"G" may be the way to go for low-budget muscle.....

In 1978 GM downsized all the "A" bodies-Chevelle,Monte Carlo, LeMans, Gran Prix, Cutlass and Regal-and for whatever reason called them "G" bodies. Although they were 600 lbs lighter than the models they replaced they were saddled with anemic powerplants and salt-flats gearing. A '77 Monte Carlo with a 350 is still capable of enough acceleration from a light to annoy a traffic cop. A '78-88 Cutlass or Regal with a 231 inch Buick V6 with a 2bbl backed by a slushbox and 2.29:1 gearing is going to annoy exactly two people-yourself and the driver behind you!!  However, all is not lost-there are some that make excellent hot rods-you just have to know what to look for. Here are my personal favorites-# 1. 1978-87 Malibu / Monte Carlo / El Camino. From 1978-80 you could still get a 350 / 4bbl in these cars. That gives you a great base for a hot rod, or you could swap in a snarling 383. The '81 and later models could only be had with a 305, but thats not a big deal because a 350 or 383 or 406 would be a bolt-in. # 2 1983-87 Pontiac Gran Prix. The ones to look for are the 305 Chevy powered models for the reasons listed above. And the Pontiacs had Radial Tuned Suspension-front and rear sway bars, and upgraded interiors. They make nicer drivers than their less-loaded Chevy cousins. # 3. 1978-87 Buick Regal. A lot of these had the anemic 231 V6 under the hood, but a fair number of '78-81 models had 301 Pontiacs under the hood. Pontiac engines are externally identical-so this means a 400 or 455 would be a bolt-in swap. Beef up the 200R4 and put some 3.73 or 4.11 gears in the rear end and you'd give those smug Grand National owners a surprise they'd never forget!!  The 1982-87 models had the 307 Olds V8 as an option. This means a 350 or a 403 would be a bolt-in swap. Same thing-Edelbrock claims 397 hp a 400 lbs of torque from their "Performer RPM" package-and that's on a 350 test mule. A 403 would easily have 425 hp or more-and that would be enough to torture GN owners mercilessly.  # 4. 1978-87 Olds Cutlass. Some 1978-80 models had 350 Olds engines, and some had 305 Chevys or 301 Pontiacs. For some reason-probably because the Cutlass was the #1 seller and GM was playing musical engines because of smog laws-there's more variables on these than the others. However-you can swap accordingly-It's easier and Cheaper to swap a snarling 350 or 383 small-block Chevy into a 305 model than it would be to turn it back to "real" Olds power and then hop it up. See what I'm saying?  The '81 and later models used the 307 V8-so like I said about the Regals the easiest HP infusion is to swap in a 350 / 403.  If you want to be really low-budget-there was a guy who was selling motor mount kits to swap 1968-76 472 / 500 inch Cadillac V8s into these cars. Check the Internet -he may still be in business. Anyhow these cars would make great "sleepers" for a relatively low price. Mastermind    

More about automakers pricing themselves out of business...

People asked about some things I said in the last post about automakers pricing themselves out of business. Here's why-history repeats itself. Back in the '70's and much of the '80's the Datsun 240Z and later the 260Z, the 280Z and the 280ZX was a reasonably priced, great performing sports car. Then when the 300ZX debuted, they went crazy. By 1993 when the last 300ZX Turbo rolled off the assembly line-they cost $45,000!!!  In 1993 dollars??  Hello?  A Pontiac Trans-Am with an LT1 that was faster stickered for about $28,000. A Corvette that was faster stickered for about $36,000. A Mustang GT that was faster stickered for about $25,000. A Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR4 that was faster stickered for about $36,000. A Porsche 928 was about $50,000. Excuse me? I'm going to pay 45 grand for a Datsun that can't outrun a screaming chicken Firebird or a Fairmont based Mustang? When I can buy the top of the line Porsche for roughly the same money or a Corvette for less?  Toyota did the same thing with the Turbo Supra. They were cool and blisteringly fast. But by 1992 they were over 30 Grand. Again-a "5.0" Mustang that was just as fast was about 15 grand. An L98 Corvette engined Trans-Am GTA was about 25. A Porsche 944 Turbo was about 35K. And you wonder why the Toyota didn't sell??  The same thing is happening now. Forget the Hellcat-a loaded Challenger R/T is over 40 grand. Ditto for an SS Camaro. The Mustang GT starts at 32K but it's pretty easy to get over 40K with a few options. I have a good job and make decent money for my industry and level of education. And I COULD afford one of these if I really wanted it. But I don't-and I'm a hardcore musclecar guy-and I can't justify in my mind spending $1,000 a month-when you factor in gas, insurance, payments, etc-so once in a blue moon I can jump some clown from a light or pass him up an on-ramp. I'm much happier in my Subaru Forester that gets 30 mpg, has plenty of room and runs like a champ. I don't need a love affair-I need an appliance-like my clothes dryer drys clothes. My dishwasher washes dishes. My Subie gets me to work and back. Or over the hill without chains when there's snow. With my 46 mile commute and mountain weather here-I don't need a rear-wheel drive 400 hp musclecar that gets 11 mpg. If I want one of those-I'll buy a beater 1970-81 Camaro / Firebird and put a 454HO crate motor in it for about ten grand total investment!!  I hate to be elitist-but seriously- $70,000 for a Dodge Challenger or ZL1 Camaro??  If I'm going to spend 70 grand on a car-It's going to be a new Jaguar F-Type, or a low-mileage Ferrari, Porsche or Aston-Martin!!  Not a freaking Camaro!!!  That I can't see out of and has no headroom, and rattles like a Cruze!!!  Or a Dodge with a blower on it and a cop-car interior!!  Mastermind              

