CLASS RACER FORUM
Page 4 of 12 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=44600)

KRatcliff 12-04-2012 12:21 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBD MGT (Post 359122)
I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?
Either you missed Mike Carr's post (#113) or you are being obtuse.

FlyingW 12-04-2012 12:29 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I agree..
First of all when you look back on the cars from 69-70 that were factory backed then.. were cars right off the assembly line. They were not custom built as RACE CARS. The motors were the same way. So when you saw that car win, you could go buy that exact package at the dealer the next day.. hence win on sunday, sell on monday. All of these cars had VIN numbers, and it was STOCK.. not STOCK appearing. I want to say if I am correct that my dads car (70 olds) was sent just a conversion kit (hood and bumpers) to turn it into a 71 and then again into a 72 package. These cars only had the advantage on the track was because of parts availabilty, and financial backing. This was the only advantage they had. The cars that are rolling off now should in my opinion be listed in super stock if they are rolling off the line with no VIN numbers because they are built for race application... or even "factory experimental".... BUT.. regaurdless.. they all need K&N FIlters!!!!
GO Team K&N!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte Howard (Post 358960)
These cars where built with all the latest racing technology, highly ported cylinder heads and everything to make these cars fast, and all that technology is what is currently being ran in Super Stock. So how in the world should any of these cars be allowed in stock eliminator is beyond me. Trust me when I say know one loves this sport more than myself, but these cars should really be in there own class. I really want to get my 67 camaro stocker back out, not sure why I should even be considering it with ford and chevy's new crate motors. If I do I believe the only way possible is to put a stick in it to stay away from them.

Mike Carr 12-04-2012 12:44 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBD MGT (Post 359122)
I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?
~a 427/425 '69 Nova is not legal for Stock

~Yes, cars with less than a year on the track were/are kicking the ____ out of well-built older cars that have 30+ years of work, blood, sweat and tears poured into them, by several tenths of a second.

~Yes, cars had to be street-legal to be in Stock. Non-street, factory race cars were ALWAYS S/S-only, until 2008. It should still be that way.

Dan Fahey 12-04-2012 01:09 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Carr (Post 359128)
~a 427/425 '69 Nova is not legal for Stock

~Yes, cars with less than a year on the track were/are kicking the ____ out of well-built older cars that have 30+ years of work, blood, sweat and tears poured into them, by several tenths of a second.

~Yes, cars had to be street-legal to be in Stock. Non-street, factory race cars were ALWAYS S/S-only, until 2008. It should still be that way.
WOW sounds like the NHRA, AHRA Junior Stock arguments.

I agree on a some things.
Drag Racing needed new blood and from all the makers.
Think Toyota should bring one in too.
Create the FX Class again for Factory Built cars.
Even just for a marketing advantage this should be implemented.
Potential for a new type Pro Stock Class.
(which I think another racing body is doing)

They are so quick they are challenging everything performance wise in Super Stock AND somehow they are in STOCK ??

I really do not get having 8 second Stockers.
That will eventually hit 7 seconds in the future...in STOCK !!

When did Stock lose its meaning STOCK ??


Dan

treessavoy 12-04-2012 01:19 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBD MGT (Post 359122)
I still don't get how older cars are at a disadvantage in the classes below CC/S unless those cars were not able to run very far under the index in the first place . Or maybe the indexes were wrong to begin with?

I'm also confused about the horsepower ratings on some of the older combinations like the Cobra Jet 1968 Mustang. Did it really makes 335 horsepower?

I know my buddy's dad went to great trouble to find all the correct parts to build a 427/ 425 for his 1969 Nova Yenko clone. It had all factory parts in it including the camshaft. Even though there were ridges on the tops of the cylinders and some of the parts looked pretty bad it still made over 550 horsepower. So can it be said that that combination also has a bogus rating?

So far the only thing I see that makes sense as an argument against new cars is that they were not torn down and built up from the ground like some of the older cars and that they were not really intended for the street.


So that makes me wonder weather NHRA required cars to be street legal in the original days of stock eliminator and for that matter whether they allowed 14 inch tires and 4 links in super stock back then?

Here's the problem for those of us with older cars, in my case a 1964 Plymouth Savoy Max Wedge 425hp which I believe is rated at 425.

John Shaul has one of the fastest Max Wedge cars in the Nation and he's in the 10.20's while new cars in the same class are deep into the nines.....who's going to win a heads up race?

Why should a car that was sold on the lot and street driven have to compete heads up with a hand built race car that was never sold off the lot and never was street legal?

In 1968 Mopar sold the Hemi Darts/Barracudas for racing and they were not street legal.....and they went straight into SS because they were not Stock cars. Why didn't the NHRA do the same thing with the new cars?

In 1965 Mopar hand built altered wheelbase cars and these cars went straight into FX class not stock, Why didn't NHRA do this with the new factory hand built cars?

During that time period NHRA required all cars in Stock to have full street equipment including mufflers, even the 1965 Hemi Coronets and Belvederes and the Tbolts could be street driven because they were street and NHRA compliant. None of the cars came with roll cages, slicks, spools, lightweight seats, headers, etc. which are standard equipment on the new factory race cars.

The simple fact is that they don't belong in Stock, if you go by the precedent set by the NHRA they should be in FX or SS and that's the cause for all this debate.

JimR

For all you guys that own and race these new cars there should be some understanding by your detractors that all you did was buy the best car that fit the class just like we used to do back in the day and despite what some might say I know you still had to put work into your combo to get it to run the numbers.

Charley Downing 12-04-2012 01:22 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.

Jeff Teuton 12-04-2012 01:26 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Dan, I think we all lose sight of the changes in stock over the years. In the old days, mufflers, street tires, cam duration, disc brakes, cages & roll bars, fuel, removeable weight, batteries 2 or more and in the trunk, aftermarket pistons, .060, .070, .080 over, aftermarket seats, remove the emissions stuff, lighter radiators, roller rockers, lifters, pushrods, adjustable shocks, traction masters (anybody remember them), converters, transmissions, shifters, rear seat, spare tire & jack, fuel cells, and more that even I can't remember. So this didn't just start. And Mike, I think you got your years off a little on some of that stuff. I think this argument started the day after the Cajun Sportsnationals in 2009. Doesn't seem to have ended yet. Will be 4 years in March. It is entertaining. One thing for that has always been there, we as racers are better at cheating than the officials are at catching us. Hench the natural progression.

Michael Lyons 12-04-2012 01:29 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I didn't say qualify #1, I said top half. In a 128 car field, 64th is top half...

And correct me if I'm wrong but if your new $105k cobra jet or copo wouldn't qualify, why would anyone buy one? Kinda defeats the whole exercise doesn't it? I think you've got a screw loose for paying that much for a stocker, a hobby car, anyways. Even if it does qualify top half.. But hey its a rich mans game, and the people that are running well have spent a ton of money and done quite a bit of work too. So unless you can match all that you are always going to be at some disadvantage.

Dick Butler 12-04-2012 01:39 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley Downing (Post 359134)
Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.
I am sure there are some very high tech 69 camaros running but the motor technology,lack of super charger etc I feel would prevent them EVER coming close at a 150,000 investment to a new camaro, Mustang etc.

442OLDS 12-04-2012 02:07 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley Downing (Post 359134)
Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.
Seems like you would need to make at least 700 hp with that combo.Maybe more?

Billy Nees 12-04-2012 02:45 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley Downing (Post 359134)
Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.
Charlie Bob, before you go shooting off your big keyboard try reading my post again!
I don't care how much you spend, it doesn't ENTITLE you or your fat Aunt Suzy to qualify in the top half of a field! I didn't say that you couldn't or that you wouldn't I just said that you aren't ENTITLED to.

Billy Nees 12-04-2012 02:50 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lyons (Post 359111)
Also why doesn't someone who just went out and paid somewhere between $105k and $250k for a stock eliminator car deserve to qualify top half?
Here's exactly what you said. Because you bought the car doesn't mean you "deserve" anything.

boostedf22c 12-04-2012 03:34 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHemi (Post 359076)
If this is actually true, then Chrysler needs ask for their money back.
The 305 rating not soft enough????

