If you want the most "Bang" for the buck, then learn the nuances of your chosen car line....

With modern cars having so much computer-controlled electronic ignition and fuel management, automatic shift points etc-"Tuning" is becoming a lost art. However-if you have an old musclecar it can make a huge difference in performance. Even on a stock engine-bad tuning can cost you 40-50 hp. And every engine line is different in what they need and "like".  My dad worked for GM and Ford for years, and I did too, as well as Chrysler. If you want to read old tech articles by Dick Landy,Nunzi Romano,Smokey Yunick, Carroll Shelby, etc-you'll see that what I'm telling you came from the old masters, as well as personal experience. Here's some tips you won't see in the modern buff magazines-because their writers don't know it!! Some of these engines were out of production before the editor was born!!  # 1. Pontiacs like a lot of timing and a lot of fuel. They always have. Many years ago-Popular Hot Rodding had a project car called "Project '32". It was a '32 Ford 5 window that they'd stuffed a Ram Air IV 400 Pontiac and TH400 in out of a staffers wrecked GTO. Needless to say-it was badass-it ran low 12s on street tires and high 11s on slicks-in the mid-70's. They discovered that it ran even stronger when they replaced the Quadrajet with a 1000cfm Carter Thermo-Quad, and went richer than stock on the jetting. It ran stronger still when they kept bumping the timing, finally losing power at 42 degrees total advance!!  The now defunct High Performance Pontiac magazine had similar results. They tested a strong 455 HO that they built. It had a custom 850 cfm Quadrajet with a larger .149 needle and seat. They got the most performance at 38 degrees total-after losing power at 40. However-they were using 91 octane pump gas, and PHR was using 104 octane race gas. Still-the engine liked a lot more timing than stock. They also found that hp and torque increased at every rpm by increasing fuel pressure. The hp and torque numbers were still rising at 9 psi- (which is a lot for a carburated engine; I know modern fuel-injected engines run 40 psi or more ) when they went to 11 and blew the needle and seat off the carb!!  My Judge ran high 11s with two 750 cfm Carter AFBs on an Offenhauser Dual-Quad intake, and it had a stock mechanical fuel pump on the engine, and a Carter Electric pump in the trunk-one pushing, one pulling- and a 1/2 inch fuel line. No one who ever drove or rode in this car would say it was over-carburated!!  Remember-a 455 Pontiac needs more juice than 327 Chevy!!  So if you have a GTO or Firebird or whatever-taking the time to play with timing, jetting, and fuel pressure will easily add 30-40 hp when you finally get it right. # 2. Fords are notoriously under-carburated. The Autolite 4bbl used on 289 Mustangs and other '60's Fords-even 390s-flows about 470 cfm. Carroll Shelby bumped the hp from 271 to 306 on the 1965 289 GT350 simply by adding tri-y headers and a 715 cfm Holley on an aluminum intake. And the buff magazines said that was under-rated-they thought it was putting out closer to 350 hp!  The Autolite 4100 and 4300 are the worst carbs ever built, bar none. I've said before-in the early '70's if you had a Mustang or a T-Bird with cold-starting problems, stumbling, etc-and bitched hard enough-dealers would replace them with a 600 cfm Holley and warranty it!! Now think about this-the performance of your 429 or 460 inch T-Bird is vastly improved with a 600 cfm carb??!!  If you have an automatic transmission I would recommend the 750 cfm Edelbrock Performer as the "default" carb-they come off the line very cleanly-which is important in an automatic transmissioned car-you can't rev them up at the line to "clean them out". They won't over-carb a hot 302, and they'll feed a 390 / 428 or 429 /460 just fine. If you have a manual transmission-then dual 600 Edelbrocks give 452 hp on a 390-more than the 418 registered by the Performer RPM single-quad. Or you can use a 750 or 850 double-pumper Holley on your hot 351, 390, 428 / 429 or whatever-with a stick you can launch at whatever rpm you desire. I've seen Edelbrock and Barry Grant dual-quad and tri-power setups work great even on a 289 with the right cam, gears, etc. Think about it-a 351C or 390 Ford V8 with a 470 cfm carb is like a 250 lb NFL running back trying to run while breathing through a straw!!  Don't go overboard-but I think you get the picture. # 3. Mopars are also badly Under-carburated. The original Carter AVS 4bbl that was used on most Mopars until 1971-only flowed about 585 cfm. They had crisp throttle response-a smaller carb will do that at low-speeds and in the mid-range-but at the sacrifice of quite a bit on the top end. 585 cfm is a little small for a stock 340; for a 383, 400 or 440 it's laughable. Luckily-Edelbrock offers an 800 cfm "Thunder AVS" carb that would be just the ticket. If your car is a '71 or '72 and later with a Carter Thermo-Quad, and it's not warped or cracked ( the bakelite bodies sometimes do ) you can rebuild that-they flow 750 cfm. Summitt offers remanufactured Thermo-Quads in 750 and 850 cfm versions. Or you could use an Edelbrock Manifold and the 800 AVS,-their adjustable secondarys are perfect for an automatic- or if you have a stick-an 850 Holley-especially on a 383 or 440 with a big cam and stiff gears-will rock. Or you could go with a Six-Pack setup or dual-quads. # 4. "Rat" motors need to breathe. I've said it before-and it's true-nothing makes more power for less money than a big-block Chevy. Since engines are basically an air pump-it's true to some extent with all engines-but a Rat will really "wake up" with additonal breathing-headers, cam, and carb and intake. With the possible exception of an 8:1 engine with an automatic and 2.73:1 gears-it's almost impossible to over-cam or over carburate a Rat. Stick to the guidelines of the cam manufacturers-they'll tell you "needs 3.42:1 or stiffer gears and 2,500 rpm converter" or needs at least 750 cfm carb, etc."  Again-think of the 454 as a 275 lb NFL lineman-trying to breathe through a straw!  This is very basic stuff-but sticking to basics can get you a big edge in real-world performance!!  Mastermind              

You have to accept some harsh realities when your buying and restoring a musclecar....

