Bigger isn't always better....Especially in a Street Machine!

Had a conversation with a customer at the dealership that got me thinking. This guy had a new Cadillac Escalade ESV-that's the larger, longer wheelbase version based on the Suburban chassis. ( The "regular" Escalade is based on the Tahoe platform.) If you don't know-Escalades are full-time 4wd-unlike the Tahoe / Suburban their based on that can be put in 2wd for highway driving. They also have the 417 hp 6.2 liter V8 that's actually the base Corvette motor. ( Their rated at 430 hp in the 'Vette.) And this one had huge 20 inch chrome wheels and tires. He comes in all outraged and sneers at me-"This thing only gets 11 mpg!" I couldn't help myself. Without thinking, the sarcasm just spewed out of me. "Really?" I said. "A $65,000, 6,400 lb truck that's constantly in 4wd and has huge tires and a 400 hp engine gets lousy gas mileage?" "Say it isn't so!" "And doubtless, you drive like you have eggshells under the gas pedal." "What the hell does that mean?!" the guy roared. "Do the math." I replied. "I'm really not being rude or flippant here." "You have a vehicle that weighs more than three tons, with the aerodynamics of a bulldozer, that's constantly in 4wd and has a huge engine with 400+ hp." "And,-you've always got your foot in it." "You live in my neighborhood" " I've seen you leaving for work-squealing your tires, and blowing past people on the freeway at 80 or 90 mph." "Do you think your going to get 25 mpg in that situation?" "Go look at one on the lot." "The window sticker shows a $1,000+ "GAS GUZZLER TAX" and says they only get 13 mpg." "So your not going to do anything about it?" "Is the "check engine" light on?" "No." "Then their's nothing I can do." "I hate to keep harping on the same point, but I'm sorry your $65,000, three ton, full-time 4wd,400 hp SUV that you drive like a Firebird Trans-Am only gets 11 mpg." "There's nothing mechanically wrong with it." "If you drove like a little old lady, it might get 15 mpg, but's it's still going to be a gas hog." "What part of that don't you understand?" He left in a huff, and complained to Cadillac customer service. I loved their follow-up call. "You told a Mr. Jones that his Escalade getting 11 mpg is normal and that he drove too fast." "Ok." "Do me a favor" I asked the rep. "Pull up the EPA fuel economy ratings and the window sticker for a 417 hp Escalade ESV on your computer." "It shows an $1,100 gas guzzler tax and says they get 13 mpg, correct?" "Uh, yeah, that's correct." "And this guy lives down the street from me" "He drives like an idiot." "So a 6,400 lb vehicle with a 400 hp engine and a driver with a lead foot only gets 11 mpg." "What should I have done?" "Lied and said he should get 20 mpg?" "Offered him a tune-up he didn't need?" "Explain to me how you would have handled it?" "You could have been politer about it." the rep said. "I'll admit, I may have had a tinge of sarcasm in my voice, but did I say anything that wasn't true?" "No, you didn't." "And what, mechanically could I have done to make this jerk happy?" I asked. "Nothing, really." he grudgingly admitted. "You have a nice day." "You too."  Now if this guy had bought a Tahoe with a traditional transfer case that has a 2wd mode, and the smaller 4.8 or 5.3 liter V8, even if he drove like a madman-it would have gotten probably 16 or 17 mpg, which he probably wouldn't have complained about. The way this story relates to musclecars is this-There's a personality type that has to have the biggest, best, rarest, most expensive thing out there whether they need it or not, and these people often find they don't like it after they have it. Here's a couple of examples I found during last year's "Hot August Nights." I spoke to an older, grey haired gentleman that had a for-real, one of 116 ever made 1969 L88 427 Corvettes. I complimented him on the car and said if it was mine I'd have a personalized liscence plate that said KNG KONG. Get it? King Kong? He laughed and said that would certainly be appropriate, as it was the most god-awful fast thing he'd ever driven, that it would go sideways at 40 mph in 2nd gear if you punched it, and that he'd given a few Dodge Vipers and Porsche 911 Turbo owners a history lesson they'll never forget on the freeway from say-50 mph to 130, when traffic got in the way. Then he said he was going to run it through the Barrett-Jackson auction and try to get most of the 100K plus that he'd paid for it back. "Why would you want to sell it, unless you were in financial trouble?" I said. "If you don't mind my asking." "I'm not trying to be rude or pry into your personal business." " No, no offense taken." He said. "I don't need the money, it's just not what I wanted." "My wife and I always wanted a Stingray to cruise around in." "This thing is ungodly fast, but the clutch is too stiff, it gets 6 mpg, it idles about 2,000 rpm, it pings even on premium with octane booster-if you don't run racing gas it pings like hell, the exhaust is way too loud, and it's always buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway." "My wife burns her legs on the sidepipes every time she gets out of it." "Not to be rude, but if all you wanted was a weekend cruiser I wouldn't have bought a 12:1 compression, solid-lifter, 427, 4-speed model with headers and sidepipes and 4.56:1 gears." "You should have gotten a '70's model with a low-compression 350 and an automatic that will run on 87 octane gas and idle smooth." "I know that now." he said, ruefully. "I'm looking at a low-mileage '78 Silver Anniversary model." "I think that will serve our needs a lot better." "Or, even a '71-74 model with a low-compression, hydraulic cammed 454 would be ok if you still wanted a big-block." I said. "They make great crusiers, and still have lots of grunt." "Yeah, that's a way to go too." he said. "Nice talking to you." I said. "Good luck selling it." "If I had a house I could re-finance or something I'd buy it." He laughed. "Thanks for the advice." "Go play mega-bucks at the casino, maybe you can save me from going to the auction." "I hope so." I said-"Good luck" "Thanks." He was a nice old guy-but he fell into the trap of having to have the biggest, baddest thing available. Like he agreed-he and his wife would be much happier with a "Vette with a mild, 8.5:1 compression L48 350 or LS5 454 and a TH350 or TH400 and 3.08:1 or 3.36:1 gears. The 2nd case was almost identical. This guy was my dad's age-in his late '60's or early '70's. He had a 1965 Impala SS with a $15,000 12:1, solid-roller cammed, 720 hp 572 inch GMPP crate engine backed up by a $7,000 Art Carr prepped six-speed automatic. It was candy-apple red, and just gorgeous. His lament was the same- He had over 100 grand invested. "It's unbeleivably fast." he said. "It will literally smoke the tires as long as you want to stay on the throttle." "It's going about 90 mph before the speed of the tires match the speed of the road." "But it won't run on anything but 104 octane racing gas, it only gets 5-8 mpg, and the high-stall converter kind of puts its own "right now" into the acceleration process." "It's almost impossible to take off without spinning the tires." "Of Course, before I put the high-stall converter in, it would creep forward at stoplights and try to hit the car in front of me, or go into the intersection." "If I stood on the brakes, the tires would start smoking like I was powerbraking it."  I laughed. "You were." "With 685 lbs of torque, and a 1,200 rpm idle-it's going to try to take off with a stock type converter." The guy laughed. "I know that now." he said. "I love ultra-badass cars as much as anyone." I said. "But that's a little overkill for a street car." "Why didn't you go for a hydraulic-cammed, 9.6:1 compression, 440 hp 454HO, or 500hp 502 and a simple TH400 with a stock converter?" "That should be enough power for anyone in a driver, not a race car." "I wish I'd gone that way." He replied. "Then it would run on pump gas, and idle decent and be pleasant to drive." "This thing's just a monster." "If I can't sell the whole car, maybe I'll try to sell the engine and tranny, and like you said-put a streetable 454 in it." "That's what I get for listening to my friends." "A bunch of competitive rich guys that always have to have the bigest and best of everything." "At least you won't make the same mistake on your next project, right?" "That's true." he said. "Nice talking to you." "You too." Anyway-the moral of the story is-Be careful what you want, because you might get it. Be brutally honest with yourself about what you really want and what your really going to do with the car. A 600 hp engine sounds good in theory, but if your going to drive the car at all, something with 9:1 compression and a cam that idles at 800 rpm makes a lot more sense. If you live in a big city with a lot of traffic-like San Francisco or L.A.-an automatic might be a better choice than a 4-speed. If you live in a rural area 30 miles from the nearest town, 4.11:1 gears will get old real quick. Something with 3.08:1 or 3.23:1 gears will be a lot more to your liking. See what I'm saying? If you were a handgun hunter, you wouldn't use a .44 Magnum to hunt rabbits would you? Bigger isn't always better.  Mastermind            

Why Car / engine / trans / axle ratios have to be custom tailored...Everything isn't a small-block Chevy!

