# R 4 X-trac chassis



## Jimmy49098 (Jan 5, 2006)

Hey guys, just got my beautiful red GT40. The front axle slop is gone, a little whole in the bottom of the chassis for the dot magnets that they will be putting in there.(on one side? does that seem wierd to any body else? how about make the magnets half as strong and find a way to fit them on both sides). The wiring for the light rubs the front axle, but I think the afx ones did that too, not sure. Only thing I don't like so far is that the lighted chassis dont have pick-up shoe springs, they didn't solder to the bottom but underneath the shoes, and the springy flat tab thingy under the shoe for electrical contact is the spring. My cars front wheels sat almost 1/4 inch up off the track before bending it. Love the bodies, hope they continue to improve the chassis, J


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

Could we have some pictures of the chassis please?


----------



## Gary#8 (Dec 14, 2004)

Hi Jimmy, Which side is the hole on? Driver(left) or passanger(right).
The flat tabby thing is it sort of like the tabby pick-up shoe thing on a LifeLike T chassis?


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

A hole for a dot traction magnet in an XT chassis...? This is the first I've heard that AW was even considering such a thing. I knew that they were going to put a traction magnet in the new "TJUGs".


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

It was always going to be both, just happens the TJs in release 4 has the magnets and the XTs only have the aperture.

Cant wait to see some images and hear about lap times.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

Jimmy49098 said:


> _ . . . Only thing I don't like so far is that the lighted chassis dont have pick-up shoe springs, they didn't solder to the bottom but underneath the shoes, and the springy flat tab thingy under the shoe for electrical contact is the spring . . . _


*HUH? *

'doba


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

without pics, this thread is kinda meaningless, doncha think?


----------



## Jimmy49098 (Jan 5, 2006)

Hey, here is a pic. I figured at least a few people had these by now. Another thing is this looks to me to be the third different type of material for the rear tires, nice and sticky so far, J


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

That looks like a home made experiment.


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

UGH! I was gonna bid on a couple of theses tonight on feeBay until I saw that pic.

Anyone have pics of the Daytonas out of the clam. I'm looking to see if they actually sit correctly on the chassis before I go to the trouble of tracking some down. I've got some nice NOS lighted Magnatractions to put under 'em.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

Enhanced photo:









Whoa -- What is up with the pick-up shoe? Is that being done for the light?

'doba


----------



## Crimnick (May 28, 2006)

Hmmmmm...yuck is the only word that comes to mind...


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

I am so glad I stopped pre-ordering.


----------



## JordanZ870 (Nov 25, 2004)

Ok, so now it has a leaf-type spring, ala Tyco slotless....sort of.


----------



## coach61 (Sep 6, 2004)

joez870 said:


> Ok, so now it has a leaf-type spring, ala Tyco slotless....sort of.


Now I will never clean under my desk..Only time it gets done is when I am on a elusive spring hunt...


----------



## Dragula (Jun 27, 2003)

Is anyone else sickened by this piece of crap there trying to sell?
DRAGjet


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

I'm not buying any now. I will possibly if they get good reviews.

I wasn't excited about the lights anyway. If they could do LEDs, then I might be interested in lights.


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

It looks like I'll dump mine on the bay what a piece of crap. Did they ever see the original? It looked like it may have had a good start with those connectors on the bottom but the crap jump wire right where the spring goes WTF!!!!!!


----------



## Piz (Apr 22, 2002)

Jimmy I guess the real question is , How do they run ? I really don't care what the light / pick up shoe looks like as long as they run and handle well.


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

micyou03 said:


> I am so glad I stopped pre-ordering.


I will nevr do it again.It can be fixed but then you need springs too WTF! This is unbeliveable, all they had to do was wire it down the side and solder it on if you have no clue what you are doing just copy a proven design. I hope the ultra g is a better deal because this looks like a real loser....


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

Piz said:


> Jimmy I guess the real question is , How do they run ? I really don't care what the light / pick up shoe looks like as long as they run and handle well.


time will tell, but I am betting the farm that it has problems desloting or getting power from the rail.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*Fred and Barney would be proud.*

Wow! Where exactly does the squirrel go?

