Ace-Garageguy

The Dallara Icsunonove prototype is in a similar vein, and there is now a fair gaggle of autocrossers and hillclimb X1-9s that look similar too.

I remember the Beach Boys Racing version. They chopped off the sail panels / roll-bar and laid the windshield back too. Probably the best looking 914 body kit ever done. The Chalon was a good looking conversion kit too. Below is one I designed and built for a client. The owner of a well-known Porsche parts house wanted a kit-car developed to go on a 914 that was styled after the 904. I was in the process of finishing this, we had a falling out shortly after this photo was shot coming out of my basement, and several people over the years have claimed it as their work. I can, of course, prove it's my design and my work. (There is another earlier version done for the same company that's an ill-proportioned turd, so poorly conceived as to be un-buildable. NOT my design. Which is why they hired me. )

A guy here on the board...afx... did a conversion to the flared version, but Revell never did. Here's the thread: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/72527-porsche-9146-gt-casting-begun-61814/?page=1

The shape of the door, very similar to a 911, the door handle...unique to the 914, and the shape of the roof sail-panel are the tells.

Yeah baby...and hang some turboprops and a couple JATO packs on her to lift the firepower and ammo...

OK, let's go with that for the time being, even though the cars in that series are recognizably production-car based. For now, a privateer without factory backing or a massive budget could conceivably build a reasonably competitive car from a production-car, serial-numbered platform. Under the proposed rules, he couldn't do it. EDIT: I'm not entirely current on the ALMS rules, but this is a fairly recent overview. You'll see that some of the cars ARE in fact production-based. From wikipee: "The American Le Mans Series used essentially the same rules as the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Like the 24 Hours of Le Mans, there were 3 primary classes, though there were 2 extra "Challenge classes" using standardized cars. Purpose-built race cars with closed fenders competed in the Prototype classes P1, P2, and P-Challenge) (PC) and modified production sports cars competed in the Grand Touring classes GT (GTE-Pro and GTE-Am combined, formerly GT2) along with GT-Challenge or GTC. The two "Challenge" classes were formula-based, and were designed for privateers or rookies to have an easier time entering the series. The Challenge classes used the Oreca FLM09 (P) and the Porsche 911 GT3 Cup (GT), though there were reports that the ACO would open the Challenge class to other manufacturers in 2013 or later." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two groups of vehicle competition in SCCA would likewise be wiped out, with the exception of pre-emissions cars still being able to run production classifications. PRODUCTION Series produced cars, which are allowed a range of performance modifications while retaining their original design, structure and drive layout. There is no age limit, such as Showroom Stock, so Production includes many cars as old as 50 years and as new as current body styles. The three performance potential based classes include: E Production (EP), F Production (FP) and H Production (HP). EP is the fastest of the Production classes with HP running the slowest in the category. Several cars in the Production classes can be run in more than one class, just by changing the engine between races. The ease of engine changes allows many Production drivers to enter more than one class at the Runoffs each year. Cars included in Production classes come from a diverse group ranging from the MG Midget, Turner, Fiat X1/9, Alfa Romeo Spyder, Austin Healey Sprite, and Lotus Super 7 to the BMW 325, Mazda Miata, RX-7, Nissan 240, Honda Civic, Suzuki Swift GTI and Toyota MR-2. SUPER TOURING®Super Touring® features late-model production-based vehicles with a series of modifications to their drivelines and bodywork. The intent of the rules allows World Challenge cars to compete in Club Racing with minimal modifications as well as new cars to be built to the same spec as well. Forced induction may be added to some models and engine swaps are permitted. No model years older than 1985 will be permitted. The STU (World Challenge® Touring Car based) are mid-level performance cars of 3.2 liters and under. STL is a small bore tuner class for cars of 2.0 liters and under. The competitiveness of any given car is not guaranteed. We simply DON'T need the government having ANYTHING to do with racing, because once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the camel is sure to follow.

Interesting concept. I picked up a few of the Atlantic kits for $5 each a while back, and I've been eyeing them from time to time as hack-job fodder. They have some nice lines and curves, for sure.