Whenever I talk to someone about what cam, carb and intake, torque converter, rear end gears etc to use for a street machine or drag racer or hobby stock or Super Stock circle track car-they almost always argue with me and quote some magazine article or the Holley carb catalog, or B&M trans catalog, or Lunati cams catalog, etc. What their not grasping is, for about the last 50 years-the default test mule for any aftermarket performance part has been a small-block Chevy. For example-torque converter stall speed. When you read in a B&M or TCI or Summit Racing catalog that their selling a 3,000 rpm stall converter, if you read the fine print or send away for the test results or tech sheet-you will see that their test engine had 230 lbs ft of Torque! A 165 hp carburated LG4 305 Chevy in an '84 Camaro has 240 lbs ft of torque. And that's "peak" torque-i.e.-the maximum the engine made throughout the rpm range-and the "peak" reading probably came at 4,000 rpm or more.  So yes, in that car-or even say a '77 Z/28 Camaro with a 170 hp LM1 / L48 350 that has 280 lbs ft of  "peak" torque, the converter will stall roughly about 2,800-3,200 rpm. But what if you put that same "3,000 rpm" converter behind a 455 Pontiac in a '71 GTO that has a peak rating of 480 lbs ft of torque at 2,700 rpm? It would stall much higher and the car would actually be slower off the line than it would be with a stock converter because it would just blow the tires away, even with drag radials. "Hi-stall" converters came into vogue as a crutch to compensate for a small engine, or a peaky,overcammed big one that doesn't have enough torque to launch the car properly. If the engine has enough torque to launch the car properly, you don't need a high-stall converter. For example- the ZZ4 Chevy engine in my Cutlass is rated at 355 hp at 5,400 rpm and 405 lbs ft of torque at 3,500 rpm. What makes this engine so awesome despite it's modest numbers-it's GM's best-selling crate engine in history-is the torque curve. If you read the dyno sheet that comes with the engine-yes the 405 lb torque peak is at 3,500 rpm; however it makes more than 350 lbs ft of torque from 1,800-5,200 rpm!! That kind of broad, flat torque curve, is what makes for exciting street performance and wins races at the drags. If my car had a stock converter that stalled at 1,700 rpm and 3.08:1 gears instead of it's "Holeshot" and 4.10s, it would still smoke the tires from a light and probably only be 3 or 4 tenths slower in the 1/4. That's because with 350 lbs of torque right off idle-the engine has the torque to launch the car without mechanical advantage. And conversely-if I installed a 3 grand converter as opposed to a 2,000 rpm one, the car wouldn't go any faster because it would spin the tires excessively on take off.  The same applies to other things-cams for instance. For small-block Chevy enthusiasts the old standby "hot" street cam has always been the "350 hp" 327 Corvette hydraulic cam. Now, this cam would absolutely ruin a 283 or a 305. It works pretty good in a 327 with a 4-speed, better in any 350, and is really sweet in a 383 / 400 even with an automatic. Why? because larger engines can tolerate more "cam" without ill effects. In installing a high-performance camshaft in any engine-you almost always are losing low-end torque in exchange for an increase in mid-range and top-end power. Well in this case-a 283 or 305 doesn't have a lot of bottom-end torque to start with, so losing any at all kills the performance. It was fine in a 327 'Vette with a stick and 3.70:1 or 4.11:1 gears-the mechanical advantage of the 4-speed and stiff gears masked the engine's lack of torque and lumpy idle by getting the rpm's up quickly. The 350 or 400 small-block made enough torque to start with that the cam smoothed out all through the range-it even had a good enough idle to use an automatic with a stock converter. To further illustrate this-the "Hot" "350 hp" small-block Chevy cam has 222 degrees duration ( at .050 lift ) and .447 valve lift. A stock 327 / 350 "300hp" cam has 194/ 204 duration ( at .050 ) and .383 / 410 vale lift . By contrast the cam that comes stock in a 400 Pontiac in a 200 hp '75 Catalina has 212 / 225 duration and .410 lift. The cam that came stock in my 8.5:1 250 hp 1973 455 Hurst Olds-the vaunted "W30" was long gone-this engine was also used in Vista Cruiser wagons and Delta 88's and 98s-has 231 duration ( at .050 ) and .474 valve lift! Yet in a heavy car or station wagon with 2.73:1 gears both of these cams idle at 600 rpm and will pull a trailer up Donner pass at 70 mph! The reason is a 400 Pontiac or a 455 Olds has substantially more torque than a small-block Chevy and can use a bigger cam even in a milder application. Manual transmission cars can tolerate more "cam" than automatics becuase idle quality isn't as important-the driver can launch at any rpm he wants by manipulating the clutch. The same goes for induction. Yes, most magazines recommend a dual-plane intake like the Edelbrock Performer and a vacuum-secondary 600 cfm Holley or Edelbrock carb for the "average" street engine. This of course being an 8.5:1 compression 305 or 350 Chevy, a 302 or 351 Ford or a 318 or 360 Dodge in heavy cars and trucks or suv's with lazy cams and automatic transmissions and high ( low numeric ) gearing. On those applications they are absolutely right-you need a carb and intake that will build low-speed and mid-range torque. A single-plane Torker II or Victor Jr intake and a 750 Double-Pumper Holley or 800 cfm Edelbrock would absolutely ruin any of those applications. They'd actually run WORSE than stock rather than better. However, on a 10:1 compression 350 Chevy or 340 / 360 Mopar with a hot cam, a 4-speed and 3.55:1 or stiffer gearing it would really rock-pulling hard from about 2,800-7,000 rpm!. And a single-plane would work even on a mild 440 Mopar or 454 Chevy- because the loss of bottome-end torque may actually help the car launch better because of less wheelspin, and the increase in mid-range and top-end rush. So just remember that the "General Rule" is based on testing of a small-block Chevy. And that means a "basic" small-block Chevy-an 8.2:1 compression 350 that makes about 200 hp and 280 lbs ft of torque-not an 11:1 370 hp LT-1, or a 450 hp 383 stroker. So take these "General guidelines" with a grain of salt-especially if your building a 460 Ford or 440 Dodge, or 455 Pontiac, Buick or Olds! Mastermind                    

"Out of the box" never works for me....

I want to vomit day-glo every time I read a magazine article on one of their project cars. "We bolted the 750 Holley and Performer RPM intake on, and without even looking at it other wise we gained 28 hp and 42 lbs ft of Torque." "Our 1/4 mile e.t. dropped from 14.40 to 13.90, and that was before we bumped the timing and re-jetted the carb." "After putting the Dart Heads and intake and Comp Cams Solid-roller cam on our box-stock ZZ4 short-block, we dropped the clutch at 8,200 rpm!!" "Project Badass MoFo responded with a best ever 11.39 at 120 mph, without nitrous!" ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!  I feel this way because I have played with musclecars, sports cars, and race cars for 30+ years, and I have never, ever had anything work perfectly "out of the box."  Yet according to Hot Rod, Car Craft, Popular Hot Rodding, Super Chevy etc,-it happens all the time. I realize-I hate to sound like a broken record-they have to push and endorse their advertiser's products to stay in business. But I beg to differ-here's some recent horror stories I had when I put the ZZ4 crate engine in my Hurst / Olds. For those of you that don't follow this site regularly-A couple years ago after blowing the crank out the 455 Olds for the third time in 27,000 miles, I decided to avoid putting a rod through the side of a numbers-matching block, that I'd put the original engine in a plastic bag in my garage so I could sell the car with it if I ever wanted, and I'd put a GMPP crate engine in it so I could continue to drive it and drag race it. If I grenaded a Chevy Crate motor-who cares? And they had a 3 year 50,000 mile warranty to boot. I figured I couldn't lose. Boy, was I wrong. I bought the GMPP "Turn-Key" package-complete from carb to oil pan, with the water pump, fuel pump, distributor and even a serpentine belt accessory drive system. I did this largely because Hot Rod did a "Crate motor shootout" a few years ago where they tried 8 different GMPP offerings in a '69 Chevelle. Their ZZ4 "Turn Key" package ran 12.40's in the 1/4 with slicks and 4.30 gears-and they swear they just "Threw the motor in the car, didn't even check the timing" before this mid 12 second blast down the strip. Since my Cutlass weighs roughly the same as a Chevelle, and had 4.10 gears-I figured at worst I'd run very low 13s or very high 12s with drag radials. Since Chevys have a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than BOP engines I also invested in a brand-new B&M TH400 and a 2,400 rpm "Holeshot" converter. To the tune of $1,300. ( I kept the original Hurst "Shotgun" converter with the original trans.) After babying it for 500 miles, and changing the oil-it was time to test the mettle. Hot Rod was right-the motor was STRONG! It felt like the 400 Pontiac in my brother's '69 GTO. Anyone who drove the car would swear it still had the 455 in it. It actually had more power and torque than the 455 it replaced. Except the trans shifted at 3,000 rpm. No matter what. Light throttle, full-throttle, it shifted at 3 grand. I pulled the Hurst Dual / Gate shifter into ratchet mode and held it in  low gear and punched it. The car smoked the tires all the way across the intersection and shifted to second at 3,000 rpm! I called B&M's tech line and complained-and their first response was "You installed it wrong, and their's something wrong with the engine. If you don't have 10-12 inches of vacuum at idle they won't shift properly" I was furious, and gave the guy the cussing of his life. I'll leave out the profanity-but I said- "How could I install it wrong?" A transmission only goes in one way." The car had a TH400 in it, and that's what I replaced it with" "A simple R&R." "Secondly-the engine is brand new, and it has 17 inches of vacuum at idle!" "You guarantee these will stand up to 550 hp." "What 550 hp engine other than a diesel semi shifts at 3 grand?!!" When I griped about not being able to shift it manually he sneered "That's Normal" the governer overrides the shifter position no matter what." "Bullshit!" I yelled. "I've driven GM cars for 30 years, with TH350 and TH400 trannys, and whether it's a Trans-Am, a one-ton dually pickup or a Vista Cruiser station wagon, you can hold them in low or second for 10 miles or until the engine blows if you want to! "Upshifting to 2nd anyway with the shifter in low is not normal." His first option was for me to pull the tranny out of the car, ship it back them at my own expense, and they'd decide if they were going to warranty it or not. After threatening to sue them and tell this wonderful tale of customer service on this site and to every magazine I write for-he says- "I'll send you a governor recalibration kit at no charge." I get the governor recalibration kit, and it doesn't help. There was five levels of springs and weights, the first being street, the last being full-race, and the others in between. The 1st 4 don't change anything. The last one does-drastically-Now it won't upshift at all, period. Not at half-throttle, not at full-throttle. I call B&M again and get told to pull the tranny and ship it back them, as it must have an internal problem. I appeal to Summitt Racing where I bought it. They were very reasonable-they offered a full refund-or since they didn't have another B&M unit in stock, they'd substitute a TCI street fighter, and submit a labor claim to their home office for my grief of pulling the tranny twice. I accepted the TCI streetfighter and put that in the car. It worked better than the B&M-it would at least go 4,800 rpm before shifting under full-throttle load. BUt it did the same thing-if I used the ratchet shifter it would shift anyway at 4,800 rpm regardless of shifter position. I call TCI and they say they'll send me the governer recalibration kit at no charge. UGH!! After playing with the springs and weights, I finally get it where it will shift at 5,400 rpm. Not 5,800-6,000 like I wanted, but I could live with that. Then two weeks and less than 300 miles later-it won't shift from 2nd to third when it's hot. Dead cold, or for about 10 miles it works fine. Then it won't come out of 2nd for hell or highwater. I call TCI-they say pull the tranny and ship it back to them. I go back to Summitt and beg the manager for mercy. He apologizes and offers a full refund. I accept, and talk to my neighbor who owns a junkyard. He says he's got a short-shaft Chevy TH400 that he took out of a wrecked SS454 pickup and because were friends, I can have it for $200 bucks. I take it home, change the fluid, put it in the car, and go for a test drive. It shifts smoothly at light throttle. When I punch it, it shifts at 5,200 rpm, and lays a good 8-10 feet of rubber on the 1-2 shift. I pull the shifter into low, punch it, and the engine screams up to 5,800-6,200 rpm as I click the shifter forward. The car hip fakes a little sideways laying a good 30 feet of rubber down. Top of 2nd were pulling like a freight train, 5,800 rpm comes up quick, click the shifter forward and the tires bark into third! With a $200 junkyard Tranny!!!! I realize my friend gave me a screamin' deal and probably could have got at least $500-700 for that tranny-but my point is it's still a USED transmission that worked flawlessly as compared to the premium B&M and TCI units that cost $1,500+ and didn't work at all!! That was spring. We get into summer-and all of a sudden the car won't start hot. It'll start cold, and run like a champ as long as you want, but if you shut it off and try to re-start it 10 minutes later-it acts like it's flooded and you have to crank it and crank it before it will finally re-start. This with a brand-new 770 Holley Street Avenger carb that came with the engine and has less than 1,000 miles on it. I call Scoggin-Dickey where I bought the engine. They say the carb probably has blown power valves, and again-ship them the carb, they'll look at it, and maybe if they decide it's screwed up they'll send me another carb or refund my money. I ship the carb off to SD, and go over to Summitt. Since I never in my life have had much luck with Holleys, I decide to by one their "Perfromance" rebuilt Quadrajets that's guaranteed to feed and engine up to 460 ci or 430 hp. Since the ZZ4 is 350 ci and rated at 355 hp, I figured this was great. Put it on the car, and the car won't run unless you let it idle for ten minutes before taking off. I call Summit and complain-their sales rep and I agree that the carb is probably jetted too lean. He offers me a jet kit for free. No, I want another carb, I say. He agrees and gives me a Jet "Stage 2" Street& Race Quadrajet which is supposed to have enlarged circuits, a bigger needle and seat, richer jetting, blah,blah,blah. I take that and put it on the car. It's a lot better-now you only have to let it run 2 or three minutes before you can take off without the engine dying. The car runs ok, but not like it did with the 770 Holley when it was new. It seems a little sluggish off the line. A friend's infrared exhaust analyzer confirms my susipcions- it's way lean especially on the primary side. I go to Summit buy a Jet jet kit, and some Edelbrock metering rods. I go .003 richer on the primary's and one size richer on the secondary metering rods. The car starts quicker, no cranking, and idles better. It even sounded louder, and crisper. It's only been running 30 seconds. I put it in gear, and it takes off smoothly, no stumbling or coughing like before. I punch it, it lights the tires up and pulls hard to 5,200 where the trans snaps off it's 1-2 shift and squeal the tires into second. Even half-throttle response is crisper and more urgent. NOW yes, the car runs like a champ, but after how much grief? Both of these "Hi-Performance" carbs were too lean on a 350 Chevy that's cam only has 208 / 221 duration, and has 15/8 headers. ( At .050 lift ). What if I'd tried to put those carbs on a 454HO crate engine? Or if I was putting them on a Ram Air IV 400 or SD 455 Pontiac Trans-Am ( You have to use a Q-jet if you don't want to modify the "Shaker" hood scoop ) with 231 / 240 duration and 2 inch headers? They'd have been even leaner, and probably wouldn't have run at all. So it drives me up the wall when I read article after article of  "We just bolted everything together and it started right up and ran low 12s right off the bat."  Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue?  Mastermind            

