Re: [FWDLK] Shiftless.....and clueless

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

*************************************************************

To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1