Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Rich, I had a 210 four door hardtop 220 HP that ran H/S. 3316 lb. shipping weight. Came in at 15.06 in a 15 lb. class. The 2 dr. sedans & hardtops had to run G/S. That's when we couldn't add or subtract weight and sometimes had to run an ugly body style to make the class.

I also used the Carter WCFB although a lot of the guys were running the Rochester which
I think later proved to be the better carb or at least the carb of choice.

I think the later 327 solid lifter cam was the .030-.030 cam. The 283 solid lifter cam called for .008"-.018". Still noisy but sounded good when pulling through the local drive-in.

I had to run the hydraulic lifter cam, as you did.

When I first started running that car in 1962 it was classified in F/S but as more classes were added at the top, it got pushed down to F/S. Now, I believe the 15 lb. class is N/S.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Dear N.H.R.A.

Is there only one competitive "Old School" car in the entire Stock Eliminator Class that is complying with the cylinder head rules.

It appears to be time for some clarification!

Peter Ash

"sent today"

Dear N.H.R.A. Technical Services

I would like to see the Rules regarding Stock Eliminator Cylinder Heads strictly enforced to help bring equity to the hard working members in the Stock Eliminator class.

Yours truly

Peter Ash

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Sure there are the new paper cars with CNC Ported heads.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

See post #1

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Yes Bobby.....We had guys running every body style that had a favorable factor/ weight break. I do recall some very good running 4 door hdtp '57 Chevs. Wagons were all over the place and not just sedan deliveries. They were built for the automatic classes and the Hydro's we all used.....The hdtps sedans and wagons were all 4 speeds.....

One guy that used to pour thru the NHRA class guide book looking for good combos....Ralph Truppi.....He was real good at finding good combos.

Once NHRA decided to only allow assembly line produced combos....it really put a hurt to the category......Was it right....I guess it was but since they allowed them for a few years and so many of us built them....well it hurt a lot of guys....

Putting a Powerglide in a sedan delivery was just not something I wanted to do....We sold our car and quit......for a year or two....And than built a car that was a Ralph Truppi combo.....
It ran 2 tenths under the existing record on it's first hard pass.....with Ray Allen driving....and set the record later that year again with Ray behind the wheel...That record stood untill class changes combined some classes and it was bettered........I was always very proud of that record and it was not easy to get....Some guys set a lot of records and made it look easy...It was not....

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

A few thoughts:
1) Wade, I agree with you that this whole "any valve job" issue needs to be clearly stated and addressed by NHRA.
2) Relevent to the "any valve job" issue, when NHRA started the Super Modified classes way back when, they allowed any combustion chamber mods without welding and any valve job or work in the valve seat/port that did not extend more than 1" into the port. Can you believe they still had people who got thrown out? It will happen here, too.
3) Alan, your explanation of the characteristics of a legal valve job will never fly. I'm not saying you were not told that, but if that's their (NHRA) assumption, it needs to be in writing. I see nothing in the current rule book that gets even close to the description you gave. We are way past having a written set of rules and then the tech men's rules the way we have raced so much in the past. We approach the technical sophistication of NASCAR cars and they would never survive with such an approach to this.
4) I asked and was told that we are limited to 1/4" below the top of the valve seat, 1/8" greater than the diameter of the valve head. Anything goes.
5) It is the suff outside the valve job that generally is a judgment call. I give that total call to the tech people. As long as we are basing our definition of "legal" on no modifying the port, that's their judgment. I know it puts the issue of right-ness in somebody else's hands and that allows for all kinds of corruption, but so be it. Everytime someone on this forum opens their mouth about insinuating that a racer has bogus stuff, that person does the same thing. If anything, we should develop some way to inprove the quality of that tech person's judgment.

Finally, an interesting bit of history. The whole Junior Stock camshaft flap that arose in the Jenkins era and carried on into modern Stock Eliminator racing has an ugly twist. The original camshaft specs sent to NHRA by Chevrolet were "functional specs", that is camshaft specs based on at-that-time industry standard .004" lifter rise on mechanical lifter cams and .006" on hydraulic cams. When it was found that NONE of the off the shelf GM cams would pass that spec, first Jenkins and his crew got General Kinetics to grind camshafts that would and add a bit of "juice" to the grind. Then another "advantage" showed itself when somebody got hold of "design specs" for those cams. As an example, the original '57 283 hydraulic cam, the 398 pn cam that was used up thru 1966, had "functional specs" of 250 degrees. Compare that to "design specs" which showed 300 degrees it was an obvious benefit to get those numbers submitted. It became the standard from then on that design specs were sent to NHRA from Chevrolet. That is how you ended up with the 929 cam being 310-320, the 30-30 cam being 346 degrees, etc. Then came the flap of "how much lifter rise do you allow before you start measuring?" because the design specs were what was on paper and did not have anything to do with valve train movement. It was later (in the 1970s) established at .001" on Chevrolet hydraulic cams and some other GM makes. (I got bit on that deal, having a CD cam measured at .000" liffter rise.) Unfortunately, Ford, Chrysler and AMC never caught on to what was going on. So, even in the Stock Eliminator era we had a 289 Ford with a 244 degree camshaft, a 390 AMC with a 266 degree camshaft, etc. Other makes never stood a chance against the advantage Chevrolet had, especially before wholesale factoring was introduced for attempts at equalization.

For grins, I still have a hand written tech sheet that Farmer sent me from 1965 that shows a 1957 283 with a 398 camshaft and it states 250 degrees.

Your history lesson for the day. :-))

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

When Dwight speaks....people should listen

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I believe the Pontiac specs used with NHRA were also inflated.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I read somewhere that early stocker "cheater" cams were made from cams with a lot more lift, cut down to allowable, and the sharp corners were rounded with a belt sander just enough that the engine could get the rpm it needed.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

They sure were hard on stuff.