Nascar engine
- Thread starter restoman
- Start date
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
That's more than I can say for sure, but I think that although the blocks and heads are similar, there are some proprietary differences to make each one "unique" to whatever manufacturer's stickers are on the car.
They are still supposed to carry factory part numbers.
The power they make is supposed to be something else, out of 358 cubes.
They are still supposed to carry factory part numbers.
The power they make is supposed to be something else, out of 358 cubes.
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
Very, very little is true to the manufacturer, if anything at all.
The engine parts are supposed to (well, maybe not nowadays) carry factory part numbers, but are no way considered production pieces.
Some of the teams claim upwards of 850-900 horsepower.
The engine parts are supposed to (well, maybe not nowadays) carry factory part numbers, but are no way considered production pieces.
Some of the teams claim upwards of 850-900 horsepower.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
All the engine designs are similar, but each has proprietary differences. They're all dedicated race engines with no basis in production reality; there are some parts that will interchange but the engines are brand-specific for the most part.
Horsepower claims? The rule I've generally heard is 700-750HP. 900HP would be pretty impressive out of a single-four-barrel, flat-tappet engine. When we were building Pro Stock Truck engines at RBRE, those were dedicated-block, specific-head 358s with sheetmetal tunnel rams, dual Dominators, and roller cams with lift you could see from outer space, and they were less than 1000HP. Those had some basis in production reality, but not much... that was the catalyst for the original R8 block, out of which the P5/P7 NASCAR stuff grew with the loony tappet angles and further-corrected valvetrain geometry. The rockers alone were enough to make any gearhead mess their pants out of sheer engineering joy.
Yes, that was 12 years ago, but even so I'd be surprised to see an 850HP rules-legal NASCAR engine, much less 900+.
Horsepower claims? The rule I've generally heard is 700-750HP. 900HP would be pretty impressive out of a single-four-barrel, flat-tappet engine. When we were building Pro Stock Truck engines at RBRE, those were dedicated-block, specific-head 358s with sheetmetal tunnel rams, dual Dominators, and roller cams with lift you could see from outer space, and they were less than 1000HP. Those had some basis in production reality, but not much... that was the catalyst for the original R8 block, out of which the P5/P7 NASCAR stuff grew with the loony tappet angles and further-corrected valvetrain geometry. The rockers alone were enough to make any gearhead mess their pants out of sheer engineering joy.
Yes, that was 12 years ago, but even so I'd be surprised to see an 850HP rules-legal NASCAR engine, much less 900+.
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
True enough Doc, but the engines in the Sprint Cup cars, even though the basic layout is from a by-gone era, is a technological marvel given that they regularly run 8500 to 9500 thou, for hours on end. Common concensus among the garage areas put the top-of-the-heap Chevies of RCR and Hendrick at 850-875 horsepower, with slightly lower numbers from the Fords. Ford has a newer engine in some cars, and is supposed to have more go, but they stick lag behind. The Gibbs Toyotas are reputed to be 10 to 20 horses more than the best Chevies. The Dodges are said to hang with the Chevy engines with slightly better torque numbers.
The cost for the engines is said to be roughly $150 thou for a competitive Cup engine.
Now, most of this I picked up from numerous Nascar related boards, individual team websites and the general banter from the talking heads on TV, so don't take any of it as absolute truth. But they all seem to point to the same numbers.
I know for a fact that the old Cascar (now Candian Tire Nascar Series) ran production engines, with mufflers, through cast iron heads with 390 Holleys (very similar to what the Truck Series ran a couple years back) and I watched one on a Mustang dyno hit 423 rear wheel horsepower. bbodyvictim and I were there the night Whitlock was tuning his road course car. Those engines were snails compared to the Cup engines.
Keep in mind also that most big buck Cup teams employ several hundred people, and not a small amount of those are dedicated strictly to engines alone. Hendrick has no less than 5 carb specialists! These guys squeeze everything they can from those 358 cubes.
