Rule idea?

nwpadmax said:
F1 did it. For a while...
Click to expand...

Didn't Indy Racing league also?

Then I think there was a certain engine that they allowed to run higher boost pressures, cause they were smaller engine? The higher boost engine killed the others.

So I guess that means the dodge guys can run a bigger turbo since they have a smaller engine?
 
Idk, I personally think its a decent idea, but what's next? Rules on cam profiles, lower rpm limits, or tire size/tread. I mean come on, if your upset you don't have money to compete move to workstock. I'll be damned if an orgs is gonna give me a choice of a few turbos to run. Just my opinion though.
 
kino_fab said:
a spec charger rule would regulate the competition and probably make more of a noticable difference between classes as to a spectators view, but honestly i wouldn't like the idea of being limited to a certain charger manufacturer for various reasons. Not just me, but lets say if you made the rule out to basically everybody can only run a Silver Bullet 66, some people may not like I.I. products and also, not saying I.I. would do this, but if it were limited to that one and only charger, then what is now a $1800-$2000 charger (I think) would probably then become a $3-$4000 charger all because that manufacturer knows that they need that charger to be able to compete, and they know they have no other choice than to buy that charger. Even if you do a sponcer ship deal with prize money or a sign on vouture for that turbo, doesn't mean they still won't jack the price up. Kinda like a %15 off sale at a hardware store, but just a week or 2 before they jacked the prices up just to get ready for the sale. Another problem i see is getting all of the organizations to go with one spec charger. What happens when say NKTPA goes with lets say a ProStreet 66 only rule, but then a Southern OH or IN orginazation only allows a Silver Bullet 66. Guys that don't have a pull that week end that want to run with the other orginazation either has to buy another turbo for just that weekend or just sit at home. Again, no insult or assumptions to any turbo manufacturers, just using them as examples...

Thats my $.02... Just something to think about.
Click to expand...


Those two chargers have the same Borg Warner 66mm S300 wheel. That is the point Wes is making, you wouldn't have to deal with just one turbo builder. A 66 S300 from us, II, HTT, etc would all have the same compressor section.

I would say you are off a bit of your price manipulation if this kind of rule went into effect. I honestly think it would go the other way. If NADM's 2.6" rule changed to this and they had 150 2.6 pullers total. The higher your price is the fewer of those 150 would be from the high priced turbo shop......
 
alot of pullers build or rebuild there charger each year, sometimes due to rule change, so would the cost really be that bad? I would personally leave the S4 frames to the 2.8 class.

And doesnt Nascar have a fairly strict engine build rules for their competitors.

turbo manufactures will still have competition on this type of spec rule, and it would level the field up, leave it to the creativeness on setup and skill.

Just throwing thoughts out.

What options do you have in a T4 foot housings?
 
.83 - 1.30's T4's are available with divided and open volute options.
 
There are some spec charger superfarm tractor classes....wonder how those guys feel about it.

On the one hand you have a more level playing field, but does that put on as good a show? Does it make it more boring, or more exciting? Not sure.

Somehow a spec charger class sounds less interesting to me as a competitor. My gut feel is, it'll be boring and I don't know if I'd be very excited to build a truck that way. Only one way to find out!

Maybe I'll have to think about it some more. Just thinking out loud.

I guess you just have to be creative and innovative on other aspects of the truck.
 
This is the best idea for keeping the 2.8 class alive! wich needs to happen. I like this Wes
 
SledPuller21 said:
Idk, I personally think its a decent idea, but what's next? Rules on cam profiles, lower rpm limits, or tire size/tread. I mean come on, if your upset you don't have money to compete move to workstock. I'll be damned if an orgs is gonna give me a choice of a few turbos to run. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

This is the best opinion yet and I totally agree......If this was in effect it would be identical to our great government, let it be we don't need bosses overseeing our trucks.....Before you know it we will have to send our trucks and motors somewhere to be teched and all kinds of BS.....

Run whata ya brung and hope you brung enough!!! This is all we need...
 
Steel Weight'n said:
This is the best opinion yet and I totally agree......If this was in effect it would be identical to our great government, let it be we don't need bosses overseeing our trucks.....Before you know it we will have to send our trucks and motors somewhere to be teched and all kinds of BS.....

Run whata ya brung and hope you brung enough!!! This is all we need...
Click to expand...

so you wouldnt mind traveling and pulling with modifieds, 3.0, 2.8 trucks as well?
 
Steel Weight'n said:
This is the best opinion yet and I totally agree......If this was in effect it would be identical to our great government, let it be we don't need bosses overseeing our trucks.....Before you know it we will have to send our trucks and motors somewhere to be teched and all kinds of BS.....

Run whata ya brung and hope you brung enough!!! This is all we need...
Click to expand...

What's the point in even having more than one class? Just throw everyone in one class. You don't have a problem pulling against mods, right?

Edit: RAWdiesel beat me to it. :doh:

I like a spec turbo rule for the lower classes, as long as everyone still has options in who gets their money for the turbo, it levels the playing field a little more, and encourages creativity and skill to win. This is a far cry from a spec engine class. Just my $.02
 
You could build some competitive chargers with the options that are out there using that 2.6" compressor.

As stated above other aspects of the truck would become more critical. You would start examining everything a little closer. Like professional motorsports teams do.

Chris
 
Turbo Performance said:
I like a spec turbo rule for the lower classes, as long as everyone still has options in who gets their money for the turbo, it levels the playing field a little more, and encourages creativity and skill to win. This is a far cry from a spec engine class. Just my $.02
Click to expand...

There would be plenty of options as to what to run. Your limit of 2.6" S300 can still have 100's of variables if your turbo builder want to exhaust them. Attention paid to certain details in spec charger building can increase performance over what is considered the norm. Just ask the NTPA superfarm guys and their 3"X3" rule.
 
aren't the s300 inherintly weaker because they have a smaller shaft than the s400 based chargers? I'd MUCH rather see a spec'd wheel on a s400 than a s300.

IF this happened, I'd like to see a ball bearing offering since overspeeding is likely to be a problem. At least combat it as best you can with better bearings in the center section???


Overall, detuning trucks is prohibitive and doesn't advance anything IMO.


C-ya
 
Yes they are smaller and handle less abuse than the S400's. I am sure ball bearings would be an option that some would seek out.
 
SmokeShow said:
If this happened, I'd like to see a ball bearing offering since overspeeding is likely to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Increase the AR or clip the turbine wheel. You could leave the exhaust side open in the S300 frame, but the 2.8" should have a limited exhaust wheel with any housing, cut wheels need not apply.
 
Might work great for those who are sponsored by Borg-Warner or BW distributors.

I don't imagine it will sit well with anyone who working with Garrett, Turbonetics (or others) who stand to lose their support if they swap chargers.

What really needs to be addressed is the 66mm S300G's that are .004" over the plug size. Has anyone changed their rules yet to bump up the plug size 2.660" ?
 
Last edited:
Not everyone's S300 66 cover fails the 2.650" plug rule, only those that dont pay attention to what they are cutting.
 
carfichris said:
Not everyone's S300 66 cover fails the 2.650" plug rule, only those that dont pay attention to what they are cutting.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a certain cover from BW that is 2.654" right out of the box and it's a popular P/N. I could be wrong though, regardless, it's a very common problem that is at least 5 years old now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top