|
Neil, Why do we have to keep going over the same ground, as has been
mentioned it seems that the factory D500-1 was being created out of step with
the established Stock Drag race rules and Dodge was probably in no position or
want to Mass produce such a model. Like most special models there is a
point were the public will like the car but turn to other more practical models,
only a relative small amount of folks opt for these race bred types. When my car
was featured in the Mopar Muscle article I had the pleasure of dealing with
Geoff Stunkard a Drag Race historian with a vast amount of information on drag
racing and as with many records concerning cars of this era his data is
incomplete and sources were not well organized. He basically had to settle
on pointing out what was already known to us folks who follow these cars. I
do think it is revealing that such an accomplished historian included
the claims of low 14 sec runs and didn't cast any suspicion in the reference. We
cannot fill in the blanks on the 50 year old results but we can see the outline
of the overall picture. Again in the only strict references to 1/4 mile
races defined as Stock Class Vehicles with Multiple Carbs the Dodge was
undefeated and broke the 100 mph mark. Neil I am looking at 56 NHRA records and
a 54 Dodge D gas coupe which ran a small cu in dodge Hemi (bored 270
to 289) that ran 101 mph in 56, of course no ET was given but it had
to be good and as for the A gas coupe the 56 record holder he was just shy of
110 mph with no ET listed but me thinks maybe low 14s at least, can it be
true that it took a decade to break those records. Furthermore what was true
then as is true now a year old car was generally yesterdays news and I
can't see a sense of promotion for Dodge or Chrysler to point out that it's
new cars were less competitive in any performance area. It is also not likely
that magazine testers spent much time trying to decipher the complicated record
for the 56 stock drag racing classes in the subsequent years. So please
understand the true dynamic of the time and acknowledge hat
organized racing was a largely uncoordinated collection of groups that were
formulating rules for moving targets. Just look at the performance difference
between Stock Car performance from the 55 Daytona and 56 Daytona Speed Weeks it
is without question a performance boom that would not be repeated for many
years. I hope that from here we will try and concentrate on bringing forward new
observations or new found materials. Tim in Golden
In a message dated 2/1/2008 5:32:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
esierraadj@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Tim, my
biggest problem with accepting 1/4 mile times of anything close
to 15
seconds is based upon the fact that no one, in
factory hot rods, or A/Gas
sedans, etc., broke into the 14's until the
mid-late 60's, AND, there is
no verifiable-documented
literature confirming the 500-1's results
in sanctioned racing.
I completely disregard that ridiculous time as
recorded by the Mid West
Timing Association, and wonder if the 14 second
time
might not have been some sort of clerical or typographical
mistake.
AGAIN : show me the (consistent) NHRA(-type) race
results.
BTW, you should go buy the CD of Drag New's archived
newsletter : Vol #1
1955 -1961.
You will NOT like seeing the
mediocre racing results, but, this IS
recorded history.
BTW(ii),
that Mid West Timing show-resilts ARE published/listed in the
Drag News,
but, there is NO special, specific
discussion in that issue, or, in the
following issues, about the unusual
1/4 mile times of the 500-1, as
recorded in KS.
Finally, and this only stands-to-reason : if the 500-1
really were
capable of speeds around 15 seconds, then, the 'word'
would
have gone-out, across the racing world, and the 500-1 would have
been tremendously popular,
and the car would now be as famous, as
anything you can think of.
The 383/413 Rammie Dodges didn't break 15
second quarter miles, so,
Dodge must have learned nothing from its
experience
in developing the 295 HP
500-1.
DupontTim@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Neil, I am
trying to lay out the reported information so we can draw
> some
conclusions, the undeniable factors here should be that magazine
> cars
are only capable of so much and are generally not going to be
> race
prepped and/or ordered and equipped for the purpose of drag
> racing.
