# Slotcar Scales



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

The white car is a standard Aurora ThunderJet Ford GT body. 

The red car is a scale replica of a Ford GT. 

Take a guess - what scale is the red car?










-- D


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Jurassic!


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

1/76 scale


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

I'd say the Red GT40 was probably labeled 1/64 ? But looks real close to the T-Jet Scale... but as we know, Aurora car body designers probably said- We don't Use No Stinkin' Scale, we build to Fit - LOL


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

PS- if you really want a laugh, don't Forget, the 1:1 GT40 was only 40 inches from road surface to top of Roof, so find me an HO(?) scale GT40, that sits a scale 40 inches tall from the track level, be it 1/64, 1/76, 1/72 or 1/87 !?


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

My guess the red car is true HO 1/87, though it could also be 1/76 as that is a popular scale in the UK. As I understand the history of it, before T Jets, there were Vibrators, and before Vibes there was Playcraft. Playcraft was based in Great Britain before Aurora got hold of them, and the popular scale in the UK is 00, which is approximately 1/76, though I believe the trains of that scale run on regular HO scale track. 

When Playcraft came about, it was designed for the UK market. Aurora just ran with it as HO. Once the T Jet chassis was made, the scale was increased to fit around the chassis which is slightly larger than the vibe sized chassis. Close was close enough back then. We were happy (except for myself, as I didn't really know about T Jets until '08) to have cool cars that we controlled in a scale relatively close to HO. Heck, when I was a kid, 99% of my cars were Matchboxes and Hot Wheels on my train table. I was so used to them, that true HO scale cars looked pathetically small to me!


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Joe, oh buddy, No way is the Red car True 1/87 (or 1/76), as that car would only be 3/4 that size, as I have a few True 1/87 Nascar models, and they is TIE-Knee !


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Bill Hall said:


> Jurassic!


the white car can't be a "Standard" orig. AURORA T-Jet.. 
them big wide rear tires are the tip-off....
got bunches of GT40's in T & AFX scales (Tomy ,.. ((Maybe it's a..Bauer??))..)
them Thar's AW rear tires won't fit the body w/o modification..
IE; wheel well cutting OR spacers under REAR mount pin..

HOWEVER.... I Could be "WRONG" :freak:
has happened MANY times B4 :drunk:

Bubba 123 :drunk::wave: :wave:
go ahead, pick on me ;-)
Luv U guys ;-)


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Bubby, the White #5 looks like a normal Wild Ones Ford GT, although the rear wheels look like AFX wheels ?


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Scale Comparo.... That's a standard Aurora Ford GT on the left, with a True 1/87 Scale (diecast) '07 Ford Fusion Nascar on the Right, which is normally much longer and taller than the Tiny GT40 in real life...


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

I know true HO is small, Ralph. That's why I threw that 1:76 scale in there also. While 1:76 die cast isn't popular here, it is pretty common in Europe. There are quite a few die cast cars available in 1:76, but you pretty much have to shop Ebay globally to see them all. A few make it to the US, but only a few. As I said, 00 is 1:76, and for train guys is "the" small scale in the UK. 

I've perused a few sellers looking for unique bodies when I'm in a "I'm really thinking of trying resin casting" mood. Sadly, it never goes through and I stay stuck in the LED business... Too much risk as I can't match stuff up without making the purchase and pay for Int'l shipping.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxford-Diec...hicles_DiecastVehicles_JN&hash=item1e784ea468

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxford-Diec...hicles_DiecastVehicles_JN&hash=item58b7eba7cf

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxford-Diec...hicles_DiecastVehicles_JN&hash=item2ed3c0ba52

This is just a tiny sample of what's out there. Not saying they'll fit a T Jet. The scale is what the Vibes were loosely based on, wheel base, width, and height are all factors that can't be judged by pix. T Jet bodies got a little bigger due to the chassis dimensions... It's a gamble I've been leery of taking, and I have yet to even bite the bullet and get the casting supplies. It's fun to dream though. If you look at what Bauer put out, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that particular Capri version is the body they used as a master.

