AHFS Foibles
 

I'm not an expert on this subject so I'll need a few outside opinions.
Recently my good friend Lead Foot Eddie gave the 87 El Camino a big wallop with 11 hp.
I've been told that the Elky is considered a truck, and therefore can use a .430 lift cam.
I've also been told there was no teardown.
Now, upon examining the new NHRA rating, I see that the 2 dr. Monte also got the 11 hp hit.
Two problems I see here..
First, the 2 dr car has to use a .357 /.390 lift cam.
Second, it's a bit of a different platform, at it's 108 in. wheelbase.
The "truck" is 117.1
I contend that the 2dr. shouldn't have gotten the hit at all.
No, I'm not building one, but I hate to see two good combos whacked, when it should be only one.
Those who are still awake here after all of this,, what say you?

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Mark, the 2 different camshafts seals the deal, it's two different combinations. It is indefensible, and NHRA must adjust the Monte Carlo
back to what it was. Perhaps an oversight, perhaps not. It must be undone.

J.R.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

You are correct about the wheelbase difference and the Monte Carlo shouldn't get a hit.
There are no 1987 Chevrolet Trucks listed in the classification guide. The ElCamino is and has always been classified as a car.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

The 1987 class guide list the the ElCamino as a pickup. So is the word truck understood? The wheel base difference of 9.1” should make it a different platform. The camshaft deal like JR pointed out is enough to fix the car part.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

The word "Truck" is very specific in the "Engine Blueprint Specs.".

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Ya know Larry, you've been around for long enough to know what happens when you assume that something is understood when dealing with the NHRA. ;-)

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

I talked to Pat C. at NHRA on 8/29/22 . He agreed that only the 1987 El camino (truck). should be refactored. Eddiie's engine was torn down. No problem.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

i was pitted with eddy at epping, he had to borrow some tools for tech teardown, nhra measured throttle body diameter and made him pull valve cover. not sure what they looked for in valve-train

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Bob, I should have just called you. I knew you'd be on top of this.
Apologies if there was a full teardown..No doubt it would have passed one.

Billy is correct. The El Camino was always in the guide...before there were truck classes.

Some of you might remember the Jr. Stock Hydramatic sedan delivery "truck" deal.
It was legal until one day, it wasn't ;-)

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

If El Caminos are trucks then who is going to explain to Dennis Paz that his SS/NA El Camino is no longer legal? Trucks can't and never could run in regular SS classes.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Billy, I have not seen a rule book in several years but it but it used to say that el Camino's and rancheros are allowed to run with the cars.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

For starters, if you get automatic horsepower the car should be looked at.

As far as this being a truck, I was at the center of that with this exact vehicle in 2018 when Bob Shaw and I decided to qualify number one with it.

This was a bit of a convoluted debate but after it was determined this vehicle was sold under the truck line and was in the truck brochure. The tipping point was unlike other Chevelle/El Camino predecessors this vehicle has a frame that would not fit under any malibu of its time and there were no Malibus even produced at the time. Im in agreeance that if it had a malibu frame then it would be a car but it has just about the same wheelbase as my full size C-10 pick up.

The vehicle underwent a complete teardown and was in the barn for over 6 hours a record length tear down for me.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

and with that being said, NHRA SHOULD immediately fix their Classification Guide and their Engine Blueprint Specifications to reflect the fact/error of it being a Truck.
Again, there are NO 1987 Trucks listed in the Engine Blueprint Specs and, from what I've always been told, "if it's not in the guide, it doesn't exist.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Billy, I was just kidding when I said I was mad at you. I have nearly forgotten about that .001 light you put on me at Indy 18 years ago. But that was pretty mean.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Bingo.
So it's not a truck then. It's listed with Monte Carlos ,which are also 108 wb.
NHRA, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided it's close enough.
Bear with me now.. Trying to help a few of y'all.
The Elky, being in the car section , needs to go back to the small cam ,and the hp , back to 140.
Otherwise, it needs to go into a new 87 truck file.
Speaking of..We know GM made an 87 262 C 10..auto or STICK..It should have been put in the guide.
What do you think, Larry Hill?

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Ed Bennet, the McFarlin’s, and some other GM people help me get information so NHRA would allow the 1985-86 C-10 V6 truck in stock. After some time passed the V8’s appeared in the guide. Since I had my combination working pretty well I did not work on getting the later model trucks approved for competition.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

In other words paper combos? Bennett learned from the best at Oldsmobile!

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Bob, even if you WERE "mad" at me, I couldn't be "mad" at you anyway.

You could look at that .001 light a couple of different ways. You were so much faster than me that it was my only means of surviving the humiliation of being "train lengthed" in the Class Final! OR it was just a bad job of red lighting.

18 years huh? Time does fly!

