Will 74-up "Muscle Cars" with carbs ever be allowed?

I will agree most of the post 73 stuff is not very "muscle car", with loud sticker packages and such. But the cars I was mainly going after were the 82-up to the end of carbs, but did not want to exclude the very few cars between.
What is wrong with a 82-85 Mustang GT? Is that not the car that got Detroit back in to "muscle cars"? A friend of mine bought a brand-new 85 GT with most options, not a really lightweight like a option less Coupe. That car ran 14.60-.70's all day long 100% stock with less than 1000 miles on it with out even checking the timing or anything. Now put that in a car with 300 or more less pounds, full engine blueprint, 4.10 or so gears, and good exhaust. Would that not run with most "pure stock" small blocks of any year? Again, I would like nothing more than a "classic" muscle car, but just wanted to give an alternative as most carbed cars are now over 20 years old, and it is much harder to find a mint stock 82-85 Mustang or Camaro then most would think, so I am sure very few would show up. I also understand why some do not want to change a thing as it is great racing as is, I just thought it would be interesting to add a little something else to the mix.

 

Totally agree with you here, Mike. The 5.0 Mustangs and Camaro/Firebirds do fit the bill here. But how do you let them in and not let in the wheezers and hogs built during that time? The engines available in some of the other neater RWD cars of the 80's just don't get it within the confines of Pure Stock or FAST rules.

Pure Stock at Stanton regularly has 100-120 cars already, hard to get the event in as it is in the time period, so it doesn't need to grow. FAST and Factory Stock do quite well in the one day races up here in this area (Thanks to all the Pure Stockers that also race ther like at Martin), but struggle in other areas and could maybe use the extra car count.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Is the opening 16 second by-run at Stanton an 80's car?

:laugh:

 

Not to be mean, but I thought Studebaker had claimed dibs that bye run years ago.

 

Not really...... :laugh: :bglasses: :3gears:

On my way to FINALLY get my stove. Be back this afternnoon.

 

Someone always does.

So if we always see a 15.70 to 16 second opening by run at Stanton and we know an '85 442 runs sixteens (a co workers 80's Hurst Olds ran 15.60's stock with high mileage) then how can it be said:

"The engines available in some of the other neater RWD cars of the 80's just don't get it within the confines of Pure Stock"

What evidence has been offered that anyone has set up "some of the other neater RWD cars" in P/S trim and what are their et's?

It doesn't really matter I just like arguing when someone uses specious reasoning. :laugh:

(Specious: Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.)

 

Wow, thanks Brian! I feel more intelligent. Many not look anymore.... ou:

 

You feel more intelligent, I picked that word up off the Simpsons. :laugh:

The cartoon not the Canadian Copo owners.....

 

Me too, Dave.

 

I'm with you both on that one.

 

What agreeeing with me on something, Stefina? This will not do. Sure wish I was still getting paid big bucks to split hairs on the computer all day All we did the last few years was sit in meetings and nod and say, "yeah, right", "at the end of the day", "the bottom line is", and other catchy things. Guess both accomplish about the same. :Smarty:

:beer :laugh: beer

Now go away, Stefina. I've got F'in deer to chase off. They're eating all my new trees and shrubs. What they don't get the dogs dig up. Can't win. o No:

 

Lay off the Avalanche !!!!

I love mine..........

 

15 and 16 second cars... !? Whoa, wait a minute, I just had an epiphany (...hope I didn't get any on your shoes). I've been going about this the wrong way. Rather than trying to improve my times to avoid the bye-run label, we could introduce a whole raft of slower cars that will immediately move me up the ranks! Mediocre 14's will be cool again. Come join me my brothers in embracing our younger brethren -- bring on the +'75's!!! :laugh:

 

:laugh: :laugh:

There is a bright side!

Unless they do better than 15's set up within the P/S rules o No:

Not to worry they won't be allowed.

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone wants to be lined up ahead of a smogger 307 - Hurst Olds...........

 

Smog pump slang

Or against.

If your late sixties early seventies muscle car has or had an AIR pump does that make it a smogger? o No:

:laugh:

 

I think to officially be classified as a smogger, you have to 1) have an AIR pump, 2) have a catalytic converter, and 3) be breathing through a large single pipe being diverted into 2 pipes after the muffler. Those last 2 items offically knock any wannabe's out of the race. Sounds like by those standards the last official muscle car was the 1974 Hurst/Olds W-30. 455, q-jet, and a full dual exhaust with no cat and no air pump! :moonu:

 

For the record, the mid-80s Hurst/Olds and 442s split the exhaust pipe BEFORE the mufflerS. And actually, they are resonators, not mufflers. So there! :Smarty:
The system makes the little converter-choked 307 sound respectible, with a real nice burble. Makes it fast as heck, too. :grin: