HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2009, 07:00 PM   #1
cudadoug
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

What I know about the shaker vs. TA hood deal was that there was a shaker shortage in 71. For a certain period of time, any 71 Chally that was ordered with a shaker, (which UNLIKE 1970 was available on the 340/383/440-4bbl/440-6-bbl or Hemi) it was subbed with a TA hood. Plymouth on the other had didn't seem to suffer the same shortage...

But that was 1971. In 1970, the shaker wasn't available on anything but the 440-6bbl and Hemi cars, so where is the justification that a 70 'Cuda with a shaker-ed 340 or 383 is legal? Or a TA hood on a 70 383 Chally?? Because it was available for the MODEL and YEAR?? Regardless of the motor? So if that logic is applied accross the board, the 6-bbl glass hood should be "legal" on a 69 383 Roadrunner, as it was available for the MODEL and YEAR.

The same argument could be had for the glass hood on a 390 Fairlane I would guess...or for that matter the Dart Hemi hood should be legal on a 340 or 383 68 Dart...
cudadoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 07:22 PM   #2
Jeff Teuton
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houma, LA
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 2
Liked 325 Times in 50 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Tom, that might be high. Every piece is still available. As far as the 68 with the Hemi scoop, the 383 we run (and everyone else) was available with fresh air pkg in b and e bodies. So whats the problem? If we didn't have to change the fenders and hood back to metal, we would probably do away with the scoop anyway.
__________________
Jeff Teuton 4022 STK
Jeff Teuton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 09:58 PM   #3
treessavoy
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dunnellon,FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudadoug View Post
What I know about the shaker vs. TA hood deal was that there was a shaker shortage in 71. For a certain period of time, any 71 Chally that was ordered with a shaker, (which UNLIKE 1970 was available on the 340/383/440-4bbl/440-6-bbl or Hemi) it was subbed with a TA hood. Plymouth on the other had didn't seem to suffer the same shortage...

But that was 1971. In 1970, the shaker wasn't available on anything but the 440-6bbl and Hemi cars, so where is the justification that a 70 'Cuda with a shaker-ed 340 or 383 is legal? Or a TA hood on a 70 383 Chally?? Because it was available for the MODEL and YEAR?? Regardless of the motor? So if that logic is applied accross the board, the 6-bbl glass hood should be "legal" on a 69 383 Roadrunner, as it was available for the MODEL and YEAR.

The same argument could be had for the glass hood on a 390 Fairlane I would guess...or for that matter the Dart Hemi hood should be legal on a 340 or 383 68 Dart...

If what you say is true about shakers then explain the 1970 Cuda that I ordered and received with a 340, shaker and 4-speed. According to the dealer order form at the time the shaker was available for the 340 and up.

PS never should have gotten rid of it.
__________________
Jim Rountree
treessavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 08:53 AM   #4
Bobby DiDomenico
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 924
Likes: 106
Liked 101 Times in 52 Posts
Wink Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee View Post
You can pick up just about any mopar book and learn which bodies and engines the shakers were available on (code N96 fresh air option). You can find why the T/A hood was not just a T/A engine option and why. If you were really lazy you could contact somebody like Galen Govier (?) and pay him for the information with a break down of production numbers by engine.
Jeff,

Sorry, but I have little faith in these 40 years after the fact revelations. Many years ago the Mustang books were full of rumored 1972 "Boss" (Low compression, High Output, 351C 4 speed cars) and the Mustang Guru at the time said they did not exist. Yet there were two of them at the high school near us in Illinois. And they were pretty quick in local competition if you understand it. Many years later they were "discovered". What I have never, ever seen is the 780 Holley and aluminum intake 351C model which we can race.
Bobby DiDomenico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 09:01 AM   #5
Travis Miller
Member
 
Travis Miller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 478
Likes: 1
Liked 276 Times in 27 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudadoug View Post
If a guy was goofy enough to try and run something OTHER THAN a 440-6bbl in a 69 Road Runner in Stock or SS, would the glass 6-bbl hood be legal??

