LS1 + 12 HP Today....Automatic of Course!

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by sammy pizzolato

hp should be the same in all cars with that combo unless it is a waggon or a stick.that is how it used to be.just saying!

If its the same platform then yes Camaro/Firebird, Mustang/Capri (for the years they made them) but if the platform is different for example wheelbase then no. I race a 69 Cobra with a 117" wb with a 428CJ. A Mustang with the same motor combo but shorter wb and physically smaller and more aerodynamic shouldn't effect my car even tho its the same engine.

[Ed Wright]

So, you think the engine's HP should be altered to fit the car?

Like, if you choose to build the wrong car for it, you should get a gift to make your wrong choice more competitive?

If a given engine is under rated in one car, it's under rated in any other. I'm certainly with Sammy here.

[sammy pizzolato]

thanks ED. it just does not make any sense for a corvette to be 45 hp less than a firebird or a camaro.is a firebird or a camaro better than a corvette.i don't think so!

[Stewart Way]

So if you don't think the HP should be different depending on the the platform, should the HP for a given engine be the same for SS and GT? The GT car is just a different platform. If they should be the same, no need to have GT, just move them into the same lb/hp class. At least have same HP and index since the "platform" was the reason for the lower indexes in GT.
I agree there are some bad factors like the vette Sammy mentioned, but I still think platform is important to consider. Your as old as I am and likely remember the stink when NHRA decided to put the vettes in SS and do away with SP classes.
Or does the platform arguement only hold in stock?

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

So, you think the engine's HP should be altered to fit the car?

Like, if you choose to build the wrong car for it, you should get a gift to make your wrong choice more competitive?

If a given engine is under rated in one car, it's under rated in any other. I'm certainly with Sammy here.

Ed,
By your view point everyone would be racing a new Mustang or Camaro/Firebird like you have. Short wb with the engine set back under the windshield, aerodynamic etc..... Sorry but that would not interest me in the least. There is no challenge there. If you really believe that a 65 Impala with a 283 should get hp if a 65 Chevy II made a good run then this will be my last post in this thread. Also, I don't believe I'm building the "WRONG" car. I'm building a car that has a history in Stock Eliminator and has been in my family longer than I have. I know its going to be a challenge to get to run with the top guys in the class but it will be very rewarding once I do. Just so you know I put an order in for a new '13 Cobra Jet Competition Kit which is the BIW deal but I ended up canceling the order at the last minute because I WANT to see if I can make this car competitive. I know a new Cobra Jet is competitive right out of the box but to me that's not as challenging as making this old car competitive. So I hope you will reevaluate your view point of me building the wrong car.

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Stewart Way

So if you don't think the HP should be different depending on the the platform, should the HP for a given engine be the same for SS and GT? The GT car is just a different platform. If they should be the same, no need to have GT, just move them into the same lb/hp class. At least have same HP and index since the "platform" was the reason for the lower indexes in GT.
I agree there are some bad factors like the vette Sammy mentioned, but I still think platform is important to consider. Your as old as I am and likely remember the stink when NHRA decided to put the vettes in SS and do away with SP classes.
Or does the platform arguement only hold in stock?

Stewart, most of the GT cars are drastically different. The GT Camaro/Firebirds aren't, but they are no longer the "hot set up". Many of those newer cars aren't actually built by the rule book. Look how many drivers can't even reach the dash, how many heads behind the B piller (rule book says they can't be), etc. Those are just Comp cars with no hood scoop. I don't, thankfully, have to race them heads up. I do think those should be rated differently. The conventional RWD platforms, I do not. It would be a mess to factor the jelly bean FWD conversions differently than other GT cars, and it's becoming all jelly beans in GT anyway. I really do think they are cool, just don't want to race them heads up. I sure would not build a Camaro/Firebird GT car and expect to run up front. If you do, congrats.

[Stewart Way]

Ed
Have to agree with most everything you said. I was mostly against GT when it came out in 84 or around then. Then when they allowed the FWD cars in 3-4 years later that really hurt.
Not building a camaro/fbird but do have a 68 Cuda on the rack for GT but between moving and now owning 2 houses and a ticker problem the Cuda sits and waits. Good thing about it I can run GT or SS with several motors.
Still feel the platform needs to be in the AHFS so the folks that "picked the wrong" car are not pushed out. The vette just points out one of the problems with the AHFS and is not proof the platform distinction needs to be done away with.
Again, the above is but 1 mans opinion.