GaryR

AND running NITRO in C/FUEL DRAGSTER! Out on a gas burning A/Comp Coupe in Competition E liminator, by the way with a handicap on the tree.A myth that racing used to be all heads up! NEVER WAS!

Gasser rules were 10% engine setback, no altered wheelbase,radiators, no gutted interiors, must sit level and STOCK automobile frame! But no necessarily the one the car came with! At my local strip, the Parham & Doane 55 Chevy had a 40 Willys chassis, the Mongomery 67 Mustang also had a a Willys frame..YEP, level. Look in the rulebooks. Two more early funny car pics! Tim is correct! BUT THANKS TO MOEBIUS FOR SOME GREAT, GREAT NEW SUBJECT MATTER KITS !!!

"And though the term "funny car" was indeed applied to the altered-wheelbase cars, NHRA didn't have an "official" "Funny Car" winner until Schartman's in '66." True, For the Nationals only. The NHRA HATED funny cars, didn't know what to do with them.They ran in altered ( on gas ) and C and CC'Fuel dragster class on alky or nitro. Most nitro cars always up to 68-69 ran 40-6-% ,usually low percentages. The SHOW was what was important! IT WAS GREAT FUN AND EXCITING!

YEP No argument here!

Yes Snake, pretty close.BUT look at the pics, many cars didn't even have an AWB. For a heads up of how these cars were constructed, here's a cut away of the Alan Green car. AND a gratuitous shot of a FUNNY CAR!

The cars were Nicholson's Eliminator 1, Christman's ROADSTER GT-1 and Ed Schartman's and Kenz & Leslie. All were Logghe chassis cars.

I wasn't criticizing the mock up! Simply pointed out numerous versions could be made. You have "pie crust" slicks on it, Neither Goodyear or M&H have made them for real racing for over fifty years! I thought you were trying for a 60's era! By the way I never heard the term pie crusts until about 10 years ago. I think you are using the modern term "gassers" which is totally incorrect for these cars, yet almost universally used. So be it, whatever. But I think several of you need to go to drag racing 101~

You young people! WRONG! The first one piece glass funny cars were the Comets. Few others were "floppers" until 67. The yers 65 -66 were full of FUNNY CARS, 65 Dodges, Plymouths, Mustangs, 'Vette's, you name it ....and CHEVY 2's! I KNOW I WAS AROUND THEN! LOL! They were funny cars, or match race stockers. The 66 Merc's were NOT the first funny cars by a long shot! Here's some examples! I could post 75 more! THIS is when funny cars began, and the WERE called funny cars as early as 1964. Maybe some other OLD people can confirm!

I think, except for the OBVIOUS GRIPING, most are just trying to offer some constructive observations and suggestions! Maybe ALL OF YOU need to calm down a little. My suggestions of an early funnycar would be another version to SELL> Sorry!

I Like the Chevy 2, surprised they would do one! It will hopefully, be the first really accurate one.I would rather see it as an early funny car though instead of this "gasser" thing.People today don't know what a gasser is. A 65 Mustang fastback and Barracuda would be nice. No matter what they do, people will want something else.TOUGH LUCK! I have 600 kits in my stash, I can live with that! JEEEZ GUYS!

I was reviewing the Slingster kit, not people who build models. I've never been one of the Tom Daniels, unrealistic guys, even in 1964. no Monkeemobiles or Raiders Coaches. I have always tried at least to build and model detailed, realistic miniature of cars, almost all drag cars. Went to my first drag race in 63 I think, with my Dad.My older brother was also an evil influence. Gone racing a million times since, I know the parts and I know the cars and the eras.I know what is authentic and what isn't. Simple as that. Revell kits in the mid 60's were THE ONLY really authentic kits.The custom car parts, double kits, SWC Willys, Nancy cars, Mickey Thompson etc cars were detailed MINIATURES, scaled and tooled right. The Orange Crate can't be beat.It's almost EXACTLY like the real thing. That's why the Slingster was such a letdown.The two "nostalgia" funnycars were pretty decent, the Revell kits have gotten more blob like since. I really don't care in the LEAST what people like or build, jeeeez, why on earth would I? But I am disappointed, and no longer purchase new releases. I won't unless they are miniatures of the real thing.I really have no desire to regain my childhood!

LOL Well then it's nostalgia, not modeling.Guess that dives us into two different camps.And explains the mediocrity in car "modeling"> Why not just collect Hot Wheels???

To each their own, but this is why aircraft , armor and ship modelers get more accurate kits.I don't want to build toys. If it's part of the charm, what's the point of this thread? Sometimes I just don't get modelers.

The Slingster is a total mess, I had really looked forward to it too. Apparently Revell thought the charm of the Sizzler was it's inaccurate and out of proportion parts, that were what we were "nostalgic" for. Not so! I had HOPED it would be a cool kit of a circa 60-63 AA/C-A/C drag car, with all the original problems fixed.Instead they were just made worse ! I've been pretty disappointed in Revell 's last few.the 50 Olds was nice, but the engine was an awful throwback with the heads as part of the intake manifold. I was scolded here and lectured about costs blah blah blah blah. Yeah riiiiiiiight.If they want nearly thirty bucks for a kit, at least do it correctly.I haven't bought a new kit in years, have a huge stash, there hasn't been much since the Hudson kits that have been really well done. NO EXCUSE for inaccurate kits in this day and age!

Who needs it!?? Not me! I LOVE my 2010 Mustang GT, it makes an honest 330 HP, is an auto trans, drives great and looks like a Mustang. Everytime I get it serviced at Galpin they try to sell me a new one, saying I'm giving up a lot of horsepower. SO WHAT?? One thing I've learned in my 64 years is that no matter how fast you are, there is somebody faster.Not a street racer anyway, I have nothing to prove.

You whacky young people! In 1967 model companies were desperate to capitalize on the exploding popularity of a relatively new drag racing type, the funny car. This model ain't a funny car at all, it just has instructions to cut a hole in the stock chassis pan and stick the engine in, keeping the molded in front suspention and all the other stock "details". Other weird "funny cars" were the Revell 62 Plymouth on the Tony Nancy Fuller dragster chassis, Johan Ambulances and umpteen tall injector stacks for nearly everything. GOOD FC models were the new AMT AWB kits, the MPC Color Me Gone and Cougar kits ( REALLY terrible slicks not counting). Kids would buy almost ANYTHING that said funny car on the box! I'd certainly build this one stock!

De uglifying a Barris late model is quite an accomplishment! Love to see that, interesting idea.

I'd suggest you decide first what era you'd like to model.If it's the 60's, Google 60's drag cars, read the HAMB and George Klass Remembers. If it's modern cars, research those. Different eras are vastly different in basic cars, classes, engines, tires, equipment etc. "Drag cars" covers a lot of territory. What kind of drag cars? If you want accuracy, first decide what you want to accomplish, then study. My two cents.

It matters a great deal to me! Few things bug me as much as not even close class designations on models.If you don't know or are just not sure, leave it off. Also stuff like a 4 speed company decal on an automatic, two different spark plugs, decals for stuff not even on the model. ETC ETC. I'm baffled by those that say it doesn't matter. Then put Wide Ovals on your top fuel car.

Yes,I know.I ran at Woodburn, my local strip.Was kind of a joke, didn't run very fast.

Why would you put a flathead in the 37 Chevy?

never mind

I've only bought the Revell 48 Ford in the last few years. I have over 600 kits , more than I can ever build.I've finally broken the cycle of just purchasing more because I can! Those prices are WAY too high! Time to stop buying and start building! To each their own.

I have downloaded almost all my pics from Photobucket. Just under 10,000. This ridiculous 400 dollar fee for third party hosting seems like it might be desperation to save a sinking site.Just guessing.They constant STUPID ads and links, plus the slow or NO service in general is not worth 4 dollars, let alone 400! It took me weeks to download all my stuff, mostly because the site kept failing, IF you haven't downloaded, you really need to! Don't be surprised to see it just vanish soon! Oh, and GOOD LUCK trying to attach your downloaded images, even though they are jpegs, PB has made it nearly impossible. PB SUCKS, get your stuff off today and give 'em a one finger salute!!!