[Brian Baker]

Scott, you misread my analogy. G-man's point for him not using the d-port was he didn't have time and countless dollars to make it work. Obviously it took alot of man hours and money to get us to the moon, nobody was worried about cost, we had to get there before the Russians did, plain and simple.

And G-man, since the first shuttle flight didn't happen until 1981, I sure hope we don't see any "30 year old" shuttles flying around (LOL).

[Goatman]

FFCC, I'm not sure, there has been some new developments. I tried to e-mail you the other day, but it said the account was down or something like that. I'll try again tomorrow.

Brian, like Scott and I were trying to get at, I'm all for spending time and money, God knows I am. What we're getting at is that if I'm going to spend my time and my money its going to be on the best technology I can buy, just like NASA did and does today. If you wanted me to use 60's technology in the space shuttle today, well I'd be in the same boat as our infamous Mr. Navarro is in right now. You've got a certain technology, that is as outdated as it gets, trying to keep up with the big boys of today. Sounds like the Russian space program to me. It wouldn't work for the space program and won't work for him now. Its a sad fact and he obviously isn't coming to grips with it very well. He's even tried to get me to bite on the old "I know people who have bad ET's with E-heads" line. Well, if heads made the whole car, we'd all have it much easier, now wouldn't we? Its very simple, he just hasn't admited it to himself yet.

Yes, I have RAIV's right now, (which, by the way, were designed by Airflow Research, see even Pontiac wanted to spend money with the newest technology and the best people back in the day) but at least they flow decent numbers and they still have more in them if I wanted to get crazy, but why waste the money? E-heads can be CNC'd to flow 360 CFM, for the same money, so if I'm going to go faster, why not just skip all the R&D and go with what I KNOW will work. Its simple, once you embrace technology you'll never go back.

[This message has been edited by Goatman (edited 09-25-2001).]

[zedo]

Truth be told, their NOT in the record books.

Comparing a D-port to an E-head, is like comparing a flintlock to an M-16.

[Skip Fix]

Can't resist the topic or the NHRA stockers. A topic I love to talk about, and the cars I go to watch at the big events.These guys are full weight cars, not stripped down. Yes their heads and intakes are probaly massaged but no where near what most of the "bracket" Pontiac out there have.For sure not what your new D ports are Larry. The guys running fast in any class are few and far between.

Shoot the new EFI Firebirds are running lower in the 10s with a little 350 and about the same weight!Heck there was even an 81 Turbo 301 car in the mid 13s I believe that won an event in "stockers".

Let's see 78 "smoggers" with low copmpression, that terrible D shaped secondaries opening in the intake, either a .364 or .406 lift cam running 11.70s. Where are all the high compression D ports running 11s? Lee Bannister's 72 HO stocker runs 11.50s with alot more CI, lift and airflow.

John Schloe's 69 bird with RAIVs was in the 10.70s 10 years ago Larry. Same basic weight car as this D port car just now in the 10s. He put the D ports on the same motor and slowed almost 0.4 sec! Apples to apples shortblock and suspension and lost that much with the D ports.Heck with the RAIVs almost as fast as McCarthy's tubbed, ported, roller cammed 400 early Bird, and it is one of the 10 second D port cars out there.

John ran a 274 @0.050 cam with the stock total lift! Got a copy if you think it will fit valve to piston clearance. Alos a 5000 stall convertor.

What took the D port guys so long to get there? Even the heavier Buick GS A bodies have been knocking on that door for along time, and man do they launch hard!

[Goatman]

Zedo, buddy, how ya been? How's Gach and all the other A-holes?

For someone who seems to be quite intelligent, you sure do pick some strange BB mates. What's the real deal over there anyway?

Skip Fix, you're attitude really sucks, you know that? LOL [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] How dare you make such statements when you know those boys in the '68 will be congradulated by the President himself (Nixon will actually come back from the grave to make Mr. Baker happy and talk about the space program), since nothing else is going on in the world right now. I think Nixon will be an appropriate speaker, after all he's as dead as the D-port fan club members are.

After all, they ALMOST got into the record books. For their next trick, they're going to put a 301 motor in the car and run 15's.....with the "stock" whatever ports. That will show that miserable S.O.B., Goatman!

[This message has been edited by Goatman (edited 09-25-2001).]

[71 T/A]

That's funny. Hell, I'm in favor of bringing back Nixon to discuss the space program.

If you're on a budget and have D-ports, you can still run 10s. Otherwise, Larry, just admit it, you wouldn't mind having a set of Ram Air IVs like Goatman's. I wouldn't mind having them too.

[Goatman]

I do have a spare untouched set up for sale, if anyone is interested. I can also port them to be just like mine if you so desire. Larry, if you tell me what that set of S/S d-ports flow, I could probably weld up the RAIV's to restrict the flow down to that level as well. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Brian Baker]

G-man, very funny. You gotta' admit though, you strayed from the topic a little when you started up about going faster with better technology. I think the original point being made was "look how fast so and so went with a 400 d-port". Doing more with less, I'd say. Hell, there are guys still running flatheads at Bonneville, trying to break old speed records (And some doing it). Doing more with less, never mind how long or how much money it took to get there.

[Larry Navarro]

skip...what took you so long?
those stockers you mention are running as good or better that your setup with the "latest technology" AND full weight.

point proven again!

[Goatman]

Larry, they're not running better than me at full weight. The only difference is that I can drive my car on the street and I'm not spinning my motor to 7500+ to make HP.

I'm sure they have just as much head/intake/carb work as I do, they just have to pay more to hide it.

Brian, I agree with you, except for the "more for less" statement. Those guys probably have 5 times more money into their combo's than the "average" 10 second car, so it seems to me that they're paying more for less. They probably have to pay just as much in port work as they do to hide what they've done, just like NASCAR. I just think its silly.

The whole point of S/S is to see how fast you can go with stock stuff. Only one problem, everyone knows its not stock anymore, so what's the point? There is none. Its stock APPEARING, but that just means it costs more to do. So really, you've got a glorified bracket race with cars that nobody could afford to build, running slower than what I could build for a fraction of the money. I don't see the attraction. Do you?

[This message has been edited by Goatman (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Larry Navarro]

OH GEEZ...now we want to put limits on RPM too?
LOL.....

[Goatman]

How much would you take a "stock" Pontiac motor to?

The only limit is airflow!

[Brian Baker]

G-man, I'm not referring to the "money" aspect of it when I said "doing more with less". I don't think these guys have all that much more money in their engines than you do with your E-Heads. Everything they use is "common stuff", with the exception of the camshaft. What I meant by "doing more with less" was that these guys are turning "BIG" numbers with seemingly "INFERIOR" combinations. You also have to understand the purpose of this S/S car. It's sole purpose is to traverse 1320 feet as quickly as possible. I'm sure you can drive your car down the street and into town to the local soda-pop shop if you wanted to, but this car isn't about that.

[Brian Baker]

Regarding the Stock class cars, G-man, they never have been "stock" from day one. NHRA set the rules up so that some tinkering could take place, because they knew racers would be "cheating" (and they still do at times) for any extra edge. NHRA placed limits on cam lift to match what manufacturers produced, but they could play with the lobe placement and duration all they wanted. Port volumes were set, and in general, no porting is allowed, but so long as the port volume is where it should be, racers still massage the ports and then acid dip them to hide what they've done. So long as they don't exceed the maximum port volume allowed, NHRA usually looks the other way.

[Larry Navarro]

DANG...another misguided consumer...
just received the latest car craft in the mail and whatayaknow, right there on pg. 68 we see a '65 GTO with a 428, 10.5:1 c.r.,
E-HEADS, 234/242@.050 hydraulic roller w/.539"/.558" lift...
BEST e.t..12.72@107mph.
dyno results: 384hp, 394ft.lb.
once again, all that money spent with LESS than stellar results.
now i know this will upset some folks but hey,...point proven.



[This message has been edited by Larry Navarro (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Brian Baker]

Larry, did it state what it weighed in race trim? IMHO, it is undercammed for E-Heads.

Whoa! Just re-read that. A hydraulic roller? Even though I feel it is undercammed in regards to lift and duration for the E-heads, even with that "little" bit of duration, the roller should have picked it up more than it has. Gotta' be more to it than what the mag is reporting. Perhaps it hasn't been "tuned" yet?

[This message has been edited by Brian Baker (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Scott Misus]

Larry:

Why aren't you trying to put a '54 straight 8 flathead Pontiac motor into the 10's? I mean, to use your analogy, there'd be a helluva lot more glory in it.

Brian: What's a "Fort McHenry?"

[Skip Fix]

Larry, You knew I would have to say something!
Let's see, how many runs has Lee Bannister made to be in the 11.40s? I've seen him at the track with the same combination when I've had 3 different ones in my car over the past 10 years. Mine maybe 15 runs to be in the 11.70s in 90 degree air and a drop of 0.4 sec from first run out with this motor, it took me 2 1/2 years to get that many runs. And these "stockers" sure aren't running mufflers and 2 1/2 tailpipes like my car has. Read that as open headers!I'll guarantee mine will pick up 0.3sec if I do that, done it before. Also their cams may have less lift than mine but more duration. Lee's is just a low compression 72 HO motor running 11.40s, and what's your HO motor running? And how many runs?

Put those D ports on your motor and we'll go run heads up at Sealy or Sequin wher neither of us will need a roll bar.

I think it is great this guy is running 10s with a D port stocker,its hauling a** no matter what power plant it has and even better its a Poncho. Point was just that a RAIV 400 was doing it at least 10 years ago. Heads DO make a difference. As well as alot of tuning.

Heck why didn't you mention that the winningest Super Stocker is a 78 D port motor running 10 teens with 9:1 and an original Torker and Q jet!! The Hatari car. It was even down here in Houston last big event.

[Craig Berkheimer]

JBP 416ci on Gasoline
#16 Dports 10.75:1 Compression

Weight - 3460 lbs
10.5 - 29.5 TIRE

Best ET: 60ft =1.37
1/8 =6.49@104mph
1/4 =10.29 @ 129mph


------------------
Outlaw Pontiac Racers Association
"For Those Who Live The Legend" www.outlawpontiacs.com

[This message has been edited by Craig Berkheimer (edited 09-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Craig Berkheimer (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Craig Berkheimer]

Key Words, DPORTS, 10.75:1 Comp. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]