Hendrick engines, they should patent them!

Willo

unread,

Oct 6, 2002, 8:52:48 PM10/6/02

to

...and sell them to the US army as 'Time Bombs'
--
Will O'Hargan - I'm not closeminded, you're just wrong.
Go WC: 02, 10, 21, 22, 28, 33, 77, 98
BGN: 4, 10, 23, 36, 47, 48
CTS: 1, 2, 50, 60, 75
IRL: 2, 8, 9

http://willo.frontstretch.com

Alan Jones

unread,

Oct 6, 2002, 9:03:40 PM10/6/02

to

(hehheh-heh) ouch, thats really cold man. :]

On 07 Oct 2002 00:52:48 GMT, willoon...@aol.com (Willo)
wrote:

Bo Moindies

unread,

Oct 6, 2002, 10:34:05 PM10/6/02

to

36 was using a Hendrick engine too, so that makes 5 of the 7 cars that were out
of the race.

Alan Jones

unread,

Oct 6, 2002, 10:48:50 PM10/6/02

to

actually, it was 'six' Hendrick engines that DNF'ed...
___

http://jayski.com
NOTES: Six Hendrick Motorsports engines (#5,#24,#25,#48,#10,#36)
didn't make it thru the race and the teams DNF'd.
___

for whatever reason, the #71 driven by Jay Sauter also DNF'ed. :[
http://www.nascar.com/races/wc/2002/30/data/results_unofficial.html

On 07 Oct 2002 02:34:05 GMT, bomoi...@aol.commm (Bo Moindies)
wrote:

SimRacer

unread,

Oct 7, 2002, 11:43:33 AM10/7/02

to

"Alan Jones" <twent...@jalanjones.com> wrote in message
news:c7n1qusupm1b7v7tt...@4ax.com...

Something either got into their parts supply OR they simply tried to run
them too lean OR they boofed on the corrected alitittude and jetted them too
lean by accident.

My bet goes to them being too lean by accident or as an attempt to run all
of them up front with the extra HP. I would be interested to see the actual
reasons for failure given out by each team. If they are random in nature,
they simply gas-starved them too much...

Dan

unread,

Oct 7, 2002, 2:55:02 PM10/7/02

to

"SimRacer" <no-unc.ta...@mindspring.com-spam> wrote in message
news:FYho9.17403$bi2.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...

i'm pretty sure that leaning out an engine will not cause a retainer to
fail. but i guess that was just little jeffies downfall. too lean of a
mixture will burn valves or pistons generally.

--

Six essential elements of "good training": you gotta be cold, wet, tired,
hungry, pissed off and doing something stupid

Alan Jones

unread,

Oct 7, 2002, 5:14:10 PM10/7/02

to

for some reason, i get the impression that they all failed for the
same reason. i'm thinking they got a hold of or created a bad
batch of the same part used in all the engines.

Gordo

unread,

Oct 8, 2002, 1:50:07 AM10/8/02

to

"Dan" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aMko9.83780$Fw2.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> i'm pretty sure that leaning out an engine will not cause a retainer to
> fail. but i guess that was just little jeffies downfall. too lean of a
> mixture will burn valves or pistons generally.
>
>
>
>

Yes, if a piston had burned, there would be a cloud of oil smoke trailing
behind the car. I don't think any of those cars smoked when they failed did
they? Valvetrain failure is more likely, IMHO

Dan

unread,

Oct 8, 2002, 8:19:45 AM10/8/02

to

"Gordo" <nos...@spamsux.com> wrote in message
news:antrnv$n9o$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...

from what Larry Mac was saying last night, it was most likely a bad batch of
valve springs

--

you only have too much fuel when you're on fire. ($1 to MW)