Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Cool. Is it the two-valve motor or the four-valve?

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I used to make my living building Quadrajets, and as I remember the only versions with the stop on the top secondary air valves were the 307" Olds.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Mark,

Thanks for "coming clean." I WILL pay attention to what you have to say, now.

You said, "There IS no problem besides the one YOU want to create."

It just seems to me that when two or three percent of the cars of one type (turbo cars) can nail down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots at national events, there is a problem in the way things are being done.

If that doesn't ring a bell with you, then we simply don't analyze situations in the same way.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and, to post it on here, as am I.

RE the Buicks *Grand Nationals)? They are not a good canddate for this exercise for a couple of different reasons, the first being that they have offset-ground rod throws which minimizes crankpin overlap, making the cranshafts inherently weak and prone to breakage at high boost levels. Better cranks are available, but the stock ones are not very strong. You're right about following along behind with a broom...

The second reason is, that NHRA closely followed the performance of these cars and hit them with significant horsepower, in the past, so qualifying well against their index at the perscribed factored horsepower is not that easy to do. I don't remember one of these cars qualifying #1 at any time in the recent past, do you? The four cylinder cars that usually make the #1 slot theirs, have not been the subject, generally, of such close scrutiny by the HP Factoring Committee, and it's not such a stretch for them.

Like I told Jim Wahl, I can't see NHRA doing anything about this situation, so all my caterwauling has probably been a waste of time, but I felt like something needed to be said.

Thanks again for using your name; it gives you GREATLY enhanced credibility!!!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

They never built a neon with a 2 valve head

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

bill & jim why don't ya'll kiss and make up ghezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

guess we didn't help matters at memphis & atlanta #2 and # " 1 "

charlie still mad boss beat ya out of number one at gainsville other year huh ?


ok all jokeing aside 305's been hit to death did any 350 drivers do it to them ?????

jim aka the guy standing on line watchin the car go fast hehehe

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art,

You said, "They never built a neon with a 2 valve head."

Well, that was news to me. I thought the larger-displacement engine they had was a 2-valve motor, while the smaller of the two had 4 valves per cylinder.

SOHC and 4 valves per cylinder.... I learn something every day!

Thanks!!!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Neons didn't have a larger displacement engine, except for the srt4 all neons are 2.0 liters and they all have 4 valves per cylinder.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Mark,
so, where's MY cookie???? :)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art,

I am sorry I muddied the water with my inaccurate information. I thought the more powerful early Neons were an 1800cc motor, but that was only true in Europe, I now find out.

Thanks for setting me straight on the displacement and valve situation.

Now, let me re-phrase my question:

Is your new race car an SOHC motor?

I can't get that wrong...

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I hope I don't get some of my friends all torqued off by bringing this up.
The 68 Firebirds had a restricted secondary carburetor from the factory. I seem to remember it wasn't the air valve but something on the secondary butterfly linkage.
It seems that there was an edict issued by Pontiac management that no car could have under 10 lbs per hp, so at about 3300 lbs, the Firebirds all had to rated at less hp than the GTOs that were using the same motors. So Pontiac just lowered the ratings and restricted the carbs. That system didn't last long,once the racers realized it was there, as you can imagine.
Doesn't matter now anyway,because you can use a 207 Chevy carb.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Those 307" Olds had different secondary metering rods also, no "power step". They all came with the same secondary jets, you only change the rods on that end. Changing the secondary rods and removing that stop really woke that engine up. When I see somebody racing one I think "I'll bet it has the wrong carb". Should be illegal to do that unless they factor it hard enough. Like turning up the boost.

Sorry, just had to say that. :-)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Since my name was posted up on pg7, I'll throw my $0.02 in here at the end - with a turbo car, more boost only makes more power to a point.

1st - Just like with a carb, the size of the turbo inlet determines the maximum amount of air you can flow. Airflow = power. And, just like with a carb, only the atmosphere pushes air INTO the turbo. Turbo cars must run a completely stock turbo - and tech DOES check it thoroughly. As me how I know.

2nd - There's a 'sweet spot' on every turbo that flows the most air and therefore makes the most power. Any more boost only raises the air temperature, it won't flow any more air. It's related to #1 above. My car goes faster at 14psi than it does at 24psi, and 24psi tends to break stuff (like pistons - again, ask me how I know) becasue the intake temp is so dang hot.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Good point. My AF/S Shelby Z with the intercooled 2.2L seemed best at 20 PSI which is only 6 PSI over stock. I also went thru 3 sets of pistons and 3 new heads on my learning curve. But enough fuel with 20 PSI & C-16 kept it all together for 13.26 record. I wonder what would have happened with an aftermarket cam and headers? :D

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Rob and Jeff. Thanks for your informative posts. That scenario is probably the norm in Stock, but I'd bet that nobody qualifies #1 with stock amounts of boost. What do you think?

