CLASS RACER FORUM

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=29802)

joe176 11-20-2010 08:26 PM

HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Alot of conversation takes place about how the F body camaro / firebird platform should be separate on the hp rating because it's at a performance disadvantage vs the FWD Cobalts/Cavaliers. I have alot of data that proves this right but not to the extreme that most racers I hear talking about say it is.
My 1985 Camaro ran well and I had my heart and soul into that car....it was a top qualifier/ record setting car. It had the same efi engine combination in it from the start of the 2006 season until I decided to switch to a cavalier at the Dutch Classic 2009. I have now run the cavalier for one full season and pretty much can say it is sorted out. The reason I wanted to make the change was more technology than love of the car per say. The new car has all the latest innovations to make it easier to work on. Dash comes out...one piece headers.....coil over front springs/struts...equal length four link.....so on and so forth.

So if you took a complete drivetrain out of a camaro and installed everything and I mean everything in a FWD conversion car.....what would it be worth ??

I know because I did it......I took the engine (efi intake to charlie's oil pan), injectors, trans,converter, complete msd ignition including the coil, big stuff computer, complete ring/pinion/center section, same M/T radials, shifter w/air kit, duplicated the Aeromotive fuel system, and the same 16 volt batteries. Out of the box at a track rental first time out at maple grove/dutch classic 09 the car in GT/FA went 9.81@ 133 mph four times in a row at race weight. .....which will be my term for fast runs with radial.

This is some of the comparable data that I have come up with in 5 years of running this particular combination.

Camaro----------------Camaro---------------Cavalier-----------------Cavalier
GT/HA-------------------GT/HA-----------------GT/FA-------------------GT/FA
Cecil 8/08-------------Atco 10/08---------Lebanon 7/10----------Etown 9/10

1.361---------------------1.336------------------1.270---------------------1.274
4.055---------------------4.006------------------3.901---------------------3.904
6.373---------------------6.294------------------6.148---------------------6.151
105.49........................106.81.............. ......109.86........................108.84
8.384..........................8.286.............. .........8.104..........................8.106
10.091........................9.988............... ........9.769..........................9.773
131.81........................132.27.............. ......134.79........................134.00

77.6 degrees.............74.9.......................... 69.8.............................68.8
51.4 %........................29.0 %.....................52.2%....................... ...51.1 %
29.99..........................30.07.............. ..........29.50...........................29.79
1573'..........................1291'.............. ..........1534'............................1112'
wind 15 degrees......wind 291...................wind 90........................wind 90
6-8 mph......................0-3 mph....................3-6 mph.......................10-11 mph
race weight................race weight..............race weight...................race weight
.................................................. ................ ..-275 lbs lighter.............-275 lbs. lighter

-1.259 old index........-1.362 old index.......-1.331 old index..........-1.327 old index

these are just a small sample of what I have found....these runs with the cavalier are after adjusting the converter, fuel map, shift points, leave rpm and rear gear.This car weighs 275 lbs lighter than the camaro at race weight....I have been comparing data for the latter half of this season for my own curiosity and I feel that the advantage is only 3-5 hundreths at the most....not a tenth to two tenths which is what I've heard in the past.

SS Engine Guy 11-20-2010 09:11 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Joe, your estimate seems accurate based on the difference in quarter and eight being in the 2.2 - 2.3 tenths faster. The old rule of 100 lbs being worth a tenth is not nearly as accurate as some originally thought the closer the racecar is to optimum. With a weight difference of 275 lbs. according to the old theory the car should be 2.75 tenths quicker and it is not. I know that your older Camaro was a pretty efficient piece and you have got the new car on the right track. HP is one thing, being able to use it optimally is another. You, being a pretty capable tuner, both engine and chassis makes this a valid (in my opinion) comparison.

I agree with you that the ease of being able to work on the new car easier is a definite advantage. Especially when trying different back to back comparisons.

I know what some are getting at about the fwd conversions. Being that the drivetrain is moved farther back in some cases. However, I never heard or saw you have any traction problems in the blue camaro.

