|
|
![]() |
#1 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Land of Bayous, Boudin & Crawfish
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 223
Liked 747 Times in 362 Posts
|
![]()
"...Is there any chance that Antlocer 61 Bubbletop on pg14 of Boyce maybe was R/U at 1961 Indy & not 1962 Indy?..."
I don't have a clue. Maybe he was just mistaken about that RU finish. https://www.hemmings.com/stories/200...agstrips-again I just noticed this pic in the SS book. In the far lane of this 1st pic is the Myrtle Motors '67 Bird. Because of the way the A is written, I first thought it was marked A/SA. But, when I enlarged the pic, it actually looks to be H/SA. That brings up the question: Exactly which engine would a '67 Bird have to have, in order to run H/SA, back in the '60's ? ![]() Since I have an old pic of a '67 400 RA Bird marked C/SA, I'd assume it would need to have a 326HO engine, to make H/SA. But, in the pic, the car has a 400 hood on it. Don't think a '67 400 RA Bird ever ran A class. BUT, I do have at least 1 pic of Truman Fields '68 RA2 Bird marked A/S. But, that was in '72, which was one of the weird pure stock type years. So, I reckin it all depends on what year we are talkin about. Last edited by oldskool; 10-31-2021 at 06:53 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 98
Liked 48 Times in 44 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
15.00 in 67 11.50 in 68 11.00 in 69 10.50 in 70-71 The 327/285hp 67 Bird has W/P=11.23 with Auto So I'd guess 1969 H/SA=11.00 class But then there's the 400 hood: I dont see how a 67 Bird would fit in A/SA, ever, unless maybe in goofy 1972 when A/SA=9.00 class. Then a 400 RA1 factored to 360hp would fit, W/P=9.01 Do you know what book/page that picture is from? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#3 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Land of Bayous, Boudin & Crawfish
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 223
Liked 747 Times in 362 Posts
|
![]()
"...Do you know what book/page that picture is from?..."
SS book p.137 Here's a couple more pics from the SS book. #1 is a '64 GTO which was running in the AHRA F2 B/S class. #2 is the Royal '66 C/S GTO, which ran the quickest ET in C/S, @ the '66 Winter Nats, but got a DQ because NHRA hadn't OK'd the factory RA set-up. Last edited by oldskool; 10-31-2021 at 10:05 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 98
Liked 48 Times in 44 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Looks like that picture has to be 1967, the only year that Sox's RO23 car ran in SS/B=7.00-7.69 class. That means that for the 67 Bird: A/SA=8.70-9.49 and H/SA=15.00-15.59 not likely. No 67 Bird even fits in there. But if the Bird is in A/SA, what does that mean? 3244/325=9.98 unfactored, doesnt fit A/SA=8.70-9.49 class. 3244/360=9.01 if the RA1 was factored to the GTO's 360hp already. That factoring to 360hp could put a RA1 Bird into A/SA=8.70-9.49 class in 1967. OK, sounds good. But it presents another problem: Tony Knieper ran a 67 Bird RA1 in SS/FA=9.50 at 68 Pomona. How'd he do THAT then? Unless it wasnt run as a RA1 car. A base car fits SS/FA=9.50 3244/325=9.98 But the link below says RA1. If we use the above logic and factor the RA1 to 360hp then 3244/360=9.01 That bumps the Knieper car from SS/FA=9.50 to SS/EA=8.70 class, but it ran in SS/FA=9.50 class. So it had to have an NHRA rating of way less than 360hp, like 340hp or less. Would the RA1 Bird be factored to 360hp in 1967, then DOWN to 340hp in 1968, then back UP to 360hp for late 1968? Sounds unlikely. Unless it wasnt run as a RA1 when it was R/U in SS/FA=9.50 class at 68 Pomona? Since you're a Pontiac guy, here's the link! https://www.hotrodders.com/threads/6...holder.144313/ Confusing story. Any ideas? Last edited by DeuceCoupe; 10-31-2021 at 11:19 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Land of Bayous, Boudin & Crawfish
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 223
Liked 747 Times in 362 Posts
|
![]()
"...Any ideas?"
Yeah, I'll take a shot at it. The 325hp 400 in a '67 Bird could come with, or without Ram Air. Looks like the RA version has a higher NHRA hp factor. The current factor for SS looks to still be 360hp. http://www.classracerinfo.com/Engine...5&MAKE=Pontiac So, I'd say that if the Stocker was running class A, it was running RA, & the SS Bird was not running RA. Hey, that's my opinion & I'm stickin to it.....unless I find out I'm wrong. ![]() "...Unless it wasnt run as a RA1 when it was R/U in SS/FA=9.50 class at 68 Pomona?..." All he had to do was plug up the open scoops & run without the RA system. The lower pic is a close-up of the scoop of the 1st Bird. Looks closed & painted black, to me. The Myrtle Bird is marked SS/EA. Assume it was running RA. OR, it may have just been a different year. No clue. Last edited by oldskool; 11-01-2021 at 01:11 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 98
Liked 48 Times in 44 Posts
|
![]()
"All he had to do was plug up the open scoops & run without the RA system.