Got a bunch more styrene, sheet and rod, some more PE instrument faces, bezels and panels, some carb and injector linkage, and a fret of MCG #2238 photo-etched saw blades. These are in addition to the PE blades I got a while back, and so far, I'm impressed. A conventional 32-TPI razor saw is only about .014" thick, but these new ones are only .007". They're designed to fit in X-acto handles, and I've been able to tackle a job of scribing I'd put off for a couple of years because I wasn't satisfied with the tools I had. If you hack a lot of stuff up like I do, these PE blades are tough to beat.

Love it, love it, love it. Always nice to see models of historically significant hot-rods, especially when they're so well done.

Frankly, I don't get too involved in one-make series or spec-racers. They're the ones I usually snooze through, and they're hardly the spectator money-draws that allow racing to remain viable. It's race-cars as spectacle that insures the sponsorship money that pays the bills. Nobody's going to pay to go see a bunch of Priuses whoosh around a track, and nobody's going to pay (nobody I know, anyway) to see a bunch of showroom-stockers duke it out if that's the only race on the program. A no-tampering with emissions-equipment rule means YOU CAN'T TOUCH THE COMPUTER, INJECTION SYSTEM, OR DO ANY TUNING WHATSOEVER. PERIOD. Cars like the Corvettes that won class at Daytona recently would be banned forever, as well as all the cars they beat. If that doesn't "negatively impact" racing in your mind...well, we see things a little differently. Again, motor-racing has so little environmental impact, it's negligible. The cooking fires at Daytona from the campers probably produced more pollution, by several orders of magnitude, than the race cars did. Of course, I guess if the mommy-state were to pass a law banning anything other than out-of-the-box model cars to be built, the majority wouldn't care. But it would ruin the hobby for guys like me.

No doubt there's some stupid-unsafe stuff on the roads, but it's not primarily the fault of the aftermarket manufacturers. SEMA itself tries to get its membership onboard with good engineering and quality-control practices. And the problem I have with "puts the backyard shops out of business" is that legends in like Stu Hilborn, Vic Edelbrock and Mickey Thompson started out of "backyard shops". When you stamp out the freedom to innovate and possibly start a commercially viable industry (and God knows, this country needs SOMETHING that's not offshore sourced), you're crushing the very things that made this country what it is (or...ummm...was).

X2.

If this rule in passed into law, things like this will be completely illegal too. Why is that a good thing?

I have been actively involved with alt-fuels and low-impact vehicles for decades, and for the billions and billions of tax dollars that have been poured into cleaning things up, the results, from my own perspective, just aren't that impressive. I personally feel that the environmental impact of racing is so insignificantly small as to be left alone. Period. I'm getting tired (actually, I have been tired of it for a long time) of the mommy-state trying to regulate EVERYTHING..."for our own good"...and cut the balls off of anyone who still has any. I see this as just another step on the road to the slow but eventual total erosion of ANY personal freedoms we have. The millions of unnecessarily heavy SUVs cruising the highways, being used for one-person commutes primarily, are a MASSIVE contributor to the emissions and greenhouse gasses EPA seeks to regulate (just by their sheer numbers and weight)...but they're mainstream, non-threatening, testosterone-free, quiet, and boring...so they're not a target. As far as race-cars having emissions equipment making for a level playing field...well, that's why you have spec-racer classes. Everyone runs pretty much identical equipment so, supposedly, winning comes down to driver skill. Yeah, there's some good, close racing with spec-cars or factory-stock, but it just ain't like watching something like this, where mechanical innovation and tuning were a significant part of the equation.

