Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases??

[Bob Mulry]

All I am going to say on the matter is, "It's crap like this that is ruining what is left of Stock.............

The InterNet is no friend of stability...just hit enter and the world is your stationary.......

Bob

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry

All I am going to say on the matter is, "It's crap like this that is ruining what is left of Stock.............

The InterNet is no friend of stability...just hit enter and the world is your stationary.......

Bob

Don't forget that before you hit the "post reply" button, you have to mention the "safety factor" at least 3x!

I thought the aluminum rear end issue was made pretty clear several years ago with the same slip up & publicity by Evan Smith.
Performance advantage with aluminum drop out? Maybe not, but that's another 15# or more that can be shifted to the weight box. Now traction is that much better and the greasy track is not such an issue as some of the competitors. And some may ad that 15#'s to the front to better control the launch for improved ET's.
So yes, there could be significant ET reductions with this part.

[RJ Sledge]

SS engine guy that is incredible that you can actually feel the 5 lbs difference when you leave. How much does 5 lbs affect your 60 ft??

Jeff you need to get your car out of moth balls and go but 15 lbs in your trunk and tell us what a "significant ET improvement" you obtain. Probalby a tenth, huh??

RJ

[SS Engine Guy]

. The +/- 5lbs. can be the difference of whether I launch straight and stay in the groove. I have lost a couple thou. on a good track with a narrow groove to as much as .05 on a greasy hot track with bald spots. Placement of the car on the line is always important and i want to look at all the first 60 ft. The reason I was eager to learn about weight bias and scales was because some starting lines change from round to round so bad I was loosing races due to traction. Not a complete spin but not a perfect hook either. By the way, all the data logging and add on stuff is hung as high and far back in the car as possible. I wouldn't have thought it possible either until it was proven to me. I have been able in the past 10 years to use all the torque on the starting line that i can make where in the past I was detuning to make the launch better and possibly a little straighter.
I am in agreement with you guys. I read the rule same as most i guess and figured that aluminum was legal in the old cars. I also don't think that the reduced weight from an aluminum housing in most cars would mean anything et wise but in some cars a little can mean alot when races are won by thousanths. Especially in a heads up. I also don't think that using 3 quarts of zero weight picks up everything but i see that done alot. If the engine is built to utilize the reduced windage and stay together I see a tenth.

[Ken Miele]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Performance advantage with aluminum drop out? Maybe not, but that's another 15# or more that can be shifted to the weight box. Now traction is that much better and the greasy track is not such an issue as some of the competitors. And some may ad that 15#'s to the front to better control the launch for improved ET's. So yes, there could be significant ET reductions with this part.

Jeff, you say maybe not, then you say its possible, and then you say significant. I do think you have any real knowledge if it does or does not help performance, I do.

My car weighs 3200 pounds and runs 9.80's, that is very light for my class AA, most are 3400 plus. If anyone is going to have an issue with spinning the tires it will be me. I have tested and there is no advantage what so ever. Oh yes, the difference in weight was 11 pounds for me. I would like to see data on how much performance is gained by moving 11 pounds in cars that weigh 3400 plus.

When I asked NHRA if it was a performance advantage, they told me it was not. So if NHRA does not think it is a performance advantage, this argument is mute.

Bob, maybe you should be the one not hitting enter.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Ken Miele

Jeff, you say maybe not, then you say its possible, and then you say significant. I do think you have any real knowledge if it does or does not help performance, I do.

My car weighs 3200 pounds and runs 9.80's, that is very light for my class AA, most are 3400 plus. If anyone is going to have an issue with spinning the tires it will be me. I have tested and there is no advantage what so ever. Oh yes, the difference in weight was 11 pounds for me. I would like to see data on how much performance is gained by moving 11 pounds in cars that weigh 3400 plus.

When I asked NHRA if it was a performance advantage, they told me it was not. So if NHRA does not think it is a performance advantage, this argument is mute.

Bob, maybe you should be the one not hitting enter.

