Stock & SS in Denver

[MikeMoller]

Originally Posted by cabway

Hi Boys,

I never post except to correct a lie, and Art generally corrects the mistakes for me. The 2004 PT Cruiser was rated at 180 hp before 9/8/2010. It was at 18.00lbs per horsepower which is a natural CF/S which of course could run DF/S or BF/S at the time. No one got robbed and it was 100% legal for what it did. PERIOD!

Be happy, I got 6 hp and .45 index hit!

Wait til you see the next car!

I stand corrected! Sorry for the slam.

[Tom Moock]

Travis Miller, They need to fix the Guide for the PT crusier turbo convertible,they made them in 2004 but they were titled 2005 thur 2009. Tom

[GarysZ24]

Originally Posted by cabway

Hi Boys,

I never post except to correct a lie, and Art generally corrects the mistakes for me. The 2004 PT Cruiser was rated at 180 hp before 9/8/2010. It was at 18.00lbs per horsepower which is a natural CF/S which of course could run DF/S or BF/S at the time. No one got robbed and it was 100% legal for what it did. PERIOD!

Be happy, I got 6 hp and .45 index hit!

Wait til you see the next car!

I am very happy, because I spent the first 10yrs of my "normally aspirated" Cavaliers existence in Stock eliminator being rated at 150hp, when it came from the factory with only 120hp., thus many years that I could've had a competitive car (factored as it is now with 125hp), were wasted! All of this while turboed Mopars were factory rated at 146 and factored at nearly the same 150! So when I saw that car running -1.82 under the index, I felt that it was grossly underfactored. With all due respect to you and Travis's statements about whether it was even classed to run CF/S, I don't recall seeing the turbo Cruiser with a lbs per hp factor in the 18-19 lbs per hp range, and I looked over all of the engine combos available for that vehicle (year/model), because of how far under it ran. However, that's water under the bridge now, because it ran so good that now it can't run that class even with the move up or down option.

You should be happy that you only got 6hp and not 10-20-30, as it's a whole lot more easy to adjust a turbo for greater performance, than a computer controlled normally aspirated engine. Please know that I'm not upset at you for this, I'm upset with NHRA because my car was mis-factored from the git-go, and it was an uphill struggle to be competitive, while the turboed Mopars were literally able to run under the index right off of the showroom floor...what's fair about that??? I can only wish that I would've had the proper hp factor for my cast iron headed, 173 Chevy back in the 90's to mid- '00's that I have now, because races I couldn't compete in (because I couldn't run the number), would've been different if I didn't have that extra 25hp on my factor? Based on what I've been reading in this forum in other areas, I guess the carbureted folks are resembling my remarks with regards to the DP's and the CJ's, and the proof was last years top 5 qualifying spots at Indy...your car and those cars.

I guess what really got me is I don't recall anyone racing an '86 f.i., cast iron headed, 173 V6 Chevy engine in Stock eliminator (especially the fwd classes in Stock), but because of what a Cadillac did with a similar blocked engine ('85's had the same engine, but different fuel injection systems, and Cadillac's had a different set-up than Chevy's did...plus the '87's came with aluminum heads), my combo was grossly over-factored.

I look forward to reading about your new car too (and even wish you well with it), but as long as it's a turbo, I'll be glad it isn't factored to run in the same class as my car, because if (and that's a big IF) the day comes when I get my car fast enough to make going to INDY worth taking a chance at, I'm glad I won't have to make my car run -1.8 under the index to have a chance to win class, because there won't be a DF/S car out there that's that quick....

Oh and one more thing (since this threads about the Mile Highs and Stock/Super Stock), I had a chance to race for class back in the early '00's, and I had to race a turboed Daytona for the (over factored for my car), CF/SA final. In spite of putting 2 car lengths on that (Highlands Ranch, Co. based) 3300lb car (while my car was nearly 700lbs lighter), it was still able to easily outrun my car, and crossed the line at least 2 car lengths in front of me for the easiest class win of all the class cars....

[GarysZ24]

Well, well, well...how does 22 Super Stockers, and 36 Stockers grab you all?

I hope Randy's car picks up for race day, because if it doesn't, then that'll adlib why I'm glad I didn't try going up there...last time I was there my best run was a 16.664 in rnd 3 (which wouldn't match the index there this year of 16.59 for DF/S)...THANKS A LOT WHOEVER'S IDEAL IT WAS TO CHANGE THE OLD STOCK/SUPER STOCK ALTITUDE CORRECTION FACTORS TO WHAT THE SUPER CATEGORIES USE!

Oh and I have some corrections to make on my last post...the race I spoke of was the 2003 Mile Hi's, and the actual class was DF/SA. In spite of my .061 to Eric Georges .249 rt. (only done because he knew he had a full second plus on me), I was outran with a 16.788 pass, by his 15.574 pass to easily beat my car even with his extra 700lbs! Thus, Eric qualified 3rd with a 15.53 sec pass against my 16.788 which was only good enough for 76th out of 77 vehicles (the only reason I wasn't dead last, is because Toby Lang was being kind ), because the DF/SA index was a 16.82!

[Bobby DiDomenico]

[QUOTE=GarysZ24;270769]Well, well, well...how does 22 Super Stockers, and 36 Stockers grab you all?

In spite of my .061 to Eric Georges .249 rt. (only done because he knew he had a full second plus on me), I was outran with a 16.788 pass, by his 15.574 pass to easily beat my car even with his extra 700lbs! QUOTE]

In the new rules could you weigh over the heaviest amount for your class?
A 300hp car in the 10.0 - 10.5 class would be 3,170# min and 3,320# max correct?, and 3,350# is now illegal since it makes you slower? Or can you weigh the next legal class down or more? (Attempting to explain Stock Eliminator to folks that went to Joliet)

Gary,
Out of those 22, I've got to root for Henry.

[GarysZ24]

[QUOTE=Bobby DiDomenico;270938]

Originally Posted by GarysZ24

Well, well, well...how does 22 Super Stockers, and 36 Stockers grab you all?

In spite of my .061 to Eric Georges .249 rt. (only done because he knew he had a full second plus on me), I was outran with a 16.788 pass, by his 15.574 pass to easily beat my car even with his extra 700lbs! QUOTE]

In the new rules could you weigh over the heaviest amount for your class?
A 300hp car in the 10.0 - 10.5 class would be 3,170# min and 3,320# max correct?, and 3,350# is now illegal since it makes you slower? Or can you weigh the next legal class down or more? (Attempting to explain Stock Eliminator to folks that went to Joliet)

Gary,
Out of those 22, I've got to root for Henry.

I'm rooting for Henry too, because his car is my engine builders hot rod (Verle Stevens). As for the car and weight thing, I think you're right with regards to what you said about a 3,350# car being illegal for the 10-10.5 class, because they have a multitude of different classes for the rwd race cars. However, if you were running a V/SA car, or a fwd car with a V6 in it, then you don't have a slower class that your engine car combo would qualify for, thus you'd have to run the slowest class allowed for them...which again is V/SA, and DF/S. I'm sure Travis could way in more on this since he's an NHRA guy? However, I'd also think (unless tech would correct me), that as long as you're over weight and not under, you should be ok as long as you can run the index (or better), that you race in. I myself would run the slower index, because it would give me the slower index to qualify against, and would allow me more flexibility with regards to dial-ins and changing weather conditions....hope that helped...