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

Dwight Southerland · 12-31-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

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.

Great answer, Billy! I understand completely.

KJ JONES Racing · 12-31-2012, 06:04 PM

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.

John Kelley · 12-31-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJ JONES Racing

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."
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.

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

KJ JONES Racing · 12-31-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kelley

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

I ain't dead yet, Kelley!

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

RonTheAnnouncer · 12-31-2012, 08:14 PM

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.

Second round was an .007 red against a low 12 second newer Vette...

12-31-2012, 06:04 PM	#2
KJ JONES Racing Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Reseda, CA Posts: 28 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	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. Attached Thumbnails

12-31-2012, 08:14 PM	#5
RonTheAnnouncer Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Ravenna, OH Posts: 60 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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. Second round was an .007 red against a low 12 second newer Vette... __________________ Ron Huntley, Jr. announcer and Half ed racer "Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize."