Crate Engines in NHRA?

[Alan Roehrich]

I don't understand doing it at all. It's not like you can go buy a crate motor from the dealer, bolt it in, and be competitive. It's just as expensive to either build one yourself, or pay someone to build it for you, if you want one that is competitive, as it is to build a competitive real combination.

And to be blunt, I hope NHRA never accepts any of them, the new bogus paper crate motor factory cars are enough of a joke, we don't really need anymore laughs.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I don't understand doing it at all. It's not like you can go buy a crate motor from the dealer, bolt it in, and be competitive. It's just as expensive to either build one yourself, or pay someone to build it for you, if you want one that is competitive, as it is to build a competitive real combination.

And to be blunt, I hope NHRA never accepts any of them, the new bogus paper crate motor factory cars are enough of a joke, we don't really need anymore laughs.

Yeah, but so many of the current old "stock" combinations are nothing more than paper motors any more. When your 396s got the 401 heads, the 359 manifolds, pistons that do not resemble production pieces, aftermarket carbs, 7/16" pushrods, etc. etc. the "stock" goes away. And that is just one example. The Delusion that Stockers are production pure pieces is just that. They are mostly formula cars now. Why not include additional optional definitions that can be controlled just as easy in teardown, yet are built with easy to obtain parts? Just a different formula in my mind, and easier to control. It's hard for somebody to come up with bogus 40 year-old documentation to change the facts of a production engine just to gain an advantage when the definition is clear to begin with and its not dragged out of somebody's wet dream from their teenage years.

[MikeFicacci]

The 396/375 is a crate engine minus the crankshaft. It was just done slowly and policed fairly well as the aftermarket parts were put on. It doesn't sound like NHRA is presently in the business of slow, moderate, properly-factored changes.

[tj310]

Chipper think about SS/GT/HA. Your present shortblock should be legal as a 350 300 horse you have to change heads and carb. Should be able to run under index esp. IHRA. ...Thanx Trevor

[Chipper Chapman]

Originally Posted by tj310

Chipper think about SS/GT/HA. Your present shortblock should be legal as a 350 300 horse you have to change heads and carb. Should be able to run under index esp. IHRA. ...Thanx Trevor

Actually, my engine is a dished piston version, using Lunati 350-170 slugs. (proper for the 77 350) Camshaft and top end are the big difference in in my engine, and where most of the money was spent of course. Would have been easy enough to swap heads (if not for the expense) but I just checked and the Lunati 350-170 is no longer an NHRA approved piston.

I wasn't trying to piss anyone off with the original post, I just got to wondering if it had ever been considered.

BTW, my ZZ4 Crate uses the exact same heads that a 1990 vette would in Stock eliminator, with 160cc runners, 1.94/1.50 valves, they are far from what everyone stereotypically thinks about CM heads. Just food for thought.

[Todd Boyer]

I wasn't trying to piss anyone off with the original post, I just got to wondering if it had ever been considered.

I heard a few years back that NHRA was considering it.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Yeah, but so many of the current old "stock" combinations are nothing more than paper motors any more. When your 396s got the 401 heads, the 359 manifolds, pistons that do not resemble production pieces, aftermarket carbs, 7/16" pushrods, etc. etc. the "stock" goes away. And that is just one example. The Delusion that Stockers are production pure pieces is just that. They are mostly formula cars now. Why not include additional optional definitions that can be controlled just as easy in teardown, yet are built with easy to obtain parts? Just a different formula in my mind, and easier to control. It's hard for somebody to come up with bogus 40 year-old documentation to change the facts of a production engine just to gain an advantage when the definition is clear to begin with and its not dragged out of somebody's wet dream from their teenage years.

Dwight, I have no illusion or delusion that stockers are pure production pieces. Yes, the big blocks have been allowed replacement parts.

My 427 pistons still look a lot like original pistons actually, but I'll agree they are better than the old TRW's. I guess my stuff isn't cheated up enough.

My new aftermarket carburetor is no faster than my original. I don't think my new 359 is any faster than my good 163. I have to carry 75-80 pounds to put those 401 heads on. And honestly, I'm not sure they're worth it.

Now, a current Stock Eliminator engine IS a well scienced race piece, I agree completely on that point. Actually, that's part of my point. You can't go BUY a crate motor, put it in, and be competitive. You still have to do exactly the same thing to a crate motor. At least, you do if you want to go fast. And it costs the same. The ONLY advantage to a crate motor, expense or difficulty wise, is not having to search for a few castings.

If you build a new crate motor, and you don't put the trick stuff in it, like race bred pistons, big pushrods, and the rest, it'll be a slug. All of that stuff has nothing at all to do with the argument against crate motors, that's just a matter of racers cheating, and NHRA deciding to allow it rather than police the class. They don't want to tech to prevent it, so they let it in.

NHRA has already proven they're not going to define and police anything. So why add a bunch of new stuff that they're not going to police and define better than what we already have? THAT is the problem with crate engines. They can come up with a new engine, on paper, with parts from a catalog, assign a soft factor to it, and start all over again, any time they want. NHRA will not add crate classes, they don't want more classes. Honestly, the majority racers don't want them either, and the class can't stand it.

For crate engines to get in NHRA, they'd be added into the current classes. We already have bogus paper crate cars, we really don't need any more of them.

I can sympathize with Chipper, having spent his money, and now being invested in something he's going to have a hard time racing. I hate to see it happen, to anyone.

[Myron Piatek]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

The ONLY advantage to a crate motor, expense or difficulty wise, is not having to search for a few castings.

One other advantage to crate motors is that for many people, it's less expensive and a lot easier to find, as well as tune, a Holley carb as opposed to a Thermoquad or Quadrajet.

[Bret Kepner]

Since I had one, I certainly won't blast the "crate motor stocker" concept. In my mind, however, CM cars are Modified Production machines much in the same way SS/GT rigs are actually Gassers. That's how they'd be interpreted in "old school" rulebooks, anyway.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Myron Piatek

One other advantage to crate motors is that for many people, it's less expensive and a lot easier to find, as well as tune, a Holley carb as opposed to a Thermoquad or Quadrajet.

Myron, I agree, but only to a certain extent.

But, if you want to find parts, you can find them. All you have to do is look. Yeah, some are easier to find than others. And some are cheaper than others.

As far as carburetors go, it doesn't matter what carburetor you have to run, you're not going to buy one out of the box at the parts house, or buy a used one, throw a kit in it, and go fast. You're going to have one of the carburetor guys build you one. From there, tuning isn't that hard, regardless of what it is. If you chose a good carburetor guy, he's going to talk you right through tuning it.