De-Bunking "Gotta Haves" to save you money!!

I know the last couple posts have been cynical, but I've seen this go on since the '70's. A magazine will feature an article "Smokey Yunick's Tips for building a high-hp Small-Block Chevy."  In the article, Smokey is talking about building a 700 hp engine that has to turn 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona in a Winston Cup NASCAR race car.  If that's your objective-then yes-you need a four-bolt main block, a forged steel crank, heavy duty "Pink" rods, forged pistons, screw in studs in the extensively ported heads, etc, etc. If your re-building an engine for your daily driver, work truck, street / strip machine or show car that's never going to see the high side of 6,500 rpm even on a weekend at the drags-you don't need all that extra beef and expense. I have raced SBC-powered circle-track "Street stock" and "Hobby Stock" cars for years and never had any trouble using two-bolt main blocks, cast cranks, a stock oil pump, cast pistons, and stock heads. Yes, we had a few DNF's do to mechanical failure-but more often than not that was because the water pump blew, the fuel pump quit, the clutch let go, the ignition control module quit, etc. I NEVER didn't finish a race because we lost a main or rod bearing, or a piston failed, or anything related to the bottom end. As for valvetrain failure-once in a while we'd lose a rocker arm or a pushrod or pop a valvespring, but in 20 years-I NEVER saw a stud pull out of a head.  But "Joe Average" reading the article doesn't know this-he figures-"Smokey Yunick is THE Chevy performance guru, so if he says you need all that stuff, then you probably do."  But-and it's a HUGE But- He was talking about building a RACE CAR. I guarantee if you asked Smokey to build you a reliable 400 hp street engine and guarantee it for a year-he would tell you to go ahead and use a two-bolt main block, a cast crank, and cast pistons, a stock oil pump and stock heads. He'd tell you-instead of spending a ton of money on unnecessary beef and machine work-to save that money for a high-quality performance cam kit, a set of headers, a performance carb and intake, and maybe a higher-stall converter and some gears to put all that newfound power to the ground. John Lingenfelter said the same thing-"I would only recommend forged pistons if you were going to run a blower or nitrous." "And then I would ask-"If you have that much money and need to go that fast, why aren't you building a 454 instead of a 350?"  The same goes for other stuff. Read any Mopar Magazine and they'll tell you that you "Gotta Have" a Dana 60 rear end. Well, if you have a 700 hp Hemi with nitrous, a 5 grand converter and a trans-brake, and your running wrinklewall slicks bolted to the rims with 15 psi in them, I'd say that's probably good advice. But for anything else-I know a guy that races a Duster with a 505 inch stroker that's never had an ounce of trouble with the 8 3/4 rear. In fact I know guys with Road Runners, Chargers, 'Cudas, etc with 383s and 440s with 4-speeds that pop the clutch and powershift on 30 dragstrip passes a weekend with no problems. Honestly- in 30+ years of working on cars I've never SEEN or even heard of anyone actually breaking a Chrysler 8 3/4 rear end!!  That's like the people that say the Borg-Warner T5 transmissions can't stand up to performance use. No, they won't stand up to a 600hp 454 Chevy or 460 Ford. But I know guys with "5.0" Mustangs that run in the 12s with the stock T5 and have no problems. I know guys that have yanked the 305 out of their '80's Camaros and replaced it with a stout 350, and run low 13s, spinning all of low gear and these trannys have lasted two or three years. Up to about 350 hp, you should be fine with a T5 in a street car. If you build 400 or more hp, then I'd upgrade to a Tremec or Richmond 5-speed. But the average guy doesn't know any of this. He innocently buys a used IROC-Z Camaro and when he says he wants more power-a bunch of "experts" who have never raced or even owned a Camaro start telling him he's "Gotta have" a $3,000 TKO conversion because he wants to put an Edelbrock intake and matching cam on his L69 305!!  See what I'm saying?  I think magazines should be clearer about the intended usage of a part before they declare it a "Gotta Have."  Mastermind           

It has to be about the cash......

I've written several letters to the editors of every enthusiast mag out there asking this question-and none of them has responded. I don't like to make unfounded accusations-but I can't see any other reason than advertising money for the current state of affairs. I realize they have to showcase and recommend their advertiser's products to stay in business. But the writers-especially if the reader is a newbie to the hobby with no experience-make it sound like your car will fall apart like the Dodge at the end of the "Blues Brothers" if you don't have all this state-of-the-art stuff.  Here's what I'm talking about --# 1. Why does every single project car need a custom 9 inch Ford rear end?  Hot Rod's "Project Disco" -a 1979 Z /28 Camaro is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with Magazine Project Cars today. 1979 Z/28s came stock with GM's excellent 8.5 inch 10 bolt positraction rear end with either 3.42:1 or 3.73:1 gears!!  You couldn't ask for a better rear end for a street / strip machine!! And their tough-I have owned 400, 4-speed Trans-Ams ( They use the same rear end ) that I drag-raced and dropped the clutch at 4,000 rpm incessantly on for 5 years and I never had a problem. Ditto for Mopar guys-forget a Dana 60, I know a guy running a 505 stroker with nitrous and slicks in a Duster, and he's never had an ounce of trouble with the 8 3/4 rear. Try to keep a straight face while telling me that extra .25 or .50 diameter on the ring gear makes a big difference in durability!!  As I read the article on "Project Disco" no one alluded to any problem with the rear end. Even if it did need a rebuild-a Currie 9 inch setup with GM mounting points retails for $3,500!!  Any competent driveline shop can re-furbish a GM 10 bolt for a lot less than $3,500!!  # 2. Why does every single Project car have to have a Wildwood or Brembo aftermarket 4-wheel disc brake setup worthy of a NASCAR Nextel Cup Racer?  Are the writers saying that the front disc / rear drum setup that came on most '70's and '80's cars isn't adequate to stop the car in daily driving or on the occasional weekend trip to the drags?  Puhleeze. Again-they did this to Project Disco. And again-I had 3 '70's vintage Trans-Ams that use the same brake system as the Z/28-and I drove like a madman, drag-raced them and autocrossed them. Yes, you could make the brakes fade if you ran five or six dragstrip passes back to back to back without stopping for a minute, or if you ran two or more autocross or slalom events back to back without stopping, or if you blasted up a curvy mountain road at 100 mph for 20 minutes. However-I learned that if you used Bendix or Ferodo GM "Police Spec" D52 pads and Dot 5 brake fluid-you couldn't fade them if you tried. The "Cop Brakes" as Elwood Blues would say-actually worked better when they got hot, and the major problem was the Dot 3 fluid breaking down under this abuse. If the car sat for even five minutes between runs, you were fine. I have raced Camaros and Firebirds in 2 eight lap heat races, and a 35 lap main event on a 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile oval tracks, with generic parts store brake pads and the brakes held up as long as we used Dot 5 fluid. So I can't fathom what you'd have to do to actually "Need" a $3,000 Brembo brake setup! Don't get me wrong-I'm all for safety-and I wouldn't put a 500 hp engine in say-a '68 Chevelle that had 9 inch 4-wheel drum brakes either. But even then-you can go to a junkyard and get all the parts to put front disc brakes on it from a later-model GM "A" or "F" body. And Summitt racing and Just Brakes sell factory style systems for under a grand. Unless your racing in Vintage car races at Laguna Seca-I can't see where you'd "Need" a Wildwood or Brembo setup. # 3. Why does every single project car need a 4 or 5 thousand dollar six-speed manual or automatic overdrive conversion? To me-600 less rpm on the freeway is not worth 5 grand. Again-Project Disco came with a TH350-a stellar trans that will stand up to 500 hp easily. This tranny would have bolted up to their hot rod LS engine and with the proper converter and a shift kit-worked flawlessly. Instead they converted it to a stick-at a cost of  about 5 grand. # 4. The modern fuelie engine that cost about nine grand. Something called "Project Disco" I would assume would be done in late '70's style-like a "Macho T/A", or with flared fenders and Minilite or Center Line wheels, and maybe even sidepipes. And last time I checked '79 Camaros didn't have fuel-injected LS motors. I would have thought they'd have went with a 400 small block or Rat. I understand they were showcasing the "E-Rod" emission-legal package that Edelbrock and GM collaborated on and they had to put it in something-but why not an '80's 'Vette or a '90's Firebird or Camaro that had a fuelie engine from the start, and is laden with emission controls? Could be worse, I guess they could have chose a '55 Chevy or a '64 GTO, which would have been really offensive.  While were on the subject of engines-PHR's "Project Talledega" -a 1975 Laguna done up to look like a Nascar stocker-they built a 560 hp 408 inch solid-roller cammed small-block-to showcase Dart's new replacement block and top-end package. By the time it was done, they had something like 35 grand invested in the car. Now their talking about putting a Rat in it. Why? Even with a Rat-your going to be hard-pressed to make more than 560 hp and keep it remotely streetable-I mean how fast do you guys need to go?  Or do you just want to eventually have a race car with liscence plates instead of a street machine?  It just irks me because the neophyte hot-rod enthusiast that's not a mechanic might read these articles and think that all this stuff is a neccessity, when in reality he could build a cool, fast car for many thousands less. Magazines used to tell you how to go fast on the cheap, as well as promoting new stuff. Now it's all this state of the art stuff. Just had to vent that. Or someone correct me if I'm wrong, and it's not about advertising dollars. Mastermind

