Once again a bogus combination

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Dean Roberts

NHRA set precedent by allowing GM to run this car, period! The level of performance is irrelevant.

Actually, Dean, you are the master of spin. The LT-1 was not only already in the guide in the 97 cars, but it was also a production engine, fully certified for street use. There is no performance advantage held by a 98 F body with an LT-1 over a 97 F body with an LT-1, you're just grasping for straws to support an argument that has no basis in fact or reality. Unlike the LT-1 you constantly cry about, no engine in the Drag Pack cars is certified for street use, nor were they already in the guide. The same applies to the crate engines in the new Mustangs.

The bogus factors is only irrelevant in your mind. Reality is far different than the dreamworld you are trying to create by saying crate engines never certified for street use, installed in cars that won't even run or move when you buy them, are the same as a year old production engine in a new production car.

[Greg Hill]

It's Monday morning and I got back last night from our first Bowling Green combo race at about 9;00 p.m., Andrew and I both lost first round. These new cars and the crate motor deals that have been approved were a major topic of discussion. I didn't talk to one person who felt like these new cars with the hp ratings they have were good for stock eliminator. A lot of people don't post on here and quite frankly don't even look at the site. A good friend of mine and a guy that builds a few stock eliminator motors had no clue about the crate motors that are legal for the new Challenger and Mustang. When I filled him in on these motors and the specs along with the hp ratings his comment was " Are you f@#$ing kidding me?" He went on to say " Why would someone build one of these cars?" What gratification would there be when all along you know you are running in the wrong class?" This is a guy that runs a 69 Camaro with a 302 rated at 309hp.

I truly think people are just beginning to realize how these cars are going to affect them and the sport they love. A lot of people feel there is nothing they can do about it. They feel powerless and are not vocal because they think NHRA will punish them if they speak out. If we do nothing then we become powerless. if we continue to go to National events we condone what NHRA does. It makes us complicit in the whole process. There are good racers that are truly thinking about quitting because they feel they can't compete any
more.

Another good friend of mine who doesn't post on here and has one of the fastest G/SA cars in the country told me after watching Jeff run 10.57 in H/SA at Belle Rose he was depressed for the rest of the weekend. I don't know if anything we do can change what's happening to stock and eventually super stock,but I do know one thing if we don't try to change it we get what we deserve.

[Dean Roberts]

Alan (aka spinmaster), you obviously don't read or comprehend very well. My point about the LT-1 has NOTHING to do with certification or performance! I know it is a legit engine, if used in a 1993-97 F-body (or Caprice w/steel heads). I don't care if the LT-1 IS a certified engine, it wasn't used in 1998 F-bodies, period. That is a fact that cannot be spun or argued.

Why was this engine allowed? I will tell you: It has everything to do with the fact that when GM needed to, they submitted bogus facts to NHRA to get a combination in the guide. That is my point, it is PURE fact. If Ford or Dodge does the same thing to get a combination in the guide, how is that any different?

I understand that in the end the performance doesn't change on an LT-1 car if you change the bodywork, but still, GM was the first to get a crate-motor car approved.

It's the same friggin' thing either way, you want to say it is not because of the level of performance, but that's not how it works.

[Dgal]

Dean,

I agree with your comments about the LT1 for 1998 to a great degree, but that is the only V-8 listed in the NHRA guide book for 1998. You cannot run a LS1 and claim a 1998 if you wanted to. You could, of course, call it a 1999-2002 instead.

Don

[Greg Hill]

Originally Posted by Dean Roberts

Alan (aka spinmaster), you obviously don't read or comprehend very well. My point about the LT-1 has NOTHING to do with certification or performance! I know it is a legit engine, if used in a 1993-97 F-body (or Caprice w/steel heads). I don't care if the LT-1 IS a certified engine, it wasn't used in 1998 F-bodies, period. That is a fact that cannot be spun or argued.

Why was this engine allowed? I will tell you: It has everything to do with the fact that when GM needed to, they submitted bogus facts to NHRA to get a combination in the guide. That is my point, it is PURE fact. If Ford or Dodge does the same thing to get a combination in the guide, how is that any different?

I understand that in the end the performance doesn't change on an LT-1 car if you change the bodywork, but still, GM was the first to get a crate-motor car approved.

It's the same friggin' thing either way, you want to say it is not because of the level of performance, but that's not how it works.

it's not even close to the same thing. None of the motors for the challenger or Mustang were ever produced in a street car. This is a red herring. The LT1 is not a crate motor.

[junior barns]

Greg

what kind of #'s did your son run with with his new car?

[Harry 6674]

Theres an easy fix(except for the west coasters). If your unhappy about the new cars you can always go race IHRA. They have injected classes and you know they need the cars. That would have to be easier then hoping NHRA will change things for you. Or you can do what Kens going to do. Not as easy but way more rewarding in the long run.

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by junior barns

Greg

what kind of #'s did your son run with with his new car?

I went a best of 10.70 in D/SA Saturday night testing, 10.74 on Sunday.

[Jim Wahl]

Go for it Jeff! Then I won't have to worry about you anymore!!! Please? Jim

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Dean Roberts

Alan (aka spinmaster), you obviously don't read or comprehend very well. My point about the LT-1 has NOTHING to do with certification or performance! I know it is a legit engine, if used in a 1993-97 F-body (or Caprice w/steel heads). I don't care if the LT-1 IS a certified engine, it wasn't used in 1998 F-bodies, period. That is a fact that cannot be spun or argued.

Why was this engine allowed? I will tell you: It has everything to do with the fact that when GM needed to, they submitted bogus facts to NHRA to get a combination in the guide. That is my point, it is PURE fact. If Ford or Dodge does the same thing to get a combination in the guide, how is that any different?

I understand that in the end the performance doesn't change on an LT-1 car if you change the bodywork, but still, GM was the first to get a crate-motor car approved.

It's the same friggin' thing either way, you want to say it is not because of the level of performance, but that's not how it works.

Already reduced to childish and petty name calling. Not surprising at all given you have no basis for argument.

You can type "precedent" all you want. But you should understand how precedent actually works before you try to use that for a basis to argue from. Precedent requires very similar facts and circumstances. What you claim as precedent, is not.

Your first example you claim as precedent (the 98 LT-1 F body) involves a car and an engine that are both already in the guide AND already certified for street use, but never sold together. NHRA would call that a "GT" combination, the precedent being the "GT" classes in Super Stock, where a certified car, and a certified engine may be joined in the rules even if they were not sold as a unit, and it will fit into a "GT" class as opposed to a traditional class. An example would be a 454 LS-6 in a 1980 Malibu.

That, however is NOT precedent for a car AND an engine that were not ever certified for street use, nor were they previously in the guide. The closest precedent for that would have nothing to do with NHRA.

Previously, the ONLY sanctioning body to certify any engine never sold or certified as a production engine was IHRA, those are called "crate motors". But even then, they were required to be installed in a car that was sold and certified for street use. The Drag Pack cars are not production vehicles, and are not sold or certified for street use. So they don't even meet the standard for crate motor classes. At least the Ford crate motors installed in Mustangs that are in the guide as production cars meet the crate motor class standard.

The problem with that for your repeated claims of "precedent" is that NHRA doesn't HAVE crate motor classes. And they never have had them. NHRA accepted what amounted to a "GT" combination with the 98 LT-1 F body. But until now, they've never accepted a crate motor, ever. So, despite your baseless claims to the contrary, no precedent exists, and the only person "spinning" anything here is you.

Good luck with the name calling, and the failure to produce any facts to back up your argument. The two tactics fit well together.