Ok? - Page 11

Billy Nees · 10-30-2013, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DYER

long story short I built him a motor that is about 75% of what my motor is that is what fit his budget with the hp at 210 it would run ss/ma we have been running it for couple of months and have beat on it a little and it has run 12.27 on a index of 11.85 in ss/ma last week end we run it at cedar falls nat open in ss/pa which we thought was new hp at 143 it ran 12.27 on a 12.65 index so I ask how much more do throw at it ??? it will never run in ss/ma I don't care how much money you throw at it . so do you go to points races over and over not able to even run the index ???? I know you and I would like to have that guy 1st rd. I know I will just tell him to forget it and go bracket racing

So Bill, the bottom line here is what? Your buddies car ran a 12.27 on a 12.65 SS/PA index with a 75% motor on one of it's first times out and I'm gonna guess that it wasn't within 200 lbs. of it's minimum weight(it's 2600 lbs. with driver BTW) and all that you had to do was screw over a couple of dozen STOCK racers that run U/S and U/SA for the next 20 years and anybody at Indy that planned on being #1 qualifier!
Good job! A** hole!

Sam Capizzi Jr · 10-30-2013, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

REALLY??? I've never heard that before! Course that was when I had enough and stopped watching anything to do with nascrap and haven't gone back. That would certainly explain a lot, it was always assumed Ernie was (actually he is) an excellent engine builder with help from Yates and Wilson. Meh, point still is though, regardless of how quick one car was, they kept hitting all of them even though they trailed the field by 2 seconds. One can't deny the anti-ford bias in nascrap. Heck offer enough money and even an import like toyota can race a v8 rwd car...oh wait...LOL!

Back to the point though,
302 at 162 is .54hp per cube
307 at 175 is .57hp per cube
318 at 180 is .57hp per cube

and yet historically nobody would build a 302 because it wasn't deemed competetive.

Now at 143hp it's .47hp per cube and runs -1.03.

So, now AutoHPfor Slugs will bring it back up to .50 or .51 where it is comparable to a chev or dodge at .57
Sad truth is, the ford heads suck and stock, won't put out comparible hp numbers to a chev.

My 318 Slug at .47 hp per cube is 149.
20x149+170= 3150
I just went 13.25 at maple grove at 3165 which is -1.60 under the U/SA index of 14.85.

.50 per cube and .57 per cube is a huge difference btw

That's a slap in the face to the guys that have been running the class for 20 years working on their combos. Those fords shouldn't have been changed. That's horse****.

jmantle · 10-30-2013, 10:24 PM

If I was a Ford guy and they rated my 302 cu in V8 at 129 HP, I'd be embarrassed.
Look at the 304 AMC (same carb) 180HP, 273 Dodge 171 HP (smaller carb), 258 AMC, 150 HP. I could go on and on. The 302 probably deserved a little adjustment but this was ridiculous. Fortunately, I can hide in V, many can't.

Jim Mantle U/V/SA 6632

Tony Janes · 10-30-2013, 10:31 PM

It looks like the adjustment is here for good.

partsbob67 · 10-30-2013, 11:00 PM

not sure which year is 129hp. 143hp is what I see.

Tony Janes · 10-30-2013, 11:04 PM

The 72 Comet and 73 Maverick are 143

Joe Toller · 10-31-2013, 08:59 AM

75 is at 129, 76 at 133, 77 at 137.

It may not be right, but if it gets some more racers out there, is it all bad? If it all works as it should (yes, I am naive, and putting trust in the AFHS system), these cars will all be back in Q and R by mid 2014, right?

Honestly, they should cut the same breaks to the Mopar, GM, and AMC camps, for fairness, AND the sake of parity. Think of the cool heads-up pairings that could create!

10-30-2013, 10:24 PM	#103
jmantle Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Black Creek, BC Canada Posts: 331 Likes: 79 Liked 172 Times in 81 Posts	Re: Ok? If I was a Ford guy and they rated my 302 cu in V8 at 129 HP, I'd be embarrassed. Look at the 304 AMC (same carb) 180HP, 273 Dodge 171 HP (smaller carb), 258 AMC, 150 HP. I could go on and on. The 302 probably deserved a little adjustment but this was ridiculous. Fortunately, I can hide in V, many can't. Jim Mantle U/V/SA 6632

10-30-2013, 10:31 PM	#104
Tony Janes Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Whittier, Ca Posts: 830 Likes: 94 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Ok? It looks like the adjustment is here for good. __________________ Tony Janes 7941 STK, SS

10-30-2013, 11:00 PM	#105
partsbob67 Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: rohnert park,ca Posts: 414 Likes: 11 Liked 79 Times in 11 Posts	Re: Ok? not sure which year is 129hp. 143hp is what I see. __________________ bob beals 7244

10-30-2013, 11:04 PM	#106
Tony Janes Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Whittier, Ca Posts: 830 Likes: 94 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Ok? The 72 Comet and 73 Maverick are 143 __________________ Tony Janes 7941 STK, SS

10-31-2013, 08:59 AM	#107
Joe Toller Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lewistown, Montana Posts: 550 Likes: 78 Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Ok? 75 is at 129, 76 at 133, 77 at 137. It may not be right, but if it gets some more racers out there, is it all bad? If it all works as it should (yes, I am naive, and putting trust in the AFHS system), these cars will all be back in Q and R by mid 2014, right? Honestly, they should cut the same breaks to the Mopar, GM, and AMC camps, for fairness, AND the sake of parity. Think of the cool heads-up pairings that could create!