autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Neon ACR and the SCCA

To: Eric Linnhoff <eric10mm@qni.com>
Subject: Re: Neon ACR and the SCCA
From: Jason Bowles <jbowles@carol.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:12:12 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Eric Linnhoff wrote:

> >The SCCA blew apart SS when they incorrectly classed the Neon ACR in
> >SSC. End of story. This 'trunk kit' nonsense was a half-assed attempt
> to
> >rebalance the classes. SS is now dead. Long live SS.
> ========================
> Only the SOHC ACR was/is classed in SSC, the DOHC Neons were/are classed
> in SSB.  There is a definite top end advantage with the DOHC cars over
> the SOHC cars hence the two different classes.
>  

Is there a SSA class? what cars are in it?

> 
> 
> 
> >The chief difference between Stock and SP is the ability to change the
> >springs (and swaybars on both ends of the car). In my opinion, it
> >doesn't matter a bit if this is done by the manufacturer or by the end
> >user. The effect is the same.
> ============================
> The ACR's wear the exact same rear spring rates as every other Neon out
> there, 120 pounds/inch.  Ooh, bestill my heart.  Only the front springs
> are different with a 150 lb/in rate instead of the "normal" 140 lb/in
> rate.  WOW, a lot of difference there buddy.
> 

R/T's and Sports (95-96) have the same springs 150 front.


> As to swaybars, lots of Neons have the bigger swaybars including the
> readily available "Sport" (Dodge) and "Expresso" (Plymouth) Neons
> including my Dodge R/T Neon.  In my opinion it absolutely DOES make a
> difference if the change is made by the manufacturer as opposed to the
> end user.  It shows that the factory is serious about making a good
> (race)car and has gone to the trouble of investing much R&D time and
> money into making a better (race)car.  Which consequently is sold
> through retail dealers all across the nation with the EXACT SAME list of
> go-fast goodies to anyone (well, after the first year's ACRs were sold
> only to SCCA members) who can sign their name on the financing
> paperwork.
> 
> What get's my goat is that the SCCA actually allowed the other
> manufacturers to install the "trunk kits" instead of making them do the
> same R&D as Chrysler did to make a faster car.  Talk about the squeaky
> wheel getting all the grease. One most notable exception would be the
> Miata R's.  Kudos to Mazda for that car but shame on 'em for the trunk
> kitted Protege's.
> 
> "WAHHH, those Neons are faster than us.  It's not fair.  We need help
> since we obviously can't or don't want to take the time and effort to
> make a faster car ourselves.  Give us a trunk kit so we can be
> competitive."
> 
> TOTAL HORSEPUCKEY if you ask me!!!  SCREW  the other manufacturers!!!  I
> say let 'em continue to lose races if they don't care enough to make a
> better (race)car like Chrysler did/does.
> 

This is one place I think I actually agree with ole Linnhoff! Why make up
for your company's bad designs by adding stuff later? Hell you could make
a Pinto win with enough parts in its trunk kit, that doesnt make it a
great car, I dont think it follows along with the Showroom STOCK ideals.

Jason


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>