|
|
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carlise, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
It is like 1964 all over again, only in 2009 there is only ford playing the game.
In 64 ford had the dual quad high riser Tbolt, chevy had their lightweigt impalas and biscaynes with either the Z-11 or "mystery motor" and chrysler had their acid dipped 330's complete with hemi 426's Add in the 421 super duty light weight pontiac catalinas and the game was on. Everyone had a lot of fun until they started building funny cars. Just let it happen, it is good for the sport and the manufacturers. Even the ones that aren't playing the game right now.
__________________
Dick Kirkpatrick 3033 SS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anthem, Arizona
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]()
Items like missing safety bumpers, lite-weight windows, those are items that make a car built by the OEM not DOT legal. Am I wrong? And in Stock Eliminator, it is not legal to ad or remove such items. Right?
I know the Challenger has such items and I believe the CJ500 has the same items. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And the Challenger has non-EPA approved engine(s). I'm all for these cars being built by the factory and raced in Superstock were traditionally that is were factory "experimentals" were placed. I even think some cars like the GT500 Shelby should be placed in Stock as they do in fact offer such a car and it is street legal. It would be great if ther was a weight-break for all the new hot rods, even the 638 HP 'Vette. I think it's great for the sport. But if it's an "experimental" nothing has changed since 1968. It's a Superstocker.
__________________
Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|