I think I've seen a few 70 Cuda shaker hoods on non-Hemi or 6-bbl stockers and I KNOW I have seen a pic of a SS 70 440-bbl Cuda in Div 1 a few years ago with an AAR hood.

Another question: Rulebook says nothing about SS cars trimming of rear wheelwells (I thought is used to say 2" front and rear...or something like that).

Answers in order are:

1) No
2) Yes they are allowed
3) See page 272 paragraph 7:3 of the 2009 NHRA rulebook (fenders also mean 1/4 panel)

Travis

PS. No Terry, you do not get the L88 hood on your Corvette unless you put the correct L88 engine beneath it.

Last edited by Travis Miller; 07-28-2009 at 09:05 AM.
Travis Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 09:19 AM   #6
Todd Boyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Saint John NB Canada
Posts: 561
Likes: 30
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

The '70 'Cuda Super Stocker belongs to Allan Dame of southern Maine. At an Epping NH. IHRA National event a few years back I asked him about the AAR hood and he told me that he had talked to NHRA and told them since '70 and '71 Challengers used the fiberglass T/A hood then he should be allowed to use the fiberglass AAR hood. Apparently they OKed it. I think Larry Hill uses an AAR hood on his '71 440-6 'Cuda Stocker as well.
Todd Boyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 10:19 AM   #7
Dan Bennett
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 449
Likes: 876
Liked 609 Times in 140 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

I'm fairly sure that Dave Hakim got the hoods legalized. I remember chinning him at Indy a few years back about the TA hood in particular. He told me then that Mopar had filed a letter with the NHRA regarding which cars were produced with the hood.

I'm not trying to throw rocks, but I think we have a few more paper cars than we usually talk about. I should mention that my first really competitive race car was a 70 340 Duster I bought new and that I was a diehard Mopar fan back then.

I did spend a few evenings in the Fenton B Body plant on unofficial tours with friends who worked there and have to admit it seemed like the build sheet was only a suggestion at times. I also remember seeing a black 340 Duster in 70 which carried black stripes, the only color available.

I guess I'm saying that sometimes the rules got followed to extremes and sometimes they were disregarded, but I never ever saw a TA hood on any car that didn't have the entire package.

I did try to run bigger tires on the back like a TA but never found a single tech guy who would buy it.
Dan Bennett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 11:01 AM   #8
Philip Saran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Parker, CO.
Posts: 728
Likes: 168
Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

It is my understanding that there was a letter from Chrysler having to
do with a shortage of parts (shaker hoods/scoops) and the AAR hoods
were substatuted in place for some short time period on the assy line.

It is that letter or rule that allows said red 383 challenger to run
the AAR fiberglass hood/scoop instead of the shaker hood/scoop.
__________________
Phil Saran
Parker, Colorado
Philip Saran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 01:06 PM   #9
Jeff Teuton
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houma, LA
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 2
Liked 325 Times in 50 Posts
Smile Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

The 440-6 only had the 6 pack hood, the 440-4 had two functional scoops, the e bodies came with shaker hoods 383/440. Sold a few. The trans am hood could have been because of a shortage. The shaker cars were hard to get. And the build sheets were only a suggestion, although the purist don't want to hear that. How about a 69 b body cop car, blue w/red interior. Nice.
__________________
Jeff Teuton 4022 STK
Jeff Teuton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 09:33 AM   #10
Terry Cain
Senior Member
 
Terry Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Georgetown, Indiana (close to Louisville, KY)
Posts: 779
Likes: 530
Liked 231 Times in 107 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Miller View Post
Answers in order are:

1) No
2) Yes they are allowed
3) See page 272 paragraph 7:3 of the 2009 NHRA rulebook (fenders also mean 1/4 panel)

Travis

PS. No Terry, you do not get the L88 hood on your Corvette unless you put the correct L88 engine beneath it.
Party pooper
__________________
Terry Cain ???? STK
tcain19689585@gmail.com
Terry Cain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.