I'm sure anyone would love to have a 650hp motor that's rated at 305. They'd have most the "accomplishments" you bought.

Greg Hill 12-04-2012 03:48 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boostedf22c (Post 359155)
The 305 rating not soft enough????

I'm sure anyone would love to have a 650hp motor that's rated at 305. They'd have most the "accomplishments" you bought.
Like.

Michael Lyons 12-04-2012 03:59 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Expect, deserve, whatever..

treessavoy 12-04-2012 04:10 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley Downing (Post 359134)
Billy and others
I hate to brake it to you but if I spend $150,000 on a 1969 camaro 396/323hp it will qualify in the top 5 anywhere. If you spend that kind of money it doesn't matter what car or how old it is, it will be fast if you spend your money with the right people. In stk and ss the people that spend big money run fast, it been that way for a long time. yes it was that way before these new cars some of you just have a bad memorie.
And I hate to break it to you but that's bull *****.

I know someone that has over $100,000.00 in a '62 Plymouth and they don't qualify in the top half. Those of us that have these cars are standing on over 40 years of testing and engineering and unless rules allow us to expand the pool of parts we will NOT go any faster.

You can throw a Million dollars at a 427 Camaro and it will NEVER be as fast as a supercharged Mustang.

Have you ever built stocker? Those of us that have built an upper class stocker have done everything legal and quasi-legal over a 40 year period and this is as fast as we can go.......period! There is not an extra 4/10ths to be found no matter the cost!

JimR

Paul Wong 12-04-2012 05:55 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by treessavoy (Post 359161)
And I hate to break it to you but that's bull *****.

I know someone that has over $100,000.00 in a '62 Plymouth and they don't qualify in the top half. Those of us that have these cars are standing on over 40 years of testing and engineering and unless rules allow us to expand the pool of parts we will NOT go any faster.

You can throw a Million dollars at a 427 Camaro and it will NEVER be as fast as a supercharged Mustang.

Have you ever built stocker? Those of us that have built an upper class stocker have done everything legal and quasi-legal over a 40 year period and this is as fast as we can go.......period! There is not an extra 4/10ths to be found no matter the cost!

JimR
I have a lot less than that in a 62 plymouth and I dont expect or deserve anything. I know it will qualify in the top half. I am not going to even get into a politcal discussion about entitlement, expectation or what people deserve. I can tell you we are heading toward a serious reorganization - consolidation of this sport and we will see some real enhancement then.

boster 12-04-2012 06:26 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I have to agree with Charlie . If I spend a 100k on a car it better qualify in the top 10 anywhere in the country . And for this very reason Im going to by a twin turbo CJ as soon as I can .

Can wait till we have 8.20 stockers and 7.20 super stockers and they are coming to an NHRA track near you.

Andrew Hill 12-04-2012 07:12 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A56 (Post 359195)
I can see that a big issue is lack of respect. NHRA has no respect for Stock Eliminator, the racers have no respect for NHRA, new car owners have no respect for us old car owners, and until the HP of the new cars are put to real world rating old car owners wont have any respect for them either.

Mark Lelchook
F/SA D/ED
I don't think it can be put any better than this.

Ed Wright 12-04-2012 07:13 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I think you nailed it.

5343stk 12-04-2012 09:10 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I'm starting to realize why I have no ambition to work on our cars or buy any new parts....

I should be saving my money for a new car so I can compete...

Ed Wright 12-04-2012 09:16 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Bill "Farmer" Dismuke would have already fixed this.

NBD MGT 12-04-2012 09:50 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I looked at some 2012 NHRA results on Drag Race Central and it seems like the classes below CC/S are dominated by older cars in qualifying and eliminations.

Otherwise there is a mixed bag of old & new in the top-10 for overall qualifying and although a few events showed some newer cars in the top 3 in some cases newer cars were well below the top 20.

Is it safe to say that 100% of the time no older cars can possibly run .9 to 1.1 under index in any of the classes below CC/S? That would have to be the case if everyone with a 2007 and older car should give up like some are saying.

I still don't get how the real complaint is new cars with bogus HP ratings when a LOT of the muscle car era engines that nobody complains about were also underrated.

