RRT project

[GPster]

A Monza 2+2 would be a nice body, for aerodynamics,
it has to be be smaller than the '53 Stude.



Imagine it with the front stretched, and the roof chopped.

Might be easier to find than a Opel GT, or Metropolitan.

I've been thinking about that too. If this was to be purely a Bonneville effort that would be a good choice but for a drag car a Metropolitan with a stretched nose would be an eye catcher and it would put the driver nearer the rear end for ballast (?). I don't know if this is headed to a class that requires an "American" body because it would probably need    "N   OSED"    but how about an old Volvo (the one that looks like a scaled-down '48 Ford sedan). If you lengthed the nose on one of them you could get the front of the hood almost to a point. If you used side-draft carbs you'd only need a ridge in the hood for rocker arm cover clearance. GPster

[sirstude]

Look up my favorite, a Saab Sonnet, 2 seat very little car. Here is a pic of the Sonnet III, but he Sonnet IV was a bit cleaner.

And yes I got this from Carnut's site.

http://www.carnut.com/cgi-bin/04/image.pl?/show/04/all/all104.jpg

[unklian]

Volvo Amazon

[unklian]

... but for a drag car a Metropolitan with a stretched nose would be an eye catcher and it would put the driver nearer the rear end for ballast (?).

Yes, a Pro Mod inspired Nash Metropolitan would be an eye catcher.

Maintaining much of the original identity could be a priority.

---

Moving the driver back a little isn't a problem.
At Bonneville, large amounts of ballast are commonly
used to combat lift, instead of using wings, which cause drag.

[unklian]

An Opel GT for Modified Sports. I think the roof could be chopped legally.


Crosley ?





http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=325999&d=1182889417

The extended wheelbase was a common early 60's drag race trick.

[WZ JUNK]

Interesting topic.

Remember that the #974 Studebaker was to be a multipurpose vehicle.  It still has the wheel tubs and we have had some big slicks on it when we ran it on the chassis dyno.  Needless to say that now it weighs in at way over 5,000 pounds, and it would not do well at the drags.  Some have been competitive at Bonneville, and have ran the same vehicle at the drags, and on the street, but it is hard to do.

As mentioned the SCTA safety equipment is very expensive.

My experience is that the more you stray from a SBC with a 350 transmission, the more expensive it gets.  Small odd engines can cost a lot to build.  Of course what is the fun of being just like everyone else.

This last fall we looked hard at replacing the engine in the 974 and going to a vintage engine class.  We were looking at the 302 GMC.  To be competitive my estimate was that the engine build and change over would cost about $10,000.  

Just my thoughts.

John

[unklian]

Yes, oddball motors can get expensive quick,
based on how competitive you want to be.

---

A few cool drag cars in this thread:
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306543

Crosley:
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=540623&d=1227739310

Metropolitan:
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=4685&pictureid=39417
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=4685&pictureid=39418

[unklian]

.. it weighs in at way over 5,000 pounds, and it would not do well at the drags.  

It would do a lot better with all the ballast removed.

[enjenjo]

.. it weighs in at way over 5,000 pounds, and it would not do well at the drags.  

It would do a lot better with all the ballast removed.

My idea too. Of course I'm thinking just the basic body and chassis as dual purpose, the drivetrain would be different for each venue, drags, or the salt.

The other thing, I am not thinking the salt this year, or even the drags this year. This can be a long term project. Right now, I don't have a good enough understanding of the rules to decide on how to build it to gain the most advantage.

I kind of like the Crosley coupe drag car, for the general concept. For the drags, you could have a short front end that would leave the whole front of the frame exposed. for the salt, a longer front end that would take advantage of the streamlining allowed. It could be run with a vintage engine on the salt, and most anything at the drags. At most drag strips today, it would have to run as a bracket racer, as they don't do much class racing any more, so ET would be the deciding factor, rather than running against a record. For the salt, if need be, the floor could be made of 1/2" steel plate to get the weight where we want it.

I am not looking for a record car, but I feel we have a better chance of at least being within shouting distance of the record using a Vintage engine at Bville. For the drags, anything will do.

My idea is a rail chassis, funny car cage, straight axle front with either a cross spring, or torsion bars. For the rear ladder bars with either coilovers, or struts depending on what we are doing with it at the time. For a rear end, either a 9", or a sprint car quickchange.

Lets hear what's wrong with my idea.

[GPster]

I like a plan. From looking at NHRA rules it looks like what they are calling Nostalgia (ic) Eliminator. I like the idea of a Quick Change but I wonder about money right off because the rear end will be part of the frame construction. 9" rear ratios arond here for the dirt track guys seem to have numbers around 5.38 and I'm sure there are a lot of ratios available. Isn't there a set-pu that you make 9"ers like floating truck axels? It wouldn't be that hard to change "pumpkins" if you just pulled the axels and the brakes and wheels stayed intact. Plus every org. wants some realization that the wheels won't fly off if you brake an axel. We could collect "pumpkins" as we go along. I like the look of an altered with the wheels in front of the body but with the idea that maybe it might make it to Bonneville I'd like to see frame in front of the axel and wheels. When the nose gets pulled foreward to cover the wheels I'd rather see a frame to fasten it to. Also the longer frame might be easier to fatsen a tow bar too and with the axels it would be easier to move around. So my suggestion would be for a pair of springs on the front end. GPster

[unklian]

XXO would get REAL expensive very fast,
so with the IH 6 cyl, that leaves XO.

XO motors are legal in Competition Coupe,
BUT the body needs to originally have 4 seats to be legal.
The 4 seat requirement doesn't apply to pre '48 bodies.
I think the Metropolitan was a 2 seater.

XO is NOT eligible for Modified Sports (2 seaters)

XO is eligible for Modified Pick Up.

http://www.scta-bni.org/SCTA-NewWeb/car_classes.htm#top

[enjenjo]

BUT the body needs to originally have 4 seats to be legal.

So we would need a wagon if they made one. Or some other body.

[unklian]

What was the first year on the Crosley ? I know nothing about them.

I'm assuming this car is legal:
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bville-cars-1/204-1-06.jpg
Maybe it was grandfathered in ?


The aerodynamics on a Wagon wouldn't be great.
Not a major crisis for drag racing, but it would hurt at Bonneville.

A sloped rear window would be better.
Long overhang on back would also help.

[unklian]

So we would need a wagon if they made one. Or some other body.

They made lots of wagons.
http://crosleyautoclub.com/ID.html

[unklian]

Roof looks chopped, hood was stretched to fit a Buick straight 8.



Tires hanging out would be ok for drag racing,
definately hurt top speed though.

---

This was at Billetproof last year.
215 Buick.
http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/fms427/crosley%20two/
http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/fms427/Crosley%20Early/
http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/fms427/CROSLEY/