|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wingdale, NY
Posts: 302
Likes: 27
Liked 53 Times in 16 Posts
|
![]()
Have a friend with a 73 Duster uncut bracket/street car. He is updating the roll bar to a cage plus installing a 62 413 395HP Stock Eliminator motor. Wants to run Stock. How can we petition IHRA to allow the years in their Stock GT class to go back to 1955 like in Super Stock now. I did e-mail Mike Baker. Have not heard anything back. Any suggestions, opinions. Would NHRA ever add a Stock GT class?
Will Lamprecht 65 Impala I/SA in progress. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: celina, ohio
Posts: 623
Likes: 4
Liked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
![]()
I have tried to get this same thing done for years.The answer always the same.NO.
__________________
Jim Woods |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16
Likes: 7
Liked 6 Times in 2 Posts
|
![]()
I think that this would be a win-win for both IHRA and it's racers. If you have a car with an overrated horsepower, you can change to another IHRA accepted horsepower/engine combination without having to change bodies. It would take pressure off IHRA Officials to adjust horsepower ratings and would require only one change in the rulebook-1980 to 1955.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: celina, ohio
Posts: 623
Likes: 4
Liked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
![]()
Correct jim
__________________
Jim Woods |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 1,927
Likes: 121
Liked 347 Times in 123 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I know it won't happen, but for years I have dreamed up different combos in Stock that would be fun. We classify our engines on our tech cards by year, and we also classify our bodies by year, so the tech cards would stay the same with this idea.
__________________
Alan Mackin Stock 3777/ SS 3377 P/SA & SS/PA Fox Thunderbird I/PS '95 Mustang GT |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nineveh, Indiana
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Seems this would make sense. There probably aren't a dozen of these cars in the whole country anyway. I'd love to piece together a 289/271 hp engine for my Mustang II. Too expensive for a bracket engine. Could also see this class as a way to revive the old Formula Stock rules. That ship sailed long ago. Besides the purists would squeal too loud. Like the fwd and foreign cars, don't want to open up the class for further participation. Still working on my U/SA car.
__________________
Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro 95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 1,084
Liked 184 Times in 113 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
4bbl would have made a popular performance cars. I understand the push to put another engine in a stocker. Especially if it is a simple drop in and not require custom adjustments. One suggestion is to let them upgrade to the 4bbl. Leave in regular stock as there is a HP track record to move up a class. However, GT class allow racers to prepare previously unsuitable combinations when you have a good chassis and a known engine. Great opportinity to bring in more more later model cars in the 80s and 90s. It would be cost effective considering the 50, 60 and 70 cars are becoming expensive to prepare and as the collector folks drive prices up. My 2 cents! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,417
Likes: 597
Liked 1,880 Times in 562 Posts
|
![]()
There are already way too many different classes in stock and super stock. Part of the interest to run these classes is to find something that will be competitive. Stock and Super Stock was never intended to have every combination included and some are just not good combo's to attempt to run the class. I can see no good reason to change the rule. Stock should be running the engine that came with the car. They already have the crate motor classes. Just my opinion.
__________________
Mike Pearson 2485 SS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wingdale, NY
Posts: 302
Likes: 27
Liked 53 Times in 16 Posts
|
![]()
Mike I can understand not wanting to add anymore classes but you wouldn't be adding any classes with this move, just change the acceptable years from 1980 back to 1955. It is already done like that in NHRA SS GT class.
IHRA does have more Stock classes than NHRA with the FI, GT and Crate motor classes. I would like to see NHRA add a GT class, but thats another thread... Will Lamprecht |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nineveh, Indiana
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
This will in turn lead to a reduction of classes. This already is taking place, how many of the newer cars that could be run in the lower clases are even being put in the guide. The manufactuers aren't interested in putting them in. We already have nostalgia SS, can a nostalgia Stock class be far behind. Stock appearing eliminator may rear it's ugly head sooner than we think. Stock GT might give some a chance to participate in an actual class. Much like Pure Stock. Both classes are too limited. Building expensive oddball combos to go compete against tube chassis bracket cars at the local tracks just isn't a lot of fun. Kind of what stock is becoming, lol!
__________________
Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro 95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|