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

[RonTheAnnouncer]

Hi guys, kinda new to this forum, but it gives me a chance to ask a question. Why did you build a race car that even at it's best would be considered slow by the general public? Before any of you get mad at me, understand that I LOVE slow stockers, oddball combos, etc. I'm also referring to mid 13s and slower. I would build one just because I like to be the "tortise" in a race, and I've had a few 10 second head starts in my bracket career. Thanks for taking the time, and feel free to add a pic of your hotrod!

[Lee Jordan (3223) A/S]

Like with anything else there are several reasons. Cost. Soft Index. Low Maintenance. Cost, oh yea I said that already. lol
Most parts and combos are easy to maintain and its not as hard to be consistant. I have never had a "slow" stocker but this is what I have heard from others who run them.

[ALMACK]

Cost >> # 1 reason.

I built my IHRA Pure Stocker for under 5K and love the car. Not fast, but it will run the index with pump gas, thru the mufflers, and on DOT street radials so this way I can also run all the trophy bracket classes as well without any changes.

Now, the P/SA car I just bought is just the opposite...

[Sam Capizzi Jr]

Certain combinations only came with low hp engines. It sucked taking out a perfectly healthy 340 out of my car.

[Michael Beard]

Cost was the most important factor when we were just getting started in Stock. Even with all the help we got from new-found friends in the Stocker community, it was still a stretch for us at the time. There was also an interesting challenge aspect to it. It has since become a very competitive car. Coolest thing was double-entering it for two days at a bracket race, making 22 runs on about 2 gallons of fuel! You can *afford* to race this thing!

[Paul Wong]

Originally Posted by Lee Jordan (3223) A/S

Like with anything else there are several reasons. Cost. Soft Index. Low Maintenance. Cost, oh yea I said that already. lol
Most parts and combos are easy to maintain and its not as hard to be consistant. I have never had a "slow" stocker but this is what I have heard from others who run them.

Consistent? You must have never been around any slow stockers. That is the biggest challenge is to dial a slow stocker from one day to another. Getting the clutch on your 600hp car is a little easier than my less than 300 hp 273 2 barrel

[Bill Koski]

Only car in the class!
It worked for 11 years and a slew of class wins before the rug was jerked!
By the way it is for sale.

[Michael Beard]

Originally Posted by Paul Wong

Consistent? You must have never been around any slow stockers.

Doesn't have to be consistent, just has to be *predictable*. It can be done, just need a lot of seat time to learn the car's tendencies.

Before I had some gremlins (not the AMC kind) pop up in the Turismo, the thing ran FIVE 13.01's in a row to 1000' at the Combo in the Hills, then a 13.00, then it rained. Next morning, 1000' was 13.02, short-shifting high gear a smidge. A couple of years ago, brought it out of retirement to run the Atco LODRS, and after Billy tweaked on it, won the Perfectly Strange award in the first round, dead-on 0, .004 pkg. That little car can be wicked!

[Bob Mulry]

WOW,

I guess that I am only one who thinks that fast is a relative term...........

Is an 11.00 second A/SA car fast and a 12.89 second (which is the National Record) R/SA slow???????

I thought that the object was to run as hard as possible within the rules and restrictions of the class..........

This explains why the rules are constantly changing in order to make cars "fast"

Now I get it,
Bob

[The Hawk]

At the time when I first got into Stock racing(`92)there weren`t many competitive lower classed cars,and the ones I observed didn`t do well. I had already developed some skills with leaving first by 3+ seconds so it was a natural fit for me. Once I can get a motor together without hurting it,I`ll be back running V/SA.