Why going for "Every Last Ounce" isn't always a good idea...

Gearheads have a tendency to never be satisfied, to always be looking for the next edge in performance. Sometimes that's a good thing, but sometimes it can bite you in the ass. Here's a few examples. # 1. "Air Gap" intake manifolds. NASCAR racers discovered that by raising the plenum and allowing air to flow under the runners, that they gained 10-15 hp on the top end because of the cooler fuel charge. Edelbrock, Holley and other companies began selling these "Air-Gap" manifolds to the public. In sunny California or at Daytona, this works fine. Whether or not you can actually feel a 10-15 hp gain in the average street car remains open for debate. However, in many northern or Rocky Mountain states people that ran out and bought these intakes were furious in the fall,winter and spring. Their cars would not start and idle properly, sometimes taking 20 minutes or more to warm up, and many wouldn't run at all because of carburator Icing! The buff magazines were deluged with angry letters, and Summit, Jeg's, and other retailers of speed parts were getting angry letters and emails from people demanding refunds, saying they re-installed their old intake so the car would start properly! That 15 hp wasn't looking that good now!  # 2. "We shall Overcam". As we all know-"bigger" isn't always better. Especially on a street machine with an automatic transmission,when it comes to cam selection, it's better to err on the side of caution. Here's a perfect example, and thankfully my friend didn't take the advice of the "expert" at Summitt. He had a '78 T/A with the W72 400, a TH350, and 3.23:1 gears. He installed the Edelbrock Performer package-heads, cam, intake and headers. According to Edelbrock this combo makes 387 hp and 439 lbs of torque and makes 15 inches of vacuum at idle. I believe it. This T/A would literally spin it's tires as long as you wanted to stay on the throttle, idled smooth, and had more power than you'd ever need. He was escatatic. Then some idiot salesman told him he should "upgrade" to the Performer RPM cam and intake because that combo made 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque. He asked me what I thought. I told him absolutely, positively do not change a thing on his car!!  Here's why-1st off-why spend a bunch of money and time to gain 35 hp and 2 lbs of torque? Honestly-all other things being equal-and especially with street tires-not slicks or drag radials-is a car with 422 hp going to be noticably quicker than one with 387 hp?  And-the "Performer RPM" cam is an exact replica of the factory RAIV cam-which was only available with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears for a reason! It barely makes 10 inches of vacuum at idle, and your giving up quite a bit of low-end and mid-range torque for top-end rush. To take full advantage of it, he'd need to swap his 3.23:1 gears for some 4.10s and he'd probably need a 2,500 rpm torque converter as well. Which would ruin the car's wonderful drivability. The motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway at 70 mph is not pleasant. Luckily-he took my advice and is still very happy with his car's performance-with roughy 400 hp-it blows the doors off  95% of the stoplight challengers he encounters, it idles smooth, cruises effortlessly on the freeway and purrs like a kitten until you hit the loud pedal. He doesn't need that "last ounce" of performance at the expense of a LOT of good drivabilty. Motor Trend made this point in an ultra-exotic sports car comparo recently. They said they loved the Aston-Martin V12 Vantage for it's all around feel and great performance up to "8 or 9 / 10ths ". What they meant was-yes, the Nissan GTR, the Corvette Z06, the Porsche 911 Turbo were faster around the Nurburging and Willow Springs raceway. But 99 out of 100 people who buy them are never going to push the cars to that absolute limit. Hence-the 8 or 9 tenths comment. When is Joe Average going to run a Z06 or GTR or 911 Turbo absolutely flat-out?  The same goes for your musclecar. If all your doing is drag racing it, then by all means do everything you can to get every last tenth shaved off your time. But if your going to drive the car at all, it might behoove you to leave a tenth or two on the table in the interest of a pleasant Sunday drive or Wednesday night cruise!!  Mastermind  

Read the whole article before you decide to buy or not buy parts....

Like I said in a previous post a lot of people are disappointed in their projects because they read snippets of a magazine article or read some quote from some "expert" on the internet and then spend money-or worse yet-don't buy parts they need because they didn't read the whole article. Here's some examples of why taking one paragraph of an article is a bad idea.  # 1. High-Performance Pontiac magazine did an article called "Junkyard Jewel" about building up a 455 that they bought from-duh-a junkyard. It came out of a '76 Gran Prix. It had 7.6:1 compression and was factory rated at 200 hp. They did some baseline testing on the stock engine and then started throwing parts at it. The first thing they did was put a set of headers on it. This showed exactly no gain on the dyno. Then they put an Edelbrock Performer intake on it. This also showed no gain. They were perplexed. Then they put a hot cam in it, and it LOST power! This further perplexed them.  Then,one of these geniuses figured out that with 7.6:1 compression and the lazy "smog" cam-the engine didn't breathe enough to NEED the headers and the intake upgrade. And that the "hot" cam effectively lowered the static compression ratio to like 6:1-which killed what little power it did have. They added a set of 87cc Edelbrock Heads. In addition to the better breathing the much smaller ( stock was 114cc ) combustion chambers bumped the compression from 7.6:1 to like 9.2:1. With the stock iron intake and stock manifolds it gained almost 100 hp, but was all done in by 4,400 rpm. After re-installing the headers and the Performer intake, they gained another 100 hp. And it pulled hard to 5,700 rpm!  After fiddling with the timing,carb jetting and distributor curve-they ended up with 440 hp and 467 lbs ft of torque!!  A gain of 240 hp!! Not bad for heads, cam, intake and headers on a junkyard motor!!  The '76 intake had the EGR valve intruding into the throttle opening, which severely restricted power above 4,000 rpm!! After this article came out I talked to a guy that had a disco-era T/A. I told him the three biggest improvements he could make would be a Performer intake, headers and dual exhausts and swapping the 2.56:1 gears for some 3.42:1s would make it really rock. "Maybe I'll change the gears, but I read in High-performance Pontiac that headers and the intake didn't help" Arrrggghhhh!!!!  I told him to read the WHOLE article-that the intake and headers did help immensely-just not on an engine with the wrong cam and 6:1 compression!!  # 2. This guy bought a set of headers for his truck and was aghast because it ran better with the stock manifolds. He'd read in Hot Rod that Hooker Headers with 2 1/ 4 inch primary tubes made the most power on a big block Chevy. Except the test mule was a 12:1 compression, 720 hp 572 inch stroker with a .714 lift solid roller cam!!  And even on the monster 572-these only showed a gain over 2 inch tubes above 5,500 rpm!!  Obviously, these huge headers killed the bottom-end and mid-range torque on his otherwise stock 454!! I told him-engines need some backpressure to run properly, and that he'd be much better off with 1 3/4 inch headers or 1 7/8 max, even if he added a bigger cam and intake!!  He went to 1 3/4 headers and was happy as a clam-the truck had noticably more power all through the range, and got better gas mileage too!  # 3. I had two disco-era T/A's back in the day. One had a 400 Pontiac and the other had a 403 Olds. My 403 Olds T/A blew the doors off many other surprised T/A  owners, including the owner of a 403 DKM "Macho", and a 400,4-speed Pontiac model. The way I did it was mine had headers and real dual exhausts, and a Holley "Street Dominator" intake. This vastly improved power, but it still wouldn't rev over 4,700 rpm. "Experts" in magazines said the 403s had a "lazy" cam, and that I'd have to change the cam, lifters, and valvesprings and get an adjustable valvetrain and roller rockers to do better, and that without a big cam change, the intake and exhaust upgrades wouldn't help. I figured out that 403s used AC R46SZ plugs which had an .080 gap. ( A longer spark burns cleaner and makes less smog ). Even GM's mighty HEI couldn't bridge an .080 gap at high rpm. By simply changing to R45S plugs-a .040 gap-the engine pulled hard to 5,400 rpm!! A gain of 700 rpm on the top end! This made a huge increase in performance. ( Obviously-I didn't need to change the cam and whole valvetrain! )  I also had a TransGo shift kit that would automatically kick down to low gear below 15 mph. So if another T/A and I were coming up to a light that turned green and we punched it-I'd be in low, and he'd still be in 2nd. All other things being equal-who's going to accelerate harder?  Then factor in the intake, exhaust and ignition changes-and you can see how I'd smoke supposedly "faster" cars. I simply maximized the performance of the car without spending a ton of money. 403s were rated at 185 hp stock. Mine dyno'd at 260!! An increase of 75 hp!!  I proved all the "Experts" wrong who said hopping up a 403 was a "waste of time" because of the 8:1 compression and "lazy" cam!!  # 4. A friend of mine was building a "Street Stock" claimer circle track 350 Chevy engine. Everyone told him you "Gotta Have" "2.02" heads. I gave him a set of '81-86 305 heads. The 58cc combustion chambers ( opposed to 76cc 350 heads ) bumped the compression on his L48 350 from 8.2:1 to 9.6:1. The 305 heads have 1.84 inch intake valves ( as opposed to 1.94 on standard 350 heads or 2.02 on hi-performance heads ). I told him the huge power and torque boost of the added compression would more than offset the slight loss of airflow of the slightly smaller intake valves. He was amazed at the power bump these "free" heads gave him. This left the money he would have spent on a set of heads to go for cam, exhaust, intake, and ignition. And he was still under the $1,500 rule. He won quite a few races beating people who had spent way more money on their engines-even though they'd lose it if someone excersised the "claim" rule. The point I'm making is, do some research and make sure you have ALL the information before you spend your hard-earned money, or discount a part or a procedure as a "waste of time." Mastermind                      

All these supercars were under-rated for the same reasons....

A lot of High-performance cars have their horsepower ratings grossly under-rated by the manufacturers. This was usually done for three reasons-( 1) To make the cars dominant in stock class drag racing, ( 2) To avoid the wrath of the safety Nazis, and ( 3 ) To avoid high insurance premiums. As early as 1966 activists like Ralph Nadar were demonizing musclecars and insurance companies were exorbitantly raising the rates on cars with engines over 400 cubic inches and hp ratings over 300 hp. Here's some classic examples # 1. Boss 302 Mustang / Z/28 Camaro. The 290 hp ratings that both Chevy and Ford had for these cars is laughable. The Trans-Am racers run by Mark Donohue,and Parnelli Jones and others had about 460 hp; and except for headers and maybe a little more cam, they weren't that far from stock. Think of this-the 11:1 302 Chevy with Corvette "Fuelie" heads, a hot solid-lifter cam,an aluminum high-rise intake and a 780 Holley , makes 5 hp LESS than a standard headed, 10:1, "station wagon" hydraulic cammed, iron intake with a Quadrajet 350?  The Boss 302 with "Cleveland" heads having ports and valves the size of a 427 Chevy,a hot solid-lifter cam, an aluminum intake with a 780 Holley and special exhaust manifolds only makes the same hp as the "station wagon", hydraulic-cammed, iron intake with a 470 cfm Autolite 4300 carbed 351W?  Really? These engines were making 350 hp off the showroom floor, easily. # 2. Ram Air IV 400 Pontiac. The 370 hp rating for this engine is utterly ridiculous. Especially since the "big car" 400 that was the GTO's standard engine was rated at 350 and the RAIII which had a bigger cam over the base model and Ram Air induction was rated at 366. Pontiac engineers want us to believe that completely new cylinder heads with round port exhausts and iron headers, a hot cam with .520 lift and a special valvetrain with longer valves, and pushrods and dual springs, and an aluminum high-rise intake is only worth 4 hp over the standard D-port headed, iron intaked, .414 lift cammed RAIII?  That's why in drag testing they usually ran within 1/10th of the vaunted LS6 Chevelles-because in the same weight car-they had 80 hp less!!  Riigghht. # 3. 428CJ Ford. This one takes real balls. 38 extra cubes, 427 style heads,a hot cam, and a 735 cfm Holley on an aluminum or iron "Police Interceptor" intake is only worth 15 hp over the standard LTD / Station Wagon / Pickup 390?  That's the story Ford was selling and they stuck to it all years of production. The "generic" 390 was rated at 320 hp; the 428CJ with nearly 40 extra cubes and all those go-fast goodies only had 335?  Puhleeze. # 4. L88 427 Chevy. You belive that the 12.5:1 compression, rectangular port headed, solid-lifter cammed, aluminum intaked, 830 Holley carbed L88 only made 430 hp, when the 10:1, oval-port headed,hydraulic cammed, iron intake with a Quadrajet 427 that was optional in "big cars" and the standard big-block in the 'Vette was rated at 390?  Or that it had 5 hp LESS than the 11:1, smaller cammed, tri-power L72 / L89??  Evryone knows the L88 was putting out at least 500 hp if it made an ounce!!  # 5. "W31" Olds 350. I touched on this one in a previous post. The standard Olds 350 4bbl has 310 hp; Olds wants us to believe that heads with bigger valves, special exhaust manifolds, an aluminum high-rise intake and a 308 degree cam are only worth 15 hp over the base engine?  And require a 4-speed and 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears!!   #6. 1985-87 Buick Grand National. Do you honestly believe a 3,600 lb car can run high 13s in the 1/4 off the showroom floor with only 245 hp?  Like Ditka says-"Come on,Man!!"  GNs were making at least 350 hp; GM just didn't want to say it publicly and ire the insurance companies and the safety Nazis. Think-the LB9 TPI 305 in the IROC-Z was rated at 230 hp, and they could only run low 15s. 15 hp can drop a full second off the 1/4 time?  If you believe that-like George Strait says-"Ive got some oceanfront property in Arizona.."  I'm sure I overlooked a few-the 340 Six-Pack only had 290 hp, when the 4bbls had 275?  The L78 396, which had the same heads, cam, carb and intake, etc as the vaunted 450 hp LS6 454 didn't have 400+ hp but only 375? When the oval port, hydraulic-cammed, Q-jet equipped base model L34 had 350?  Anyhow, you have to take the ratings with a grain of salt and look at the performance figures. Mastermind

Factor in the Whole Combination before you throw parts at it....