Therefore I am only stating that you have to keep this in mind
> when
you consider the possibilities. It seems pretty clear to me (and
> at
least some other folks agree) a purpose built D500-1 was likely to
> be
much faster than a standard D500 tested by a magazine and it is
>
reasonable to assume that a constant campaigning of such a car by the
>
likes of Arnie Beeswick and Ed Lyons may produce fantastic results. To
> me it is pretty evident that by 1956 the American Muscle Car had
> arrived and it is amazing what a little (or a Lot) of R & D can
> accomplish, I remember a passage from Don Garlets auto bio where he
> found significantly lower times by allowing his 392 hemi to wind up
> way past its power range in high gear, he made some improvements to
> his valve gear to keep the top end in place and allow around
10,000
> rpm. His top speed increased greatly and his ET improved as
well. He
> summized that even though the engine was not producing
acceleration it
> was not reducing his momentem as much thru the end of
the track. I can
> only say it takes a pretty smart racer to squeeze
"power" out of
> an over revved engine and when it come to quarter mile
times it would
> seem that there are a lot of forces to consider. It
could be a stretch
> but the Dual Quad set up on the D500-1 may have
provided a similar
> effect allowing much higher rpms in high gear at
the end of the track
> and this possibly accounted for the very high
and PUBLISHED speeds in
> excess of 100mph. Having smaller and shorter
rocker arms than the
> Chrysler brethren may have allowed its valve
train to stay together to
> a high rpm. Were there some speed secrets
that only a seasoned racer
> working on the same engine for months
could have discovered? There are
> some possibilities here and before
we dismiss the D500 racers as liars
> for there low 14 sec claims I
think we should take a deeper look at
> the early Hemi and its
capabilities. Tim in Golden
>
> In a message dated 2/1/2008
10:35:36 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
>
> One man's passion is another man's
pointless.
>
> What grinds my gears is the
irrational performance numbers that have
> been
attributed
> to the 56 500-1, over the years,
especially in the 1980's-early '90's.
>
> The
most compelling, essential fact of any scientific
experimentation
> is
result-repeatability
> and controlled
testing.
>
> The 500-1 results were NOT
universally reported as being
>
world-beating,
> or anything
special.
>
> I do have the CD (if you'll pardon
the _expression_) of the NHRA
> results,
>
as published in Drag News, and I sent about 50 (so-so-quality)
screen
> images therefrom, along with separate
captions, of the 1956
> season, for
>
assembling, and dissemination, by Jim Hoekendijk, but Jim
never
> undertook that project--too bad, but, it is
re-doable if anyone is
> interested in that
project.
>
> My other issue with the
mythological performance of that car is due to
> the
general laws of physics: weight/mass of car, rear wheel
horsepower
> of car, inefficiency of transmission and
tires(!!), and
> result-recording
>
deficiciencies.
>
> If the car
were really all that fast, it would have made headline news
>
,somewhere.....and its performance results would be
REPEATABLE..
>
> Neil
Vedder
>
>
>
*************************************************************
>
>
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go
to
>
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
>
>
>
Received: from smtpinvite-3301.bay.webtv.net (209.240.205.169)
by
> storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net with
WTV-SMTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008
> 08:41:34
-0800
> Received: from f05s16.cac.psu.edu
(f05s16.cac.psu.edu
> [128.118.141.59])
by
> smtpinvite-3301.bay.webtv.net
(WebTV_Postfix+sws) with ESMTP id
>
4CE65E111 for <esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008
08:41:34
> -0800 (PST)
>
Received: from tr12n08 (tr12g08.aset.psu.edu [146.186.16.58])
by
> f05s16.cac.psu.edu
(8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m11B13bO115100;
>
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:40:14 -0500
>
Received: by LISTS.PSU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with
>
spool id
> 2011448 for
L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:40:13
>
-0500
> Received: from
f05s16.cac.psu.edu (f05s16.cac.psu.edu
>
[128.118.141.59]) by
>
tr12n08.aset.psu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
m11GeBKv2691158
> for
<l-forwardlook@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:40:11
-0500
> Received: from
QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
>
(qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
>
[76.96.30.48]) by f05s16.cac.psu.edu (8.13.8/8.12.11)
with
> ESMTP id
>
m11GeAKa117674 for <l-forwardlook@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 1 Feb
2008
> 11:40:10 -0500
>
Received: from
OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
>
([76.96.30.59]) by
>
QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id
>
kFcl1Y0041GXsucA505q00; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:40:07
+0000
> Received: from rmailcenter04.comcast.net
([204.127.197.114]) by
>
OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id
>
kGg91Y00M2UaZsC8T00000; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:40:09
+0000
> X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1
a=i2BX0PLFVCLNSIRM+E1D0w==:17
>
a=XC0W-GCT9Br-6z1t9BsA:9 a=P0oIE4tzNWBgz-ri3jsA:7
>
a=W_2kVmBIHLisaUUbeJ8nZOjZHjkA:4 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10
