CLASS RACER FORUM - View Single Post

Ed Wright · 12-29-2014, 04:42 PM

Kinda depends. As for GM cars, if you don't need to be under 2900/3000 lbs it would be hard to beat a '93/'02 Camaro/Firebird at that weight. 101" wheel base, with the engine set back. Half the engine is under the windshield & dash. Pete Peery told me that my driveshaft is like 8" shorter than his little GT car. You can run smaller tires with more air. When it gets hot, and my friends with the "jellybean" fwd GT cars start spinning & talking about the track going away, my car can't tell the difference. Likely not as easy a car to work on, however.
The reason you see so many running GT classes with carbs, ain't because they came from the factory with fuel injection. :-)

12-29-2014, 04:42 PM	#2
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts	Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et Kinda depends. As for GM cars, if you don't need to be under 2900/3000 lbs it would be hard to beat a '93/'02 Camaro/Firebird at that weight. 101" wheel base, with the engine set back. Half the engine is under the windshield & dash. Pete Peery told me that my driveshaft is like 8" shorter than his little GT car. You can run smaller tires with more air. When it gets hot, and my friends with the "jellybean" fwd GT cars start spinning & talking about the track going away, my car can't tell the difference. Likely not as easy a car to work on, however. The reason you see so many running GT classes with carbs, ain't because they came from the factory with fuel injection. :-) __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA