|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 389
Likes: 1,655
Liked 752 Times in 213 Posts
|
![]()
Do you know the reason why the 4 cylinders Ecotec engine is penalized so much, in minimum weight VS all others 4 cylinders?
AA/AF: Minimum weight: GM Ecotec, 2,050 pounds, all others 1,750 pounds. BB/AF: Minimum weight: GM Ecotec, 2,350 pounds, all others, 2,050 pounds. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 389
Likes: 1,655
Liked 752 Times in 213 Posts
|
![]()
I also see in the turbocharged paragraph that the size is limited at 68 mm for the Ecotec and limited to 74 mm to all others 4 cylinders 4 valves...
This engine get a lot of restrictions for some reasons... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 351
Likes: 1,419
Liked 546 Times in 129 Posts
|
![]()
Hi Charles, I don't have an "official" answer but remember that those classes grew out of the old NOPI/NHRA Sport Compact racing series.
From what I understand, the Ecotec engine dominated every class and probably helped kill the series. I imagine NHRA made "parity adjustments" to level the Ecotec with other combinations. It would be similar to how a FSS/SM Mustang would need a bigger pulley than a COPO or Drag Pak even though it's running in Comp. |
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 389
Likes: 1,655
Liked 752 Times in 213 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I didn't have any kind of interest for that serie at that time. Thanks, I appreciate your input. Keep on, Last edited by Charles Stewart; 06-20-2024 at 10:20 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 389
Likes: 1,655
Liked 752 Times in 213 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Thanks again for your support, |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|