thanks again nhra
 

new ruling on elcamino's absurd

the 59-76 elcos are built on car chassis as were the 57 sedan deiveries
77-87 are specific platform 117" wb

and no regard on statement on HP reductions / increases

maybe im just sensitive but seems like im just the nhra whipping boy ...
1st 302 fffords get -30HP
2nd AMA weights coming moves me out of class ive held record in for 27 of laast 40 years
3rd elcamino now loses its 430 cam AND seems like loses earned hp reduction

this bull**** aint much fun anymore

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Come over to Lemons 24. HOOT

Re: thanks again nhra
 

How much do you lose? Is it a .410 now.

Paul

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Jack, don't buy a new cam yet.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Jack, Don't forget the 260 4 bbl. Saudi Arabian taxi option.
Also the V 8 FWD's in regular Stock...

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Nobody cares ….. but 2 people in the whole world
Build Back Better not a softy

Re: thanks again nhra
 

The LORD giveth and The LORD taketh away. (Job 1: 21 )

Re: thanks again nhra
 

So now a 2 second under combo becomes what, a 1.5 under combo?
I would say that the HP rating on that combo was a joke, but jokes are funny. Up until last year, the hp rating on that combo was the same as the 230 inline 6 in the nova. Somebody would have to play "the game" for the next 5-6 years at least to make that combo anywhere remotely close to the el camino in V/SA. It's kind of funny how people keep complaining about the "fffords". Where's the influx of people building 2bbl 302's that everyone cried wolf about? The people that are running those combos seem to be the same ones that ran them for years before the hp reduction.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

So the wheelbase is different, but all components, the rails in between and body panels are g-body CAR specific, so do you suggest a Chevelle 4 door (116") should get different engine specs, allowed parts, and factors than a 2 door (112")?
As stated above, your 2 second under combo just got knocked back to 1.50 under combo, what a shame!

Re: thanks again nhra
 

For those who don't follow this stuff closely, but feel the need to comment anyway, Jack's Elky is a 305 2 bbl...not a V6 like the one that triggered this look/see and subsequent ruling.
Jack's doesn't run a second under, yet. It did lose it's .430 lift cam too though.
Whether it should have had it in the first place is debatable, but it did and now it doesn't.
(See MJ's point, above)

That was Jack's point, I believe.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

There is more to this DRAMA than racers realize. Dennis Paz and Mark Faul are indirectly involved with their superstockers ….

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Having some experience with the SBC 2 barrel combo, the change of the cam intake lift from .430 to say .390 Is going to make very little difference, if any at all.
The Challenge is the flow restriction of the 2 barrel, not a .040 dfference in valve lift. You can get only so much CFM thru the Carburator Venturi size no matter if you have a . 500 lift camshaft

Steve Teeter Stk/SS 620..
B/SA, G/SA, M/SA

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Ok, dumb question.

Where do you find these updates to cars/ classes?

Having recently bought a U/SA (273 2 barrel) wagon myself... wondering what if any effects it will have on me?

Also... I don't agree with the fords haha.

Thanks,
Casey Fauss-Johnson

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Early this year the NHRA found what they believe to be more accurate shipping weights for pretty much every car across the board. Some moved a few pounds, others moved enough to change classes. That change lasted about a day before the NHRA decided to take back the change for the season. Haven't heard a word about whether they are going to make the changes for 2023 or not, so for now I wouldn't worry too much about it. There's a thread on all of that on here somewhere. All of these tech related changes can be found at nhraracer.com

Re: thanks again nhra
 

The El Camino was advertised and sold and titled as a truck by General Motors.
You can haul 5 refrigerators in it.
NHRA thought it was a truck for 60 years.
It was a truck when we set the national record.
It was a truck when we won class at INDY several times.
I wonder why today they discovered that it is not really a truck

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Casey, welcome to the NHRA class fray…like your NSS car BTW. Changes are normally posted here…

https://www.nhraracer.com/

But you need to rely on the classification guide (see left column of linked page) because that’s what you follow.

Contact Dwight Sutherland to get access to the great info tool he created and maintains (but the official NHRA classification guide is the ‘bible’. Here’s his website:
http://www.classracerinfo.com/

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Looks like another Bob Shaw only rule.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Perfect! Thank you for the info and the kind words!