Bill

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

I don't think anybody qualifies number 1 with a stock amount of airflow period. Whether under pressure or N/A.
Bill you fail to realize that nobody using a turbo fwd car in stock has a "stocker" head They use plain factory heads with a valve job,

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art,

What would prevent a turbo car from running a head with the same sort of modifications that I'm assuming you mean when you say "Stocker head"?

Aren't the rules the same?

On the other hand, if you can run increased boost, why would you NEED "enhanced flow" (short-side radius mods, acid-porting, etc.) when you can cram it in there, regardless?

Then again, if you had BOTH.... :)

Bill, just wondering...

One question: Since you got me straightened out RE NEON heads, and valves, is your new race car the SOHC model (engine)????

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Bill -

I think Art is trying to communicate that increasing the efficiency of the ports is not productive since the head flows more than the inlet side of the turbo without any work.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

My 1.688 under run should've been more like a 14.0x instead of a 13.86. The boost was set to 13.5 psi (still not stock boost, I'll admit). Lot of good it does when the wastegate siezes, though. I was running CFS that weekend, I think I might have been good for #1 if it had run what I intended. Though, Polhill was right behind me, as I recall, with the Escort (a non-turbo FWD car).

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective. It seems like you and some other racers are jealous that they have to spend upwards of $5000 to achieve what a slight adjustment does on a turbo car.
If you think head flow doesn't make a difference. Retake horsepower 101. The srt4 motor has a turbo half the size of the early mopars. and it makes over 50% more horsepower. The early turbo cars are out of flow because of the cam/head below 6000 rpm. You can put 40 pounds of boost to it and it ain't going to flow much more. Boost basicly only effects the intake not the exhaust. You still have to get rid of what you cram in there.
As far as my motor goes, One reason is you can't get a cam over .410 lift in a sohc head. Plus the fact with the dohc that I can change valve overlap with out sending the cam back.
Now maybe thats an unfair advantage. OOOPS I forgot they don't even check overlap in a stocker, let alone a modified motor.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art Leong said, "The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective." in relation to getting sufficient air flow on the intake side, without expensive cylinder head modifications.

Thank you, Art!!!

FINALLY, someone with more than a modicum of knowledge, and with a lot of common sense, has agreed, in principle, with my ORIGINAL CONTENTION. which was that limiting the boost on turbocharged cars to their OEM boost spec (through the use of telltale gauge monitoring by NHRA) might could solve the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years.

Without the boost levels they're currently able to run, they'd likely not be turning e.t.'s so far under their respective indexes.

I seem to be the only human being on earth who sees this as a problem, however, so I will no longer beat what seems to be a very dead horse, by now.

But, I think Art just validated my simplistic, but direct, line of reasoning about how this happens, with his explanation of why acid-ported (or, whatever) heads are not needed with a turbo.

Thanks, again, Art... that was a VERY well-writtten and interesting explanation, especially the part about the SRT-4 turbo motor.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

You missed the point totally, and spun what said around (you must be an Obama suporter)
I said that increasing airflow leads to horsepower no matter how you accomplish it. You complain about boost while remaining quiet on ported intakes and heads, cams, carbureator mods, valve springs etc
Well!! Guess what!! I guarantee you nobody has qualified number one without some of the things I mentioned.
So what's your point. Are you saying we should chop off the arms of anyone who isn't right handed?
If you want to run pure-stock go do it. If not PLEASE get a life

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art Leong originaly posted:

>"The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."<

Look; Art, YOU said that... I did not. But it certainly supports my contention.

If you don't mean it, don't say it...

Insofar as my not mentioning the other mods that you point up, none of them are specific to normally aspirated cars. There's nothing they do, engine-wise, that a turbo car is prohinited from doing, so, it would seem to me that that is a non-iissue, so don't muddy the water here with extraneous B.S., okay? Obfuscation through the introduction of impertinent issues into the mix doesn'r serve to clear the air.

But, thanks again for verufying what my original contention was; ""The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."

Your words, not mine. But, I agree, totally.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16
A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is.
If someone chooses to run a turbo and not spend a wheel barrel full of money. You are trying to penalize them. If you go to fast they factor you anyway. So what is your point

Bill I think you need to attend another Obama rally. You need a fix,you're Jonesing

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Artie;
Why bother,you may as well argue with a coconut.Just got a bunch of old drag rags and there you are with Tex.He's holding a Winchester "94 to your head and you had a mop on top.Rememember the article?
Hope you come back up in "09.

Ed

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art Leong wrote: "Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16?"
Well, since turbo cars can run the same fuel as everybody else,, there's no point to this question that I can see. The subject here is BOOST... try to stay with the subject, Art. You can't justify what is going on, so you try to change the subject... It won't work.

Art also said, " A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is."

DUH.... but, thry are legal, by-and-large. Now, perhaps ANY BOOST you can engineer into a Stocker and get away with it is LEGAL, the way things stand. If that's true (and, it may well be), then I have no argument.