Ed Wright 11-20-2010 09:45 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing, Joe.

Btw, 100 lbs = .07 et in my car. My old N/S '56 Chevy Jr Stocker 100 lbs was more than a tenth. I was talking to Alan Patterson & Jim Hayter about this very thing once. Jim said most sbc Comp cars change about 5 hundredths per 100 lbs. I think, traction being equal, it's related more to hp. Just my guess.

Lee Valentine 11-21-2010 08:11 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Does Angelo know about this!

joe176 11-21-2010 01:28 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Valentine (Post 223475)
Does Angelo know about this!

Yes he does Lee.

Hagen Gary 11-21-2010 01:59 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Thanks for your time to post and honesty about this situation.
Its my opinion that if NHRA is going to allow two totally different sets of rules for FWD Conversions and any RWD(not just f body) cars then why not add 2% of rated hp to the FWD conversion. That would equate to that 3-5 your talking about.

stefan callender 11-21-2010 02:06 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Joe, also remember that your Camaro was built in the 1990's also didnt have all the same technology that your 2000's Cavalier has. An unequal four link, vs a equal length four link. How much is that worth?

Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

Hagen Gary 11-21-2010 02:53 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender (Post 223559)
Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

Stefan, Are you talking about a 2010?

Joe, you get to weigh 275 lbs lighter and only lose .25 of index, right? Couple that with extensive front and rear suspension and floor mods, engine/firewall and driver location, all if which RWD cars are not allowed, and 3-5 is all you get? I'm not saying your compleatly wrong, but maybe if you put in the same amount of time with this car as the last, you might see its worth more.

I know what the rules are and I chose my car according to them. I'm just asking that if we are going to make adjustments, then lets fix the obvious inequalities, or let me move my firewall and floor so I can make suspension upgrades front and rear.

Ed Wright 11-21-2010 03:21 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
275lbs out of my car wouldn't be worth any more than that.

joe176 11-21-2010 03:55 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 223583)
Stefan, Are you talking about a 2010?

Joe, you get to weigh 275 lbs lighter and only lose .25 of index, right? Couple that with extensive front and rear suspension and floor mods, engine/firewall and driver location, all if which RWD cars are not allowed, and 3-5 is all you get? I'm not saying your compleatly wrong, but maybe if you put in the same amount of time with this car as the last, you might see its worth more.

I know what the rules are and I chose my car according to them. I'm just asking that if we are going to make adjustments, then lets fix the obvious inequalities, or let me move my firewall and floor so I can make suspension upgrades front and rear.

Hagen.....I do not need anymore time sorting this out...it's not rocket science when you swap everything over to a new car and run the numbers this car runs....it is what it is...I've been doing this long enough to know a few minor tweaks here or there depending on air and track conditions is all you can do when you roll into a race. As far as the firewall setback.....my camaro had better weight ratio front to rear than this car does..........these cars are nose heavy....not sure what kind of car you run or if you've had experience with both like I have.

Stewart Way 11-21-2010 05:07 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Don't know as these numbers really mean much but I'll share them anyway. I used these formulas. D=AxCdxVxV/410 and HP=((WxR)+D)xV/375. Used 3000 lb W,15 frontal A, .34 Cd. R was rolling resistance of .012. These work with Top Speed numbers and I realize we are not at the top speed capability of a drag car at the 1320 but anyway....
An 88 type lowered Camaro has about a 15 frontal area. A one sqft reduction in frontal area reduces the hp required to run 150 by around 6%. But that is steady state 150MPH. Since we start at zero I would think around 4% HP change per sqft would be right. A change in Cd (coef of drag) of .01 has about half the effect of a 1 sqft frontal reduction at there numbers.
So if a littler newer car has a 1 sqft smaller frontal area and a .01 lower diff in Cd it would require 6% hp less to reach the same speed.
Again, I'm not sure how these Top Speed formulas translate to an drag car but even if they were off 50% it would still mean a 3% reduction in HP can be seen with a 15 to 14 and .34 to .33 reductions in Cd and Area.