I've seen it so many times-people read an article in one of the buff magazines about an intake manifold, cam, torque converter, etc that makes the most power in a dyno test or offers the biggest improvement in 1/4 mile e.t. ,they go out and buy it for their car, and are severely disappointed because they didn't get the same results the magazine did, or worse yet-the car ran better stock. The reason for this is people don't take into account the intended purpose of the engine build, or the whole combination. Here's a couple perfect examples. A guy I know read in a magazine that the Edelbrock Victor Jr intake and 750 Holley Double-Pumper made the most power and torque on a dyno test of a small-block Chevy. He goes to his local speed shop, and buys this combo for his '79 Camaro and is furious when it doesn't run as good as it did stock. Here's what he missed. The magazine test mule was an 11:1 compression 406 with Trick Flow Aluminum heads,a Comp Cams 280H Magnum cam and 1 3/4 inch headers. The Victor Jr-which is basically a NASCAR manifold designed to make power from 3,500-8,000 rpm-may have knocked 25-30lbs ft of torque off at idle-but with 450+ lbs ft on tap from the 406, that didn't hurt. And from 3,000-7,000 it REALLY rocked-adding 40+ hp on the top end compared to the nearest competitor. When he put it on his 8.5:1 stock 350 that had maybe 280 lbs ft of torque AT THE PEAK, it killed the bottom-end. And since the stock 350 with a "smog" cam-was all done in by 5,000 rpm-the Victor Jr-which doesn't even START to make power until almost 4,000-didn't help the top-end either. The car ran better with the stock iron intake and a Q-Jet!!  Now here's an opposite scenario. Pontiac builders have long said that it's hard to improve on the '67-74 factory intakes. That back in the '70's aftermarket ones even showed a loss at some speeds, and that only the Edelbrock Torker showed a 20 hp gain, above 4,000 rpm. In the intervening years Edelbrock has come out with the Performer RPM-which out performs the Torker at all rpm levels. Anyhow-a buddy with a '66 GTO put a Ram Air IV cam and a Torker intake on his car, and his 1/4 mile time dropped by more than 1/2 a second. He was esctatic. How did that happen? Well, for one thing-his car has a 10.75:1 compression 389, a 4-speed and 3.90:1 gears. ( In 1969-70 The RAIV was only available with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears ). Secondly-at the drags he revs the car to 3,500-4,000 rpm and drops the clutch hard, and then powershifts at 6,000 rpm. Shifting at 6,000 rpm-he's going to hit 2nd ( and subsequent gears ) about 4,400 rpm. Right in the thick of the Torker intakes and the RAIV cam's 3,500-6,500 rpm power / torque peak. Now if he put this combo on an 8:1 400 in a '77 T/A with an automatic and 2.56:1 gears, it would have absolutley KILLED the performance, running worse than stock. See what I'm saying?  Here's the rule of thumb. Larger engines can take more "cam" than smaller ones, because they have more torque to spare. For example-the old L79 "350hp 327" cam for small-block Chevys-that was only used with a 4-speed and 3.70:1 or 4.11:1 gears in Corvettes and a few Novas and Chevelles-would absolutely kill a 305. It would work pretty good in a 350 with a 4-speed and 3.42:1 gears or an automatic with a 2,500 rpm converter, and it would be really sweet in a 383 / 400 even with a stock torque converter. Manual transmission cars can take more "cam" because idle speed isn't as important, and the driver can launch at whatever rpm he desires by manipulating the clutch. This applies to other things besides intakes and cams. Heads for instance. Here's a couple good examples. Years ago, Car Craft built identical 454 Chevy engines-same compression, cam, intake,exhaust,etc-except for one thing-one had "standard" oval-port heads, and one had "Hi-Performance" rectangular port heads. Here's the shocker-on the dyno-the rectangular port heads did not show a noticeable gain until 6,300 rpm!!  Now in your street / strip machine-or even a race car-how often are you going to be above 6,300 rpm??  A few years ago Hot Rod did a hop-up article on the GMPP "ZZ4" crate engine. If you don't know-the "ZZ4" was a 350 that was pretty hopped up to begin with-aluminum heads and intake, roller cam, 10:1 cmpression, etc. It had 355 hp and 418 lbs ft of torque. What made it such an awesome street engine was it made over 350 lbs ft from 1,800-5,200 rpm. Anyhow they experimented with hotter cams, dual and single-plane intakes, different carbs, etc. The last thing they did was add a set of Trick Flow aluminum heads, which cost $1,400!!. Here's the kicker-the "Antiquated" stock L98 heads were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm up to 4,600!! Now how often are you going to be above 4,700 rpm in most driving conditions?  Granted, the Trick Flows did offer a 40 hp gain-at 6,100 rpm!! Now on an all-out race car-that might be worth it. But think of this-for $1,400 you could buy a well thought out nitrous system, a higher stall-speed torque converter, stiffer rear end gears, etc. that would give you a better gain than 40 peak hp at 6,000 rpm!!  Here's why I balk at "Gotta Haves" when people are people are talking about building a small-block Chevy or Ford. The "Gotta Haves" I'm talking about are usually forged pistons, shot-peened rods, 4-bolt mains, screw in studs, etc etc. This is all well and good if your building a NASCAR engine that has to go 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona. But for a street machine? People will say what if you want to run a blower or nitrous? To that I say-If you have that much money and need to go that fast, why aren't you building a 454 instead of a 350, or a 460 instead of a 302?  Anyhow it's better to err on the side of caution, especially if the car is a street machine. Mastermind        

More cars that don't exist....