More on multiple carb setups.....

A lot of people don't know it-but American car makers shied away from multi-carb setups not because they didn't perform, but because ( A ) they were cutting down on engine options that weren't super-profitable and ( B ) ever-tightening emission controls made them very hard to tune. Even Import sports car builders used multi-carb setups for years. Ferarris used 4 Webers on their V8 models until 1977. Lamborghinis and the V12 Ferarris used SIX Weber carbs-one for every two cylinders. And no one will ever say that a Lamborghini Miuria or early Countach or a Ferarri Daytona didn't haul ass! Jaguar XKE's both the six and 12 cylinder models used multiple carbs. Porsche used dual Webers on many 911s until 1975. Datsun 240Z and 260Z models came from the factory with two SU carbs-but the hot set-up for Z-car racers and hot rodders was ( and still is ) either two Weber 32/36 DGEV's, or three 40 or 45 DCOE's. In 1975 when emissions killed everyone both foreign and domestic The Europeans went for Bosch Fuel Injection. The Americans screwed around with carburators for about another 10 years-remember "Carburator Dwell" and "Transmission Controlled Spark" and "Lean Burn" systems-all of which made cars run like shit and get crappy gas mileage. Back to the subject at hand. All of the big three used tri-power or dual quad setups in the '60's. In the early '60's you could get either a single 4-barrel, 3 -2bbls, or 2 4bbls on a 389 or 421 Pontiac. Ford offered a 3 2bbl setup on 406 Galaxies. Their a little rare today but you could use this induction setup on a 390 or a 428 if you wanted to. Chrysler had dual quad setups on the 383, 413 and 426 Max wedge engines as well as the 392 and 426 Hemis. And of course the "Six Pak" setups for the 340 and 440 engines later on. Chevrolet offered 2 4 bbls on the 283 as far back as 1957, and on the legendary "409" Impalas, as well as the new 396 in '65 Corvettes. They also offered a 3 2bbl option on 427 Corvettes from 1966-69. Oldsmobile had a tri-power setup on the old 394 V8 in the late '50s- The famous "J-2" package-unfortunately these won't work on '65 and later engines. ( The deck height is different ) They did have a tri-power option on the '66 442-to compete with the wildly popular Tri-power GTOs, but it was a one-year only option and their quite rare. If you have one or can buy one of these manifolds at a reasonable price, it will fit a '65 and later 400,425 or 455 Olds engine. The aftermarket offers dual-quad and tri-power setups for small and big block Chevys, small-block Fords, 429-460s, and Pontiacs. Their are even 4 Weber setups for small and big-block Chevys and small-block Fords. I had the pleasure of working on a "Truck Pull" racing truck a few years ago. This guy had a 13.5:1 compression 454 Chevy running 4 Webers and alcohol! Using my infrared emission analyzer and carb syncronizer-we helped him jet it for our altitude. ( He was from L.A.-sea level, and we were at 4,500 feet where the event was taking place ). He stomped on all comers-even beating a Dodge truck that had a 426 Hemi with a blower on it! No one would believe that this truck was not supercharged and didn't have nitrous. The 2nd place finisher put up $1,500 for a teardown, and was double pissed when it was within the rules!! ( He lost the $1,500 ) . What I'm saying is if you want a multi-carb setup on your car go ahead and buy one. It will run just as fast or faster than any single 4 bbl setup. Magazine tech editors espouse the single 4 bbl as "God" because the average idiot doesn't know to drive or tune the multi-carb systems properly. Here's what happens-people forget that these were HI-PERFORMANCE systems. They build a killer motor for their musclecar project-of course having to have every last ounce of performance-they trash the factory vacuum linkage and choke on thier tri-power system and replace it with mechanical linkage. If their running dual quads-they couldn't possibly run two 500 cfm AFB's or Edelbrocks with a progressive linkage and an electric choke on the rear carb, no they need two 750s with mechanical linkage, or two 600 cfm Double-Pumper Holleys!! And then- because their afraid of blowing it up, and putting too many miles on their $40,000 piece of garage jewelry- they drive it like my grandmother on prozac, if they drive it at all anywhere except on and off the trailer. They never-like the GTO song says-"Turn it on, wind it up, blow it out."  Then, as soon as it fouls a spark plug, they start screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start, much less run properly. The owner gets disgusted and puts on a factory or aftermarket 4 bbl carb and intake with an electric choke, that will stand up much better to this " Little Old Lady" less than 5 mile trips at less than 3,000 rpm style of cautious driving. Now, being an "expert" he joins the ranks of naysayers that poo-poo multi-carbs and say you can't have decent performance with anything but a single 4 bbl. If your going to drive like a little old lady-then go a range or two hotter on the plugs. If you decide to enter it in the Pure Stock drags or take a 200 mile trip it's not that hard to change the plugs to the regular, recommended heat range. If you want multi carbs, do it. Just tune them properly, and run it hard every once in a while-to say at least 4,500-5,000 rpm. Mastermind                    

A tale of 4 Tunnel-Rams....2 screamers and 2 dogs....

