|
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tampa
Posts: 400
Likes: 7
Liked 115 Times in 5 Posts
|
![]()
I will preface this post by saying that I am a fan of both early and late-model muscle and both sides have great points. But new cars are here to stay and if rated equally there is no problem.
With that said, in order for Stock to continue, and be something more than a nostalgia class, we need new cars—but there is a big problem that is not often discussed. The vast majority of the '60-70s muscle cars, which makes up a larger portion of our class, were rated far differently than today's cars (gross vs net). In addition, new cars are more efficient and make more power for their displacement (especially in OE trim), so there is not as much performance to be gained and therefore, it is not fair to rate old and new cars the same. I've drag tested virtually every new American performance car since the mid-'90s and some early muscle, too. Most stock big-block muscle cars such as a 428 CJ Mustang and a 396/375 Camaro basically run high 13s at just over 100 mph. Any one of these cars suffer from inefficient front engine dress, crappy exhaust systems, and would make about 100 hp less than the factory rating at the wheels. But in Stocker trim, they can make 200-or-more hp than the factory rating! That is a huge swing, upwards of 300hp over what a stock muscle car can make at the wheels once you eliminate the front dress, and build a Class-legal engine. This is not the case for most new cars. As the new 412hp Mustang makes about 360-370 at the wheels, or, about 100 more than a typical 400hp muscle car from the '60s, yet with about 100 less cubes. A '66 427 Fairlane I tested ran 13.3/105 on 7-inch tires, CJ Mustang ran 13.8, '71 Boss 351 ran 13.6 and a 396/375 Camaro ran 13.7, all over 100 mph. Any of these cars would probably 12s with open headers, gear swap and slicks, but can run 9s in Stocker trim. The 2011 Mustang GT, rated at 412 hp ran 12.6/112 on stock tires and at 3,800 lbs, about the same weight as the Fairlane. This is a 427 vs a 302 (both naturally aspirated) at the same weight. My point is that there is not going to be nearly as much left in the 302, but we expect it to compete with the 427 under the same NHRA hp/engine rule system. You can make the same comparison with the new Camaro; A 426hp rating from the factory, which would have to compete with a 427 Camaro (again 376 vs 427 cubes, both rated about 425). In race "built Stocker" trim there is no way a new vehicle can compete using the OE ratings so what is the factory to do if it wants to have cars out there running? Answer, it builds specialty cars with reduced hp ratings. So what is the answer? It has been suggested that NHRA use a chassis dyno, but this will not work because loose converters and today's clutches won't produce accurate numbers, at least enough to compare the cars for the purpose of evaluating hp. Most stick stockers would burn up the clutch on a dyno (I know I've wasted a few), and any two different converters can produce varied results, even behind the same engine. Fail! My suggestion is to devise a hp system that allows the mass of new production cars to compete and to have NHRA monitor and police this (yes, I'm dreaming). As amazing as the standard-production Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs are, there are none being raced in the regular-production trim in NHRA Stock. That is the sad part to me, but who in their right mind would race a new 302 rated at 412, or a Camaro rated at 426? Imagine if by 1971 no one had built a '69 Camaro or 428 Mustang? Unthinkable. I think the specialty cars are great and deserve to race, but I would also like to see the regular models being raced, and this will only happen if NHRA can devise a system to rate them more equally. As for the current CJ and DP cars, most of those guys just want to go fast, so let them run in a special class for new cars, but also let other Stockers compete if they want to do battle. I love the factory cars, but having the best cars in the country be outrun by a half-second makes no sense. BTW, I'm all for combining stick and auto, realistically, it would be a wash across the board (better efficiency with the stick vs radials and ultra-light autos). More heads-up competition, but not over the top. Evan
__________________
Evan Smith 1798 STK Last edited by Evan Smith; 10-14-2010 at 03:24 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|