I talk to a lot of people who don't want to accept the realities of classic cars and what it takes to restore or maintain them. They often take on projects that are too much for their finances or mechanical ability or both. Then their disillusioned and angry when they lose money on a project or can't finish it. Here's some good advice to avoid this problem. The first and foremost rule is: Don't expect to make a profit. If you want to go into the business of selling used cars-then do it. But if your buying or building your dream car-then resign yourself to the fact that your out "X" amount of dollars-whether it's $10,000 or $100,000. Chances are-you'll have more in the car than you can ever sell it for. But if you love it, and don't want to sell it, then that doesn't matter. That aside-here's some irrefutable facts that will save you a ton of money and aggravation. # 1. Like it or not-Chevys-and by proxy-other GM stuff are the most popular cars, and are the easiest and cheapest to restore. Nothing makes more power for less money than a small or big-block Chevy. 340 /360 Mopars, 351 Fords, 350 Olds, and 360 AMCs can make as much or more power than a 327 / 350 Chevy-at 1 1/2 times or double the cost. A Chrysler Hemi or Boss-Nine Ford can make as much or more power than a Rat motor-at 2 or three times the cost. A case in Point-the "454HO" GMPP 454 Crate engine makes 425 hp and 500 lbs ft of torque and retails for $5995. The Mopar Performance 426 Hemi crate engine makes 465 hp and 500 lbs of torque and retails for $14,995. You can get an extra 40 hp out of a 454 Chevy-with a better intake or a slightly larger cam-that would cost maybe 300 bucks, not 9 grand!! Pontiac engines are externally identical from a 326 to a 455. Olds engines from a 330 to a 403, and the 400-425-455 stuff all interchanges. Same for 400-430-455 Buicks. All BOP engines have the same bellhousing bolt-pattern. That means you can buy a TH350 out of a wrecked '73 Cutlass and put it behind a 389 Pontiac in a '66 GTO ( in place of an ST300 ) or a 400 in a 78 T/A and it will literally bolt in. Ditto for body and trim parts-a fender or hood, or 1/4 panel or whatever-is going to be cheaper for a Camaro or Chevelle, than it is for a "Cuda or Road Runner, and the Mopar parts are going to be cheaper than parts for an AMC Javelin! And because a lot of GM stuff interchanges- like suspension and brake parts, shocks, crossmembers, trans mounts, radiators, etc-anything that fits a Chevelle will fit a LeMans / GTO, a Cutlass, a Buick Skylark / Regal, and a Gran Prix or Monte Carlo. Anything that fits a Camaro / Firebird, will usually fit a Nova-and a Ventura, Omega or Apollo. Lust after, buy, and restore anything you want-but a Mopar is going to cost more than a Chevy or a Pontiac, and a Ford-especially anything other than a Mustang- is going to cost more than a Mopar. For example-a 302 Ford uses a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than a 351W, which is different than a 351C, which is different than a 390 / 428. And worse yet-unlike Chevys, Pontiacs and Mopars-where oil pans,water pumps, power steering pumps and brakcets, alternator brackets etc are all pretty much the same for many years for the whole line-or at least the small and big blocks-i.e-283-327-350-400, or 273,318,340-360 or 383-400-413-440, or 396-402-427-454, or 326-455-EVERY Ford is different!! In other words-a 390 in a Mustang uses a different oil pan than a 390 in an LTD, which is different than a 390 in a T-Bird, which is different than an F150 Pickup!!  I'm not bashing Fords-I'm just saying that they don't have anywhere near the parts interchangeability of GM and Chrysler stuff-which makes them harder and more expensive to buy parts for. It's just a fact of the business. If your a sports-car nut-it's going to cost less to restore a Datsun 240Z than it is a Porsche 911. The 911 is going to cost less than a Ferarri 308 GTS, and the Ferarri is going to cost less than a Lamborghini Countach!! Get the picture?  And being mad about it isn't going to help!  Mastermind          

Want to find your dream car and save a mint? Lower your sights just a smidgen....

I monitor prices of musclecars all over the net from junkers to frame-off restorations and I'm still amazed at the prices of some of the "premium" cars. Like Nicholas Cage said in the "Gone in 60 Seconds" re-boot-"There's too many assholes out there with too much money. " Here's a couple that left me shaking my head. If I could afford these cars-I'd have bought the lower-priced "lesser" versions. Even if I'd just won the lottery. # 1. On the same website-I saw a restored, numbers-matching, 4-speed, LS6 454 1970 SS Chevelle for $139,000!!  They also had a restored, numbers-matching, 4-speed, L78 396 1969 SS Chevelle for $59,000!!!  They both looked pristine from all the pictures and videos the site had. If you don't know-the L78 and the LS6 share the same compression ratio,solid-lifter cam,rectangular-port heads,780 Holley carb, etc. The only difference is the cubes-396 / 402 vs 454. And the horsepower difference is less than you think. The LS6 is rated at 450, and the L78 at 375. However-the L78 was rated at 425 hp in the 1965 Corvette and some 1965 Impala SS's. The 1966-69 version is identical. It was down-rated because prior to 1970-for some insane reason-maybe insurance rates-GM didn't want their intermediates to have an engine over 400 cubes,or less than a 10 lb per hp ratio. So in a Chevelle it had "only" 375 hp. Pontiac did this too-the Ram Air III 400 had 366 hp in a GTO and only 335 in a Firebird, the RAIV grossly under-rated at 370 in a GTO and 345 in a Firebird!! Maybe because you could get a 426 Hemi or a 440 in a Road Runner, Charger, or Challenger / Cuda, and a 428 in a Mustang-GM allowed the big dogs for 1970-the 454s and 455s. Further-the LS6 was slated to be available in the Camaro and the Nova, but was ultimately only put in the Chevelle line. Except the intake manifold was lowered to clear the low hoodline of the new for 1970 Camaro. The 1970 LS6 intake is so flat that the fuel flows uphill from the carb. The taller, L78 / L72 396 / 427 manifold from '66-69 is worth 15-20 hp MORE than the 454 intake!!  So the percieved power difference is really not that much. In fact-in a real-world drag race the winner would be determined by gearing-i.e.-3.31:1 vs 4.11:1 and traction-whoever got a better launch more than real-world power difference!!  Is 50 cubes worth another $80,000??!!!  Not in my pocket book-even if I'd just won Megabucks in Vegas!! The L78 was a way better deal!! They also had a pristine, LS5 ( 360 hp ) 454 '70 SS for $69,000!! 70K cheaper!! Maybe a grand for an Edelbrock Torker intake and matching cam and carb-and you'll have LS6 performance and save the other 69K!! On the same website they had a pristine 1969 440 Plymouth GTX for $59,000. They also had a pristine 1970 440 Six-pack GTX for $99,000!! Huh? Do you people realize that Edelbrock still sells the manifold, Holley still sells the carbs, and Mopar Performance still sells the throttle linkage and air cleaner? And the whole shebang would cost about 2 grand?  A manifold and carburators are worth 40G's??!!  Again, not for me!!  Trans-Am specialties in Florida had a pristine Buccaneer Red, L75 455, 4-speed '73 T/A for sale for $49,000. They also had a Buccaneer Red SD-455, 4-speed '73 for $149,000!!!  I know-there was only 252 SDs built. But a 100K price difference? I guarantee if you drove them both-you wouldn't feel a $100k difference. They also had an automatic '74 SD-455 T/A-one of 943 built-for $79,000!!  Again-the engine is worth 30 grand?  When for about 2 grand-you could put the Edelbrock Performer RPM Top-End kit-which is basically RAIV aluminum heads, cam and the RPM intake on the "standard" 455 and have-according to Edelbrock-470 hp and 530 lbs of torque!! A helluva lot more than the SD's 290 and 395!!!  I can't see spending that kind of money just to say you have something rare. Of course, I don't have Jay Leno's bank account, but if I did, I don't think I'd be that frivoulous!!  Mastermind        

Good advice for buying and / or restoring a musclecar....

There's a show called "Property Virgins" on one of the cable channels where Real Estate agents help first-time home buyers avoid costly mistakes. Maybe we need something like that for car restorers. Anyhow-here's some good advice that will save you a ton of money and grief.  # 1. Make sure the car has a legal, clear title. This should be a no-brainer, but you'd be amazed at the number of people that buy stuff without a title, or a salvage title and then are furious when they can't get it registered or sell it or trade it in. Because a DMV clerk transposed 2 numbers 18 years ago-I had a helluva time-I had to get a lawyer-getting a clear replacement title for my 442 when I wanted to sell it-and I had  registered, insured, and driven the car for 18 years!! Nothing is a "deal" if you can't register it or sell it!!  # 2. Avoid "basket cases" or cars with major rust damage or water or fire damage. These cars are not a deal no matter how cheap they are. Fixing them will cost about five times what you think it will. Trust me, your way better off in terms of money saved and grief avoided, by just spending more money and getting a better car to start with. # 3. A rare or special car missing a major component is not a deal. Obvious examples would be a Hemi-powered Chrysler vehicle missing the Hemi engine or a Boss 302 or 429 Mustang missing the "Boss" engine. The cost of trying to find a replacement engine for one of these would be so prohibitive that even if you had an unlimited bakroll-your better off just searching for a complete car. Think about it-Where in the hell are you going to find a complete, for-real "Boss 429" engine for sale, at any price? I'm sure some of you are saying right now-"Well, Duh!" "Anyone knows that". Ok. What about a fuel-injected '57 Bonneville or '63 Corvette missing the fuel-injection system? Also-"Duh".  Then you'll consider buying an '87 Buick Grand National or '86 Mustang SVO that's missing the Turbo engine!!  Where are you going to find replacement back glass for a '71-73 "Boat-Tail" Riviera? Or a "Shaker" hood for a '74 GTO?  ( T/A resto shops sell the scoops; I'm talking about the HOOD with the whole in it, for the scoop, for a Ventura, not a Firebird. Good luck with that. ) Which brings up...#4. Unless you want to actually race it on the vintage racing circuit as a toy with a modern crate engine-avoid old race cars like the plague. To "restore" one to drivable,streetable condition is almost impossible. Their always gutted, and they always have an unoriginal engine and drivetrain. You buy a 1970 Pontiac Trans-Am race car. Your going to restore it to "Original" race specs? Guess what? You'll never in a million years find a 303 Pontiac engine. The SCCA allowed 302 Chevys because Canadian Firebirds had Chevy engines, but where are you going to find a 302 Chevy engine that '67-69 Z/28 restorers haven't hoarded?  Your best bet would be throw a small-block Chevy crate engine in it and have fun. Ditto for a Mustang or Challenger. Your not going to find a for-real 305 Mopar or Boss 302 race engine for sale at any price!! With Edelbrock or Trick Flow heads you could build a "Mock" Boss engine, and you could throw a 360 crate engine in the Dodge, but it'll never be "Original" like the ones Parnelli Jones and Sam Posey and Jerry Titus raced!!  The old saying-"If you want to make a million dollars racing, then start with two million" is true. # 5. Be honest about what your going to use the car for. If it's an investment or a show car, then do anything you want. But if your going to drive the car at all-then there's things you should consider. If it gets really hot where you live-Las Vegas, Arizona, Florida, etc-you get the picture. It might behoove you to get a car with working or at least repairable factory A/ C.  If you live in a big city with a lot of stop-n-go traffic-like San Francisco or Los Angeles-an automatic might be a better choice than a 4-speed. If you want a Corvette to cruise the wine country with your wife on weekends do you think a low-compression, hydraulic-cammed small-block model might a little more pleasant to drive ( especially on pump gas ) than an 11:1, solid-lifter, Tri-Power, 4.11:1 geared 427 model?  # 6.  "Run What You Brung". At least on your first project. Yes, it's possible to put a 460 based 514 stroker into a Fox-Bodied Mustang, but do you really want to attempt it?  Especially when I know guys running in the 11s with 302s!!  Manned space flight is possible, but it isn't cheap or easy!!  If you want a big-block 'Cuda, then step up to the plate and buy one that already has a 383 or 440 in it. Don't buy a 318 model and think you'll "Drop" a 440 in it later. After you buy a big-block crossmember,and radiator, torsion bars, swap the 904 Torqueflite for a 727, and replace the 8 1/4 rear with an 8 3/4 or Dana 60 and big-block springs....get the picture?  # 7. Pick the right car for the purpose. If you want to build a corner-carving "G" machine you'd be better off starting with a '75 Trans-Am than you would a '65 GTO! If you want to build a stompin' drag racing big-block Camaro-your better off with a '70's Camaro than you are an '80's IROC-Z. Why? 1st off-a Rat was an option until 1972-so it'll fit easily without a lot of custom fabrication, unlike the 3rd gen models. The 8.5 inch 10 bolt rear ends can take a lot of abuse. Unless you have a 700 hp motor and are running wrinkelwall slicks bolted to the rims-you probably won't have a problem. The 7.5 inchers in the later F-bodies break behind 165 hp 305s!!  Ditto for transmissions. A stock TH350 will hold up behind a 500 hp engine, as will a Muncie or BW 4-speed. The T5 5-speeds only had a 300 lb torque rating. They wouldn't last at all behind a Rat. 200R4s and 700R4s can live behind a Rat, but only after they've been significantly beefed up by a pro tranny shop. See what I'm saying?  #8. Avoid "Niche" exotics and old Kit Cars. They may sound cool in theory-but again-if your going to drive the car at all, eventually it'll need repairs. Where are you going to find a master cylinder for a Sunbeam Tiger? A heater core for a Pantera?  Brake Pads for a Mangusta? Anything for a Bricklin?   Are you really going to go 100+ mph in a "Manta Ray" or "Kelmark GT" that some clown built 30 years ago with a Pinto front end and a Corvair swing axle?  I wouldn't!!  Hope this helps people avoid "Money Pits". Mastermind                                