Casey FJ

Re: thanks again nhra
 

In many cases the shipping weight used by NHRA back in the day were furnished by the Manufacture..
In some cases it was in the manufactures competitive interest to use a " different" shipping weight .
Fast forward to today and now
many are known to be incorrect . People built combos based these NHRA HP to weight info.
Does it matter?, To Some very much so. Others not so much.
I would be in favor of , if your current natural class falls within
.10 to the next natural class , up or down, you can chose to go up or down to change the natural class you fall into. .
So for an example, if your car currently is shown as a Natural M car at 14.05. You could move to 13.95 and race L, M or N if you wanted to, Instead of M, N and O. Currently at 14.05.
It could help those that could drop to N as the safety rules change at N and below, saving $$.
If you run a 2 barrel combo , they respond with a greater performance gain the lighter the vehicle.
Just a thought to create more happy NHRA racers.

Steve Teeter Stk/ SS 620
B/SA, G/SA, M/SA

Re: thanks again nhra
 

We spent all day in the barn with discussions from GM representatives even. The brochures were brought out from 1987. I can only speak from my experience with Bob Shaw but it was determined at the time that it was sold under the truck line.

I get this means nothing to the masses as these cars are considered a nuisance and we have taken way to many class wins (in combo classes) and number one qualifying positions.

The wishy washy nature of the decisions being retracted or changed by the tech department is going to make it hard for many more people than just the few el Camino owners. I see many more retractions of parts in very common combinations coming. At that point it won’t be so funny when superseded parts from A-G cars start being retracted from the book being common place.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

According to NHRA logic Chevy S-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota are not trucks either. They were not built on Full size truck chassis. That is going to upset a few people.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Factory Brochure says "Truck".

https://www.xr793.com/wp-content/upl...-El-Camino.pdf

Re: thanks again nhra
 

Picture

https://www.veikl.com/api/Download/Preview/47024?page=1

https://www.veikl.com/api/Download/Preview/47024?page=6

Re: thanks again nhra
 

i had just purchased the elco from vics ol lady, and drank more than a 12 pack hanging out with charleybob during the indy 5 hour conference.

i exchanged 4 emails with pat verifying that the 77-87 were indeed trucks and he stated several times "All Elcaminos are trucks) you guys wouldnt belive me but i HAVE a 60 elco :)

based on this info i chose the 305 2bbl because meollers runs good and i get bigger cam plus me / him cant get HP hits for each other ... spent my $15, 000 including 4 cams and two dyno days .... and SHAZAAM im a car !! lose my 6HP off and cause moeller got a HP hit i can never get it back ...

so yea im pissed >>> and the AVMA is coming im betting any takers ???

Re: thanks again nhra
 

What is a G-body on an El Camino?
The General Motors G platform (also called G-body) was an automobile platform designation used for mid-sized rear-wheel drive cars. It made its first appearance from the 1969 to 1972 model years, adapted from GM's A-body, and reappeared from 1982 to 1988
What year is the G-body El Camino?
Production resumed for the 1964–1977 model years based on the Chevelle platform, and continued for the 1978–1987 model years based on the GM G-body platform.

Re: thanks again nhra
 

I have no horse in this fight, or dog in this race, or whatever the saying is. But I do care enough to ask:

Does NHRA have a coherent, documented process for determining what a combination "platform" is?

From the AHFS page on NHRARacer:

Body platform: Both screening reviews are only in effect for the specific car model being evaluated. The body style is generally classified by the OEM auto manufacturers' definition of "platform", i.e., the Camaro and Firebird body are both based on the same platform and therefore considered the same with regard to body platform classification.

So where exactly does the OEM define a "platform," if their sales brochures etc. are not good enough?

#2, haven't we been arguing about different versions of this "platform" issue for years? Nova vs Camaro, Corvette vs Camaro LS1, FWD Cavalier vs 80s RWD Camaro, etc... I bet we trace everything back to the same root cause: What exactly constitutes a "platform???"

Re: thanks again nhra
 

I have to disagree with Pat C (big surprise, huh?)
Elkys have been run in Stock, as cars, since 1959.
Same with the Chevelle versions (also in SS , where pickups aren't allowed)
The issue here is the 78-87 version with the unique 117 " wheel base.
Yes, it's in the truck brochure, but it's also listed in the car section of the NHRA guide.
I would bet some of the earlier ones were shown in the truck brochures too.
Anyway, they have been allowing the .430 cam for a while . If it's a f/u , they own it now.
I would have said..leave it alone now,...like the 283 459 intake, the 6X Pontiac cc's, the 400 SBC's
Don't even know where to start on the FE FFFFords...