Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

I was just thinking, does anyone know which Drag Pak Challenger it was...the Hemi or V-10 that got tagged?

http://www.streetlegaltv.com/wp-cont...4/DSCN9581.jpg

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

Yes it was the V10

BTW - all of the V10s were/are really nice cars from MOPAR

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...35003135_n.jpg

I hope it turns out to be as good of an investment as it has been fun

Ron

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

Trusting the supplier to do the right thing is the wrong thing to do. The builder should always verify what can and can't be done with tech. Usually in the form of a letter. (however, in the past few years, even a letter isn't worth the paper its written on). There lies the problem. Tech has been over ruled so many times that its all BS. I have freshened many "legal" pieces that had the proper # as per tech and were built totally different than the spec or intention of the rule. Its not hard to stamp letters/numbers/logos on parts.
Like Alan, I have had parts held for long periods of time, finally approved and then notified weeks and even months later that the approval was void. I have made it right by re-doing parts, no charge, even to the point of buying the newly re-defined part at my own expence along with machine work and other parts that were necessary to make this piece "legal" and make it work correctly. Then watch what I was NOT allowed to do go right thru teardown without a word said.
As much engineering and design as was supposed to be done on these super car engines (Ford,Mopar and probably Chev.) there is no excuse for any of these people to be dq'ed. Except for the fact that there is apparantly a lack of knowledge as to the amount of blueprint time required to build a truely fast and completely legal S/SS combination under the rules and guidelines set forth by the santioning bodies. Also, a lack of communication between manufacturers and tech. The attitude of building a regular car seems to be: put it out there and we will work on the problems as they arise. Any dealer tech can tell you stories about the amount of tech bullitins, recalls, replace it free only if the customer complains enough, etc...

Sorry for the long post but I know what its like trying to get a straight answer from aftermarket suppliers and from tech depts. Also, I didn't know there were different ways of measuring the diameter of a valve.

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

I was involved with the teardown of the Fords last year and in their case, part of the problem involves the way the specs are sent to NHRA in the 21st century. Now all the automakers have converted to metric (remember that?) and all the specs have to be converted to Inches. Stop and think about how much effort has to go into sending in the tech specs now, as opposed to how it used to be. It is not hard to understand why the car manufacturers don't send in all the specs for every car they make. Sometimes conversions are miscalculated and the problems begin. Most of the racers with the new cars are not doing their own engine work, so it is easy to understand how problems can compound.. How about giving everyone involved a little slack. It is not as simple nowadays to just send NHRA the specs as it used to be. Maybe it is time for NHRA tech to get in the 21st century and use the new metric specs. How many would like to see this?

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

They should be able to send in the specs what ever way they want. i know on my didgital calipers it is a simple press of the button to switch to metric.

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

By all means. They got 50-100HP worth of "slack" when they got factored. Poor OEM's, by all means, we need to cut them more slack for getting parts approved and getting the correct spec in the class guide. They should apply the same standard to the blueprint guide as they did the factors in the class guide. Anything within 100HP or so is plenty close, so why bother with correct blueprint specs. And I'm all heartbroke over that work load those poor guys are suffering, some of them haven't put a street legal car in the class guide for 4 years. I mean, damn, it's pretty tough to get the correct specs in the class guide for 1/2 a dozen engines. Heaven forbid they have to convert metric to inches, too! Oh, the humanity. :rolleyes:


I suggest you go try to sell a product or service to an OEM using the crappy loose standards they've been using to submit specs to the class guide. I hope you don't care anything about staying in business, keeping your house, or eating.


Yeah, cry me a river, those poor, poor, destitute and over worked OEM's. :rolleyes:

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

It sounds like Arrow is not up to speed on how racing NHRA Stock Eliminator works. I don't doubt they know how to build engines, but they really should have reviewed the spec sheets provided on NHRA's web site. Actually, they should have been one of the first people to point out the mistake if there was one.

I can guarantee you that if I built the engine I would have checked the spec sheet instead of blaming Mopar. Sure, maybe they submitted the wrong info, but the fact is that the rules were in writing and that is what we go by in NHRA.

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

We built a 392 last year but chose not to run it because there was no approved piston. We were told that if we ran a standard bore size it would have passed as a factory piston. But since we bored it out there was no way it would pass because there was no approved piston listed.

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

OK - I will make one last comment - there was no spec sheet.........get it.......the specs were not published until after the engines were built..... I am not sure how that process worked....if I could delete this thread I would - I was only defending Dave - sorry - my humble apologies to all of you top flight engine builders who know so much more than anyone else


Ron

Re: wrong spec submitted by MOPAR
 

Don't the OEM's usually measure differently than the total OD of the valve? I have seen the 428 CJ being called 2.06" in old Ford internal documents instead of 2.09".