make a right.

I posted this in another thread, and I noticed that no one has ever addressed it:

If you want the new cars, why is it so important that they be in classes where they have such a huge advantage over other cars? Seriously, why is it necessary to just absolutely kill cars already racing? Why CAN'T they be in their own class? Why is it that it would be wrong for NHRA to learn a lesson from the past, and put these cars in a class by themselves, until the factors get reasonable, just like they eventually did with the FI cars? They'll go just as fast as they are now, with the exact same parts, and the exact same cash outlay. Why is it necessary to punish current combinations to add new cars? There would be little or no argument about any of this if the new cars had their own classes. Is it really necessary to give them 3 tenths to show, and 3 tenths to hold, over other racers, just to get them to race? Is it some sort of secret requirement that they be so dominant, just to get people to buy them and race them? Is that what we need to draw "new participants"? Do we REALLY need to do this just to get people to race? If we do, there's no hope for class racing, period. Not if this is what it will be reduced to.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Let's just say that the CJ's and DP's have spoiled AA/S thru G/S and AA/SA thru G/SA
that's 16 classes correct?
Now I would like to ask if you compete in one of these classes?
Do you have the quickest car in the country in your respective class?
In my opinion there are 16 people in the country that have a legitimate complaint.
Does it matter whether you are beaten by a CJ or DP or just a faster car?

I needed to take some of the heat off of poor Jeff T.

Flame on.
See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

1. Yes, we do, 69 Camaro 427/425, A/SA and AA/SA.

2. No. Never claimed to. Still thrashing on it though.

3. That's your opinion. But, with respect, it does not consider other facts (see below).

4. There's a huge difference between being beaten by an established, correctly factored combination that someone has worked on for a few years to make run, and getting stomped by an improperly factored car that has the field covered by 5 tenths out of the box.

3a. The problem with your opinion is that most of the fastest cars in a given class do not travel everywhere, so people not in their division don't have to race them. Whereas these new cars are in every division. Example: Until the new cars came out, odds are the fastest AA/SA car was probably either DeArmond or Sorenson (with due respect to John Shaul and others). So AA/SA cars east of the Mississippi weren't likely to face the fastest AA/SA car in the country. But now they are likely to face a car far faster than either of those two. No doubt there are other very fast "older" AA/SA (and A/SA) cars in the country, Shaul, Meile, Calabro/Fasano, Couris, Pendarvis, Ficacci, DeFrank, Koppien, and a few others. But you could just about count all of those guys on two hands. If you add in the new cars being built, that figure more than doubles, and may even triple. That dramatically increases the odds of heads up races in those two classes, meaning the average guy in those classes with an older car is far more likely to run into a heads up race they can't win. Especially when the very fast older cars can't win in most cases facing a "new car", either.

It's not just about having the fastest car in the class in the country, it is at least just as much about having a reasonable chance to make a race of a heads up race, if you have a reasonably competitive car. If you've got a car that runs 1.0 or so under the new indexes, it's a powerful slap in the face to not have a chance in a heads up race in final eliminations. If you had a 1.0 under car, and got down to say 4 cars, and got beat by a new car that has you covered by 3 tenths, that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow if you've been working on your car and spending money on it for 5 or 10 years.


Flame? Why? And it is not the individual racers that anyone has a beef with, it's NHRA.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Hear my rant....I have made it clear these late model Challenger DP / CJ cars should be SS cars (and no sense re-hashing the same old arguments about not even available for public use).
But this is the same NHRA that would not allow a superseded carb for my AMC. I have provided document after document to show it legitimacy. IHRA accepted it. NHRA's response was it appeared legit but after all the fiasco over the FOMOCO FE allowances, didn't want to go down that road again.
So in essence, NHRA admits the FE issues are a problem, won't fix them because they're in place, and others get to race against their "bogus" parts.
But in truth, that's OK. Why? Because I new what I had for parts when I built my car and I knew what my competitors also had. It was no mystery to me. Would I like to even the odds? Sure. But it doesn't appear likely.
But, and that's a BIG BUT, when one builds a car, factors in his potential competition, even looks into a crystal ball and tries to imagine what the OEM may provide in the future, NOBODY would have ever imagined NHRA would allow vehicles and drive trains that have not now (or ever) been allowed for public consumption.
So in effect, as mention by Alan, SS Engine Guy and numerous others, NHRA has flat "blown away" any semblance of a level playing field with the allowance of these crate engines...make that crate, paper; call it what you want vehicles. It matters not at all what the odds are in facing one of these vehicles in actual competition. The fact is, you spend your hard earned dollars traveling and entering races and this is a "performance based class" so many of us race with expectations (after hard work) of winning class and setting records. Loosing on a fair and level playing field is one thing and often times it's the impetus that drives us to further refine our cars.
But to have a top notch car that looses by a half-second to a paper car will take the wind out of your sales, in a hurry.
The LT-1 / LS-1 is an issue...an old issue. It was corrected so it's not a debate anymore.
And for those that seem to believe there isn't the potential for a half-second romp on the competition, pay attention to the MPH numbers. As I've said before, these CJ's and DP's (primarily the CJ's so far) either have throttle stops (or some electronic version) or are horribly inefficient race cars. There's 10+ years in AHFS penalties in these cars.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