Chad Rhodes 11-21-2010 05:18 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart Way (Post 223612)
Don't know as these numbers really mean much but I'll share them anyway. I used these formulas. D=AxCdxVxV/410 and HP=((WxR)+D)xV/375. Used 3000 lb W,15 frontal A, .34 Cd. R was rolling resistance of .012. These work with Top Speed numbers and I realize we are not at the top speed capability of a drag car at the 1320 but anyway....
An 88 type lowered Camaro has about a 15 frontal area. A one sqft reduction in frontal area reduces the hp required to run 150 by around 6%. But that is steady state 150MPH. Since we start at zero I would think around 4% HP change per sqft would be right. A change in Cd (coef of drag) of .01 has about half the effect of a 1 sqft frontal reduction at there numbers.
So if a littler newer car has a 1 sqft smaller frontal area and a .01 lower diff in Cd it would require 6% hp less to reach the same speed.
Again, I'm not sure how these Top Speed formulas translate to an drag car but even if they were off 50% it would still mean a 3% reduction in HP can be seen with a 15 to 14 and .34 to .33 reductions in Cd and Area.

good point Stewart. I imagine the difference would be more apparent in GT/AA, than GT/FA. I'm sure Shaun Leblanc could go faster using a Mercury Cougar or an Escort........but it wouldn't near as cool

stefan callender 11-22-2010 01:12 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Joe, you get to weigh 275 lbs lighter and only lose .25 of index, right? Couple that with extensive front and rear suspension and floor mods, engine/firewall and driver location, all if which RWD cars are not allowed, and 3-5 is all you get? I'm not saying your compleatly wrong, but maybe if you put in the same amount of time with this car as the last, you might see its worth more.

Joe, maybe youre not going fast enough....lol.

Hagen Gary 11-22-2010 06:04 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender (Post 223763)
Joe, maybe youre not going fast enough....lol.

Apparently you misintrpreted my point, which i guess is why you didn't quote the entire post. I didn't intend to imply that Joe was not fast, or was not trying to go faster. I think we all watch results online week in/week out. If thats how it came across, My apologies Joe.

What I did want to get across is that a FWD conversion has a clear advantage per the current rules. Ask any chassis builder. People arn't building them because they make the coolest looking drag car. They are building them because they are FAST! Although I think a Cavalier is a smooth looking Super Stocker(wouldn't mind one myself), I try telling anyone out of the know about one, and all I get is "A Cavalier? Yea, I seen one of them coming out of a trailer park" or "My Niece drives one of those". So It makes it kinda hard to describe what is clearly the pinnacle of perfomance in the GT class. I'm not asking for some help going fast. All I'm asking is that we fix a system that penalizes two groups of cars for one's actions. Does anyone really think a performance based person would run a big heavy wagon in GT now that it is allowed? Every hit a Cavalier/Colbalt takes doesn't nearly effect it as much as a wagon 6-8 classes down.

Mark Faul 11-22-2010 08:22 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
While I see a lot of merit in the FWD conversion cars having an advantage in some areas over the older cars, what about an older conversion car like mine? Without a tubular front end and control arms? It's kind of an in-betweener. Smaller and more aerodynamic, but has the engine further forward that the F bodies. Are we supposed to give different hp factors to any conversion cars or just the latest and greatest versions?

joe176 11-22-2010 08:23 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary (Post 223820)
Apparently you misintrpreted my point, which i guess is why you didn't quote the entire post. I didn't intend to imply that Joe was not fast, or was not trying to go faster. I think we all watch results online week in/week out. If thats how it came across, My apologies Joe.

What I did want to get across is that a FWD conversion has a clear advantage per the current rules. Ask any chassis builder. People arn't building them because they make the coolest looking drag car. They are building them because they are FAST! Although I think a Cavalier is a smooth looking Super Stocker(wouldn't mind one myself), I try telling anyone out of the know about one, and all I get is "A Cavalier? Yea, I seen one of them coming out of a trailer park" or "My Niece drives one of those". So It makes it kinda hard to describe what is clearly the pinnacle of perfomance in the GT class. I'm not asking for some help going fast. All I'm asking is that we fix a system that penalizes two groups of cars for one's actions. Does anyone really think a performance based person would run a big heavy wagon in GT now that it is allowed? Every hit a Cavalier/Colbalt takes doesn't nearly effect it as much as a wagon 6-8 classes down.