This is wrong on so many levels, I dont know where to begin. Coulda really ruined Taco night. Fortunately I ate early today so my sickness was relagated to the dry heaves between fits of hysterical laughter.

How we went from the nifty T-jet flamethrower "foldy tabs" or the quick tin the wire and solder poke on AFX style hanger plates defies explanation.

Sorta reminds me of an American Joke one of my German cousins told me. Nasa spent millions trying to perfect a pen that astronauts could use to write in zero gravity....the Russians took a pencil.


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

I don't know... I kinda like it. I found mine waiting for me when I got home and I liked the way it ran. I also like the new body colors. It's different, and if you were worried about getting TOP speed, why would you even consider a lighted car to begin with? 

I liked lighted cars, I've always liked lighted cars. I love the lighted Tyco 440-X2 chassis, but they're getting hard to find. So, I may use the ever faithful buddy clip and put the white Daytona on the lighted 440. Love those tyco chassis to AFX body buddy clips. I have at least a dozen JL bodies on tyco chassis and they hold tight. 

As for this release...I'll probably buy more of these than the other two releases combined. I'm looking forward to the new T-jets too. Some of them look really nice and new chassis should be interesting. I give Tom's efforts two thumbs up. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

On another note.... the Dash 55's are awesome. Way to go Dan! 
Can't wait for the Falcons and the VW buses


----------



## Dragula (Jun 27, 2003)

These chassis look like an abortion of slot science,AW isnt trying to take slots further,there sitting back laughing at how bad they can make something and still have people buy there junk.I would like a pound of whatever there smoking,it may give my back some relief.Sorry to rant,but they didnt re-invent the wheel,they just squared it off a bit,way to go. AW=Absolutely worthless
DRAGjet


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

videojimmy said:


> I don't know... I kinda like it. I found mine waiting for me when I got home and I liked the way it ran.


What are lap times like? Could you take a HQ overhead shot of the chassis in all it's ''glory''


----------



## JordanZ870 (Nov 25, 2004)

1976Cordoba said:


> Enhanced photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The original has a tab that is part of the shoe-hanger, yeah? Doesn't it extend up the side of the chassis? They would have had to create a whole new set of dies to recreate the original part. These chassis are not junk, really, this is just truely odd. If I inadvertantly end up with any of these chassis, I will go out and buy a new "solder-sucker" and a bunch of new coil springs. :thumbsup:


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

I wonder if the leaf spring trick was used in response to complaints of people losing pickup shoes springs....And the 'new' tire recipe? Hopefully it will be applied to the Thunderjets tires.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

????? Odd is not one of the words that come to my mind, Joe. "Expedient and cost-effective" pop right up. 

Wonder how many tries it took to approve the prototype? My guess is less than 2.


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Springs? We don't need no stinkin' springs...*



SplitPoster said:


> ????? Odd is not one of the words that come to my mind, Joe. "Expedient and cost-effective" pop right up.
> 
> *Wonder how many tries it took to approve the prototype? My guess is less than 2.*


That is great!!! :lol: 
But it is one of those things... If it works you are a genius, if it doesn't you are a goat... I may have to buy 1 or 2 and try them out before I pass judgement...

Scott


----------



## coach61 (Sep 6, 2004)

noddaz said:


> That is great!!! :lol:
> But it is one of those things... If it works you are a genius, if it doesn't you are a goat... I may have to buy 1 or 2 and try them out before I pass judgement...
> 
> Scott



I tend to agree with Scott, With the dukes set having two crossovers to appeal to the kids I can see springs a flying, and if we all recall the dark ages.. ( When the nearest hobby shop was 40 miles away). losing a spring was a disaster. So it may work for the good, but I think hiring someone who could actually do a neat job would have been better then letting the drunken drawfs solder it up. looks like something I would do at 3 in the morning..lol.. :drunk:


----------



## Jimmy49098 (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm worried and pretty sure that the leaf spring thing under in place of springs will lose its tension/elasticity , you know what I mean, it could only be adjusted a few times before it wears out. 
It does run great, AW's chassis are pretty much drop on the track and go, which is good for kids, they might not even notice the front wheels don't touch the track;-) but after adjusting it was level and running great. To me AFX makes slot cars and AW makes toy slot cars, but of course I always buy a couple each release, J


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Coach I think looks more like an up-all-nighter to me lol.

