to all 85-92 efi racers

[bill dedman]

Rob and Jeff. Thanks for your informative posts. That scenario is probably the norm in Stock, but I'd bet that nobody qualifies #1 with stock amounts of boost. What do you think?

Bill

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Rob and Jeff. Thanks for your informative posts. That scenario is probably the norm in Stock, but I'd bet that nobody qualifies #1 with stock amounts of boost. What do you think?

Bill

I don't think anybody qualifies number 1 with a stock amount of airflow period. Whether under pressure or N/A.
Bill you fail to realize that nobody using a turbo fwd car in stock has a "stocker" head They use plain factory heads with a valve job,

[bill dedman]

Art,

What would prevent a turbo car from running a head with the same sort of modifications that I'm assuming you mean when you say "Stocker head"?

Aren't the rules the same?

On the other hand, if you can run increased boost, why would you NEED "enhanced flow" (short-side radius mods, acid-porting, etc.) when you can cram it in there, regardless?

Then again, if you had BOTH....

Bill, just wondering...

One question: Since you got me straightened out RE NEON heads, and valves, is your new race car the SOHC model (engine)????

[Dwight Southerland]

Bill -

I think Art is trying to communicate that increasing the efficiency of the ports is not productive since the head flows more than the inlet side of the turbo without any work.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art,

What would prevent a turbo car from running a head with the same sort of modifications that I'm assuming you mean when you say "Stocker head"?

Aren't the rules the same?

On the other hand, if you can run increased boost, why would you NEED "enhanced flow" (short-side radius mods, acid-porting, etc.) when you can cram it in there, regardless?

Then again, if you had BOTH....

Bill, just wondering...

One question: Since you got me straightened out RE NEON heads, and valves, is your new race car the SOHC model (engine)????

The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective. It seems like you and some other racers are jealous that they have to spend upwards of $5000 to achieve what a slight adjustment does on a turbo car.
If you think head flow doesn't make a difference. Retake horsepower 101. The srt4 motor has a turbo half the size of the early mopars. and it makes over 50% more horsepower. The early turbo cars are out of flow because of the cam/head below 6000 rpm. You can put 40 pounds of boost to it and it ain't going to flow much more. Boost basicly only effects the intake not the exhaust. You still have to get rid of what you cram in there.
As far as my motor goes, One reason is you can't get a cam over .410 lift in a sohc head. Plus the fact with the dohc that I can change valve overlap with out sending the cam back.
Now maybe thats an unfair advantage. OOOPS I forgot they don't even check overlap in a stocker, let alone a modified motor.

[bill dedman]

Art Leong said, "The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective." in relation to getting sufficient air flow on the intake side, without expensive cylinder head modifications.

Thank you, Art!!!

FINALLY, someone with more than a modicum of knowledge, and with a lot of common sense, has agreed, in principle, with my ORIGINAL CONTENTION. which was that limiting the boost on turbocharged cars to their OEM boost spec (through the use of telltale gauge monitoring by NHRA) might could solve the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years.

Without the boost levels they're currently able to run, they'd likely not be turning e.t.'s so far under their respective indexes.

I seem to be the only human being on earth who sees this as a problem, however, so I will no longer beat what seems to be a very dead horse, by now.

But, I think Art just validated my simplistic, but direct, line of reasoning about how this happens, with his explanation of why acid-ported (or, whatever) heads are not needed with a turbo.

Thanks, again, Art... that was a VERY well-writtten and interesting explanation, especially the part about the SRT-4 turbo motor.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art Leong said, "The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective." in relation to getting sufficient air flow on the intake side, without expensive cylinder head modifications.

Thank you, Art!!!

FINALLY, someone with more than a modicum of knowledge, and with a lot of common sense, has agreed, in principle, with my ORIGINAL CONTENTION. which was that limiting the boost on turbocharged cars to their OEM boost spec (through the use of telltale gauge monitoring by NHRA) might could solve the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years.

Without the boost levels they're currently able to run, they'd likely not be turning e.t.'s so far under their respective indexes.

I seem to be the only human being on earth who sees this as a problem, however, so I will no longer beat what seems to be a very dead horse, by now.

But, I think Art just validated my simplistic, but direct, line of reasoning about how this happens, with his explanation of why acid-ported (or, whatever) heads are not needed with a turbo.

Thanks, again, Art... that was a VERY well-writtten and interesting explanation, especially the part about the SRT-4 turbo motor.

You missed the point totally, and spun what said around (you must be an Obama suporter)
I said that increasing airflow leads to horsepower no matter how you accomplish it. You complain about boost while remaining quiet on ported intakes and heads, cams, carbureator mods, valve springs etc
Well!! Guess what!! I guarantee you nobody has qualified number one without some of the things I mentioned.
So what's your point. Are you saying we should chop off the arms of anyone who isn't right handed?
If you want to run pure-stock go do it. If not PLEASE get a life

[bill dedman]

Art Leong originaly posted:

>"The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."<

Look; Art, YOU said that... I did not. But it certainly supports my contention.

If you don't mean it, don't say it...

Insofar as my not mentioning the other mods that you point up, none of them are specific to normally aspirated cars. There's nothing they do, engine-wise, that a turbo car is prohinited from doing, so, it would seem to me that that is a non-iissue, so don't muddy the water here with extraneous B.S., okay? Obfuscation through the introduction of impertinent issues into the mix doesn'r serve to clear the air.

But, thanks again for verufying what my original contention was; ""The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."

Your words, not mine. But, I agree, totally.

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

"... the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years."

15-20 percent is perceived to be a "problem"? If the statistic were that turbo cars (or any particular type of car/combination) were qualifying #1 at sixty-percent or more of the races, that I could see. But 15-20%? What if there were a statistic that read "1966 Chevy Nova 327/275 F/SA cars qualified #1 at twenty-nine percent of the time" during that same stretch? Would you still have the same objections towards those cars? Or, like Art had stated, quite a few #1 qualifiers may have had something not 100% legal on there cars. So what's the point. I would have a stronger objection to a Stocker qualifying #1 with an illegal camshaft or cylinder heads two-percent of the time than I would to a turbocharged Stocker producing more boost than factory specs (which, by the way, is permitted in Stock Eliminator rules) 15-20% of the time.

B.D.

[bill dedman]

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparitively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!