# JL/AW Body Fit Chart for an Aurora Chassis



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Hi Guys,
Before I start to put one together, does a list already exist of which JL and AW bodies, both pullback and TJ-500, fit correctly without modification onto an original Aurora T-Jet chassis? And the list of those that do not and the reason?

I have already tried a few that do not work because either the wheelbase is off or the gearplate hits the underside of the body.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Grandcheapskate said:


> Hi Guys,
> Before I start to put one together, does a list already exist of which JL and AW bodies, both pullback and TJ-500, fit correctly without modification onto an original Aurora T-Jet chassis? And the list of those that do not and the reason?
> 
> I have already tried a few that do not work because either the wheelbase is off or the gearplate hits the underside of the body.
> ...


there are 3 set positions on; aurora, JL, & AW chassis 4 wheel base...
the most common of "Inconveniences"....

as 4 the gear plate, just add a thin shim (washer, O ring) over rear screw post, 2 raise 4 enough clearance...

Bubba 123 :wave:


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Bubba,
I am aware of the three positions for the front axle, but that's not the problem. The Aurora and JL/AW T-Jet chassis are not completely identical and so the axle holes are not in the exact same places.

For example, I tried to mount an AW Cougar body on an Aurora chassis, but the wheelbase is slightly off; without modification the body will not fit. The Corvette Mako Shark and Grand Sport have clearance issues with the gearplate. The Volkswagen Beetle did fit.

I'm pretty sure I tried raising the Mako body to make it fit, but I may have then run into the wheelbase problem - I cannot remember why I did not leave the body on an Aurora chassis.

I'm simply wondering whether someone has already done the work of trying all the bodies to see which will fit and which will not - without modification.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

This is a real problem. Some bodies are a better fit on one chassis over the other. Sadly, I don't know which fits what better..


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

But they are good & cheap, so cut to fit.


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Grandcheapskate said:


> Bubba,
> I am aware of the three positions for the front axle, but that's not the problem. The Aurora and JL/AW T-Jet chassis are not completely identical and so the axle holes are not in the exact same places.
> 
> For example, I tried to mount an AW Cougar body on an Aurora chassis, but the wheelbase is slightly off; without modification the body will not fit. The Corvette Mako Shark and Grand Sport have clearance issues with the gearplate. The Volkswagen Beetle did fit.
> ...


my apologies :thumbsup:
thank U 4 info & kindly worded :freak::wave:

Bubba 123 :freak::wave:


----------



## LDThomas (Nov 30, 1999)

I did not know that AW made a Corvette Mako Shark!


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

I believe Joe is referring to the GS Corvette...


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

LDThomas said:


> I did not know that AW made a Corvette Mako Shark!


Maybe it's not a Mako Shark. I was refering to the release 1 1971 Corvette.

Joe


----------



## LDThomas (Nov 30, 1999)

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification. You had me stumped.

Larry


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

BTW- there is ALSO Fitment issues if you try and use the ModelMotoring2 >ThunderPlus chassis (yes I have a few now), as they are on the long side, and really won't even fit MM2 Bodies very well.
PS- the MM2 chassis really aren't that bad at all(IMHO), Especially if you swap out the Fubar Armature with an Aurora one.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Ralphthe3rd said:


> BTW- there is ALSO Fitment issues if you try and use the ModelMotoring2 >ThunderPlus chassis (yes I have a few now), as they are on the long side, and really won't even fit MM2 Bodies very well.
> PS- the MM2 chassis really aren't that bad at all(IMHO), Especially if you swap out the Fubar Armature with an Aurora one.


The only body which came with the Thunderplus was the 1967 Corvette. All the others were initially released with a NOS Aurora chassis. It may be that late in the process some of the others came with the Thunderplus but my collection has Aurora under everything but the Corvette.

I have also heard the Thunderplus is not 100% identical to an Aurora. But since only the Corvette was molded for the Thunderplus, all the other bodies should fit just fine.

Have you found issues with other bodies other than the Corvette?

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Joe, I have a Thunderplus under a MM2 '55 Chevy and the wheel wells don't look too bad. But all the rest of my T+ chassis just sit on display, the '55 gets run a bit because I installed an Aurora Arm and trust that one.
Funny you should mention the T+ not being an exact copy of a t-Jet, it's pretty darn close, and aside from the rough tooling marks that were left in the mold, they aren't bad looking, and seem to run well even with the MM2 Arm(at least for short periods of use). I like those chassis alot better than AW chassis, and check out the copper/brass electrics...they are cut alot nicer than those [email protected] AW !
BTW- someone mentioned earlier about the JL Gran Sport Vette not fitting an aurora chassis good, Well....I found quite the opposite, aside from the top plate clearance issues(which can be corrected), the Aurora Chassis FITS the wheelbase of the Gran Sport aLOT better than an JL/AW Chassis ! I have a couple, one AW powered and one Aurora powered, and the Aurora matches alot better !