Still ranting about bad advice that magazine tech editors give to people that write in or email them. The one that irritates me the most is when people inquire about using dual quads or 3 2bbls. The stock answer is always "You'll go faster and have less grief with a single 4 barrel." Or my personal favorite-"If a Super Stock Firebird can run 11.30's with a Quadrajet on an iron manifold why do you need a tunnel ram and two Holleys?" Well I remember back in the '90's when "Pro Street" was all the rage-cars built to look like Pro Stock drag racers-narrowed rear ends and tubbed fenders to clear monster tires, and usually a tunnel ram or a blower sticking out of the hood. If you wanted that look, you wanted that look. And you certainly wanted the performance to back up the image. I know 4 guys that attempted this, and 2 of them built badass, fun cars and 2 of them built complete slugs. Here's how it transpired. Badass # 1 Was a 1970 Chevelle with a 396 and a 4-speed. It started life as a small-block 2 dr Malibu, not an original SS, which is why the guy didn't feel bad about cutting up the hood, and gutting the interior for an 8-point cage and fiberglas racing buckets. The engine was a 402 that came out of a '71 Monte Carlo in a junkyard, and the T10 4-speed came out of a wrecked '77 Trans Am from the same junkyard. He used the stock oval-port heads and Hedman Shorty Headers ( for ground clearance ) that were only 1 3/4 inch in diameter. Most Rat builders use 2" or even 2 1/4" inch full-length headers. The smaller headers would lose some on the top end, but would really boost low end and mid-range torque. He used a Chevrolet "Marine" cam that's recommended for boat racing. It had a badass lope, but stable idle, and a broad flat torque curve. He used a Weiand tunnel Ram and two 450 cfm Holleys. He also had 4.33:1 gears in the rear end. It sounded wicked, but it actually had pretty good drivability-even with the motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway. Other than that, and the loud exhaust, if you weren't hot rodding it, it was actually pretty pleasant to drive. And it was fast. It just kept pulling like a freight train on that mountain of torque like only a big-block Chevy can. He'd shift it between 5,800-6,200 rpm. He showed his taillights to many a 5.0 Mustang or Buick Grand National owner that sneered at his car that was "All bark and no bite." As they learned, it had a helluva bite-because he built the motor to have maximum torque, and geared it properly, and despite the look-it wasn't over-carburated-900 cfm certainly won't hurt a Rat motor with a stick and 4.30 gears. Dog # 1. Was also a 1970 396 Chevelle. This one was a real SS, so instead of cutting up the Cowl-Induction hood, the owner just took it off. It had a TH400 and 3.31:1 gears. This guy used a huge Isky solid-lifter cam, and an Edelbrock tunnel ram with two 660 Holleys. It sounded badass, but it wasn't even as fast as it was with a stock cam and a Q-jet on an iron manifold. It idled about 1,500 rpm, and the guy had to kick the tranny into neutral at stoplights. ( To keep from creeping into the ass end of the car in front him! ) If you punched it, it would just fall on it's face. Finally, about 4,000 rpm it would clean out and start to really move,and when he shifted at 6,500 rpm it would bark the tires into second. But by that time whoever he was having a "Stoplight Gran Prix" with-my 442 for one, a buddy's stock 351C / automatic '73 Mustang for two-would be long gone. He was severely disappointed. He needed to go one of two ways-if he wanted the huge cam and dual 660s, he should have used at least 4.11 gears, maybe even 4.56s, and he should have got a torque converter with at least a 3,000 rpm stall speed, maybe even 3,500. It might not have been the most pleasant thing to drive, but it would have really rocked when you hit it, instead of bogging like it was stuck in the mud. The 3.31 gears and stock converter just couldn't get the rpms going fast enough, and 1320 cfm was like flushing a toilet right off-idle. He's lucky it only bogged and didn't die completely. Or he could have kept the 3.31 gears and stock converter if he had used say an Edelbrock Performer cam-one that builds low-speed and mid-range torque, and used dual 390 cfm Holleys. 780 cfm-would have given it decent off-idle throttle response-it certainly wouldn't have bogged-the stock Q-jet was 750 cfm. He just threw parts at it without thinking. Badass # 2. Was a 1972 Chevelle Malibu. This guy built a 383 stroker small-block. He used 305 heads which gave it like 11.4:1 compression. He used a Competition Cams 280H Magnum cam, an Edelbrock tunnel ram and two 390 Holleys. He had a B&M 3,000 rpm torque converter and 4.10:1 gears. He worked at a place that sold racing gas so his high compression ratio wasn't an issue, and it was a toy, not a daily driver. But, it was very drivable and surprisingly docile at low speed. When you hit the loud pedal-it felt like a big-block. He had drag radials and ladder bars and a good posi rear end. It would actually pull the front wheels briefly on a full power launch. Again- he had the right combination-the engine was built for max torque, so that offset any lost by the intake manifold, he had the proper gears and converter to quickly get the engine up on it's powerband, and 780 cfm was not overcarbing it. It probably would have ran just as quick or maybe even quicker with a Performer RPM intake and a 750 Double-Pumper-but he wanted the "Pro Street" look and sound, and he certainly had the performance to back up the image. Dog # 2. Was a 1969 Nova that was originally a six-cylinder / 3-speed model. The car looked and sounded like a racer, but it was a total slug. The guy swapped in a 350 and a 4-speed that he took out out of a wrecked '78 Camaro. Then he did everything wrong. He swapped in a Comp Cams 292H Magnum Cam, got some 1 7/8 chrome headers, and used a Weiand Tunnel Ram with two 600 Holleys. It made a lot of noise, and if he popped the clutch at 4,000 rpm it would smoke the tires, but it wasn't as fast as it was with the stock 350 with iron intake and exhausts and a Q-jet. My buddys bone-stock 318 / automatic '73 Charger and another friends 305 / automatic '84 Firebird both blew his doors off so bad it wasn't even funny. The big tube headers and huge cam would have been ok in the other guys 11.5:1 compression 383, but they absolutely killed the 8.2:1 compression 350. Plus, he had 3.08:1 gears in the rear end, and 31 inch tires which dropped the gear ratio further to like 2.41:1! What he should have done was used a cam that's designed for low-compression engines like the Comp Cams 260H or Edelbrock Performer cam-one that builds low-speed torque and cylinder pressure and "fools" the engine into feeling like it has more compression than it actually does. He should have used small-tube headers and he should have used the dual 390 carbs, and he should have used at least 3.73:1 or 4.11:1 gears. It might not have been an absolute rocket, but he certainly wouldn't have got his ass kicked by a 150 hp 318 Charger and a 165 hp 305 Firebird!! Poor bastard, I actually felt sorry for him. Anyway-you can run radical stuff on the street, if you package all the components right. Mastermind                        

"Old" speed parts can work just as good as "New" ones.....You just have to match it to the right combo....

I know magazines have to push their advertisers products to stay in business, but I'm getting really tired of them dissing old parts that people may have laying around-or that a friend will give them or sell them dirt-cheap. A case in point-a guy wrote in to a national magazine- and said he was "Restifying" a 396 Chevelle, and a friend had an Edelbrock Torker intake that the carb sat at an angle on, that the buddy said was perfect for that car and period-correct, and that he could have it for free. Should he use it? The genius tech editor responded no, that was an old, "Original" Torker that only made power at high rpm, and that instead of taking the free, "Period Correct" part, he should spend 2-300 bucks and buy a Performer RPM, or a Torker II that will have much better performance throughout the whole rpm range. I think he was totally out of line. He just made a blanket statement-saying in not so many words that anything old is obsolete, and you should spend money on new stuff even if the old stuff is free!!  He didn't ask what cam the guy was intending to run, what carb he was intending to run, what axle-ratio the car had, or whether it was a 4-speed or an automatic, and if it was an automatic,was he planning to run a stock-type or an aftermarket higher stall speed torque converter?  All of these factors are relevant to what type of intake will work best on what type of car. My best friend had a 1970 SS396 Chevelle with a L34 ( 350 hp ) 396. It had a Muncie M20 4-speed and a 3.55:1 rear end.  It came stock with an iron intake and a quadrajet. His "Day two" modifications included a Mr. Gasket shifter to replace the awful stock Muncie shifter, a set of Hooker headers and glasspack mufflers,and replacing the stock intake and Q-jet carb with the Torker intake with the angle-mounted carb and a #3310 780 cfm Holley with vacuum secondaries. You didn't really notice any difference in drivability at normal speed, but when you punched it, you could really feel the extra power "hit" about 3,000 rpm and pull like "gangbusters" to the redline. When drag-racing it, he would drop the clutch about 2,800-3,200 rpm, and shift it about 6,000. The car was nearly a full second faster than stock at the drags. And it launched with LESS wheelspin than it did with the stock motor! This was because in LOSING say 30 lbs ft of torque on the bottom end in exchange for GAINING 40 hp from about 4,000 rpm on, The car took off better because it didn't fry the tires as much, and pulled much harder on the top end. Even though it actually lost power on the bottom end, it made the car much faster for two reasons. # 1. The engine was rated from the factory as having 350 hp and 415 lbs ft of torque. Even it it LOST 25 hp and 30 lbs ft of torque at low speed-he still had 325 hp and 385 lbs ft of torque. More than enough to launch the car properly. # 2. The M20 trans had about a 1,400 rpm drop between gears. So if he shifted out of low gear at say-5,800-6,000 rpm-he was hitting second at 4,400 rpm. Well into the manifold's powerband where it made as much as 40 more hp than the stock intake / carb combo according to magazine dyno tests at the time. Besides the 396's massive low-end torque-it had so much it could certainly afford to lose some-the saving grace was the 4-speed and 3.55:1 gears-he could pop the clutch around 3 grand and have just enough wheelspin to get the engine up on it's torque curve and the car moving with alarcity, and quickly be in the engine's powerband. If the car had been an automatic with 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 gears , and a stock torque converter that stalled about 1,700 rpm, the car would have been SLOWER than stock rather than faster-because launching at 1,700 rpm, and losing 30 lbs of critical low-speed torque when you need it most-would have killed the e.t.  When I first got my '73 Hurst / Olds / 442-it would literally spin it's tires as long as you wanted to stay on the throttle. That's because even with only 8.5:1 compression the big 455 made 370 lbs ft of tire boiling torque at a low 2,100 rpm. And the car had 3.23:1 gears and a 2,400 rpm Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter. Unless you wanted to "walk" it off the line about half throttle and hit it 30 feet out, you couldn't take off without excessive wheelspin with street tires. When it spun a crank bearing, I had to rebuild it anyway so I figured I'd add a little more power. I added a cam that had slightly less duration-( 290 / 300 compared to 308 / 308 ) and more lift ( .496 / .520 vs .474 / .474 ) than the vaunted "W32"  factory cam. I also added an "Original" Torker-they didn't offer a Torker II and I knew the "Performer" wasnt really any better than the stock iron intake. Again-the car was WAY faster. While the stock engine blew the tires off and ran out of breath about 5,200 rpm, now it launched harder with much less wheelspin-( the reduction in low-speed torque actually helped ) and it pulled hard to 6,200! It worked like a charm because of the combination. The 3.23 gears were a good compromise between jack-rabbit starts and reasonable freeway cruising rpm, and the 2,400 rpm converter was "right on" for the bigger cam. The 455 had so much low-speed torque that losing some in exchange for top-end rush actually made it a nicer car. Although it did have a noticeable "rump" at idle- it still had 14 inches of vacuum and purred like a kitten-until you hit the loud pedal-then look out! Again-if the car had 2.56:1 or 2.73:1 gears and a converter that locked up a 1,200 rpm like a "regular" 455 powered '73 Cutlass ( The 442 / H/O was a premium performance package ) the bigger cam and intake would have killed it and it wouldn't have run as fast as a stocker. Ditto for my buddy's '78 Trans Am. Even though it had an automatic and 2.56:1 gears -It ran noticeably faster ( both in timed 1/4 mile runs and "seat-of-the-pants" feel ) when he put a single-plane Holley Street Dominator intake on it that his brother said "killed" his '66 LeMans. How is that? 1st off his brother's LeMans had a 326 V8 and a two-speed ST300 ( read Powerglide ). The T/A had a 400 under the hood, and a three-speed TH350. This difference was huge because # 1-a 326 doesn't have very much torque to begin with, and can't afford to lose any. # 2. A Powerglide / ST300 has a 1.76:1 1st gear ratio and a 1:1 2nd / high, and a conveter that stalls about 1,200 rpm. Swapping the 2 bbl carb and intake off the 326 for a Single-plane and a 4bbl would certainly make it a "Dog". While it hurt the LeMans, it helped the T/A-for two different reasons. # 1. We all know that a 400 Pontiac, even a low-compression one, has more low-end torque than just about anything else on the planet except a Cummins Diesel truck engine. So losing 25 lbs of torque below 3 grand wasn't even noticed. And the stock '75 and later Iron Pontiac intakes have a restrictive throttle opening-so much so that you can't even bolt on a Spread-bore Holley carb-the secondary throttle blades hang up and won't open. They severley restrict power above 3,500 rpm, and won't let the engine rev much over 4,500-4800 rpm. The single-plane aluminum one, by contrast-pulled hard to 5,700! # 2. A TH350 has a 2.52:1 low gear ratio, a 1.52:1 second, and a 1:1 third / high, and a converter that stalls about 1,800-2,000 rpm. Even with high ( low numeric ) gearing-you'll have much better acceleration with the 3-speed TH350 than you will with a two-speed ST300. This applies to stuff besides intake manifolds. Yes, an electronic MSD distributor and matching control box is state of the art and will make more power than a point-type Accel or Mallory distributor. However-if you want to build a "period correct" '55 Chevy, or '68 Nova hot rod-i.e.-with a 327 and a 4-speed, not a Fuelie LS motor and a 4L80E overdrive automatic-The point type Accel or Mallory unit will certainly give better performance and rev to 6,7 or 8 grand if you've got the valvetrain, carburation, etc. A stock 50 year old or parts store rebuilt point type will start bouncing about 4,500 and "sign off" about 5,000. So isn't the "obsolete" Accel or Mallory unit still an improvement over stock? Maybe I'm showing my age-but it irks me every time I see a '64 Impala with Tuned Port Injection, and HEI distributor, and serpentine belt accessory drive, and an electric fan! I'd rather see a point distributor, some dual AFBs and two or three v-belts and a flex fan. If your building an old school car-then build it old school. If your building a hot carburated, small-block Chevy-yes a modern Edelbrock Torker II or Victor Jr single-plane intake will make a fe more ponies on the dyno than a '70's Edelbrock Tarantula or Scorpion single-plane, but not THAT much. Especially if your on a tight budget and have the older part in hand! I mean think-A Smokey Yunick built NASCAR small block made 700+ hp in 1978 with 5.7 inch rods and iron cylinder heads with 165cc intake ports and a 390 cfm Holley 4bbl. ( or a 750 with a restricter plate ) 35 years later, with 6.0 inch rods, and aluminum heads with 230cc intake ports, and fuel injection their pulling closer to 800 hp. But look at the record laps and top speeds? Are the cars THAT much faster than they were in 1978? Not really. Well, on a lesser scale, the same goes for your project car. If you want or can afford the latest and greatest state of the art thing, then more power to you. But if your on a tight budget or just want an old-school look, your not "losing" enough power to worry about or sell your soul for. Mastermind                                