Did you see the size of the exhaust ports in that pic? I could store my Beetle in one of them.
The cost for the engines is said to be roughly $150 thou for a competitive Cup engine.
Now, most of this I picked up from numerous Nascar related boards, individual team websites and the general banter from the talking heads on TV, so don't take any of it as absolute truth. But they all seem to point to the same numbers.
I know for a fact that the old Cascar (now Candian Tire Nascar Series) ran production engines, with mufflers, through cast iron heads with 390 Holleys (very similar to what the Truck Series ran a couple years back) and I watched one on a Mustang dyno hit 423 rear wheel horsepower. bbodyvictim and I were there the night Whitlock was tuning his road course car. Those engines were snails compared to the Cup engines.
Keep in mind also that most big buck Cup teams employ several hundred people, and not a small amount of those are dedicated strictly to engines alone. Hendrick has no less than 5 carb specialists! These guys squeeze everything they can from those 358 cubes.
Did you see the size of the exhaust ports in that pic? I could store my Beetle in one of them.
Mosport is coming up, isn't it?
There's some open wheel racing, too.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
423HP at the rear wheels still translates to less than 500HP at the flywheel with an efficient manual-trans setup.
I'm only going by what I've seen, and those exhaust ports are nothing shocking to me, size-wise. Comparable to a 1969 Pontiac Ram Air V 303, actually. All I'm saying is this: we had enormous roller cams, unlimited CFM, fabricated intakes, you name it. The only limitation on the PST engines was the cubic inches, restricted to 358. Do I believe the NASCAR engines can deliver 850HP? Maybe... I'd want to see the dyno sheeton an untouched engine right after a race.
I will say this, though: they're not making that number on a NASCAR-legal engine. They're simply doing things in the dyno cell they're not allowed do on the track, and their track times back me up. So they can claim what they will, but until they start making time like cars of 20 or 30 years ago, I'm not buying it. They have more-aerodynamic cars and are capable of making more horsepower with 358 cubes than they used to make under the 7-liter rule (of that, there's no doubt) and yet they aren't regularly making significantly-better time than Petty or Pearson did in the glory days if at all. Why is that?
My guess is that they're bumping horsepower claims to try an keep interest in a sport whose popularity is fading... yet they don't seem to go any faster. And yes, both NASCAR's ticket sales and viewership have been declining (again--it's just cyclical, not based on my obviously-negative opinion of the "sport"). Popularity comes and goes, and NASCAR's currently in a downturn, and I think they're blowing smoke to try and keep interest as high as they can. For that, I don't blame them but I still call BS on these HP numbers.
I'm only going by what I've seen, and those exhaust ports are nothing shocking to me, size-wise. Comparable to a 1969 Pontiac Ram Air V 303, actually. All I'm saying is this: we had enormous roller cams, unlimited CFM, fabricated intakes, you name it. The only limitation on the PST engines was the cubic inches, restricted to 358. Do I believe the NASCAR engines can deliver 850HP? Maybe... I'd want to see the dyno sheeton an untouched engine right after a race.
I will say this, though: they're not making that number on a NASCAR-legal engine. They're simply doing things in the dyno cell they're not allowed do on the track, and their track times back me up. So they can claim what they will, but until they start making time like cars of 20 or 30 years ago, I'm not buying it. They have more-aerodynamic cars and are capable of making more horsepower with 358 cubes than they used to make under the 7-liter rule (of that, there's no doubt) and yet they aren't regularly making significantly-better time than Petty or Pearson did in the glory days if at all. Why is that?
My guess is that they're bumping horsepower claims to try an keep interest in a sport whose popularity is fading... yet they don't seem to go any faster. And yes, both NASCAR's ticket sales and viewership have been declining (again--it's just cyclical, not based on my obviously-negative opinion of the "sport"). Popularity comes and goes, and NASCAR's currently in a downturn, and I think they're blowing smoke to try and keep interest as high as they can. For that, I don't blame them but I still call BS on these HP numbers.
