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

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.:D Thanks for taking the time, and feel free to add a pic of your hotrod!

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

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.

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

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...


http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...ureStocker.jpg

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

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

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

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!

http://www.dragracecentral.com/stori..._11/pbir17.jpg

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

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

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

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.

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

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! :D

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

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

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

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.

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

Enough said...

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

Again, I want to say I'm not trying to be negative here. I was wondering what makes someone build a 273/2bbl Belvedere wagon when most go the 350/4bbl Camaro route. As far as 12.89 being fast, it would be for me. I've taken over 50 different vehicles down the track in 28 years of racing, none "faster" than 14.63.

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

Tried running SS in the early 70's. Blew an engine and discovered I could not afford it. Sold the SS less motor and trans purchased my 69 Camaro which after driving it on the road for 6 months turned it into a stocker in '74. My high school sweetheart and I married in '77 and began our family in '78. Have raced a slow stocker ever since and now with all 5 of my children grown and with college degrees have " moved up" to K and L stock. Ran brackets and T through V stock while raising my family due to affordability from '82 to '07.
Could not break this addiction all those years and never felt I was driving a slow stocker. Still enjoyed the ride !

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

Let's see, I've raced/built enough 350/4bbl Camaros, I'm cheap, I bore easily and I like making parts for cars that no one makes parts for. I guess I'm also a personal satisfaction junkie.
And just for the record, if I were getting paid for the amount of time that I have spent on making cars that shouldn't go fast fast, I could have just paid cash for a COPO. Now IMHO, that doesn't sound like any fun.

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

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

Maybe not, but the car in the far lane is O in 2 against my 12.0 NSS/E car.

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

Whats the" Hot Ticket" Dime rocket now? The turbo Pt? Turbo Truck?

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

I built a slow car because it is a lot cheaper don't have to keep up with the latest and greatest new thing-a-ma-bob. It is kind of expensive to get one-of parts, but I don't need a lot. I go so slow the real fast cars (160-170) are at a disadvantage. They can not judge how quick they are closing. I'm going about 105.
It's like walking on the shoulder of a highway and having a car going the speed limit. And you have to get to the stripe at the same time.
My only disadvantage is if I redlight it's over.

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

I built my first slow stocker in 1972 because I liked Chevy 230's. I got a kick out of beating $10,000 Chevelles with my $650 Bel-Air. Now I'm building my El Camino to see how much faster I can get a 230 to go now than I could in 1972. And I'm building a 67 l Camino because that's the car I've always wanted. I'm going to build it the way I want, NHRA Stock legal, race it for a couple of years, then put it on the street. And yes, I hope to beat $100,000 Camaros with my $10,000 Chevelle/El Camino.
Oh, and it will run V/Stock - or V/SA if Billy convinces me to run a Powerglide!

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

For most of the same reasons many others have stated. I raced from 2000 to 2006. Drove ten cars (five were Stockers). Quickest car was my daily-driver at the time, a '95 LT-1 automatic t-top Camaro. 13.881 @ 99.81; 1.98 in 60'. My first street car, also the first car I raced, 1979 Olds Cutlass. 260 cid V8 2 bbl. Almost 3,600 pounds with me in it, all the weight, tool box, spare tire, jack, etc out of it. Best run 18.59; won a lot of rounds and races in that (only the Camaro won more, of the cars I raced), even against a lot of 13-15 second newer cars. Good practice for my future (didn't know it at the time) career driving for Billy Nees in FWD Stockers. They *are* dificult to drive, as far as dialing, but can be do-able, as Michael has pointed out. I could have bought a FWD Stocker for $3,500 in the late 90's, but let other racers talk me out of it. "You can;t drive them, can;t cut a light, can't drive the big end, yadda yadda yadda...". I won a lot of rounds in Billy's cars; finished Eighth in IHRA DIvision 1 Stock points in 2003 and 2004 (was actually fourth going into the last race of the year in '04) in a 17 secnd HF/SA. For people just starting out in Stock, on a budget, a FWD or P/SA and lower Stocker is the way to go (there are a few in the Classified section on here). My main reason was Billy basically GAVE me the car, to keep here at our house and race as we please (and I am forever grateful to him). In four years, I replaced two starters, an alternator, the slicks, and the front (back?) runners, and a set of spark plugs. Doesn't get much more affordable than that. :)

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

SLOW is relative !!

Built my 95 Impala SS but was not cheap to prepare.
For some reason into Plus Sized cars.

The 95 SS was not cheap to build modifying it over the years bit by bit.
Figure more than double the price I paid for it new.

It makes up over the cost to build with low maintenace and legacy costs.
The only one I know driven to the IHRA Points meets.

Wish NHRA would consider Pure Stockers.
Mine would fall in Q, R or T/SA if the PS engine was refactored to fit in those classes.

Be a nice mix adding competition to those classes.

D

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

Some folks just like to do things a little differently
than everyone else does ( IE: Dodge 318 wagons, Pickup
Trucks, 73 Satellites).

Some people just like to experiment with engine combinations
that no one else has fooled around with very much.

