Future of Pro Stock

david ring · 01-29-2009, 02:18 PM

I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

63corvette · 01-29-2009, 03:20 PM

If you want to make it exciting for the fans just limit the wheelbase and make it full body late model production cars on gasoline.
Anything Else Goes...
It would be expensive to run but it would be heads up, fast, and exciting for the fans.
Its already expensive to run as it stands today.
My 2 Cents

Ed Fernandez · 01-29-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david ring

I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

Good point Dave.You race in one of the most innovative and interesting classes.Flat out no breakout,except for CIC and still the stands empty when you guys run at a national event.Some say
that more heads up (you know who you are) will be the savior of S/SS and include us in the "big show".Well that's Comp and they're in the same boat as us.But boy do they pump money into the black hole compared to us.

Ed F.

GarysZ24 · 01-29-2009, 07:16 PM

Bill, what I'd like to know is what happened to Buddy Ingersolls Twin Turboed Buick Regal, that was banned from NHRA Pro Stock racing because it out-ran the 500 ci guys by at least two tenths? Competition Eliminator may get cars like his nowadays, but I watched a video on You Tube where he gave a V8 Pro Stocker about 1.5 car lengths, and ran it down at the stripe!!! I miss that car, because it gave a valid argument to the phrase "no replacement for displacement"....

bill dedman · 01-29-2009, 09:37 PM

I have no idea where that car went, but I thought his Pinto, running high 9s at 134 mph with 120 cubic inches and no intercooler or water injection was just as impressive.

He was a wizard with turbos, no doubt!!!

There were at least two "clones" of that car, and maybe more. Butch Ball, from Division VI, had an equally-fast Pinto that held the record for awhile ( a car I got to see run in the 9's,) and "Ohio" George Montgomery built one, too. I never heard how fast it was, but given his reputation, I can only imagine!

Those cars ran Doug Nash 5-speeds and pulled the wheels on every gear-change... amazing, from just 2 liters! If they'd been allowed water injection, there's no telling how fast they might have gone.

Buddy Ingersoll's car was featured in a Car Craft tech story and he admiited to 18 pounds of boost and 11,000 rpms. With water injection, it probably could have run a lot more boost for more horsepower. As I remember, it had to weigh 2,300 pounds. According to the Wallace online calculator, which gives some pretty reasonable-sounding horsepower figures from weight and mph, it takes 430 horsepower at the flywheel to go 134 mph in a 2,300-pound car. That's 3.58 hp per cubic inch... no intercooler; no water/alky injection.

Not bad for an "economy car" LOL!

art leong · 01-29-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david ring

I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

I consider Comp the "rich man's" prostock. You get to spend all the money you can afford (and then some)
And you don't get any Television coverage for a big buck sponsor to pay the bills.

david ring · 01-30-2009, 04:17 PM

and back me up on this Steve-not all comp racers are wealthy!

01-29-2009, 02:18 PM	#1
david ring Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oneonta.,NY Posts: 889 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

01-29-2009, 03:20 PM	#2
63corvette Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canyon, Tx Posts: 552 Likes: 128 Liked 356 Times in 103 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock If you want to make it exciting for the fans just limit the wheelbase and make it full body late model production cars on gasoline. Anything Else Goes... It would be expensive to run but it would be heads up, fast, and exciting for the fans. Its already expensive to run as it stands today. My 2 Cents

01-29-2009, 07:16 PM	#4
GarysZ24 VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Tempe, Az. Posts: 1,270 Likes: 918 Liked 238 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock Bill, what I'd like to know is what happened to Buddy Ingersolls Twin Turboed Buick Regal, that was banned from NHRA Pro Stock racing because it out-ran the 500 ci guys by at least two tenths? Competition Eliminator may get cars like his nowadays, but I watched a video on You Tube where he gave a V8 Pro Stocker about 1.5 car lengths, and ran it down at the stripe!!! I miss that car, because it gave a valid argument to the phrase "no replacement for displacement".... __________________ Gary Hampton '86 Z24,173 V6 CF/S #5824 (#78 in 2021)

01-29-2009, 09:37 PM	#5
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock I have no idea where that car went, but I thought his Pinto, running high 9s at 134 mph with 120 cubic inches and no intercooler or water injection was just as impressive. He was a wizard with turbos, no doubt!!! There were at least two "clones" of that car, and maybe more. Butch Ball, from Division VI, had an equally-fast Pinto that held the record for awhile ( a car I got to see run in the 9's,) and "Ohio" George Montgomery built one, too. I never heard how fast it was, but given his reputation, I can only imagine! Those cars ran Doug Nash 5-speeds and pulled the wheels on every gear-change... amazing, from just 2 liters! If they'd been allowed water injection, there's no telling how fast they might have gone. Buddy Ingersoll's car was featured in a Car Craft tech story and he admiited to 18 pounds of boost and 11,000 rpms. With water injection, it probably could have run a lot more boost for more horsepower. As I remember, it had to weigh 2,300 pounds. According to the Wallace online calculator, which gives some pretty reasonable-sounding horsepower figures from weight and mph, it takes 430 horsepower at the flywheel to go 134 mph in a 2,300-pound car. That's 3.58 hp per cubic inch... no intercooler; no water/alky injection. Not bad for an "economy car" LOL! __________________ Bill

01-30-2009, 04:17 PM	#7
david ring Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oneonta.,NY Posts: 889 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock and back me up on this Steve-not all comp racers are wealthy!