My statement indicates I do not believe there is an ET improvement in replacing the part, I do believe there can be an ET improvement in moving the reduced weight fore or aft in the car. And yes, I think that could be significant. "Significant" being of course a relative term. To me, and others like SS Engine Guy, .02 +/- would be considered significant. Some can't find or care about finding lost .200's in their car so as I said, it is a relative term. I can tell you running 10.50's in D/S 6+ years ago wasn't easy and wasn't by poo-poo'ing a hundredth here and there.

And I have to believe this is not a "Ken Miele's Mustang" rule proposal. It would apply to all that have a commercially available aluminum drop out center section. It could even open up the door to custom made aluminum 12 bolt and Dana 60 center sections if applied.
So while Ken Miele's Mustang may not garner .001 ET in moving weight around, the guy with the front-heavy low torque lower class car might experience a greater gain in ET. Or, as I stated previously, ET reduction could be realized on adding the lost weight to the front end. Just like SS Engine Guy, I've always made use of four corner scales.

As I also stated, I thought this issue was put to rest with the much publicized error of Evan Smith in his interpretation of the rule book. I guess if everybody swept that under the carpet then the argument would hold more weight.

And NHRA may have their eye on a bigger issue. If every OEM outsourced part was allowed in Stock, that would open the floodgates on any / all OEM referenced (Mopar Performance / Ford Racing Parts catalogs) parts inclusion in Stock. That's back to the old "be careful what you wish for" issue.

[Mark Yacavone]

Jeff, You kind of beat me to a couple points here.

First of all , I always knew aluminum center sections weren't legal in Stock,...way before Evan's article.It had been asked for several times ,and declined in the past.

Next question: Would a tech guy be able to tell if a 12 bolt R&P were being used, at a glance?

Now we have a new situation brought on by NHRA. If the factory built new cars are acceptable in small quantity, then why not the rear end components ??

OEM, Ford in Ford, etc?

[Ken Miele]

Mark, you always new it was illegal in stock? Please tell me how you always new this. Explain to me where it says in the rule for replacing a rear with an aluminum center section is illegal. Below is the rule, point out were it says it is illegal.

REAR END

Original rear end may be replaced with another from the same
automobile manufacturer; truck rear end prohibited. Distance
between backing plates may not be changed. Any gear ratio that
fits third-member case or housing permitted. Limited-slip or
ratchet-type rear ends permitted. Reinforcement of spring perch
permitted. Spools permitted only with aftermarket axles.
Aftermarket axles not required for front-wheel-drive vehicles.
Larger brakes may be used. Replacement rear end may be
narrowed or widened to obtain original rear-end width. Bracing
or beefing up the rear-end housing permitted. Swing axle
differential may be replaced with conventional housing; stock
trailing arms must be retained, may be beefed up and adapted
to housing, must retain transverse spring. Must install Panhard bar.
Frame may be notched for driveshaft clearance. Distance between
OEM backing plates and OEM wheelbase must be maintained.
Coil-over shock or four-link adaptations prohibited.

See General Regulations 2:11.

Jeff, I think that argument is mute. According to NHRA is is not a performance advantage. Anyway I have data and you don't. As far as opening up a door to custom parts. First, it would have to be from the same manufacture. Second, you mean parts like aluminum cases that replace the cast iron cases on toploader's? Would you like me to run through the list of parts that are legal that will open up the door? The parts are not out sourced, Ford and Mopar offer aluminum center sections and they have for many years.

There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past.

[art leong]

[QUOTE=There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past. [/QUOTE]

That is sad but very true.
Ken you got a raw deal, They should have just told you not to come back with the centersection. But then you would have had letters go to all the division techs telling them that you were "cheating" and to watch out for you.
That's what happened to me last year with my louvered fenders.

[Mark Yacavone]

Kenny, Like I said , asked and answered, many times.

I don't see where it's allowed, either. It seems clear to me.

You and I know they can't list every item not legal in the rule book. The book would look like the NYC phone directory.
I'm pretty sure NOS is not allowed , or mentioned in the stock section either.

Look, you've got a good case, with the new cars...Follow that route...