Why do people mess with perfection?

Saw a musclecar shootout in a national magazine the other day that made my head want to explode. There was not one, but TWO 1973 Pontiac Trans-Ams competing, and both of them had modern fuel-injected Chevy LS7 motors in them and extensively modified suspensions. Forget the sentiment of butchering a classic, why couldn't these guys get one of the two million or so beater 70-81 Camaros and Firebirds out there and cut that up, yada,yada,yada. No, looking at it from a strictly engineering standpoint, performance level, and bang for the buck, these guys definitely fall into the more-money-than-brains category. Here's why-# 1. Handling. These cars were so awesome back in the day, and still have a fierce following, and are gaining new disciples from the younger generation every day. The reason is Herb Adams and company designed an excellent suspension all those years ago. Back when an F60-15 Firestone Wide Oval or Goodyear Polyglas GT bias-ply was the best street tire on the market, you had to design a suspension that kept the tire perpendicular to thye road under high-speed cornering load. In other words-the car was holding the tire on the road. Now, tire technology has come so far that lazy auto engineers are using the tire to hold the car on the road. That's why front-drive econoboxes can generate high skidpad numbers if their shod with low-profile performance tires. Here's some hard data to support this fact. Car Craft decided to build a G-body project car several years back. It was a generic 1984 305 Monte Carlo. They were going to swap in a killer 383 to make it fast, and they wanted it to handle.  It didn't have the handling suspension that Monte Carlo SS's or Buick Grand Nationals did. They tested it on the skidpad with the P195/75R14 tires it came with. It registered an abysmal .67g.  For comparison-an '80s S10 Blazer has better numbers than that. All they did was install some 16X8 wheels and P245/50ZR16 tires off another staffer's IROC-Z Camaro, and tested it again- for giggles and guess what- it recorded .80g!! A stunning improvement-just by changing the tires-no springs, or shocks, or sway bars, nothing. They were stoked. They knew with proper springs, shocks and sway bars, that they could get it up close to .90g-that's Corvette and Porsche territory-with a suspension that was designed in 1963. How does this pertain to the '70's T/As? Read on.  Road and Track tested a 2010 Camaro SS and a 2010 Challenger SRT8.  We all know the skidpad is the industry standard for measuring cornering prowess. The higher the number, the better handling the car. Anyhow-the Challenger SRT8 pulled .85g on the skidpad, shod with 245/45ZR20 Goodyear Eagle F1 tires. The Camaro SS pulled a slightly higher .88g running on 245/45ZR20 ( Front ) and 275/45ZR20 ( Rear ) Pirelli P-Zeros. Car and Driver's 1979 Trans-Am came very close-laying down .82g- on skinny, S-rated P225/70R15 Goodyear Polysteel Radials!!!  It doesn't take a mathematician to do this equation-With some modern, fat,ZR-Rated rubber, the old T/A would easily surpass both of them. This was borne out with another magazine's "Project G-28". They took a 1976 Camaro-added subframe connectors,upgraded front and rear sway bars, springs and shocks, and some fat, ZR-rated 18 inch rubber. They got it up to .95g on the skidpad-and that's a bunch. I mean that's ZR1 Corvette, Porsche 911, and Ferarri F430 territory. On a solid-axle suspension that Herb Adams designed in 1969. So why do these fools put aftermarket subframes and rack and pinions in these cars? Your going the improve the handling? How?  Ditto for the 9 inch Ford Rear ends. 1970's T/A's came stock with GM's excellent 8.5 inch ring gear 10 bolt positraction unit. And their tough. I have had 400, 4-speed T/A's that I drag raced and dropped the clutch on at 4,000 rpm for five years and never had a problem. And they just keep on working like the Energizer Bunny-I pushed my buddy's Camaro up a snowy hill he was sliding backward down to his house one winter day in my '77 T/A. That's how good they work.  Try to keep a straight face while telling me that that extra .5 inch on the ring gear makes all the difference in durability!  A new Currie 9 inch with GM mounting points costs $3,500!. Even if the stock rear needed rebuilding, you could get that done at any competent driveline shop for a lot less than $3,500!!  As for the engine-a 505 hp GM LS7  ( Z06 'Vette motor ) costs 18 grand from GMPP.  Mast Motorsports sells hot rod LS motors for around 12K on up. Then you have to wire it up.  1973 T/A's had 455 cubes under the hood stock. By simply adding Edelbrock Performer RPM heads, headers, the matching cam and Performer intake- at a cost of about 3 grand- you can make 460 hp and 440 lbs of torque-and that was on a 400 test mule. A 455 would be very close to 500 hp with the same equipment. Or for around $7,500 Jim Butler Performance will build you a 455 Pontiac guranteed to have 600 hp and run on 92 octane pump gas. That's a LOT cheaper than 12-18 grand for an LS engine, and the car runs just as fast. The same goes for transmissions. '73 T/A's either had a Muncie M21 4-speed or a TH400 automatic stock. Both bulletproof, and both will stand up to as much power and torque as your wallet will muster. So why do they need a 4 or 5 thousand dollar six-speed manual or overdrive automatic swap?  To me-500 less cruising rpm on the freeway is not worth 5 grand. For $2600 you can buy a Gear Vendors overdrive that stands up to Top Fuel drag engines and would turn your M21 or TH400 into an 8-speed or a 6-speed, for a lot less money.  I'm all for people improving the performance of their cars-"Dukes of Hazzard" and action movies aside-1960's Chargers handle like the average UPS truck in stock trim-so thank God for XV Motorsports and others that make Mopar handling parts. But since Herb Adam's brainstorm has been called by Car and Driver-"A lightning-reflexed commando of a car whose handling can't be matched by cars 5 times it's price" ( meaning Ferarris of the day ) why can't these idiot's leave well enough alone?  Mastermind                

Musclecars in movies that were wasted or not used...