The lower pic is a close-up of the scoop of the 1st Bird. Looks closed & painted black, to me" Great find on that picture. Not definitive but scoop sure LOOKS blocked. And that's consistent with the 67 Bird RA1 in A/SA=8.70 class in 1967, and later 68 race year cars that only fit when factored to 360hp. So I'm concluding: * The RA1 was factored to the GTO's 360hp from 1967-71 at least. * Knieper's car, though bought new as a RA1 car, just had the hood blocked when converted to SS/FA and ran at the base 325hp rating (or even the 335hp GTO Base rating, same class either way) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 169
Likes: 68
Liked 31 Times in 26 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
https://skunkwerkssuperstock.wordpre...-for-the-fans/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Land of Bayous, Boudin & Crawfish
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 223
Liked 747 Times in 362 Posts
|
![]()
"...point out the glaring errors..."
Don't know if that's a serious statement or just a little humor. If it's serious, I'll have to say this: What's "glaring" to some, may be very minor, & not worth mentioning to others. This is especially true for guys that are very familiar with a particular car brand. For example: When you say stuff about Fords, Mopars, AMC, Olds, & Buick, most of the time, I wouldn't know if what you were saying is so, or not. I have never bothered to learn hardly anything about the details of those cars. But, although I'm NOT a Pontiac expert, I HAVE read about, owned, raced, & wrenched on quite a few Pontiacs, since around 1964, when I first began reading about the new GTO. As I mentioned, most Pontiac guys call the Pontiac 3-carb set-up "Tri-Power". Others may call it "3-deuces", of "trips", or "3 x 2", or whatever. Since Chevy guys, and many others are familiar with "small block" & Big Block" Chevy engines, lots of 'em will ask a Pontiac guy if he's running a "Big Block" in his Pontiac. That usually means a 455, or maybe a 428. Those guys might consider a 400 Pontiac engine a small block. OR, some might only consider 350 & smaller Pontiac engines as small blocks. But, since most Pontiac V8's are basically the same size on the outside, Pontiac guys don't call 'em Big or small blocks, and lots of Pontiac guys will let you know about it if you refer to a Pontiac engine as a Big or small block. Some Pontiac guys are really mean about it, especially online. As for Mopars, I know only the very basics, such as that some of the popular race engines were 340's, 360's, 383's, 413's, 426 Wedge, 426 Street Hemi, 426 Race Hemi, & 440. I know the names of a few of the car models, but can't pick all of 'em out, by just lookin at pictures. Haven't bothered to learn any more about 'em than that, & probably won't. Same goes for the other brands. But, I'm always open to learn more about Pontiac V8 powered drag cars. And, when I see something like a Pontiac round port head being called an "oval" port, it just automatically triggers something inside that says that don't sound right. Does it really make a big difference ? NO ! Although an oval isn't perfectly round, some ovals can be almost round. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oval I suppose it's not that calling something by a wrong name is anything bad, or anything that really makes much difference, but rather it's that it makes the one who used the wrong word or term seem like they are not very knowledgeable about that particular part or subject. So, I suppose the bottom line is: If you wanna sound like you really know about something, always use the correct words or terminology, when talking about or describing something. That way, people will think you really know what your talkin about & will be more likely to believe what you say. Example: When a guy begins the conversation asking if your Pontiac engine is a "Big Block", my 1st thought is that this guy knows very little to nothing about Pontiacs. Same would go for someone reading a book. If the author uses the wrong terminology, most readers will assume the author don't know much about that particular subject. In your case, you don't really need to know about all the different brands of cars & the exact terminology for each brand's equipment. But, the more correct terminology you use, the more informed you'll seem, to the reader. Therefore, if I was the author, I'd wanna get all the terminology correct, even if I never planned to learn all the details of all the different brands. So, with this in mind, if I discovered mistakes I'd made, no matter how minor, & could correct those mistakes, I'd welcome the opportunity. Some might call that a perfectionist attitude. Well, whatever. LOTS of times I'll see mistakes I made & overlooked in a post I made. Even though the mistake is very minor & everybody reading the post will know what I meant, I'll usually edit & correct the mistake. One forum I'm on only gives you 1 hour to edit a post. I've found mistakes after that 1-hour limit. Some were so bad that I made a 2nd post, in order to point out the mistake & post the corrected info. But, I've noticed that LOTS of guys just let their obvious posted mistakes go. Maybe those folks are just a lot busier than me & don't have time to proofread & edit posts. Then I suppose their are some who just don't care, especially if they think others will know what they meant to say. Buy hey, I appreciate all the research you guys have done, to put all this info together ! THANKS ! ![]() "...Ive stolen the 2nd pic mate..." I got it out of the SS book. Last edited by oldskool; 11-01-2021 at 10:43 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 169
Likes: 68
Liked 31 Times in 26 Posts
|
![]()
OS- relax....some friendly banter....I’m trying to explain that 300 word responses are just too much for me to wade through.......Id much prefer a ‘ You said this, I think this’ interaction. 😉
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Land of Bayous, Boudin & Crawfish
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 223
Liked 747 Times in 362 Posts
|
![]()
can do short
but without explanation, some are offended |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|