Examples: 427/425. 427/435, and 454/450 Chevys or 427/425 Thunderbolts and 428/335 Cobra Jets.

For sure the bigger & badder Chevy's were underrated by 100 or more HP and so was the 1964 Thunderbolt.

One thing I'd bet on is the newer factory cars will never go 2 to 4 seconds faster than they did when they were new like the older cars do. I'd also bet the newer car engines won't gain as much HP after tweaking as some of the older combinations do.

TOSTO RACING 12-04-2012 09:50 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Nhra could make the trigger off the 1/8th mile timers that would make this whole thing catch up with itself pretty fast.. Or anyone caught going 9.06 at 73 mph (example new or old car) gets 10 hp automatically for lifting lol!

Crew Chief 12-04-2012 09:55 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 359214)
Bill "Farmer" Dismuke would have already fixed this.
He would have put the cars in FX and let them fight it out heads up. Then we would see how many checkbook racers there would be. Just like any heads up class...a few would dominate and the rest trying to play would be "also rans". (Sounds like SS/AH doesn't it?)

Crew Chief 12-04-2012 10:01 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBD MGT (Post 359219)
IOne thing I'd bet on is the newer factory cars will never go 2 to 4 seconds faster than they did when they were new like the older cars do. I'd also bet the newer car engines won't gain as much HP after tweaking as some of the older combinations do.
They will go faster when it is needed but it will not cost them any money. They will just open the throttle body a little more. They might even need to start opening the secondaries.

Charley Downing 12-04-2012 10:14 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Can someone show me in the NHRA rule book where it reads all stk or ss cars should be rated Fairly and equal. All Combos have had there time at the top and ten years from now it will be someone different.

Mark I don't think its disrespect of old cars almost all the racers new and old like the older cars. its more racers wanting to change and always improve with technology. Can you tell me any other sport when old technology is able to compete at the same level with new technology? In NASCAR if you run a five year old motor you get lapped.

Ed Wright 12-04-2012 10:34 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crew Chief (Post 359224)
They will go faster when it is needed but it will not cost them any money. They will just open the throttle body a little more. They might even need to start opening the secondaries.
The keyboard racers haven't been near the finish line hearing the cars shutting off at 1000', several still running nearly a second under, or setting records, with 2 barrels of their 4 barrel throttle bodies disconnected. Also don't know how fast many have gone when running flat out during private test sessions. They only know what they see on DRC. Therefore do not really know what is going on.

D.Johns 12-04-2012 10:49 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
^^^
And NONE of the old cars have EVER done anything to protect their index. ;)

Some new cars have done that and some old ones have also. Some run flat out both new and old.

But that's not the point is it?

NBD MGT 12-04-2012 10:51 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 359233)
The keyboard racers haven't been near the finish line hearing the cars shutting off at 1000', several still running nearly a second under, or setting records, with 2 barrels of their 4 barrel throttle bodies disconnected. Also don't know how fast many have gone when running flat out during private test sessions. They only know what they see on DRC. Therefore do not really know what is going on.
All that actually needs to be seen is what's on DRC since it tells the whole story about qualifying and wins. Why would you care if someone bails at 1,000 feet if they're not the guy in the winner's circle at the end of the day?

With only 2 throttle blades connected? That must be a huge 4-blade throttle body. Here are the records - What class record holder made his run with only 2 throttle blades hooked up?

