Ok?
 

NHRA just released 3 more Stock and 3 more SS HP changes? I don't know what changed in the GM 346 or the GM 305 numbers but the 2V 302 Ford just lost 5 HP in a Mustang and 30 HP in a big car. What gives? 82 full sized Ford at 132 HP would qualify as a new "Dime Rocket"!

Re: Ok?
 

So are they back to the original OEM horsepower ratings?

Re: Ok?
 

over 20 hp reduction on the mavericks comets and Gary Summers mustang. He will be number one at Indy this time for sure. thats softer than the truck ever thought of being.. Those are 12.90 or better U Cars

Re: Ok?
 

So, just for those who don't follow the lower classes or Nitro Joes, the #1 car on Nitro Joe's Top Guns of NHRA Stock Eliminator at -1.656 in T/S just got 23 HP back! I wonder if Gary even knows yet.

Re: Ok?
 

Billy, I don't know if any of the full-size Fords can get light enough to take advantage of this! Either way, it looks like somebody missed the boat here! The Mavericks and Comets maybe deserved a few HP off, but I don't know about the others.
How about one of your favorites - the '82 Mustang - getting 5 more HP off and it looks like it's now a natural Q combo? I thought that was nuts until I looked at the '78 combo!

Even at 162, I thought that a Fairmont/Zephyr would be a great dime rocket. But now that it fits U/SA...

Re: Ok?
 

Is this a decision made by one person, "the ahfs system" or by committee...??

Re: Ok?
 

So my 72 Comet GT would be a natural U/SA car? 302 @ 143hp? The 2 BBL probably makes it a bad combo, or is there any hope of making it under the 14.85 index?

Dennis Breeden

Re: Ok?
 

Has anybody verified with Pat C. that this isn't a typo?

Every other HP adjustment has a separate column for OEM HP
and one for NHRA HP. Even if they are the same, they are both listed. Looks to me like they need to hire a proofreader.....

Re: Ok?
 

A 1.999 under coming up.......lol

Sure hope he is not at Indy October 19th.

Re: Ok?
 

If you want to see and help out I will go 2.00 under plus for you!

Re: Ok?
 

I don't want to step on Chuck Blossom's toes, lol. I can't imagine that 302 2 bbl going 13.85 let alone 12.85!

Dennis Breeden

Re: Ok?
 

What I find confusing is that every year from 1972 through 1979 has a different hp rating. 1980 and 1981 have two different ratings of 130 and 132 each year. 1982 has two of 132 and 157 for the GT engine. 1975 has the lowest which is 129. Hope I have not confused any of this.
regards, Roland

Re: Ok?
 

If a 273 2 barrel mopar can run in the 12's. I am sure it will be no problem with 30 extra cubic inches. Your just used to thinking with a 1000 cfm throttle body. These are not cookie cutter cars. You have to think a bit outside the box. Thats where the fun is.

Re: Ok?
 

How do you read those? Mostly reductions? I don't see seperate columns for OEM and new.

Re: Ok?
 

just *****ng great....

every year just before indy a new -2 second p.o.s. shows up in U/SA... cmon nhra don't you guys really have a clue here... use the calculator on your phone....

captain jack

Re: Ok?
 

Ed, you have to check each individual year (e.g. 1978 Ford) to see what they were reduced to.
I can't figure out what the reduction is on the 2000 LS1 though??

I wonder if NHRA realized that it did not make sense to rate a '72 Maverick, a '78 Mustang, and an '82 Mustang all at the same HP. So they rolled the HP ratings back to what they were from the factory, without realizing that the factory ratings weren't worth anything to begin with!
Or is this some elaborate plan to win back Ford's support and $$$? ;)

Re: Ok?
 

The 2000 LS1 reduction surprised me. I figured I was reading it wrong. The bone stock, untouched automatics made more than the factory rating, at the tires, on my chassis dyno, totally untouched. Stick cars made more, of course, than the automatics. Figure a 20% loss through the drive train. Best automatic cars make in the 330s at the tires.