Here's some more cars that some people insist were built, but in reality never were, and the reasons why. #1. Ram Air V GTO.  In 1968-69 Herb Adams and other engineers were working furiously on a "Tunnel-Port" 303 inch Pontiac engine to run in the Trans-Am series. They felt they needed it to compete with Ford, who already had a "Tunnel-Port" 302. ( "Boss 302" ring a bell? ) In testing they figured out that the huge heads-which had ports and valves the size of a 427 Chevy-were too much for the little 303 inch engine. The 303s actually ran better with production Ram Air IV heads. With the RAIV heads they made about 485 hp; about the same power level as the 302 Chevy and Ford engines. Adams, Doug Nash, Arnie Beswick and others tried the Tunnel-Port heads on the larger 400 and 428 engines and were astounded. With an aluminum intake and a hot General Kinetics solid-lifter cam,they were making power equal to the vaunted 427 Chevys and 426 Chrysler Hemis. Adams & Company were excited and pushed to get it in production, hoping to make the GTO the "King of the Street" again like it was in 1964-66. However, for some reason John DeLorean and the Pontiac brass refused to warranty a solid-lifter engine. Adams argued that Chevrolet warrantied several solid-lifter small and big-block engines. DeLorean and the brass refused to budge, and the option was cancelled. They had parts to build about 600 engines, so Adams suggested they sell them over the counter to racers. Royal Pontiac swapped one into a '69 Judge that was featured in Hot Rod; but it wasn't a production car. Royal Pontiac Mechanic Milt Schornak campaigned a 1970 RA V GTO drag car with great success. Doug Nash built single and dual-quad intakes for the RA V and he campaigned one as well. But there was never a production version.  # 2. Boss 429 Cougar. Trying to homologate the Boss 429 for NASCAR to compete with the nearly invincible 426 Chrysler Hemi,( NASCAR rules said at least 500 units had to be sold to the public to be legal for racing ) Ford came up with the Boss 429 Mustang. Why they chose the Mustang, I don't know-The Wood Brothers, A.J. Foyt, Cale Yarborough and other Ford Nascar racers ran Torinos and Mercury Cyclones, not Mustangs. Boss 429s started life as 428 cars and were shipped to Kar Kraft for the Boss Nine conversion. The shock towers were relocated, and the suspension modified to make the huge engine fit. Ford lost money on every one. There were two Boss Nine Cougars built-for drag racers "Dyno" Don Nicholson and "Fast Eddie" Schartmann. Nicholson pulled the Boss Nine and replaced it with an old-school 427 Cammer. Schartmann campaigned his, but with not much success, the car was slow. ( By Super Stock or Pro Stock standards ). There were NEVER any other Boss 429 Cougars, ever.  # 3. 1970-71 LS6 Monte Carlo, '71 LS6 Chevelle. Morons insist that "A few" LS6 454 SS Monte Carlos were built in 1970-71. Their wrong. The LS6 was only offered in the Chevelle line in 1970. I explained in a previous post why there were no 1970 LS6 Corvettes. In 1971, for some inexplicable reason, the roles were reversed. With 9:1 compression and a 425 hp rating, the LS6 was only available in Corvettes. About 1100 were built. The option was listed in early '71 Chevelle sales literature, but was dropped before any were built. There were no LS6 '71 Chevelles. And there were definitely no '70-71 LS6 Monte Carlos. I have never seen a build sheet or window sticker for one, and no Chevrolet engineer has ever verified one. The 365 hp LS5 454 was the highest power engine available in Monte Carlos. # 4. 1971 "Stage II" Buick GSX / 1971 RA V 455 GTO. The performance of the "Stage 1" 455 1970 Buick GSX's was legendary. Rumor has it that Pontiac wanted to make a Ram Air V 455 and that Buick wanted to make a "Stage II" 455 to compete with the LS6 and LS7 Chevys and 426 Hemi Chryslers. The story is that an ultra-badass Skylark and a GTO were built by Buick and Pontiac engineers respectively and a grudge match was held on a Michigan drag strip, and both cars ran high 10s, although the Buick won by two car lengths. In late 1970-( for the upcoming '71 model year ) GM brass decreed that compression ratios be lowered across the board to run on low-lead fuels,and every GM car had the compression lowered to 8.5:1 except for LT1 and LS6 Chevys, which had 9:1. Ford and Chrysler still had high compression engines in '71. So the GM Muscle Movement was over, and the options never saw the light of day. The Buick was reportedly destroyed in a fire at the Buick proving grounds; no one knows what happened to the Pontiac. # 5. 1975 455HO Trans-Am. In early 1975, Pontiac dropped the 455 from the T/A's option list, leaving a 185 hp, 7.6:1 compression 400 as the only engine. Enthusiasts and the Buff magazines howled bloody murder. Pontiac quickly came up with a "455HO" performance package that had a 455, a 4-speed and a 3.23:1 axle ratio. Of the 23,000+ T/A's sold in '75, only 857 had this option. Another 7,508 ( out of 46,000 ) were sold in '76.  However-the engine was a garden-variety 7.6:1 compression, "station wagon" 455 that wheezed out 200 hp, not the Ram Air IV headed, round port exhaust, aluminum intake, 068 cammed torque monster from 1971-72. In fact-the buff magazines bitched about them desecrating a classic name, and the "HO" moniker was dropped for '76, and the option simply called "455 Performance Package." Anyhow-I do get tired of constantly hearing some clown talk about these "Area 51" cars. Mastermind                

"No you didn't!".....A#$%hole!!!

