|
![]() |
#81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 808
Likes: 7
Liked 20 Times in 12 Posts
|
![]()
From the NHRA Rule book
“Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA accepted. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying and acid-porting prohibited.” Based on this how is this motor legal?[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly the heads were CNC from the factory? If that is the case how can NHRA prove that additional CNC had been done? Short of the cc's? When I first saw several years ago where CNC heads were installed on some of the super cars that clearly opened the door for additional porting. The thing I don't get from the article is the changing of the cam, to a larger grind? How can you tell this "Stocker" engine from a "SS" engine?? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
As for the camshaft specs, the .641" lift is what is in the Tech Bulletin, regardless of any advertising for the LS7. I suspect that some of the confusion is that people assume this engine is the same as the LS7 engine installed in Corvettes, but it is not. It is a spec engine for their Factory Shootout cars, not a production engine.
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lower Dakota territory
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 1,074
Liked 799 Times in 236 Posts
|
![]()
For most, the real issue is what the rule book says and what is currently being done and allowed .
Isn't it time for the rule book to reflect what is currently being done? For a racer to spend $1000+ to cover up what isn't being enforced certainly doesn't help the racer. Maybe it's time for the rules to state: If the ports meet the CC's, the valve sizes are correct and there's no welding or epoxy, they pass.
__________________
"That'll never work....." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boulder City, Nevada 89005
Posts: 2,736
Likes: 2,808
Liked 2,488 Times in 698 Posts
|
![]()
I agree with you on this one Alan!
Not that I expect anything to every change except maybe to get worse and more expensive!
__________________
John Irving 741 Stock 741 Super Stock Last edited by GTX JOHN; 03-30-2016 at 05:43 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
|
![]()
That is exactly how the rule for porting in Super Stock was originally written. Given time and pressure, you have the current Super Stock head rule. Is that what you want? Be careful what you ask for or how brilliant you think your solution will be or what you give in to.
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sand Springs, OK
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 896
Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,123
Likes: 1,581
Liked 1,874 Times in 422 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
![]() I know a couple of guys who could push some fast Super Stock heads through those loopholes. It's bad enough as it is.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lower Dakota territory
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 1,074
Liked 799 Times in 236 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
"That'll never work....." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 752
Likes: 204
Liked 136 Times in 49 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
In this case it wouldn't be very hard they bragged about it in a magazine article. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 264
Likes: 42
Liked 61 Times in 25 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|