Hagen....no apology necessary....I was just giving my honest opinion on what I've found with my particular combination.....the whole point of me putting the post up was that yes there is a performance advantage to having the FWD car....but it's nowhere near what racers have been thinking it was.

Sean Cour 11-22-2010 09:24 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
I've seen Joe's Cavalier leaving the trailer park on more than one occasion.

joe176 11-23-2010 12:41 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 223858)
I've seen Joe's Cavalier leaving the trailer park on more than one occasion.

Uh Oh....BUSTEDDDDD.....Sean....you were supposed to keep that on the downlo...

keith ohanesian 11-23-2010 02:20 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
With a mask on !

joe176 11-23-2010 08:30 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by keith ohanesian (Post 223919)
With a mask on !

Too Funny Keith LoL

tim worner 11-23-2010 10:21 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Hey Joe put that stuff in an 88 Cutlass and see where you are.

joe176 11-23-2010 10:51 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tim worner (Post 223935)
Hey Joe put that stuff in an 88 Cutlass and see where you are.

I have a 55 chevy thats next.....waiting on motor plates Tim.

stefan callender 11-24-2010 10:52 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 223858)
I've seen Joe's Cavalier leaving the trailer park on more than one occasion.

Was JennaRae with him Sean??

joe176 11-24-2010 11:18 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender (Post 224150)
Was JennaRae with him Sean??

Dude...that's Jenna-Ray !!!!

Adger Smith 11-24-2010 11:44 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Joe,
A few years ago Vic Custer and I had a very lengthy conversation about building a Cavalier or Cobalt to replace my F-body Camaro. He flat told me it would be faster, esp with the lower HP engine I run. His numbers were very similar to what you have shown. Maybe a little more. He also told me the F-body has some on track advantages (I'm not going there). The Biggest advantage he pointed out was one you touched on. Being able to work on it. It is so much more friendly to make changes and work on. That is esp. important as us older guys get older. Another thing he pointed out that was esp important to my ailing body was the larger doors. He thinks the type cages they put in them are also safer. All in all it is probably better to step up to the new cars. I didn't because of the economy and my finances as well as health and family issues. Yes, I'm in love with my F-body, esp because and it is all paid for. Now with the new and enhanced AHFS upon us I'm glad I didn't spend any retirement money. I still like the new cars!!!

y2k_ta 11-24-2010 12:29 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender (Post 223559)
Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

The fourth-gen '93-'02 platform was primarily a carryover from the '82-'92, so the advantages (if any) would be minimal.

Ed Wright 11-24-2010 12:44 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Most don't realize how nose heavy most of the fwd conversions are. It was pointed out to me that my ('96 F body) drive shaft is shorter than Pete Peery's little short Cutlass Calai's shaft. Mine is a pain to work on since arthritis has set in. Half the stinking engine is under the stinking windshield.

I don't run GT, but the newest GT cars... well I'm not going there.

the biggest advntage I see is a 2500 or so lb car with a smaller engine versus a 3000 lb car with a bigger engine. Small car/smaller engine usually wins.

joe176 11-25-2010 12:10 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adger Smith (Post 224160)
Joe,
A few years ago Vic Custer and I had a very lengthy conversation about building a Cavalier or Cobalt to replace my F-body Camaro. He flat told me it would be faster, esp with the lower HP engine I run. His numbers were very similar to what you have shown. Maybe a little more. He also told me the F-body has some on track advantages (I'm not going there). The Biggest advantage he pointed out was one you touched on. Being able to work on it. It is so much more friendly to make changes and work on. That is esp. important as us older guys get older. Another thing he pointed out that was esp important to my ailing body was the larger doors. He thinks the type cages they put in them are also safer. All in all it is probably better to step up to the new cars. I didn't because of the economy and my finances as well as health and family issues. Yes, I'm in love with my F-body, esp because and it is all paid for. Now with the new and enhanced AHFS upon us I'm glad I didn't spend any retirement money. I still like the new cars!!!

