Re: Factory experimental
 

I would like to know what part of these cars makes them Super Stockers? Is it the fact that there are only 50 of them or would it be all right if Ford built 500? Is it the 5.4 engine? Isn't there a 5.4 engine available in the Shelby Mustang? My local Ford Dealer ,in a town of 8000 people, had 2 of them on the showroom floor last year. Is it the Eaton Supercharger that is available on the 600 hp Corvette and previous mentioned Shelby Mustang? I rented a Pontiac Grand Prix at National Car Rental a few years ago that was equipped with an Eaton Supercharger. Is it the 9 inch rear end and 9 inch Goodyear tires and Bogart wheels? Gee, I thought you could do this in Stock. Is it the fact that Ford farmed out the building of these cars to Roush instead of tying up their assembly lines to do it? Isn't that how Chrysler used to build the K car convertibles and Chevy used to build the T top cars by farming the operation to ASC? Is it the lighter shipping weight? Don't you think you could make the car lighter by taking out all of the junk they put in these new cars? Hey, what is stopping you from building one? Instead of complaining about the new cars, how about complaining about the Automatic Horsepower Factoring System, that doesn't work.LOL

Re: Factory experimental
 

The problem that I see with the "blown aftermarket built race car" is more of a rated horsepower issue than anything else.If the horsepower rating was more in line with what it 'should" be,the car would probably have to weigh so much that it wouldn't be feasible to race.
If this car can outrun everybody in the class by 1/2 of a second,I see no difference in that than the fact that Greg Hill's E/SA can outrun my family's E/SA Oldsmobiles by a half second.
I am constantly told to "work on my car" or race another combo.Anybody trying to race "HEADS UP" with this particular car that is being discussed should probably do the same.Even if the "runner volume rule" makes some cars slow down,its not going to be by that much.The horsepower factors are still not correct.If this car was rated at 700 horsepower,this whole thread probably would not have even started.Who would race in a high horsepower car over 5000 pounds in STOCK ELIMINATOR?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Billy, on one hand, you are correct in that both instances are a somewhat fundamental change in the current rules.

However, for NHRA to adjust the cylinder head volumes because they told the racers a year ago they could legally do a more radical valve job in no way compares to NHRA allowing an OEM to hire a tuner to bring in a supercharged non factory production car.

The adjusting of the cylinder head volumes, if it happens, is a result of NHRA having to compensate for poor decisions they made, not only is it possible, even likely that their list of volumes has some errors, but before deciding to enact a cylinder head volume rule, they first allowed modifications to the heads long after the volumes were established.

This other train wreck, well, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Does anybody know what rear suspension are run in these cars? Will they work with the current suspension trying to run in the high to mid nines. If these cars do not work will they be allowed to Change to Aftermarket rear bars that "Are not NHRA accepted" In the spirt of safety :( Will NHRA bend over backwards to help change the rules to make these cars work running this this fast. Should be interesting. Do people think these cars will make good bracket cars with the turbo and all? What do you guys think?

Re: Factory experimental
 

The same exact thing that made certain cars of the past ineligible for Stock Eliminator. They do not fit the class, at all, not even close. They do not even fit the spirit of the class.

What is stopping people from building one? Well, for one thing, it is January, the racing season here starts in about 3-4 weeks. For another, they already have a $50K plus, or more Stock Eliminator car they have anywhere from 3-5 years invested in, to over 30 years invested in. Finally, how about availability and money?

You can only make the car as light as NHRA allows you to. And of all the ridiculous things so far, comparing sunroofs and convertible tops to a special built supercharged engine is one of the absolute best "stretches" in this thread.

Those of us who understand this sport have been complaining about the AHFS for years. We've even offered complete and well thought out solutions. It's fallen on deaf ears, as always.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Not directing this to you at all Todd.


