CJ engine options and HP ratings. - Page 4

Charley Downing · 12-18-2009, 04:21 PM

Ok Gerg next time you run someone heads up and you are three tenths faster, are you are going to pack up and go home because it would not be a far race? I think not. How are the two any different? You say it's not fair well NHRA racing and life are alot alike there both not fair all the time. In life we learn to deal with things that are unfair that is what makes us better. It not fair my dad let me race a slow 1983 malibu wgn while other young racers dads built them new race cars but I delt with it and I'am better for it now(I was just glad to drive anything). Andrew racing will never be fair there will always be someone faster car or a bigger pocket book. All we can do is play by the rules NHRA sets for us end of storie. If you don't like the sand get out of the sand box.

Greg Hill · 12-18-2009, 04:32 PM

Charlie the difference is that my combination is rated fairly, in fact I think it's a pretty tough combination to make run fast. The ratings on the new Ford crate motors along with the Chrysler crate motors are bogus as hell. I would like to run a GM Fast burn motor in my car at 275 hp. but I can't. The factories are doing exactly that and NHRA is letting them.

Charley Downing · 12-18-2009, 05:29 PM

Greg you are right about your combo being far. But who is really the problem NHRA for trying to get new cars in stock or superstock or Ford and Chrysler for trying to sell cars and parts? If the combos are not soft who would build one?

Greg Hill · 12-18-2009, 06:40 PM

Charlie,so what you're saying is that it's okay for Ford, Chrysler and NHRA to collude to get underated combinations into stock to the detriment of people who have been racing for 20 or 30 years. That's kind of like saying it's okay for them to steal from us. This is all bull**** and anybody with half a brain knows this. I guess I'll forgive you though since I heard you were getting a new Mustang.

Charley Downing · 12-19-2009, 10:01 AM

Greg at I ‘am say is if you look back over the past 25 years in Stock and Superstock these combo are not any softer then past cars when they came out. Examples LT1, LS1, L-98, 1960’s cobra jets, dodge pick trucks & almost every combo Al Provost ran. If some of these combos are not soft who would build one? And if everyone had a 1969 camaro 255/350 in STK and SS the class would suck. It is stuff like this that makes our class so cool. You guys really don't how many people now know about Stk and Superstock now just because of these cobra jets. In the past nine weeks I have talked with over twenty people that had no clue what STK and SS was and now wants to go see what it's all about and maybe someday build a car. In the big picture these car are doing more good than bad. The problem is change is going to happen wheatear you like it or not and some people just don’t like change. If Stk and SS don’t change(Just a little) with the times we will end up just like modified eliminator, GONE.

If the hp system was ran correctly this would not be that big of an issue. We all know that.

Evan Smith · 12-19-2009, 10:22 AM

Sean, you are right, to the manufacturer it is about selling cars, which is why NHRA let GM racers run the LT-1 in the '98 F-bodies when these cars were never built. In my book this was the first "crate engine" stocker. Why was this not Super Stock only?

Evan

GUMP · 12-19-2009, 10:31 AM

The truth is that this is what happens when the Big Three decide to get back into Stock/SS! The last time around they did everything they could with what they had in their parts bins to. Why should it be any different this time around? Why do you think they built Hemi cars, COPO cars, and Cobra Jet Mustangs in the late sixties? They sure weren't aimed at socker mums!

Chris "drooze" Wertman · 12-19-2009, 10:53 AM

Thak you so very very much at least there is one other guy on here who gets it

What I think is funny is there are guys running those cars and combos who are upset their 40 year old relics just got outdated by something that should have happened over 20 years ago. its the year 2009 for crying out loud...

Thanks GUMP, seriously thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUMP

The truth is that this is what happens when the Big Three decide to get back into Stock/SS! The last time around they did everything they could with what they had in their parts bins to. Why should it be any different this time around? Why do you think they built Hemi cars, COPO cars, and Cobra Jet Mustangs in the late sixties? They sure weren't aimed at socker mums!

Alan Roehrich · 12-19-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Smith

Sean, you are right, to the manufacturer it is about selling cars, which is why NHRA let GM racers run the LT-1 in the '98 F-bodies when these cars were never built. In my book this was the first "crate engine" stocker. Why was this not Super Stock only?

Evan

Just so you know, even the owner's manual in my 98 Firebird (V6 powered) shows a 5.7L 350 cid V8.

Alan Roehrich · 12-19-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUMP

The truth is that this is what happens when the Big Three decide to get back into Stock/SS! The last time around they did everything they could with what they had in their parts bins to. Why should it be any different this time around? Why do you think they built Hemi cars, COPO cars, and Cobra Jet Mustangs in the late sixties? They sure weren't aimed at socker mums!

There were over 1200 COPO L-72 Camaros built, 69 ZL-1 Camaros, plenty of L-88 Corvettes, around 500 or so L-72 69 Chevelles, and the list goes on. All real street legal cars sold at the dealership. Not only that, only the ZL-1 Camaro had a really high price tag.

If these cross breed crate motor combinations are legal, then why isn't a 67 Corvette L-88 legal? After all, they built and sold 36 of them. Who knows how many were given away.

