Steve, run 3 is not in the results spreadsheet for your race with Jack.... Dan only publishes the third race if it was the tie breaker. Sorry o No: 1.901 is a great 60 foot though :TU:
Donny, I notice you are the only small block in that impressive group. Way to go my friend. :TU: Now if I can just figure out how to get the Chevy II to hook! :rant: Thomas
I thought my cars weight was the main reason my 60 foot were so good.. Interesting that it is the only one over 4000 lbs in the top 20 .. Not what I expected.. And with the company at the top of this list hell I am just happy to be there lol .. Amazing the calculated and the factory rated horsepower on most of these cars matches. Disecting these number just gets more interesting by the day.. Paul
Thanks Donny ,I went a couple 1.89,s on friday but the car has run 1.83,s before the track was not great and I had a nasty bog off the line.In the videos the front comes up and then nose dives and comes back up.Lots of little things to do.It should run very low 12,s next year.ray:
Assume these are only from Stanton, right? Would be interesting if we kept records on the time we raced at Norwalk (Brad Rising race). I was able to launch about 1000 RPM higher there (until we trashed the starting line) :laugh: ...best I ever had was a practice run against Casey's green F85...1.90.... Then he went roaring past me and won by over 1/2 sec. :laugh: :laugh: Best ever at Stanton was with Rob driving and very consistent 2.0's. He didn't lose very often....and still doesn't..:bglasses:
For many of the cars, yes. But there's a significant number of cars running considerably more horsepower than the factory ratings. I entered the data into a spreadsheet and came up with this: 14 of the 33 cars on the sub-2 second 60-foot list are running calculated horsepower within 5% (+/-) of the factory rating. 2 cars are more than 10% below the factory rating. 3 cars are between 5 and 10% below the factory rating. 4 cars are between 5 and 10% above the factory rating. So far, so good. But ..... 8 cars are running between 10 and 20% above the factory rating. 2 cars are running 29% above the factory rating! uzzled: Draw your own conclusions. But congrats to all for learning how to launch these cars so hard without sticky tires! :TU: [edit: I just realized one of those two overachievers is a '74; thus its factory rating is net HP -- not a fair comparison.]
This has been discussed before, but isn't the HP Calculator program that's used showing RWHP? As opposed to HP at the crank? I thought the transmission and rear differential robbed HP, not create HP?
also..... some of those overachivers were severely underrated from the factory. The Stage 1 Buicks, the Hemi (horsepower rating never changed through the years of production), the L88 Corvettes that Chevrolet rated lower than the tri-power engine knowing people would order the car with the higher rated engine. The Olds W31 and the Ram Air Pontiacs also fall in the same catagory. If you wanna play the game, you gotta know whose makin the rules..... :Brow:
29% is some major over achieving and if thats the case then should there be more than just 1 or 2 of that model in the numbers ? Thats 111hp for me would put me at 497hp .. Wonder what my fat old lady could do with that !!! Paul
Brian, You're kidding me aren't you? uzzled: Your point is that everyone is a cheater? Or................You need to take off your HEADERS and come out and have a great time at the Pure Stock Drags? JIM
I would guess a lot of cars were under rated from the factory and fine tuned max effort cars make the factory #s look worse.:3gears:
Exactly why I mentioned it in my first message Tom you would think with the numbers we are running the HP would be higher than factory rated.. But low and behold there is 22 0f 33 cars that are plus or minus 10% of the factory rated number.. Not chasing cheaters I was interested in the median number 90% are pretty close to that number... Paul
Most of the later muscle car ratings were intentionally low, both for insurance reasons, and for class ratings in NHRA. Remember, the classes at that time were based strictly on HP to weight. So an under-rated HP number got a lower class, where you had a big advantage over the correctly (if there ever was one of those!) rated cars. Pontiac started it, Chevy perfected it and the Fords and Mopars eventually had to play the game. Back then we all knew what the ringers were. As Steve said, the CJ rating of 335 was a joke. My '67 Mustang GT with a 390 had worse heads, less carb, less cam, lower compression and 37.5 fewer cubic inches, it was rated at 10 hp less! Using the factory numbers is like building your house out of bubble gum. :Smarty:
My hats especially off to the brethren here (8) ,who had to provide just the right amount of slip and grip, with the "Man Pedal".:TU: Not an easy thing to do! :beer Rich C.
Not my point at all. Which is why I suggested people draw their own conclusions. Other possible conclulsions high on my list: -- Factory HP was often underrated. -- There's lots of room within the PSMCDR rules to allow you to beat the factory ratings without cheating. -- The formula used to calculate HP for this list is not accurate for this class of cars. Regarding this last point, I can't speak for the exact formula used (since I haven't seen it), but most of these HP cacluators use one of several formulae which are actually empirically derived from large databases comparing MPH/weight (or ET/weight) with known, peak, crank horsepower. Sometimes this known HP is based on actual dyno results, other times it's based on factory ratings. And then there's still the issue of gross vs. net. And the formulae also need to be tweaked differently depending on whether you're talking purpose-built drag cars or street cars. It all depends on the person who developed the formula and the empirical data they used.
List of Cars that have pulled a 1.8x in the shotouts, and many of these cars are consistantly there.........
