Factory experimental

[dwydendorf]

I would like to know what part of these cars makes them Super Stockers? Is it the fact that there are only 50 of them or would it be all right if Ford built 500? Is it the 5.4 engine? Isn't there a 5.4 engine available in the Shelby Mustang? My local Ford Dealer ,in a town of 8000 people, had 2 of them on the showroom floor last year. Is it the Eaton Supercharger that is available on the 600 hp Corvette and previous mentioned Shelby Mustang? I rented a Pontiac Grand Prix at National Car Rental a few years ago that was equipped with an Eaton Supercharger. Is it the 9 inch rear end and 9 inch Goodyear tires and Bogart wheels? Gee, I thought you could do this in Stock. Is it the fact that Ford farmed out the building of these cars to Roush instead of tying up their assembly lines to do it? Isn't that how Chrysler used to build the K car convertibles and Chevy used to build the T top cars by farming the operation to ASC? Is it the lighter shipping weight? Don't you think you could make the car lighter by taking out all of the junk they put in these new cars? Hey, what is stopping you from building one? Instead of complaining about the new cars, how about complaining about the Automatic Horsepower Factoring System, that doesn't work.LOL

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

Billy, it seems to me there is a large difference between allowing a small variance in runner volumes because of rule changes over the years and letting a blown aftermarket built race car in stock.

Greg

The problem that I see with the "blown aftermarket built race car" is more of a rated horsepower issue than anything else.If the horsepower rating was more in line with what it 'should" be,the car would probably have to weigh so much that it wouldn't be feasible to race.
If this car can outrun everybody in the class by 1/2 of a second,I see no difference in that than the fact that Greg Hill's E/SA can outrun my family's E/SA Oldsmobiles by a half second.
I am constantly told to "work on my car" or race another combo.Anybody trying to race "HEADS UP" with this particular car that is being discussed should probably do the same.Even if the "runner volume rule" makes some cars slow down,its not going to be by that much.The horsepower factors are still not correct.If this car was rated at 700 horsepower,this whole thread probably would not have even started.Who would race in a high horsepower car over 5000 pounds in STOCK ELIMINATOR?

[Alan Roehrich]

Billy, on one hand, you are correct in that both instances are a somewhat fundamental change in the current rules.

However, for NHRA to adjust the cylinder head volumes because they told the racers a year ago they could legally do a more radical valve job in no way compares to NHRA allowing an OEM to hire a tuner to bring in a supercharged non factory production car.

The adjusting of the cylinder head volumes, if it happens, is a result of NHRA having to compensate for poor decisions they made, not only is it possible, even likely that their list of volumes has some errors, but before deciding to enact a cylinder head volume rule, they first allowed modifications to the heads long after the volumes were established.

This other train wreck, well, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Does anybody know what rear suspension are run in these cars? Will they work with the current suspension trying to run in the high to mid nines. If these cars do not work will they be allowed to Change to Aftermarket rear bars that "Are not NHRA accepted" In the spirt of safety Will NHRA bend over backwards to help change the rules to make these cars work running this this fast. Should be interesting. Do people think these cars will make good bracket cars with the turbo and all? What do you guys think?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by dwydendorf

I would like to know what part of these cars makes them Super Stockers? Is it the fact that there are only 50 of them or would it be all right if Ford built 500? Is it the 5.4 engine? Isn't there a 5.4 engine available in the Shelby Mustang? My local Ford Dealer ,in a town of 8000 people, had 2 of them on the showroom floor last year. Is it the Eaton Supercharger that is available on the 600 hp Corvette and previous mentioned Shelby Mustang? I rented a Pontiac Grand Prix at National Car Rental a few years ago that was equipped with an Eaton Supercharger. Is it the 9 inch rear end and 9 inch Goodyear tires and Bogart wheels? Gee, I thought you could do this in Stock. Is it the fact that Ford farmed out the building of these cars to Roush instead of tying up their assembly lines to do it? Isn't that how Chrysler used to build the K car convertibles and Chevy used to build the T top cars by farming the operation to ASC? Is it the lighter shipping weight? Don't you think you could make the car lighter by taking out all of the junk they put in these new cars? Hey, what is stopping you from building one? Instead of complaining about the new cars, how about complaining about the Automatic Horsepower Factoring System, that doesn't work.LOL

The same exact thing that made certain cars of the past ineligible for Stock Eliminator. They do not fit the class, at all, not even close. They do not even fit the spirit of the class.

What is stopping people from building one? Well, for one thing, it is January, the racing season here starts in about 3-4 weeks. For another, they already have a $50K plus, or more Stock Eliminator car they have anywhere from 3-5 years invested in, to over 30 years invested in. Finally, how about availability and money?

