18 replies to this topic

[pn6]

After interacting with the Dynamic collection thread I thought it would be a good time to spark up some threads about the other brands. Cox has always been a favorite and judging by the prices for some of their cars on the auction sites, people are still interested in them.

 

This is the third La Cuc I've had. I haven't run it yet but I did put some fresh rubber on the back for when I go.

 

 

 

[don.siegel]

Actually one of the cars I had at the time; I even bought mine on the Dyna-Rewind 99 cent deal, where you paid an extra 99 cents and you got the car complete with a Dyna-Rewind motor. I wasn't really impressed with it on the track, but I didn't have any idea how to tune cars at the time... (a little weight would have helped, and it turns out that blocking the iso function makes them run better). 

 

I've picked up a couple in the intervening years and even lucked into a mint boxed example. 

 

 

Also had a Cox Lotus 40 and wasn't too impressed with that either, nor with the fact that I had to pay 3 bucks for a pair of silicones so it would run on our high-banked formica surfaced track. 

 

Despite all that, I still admire lots of stuff about Cox cars. 

 

They've also maintained their reputation in Italy, with several domestic copies at the time... And one club holds an annual Cuc Day (in a couple weeks), for both near-stock and heavily modified versions of the Cuc – at the time, they were specialists in "cut Cucs." 

 

Don +

[Mad Mark]

Ill be sure to add to this thread in the near future.

[Dave Crevie]

I only had one Cox kit, but had several of the mag chassis. I could never get one to handle as good as my scratch-built brass chassis. COG just too high. I had that problem with some of my piano wire chassis as well, until I started using smaller tires. Then went to solid brass pans like I was doing with the 1/32nd scale cars. I might have seen it in the past, but I wonder if anyone was putting brass pans under the Cox chassis like they were doing with the Dynamics chassis at the time I quit slot racing. 

 

Later, when some friends set up a track in one's basement, I got one of the brass tube chassis with the telescopic main rails like the one in another thread. It was set up for a Pitmann 703, so I never used it. 

[don.siegel]

Dave, the brass tube chassis was for a Pittman DC65 sidewinder, not the 704 line. 

 

Good question about the pan: don't remember seeing that at the time, but not a lot of guys were racing Cox cars by the time I was going to the raceway regularly, 66-67. Given the number of articles that recommended a pan, mostly for 1/32 home set cars, I have to believe some guys made the jump and slung one under the Cox mag frame, and maybe others. 

 

Just found this car in fact, which I assume was from the 60s. 

 

 

Another car or two from my Cox collection... 

 

Cheetah Team Modified

 

 

 

 

Cheetaracha

 

 

 

 

Gurney Ford (AMT kit body with its interior, and Ulrich stocker wheels replacing the Cox originals)

 

 

[Dave Crevie]

The brass tube chassis was for the 703, with the rear ends of the main rails flattened and drilled for the threaded holes in the 703. It also had a big cast lead weight at the front of the drop arm for the guide flag. 

 

 

The guy I got the chassis from also had the one for the DC65, which he used. I used the drop arm from the one I had for another build. DC65 is an entirely different design;

 

Attached Images

• 

[don.siegel]

Ah, you're right of course Dave. I had totally forgotten that one, which I assume was produced locally - and is pretty much the same as one offered by Fred Rannalli. I assume he designed both of these. The 703 was the original version for trains; the 704 started the slot car motor line. 

 

The later ones were made in Hong Kong, and had inline and sidewinder versions for the 16D and 36D, plus the model for the DC65. 

 

Here's the packaged Cox, alongside a slight variant obviously from the same manufacturer. 

 

 

[Dave Crevie]

I don't recall either of the 70X motors being marketed only to the slot car industry. Way back, John Hughes designed a conversion which replaced the All-Nation padlock motor with a 703 in their die cast SW-1/7 locos. The All-Nation chain drive gear tower was too fast for a switcher, and using the extra gear reduction in the 703 brought the speed down to reasonable for a switching loco. He also designed a kit that used the 703 to slow down the Bowser HO E-units, which were way to fast even for a passenger loco. IIRC, 1956 pre-dated the use of the 70X in any slot car. If the 704 was only available with a threaded axle, then you are right. But IIRC, some of the railroad guys liked the threaded axle if they were using rubber tubing for the driveshaft because the threads gripped the rubber better. 

 

All-Nation gear tower;

 

 

 I know the 705 was later. Strombecker had a version of the 705, that was actually a tick faster than the Pittman. The Ram came out with their 426/427 versions, which blew them all out of the water. I tried them all in Dynamics chassis made for them. I believe the 705 was the one that had the end plates turned around so that the axle was outside of the magnetic field. Far better handling. But it was common for a racer to flip the endplates on a 703 or 704, especially if he wanted to change the gears.

 

Not surprised Cox farmed out the manufacture of the chassis to several sources.

 

By the way, I think your chassis on the right above has the Kemtron lost wax cast connectors on the front axle tube.

[don.siegel]

Here's the family portrait Dave, along with a few other integral gear motors. 

 

 

The 703 was strictly a choo-choo motor, but adapted by some early slot/rail racers once they had cut off the long shafts. 

 

 

Then in 1963, Charlie Pittman introduced the company's first two "dedicated" slot car motors, the DC704, with integrated gears and threaded axles, and the DC196 for inline, mainly 1/32 cars. The late Al Schwartz was involved in this whole process and has told the story a few times, probably including on this forum. Pittman offered a 704A too, then the 705 with the axle outside the magnet, followed by the 706 with moveable endplates so you position the axle either way. The 196 also evolved, to the 196A then the ultimate 196B - but by that time the cans had taken over, leaving us lots of unsold stock! 

 

Pretty much the same story at Ram, as you say, but they went out with a bang, introducing the XL-500, fastest version of this kind of motor, in mid to late 66 - but way too late! 

 

 

Don 

[don.siegel]

PS: pN6, sorry for the thread drift... 

 

Let's see some more of your cars. 

 

Don 

[Paul Menkens]

Did that Ram really put out 150,000 RPMs?

[don.siegel]

I seriously doubt it, even at 22V. 

[Paul Menkens]

What I liked about the Cox kits was 1) they had nice bodies 2) nice art on the boxes 3) they spent a lot of $ on advertising , other then that nothing comes to mind, I had a small handfull and could never make them handle and my model trains were faster

[Bill from NH]

I had a Cox Ferrari F-1 it. I ended up painting it fluorescent pink so it was easier to find whenever it went on the floor or under the track. 

[pn6]

I didn't realize Cox used Ram motors???

 

I had a Cox Ferrari F-1 it. I ended up painting it fluorescent pink so it was easier to find whenever it went on the floor or under the track. 

That's hilarious Bill !!

[Mad Mark]

This was my first cox resto. body started as a loose rtr body. car is pieced together.


my second chap. body was really wrecked and hacked up. also just pieced together from assorted parts.


also pieced this together from a separate body I got. I did a lot of sanding and polishing of deep scratches in the plastic on this one.

[pn6]

Those Chaparrals are beautiful Mark. Back in the day I had a Monogram Chaparral and would race against my friend's Cox version. Yes neither were very competitive against the world but those and a couple of Cox GT40s made a great race.

 

Here is one of my other LaCucs. No Motor yet but one is on the way. This one was just a roller so I got a clear body for it to play with. I made the body mounts with the resin printer. Yeah I could've just used a block of plastic for them but what fun is that? 

Attached Images

• 
• 

[pn6]

 I ran a Lola T70 Mk3B Spyder on my old Dynamic and thought I would paint my Tamiya Lola body like it and merge it with the 3rd LaCuc chassis I had. Everything went great until I put clear over the body. It's all enamel on a hard plastic shell but for some reason the clear pulled up the white. It looks great from the curb but up close its a mess.........I don't want to screw with it any more so it's off to the track with it!

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[Dave Crevie]

If the clear was Tester's Glosscoat, that is  lacquer. You can't spray lacquer over enamel, it will attack the enamel and cause it crincle or orange peel. If you really want the "wet look" the Glosscoat gives, there is a product marketed to the model railroaders called "barrier". Sprayed over the enamel it will keep the lacquer from attacking the enamel. Originally, barrier was developed to keep the Scalecoat paints, which were lacquer based, from attacking the plastic loco and rolling stock bodies.  Hope that will help keep you guys from having any future disappointments.