NHRA has allowed them in, with factory backing. Do you really have to ask if NHRA will make adjustments and concessions to allow them to be more than competitive?:eek: They are not turbocharged, they have crank driven positive displacement superchargers (Eaton says the one we're talking about here can feed a much larger engine) with intercoolers.:eek: If you have to race one heads up, you won't give a damn whether or not it'll be "good in bracket mode".:rolleyes:

Re: Factory experimental
 

I got it . Make them JR/ PRO STOCK and let them run just before or after Pro Stock. Or If they run stock they should have their own wt breaks and class. I prefer the older stockers. This would be the only way not to effect stocker classes already running .

Re: Factory experimental
 

Alan, when the SS runner volumes were originally posted they were somewhat enlarged at that time. What we NOW have is a specific number for NHRA to use as a tool to better do their job. Too big, too small, it's a number and we can't exceed that number. Just because the rules say that you can "pocket port" your "Stock" head and use a "backcut" valve doesn't mean that you have to. I've been getting told that by the "genuises" in this sport for years. If your head measures too big then I guess that you'd better put a thick valve in it or start fresh and don't get so "piggy" with the bowl hog. I will say again, "we have all brought this on ourselves by allowing a perversion of the rules for years".

Re: Factory experimental
 

What we now have is a number. How good is it? I'm not sure we really know. With all due respect to the actual tech guys in the field, and I do have a tremendous amount of respect and yes, admiration for many of them, regardless of this "tool", or any other "tool", NHRA itself will probably not use it to "do a better job". After all, why should it change now? From what I've seen, guys like Travis, Wesley, Dave, and Harry do the very best job they can, given what NHRA actually allows them to do.

Now, with regards to "bowl hogs" and necked down valves, if you race, and you have to face pretty good odds of getting heads up races, or you desire to be competitive in class, then you must take advantage of the rules NHRA gives you. If they say a valve that flows better than the rest is legal, you pretty much have no choice but to run it, again, if you want to go fast and win. If they change a rule to allow more valve job modifications, you don't have a lot of choice, unless you don't mind getting beat. Do you have to do it? No, no one is forcing you. But, you did come to race didn't you?

Have the rules gotten way out of control? Yes, absolutely. Did the average racers really have a choice, or a say in the matter? Not really. Most of the current perversion and looseness is a lot more of a result of NHRA (not to be confused with the tech staff in the field) not wanting to invest the time and effort in tech inspection, rather than a result of racers wanting the rules opened up. Sure, some racers can have the blame for this laid squarely at their feet, because they were the ones who got caught with the cheated up parts to begin with. But it was NHRA that decided to make them legal, rather than have to look at them.

Re: Factory experimental
 

At this point, we're getting way off topic here. I think we've pretty much hijacked this thread more than we should. I've enjoyed the discussion, and I do see where you are coming from, we probably agree a lot more than is evident.

The subject at hand, however, is not the rules in general, but the rules as they apply to whether or not a car is eligible for the class.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Alan, I've read and reread your last post a few times now and I don't know where you're coming from. Nobody has more respect for the Tech guys than I do. Any racer that would give a questionable piece to a Tech guy to look at is DISrespecting him. Getting tossed by a Tech guy and going over his head is DISrespect. Agreed? They now have a given number to compare specific castings to. You're over, you're out. No more going over his head. Period. Black and white. Agreed? Now with regards to bowl hogs and valves, you will have to go pretty far to find a more competitive person than I am BUT if somebody beats me in a heads up run or bumps me from a full field and is legal then I have no problem with that. Agreed? Have the rules gotten out of control? No doubt. Did the average racer really have a choice? Yes we did. We all knew what rules were being "perverted" and let it happen. At Indy a few years back I got in a heated "discussion" with a young man that told me;"Where I grew up we called guys like you a rat" to which I replied "Where I grew up we called guys like you cheaters". Since then I share my thoughts with my close friends and leave it at that. Average racers have allowed other racers to "pervert" and manipulate the rules to a point that it becomes the norm. Period. Agreed? We have brought all of this on ourselves by ignoring it all. Agreed?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Alan, how are we getting off topic? NHRA is breaking their own rules! It IS the rules in general that has let this happen!

