Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: slantman]
#218354
02/09/09 08:28 AM
02/09/09 08:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419 NY
F1Scamp
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419
NY
|
Dave Finn runs his Max Wedge car in FAST. He has gone 11.04 @ 127mph I believe, and last year was his first year with it. I know of a new Max Wedge coming out this year I believe that should be giving Dave's car a run.
Work In Progress- 71' Duster F.A.S.T.- 10.36@130 Smallblock Record Holder.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: 11secaarcuda]
#218358
02/09/09 01:21 PM
02/09/09 01:21 PM
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446 NJ-USA
HPMike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
|
Quote:
I heard that one of THE big hitters in FAST just bought a max wedge car.
Can't anything fly under the radar anymore??
MB
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: F1Scamp]
#218363
02/09/09 09:47 PM
02/09/09 09:47 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 176 Down under
slantman
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 176
Down under
|
Quote:
Dave Finn runs his Max Wedge car in FAST. He has gone 11.04 @ 127mph I believe
Any idea roughly what his engine combo is? Number of cubes, compression, roller cam?? Not after trade secrets, just a basic combo rundown.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: slantman]
#218365
02/10/09 12:39 AM
02/10/09 12:39 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Number of cubes, compression, roller cam?? Not after trade secrets, just a basic combo rundown.
It's probably got as many as you can squeeze into a stock block, and yes, I'm sure it's got compression and a roller.......
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
#218366
02/10/09 01:17 AM
02/10/09 01:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421 Balt. Md
383man
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
|
Dave Finns car really looks and runs good. I heard his Maxie eng dynoed at almost 700 hp ! Look around this site and you can find some pics of Dave's 63 Dodge. http://www.supercarraces.com/Atco08.html I know like 4 years ago Jeff Petersons 63 Ply ran 12.0's in Pure Stock not FAST and I figured if you built a Maxie for FAST it should run easy mid to low 11's and it looks like Dave's car will run 10's with no trouble next year. Ron
Last edited by 383man; 02/10/09 01:17 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218367
02/11/09 12:21 PM
02/11/09 12:21 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Hi Ed congrats on the new purchase you’ll love it. Bob K’s been trying to get me to take mine to the pure stocks for a couple of years but it just hasn’t worked out. Car runs 11.9’s on drag radials with me driving so I suspect it could be in the mid 11’s with someone who knows what they’re doing behind the wheel. It’s got a stock ’63 max wedge block but the heads have had some work and appearance wise looks as stock as they come.
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/11/09 12:29 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
#218368
02/11/09 07:46 PM
02/11/09 07:46 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 731 NY
XXHEMI
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 731
NY
|
Quote:
Quote:
Number of cubes, compression, roller cam?? Not after trade secrets, just a basic combo rundown.
It's probably got as many as you can squeeze into a stock block, and yes, I'm sure it's got compression and a roller.......
Mr Big squeeze You make it sound like Iam going to violate the poor Wedge. It's nothing you wouldn't do? Big cubes, big compression and a big old roller just about say's it all . And it's all going in a black 63 Plymouth should make a good Chevy beater? We will see?
Joe now that the Maxie's going to take over I can get the Black Bird back to stock! Your 64 Looks great! How have you been?
Ed
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218369
02/11/09 08:50 PM
02/11/09 08:50 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Hi Ed been doing fine just waiting for the weather to break and get the cars out. Happy to hear you're ok after the reverse exit you had at the track had to be a hell of a ride! I look on here often to see pics of the bird - have to tell ya its impressive! The maxie is a lot of fun but with a 456 gear it doesn't see too much leisure driving. Take care and hope to see you this summer and may be do a little match up of the wedgeeees - Joe
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/12/09 05:15 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218370
02/11/09 09:03 PM
02/11/09 09:03 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Mr Big squeeze You make it sound like Iam going to violate the poor Wedge. It's nothing you wouldn't do? Big cubes, big compression and a big old roller just about say's it all . And it's all going in a black 63 Plymouth should make a good Chevy beater? We will see?
Ed
I'm not knocking it........That's what it's all about.........I LOVE lots of compression and the right roller.........
