CLASS RACER FORUM - thin ring grooves

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)

- Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - thin ring grooves (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=83568)

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnmaxwedge (Post 671587)

Why don't they just limit Stock to 2009 and newer cars.

Watch what you wish for, it might come true! It happened once back in the '70's.

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnmaxwedge (Post 671587)

Didn't mean to hijack this post, I just found it a little odd that someone with a late model stock eliminator car wants older combinations to use stock piston rings when the late model cars have enjoyed a wealth of "gifts" from NHRA. Why don't they just limit Stock to 2009 and newer cars.

Which "gifts" would you say are specific to the 2009 and newer cars?

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUMP (Post 671590)

Which "gifts" would you say are specific to the 2009 and newer cars?

How about a 9" Ford rear end

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedigo Perf (Post 671592)

How about a 9" Ford rear end

Ya know, I personally don't see this as an advantage. I'd much rather deal with the frictional losses of a 12 bolt or a Dana in a "Stocker".

Getting back on track here, my preference for "sealing up" a motor has always been a 5/64 groove with a good old fashioned cast iron "claimer" ring set.

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedigo Perf (Post 671592)

How about a 9" Ford rear end

That's the obvious one. I was against that when they made it legal for the production cars.

What else?

Re: thin ring grooves

I don't see the 9" Ford as an advantage. In fact, it might mean additional
expense for some that have put a 12 bolt carrier in to reduce the frictional losses inherent to the Ford 9".

J.R.

Re: thin ring grooves

Maybe you would rather have the 10L90 ten speed transmission in the car instead of the T200 or T350? That's what came in them didn't it. I understand the earlier versions had 8 speeds.

Re: thin ring grooves

Just wondering, did your car come OEM equipped with a ProTrans?

J.R.

Re: thin ring grooves

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnmaxwedge (Post 671610)

Maybe you would rather have the 10L90 ten speed transmission in the car instead of the T200 or T350? That's what came in them didn't it. I understand the earlier versions had 8 speeds.

You are really winning my argument here. The transmission rule was in place WAY before 2009. My 1995 Formula had that "gift" available to it when I built it in 1995.

This is a thread that I have on another site that shows some of the work that I did with Chevrolet.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538617

Both cars have the eight-speed. So far, they have lived. With the crazy low first gear set they really don't need a lot of rear gear. I think that I could make them work in Stock Eliminator. It would be very expensive to do. (Note the 17" slicks...)

When we wrote the TI forms for the 2015 Camaro we included the six speed automatic that came in the production car. Nobody has tried to run one (that I know of). One reason for that would be the lack of available safety items that are required to go 9.99.

Re: thin ring grooves

There is really no argument to win. I'm impressed that you tested those transmissions (really). The expense argument is laughable, if you're concerned with expense you should probably be bracket racing. I'm not trying to make any argument. There is another post on this forum where a man is fighting for his life. The stuff we are discussing is chicken ***** by comparison. I doubt that the things we are talking about will have any effect on what's happening. Thanks for the verbal jousting, I enjoyed it, no hard feeling. I'm out. Have a nice day.