Automakers beware...Your pricing yourselves out of business...Again....

I was talking to a salesman at the Subaru dealer I work at. We were standing next to a new WRX STI. That had a sticker price of $39,000 and change. And that's not the greedy dealer "Market Value" sticker-that was monroney. "This car-" he said "Is absolutely coveted by people who can't afford it." He continued. "If I take one to lunch it causes a complete work stoppage at Jack in The Box, or McDonalds, or Subway." "Guys 18-25 drool over it." "But even if they've got good credit, or a parent or spouse with good credit to co-sign for them, they can't afford $600 a month payments and another $150 for insurance." "Guys from 30-50 who can afford that much are more likely to buy a BMW 3-series,a Mercedes C-class,a Lexus IS350,or a Cadillac CTS."  "Not an Econobox with a Turbo and a rally car suspension." He made me think a little-and all the other high-performance cars that the magazines are raving about are in the same boat, only worse. Think about it- it's a cliche'-Old guy in a Corvette-but their the only one's who can afford them. Yes a Z06 Corvette is an absolute rocket and can hold it's own against Ferraris, Porsche 911s, Nissan GTRs, Audi R8s etc. And it also has a $100,000+ price tag like all those. Except for New York or California, that's the price of a house. The Challenger Hellcat and the ZL1 Camaro-$70,000 grand. My younger brother who's in his 40's and grew up with me watching "Vanishing Point" "Bullitt", "The Seven-Ups", "Smokey and the Bandit" etc-who loved the Judge I had in high school and has a '69 GTO if his own, would love to have a Hellcat Challenger. But like he said-"If I'm going to spend an extra $1,000 a month-I'll buy a rental house or condo and build something for my retirement, not buy another car that I don't need."  So it's only rich guys in their 50's and 60's who have to have the biggest,and best of everything no matter what it costs. Young guys can't afford to play. And that's sad. When my dad was 20 in 1959 he bought a new Tri-Power 345 hp 389 Pontiac Catlina. When I was 22 in 1984-I had a '78 Trans-Am because I was raised in a Pontiac Household and there was no substitute for 400 cubic inches. My cousin had an '83 Camaro with a 305 and 5-speed. If I had wanted a new L69 / 5-speed '84 T/A or a "5.0" Mustang." I could have easily afforded the $250-300 per month payments on a $12,000 car. I actually bought one of the first Fieros from the Pontiac dealer I worked at. My 21 year old son cannot afford the $600 per month a new 435 hp $32,000 Mustang GT would cost. And that's sad. Like Bunkie Knudsen said-"You can sell a young's man car to an old man, but you can't sell a old man's car to a young man." That's true. But $60,000 Musclecars aimed at aging Baby Boomers-the only people who can afford them-makes me quote Danny DeVito from "Other People's Money". "Get an increasing share of a shrinking market." "Down the Tubes."  This is what killed the Camaro and Firebird back in 2002. A loaded Z/28 was $38,000 in 2002 dollars. A BMW 3 series was cheaper, as was a Lexus IS300. A Nissan 350Z was $26,000. A V8 Mustang GT was $25,000. More than 10 grand cheaper. The average mullet-headed 24 year old couldn't afford $38,000 2002 dollars for a car. The automakers never learn....Mastermind          

Old-School "David" beats Modern "Goliath"......

