Ok?

[denbreeden]

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

[rawhide]

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

[Paul Wong]

Originally Posted by denbreeden

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

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.

[Ed Wright]

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

[Jack McCarthy]

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

[Nick Heath]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

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

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 $$$?

[Ed Wright]

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.

[denbreeden]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

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.

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

Dennis

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by denbreeden

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

Dennis

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. :-)

[countrypuppy4865]

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