Maybe it's the post holiday blues, or maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but for some reason stupid people bother me more than they used to. I guess I should invoke one of "Murphy's Laws"-"Never argue with an idiot, because people might not know the difference."  But sometimes you just can't let shit go in one ear and out the other, you have to disagree. What's getting my goat this week is people claiming to have owned some super-rare car, and after talking to them, you realize they didn't, and their talking out their ass about a totally different car!  Here's some highlights of what's put me in such a state...# 1. I recently sold my one of 1,097 ever built 1973 Hurst / Olds. It was white and gold with the swivel captian's chairs, Hurst Dual / Gate ratchet shifter, digital tach on the console, and the 455 / TH400 powertain. I even had the original owner's manual and the original spare in the trunk. The buyer came all the way from Kansas City, Missouri to buy it. Anyway I was talking about Olds 442s with a co-worker when this clown from another shop looks at the picture of my car and says "I had one just like that." "Just like that?" I said cynically. "You had one of 1,097 ever made?"  Was it black or white? I asked. "It was green." The guy said. "Would you like to go for double jeapordy where the scores can really change?" I said. "1973 Hurst / Olds' were only available in black and gold or white and gold." He produces a picture of green two-door '77 Cutlass!!!  It wasn't even a 442, just a garden variety Cutlass.  Moron!!  I guess you could say their both Cutlasses, but a generic 350 '77 Cutlass is a far cry from a '73 Hurst / Olds!!!  # 2. A neighbor of mine has a for-real, one of 1,603 1969 Boss 302 Mustang.  He had his garage door open the other day and we were chatting about cars. A guy walking down the street stops and says-( I cringe when I hear these words ) "I had one just like that." My neighbor and I both roll our eyes like a 14 year old girl. The guy caught it. "What?" "You don't believe me?" "No I don't believe you." I said. "Of the 299,000 Mustangs Ford sold in 1969, this is one of 1,600 ever built." "I seriously doubt that you had one." "Was it a 4-speed or an automatic?" I asked. "It was an automatic." "Sorry, you lose." "Boss 302s were all 4-speeds." "Mine was a 351, but it looked just like that." "Then you may have had a Mach 1, but you didn't have a Boss 302." The guy calls his wife and has her text him a picture of his old car from their photo album. Sure enough-a nice looking, 1970-not '69 by the way-Mach 1. I'll admit that the Mach 1 graphics look similar to a Boss 302, especially with Magnum 500 wheels and "Sport Slats" ( rear window louvers ) it would be easy to confuse them at 20 feet. But again-a 351C / C6 '70 Mach 1 is a nice car, but it's not a '69 Boss 302!!  # 3. This one really drove me up the wall. I was at Summit Racing and ran into a buddy there. We were discussing rare Pontiacs. The DKM "Macho T/A's" came up. My pal brought up a picture of a blue and silver one on his i-phone. ( What posesses these assholes to insert themselves into two total strangers conversation?? )  A passerby again says-"I had one just like that."  "Except mine was a Turbo."  Knowing that DKM only built about 600 cars from '77-79 and that only about 45 total ( 27 in '78, and another 16 in '79 I beleive ) had the H-O Racing Specialties Turbo installed, we both blurted out in unison, "You had one of these with a Turbo?"  "Yeah." I bought it brand-new in 1981."  Arrrrggghhhh!!! Red Flag right there!! Here's why.  DKM tried to play with a few 1980 Turbo 301 T/A's, but unlike the 400 Pontiacs and 403 Olds motors, they couldn't really be hopped up, especially with the then-fledgling electronicially controlled ignition,carburator and Turbo. They swapped small-block Chevys into a few, but ultimately Dennis Mecham said they gave up, and only something like 7 ( seven ) 1980 "Machos" were built before they quit. There were no 1981 Machos at all. Mecham tried again in 1983 with the "MSE T/A"-( Mecham Special Edition ) but the 305 powered 3rd gen models had nowhere near the success or "cult" following of the "Machos."  After much argument this guy goes to the book section of the store, comes back with a copy of Michael Lamm's book-"The Fabulous Firebird" and shows us a picture of a 1981 Turbo Formula!!!  It wasn't even a T/A!!!  "See, that's the car I bought in 1981!" He says triumphantly. Ugh. Sorry, pal a Turbo 301 '81 Formula, is not the same as a 400, H-O Racing, Turbocharged one of 27 ever built '78 Macho!!!  # 4. Another late '70's "Macho" machine. This one we saw at a Mopar club "Show&Shine". It was a '78 Dodge D150 "Macho" 4x4 pickup. It was pristine, with the black and yellow paint job, roll bar, "Macho" graphics, and huge tires on black spoke wheels. This one also had a 440 under the hood. Since a 400 small-block and a 351 / 400M with a 2bbl were the biggest engines avaiable in a Chevy K10 and Ford F150 respectively, this was a Macho truck indeed. Again-Mr "I have one just like that". shows up. "Is it here?" we ask. "In the Parking lot" "Let's go see it." my friend and I ask. The guy leads us to the parking lot and proudly shows us a long bed, primered, 3/4 ton '76 D200 with a 318 under the hood!!!  Really???  Ok, their both Dodge Trucks, but the similarity ends there!!. That's like saying a V6 regular cab '03 F150 is "Just Like" a crew-cab, Supercharged Harley-Davidson Edition!! ( Basically a 4-door "Lightning" with a 340 hp Blown 5.4 )  You can say I'm splitting hairs,but for god's sake-saying you had something "just like" something rare is pretty stupid, when your not sure what your talking about. I wouldn't walk up to a rare gun dealer selling a "Buntline Special" ( an 1870's Colt .45 with a 10 inch barrel presented to Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, and other famous lawmen by Colt and Sportswriter Ned Buntline ) and say "I have one just like that". And then show him my 1996 Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with an 8-inch barrel!! Yes, their both single-action revolvers, but that's about it!!!  If your not positive, then keep your damn mouth shut, and don't jump into other people's conversations with dumb-ass comments!!  Just had to vent that.  Mastermind            

More cars that "Experts" are wrong on...

I hate to be so cynical all the time, but like I said in the last post I get really tired of people who don't know what they're talking about, are misinformed, or are just plain stupid trying to "educate" me and tell me how knowledgable they are about cars-when their usually wrong. It's infuriating. Here's some more that I get tired of hearing about. # 1. "W31" 1970 Rallye 350 Cutlass. This car was NEVER "Almost" the 1970 Hurst / Olds. There was no H / O planned for 1970.  The Rallye 350 was an "Insurance Beater"-like the T37 Pontiac Tempest, and 340 Duster. ( Insurance companies were jacking up the rates on musclecars, escpecially anything with an engine over 400 cubic inches. ) Anyhow, the Rallye 350 was a base model Cutlass with a super loud Sebring Yellow paint job, body-colored bumpers and a "Judge" type rear spoiler. Power was the standard 310 hp 350 V8 backed by either a 4-speed or a TH350. 3,527 were built, so while rare, their not exactly a moon rock. And they are NOT a 442 in any way shape or form. The 442 was it's own model, and all 1970 442s had 455 cubes under the hood. The "W31" was a hopped up 350 that was available in base model Cutlasses and F85s from 1968-1970. It had special heads and exhaust manifolds,an aluminum intake, and a 308 degree cam, which was why it was only available with a 4-speed and 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears! They were grossly under-rated at 325 hp!!  All that extra hi-po stuff is only worth 15 hp over the base,"station wagon" 350?  Riigghht. The "W31" was in "Insurance Beater" too. Anyhow-Idiots constantly claim to have or know of a "W31" Rallye 350 Cutlass, even though no Olds engineer or other GM employee has ever verified one, no buff magazine has ever verified one, and no one has ever produced a window sticker or build sheet for one!! Arrgghhh!!!  # 2. 4-speed 1969 Hurst / Olds. George Hurst hit one out of the park in 1968 when he took the 455 out of the Toronado, put the "W30" goodies on it and stuffed it a 442 backed by a TH400 with a Hurst "Shotgun" converter and a Dual / Gate shifter. The '68 model also had a cool silver and black paint job. Only 515 were built, but they really boosted Olds' Performance image with all the press they got from the buff magazines. In 1969 The H / O was even more badass. It had an agressive scooped hood, a "Judge" style spoiler, a gorgeous white and gold paint job and rally wheels. 906 were built, all with the 455 / TH400 powertrain. Morons insist that the son of a Michigan Olds dealer wanted one with a 4-speed and that one was specially built. Both Oldsmobile and Hurst Performance deny this, saying all 1969 H/O's ( and all model years after for that matter ) were automatics. Other morons say the father had his service department convert one from a TH400 to a 4-speed. Again, no one has ever shown up at a car show with a 4-speed '69 H / O, with a window sticker or build sheet showing it as an original TH400 car; or with a story or any documentation that it was a "Day Two" modification. The car simply doesn't exist. Think-with only 906 of these ultra-premium cars built-not every dealer got one. In fact with over 3,000 Olds dealers across the country back then-about 90% of them didn't get one!  And if you owned a dealership that did-instead of selling it for an exorbitant profit-your going to give it to your spoiled brat, and then cut it up and make it "non-original" so that if your brat doesn't wreck it, and you want to sell it, it's not worth anything because it's modified??  If your brat wanted a 4-speed H/O, wouldn't it be easier to just convince him to take a "Regular" 4-speed 442? Or swap in a 455 and paint it like an H/O if you wanted to indulge him that badly??  No businessman in his right mind would do that, no matter how spoiled his kids were!!  # 3. 1971-72 GTO Station Wagon. I get so tired of this one. In 1971-72, the "Endura" ( Read GTO plastic front end and scooped hood ) could be ordered on any LeMans model, including wagons. 400 and 455 V8s were available. However-these were garden-variety 400s and 455s, both rated at 250 hp. The vaunted 455HO rated at 335 hp ( '71) and 300 ( '72 ) was only available in the Trans-Am, the Formula 455, the GTO and the LeMans GT. It was never optional in a  wagon, ever. So every clown that claims to have a GTO wagon has a LeMans with the "Endura" front end and scooped hood. Period. # 4. 1971 Cuda AAR / Challenger T/A. The 1970 AAR 'Cuda and Challenger T/A were badass looking with their blacked out, scooped hoods,spoilers,and staggered tire sizing ( E60-15 front / G60-15 rear ) which gave them a mean rake, and loud exhaust that exited in front of the rear wheels gave them a mean sound. With a snarling 340 Six-Pack under the hood, they could back up the image. The option is listed in early '71 sales literature, and there was even a early advertisement for the Challenger T/A in CARS magazine-but thats a '70 model with the '71 grille airbrushed in. The option was killed and never made '71 production. And again-no one has ever produced a window sticker, build sheet, or vin tag for a '71 T/A / AAR.  # 5. 1970 Shelby GT350. These technichally exist. But they are leftover '69 models that were given 1970 vin numbers and sold until they were gone. That's why they have the 351W under the hood, which was the standard Mach 1 engine in 1969. 1970 Mach 1s used the 351C which is totally different. The GT350s are worth major bucks because any pristine Shelby is, but I get tired of hearing idiots tell incredible stories as to why these have the Windsor engine instead of the Cleveland!! They have the Windsor because their re-titled '69 models!!!  Just had to vent that. Mastermind            