I don't quite get the kid angle. The Dukes were a kid thing 30 years ago, and I have seen AW's on the shelves of vintage toy stores and hobby shops, not Wal Mart. I have seen the target audience, and it is us. 

The easy answer is to put a "service manual" in the box/set and include an extra set of 5 cent springs..... but that would involve long term commitment to customers who actually run the cars.....


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

videojimmy said:


> So, I may use the ever faithful buddy clip and put the white Daytona on the lighted 440.


Hey Jimmy,

Do the Daytonas sit on the AW Chassis properly? Do ya think they will fit a Magnatraction and look right? The last time I dove in to an AW car was for the '71 Charger Stock car and got something that sits on the chassis like a '55 Gasser drag car with a tube front axel and leaf springs.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

After looking at doba's pics, in another post, I feel better about the F/T chassis and will try at least one of them.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

twolff said:


> Hey Jimmy,
> 
> Do the Daytonas sit on the AW Chassis properly? Do ya think they will fit a Magnatraction and look right? The last time I dove in to an AW car was for the '71 Charger Stock car and got something that sits on the chassis like a '55 Gasser drag car with a tube front axel and leaf springs.



Here's a link to a picture I found on ebey. It doesn't look too goo to me in thr front.

http://i6.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/b7/4d/79db_1.JPG


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*well*



twolff said:


> Hey Jimmy,
> 
> Do the Daytonas sit on the AW Chassis properly? Do ya think they will fit a Magnatraction and look right? The last time I dove in to an AW car was for the '71 Charger Stock car and got something that sits on the chassis like a '55 Gasser drag car with a tube front axel and leaf springs.


At least the front end won't drag on hills and on banked turns....


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

Looks a little high in the picture, but at least it looks level. Then again, the '71 Charger looked ok in cube too.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

twolff said:


> . . . Do the Daytonas sit on the AW Chassis properly?


NO. Looking at them in person today they looked nose-high again, just like last time.

'doba


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

Thanks for the info guys. Just pulled the trigger on the Ford GTs and a blue Shelby. A lighted NASCAR dosen't make sense anyway.


----------



## Crimnick (May 28, 2006)

twolff said:


> A lighted NASCAR dosen't make sense anyway.


Sheesh....how else you supposed make one street legal


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

I think they needed to use more solder. :freak:
Glad I didn't order these yet. 

:devil: rr


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

The Daytona still sits alittle high but it looks like they brought it down a little. 

As for the leaf spring under the front.... I have a dozen or more Tyco S chassis that have a simular pickup spring system, they're 40+ yrs old and still work great, so I'm not too worried about the AW system wearing out.


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

Just got my cars delivered this morning. The XT's all have clear glass while the TJets came half smokey-orange glass (green Cobra, yellow El Camino, purple Snadvan, pea-green Stude, turquoise Suburban, brown 57 Chevy). The other Tjets have dark smokey-black glass.

The GT40s are a little souped up in the rear (This could actually help it as a race body). Tom may have to have a word with the factory.......The Daytonas do have an upward warp in the nose, but it does sit well on the chassis. The Hummer hides the chassis nicely.


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

videojimmy said:


> The Daytona still sits alittle high but it looks like they brought it down a little.
> 
> As for the leaf spring under the front.... I have a dozen or more Tyco S chassis that have a simular pickup spring system, they're 40+ yrs old and still work great, so I'm not too worried about the AW system wearing out.


I was refering to the body sitting like this:

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/images/drag_car_090806.gif


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

twolff.. I know... I was also responding to the other post about the new pick up system wearing out


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

videojimmy said:


> twolff.. I know... I was also responding to the other post about the new pick up system wearing out


Cool, thanks for the info BTW.