Speed isn't all just about horsepower........

Since I mentioned the 200 mph class in the siver state classic-I've had a bunch of emails arguing for different car / engine combinations. I've also heard from many drag racers as well. Let me break this down for everyone-once and for all. # 1. Drag racers-shut up on this subject. My Ford pickup which has a stock 195 hp 302 V8 and the aerodynamics of a UPS truck can run 120 mph on the freeway pretty easily, even with camper-style mirrors and the tailgate up. ( I know, I got a ticket and the cop said the Radar read 122 mph ) However-A Ford Lightning Pickup with a 380 hp supercharged 5.4 liter V8 has a top speed of  "only" 139 mph according to Car & Driver magazine. That's right-even though the Lighning has double the horsepower-it's only 17 mph faster on a top-end run. Road and Track did an article a few years ago when a reader asked the same question about BMW's. If a 230 hp 328I can go 133 mph, how come a 300 hp 335I can only go 147mph ? 70 hp is only worth 14 mph in speed? Yes. R&T broke it down with the help of BMW engineers. They showed that it only took something like 55 hp to push a 3-series 60 mph. It only took like 90 hp to push it 100 mph. Then wind resistance kicked in-to go 120 it took like 155 hp. The remaining 75 hp was needed to get from 120-133 mph! It took another 70 hp to get the 335I from 133-147. That's why I told the drag racers to shut up. A car that runs 12.40's in the 1/4 is only going about 105 through the traps. A car that runs 11.80's is only going 120. And one that runs 10.90's is only going about 130. As you can see by R&T's report-Aerodynamics do not come into play until about 120 mph. The power difference in the BMW's was not as pronounced as with the trucks-because -duh- a BMW 3 series slices through the wind a lot easier than a Ford truck. But as a general rule- for every 10 mph over 120, you need like 50 more hp! So there's my prediction right on the button-if you need 200 hp to go 120, you'll need 600 hp to go 200. But power and aerodynamics aren't the only factors. There's also weight and un-sprung weight. All other factors being equal- whether drag racing or Superspeedway-a 3,000 lb car with a 300 hp engine will run just as fast as a 4,000 lb car with a 400 hp engine-in theory. I say in theory-because yes; they both have a power to weight ratio of 10 lbs per hp. However-two 2012 rice rockets- both weighing about 3,000 lbs-a Subaru WRX ( 305 hp ) and the Nissan 370Z ( 332 hp ) are both quicker in the 1/4 and have a higher top speed than the fearsome, legendary 450 hp, 3980 lb LS6 Chevelle!! Check Road tests from Hot Rod, Car&Driver, or Motor Trend if you want. How is that possible, if they both have power to weight ratios of roughly 10 lbs per hp? Un-sprung weight. The jap sports cars have light, free-revving engines with lightwieght cranks, rods, pistons and flywheels, as well as light OHC valvetrains with roller cams. How much heavier, and harder to get up to speed quickly is that stuff on an OHV, flat-tappet cammed 454 Chevy? The Jap cars have light, easy turning transmissions-either stick or automatic-they require a lot less hp to turn than an M22 4-speed or TH400. The jap cars have aluminum driveshafts, forged aluminum control arms on the suspension, lightweight rear axles, carbon-fiber brake rotors and light aluminum wheels. A lot easier to get moving quickly and keep moving than the cast-iron suspension, rear end, drums and rotors and heavy steel wheels on the Mighty Chevelle. That's how-the Z-car and the WRX could go just as fast or faster with actually slightly less power to weight advantage. The unsprung weight was managed much better. That's how my brother's 3,731 lb '69 GTO with it's 381 hp 400, blew the doors off his buddy's 550 hp, 5,700 lb Viper-engined SRT-10 Dodge Ram Pickup. You have to look at many different factors-like power loss throught the drivetrain-that's why many Ford Racers run C4 automatics instead of C6s, and why many GM guys run TH350's instead of TH400's, or 200R4's instead of 700R4's. Those 20 inch wheels that you think are so cool-looking? Their a LOT heavier than the 15 or 16 inch wheels they replaced! And that's pure, unsprung weight, that takes additional power to get moving and keep moving. I hope this clears things up-Speed isn't just about raw power. Mastermind           

Let me explain what "Horsepower Per Dollar" means.....

I opened a can of worms talking about the guy who wanted to run in the Silver State Classic. If you don't know-once a year the Nevada Highway Patrol works in conjunction with a motorsports organization. They block off a deserted section of Highway 93 and let people make top-speed runs. There's seversl classes-of course the one with all the glory is the over 200 mph class. R.J. Gorrileib's "Big Red" '69 Camaro accomplished this feat several years ago. You may or may not remember besides being featured in Hot Rod magazine- this car was in "Fast& Furious 4- I can't remember the actor's name- but the character was-"Big Daddy Dwight"-who was kissing the hooker's feet at the orgy when he got arrested for dealing drugs ( Falsely )  because he taunted Paul Walker-"Muscle Beats Import every time, Nut Sack"- drove this car in the movie. Any how-I got a bunch of questions "What about this car / engine combo?" "What about that one?" The answer to all of them is no, they won't go 200, and no it can't be built cheaper than my suggested '82-90 T/A with a Big Block Chevy for power. Here's a couple of the more entertaining ones of people who can't do math. # 1. What about a '70's Corvette with a 638 hp LS9 ZR1 LS motor?  Again- a '70's Stingray-while looking swoopy has a drag coefficient of .044. Only slightly less than a '70's T/A and still substantially higher than the .028-.032 of the '80's T/A. Secondly-An LS9 complete engine assembly retails for $22,900 through GMPP. That's more than double what a 650 hp 540 inch Rat motor built by Blueprint engines costs. That's eight grand MORE than the price of a 720 hp GMPP 572 Rat motor. A 610 hp 528 crate Hemi is $22,999 through Mopar Performance Huh? that's right folks, 8 thousand dollars MORE for roughly 100 LESS horsepower!!  Like I said-for hp per dollar the Rat is king. Here's another one: "What about a Buick Grand National with the boost turned way up?" "They were popular and competitive in NASCAR in the '80's." Yes the GN body was competitive in NASCAR-and occasionally ran 200 mph on long tracks like Daytona or Talledega. However their still a brick ( aerodynamically speaking ) compared to an '82-90 T/A, and that blistering speed was accomplished with a  paperthin fiberglass body over a lightweight chrome-moly tube chassis with an 750 hp small-block Chevy under the hood!! It wasn't a steel, body-on-frame-full-bodied car with a Turbocharged 231 inch V6!!  And GN drag racers-spare me your 700hp dyno sheets. Yes It's POSSIBLE to build a 700 hp Turbocharged GM V6; but not for anywhere near the low cost of a 700hp Rat motor! And one of those holding together for a few 1/4 mile runs while you put ice in the intake manifold between runs, is NOT holding together for a sustained 50 MILE top-end run!! And-you 9-second GN drag racers-your car still only goes 160 mph-not 200!! Guys-read up on physics. A couple guys were featured in Hot Rod a few years ago. They had a 750 hp Hemi in a '69 Road Runner which is only slightly less aero than an '87 GN- and they could only make 186 mph. To do 200 mph your going to need- like I said- at least 600 hp in a VERY light, VERY aerodynamic car-or like R.J. Gottlieb and "Big Red" about 850 hp in anything else. It's simple math fellas, nothing else. Mastermind             

Irrefutable facts that people don't want to hear......