Beware of what's written by self-proclaimed "Experts"....

If your searching for a musclecar you really have to beware of falsehoods out there that are perpetuated by self-proclaimed "experts". I grew up in the '60's and '70's, followed my dad into the car business and spent my life working in dealerships and speed shops. Often I was in charge of "PDI"-"pre-delivery inspection" of new cars as they came off the truck. The reason I bring this up is I almost got in a fistfight with a "Know it all" who argued with me that "Road&Track's" 1977 Road Test of a 400, 4-speed Trans-Am was wrong because the writer alluded to the car having a "Rock Crusher" 4-speed. ( If you don't know,GM musclecars used 3 Muncie 4-speeds, the M20,the M21 and the M22. The M20 was a wide-ratio with a 2.52 1st gear. The M21 and M22 were close-ratios with a 2.20 1st gear. The M20 and the M21 had helical cut gears which made for quiet running and smooth shifting. The M22 had straight-cut gears for additional strength. This is why M22s were only used behind L88 427 Corvettes, L78 396 Chevelles, RAIII and RAIV 400 GTOs and Firebirds, 455HO T/A's and GTOs, W30 400 and 455 Olds 442s and 302 and 350 Z/28 Camaros and LT1 Corvettes. Because of the straight-cut gears they were noisy, especially when cold, making a grinding sound that sounded like a kid's rock polisher. Hence the nickname "Rock Crusher". However, some of the buff magazines also hung this moniker on the M21, because it shared the same 2.20 low gear ratio with the M22. In reality, only an M22 is a true "Rock Crusher". ) Anyway-this clown argued that after 1974 Trans-Ams and Z/28 Camaros only used Borg-Warner T10s. He had obviously read this in a magazine. I explained that the writer for Road&Track wasn't wrong, that his test car very well could have had an M21 4-speed. Especially since my dad and I bought a barnd-new 1978 WS6, W72,400, 4-speed T/A in 1978, and I went to the dealership with him to order it, and saw the salesman look in th GM order book and put "M21" on the order sheet in the transmission box!. And when the car was delivered,we put it on the rack in our shop and it did in fact have a Muncie M21 trans, just like it said on the window sticker!! Now some other guys we knew also bought T/A's of this vintage, and some of them had T10s, and some of them had Muncies! I pointed out that except for Z/28's and L79, L46 and LT1 'Vettes, that the Muncies were used almost exclusively with big-blocks. If you had a 350 Camaro, Nova or Chevelle, or a 350 Firebird or LeMans with a 4-speed it was probably a Saginaw 4-speed, which GM used extensively from 1968-79. This guy got spittingly hysterical, quoting more buff magazine articles, and factory sales literature. I tried to explain that what appeared in early sales literature, didn't always make production. Here's a huge one. In early 1973 sales literature the SD-455 was listed as optional in the Firebird, GTO, LeMans, Grand Am, and Gran Prix models. "Cars" Magazine even voted the 1973 GTO their "Car Of the Year". However, we all know that the SD-455 had trouble passing emissions with the hot RAIV cam, which was swapped for the milder RAIII cam and hp down-rated from 310 to 290. They also trouble with connecting rod failure on early prototypes, and with EGR valve function. The engine was finally EPA certified in April 1973 in the Firebird line only. That's why only 295 were built-252 in Trans-Ams and another 43 in Formulas, all with April, May or June production dates.  This isn't an isolated example. Early 1972 Chrysler sales literature lists the 440 "Six-Pack" as optional in the Road Runner and Charger, rated at 330 hp, with 9:1 compression. Quite a drop from the 385 hp and 10.3:1 of the '71 model. However, they had trouble passing the stiffer 1972 emissions standards and the option was scrapped, leaving the 280 hp 440 4bbl as the top performance option. Rumors persist that 10 or 12 "slipped out", but I have never seen one, nor has one ever been verified by any buff magazine or Chrysler engineer, or build sheet.  In 1972 Ford offered a high-performance 351C in Mustang Mach 1s, that was a step above the 266 hp hydraulic-cammed 351CJ.  It had 8.8:1 compression, a hot solid-lifter cam, and was rated at 285 hp. It was only available with a 4-speed manual trans and 3.91:1 gearing. It was basically a detuned "Boss 351" which in 1971 had 11.3:1 compression and 330 hp. In early literature it was even called "The Boss". Ford later re-named it the "351HO". Not many were sold because people didn't know about them, and Ford didn't promote the option. I remember my dad PDI-ing one at Serramonte Ford in South San Francisco. It sounded nasty. In original 1964 sales literature the 442 option is listed as available on any Cutlass or F85 model including sedans and wagons. Again-no one has ever produced a 442 sedan or wagon, no build sheet for one has ever been discovered, and no Olds engineer or employee has ever verified one!  In 1970 the LS6 454 was supposed to be available in the Camaro SS and the Nova SS as well as the Chevelle line. Zora Arkus-Duntov, cheif Corvette engineer fully expected the much more radical LS7 to make production as the Vette's top dog, so the LS6 wasn't offered in the Corvette. At the last minute the brass decided to cut down on "model proliferation"-whatever that means-and the LS7 was killed ( It was sold in parts depts for years later as a crate engine ), and the LS6 installed in the Chevelle line only. That's why there were no 1970 LS6 'Vettes.  In 1967 Pontiac introduced the 400 V8 which had much better breathing cylinder heads than the '59-66 389 and made more power and torque even though it was only available with a single 4bbl. This was partly evolution and partly a GM edict to drop multi-carb setups. Zora-Arkus Duntov and Chevrolet defied the order having a 3-2bbl option on 427 'Vettes until 1969. Buick, Olds and Pontiac complied dropping their tri-power and dual-quad setups at the end of 1966. Since Tri-Power ( 3-2bbls ) had been a Pontiac Performance staple since 1959, the buff magazines howled to the high heavens. All the parts of the '65-66 setup were available through dealership parts depts and it would bolt up to the new engine. Some Dealers like Royal Pontiac would even have their service departments install it if you paid extra. So some clown's dad or older brother could have feasibly bought a new 1967 GTO with Tri-Power on it. But there was NEVER a factory built version!! In early 1965 sales literature,the 409 is listed as available in 1965 Impalas. However the much more modern, "Porcupine" 396 that was introduced in 1965 was the new "big dog" of Chevrolet Performance and the "W" series 409 was dropped. I personally have never seen a 1965 409 Impala, although some people claim that "a few" exist. ( Like 1972 440 Six-Packs ). If anyone can come up with a window sticker, or build sheet, or vin number verified by GM historical services, I will stand corrected. Otherwise I don't think there are any 409 powered '65 Impalas. But I could be wrong. The point I'm making is just because something MIGHT have been offered 40 or 50 years ago, doesn't mean it actually made production. So do some checking before you spend your hard-earned money, and don't take some lunkhead's word just because he has old issues of Car Life or old GM, Ford, and Chrysler sales brochures!!  Mastermind      

