Re: Factory experimental
 

Ed,
Only you.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Every car ever built was a factory experiment.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Would you say that the factory horse power rating on your Camaro was a little soft?

Re: Factory experimental
 

One aspect that hasn't been discussed in this thread is the effect the supercharger will have on those cars at an altitude track. Those of you in the Eastern U.S. don't have nearly as many of those as we do out West. If you're getting blown off at sea level by one of these cars how much further behind are you going to be in thin-air against a forced-induction vehicle?

I'm not railing against the Cobra Jets. I think it's fantastic that the factories are injecting new technology into both Stock & Super Stock, but I worry that the playing field won't be entirely level. I never understood the uproar over injected cars vs. carbureted cars. As it turned out, there wasn't as great of a difference in performance as many feared would exist. Perhaps this is the case here, though I don't believe it to be so.

I don't currently have a "dog in the fight" so to speak, but 430 HP seems a little low. If these engines are indeed making 700+ HP (I have no doubt that they are capable of doing so...), then 3395 lbs in AA/SA and 3610 in A/SA seem a tad light. These cars will be capable of bettering the -1.40 number required by the AHFS out of the box, but I guarantee you won't see one go that fast for a couple of years. The system remains the problem, not the car(s). A truly "automatic" system without any degree of human input will never effectively maintain a level playing field. Systems can be manipulated. Common sense cannot.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Exuse me for being a little "slow"..but is it the "Roush car" that will be at Pomona or the "Cobra Jet" like NHRA says on thier page..i am a little confused...maybe this is going to be the same as the old Shelbys..what combo of the week are you running?..small valve,big valve,Dove,Edelbrock and so on..

Re: Factory experimental
 

Jared, That's where the fun's gonna begin!!!! Superchargers!!! OMG!!! I can't wait to get my hands on one. Just a quick "romer' ( CNC ) trace of the rotors and away we go!!! Change the Helix a degree or two ( they'll never see it ) Seal the hook with nylatron ( it's probably an air lock design) and Teflon tubing in the valleys, just for starters. Then seal the end plates , also with nylatron. We'll cryo must of the internal parts then coat them with some type of teflon/moly coat. We'll get the intake charge down about 20 - 50 degrees. Even run it slower than designed, make it efficient out the ***!! It'll make enough boost to blow the crank out of it with VP -C25. Limit us on pullies? Who cares? This is gonna be fun! (And if you think they don't know what's going on with electronics?) Just wait.............

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump, You would think if factor on Bruces camaro was that soft there would alot more of this combo out there. I would guess more like hard work on his part !!!

Re: Factory experimental
 

.....................and that would be the rest of the iceberg thats lurking under the surface.

Conspicuous by its absense in the blueprint specs is ANY specification on the Eaton Supercharger. No Part numbers, inlet size, dispalcement, outlets deminsions,rotor helix, case clearances or pulley sizes. No reference to factory boost levels.

Re: Factory experimental
 

I'm not doubting that he has worked hard and I really doubt that it is under factored now. What I was getting at was that it was just a little bit under factored (in regards to Stock Eliminator) as delivered from GM. IMO the same applies to the Cobra Jet.

Re: Factory experimental
 

The Cobra Jet really is an 08 Shelby GT500 with less weight and a few racing modifications already done, some normally allowable in Stock and a few that aren't. A GT500 would be legal already, they've built thousands. Ford doesn't really need many of the mods to sell the car to racers who can change that stuff.

I think it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Re: Factory experimental
 

well then, it should have a 500hp rating.........correct?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Gump, I see your point but the CJ with a 425 rating and a 720 potential I dont think the factor on Bruces camaro was quite that soft ever!!!!!!!! Jim Baileys post should show the potential of where this combo may be headed.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Cylinder pressure could be a problem ....Pushrod failure!!!...OH, we don't have any...cool, that solves that. Wonder why the McGee and all over head cam engines are banned in the Ultimate Classes in Drag Racing, Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car? I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?

Re: Factory experimental
 

I would just love to see these cars go down the track one time!!!

Re: Factory experimental
 

In regards to the McGee DOHC T/F motor "ban", Jim Bailey said, "I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?"

Are you kidding me?