It amazes me the number of people that ask for my professional opinion, and then disagree with me or argue with me about it. What made me think of this was a guy asked me what engine / car combination should he use to try to go 200 mph in the next Silver State Classic. I said the best combo would be a 1982-90 Pontiac Trans-Am with a big-block Chevy in it. I said this for two reasons-# 1-in top-end Bonneville style racing-aerodynamics is just as important as horsepower. The '82-90 T/A has a drag coefficient of .032. If you have one with the "Aero" package-it drops to .028!! That's as low as your going to get in any production vehicle. That's as low as a new Z06 Corvette, or Ferrari F430 or Audi R8. Back in the '90's Gale Banks topped 200 at Bonneville in an '82 Trans-Am. # 2. Horsepower per dollar. Nothing makes more power for less money than a Big-Block Chevy. Yes, a Chrysler Hemi can make as much or more power-but at twice the cost.  This clown started to argue with me. His first argument was if he was going to use a Pontiac he'd use a '70's T/A and a "real" 455 Pontiac. I told him that was very sentimental, but not feasible. I love Pontiacs myself-but this idea won't fly for two reasons. # 1. Aerodynamics. A 70's T/A has a drag coefficient of .048. That's substantially higher than the .028-.032 of the '82-90 model. What that means is the 70's model would need substantially MORE power than the '80's model to go the same speed. It's simple physics. # 2. There's no way your going to build a 455 Pontiac that makes MORE power than a 454 Chevy for the same money. There's no way your going to build a 455 Poncho that makes more power than a 454 Chevy for twice the money. The flaw is in the design. Yes Pontiacs are GREAT street engines. That big, heavy crank is why they often go 150,000 or 200,000 miles on the street without a rebuild. Those medium-sized wedge style heads are why they make such massive torque at low speed. But were talking about a RACING engine. Pontiac heads-because of their design don't flow much over about .480 inch lift. Even the vaunted Ram Air IV heads ( which the aluminum Edelbrocks are patterned after ) don't flow much over abour .550 lift. And the bottom end on Pontiacs doesn't hold up well if you rev them much over 5,800 rpm. On a street car that's no problem. On a racer that's very limiting. By contrast-the big block Chevy bottom end will stand up to sustained 8,000 rpm running if you've got the valvetrain. And even the "standard" oval-port heads will flow with cams up to .700 lift, which you'll need to make the 650+ horsepower your going to need to go 200 mph. Yes it's POSSIBLE to build a 700 hp Pure Pontiac engine-but it would cost double or triple what a 700 hp Rat Motor would cost. Then he started talking about building a '70-74 Challenger with a Hemi in it. "That's a worse Idea than a '70's T/A." I said. "The Challenger is a brick compared to the '70s or '80's T/A". "It's not nearly aerodynamic enough, so you'd need WAY more power to go the same speed." "And,a 426 Crate Hemi costs 15 grand, and only makes 465 hp." "A 572 Chevy costs 15 grand and makes 720 hp." "See the difference?" "A 528 Crate Hemi costs 22 grand and only makes 610 hp-which wouldn't be enough to push a flat-nosed Challenger to 200 mph." "You'd have to hop it up even more to get close to 200." "You'd have 30 grand in the engine alone." "If you built the '82-90 T/A with a Rat motor, you wouldn't have 20 grand in the WHOLE car." "Look in any magazine or Summit catalog-10 grand will buy you a 650 hp Rat motor in any state in the union." "Blueprint Engines, Smeding, and others all offer mega-power Rat engines for under 10K." Then he says-"What about a Fox-bodied Mustang with a 347 stroker and a blower?" I wanted to scream. "If you can't go 200 in a Challenger with a 528 inch Hemi, or a '70s Firebird with a 455, what makes you think you can do it in a "barn-door" 79-93 Mustang with only 347 cubes?" "What math are you doing?" "Thanks for nothing" he sneered and stomped off.  I wanted to slap him. I gave him great advice-but he didn't want to listen to it. He wanted to fantasize. For the record-here's some irrefutable facts that everyone needs to wrap their head around if their going to spend money and time restoring a musclecar. # 1. Like it or not, Chevys rule. Whether it's a '55-57 shoebox, a '67-2002 Camaro, a '64-77 Chevelle, a '70-88 Monte Carlo or a Corvette of any year-there is more body,chassis, interior, trim and speed parts out there for these cars than anything else on the planet. And they cost less than the same parts for a Mopar or Ford, or even other GM lines-Buick, Old or Pontiac. Ditto for the engines. Nothing offers more bang for less bucks than a small-block Chevy. A Rat costs more to buy or build than a small-block-but they still make more power for less money than any other big-block be it a 460 Ford, BOP 455s, or 440 Mopars. I don't care if you don't like it, it's true. The same goes for resale value. A same-year, same condition 396 Chevelle will sell for more money than a same-year GTO or 442. A '68 Camaro will bring more money than a '68 Firebird, even if the Camaro is a 327 small-block and the Firebird is a 400. Watch any Barrett-Jackson auction-except for Hemi Mopars and Shelby Mustangs-the Chevys ALWAYS bring more money than anything else. It's not fair, but that's the marketplace. # 2. You can't swap Ford powertrains around like you can GM or Chrysler stuff. Sorry, blue oval fans, you know it, I know it, that makes it unanimous. While GM and Mopar stuff is the same for many years regardless of model-Fords are an engine swappers nightmare. Every model has different oil pans, different water pumps, different bellhousing bolt-patterns, different accessory brackets, etc, etc. # 3. Sorry AMC lovers-never mind the hated Chevys-you guys don't have 1/10 the aftermarket support of even the Pontiac, Buick, Olds or Mopar guys. And face it-even with Edelbrock Aluminum heads your 360 or 401 AMC engine isn't going to make as much power as a 350 or 383 small-block Chevy, much less a 440 Chrysler or 455 Pontiac. And it's going cost more to build a Rambler than the others too just to add insult to injury. Again-that's the marketplace and reality no prejudices or conspiracys. These facts are irrefutable, so everyone can quit whining about them. Mastermind          

"Good Deals" should be something the average Joe can find in Anytown, USA....

After griping about all the 100K+ cars featured in magazines and T.V. shows, I heard from a lot of people who agree with me-that they'd like to see cars that people built for maybe $25,000-including the purchase price of the car. That's reasonable. I also commend Popular Hot Rodding-they always give an itemized account of what their projects cost. For example-"Project Talledega" the 1975 Chevelle Laguna done up like a '70's NASCAR racer is quite popular with readers. They had $33,740 in it when they were done. This included the $5,000 purchase price of the car, the 560 hp 408 inch solid-roller small-block, beefed up 700R4 tranny,Global west suspension, tires and wheels and bodywork and paint. Considering how badass and cool the car is, 33K isn't bad. What drives me up the wall is these magazine features you see on the cover-"12 seconds for $1,200" or "400 hp / $1,500 engine build" and so on. The reason they infuriate me is when you read it-there's always a big surprise where they get some mega-buck part for free or dirt cheap. Don't get me wrong-if they said they bought a used Edelbrock manifold at a swap meet for $75, or a set of used headers for $50 from their neighbor, or a T5 tranny out of a totalled Mustang in a junkyard for $200 I wouldn't care. We all get stuff like that if you've played with cars for any length of time. What makes my head want to explode is-  "Hey, what about that set of ported and polished Brodix Aluminum heads "That we almost forgot we had". Arrrrghhh!!! Or "Joe's brother not only gave us the 3.73:1 geared, disc braked posi rear end out of his wrecked Trans-Am, he even helped us put it in the Camaro and bought the beer!" Two of the most foul ones were these- # 1. "10 seconds for $10,000" I was totally fine with the seven grand for the 550 hp 383 crate motor. What drove me insane was the "Engineless" '79 Camaro they bought for $2,700 to put it in that had a 4.88:1 geared 9 inch Ford rear end, a TCI built powerglide with a 3,800 rpm converter and a trans brake, an 8-point roll cage, a safety fuel cell,and set of Weld Wheels with Moroso 26x7.50x15 front tires and 275 / 60 /R15 BFG Drag radials on the rear. Gee, I'd like to buy a car for $2,700 that has eight grand worth of premium parts in it!!  Don't believe me? A Currie 9 inch with GM mounting points retails for $3,300 through Summitt Racing. Now add 2 grand for the trans-braked racing tranny, another grand for the roll cage, and another $1,500 for the tires and wheels. That adds up to $7800 on my calculator!!  # 2. "Budget 550 hp 440 Buildup" was in a Mopar magazine. They bought a junk 440 out of a wrecked '75 Imperial in a "U-pull-it" junkyard for $250. That I was fine with. After boring the block .030 over and buying new pistons they decided to use a forged steel 440 crank and a set of "Six Pack" rods that they had "Laying around". They paid retail for a Comp Cams cam kit and a set of Edelbrock heads, and then decided "Just for kicks" to use as induction a complete 3-2bbl "Six Pack" setup they had "laying around". You can buy the Edelbrock manifold, the three Holley carbs, the throttle linkage and the air cleaner through Mopar Performance for $2,300!!  Summitt Racing lists a forged steel Eagle crank for $1153, and a matching set of "H-beam" forged rods for $650. How nice that they had $4,100 worth of rare parts "Laying around!!"  I have a complete ZZ4 "Turn-Key" crate engine with less than 5,000 miles on it "laying around" my garage. If I buy a beater '86 IROC-Z Camaro for $1,200 bucks, slap that motor in it and run 12s at my local strip-I'm not going to crow about my "12 second, $1,200 Camaro."  Because That engine retails for $5,299 today, and I paid $4,400 for it back in 2008!!  So in reality-I'd have $5,600 in the car-and if someone wanted to duplicate the build using another $1,200 Camaro-they'd have $6,499 in it, not $1,200!!!  And that's if they were a mechanic and could do the labor themselves-if they had to pay a shop $75-100 per hour to install the engine you could add another grand to that tab for 8-10 hrs labor unbolting one SBC and bolting in another!! So now you've got $7,500 in your "$1,200" project. What math are these people doing?  In the same Mopar enthusiast magazine they talked about a guy that had a Duster with a 4.30:1 geared 8 3/4 rear, a pinion snubber and drag-race style suspension, and a beefed up 727 Torqueflite. They thought it was so cool that he had a 400 hp nitrous system complete with and extra fuel pump,Throttle position actuated solenoids, and Jacobs ignition that could adjust the timing by turning a knob on the dash. This "Budget" racer would buy a 318 or 360 for $300 out of a junkyard that had "tons" of Dodge trucks and Jeep Cherokees in it, slap it in the car, and run low 11s or high 10s until the engine grenaded which was sometimes 30 or 60 days, or sometimes just one weekend at the drags. That's nice, except if he does that 10 times in a year he's spent 3 grand! If he spent 3 grand on the first motor re-building it with forged pistons, chrome-moly rod bolts, a cam designed to use with nitrous and o-ringed heads,it would have lasted a lot longer than a year, and he wouldn't have had to change the motor 10 times!! If he does that 20 times in two years he's got six grand in junk engines. For six grand, he could buy a Blueprint or Smeding built 360 based 408 stroker with 400+ hp that would run 11's "On the motor" and would probably go 100,000 miles-without the elaborate nitrous system. I didn't think he was that much of a genius, but like I said-I'm doing "Old school" math. The point is-"Good Deals" should be something that "Joe Average" can find at his local speed shop or swap meet. Just had to vent that. Mastermind        