The T Jet is a difficult size to fit bodies and keep them proportional, which is why a lot of bodies either sit really high, or are shortened up wheelbase-wise. Look at a 1:1 Mustang or Cougar, and then look at the passenger compartments of the Aurora (or AW) versions. The same goes for the Aurora and MM2 Camaros. Really short on the doors! Aurora should have made the chassis a little longer to begin with, and made the LWB position as the SWB standard, and made a longer WB for the LWB. This way the bodies wouldn't appear so scrunched up. They did address the issue with the slim line chassis, but it too is too high for low slung bodies.


----------



## asennafan (Jan 19, 2013)

Actually I think it is impossible to pin it (or any slot car) to a single scale. If you took a micrometer and measured the length, width, height, etc. they would all ratio out to different scales. Length of that GT40 might be 1/76 but the height is definitely bigger, maybe 1/64. Too many constraints for the designers to deal with for real accuracy, it just needed to "look" right.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Dis












plus



Dat










= ?


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Asennafan and Ralph are quite correct; Tjet "scale" is whatever it takes to put the body around the brick, usually with different scales for length and width (height is almost always way off, and is tough to calculate anyway). Still, except for looking a tiny tad wide, the proportions on the Tjet GT40 look very good to me.

Sorry, Bubba, I didn't mean to confuse anyone; I was careful to say "standard Aurora ThunderJet Ford GT _*body*_," but I should have taken the time to switch out to a stock chassis.

For all the time I and others on the forum have spent debunking the popular myth that "Tjets are 1:76 [or 1:87, or whatever] and AFX are 1:64", 
I still underestimate the tremendous range of scales in the Tjet line. 1:76 would have been my guess for the scale of the red car, too, Al and Joe. But the awful truth is on the package:










I had trouble believing it when I saw it in the store, so I bought it, and took calipers to the model and did the math. The little diecast _is_ within a whisper of dead-on 1:64 scale. 

And so is the Tjet. I think the T-jet looks chunkier because:
1. It is, being just a hair wider and a hair shorter (length 1:65). 
2. It is white, which makes things appear larger,
3. The widest point is at the side scoops, and the Tjet's sides fill out almost to the scoops, while the diecast's body allows the scoops to stick out more,
4. It is taller. In this photo, that's made worse by the large wheels and the spacer on the rear post which raises the body to clear the large wheels. (I _*really*_ should have taken the time to mount it on a standard chassis.)
5. The Tjet wheelbase is significantly shorter than the scale model's.

Smaller cars naturally have to be blown up to a larger scale to fit the standard Tjet wheel base(s), and I think the GT40 is a smaller car than most of us usually think of it as. We don't have much experience with the real thing, and tend to overestimate its size, based, perhaps, on its performance and historic significance.

All in all, I think Aurora did a great job retaining the proportions of the real car, while fitting it around the chassis. But I was very surprised by how much I misjudged the scale, and thought the forum might be interested, too.

Measured scales of other T-jet models and miscellaneous info on scale, can be found at this forum post:
*Okay, so what SCALE are T-JETS, really?*
Posts 1, 13, 16, 18, especially.​
Cheers,
-- D


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Dslot said:


> Asennafan and Ralph are quite correct; Tjet "scale" is whatever it takes to put the body around the brick, usually with different scales for length and width (height is almost always way off, and is tough to calculate anyway). Still, except for looking a tiny tad wide, the proportions on the Tjet GT40 look very good to me.
> 
> Sorry, Bubba, I didn't mean to confuse anyone; I was careful to say "standard Aurora ThunderJet Ford GT _*body*_," but I should have taken the time to switch out to a stock chassis.
> 
> ...


Dang, I guess that trashes any possibilities of converting the AW Diecasts 2 slots then (??)