You can only make the car as light as NHRA allows you to. And of all the ridiculous things so far, comparing sunroofs and convertible tops to a special built supercharged engine is one of the absolute best "stretches" in this thread.

Those of us who understand this sport have been complaining about the AHFS for years. We've even offered complete and well thought out solutions. It's fallen on deaf ears, as always.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Todd Hoven

Does anybody know what rear suspension are run in these cars? Will they work with the current suspension trying to run in the high to mid nines. If these cars do not work will they be allowed to Change to Aftermarket rear bars that "Are not NHRA accepted" In the spirt of safety Will NHRA bend over backwards to help change the rules to make these cars work running this this fast. Should be interesting. Do people think these cars will make good bracket cars with the turbo and all? What do you guys think?

Not directing this to you at all Todd.


NHRA has allowed them in, with factory backing. Do you really have to ask if NHRA will make adjustments and concessions to allow them to be more than competitive? They are not turbocharged, they have crank driven positive displacement superchargers (Eaton says the one we're talking about here can feed a much larger engine) with intercoolers. If you have to race one heads up, you won't give a damn whether or not it'll be "good in bracket mode".

[danny waters sr]

I got it . Make them JR/ PRO STOCK and let them run just before or after Pro Stock. Or If they run stock they should have their own wt breaks and class. I prefer the older stockers. This would be the only way not to effect stocker classes already running .

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Billy, on one hand, you are correct in that both instances are a somewhat fundamental change in the current rules.

However, for NHRA to adjust the cylinder head volumes because they told the racers a year ago they could legally do a more radical valve job in no way compares to NHRA allowing an OEM to hire a tuner to bring in a supercharged non factory production car.

The adjusting of the cylinder head volumes, if it happens, is a result of NHRA having to compensate for poor decisions they made, not only is it possible, even likely that their list of volumes has some errors, but before deciding to enact a cylinder head volume rule, they first allowed modifications to the heads long after the volumes were established.

This other train wreck, well, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Alan, when the SS runner volumes were originally posted they were somewhat enlarged at that time. What we NOW have is a specific number for NHRA to use as a tool to better do their job. Too big, too small, it's a number and we can't exceed that number. Just because the rules say that you can "pocket port" your "Stock" head and use a "backcut" valve doesn't mean that you have to. I've been getting told that by the "genuises" in this sport for years. If your head measures too big then I guess that you'd better put a thick valve in it or start fresh and don't get so "piggy" with the bowl hog. I will say again, "we have all brought this on ourselves by allowing a perversion of the rules for years".

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Alan, when the SS runner volumes were originally posted they were somewhat enlarged at that time. What we NOW have is a specific number for NHRA to use as a tool to better do their job. Too big, too small, it's a number and we can't exceed that number. Just because the rules say that you can "pocket port" your "Stock" head and use a "backcut" valve doesn't mean that you have to. I've been getting told that by the "genuises" in this sport for years. If your head measures too big then I guess that you'd better put a thick valve in it or start fresh and don't get so "piggy" with the bowl hog. I will say again, "we have all brought this on ourselves by allowing a perversion of the rules for years".

What we now have is a number. How good is it? I'm not sure we really know. With all due respect to the actual tech guys in the field, and I do have a tremendous amount of respect and yes, admiration for many of them, regardless of this "tool", or any other "tool", NHRA itself will probably not use it to "do a better job". After all, why should it change now? From what I've seen, guys like Travis, Wesley, Dave, and Harry do the very best job they can, given what NHRA actually allows them to do.

Now, with regards to "bowl hogs" and necked down valves, if you race, and you have to face pretty good odds of getting heads up races, or you desire to be competitive in class, then you must take advantage of the rules NHRA gives you. If they say a valve that flows better than the rest is legal, you pretty much have no choice but to run it, again, if you want to go fast and win. If they change a rule to allow more valve job modifications, you don't have a lot of choice, unless you don't mind getting beat. Do you have to do it? No, no one is forcing you. But, you did come to race didn't you?

Have the rules gotten way out of control? Yes, absolutely. Did the average racers really have a choice, or a say in the matter? Not really. Most of the current perversion and looseness is a lot more of a result of NHRA (not to be confused with the tech staff in the field) not wanting to invest the time and effort in tech inspection, rather than a result of racers wanting the rules opened up. Sure, some racers can have the blame for this laid squarely at their feet, because they were the ones who got caught with the cheated up parts to begin with. But it was NHRA that decided to make them legal, rather than have to look at them.

[Alan Roehrich]

At this point, we're getting way off topic here. I think we've pretty much hijacked this thread more than we should. I've enjoyed the discussion, and I do see where you are coming from, we probably agree a lot more than is evident.

The subject at hand, however, is not the rules in general, but the rules as they apply to whether or not a car is eligible for the class.