1.42 Under!
 

Wow! Outstanding performance from Dan Jacobs at Beech Bend.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

what combo?

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

That's gonna leave a mark!

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

GT/K 2005 Cavalier 305

9.33 142.58

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

That's 1.72 under the old index........that's unreal......

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

That combination obviously needed an adjustment.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

The "Smoking Lamp" is on in the Dan Jacobs camp.

Even quicker at 9.31 and 142.69 this morning!

The 305 combinations are certainly outstanding performers. Consider the recent '85 F/SA Camaro performance as well.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Just send it

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

That works out to a 7.25% hit......

I don't think that the automatic GT cars will get hit?????

But with NHRA, who knows....

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Impressive!! Or, depressing if you have one like it.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Doesn't really matter... just claim a different year, make ,and model and go back to 235.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

That definitely is an impressive performance.
And - it's a GT car... a stick & a fwd conversion
So - It will only get a hp hit in GT / FWD / Manual Trans - not so bad
What year / hp combo is it?

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

I'm talking depressing if somebody else's if that fast & yours is not. Most are not.
It's pretty much just bracket racing anymore.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

The 305 is either the most under factored or the best small block Chevrolet in history. Can you imagine what the Grump could have done with one of these boat anchors.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Sorry, but prior to 6-13 no 1985 Camaro would fit into F/SA. .Dan Jacobs and engine builder Steven Belanger are in a league of their own....What an impressive two runs for that team.....

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Not certain about what may have been the case prior to 6/13 but the red F/SA 305 Camaro certainly made a few outstanding passes at Englishtown '17.

It looked like Dan Jacobs may not have launched as well as could be expected during one or two of the BG runs.

The Challenger that recorded the 1.6+ under performance is also quite incredible.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Maybe I'm dense, but I admit I've never understood why people do this. So THIS car can go 1.42 (and maybe even more) under the index; does the guy not realize that there might be 50 other guys with the same combination who might fall somewhere between .60 and .90 under (because even though the combination is "soft", they can't afford to have the best, million-dollar stuff). I just don't get it; you go fast and get absolutely nothing for doing so. All you do in the end is hurt the guys with no money, who are trying to compete at a level they can afford.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

It's a dick thing. Really only hurts the guys going the index or just under and he is helping bring a closer/realistic hp rating to this combo.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Nicely said ! That's exactly what it is !

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

No disrespect for Mr. Jacobs and no accusations but anyone who runs that fast to trigger a combination for instant horsepower should be an automatic teardown. If I did it I would expect to get torn down.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Totally agree, anybody that triggers automatic horsepower should be torn down. Not fair to the other racers with same combo!!




Bret Velde
2003 SS/LA

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Agreed! Funny a certain Copo got torn down at Rockingham last year because he went more than 1.20 under but I haven't heard of another one since.....

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Very interesting that I never saw NHRA post the updated HP prior to the US Nationals.....

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

No runs at Indy will result in the AHFS hurting anyone.

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/gen...069&zoneid=132

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

He is speaking of the run at BG

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Thank you Mr.Johnson, someone is paying attention....LOL

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Can someone explain to me how Dan's combo didn't get horsepower before Indy???? I am sure he worked has butt off getting to where he is, but with 3 runs more than 1.4 under, come on.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

I was wondering the same thing! It should have been posted Monday.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

It is updated if you go to the actual classification guide, just no announcement. He's claiming a different year that has some small differences as far as I know.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Andrew, according to DRC Dan is claiming the same year as he did at BG - 05 Cavalier. I assume DRC has the numbers right.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

He's a GT car so he's claiming a different year/car that the 305 he's running came out of. But what he's claiming still has the same specs as the 305 he was claiming before.

Ryan Walther
Stock 315

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Thanks Ryan for the update. I am not totally sharp on all the combos in GT.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

I may be a little behind here, but I thought I heard somewhere earlier this year that Jacob's is running a 350 combo this year. Could be completely wrong though.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Still trying to find out what combo?

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Hi Bob,

Mr. Jacobs was running a 1990 305/210hp per the 2016 Nitro Joe book. That combo is now 253 in the class guide as of 8/29/17, as are a few other years of 305s. So I'm not sure what year he is claiming now at 235.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

Nitro Joe shows Mr. Jacobs with a 350 this year. I don't think he's running the 305 this year. Could be wrong though.

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

So nobody knows?

Why is NHRA not posting specifically which combination this is that received a 7.25% horsepower increase?

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

I haven't found it yet, either, Bob
Someone said it's in the book already, but not publicized .
Okay, from the top .
Is it a TPI 305?
88-92 Firebird and Camaro, right?
Anyone know this much?

Re: 1.42 Under!
 

The 1990 and 1991 305/210 and 305/230 manual trans/stock head were changed from 235 to 253 HP for GT FWD on 8/29/17 according to the NHRA stock car classification guides. The 1987 305/215 is still 235 with manual trans and stock head. The 1988/89 are 245 from a previous hit. It looks like the 87 combo was mistakenly adjusted to 253 also then back to 235 as there are some differences in the chamber size from the 90/91 I believe.