Ya gotta love the internet....For entertainment value at least!!!

I never got this memo-but somewhere there has to be internet etiquette guidelines that read like this. # 1. If something early in a post rubs you the wrong way, stop reading and vent your anger immediately. # 2. Use profanity so the writer knows you mean business. Racial slurs and homophobic comments will show how intelligent you are. # 3. If the writer responds with proof that you are wrong-i.e.-by citing a sentence or paragraph that you failed to read, you are under no obligation to publicly apologize. This is the internet. You can silently slink away until you decide to pop up again like a noxious weed and spew your hateful venom on someone else.  I say this because some people were apparently mortally offended that I said that under certain conditions-a '66 GTO could beat a '66 Hemi Charger in a drag race, and that a 389 / 400 / 421 / 455 Pontiac was a better STREET engine than a 426 Hemi, or a 427 Ford or a 427 Chevy. I was also "Terminally Stupid" by saying that sometimes "faster" cars can lose to "slower" ones. Well, I feel the need to educate these poor souls. Yes-427 Chevys and Fords and 426 Hemis dominated NASCAR and drag racing in the '60's. Their power-making ability is undisputed. However-If you want to read old road tests-Popular Hot Roddings '69 Hemi Charger road test-they were the people who said the car felt like it was running with one flat tire. It had a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears-and they couldn't break out of the 14s. They said it went quicker by keeping it in 2nd till the end of the 1/4, and that it needed more converter and 4.10:1 gears to hit it's full potential!!  Hot Rod tested an L88 '69 Corvette and were disappointed that in ran high 13s-2 seconds from where "It should be". This was their own words. The L88 had a TH400 and 3.36:1 gears. The writer said they griped at the Chevy test fleet-and later tested one with a 4-speed and 4.56:1 gears that ran lows 12s. Bully for them.  4.56:1 gears?? The engine buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway-that makes for a pleasant driving experience!!  The Hemis and the 427s and Boss Nines are great RACING engines, and under full-race conditions, no the Pontiacs can't make anywhere near that power level. Neither can the 390 / 428 Fords, 383 / 440 Mopars, and 400 / 455 Olds V8s!!   But for STREET driving-the smaller heads etc-build massive low-end torque and will run faster in a drag race / "Stoplight Gran Prix " than these monsters-especially with street tires, mild gearing, and full exhaust systems!!  I want to ask these people-are they 12? Do you have a bumper sticker of "Calvin" ( from the comic strip "Calvin&Hobbes" ) pissing on a Chevy or Ford emblem?  I love the guy who said there was absolutely no way that my Judge could have beaten my friend's 440 / Six-Pack Super Bee in a drag race. Really? You don't think that even bone-stock, a car with 366 hp, a 4-speed and 4.33:1 gears, can get a car length or two off the line and hold onto that lead against a car with 390 hp, an automatic and 3.23:1 gears?  What math are you doing? And-here's the kicker- the RAIII 400 in my Judge wans't stock. It had Hooker Headers, a hotter than stock Crane Cam and roller rockers, an Offenhauser dual-quad intake with two AFBs, and it also had Lakewood coil-spring traction bars and N50X15 Mickey Thompson hot-n-sticky "Street Slicks ". And the guy I bought it from had a bunch of 12.01, 12.03, 12.05 timeslips from a dragstrip in California in the glovebox, and the best one was an 11.79!!  So yeah bud, I'm lying-there's no way that car could beat a bone-stock, automatic, 3.23:1 geared Six-Pack Super Bee running on GR70-15 Sears Radials!!  Who the hell am I kidding? Because a Pontiac can't beat a Mopar, ever right?  Ditto for the clown who said I was "Dreaming" when I said I beat a kid in a '67 SS 427 Impala in my dad's '65 2+2.  Because again-a 376 hp ( stock rating ) 421 powered Catalina with Tri-power,ported '67 GTO heads, ( which had 2.11 / 1.77 valves and bigger ports than the 1.96 / 1.66 "Bathtub" heads ) a "744" cam with 1.65:1 rockers, ( upgraded from the "068" cam and 1.5 rockers ) a TH400 with a TransGo shift kit and a 3.90:1 Posi rear-couldn't possibly outrun a bone-stock Quadrajet 390 hp 427 Impala with 3.31:1 gears!!  Because Big-block Chevys rule, and everything else sucks, right?  The best-though was the guy who said I was "Delusional" when I said that I used to beat '80's "5.0" Mustangs and 400, 4-speed 70's T/A's in my 403 Olds / TH350 powered '77 T/A. I've said before that my T/A had headers and a Holley Street Dominator intake,a custom Carb Shop Jetted Q-Jet, upgraded ignition and a TransGo shift kit. I've also said that it would run 14.9s all day, and it's best ever was a 14.78. If you read road tests of 400, 4-speed, WS6 disco-era T/A's-the fastest was  Hot Rod running a 14.61  and the slowest was Road&Track running a 15.62. ( I guess you could include Hot Rod's July 1978 DKM "Macho T/A" that ran a 14.29-but it was modified; this clown was saying stockers would have stomped my ass ) . If you read road tests of  '87-93 "5.0" Mustangs ( enthusiasts agree these are faster than the '83-86 carburated models ) the fastest was a 14.72 and the slowest a 15.29. So me saying my car that ran consistent 14.9s regularly beat these people or gave them a run for the money they'd never forget-is a bald-faced lie. Ok. And of course there's never driver error, right?  Like the guy in the LS6 Chevelle who got beat by my buddies L34 396 Chevelle, because he totally fried his tires all the way through 1st and 2nd, and by the time he caught traction, my pal was too far ahead!!  But again-were lying because there's no possible way a 396 Chevelle can beat a 454 Chevelle, right?  Like I've said so many times, read the WHOLE article, not just snippets, before you start telling someone how wrong they are!!  Mastermind       

Learn the difference between "Street" and "Race"....And "Bigger" isn't always "Better....

Had some people quoting buff magazine dyno tests after the post on generic engine building guidelines. Do these people ever read the WHOLE article?  One quoted a recent Car Craft single-plane vs dual-plane intake comparo. He didn't understand why the writer said that of all the single-planes, the Edelbrock Torker II offered the most "bang" for the buck for the average guy, even though the hp and torque champ was a Dart / Keith Dorton intake. I understand fully-because I read the whole article, not the just power and torque numbers!!  The test mule was an 11.4:1 compression 406 small-block Chevy with 215cc ( intake port volume ) aluminum heads,1 7/8 headers,and a solid roller cam with 242 / 240 ( @.050 ) duration and .594 lift!!  On THAT combo-yes-the taller than a Victor Jr NASCAR-spec Dart intake made the most power!! However-99% of the people reading the article aren't going to have a combo that radical-11.5:1 compression and a cam with .600 lift??!!  The writer explained that the Torker II would work just as well on a basically stock 8.5:1 350 with stock 153cc heads and a mild cam, or a 10:1 383 with 205cc heads and a hot cam. He was saying unless you went hog-wild-like the test mule-that it was almost impossible to out-power the Torker II, which made it the best deal for mild or wild combos. Another area where bigger is not always better is cylinder heads. Most people don't understand the concept of combustion. Once the cylinders are fully charged, their fully charged!!  Example-if you have a one-gallon bucket-and your filling it from a five-gallon or ten gallon bucket-guess what-when the ond-gallon bucket is full, it's full!! Doesn't matter how much you have left in your bucket. And if you keep filling it-any more is going to be wasted and spill out onto the ground! That's the simplest, best analogy I can make. Understand it?  Several years ago Car Craft built identical 454 Chevy engines-same compression, cam, headers, carb and intake, etc. The only difference was one had "standard" oval-port heads and the other had "High-Performance" rectangular port heads. Guess what?  The rectangular port heads did not show a noticeable gain on the dyno until 6,300 rpm!!  Think about that-now on a street engine or even in a race car-how often are you going to be above 6,300 rpm??  In another one Hot Rod had a ZZ4 350 Chevy that they puit some 210cc Trick Flow heads on. Yes they showed a 40 hp gain-at 6,100 rpm. Here's the kicker though-the "antiquated" stock, 163cc L98 heads were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm up to 4,600!! At some rpms there was no difference, or it was only 1 or 2 hp and 1 or 2 lbs ft.  Again-in most situations-how often are you above 4,700 rpm?  The guy who wrote a book on building high-performance Pontiac engines has a '71 LeMans 455 wagon that runs 11.30s with a Quadrajet, 165cc heads and 3.55:1 gears!! It has Ram Air IV replica cam with 231 / 240 ( @.050 ) duration and .470 lift.  He shifts it at 5,700 rpm.  How is that possible?  Simple-he just accentuated what Pontiac did from the factory-make massive power and torque at low rpm. When you have 500 lbs of torque at 2,500 rpm, you don't NEED to rev to 7 grand!!  He just put together the perfect combination. Since stock Pontiac heads don't breathe much over 6,000 rpm or .480 lift-he doesn't NEED a cam with .575 lift!! With a Pontiac V8-less is more, more often than not. That's why Pontiacs were such awesome STREET engines. While Chevy, and Ford and Mopar were trying to homologate NASCAR engines-the 427s, and the 426 Hemi-etc. The "Little GTO" with small "Bathtub" heads and only 389 inches ruled the street. Again-with 424 lbs ft of torque at 2,700 rpm-you don't need to rev high. Port velocity, and cylinder filling. Remember the one-gallon bucket? That's why a '66 GTO with a 389 could run off and leave a '66 Charger with a Hemi from a light. Especially if the Charger had an automatic and 3.23:1 gears or even a 4-speed and 3.54:1s. Because the Hemi was designed to go 200 mph at Daytona, not rip ass on the street!! With stock gearing it was like running with one flat tire. Testers wouldn't get out of 2nd with Torqueflites or 3rd with 4-speeds by the end of the 1/4!! Now if the Hemi had a 4-speed and 4.30:1 gears, or a 2,500 rpm converter and 4.10:1s, it would have been a very different story, because the mechanical advantage would have got the Hemi into it's powerband quick enough to pass the Goat before the end of the 1/4.  This is how "faster" cars sometimes lose to "slower" ones. This is why many magazines said that the 383 and 440 engines were better on the street than a Hemi. This is why the 428 "FE" is a much better street engine than a Boss 429. I know a guy who bought a "Boss 302" Ford SVT stroker crate engine a few years ago and put it in his '69 Mustang that had an automatic and 3.25:1 gears. He was severely disappointed. It wouldn't idle-and didn't have much bottom-end-in fact it didn't do much below 4,000 rpm. The problem? I can't remember if it was a 347 or a 363-but it was the biggest, baddest one they had in the catalog at the time. It was rated at 450+ hp. I asked him-when you read the brochure and Ford recommended a stick or a torque converter with a 3,500 rpm stall speed and 4.56:1 gears-didn't that throw up a red flag that it might be a little too radical for a daily driver??!!  Why didn't you buy one of the 360 hp or 385 hp 351Ws that would have kicked ass on the street?  "Well, I just went for the one with the most power."  "Guess I should have done some more research."  You think?  A 3,000 rpm B&M converter and some 4.10:1 gears made it much more tractable and livable on the street, and it was really fast when you got on it, but he still didn't like the loose converter around town and the motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway too much!!  So remember "Bigger is not always better ". Hope this helps save people from buying parts they'll be disappointed in!  Mastermind                 

Where does Charlize Theron from the new "Furious" fit on the all-time list? Too early to tell....

A couple times over the past few years people have enjoyed debating my list of the "Hottest Women in Musclecar / Action / Car Chase movies". Had quite a few people ask where I would rank Charlize Theron. If you live in a cave-she was the female lead in the "Mad Max" Fury Road epic last year, and she's the villain in the 8th "Fast&Furious" movie according to the trailers. Couldn't get too excited over "Fury Road". Tom Hardy's Max was a shell of the badass "Man with No Name" type revenger played by Mel Gibson. I mean he spent half the movie tied to the front of a car. Any ass-kicking that was done, was done by Charlize. I know it's not politically correct-but couldn't get turned on by Charlize with a shaved head and a prosthetic arm!! Sorry,just can't do it. Personally-I thought she was her absolute hottest as Keanu Reeves' doomed wife in "Devil's Advocate". I also liked her turn as the evil queen in "Snow White and the Huntsman". I want to meet the guy who kept her chained up naked and barefoot in the wagon-before Snow White's father saved her and married her, and sealed his doom!!  But I digress....All I've seen of the "Fate of the Furious" is the trailers. The action looks way too CGI-enhanced over the top, and all Vin Diesel does is scowl. Charlize does look smokin' hot with the hair extensions dressed in black tactical garb. I'll have to see the movie before I can give her a ranking. But judging from the previous "F&F" movies I seriously doubt if she's going to usurp Jennifer Billingsley, Susan George, Darlanne Fluegel, Jacqueline Bisset, Ali McGraw, or any of the other top-rankers on the list. Had some people gripe that I don't give modern ladies a fair shake. Not true. You have to take into account their performance and how it impacted the movie as a whole. If sheer hotness was all it took-then Raquel Welch would be the undisputed champ. The opening credits of "Fathom"-she doesn't say a word-but she's barefoot in bikini panties and a t-shirt and makes packing a parachute sexy as hell! No "Hannie Caulder" "Kansas City Bomber" and "Mother, Jugs, and Speed" are not classics by any means, but all Raquel had to do was stand there and breathe, and guys would watch. As for modern girls-I think Eva Mendes is smokin' hot and a pretty good actress. Gal Gadot is going to be awesome as "Wonder Woman" But does their 30 seconds in a bikini in "F&F 2" and "Fast Five" respectively top Darlanne Fluegel as "Ruth"-William Peterson's informant / hooker / parolee / girlfriend in "To Live and Die in L.A." who sets him and his partner up to rob a federal agent and tries to abscond with the money? The look on her face when his partner confronts her and says-"Your working for me now". is awesome. I love Scarlett Johansen, but has anything she's done in the "Avengers" "Lucy" or anything else compare to "Carol McCoy" the wife in "The Getaway"-played by Ali McGraw-who screwed a politician to secure Steve McQueen's release from prison, and then killed the guy when he was going to shoot Steve, and stayed with him through numerous car chases, gunfights and other mayhem?  Are you really going to argue that?  Are you going to say with a straight face that Jordana Brewster-woodenly pleading with Paul Walker and Vin Diesel-"Don't fight guys" "I love you both" through 5 movies ( she wasn't in 2Fast 2 Furious or "Tokyo Drift" ) tops "Shake-a-Puddin" from "White Lightning"- played flawlessly by Jennifer Billingsley-who knows she's a slut and doesn't care-tells Burt Reynolds "Roy isn't gonna be standin' there watchin' us"-referring to Bo Hopkins-her gangster boyfriend-while offering Burt a roll in the hay, and  isn't even offended when Burt sets her up for attempted rape by "Big Bear's" henchmen-she helps him escape and drives his wounded ass to a home for unwed mothers for medical attention. We find out that she gave up a child for adoption once. Jordana separating Walker and Diesel once a movie tops that?  There were some other gripes, but I have to refute them too. # 1. Smokey & The Bandit". She may have been the love of Burt Reynolds' life, but just can't excited over chipmunk cheeked Sally Field. "Gidget" "The Flying Nun". Can't do it.  # 2. "The Dukes of Hazzard". The AWFUL movie with Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott and Jessica Simpson. Jessica's horrible, phony, overdone southern accent was grating and annoying and the bikini scene fell flat as overly gratuitous even in a mindless comedy. Catherine Bach-the original "Daisy" was so smokin' hot that the producers made her wear pantyhose under the iconic shorts because they thought showing her bare legs could get them in trouble with the FCC!! ( Kind of like not showing Barbara Eden's abs / belly button on "I Dream of Jeannie" She could run around in the harem girl outfit with her nipples barely covered, saying stuff like "Please don't punish me, Master"-but a belly button is too damn much! ) Nope. Catherine all the way.  # 3. "The Getaway" ( 1994 Version ). Sorry fellas-a then 41 year old Kim Basinger-( still 3 years away from her Oscar win for "L.A. Confidential" ) while hot in a MILF / Cougar way-doesn't come close to the 24 year old Ali McGraw. Her and Steve McQueen had a torrid affair while filming-he left his wife and she left her husband-one of the producers of the film-that must have been awkward-and their chemistry ignited the screen. And Alec Baldwin trying to top the King of Cool?  Like MC Hammer said-"Can't touch this". He and Kim were married at the time, but they couldn't generate anywhere near the heat and passion that Steve and Ali did. # 4. "The Mechanic: Resurrection". Someone brought up this stinker sequel to the stinker re-make of the Charles Bronson classic. Since Arthur Bishop and Steve McKenna killed each other in the 1972 original-the fact that they made out like Bishop survived-obviously to leave room for a sequel-is offensive on it's own.  Jason Statham phones in his usual-"I'm a serious badass, so don't fuck with me" persona, and Jessica Alba-still smokin' hot,yes-but her wooden "damsel-in-distress" performance here makes her turn as a stripper in "Sin City" look Oscar-worthy by comparison. I thought Linda Cristal was way cooler in "Mr Majestyk". She drove the truck in the iconic chase-( footage was used in the "Built Ford Tough" ads for years after ) and helped Bronson take on the gangsters that were threatening him. Alba simply looked fetching and screamed while waiting for Statham to save her repeatedly. No comparison. Anyhow-we'll see in April how Charlize Theron rates-if she even does at all-on the all-time list. Mastermind               