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

*Short sighted design 101*

I'm not a big collector and not into these AW cars, but I have to ask; do they have engineers with degrees or...designers with any vision??? That horrid power jumper arrangement looks like a very short sighted design. Yes that thing is going to wear out. And there is now no option for after market shoe springs, or even replacements at this jucture. How could you even tune that? The need for lights seemed to over ride logic in the main power pick up system that's worked for decades. I read in the other thread how the front end hops. No, really? Maybe they should have put one of those little extra magnets on the front too so it will hold the front end down to the track.  

And BTW, aren't those little tabs on the side of the chassis designed to hold the wires for the headlights? What was wrong with that method?
:drunk:


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

you couls awlays just snip off the metal and put a spring in

It's a plan sooooo crazy, it just might work.

So, does anyone like the bodies? I like them as well.


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

I'm finding that the Flamethrowers are prone to bob excessively up front and the lighting just makes it more apparent. The power is great but not hooked up due to the front hopping all over.

The bodies look nice.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*Devolution*

What? The lever spring is boingy? Who'd a thunk it?

Ever try and tune a set of vibrator pick ups? Well thats what they crammed under the existing pickups!

The spring, cup and shoe provide a redundant electrical contact. The electro mechanical redundancy of the progressivly wound pick up spring had it's merits. The original AFX engineers felt that it was a necessary to the design. 

You've now lost the redundant electrical contact of the spring in the cup touching the back side of the pick up. A nifty, functional little package that stood the test of time. It was a huge improvement over the previous t-jet design just as the previous t-jet design was a monumental jump from the vibe contacts.

The lighting circuit is now on a variable pressure slide contact instead of hard wired. So now you'll have to keep the backside of the pick ups clean too. Grungous and char are the by product of any slide contact. The utmost of care will undoubtedly be required to tune and then maintain/clean this design.


----------



## cagee (Apr 20, 2007)

videojimmy said:


> So, does anyone like the bodies? I like them as well.


I like the bodies alot. I'll buy more from this release than any other.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

The R4 bodies are awesome and I love the way the TJet bodies sit on the chassis. Unfortunately the chassis has taken a slight turn for the worse. There's a lot to like about the chassis, such as the nice plastics and tighter tolerances on holes. But there are some issues too. I'd like to offer some constructive feedback for AW and I hope someone on the AW team takes it to heart:

1) The bend in the TJet brush spring MUST be in the center of the brush hole for there to be any hope of getting the brush to sit correctly. This should be a Go/No-Go check performed during manufacturing/QA. Chassis that don't meet this criteria should be rejected. 

2) More work is needed on the front axles. The nail style axle is doomed for failure because so many seem to be warped. It's a soft metal and too prone to bending. The hole on the fixed side wheel (pointy side of the axle) seems to be prone to off center mounting. I'd pay more for a hardened front axle that's build to more exacting specs. I'd prefer a non-independent axle that did not wobble over an independent axle with one wobbly wheel.

3) The motor magnets seem weaker than ever, especially on the XTs. I'd like to see the specs of these upgraded to match or exceed the earlier releases and the JL and AW XTs. Strong magnets are better magnets. Why were the magnets toned down?

4) The UltraG XT chassis would have been much better designed to use polymer motor magnets in the existing chassis instead of adding an extra neo traction magnet. The stronger motor magnets would also help the motor run cooler and better. Adding an extra magnet to the XT was an ill conceived idea. The XT magnet socket also interferes with the right side tire, requiring the right side wheel to be mounted too far outboard. 

5) The current lighted XT chassis (Flamethrower) is just not working. The whole design needs to be revisited, scrutinized, and redesigned. If the TJet Flamethrowers are going to follow the same design NOW would be a good time to stop production and cut your losses. I've de-lighted all of the XT Flamethrowers I've gotten just to recoup some usefulness from the otherwise unusable chassis.

