[ QUOTE ]
I would place the validity of the Pure Stocks races FAR lower when looking at how these cars originally stacked up to each other. The mega-buck, professionally built, flyweight rotating assembly cars we see today, with scienced-out suspensions and hundreds of hours of dyno time, are a far cry from how these cars ran in their day.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take this the wrong way, Mike, but I gotta object!
I was the 3rd quickest car on elimination day in Stanton this fall (12.3s @ 113+) and it's built NOTHING like you describe. Our rotating assembly is the original '69 parts except for the pistons, and my pushrods are the only non-GM stuff up top. Hours of dyno time? I wish!! Trick suspension? I wouldn't exactly call a pair of leaf spring clamps "trick"! And I just took a quick peak at this fall's results...12 of the 13 quickest cars in Stanton were "Certified Stock" cars meaning they were tore down prior to the event and thoroughly measured/inspected. The only car in the top 13 this fall that wasn't "Certified Stock"...a black '68 RAII 'Bird (I believe Mino's old car). Now, I'm not insinuating anything about that car, but the other 12 cars have been torn down & documented in magazines the same as Mino's car. Believe me, when I started running our Camaro in the class in '99 I was running low 13s and said there's NO WAY any of those other cars should run quicker than that! I mean, I was in a Yenko Camaro! Needless to say, I was taught a lesson REALLY quickly! But over the years, I've learned the value of "careful assembly, careful blueprinting, and attention to detail". It actually IS important to sweat the details!