Thanks for the input Ed and Adger......yes the wheelbase is 3 inches longer than the camaro..longer driveshaft.....they are much more nose heavy....after doing all the chassis setup, plumbing and wiring myself it has paid dividends as far as working on it.

Jeff Teuton 11-25-2010 11:12 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
A little footnote to the discussion. As yall know, the GT classes were originally for the new and conversions. Somewhere a few years ago, NHRA asked me to write a letter to change that to allow the old cars to participate, no other changes. So I did, and they did. At the time I was aware that with identical engine combos, there is generally an .05 penalty to the new cars over the same engine in say SS/FA or something like that. I have a 68 Hemi Dart clone I run in GT and the same motor in a Dart in SS has a little edge. I knew that when I built the car. I think the idea behind this is there are lots of cars out there that are good cars, but for some reason (like my clone), they didn't just fit right. So now the older stuff can also run in GT. So that is how the older stuff got in. Like I said, a footnote.

X-TECH MAN 11-25-2010 11:21 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton (Post 224359)
A little footnote to the discussion. As yall know, the GT classes were originally for the new and conversions. Somewhere a few years ago, NHRA asked me to write a letter to change that to allow the old cars to participate, no other changes. So I did, and they did. At the time I was aware that with identical engine combos, there is generally an .05 penalty to the new cars over the same engine in say SS/FA or something like that. I have a 68 Hemi Dart clone I run in GT and the same motor in a Dart in SS has a little edge. I knew that when I built the car. I think the idea behind this is there are lots of cars out there that are good cars, but for some reason (like my clone), they didn't just fit right. So now the older stuff can also run in GT. So that is how the older stuff got in. Like I said, a footnote.

How about one of your new 5.7's in your Duster or the 69 six pack? That would be a rocket ship and look cool also! Have a nice Turkey Bird Day.

Stewart Way 11-25-2010 12:35 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Terry
I'm putting the 5.7 is a 68 Cuda AH clone. Won't be fast fast cause the first motor won't be 100% SS. Likely short in the cam/rocker area. It goes to the media blaster next week to get touched up where my sweaty body was all over it building it, and then primed. I decided to take the FAST EFI 101 school in Orlando the day before PRI so maybe an old dog won't be soooo lost of the EFI. Also running a stick before I get to old to work on it. SSGT/D. Kevin Helms has been helping/driving the Barnett Performance SSAH stick car and he made it look so easy I decided to join in the 4 speed wars. Maybe some time next year.

X-TECH MAN 11-25-2010 01:12 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart Way (Post 224370)
Terry
I'm putting the 5.7 is a 68 Cuda AH clone. Won't be fast fast cause the first motor won't be 100% SS. Likely short in the cam/rocker area. It goes to the media blaster next week to get touched up where my sweaty body was all over it building it, and then primed. I decided to take the FAST EFI 101 school in Orlando the day before PRI so maybe an old dog won't be soooo lost of the EFI. Also running a stick before I get to old to work on it. SSGT/D. Kevin Helms has been helping/driving the Barnett Performance SSAH stick car and he made it look so easy I decided to join in the 4 speed wars. Maybe some time next year.

Sounds like a cool ride. Good luck.

Bryan Worner 11-25-2010 02:56 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
But the data is out there that, especially with my LT1 combo, all of the horsepower increases (speaking for LT1 only) in the last 4 or 5 years, are from a Cavalier or Cobalt!! So how is it fair, with the "platform" rule in the AHFS, that it is not enforced the way it is written? That is my ONLY issue with any of this crap!

If I had the funds, I would have one of these cars!!!