Quarter-Mile Record Holders

Updated 12/03/2012 Stock Eliminator Class E.T. Speed Date Driver/Car Location AA/S8.89154.1410/15/12Donald Fezell - Du Bois, PA
'08 FordMohnton, PA A/S10.34128.9211/04/12Dennis Alvey - Cornville, AZ
'68 FordLas Vegas, NV B/S10.700.0010/01/12Minimum C/S10.47127.6709/11/12Cameron Chowen - Prince George, BC
'94 ChevyWoodburn, OR D/S10.36126.7503/17/12John Duzac - Covington, LA
'67 ChevyBelle Rose, LA E/S11.00120.3810/15/12Doc Horn - Westville, NJ
'67 PlymouthMohnton, PA F/S11.300.0010/04/10Minimum G/S10.96120.8709/23/12John Hladky - Stuart, NE
'66 ChevyPierre, SD H/S11.500.0010/04/11Minimum I/S11.700.0006/01/10Minimum J/S11.23116.0610/15/11Donnie Beeler - Elizabethtown, KY
'91 ChevroletIndianapolis, IN K/S11.55112.5512/01/12Tommy Turner - Tompkinsville, KY
Gainesville, FL L/S11.74111.6510/22/12Tommy Turner - Tompkinsville, KY
'85 FordIndianapolis, IN M/S11.82113.1809/23/12Don Anderson - Duluth, MN
'85 FordPierre, SD N/S12.450.0010/01/12Minimum O/S12.13107.4804/23/12Gary Summers - Franklin, KY
'85 FordSt. Louis, MO P/S12.850.0006/20/11Minimum Q/S12.9899.9004/30/12William Sempsrott - Franklin, OH
'66 ChevyIndianapolis, IN R/S13.450.0010/04/10Minimum T/S14.200.0005/01/08Minimum U/S14.450.0003/03/09Minimum V/S14.750.0005/01/12Minimum W/S15.900.0010/04/11Minimum AA/SA9.500.0004/09/12Minimum A/SA9.8010/15/12Ken Keir Jr - Dunkirk, MD
'70 ChevyMohnton, PA A/SA130.5511/05/11Keith Lynch - Greenville, OH
'10 DodgeLas Vegas, NV B/SA10.08130.7705/08/12David Ficacci - Whippany, NJ
'69 ChevyAtco, NJ C/SA10.49122.9611/04/12Richard Pauley - Saugus, CA
'68 FordLas Vegas, NV D/SA10.3910/14/11Andrew Hill - Louisville, KY
'70 ChevyIndianapolis, IN D/SA125.7509/24/11Jimmy Ronzello - Rockwood, MI
'12 MustangHebron, OH E/SA10.58123.7610/15/11James Findell - Zimmerman, MN
'73 PlymouthKansas City, MO F/SA10.7305/01/11Mark Lelchook - Foresthill, CA
'69 PlymouthSacramento, CA F/SA0.0004/09/12Minimum
G/SA11.03118.8710/02/11Jami Jones - Vadnais Heights, MN
'86 ChevyKearney, NE H/SA11.1510/15/12Anthony Bongiovanni - Landing, NJ
'10 FordMohnton, PA H/SA118.0309/25/11Ron Mattson - Cloquet, MN
'72 ChevroletPierre, SD I/SA11.800.0010/01/12Minimum J/SA11.37117.6010/15/12Dennis Martins - New Bedford, MA
'86 PontiacMohnton, PA K/SA11.47112.8810/15/12Eugene Monahan - Brockton, MA
'89 PontiacMohnton, PA L/SA12.200.0004/09/12Minimum M/SA12.350.0005/01/12Minimum N/SA12.03109.8310/15/12Patrick Courts Sr - New Iberia, LA
'87 PontiacBaytown, TX O/SA12.18107.7010/22/12Marty Buth - Freeport, IL
'84 FordIndianapolis, IN P/SA12.36106.7111/05/11Jeff Interlicchia - Riverside, CA
'94 FordLas Vegas, NV Q/SA12.8007/23/11Bruce Flodin - Abbottsford, BC
'95 DodgeMission, BC Q/SA99.1207/24/11Robert Salemi - Forestdale, RI
'92 JeepEpping, NH R/SA12.89102.7310/15/12Briane Philbrick - Vineland, ON
'76 ChevyMohnton, PA

NBD MGT 12-04-2012 11:03 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crew Chief (Post 359224)
They will go faster when it is needed but it will not cost them any money. They will just open the throttle body a little more. They might even need to start opening the secondaries.
Which combinations run secondaries fully or mostly closed?

5343stk 12-04-2012 11:11 PM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I set the E/SA record in very good air at 10.58 @ 123.76 at Kansas City in October 2011.

In the Final of E/SA at Indy in 2012, the winner went 10.51 @ 110mph.

I was lucky enough to win class the previous 2 years, but I'm afraid I would have been taking a knife to a gunfight that day.

