Re: 65-85 under.
 

Enlighten me, should this be okay?

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Oh, by the way D6 is looking for a DD. How many DD jobs have been posted in the past 24 months? Too many is the answer.
Weak lateral support from the NHRA leadership team is the reason for this turnover ,or is it a change in strategy?
Oh yea, what would that strategy be?

If I would be placing my eggs in one basket at the divisional level it would be racers. End of story. NHRA, stop rapeing your member tracks that support and host Divisional events.

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Frank for better or worse the good old days of Stock and Super/Stock are long gone. Those years you talk about were as far as I'm concerned the Golden Years of Stock and Super/Stock. No AHFS and racers that ran their cars every run almost as fast as they could get it to go. I don't remember seeing anyone lifting at the 1000 ft mark to protect their combo. I'm sure a few did but it wasn't the norm.

The heads I have on my car were bought from a GM dealer and have a GM part number on them. I'm not sure if Edelbrock bought the rights to the part numbers or GM subcontracted them out for them to make. But the heads and intake are listed in a GM parts book.

The 396/375 hp combo is not the only one that don't have the original parts that were made back in the 60's. At this point in the life of Stock and Super/Stock there is no going back. I still look at some of the newer cars that race Stock and have a parachute on the back and shake my head. I can't imagine spending almost 100 grand on a newer car from the factory and then have to spend up to 50 grand or more to make it one of the front runners in the class. I laugh when I here someone say they don't want the index's lowered to not discourage any new people trying out Stock. Most of the new people that I have seen start racing Stock in the last few years end up in one of the newer cars. Or in an older car that is already proven. I don't like a lot of the changes but here is where we are. BP

Re: 65-85 under.
 

My point was to challenge the point that Mopar racers are in fact challenged. They don't have as many "options or enhancements" as Chevrolet racers . We all know the reasons why, one of them being GM is and always has been a more sustainable entity than Chrysler Corporation Et Al.
Chrysler's management has been influx for too many years to recall.

Re: 65-85 under.
 

So why fight with a combo you know can’t be the fastest in the class. If that’s what your looking to do. Buy or build the car and combo that is the best for whatever class you want to run.

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Glenn,

All I'm looking for is for the rule book to be enforced and an AHFS that works for everyone. I like the performance aspect of Stock Eliminator.

Also congratulations to you! Going fast is not a problem for you!

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Larry, cut it out. Your Holley carbs get to take advantage of all of the same "enhancements" that the 735/780 carbs do. And there's a bunch of Edelbrock carbs that have been "approved" that look awfully clean.

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Ya know Frank, you need to get a Neon! ;-)

Re: 65-85 under.
 

You must be High or miss informed
Mopar has been given more performance enhancement than GM
That’s a fact
Heads intakes
Change the grill different hp
Change tailights less hp
Change grill. Less hp
We need an intake and aluminum heads

Stop throwing stones in your glass house.
Fasts

And by the way with the current ho system
The 396/375 Camaros will be A/SA. AA/SA
By this time next year.
A ruined combo. Fact

Re: 65-85 under.
 

Hey Ponko, let 'em "ruin" it! There's a few other combos out there that need to be "ruined" too.
They spend THEIR money and stretch the rules and do it to themselves. It has become THEIR game and they want to complain about the consequences. They've kinda become the "Wokers" of S/SS. Racers running a mere handful of combos trying to dictate policy to all of the other Racers running any one of a thousand other combos.