|
![]() |
#11 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shelby, NC
Posts: 1,822
Likes: 2,166
Liked 2,348 Times in 553 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Of all people, I am surprised that you have issue with this. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 3,043
Likes: 712
Liked 1,578 Times in 581 Posts
|
![]()
I believe this is the depiction of the intake for the Ford application.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 808
Likes: 7
Liked 20 Times in 12 Posts
|
![]()
Let me first say I like the new cars running heads up with each other. I don't have a problem with them all adding parts etc. But my real problem with the cars, I don't hear people mentioning here, is that they are on the same qualifying sheet as everyone else? To explain my point. You have a couple classes created to feature these cars. FS/A FS/B, now it is agreed upon to have a certain index and the cars have established HP to somewhat even up the weights vs. HP. Now you run these cars heads up in qualifying (good to watch), some run over 1.2 under!! Others run 1.1 under fast but now this class of car is filing the qualifying sheets and in some cases (INDY), not allowing other cars to compete based on qualifying under. So you have one class of cars that are getting parts, engines, trans etc. superseded to one up the other cars in the heads up class. I believe let them run heads up with each other. I call it A/FX and B/FX, because that is what they are. But, make there index tough, for example take .2 or .3 off there index. Make the new AFX cars (Never offered on the public road) run in AFX not AA.BB,CC etc. I know it will never happen but this is like Pro Stock Light... Give them there platform, promote them and let them go!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 6
Liked 70 Times in 29 Posts
|
![]()
....and some people complain about the IHRA's Crate Motor Stock cars.
__________________
Chris Bowman The Mountain State Mustang 1984 Mustang GT350 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 83
Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts
|
![]()
The pleasant surprise is they haven't found the huge crowd of buyers that they were expecting. Sure a few new cars will hit the track every year but it now appears they will not become the majority of cars on the track.
__________________
Bruce Noland 1788 STK |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fenton, Missouri
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
Not to bash any one here. But did anyone posting here read the article?
It's listed for the new heads-up copo 427 super stock engine program. or in other words it was built to battle the 426ci Gen III Hemi. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: HOUMA, LA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Got to love technology!
__________________
JOSEPH TEUTON 4044 STK,SS, |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cummaquid, Mass
Posts: 445
Likes: 413
Liked 60 Times in 29 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Sam Murray 1616 STK |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Richmond Indiana
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 5
Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts
|
![]()
Gump didn't each factory continually change cams, cubic inchs carbs etc in the 60s also? I guess progress if parallel in all brands and cubic inchs could be good.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Belle Vernon, PA
Posts: 288
Likes: 26
Liked 55 Times in 19 Posts
|
![]()
Are they not making the way for cars that NHRA did not want in Comp? I am talking about the short lived AA/SM. A seven second car with not enough wing and ALL glass windows! But hey, someone could supply NHRA approved replacement polycarbonate windows and a factory superwing
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|