Todd Hoven 12-05-2012 12:22 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
If all the old cars just go away ( which I think is what they want ) How many brand new cars will show up race to race? If this number dwindles, how long before the eliminator is disbanded? I'd feel pretty bad if I had to take my
100K class car and strictly bracket race it. What a waste.
Same could be said for the old cars. I think we need to work together to preserve each others best interest.
What fun can somebody have, racing a guy you have by .6 to 1.0 faster because of soft factoring, and superior technology? Like killing a snail with a sledge hammer. Close competition with what builds the excitement, and gets your blood pumping. Not a sure win with no chance of loosing.

If NHRA is going to blend us into super stock next year, it would be nice to get a heads up. I would stop spending money on my car, and get ready for a transition out of drag racing. We need to work together on this. NHRA is not going to do it, or cares to.

Charley Downing 12-05-2012 12:25 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Mark do you think all the guys in the 1990's liked the LT1 @ 275 HP? They were able to beat older cars single handed(what happend there). Just like the olds combos of the 1980's. just like the mopar combos of the 1960's. New cars beating old cars is nothing new.

If you look at all class winners at INDY this year they were mostly old cars. There were 8 total class winners with cars newer then 2007. AA,BB,CC FS/S,F/SA,E/SA,A/SA and stick combo. 8 out of the 28 stk class winners.
AA,BB,CC and FS/S are mostly new car classes. When you take that into account that means only 4 classes a INDY were affected by new cars.

Ed Carpenter 12-05-2012 01:02 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 359214)
Bill "Farmer" Dismuke would have already fixed this.
Watch it Ed. This ain't the 1970's/1980's anymore crowd will pile on you! LOL

treessavoy 12-05-2012 01:38 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I quit!

Some people can't or won't see the reality in this situation.

I think I'll just take my PT Cruiser and put slicks on it..........er, front or back?

JimR

Bernie Cunningham 12-05-2012 02:17 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Mark,
You've done all ya can do here, thank you, you're spot on and i reckon 85% of racers are with ya, however, while everything you have said is perfect and straight to the point and factually correct it won't count, right !! WTF, why ??

Don't we need a statement that says what is good for our sport? We are all heavily invested in the same thing but the system is fractured !

Just like the latest US election, ya can't fix stupid. Naive and under informed opinions abound cause this world is now made up of people that only want what's good for themselves and their own selfish opinions and there own assess, that means forget the rest (**** you) mentality. Oh, don't forget about greed too, he he !
I believe that all of the above to be an unsustainable future in reality !

What a lot of people have neglected to mention is that the under factored crate motor/combos that are now legal will effect all and everyone, maybe except for H/I and down, their all coming for ya !!!!

Ya'll are fixing, as we go along, the AAA, AA, BB, CC big boys club and have completely forgotten to bitch about the combos that are still sliding their way thru F/SA and down, (could be lower for all i know) Most of these belong in the original A/B classes, but just like the LT1's back in the mid 90's, it'll take a years with the current system . BUGGAR !!!!

RULER 12-05-2012 05:06 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
I said it years ago and all i heard was well it only affects upper class cars and my reply was just wait it's coming your way too. And you can not correct the HP. in our lifetime when they are rated 100hp and more under what they should be. If you can't purchase it from your dealer and register it and drive it home then it's not a STOCKER.

Billy Nees 12-05-2012 08:59 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by treessavoy (Post 359256)
Some people can't or won't see the reality in this situation.JimR
The reality in this situation is that we're all a bunch of spoiled brats who are lucky enough to live in the country that we do that gives us the opportunities that we have to race and play with cars.
Lyons, get a dictionary, CharlieBob, learn how to spell.
Now I'm going junkyarding! (oops, searching for performance parts)

Stocker 2 12-05-2012 09:15 AM
Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RULER (Post 359263)
If you can't purchase it from your dealer and register it and drive it home then it's not a STOCKER.
Actually by todays enhanced rules it is a STOCKER...but it should have never been allowed.

Its ironic that the new cars that are purchased today from the dealer and registered and driven home cannot be run in STOCK. They are not in the classguide.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 PM.
Page 4 of 12 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.