The more money than brains syndrome again.......

Saw a "Street Rod" buildup on the speed channel the other day. The subject was a '55 Chevy. Of course-besides the requisite $15,000 LS motor and $5,000 six-speed automatic tranny, this one also had a custom frame, a narrowed custom 9 inch Ford rearend, Wildwood 4-wheel disc brakes, and rack&pinion steering. Yes, it was beautiful when it was done, and it was great handling, and fast. It also cost almost $100,000 in parts alone, not counting the hundreds of hours of labor putting it together and painting it. I'm reminded that a few months ago Hot Rod ran an article on a guy that built a brand-new '57 Chevy with all new parts from Woody's-( They bought the rights from GM to produce the bodies and frames.) This one was done in 60's "Gasser" style with a Pete&Jakes straight front axle. Including the Currie-built 9 inch Ford rear,BW T10 4-speed and Blueprint engines Rat motor-he had $26,000 in it. And that was using all new parts. If the guy had used a 350 small-block and TH350 that he had in his garage-he could have done it for about $19,000!!  If he had used a regular control-arm suspension with recirculating ball power steering it would have only cost a couple grand more. Now that's both cool and period correct-and he can definitely sell it for 25 grand all day long and recoup his investment if he needs to. How is the other guy ever going to sell his for over $100K? People that can afford 100 grand for a second, third or fourth car want Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Aston-Martins, and Turbo Porsches, not a '55 Chevy that some ZZ Top looking hillbilly biker built for a TV show!!  They also showed Jay Leno's '66 Toronado again. It pisses me off every time someone mentions this abomination. It has a custom built chassis to convert it to rear-wheel drive and it has a snarling big-block Chevy in it, 4-wheel disc brakes, blah, blah, blah. And it cost something like a quarter-mil to build, which Jay can certainly afford. What I don't understand from an engineering standpoint-is why didn't one of Jay's advisers or shop people suggest a '66-67 Buick Riviera? They have the same bodystyle as the Toronado-in fact I think the Riv is much more cleanly styled and racy looking. And they were rear-wheel drive from the factory!!  All you'd need for some serious Rat power infusion is Chevy motor mounts and a Chevy bolt-pattern TH400!! Using later-model ( '68 and '69 models had front disc brakes ) spindles they could have had front disc brakes easily and cheaply, or they could have adapted 1976-80 Cadillac Seville rear discs, or '79-81 Firebird rear discs. Or for a couple grand they could get a Wildwood setup. Bottom line- a Riviera would have been just as cool and fast-for probably $50,000-( and that's in cluding $15,000 for a 620 hp 572 crate engine )  instead of  $250,000!!  But-the more money than brains factor kicked in-"I want to do this, and someone told me it's possible, so now were damn well doing it, no matter what it costs!!"  It makes me sad for the sport of hot rodding. Up until the '90's-magazines featured stuff that guys built from used parts or junkyard stuff. Sometimes the cars were expensive-but by expensive I mean a guy bought a Nova for $1,500 and "Pro Streeted" it and had $15,000 in it-not 150K-the price of a house!!  Any one can buy a car-and put 100 grand in it and make it badass. It doesn't take any talent to write a big check. I'd like to see stuff featured that people actually built themselves that cost less than 30 grand-the price of a new Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. If the magazines want to turn it into a rich man's game like just about everything else-they'll go out of business. The blue-collar guy that's supporting his family on 50 grand a year but likes cars isn't going to keep reading-he'll never have 100K to put in a car unless he wins the lottery. Anyway-I'll keep fighting the good fight for us people that sadly-have more brains than money. Mastermind.        

More overlooked big-blocks......

Here's a few more overlooked "junkyard jewels" that could power your musclecar project if your on a tight budget, or especially if you already have one in the car or can buy one cheap. The ones we talked about the other day are the best deals as they are both the most plentiful and make the most power for dollars invested. This next group isn't quite as good, but they still make viable powerplants for low bucks. # 1. 389 Pontiac. These were used in just about every model from 1959-66. Unless your restoring a '59-62 Pontiac to the nth degree I would look for 1963 and later models. I say this because up until 1962 Pontiacs had the starter mounted on the bellhousing. This won't work with later transmissions-i.e. a TH350 / 400 or 200R4 / 700R4. This is important because the three speed automatic "Slim Jim" tranny ( the one with reverse at the bottom of the shift pattern) WILL NOT upshift above about half-throttle. If you want an automatic and any kind of performance-you'll want a later TH350 or 400 tranny.  Some '63 models still used the bellhousing mounted starters, but the blocks were drilled and tapped for block mounted starters. All 1964 and later models had block mounted starters. Yes, you can drill and tap an earlier block for a block mounted starter, but that's a big pain in the ass, and the later ones should be plentiful enough to buy easily. All the aftermarket performance equipment that fits a 400 or 455 will fit these engines. # 2. 400 / 430 Buick V8. Used from 1965-69, these engines don't make quite as much power as the 1970 and later 455 inchers, but anything 400 or 430 cubes is going to run pretty damn good. And they are a huge step up from the '64 and earlier "Nailhead" design that dated back to 1949. Any performance parts that fit a 455-i.e.-Edelbrock heads, intakes, aftermarkedt cams etc-will fit the 400 / 430 engines. # 3. 400 / 425 Olds V8. ( '67 and later 39 degree bank angle models ). Same thing-not as much grunt as a '68 and later 455, but again-anything 400 or 425 cubes is going to have some major torque. Any performance parts-Edelbrock heads etc-that fit a 455 will fit these engines.  # 4. 472 / 500 Cadillac V8. Used in every model ( except the '76 Seville ) from 1968-76, these behemoths are both plentiful and cheap. If you want a modern twist on the old "Studilac" swap-a Studebaker Starliner coupe with a Cad V8 stuffed in it-these certainly make way more power and torque than the '40s and '50's versions. These would also be great in 40's or 50's GM street rods, '78-88 "G" bodies, or '50s,60's or '70's trucks. I know a guy that swapped a 500 Cad into his Chevy truck; it towed his 40' horse trailer up Donner pass just as fast as the 454 that blew up; however it got 16 mpg instead of 10! The downside is there is almost zero aftermarket performance parts available. Edelbrock makes a "Performer" intake manifold, but I think that's about it. Seriously. Anyhow-these make a lot of bang for very low bucks. Mastermind    

Overlooked big-blocks that may work for you.....