My favorite movie and TV cars......

A lot of magazine writers and bloggers write about the coolest movie and TV cars. Sadly-a lot of them are the same, safe choices. The Charger and the Mustang from "Bullitt", the Challenger from "Vanishing Point", the 'wicked "Two Lane Blacktop / American Graffiti" '55 Chevy, "The California Kid", the one-off manual trans BMW 733i from the original "Transporter", the nitroused Audi, from "Ronin", Vin Diesel's Chevelle and Paul Walker's Supra from the "Fast&Furious" series, blah, blah, blah. Don't get me wrong, all those cars are cool, but these writers are trying to put out what they think the readers will agree with. I think I'm a Maverick and an indivdualist, so here's my picks that I think are not only cool, but varied and eclectic, not cookie-cutter-oh, yeah you gotta include the "Eleanor" Shelby clone from the Nic Cage "Gone in 60 Seconds."  Here's the list in no particular order. # 1. '55 Oldsmobile 88 Coupe. Burt Reynolds had one of these in the comedy "W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings".  The movie was a low-budget comedy about a huckster-Reynolds-who managed a country music band with Jerry Reed and others. His ride was two-tone black and gold Rocket 88 with a custom horn. Very cool.  # 2. '57 Thunderbird. Robert Urich drove a red '57 T-Bird on the private eye show "Vegas". Dan Tanna was one cool dude. He had crossover episodes with "Charlie's Angels" and "Starsky&Hutch", carried a six-inch barreled Colt Python, and had the uber-sexy "B" movie queen- Phylis Davis ( "Sweet Sugar", "Terminal Island", etc ) as a secretary / sometime girlfriend. And he had a cool pad inside a casino. Anyway, I always liked '55-57 T-Birds. I know their kind of a mainstream choice, but I'm allowed a couple.  # 3. 1962 Corvette. Todd and Buzz ( Martin Milner and George Maharis ) travelled "Route 66" having many adventures in their cool '62 'Vette convertible. It may have been a '61; I'm not sure, but the '62 had the same bodystyle, and the mighty 327 was a big power boost over the 283, so I prefer the '62 model...With dual quads and....sorry, got off on a rant there. # 4. '71 Ford Custom sedan. Burt Reynolds "Whiskey Runner" from "White Lightning" has got to be the most badass 4-door sedan ever. Forget the Bimmers and Audis from the "Transporter" movies; this had a 429 and a Hurst Competition Plus shifted 4-speed, and with white-letter tires on Super Bee style black rims with chrome lug nuts,and loud exhaust, it looked and sounded like a mean Mofo. # 5. 1974 Pontiac Ventura. Roy Scheider drove a silver Ventura with moon hubcaps and chrome trim rings in the "Seven-Ups", which featured the best car-chase since "Bullitt". I had a Ventura that I stuffed the 400 out of my wrecked T/A in. It was a great sleeper. Most people thought it was a 350 Nova, and were greatly surprised.....I'd love to find another one. #6. '64 Cadillac DeVille Convertible. The Corvette based Kit Car / Ferarri Daytona Spyder replica that Don Johnson drove on "Miami Vice" got most of the attention, but I really dug the drop-top Caddy that Phillip Michael Thomas drove. It's timeless styling still looks good today 50+ years later. # 7. '73 Corvette. McGarrett's girlfriend on the new "Hawaii Five O" drives an Ice Blue '73. I always loved the '73 models for having the ducktail '68-72 style rear, and the urethane front bumper of the '74-79 model. Not only are they better looking, with catalyst-free exhausts they have much more power than the later ones too. I'd love to have either an L82 / 4-speed model or a 454 / Th400 model. I'm not picky. #8 '73 Stutz Blackhawk. This was Elvis Presley's favorite ride. He bought three of them between 1970-75. Based on the Pontiac Gran Prix chasiss, these were status symbols among celebritys in the '70's. Besides Elvis, Evel Kneival, Frank Sinatra and other stars had them. Rapper DMX drove one in the gritty crime drama "Never Die Alone." Dynamite if you can find one. # 9. '67 Olds Toronado. Killer "George Stark" drove a black one with a bumper sticker that read "A High-Toned Son of a Bitch" in the Stephen King thriller "The Dark Half". Still a great looking car, and with 425 cubes under the hood, they move pretty good too. And their front-wheel drive if you live where it snows. I love "traditional" musclecars, but I think these are cooler than the Chargers, Chevelles, Mustangs,etc that were constantly bombarded with. Mastermind

   

The saying about "Cubic Dollars" is still true...