Re: Factory experimental
 

The Spirit of Stock has evolved into what is now considered Stock Eliminator. 12 bolt rear ends have replaced 10 bolt rears and Jerico transmissions have replaced Muncie and Saginaw four speeds. If I chose to put my Mustang back in stock I can fit a Jerico in a toploader case and run a nine inch but can the GM and Chrysler racers do the same? Do you want to go back to the way it used to be? Well you can't because time changes everything. Most of the people complaining don't even run the same class as the new cars do, and if you don't run the same class, you are just bracket racing. How do the new cars make your car obsolete if you don't run the same class as them? If the new car was a 2010 Camaro, with an LS1 and Supercharger,there would not be half of the complaints there are now.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Billy,
I never said you had anything but respect for the tech guys in the field. That was not the point. The point was that NHRA often does not allow them to do their job, regardless of the "tools" they have at hand. I never questioned your respect for them. I only questioned their superiors, and I don't mean guys like Bob Lang either. I'm talking about Glendora.

Yes, I know you are competitive. Never doubted that. That wasn't being debated at all.

The point is that for 2008 deeper and more radical valve jobs became legal, and necked down valves with a back cut were already legal. And for 2008 heads were not poured in Stock for the purpose of determining legality. Now, in 2009, a year after racers were told it was legal to do those modifications, and it was obvious to anyone that those modifications would affect runner volume, heads are being poured in Stock for the purpose of determining legality. The point being that NHRA told racers their expensive valves were legal, and they could modify their heads (some of which are difficult, if not nearly impossible to find). Then after allowing things with one rule, they make those same things illegal with another. That's an NHRA problem they created for the racers.

I do not condone cheating either, I don't like it, never have, never will.

However, I do not think you are being fair when you claim the loose rules are the fault of the racers. Len Imbrogno worked for NHRA, and wasn't able to do much. After he left, the SRAC was formed, and already, less than a year later, at least Woodro and Greg have resigned, citing a lack of respect and a lack of real input despite all of their efforts. If NHRA refused to listen to them, what makes you think the average racers have any more truly effective input. NHRA apparently pays little attention to the average racers, and likely even less now than in the past. They take what they want from what little actual racer input they actually pay any attention to or acknowledge. So the perversion and looseness is a whole lot more a result of NHRA than of racers.

I do not agree that things (other than the racers themselves) have been ignored. Much has been made of many problems, and many suggestions and solutions have been offered. The vast majority of it has not necessarily ignored by the average racer. By NHRA maybe, but not always the average racer. And after a while, the average guy, doing this for fun, gets tired of banging his head against the wall, and coming away with nothing except a bloody forehead, a headache, and an empty wallet. So he carries on as best he can.

I suppose we could all be blamed for not just parking the cars and the rigs and staying home until we got our way. I guess we can be blamed for lacking unity and being able to act in the interest of the entire group, that probably is a valid point.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Dwydendorf

I have to disagree as I am a die-hard Chevy man, These cars are factory built race cars and should be in a class of their own!! If GM comes out with a camaro built like these cars then it to should be put into a separate class!! Personally I cant wait to see these cars race but in no way should they be put into the regular classes of stock. If the NHRA cant make a class for these cars then they should go to Super Stock.

Ford(Roush racing) Chrysler and GM against the little stock sportsman racer?? Sounds like a fair race to me!

Re: Factory experimental
 

Yes, Stock has "evolved". Oddly enough, there are cars that came with 12 bolt rearends running 10 bolt rearends. Yeah, if the price is right, I'm sure someone will come up with the right guts to put in a Muncie case, or an A-883 four speed case.

Yes, there would be plenty of complaints, even if it were a Camaro. Not everyone who has an older AA/S or AA/SA car wants to buy a new car, even if they did, they might not be able to.

