pics of mopars

DeuceCoupe · 12-31-2016, 10:20 AM

Not exactly a picture but a question, I figured this would be a good thread to ask.
I am trying to calculate / Gonkulate NHRA history back in the 1960s.
So I come across these "Street Hemi" cars running low-11s, circa 1967.
Ok, pretty easy to match up things there.
But what about those runs in the 10.66-10.76 range, Stahl, Landy, etc.
I cant find a MPH for those runs but it has to be 128mph or so, anybody recall?

I have to assume a nearly hooked car, mineshaft air, and a tailwind to get those cars down to 10.66 ET. Possible but seems unlikely.

Then I find this Hemming link while searching for MPH:
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mu...I/3692071.html

It says you could legally run 12.50cr in SS/ back then (seems not any more as I look in the blueprint files). That is the question - stock Hemi says 10.25cr, so I figured maybe 10.75 blueprinted but c'mon that's a long way from 12.50cr. And yet, it sure would explain those 10.70-ish ET's back from June 1967. Anybody know?

12-31-2016, 10:20 AM	#11
DeuceCoupe Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 274 Likes: 98 Liked 48 Times in 44 Posts	Re: pics of mopars Not exactly a picture but a question, I figured this would be a good thread to ask. I am trying to calculate / Gonkulate NHRA history back in the 1960s. So I come across these "Street Hemi" cars running low-11s, circa 1967. Ok, pretty easy to match up things there. But what about those runs in the 10.66-10.76 range, Stahl, Landy, etc. I cant find a MPH for those runs but it has to be 128mph or so, anybody recall? I have to assume a nearly hooked car, mineshaft air, and a tailwind to get those cars down to 10.66 ET. Possible but seems unlikely. Then I find this Hemming link while searching for MPH: https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mu...I/3692071.html It says you could legally run 12.50cr in SS/ back then (seems not any more as I look in the blueprint files). That is the question - stock Hemi says 10.25cr, so I figured maybe 10.75 blueprinted but c'mon that's a long way from 12.50cr. And yet, it sure would explain those 10.70-ish ET's back from June 1967. Anybody know?