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

My C10 truck is a real 1986 v6 Q-Jet stick truck. The only Paper Parts are the title and a record or two.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

For whatever it's worth, this does align with the "definition" of a "platform" from the AHFS page:


As for the V8 C10 trucks - Rich Muhlenhardt (RIP) was the first one to show up with the 350in V8; I'm pretty sure he had a hand in getting it approved. I remember a lot of debate on whether the 350 was a legitimate or paper combination but I'm not touching that one here. ;)
The 305in V8 was added earlier this year.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

There is NOTHING paper about these truck combinations. There are laundry list of them left if someone wants to run out and build a 117" plus wheelbase stocker

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

I'm sure that after looking at the issue involved that NHRA will make the correct decision, they seem to be trying to level the playing field and to use common sense, which is a plus.

The wheelbase deal is a given, longer wheelbase cars are at a disadvantage and like most other Stocker/SS's running same engine combos there is a different hp rating on them, though I could be mistaken?

RJ

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Yup... The 87 I mentioned is definitely not a paper combo.In fact , quite common. For some reason, it was never submitted to NHRA.
If someone goes to the extra length and gets it submitted, nothing wrong or phony about that.
*************
As the Rounded-Line series were redesignated the R/V trucks for 1987, several changes were made to the powertrain line. The 292 I6 was dropped from 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton trucks, with the 4.3 L V6 becoming the sole 6-cylinder engine; all engines adopted fuel injection (with the exception of the 6.2 L diesel).[2][31] In addition, a "smart" powertrain control module (PCM) was also introduced, which controlled the fuel injection system, fuel-to-air burn ratio, engine ignition timing, and (if equipped with an automatic transmission) the Turbo Hydra-Matic's turbine torque converter clutch.[47]

Following the transition of 1⁄2-ton pickups to the fourth-generation GMT400 chassis, the R/V series was offered with three engines from 1987 to 1991: a standard 5.7 L V8 with the option of either a 7.4 L V8 or the 6.2 L diesel V8.[48]
Chevrolet/GMC C/K powertrain details (1973-1991)[49][50]
Engine Engine family Production Code

(RPO)
Output Notes
Horsepower Torque
250 cu in (4.1 L) I6 Chevrolet Turbo-Thrift 1973–1979 LD4 105 hp (78 kW) 185 lb⋅ft (251 N⋅m)
1979–1984 LE3 130 hp (97 kW) 210 lb⋅ft (285 N⋅m)
262 cu in (4.3 L) V6 Chevrolet 90° V6 1985-1986 LB1 155 hp (116 kW) 230 lb⋅ft (312 N⋅m) 4-bbl
1987 LB4 155 hp (116 kW) 230 lb⋅ft (312 N⋅m) TBI

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

RJ, You might remember the Gilbert Johnson Impala. It was real fast for a 283 SS car, index wise.
They managed to get hp piled on it more than once. So much so that their rating was somewhat higher than the Chevy II's and Chevelles., at that time.

In other words, the 119" big Impala 283 could make more hp in that body style.
That was a big glitch in the system, in my opinion.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Mark
Refresh my memory please, getting old ain’t for the weak, as I said I could be mistaken.
Seems the Mopar combos had different hp ratings that corresponded to wheelbase, small car/big car with same motors but 108/116/117 wheelbase??

Should there be a difference in hp rating for this or not? Opinions??

Thanks
RJ

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

Cricket’s……

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it's not.
In the example I gave , the index is what made the car look fast, ...and no disrespect to anyone.
In no way, shape or form would that body style make the SS 283 any faster.
Lowering the SS/NA index wouldn't be fair to other makes.
Capping the hp to be no higher than a Chevy II seems fair to the owner /driver here, but not to other makes and models in the class.
Seems to me this is and example of where human intervention would be needed in their system.

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

I've always wanted to do a 90-91 454SS pickup, but that factor of 310hp on a 2 barrel 7.5:1 454 that was OE rated 255hp really takes the wind out of the sails lol

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

since the hydramatic debacle it was determined since the sedan deliveries were buiult on station wagon platform it was a car no hydramatics (marv ripes throws a party)

the shaw & wong story was determined opposite since the elco had a 117' WB frame that was only used in this platform from 1977-1987 and was by all GM printed info a truck (sales info and EPA compliance) it was a truck (that cost me bending 6 exhaust valves on my 305 with that 430' cam) bummer

i requested from mr Pat a statement saying such >> i have such a official email states ALL elcos are trucks i even replied and re ask so even a 60 would be a truck with curiosity killing me as to how much a 430 cam might help a 60 283 instead of 399 ... hmmmm and reply was stated > ALL ELCAMINOS ARE TRUCKS.

im not gonna be the guy who tells the SS dudes ill let mr Pat hes great at making friends that way (wait till the AAMA stuff hits)

p.s. i have had the HP reduced on the 78 305/145-180 reduced by 3 last 2 years to 174 and it is still listed in the malibu section but i ve been told the cars cant use it ????

i agree the class guide needs to be fixed showing this as fact

captain

gonna run the elco at vegas and it could be purchased if ya wanna get in on this :)

Re: AHFS Foibles
 

RJ, I had a 67 Ranchero 390, 4 speed and wanted to run that in Stock but it wasn't in the guide.