After mentioning the behind-the-scenes work in "Bullitt" the other day-I had a few people ask about more movies with musclecars in them. Since weve recently done several posts on the good chases and the bad ones I won't re-hash them, but here's some movies where the stars drove musclecars but there was no chase scene. Here's the list in no particular order of importance.  # 1. "Rush". Set in 1975, based on Kim Wozencraft's classic novel about underover cops addicted to drugs, Jason Patric's character drives a '68 Charger with Cragar S/S mags on it. Tense action and dialog, but no car chase.  # 2. "An Eye for an Eye".  Chuck Norris martial-arts thriller set in San Francisco. Chuck drives a Buccaneer Red 1973 Trans-Am. Lots of fisticuffs, but no car chase. Chuck did have a decent chase scene driving a beater '75 Formula 400 in "Code of Silence," but nothing in the mighty red T/A here.  # 3. "McQ"  John Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry" before it was offered to Clint Eastwood, and after that film became a mega-hit he realized his mistake. So he took on the role of Lon McQ, a "Dirty Harry" type detective battling corrupt cops in Seattle. It was a good story, and nobody plays a tough guy like the "Duke", but unfortunately "Magnum Force" -the "Harry" sequel came out about the same time, with Eastwood battling-you guessed it-corrupt cops. "Magnum Force" was another blockbuster, while "McQ" never got the recognition it deserved. More than 30 years later, it's still cool; unlike a lot of '70's movies it doesn't seem dated.  Anyhow, the "Duke's" ride was a Brewster Green 1973 Trans-Am that gets wrecked between two dump trucks. # 4. Which reminds me-in "Marked for Death"  Steven Seagal drives a sinister-looking black 1973 Mustang Mach 1. There is a chase-involving a Dodge Ramcharger and a 5 series BMW. Yuk.  However, the badass Mustang gets wrecked between two dump trucks. Wonder where they got that idea?  # 5. "The Mechanic" Charles Bronson thriller about a lonely hitman who takes the son of one of his victims under his wing and teaches him the business. A young Jan-Micheal Vincent plays the protege' and he drives a Red 1972 Mustang Mach 1, that gets blown up during the finale. A couple of cool chases-but one involves dirt-bikes, and the other Fiats in Italy. Awesome action flick / psycological thriller-the scene with Jill Ireland playing a Hooker that writes Bronson a love letter is especially poignant-, but no chase scene for the red Mustang. # 6. "Blue Thunder"  Action thriller starring Roy Scheider as a Viet Nam Vet-turned Police helicopter pilot who steals a military attack helicopter prototype. Malcolm McDowell is evil as his nemesis from "Nam, who drives a 1982 Corvette Special Edition, and Scheider drives a Black and Gold SE Trans Am that in some scenes is a '79 model with the shaker hood and "Snowflake" wheels, and in other scenes is a 1980 Turbo model with the offset "Turbo Bulge" hood, and the "Turbo" wheels. Scheider smokes his tires a lot, and lots of aerial helicopter action, but no car chase, unless you count the police chasing Candy Clark in a Vega-yes, I said Vega-while Scheider fubars them from the chopper.  # 7. "Tango and Cash"  Sly Stallone and Kurt Russel teamed up for this action / comedy / shoot-em-up ala' "Lethal Weapon."  Russel's character drives a 1962 Corvette convertible, but no chase scene. Look for a pre-"Desparate Housewives", pre-anorexia Teri Hatcher when she still had a rack to rival Jeri Ryan's. # 8. "Basic Instinct". Murder mystery that catapaulted Sharon Stone to stardom. Micheal Douglas drove a '92 Mustang GT Convertible in this flick, and chased Leilani Sarelle driving a Lotus Esprit for a few blocks before she crahes and dies, but nothing like "Bullitt" or any other classic. You watch this flick to see Sharon Stone and Jeanne Tripplehorn naked, not for the cars.  Now you've got a "Must Rent" list for next weekend.  Mastermind            

Like Micheal Corleone, today we handle all this Ford vs GM & Chrysler crap!

I'm sorry that some Ford enthusiasts don't want to admit the truth.  But here's some irrefutable facts-gleaned from old Car Life, Motor Trend, and Hot Rod road tests, and as far as my research goes-none of these cars were "ringers" like we discussed previously and I think the 1/4 mile times will bear this out.  A 1968 390, 4-speed Mustang GT ran a 15.6 second 1/4. A 1968 4-speed SS396 Chevelle ran a 14.60, a 1968 Firebird 400 ran a 15.1 with an automatic.  A 1968 383 / 4-speed Road Runner ran a 14.58.  The Mustang was put on the trailer every time, by at least 1/2 second-which equates to about 5 car lengths. That's an ass-whippin' in anybodys book. Also-In doing research for an article for Musclecar Review on movie chases featuring musclecars I found both written interviews and video interviews with Steve McQueen, and Stunt Coordinator Carey Loftin, and stuntman Bill Hickman-who drove the Charger in "Bullitt." Ford supplied five 390 / 4-speed Mustangs for the movie. McQueen and Loftin bought the Charger off the showroom floor from a San Francisco Dodge dealer with their own money because McQueen didn't want two Fords in the chase. ( Ford offered a Fairlane, and Chrysler said-Ford has the contract with Warner Brothers-have a nice day.) The Charger was a 440 / 4-speed, and would leave the Mustang so badly that they couldn't even film it.  Loftin and mechanic Max Balchowsky pumped up one of the Mustangs with headers, an Edelbrock intake and Holley carb and a Mallory distributor. The headers and glasspack mufflers is why the car sounds so badass on the soundtrack. Now, the Charger would still beat it in a close drag race, but at least now McQueen and Loftin ( who shared stunt-driving duties in the Mustang ) could stay close enough to Hickman and the flying Charger to film it. The Charger's Torsion bar front / leaf spring rear suspension was ( pun intended ) bulletproof, and it's only problem bashing over the hills of S.F. at high speed was it kept throwing the hubcaps off. The Mustangs meanwhile, were ripping the shock towers out, and breaking things every day. Loftin, and Balchowski worked day and night taking parts off the other Mustangs to keep the camera car running. That's why 3 of the 5 were crushed after filiming and only one of the two remaining ones is still known to exist.  As for the later 351C Mustangs competing against the GM and Mopar offerings in the early '70's-things didn't get much better for the Blue Oval boys. Motor Trend's 1972 351CJ Mach 1 ran a 15.07. Cars magazine's 1972 340 'Cuda test car ran a 14.35, and Hot Rod's 1972 340 Duster ran an almost identical 14.34. Motor Trend's 1972 350 LT1 Z/28 ran a 14.69.  As for the "Big Dog's"-A 1972 Gran Torino Sport with a 429 couldn't even break out of the 16's-a 16.10 was it's time. And oddly-the 429 was only rated at 205 hp, while the 351CJ was rated at 266 hp. A 351CJ / 4-speed Torino was quicker than it's 429 / automatic brother-but it still only ran a 15.62. By contrast- a 455HO powered 1972 GTO ran a 14.58, a 455 powered 1973 Olds 442 ran a 14.90, while a 1972 400 / Torqueflite  Road Runner ran a 15.35, and a 1973 440 Charger ran a 15.0.  The fastest Ford in this era was Hot Rod's 1973 Pantera test car that ran a 14.53. A Pantera is definitely a "niche" car, not very common. You want to use the one-year-only, Boss 351 of which only 1,806 were built-I only saw two road tests of these-one ran a 14.05 and the other a 13.81.  You want to bring out 428 Mustangs and 429 SCJ Torinos from 1969-71-then you have to include LS6 Chevelles, Hemi 'Cudas, RAIV GTO's, and W30 442s-all of which are quicker than the Ford offerings in road tests of the day. Ford made some very cool cars in the musclecar era, but the bottom line is the GM and Mopar offerings were generally quicker, and you could swap GM and Chrysler engines from model to model without changing all the brackets, accessories, the bellhousing, the transmission, etc-not true with the Fords. Now, if this FACT offends anyone, then they'll just have to live with it and shut up. Mastermind       