Sure, the rules have changed, and won't be going back. But that does not mean they must be allowed to continue to go further and get worse. Saying that every change must be accepted regardless of the effect is much akin to saying that just because someone sneezed over the banquet table where all the food is that it is also okay to put a turd in the punchbowl. Not hardly.

Re: Factory experimental
 

I disagree Billy.

We agree the rules are out of control.

NHRA will break their own rules for the right amount of money, regardless of what the rules are when the money is offered.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Alan, I think that you and I are going toward the same place from different sides of the fence. Dwydendorf, if I am running Stock Eliminator and it includes a car that doesn't "fit" the eliminator, even though I may not run the same class as that car, then that car (or any other not legal car) has a bearing on how I qualify, who I will race, whether I may have a bye or not and if I even make the field so, yes it concerns me.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Billy, I am sure we are. We do agree on many, if not most points, we just do not exactly agree on how we got here. It's all good as far as that goes.

And your point on how the new cars will make a difference to everyone is excellent.

Re: Factory experimental
 

I really don't get all of the crying about these cars. I have seen both the Challenger and the Mustang up close and don't see a problem with the construction. From what I understand the motor in the Mustangs is assembly line built. The biggest mistake that Ford made was setting the shipping weight so low. If the Mustangs run what you guys predict they won't be around long. The prototype Challengers that I have seen and read about all had a motor combination that won't be in the Stock packages, so without the classification information it is way too early to complain.

It really seems that you guys don't realize that there is a little bit of a Musclecar war going on. I'm sure that the guys racing '55 Chevrolets in the sixties had much the same to say when the Road Runner, etc. came out. The factories are finally trying to build cars that cater to what we do. This could bring some attention back to class racing. We really need to get with the program. As I said about the Mustang, things will work themselves out. Kind of like the LT1 deal. It just takes time.

Re: Factory experimental
 

If you said that before, it would of saved me all that typing! LOL!

Re: Factory experimental
 

I see valid points on both sides.....but here are some of the facts....

Roush was commissioned by Ford to assemble the cobra jets
These cars were developed by Ford
Roush was contracted to do the assembly on their assembly line
The engines are built at the Ford Romeo Engine Plant
Bottom Line...the cobra Jet is a Ford project...OEM
The project was overseen by NHRA from the beginning....


Rock Haas

Re: Factory experimental
 

Rock, that still doesn't mean they should be in stock eliminator. Stock has always consisted of production type cars. Even the copo or L 88 cars were production cars.

Greg

Re: Factory experimental
 

Any news from Big Daddy on the Challenger ??? will it be ready for Bradenton???

Re: Factory experimental
 

What about the Hurst Olds? Lots of people have raced those in the past. The 1968 455 cars come to mind.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Todd,
A friend saw one of these Mustangs at a shop and said it had a different rear set up and he wasn't just talking about the 9" Ford center section.

The Roush site also gives a list of After Market parts that it has for these cars. I'm not sure if all the parts are on these Mustangs but the list is eye popping; including carbon fiber front fenders that weigh 3.5 pounds each.

I believe Roush has this motor listed at 430 Horsepower on it's site but nhra sweetened it even further by rating it at 425.

Roush says this car has an After Market Powertrain. It is Supercharged and makes in excess of 700 Horsepower and yet it is rated at 425 Horsepower. Sounds like the body and the blue oval are the only factory parts on this car. No one has denied the Ford Executives claim for the Horsepower on this motor and yet I wonder how the Ford folks can justify such a gross calculation. Do they really want to come in and dominate a bunch of old cars that badly? It's going to get a lot tougher on Ford and nhra if these Mustangs are as fast as the ford Executives claim. What is so bad about running these cars in A/FX?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump,
The Hurst Olds was running against contemporary cars. Now we have a Supercharged, totally After Market car, slated to run against 40 year old cars with mostly 40 year old technology. There is no comparison between the two.