Like I said, there's a lot to like about the new cars but also a lot that leave me wondering about who is reviewing the prototypes and evaluating the viability of some of the basic design decisions. I think there are several folks on this board who could and should be tapped for feedback. Some of the current designs should never have made it to production. Times have changed and within a razor thin market segment like this the voice of the customer must be considered, especially when we are so willing to provide constructive feedback and work towards a mutually beneficial result.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

Well put.

'doba


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

If you swap in a pair of narrow JLXT pick-up shoes, the bouncing up front seems to go away.


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

T-Jet Racer said:


> I will nevr do it again.It can be fixed but then you need springs too WTF! This is unbeliveable, all they had to do was wire it down the side and solder it on if you have no clue what you are doing just copy a proven design. I hope the ultra g is a better deal because this looks like a real loser....


Well I have to eat crow on this one, got the cars and they work great! I guess time will tell if this set up is as good as the coil spring. It will now give us a new place to clean too. The rub spot under the shoe will need to be cleaned now or the light will act up. :woohoo:


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

C'mon... either the light is too hot or it isn't and the new beam springs are either too stiff or they aren't. It's crazy to think that the light is hot on some but not on others. Actually, it's wild to think that AW would make a car where the light is so hot is creates a melt mark on any car. And it seems odd that AW would ship any of these cars if the fronts hopped like I'm seeing. I'm using 60-Ohm Parm Econo resistors on Tomy track with independent wall warts on each lane and until I swapped out the wide, springy pick-ups for the old JLXT pick-ups, all the Flamethrowers were bouncing out of control when I accelerated out of a turn. Can those of you stating that the Flamethrowers "work great" report on the track conditions (controllers, power, ...?). It's strange that we're getting such discrepancies.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

Voltage would have a lot to do with these issues.


----------



## Pomfish (Oct 25, 2003)

I just open the Bronco in Black and at 14 volts she runs just dandy and has no overheating light.

As the Mattel Sets currently are shipped with 14 volt packs, this may be the target voltage that AW will be shooting for in the sets.

My chassis runs very well, has some lift but that is only due to the power being delivered to the rear tires in a good fashion.
When the tires are clean, she hops some, after a few laps it calms down just fine. 
No different that good running Aurora Magnatractions that I have.

Don't know about the entire Xtraction lineup this time around, but for this first car for me it is just fine.
Thanks,
Keith


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

TK Solver said:


> C'mon... either the light is too hot or it isn't and the new beam springs are either too stiff or they aren't. It's crazy to think that the light is hot on some but not on others. Actually, it's wild to think that AW would make a car where the light is so hot is creates a melt mark on any car. And it seems odd that AW would ship any of these cars if the fronts hopped like I'm seeing. I'm using 60-Ohm Parm Econo resistors on Tomy track with independent wall warts on each lane and until I swapped out the wide, springy pick-ups for the old JLXT pick-ups, all the Flamethrowers were bouncing out of control when I accelerated out of a turn. Can those of you stating that the Flamethrowers "work great" report on the track conditions (controllers, power, ...?). It's strange that we're getting such discrepancies.


I use tomy track with a wall wart. I had no trouble with the cars getting loose. I think the light slows the cars down slightly and that is a plus on the handeling since it does not have the same power as a non light up. I liked the rear tires, I think it is a new type of rubber it was grippy. 
Did you try another car? I did notice the pick up shoes need to be adjusted, the front of the shoe hits hard and the rest is in the air. I adjusted all of mine before I tried them, I had a full shoe on the rail with the front slightly higher so it misses the joints a little better. I hope this helps.


----------



## T-Jet Racer (Nov 16, 2006)

Who melted their body with the light? I hope this is not true I would hate to ruin my cars with the dumb light


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

The lighted cars are a novelty item, so if they run a little slower it's probably not a big deal at all. I didn't spend a lot of time trying to tweak the leaf spring/light contact thingy so maybe I didn't give them a fair shake. I was just so impressed with the bodies that I found other chassis (like Turbos) to run them on or converted the lighted chassis back to regular ones by popping out the lighting stuff and putting in springs. In defense of AW, I've never been a fan of any mods made to any chassis to accommodate lights. It always boogers up the chassis to some extent. At least AW's approach is completely removable. 