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

Marty,, I'm wondering if you can build a 250 in a '67 El Camino. The reason I ask is I bought a '67 Malibu hardtop back in '71 and it had a 250 ci 6 cylinder and a 3 speed in it.They didn't last long as I put a 327/4 speed combo in it a year later,, a fun car for a kid just out of highschool. I thought the 230 was discontinued by '67,, could be wrong.
Danny Durham

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

I could build a 250, but I like the 230s. 230s were available through 1970. 250s are rated at 155 hp, the 230 is at 140. I don't think the extra 20 cubes are worth 15 hp, especially with the longer stroke.

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

To prove that six-in-a-row can go! ('71 Nova 250" rated 145 with PG running U/SA and V/SA back in the day)

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

Because I wanted to have the fastest W, X, Y and Z stick car in the world.

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

Bobby - You're the only guy I ever had a give head start to. Just seeing that Vega wagon makes me tremble!

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

i did not mean to,but after nhra added71 hp, it got that way. if lead were gold i would be wealthy. biggg

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

I had someone that really wanted to buy my bracket car so I sold it. I hadn't been involved in stock since the late 60's but decided to give it a try. The car works, driver needs help, but it's been fun.

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

A Pacer!!! Love it!!

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

Ok,, I see what you mean. Good luck with your build, Marty
Danny Durham

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

We built the IT/SA truck so Chris could race. The choice for the truck was made after I realized that finishing the 69 427/400 Corvette in time was not going to happen. The plan was to run the 'Vett in A/SA, Newsome's six pac in B/SA, and Chris in C/SA with the Cuda. The main reasons for the choice of the truck was; easy on tires, and it would qualify well. The other plus of Chris driving the Cuda was the extra 150 lbs. we could bolt to the car, it never spun with the extra weight.

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

Fast is indeed relative....

Reminds me of the campers who were running away from a bear.

Do you think we can outrun the bear? Asked one of the running campers.

His fellow camper answered : I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you!

Seemed to me that the "slower cars" were almost always the ones who beat us.

Far more consistency there.... It seemed.

David
The New Hemi Guy

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

There are only a handful of us who set an NHRA Record in Stock Eliminator with less than 100 cubic inches but a "claim to fame" is exactly that.

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

Great answer, Billy! I understand completely.

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

First, I have never made ONE lap in an NHRA Stock Eliminator race car. However, with that said, I'm a big fan of Stock, as I have several very good friends that are Stock racers, who run cars that are considered both "fast" and "slow."

I think the answer to the question "why build a 'slow' Stocker?" is, "Because that's what I wanted to do." Period. I agree with those who cite the low-cost side of it, especially the guy who made 22 runs on 2 gallons of gas! That's very cool. I also very-much agree with the fact that a "slow" race car (Stock/brackets) can be the most-consistent car at an event, as long as the racer or crew/assistant has a good handle on making adjustments per weather conditions, track conditions, etc.

From a personal side, in July, we went out to Pomona (the NMCA West event) with a 'thousand-dollar, '91 5.0 Mustang that had a 145K-mile, 100% stock drivetrain (5.0/AOD) and went 6 rounds to a win (on General UHP street tires and 91-octane pump fuel) at 10.36 (1/8th mile). If any "tricks" can be cited, they're a set of Strange adjustable shocks and struts, and a Maximum Motorsports torque arm (which I know can't be used in Stock Eliminator). Despite those upgrades, by far, to the 1/8th mile and probably even the full quarter, the 'Stang was the slowest car in its 33-car class...possibly in ANY class at the entire event! Several competitors grumbled about it being "too slow," actually.

I think one of the good things about racing the low-horsepower (our Mustang makes 178hp at the rear wheels) slow car...especially something in the 15s/quarter; 10s/eighth...is that they typically do NOT wildly spin tires, unless the tires are sitting in a water track, or oil/fluid left by a previous car. I think it's a matter of knowing the good rpm point for (footbrake) launch, being consistent with staging (spot in the beams), and cutting good lights. If practice/time-trial timeslips show e.t.s within' a hundredth of each other, there's a good chance they'll be the same come eliminations time--contingent on weather, of course. Again, knowing how to make car, driver, and/or dial adjustments per weather, "should" keep things consistent with your slow car.

At the end of the day, I'm no "expert" on this, and again, I don't race a Stocker. But, I won't consider myself a "one-hit-wonder" for the Pomona deal either, as there have been several other round and event "wins" in "slow" cars (Saturn SC2, '86 T-Bird Turbo Coupe, '73 Maverick), over the course of many years.

Good luck with your Stocker. Build what you want, and of course, these days it's important to build what you can afford to race.

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

Nees, what probably animates you can be found at 6:26 in this video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn-g1jYaXRE&feature=related"]1978 Indy Stock Final[/ame]

Enjoy!

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

Dang......A REAL KJ sighting......!

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

I ain't dead yet, Kelley!

Happy New Year, my friend! Hope you're well.

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

I've been in final rounds over the years with dial ins anywhere from 15.37 to 21.98...yes, 21.98. My avatar was from a trip to Norwalk last year on their Wednesday "Fun Night" with my wife's 267,000 mile 91 Volvo. Here's my first round slip. :D Second round was an .007 red against a low 12 second newer Vette...
http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps5bc212f8.jpg