If the Roush cars are legal, why aren't all the Yenko cars, or all of the Baldwin/Motion cars?

It's suddenly all fine and dandy to put just about anything in Stock Eliminator, regardless of whether or not it was even remotely intended for street use, or even produced at the factory. There used to be a rule about "export cars", "tuner cars" and all of that. Rules intended specifically to keep ringers with bogus factors out of Stock. But now it is evidently okay to put anything in Stock, regardless of it ever being actually produced or available in the showroom at all. And you can evidently name your own factor as well.

The idea that all of this is absolutely no different than 98 F bodies with 97 LT-1 engines is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen. In fact, evidently the 97 and 98 carry the same HP factor and the same curb weight. So, in effect, they're only different in appearance. But somehow they are as outrageously bogus as a car that has 650HP at the rear wheels in stock form being factored at 425 HP. Yeah, right.

12-18-2009, 04:21 PM	#31
Charley Downing Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 762 Likes: 16 Liked 651 Times in 89 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Ok Gerg next time you run someone heads up and you are three tenths faster, are you are going to pack up and go home because it would not be a far race? I think not. How are the two any different? You say it's not fair well NHRA racing and life are alot alike there both not fair all the time. In life we learn to deal with things that are unfair that is what makes us better. It not fair my dad let me race a slow 1983 malibu wgn while other young racers dads built them new race cars but I delt with it and I'am better for it now(I was just glad to drive anything). Andrew racing will never be fair there will always be someone faster car or a bigger pocket book. All we can do is play by the rules NHRA sets for us end of storie. If you don't like the sand get out of the sand box. __________________ Charley Downing 3548 STK Last edited by Charley Downing; 12-18-2009 at 04:34 PM.

12-18-2009, 04:32 PM	#32
Greg Hill VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Louisville , KY Posts: 1,995 Likes: 69 Liked 279 Times in 68 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Charlie the difference is that my combination is rated fairly, in fact I think it's a pretty tough combination to make run fast. The ratings on the new Ford crate motors along with the Chrysler crate motors are bogus as hell. I would like to run a GM Fast burn motor in my car at 275 hp. but I can't. The factories are doing exactly that and NHRA is letting them. __________________ Greg Hill 4171 STK

12-18-2009, 05:29 PM	#33
Charley Downing Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 762 Likes: 16 Liked 651 Times in 89 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Greg you are right about your combo being far. But who is really the problem NHRA for trying to get new cars in stock or superstock or Ford and Chrysler for trying to sell cars and parts? If the combos are not soft who would build one? __________________ Charley Downing 3548 STK

12-18-2009, 06:40 PM	#34
Greg Hill VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Louisville , KY Posts: 1,995 Likes: 69 Liked 279 Times in 68 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Charlie,so what you're saying is that it's okay for Ford, Chrysler and NHRA to collude to get underated combinations into stock to the detriment of people who have been racing for 20 or 30 years. That's kind of like saying it's okay for them to steal from us. This is all bull**** and anybody with half a brain knows this. I guess I'll forgive you though since I heard you were getting a new Mustang. __________________ Greg Hill 4171 STK

12-19-2009, 10:01 AM	#35
Charley Downing Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 762 Likes: 16 Liked 651 Times in 89 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Greg at I ‘am say is if you look back over the past 25 years in Stock and Superstock these combo are not any softer then past cars when they came out. Examples LT1, LS1, L-98, 1960’s cobra jets, dodge pick trucks & almost every combo Al Provost ran. If some of these combos are not soft who would build one? And if everyone had a 1969 camaro 255/350 in STK and SS the class would suck. It is stuff like this that makes our class so cool. You guys really don't how many people now know about Stk and Superstock now just because of these cobra jets. In the past nine weeks I have talked with over twenty people that had no clue what STK and SS was and now wants to go see what it's all about and maybe someday build a car. In the big picture these car are doing more good than bad. The problem is change is going to happen wheatear you like it or not and some people just don’t like change. If Stk and SS don’t change(Just a little) with the times we will end up just like modified eliminator, GONE. If the hp system was ran correctly this would not be that big of an issue. We all know that. __________________ Charley Downing 3548 STK Last edited by Charley Downing; 12-19-2009 at 10:04 AM.

12-19-2009, 10:22 AM	#36
Evan Smith Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Tampa Posts: 400 Likes: 7 Liked 115 Times in 5 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. Sean, you are right, to the manufacturer it is about selling cars, which is why NHRA let GM racers run the LT-1 in the '98 F-bodies when these cars were never built. In my book this was the first "crate engine" stocker. Why was this not Super Stock only? Evan __________________ Evan Smith 1798 STK

12-19-2009, 10:31 AM	#37
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,823 Likes: 2,174 Liked 2,354 Times in 554 Posts	Re: CJ engine options and HP ratings. The truth is that this is what happens when the Big Three decide to get back into Stock/SS! The last time around they did everything they could with what they had in their parts bins to. Why should it be any different this time around? Why do you think they built Hemi cars, COPO cars, and Cobra Jet Mustangs in the late sixties? They sure weren't aimed at socker mums!