04-19-2010, 09:15 AM
|
#11
|
VIP Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Louisville , KY
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 68
Liked 279 Times in 68 Posts
|
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roberts
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
|
|
|