Eric Linnhoff wrote:
>
> The Neons must be good cars to being with or they wouldn't have
> "dominated" either class. Hmm, guess Chrysler did some good R&D work
> and made a good car.
Or someone in the SCCA decided they wanted all that attention (and
money) from Chrysler. Don't get me wrong - I think both camps could have
had their cake and eaten it too if they had made the wise decision and
created a separate spec class for the Neon. And it would save Chrysler
all the trouble of having a pre-Nationals Nationals that is only open to
their marque...
> I did that because we all have (race)cars. My daily driver/autocross
> car is my (race)car. That doesn't make it any less of a stock car.
> Your car can probably also be described as a (race)car, can't it? Hell,
> for that matter every rental car I get my hands on is a (rally)car. ;^)
LOL. You are preaching to the choir dude. I am second behind Jerry
Seinfeld in the eyes of the rental car people. And my street car is my
track car! I drive it to work every day. I have 450 lb front springs and
all poly bushings! I run it in every PCA club race within 500 miles and
I have yet to trailer it!
> In my opinion, trunk kits shouldn't be allowed in SS, period. If the
> other manufacturers are serious about making a good car/racecar then let
> them spend the money to produce them and sell them through regular
> dealerships like Chrysler.
I agree with you. But any time you have a bunch of dissimilar cars
competing on ostensibly even ground you have to watch out for the ringer
that will spoil it for everybody...
>
> BTW, I hope that Ford does bring the ZX-2 S/R to market and therefore
> bring another good (race)car to the streets and the racetrack.
I don't because it will mean yet another group of devoted stock car
drivers will probably get screwed...
Paul Foster
|