If NHRA had ANY concern for the racers' pocketbooks, they would have allowed compressed air valve springs, screw compressors, and 2.80:1 rear gearsets in these cars years ago.

ALL F-1 cars have used nothing BUT compressed air valve springs for many years now; steel valve springs won't hold up at 20,000 rpm in a F-1 engine for very long... and, the compressed air springs only have to be bought ONCE. T/AD and Alky Funny car racers, particularly, spend a FORTUNE on valve springs, unnecessarily, because of NHRA's insistence on steel springs. Ask yourself, why would NHRA do that if they were seriously interested in keeping the cost of racing down? Who has convinced them that steel springs are a good thing in a 10,000 rpm Hemi (the alky engines turn that fast, routinely, killing expensive "battleship" springs in just a few runs.)

From what I've heard, screw-type compressors don't require the maintenance that GMC-style Roots blowers do... another cost savings.... but you can't (legally) put one on a Fueler. Why????????

At 335 mph, a Fuel motor is wound up like an 8-day clock with the requisite 3.2:1 ring gear and pinion... spitting pieces of valves and pistons out at the finish line due to the excessive rpms that wouldn't be at all necessary if NHRA would let the racers choose a numerically-lower final drive ratio.

Is that supposed to save money for the racers? I don't see how...

If NHRA is trying to keep the cost of running a Fuel car down they sure have a funny way of doing it (no pun intended.)

Jim, I know you ran a Fueler for a long time, and probably know a LOT more about this stuff than I ever will, but am I off-base with this, or what? What do you think about the foregoing? Am I nuts, or is NHRA deliberately ignoring some ways they could be saving the racers some dollars, here?

Thanks for any information...

Blown Stockers' boost numbers would be easy to police with a tamper-proof telltale boost gauge read by the fuel check Tech guy. But, getting the Ford factory guys to come up with a legitimate boost number for the Tech inspector to observe might be the hard part.... with NHRA on their side.... and, you can bet they are.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bill, # 1.... yes I am kidding.... # 2..... Safety..... #3...... It's not about boost, it's about how efficiently you make the boost (ie:screw blowers). Point; which is better, If it takes 300hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost, or if it takes 150 hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost? How do you monitor that will a tell tale?

Re: Factory experimental
 

the thing is with the NHRA systyem, I dont think any of the combo's are really being maxed out or run hard per say.

Re: Factory experimental
 

NO these are not the Roush cars,

Re: Factory experimental
 

Straight from NHRA.com regarding 2008 Ford: (note the 330 CID is the 5.4L and 281 CID is 4.6L). These are all the supercharged engines. Also note both of the the 281 Supercharged engines are rated HIGHER than the 5.4L Supercharged engine.
Pistons have more compression on the 281 engines. The 281 engines have larger camshafts also. I don't believe either compression or cam lift will be significant in gain due to the supercharger. Nothing compared to the 50 CID difference.
What I haven't been able to figure out is if the 2007 Shelby 5.4L supercharged engine is rated 500 HP, then what justifies a 75 HP drop for the 2008 Cobra Jet engine? A slight difference in cam lift and compression on a SC engine does not warrant the -75 HP. It would seem one needs to be adjusted up or one needs to be adjusted down.

425 330 9.38 Supercharged EATON RF7R3Z-9K461 1.8 H/R 48.0 B,3,4
w/follower

430 281 10.0 Supercharged EATON R07060034-13-BB 2.00 H/R 48.0 A,1,3
w/follower

510 281 9.5 Supercharged EATON R07060136-13-BB 2.00 H/R 48.0 A,4,3
w/follower

Notes
1= Throttle Bore 2 @ 57mm = 2.244"
2= Alternate manifold 5R3E-9424-BB
3= Intercooled
4= Throttle Bore 2 @ 62mm = 2.441”

Cylinder Head Castings
A= RF3L3E-6040/6C064-K, RF9L3E-6090/6C064-B
B= RF7R3Z-6C064

Deck Piston
HP Disp Cl Type Height Vol Valves Cam Lift Gasket Springs


425 330 .074 Dish .118” 13.5 cc 2@1456/2@1259 413/413 .037 Beehive

430 281 .000 Dish .050” 4.8 cc 2@1340/1@1500 473/473 .037 Beehive

510 281 .000 Dish .098” 10.5 cc 2@1340/1@1500 473/473 .037 Beehive


The 2007 Shelby 5.4L supercharged:
500 330 .059 Dish .128” 13.5 cc 2@1456/2@1259 468/468 .037 Beehive

Re: Factory experimental
 

Thanks for the response, Jim; I appreciate it!!!

On #2, I am curious as to what the safety issue is with compressed air valve springs (or, did I get the numbers wrong?) Formula 1 cars race around CORNERS at 200 MPH and the F.I.A deems these springs as safe to use (they've been on all F-1 cars for years), so what's the problem with straight-line racers' safety isues with them? I don't understand what "safety issue" of concern is, here.

And on #3, your answer of "How do you monitor that will a tell tale?" relative to boost didn't really explain anything RE: why screw superchargers are banned. They have a reputation as being more efficient than Roots blowers, and I'm sure somebody's "blower dyno" has all the answers about how much power it takes to drive any of the popular configurations to X-pounds of boost, but the question was, "Why are they banned?" I'm certain NHRA doesn't ban them because they're inefficient...

I have my own ideas, but you having been "in the business," would have a much better idea than I would.

Thanks again for your response. Is your A/SA car a Stage III Wedge? Good luck in 2009!!!

Bill

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bill: this would probably be better addressed in a "new" Thread. Or if you want to PM me. Valve Springs are more of an issue with Alky than they are with Fuel Cars. And the mere Size/Mass of a Screw Blower,(Case and Rotors both), Filled with Almighty Nitro - BANG - You can't have that much energy flying around in specator seating. In an effort to Slow these Cars, NHRA has to really keep a handle on New Proto Type Parts. Today's Fuel Motors are more of a SPEC motor than any in drag racing. Including stock elim.
But, with that said, and the popularity of this thread....Give NHRA Tech just a little more credit, watch and see what happens, I don't look for the New Fords to be way outta line within current rules. It'll be when the Racers begin to "tweek" the combo (and rules), especially the supercharger, that we'll see an unfair advantage.

Re: Factory experimental
 

If any of you have outlaw street cars at your local track take a look sometime. A lot of them run a procharger blower and absolutely fly. These are generally small block chevys and fords and routinely run low 7 seconds with 10.5" tires. The tech department has no clue how to monitor these cars. You talk about opening a can of worms.

Greg

Re: Factory experimental
 

Based on the rotor profile and port geometry of a screw compressor there are areas within the supercharger where the air is compressed, this does not occur in a roots style supercharger which is purely a positive dispacement device with no internal compression. Introduce nitromethane to a screw compressor and you are trying to compress a volatile fuel - Kaboom

Re: Factory experimental
 

Main difference being that if drive ratio is controlled then you are still pumping the same volume displacement of air at sea level or at altitude. And that air volume is less dense at the same ratio as the NA cars have to deal with. Where you can benefit from a boost device (supercharger or turbo) is if you pump more air volume at higher altitude to keep the charge density at the same power level you can achieve at sea level. The only way to do that with a crank driven supercharger is to change the drive ratio - the pro guys can and do this at the altitude tracks. In stock this will not be allowed.

The boost level achieved by a roots blower is a function of its physical displacement, drive ratio, blower efficiency (mechanical and thermal) and inlet air conditions. If only the inlet air condition varies you get the following results:

A setup to run 10psig boost at sea level with an atmospheric pressure of 14.696psia (29.92 baro) as measured at the supercharger inlet is said to be operating at a 1.68 pressure ratio.

As the pressure ratio performance of this setup is fixed (fixed drive ratio, blower displacement, etc), as inlet pressure changes, the measured gauge pressure in the outlet (Boost) will change as well.

At 2500ft above sea level atmospheric pressure drops to 13.41 psia (27.32 baro), the resultant measured boost level will be 9.12 psig

Likewise for those so fortunate to run at 1000ft below sea level (and not drowned), boost level would be 10.35psig.

So help me understand how a tell tale boost gauge will work, unless of course it has an altitude correction factor which we all know are so accurate.

Another huge factor in intake manfold pressure changes is cam timing. Ex: Less overlap = more boost at fixed drive ratio. So again within the legal mods for stock, how do you maintain some "stock" boost level.

Not trying to be critical of anyones concerns or ideas, just trying to help educate on how supercharged engines function.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Tom,

Good points all, I think. Thanks for the technical insights!

In regards to a telltale boost gauge, I think it could work like this:

It would be plumbed, of course, to intake manifold pressure.... period. If the factory boost figure were say, 10 psi, measured in the intake manifold during dyno testing to determine flywheel horsepower output, that 10 psi figure would be the determining factor in the engine's eligibility at any given time. But, not quite...

Increases (or, decreases, which we are not concerned with) in ambient barometric pressure would change this pressure incrementally, as per your demonstration in the previous post, but the changes in boost, upward (say, at a reading of 2,500 feet BELOW sea level,) could be dealt with by giving the participants who run forced-induction, a boost "window" that would forgive, if you will, levels of boost that would be influenced by anomalous weather conditions; a "grace" amount of an indeterminate amount, at this point. That could be discussed by NHRA's "experts" so that a car that is legal, operating in sea-level barometric pressure, wouldn't become "illegal" when the boost goes up due to favorable weather conditions.

Those weather conditions would sometimes happen, of course, but I don't think the amount of this "leeway" would have to be very much.... not to the point that it would be something that could be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous competitior. It could be a matter of percentages; say, two percent of the maximum boost figure??? That is just a wild guess....

I have NO IDEA if that is even close to what an engine's manifold conditions might experience under high barometric pressure, but you might have a formula that could get us in the ballpark for the increase.

The agreed-upon "window" would have to include boost increases (percentage-wise) for the worst-case scenario regarding records having to do with barometric pressure "experience". Location wouldn't matter; this would be a blanket figure that would, ideally, cover any possible eventuality with regards to barometric pressure increases below "sea-level" accepted standards.

It would be implemented so that the Tech who reads the gauge is oblivious to its existence; it would just be say, for instance, a one-pound of boost value, tacked onto the original boost limit figure (obtained from the OEM source.

As a PERCENTAGE, agreed upon by NHRA Tech, it would be easy to apply to any and all forced-induction engines, and would be in evidence on the boost spec sheet as a part of the total boost allowed. It would always be a part of the acceptable boost level figure, so no one would even be aware that it was being implemented.

Is there a reason why that couldn't/wouldn't work?

f so, what am I missing, here?

Thanks again for your excellent technical advice and information. I am (obviously) not educated in this area; I just deal in generalities, so my thinking may well be flawed.

As regards your comment, "Another huge factor in intake manfold pressure changes is cam timing. Ex: Less overlap = more boost at fixed drive ratio. So again within the legal mods for stock, how do you maintain some "stock" boost level?"
I will leave that one for someone else, as I am not sure what would be fair, or even workable on that score. Sorry; my resources are limited... :(

Bill

Re: Factory experimental
 

Jim Bailey... you're right about my hijacking of this thread, and for that, I apologize. But there are two questions that you responded to with answers that I think would be more beneficial if they were explained by you, on here (rather than in a PM.) Indulge me just these two issues, please, and I won't write on here, about this, again.

1. You said that valve springs are more an issue with alcohol cars than Fuelers. which is undoubtely true, but still has no answer for why they are banned by NHRA. They could save those racers TONS of money... like I said, they only have to be bought ONCE. What's the downside of that (unless you make your living selling steel springs...) I realize that YOU don't make the rules, but having "been there" in Professional racing, you have info and insights that we "outsiders" are not privy to, and I just thought you might have heard why this "no compressed air valve springs on ANY vehicle in competition" was enacted.

2. Is it not possible to use port (fuel) injection and keep nitro out of the supercharger on a T/F car? I agree that a nitro-fueled BOMB sitting on top of an engine that can have an intake valve hang open at any time is NOT a good idea... so, why don't they keep the nitro below the blower/compressor, so that the only thing in the supercharger at any time, is AIR? That would seem to relieve the potential for a monumental explosion by a significant amount. Of course, there could still be an explosion of the mixture trapped in the manifold, but the volume is significantly smaller, isn't it? It's such a simple idea, I'm sure multitudes of people have thought of this, before, so why don't they do it? I'm obviously missing something here; what is it?

Thanks for your time and the information you've posted here. I still wonder if your A/SA car is a Stage III motor.. I guess, if it's a '64, it would have to be...

