new HP factors

[George Fitzpatrick]

In less than 18 months that combo (70/ 71 challenger /cuda 426 Hemi) was hit with over 27 hp or 215 IBS. So yes the reduction was deserved. It should have been more. This combo was killed. Even now rated @ 445 the car weights in @ 3730 with driver in A/SA. Don’t know the olds situation so can’t comment.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by George Fitzpatrick

In less than 18 months that combo (70/ 71 challenger /cuda 426 Hemi) was hit with over 27 hp or 215 IBS. So yes the reduction was deserved. It should have been more. This combo was killed. Even now rated @ 445 the car weights in @ 3730 with driver in A/SA. Don’t know the olds situation so can’t comment.

I really don't see how it should be rated any less than the ZL-1 or the L-88.

[George Fitzpatrick]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I really don't see how it should be rated any less than the ZL-1 or the L-88.

Never said it should be less than any combo, just that the reduction was deserved.

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by George Fitzpatrick

Never said it should be less than any combo, just that the reduction was deserved.

I am just curious as to what is required for a combination to deserve a horsepower reduction?
I know what the criteria is for an increase.What is the criteria for a decrease?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by George Fitzpatrick

Never said it should be less than any combo, just that the reduction was deserved.

I agree it was deserved, I actually suggested it to several at NHRA.

You commented on how heavy it was at 445, I figured 445 is pretty close, considering the L-88 is at 440, and the ZL-1 is at 445.

[George Fitzpatrick]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I agree it was deserved, I actually suggested it to several at NHRA.

You commented on how heavy it was at 445, I figured 445 is pretty close, considering the L-88 is at 440, and the ZL-1 is at 445.

I believe 440 would have been the right HP rating. I’m not comparing combo’s just concerned with mine as we all are. Don’t want an unfair advantage just to be competitive. Let’s remember where it was @430 then 436, then 442 and a whopping 457 in less than 18 months. With the exception of Fred’s car the combos were not dominating just competitive there’s always one car in the combo that’s faster then the rest (Joe Sorensen). Then what happens bang 27 HP later you park the combo. It’s to late for me I have decided to convert it back to a street car. The AHFS has no wiggle room it’s just black and white with no gray area.

[Frank Bialas]

Originally Posted by George Fitzpatrick

I believe 440 would have been the right HP rating. I’m not comparing combo’s just concerned with mine as we all are. Don’t want an unfair advantage just to be competitive. Let’s remember where it was @430 then 436, then 442 and a whopping 457 in less than 18 months. With the exception of Fred’s car the combos were not dominating just competitive there’s always one car in the combo that’s faster then the rest (Joe Sorensen). Then what happens bang 27 HP later you park the combo. It’s to late for me I have decided to convert it back to a street car. The AHFS has no wiggle room it’s just black and white with no gray area.

I know the feeling, of the 6-pak cars running out there most run the E-body combo which is rated @ 405HP and of the handful running the B-body rated @ 417HP it's tough to be competitive, in a heads-up with a CHEVY-396/400 or FORD-428/355 I'M DEAD !!!!!!!
I KNOW WORK HARDER!!!!! or GO FISHING!!!!!

[X-TECH MAN]

I always thought that having the same engine rated different because of the body it was in was B.S. There are to many variables involved such as track conditions, air, altitude, engine builder, driver, etc. Hell....even some tracks are downhill.