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: slantman]
#218371
02/12/09 05:56 PM
02/12/09 05:56 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada
DPelletier
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134
Kelowna, B.C. Canada
|
I'm sure the MW could be competitive in F.A.S.T. but I'd think it'd do better in Pure Stock where the engines aren't modded enough to really take advantage of the Hemi's superior flow and where the MW has a decided compression advantage. Dave
1970 Super Bee 440 Six Pack
1974 'Cuda
2008 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Ram 3500 Diesel
2004.5 Ram 2500 Diesel
2003 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Durango Limited
[url] http://1970superbee.piczo.com [/url]
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: DPelletier]
#218372
02/13/09 10:19 AM
02/13/09 10:19 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
I think Dave's and Ed's Maxi's will be in the 10's next year. I think the Maxi will run into the 11's in pure stock in a no radio, heater delete, Savoy with the battery in the trunk and the 3705 carbs. An Duster, Demon with a 3100 lbs race weight and 500 flywheel HP would also be interesting in FAST. Could this be the first 10 second FAST small block.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: scatpacktom]
#218376
02/13/09 09:44 PM
02/13/09 09:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
500 hp in a 3100 lbs package should run 10.90 at 127.5 mph with a 1.70 60'. I would think that is very possible in a A body. I think the key will be to take as much weight off the front as possible so you can add 100 lbs of weight to the rear of the car and still end up 3100 with driver.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: dannysbee]
#218377
02/14/09 07:50 AM
02/14/09 07:50 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982 Ansonia, CT
CJK440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982
Ansonia, CT
|
500HP at the wheels. My best of 11.93 was @ 115mph which calculates to be about 370 rwhp. I'm building in a little more cubes and some more compression but its gonna be quite a feat to find 130rwhp. Tom, get workin on that big motor!!
2017 Contusion Blue Challenger T/A 392 M6 "BLKNBLU"
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: CJK440]
#218378
02/14/09 10:56 AM
02/14/09 10:56 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,091 oberlin, Ohio
Rapid340
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,091
oberlin, Ohio
|
Quote:
Quote: A Duster, Demon with a 3100 lbs race weight and 500 flywheel HP would also be interesting in FAST. Could this be the first 10 second FAST small block.
Duster, Check Weight, Check Horsepower, building now 10's?, I'll take sub 11.50's.
I'm looking forward to the 09 season for sure.
Sub 11.50's is definitely possible, I've done it with drag radials and a poor 1.72 60 foot time.
1971 Factory Appearing Duster 340 11.000 @ 122 mph
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: Rapid340]
#218379
02/14/09 11:55 AM
02/14/09 11:55 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
The 500 HP I used in the calculation was flywheel, 450 at the wheels would get you the same results. If the numbers that Dave got on his 340 build were not on a happy Dyno I think it's a possible goal. Easy, not saying that. Weight distribution and transfer will be key. What kind of 60's has Joel run in his Hemi car with a stick and at least 700 more lbs to launch on the same tire an A body will be on? I think I will call mine David.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: F1Scamp]
#218381
02/14/09 06:34 PM
02/14/09 06:34 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
Give me the MPH of that 11.61 run and I will tell you how much HP you are making. Is that the weight with driver? If that 11.61 was on poly's you probably making enough steam.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: dannysbee]
#218382
02/14/09 07:04 PM
02/14/09 07:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419 NY
F1Scamp
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419
NY
|
11.61 @ 117mph was on poly's in the AAR. 3670 w/driver and a pretty hurt tranny. That motor will more than likely be making it's way into the 71 duster...
Work In Progress- 71' Duster F.A.S.T.- 10.36@130 Smallblock Record Holder.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: F1Scamp]
#218383
02/14/09 07:32 PM
02/14/09 07:32 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
The motor is making 460 at the flywheel or 413 at the wheels. 40 more hp and a 3100 lbs with driver a-body, going to be a tough combo. Has anyone done any testing to see which is the best set up the six pack or the thermo quad? I wanted a 72 Demon so I would have fresh air.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: dannysbee]
#218384
02/14/09 07:40 PM
02/14/09 07:40 PM
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446 NJ-USA
HPMike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
|
Quote:
The motor is making 460 at the flywheel or 413 at the wheels. 40 more hp and a 3100 lbs with driver a-body, going to be a tough combo. Has anyone done any testing to see which is the best set up the six pack or the thermo quad? I wanted a 72 Demon so I would have fresh air.
