2008 Cobra Jets belong in Stock

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

Jeff - 5pt harnesses, open header exhaust and slicks are not DOT legal and every stocker has them. Again the body and the major powertrain components (the parts you can't change) are all parts that are OEM available., only exception could be the hood but the cars are not setup to utilize the cold air functionality.

Tim your putting a spin on the issue by citing what's not factory about Stock Eliminator vehicles. It should be clear I'm making a point that this CJ500 package is just that, a package and it is nothing that is available from Ford for use by the public on public roads. You can not walk into any Ford dealership and buy a Mustang with a 5.4L SC engine and drive away with car and license plates and insurance. And Stock Eliminator has ALWAYS been to showcase what is possible with factory produced, legal for street use vehicles. I can't think of ANY exceptions over the last 50+ years. Shelby offers a 5.4L SC engine so that is perfectly acceptable.
To side with Bruce on this, the disadvantage to other Stock racers is he and others are forced to run factory specialty race-specific vehicles against true production vehicles. I'm not talking SC or HP advantage, I'm talking production.
And to drive the point even deeper, Mercury (argueably) built the first flip-top funny car in 1966. Then if they built 50, should that car be eligible for Stock Eliminator?

[Ed Fernandez]

Question: Why would Ford hesitate to want these Mustangs inserted into Super Stock where they truly belong?
Answer: Because they wouldn't be at the top of the heap like in Stock.They would blend into the
scenery.
Possibly Glendora saw an opportunity to milk some sort of corporate advantage to let Ford have their way.
Make sense?

Ed F.

[Tim Kish]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Tim your putting a spin on the issue by citing what's not factory about Stock Eliminator vehicles. It should be clear I'm making a point that this CJ500 package is just that, a package and it is nothing that is available from Ford for use by the public on public roads. You can not walk into any Ford dealership and buy a Mustang with a 5.4L SC engine and drive away with car and license plates and insurance. And Stock Eliminator has ALWAYS been to showcase what is possible with factory produced, legal for street use vehicles. I can't think of ANY exceptions over the last 50+ years. Shelby offers a 5.4L SC engine so that is perfectly acceptable.

Jeff you have a misperception about the current Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang. This is a fully Ford produced car (8000+/yr are built) built on the standard Mustang assembly line this vehicle comes as you know with a 5.4L S/C engine built on a Ford assembly line. The Shelby name on this car is only badging.

[Tim Kish]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Tim,
I'm convinced you know about these things. Please ask nhra to put one of your race ready machines to work on a chassis dyno. There is no point in beating this thing to death when the dyno numbers will tell everyone what we need to know. Isn't that the best way to resolve this issue?

Bruce - without the dyno numbers of the other players in the classes they would be pointless. You need both data sets (Cobra Jet and current players) to establish a true power to weight ratio that would allow all combinations to be set dead even. All contingent on everyone showing what they had which we know isn't feasible as that gives away any of the hard work and money spent by those that are currently class leaders. I'm sure NHRA is watching the performance of these cars far more than you believe.

[bill dedman]

Jeff Lee wrote: "And Stock Eliminator has ALWAYS been to showcase what is possible with factory produced, legal for street use vehicles. I can't think of ANY exceptions over the last 50+ years."

Well, not to muddy the water here, but tell me, Jeff; how many 1967 Shelby GT500s have you encountered on the street EVER, with one 4 barrel carburetor (to say nothing of the optional heads and cam they are running in Stock, all with the blessing of the NHRA Tech dept.)????????

Just answer me that, please... or, this: Did you ever see an advertisment, brochure, road test, or any other place IN PRINT, that would confirm that these cars were ever built and sold to the general public? Not one shred of evidence of any kind, have I ever seen... have you?

I was a tech inspector handling Stock and Super Stock at my local drag strip in 1967 (Des Moines Dragway) and I had the Class. Guide and received all the "tech bulletins" from NHRA and I never EVER saw one printed word about these '67 single 4bbl GT500's. I asked the GT500 registrar at a national Shelby club as to the number of single 4bbl '67 GT500s built, and he basically told me I was crazy; that there were none built; they all had dual quads and 390 heads.

Now, I am aware of "the letter" and I am not calling into question the legality of these cars. Not at all. NHRA has made them legal, they have raced, and it's a done deal...

But, you mentioned, "Stock Eliminator has ALWAYS been to showcase what is possible with factory produced, legal for street use vehicles. I can't think of ANY exceptions over the last 50+ years."

Would this not be an exception?

Just playing Devil's advocate, here... I think they belong in Super Stock... Why? Because the mph these cars seem capable of is indicative of a horsepower output that, when properly factored, will be beyond the scope of AA/S (7.5 pounds-per-cubic inch)...
but, then, nobody asked me... LOL!

