HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars

Lee Valentine · 11-21-2010, 08:11 AM

Does Angelo know about this!

joe176 · 11-21-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Valentine

Does Angelo know about this!

Yes he does Lee.

Hagen Gary · 11-21-2010, 01:59 PM

Thanks for your time to post and honesty about this situation.
Its my opinion that if NHRA is going to allow two totally different sets of rules for FWD Conversions and any RWD(not just f body) cars then why not add 2% of rated hp to the FWD conversion. That would equate to that 3-5 your talking about.

stefan callender · 11-21-2010, 02:06 PM

Joe, also remember that your Camaro was built in the 1990's also didnt have all the same technology that your 2000's Cavalier has. An unequal four link, vs a equal length four link. How much is that worth?

Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

Hagen Gary · 11-21-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

Stefan, Are you talking about a 2010?

Joe, you get to weigh 275 lbs lighter and only lose .25 of index, right? Couple that with extensive front and rear suspension and floor mods, engine/firewall and driver location, all if which RWD cars are not allowed, and 3-5 is all you get? I'm not saying your compleatly wrong, but maybe if you put in the same amount of time with this car as the last, you might see its worth more.

I know what the rules are and I chose my car according to them. I'm just asking that if we are going to make adjustments, then lets fix the obvious inequalities, or let me move my firewall and floor so I can make suspension upgrades front and rear.

Ed Wright · 11-21-2010, 03:21 PM

275lbs out of my car wouldn't be worth any more than that.

joe176 · 11-21-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagen Gary

Stefan, Are you talking about a 2010?

Joe, you get to weigh 275 lbs lighter and only lose .25 of index, right? Couple that with extensive front and rear suspension and floor mods, engine/firewall and driver location, all if which RWD cars are not allowed, and 3-5 is all you get? I'm not saying your compleatly wrong, but maybe if you put in the same amount of time with this car as the last, you might see its worth more.

I know what the rules are and I chose my car according to them. I'm just asking that if we are going to make adjustments, then lets fix the obvious inequalities, or let me move my firewall and floor so I can make suspension upgrades front and rear.

Hagen.....I do not need anymore time sorting this out...it's not rocket science when you swap everything over to a new car and run the numbers this car runs....it is what it is...I've been doing this long enough to know a few minor tweaks here or there depending on air and track conditions is all you can do when you roll into a race. As far as the firewall setback.....my camaro had better weight ratio front to rear than this car does..........these cars are nose heavy....not sure what kind of car you run or if you've had experience with both like I have.

Stewart Way · 11-21-2010, 05:07 PM

Don't know as these numbers really mean much but I'll share them anyway. I used these formulas. D=AxCdxVxV/410 and HP=((WxR)+D)xV/375. Used 3000 lb W,15 frontal A, .34 Cd. R was rolling resistance of .012. These work with Top Speed numbers and I realize we are not at the top speed capability of a drag car at the 1320 but anyway....
An 88 type lowered Camaro has about a 15 frontal area. A one sqft reduction in frontal area reduces the hp required to run 150 by around 6%. But that is steady state 150MPH. Since we start at zero I would think around 4% HP change per sqft would be right. A change in Cd (coef of drag) of .01 has about half the effect of a 1 sqft frontal reduction at there numbers.
So if a littler newer car has a 1 sqft smaller frontal area and a .01 lower diff in Cd it would require 6% hp less to reach the same speed.
Again, I'm not sure how these Top Speed formulas translate to an drag car but even if they were off 50% it would still mean a 3% reduction in HP can be seen with a 15 to 14 and .34 to .33 reductions in Cd and Area.

y2k_ta · 11-24-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

The fourth-gen '93-'02 platform was primarily a carryover from the '82-'92, so the advantages (if any) would be minimal.

Ed Wright · 11-24-2010, 12:44 PM

Most don't realize how nose heavy most of the fwd conversions are. It was pointed out to me that my ('96 F body) drive shaft is shorter than Pete Peery's little short Cutlass Calai's shaft. Mine is a pain to work on since arthritis has set in. Half the stinking engine is under the stinking windshield.

I don't run GT, but the newest GT cars... well I'm not going there.

the biggest advntage I see is a 2500 or so lb car with a smaller engine versus a 3000 lb car with a bigger engine. Small car/smaller engine usually wins.

11-21-2010, 08:11 AM	#1
Lee Valentine Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Brookfield, CT Posts: 708 Likes: 13 Liked 319 Times in 68 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars Does Angelo know about this! __________________ Lee Valentine 1661 STK

11-21-2010, 01:59 PM	#3
Hagen Gary Live Reporter Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Cajun country Posts: 339 Likes: 51 Liked 34 Times in 10 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars Thanks for your time to post and honesty about this situation. Its my opinion that if NHRA is going to allow two totally different sets of rules for FWD Conversions and any RWD(not just f body) cars then why not add 2% of rated hp to the FWD conversion. That would equate to that 3-5 your talking about.

11-21-2010, 02:06 PM	#4
stefan callender Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: zoo york Posts: 572 Likes: 3 Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars Joe, also remember that your Camaro was built in the 1990's also didnt have all the same technology that your 2000's Cavalier has. An unequal four link, vs a equal length four link. How much is that worth? Has anyone ever took a 82-92 F-body and transform their entire drivetrain and put it into a next generation F-body?? How much was that worth??

11-21-2010, 03:21 PM	#6
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars 275lbs out of my car wouldn't be worth any more than that. __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA

11-21-2010, 05:07 PM	#8
Stewart Way Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 476 Likes: 20 Liked 70 Times in 22 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars Don't know as these numbers really mean much but I'll share them anyway. I used these formulas. D=AxCdxVxV/410 and HP=((WxR)+D)xV/375. Used 3000 lb W,15 frontal A, .34 Cd. R was rolling resistance of .012. These work with Top Speed numbers and I realize we are not at the top speed capability of a drag car at the 1320 but anyway.... An 88 type lowered Camaro has about a 15 frontal area. A one sqft reduction in frontal area reduces the hp required to run 150 by around 6%. But that is steady state 150MPH. Since we start at zero I would think around 4% HP change per sqft would be right. A change in Cd (coef of drag) of .01 has about half the effect of a 1 sqft frontal reduction at there numbers. So if a littler newer car has a 1 sqft smaller frontal area and a .01 lower diff in Cd it would require 6% hp less to reach the same speed. Again, I'm not sure how these Top Speed formulas translate to an drag car but even if they were off 50% it would still mean a 3% reduction in HP can be seen with a 15 to 14 and .34 to .33 reductions in Cd and Area. __________________ Stewart Way 2424 SS

11-24-2010, 12:44 PM	#10
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts	Re: HP Rating....F Body vs FWD Conversion Cars Most don't realize how nose heavy most of the fwd conversions are. It was pointed out to me that my ('96 F body) drive shaft is shorter than Pete Peery's little short Cutlass Calai's shaft. Mine is a pain to work on since arthritis has set in. Half the stinking engine is under the stinking windshield. I don't run GT, but the newest GT cars... well I'm not going there. the biggest advntage I see is a 2500 or so lb car with a smaller engine versus a 3000 lb car with a bigger engine. Small car/smaller engine usually wins. __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA Last edited by Ed Wright; 11-24-2010 at 12:46 PM.