Bill

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bill: in answer to your first question, I don't know? Cost Maybe? On Jim Head's Nitro F/C we use a Manley Triple Spring installed at around 650# Seat pressure. I Cryo all of them when they're new, and we use 'em all year. They're not really a high cost item in the overall scheme of things. Don't forget we have around 10 to 15 set's of heads assembled and ready to go most of the time. What would the initial cost out lay be for Air Springs?( That's about 240 springs without spares) Question #2 has pretty well been answered by Tim. Along with his technical expertise, I can only add, that we use the fuel to COOL the Blower. Our clearances, Rotor to Rotor, and End to End are so tight that with out some liquid to help cool the parts, they won't live. We left a fuel line off (to the Injector) on top of the blower once, and the blower galled up about 50 seconds into the warm up. It ruined it. And as he said, the last thing you want to do is compress the nitro in a screw blower. Heck, we've blown the side out off a block putting studs in with an impac, just with a little nitro in the bottom of the threads....Hey,MAYBE, we'll see our FIRST Stocker Blower explosion this year!! Are they required to have a bag and restrants? LOL.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Evan,
Since starting this thread, I have heard from four different people who say the motor in the new Mustang has made 800 Horsepower on the dyno. Is this true? To be clear, I'm asking about the motor in the new CJ that is coming out of the Roush building at the Ford plant.

Also have you heard about any nhra technical issues with these cars? And have you heard about one of these new CJ's rolling thru the traps at 142+MPH? I hear all these stories and I know you know the full story and it would be good to hear the straight story from you.

Thanks

Re: Factory experimental
 

Thanks, Jim, for an interesting and informative post.

Bill

Re: Factory experimental
 

Anyone want to buy their own Cobra Jet?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FORD-...QQcmdZViewItem

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bruce, who are these four people privy to Ford's dyno sessions? You know you can't believe everything you hear. As I've stated before, there a lot of people posting so-called facts when they have no idea what the facts are. I'm not saying the CJ isn't going to fly and/or that is is under-rated, but under-rating engine has been done since the '60. Was the CJ tested on a chassis dyno or engine dyno? Knowing what I know, I doubt this engine could make 800 on either.

I did not witness any engine dyno testing. Nevertheless, we all know a good Stocker engine makes 200-or more hp more than the advertised hp. Some more, some less depending on how many times the engine has been hit or given a break by NHRA. Could you imagine if the LS-1 had been babysat and still carried a 275 hp rating? They could go two seconds under. The CJ will fall into place in due time just like every other underrated or overrated combo to make it into Stock. This is how the game is (and has) been played since the '60s.

The fact is the cars will be running at Pomona so we'll all get to see what they can do. And just like the LS-1s and any other fast combo, I doubt every owner/racer will be able to keep it in their pants as someone will want to be the baddest. Only then we will all see what the cars can do. And NHRA will act accordingly.

Evan

Re: Factory experimental
 

Evan,
I can't mention names. I can tell you that a Ford Engineer at SEMA said the the new CJs made 800+ Horsepower and that has been echoed by several people since. I couldn't tell from your response if you had heard the same thing; not witnessed. Again, have you heard of any 140+ mph passes made by these cars? Some folks say these cars are also having a few tech problems. Can give us any insight as to what they may be?

I appreciate the fact that you feel the Mustangs could be a little soft. Many of us don't share your faith in nhra to properly factor these cars. I can feel your pain about the LS1 cars but they pale in comparison to these CJs.

You're doing a great job.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Maybe I am wrong, but from the pictures I have seen, I have yet to see a full cage and window net in any of these cars. It was made pretty clear that any car running in the 9s is required to have the certified cage and net.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bruce and Evan --
You guys are beating a dead horse ( no pun intended ) -- let them(the new Mustangs) race first and then lets see what we have .Its been hard to stay quiet but in many of both your posts you mention LS1's -- first of all I don't seem to remember the LS1 HP being 275 -- ever . Secondly, its been a very long time since any of them has had any real strength . As both of you well know new cars are always coming out and the powers that be always fix it when they are "too good" . Personally I'd love to have one of these new rides but the General has deemed them almost unraceable at their weight . We should stay with facts and not hearsay from third parties as far as the new cars are concerned .Pomona is only fifteen days away..........

PS--For those of you who are wondering -- yes ,I took my meds this morning ! ! !

Re: Factory experimental
 

Jack,
No one would ever think that you were off yours meds.

I'm glad Ford wants to come back into Class racing but many of us think the New Supercharged Cobra Jets have been misclassified. We have little or no faith in nhra to correct this situation when they are the ones who admitted the car into Stock in the first place. This car is a game changer, there is no way that it can be compared to any other car that has been allowed to run in Stock. It will take years for the ahfs to catch up to this one and in that time it will have a viral effect on the upper classes; approximately 300 cars. nhra is increasing quotas to help with their bottom line. If what I'm told is true, this new CJ will cause many class racers to move out of drag racing.

This is not one of those deals where we have to wait'n see. These new CJs belong in a Factory Experimental class where they can be vetted for several seasons and then moved down if they are duds; which, by the way, they are not. These cars can run mid 9.50s at over 143 mph. What are we going to do with them? And why does Ford have such a great desire to beat up on a bunch of old cars with their Rocket? Ford should pick on somebody their own size, like GM and Chrsyler in Factory Experimental.

Some of these cars have some tech problems already and it will be interesting to see whether Ford and nhra make them go away.

Re: Factory experimental
 

Bruce -- There's not a racer out there who should feel more anti-NHRA than me but yet I still have faith -- let them do their jobs !
By NHRA increasing quotas it not only lines the pockets but it gives other racers a chance to compete who normally wouldn't .I certainly don't see the new CJ as a game changer -- they still have to hook 'em and dial --same as you.
You must be privvy to some "top secret info" - have you seen any time slips showing one or more of these cars going 9.50@143 ?
As for tech problems I'm not aware of anything specific -- are you ? Care to share ....
We are now more than 240 posts into this and no one has seen a CJ go down the track -- shouldn't we at least wait until then before we string 'em up (or should I say lasso 'em ) .
Seems you would like to see these boys race anywhere you're not -- looks like an old fashioned gunfight to me -- bring your best stuff . 2009 could turn out to be Stock racing's best year ever............

Re: Factory experimental
 

Yes they have yet to go down the track in NHRA-style,but the drivers know the game this time..they wont go out and make faster runs than needed is my guess..tests at other tracks may show someting.....FORD has probably "invested" in this ..and NHRA has made sure they will have a good chance to come out on top in thier first outing..I have to think a little like Bruce that many upper class racers that not really are Bracket racers but more "Classracers" will have enough if these cars are faster right off the bat...with pontential to dominate for years to come by by "racing smart" and adding the knowledge you get when racing them..I know i would...your hard work over decades could be wiped out in 9.5 seconds at Pomona..The LT1 is 66 hp more than when it came along..and still keep getting horsepower...this one seem to have even more in the bag!
It may show at Pomona..or not..but given the engine specs..well the few ones there are..these will fly if thats what they decide to do!!

Re: Factory experimental
 

bsa633 -- Your post is full of maybe's -- look at some of the words that you've used.......have yet to ...but ...my guess............may show......probably.....if these cars.......with potential.........seem to ....may show......or not........if thats what they decide ---------please -- like they said years ago on TV---"Just the Facts" .
By the way -- do you have any knowledge of NHRA making sure they (Ford) succeed with this project?

PS-- Good thing its a slow day here at work .

Re: Factory experimental
 

Jack,

I have to say that you are one of the most pro nhra racers I have met. Sure you got beat up a little at Pomona and I'm sorry that happened but I personally don't believe it has changed your point of view.

Yes, I have spoken to racers who know a lot about these cars and who have seen them go down the track. I'm not afraid to come out here and post for them if I think they are right. And what if you are wrong? What happens when they take the wraps off these cars and show their real performance to you? What will you say then? Oh well, shucky darn, those cars are rael fast. By then it will be too darn late and it will take nhra years to catch up to them. And what is so darn bad about them running in a Factory Experimental class? Do you have a particular reason for not liking Factory Experimental or are you being nhra stuborn?

Re: Factory experimental
 

Jack,
Nobody needs you dissect the way they post. The man has an open mind and can see the potential for a train wreck while you have your eyes closed.