An arrogant rich kid got a great comeuppance the other day. It was recorded on my buddy's cell phone If I could upload it here I would. Anyway a guy with a Supercharged 662hp Shelby GT500 2014 Mustang got his doors blown off by a '72 Camaro with a normally aspirated 350 and a 4-speed. The Camaro did have the Edelbrock Performer Rpm package-Heads,Cam, Carb and intake etc. According to Edelbrock this makes 410 hp. So how did the 400 hp car beat the 660 hp car?  Good old drag racing prowess. The Camaro driver dropped the clutch about 2,500 rpm getting just enough wheelspin to get the car moving and up on it's torque curve, spinning the tires for maybe 50 feet. The Supercharged Mustang incinerated his tires through 1st and 2nd. The Camaro jumped out to about a 5 car length lead. Even finally getting traction in 3rd gear and having nearly 700 hp pulling hard-the Mustang couldn't catch him. The Camaro still beat him at the end of the 1/4 by about 2 car lengths. Now if the Mustang had had slicks or drag radials and a more competent driver it wouldn't have even been a race. But that's what makes it so cool. My Hurst / Olds that had a 355 hp Chevy ZZ4 crate motor in it beat a Subaru WRX in drag race. The Subie owner spouted Motor Trend's road test where their WRX test mule ran a 5.4 second 0-60, and a 13.8 second 1/4. My Cutlass had run a best of 13.92. He was sure he was going to win. Except the M/T driver dropped the clutch on the WRX at 5,500 rpm and powershifted it, shocking the AWD system so bad that all the traction control nanny lights went off as all 4 wheels spun off the line. Without the brutal launch-the times increased to 6.6 seconds 0-60 and 14.4 seconds in the 1/4. Still quick, but not as blisteringly quick as the quoted time. And honestly-the average Joe isn't going to drop the clutch at 5,500 rpm and risk his $5769 transaxle to jump some clown from a light. I came off the line even, and then pulled away in 2nd gear. The Subie driver was aghast. How could a heavier car with not much more power ( 3,731 lbs with 355 hp vs 3,330 with 305hp ) win?. Same way- my 2,800 rpm B&M Converter and 255/60R15 Comp T/As allowed me to launch with about 30 feet of wheelspin, and then the 418 lbs of torque-350 or more of which is available from 1,800-5,200 rpm took over. I beat him by about a car length and a half. That's the oldest drag rcing adage in the world "All the Power in the world doesn't do you any good if you can't put it to the ground."  Anyhow-it was fun to watch. Mastermind      

Like "Get Carter"..."The Truth Hurts"....

Got some flack over the last post about the guy who wanted 75K for a 1971 SS396 Camaro. A lot of people thought I was overly harsh bagging on the car's value and performance. I don't think I was. Here's why. Motor Trend's test of a 1972 SS396 Camaro ( The '71 and '72 models were identical except for gross and net hp ratings. The '71 had 300 gross hp, the '72 240 net hp. The engines were identical with no changes according to GM literature and service bulletins. ) showed a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 15.7 seconds. According to Motor Trend today-my 2014 Subaru Forester with a 4 cylinder engine, all-wheel drive and a 6-speed manual transmission does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the 1/4 in 15.8 seconds. Another road test of a 2000 360 Jeep Cherokee showed it did the 1/4 in 15.7 seconds. This tells me that this "Ultra-Rare" $75,000 Camaro would be beaten or given a helluva race from a light by a soccer mom in a 14 year old Jeep Cherokee or a by a 52 year old guy in a new Subaru Suv!! ( Not a Turbo WRX!! ) But going back to my comment of it's rare because nobody bought them when they were new-here's why. In 1971 a fully loaded SS396 Camaro cost about $5,500. With a 396 truck motor. The LS3 had oval-port heads, a mild hydraulic cam, a Quadrajet on an iron intake, and was optional in Impalas, Monte Carlos, Chevelles, Pickups, Suburbans and various wagons. It was a "Towing" motor. Conversely for the same or less money-the base price on a Pontiac Trans-Am was $4255.75-and it had a 455 inch V8 with RAIV heads and round-port exhaust manifolds, and aluminum intake and the vaunted "068" cam and made 480 lbs of torque at 2,700 rpm. And ran 0-60 in 5.7 seconds and the 1/4 in 14.27.  More than a full second faster than the SS396 Camaro. The Z/28 Camaro tested in 1972 by Motor Trend against a Datsun 240Z in a "A Z verse Z shootout", Ran a 13.92 second 1/4. With a 350 V8 with "202" heads, a solid-lifter cam, and a 780 Holley on an aluminum intake. A 383 / Torqueflite '71 Road Runner ran a 15.35.  For the same $5,000 plus dollars you could also buy in 1971 a 429 / 4-speed Ford Torino, a Boss 351 Mustang, a 370 hp 440 4bbl Dodge Challenger or a 385hp 440 / Six-Pack Plymouth Road Runner, a 425hp LS6 Chevelle, a 426 hp Hemi Charger, or for way less money- a strippy 340 Duster-( Which ran a 14.34 in a 1972 test with a Torqueflite!! )  or a 400, 4-speed Tempest T-37-all of which would suck up and spit out this truck-motored Camaro in a drag race or "Stoplight Gran Prix." That's what I was pointing out. A lot of them weren't sold because they were underpowered and overpriced. Same thing for 1984-86 SVO Ford Mustangs. They had 16" wheels, Recaro seats, a special suspension and a Turbocharged 4-cylinder engine that made between 175 and 205 hp depending on model year. Except they cost $17,000 in 1984 dollars and the V8 "5.0" Mustang-which cost about $12,000 in 1984 dollars-was not only 5 grand cheaper, it was faster to boot!!  Ditto for the $14,000 L69 305 / 5-speed Z/28 Camaro and Pontiac Trans-Am. Gee, why didn't they sell?  That's what I was saying-It was "rare" because no one bought them new. They were priced higher than similar cars that had better performance-the Z/28 Camaro,the Pontiac Trans-Am, the 440 Charger, the Mach 1 Mustang, et. al.  If I had 75K to spend on a musclecar I would buy a Ram Air IV Judge,or an LS6 Chevelle, a 428CJ Mustang, a 440 Six-Pack Super Bee,a Boss 302, an SD 455 T/A or a 427 Stingray, not an 8.5:1 compression iron manifold, Q-jet carbed '71 Camaro that can't outrun my wife's Jeep Cherokee!!! That's all I was saying. You can ask a million dollars for your car-doesn't mean it's worth it. Mastermind.      