Bill

[Bruce Noland]

Tim,
I think you know better than that. Let's put the CJ on a dyno. I have already suggested that we put other top performers on the dyno at the same time. We can do that. You get a race ready CJ and we'll be glad to produce other cars for comparison. We are not afraid of comparing our cars. Why hide with the CJ? Steve at Ford Racing Parts said the CJ motor made 680 Horsepower right off the engine builders engine stand. He also said that with more tuning and racing fuel the motor was capable of 750 Horsepower. His words. That is 125 Horsepower more than the very best big block motor. This CJ motor is also rated at 85 nhra Horsepower less that the 281 motor that is rated at 510. Why won't you guys bring this car out and put it on the Dyno? None of the supporters of this car deny that it is putting out huge Horsepower numbers and Steve at Ford Racing Parts said they would not publish the actual numbers because they didn't want nhra to know how much power the motor made. Why run from this issue? Just put a race ready car on the dyno. In fact I'm going to call Hot Rod today and ask them to do it. Nobody knows what their response will be but their name is connected with this car now and it may prove to be a very interesting article.

[ss3845]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Tim,
I think you know better than that. Let's put the CJ on a dyno. I have already suggested that we put other top performers on the dyno at the same time. We can do that. You get a race ready CJ and we'll be glad to produce other cars for comparison. We are not afraid of comparing our cars. Why hide with the CJ? Steve at Ford Racing Parts said the CJ motor made 680 Horsepower right off the engine builders engine stand. He also said that with more tuning and racing fuel the motor was capable of 750 Horsepower. His words. That is 125 Horsepower more than the very best big block motor. This CJ motor is also rated at 85 nhra Horsepower less that the 281 motor that is rated at 510. Why won't you guys bring this car out and put it on the Dyno? None of the supporters of this car deny that it is putting out huge Horsepower numbers and Steve at Ford Racing Parts said they would not publish the actual numbers because they didn't want nhra to know how much power the motor made. Why run from this issue? Just put a race ready car on the dyno. In fact I'm going to call Hot Rod today and ask them to do it. Nobody knows what their response will be but their name is connected with this car now and it may prove to be a very interesting article.

What do you want NHRA to do once they get a dyno number?

[Evan Smith]

There is so much sandbagging in Stock that no one really knows what any car is capable of. Virtually every fast racer has 'bagged in one way or another. It doesn't matter whether you lift, hit the brakes, switch classes, run heavy, etc. etc., sandbagging is sandbagging.

Not showing your hand, whether on track or with under-rating engines has been a part of Stock since its inception. Unless racers run there cars balls-to-the wall all the time (which we all know won't happen), we will never really know how much power any engine makes, how fast we can go, or what the REAL factors should be. In time, just like with other combos, we will see what the CJ can do. I agree that the CJ is underrated, but so were/are many, many other engines.

With that, why should CJ racers be the only ones to have published hp figures or hp figures known to NHRA? NHRA is not going to purchase every combo to determine its real output. Do it for one, do it for all! Doing chassis dyno tests won't work either because it is nearly impossible to extract good data with slipper clutches and/or loose converters. I know this first-hand.

Lastly, the idea that Ford or Ford Racing paid NHRA money on the sly to approve this combo is inaccurate. While I am certainly not privy to all inner workings and meetings, I can tell you that Brian Wolfe (Director of Ford Racing) and his team would sooner race elsewhere than to "slide" NHRA money for anything. I tire of hearing these silly accusations by the uninformed who are fishing for something to bitch about. There have been some valid points made about this CJ topic by Bruce and others, but some of the crap is just plain idiotic. With all the new high-hp cars on the horizon perhaps it's time for lighter weight breaks. We need more proactive "tuning" of the rules by NHRA. I totally respect the concerns of those with the proverbial "dog-in-the-fight," but some of the statements made by grown men are childish, uninformed and made by the same old nay-sayers who never have a positive thing to say about anything. Stock is far from perfect, but if this form of racing is so bad then quit crying and go fishing.

Evan

[Evan Smith]

Ed F.,

You can look at the engine specs on line and see the differences, but in a nutshell, the CJ has less compression by a full point (which is a big deal even with a blower), smaller valves, smaller cams and smaller throttle body.

Evan

[Fred Popov]

Originally Posted by Evan Smith

Ed F.,

You can look at the engine specs on line and see the differences, but in a nutshell, the CJ has less compression by a full point (which is a big deal even with a blower), smaller valves, smaller cams and smaller throttle body.

Evan

Evan,

I looked up the blueprint specs for the 07 GT500 and the 08 CJ and I don't see the differences that you are talking about. (Specs don't have a GT500 for 08) The valves are the same size. The TB is 2x62mm for both. Compression is only 0.12 less due to a slightly greater deck height. But yes, the cam is smaller in the CJ. Am I looking at a different spec. than you?
Thanks for clarifying...
Fred




500 330(S) 9.5 EFI FORD RF7R3V-9K461 lower 1.81 H/R 48.0 B,2
500 330 .059 Dish .128” 13.5 cc 2@1456/2@1259 468/468 .037 Beehive


425 330 9.38 Supercharged EATON RF7R3Z-9K461 1.8 H/R 48.0 B,3,4
425 330 .074 Dish .118” 13.5 cc 2@1456/2@1259 413/413 .037 Beehive