Re: Ok?
 

So Ed, you're saying the LS1 is under factored like the new cars????
Sorry, I had to pull your chain.

Dennis

Re: Ok?
 

It is under rated. Not nearly as much as the new cars. Mine isn't an LS1, it is an LT1. I have seen only a couple of freak automatic LT1s make more than the factory rating of 275 at the tires. They had headers and tuning. Normally they make 235 to 250. Maybe I need to put a 2000 model front clip on mine, and an LS1 in it. The aluminum head LT1 Stockers have a lot of work the tech guys can't seem to see. The set I flowed weren't all THAT much behind my SS ported heads. Nothing like factory castings I have tested. That, of course, is reflected in the hp they have earned in Stock. :-)

Re: Ok?
 

Does anybody see what hp changed for the LS1 in Stock?

Re: Ok?
 

Pretty sure the 2000 LS1 Camaro/Firebird just got HP added (stick only I believe) to be the same as the rest of the years (so just a correction, like Kevin said below me), someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Ok?
 

It may be a correction

Re: Ok?
 

I have one as well Dennis.....just sitting with fresh exterior - no drivetrain. Wife would kill me if I even dreamed of messing with her cruiser....:rolleyes:

Re: Ok?
 

LS1 on the SS side got HP added or fixed. There where 3 different HP factors for the same spec motor. NHRA made them all the same on the for GT at least.

Re: Ok?
 

Does anyone know why they didn't list these HP changes like they do all the others....cubic inches, OEM HP and Factored HP?

Just seems silly NHRA doesn't follow their own method of HP information.

Re: Ok?
 

[quote=fredjohnston;393992]Does anyone know why they didn't list these HP changes like they do all the others....cubic inches, OEM HP and Factored HP?

Just seems silly NHRA doesn't follow their own method of HP information.[/quo

I made big error, mixing up old and new date. The NHRA made a big error on the LS1.

Re: Ok?
 

Mine is a 45,000 mile original car from New Mexico. 302 GT with add on Monkey Ward A/C.

Dennis

Re: Ok?
 

So what is the correct factored HP rating on these combos?

Re: Ok?
 

Dennis, you have too many toys.

Re: Ok?
 

OK Billy. Build (assemble) me one of these FFFFords and I'll come up for Indy and the Classnationals and win it all for the U/SA guys, I don't mind.

Don't you just love the way the AHFS is working.

I believe that Carey Bales car should run in Stock also, I mean it's only a little car.

On another note, does any one else notice that the top quarter of the field is made up of the newer "accurately" rated cars. Now the lower cars are getting the same treatment.

Ron Ortiz
U/SA I'm sorry to admit.

Re: Ok?
 

I didn't think you could have too many, lol.

Dennis

Re: Ok?
 

After further internal conversations as well as discussions with the SRAC, the NHRA Technical Department has reconsidered the recent horsepower adjustments which were announced on August 6, 2013. All announced adjustments will be reverted back to their original values prior to the August 6th announcement. These combinations will be reviewed during the standard end of the year review.

I guess I will leave the Comet GT in the garage, lol.

Dennis

Re: Ok?
 

The Ford 302 is still unchanged...fingers crossed?

Re: Ok?
 

No, they ALL go back to what they were before Aug. 6. A good call IMHO.

Re: Ok?
 

^^^

Re: Ok?
 

Good thing the Buick is almost done!

Re: Ok?
 

I will second that. If people think the truck was fast. They would have seen a real mess once pandora's box was opened up.

Re: Ok?
 

I understand putting the ls combo back. but it seems the change puts the ford combo right where it should be.

Re: Ok?
 

that's like saying that 87- 93 5.0 mustang you raced should be rated at 180hp Gary Summers just went 1.65 under with the combination at 162hp.

Re: Ok?
 

i see what you're saying about the later 2bbls. i was just looking at the early to mid 70's combo. different carb on them. thanks for the clarity.