Factory Stockers Unite!!!

[JLerum]

One of the problems is the air was so good. Chuck in his 1966 chevelle was 4/10 faster as well. His car went 12.50s as well. I know he is around + or - 12.85 at the pure stock drags.

Jim

[njsteve]

Here's some photo coverage:

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat...0&fpart=all

[bbbenny]

steve, good talking to you today. your car is one nice mopar. very orginal and docs to boot. got my vote. thanks for the pics of the copo. we;ll have to run one off sometime. bbbenny

[JLerum]

[ QUOTE ]
Before this becomes a monkey crap flingin' contest,

[/ QUOTE ]

Rusty, I haven't been to one of those in a long time. Do you need to go across the boarder in Mexico. If we're having one of those at Stanton I'm bring old kitty litter to sling.

JIM

[zl1vette]

Ahh, nothing like some good old fashioned research from back in the day. Here are a couple of tests on a ZL1 Camaro:

A guy from Kansas City (Dick Harrell, you may have heard of him) tested a 1969 ZL1 Camaro for the May 1969 issue of Super Stock and Drag Illustrated. The exhaust manifolds were swapped for a set of headers, but still ran the full exhaust. Back pressure being what it is, the headers probably offered only minimal advantage. The car was fitted with a set of street legal 8.00/8.50 x 14 M&H 6 ½” Super Stock tires. With the newer compounds in the repro tires of today, my estimation is that these are probably very close in traction to each other. The Camaro ran the stock Turbo Hydra-Matic transmission with a stock rear end housing a set of factory 4.10 gears. The 850 cfm double pumper was swapped for an 850 cfm with vacuum secondaries because the tires could not hook up.

Dick Harrell ran a 1/4 mile of 11.85 seconds @ 119.06 mph. Uncapping the headers yielded 11.64 @ 122.15 mph.

The guys from Popular Hot Rodding showed up later, and for their July 1969 issue, Dick Harrell, running the same configuration, but with different jets in the carburetor and timing at 42 degrees advance, ran a quarter mile of 12.14 seconds @ 117.80 mph.

There was no mention of track conditions or temperature, but having spent almost a year at wonderful FT. Lost-in-the-woods, MO, I can tell you that there is a HUGE temperature difference between FREEZING COLD Feb and NICE WARM Apr. Since most magazines in 1969 were written three months prior to publication date, I am estimating that these are approximately the actual test months and could easily account for the 0.29 second difference in the two cars with closed headers.

And of course we all know that Chevy built the Corvette to perform better than the Camaro, even with the same motor, so one would expect even better times from a ZL1 Vette.

To COPO Pete and JJ, I say that the above referenced articles should more than prove that your numbers and cars are legit. Not that you don't know the truth; this was merely for the nay-sayers.

BTW, according to "Corvette Quarterly", Fall 1988, the official publication from some car company (Chevrolet, you may have heard of them), the ZL1 motor idles at 2000 RPM, and runs rough below this point. As far as vacuum is concerned, a Competition Cams XR300HR-10 (close to L88 specs) .562/.580 I/E lift and 300/306 duration @ 0.006" can only pull 6.5" Hg @ 1000 RPM.

Seems reminiscent of when the Corvettes were banned for dominating every Showroom Stock race they entered until they had to form the Corvette Challenge series just to race.

[JLerum]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh, nothing like some good old fashioned research from back in the day. Here are a couple of tests on a ZL1 Camaro:

A guy from Kansas City (Dick Harrell, you may have heard of him) tested a 1969 ZL1 Camaro for the May 1969 issue of Super Stock and Drag Illustrated. The exhaust manifolds were swapped for a set of headers, but still ran the full exhaust. Back pressure being what it is, the headers probably offered only minimal advantage. The car was fitted with a set of street legal 8.00/8.50 x 14 M&H 6 ½” Super Stock tires. With the newer compounds in the repro tires of today, my estimation is that these are probably very close in traction to each other. The Camaro ran the stock Turbo Hydra-Matic transmission with a stock rear end housing a set of factory 4.10 gears. The 850 cfm double pumper was swapped for an 850 cfm with vacuum secondaries because the tires could not hook up.

Dick Harrell ran a 1/4 mile of 11.85 seconds @ 119.06 mph. Uncapping the headers yielded 11.64 @ 122.15 mph.

The guys from Popular Hot Rodding showed up later, and for their July 1969 issue, Dick Harrell, running the same configuration, but with different jets in the carburetor and timing at 42 degrees advance, ran a quarter mile of 12.14 seconds @ 117.80 mph.

There was no mention of track conditions or temperature, but having spent almost a year at wonderful FT. Lost-in-the-woods, MO, I can tell you that there is a HUGE temperature difference between FREEZING COLD Feb and NICE WARM Apr. Since most magazines in 1969 were written three months prior to publication date, I am estimating that these are approximately the actual test months and could easily account for the 0.29 second difference in the two cars with closed headers.

And of course we all know that Chevy built the Corvette to perform better than the Camaro, even with the same motor, so one would expect even better times from a ZL1 Vette.

To COPO Pete and JJ, I say that the above referenced articles should more than prove that your numbers and cars are legit. Not that you don't know the truth; this was merely for the nay-sayers.