Gearheads are always looking for more power, but many of us are also looking for big power for low bucks. The trend in magazines is toward the biggest possible engine you can afford. The key word being "Afford." Not all of us can swing a $15,000 572 inch Chevy Rat motor or 514 inch Ford, or 505 inch Chrysler. If your playing with a 50's or 60's or 70's car and want some tire-boiling torque but don't have a ton of expendable income don't despair-there are ways to go to get 400 or even 500 streetable horsepower cheaply. In people's "Bigger is always better" frenzy-you can find some overlooked gems. # 1. 396 / 402 Chevy. Everyone today wants a 454, or a 502. 427's weren't that plentiful to begin with, and most of those are snapped up by Corvette collectors. However-besides being used in SS396 Chevelles, El Caminos, Camaros and Novas-this engine was used in hundreds of thousands of Impalas, Bel Airs, Monte Carlos, station wagons, and light and medium duty trucks from 1965-72. A 396 can make just as much power as a 454, it will just be at a higher rpm. In fact-all other things being equal-i.e.-heads, cam, induction etc-a 454 only makes about 40 more hp than a 396 / 402. The bigger-is-better crowd will argue that the 454 will make more torque; that's true. But when you already have 480 lbs ft of torque-do you really need 525? Honestly if you need more power than a  properly built 396 /402 can deliver then you need a Pro Stock drag car, a competent therapist, or a cage. # 2. 428 Pontiac. Everyone fights with machetes over 455s, and the hot setup now is to put a cut-down aftermarket 455 crank in a 400 block. The 428 is largely overlooked. Even though they were only used from 1967-69 their were hundreds of thousands of them built in Catalinas, Bonnevilles, station wagons, and Gran Prix's. I personally love 428s. They make as much torque as a 455, and they rev up like a 400. They have thicker cylinder walls than a 455, and can be safely bored .060 over-which gives you 440 cubes. You can make 400 hp and 500 lbs of torque with an iron Q-jet intake and iron exhaust manifolds and the right cam. With aftermarket Edelbrock or Kauffman heads and a Performer RPM intake and headers you can make 500 or more hp easily. Stuff that into your '60's Tempest or '70's T/A!!  # 3. 383 / 400 Chrysler. Every  Mopar restorer wants a 440-so these can be a bargain. Some people are putinng stroker cranks in 400 blocks to get 451 inches. Since the 383 was used from 1963-71 and the 400 ( which is just a bored out 383 ) from 1972-78 there's a lot of them around. Again-a 383 / 400 can make just as much power as a 440-it will just be at a higher rpm. You may need stiffer rear-end gears or a higher-stall torque converter with a hot 383 as opposed to a 440; but you'll go just as fast. The only difference between "B" engines ( 361-383-400 ) and "RB" engines ( 413, non-hemi-426-440 ) is the deck height. The intake manifolds won't interchange. However Edelbrock, Weiand and Holley all make performance intakes for "B" engines. Edelbrock even makes a "Six-Pak" intake for them if you want to run 3 2bbls. #4. 390 Ford. Ford fans will give blood and a first-born child for a 428, or a 429 / 460, but 390's are largely overlooked. They were used in millions of cars and trucks from 1961-76, so finding one shouldn't be a problem. They got a rep as a "dog" because 99% of them-( except the 4bbl Mustang / Cougar versions ) were saddled with 2bbl carburation, a lazy cam, single exhaust and high gearing in big cars and trucks. They were considered a "towing" engine. However, with the right equipment, they can really rock. Edelbrock makes performance aluminum heads for these engines, as well as matching Performer RPM cam and intake. I think Edelbrock claimed 422 hp and 447 lbs of torque with this combo. One of these "Junkyard Jewels" might be just the ticket for big power for low bucks in your blue-oval ride.  Mastermind       

A "Too Valuable" Duster?? I don't think so!!

Had an interesting conversation the other day at a gas station. I was gassing up the Hurst / Olds and as usual it drew a crowd. The one guy said-incredulously-"You drive that car?" "Obviously." I replied. "If I wanted one to look at I'd have bought the Franklin Mint model for $89.95." "If I had that car I wouldn't drivc it." He said. "Then what would be the point of having it?" I asked. "I don't drive it in rain or snow." "But once in a while on a nice day I like to lay some rubber down or give the little boys in their rice-rockets a history lesson." He was even more incredulous. "You smoke the tires and drag race it?" I was getting annoyed. "Why else would you have a car with a loud two-tone paint job, fat tires, a 455 V8, and a high-stall torque converter?" "Because you wanted to drive the speed limit at all times?" Another idiot piped in. "I agree with him". This clown proceded to tell me how he rarely drives his '73 Cougar convertible even in the summertime because he's afraid of it getting wrecked. "Are you kidding me?" I said. "Why would you have a convertible anything and NOT drive it on nice sunny days?" "And, not to insult you, a '73 Cougar convertible is certainly a nice, rare car, but its not a Boss 429 or a Hemi 'Cuda." "It's worth what-30 grand, not $300,000." "And you can buy classic car insurance that will cover the market value of the car as long as you don't put more than 5,000 miles a year on it." "I can understand you maybe not drag-racing it because you don't want to maybe throw a rod out the side of a numbers-matching block, but I'd definitely take it for a cruise around Lake Tahoe or to the Wine Country once in a while." His buddy piped in-"I understand." He proceded to explain how he didn't care if his wife plowed their $50,000 Lexus SUV into a fence talking on her cell-phone during the last snowstorm, but he didn't drive his 340 Duster to work once in a while because it was "Too Valuable" to chance it getting parking lot dings in his employee parking garage. I just gave up and did a large, smoky burnout as I left, and watched them shaking their heads in disgust in the mirror. I also tooted my horn and flipped them off as I went by. Childish, I know, but I was offended. Where do these guys get their balls big enough to walk up to another man and tell him he's stupid for driving his own car? And a Duster is "too valuable" to drive?  What do teens text?-LOL and ROTF? Yes-Laughing out loud and rolling on the floor! Guys, cars were meant to be driven. I have a cousin that gets the same crap over his '67 Firebird convertible every summer. "You drive that car?" "Yes." "That's why I bought it." And he proceeds to explain that even though he loves it it's a 326 model that he swapped a 400 into, not a one of eight '69 Trans Am drop-top! To no avail-these "I can't believe you drive that" types are like a cult. You can't reason with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd be very careful if I had say-one of the 1,603 1969 Boss 302 Mustangs. But one of the 70,000+ garden-variety sportsroof '69 Mustangs with a "regular" 302 or a 351W? Like the cliche' "I'd drive it like I stole it." What's next? A Maverick that's too valuable to drive? Or a Vega? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's cool or valuable. Get over yourselves, people. Mastermind         

What happened to evil,wicked, mean & nasty?

Part of my hatred of the modern musclecars and modern fuelie swap worshippers is the "Great drivability" Mantra. You see it in every magazine feature-"It idles at 650 rpm, gets 22 mpg, and starts in 20 below weather." So does my wife's Honda Accord. Big Deal. Why are the words "glass smooth idle" and easy cold starting and bragging about fuel economy in a hot rod magazine? I loved my 12:1 compression, solid-lifter cammed,roller-rockered, dual quad carbed, 4-speed, 4.33:1 geared GTO Judge. It ran 11.30's with slicks, and either low 12's or high 12's on street tires depending on whether you fried the tires halfway down the track or all the way down the track. Remember Nicholas Cage in "The Rock?" Where the FBI agent asks him if he has daddy issues? Cage replies-"My dad was a drunk, a degenerate gambler, and a whore chaser." "I worshipped the ground he walked on." My GTO got 8 mpg using two cans of octane booster per tankful, had a stiff clutch, a loud exhaust, the Rock-Crusher whined at low speeds, the motor was buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway, and the Lakewood ladder bars banged over every speed bump or when entering or exiting a driveway. The Hurst-shifter was like racking the slide on a 12-guage shotgun. And I loved every minute of driving it. It would literally spin the tires as long as I wanted to stay on the throttle. Blasting through the gears was like being shot out of a cannon. The front fenders would rise, the intake roar of the dual 750 AFB's would get louder than the exhaust. The inside of the car would sound like the "Bullitt" or "Vanishing Point" soundtrack turned up to 10. 6,500 rpm would come quick,slam the Hurst shifter back while giving a quick, deft touch of my left foot to the clutch-Crack! would go the exhaust acknowledging a perfect, full-bore powershift, and the tires break loose for another 75-100 feet, as me and the 12 bolt posi fight to keep it going straight. The close-ratio Muncie M22 would only have a 1,400 rpm drop between gears-so I'd hit 2nd about 5,000 rpm-right near the pumped up Ram Air III's horsepower peak. It's a short time to 6,500 and Crack! The car lays another 8-10 feet of rubber into third gear, the fenders still flying high. Third gear feels like 1st in a normal musclecar. The hood tach hits 6,500-6,800 and crack! into 4th. I hit the traps between 6,800-7,100. It's over too soon. I want to do it again! A guy I went to school with had a 435 hp tri-power, 427 '69 Corvette with a 4-speed and 4.11 gears. He also had chrome Hooker headers and chrome sidepipes on it. His car sounded better than mine, with it's choppy, 1,400 rpm idle ( an L88 cam will do that ). Nothing sounds like a high-compression, solid-lifter, barely muffled Rat Motor.  He and I had many impromptu drag races that were usually too close to call, unless one of us screwed up the launch or missed a shift. We were great adversaries because no one else's car could touch his or mine in a drag race, so we raced each other for sport. When he had the three Holley two-barrels at full wail, there wasn't a sweeter sound, except maybe my dual AFB's wailing right next to him. People could hear us from blocks away and they said it sounded like a NASCAR race. I had another acquaintance who had a '69 SS396 Chevelle that he put an L88 / LS7 cam into, along with headers, a Mallory Unilite ignition, and a Weiand Tunnel ram and dual 600 holleys and 4.56:1 gears. He didn't want to cut up the hood, so he just took it off. I remember him laughing loud and hard after racing a Z/28 Camaro from about 60-130 on the freeway. The Camaro driver said-"Sounded like you were running out of gear there at the end". My buddy laughed and said, yeah, it did tend to break up a little as you got close to eight grand! It makes me sad to read a road test where they talk about a new Challenger's heated and cooled seats, and moonroof and Nav system, and how the shifter on the Tremec six-speed could be better if it was a little more BMW like. Gag. Anybody old enough to remember trying to powershift a 4-speed Chrysler car with the "Pistol-grip" shifter? There's a reason Barry Newman and stunt driver Carey Loftin were SLAMMING that thing around in "Vanishing Point", and it wasn't mugging for the camera! I read an article in Car & Driver where they said a one-ton, diesel dually Ford F350 pickup's ride was "Too trucklike." Hello?! This thing is designed to tow like 18,000 lbs. It's not going to ride like your wife's Camry!! Road and Track said the new Boss 302 was too loud and too stiffly sprung, and the retro paint scheme was too loud and even though it beat a BMW M3 around Willow Springs raceway, the inside of the car got so hot while hot-lapping that they had to turn the A/C on!! They said that they preferred the quieter, softer sprung, more understated regular GT model. Oh go F&%K yourself, you tweed cap wearing,pipe-smoking,disco dancing,Striesand ticket holding, Oscar Wilde reading, friend of Dorothy! I remember having a similar sentiment when I was looking at a Gorgeous black and orange, Doug Nash 5-speed, Hooker Chrome rollbar and Hooker Header equipped, Herb Adams prepped "Fire Am" and the salesman, thinking he was cool and sophisticated saying that he'd rather have a Firebird Formula "without all the bells and whistles". All you grown-up, tasteful guys go ahead and say how wonderful prim and proper Jane Hathaway is with her mannish haircut and gray-flannel business suit. I'll take blond, busty, loud, barefoot in denim shorts Ellie May Clampett six days a week and twice on Sunday!! Mastermind