We've just finished a major redesign of PHR, and we're now looking for the right kind of cars to feature.We have the reputation of doing mostly g-Machines (Pro-Touring cars), but there are lots of others out there. Post what kind of car you'd like to see more of:street/strip carsdrag race onlymore g-Machinesevery-day drivers (slower than 12-sec ET)best-of-the-best (over-the-top cars like Chicayne, The Mule, or the g-Force 'Cuda)otherThe next question is, what price range of cars are you most interested in (including cost of the car)?under $10,000under $25,000under $40,000Sky is the limit
I like street/strip cars. Something that is basically a good all around runner. Cars that do only one thing (like drag only or g machines) but not very well don't impress me. I am an engine guy but I spend most of my article reading time focused on the chassis and seeing how well it works for the intended purpose.I'd like to see one of each of those price range cars in every issue. It could provide a figurative pathway for the reader to progress along with his own project/interest. If the reader's own car is at the 10k level the he can relate and compare with the under 10k feature car. Then he can look toward the next step up , the 25k feature. Then start long term dreams with the higher budget projects.
Okay, so no favorite price range--all are good. Street-strip cars preferrable. Anybody else have an opinion?
i like street,strip cars also
When you say street/strip cars, my understanding is that you mean a guy who actually brings it to the track regularly and drives it daily (or could drive it daily). Those would be cars you might see at the Hot Rod Pump Gas Drags or in MSD True Street.Among our management is the feeling that a lot of readers don't actually mean street/strip when they say it. Apparently, some readers only want to know if their car could run a certain ET without the actual mess of going to the track. Is this what you really mean? (i.e. it would be nice to know my car could do 11-sec ETs--if I wanted to--but I won't actually go.)
i like the pro street cars and street/stripcars and yes the cars that are run on the street and at the strip and have good et.look in the back issues like the 80's that would be a good start in cars that us the consumers would want to see ..the g-machines are ok but thier missing the point thiese cars that detroit built in the 60-70's where not gmachines only builtto go fast and to have fun if detroit wanted to build g-machines thay would have if we wanted gmachines we would of bought a europen cars hence(bmw,porshe,ferarri,lamboughini,ect. but we didnt so go back to the roots of the magazine... start ther
real cars and real ppl not trailer queens
Do you think there is any place in the magazine for those cars that represent the cutting edge in our hobby? Cars such as the g-Force 'Cuda, The Mule, or Chicayne? Should they only be in Hot Rod? These would be considered trailer queens by most people.
There is a place for everything, the really outrageous cars can give up single ideas to the average rodder, how to conceal wiring, or run accessories, or route exhaust.. They may be unreachable in total, but little pieces can find homes anywhere. If you find something unique, original, or even something mainstream that is really "just right" we want to see it.. Jim W
I really like it when you do something and actually go test it. Think back to early Project X. They built it, they went to the track, they tried stuff AT the track, they told you if worked or not etc.Absolutely sick of the lame easy way out of using Quarter Jr simulators. Way too often magazine take that route and then when it actually gets to the track it chokes. That's what we need to see....it looked good on paper...but take it out and actually DO it and go through what it takes to actually do it. Too many bench racers out there that can quote all the magazines but don't have a clue what it really takes to build a 12, 11, 10 or 9 sec streetable car.Think back years ago to the 454 and 406" 500 HP motors that were taken to the track. Idea was to settle the big block/small block argument. They had lots of problems and never got a good run in supposedly.That would have been fine to say....but they ended up doing the simulator. Everyone I know laughed about it. In fact, it recently came up among a few friends who remembered and still called BS. Primarliy because we had all talked to some of the players involved and the found out the HP numbers were WAY off and the cars actually wouldn't fall out of a tree. THAT would have been better to print. Let us experience the good and the bad with you. Everything isn't magic..we know it.The super High End deals are neat, but I rarely give them more than a second glance even in person. Pretty..but I'll wander the pits looking at a doorslammer anyday and crawl all over it.JIM
Bingo!Even if you can't make the print for the next month, you can discuss it here or create a "late breaking news" forum. I have seen more printed "failures" as of late, but even they include copouts like corrected or composite times or the already mentioned simulators. Getting to a point where no one laughs when magazine articles are quoted during bench racing should be an industry wide goal. Most folks know that the times in certain mags are easy to beat, while others are suspiciously hard to match, and that brand loyalty makes some produce laughably weak engines from certain marques.I guess the tough question is, would this ideal of total integrity to the hobby sell enough magazines and ad space to keep a magazine afloat? Jim W
We like testing and plan on putting as much in PHR as we can. BTW, I want to pull some of your quotes for the magazine's Mailbox section. If you guys don't mind, tag your messages with your full name and hometown. If you feel uncomfortable about that, just email it to me at email@example.com.Thanks
I think your coverage of the ProTouring /Gmachines was what set you apart from the rest. Most of the other mags do strip/track cars but for some of us , we want something you can thrash on , and then drive to a local cruise. Your indepth look at tech is good too.I feel like a car is not something that is a full scale model. There's something very wrong about spending megabucks on a car then never driving it. That's what they were made for , not to sit in a collector's building!As for money , keep it mixed. Affordable cars are interesting as the megabuck ones are too.Both of 'em can give us ideas on how we want to build our own rides and gives us ideas and inspiration.
Jim W:There is a place for everything, the really outrageous cars can give up single ideas to the average rodder, how to conceal wiring, or run accessories, or route exhaust.. They may be unreachable in total, but little pieces can find homes anywhere. If you find something unique, original, or even something mainstream that is really "just right" we want to see it.. Jim WI agree, I couldn't afford to buy the fender off the g-force Cuda but I did get some ideas of how to do stuff. Both the low-buck and mega-buck stuff inspires me in different ways with my own cars. The key is to have a balance.
Hey Steve, Mike from Lat-G.I would like to see more testing on the cars you showcase. 0-60 times, quarter mile times, and braking and skidpad tests. This might cut down on the trailer queens people see, but it get's real world cars that are driven and tests performance like C&D and R&T do. It would be nice to do a comparison on older vs. newer cars. I honestly would rater see the cars like the Mule that are driven all the time, as opposed to some trailer car with flawless paint that will never see the road.