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

It is a shame the Thunderplus was not continued. When they first came out, the factory made an error and put 50 ohm arms into them when they were supposed to have 15 ohm arms. Model Motoring at the time offered replacement gearplates for anyone with a 50 ohm arm - I have about 6. I really can't recall why I only have 6 because I do have every MM car including all the Corvettes (there are about 20+). But I'm sure there was a reason.

I only have one running Thunderplus, it runs as well as any Aurora and looks much better than a JL/AW.

As I mentioned, you may find that only the 67 Corvette fits the Thunderplus exactly as every other body was designed for the Aurora chassis.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

*JL GranSport 'Vettes...Chassis comparo*

Like I mentioned previously, the Original aurora chassis/Wheelbase FITS these bodies Better...ie- Aurora on the left, AW on the right.









BTW- I had to use smaller diameter rear tires on the AW chassis, so they wouldn't rub the back of the wheelwells.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Hi Ralph,
It may well be that JL made their pullbacks to fit the wheelbase of the Aurora chassis - which would make sense since it was the only one around. Both of those bodies in your picture are pullback bodies. Although some do have gearplate clearance issues, which is another concern.

When JL then decided to put out their own chassis, they missed on the size of the wheelbase making all the pullback bodies a better fit on the Aurora than on their own chassis. However, once the chassis was made, any future NEW bodies probably were made to fit the wheelbase of the JL chassis and carried over to AW. A quick look seems to indicate that the first new bodies appear in JL release #5; up to that point, all the bodies were also pullback bodies.

So maybe the answer to my question is as follows. All pullback bodies will fit the wheelbase of an Aurora, though some will have clearance issues. Any bodies not made for the pullback chassis have a wheelbase set up for the JL/AW chassis. And some bodies will have both wheelbase and clearance issues on an Aurora.

Now it's a matter of putting together a chart that shows all that info.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

not sarcastic, just perspiring mind wants to know.
why?


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

alpink said:


> not sarcastic, just perspiring mind wants to know.
> why?


I'm confused. What is it you want to know?


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

*this thread*



Grandcheapskate said:


> I'm confused. What is it you want to know?


this thread is about a chart for body fittings?


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Yes Al. Some JL/AW bodies were designed indirectly with the Aurora chassis wheelbase specs in mind, and others are designed to fit the AW chassis better. I think a lot of it depends on what JL/AW used for the master, ie the bodies which were tooled from Aurora masters like the Mustang, Cougar, Riviera, etc being a direct copy of Aurora's work line up with an Aurora chassis better; and the AW specific bodies such as the Willys Panel, Cuda and Challenger, and Corvette GS wheel base fitting the JL/AW platform better. 

There is a slight variance in wheelbase in chassis between the original and the copy, and some bodies fit one better than the other. ^^^I'm only guessing at these^^^^ but my guess is based on standard business practices in regards to money saving short cuts.


----------



## partspig (Mar 12, 2003)

slotcarman12078 said:


> Yes Al. Some JL/AW bodies were designed indirectly with the Aurora chassis wheelbase specs in mind, and others are designed to fit the AW chassis better.


Ummm,,, let me clarify that statement somewhat. The first two generations of Johnny Lightning cars were pullbacks. They had their own chassis, made of die cast metal and bits of plastic. Those bodies were never designed to fit any chassis other than the one they came with, that is why, when a motorized chassis is installed, the driven gear rubs on the post. The first generations of t-jet slot cars from Johnny Lightning had LONGER BODY POSTS to help the gear clear the screw post and solve that problem. Piss poor work arounds from an engineering standpoint. Most places would not do it that way I am sure. But as we all know JL/AW has been taking shortcuts for some time now. OR am I dreaming still? I still think that they should get an award for the most expensive packaging for a cheaply made slot car! JMHO pig


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

I get where Joe is going with this, but maybe we should define what a "proper fit" is in the first place. If we're going to start dropping a plumb line through the 12 O'clock position on the fender arches and expect it to hit the axle center we got a real problem.


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm not implying any are a perfect fit, just that one chassis tends to be less wonky than another. I also didn't take pull backs into consideration, which were intended to stay on pullback chassis, but many were transferred to Aurora chassis. The majority of the tooling was modeled from sample Aurora bodies, with the remainder from fresh new (though sloppy) masters. The 70 Camaro is an example of new, the Willys an example of old. As far as the "SLOPPY" goes, a quick look at how the rear wheels line up on a Willys body, or the back spoiler on the Camaro body shows the varying degrees of slop.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Bill Hall said:


> I get where Joe is going with this *****


OP Joe! Not you Joe...LOL

Sorry, my bad.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Okay, let me clarify what I was trying to accomplish with this thread. In response to Bill's question, I am not looking for exact lining up of the axle to the high point/center of the wheel well. Rather I am looking to put together a chart showing which JL/AW bodies will fit on an Aurora chassis without modification to either the body or the Aurora chassis. The chart would also show which bodies do not fit and why.

What do I mean by "fit"?

