vintage-race
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fw: Racing in the Fifties and early 60's.

To: "larry gallo" <agallo@pcfl.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: Racing in the Fifties and early 60's.
From: "JOHN HARDEN" <JOHN.HARDEN@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:51:55 -0500
As the driver of a reasonably competitive Lister Corvette in SVRA's Group 4,
I agree wholeheartily with your comments. I run a 283, stroked to 339 cid,
which is what Bill Pollack ran in 1958. I would much prefer a 327 or 350.
cid because I would get the 4" bore, which breathes better than the 283 with
the 3.875 bore. Unfortunately the 327cid was not available in 1958. Very few
Vintage (pre December 31,1959) sportsracers are running 283's with cast iron
straight plug heads. In 1997, I was pumped at Monterrey at the request of
some anonymous fellow competitor and had no problem passing the test.
Actually if you have a copy of "The Catalog of Chevy V-8 Engine Casting
Numbers 1955-1993", it is quite easy to determine the block size. Aside from
the motor size, what about the Jerico sequential gear boxes I hear running
in the TransAm cars? It all really boils down to the members of any Group to
police their own members and the ask their Association to enforce the rules
agreed upon. As long as either side is willing to let you run what you
brung, this kind of problem will persist. John Harden




----- Original Message -----
From: larry gallo <agallo@pcfl.net>
To: <DGreimel@aol.com>
Cc: <kaskas@earthlink.net>; <vintage-race@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Racing in the Fifties and early 60's.


> I am (with trepidation) herein going to
> toss a grenade into this forum -- to wit:
> What really do we do about, say, pre
> Stingray Vettes (the solid axle kind)
> Lister Vettes & various "B-modifieds"
> that have, say, 358 or 377 inch mills in
> place of their similar appearing 283s?
> Or, maybe 310 inch SVO'd GT-350s?
>
> Just got back from HSR Atlanta where
> the announcer was interviewing the owner
> of  "the 3.6 liter RS Porsche" that had
> just won.  Ha!  These rulebenders got
> this way legitimately, from what might
> be termed rampant laxity, but now with
> so many serious investments in the like,
> no way can you  put the doodoo back
> into the horse even if you consense on
> the need.
>
>
>
>
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>