AHFS Foibles

[Paul Wong]

Originally Posted by Ralph A Powell

In other words paper combos? Bennett learned from the best at Oldsmobile!

There is NOTHING paper about these truck combinations. There are laundry list of them left if someone wants to run out and build a 117" plus wheelbase stocker

[RJ Sledge]

I'm sure that after looking at the issue involved that NHRA will make the correct decision, they seem to be trying to level the playing field and to use common sense, which is a plus.

The wheelbase deal is a given, longer wheelbase cars are at a disadvantage and like most other Stocker/SS's running same engine combos there is a different hp rating on them, though I could be mistaken?

RJ

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Paul Wong

There is NOTHING paper about these truck combinations. There are laundry list of them left if someone wants to run out and build a 117" plus wheelbase stocker

Yup... The 87 I mentioned is definitely not a paper combo.In fact , quite common. For some reason, it was never submitted to NHRA.
If someone goes to the extra length and gets it submitted, nothing wrong or phony about that.
*************
As the Rounded-Line series were redesignated the R/V trucks for 1987, several changes were made to the powertrain line. The 292 I6 was dropped from 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton trucks, with the 4.3 L V6 becoming the sole 6-cylinder engine; all engines adopted fuel injection (with the exception of the 6.2 L diesel).[2][31] In addition, a "smart" powertrain control module (PCM) was also introduced, which controlled the fuel injection system, fuel-to-air burn ratio, engine ignition timing, and (if equipped with an automatic transmission) the Turbo Hydra-Matic's turbine torque converter clutch.[47]

Following the transition of 1⁄2-ton pickups to the fourth-generation GMT400 chassis, the R/V series was offered with three engines from 1987 to 1991: a standard 5.7 L V8 with the option of either a 7.4 L V8 or the 6.2 L diesel V8.[48]
Chevrolet/GMC C/K powertrain details (1973-1991)[49][50]
Engine Engine family Production Code

(RPO)
Output Notes
Horsepower Torque
250 cu in (4.1 L) I6 Chevrolet Turbo-Thrift 1973–1979 LD4 105 hp (78 kW) 185 lb⋅ft (251 N⋅m)
1979–1984 LE3 130 hp (97 kW) 210 lb⋅ft (285 N⋅m)
262 cu in (4.3 L) V6 Chevrolet 90° V6 1985-1986 LB1 155 hp (116 kW) 230 lb⋅ft (312 N⋅m) 4-bbl
1987 LB4 155 hp (116 kW) 230 lb⋅ft (312 N⋅m) TBI

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by RJ Sledge

I'm sure that after looking at the issue involved that NHRA will make the correct decision, they seem to be trying to level the playing field and to use common sense, which is a plus.

The wheelbase deal is a given, longer wheelbase cars are at a disadvantage and like most other Stocker/SS's running same engine combos there is a different hp rating on them, though I could be mistaken?

RJ

RJ, You might remember the Gilbert Johnson Impala. It was real fast for a 283 SS car, index wise.
They managed to get hp piled on it more than once. So much so that their rating was somewhat higher than the Chevy II's and Chevelles., at that time.

In other words, the 119" big Impala 283 could make more hp in that body style.
That was a big glitch in the system, in my opinion.

[RJ Sledge]

Mark
Refresh my memory please, getting old ain’t for the weak, as I said I could be mistaken.
Seems the Mopar combos had different hp ratings that corresponded to wheelbase, small car/big car with same motors but 108/116/117 wheelbase??

Should there be a difference in hp rating for this or not? Opinions??

Thanks
RJ

[RJ Sledge]

Cricket’s……

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by RJ Sledge

Cricket’s……

I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it's not.
In the example I gave , the index is what made the car look fast, ...and no disrespect to anyone.
In no way, shape or form would that body style make the SS 283 any faster.
Lowering the SS/NA index wouldn't be fair to other makes.
Capping the hp to be no higher than a Chevy II seems fair to the owner /driver here, but not to other makes and models in the class.
Seems to me this is and example of where human intervention would be needed in their system.

[Chipper Chapman]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Yup...

Following the transition of 1⁄2-ton pickups to the fourth-generation GMT400 chassis, the R/V series was offered with three engines from 1987 to 1991: a standard 5.7 L V8 with the option of either a 7.4 L V8 or the 6.2 L diesel V8.[48]

I've always wanted to do a 90-91 454SS pickup, but that factor of 310hp on a 2 barrel 7.5:1 454 that was OE rated 255hp really takes the wind out of the sails lol

[Jack McCarthy]

since the hydramatic debacle it was determined since the sedan deliveries were buiult on station wagon platform it was a car no hydramatics (marv ripes throws a party)

the shaw & wong story was determined opposite since the elco had a 117' WB frame that was only used in this platform from 1977-1987 and was by all GM printed info a truck (sales info and EPA compliance) it was a truck (that cost me bending 6 exhaust valves on my 305 with that 430' cam) bummer

i requested from mr Pat a statement saying such >> i have such a official email states ALL elcos are trucks i even replied and re ask so even a 60 would be a truck with curiosity killing me as to how much a 430 cam might help a 60 283 instead of 399 ... hmmmm and reply was stated > ALL ELCAMINOS ARE TRUCKS.

im not gonna be the guy who tells the SS dudes ill let mr Pat hes great at making friends that way (wait till the AAMA stuff hits)

p.s. i have had the HP reduced on the 78 305/145-180 reduced by 3 last 2 years to 174 and it is still listed in the malibu section but i ve been told the cars cant use it ????

i agree the class guide needs to be fixed showing this as fact

captain

gonna run the elco at vegas and it could be purchased if ya wanna get in on this

[Tom P]

RJ, I had a 67 Ranchero 390, 4 speed and wanted to run that in Stock but it wasn't in the guide.