front clip ?

[ND84]

im just wondering if there are any chassis builders out there that still use metric front clips its seems like everyone has gone to chevelle's.im fairley new to modifieds so im just wondern if any still builds metric cars.

[cavemod]

Bob Pierce out of illinois and Lightning out of london kentucky are 2 that I'm aware of.I'm pretty sure there are many local to area builders that will build them.I can think of 3 different builders that will do them in southern wisconsin.

[jsf74]

Brian ruhlman builds a real nice rocket.

[chapa9]

Eddie Martin builds all his Big Chief Chassis on metrics. I have one and I like it.

[powerslide]

I believe majority of UMP cars are metric. IMCA and USMTS/USRA are mostly chevelle. I would think it has something to do with the tires. UMP tires are taller and softer.

[Bcollins82]

I don't think it has anything to do with the tires, just monkey see monkey do in different areas. A lot of bigger builders have gone to the chevelle clip because you can get a Chinese clip in pieces and make it fit together differently and move your pickup points around some. In my opinion a chevelle clip "feels" better because it doesn't cut in as well so it is more "comfortable" and a metric/nova or metric/ford frontend generally turns better but you have to fight the junkyard clips.

[millerracing]

http://www.ultimateracecars.com/

he is out of southern wisconsin and he started building mods this year with metric front clip

Jeff Steenbergen
Watertown, WI

(920) 210-2556

UltimateRaceCars@gmail.com

[Dustejr73]

i agree it is "monkey see, monkey do" with the chevelle clips. i have had three Lightnings, all on metric, and they turn better than anything i have ever had. i run almost always on G60 type tires (USRA, IMCA). one thing about the metrics is that the frames dont have to be cheated up on the RF frame rail like most chevelle builders were doing a few years back. we had some cars out here in the Northwest on chevelle clips that had the RF raised atleast 3 inches, but with the tech crews at most dirt tracks it would "slip thru" Don at Lightning builds a very clean car and is very helpful, even if you dont buy a 20K roller.

[mod11h]

if its monkey see monkey do on stubs. Why are the USMTS guys and builders use chevelle stubs. the motion ratios on the chevelle is better than that of the metrics. I think its more personal peferance on to what the builder whats to do. Most builders and people in general will go with what they know and dont really go after something they dont know so they dont look like a fool if it doesnt work. Has the bob peirce ever try a chevelle stub in his cars?

[Bcollins82]

if its monkey see monkey do on stubs. Why are the USMTS guys and builders use chevelle stubs. the motion ratios on the chevelle is better than that of the metrics. I think its more personal peferance on to what the builder whats to do. Most builders and people in general will go with what they know and dont really go after something they dont know so they dont look like a fool if it doesnt work. Has the bob peirce ever try a chevelle stub in his cars?

Most of the USMTS guys use them for the same reasons I said earlier. Monkey see, monkey do, no junkyard clips to deal with, and you can move your pickups around to suit your needs better. What makes you say the motion ratios are "better" on a chevelle clip? The motion ratio makes no difference in making a frontend better or worse, it only determines the amount of weight the wheel feels from "x" spring. And yes, THE Bob Pierce has built chevelle cars, but obviously prefers the metrics. And I don't know of any successful chassis builder that sticks with what they know so they don't look foolish. Most are innovators that have designed the frontends how they believe will work best, and dont usually stray far off because it matches their theory of what's best for their cars.

[mod11h]

If you look at the dirt forum and take alook at the dimensions on the various frames you see a big diffence. the chevelle frames spring perches are narrower than the metrics. On the motion ratios im refering to how much the spring will support and what it thinks it is. On a metric you have to ue a stiffer sring to gt the same effect on a chevelle. by the way we use a big metric on the car we have and like it. It just comes done to what your comfrtable with. And most chassis builders are not innovaters alot are just copiers. yes they move this or that but not a cj rayburn in my book . Take alook at the ford frame and its like a factory late model. When we had the limited late models here a guy build one with the ford frame and one every where with it. Thats being outside the box. That was 10 years ago.

[Bcollins82]

If you look at the dirt forum and take alook at the dimensions on the various frames you see a big diffence. the chevelle frames spring perches are narrower than the metrics. On the motion ratios im refering to how much the spring will support and what it thinks it is. On a metric you have to ue a stiffer sring to gt the same effect on a chevelle. by the way we use a big metric on the car we have and like it. It just comes done to what your comfrtable with. And most chassis builders are not innovaters alot are just copiers. yes they move this or that but not a cj rayburn in my book . Take alook at the ford frame and its like a factory late model. When we had the limited late models here a guy build one with the ford frame and one every where with it. Thats being outside the box. That was 10 years ago.