You're right...it's a 3-speed box, circa 1939 top-shift Ford. Most of the little belly-tank streamliners were push-started (no battery, magneto ignition), so shifting into first or reverse wasn't required. The shift from second to third is a straight line on these boxes, so a relatively simple linkage arrangement could accomplish it. The bracketry with the holes in it to the far side of the shift-tower appears to be a part of the linkage. It most likely has a bellcrank arm hanging down out of sight (connected to a rod that runs up to the cockpit) and is pivoted on a horizontal line through the center of the shift-lever pivot, with the top portion of the bellcrank swinging in a longitudinal arc a few inches up from that, with enough travel to effect sufficient forward and backward motion of the shift lever stub to allow shifting between 2nd and 3rd. Some of these little cars got pretty exotic, especially interesting considering they were mostly home-built. Obviously mid-engined when that was practically unheard of, a few of them also had fully independent rear suspension as well. No rear suspension, axle tubes attached solidly to the frame, was common, but some pivoted the entire engine-gearbox-rear end assembly to at least allow vertical movement of the rear axle centerline. The cars with IRS only got as far as swing-axles, with the inboard universal joints made from the forward universal joints of the stock torque-tube driveshaft. The rig represented by Rob's model has an automatic box, so shifting is easy with a cable linkage. I believe the particular 1:1 example Rob has a photograph of up there was built for a mid-engined second-generation Corvair, and used that car's original independent suspension. The inboard universal-joint yoke for the axle can be seen in the photo.

Oh yes...my mother always had books and books full of those things. I seem to remember she redeemed some for a toaster once... Funny how memories like that trigger others. Anybody remember the Horn & Hardart Automats, Schrafft's Restaurants, and Chock Full O' Nuts coffee shops in NYC?

Definitely some good images there. Easily searchable, too. Thanks!

How about the oh-so-not-PC "skirt", "chick", and "dame" ? Sorry if I'm late on these...I haven't read every word in the thread.

I've never seen a set of these tires in reality, but I do know Holley was at least marketing the M/T line by '69, and some of the cast alloy M/T valve covers from around that time have Mickey Thompson / Holley cast inside them. It's conceivable that Thompson's cheater slicks would have been rebranded too, so this isn't too far fetched. For those who don't know, "cheater" slicks were so named because they were just barely legal for street use in some locations, by virtue of having the grooves in the tread area. It was the DOT's tread requirement for street tires that was being cheated.

Nice work on the panel conversion. That took some thought, and some serious doing.

Thanks! The guy's brilliant. Here's the FB link... https://www.facebook.com/Jerry-Alward-Art-and-Color-169242459808635/

Yeah Greg, but this isn't about stupid-cambered tuners or stupid-high donks. It's specifically about making ALL vehicles, whether race-only or not, conform to emissions regs for the vehicle as-delivered from the factory. So anyone who builds a slalom track-only car from an old Miata, or a track-only drifter from an Asian import, or Mustang specifically to drag race, or anything else to race EVEN IF IT'S NEVER DRIVEN ON THE STREET is going to be SOL if this passes. Cars like that, in any purely-for-competition configuration will be forced to retain FULL emissions equipment applicable to the car when it was manufactured, including original computer programming and catalysts.

More info, so you don't have to click... From SEMA: Basically, the EPA wants to make clear that an exemption for turning nonroad vehicles (and engines) into competitive vehicles does not apply to your street car, even if it’s a track-only car... ...McDonald said the EPA confirmed as much to his association too during a meeting on Jan. 20 with the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.“All I can tell you is we went there with the intent of confirming whether (the EPA sought) to prohibit the conversion of certified vehicles into race cars,” he said. “They confirmed that.”

Here's the document. Scroll down to page 40,539. The relevant provision is in the lower RH corner of the page. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-13/pdf/2015-15500.pdf Here is the text, copied from the original document... EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) to clarify that the Clean Air Act does not allow any person to disable, remove, or render inoperative (i.e., tamper with) emission controls on a certified motor vehicle for purposes of competition. An existing provision in 40 CFR 1068.235 provides an exemption for nonroad engines converted for competition use. This provision reflects the explicit exclusion of engines used solely for competition from the CAA definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’. The proposed amendment clarifies that this part 1068 exemption does not apply for motor vehicles.

I got it. I'll post the link to the relevant page and paragraph in a couple minutes.