While discussing a topic on another board, I recalled a dramatic comparison done in a car mag 20 years ago.

It was possible to build a championship winning NASCAR stock car for only $25,000 in 1985. This car, unfettered by the restrictor plate rules introduced shortly after, could do 240mph on a really big oval.

A competitive sports racer with full Le Mans bodywork (a 962, in fact), cost around $250,000 then, and could only do 220mph on the same big oval.

Some proof that cubic inches really do win in the end, and those brick-like stock cars weren't actually so brick-like, after all.

A wag at the time stated that the $25K car would get $250K for a race win, while the $250K car would only get $25K for a race win. This test also prompted the snide comment that "A race car is just like the family car, only it doesn't go as fast."

All that aside, the difference in budgets over the years really has been startling. Many of the NASCAR types are just now making the same "money has ruined the sport" noises the F1 types started to make 20 years ago. And back then, F1 budgets were still far from the $300-400M a season they are now. I have no numbers, but I'd not be at all surprised if NASCAR team budgets aren't 20-30x what they were in 1985.

It was either Road&Track, or Car&Driver, but they actually had a shoot out at Talledega I believe..

The stock car schooled the Porsche.

There was a quip in the article where the stock car basically just showed up and drove, The Porsche team was changing tails ( long tail, short tail) etc..to try and get more speed yet the Nascar boys still won.. I remember the article well, It opened my eyes a bit

QUOTE (TimT @ Mar 15 2005, 05:58 PM)

It was either Road&Track, or Car&Driver, but they actually had a shoot out at Talledega I believe.. The stock car schooled the Porsche. There was a quip in the article where the stock car basically just showed up and drove, The Porsche team was changing tails ( long tail, short tail) etc..to try and get more speed yet the Nascar boys still won.. I remember the article well, It opened my eyes a bit

I saw the article as well, however the fastest lap time at Talledega is still Mark Donahue in a 917....

I think it was Motor Trend but it doesn't matter. It was Al Hobert's 962 because he was running IMSA and NASCAR back then. It was a little one sided. They should have done at the Glen. The 962 boys would have been laughing then. Or let Porsche design a car to ONLY run around a superspeed way.

Paul

QUOTE (TimT @ Mar 15 2005, 05:58 PM)

It was either Road&Track, or Car&Driver, but they actually had a shoot out at Talledega I believe.. The stock car schooled the Porsche. There was a quip in the article where the stock car basically just showed up and drove, The Porsche team was changing tails ( long tail, short tail) etc..to try and get more speed yet the Nascar boys still won.. I remember the article well, It opened my eyes a bit

I think it was at some tire testing track in Ohio. They did several other top-speed tests there, as I recall. It was Road & Track.

The NASCAR guys were asking about doing things like taping up body seams (allowed), running moon-style hubcaps (denied), etc. And yes, the 962 guys fit a different gearbox, changed maps in the Motronic, fit a LeMans tail, etc.

QUOTE (URY914 @ Mar 15 2005, 06:04 PM)

I think it was Motor Trend but it doesn't matter. It was Al Hobert's 962 because he was running IMSA and NASCAR back then. It was a little one sided. They should have done at the Glen. The 962 boys would have been laughing then. Or let Porsche design a car to ONLY run around a superspeed way. Paul

The oval was so big that turns were basically non-existant (like 7 miles around), so this was strictly a top speed test. If Porsche had been allowed to build a car just for that test, I'll bet it either would have cost a LOT more than $25K, or it would have looked exactly like a stock car. That's the part that's so hard to swallow. $25K, almost no setup, and they produce a car that would blow right by the 10x as expensive 962 on Mulsanne (pre-chicanes).

Slowing down and turning corners is very expensive!

QUOTE

That's the part that's so hard to swallow. $25K, almost no setup, and they produce a car that would blow right by the 10x as expensive 962 on Mulsanne (pre-chicanes).

werd

that what I was trying to say not so eloquently....

Im still impressed by Nascar, Im sure there budgets now are HUGE, but pale compared to F1 etc

Sorry boyz my facts were slightly off. Mark Donahue (917) had the track record for 11 years until Rick Mears only slightly beat it in an Indy car. That record holds today.

That Track in Ohio would be the TRC It is a 7.5 Mile long high bank track where you can open your gates up a little bit and streach them legs. Used by a lot of people to test various things, but Motor Trend and Road and Track used to love to drop High dollar cars and run their shoot outs here. But you can't just waltz up there toss the gate guy a fiver to take a lap.

Take care, Stephen

QUOTE

$25K

LMAO, It just dawned on me that I easily have at least $25K into my 911, if not more

And here it is, more than a big oval.