Bubba 123 :wave:


----------



## asennafan (Jan 19, 2013)

Quoting from above- _"Smaller cars naturally have to be blown up to a larger scale to fit the standard Jet wheel base(s), and I think the GT40 is a smaller car than most of us usually think of it as. We don't have much experience with the real thing, and tend to overestimate its size, based, perhaps, on its performance and historic significance."_

This is me with a couple real ones- red MKII and blue MKIV (not mine). They are smaller than most people think but every bit as loud hot and un-Godly quick as you imagine them to be.








[/URL]


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

> Dang, I guess that trashes any possibilities of converting the AW Diecasts 2 slots then (??)


I wouldn't be too sure about that, Bubba. An AW 1:64 diecast of a somewhat larger car might well have the internal space and wheelbase to take a slot chassis of some kind. I haven't taken the AW GT40 apart, but I'm thinking you might be able to get a powered chassis into it, maybe with a bit of shaving and coaxing. Maybe even a Tjet, but you'd have to give it a divorced front axle to fit the long wheelbase.
-- D


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

I don't think T Jets really have a real scale. What is right in one direction is usually off in the other two...


----------



## Hilltop Raceway (Feb 12, 2006)

Have you ever looked at the T jet AC Cobra??? Way out of scale to me, plus a few others...RM


----------



## RjAFX (Oct 26, 2014)

Sit on the floor and get the distance stick out...40" to the top of the roof on the outside for the GT40. Now knock another 3" off and you'll be at the 917K's 37" ground to top of the roof, outside. I've been in both car's, and some wonder why so many drivier's are little people.


----------



## GT40 (Jan 18, 2014)

Guys
Anyone know what the bumps are for on the roof over the passenger seat.
I guess I have never seen them before.


----------



## asennafan (Jan 19, 2013)

It's called a "Gurney Bubble". It's for head clearance for taller drivers, named after Dan Gurney. And that's the drivers seat, passenger sits on the left.


----------



## RjAFX (Oct 26, 2014)

asennafan said:


> It's called a "Gurney Bubble". It's for head clearance for taller drivers, named after Dan Gurney. And that's the drivers seat, passenger sits on the left.


ChaChing.....Pay the Man.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

asennafan said:


> This is me with a couple real ones- red MKII and blue MKIV (not mine). They are smaller than most people think but every bit as loud hot and un-Godly quick as you imagine them to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ooooh. That looks like it was a good day!


----------



## asennafan (Jan 19, 2013)

Yep, every day you get to play with toys is a good day, no matter how big or little they are!


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Hilltop Raceway said:


> Have you ever looked at the T jet AC Cobra??? Way out of scale to me, plus a few others...RM


Here are the calculated scales for the Cobra from
the listing on the *Okay, so what SCALE are T-JETS, really?* thread.

*AC Cobra 289 Aurora T-Jet *
length - 1:61
width - 1:57
height - 1:61 
Composite = 1:60​
Of the cars measured, it has the largest composite of length, width, and height scales, and also ties with the 65 Mustang for the largest scale of a single measurement - width for both at 1:57.

But to say it's "out of scale" assumes there is an actual general scale for Tjets, which there really isn't. Even ignoring the outlier subjects such as the Snowmobile, Thunderbike and the open-wheel racers, the scales on length alone for various Tjets run from about 1:80 all through the 1:70s and 1:60s, and the widths are seldom in scale proportion to the length.

I'm not complaining. The Thunderjet line was a great line of toys, and most of us never realized that there was a lot of discrepancy in the scales (and wouldn't have cared, anyway) until we sat down as adults and tried to figure out what "Tjet scale" really was. 

-- D


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Like The AC Cobra, I always thought the Aurora '63 Corvette Split Window T-Jet looked HUGE !? And I'm guessing it's close to the Cobra in scale also ? (I didn't Visit that website yet to look it up).


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Ralphthe3rd said:


> Like The AC Cobra, I always thought the Aurora '63 Corvette Split Window T-Jet looked HUGE !? And I'm guessing it's close to the Cobra in scale also ? (I didn't Visit that website yet to look it up).


The split-window Vette is 1:68 (by length). Don't have measurements for width or height, so one of those may be adding to the impression of larger size.

