HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-27-2007, 10:12 AM   #1
Len Imbrogno
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 40
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Dennis,
Several reasons why the switch back:

1- The original split was to allow the EFI cars to compete against each other and level out the HP factors.
2- When NHRA created the EFI specific classes, the thinking was that eventually we would blend them
back into regular stock after they leveled out against each other.
3- Design inequities will always be an element of Stock category racing. This is why Stock Eliminator is
categorized by weight vs horsepower with the element of weight being adjustable based on actual
performance.
4- There are a number of racers that I am sure would gladly debate the consistency factor with you.
5- NHRA has too many classes in Stock (75) and Super Stock (85) eliminator categories. Eliminating the
EFI classes reduces the overal class count by 26 classes.
6- To include or not include EFI cars back into regular Stock has been an ongoing debate among
racers since the inception of the classes. When you look at ALL the elements, such as those
listed above and what is best for the long term growth of this category putting EFI cars back into
regular Stock made the most sense to NHRA and arguably many racers.
__________________
Len Imbrogno

Last edited by Len Imbrogno; 09-27-2007 at 10:15 AM.
Len Imbrogno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 11:23 AM   #2
Tommy Gaynor
Member
 
Tommy Gaynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 253
Likes: 2
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Thanks, Len Here is a good example 1969 Camaro 325hp 396 VS 1997 Camaro 350 LTI

Both fit in E/SA

1969 3420lbs
1997 3530lbs

Both have a 3 speed

1969 396 cubic inches
1997 350 cubic inches

1969 700+ cfm Q Jet
1997 600 cfm throttle body

You tell me what looks better!
Tommy Gaynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 12:36 PM   #3
Chuck Beach
Senior Member
 
Chuck Beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, Ohio
Posts: 664
Likes: 12
Liked 58 Times in 13 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Chuck Beach
Default Re: hey len !!!!

FI works better
__________________
Chuck Beach
3340 STK
Chuck Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 12:55 PM   #4
fredjohnston
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Liked 55 Times in 14 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Tommy you forgot the:

Aerodynamics
Torque arm Suspension (on F-bodies)
Weight distribution
Rollererized engine components
Evolution of technology will benefit the FI cars more than a car that's been beat on for 40 years...
One is a steel head and steel manifold big block..one is an aluminum head aluminum manifold small block.

Oh wait..they are advantages for the FI car and you seemed to have left them out

Last edited by fredjohnston; 09-27-2007 at 01:01 PM.
fredjohnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 12:59 PM   #5
Tommy Gaynor
Member
 
Tommy Gaynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 253
Likes: 2
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

FI works better? Better than what? Is that why every N.A. comp car that has tried it has switched back to carbs? Or why Pro Stock has not switched? The carb will cool the fuel making more power. The FI fires the fuel in right at the port not on top of the manifold letting it cool. I will say after you have spent hours testing on a dyno and on the track the FI car is simpler to make a change with the laptop than disassemble the carb. But You have to have done the testing to know what change to make. And yes I have raced both and won with both.
Tommy Gaynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 01:20 PM   #6
Tommy Gaynor
Member
 
Tommy Gaynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 253
Likes: 2
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Fred I will agree on the aero and the roller engine is a better deal. But is it better then 46" and 100 cfm?
PS I dont think Private Ryan's A/FIA Could hang with Fred Henson's A/SA 9.80's Pretty stout! All of the records are with in .030 A/FIA A/SA B/FIA C/SA and C/FIA E/FIA The only one that is faster is Private Ryan the old school cars are faster in C and E. So really are they better?
Tommy Gaynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 01:23 PM   #7
Tommy Gaynor
Member
 
Tommy Gaynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 253
Likes: 2
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Hey Let me help you all out! Go to the classified section and buy my car! I will show you all the tricks that all of us FI guys have like the control, alt, F7 tune up. It helped Mark Maul with the US Nationals in 06! Jim Waldo has switched and never looked back!
Tommy Gaynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 01:23 PM   #8
fredjohnston
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Liked 55 Times in 14 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Gaynor View Post
Fred I will agree on the aero and the roller engine is a better deal. But is it better then 46" and 100 cfm?
PS I dont think Private Ryan's A/FIA Could hang with Fred Henson's A/SA 9.80's Pretty stout! All of the records are with in .030 A/FIA A/SA B/FIA C/SA and C/FIA E/FIA The only one that is faster is Private Ryan the old school cars are faster in C and E. So really are they better?
That only because they are all 1.35 + under... With the .2 off the index it'll be interesting to see how fast they (and the Ford 428s for that matter) can really go.
fredjohnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 01:59 PM   #9
Todd Hoven
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Why don't you bring up the Cam Specs??? That 390 int 401 lift cam in that 396 I'm sure is at a disatvantage. The intake on the 396 is also suspect, compared to an intake that just has to worry about charging Air into a MPI lower intake. Maybe not all FI cars have an avantage, but many of them have.Just look at the SS qualifying for that Atco Points race.

Todd Hoven
1035 Stk




Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Gaynor View Post
FI works better? Better than what? Is that why every N.A. comp car that has tried it has switched back to carbs? Or why Pro Stock has not switched? The carb will cool the fuel making more power. The FI fires the fuel in right at the port not on top of the manifold letting it cool. I will say after you have spent hours testing on a dyno and on the track the FI car is simpler to make a change with the laptop than disassemble the carb. But You have to have done the testing to know what change to make. And yes I have raced both and won with both.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 04:18 PM   #10
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,002
Likes: 64
Liked 783 Times in 195 Posts
Default Re: hey len !!!!

Todd - FI is not legal in Pro Stock. Comparing comp engines and the engineering intake tracts they can construct to a stock eliminator engine limited to cylinder head technology that is 30 years old is ludicrous. 600 cfm throttle body is dry air, equivalent to 880 cfm carburetor for ability to pass enough air to mix with the fuel that can be programmed for volume and duration in accordance with valve action and forced into the cylinder at 40+ psi. No comparison. Not to mention that the LS1 heads flow better than the 396-325 heads and the intake tract is shorter.

Not even apples and oranges; more like rocks and monkeys.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.