Jeff,
"Isn't this due in part to limited factory and then aftermarket support? I
mean then and now you could buy a ton of go fast goodies for Mustangs and Vets
and the
.............................................................................
................"
I think the discussion of which cars won what races and which were the better
cars is a waste of time. Look at NASCAR....can we say Ford won or Chevy won?
We can say it, but it means the factory won and not the Ford or Chevy that we
know. There is not one part on the race version of the car that is found on
the highway version. And, these years ago were called stock cars.
All major races are determined and have been determined for the past many
years by how much the factory or sponsor is willing to pour into and change
a
vehicle. It's hard to name 2 or 3 winners of any major race that are or were
independents. My theory is that someone could have taken a Crosley in the 50
or 60's and made it a winner. Of course, like most winners it would have had
very little resemblance to the Crosley on the highway. I think the Tiger with
hugh factory support could have been made a winner right along with that
Crosley, but it would have born little resemblance to the common Tiger. Even
the
cars that were supposed to be "stock' were allowed so many variances that they
were not much like the common highway version except for the body panels and
then the racing versions normally had aluminum hoods, trunks, doors, etc..
Most every vehicle had design flaws to some degree, but they were overcome or
eliminated in the race version and thus could become a winner.
So flamers, what do you think?
Mark L.
|