Not quite as large a scale as the Cobra, but almost up to the magic 1:64 that's supposed to be the realm of the AFX. But many of the T-jet versions of the smaller cars were in the 1:60s, lengthwise - Jaguar XK-140 & XK-E, Ford GT 40, Chaparral 2C, Lola GT, Porsche 904, Dino Ferrari, Mangusta, and probably several that I never measured.

-- D


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Dslot said:


> Ooooh. That looks like it was a good day!


I'm so hacked!!!!
found out Ford made a 2006 GT40....
"Could" have had a road version 1 ...back then anyways, "IF" I had known 

Bubba 123 :freak::drunk::wave:
maybe it was 2004 (??).. still could'a had1 :-(


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

On one of my trips out to LA, I remember seeing a billboard advertising the street version of the GT40, and that was in '04. Alan Jackson used on in one of his music videos. 

My scale and proportion references were based on my own perceptions of most T Jets, and on that thread you posted way back there Dslot. Aurora did it, and others followed it. They all fit the body to the chassis, which left things proportionally skewed. Taking cars of various sizes and limiting them to two wheelbases (which I feel was too short), and then widening the bodies to accommodate the chassis' width, and then going too tall due to the chassis height really fudged up most body's proportions. 

Aurora captured the flavor of the cars they modeled, and that was good enough for us. Remember, back then they were toy cars (and patented in some cases as "games"), and we were kids that were happy to have something as cool as they were. We looked past the discrepancies in scale and appreciated them for what they were. Toy cars that represented real cars, and when they were on the track and running around at our control, you really couldn't tell they were off! It was close enough!!

I'm happy we have what we have now, and thanks to Danny Tantrum, we can carry on playing with our beloved T Jets long into the future. Part of the joys of our slots is the fact we can go back in time to when we were kids, and we didn't have a care in the world (other than the occasional nuke attack test and hiding under our desks, like that would have really saved our butts! lol) Like back then, proportions and scales didn't matter. 

My apologies if this post is kinda messed up... Not enough sleep, and this morning's coffee hasn't started working yet... :freak:


----------



## Rawafx (Jul 20, 1999)

I remember Car Model magazine making the statement (in print) that the '67 Ford Galaxie 500 was a near perfect 1/87th scale when it was reviewed.

Bob Weichbrodt
[email protected]
Winston-Salem, NC


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Rawafx said:


> I remember Car Model magazine making the statement (in print) that the '67 Ford Galaxie 500 was a near perfect 1/87th scale when it was reviewed.


Bob, 
That's not what I got when I measured the model in 2010.

*Ford Galaxie XL500* 1967 Aur T-Jet 
l-w-h: 1:77-1:72-1:69 ..... Composite = 1:73
Wonkiness = 8

I probably should go back and recheck all those calculations and the measurements on which they're based. (Shudder - sounds like a lot of work.)

-- D


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

*Low Cars*



Bubba 123 said:


> I'm so hacked!!!!
> found out Ford made a 2006 GT40....
> "Could" have had a road version 1 ...back then anyways, "IF" I had known
> 
> Bubba 123 :freak::drunk::wave:


FYI, back when that New GT40 Street Version came out, a Biker Friend of mine- Gov Yearick who is a Harley Dealer and owns #1 Cycle up in State College Pa., well he bought one of them ! And boy was it sweet looking and low and tiny. He offered to take me for a ride in it, well, I'm 6" 4" and damned if I could barely squeeze into that thing, and my head was hitting the roof inside,and I had to hunch over and was very uncomfortable. Then Gov decides to rip thru the gears to show off, and dang, that was Not a fun car to be in if you were Tall !
I also remember Tom Selleck(actor) back on Magnum P.I. driving that Ferrari 308 T-Top, because he HAD to have the Top Open, because he too was 6"4" and the top of his head protruded Above the Roof Line !


----------



## mrtjet (Dec 3, 2013)

As I remember Tom Sellicks car was lengthened to fit him.


----------