Haven't done any testing, but it would be hard to imagine the T quad(even though it's a pretty good race carb) trumping a 6 pack. the manifold itself is much better.
MB
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: HPMike]
#218385
02/14/09 08:45 PM
02/14/09 08:45 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
Mike I have not done any comparison to a Sixpack but the factory four barrel intake is quite good as I can remember the disapointment after laying my hard earned $4.00 an hour down for a LD340, and getting little to no performance increase. The 340-360 A body cars do well in stock eleminator and the intake and carburator are one of the reasons in my opinion.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218387
02/15/09 09:59 AM
02/15/09 09:59 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 276 NY
aarmaniac
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 276
NY
|
I will NEVER under estimate Tom. Dave keeps putting these Hemi thoughts in his head.
F.A.S.T. Legal AAR Cuda 11.57 @ 118 mph 1.72 60"
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: aarmaniac]
#218388
02/15/09 11:40 AM
02/15/09 11:40 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419 NY
F1Scamp
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419
NY
|
well whatever can be done to the manifold is going to be done. I know the carb can be made to flow over 900+cfm. But to lose the fresh air is going to hurt big time. I can't wait to see what all these cars are going to do this year.
Work In Progress- 71' Duster F.A.S.T.- 10.36@130 Smallblock Record Holder.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: CJK440]
#218390
02/16/09 09:31 AM
02/16/09 09:31 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490 St Clair Shores, MI
DonnyBrass
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490
St Clair Shores, MI
|
and I don't think Benoint is done with the LT-1 Corvette, either...........
Chevy infiltrator 12.34 @ 109.45 with a 1.73 sixty foot
Pure Stock
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: scatpacktom]
#218393
02/16/09 11:52 PM
02/16/09 11:52 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
What part do think is not correct? The SBC does not have as much deck height as the Mopar and pretty sure you need a raised cam aftermarket block to get much over 415 inches. The Vettes are around 3000 lbs. LT1 Vette's I believe only came 4 speeds. Z/28 were available either auto or 4-speed. Yes I think if a guy uses his head you will be able to get an Abody very close to 50/50 with 100 lbs ballast. I'm a big ole boy and I am driving from the back seat. And no doubt about it the L88 is a better package. Win lose or draw I will take the Mopar.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: dannysbee]
#218394
02/17/09 12:28 AM
02/17/09 12:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,103 Phila Pa
scatpacktom
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,103
Phila Pa
|
Well first of all I don't think the stick is a disadvantage.Second it has beeen rumored the Vette has well over 450 inches.Vette cuts air at about mid track,driver sits on the rear axle,rear tires get equally loaded,engine sits way back,98 inch wheelbase,has all good manifolds and air and fuel mixing devices. In my opinion the Vettes should win every Fast race and when they don't it is a victory for everyone with a solid axle. Also if you think you're gonna get to 50/50 with just a hundred pounds in the trunk you got another thing coming
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: scatpacktom]
#218395
02/17/09 01:12 AM
02/17/09 01:12 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
If he has 450 cubic inches he is not using a stock block plain and simple. I personally do not think the independent rear suspension is an advantage. It eats a lot of Hp. Short wheel base is, I agree. If the cars had more tire I agree auto would not have an advantage. But for cutting lights, and launching on a small tire I will take the auto. As far as weight distribution, let you know as the project comes along.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: dannysbee]
#218396
02/17/09 08:56 AM
02/17/09 08:56 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419 NY
F1Scamp
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 419
NY
|
He uses the 400 block, they can run the 400 to substitute a 350 just like us mopar guys can run a 360 in a 273 car. As far as Benoint goes, real nice guy to talk to, crazy burnouts, fun to watch. I just would feel safer running next to him if he put the rear brakes back on....
Work In Progress- 71' Duster F.A.S.T.- 10.36@130 Smallblock Record Holder.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218397
02/17/09 09:17 AM
02/17/09 09:17 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Ed Great looking '63 is that a white dodge I see in the background? Speaking of small blocks here's a pic of my sunday driver It's a '34 Plymouth with a 1970 340-6pk really a blast to drive
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/17/09 09:20 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: CJK440]
#218401
02/17/09 01:05 PM
02/17/09 01:05 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490 St Clair Shores, MI
DonnyBrass
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490
St Clair Shores, MI
|
Rule 201 c. A correct* 327 Chevy can use a 350 or 400 block, if it appears externally correct*, and is made from the correct* material.
I think this falls in the "upon a cursory visual inspection by someone reasonably familiar with the year, make and model claimed, it looks like a correct* part"
My guess is that an extra freeze plug, a different shape accessory boss, a slightly different timing cover design, etc would not be considered out of spec for the rule.
Chevy infiltrator 12.34 @ 109.45 with a 1.73 sixty foot
Pure Stock
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: scatpacktom]
#218403
02/17/09 03:21 PM
02/17/09 03:21 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490 St Clair Shores, MI
DonnyBrass
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490
St Clair Shores, MI
|
It runs 11.50's all day long at the Chrysler Classics events.........
Oh, Danny... nevermind. I never worked on a Max Wedge car in my life......
Chevy infiltrator 12.34 @ 109.45 with a 1.73 sixty foot
Pure Stock
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: DonnyBrass]
#218404
02/17/09 03:30 PM
02/17/09 03:30 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
Quote:
Rule 201 c. A correct* 327 Chevy can use a 350 or 400 block, if it appears externally correct*, and is made from the correct* material.
I think this falls in the "upon a cursory visual inspection by someone reasonably familiar with the year, make and model claimed, it looks like a correct* part"
My guess is that an extra freeze plug, a different shape accessory boss, a slightly different timing cover design, etc would not be considered out of spec for the rule.
This would also apply to a Mopar in the case of a 340 Restoration block which is a heavier duty casting (like 50lbs heavier too!). The casting number is correct/vintage but the sides of the block castings don't look the same in many areas. Or how about the guys running a mixture of correct and incorrect carburetors, head castings, and exhaust manifolds for the year/model car they run. Lot's of "Grey" in how the current FAST rules are interpreted or enforced.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#218405
02/17/09 04:08 PM
02/17/09 04:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
|
A 400 block would be able to go 4.185 with a decent sonic test. A 4 inch stroke can go in one with honda rod journals and small base circle cam. May be able to get a hair more stroke by measreing every thing real close, bore may get a hair bigger with a sleeve or hard block. As you can probably imagine the rod/stroke ratio is nice at that long of a stroke.
I think in the spirit of the rules a 400 block should not be allowed same as a 340 resto block, but in the strict technical interpritation of the rules they are ok.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#218406
02/17/09 04:23 PM
02/17/09 04:23 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490 St Clair Shores, MI
DonnyBrass
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 490
St Clair Shores, MI
|
Quote:
This would also apply to a Mopar in the case of a 340 Restoration block which is a heavier duty casting (like 50lbs heavier too!). The casting number is correct/vintage but the sides of the block castings don't look the same in many areas. Or how about the guys running a mixture of correct and incorrect carburetors, head castings, and exhaust manifolds for the year/model car they run. Lot's of "Grey" in how the current FAST rules are interpreted or enforced.
I would not say it does, but it may, the Hemi guys got the new block and heads........ but that is also written right in the rules...
Chevy guys do not get bowtie blocks.
Scott... I thought the cars were not teched hard until they ran 11.70, are you talking about cars that are faster than that ???
Last edited by DonnyBrass; 02/17/09 04:36 PM.
Chevy infiltrator 12.34 @ 109.45 with a 1.73 sixty foot
Pure Stock
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: DonnyBrass]
#218407
02/17/09 04:25 PM
02/17/09 04:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982 Ansonia, CT
CJK440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982
Ansonia, CT
|
Who's running heads and exhaust manifolds that are not correct for the model & year? That and the intake manifold casting is pretty cut & dry in the rules. I don't see much grey there.
2017 Contusion Blue Challenger T/A 392 M6 "BLKNBLU"
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#218409
02/17/09 05:14 PM
02/17/09 05:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982 Ansonia, CT
CJK440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,982
Ansonia, CT
|
Scott,
I don't. If the part is questionable, the question should have been asked. If somebody spent a small fortune on the wrong casting heads and gets called on it, its their own doing.
2017 Contusion Blue Challenger T/A 392 M6 "BLKNBLU"
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: DonnyBrass]
#218410
02/17/09 06:52 PM
02/17/09 06:52 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
This would also apply to a Mopar in the case of a 340 Restoration block which is a heavier duty casting (like 50lbs heavier too!). The casting number is correct/vintage but the sides of the block castings don't look the same in many areas. Or how about the guys running a mixture of correct and incorrect carburetors, head castings, and exhaust manifolds for the year/model car they run. Lot's of "Grey" in how the current FAST rules are interpreted or enforced.
I would not say it does, but it may, the Hemi guys got the new block and heads........ but that is also written right in the rules...
Chevy guys do not get bowtie blocks.
Scott... I thought the cars were not teched hard until they ran 11.70, are you talking about cars that are faster than that ???
Hemi guys get the new blocks , ONLY the water blocks which are HEAVIER than stock , same for the heads and as far as i know no one is running the new heads because of the extra weight , which i believe is about DOUBLE .... and the reason why is you won't get many takers paying the RANSOME ORIGINAL Hemi blocks COMMAND .
Big block chevy bowtie , raised decks ??? Aren't they ONLY siamese bore ?
The rule was as soon as you run an 11.70 things get strict , I wonder if that will relax some now that to be competitive you need to run better than 11.teens , soon better than 11.00 ???
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: CJK440]
#218411
02/17/09 06:55 PM
02/17/09 06:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Scott,
I don't. If the part is questionable, the question should have been asked. If somebody spent a small fortune on the wrong casting heads and gets called on it, its their own doing.
Exactly and 2 X heavy hitters paid the price ...
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: scatpacktom]
#218416
02/17/09 09:03 PM
02/17/09 09:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
The end of this season first of next. Depends on how funding goes.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: DonnyBrass]
#218417
02/18/09 10:41 AM
02/18/09 10:41 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,905
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Exactly and 2 X heavy hitters paid the price ...
not sure what you are implying... if they were heavy hitters, they should have known the rules......
only makes sense.
they knew the rules ...
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218418
02/19/09 04:38 PM
02/19/09 04:38 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Ed - here's a pic of the engine in my '64 - its an original '63 max wedge block and the only difference now is that I've got a trunk mounted battery with vent tubes
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/19/09 05:27 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218421
02/20/09 08:38 AM
02/20/09 08:38 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Ed here's another picture of the battery. I have friend who restores A990 cars and has reproduction cable hold downs for the positive cable behind the spare if you want - hope these help
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/20/09 09:08 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218422
02/20/09 08:59 AM
02/20/09 08:59 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
By the way Ed I got the hold down, tray, vent caps and cables from Karmer's a bit pricey but it is really good stuff the vent tubes are just regular black tubing from the local hardware store and cut to fit. We made the hold down brackets (both are the same) then just welded them down
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/20/09 09:06 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: ASA1711]
#218425
02/23/09 11:15 AM
02/23/09 11:15 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
With a max wedge you can't have any more fun then running a with push button automatic transmission!!
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/23/09 06:17 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: XXHEMI]
#218426
02/23/09 06:37 PM
02/23/09 06:37 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Ed - here's a picture of the maxie at last years Woodward Dream Cruise. You gotta look real close(actually you'll need a magnifying glass) but you can just barely see the vent tubes -sorry but it the best I have right now
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/23/09 06:55 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
[Re: Joes6pk]
#218427
02/23/09 06:38 PM
02/23/09 06:38 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Wow, that car is beautiful!
|
|
|
Re: Why no MW cars racing in FAST?
#218428
02/23/09 06:42 PM
02/23/09 06:42 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58 Michigan
Joes6pk
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 58
Michigan
|
Thanks it really is a fun piece to drive. Here's a better pic from Woodward but I have to admit these pictures really don’t do the car justice it's a bit nicer in person (at least in my opinion ha ha) - Thanks again
Last edited by Joes6pk; 02/23/09 06:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|