Greg Hill 11-26-2010 06:02 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joe176 (Post 223423)
Alot of conversation takes place about how the F body camaro / firebird platform should be separate on the hp rating because it's at a performance disadvantage vs the FWD Cobalts/Cavaliers. I have alot of data that proves this right but not to the extreme that most racers I hear talking about say it is.
My 1985 Camaro ran well and I had my heart and soul into that car....it was a top qualifier/ record setting car. It had the same efi engine combination in it from the start of the 2006 season until I decided to switch to a cavalier at the Dutch Classic 2009. I have now run the cavalier for one full season and pretty much can say it is sorted out. The reason I wanted to make the change was more technology than love of the car per say. The new car has all the latest innovations to make it easier to work on. Dash comes out...one piece headers.....coil over front springs/struts...equal length four link.....so on and so forth.

So if you took a complete drivetrain out of a camaro and installed everything and I mean everything in a FWD conversion car.....what would it be worth ??

I know because I did it......I took the engine (efi intake to charlie's oil pan), injectors, trans,converter, complete msd ignition including the coil, big stuff computer, complete ring/pinion/center section, same M/T radials, shifter w/air kit, duplicated the Aeromotive fuel system, and the same 16 volt batteries. Out of the box at a track rental first time out at maple grove/dutch classic 09 the car in GT/FA went 9.81@ 133 mph four times in a row at race weight. .....which will be my term for fast runs with radial.

This is some of the comparable data that I have come up with in 5 years of running this particular combination.

Camaro----------------Camaro---------------Cavalier-----------------Cavalier
GT/HA-------------------GT/HA-----------------GT/FA-------------------GT/FA
Cecil 8/08-------------Atco 10/08---------Lebanon 7/10----------Etown 9/10

1.361---------------------1.336------------------1.270---------------------1.274
4.055---------------------4.006------------------3.901---------------------3.904
6.373---------------------6.294------------------6.148---------------------6.151
105.49........................106.81.............. ......109.86........................108.84
8.384..........................8.286.............. .........8.104..........................8.106
10.091........................9.988............... ........9.769..........................9.773
131.81........................132.27.............. ......134.79........................134.00

77.6 degrees.............74.9.......................... 69.8.............................68.8
51.4 %........................29.0 %.....................52.2%....................... ...51.1 %
29.99..........................30.07.............. ..........29.50...........................29.79
1573'..........................1291'.............. ..........1534'............................1112'
wind 15 degrees......wind 291...................wind 90........................wind 90
6-8 mph......................0-3 mph....................3-6 mph.......................10-11 mph
race weight................race weight..............race weight...................race weight
.................................................. ................ ..-275 lbs lighter.............-275 lbs. lighter

-1.259 old index........-1.362 old index.......-1.331 old index..........-1.327 old index

these are just a small sample of what I have found....these runs with the cavalier are after adjusting the converter, fuel map, shift points, leave rpm and rear gear.This car weighs 275 lbs lighter than the camaro at race weight....I have been comparing data for the latter half of this season for my own curiosity and I feel that the advantage is only 3-5 hundreths at the most....not a tenth to two tenths which is what I've heard in the past.


Joe in 2008 when I was a member of the SRAC I had a couple of D3 racers ask me to help get the rule changed to allow separate factoring for the rear wheel drive cars in SS GT compared to the fwd conversions. I did a little unscientific research and most of the people I talked to thought there was about .05 to .07 difference. If a chevelle and a camaro can be factored separately there is no reason the fwd cars and the rwd cars couldn't be factored separately or so I thought. The SRAC had a fair amount of discussion on this topic and voted to recommend that the rule be changed to separate the fwd cars from the rwd ones. We never heard from the AHFS committee on this if my memory is right. It was like we didn't exists. I think it might take a small amount of additional work on NHRA's part to do this but not a lot.

On your combination I would say that because you were running your Cavalier 275 lbs lighter than your Camaro it's possible that you may not have the optimum converter, rear gear ratio or trans ratios in your new car. I would assume that you had all of these optomized for your Camaro. Your Cavalier might like these things a little different to get the most out of it.

joe176 11-27-2010 01:57 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Hill (Post 224531)
Joe in 2008 when I was a member of the SRAC I had a couple of D3 racers ask me to help get the rule changed to allow separate factoring for the rear wheel drive cars in SS GT compared to the fwd conversions. I did a little unscientific research and most of the people I talked to thought there was about .05 to .07 difference. If a chevelle and a camaro can be factored separately there is no reason the fwd cars and the rwd cars couldn't be factored separately or so I thought. The SRAC had a fair amount of discussion on this topic and voted to recommend that the rule be changed to separate the fwd cars from the rwd ones. We never heard from the AHFS committee on this if my memory is right. It was like we didn't exists. I think it might take a small amount of additional work on NHRA's part to do this but not a lot.

On your combination I would say that because you were running your Cavalier 275 lbs lighter than your Camaro it's possible that you may not have the optimum converter, rear gear ratio or trans ratios in your new car. I would assume that you had all of these optomized for your Camaro. Your Cavalier might like these things a little different to get the most out of it.

Greg...you've got to be kidding me....this is laughable !!!!! Did you not read my post ????........ Don't assume ....enough said.

Greg Hill 11-27-2010 09:29 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Sorry I didn't look at your last paragraph.

stefan callender 11-27-2010 11:32 AM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Hill (Post 224531)
Joe in 2008 when I was a member of the SRAC I had a couple of D3 racers ask me to help get the rule changed to allow separate factoring for the rear wheel drive cars in SS GT compared to the fwd conversions. I did a little unscientific research and most of the people I talked to thought there was about .05 to .07 difference. If a chevelle and a camaro can be factored separately there is no reason the fwd cars and the rwd cars couldn't be factored separately or so I thought. The SRAC had a fair amount of discussion on this topic and voted to recommend that the rule be changed to separate the fwd cars from the rwd ones. We never heard from the AHFS committee on this if my memory is right. It was like we didn't exists. I think it might take a small amount of additional work on NHRA's part to do this but not a lot.

On your combination I would say that because you were running your Cavalier 275 lbs lighter than your Camaro it's possible that you may not have the optimum converter, rear gear ratio or trans ratios in your new car. I would assume that you had all of these optomized for your Camaro. Your Cavalier might like these things a little different to get the most out of it.

Gregg, on what basis do you think that the FWD conversion cars are worth that much?? What two cars are you using as a comparison? Here is a guy that transplanted his drivetrain from one car to another, and has proven what it was worth with HIS combination. Maybe with another combination it would be different, apples to apples.

keith ohanesian 11-27-2010 04:09 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Everyone.. Put a lIttle Vegas in you!!

Greg Hill 11-28-2010 01:26 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender (Post 224597)
Gregg, on what basis do you think that the FWD conversion cars are worth that much?? What two cars are you using as a comparison? Here is a guy that transplanted his drivetrain from one car to another, and has proven what it was worth with HIS combination. Maybe with another combination it would be different, apples to apples.

I talked to people who ran both kinds of cars and that was kind if a concenus. Some of the guys with the rwd cars said a tenth and some of the guys with the fwd thought it was only .02 or .03. I think the faster cars would pick up more than slower ones because of the aerodynamics, although that's just my opinion. I do know most of the hp that a lot of these combinations got was from the fwd conversions, however that may be because those are the guys with the best motors and the most money. To really tell how much better one is over the other you would need to look at incrementals especially the back half.

Bryan Worner 11-28-2010 06:04 PM

Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Hill (Post 224742)
I talked to people who ran both kinds of cars and that was kind if a concencus . Some of the guys with the rwd cars said a tenth and some of the guys with the fwd thought it was only .02 or .03. I think the faster cars would pick up more than slower ones because of the aerodynamics, although that's just my opinion. I do know most of the hp that a lot of these combinations got was from the fwd conversions, however that may be because those are the guys with the best motors and the most money. To really tell how much better one is over the other you would need to look at incrementals especially the back half.

One thing to remember here is Joe's Camaro was a very good/fast car. So if you're going to compare how much each of you picked up changing cars, it may vary some, based on the car itself!!!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 AM.

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.