Someone once said "There's no substitute for cubic inches, except cubic dollars."  It's still true today, and it doesn't just apply to engine building. It also applies to car restoration as a whole. A friend of mine recently inherited a '57 T-Bird. He's trying to sell it, and the highest offer he's recieved is $5,000. After seeing the car, I told him to take it and run. How can that be? You ask?  Here's how. Yes, an older relative bought the car used in 1965 and it's been in the family ever since. However-it's been in storage since 1989, and has rust, water, and fire damage!! There was a fire at the storage facility, and the facility's insurance company paid a claim, but the car was never fixed, the money is long gone, and the person who collected it is long deceased. Forget, Concours or show quality,-according to a reputable restoration shop in out area, to get the car in "solid driver" condition would cost between 30-40k. Here's the "Catch 22".  If my friend wanted a nice '55-57 T-Bird ( He doesn't, he inherited it, and hoped he could make a quick buck selling it ) he could easily buy a restored or well-maintained one for $30-40K!!  So, the question being, should he dump the car as is and take a $5,000 profit, or should he spend another $30,000 that he doesn't have-( re-finance his house to fix a car? Not a good idea. ) And then sell it and maybe only make 5K anyway?  Even if he made 10 grand or more on the eventual sale, he'd have to invest 30 and then wait several months to get his return. It's just not worth it in terms of money or time invested. This happens way more than you think.  I've touched on it before, but I think it's worth re-visiting. Here's some tips on how to avoid this pitfall. # 1. An Ultra-rare car missing key components is not a deal at any price.  Obvious examples would be any Hemi-powered Chrysler vehicle missing the Hemi engine, or a Boss 302 or Boss 429 Mustang missing the "Boss" engine. But beyond that, there are others that can be just as difficult and expensive to restore. What about a '63 409 Impala?  The 409 has been out of production since 1965. That's 52 years, and they were rare to start with!! Not like locating a '60's vintage 283 or 327, of which there were millions.  What about a Thunderbolt Fairlane, or a Super Duty Catalina?  Where are you going to find a 427 Ford or a 421 Pontiac in running or at least rebuildable condition?  Well, duh! You say. Anyone knows that. Ok, but lets say you want to restore something as "pedestrian" as a 340 Duster. The 340 was only produced from 1968-73, and they were fairly rare. If you find one in running or rebuildable condition, it's not going to be cheap. And that's just the engine. What if the rest of the car needs extensive work?  Like fenders or 1/4 panels, or a trunk floor? Interior work? Especially if your not a bodyman or mechanic by trade-most competent shops charge $100 per hr or more for labor. It's pretty easy to rack up a $10-15,000 bill on a project. Again-the "Catch 22". If you searched Hemmings, Mopar Muscle, or various sites on the Internet, I'm sure you could find a damn nice 340 Duster for 15 grand!!  # 2. There's other expenses besides the engine and the body. What about undercarriage or suspension damage? If your restoring a '72 Olds Cutlass, you won't have much trouble or expense, because GM "A" bodies- used basically the same suspension from 1964-77. Factory or Aftermarket, anything that fits the wildly popular Chevelle or GTO will fit the Cutlass. Great. What if your restoring a '68 Javelin AMX?  With a broken rear shock mount. Upper and lower, one on the body, one on the rear end?  Never mind price, where in the hell are you going to find a shock mount, or a complete rear axle for a '68 AMX??  Or a front or rear crossmember?  # 3. Everything is not a Chevy or a Pontiac. One of the main reasons for GM musclecars popularity is ease of parts availability and interchangeability. For example-Mopars have different front crossmembers and different Torsion Bars, for small and big-block engines,  And 904 and 727 Torqueflites have different bellhousing bolt-patterns. Not like just "dropping" a 454 into your 350 Camaro or Chevelle,over the weekend, bolting up the TH350, and driving it to work to show your buddies Monday morning!  And God help you if your doing a Ford. Unlike taking a 350 out of a '79 Suburban and dropping it into a '72 Camaro and not even changing the belts,or a 360 out of a Dodge Van and dropping it in a '73 Dart that had a 318, a 351C Ford has a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than a 302 or 351W. And a 351C in an LTD has a different water pump,power steering pump, fuel pump, and oil pan than one out of a Mustang, which is also different than one out of a Torino. A 390 out of a Mustang has all that stuff different from a 390 out a T-Bird, which is different than one out of an F100 Pickup!!  I'm not bashing Fords; I'm just telling you that swapping a 390 out of a T-Bird into a Cougar is going to be way harder than taking a 400 Pontiac out of a Catalina and dropping it in a LeMans or Firebird!!   # 4. "Build your own" or "Cloning" isn' always a viable option. I've talked about some that are-Shelby Mustangs, Yenko Camaros, Hemi Darts, etc. Their easy enough to do, and you can usually re-coup your investment if you don't go batshit crazy on the build. What if your dream car is the 20th Anniversary '89 Trans-Am powered by the Turbo 3.8 V6 out of the vaunted Buick Grand National? They were awesome performers- the GN powerplant made more power and weighed less than the LB9 / L98 305 / 350 Chevys-so they were faster 0-60 and in the 1/4, and handled and stopped better than the already stellar "regular" WS6 T/A.  How are you going to "build" one?  First off, a great condition '89 T/A is still going to bring a King's Ransom. Secondly-where are you going to get a complete GN powerplant and all the wiring?  GN's bring blood and a first-born child in any running condition above basket case. A wrecked one? Good luck. GN restorers pilfer those out of wrecking yards faster than a speeding bullet. If you "Gotta Have" a 20th Anniversary T/A, your better off just biting the bullet and pay the price for one. Ditto for an '85-'88 Buick Grand National, or an '84-86 Mustang SVO.  The same goes for lesser one or two year wonders. How are you going to find a rear spoiler or stripe kit for a '77 Pontiac Can-Am? A "Shaker" hood for a Ventura-based '74 GTO? ( Yes, any T/A shop has the scoop; I'm talking about a Ventura hood with the hole for the scoop already cut out. If you can't find one, how much is a body shop going to charge to cut the proper hole in a "generic" Ventura hood? And since their different from a '74 Nova, where in the hell are you going to find a "generic" '74 Ventura hood, if yours is messed up or missing? )  Where are you going to find a set of upright exhaust stacks for a '78-79 Dodge Li'l Red Express pickup?  Or interior or exterior trim for a '79 Chrysler 300?  Like I've said before, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's feasible either time or dollar wise. Manned space flight is possible, but it's not cheap or easy! Mastermind