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
The 423 hp was for the old Cascar engines, not the current Cup cars.
I don't want to argue with you - we're both too block-headed to get anywhere doing that - but all the info out there seems to back up the numbers.
I've got some links, let me see if my techineptness lets me post 'em.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=sprint%20cup%20engines-horsepower&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=sprint cup engines-horsepower&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
Both these articles are a year old, I think.
The old cars lap times are much slower than the current cars. I'm not sure where you came up with that one. Check a place like Bristol and compare the past track records.
*crap* Bing won't let me post specific articles. You'll have to wait in suspense until tomorrow.
I don't want to argue with you - we're both too block-headed to get anywhere doing that
- but all the info out there seems to back up the numbers.I've got some links, let me see if my techineptness lets me post 'em.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=sprint%20cup%20engines-horsepower&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=sprint cup engines-horsepower&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
Both these articles are a year old, I think.
The old cars lap times are much slower than the current cars. I'm not sure where you came up with that one. Check a place like Bristol and compare the past track records.
*crap* Bing won't let me post specific articles. You'll have to wait in suspense until tomorrow.
Last edited:
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
i have 1 simple thing to say...revert some old rules..race on sunday sell on monday..only run production cars with production blocks atleast...ive got no issue with the restrictions of 358 cubes and stuff like that..but if they want there fan base to come back..its going to take putting REAL WORLD cars and REAL WORLD engines back on the tracks...cause look at the following of hobby stock and such..its cause there production stuff
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
They'd have to gut the entire series - which might not be a bad thing, depending on where you sit - and start over. The current cars are so far from the real world cars, everything would have to go.
Here's a link to Rousch/Yates engine program.
www.roushyates.com
click on the Nascar engine program.
Rousch's numbers are higher than I thought they'd be.
Here's a link to Rousch/Yates engine program.
www.roushyates.com
click on the Nascar engine program.
Rousch's numbers are higher than I thought they'd be.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
That's very true, restoman... the cars are very-much removed from the real world. They haven't built 1965 Galaxies since 1965, yet that's the spindle around which current NASCAR machines are built. Skinny tires, carburetors, etc... no basis in reality for decades, and yet some folks still refer to them as stock cars.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I will agree to disagree with any NASCAR fan about HP numbers. I'm not inflexible. However consider the following:
Advances in tire technology. Yes, they still use bias-ply tires but so do Formula 1 and IndyCar-series machines. The advances in construction and rubber compounds over what was available in 1970 are significant.
Also significant is the better understanding of aerodynamics. The "Car of Tomorrow" (or, more aptly put, the "Ricer of 1998") is far more aerodynamic than the Superbird, Talladega, or Charger Daytona could ever hope to be. Factory body lines have gone out the window in favor of a "fair" but even, very-aerodynamic and quite ugly design rather than make the factories actually produce a slippery, attractive design; that last point is a discussion for another day. Regardless: today's NASCAR machine has far-less frontal area, sits several inches lower, and have no constraints of factory body design, though NASCAR seems to hold on to the roof myth.
Knowledge of chassis design and tuning (even based on the '65 Galaxie spindle) has grown exponentially in four decades; much of it in keeping with tire technology. Better shocks, better swaybars, more knowledge of what works with caster/camber/toe and bump-steer all come into play.
Today's NASCAR engine weighs hundreds less than the all-iron engines used in the big-block era. That translates into better weight distribution which would mean higher cornering speeds and therefore much-higher straightaway speeds.
Taking all that into account today's NASCAR racers, at the supposed 800+ horsepower (a good 150-200 more than the big-blocks made back in the day) should be lapping at 225+MPH on superspeedways. They're not. Yet every other motorsport has gotten ridiculously faster in the last 40 years because of the same technological advances.
You're a true fan, restoman, and a true believer. We need more of that these days, but when it was said many years ago that NASCAR is merely "professional wrestling with cars" I feel the speaker hit the nail on the head.
My intention is not to belittle or insult; I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em and will not take this any further. Let it be known, though, drag-racing fan that I am I've been getting increasingly frustrated with the NHRA because of shenanigans there as well.
Advances in tire technology. Yes, they still use bias-ply tires but so do Formula 1 and IndyCar-series machines. The advances in construction and rubber compounds over what was available in 1970 are significant.
Also significant is the better understanding of aerodynamics. The "Car of Tomorrow" (or, more aptly put, the "Ricer of 1998") is far more aerodynamic than the Superbird, Talladega, or Charger Daytona could ever hope to be. Factory body lines have gone out the window in favor of a "fair" but even, very-aerodynamic and quite ugly design rather than make the factories actually produce a slippery, attractive design; that last point is a discussion for another day. Regardless: today's NASCAR machine has far-less frontal area, sits several inches lower, and have no constraints of factory body design, though NASCAR seems to hold on to the roof myth.
Knowledge of chassis design and tuning (even based on the '65 Galaxie spindle) has grown exponentially in four decades; much of it in keeping with tire technology. Better shocks, better swaybars, more knowledge of what works with caster/camber/toe and bump-steer all come into play.
Today's NASCAR engine weighs hundreds less than the all-iron engines used in the big-block era. That translates into better weight distribution which would mean higher cornering speeds and therefore much-higher straightaway speeds.
Taking all that into account today's NASCAR racers, at the supposed 800+ horsepower (a good 150-200 more than the big-blocks made back in the day) should be lapping at 225+MPH on superspeedways. They're not. Yet every other motorsport has gotten ridiculously faster in the last 40 years because of the same technological advances.
You're a true fan, restoman, and a true believer. We need more of that these days, but when it was said many years ago that NASCAR is merely "professional wrestling with cars" I feel the speaker hit the nail on the head.
My intention is not to belittle or insult; I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em and will not take this any further. Let it be known, though, drag-racing fan that I am I've been getting increasingly frustrated with the NHRA because of shenanigans there as well.
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
a really goood example would be the engine limitations that have gone off in F1 and such to try and keep things at a sane surviveable level in the even of a crash....those boys are making TONS with very little engine....im with doc these so called stock cars should be running consistantly low to mid 200's
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
It's just a name Doc. Much like McDonalds is not owned by McDonalds, nor do Hush Puppies have any thing to do with quiet canines.
It's a name based on a past history. Not an accurate name in this day and age, granted, but a name nonetheless.
Skinny tires? Not anymore.
They still run carbs, at least this year, but the similarities between a 65 Galaxie and a current "stocker" are almost non-existant. Four tires, V-8 engine, manual trans and steering wheel are about it.
Last edited:
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
A few years ago, right around the time, he retired from driving, Rusty Wallace in a Penske "Dodge" took to Daytona in an unrestricted super speedway car. I think it was the same car he raced that year, minus the Nascar mandated restricter plate. He ran somewhere around 235 mph down the straightaways. He said at the time he thought there more speed left in the car but the backstretch seemed awfully short at that speed and he wasn't brave enough to push it anymore.
Look, I'm no expert on the numbers either, but I do follow the sport fairly closely and soak up whatever is available in the form of news and banter. The consensus is around 850 or more ponies. You can dismiss them if you want, it is still basically a free world (at least on the 'net) but too many folks far more knowledgeable than any of us here, much more involved in the sport than any of us here, use the same numbers.
M
Look, I'm no expert on the numbers either, but I do follow the sport fairly closely and soak up whatever is available in the form of news and banter. The consensus is around 850 or more ponies. You can dismiss them if you want, it is still basically a free world (at least on the 'net) but too many folks far more knowledgeable than any of us here, much more involved in the sport than any of us here, use the same numbers.
M
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
The key being "minus the Nascar mandated restricter plate." I have a lot easier time believing those numbers on a non-rules engine, meaning the restrictor plate isn't in place when they do those dyno pulls. The engine probably isn't running the power-steering pump, alternator, or water pump either (for the record, neither were Barton's PST engines back in the day).
That's what burns me about dyno-cell numbers... what were the conditions? You watch a dyno pull on Horsepower TV or Musclecar, and yeah, they made 520HP--with no alternator running the ignition, the ignition system itself being a $3000 system that can generate lightning that would impress God himself, no power-steering pump, etc. They do usually run the water pump from the crank, but that's it and it doesn't even have a fan on it though it probably will in the car. If I were going to dyno my engine I'd want all accessories in place and running their attendant systems. Of course, that's a bunch more money for a fella to dole out in dyno setup time too.
Now, chassis-dyno numbers? Those I'll eat right up!
I understand why NASCAR ended up the way they did to some extent. The car market deviated from their stock in trade, pardon the pun, but they still should have kept up with the times to some extent. Damned-near everything was fuel injected by 1991, and for the past five or six years the used-to-be-big 3 have had fullsize RWD offerings that fit the standards of yore. They have production engines that could be made to compete (LSx, Hemi, and Mod). So what if they're four-doors? I'd rather see production bodies run rather than cars that don't exist like RWD Monte Carlos or two-door Chargers. If a production body isn't slippery enough to compete, then the company needs to dream up some goofy concoction like the winged B-bodies or the Torino Talladega or King Cobra (I know, the latter never competed and was just an exercise) or the Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 and produce enough of it to be legal. It'd be a lot more interesting than this cookie-cutter stuff they run now, and when NASCAR was at the height of its popularity a copy of the car that ran on Sunday may have damned-well sold on Monday. Why not change the series over to the ponycars, which are far-more relevant to performance fans these days?
For the record, I share much of this frustration with NHRA Pro Stock. Please direct me to the dealer that can sell me a 500-inch RWD Stratus or Cavalier, please. At least the doors and roof have to be stock and the doors even have to work, but still... they should change the name to Pro Stock Doors or Pro Carbureted Gasoline. If they're going to keep that name, that class should be Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers with production-based unibodies and engines, a stated cubic-inch limit, MPFI only regardless of configuration (dual-throttle-body sheetmetal tunnel rams would be fine by me).
That's what burns me about dyno-cell numbers... what were the conditions? You watch a dyno pull on Horsepower TV or Musclecar, and yeah, they made 520HP--with no alternator running the ignition, the ignition system itself being a $3000 system that can generate lightning that would impress God himself, no power-steering pump, etc. They do usually run the water pump from the crank, but that's it and it doesn't even have a fan on it though it probably will in the car. If I were going to dyno my engine I'd want all accessories in place and running their attendant systems. Of course, that's a bunch more money for a fella to dole out in dyno setup time too.
Now, chassis-dyno numbers? Those I'll eat right up!
I understand why NASCAR ended up the way they did to some extent. The car market deviated from their stock in trade, pardon the pun, but they still should have kept up with the times to some extent. Damned-near everything was fuel injected by 1991, and for the past five or six years the used-to-be-big 3 have had fullsize RWD offerings that fit the standards of yore. They have production engines that could be made to compete (LSx, Hemi, and Mod). So what if they're four-doors? I'd rather see production bodies run rather than cars that don't exist like RWD Monte Carlos or two-door Chargers. If a production body isn't slippery enough to compete, then the company needs to dream up some goofy concoction like the winged B-bodies or the Torino Talladega or King Cobra (I know, the latter never competed and was just an exercise) or the Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 and produce enough of it to be legal. It'd be a lot more interesting than this cookie-cutter stuff they run now, and when NASCAR was at the height of its popularity a copy of the car that ran on Sunday may have damned-well sold on Monday. Why not change the series over to the ponycars, which are far-more relevant to performance fans these days?
For the record, I share much of this frustration with NHRA Pro Stock. Please direct me to the dealer that can sell me a 500-inch RWD Stratus or Cavalier, please. At least the doors and roof have to be stock and the doors even have to work, but still... they should change the name to Pro Stock Doors or Pro Carbureted Gasoline. If they're going to keep that name, that class should be Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers with production-based unibodies and engines, a stated cubic-inch limit, MPFI only regardless of configuration (dual-throttle-body sheetmetal tunnel rams would be fine by me).
restoman
The paint fumes have cleared so I'm
I agree with just about everything you say.
The biggest problem Nascar faces nowadays is the fact that they let big business have their way in their lust for fame and fortune. Like most other pro sports, big dollars rule and the little guys can't afford to be competitive.
Things cost sooooo much money today, for the teams to be competitive, they need to spend that $150 k per engine (most teams will have dozens of engines over the course of a year). Millions are spent trying to go a tenth of a second faster around the track. Look at JGR and their racing oils as an example. Joe Gibbs didn't develop these oils strictly for resale - they were developed in an effort to get their cars faster than the competition.
In most of the larger track races, the difference between the pole sitter and the guy qualifying 44th (and going home) might be less than half a second. Half a second!
This from 43 different teams, with 43 different crews and 43 different drivers. The big $$$ teams are more often than not the ones qualifying towards the front of the pack. The guys left sucking the hind tit are the teams that don't have the money or sponsorship to get that half second. Blink two or three times. There's your half second.
To get the audiences that Nascar wanted (and to grow a business is what EVERY business wants to do), they had to whore themselves out to the highest bidder, and that meant big TV packages, licensing fees, and the like before they could entice the big dollar sponsors to spend their marketting budgets in Nascar. Nascar did that very well. Everyone talks about "back in the day" or "when the cars were stock cars, but in truth, without the big dollars, Nascar wouldn't be around today. You can blame Richard Petty for it if you don't like what it's become. He was really the first to bring a big sponsor on board with Andy Granatelli and STP.
To run a stock based racing series today, you'd be crazy. Just for the simple fact that most of today's buying public doesn't know or care about anything performance or technology oriented, unless it's the latest electronic gizmo or how fast the A/C system can cool the car in July.
America's love affair with the automobile is pretty much over. That's what would be needed to ensure any new series would succeed. Passion for the product you're trying to sell. What would win on Sunday would be met with indifference on Monday.
You see it yourself everyday at work Doc. People just don't know or care about cars anymore. The motor heads like us, sure. The general public? Not a chance. Certainly not in numbers enough to make a stock based racing series work.
It's all about big bucks, and it's the way it's gonna stay.
BTW, Nascar's heyday wasn't the 60s, 70s or 80s. Their best years were the 90s and into the early part of this century. The racing was never as compettive, the fan base was bigger than it had ever been and the money was flowing like never before. For that, you can thanks the guys most people loved to hate, such as Dale Earnhardt or Jeff Gordon. They were, for lack of a better explanation, marketable like nothing else the sport had ever seen. People tuned in to see the flash and image and stayed to watch the incredible driving skills and the imagined rivalries. Earnhardt's gritty every-man style and Gordon's polish appealed to most of the viewers and there were enough other diverse charactors to appeal to the rest of the viewers. Nascar began it's decline when they started marketting the flash over the substance. It's still racing, only now the racing takes a back seat to the "show".
The loyal fan base that had Nascar being the envy of most pro sports is declining because of the lack of emphasis on racing. The fickle-fans that just liked a particular driver's sunglasses or thought being into a "redneck" sport was the cool thing to do are leaving. You can only hold these fan's attention for so long before they're on to the "next best thing".
Holy Moly! I didn't think I was this long winded. :shifty: My two cents worth.
M
The biggest problem Nascar faces nowadays is the fact that they let big business have their way in their lust for fame and fortune. Like most other pro sports, big dollars rule and the little guys can't afford to be competitive.
Things cost sooooo much money today, for the teams to be competitive, they need to spend that $150 k per engine (most teams will have dozens of engines over the course of a year). Millions are spent trying to go a tenth of a second faster around the track. Look at JGR and their racing oils as an example. Joe Gibbs didn't develop these oils strictly for resale - they were developed in an effort to get their cars faster than the competition.
In most of the larger track races, the difference between the pole sitter and the guy qualifying 44th (and going home) might be less than half a second. Half a second!
This from 43 different teams, with 43 different crews and 43 different drivers. The big $$$ teams are more often than not the ones qualifying towards the front of the pack. The guys left sucking the hind tit are the teams that don't have the money or sponsorship to get that half second. Blink two or three times. There's your half second.
To get the audiences that Nascar wanted (and to grow a business is what EVERY business wants to do), they had to whore themselves out to the highest bidder, and that meant big TV packages, licensing fees, and the like before they could entice the big dollar sponsors to spend their marketting budgets in Nascar. Nascar did that very well. Everyone talks about "back in the day" or "when the cars were stock cars, but in truth, without the big dollars, Nascar wouldn't be around today. You can blame Richard Petty for it if you don't like what it's become. He was really the first to bring a big sponsor on board with Andy Granatelli and STP.
To run a stock based racing series today, you'd be crazy. Just for the simple fact that most of today's buying public doesn't know or care about anything performance or technology oriented, unless it's the latest electronic gizmo or how fast the A/C system can cool the car in July.
America's love affair with the automobile is pretty much over. That's what would be needed to ensure any new series would succeed. Passion for the product you're trying to sell. What would win on Sunday would be met with indifference on Monday.
You see it yourself everyday at work Doc. People just don't know or care about cars anymore. The motor heads like us, sure. The general public? Not a chance. Certainly not in numbers enough to make a stock based racing series work.
It's all about big bucks, and it's the way it's gonna stay.
BTW, Nascar's heyday wasn't the 60s, 70s or 80s. Their best years were the 90s and into the early part of this century. The racing was never as compettive, the fan base was bigger than it had ever been and the money was flowing like never before. For that, you can thanks the guys most people loved to hate, such as Dale Earnhardt or Jeff Gordon. They were, for lack of a better explanation, marketable like nothing else the sport had ever seen. People tuned in to see the flash and image and stayed to watch the incredible driving skills and the imagined rivalries. Earnhardt's gritty every-man style and Gordon's polish appealed to most of the viewers and there were enough other diverse charactors to appeal to the rest of the viewers. Nascar began it's decline when they started marketting the flash over the substance. It's still racing, only now the racing takes a back seat to the "show".
The loyal fan base that had Nascar being the envy of most pro sports is declining because of the lack of emphasis on racing. The fickle-fans that just liked a particular driver's sunglasses or thought being into a "redneck" sport was the cool thing to do are leaving. You can only hold these fan's attention for so long before they're on to the "next best thing".
Holy Moly! I didn't think I was this long winded. :shifty: My two cents worth.
M
Last edited:
Fishy
Omnipotent Seaweasel
Last I heard, Busch Series (or whatever it is now) was wanting to run the Challengers, Mustangs and Camaros and get away from essentially being the Jr. to the Cup series. Not sure what ever happened with that, if the idea got killed off or if they are just waiting for some other reason to bring it back at a later date. I have, somewhere a pic of a NASCAR '09 Challenger and it looks pretty good! I see no reason why those cars would NOT bring back a lot of the fans who have quit watching (such as myself) because it just got too boring and uniform.
Also, I had heard at one point, and I'm not sure how true it is, The Big 3 were threatening to pull corporate funding due to every car looking the same. They wanted each car to look like whatever brand it was supposed to represent, other than just having 1 standard "cookie cutter" body that you just pick one of the 4 brands of manufacturers stickers, slap it on and call it good. I really hope that was true! Granted the noses on the Chargers may be slightly different than say the Camry, Fusion or the Monte Carlo (or what ever the Bow-Tie is running these days) but not enough to make enough impact of what the car really is supposed to be! The last few races I watched (been a couple years) every damn car looked exactly the same to me. NASCAR just got too IROC series for me. Granted it made it come down to the driver and pit strategy but I miss the days when the cars/models spoke for themselves!
Last edited: