Once again a bogus combination

[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.