As a loyal Ford racer I have been looking upon this whole thread with a little amusement because finally the shoe is on the other foot for a change. While I don't want to rub too much salt in your wounds, if many of you claim this is about fairness instead of brand loyality, where were your complaints when the new Camaros and Firebirds were dominant? I started racing back in the early 1970"s and Killer cars were around then, just the same as they are now. You claim that the mismatch is greater now but that is not true. There were always cars that had a half second advantage on other cars in their class- nothing new there. What is new is that GM is struggling as of late and the U.S. Government is watching over GM. The reason I mention this is because NHRA cannot look to GM for some of the perks that have plentiful in the past. If you add up the dollars that NHRA saves by having a car manufacturer provide Cars and Trucks to NHRA you can understand why it is good not to make Ford angry. That somehow changes the political structure at NHRA and all of a sudden makes Ford the one favorable to NHRA. Like it or not, its politics, and has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. Now if you think that NHRA is going to cater to a handful of whiny Stock and Super Stock Racers over trying not to piss off Ford you are mistaken. Most racers can't stick together enough to leverage any power against NHRA, and if the truth is known they would probably want to get rid of us before that happens. With that being said what are you going to do about it? I was talking to a well noted racer who just had his class invaded by one of the new cars that is going as fast if not faster than he is. I asked him what he was going to do? He said I will continue to do my own thing just like I allways have, and not worry about what they are doing. I said I was also going to do the same There have been two times that I have won class at the U.S. Nationals that I shouldn't have. Both times the other cars were much faster than me but I won. I won't embarass those racers by filling in the details, but the bottom line is if you don't show up and do your own thing, you can't win.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

greg...tell andrew i get a pass in it too... im just a station wagon kinda guy :)

ken > if you with your a/sa car cant see the snowball rolling at you im sure me pointing it out aint gonna help...

as far as im concerned if i have no chance to win class or a heads up race then i might just as well run brackets. just so happens that currently i have this killer caddy in my class and relish opportunities to race him and try to get him hp'ed into t/sa so i can return to the top of the class -or damn close (clayton). i am glad no new bogus paper car will ever be built for u/sa

you will never outrun the mustang or the mopar, you will never win class again and that is a crying shame > you have a great car and one the spectators love to see race especially in a showdown with a 69 camaro... best class race i ever saw was hawk and lil jimmy at indy !

i believe that the rampant changes in the rules have bastardized the class i grew up in and dearly love... i have paid NHRA my membership dues for 36 years for them to protect the integrity of my class... and ive been screwed. never again will a smart guy from sedalia missouri be able to use his intelligence not his wallet to build a car to be #1 qualifier at indy... it will be a mustang or a mopar for the foreseeable future.

thats what i meant by it has ruined the class

just my opinion, and like everyone knows we all think ours is right.
captain jack

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jack,

Never say never. I don't think anybody 10 years ago would have believed that these combo's would have ever been built. The same logic should be applied when it comes to being able to run with these new combo's. To just lay down and die is not my way. I have been out run by many combo's over the years and at times told myself I would never be able to run with these guys. As the years went on, things changed and I was able to catch up. One thing life has taught me, nothing stays the same. GM had there day in the sun, now the sun shines on Ford and Chrysler.

You can throw the towel in, I will not. Yeah I see the snowball, it rolled over me in the 80's, 90's and its about to get me again, so what. I have never even come close to qualifying number one, but I have won the eliminator few times. As far as I am concerned give me a win over number one anytime. And for me not ever wining class again, don't bet on it;)

And as far having the intelligence to build the number one qualifier. The intelligence needed is to fine the softest combo in the books. Today's technology is available to most along with building techniques.

I do not think there would be to much of an uproar if the new combo's were in W Stock, with all do respect to the racers that run that class.

Jack, I do agree on your take about opinions, but it does make for some interesting perspectives.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

ken it is nice to exchange opposing opinions on this forum with someone else who obviously loves the sport, can speak eloquently, and not get bent out of shape when someone doesnt agree with them...

good luck with the paper cars, ill be pulling for you (unless your running irvin johns i still owe him too many favors) !!

jack mccarthy