View Single Post
Old 04-19-2010, 09:15 AM   #11
Greg Hill
VIP Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Louisville , KY
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 68
Liked 279 Times in 68 Posts
Default Re: Once again a bogus combination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roberts View Post
Alan (aka spinmaster), you obviously don't read or comprehend very well. My point about the LT-1 has NOTHING to do with certification or performance! I know it is a legit engine, if used in a 1993-97 F-body (or Caprice w/steel heads). I don't care if the LT-1 IS a certified engine, it wasn't used in 1998 F-bodies, period. That is a fact that cannot be spun or argued.

Why was this engine allowed? I will tell you: It has everything to do with the fact that when GM needed to, they submitted bogus facts to NHRA to get a combination in the guide. That is my point, it is PURE fact. If Ford or Dodge does the same thing to get a combination in the guide, how is that any different?

I understand that in the end the performance doesn't change on an LT-1 car if you change the bodywork, but still, GM was the first to get a crate-motor car approved.

It's the same friggin' thing either way, you want to say it is not because of the level of performance, but that's not how it works.
it's not even close to the same thing. None of the motors for the challenger or Mustang were ever produced in a street car. This is a red herring. The LT1 is not a crate motor.
__________________
Greg Hill 4171 STK
Greg Hill is offline   Reply With Quote