HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-08-2010, 09:34 PM   #1
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,573
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker View Post
I'll check my rule book, still have it, at the shop, for 1970.

Bub,
The old rule books used to say the Super Modified classes were for 67 and newer cars. There were some real minor differences between the 66 and 67 Chevy II, such as the steering column and some dash pieces, some hidden, some not. I saw a couple of people tossed for having a 66. A lot of people did it, some were caught, some were not. There is no real meaningful difference, competition wise, between the 66 and 67 Chevy II. There were just a lot more 66's than there were 67's. The "cheating" joke about running a 66 Chevy II as a 67 was just something that went around when Modified was still around. I figured you'd heard it before. The guys I was working with back then ran a 67 Camaro as a 68.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 10:28 PM   #2
treessavoy
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dunnellon,FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Under-performing on the street: 409/425 chevy's, Street Hemi's, any of the Shelby Mustangs built after '68 and almost any multi-carb motor...tune them for the strip and they were the hot cars to have.

Most disappointing street or strip combination's were the boss 429 and the ZL1....iron head 427's regularly out performed them on the strip.

JimR
__________________
Jim Rountree
treessavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 11:42 AM   #3
Bub Whitaker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton, MD
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich View Post
Bub,
The old rule books used to say the Super Modified classes were for 67 and newer cars. There were some real minor differences between the 66 and 67 Chevy II, such as the steering column and some dash pieces, some hidden, some not. I saw a couple of people tossed for having a 66. A lot of people did it, some were caught, some were not. There is no real meaningful difference, competition wise, between the 66 and 67 Chevy II. There were just a lot more 66's than there were 67's. The "cheating" joke about running a 66 Chevy II as a 67 was just something that went around when Modified was still around. I figured you'd heard it before. The guys I was working with back then ran a 67 Camaro as a 68.
1970 Rule book, Modified Elimator, Modified Production, reserved for American built cars with American production engines, incorporating a wheelbase of 90 inches or more. No year limit, has a little blurb about pre-1960 unblown 4-cylinder can compete in flathead classes. This was designated Modified Production, I ran C/MP with a 327. What I think you are referring to is a Superstock class? that came after they canned Modified...
And yes, I am familar with the narrower dash and the colapsable steering column differences on the 66/67 Chevy II
__________________
Bub Whitaker
Bub Whitaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 12:09 PM   #4
Paul Ceasrine
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Jim R,
Your right on the Shelby. The 1968 GT-350, came through with a
302-4V/250HP. Totally useless. They should have utilized the
289/306HP for one more year.
And those 1969 Ford Torino GT's with the 390/320HP didn't scare anybody either.
Problem with the early Boss 429's, monster connecting rods,
hydraulic cam and weak valve springs. Don't think that engine saw the north side of 5000 RPM's.
PC
Paul Ceasrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 12:20 PM   #5
mtkawboy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Billings Mt
Posts: 282
Likes: 186
Liked 54 Times in 18 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

409/425s were turds from the factory because Chevy built them with 2 head gaskets on them to drop the compression. Removing one really brought them to life. That wasnt very well known at the time though or even now..
mtkawboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 12:24 PM   #6
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,573
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtkawboy View Post
409/425s were turds from the factory because Chevy built them with 2 head gaskets on them to drop the compression. Removing one really brought them to life. That wasnt very well known at the time though or even now..
The one we bought not only had two head gaskets, but was missing the inner valve springs. It had the rear cam bearing in wrong from the factory, and had been replaced, so it sat in a dealership for 10 years or so, and then in a dealership mechanic's basement for 5-6 more.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 01:21 PM   #7
Oclk Dlux
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boise, Id
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

1980 Corvette with the 180HP low compression California 305. Mid 17's out of the box, even with the 4 BBL. Can't imagine forking out the $$$ for one of those. Good thing that was the only year GM did that.

Ditto on the 454SS truck. My friend's '72 Surburban with a slightly (and I mean slightly) modded 427 annihilated one. Wasn't even funny.
__________________
Rich Hedden
6011 BF/S
Oclk Dlux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 01:43 PM   #8
Oclk Dlux
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boise, Id
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Wait, forgot one. Any of the Iron Duke Camaro's. Poor Camaro........
__________________
Rich Hedden
6011 BF/S
Oclk Dlux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 12:21 PM   #9
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,573
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker View Post
1970 Rule book, Modified Elimator, Modified Production, reserved for American built cars with American production engines, incorporating a wheelbase of 90 inches or more. No year limit, has a little blurb about pre-1960 unblown 4-cylinder can compete in flathead classes. This was designated Modified Production, I ran C/MP with a 327. What I think you are referring to is a Superstock class? that came after they canned Modified...
And yes, I am familar with the narrower dash and the colapsable steering column differences on the 66/67 Chevy II
Bub, the rule book I saw later showed 1967 and later cars, it was probably around 1979. I'm not sure about the 1970 rulebook, I don't have a copy, I was about 7 at the time. In the late seventies and up until Modified was killed off, I remember the rule as being 67 and later, I'm not sure why they did that. Like I said, it was a joke among the Modified racers, the Chevy II guys in particular, near the end of the class, they knew 66's were masquerading as 67's.

The guys I worked with bailed on Modified when it was merged into Super Stock, so that's not the era I was talking about. Again, they raced a 67 Camaro as a 68 (changed the doors, tail lights, and back up lights), so the rule was no real concern to us. I just remember guys who did race the Chevy II's joking among themselves about "cheating", and I remember a couple of cars being tossed as 66's.

That rule probably was not in effect when you ran your Chevy II, or I may remember it wrong. Maybe Travis, Dave, or Terry will correct me.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2010, 05:27 PM   #10
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich View Post
Bub, the rule book I saw later showed 1967 and later cars, it was probably around 1979. I'm not sure about the 1970 rulebook, I don't have a copy, I was about 7 at the time. In the late seventies and up until Modified was killed off, I remember the rule as being 67 and later, I'm not sure why they did that. Like I said, it was a joke among the Modified racers, the Chevy II guys in particular, near the end of the class, they knew 66's were masquerading as 67's.

The guys I worked with bailed on Modified when it was merged into Super Stock, so that's not the era I was talking about. Again, they raced a 67 Camaro as a 68 (changed the doors, tail lights, and back up lights), so the rule was no real concern to us. I just remember guys who did race the Chevy II's joking among themselves about "cheating", and I remember a couple of cars being tossed as 66's.

That rule probably was not in effect when you ran your Chevy II, or I may remember it wrong. Maybe Travis, Dave, or Terry will correct me.
I believe the 67 or newer rule was for Super Modified when Car Craft got NHRA to develope the class. When Modified Production first became a class back in the stone age any year was allowed and in the beginning they had to run on 7 inch tires.

Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 06-09-2010 at 05:32 PM.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.