Just cause you think it's the Cats meow, doesn't mean it's worth a mint....

Saw an ad on the Internet for a 1971 Camaro SS396. It was a 4-speed, and it was immaculate, and fully doumented. However-the seller wanted $75,000 for it!!!  Hello?  It's an LS3 396 / 402 with 8.5:1 compression,a hydraulic cam, an iron manifold with a Quadrajet, and a rating of 300 gross hp, which was lowered to 240 net hp for 1972 for the exact same engine. It's a truck / station wagon engine, Which was used in Millions of Monte Carlos, Impalas, and pickups in that era. It's not an 11:1, solid lifter, rectangular port head, aluminum manifold, / 780 Holley high performance motor like the vaunted L78. Excuse me? I've seen people asking the same or less money for documented LS6 454 Motion cars, or documented 427 Yenko cars!!!  I've seen people asking less for SD-455 / 4-speed Trans-Ams!!!  A rare turd, is still a turd. Honestly I can buy a beater 1970-81 Camaro for 3 grand in any state in the union and for 6 grand more stuff a 454HO in it and have a badass Camaro that runs 12s or 11s with a little shot of nitrous. If I can have an 11 second Camaro for nine grand, why would I pay 75K for one that can't break out of the 15s???  Because it's "Rare?"  It's "rare" for a reason! No one wanted to buy the overpriced, underpowered piece of shit when it was new!!!  For the same or less money they wanted for this ill-handling "truck motored" Camaro, you could get a Z/28 which had a fire-breathing LT1 350 with a solid-lifrer cam,"202" heads, an aluminum manifold and a 780 Holley that would rev to 7 grand and make power all the way there!! You could buy a Pontiac Trans-Am that had a 455HO with RAIV heads and intake, an "068" cam and a "Rock Crusher" for the same money!! You could buy a Charger or Challenger with a 385 hp 440 / Six Pack, or a 425 hp 426 Hemi!!  So, yeah-no one bought this 240 net hp " truck motored"  turd. Just because it's immaculate doesn't make it worth a mint. Is a 403 Olds/ TH350, 2.41 geared '79 T/A that's mint, worth more than a 1978 WS6, 400 Pontiac, 4-speed, 3.42 geared, documented, one of 203 Mecham "Macho T/A's" that needs a little work?  Or a 1973 Formula 455??  It was a nice car-but it wasn't a Yenko or Motion car-and in my mind not worth $75,000. It wasn't anything special-I mean you can buy Shelby Mustangs or Hemi 'Cudas or Boss 302s for 75 k!!  And this guy wants this king's ransom for a garden-variety Camaro?  To each his own. Mastermind