Z-MAX car count

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by RJ

NHRA "stock?"/IHRA "crate stock?" - what is stock anymore?

crank - yes
aftermarket rods - no
aftermarket pistons - no
lightweight pins - no
$400+ rings - no
billet cam - no
ceramic lifters - no
big O.D. pushrods - no
500lb+ valve springs - no
lightweight retainers - no
aftermarket valves - no
bogus ports - no
any valve job - no
bogus chambers - no
bogus manifold runners - no

Just an example about how "not stock" NHRA or IHRA stock eliminator really is anyway. After 1985 or so calling anything stock is a moot point. I say let the rest of crates in, the CJ's and Challengers really are anyway.

I'm like Michael, I disagree. It will not likely help the car count at all, it just makes for more rules and more tech, and NHRA is not interested in that. Besides, the fact that Stock isn't really stock any more is not a good reason to make it even less stock.

[RJ]

Alan. the crates have specs like anything else, so tech is tech. Just saying it might be a good idea to have the option, if the crates don't show up, there's no harm done.

I left a bunch of stuff off the list (relocated lifter bores, relocated intake ports, etc.) stock has been long gone for a long time. As I'm sure you know, if you're not thinking like a comp racer when you're building a stocker these days, you are going to be slowwwwwwww.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by RJ

Alan. the crates have specs like anything else, so tech is tech. Just saying it might be a good idea to have the option, if the crates don't show up, there's no harm done.

I left a bunch of stuff off the list (relocated lifter bores, relocated intake ports, etc.) stock has been long gone for a long time. As I'm sure you know, if you're not thinking like a comp racer when you're building a stocker these days, you are going to be slowwwwwwww.

Yeah, the crates have specs. So do the GT cars. But that adds MORE specs, and we know NHRA doesn't really care to fool with the specs they have now. Crate and GT classes will have NHRA needing to police the body more, and they won't want to do that. Yes, you left off other things people do to cheat one up.

And if you add more specs, NHRA will be inclined to tech even less. Then you have more holes in the rules, and Stock becomes even less stock. Because not wanting to tech valvesprings beget killer springs, and not wanting to tech duration beget the no duration spec rule, and not wanting to look at lifters beget the trick lifter rule.

So you add more tech when they want to tech less, and you'll end up with more open rules. No need to accelerate the process. Better to look for ways to slow or reverse it.

[RJ]

I'm all for less tech, I'd be for a casting number(s) check, P&G check, a whistle test, and a oil pan inspection hole to look in. Everything else is "enhanced" anyway.

[Michael Beard]

Originally Posted by Rory McNeil

Micheal, if you already have a NHRA legal Stocker, why did you feel the need to build a crate motor car to run IHRA? I thought that a NHRA Stocker would fit into an existing IHRA class, no?

It had been on the injured reserve list for several years. I hurt a rod about 5th round at the Bracket Finals one year, and it had pretty much been sitting since. It's an '85 Turismo 2.2L (carb'd). Used to run EF/SA. While I feel like I'm more competitive in my faster car (and wheelies are fun!), I guess that may not be fair, as I did finish 11th in NHRA Div. 1 in my rookie year with the car, and won a few bracket races with it. Billy Nees and my dad got it back on track this summer, and have picked it up about .50. I may run it at a few races next year just to 'stretch its legs'. It's actually a pretty good car.

It's not so much a crate vs "NHRA" deal in terms of competitiveness, as I had the opportunity to drive an NHRA-legal Stocker in Super Stock last year, and finished 6th in the World. It's more just preference. As I keep saying - to each their own - I don't expect NHRA to change.