Re: Factory experimental
 

The definition of contemporary is "modern". You can't get much more modern than a 2008 Mustang or 2009 Challenger!

I really doubt that there is much 40 year old technology in any fast stocker these days.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bruce,

Do you even have a dog in this hunt? I can only find your name associated with a J/SA 1972 Camaro. Do you own something that runs the upper classes too?

Daren

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bruce,

Don't Confuse the Roush car with Ford's Cobra Jet.....They are 2 different vehicles.

The Cobra Jet has a 9 inch with a 3 link like the production cars.

again Roush only assembles the Cobra Jets....

Please check the classification guide on NHRA's site....that should help clear up the confusion...

Rock

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump,

Trying to split hairs are we? I used the word, so I call the definition.

Websters:
Contemporary 1, living or happening in the same period, 2. of about the same age

I guess a 69 Camaro is a contemporary of a Supercharged 2008 Mustang in your world.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Rock,

Confusion?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump,
I just saw your post about my Camaro. You really are a mess. I also have a 71 Corvette with a 454. What type of car do you race? And where?

Re: Factory experimental
 

The Factory Roush Stage 3 4.6L 3V is rated at 430 by both Roush and NHRA
I believe you're confusing the Roush approval and Ford's Cobra Jet

Re: Factory experimental
 

Easy there! I did a quick Google search and the '72 is what came up. I didn't find the Corvette, but, that's why I asked. I have one of the other cars that you love. A 1998 LT1 Firebird. IHRA.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump,
I have no problems with the Firebirds.

Rock,
Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Now I understand!! And you said that I'm a mess.....

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump ease up a little where's your dog in this hunt? I know several of these guys in AA lots of time and money to get thier cars competitive . supercharged cars have no place in stock .

Re: Factory experimental
 

Todd,

I witnessed the cars being built first hand last week in Detroit. The rear suspension is completely bolt in using the factory mounting points. The three control arms (two lower and one upper) are replaced with solid, non-adjustable bars using rubber bushings on both ends of the bottom. There is an adjustable single bar at the top, as per the current NHRA rulebook for Stock rear suspension. There is also a bolt-in rear anti-roll bar.

I can also tell you this has nothing to do with Ford "paying" NHRA to play. I know the people at Ford who worked on this deal and there is no budget for greasing NHRA's pockets. You can believe otherwise, but I know the facts. Also, as for shipping weight, give me a break. How can an LT-1 or LS-1 F-body weight 2,900-3,100 lbs and fit in AA or A when these cars weigh closer to 4,000 lbs. stock? I've drag tested many of these cars in stock trim and most of them are 3,700 or more with a driver. A loaded Trans Am easily will weigh 3,800-plus. Not to mention that a '98 F-body was NEVER available to the public with an LT-1.


Evan

Re: Factory experimental
 

Evan,

Thanks for posting.

No one disputes the horsepower numbers for the Roush After Market and Ford Mustangs. No one disputes the very favoable horsepower factor given to Ford by nhra and no one disputes the performance of these cars. These cars are light years ahead of the cars they have to race and yet they have been placed in the same classes. What is so bad about putting them in a Factory Experimental Class or AAA class? I'm not sure there has ever been a AAA class but it would give these Mustangs a fair class in Stock. A non Mustang racer would enter that class at his or her own peril. A Factory Experimental or AAA class at 9.70 would be fair to all racers. It would give the Mustangs access to the top of the sheet, it would allow them to compete fairly in Stock and none of the racers with old cars would feel like they just got hammered by Ford or nhra. I'm going to write a few folks at Ford and Roush tomorrow and ask them to consider this class for nhra racing. Finally, I know you don't work for Ford and were not involved with the Mustangs entering these classes, however, it's hard for any one to believe that these Mustangs were the first Supercharged cars to get in Stock with out some consideration from Ford. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical about nhra, but, given their track record with us it seems more than plausible.

Lets discuss the pros and cons of running these cars in another high performance class.