But, since boost to a large degree, equals horsepower, it seems to me that if it's not regulated to stock specs, then you should just let EVERYBODY bolt on a turbo and see how fast they can go.


Of course, that makes NO sense, but neither does "unrestricted" boost on Stockers. That's like a license to steal.

Just one more thing...

What is a "wheel barrel?" I know what a wheel tub is... :)

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

You don't even own a car and you are deciding on how the rules should be.
Don't go away mad Just Go Away

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Art,
I ain;t mad at ANYBODY!!! :)

But, that's pretty non-responsive... ("Just go away.")

"You don't own a car," is the reason I am posting on THIS forum.

There is a different forum for people who have a current race car in operation.

This forum is, ostensibly, for the rest of us... the folks who love drag racing, have friends who race, and who possibly have raced in the past, and may, again. I happen to fit all of those categories, and I enjoy tremendously, the give-and-take exhibited here. The free exchange of concepts and ideas relative to racing, and how it is done, is a wonderful thing, I think.

I have learned a lot about how people think,what their opinions are like, and am better off for having read the posts on this board, whether I agree with them, or not.

During my fifty-three year involvement with this sport, I've run Stockers, Gassers, E.T Bracket cars, been a Tech at four different drag strips, have written several published articles (Super Stock and DRAG Illustrated) about race cars and the technology they utilized, moderated a drag racing website (Prodigy), and have finally built a street car with a blower on it, something I've always wanted.

Two of my close friends are actively campaigning two very different NHRA Stockers, and I try hard to keep up with their operations by monitoring their activities on DRC, if I can't go with them to the races.

I am only telling you something about me so that you may have a better idea of why I do what I do. Not that you care... but, sometimes, it's nice to know who you're "talking to."

Drag racing has held my fascination for a long, long time. I love it, and when I see things that I think are wrong with it, things that can be fixed easily, I can't help but run my ideas by the people involved.

All I've done here, is seems, is piss people off... ,mainly the people most affected by what I have suggested, but not always.

Since I went to my first race in 1955, I've seen a lot and done a lot, but I SURELY don't know it all, and don't claim to.

But, isn't this forum for just that? A place where we can talk about ideas, and maybe try out new concepts without actually going to NHRA and hitting THAT wall, first?

I think the racers' forum, the one for active racers with a current competition number, might be more restrictive, but this forum, I think, should be open to anyone who wants to post.

If he's an idiot, so be it. People wil find out, soon enough.

My ideas on restricting boost to stock levels in Stock Eliminator didn't sit very well with some of the guys who race the cars in question. (No surprise, there.) I thought that maybe the rest of the readers might have an opinion about this subject matter, but there wasn't much said, except by you, Art.

I applaud you for sticking up for your forced induction buddies... :)

The bad news is, I probably won't be going away anytime soon, but this subject is no longer an issue I wish to pursue. Like the double red light issue I tried to get some support for (I couldn't even get the S-L-O-W cars' owners to go for that, and they're the ones who'd benefit most often), I nust be the world's worst communicator, because I have not been able to explain this VERY simple issue in such a way that folks can readily see the obvious (to me) inequity that's ongoing.

So, I'll shut up about this, now.

Good luck with the Neon; those are cool little cars! My daughter just bought a new Caliber, supposedly, the Neon's replacement. Pug-ugly, and a weirdo CVT tranny that emulates a Turboglide in operation.

Go figure...

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Never shut up Bill! :)

All I wanna know is, will I see you at Thunder Valley?

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Hi, Bob.
I really wanted to go to Noble, and still may, but my mobility problems after that skin graft surgery have not improved as quickly as I had hoped, so the jury us still out RE the trip to Oklahoma.

It's not much fun to go to the drags and end up sitting in one place, all day (and, I don't mean in the tower... lol!)

I'll let you know sometime this week whether I can make it, but, it doesn't look likely, from this point. Maybe 50/50....

Thanks for asking. It'd be great to see you!!!

Bill

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

15-20 percent is perceived to be a "problem"? If the statistic were that turbo cars (or any particular type of car/combination) were qualifying #1 at sixty-percent or more of the races, that I could see. But 15-20%? What if there were a statistic that read "1966 Chevy Nova 327/275 F/SA cars qualified #1 at twenty-nine percent of the time" during that same stretch? Would you still have the same objections towards those cars? Or, like Art had stated, quite a few #1 qualifiers may have had something not 100% legal on there cars. So what's the point. I would have a stronger objection to a Stocker qualifying #1 with an illegal camshaft or cylinder heads two-percent of the time than I would to a turbocharged Stocker producing more boost than factory specs (which, by the way, is permitted in Stock Eliminator rules) 15-20% of the time.

B.D.

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparitively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!

Re: to all 85-92 efi racers
 

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparatively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is. I just thought it was something that needed to be looked at.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!