By fit, I mean a JL/AW body which will go on an Aurora chassis and (1) be centered enough so the tires do not hit the wheel wells and (b) not have gearplate clearance issues. Exact centering of the tires is not what I am trying to find.

So far, I have used a JL pullback Willys and AC Cobra, and an AW Beetle on Aurora chassis without an issue. Ralph's photo shows him using JL pullback GS Corvettes, although he needed to trim the gearplate rails.

I have to disagree with Slotcarman about which bodies will fit and how JL/AW modeled those bodies. For example, I tried to put an AW Cougar on an Aurora chassis and the wheel wells were way off. Same with the 1971 Corvette (with clearance issues also).

I still believe that although the pullback body was not made for an Aurora chassis, the wheelbase is the same as an Aurora. So all the bodies which were made for the pullback chassis will "fit" an Aurora wheellbase. Gearplate and/or post clearance is another issue. All new body models produced after the introduction of the JL chassis (which would be from JL release 5 onward) were made with a wheelbase designed to fit the JL chassis. (Note: all the bodies on JL release 1-4 are also pullback bodies). 

Anyone disagree with that?

I have simply not tried nearly all the JL or AW body models to know which "fit" and which do not. But it seems a general rule may be "assume AW bodies will not fit until you try it". I guess there is no fit chart already put together, so I'll get one started in a later post with what I have found so far. Then everyone can add what they have learned and we maybe can come up with a pretty complete picture.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*Thanx*

Just playing a little devils advocate Joe L. Adequate/functional mechanical fit IS where I thought you were setting the bar. I guess the point I failed to clarify was that the interpretation of "what fits" is pretty subjective until you actually defined it. Thanx 

Goofy looking or ill fitting combinations that function mechanically, but arent workable in the aesthetic sense; means that they still dont WORK for me personally.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Bill Hall said:


> Just playing a little devils advocate Joe L. Adequate/functional mechanical fit IS where I thought you were setting the bar. I guess the point I failed to clarify was that the interpretation of "what fits" is pretty subjective until you actually defined it. Thanx
> 
> Goofy looking or ill fitting combinations that function mechanically, but arent workable in the aesthetic sense; means that they still dont WORK for me personally.


Hi Bill,
If a chart were put together, it could contains notes about each body. If it were put into something like an Excel spreadsheet there could be columns for major categories. Such columns could be for "wheelbase fit", "clearance issues", etc. So I could look up a given body and know whether it fit, needs clearance, what modification(s) may be needed, looks goofy, etc.

Right now, outside of the bodies I have already tried I don't know about the others. I don't want to end up buying JL/AW bodies for my Aurora chassis only to find out they don't fit (which I have already done).

Thanks...Joe


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Ok, let me add a Giant No Go Body, the JL Pullback '60 Corvette, although I DID make it fit an Aurora Chassis, it took alot of whittling under the body and some creative mods to the front shoes hangers.
Also, not that it changes the story, but my Yellow Gran Sport Corvette- shown with an Aurora Chassis, ACTUALLY, is Sporting an AutoWorld Top Plate and Arm ! Yes, they can be adapted, and it's pretty easy....this one is featuring an aurora 9 tooth Pinion gear. And, the Underside of the GS Vette's hood and windshield NEED shaved quite a bit, to drop the front end as low as in my pix.


Grandcheapskate said:


> Ralph's photo shows him using JL pullback GS Corvettes, although he needed to trim the gearplate rails.


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

*Use a Shoe Horn*



Grandcheapskate said:


> .... I don't want to end up buying JL/AW bodies for my Aurora chassis only to find out they don't fit (which I have already done).
> 
> Thanks...Joe


 Send 'em to ME, Joe, and I'll make 'em FIT MY Aurora Chassis !


----------



## oddrods (Feb 6, 2007)

Being that AW only plans on releasing the same cars over and over and over again you should have plenty of time to make that list.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Ralphthe3rd said:


> Ok, let me add a Giant No Go Body, the JL Pullback '60 Corvette, although I DID make it fit an Aurora Chassis, it took alot of whittling under the body and some creative mods to the front shoes hangers.
> Also, not that it changes the story, but my Yellow Gran Sport Corvette- shown with an Aurora Chassis, ACTUALLY, is Sporting an AutoWorld Top Plate and Arm ! Yes, they can be adapted, and it's pretty easy....this one is featuring an aurora 9 tooth Pinion gear. And, the Underside of the GS Vette's hood and windshield NEED shaved quite a bit, to drop the front end as low as in my pix.


This is exactly the kind of info that could be put into a spreadsheet. Then someone who wanted to use the 60 Corvette or GS Corvette would know what modifications need to be done in order for those bodies to work on an Aurora chassis.

And sorry Ralph, no extra bodies will be heading your way any time soon. So don't stand by the mailbox. LOL

Thanks...Joe


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

oddrods said:


> Being that AW only plans on releasing the same cars over and over and over again you should have plenty of time to make that list.


:lol:


----------

