Minus 76 Horsepower

[Mark Yacavone]

Congrats to Mr Jim Hale at Indy.
After seeing this, I got to thinking.
Just for fun.
Pick your favorite 60's over- rated factory slug combo, and take off 76 hp.
Would you build one now?

How about a 66 GTO, 360 horse Tri-Power? Let's see. That brings it down to 286 and about J/SA.
Decent cam, lots of CFM, 12 to 1 comp,. 3 speed trans now.
Where do I sign up?

[Dwight Southerland]

Mark -
Rather than a fixed amount of reduction, let's look at the percentage reduction that was allowed. 76/365 = .2082 or roughly a 20% reduction over the original factory rating. Interesting that several years ago a contingency of racing analysts suggested a 20% reduction for many of the 1960s engine combinations considering the net hp ratings of the 70s and the advantageous ratings applied by the factories for their new, profile offerings. I could easily support that 20% as a guideline for some wholesale revaluing of many engine combinations. For example, would a '63 Galaxie 390 rated at 240 (OEM 300 x 80%) be competitive? Probably so. Since the cost and difficulty of finding and building a now classic body would be prohibitive to many, I doubt that it would be a major upset. I thought the 302 Ford and 350 Chevy truck changes would have created more of an event, but it seems that whatever fears everyone voiced have quickly diminished. What little participation has been and will be nullified by the AHFS as soon as the competitors want to show how advantageous their little prize can be. Isn't that the appeal of such combinations - being able to qualify well? Egos will be a powerful force to erase the advantage.

Anything that will increase the probability of more competitors should be considered seriously. Make it easier, cheaper and more fun since it certainly has lost the appeal of being financially rewarding. When a tournament bass fisherman can win $50K in a minor contest with less investment than a competitive Stock eliminator car, the indicators are there that some serious revamping is in order to keep this game going.

[Billy Nees]

Well thanks for "fielding" that one Dwight!
After reading Marks post, believe it or not, I just didn't know what to say.
BTW, I think that the GTO at around 300-310 would be cool!

[Mark Yacavone]

C'mon Billy ..Think high class for a minute.
How about a 65 Biscayne, 409/340 .minus .208 % then...71 hp?
269 ought to put in about L/SA .
Huge 4GC, metric 3 speed. 11+ to 1 comp. Any good ?

[Dwight Southerland]

How about a '64 tri-power GTO @ 278hp? Or a tri-power '61 Chevy 348/280 @ 224hp? There are lots of cool combinations that would become competitive. Many 2-bbl combinations would suddenly be not-so-easily-overlooked.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Many 2-bbl combinations would suddenly be not-so-easily-overlooked.

Ya mean like a 2-bbl 307 Chebby?

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Ya mean like a 2-bbl 307 Chebby?

Nah, they were built after the 60s. Besides, nobody in their right mind would even attempt one of those.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Ya mean like a 2-bbl 307 Chebby?

Personally, I would like to see NHRA grant all the post-1970 2-bbl combinations a reprieve at OEM ratings like they did the 302 Fords. How would you like to race at 130, Billy?

[Billy Nees]

Heck, if I could get my 230/140 6 cyl down to 130 I'd be one very happy fella!

[Tom keedle]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Nah, they were built after the 60s. Besides, nobody in their right mind would even attempt one of those.

69 Camaros/novas had 'em...