A lot of chassis builders ARE copiers... Hence "monkey see monkey do"? A lot of successful ones are innovaters. And good ol CJ is as bad as anyone when it comes to copying. He didn't even design his own frontend, he just revised it. He copied a lot of things off Gliddens drag car. Shooting in the dark doesn't make you an innovater. When your motto is "9 out of 10 things you try on a car should never work" then you are shooting in the dark. (sorry for the Rayburn rant) I understand motion ratios. When I say they don't matter it's because they can be compensated for 100% by changing spring rate. Now spring angle, that's another ballgame since you can make a spring load more progressively. And as far as that heavy, rear steer ford clip. It's very easily damaged because of being rear steer, and there have been several builders try for years to use them, but most of them have all gone away from them. They may drive great, but overall not a great package. There are still modified builders that are innovators. If you are want someone who will innovate and try new things I'd suggest calling Donnie Adams at Lightning. Great guy, great car, always trying new ideas. Not just moving upper shock mounts inward, then outward and calling it an update...

[racer69]

Gotta give a 1-up for Don Adams as well! The best thing about him is he will help you! case in point I just posted on Facebook because I didnt get a single reply here. He replied there with help and a good time to call him tomorrow. That means a LOT to a mod newby like me!

[cavemod]

Not only does he help with his cars he helps with any car no matter who's the builder.I just wish he wasn't so far from me cuz my car would be going down there for his metric front end knowledge!!

[dirttrackrocker]

Not only does he help with his cars he helps with any car no matter who's the builder.I just wish he wasn't so far from me cuz my car would be going down there for his metric front end knowledge!!

Agree 100%... I had an older metric GRT and GRT was useless as far as help. Don helped me a ton...

[powerslide]

A lot of chassis builders ARE copiers... Hence "monkey see monkey do"? A lot of successful ones are innovaters. And good ol CJ is as bad as anyone when it comes to copying. He didn't even design his own frontend, he just revised it. He copied a lot of things off Gliddens drag car. Shooting in the dark doesn't make you an innovater. When your motto is "9 out of 10 things you try on a car should never work" then you are shooting in the dark. (sorry for the Rayburn rant) I understand motion ratios. When I say they don't matter it's because they can be compensated for 100% by changing spring rate. Now spring angle, that's another ballgame since you can make a spring load more progressively. And as far as that heavy, rear steer ford clip. It's very easily damaged because of being rear steer, and there have been several builders try for years to use them, but most of them have all gone away from them. They may drive great, but overall not a great package. There are still modified builders that are innovators. If you are want someone who will innovate and try new things I'd suggest calling Donnie Adams at Lightning. Great guy, great car, always trying new ideas. Not just moving upper shock mounts inward, then outward and calling it an update...

You call it monkey see monkey do. Others call it years of R&D.
If ump has no rules like everyone says it would seem like the chevelle with all the moved pick up points would be the way to go.
The only guys i see run UMP and USMTS on a regular basis are the nascar guys in the impressive's, from what little i have seen they are on the chevelle clip. The only ump race i have ever watched in person schrader flat killed everyone at kankakee it was a summer nationals race last year majority of which were pierce cars on the metric clip

[Bcollins82]

You call it monkey see monkey do. Others call it years of R&D.
If ump has no rules like everyone says it would seem like the chevelle with all the moved pick up points would be the way to go.
The only guys i see run UMP and USMTS on a regular basis are the nascar guys in the impressive's, from what little i have seen they are on the chevelle clip. The only ump race i have ever watched in person schrader flat killed everyone at kankakee it was a summer nationals race last year majority of which were pierce cars on the metric clip

I never said there werent builders that hadn't put lots of R&D in their chevelle stuff, and there are a lot of good cars built on chevelle stubs. Chevelle cars win a lot of races. Yes, it can be an advantage to move the pickups, but it is still illegal for now. But most of the time a properly designed metric car will turn better than a stock location chevelle clip. I've had drivers that have run Impressive, mastersbilt, and shaw chevelle clip cars in my metric stuff and usually the first words out of their mouth are "wow, this car turns good!" so yeah, I believe the metric stuff turns better but some disagree. But the metrics sure do suck to drag out of the junkyard, strip, sandblast, cut, grind, and plate so they can be used. With the china chevelle stuff you can skip a few of those steps making it easier for the builders. So there are some advantages in putting all your R&D in the chevelle stuff.

[powerslide]

I never said there werent builders that hadn't put lots of R&D in their chevelle stuff, and there are a lot of good cars built on chevelle stubs. Chevelle cars win a lot of races. Yes, it can be an advantage to move the pickups, but it is still illegal for now. But most of the time a properly designed metric car will turn better than a stock location chevelle clip. I've had drivers that have run Impressive, mastersbilt, and shaw chevelle clip cars in my metric stuff and usually the first words out of their mouth are "wow, this car turns good!" so yeah, I believe the metric stuff turns better but some disagree. But the metrics sure do suck to drag out of the junkyard, strip, sandblast, cut, grind, and plate so they can be used. With the china chevelle stuff you can skip a few of those steps making it easier for the builders. So there are some advantages in putting all your R&D in the chevelle stuff.

what is the name of your chassis?

[Bcollins82]

what is the name of your chassis?

I have no ties with any chassis manufacturer as I sold out last year, but I used to own Dominator Race Cars.

[JustAddDirt]

I drove one of his cars at a test session.
It was the best feeling frontend I had driven in several years.
Now my new Lightning Chassis, is in a class by itself, and it is a Metric stub.