Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

yes indeed slow is a relative term 2 of the 3 stockers we race are lower classO-P/SA cars yet bothhave been at one time or another NHRA/IHRA record holders and class winners and either one can hold their own in a heads up. just ask Charliebob When you embark on a multi car operation cost becomes a absolute major consideration especially when one of them is a high strung SuperStocker and then you still have to get them all to the races some how we built Tony's Capri mainly because we already had it and liked the car even after all the "EXPERTS" advised us not to because the 86 was such a bad combo and we'd never get it to run Beth's car was built by Tony and me pretty much on a dare /bet in 7 days with mostly leftover Tony parts and handmedowns it went 2 tenths under the index on it's first pass with the stock AOD trans still in it. all in all both have proven to be quit e successful reaching many finals andBeth even fishing 2nd in IHRA div-5 stock a couple of years ago in only her 3rd full season of driving. :)

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

money, was the only stock elim. car priced for a retired person.
its even fwd dont win much but is competitive and the driver is
an old man. still have some fun and enjoy the trips.
1989 cavalier z/24

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

To answer your question about "Why did you build your ""slow"" stock eliminator car?" ... Im in the process of collecting parts for my "E/SA" car... theoretically, it SHOULD be fast, but in reality, itll probably be considered a slow car...hehe I will be doing the front suspension, starting in a couple weeks. Parts are in the mail!! :D

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

The more that you build, the cheaper they get. Right Alex? "Trickle down works"!

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

MJ and i built a 61 2bbl first...at the time x/sa was pretty easy kicking pinto's butts... then (and i love when i hear guys whine about a rule change) nhra procalimed "no v-8's in w-x-y-z" (later added v) and instantly we had a 4500lbs flowerpot...then a 4bbl... then a 1960 instead of the 61 for a valve spring dampner and 400 rpms !!!!

built the car for under $2000 in 1982...
compared to then it is a pro stock 60 chevy wagon.

captain jack

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

Shortly after I got married I blew the engine in my modified sports 1959 Corvette. I couldn't afford to fix the engine but I found a 1961 Falcon for $10. That became my new race car. About 20 race cars later I am still going slow. When I win the lottery I am going to build a Pro Stock.

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

That statement encapsulates a lot of sentiment in Stock racing today.

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

Thanks for the thread Ron, and I can relate to alot of what I read so far with regards to cost, going against the norm combo wise, and even the consistency part being a challenge (on occasion), although I've had many races where my car was consistent, without breaking my bank account. However, I did not have a soft index in the beginning with my Cavalier. I'm not sure who ran my engine/tranny combo prior to the mid-90's (when I started racing my car), but being factored at 150hp, when my oem hp was 120 was outrageous! Only in '99 was my car able to run better than my index. My car was originally factored to run BF/SA, and the Bandimere Speedway altitude adjusted index of 16.44 was only beaten once (in '99 at the Mopar Mile High Nationals), I ran a 16.42, and a 16.449 with the car enroute to a rnd three loss). My car was factored alongside turbo 2.2 Chrysler products, that clearly had a performance advantage over my mfi 2.8V6! I didn't get hp taken off until around 2002, when it dropped to 140hp. I didn't run the number then either, and kept asking them to remove more hp, and NHRA did to I believe 130? I ran with that until they redid the class structure for fwd cars, and then the ahfs must've answered my prayers, because after the 2008 Arizona Nat's, I was dropped again to my current 125 hp. However, now I have a new delima in that Mickey Thompson stopped making the 20x8x14 and the 20x6x14 slicks, so now I'll have to race with bigger tires, which may offer some new challenges...I wish I lived close to either Billy Nees, or to Woodro Josey (even Craig Railsback at Blower Drive Systems, since he's another ace with understanding the Accel Calmap engine management system).

If I didn't run this car, I now wish I would've raced a '90 Pylmouth Acclaim I once had because that car was consistent...so much that I went five rounds at an import race Bandimere Speedway had back in July y2k. Had I not had so much time and over $8k invested in the Cavalier, I would've switch to racing that car because Mopar parts could've helped me get that car to race the now EF/S index, and it would've been easier to work on and tune...perhaps more consistent than my decently predictable Cavalier. I bet Stan Kopetjka is glad he runs a Mopar fwd 4banger, and heck, even Rob Seibeneck with his US Nats multi-round winning Ford Tempo, as well.

As for my car, it will run consistent, it's different, and when the driver gets his act together, it'll be up there with Stan's car, Michael Beards car, and Rob's car. I sure love being the tortoise in stock races, and so does my wallet!!!

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

That's all that thing is now, 125hp? Jeez.
We ran 14.20's with the iron head Cimarron and a stick, over 20 years ago!
I think I'll get one of those things...

A second under for under a grand...What do you think, guys?
Anybody know of any out there?

Re: Why did you build your "slow" stock eliminator car?
 

Sounds like a project to me! It's definitely do-able! Just don't go calling it a "dime rocket"!
Remember your rules, no front drives, no blowers.