>
a=KUJAPYlYduUA:10
a=1GW-HcetQmKJHV80ub4A:9
>
a=8-FKm0yTWx4OwDDpA5wA:7
>
a=sgaRNtRtTT8NI_lP7bbzYGRqkdoA:4 a=37WNUvjkh6kA:10
>
Received: from [67.185.232.222] by rmailcenter04.comcast.net;
Fri,
> 01 Feb
>
2008 16:40:09 +0000
> X-Mailer: AT&T
Message Center Version 1 (Oct 30 2007)
>
X-Authenticated-Sender: Y2dpY29AY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
>
MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type:
multipart/alternative;
>
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28237_1201884009_0"
>
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed
by
> milter-greylist-3.0
(f05s16.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.59]); Fri, 01
>
Feb 2008 11:40:11 -0500 (EST)
>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
> X-PSU-Spam-Flag:
YES
> Precedence: bulk
>
X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 4.591
> X-PSU-Spam-Level:
*****
> Message-ID:
>
<020120081640.28237.47A34B68000E71C700006E4D2200750330010C07090C@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:40:09 +0000
>
Reply-To: cgico@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sender: Forward Look
Mopar Discussion List
>
<L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Brent
Burger <cgico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re:
[FWDLK] Shiftless.....and clueless
> To:
L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> There might be that select
group of owners who happen to
> possess actual
survivors from these years AND possess the desire
>
and willingness to really push them to the limits to see how
they
> all stack up, but I suspect these numbers are
almost in the nil
> range, particularly when it comes
to ultra exotics like the
> D-500-1 cars.
Getting those virtually non-existant owners
>
together in one spot at one time to make a few passes seems an
>
impossibility.
>
>
Back when parts were not so uncommon, I might risk
breaking
> something in the pursuit of fun, but
anymore ? It seems an
> unneeded concern to
know if my car can whoop the pants off another
>
one. Maybe I am getting old ? Maybe this is "maturity"
setting
> in ? Just sitting at curbside is good
enough if it involves the
> right car. To look
under the hood of our D-500 is magic. It is
>
all there ( I still need to find a correct oil filler cap), and
>
unmolested from the day it was built. I have not even got
it
> running yet, and it is plenty muscular, just
sitting there in
> quiet repose. It WILL go
like hell. I have no doubt. Just like
>
any stock Fury or 300, they are the embodiment of the fledgling
>
spirit of new-stock racing that was an exciting part of the
1950's
> car scene. That pretty much sums it up
for me. Can your 300
> whoop my DeSoto ?
Maybe it can beat it to the line, and maybe it
>
can't! . It doesn't really matter. Both made it to
survivor
> status, and that is the toughest run these
cars ever faced. I am
> just tickled to see
them at all.
>
>
B.
>
> -------------- Original
message --------------
> From:
DupontTim@xxxxxxx
> Neil, As I have
pointed out the 56 D500-1 was never tested by
>
any magazine and therefore no publication compares figures
on
> what the 56 D500-1 was capable of.
This whole question of what
> cars were
capable of should include the scope of performance
>
that was recorded by all sources to see a clearer picture
of
> performance in respect to other
contemporary vehicles. The
> lack of
overall direct comparisons and incomplete information
>
leaves us resorting to speculation on how these
subsequent
> cars match up. When you
revert back to just the verifiable
>
facts......When contemplating "stock vehicles" I conclude that
>
with respect to stock competition the best
performance
> Chrysler vehicles of the
Forward Look era were the C300 and
>
300b letter cars and the 56 D500. These cars when shown on the
>
national stage were consistently breaking thru a
wide range of
> performance barriers.
While Chrysler's emphasis on performance
>
was still quit! e formi dable for many years it
nevertheless
> failed to see the across
the board success in a broad range of
>
performance areas that was the hallmark of these early
>
performance oriented models. There are probably a lot
of
> contributing factors... but the
facts are the facts. I would
> fully
expect that eventually the early performance marks would
>
fall but when you look at performance or Racing
competition as
> a realtime test of
capability when it came to the national
>
venues the history shows that these three models
>
were Chryslers best performers of the Forward Look
era. We can
> bench race from here to
eternity swapping trannies and gears
>
til the cows come home, but the real story is only what the
>
recorded history can reveal.
Tim
>
>
*************************************************************
>
>
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go
to
>
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
>
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1>
>
>
*************************************************************
>
>
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go
to
>
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
>
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
>
Music.
>
<http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548>
>
>
*************************************************************
>
>
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
>
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
>
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1>
>
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network