BTW, according to "Corvette Quarterly", Fall 1988, the official publication from some car company (Chevrolet, you may have heard of them), the ZL1 motor idles at 2000 RPM, and runs rough below this point. As far as vacuum is concerned, a Competition Cams XR300HR-10 (close to L88 specs) .562/.580 I/E lift and 300/306 duration @ 0.006" can only pull 6.5" Hg @ 1000 RPM.

Seems reminiscent of when the Corvettes were banned for dominating every Showroom Stock race they entered until they had to form the Corvette Challenge series just to race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make a point. A ZL-1 going 122+ mph is a 10 second car in todays world. The slick of yester year do not come close to a preped track with the soft compound slicks of today. How many wheel stands do you see of these old cars in yester year perf pics? few to none!!!!!! Today this is what you always see!

Tires, track conditions, and the will to run exhaust manifolds havn't really happened till now. I don't think that even the AHRA required manifolds in their Pure Stocke division, anybody know?????????




Jim

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Wow!! This got interesting while I was traveling!!

I'm not sure what happened last year, but it sounds like it was exactly what my fear of this year would be. I have not gone through the rigor of the PSMCDR Certification because I have not blueprinted my engine, however, in the event that I do - it looks like I will face the same issue

As surprising as it is to hear Pete and JJ's experience, there is a bigger issue here: Gonzo apparently feels that the PSMCDR Certified Stock process is not legit! Whether you have a ZL1 Chevrolet, GS, RAIV, etc... the fact that it was Certified via a tear down process in Stanton is meaningless? On what basis?

My goal with this questioning was to find out if there was uniformity in the definition of 'pure stock', 'factory stock', 'whatever stock'.... My hope was that if I build my next car to the PSMCDR Certified program, that it will be accepted and respected at another event. I'm not getting that feeling though

[JLerum]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow!! This got interesting while I was traveling!!

I'm not sure what happened last year, but it sounds like it was exactly what my fear of this year would be. I have not gone through the rigor of the PSMCDR Certification because I have not blueprinted my engine, however, in the event that I do - it looks like I will face the same issue

As surprising as it is to hear Pete and JJ's experience, there is a bigger issue here: Gonzo apparently feels that the PSMCDR Certified Stock process is not legit! Whether you have a ZL1 Chevrolet, GS, RAIV, etc... the fact that it was Certified via a tear down process in Stanton is meaningless? On what basis?

My goal with this questioning was to find out if there was uniformity in the definition of 'pure stock', 'factory stock', 'whatever stock'.... My hope was that if I build my next car to the PSMCDR Certified program, that it will be accepted and respected at another event. I'm not getting that feeling though

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not running the magazine article times you might have a problem. If your car sounds different at idle because you retarded the cam you are suspect. Less vacuum, worse idle and now you must fit the 900rpm rule?????????? I would ask Gonzo what your LT-1 Nova needs to idle at???? I think it would be appropriate before you make the drive to an event. Their needs to be a method to the madness!!!!!!

Jim

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

I put the cam in straight up. It idles higher than 900 bec/ it's supposed to, and I'm not an experienced tuner!

As of right now, I will not attend Gonzo's event bec/ it appears he is unable or unwilling to justify the classification of 'factory stock'.

[supergonzo]

"Gonzo apparently feels that the PSMCDR Certified Stock process is not legit!"

When did I say that??? Thats the way its done there and thats fine with me. Clear?

"the fact that it was Certified via a tear down process in Stanton is meaningless? On what basis?" Again when did I say that???

That was 5 years ago, as Pete said on camera. Your missing the point, I have always been nice to Pete and JJ and have no problem with there cars, however some others have brought up their legality. If they want to settle it, then settle it here at our track in a 10 minute process. Whether they do or don't makes no difference to me. The cars are still bad-a** awesome. CLEAR??

But please don't call people names, or insult anybodys intelligence by claiming that Joel Rosen or Bill Mitchell never drove any cars with Bias Ply tires or tested them properly. They in fact had their own Magazine called Hi-Performance Cars, and tested 100's of musclecars back in the day especially Chevy's.

Don't say headers don't make any difference, anybody who has seen a 427 Camaro/Chevelle exhaust manifold and been to a dyno room and swapped on a set of headers, knows they are worth 40-70 hp. Same for slicks, do you think they were running on rock hard tires back then?? They weren't morons you know, how much does it take to figure out a softer no thread tire is better than a harder threaded tire??

The 900 rpm rule. Obviously certain cars came with cams that had lots of overlap which created lopey idles. As Pete pointed out even RAIV Pontiacs had lopey idles. I agree. And I can obviously be flexible as needed, and I am not looking to upset anyone, its the more the merrier here. If any of you read the original posting about Pete's car... It was originally started here when some factory Stockers were complaining about C.O.P.O cars in general.
I defended the use of C.O.P.O cars and added that they were among the baddest muscle cars ever built. And said they are staying like it or not.


The problem escalated when someone pointed out that Pete's car didn't idle below 2000 rpm the whole day....not 900....2000. Pete explained that it was cold that day (degrees) and that he was warming up the car, plus the engine being all-aluminum needed to be warmed up consistently. Some people did not totally accept this answer. I am a bystander in this CLEAR??


"it appears he is unable or unwilling to justify the classification of 'factory stock'"

What are you talking about??? Read rules, you'll be fine.
Relax, have some fun, its not all that important.