Imagine if 1:1 cars were like the flamethrowers: Can't see at night? Drive faster!


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

AfxToo said:


> Imagine if 1:1 cars were like the flamethrowers: Can't see at night? Drive faster!


I had a '69 Olds that was a "flamethrower" when the voltage regulator went south and the battery started gettng low. More RPM=brighter headlights. LOL


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

dlw's post #26 in this thread (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=196283&page=2&pp=15&highlight=melt) mentioned a melt mark. So I guess based on what I've been hearing that he may be running higher voltage. I haven't had a problem with hot lights and once I switched to narrow JLXT pickups, the cars ran great.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

My F/T runs good and surprizingly smooth. I do not like the light though.


----------



## cagee (Apr 20, 2007)

micyou03 said:


> My F/T runs good and surprizingly smooth.


Mine too. Pulled one of those magnets out of the Tjet chassis and mounted on there and that thing stays pretty glued to the track. I was very impressed with the chassis glad to see the axle slop gone and i like that springy thingy.


----------



## grungerockjeepe (Jan 8, 2007)

I just got my yellow hummer today, and overall I dont think the F/T chassis is as bad as some are saying. Seems that the QC is a bit inconsistent though. I had one pickup that was fairly tight, and another that was a little sloppy. I did a little tweaking to the spring and also straightened out the skis --since many are slightly bent one way or another when you get them anyway. Once I had everything all even steven, it was a little tight still so I ever so slightly tweaked the rearmost part of the skis upward right where they hook in the chassis. This put less leverage on them at the tip of the spring, and gave just the right amount of 'bounce'. No de-slotting problems at all, especially since the hummer is a bit heavy anyway. Didnt run it long enough to really get the bulb hot though.

I did shave that stupid magnet bucket off flush with the rear of the frame. I think that XTs are just clamped down enough without any new mags anyway so its not like I was ever going to stick a neo in it. Having one rear tire stick out a little more looks stupid and takes up valuable track room so I went ahead and fixed it.

I was a little worried when I heard they were using a softer compound for the rear tires. Remember the mopar madness cars, with the wide tires all around? Those tires stuck great, but wouldnt hold a rim for anything. Speaking of, using the wides all around looked silly on the dukes and mopars, but who else would like to see that on the hummers, broncos, and upcoming Jeep CJs? With the new tire compound, of course.


----------



## cagee (Apr 20, 2007)

grungerockjeepe said:


> Speaking of, using the wides all around looked silly on the dukes and mopars, but who else would like to see that on the hummers, broncos, and upcoming Jeep CJs? With the new tire compound, of course.


Great idea! :thumbsup: I took the wide front rim and tires off my Bowtie Brigade cars and put them on my Baja Blazer and it looks SWEET!


----------



## grungerockjeepe (Jan 8, 2007)

cagee said:


> Great idea! :thumbsup: I took the wide front rim and tires off my Bowtie Brigade cars and put them on my Baja Blazer and it looks SWEET!


I have both baja blazers, and I fitted them each with white rear wheels from turbo chassis. I had extras, and white wheels were real popular at the time on 4x4s. Looks killer!

That idea isnt really mine though, back in the AFX days they had big tires all around on all the Jeep CJs, K-5 blazers, and the fall guy truck. I dont think it'd be hard at all for AW to come up with some bigger tires with some molded in treads--at least on the very outsides--to get the 4x4 look. Seems a little late though, with the CJ-5 being the only other planned 4x4 that I know of. And I wish theyd hurry up with that one, I cant wait!


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I mix & match chassis and bodies all over the place, up to and including using old Aurora and new Tomy chassis on new XTs. I also like the white wheel look. Try putting a white wheel Turbo chassis under the new yellow XT Charger Daytona. It looks awesome. Plus, some chassis simply fit and sit better on certain bodies.

Yeah, the chassis with all wide tires all the way around do look good on the Broncos. Surprisingly those chassis also look good on the Yenko Camaros that came with the F&F releases.


----------