More facts.....Not prejudice

Caught some flak from Ford fans saying I'm biased against Fords, and very pro-GM, and Pro-Mopar.  I'm not, and if stating irrefutable facts like the Autolite 4300 is a lousy carburator, or that the 390FE is a heavy truck engine that leaks oil, or that you can't swap engines around as easily as you can with a Chevy, Pontiac or Mopar offends some people, then go ahead and be offended. Good carburators is what made the Mopars and Chevys and Pontiacs such great street performers. The Carter AVS that came on most 383s and 440s from 1966-71 only flowed about 585 cfm. But they had no gaskets below the float level-( no leaking, unlike a Holley, no power valves to blow, unlike a Holley ) and you could adjust the secondary opening infinitely, and change jets without disassembling the carb or removing it from the engine. The design is bulletproof, and gives awesome, reliable performance. That's why Edelbrock resurrected it.  We all know, especially on a stock engine with an automatic transmission ( it's a documented fact that more musclecars are automatics than 4-speeds ) that you can't rev up at the line to clean out- a smaller carb with leaner jetting comes off the line cleanly with no bog and provides crisper acceleration.  As for GM-ditto for the Quadrajets. The small primaries ensure great drivability and throttle response-and the large secondarys let it breathe deep on the top end. That's why they work equally well on a 350 Chevy or a 455 Pontiac. Meanwhile, most Fords were saddled with the Autolite 4300 4bbl that brand-new, was too rich or too lean, blew power valves, the floats sank, the needle and seats stuck-they were horrible, and the cars didn't run well. People replaced them with Holleys-and that didn't really help. The vaccuum secondary Holleys leaked, bled over, blew power valves, and generally didn't do much better. If you had a 4-speed, a mechanical secondary Double-Pumper would work ok, but every time you looked at the gas pedal both accelerator pumps would open and it was like flushing a toilet. Gas mileage would drop from say 13 mpg to 5-8 mpg, and would foul plugs if you weren't "on it" all the time.  Which brings up the next point. Fords had notoriously weak igniton. While GM and Chrysler point-type distributors would be good up to about 6,000 rpm, the points on a Ford would "sign off" about 5 grand, and start bouncing and popping. If you went to the drags in the '60's or '70's, every guy there running a Ford had two extra sets of points in his toolbox and a feeler guage and a dwell meter!!  Or he'd got smart and put in an aftermarket Accel or Mallory distributor!  The performance of the Ignition and carburation are the main reasons why a 396 Camaro or 383 Road Runner would blow the doors off a 390 Mustang or Fairlane in a drag race.  The third thing was axle ratios. Most 396 Chevelles had 3.31 or 3.55 gears. Ditto for Pontiac GTOs. Most Chargers or Road Runners had 3.23 or 3.55 gears. Unless it was a 428 SCJ with the Drag Pak option-( which included 3.91 or 4.30 gears ) Most Mustangs and Fairlane / Torinos had 3.00:1 gears with a 4-speed, and 2.80:1 with automatics, which certainly wasn't conducive to blistering acceleration.  After 1970 Ford Made the 351C their "Performance" engine. The 429 and 460s were strictly "big car" engines. This left the 351C to carry the Ford performance banner. With ports and valves literally the size of a 427 Chevy-these heads-originally designed for 302 Trans-Am racers who had a power band between 5 and 8 grand really sucked on the street. They made very little power below 3 grand, and with Ford's weak ignition and crappy carbs-were all done in by 5,800. In a Boss 351 with 11.3:1 compression, ( which only came with a 4-speed and 3.91 or 4.30 gears ) or a Pantera ( which had a 5-speed and 4.22:1 gearing ) this flaw was masked by the stiff gearing. But in 99% of  the other Mustangs and Torinos out there that had automatics and 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 gears, they were a dog. Never mind a 440 Charger, a 340 'Cuda would outrun a 351 Mustang in a drag race. And as for GM- a 454 Chevelle, 455 Olds 442, or 455HO  Trans-Am?  Come on, a heavy, 7.9:1 compression, 351 Mustang or Torino tugging on Superman's cape?  I stand ready to apologize for anything I said that wasn't true. Mastermind                          

Old Road Tests.....Again

I read Road tests of new cars in Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track, as well as Hot Rod, Car Craft, and Popular Hot Rodding. These should be taken as a baseline of what a given car is capable of-not gospel on performance. You really have to take the vintage road tests with a grain of salt for two reasons.    #1. A lot of the time the factories sent "Ringers".  A few examples-after 45 years-Jim Wangers finally admitted what we already knew-Car and Driver's May 1964 GTO test car that ran a blistering 4.6 second 0-60 time and a 13.1 second 1/4 mile time ( on 7.75-14 bias-plys smoking halfway down the track! ) was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the 389 and replaced it with a blueprinted 421. In 1969 when Chrysler introduced the 440 Six-Pack option they advertised that their Road Runner prototype ran "Very low 13s and very high 12s" in testing. Except the car's engine had been "brought to the top of specifications" and had a 4-speed, 4.30 gears and drag slicks, and the "Professional Driver" was Pro Stock drag racing champion Ronnie Sox!!  Do you think maybe a showroom example with street tires and 3.54 gears, piloted by "Joe Average" would run a just a TAD slower than the 4.30 geared, dyno-tuned, drag-slicked test mule piloted by a pro race car driver??  You think??  In 1973-the SD-455 Trans-Am blew everyone away. Hot Rod tested one that ran a blistering 13.54 in the 1/4, and Road and Track recorded a 13.75. If you look at the pictures and read the liscence plate-it's the same car. This "Prototype" had the regular "455" emblems on the shaker hood scoop, not the "SD-455" emblems of later production models. Further, the engine wasn't certified or available to the public until April or May.  This was because they had trouble passing emissions with the Ram Air IV cam, and the EGR valve function was questioned by the EPA. To make them legal Pontiac changed the EGR valves, and swapped in the milder Ram Air III cam, which caused them to change the horsepower rating from 310 to 290-although we all know an RAIV cam in a 455 is worth way more than 20 hp, and although these Road tests appeared in the April and May issues of these magazines, the tests were done months before-in January. The test car had the illegal EGR valve, and the illegal RAIV cam. Then Hot Rod opened the shaker scoop, re-jetted the carb, re-curved the distributor, added a shift kit in the trans, and added M&H "Street Slicks " which resulted in a blistering 13.15 e.t.  No surprise that the production examples for 1974 ran "only" low 14s. To this day-no one knows what happened to the badass '73 prototype. Some say a GM executive bought it, others say it was crushed after it's "Rock Star" magazine test tour. I mentioned before the Red and Silver 1973 Olds 442 that Motor Trend tested that in their "1973 Performance Car Preview" that blew the doors off a 454 Corvette, a 455 Trans-Am, and a 440 Dodge Charger, respectively. The Olds engineers grinned and said it had been "mildly massaged". "Mildly Massaged" turned out to mean a W30 cam, a 2,800 rpm Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter and swapping the standard 2.73:1 gearset for a 3.42:1.   # 2. Like I just said-a lot of the time the magazines modified the cars. The '69 Z/28 that Car Craft said ran a 13.11 had headers, slicks, traction bars, and 4.56:1 gears!! Think that might run a little quicker than a stocker with iron manifolds, street tires and 3.73s?  Hot Rod did the same with a 340 'Cuda-headers, slicks, and a Hurst shifter. This kind of crap continued until the present day. Car Craft boasted that their "Stock" '91 Mustang GT test car ran a blistering 14.19 e.t.  "Stock" except for the K&N airbox, swapping the 3.08 gears for 3.55s and swapping the 225/60VR15 radials for 235/60R15 M&H drag radials. Car&Driver's 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GTVR4 than ran a blistering 13.7 e.t.  accomplished this by the engineers disabling the rev limiter, disabling the knock sensor, filling the tank with 104 octane racing gas, lowering the tire pressure to 15 psi , and having the "professional driver" drop the clutch at 6,200 rpm and powershift at 7,000 which grenaded the $5769 transaxle after two runs. A neighbor of mine that had one was shocked when my Hurst / Olds showed him it's taillights one day, and when he later took it to the drags and ran a 14.58. Pretty quick for a 3830 lb all-wheel-drive car, but nowhere near 13.70's that Mitsubishi advertised. Besides the "stealth" modifications you have to be sure your comparing apples to apples. A friend with a "Macho T/A" was surprised when his 403 Olds, automatic, 2.56:1 geared model ran "only" a 15.62 in the 1/4. He thought it should have ran a 14.29 like Hot Rod's 400 Pontiac, 4-speed, 3.42:1 geared test car!!  Read carefully before you start spouting these old test results!  Mastermind              

Buying the car you want.......Pt 2!!

I guess I should have been clearer on the last post.  Got some griping-"Not everyone can afford an LS6 Chevelle ot a Boss 302".  When I said  "Buy the car you want" that's not what I meant. What I meant was if you want a four-speed then search until you find that model with a 4-speed, don't buy an automatic and then try to convert it, or if you want a big-block Chevelle, then look harder to find one in your price range, but don't buy a small-block version and then spend a ton more money swapping in a Rat. The same goes for other options-it's much easier and less expensive in the long run to shop around and find a car that has factory air conditioning or front disc brakes, than it is to try to add that stuff to a base model not so equipped. On the other hand-don't go overboard and pass up a great deal on a Trans-Am.because it has Rally II wheels and you want Snowflakes, or turn up your nose at a great Chevelle because it doesn't have a Cowl Induction hood!!  We talked about this before- on the other hand-If you have a 440 Road Runner or Charger and can swallow the $2,300 list price for a "Six-Pack" setup-by all means put it on-the car's value will be increased a lot more than 2 grand even though it's not "Original".  Ditto for Hurst Dual / Gate shifters for 1967 and later GTOs and 442s with automatics. I can't afford an original RAIV GTO either, but if you have a "regular" Goat or want to buy one and want RAIV performance-Crane, Lunati and Edelbrock sell the cam, NPD just came out with an exact replica of the RAIV / 455HO aluminum intake, and if that isn't enough, Edelbrock has the round-port heads. ( which are patterned after the RAIV heads ) Yes, all that will probably cost 3 grand when your done-but spending 3K on a $20,000 car is a lot cheaper than selling your soul for a $75,000 "original." Ditto for L34 and LS5 Chevelle owners that want L78 or LS6 performance-remember the article in Car Craft where the rectangular-port heads didn't show a gain until 6,200 rpm?  Keep your oval-port heads and add the intake and Cam. GMPP sells the intake and Crane and Lunati both sell the cam. Mastermind

Make your life easier and just buy a car with the options you want!!!

I talk to so many people who aren't really mechanics that want a musclecar, but listen to some "shade-tree" expert on how "easy" it is to swap engines or transmissions or to add options. Except for wheels and tires or maybe a spoiler-there's no "options" that are easy to add.  For example-something as simple as adding a hood tach on a '60s GTO or Firebird requires meausring, drilling holes, painting, and wiring not only to the ignition but also to the headlight system-so it lights up at night with the dash lights. A magazine article might say this is a "simple" operation-but I definitely wouldn't want a novice to attempt it! And something like this is a lot simpler than changing engines or transmissions. I have discouraged several people from making this mistake- and they all thanked me later. For example I talked to a guy who was all hot to buy his neighbor's 1981 Trans-Am with a sick 301 Turbo-it couldn't even chirp the tires a little. His neighbor had fed him the line how a 400 or 455 would be a "bolt-in" swap. I showed him on several websites and in Hemmings, if he wanted a 400 T/A -that he could buy one in good shape that ran great for no more than his pal was asking for this beater that needed a new engine-regardless of whether you tried to fix the 301 or swap in something else-it needed a new motor. Another guy was going to spend $6,000 on an admittedly pristine-350 Malibu in the hopes of making it an SS396 or 454 clone. Again-I showed him-he could buy a decent for-real SS396 for $15-25K. And even if he could do all the labor and bodywork and paint himself-( He couldn't, he wasn't a bodyman or a mechanic ) it would cost more than 15K in parts alone to "convert" this bench-seat,drum-braked, TH350, small-block Malibu to a 4-speed, or TH400, 396 or 454,with bucket seats, front disc brakes, cowl induction hood, SS clone. The internet is a great tool-and unless your looking for a moon rock-i.e. a Boss 429 or an L88 'Vette, etc-and unless you have Donald Trump's bank account-you can't afford it anyway-your dream car is out there. Especially if were talking a 396 Chevelle, 400 GTO, Firebird or Trans-Am, 383 or 440 Road Runner, or Charger, 351 Mustang, 350 or 396 Camaro, or 455 Olds 442.  I see these cars in very good condition for under 20 grand all the time. Now I'm not talking frame-off restos where every nut and bolt has been replaced-but cars in this price range are usually well-maintained-no rust issues, they have good paint, they run good-and have good tires, brakes, etc-they may need a little work-but their generally a solid car. You can't buy a new Honda Civic or Toyota Corrolla for 20 grand, so a classic musclecar for less than that is a screamin' deal. For example-Trans-Am Specialties in Florida just sold a  400, 4-speed, WS6 10th Anniversary 1979 T/A  with 66,000 original miles for $14,900!!!. There's no way you could buy a T/A that "needs restoration" the usual sellers- terminology  for clunker-for say 3 or 4 grand and make it that nice by only investing another 10 grand. No way. I saw a really nice, ( The site had a lot of pictures )  3 owner-1970 GTO for sale for $13,000 on the internet the other day. I also saw a 1971 351CJ, 4-speed Mustang Mach 1 in great condition for $12,000. The deals are out there-just don't get excited and overpay for some piece of junk that isn't what you really want. Be patient, and you'll find the right car. Mastermind      

No prejudice, just reality, then and now!

Had some people gripe that I didn't run a post on AMC engines when we were doing the "Reader's Digest" engine builds. There's three reasons for that-the first being that the only real performance car built by AMC in any kind of numbers was the Javelin / AMX that was produced from 1968-74.  These are pretty rare. I know there are people that love their Hurst / SC Ramblers and Rebel Machines, but compared to these cars a Hurst / Olds was mass produced!  The second reason is the 304 and 401 engines were discontinued after 1979. And unlike the 400 Pontiac of which 15 million or so were produced between 1967-79, the 401 wasn't that plentiful to begin with. This leaves the 360 which was used in Jeep Grand Wagonneers until 1992, as the only real source of replacement engines. And-let's be honest-whether your running at the Pure Stock drags or in an anything goes-class-all other things being equal-a 360 Javelin is going to have a helluva time beating a 340 'Cuda, or 351CJ Mustang or a 350 Z/28 Camaro. Your definitely not going to be throwing fear into the hearts of any 440 Six-Pack Road Runner or LS6 Chevelle owners. And that would be the case even if you had a 401. Let me Explain.  Back in 1969 at the height of the musclecar craze the largest engine you could get in a Javelin / AMX or Rebel Machine was a 390 inch V8 that made 315 hp. The BASE engine in a GTO was a 400 with 350 hp. The optional engines were the RAIII and RAIV that were grossly under-rated at 366 and 370 hp respectively. The BASE engine in the Road Runner was a 383 rated at 335 hp, with the 375 hp 440, the 390 hp 440 / Six-Pack, and the 425 hp 426 Hemi optional. The Base engine in the SS396 Chevelle was rated at 325 hp, with 350 hp and 375 hp versions optional.  Even the "Ponycars"-the base engine in a Mach 1 Mustang was a 351 rated at 290 hp,with a 325 hp 390, and the grossly under-rated 428 ( at 335 hp ) optional.  The 350 in a Camaro was rated at 295, with the 396's optional. The base 400 in the Firebird was rated at 325 hp with the RAIII and RAIV rated at 335 and 345. ( The F-bodies and the GTO shared the same base and optional engines, but the Firebirds had a more restrictive exhaust which cost them 25 hp-the optional engines were rated at 366 and 370 hp in the GTO ). You see where I'm going-the "Top Dog" in the AMC line-up didn't have as much power as the standard engines in the other cars. Because Chrysler allowed their biggest engines in the "B" and "E" bodies-GM lifted their 400 inch limit on the "A" and "F" body lines for 1970. In 1971 AMC increased displacement to 401 inches and hp to 330, but they were a day late and a dollar short. Again-stock or modified-do you really beleive that a 401 Javelin has a chance in a drag race against a 455HO Trans-Am, or a 454 Chevelle, or 455 Olds 442, or a 440 Challenger?  That's like the middleweight champ challenging the heavyweight champ. Marvin Hagler was a great fighter in the late 1970's and early '80's, but does anybody really think he could beat Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes in their prime?  I figured I'd be preaching to the choir so to speak. Nothing against AMC's, but they are a niche car and an acquired taste. For example-EVERYBODY knows what a '65 Mustang or a '68 GTO is.  No one, I mean no one is going to look at a Hornet or a Matador and go "Oh Yeah. I gotta have that!!"  If you want an AMC as a driver / cruiser then go ahead and buy one, but be aware-they are going to cost more to build than a Chevy or a Pontiac or a Mopar, and they are not going to run as fast.  Buick Grand Nationals are badass rides, but they too, are a "niche" car, the people that want them or own them know more about them than I do. That's why we didn't feature those either.  Mastermind             

A rare turd is still a turd!!

I had a friend that owned an import specialty performance store-I even worked there several years. We sold Weber Carbs, headers and cams for 240Z's, MG's and Triumphs, Toyota Land Cruiser parts, as well as Volkswagen and Porsche speed parts. He was quite a character-and would insult stupid, annoying people even if they were spending money. You gotta love that. One time when some geek was extolling the virtues of his Porsche 924-my pal said "I thought all the real Porsches were air cooled."  Meaning of course-"Real men drive 911s."  Instead of responding "F-you buddy" this guy goes into a dissertation on the history of the 924-how it was supposed to originally be an Audi model, yada,yada,yada. Me and the other parts guys were just rolling on the floor, because this guy wasn't insulted, he thought he was educating our sarcastic pal, and telling him something he didn't know. Anyhow, my friends pet saying whenever someone was restoring a Renault Caravelle or a Morris Minor or something equally weird was "A rare turd is still just a turd." This applies to musclecars too. I've been pricing cars lately-especially '70's Trans-Ams-and this one was a doozy-a guy wants $37,500 for a 1979 Black SE T/A with a 301. Excuse me?  I narrowly missed out on a 400, 4-speed, 10th anniversary model with 66,000 original miles for $14,900!!  I also narrowly missed a nice 400, 4-speed 1976 model for $12,000. I saw another 400, 4-speed '79 for sale for $18,900 the other day. I've also seen Black and Gold "SE" models for $25K, and for the 35K range I've seen pristine 455 4-speed 1973 models, and Ram Air III and 455HO 1970-72 models. Does this idiot really think that anyone is going to pay 37 grand for his car that wheezes out 145 hp ( it's not even a Turbo-they were rated at 200-210hp ) just because it's one of 37 or whatever built that year, when the same or less money will get you a documented W72 or RAIII 400, or a numbers-matching 455 model? There's a few people that are queer for the ill-fated 80-81 Turbo Pace Car models with Recaro seats and T-tops, but I don't know ANYONE who's ever said-"My dream car is a 301 Trans-Am that can't outrun a Prius." Come on guys- everyone made fun of them and lamented how they weren't nearly as fast as the 400 cube models-( They weren't ) but even with all the running problems they had brand-new, the 301 Turbo T/A was capable of enough acceleration from a light to annoy a traffic cop. In a normally aspirated 301 model you'll annoy exactly two people-yourself and the person behind you. And the guy wants 37K for this turd? The same goes for 1981 California emissioned Corvettes. For some insane reason-maybe just laziness-in the other 49 states you got a 350 in a 'Vette with either a T10 4-speed or a TH350, but in California you could only get a 305, and only with an automatic. This is strange because you could get a 305 with a 4-speed in a Z/28 Camaro, or a 350 with an automatic in all 50 states. The clutch pedal in these Camaros kept the word "brodie" from disapperaing from the street-punks lexicon forever. But no stick in the 'Vette for the first time since 1954? Needless to say these 305 / auto Corvettes were total dogs and they didn't sell many of them, which is why the 350 was re-certified quickly. Anyhow- I saw one for sale in Hemmings and the guy wanted $15,000 for it. Again-for a late-'70's C3 'Vette-I've seen L82 / 4-speed models for less than 15K, and in the same issue I saw an L48 350 / Automatic 1978 Pace Car edition for $8500 that was in pretty good shape!! And this clown wondered why this 305 model wasn't selling for top dollar-it said in the ad-"Ultra-Rare" why weren't people fighting with machetes for this diamond?  Would you want a Corvette that couldn't outrun a Toyota Corrolla? The same goes for Mustangs-I've been looking at 1971-73 models-you see a few 429 '71 models for sale but the majority are 351C powered. However, every once in a while you see a 302 model listed-and they want just as much or more money than the 351 models!  You might think, ok, then don't buy that one. But the gall of the asking prices on the lesser models is what irks me-your not getting the same bang for the buck.  The problem is simple power-to-weight ratio-these Mustangs weigh as much a second-generation Firebird-about 3,700 lbs. The torquey 351C's move them along quite briskly even with an automatic and 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 gears. But the little 302 with a 2bbl  just can't pull the weight. Their slugs. Yes your '83-93 Fox body "5.0" hauls ass-but it only weighs about 3 grand and has 200-225 hp-a '73 302 is rated at 139 horsepower and is pulling about 3,700 lbs. Do the math. Small engine+heavy car= sluggish acceleration. Yet I have seen 351CJ / 4-speed Mach 1s in good shape for as low as $12,000, and 302 / automatic models for sale for 25K.  Go figure. I guess the uninitiated just think  "Old Mustang equals big dollars regardless of equipment or condition."  The other thing I'm seeing is grossly overpriced six-cylinder Camaros and Firebirds and Challengers. If they were bargain-priced and you were planning an engine swap anyway these might be a deal for someone. But no-I've seen people asking 15 grand for an admittedly pristine, low-mileage six-cylinder Camaro-and on the same page in Hemmings is a 350 / 4-speed model that looks equally nice for 10 grand!!  But even the engine swap angle won't really fly-Why would I pay top dollar for a six-cylinder Camaro or Firebird and then put another 10 grand in it when 350 Camaros and 400 Firebirds are abundant at reasonable prices? If I'm paying a premium price, I want to drive it, not work on it. Also in the "rare turd" category-is 4-doors. I don't care that a BMW M3 sedan or a Lexus ISF can run 12 second 1/4s.  And you modern Charger / 300 owners can keep quiet too-a musclecar is, always has been and always should be a 2 dr coupe, end of story. Your 4-dr LeMans or Malibu still looks like a nerdy granpa car no matter how fast it is. 460 or not-a Torino 4-door is an ok driver but it's still not as cool as the Gran Torino coupe in the Clint Eastwood movie or the one that "Starsky and Hutch" drove, period. Didn't you see "American Graffiti" or "Hollywood Knights?" Falfa's badass black '55 was a 2 dr, and it was also used in "Two-Lane Blacktop". Tony Danza-already a star from "Taxi" drove "Project X"-Popular Hot Rodding's longtime test mule '57 Chevy that had a blower on it at the time-in "Hollywood Knights." It was a 2 dr.  Every once in a while I see a ca that someone's trying to sell or restore-and I hear my friends words-"A rare turd is still a turd." Mastermind                      

Think hard about "Deals" on musclecars!

I said in a recent post that I was looking for a musclecar for a daily driver. I narrowed it down to three choices-two of them are Pontiacs-I really like '70's T/A's, and I really like '68-70 GTOs. No surprise there-I've talked many times about my long-lost Judge and the Disco-era T/A's that I loved dearly. The third possible choice-surprise-is a 1971-73 Mustang Mach 1. Although he worked for Pontiac in the '60's and we had our share of those when I was a kid-a '59 Catalina with a tri-power 389,a '62 Catalina with the two-tone red and white interior and 8-lug wheels, a '64 GTO, and a '65 2+2, by 1972 dad was working as a Ford mechanic and I can remember being 12 years old and watching him tune a Boss 351. With it's thumping solid-lifter cam, and red and back paint job, and matching red and black interior-I thought that was about the coolest car on the planet at the time. Also, my cousin had '71 Mach 1, and Sean Connery and Jill St John had a '71 Mach 1 in a cool chase through Las Vegas in the James Bond flick "Diamonds are Forever", Jan-Micheal Vincent drove a '72 Mach 1 in the Charles Bronson thriller "The Mechanic" and of course no one can forget the original "Eleanor" a yellow 1973 Mach 1 driven by H.B Halicki in the classic "Gone in 60 Seconds." Because of those influences I've always had a thing for the '71 -73 Fastbacks, even though Ford Purists kind of turn their noses up at them. Fine, that keeps the prices reasonable for the rest of us. Any how, in searching the world wide web and Hemmings Motor News, High-Performance Pontiac, Mustang Monthly and other sources, I've decided that there's absolutely no rhyme or reason to what people ask for these cars and condition or low-mileage isn't it. For example-some clown back east wanted $50,000 for a '69 GTO that supposedly had 53,000 original miles. EXCEPT-it wasn't a Judge, it wasn't a Ram Air IV, or a Ram Air III, it was a base-model 350 hp version, and it has been sitting in a garage since 1979!! Yeah, it has no rust or body damage and the paint looks ok, but the car hasn't been registered or driven or even started in 33 years!! How do you know the engine isn't locked up? And I guarantee if you do get it to start-you think the rear main seal, the timing cover, the front pump seal, the power steering pump, and the water pump aren't going to be leaking oil, trans fluid, and antifreeze like a sieve? What about all the fuel lines and brake lines? You think those aren't cracked and dry or maybe have rodent damage after 33 years?  Conversely-I found a 1968 GTO that had just had a full frame-off concours resto done it-I mean every nut and bolt and hose was replaced that was just flawless and this owner was asking $36K. This car in my opinion was worth every penny-it was PHS documented-the guy had the window sticker, the build sheet- and it was a loaded car-factory A/C, the Hurst Dual / Gate shifter on the TH400, everything. But this other clown WANTS 14 grand MORE for a clunker that had sat 30 years as opposed to this diamond. I also found a '68 GTO that was priced at $24,999 that also had a/c and the his/hers shifter and was in really good shape, and had just been restored and had new paint, tires, brakes, etc. I also found a nice '70 model with 95,000 original miles that they were asking $13,000 for. A screaming bargain,-as the '70 for 13K was in better shape than the '69 that the guy wanted 50K for!!  As for T/A's-same thing-I found a 1970 Formula 400 with factory air that worked, factory Ram Air hood that worked, tilt wheel everything for $19,800. This car was beautiful-in fact I'm considering making an offer on it to the owner-it's that nice. On the same website a guy wants $36,500 for a 1970 Trans-Am-and says in the ad that the a/c doesn't work!!!!  Hello? your trying to sell a 43 year old car for 36 grand and the air doesn't work??  I hate to break this to you buddy-but it's not like your selling your '88 Toyota Tercel for 500 bucks and you don't want to put tires on it!!  I also saw two 1979 Trans-Ams-both 400 4-speed models, both really nice, both even the same color-Nocturne Blue. Except one was priced at a very reasonable $18,900 and the other was priced at an are-you-out-of-your-mind-$ 34,500!!  The Mustangs were no different I found a 351CJ, 4-speed, great condition 1971 Mach 1 on the 'net for $12,500. This car appeared in the photos at least to be as nice as a '73 automatic model that the guy was asking $19,500  for, and equally as nice as another 4-speed version that the owner wanted $27,995 for. I found a fully restored Boss 351 that was priced at $42,000-a little out of my league-and another that wasn't as pretty for $58,000, and a gorgeous one for $79,000. The point I'm making is don't get excited or emotional-there's plenty of good deals out there-you just have to look. When I finally make my decision, I'll post pictures and and everything of the car I get. In the meantime-I'll keep slogging through these incredibly disparately priced ads that have no pattern. But I think it'll pay off in a great car that I can love for many years. That's what the the rest of you who are looking for a musclecar should do too. Mastermind          

T.V screw ups!!

Watched the new show "Vegas" with Dennis Quaid and Micheal Chiklis of "The Shield" fame. Good stories, and the always sexy Carrie Anne Moss ( The Matrix ) as the District Attorney is good. However I expected much better quality control from producer Nicholas Pileggi- ("Goodfellas" and "American Gangster".)  The show is set in 1960. Yet Carrie Anne Moss drives a 1963 Thunderbird, Micheal Chiklis has a 1962 Lincoln with the suicide doors, and Dennis Quaid drives a 1964 Dodge Pickup. Like Ditka says on Monday Night Football- "Come on, Man!!".  Hollywood is notorious for these vehicular bungles-just this past weekend the Stephen King Blockbuster-"The Shawshank Redemption" was on one of the cable channels. It's about a guy that goes to prison for 19 years for a crime he didn't committ. It's set from 1947-1966. At the triumphant finale-the hero- Tim Robbins- is driving down the Pacific coast highway in a 1969 GTO convertible. Aaaauuuuggghhh!! In the recent revenge flick "Faster" the Rock has what appears to be a 1970 SS396 Chevelle as that's the front end it has. However it also has the round taillights in the bumper like the '71-72 models!!  The rip-off of the Oscar Bonavena / Joe Conforte beef that resulted in Bonavena's death-"Love Ranch" starring Joe Pesci and Helen Mirren-has the boxer driving a 1979 Trans-Am. Except the movie is set in 1976!!  ( 1976 is also when the real-life event happened .) This kind of stuff can drive the observant person up the wall. On an episode of  "Cold Case" the teenage-boy murder victim had a poster of a barefoot Farrah-Fawcett Majors sitting on the hood of a white and blue 1976 Mustang II. This was obviously a "Charlie's Angels" promo poster-that's the car Farrah and later- Cheryl Ladd's character both drove on the show. No problem there, unless you remember that "Charlie's Angels" debuted in September 1976, and this particular "Cold Case" episode was set in 1972!!  The show only lasted 8 episodes before it was cancelled-but several years back they tried to have a "Walking Tall" TV series. It starred Bo Svenson who had been in the 2 sequels-( Joe Don Baker was in the original movie ) and it had good writing and good action, but everyone was driving late 1970's cars. This is huge problem because Buford Pusser was sheriiff of McNairy County Tennessee from 1962-1970, and the show alluded to timely world events like Martin Luther King's assasination. So how did Buford have a 1977 Dodge police car in 1968? I could go on, but you get the drift. People that aren't into cars don't see why it makes us so angry. Here's why-how'd you like to watch a western set in the Civil War and have the gunfighter pull a WWI era .45 Auto instead of a revolver?  How'd you like to watch a movie about WWII fighter pilots and see an F14 or a Vietnam era Huey helicopter go by? Would that be ok? Mastermind         

Small-Block Ford power tips......and why some engines were omitted!

When we started this thread I said it would be a "Reader's Digest" kind of gloss over-good general advice for each engine line-and you could buy specific books for your particular engine to get real details, head and block casting numbers, and other nuances needed to make maximum power for minimum bucks. However-there's a few "niche" engines that I feel we don't need to address. There's not a lot of them out there-and the people that have them or want them probably know more than I do about what's best for them. I'm talking about Chrysler Hemis and the Ford Boss 302 and the Boss 429. The parts for these are very specific and expensive-so like I said-if you own one of these cars you probably know more about it than I do, so I'm not going to go into a bunch of basic information that you probably already know. I also decided to omit the 289 / 302 Ford. The reason is unless you have a VERY light car-i.e. a '64-66 Mustang, a '62-65 Falcon, or an early '70's Maverick / Comet-they are just too small for serious performance work. Before you get spittingly hysterical-be honest- all other things being equal, either stock or modified, do you really think a 289 powered Fairlane has a chance against a 389 GTO or a 396 Chevelle in a drag race? Or even a 340 Dodge Dart or 327 Nova? When's the last time someone in a 440 or even a 383 Road Runner told you they had their ass handed to them by a Fairlane or Torino or Mustang that had a 289 / 302 and NOT a 428 under the hood?  If you have a nice '65-68 Mustang and want more oomph-yes, headers or an Edelbrock intake, and maybe a mild cam will help immensely-but your not going to be throwing fear into the hearts of any 400 Firebird owners. That's all I'm saying. I'm also leaving the 1979-93 "5.0" Mustangs out. Yes they are great performers-spare me your 10 second timeslips and angry letters. However-if we get into those-then we also have to get into LB9 and L98, LT1 and LS1 Camaros and Firebirds and Buick Grand Nationals, Impala SS's, Supercharged T-Birds, etc-and hey-were not "Modern Musclecar Monthly" were talking about '60's and '70's musclecars. Last time I checked a '70 Mach 1 Mustang had a 351 Cleveland under the hood- not a fuelie "5.0".  Which bring us to..... Ford made two different 351 inch V8s-the "Cleveland" style that was used from 1970-74 in Mustangs, Cougars, Torinos, Montegos, and Panteras. The other is the "Windsor" that was used in production cars and trucks from 1969-1997 and lives on today in several Ford Racing crate engines. The major difference is the cylinder heads and the deck height. The Cleveland heads have ports and valves- literally-the size of a big-block Chevy. They were originally designed for the Boss 302 Trans-Am engines that made all their power between 5 and 8,000 rpm. There's actually 2 designs-the 2V heads used on two-barrel engines and the 4V heads used on 4-barrel-i.e. Boss 351 and CJ engines. The 2V heads are actually better for street use as the smaller ports and valves make better low-end and mid-range torque. Edelbrock and Weiand make intakes that use a 4-barrel carb, but bolt up to 2-barrel heads. Confused? Try not to be. Edelbrock, Trick Flow and other companies make performance aluminum heads that are kind of a compromise between the factory 2v and 4V designs to aid street performance, and they also offer manifolds that will bolt onto Windsor blocks to make a "Clevor" or "Mock Boss" engine. The Windsor heads are like a 289 / 302, and performance heads for these engines-i.e. the factory "GT40 5.0" heads, and aftermarket Edelbrock and Trick Flow designs for the 289 / 302 will fit a 351W. The 351W intake manifolds are unique because the deck height is different than a 289 / 302, and different than a "Cleveland". However they are plentiful, and Edelbrock, Holley and Weiand offer many choices of dual-plane and single-plane intakes for the Windsors. As for Cams-stick with the cam manufacturer's guidelines on gearing, converter stall speed etc. In a medium weight car-71-73 Mustang, 70's Torino, Cougar, Cyclone or Montego- these can really rock. In a heavier car-I'd swap in a 429 / 460-which shares the same bellhousing bolt pattern. The 351 / 400M series used from 1975-82 is a boat anchor. Their not really a Cleveland and not really a Windsor, and they have the triple-axel of being heavy, having no power and crappy gas mileage. Before I invested a nickel in one of these-I'd swap in a 460-you'll be way ahead of the game  not only in power production but it'll probably also be cheaper to build.  Mastermind              

Big Ford power tips part 2......

In the last post we talked about the basically obsolete "FE" engines. Today we'll talk about the "Thunderjet" series that was used from 1968-1997. There's only two displacements 429 and 460 cubes. Ford Racing sells a 600 hp 514 inch stroker based on the 460 if you want to be King Kong, but if your restoring an old musclecar we'll assume you'll be looking to stay somewhat original and save money. One upside of these engines is they share the same bellhousing bolt pattern as a 351C or the 351M / 400 series. What this means is if you want to build a big-block sleeper Mustang, Cougar, Torino, Ranchero, Montego ( or a "White Lightning" LTD clone ) you won't have to change the transmission. The downside is other than a few Mustangs and Torinos that are pretty rare and priced accordingly-these were primarily a "big car" engine-i.e. Thunderbird, LTD, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln MKIV-etc, so chances are you'll be doing an engine swap anyway. A word of caution-unlike a small-or big-block Chevy-where you can take a 350 or a 454 out of a truck or an Impala and stuff it in a Chevelle and not even have to change the belts-Fords are not that simple-in other words-the brackets to mount the accesories-i.e. alternator, power steering, air conditioning, etc on a 460 in a pickup may be totally different than a 460 in a Torino, and those will be different from a 460 T-Bird.  And the oil pans may be different from model to model-which means you not only have to change the pan but maybe the pump and the pickup.  Ugh!!  Again-I'm not slandering Fords-but think about this-you can buy a 400 Pontiac out of a 1971 Catalina and drop it into a 1978 Trans-Am and except for maybe the carburator to clear the "Shaker" hood scoop-you won't have to change a damn thing. You can buy a 440 out of a 1977 Plymouth Gran Fury police car and put it into a 1970 Dodge Charger and not even change the air cleaner housing. This is just an irrefutable fact-You can't play musical engines with Fords like you can with GM and Mopar stuff. That aside-if your a Ford guy-the swap-although you'll spend a lot more time chasing parts than you would on a comparable GM project-will be worth it for the massive power infusion your going to get. # 1. Bottom End. The big Ford bottom end is very tough. Unless you run it without oil or go crazy on nitrous infusion, I don't see how you could break one in normal use. # 2. Cylinder Heads. Unless your going hog-wild and just building a "Godzilla" like motor-use the heads that came on your engine. Remember the old saying-"Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?"  It certainly applies here.  Ford Racing, Trick Flow, Edelbrock and others all offer aluminum heads for these engines, but the price often tops 2 grand a pair!! For a street engine-that 2 grand is better spent on a cam, carb and intake,exhaust, gears, and maybe a stall converter. # 3. Cams. Follow the cam manufacturers recommendations and you won't go wrong. I know-some of the supposedly "mild" cams have big duration and lift numbers. But you have to remember-this isn't a 327 Chevy or a 340 Mopar-your feeding 429 or 460 cubes. # 4. Induction-the Autolite 4300 is bar none-the WORST 4bbl carb ever put on anything!!  My dad was a Ford mechanic in the early '70's and the cars wouldn't start or run new, and got horrible gas mileage. If you bitched hard enough-Ford would have the dealer put an electric-choke 600 Holley on it and warranty it!!  Whether your using a stock intake or an aftermarket one like an Edelbrock Performer I'd trash that Autolite unit ( or put it in a box in case you ever want to sell the car to someone really who wants the "numbers-matching" doorstop ) and get an Edelbrock or Holley Carb. I personally have never had much luck with Holleys, although other people have good results with them. For me, every Edelbrock carb I've ever put on a personal vehicle or a customer's car has been bulletproof.  # 5. Exhaust. Headers are a must to let the big Ford breathe properly-especially if you've installed an aftermarket cam and carb and intake. Again-don't be scared of the big tube sizes offered-it's not a 350 Chevy were scavenging the exhaust from!! Use 2 /12 or 3 inch pipe and Turbo style mufflers. Mastermind