Pure Stockers New Camshaft Rule !!!

[KennyAnderson]

"I personally am not a big fan of changing the indexes because it makes it even harder for a beginner to get into class racing"

THIS! Keep P/S entry level. I think you will see some much needed new interest in this class. We are building one right now and will be fielding two before long as this is the route for my boys as they outgrow/age out of juniors. I have told a bunch of guys what we are doing with our Camaro and the raised eyebrows are many. We will be debuting at the first Div 2 race in Immokalee, Fl next month.

[X-TECH MAN]

One more thing to think about. Those spring pressures I mentioned from MoPar were kind of a joke. 150 lbs seat pressure and 320 lbs open pressures. Only cars like the Max Wedge cars of the 62-64 era came close. In 1971 Chrysler Corp. sent in unrealistic spring pressures along with cam spec's that if built the engine would not even run. That way their factory cars would never be tossed out during tear down. Look them up yourself if you have the old tech specs. Cars like Dave Boertmans 71 Dodge wagon and his 71Charger could never be DQ'ed at tear down as long as the cam lift was under. Also it was legal to have real racing pistons such as the "Forge True" brand with valve reliefs on the 383 and 440 combos back in 1971. Valve reliefs meant more usable duration even though the OEM pison was a flat top with no vlave reliefs. Just food for thought.

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

It all comes down to finding a way to ensure that pure stockers will pass tech without diassembling the entire car.

Probably could make the same argument for "traditional" stockers.

Pure stockers could have light pistons,cut down cranks,bogus rods too.

[gbur]

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

There you go......The "KING" of dime rockets has spoken. Danny and Billy both said it and they have been around this game a long time. If the duration and overlap spec. does goes away at least keep the max spring pressure rule low to control the exotic and expensive parts from entering pure stock. Keep it low enough to control the parts used yet high enough to be fair for everyones combinations whateve that might be. Pure stock dosent need those crazy cams that stock uses today nor the 8000 plus RPMs. I remember when Cam Dynamics came out with their 7000 RPM plus grinds back in the "stone age". Valve springs would not last more than a few runs if at all when NHRA still checked duration and overlap. Some of you might not be old enough to remember Cam Dynamics and their square nosed cams.
It all comes down to finding a way to ensure that pure stockers will pass tech without diassembling the entire car.

Well said Terry. I still have my CD 302 cam. It saw little usage as valves springs were lucky to last 2 passes. Plain nightmare

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by 442OLDS

Probably could make the same argument for "traditional" stockers.

Pure stockers could have light pistons,cut down cranks,bogus rods too.

True....and I have no doubt that some (not all) are like that. What happened to integrity !!!!!

[Dan Fahey]

Originally Posted by 442OLDS

Probably could make the same argument for "traditional" stockers.
Pure stockers could have light pistons,cut down cranks,bogus rods too.

Sure could!
That extravagant cost will yield little advantage.
But it will open that box if the Spring Rule is changed.
D

[Bill Bogues]

Back when stock had pure stock cam and valve spring rules my Rimac spring checker was the most important tool I had.

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Bill Bogues

Back when stock had pure stock cam and valve spring rules my Rimac spring checker was the most important tool I had.

Mine from my old Jr Stocker days only goes to 250.
Door stop now. LOL

[Dan Fahey]

Here is a link to a 1000# Rimac Valve Spring Tester.


http://www.autozone.com/autozone/acc...er=214632_0_0_

Wonder how hard it would be to make one fit on a Head?

D

[Ed Wright]

We have a 1000lb Rimac (Can almost check my open pressure.) and an on-car tester (LSM).