Great Bend Stock DQ

Chuck Porter · 05-01-2008, 11:53 AM

Re: cylinder head pouring

You know the old saying, “It’s like closing the barn door after the horse has got out”. As far as I’m concerned the horse has been gone so long, it has likely died of old age.

I think it’s far too late in the game to try to bring things back to the way they were. What spec do we use?? NHRA doesn’t seem to be up-front with what their long term intentions are.

I had my heads poured on numerous occasions back in the early 1980’s. They (NHRA) knew then there was a problem in Super Stock and they were looking for baseline numbers AND it was only a matter of a short period of time it would spill into Stock. And it did.

I don’t know what the answer is. Open up the head rule or attempt to police it based on comparative sample cylinder heads. Somehow I find it hard to believe NHRA will pony up with the resources to make any dramatic changes. Like I said they have known for a long time there were cylinder head issues in Stock and chose not to do much if anything about it. All of a sudden they develop a conscience ??

I also was on the receiving end of “Farmer’s” wrath. He could be a handful to say the least. As a small example of this, I was in the teardown barn at Pomona a hundred years ago. I had a 79 Malibu wagon. At the time I had 78 tail lights in it. The difference between the two was the position of the backup lights. I suspect somebody had tipped him off on this minor fact and he came after me and was bound and determined to bounce me for it. There was a long debate between us. I asked him what possible performance advantage was gained by those tail lights??? His response was quick and on point. He said “There is no performance advantage, it’s consistency”.
Perhaps we were held to a higher standard back then, but as time passed the standards changed – as did the CONSISTENCY. Farmer had the right idea. I think it is too little, too late now. The horse is dead.

Chuck Porter

05-01-2008, 11:53 AM	#36
Chuck Porter Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 104 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Great Bend Stock DQ Re: cylinder head pouring You know the old saying, “It’s like closing the barn door after the horse has got out”. As far as I’m concerned the horse has been gone so long, it has likely died of old age. I think it’s far too late in the game to try to bring things back to the way they were. What spec do we use?? NHRA doesn’t seem to be up-front with what their long term intentions are. I had my heads poured on numerous occasions back in the early 1980’s. They (NHRA) knew then there was a problem in Super Stock and they were looking for baseline numbers AND it was only a matter of a short period of time it would spill into Stock. And it did. I don’t know what the answer is. Open up the head rule or attempt to police it based on comparative sample cylinder heads. Somehow I find it hard to believe NHRA will pony up with the resources to make any dramatic changes. Like I said they have known for a long time there were cylinder head issues in Stock and chose not to do much if anything about it. All of a sudden they develop a conscience ?? I also was on the receiving end of “Farmer’s” wrath. He could be a handful to say the least. As a small example of this, I was in the teardown barn at Pomona a hundred years ago. I had a 79 Malibu wagon. At the time I had 78 tail lights in it. The difference between the two was the position of the backup lights. I suspect somebody had tipped him off on this minor fact and he came after me and was bound and determined to bounce me for it. There was a long debate between us. I asked him what possible performance advantage was gained by those tail lights??? His response was quick and on point. He said “There is no performance advantage, it’s consistency”. Perhaps we were held to a higher standard back then, but as time passed the standards changed – as did the CONSISTENCY. Farmer had the right idea. I think it is too little, too late now. The horse is dead. Chuck Porter