Within Stock rules???

[Mike Taylor 3601]

Based on those air flow numbers the dyno I use would be about 800hp with the valve angle of LS another 25 would be realistic,ET @that HP,weight seems pretty close to me,just off top of my head.
The way I see it,it is their engine and if they want to tell everything they did,then that's their business.
Mike Taylor 3601

[Billy Nees]

And the bottom line to this whole discussion? Imagine being the guys racing '50 Oldsmobiles and Studebakers in 1962-64 when Detroit was releasing "Stock" Super Dutys,Z-11s, Max-Wedges and Hemis, and Side-Oilers and Tunnel Ports.
Well, welcome to the 21st century! Now we're those guys.
We'll survive.

[novassdude]

From the article
“so we milled down the intake flange surface to shorten up the length of the port just slightly. This gives us some extra room to touch up the short-turn radius, bowl, and valve job area and increase the cross-section a bit without exceeding the cc limit,”

From the NHRA Rule book
“Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA accepted. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying and acid-porting prohibited.”

Based on this how is this motor legal?

[gbur]

Originally Posted by novassdude

From the article
“so we milled down the intake flange surface to shorten up the length of the port just slightly. This gives us some extra room to touch up the short-turn radius, bowl, and valve job area and increase the cross-section a bit without exceeding the cc limit,”

From the NHRA Rule book
“Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA accepted. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying and acid-porting prohibited.”

Based on this how is this motor legal?

exactly

[Robert Simpson]

From the NHRA Rule book
“Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA accepted. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying and acid-porting prohibited.”

Based on this how is this motor legal?[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly the heads were CNC from the factory? If that is the case how can NHRA prove that additional CNC had been done? Short of the cc's? When I first saw several years ago where CNC heads were installed on some of the super cars that clearly opened the door for additional porting. The thing I don't get from the article is the changing of the cam, to a larger grind? How can you tell this "Stocker" engine from a "SS" engine??

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Robert Simpson

If I remember correctly the heads were CNC from the factory? If that is the case how can NHRA prove that additional CNC had been done? Short of the cc's? When I first saw several years ago where CNC heads were installed on some of the super cars that clearly opened the door for additional porting. The thing I don't get from the article is the changing of the cam, to a larger grind? How can you tell this "Stocker" engine from a "SS" engine??

On the subject of the porting, you are correct. This was an issue on the SS AMX heads throughout their history. How do you know what is correct?


As for the camshaft specs, the .641" lift is what is in the Tech Bulletin, regardless of any advertising for the LS7. I suspect that some of the confusion is that people assume this engine is the same as the LS7 engine installed in Corvettes, but it is not. It is a spec engine for their Factory Shootout cars, not a production engine.

[Alan Nyhus]

For most, the real issue is what the rule book says and what is currently being done and allowed .

Isn't it time for the rule book to reflect what is currently being done? For a racer to spend $1000+ to cover up what isn't being enforced certainly doesn't help the racer.

Maybe it's time for the rules to state: If the ports meet the CC's, the valve sizes are correct and there's no welding or epoxy, they pass.

[GTX JOHN]

I agree with you on this one Alan!

Not that I expect anything to every change
except maybe to get worse and more expensive!

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Alan Nyhus

Maybe it's time for the rules to state: If the ports meet the CC's, the valve sizes are correct and there's no welding or epoxy, they pass.

That is exactly how the rule for porting in Super Stock was originally written. Given time and pressure, you have the current Super Stock head rule. Is that what you want? Be careful what you ask for or how brilliant you think your solution will be or what you give in to.

[novassdude]

Originally Posted by Robert Simpson

From the NHRA Rule book
“Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA accepted. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying and acid-porting prohibited.”

Based on this how is this motor legal?

If I remember correctly the heads were CNC from the factory? If that is the case how can NHRA prove that additional CNC had been done? Short of the cc's? When I first saw several years ago where CNC heads were installed on some of the super cars that clearly opened the door for additional porting. The thing I don't get from the article is the changing of the cam, to a larger grind? How can you tell this "Stocker" engine from a "SS" engine??[/QUOTE]

In this case it wouldn't be very hard they bragged about it in a magazine article.