Remember "Guidelines" have "Default" settings....

All the buff magazines tech articles and a lot of the "How To" books-i.e.-"How to Hotrod Small-Block Chevys" "How to build Max Performance Mopar V8s" "How to Build Big-Block Fords", etc, etc use general guidelines on their advice. You have to realize that for the industry as a whole the default test mule is a small-block Chevy. So a "rule of thumb" when choosing a cam, header tube size, a carb and intake, whatever is geared toward a 350 Chevy. And not an 11:1, 370 hp fire-breathing LT1. The industry "test mule" is the 8.5:1 L48 350 that powered millions of cars and trucks in the '70's and '80's and is still being sold as a base-model GMPP crate engine to this day. It has about 200 hp and 280 lbs ft of torque. So if your building a 460 Ford or 455 Pontiac or 440 Mopar-using the "basic" guidelines are going to be very conservative-probably too conservative to get the best performance out of the larger engine.  Here's some myths that definitely need "busting".  # 1. A single 4bbl on a dual-plane intake is the only way to fly. This is a falsehood that's been perpetuated for 50 years. Tri-power 389 and 421 Pontiacs, 427 'Vettes, Six-Pack Mopars, 409 Impalas, 426 Hemis, 427 Fords, all absolutely rock with multi-carb setups, if their tuned right. Edelbrocks Performer RPM dual-quad setup made MORE hp and torque-over 600 hp-on a ZZ502 crate engine-more than their vaunted Performer RPM and Victor intakes!!  Ferarris, Porsches, Lamborghinis and other exotic sports cars had multiple carbs for years. I helped tune a "truck pull" champion a few years ago. It was a Chevy pickup with an alchohol-burning 454 with 4 Webers on it. It smote all comers in biblical fashion, including a Dodge with a blown Hemi in it!!  Manufacturers went to single carbs and later fuel injection because of stiffening federal emission laws and fuel economy guidelines, not lack of perfromance!!  The buff magazines have been saying a single 4bbl is the way to go for 50 years because of ease of tuning, and the ability to make them pretty much idiot-proof.  Like I said in a previous post-some clown buys a Six-Pack Super Bee or whatever-and the second it fouls a spark plug he starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start, much less run properly. If you want the look and sound of a multi-carb setup,especially on a big-block-like a 454 Chevy or even a 400 Pontiac or 383 Mopar-dual-quads will rock if their jetted properly. As for single-plane intakes-they generally make power higher up in the rpm band at the expense of bottom-end torque. So yes-putting a Torker II or Victor Jr. on that L48 350-that loses 30 lbs of torque at low speed- when you only had 280 lbs at the absolute peak-will absolutely kill the performance. However putting a Torker on a 455 Pontiac that makes 500 lbs ft at 2,700 rpm-even if you lose 30 lbs-you still have 470 lbs of tire-frying torque!!  You won't notice any difference in the bottom-end, but the mid-range and top-end will hit like "gangbusters". That Victor Jr that killed the 8.5:1 L48?  Guess what?  On an 11:1 383 it'll make more power ALL through the range, even topping a dual-plane Performer at the low end!!  Even on a 9:1 '79 L82 350 Corvette with a 4-speed and 3.70:1 gears-you'd get better performance from a Torker II or a Weiand Team G than you would a Performer. Because the L82 has the heads and the cam and the gears to use the boost from 2,800-6,500 rpm. The L48 with it's lazy cam and probably 2.73:1 gears behind a TH350 wouldn't do well. See what I'm saying?  # 2. We Shall Overcam. Again-most of the "Guidelines" you see on cam recommendation is based on the ubiquitous SBC. So yes-a cam with 234 ( @ .050 ) duration and .470  lift is going to have a lumpy idle  in a 350 Chevy and need a stick or a 2,500 rpm converter and 3.73:1 gears to work properly. A cam with 232 / 232 duration and .475 lift will idle smooth and work with a stock torque converter and 3.08:1 gears in a 455 Olds!  ( I know, that's the stock cam my 442 had! )  Larger engines can take more "cam" without ill effects-because they have more bottom-end and mid-range torque to start with. Manual transmission cars can tolerate more "cam" than automatics because engine vacuum isn't as important ( most automatics have a vacuum operated modulator that controls shifting. ) and the driver can launch at whatever rpm he desires by manipulating the clutch. Here's a good example. The old standby-the L79 350 hp 327 Corvette cams. It has 224 / 224 ( @.050 ) duration and .447 lift. Even with a stick, this cam would absolutely kill a 305. It will work pretty good in a 327 with a 4-speed and 3.70:1 or stiffer gears. It will be even better in a 350 with a 4-speed or an automatic with a 2,000 rpm converter and 3.31:1 or stiffer gears. It would be really sweet in a 383 / 400 even with a stock torque converter and 3.08:1 gears. So remember-if your building a 460 Ford-what Crane or Edelbrock or Lunati says is a "mild" cam-will look gargantuan compared to the guidelines for a 302 or a 351W!!  Get the concept?  # 3. Gears make it go. Up to a point. Then you hit the wall of diminishing returns. For example if you have a "Smokey & The Bandit" '77 T/A with a 400 Pontiac / Th350 combo with 2.56:1 rear end gears-swapping to something in the 3.23:1-3.42:1 range will give you a huge boost in performance-drop your 0-60 and 1/4 mile time by 1/2 a second or more without hurting freeway cruising rpm or drivability too much. So if 3.42:1s are good, wouldn't 4.33:1s be awesome?  No!!  Here's why. 1st off-the stock L78 400-while having a lot of torque for a low-compression "smog" engine-is pretty much all done in by 5,000 rpm. With the 4.33:1 gears you'd literally run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4 mile!!  And having the motor buzzing at 3,800 rpm at 65 mph on the freeway wouldn't really be a pleasant driving experience!!  Especially with big blocks-gearing isn't as important as people would have you think. I swapped the 3.08:1 gears in my Hurst / Olds for some 4.10:1s figuring it would make it really a rocket off the line. You know what's funny? The car wasn't one iota faster in low gear. My 60 ft time didn't change one ounce. It was however noticeably faster in the 1/4 and MUCH stronger on the top-end in 2nd and 3rd, due to the extra torque multiplication! Huh?  That's because the 455 had enough torque to launch the car quickly even with the 3.08:1s. And the 4.10:1s only worked because the 455 had a hot Lunati cam, headers and an Edelbrock Torker intake and I shifted it at 6,200 rpm ( 1-2 ) and 6,500 rpm ( 2-3 ). If the engine had been stock-where it had massive torque but was all done in by 5,200 rpm-like I said I'd have run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4.  Gears mainly help small engines-a 302 Ford, a 327 Chevy a 340 Mopar-these high winding engines are going to do better with 3.91:1 or 4.30:1 gears than say a 440 or a 454 or a 460. I know a guy who built a mega-torque 454 for his '74 Chevelle Laguna. The car ran 12.80s with 2.73:1 gears. Pretty impressive. He figured hell-I swap in some 3.73:1s and break into the high 11s easily. He swapped the gears and the car was faster, but not much. With the 3.73:1s it only ran 12.40s. He hit the point of diminishing returns. Yes, he could have hit the 11s-but he'd have needed a bigger cam, a higher stall speed converter, maybe a bigger carb and intake-which would have ruined the cars drivability and idle quality. What made it so cool was it purred like a kitten-till you hit the loud pedal-and then "Dr Jekyll" turned into "Mr Hyde!".  To get to the 11s he'd have had to live with "Mr Hyde" all the time!  Which he didn't want. He switched back to the 2.73:1s because he liked the top-end on the highway and the relaxed cruising at 65-75 mph. So be careful, and try to err on the side of caution-but remember-"basic" guidelines are always set for a stock small-block Chevy!!  Hope this helps everyone out. Mastermind                     

Besides being "Period Correct" "Old School" parts can really rock...

If your "Restifying" a '60's or '70's car you probably want it to run like a scalded cat, but you don't want a bunch of 21st century parts on it. I get it-you want your say '68 Camaro to look 60's cool under the hood. You don't want an MSD HEI distributor, Vortec heads, a Performer RPM intake and a Demon carb, etc. Well don't despair. There's a lot of "Old School" parts out there at swap meets and on the internet that still make SERIOUS power, and have the added bonus of being "Period Correct". Here's stuff to look for. #1. Aftermarket Intake Manifolds. As long as their not cracked, a 40 year old intake will flow air and fuel just as well today as it did 40 years ago. In the '70s Edelbrock had some single-plane intakes for small and big block Chevys. There was the Torker, the Tarantula and the Scorpion. They all really rocked from 3,000-7,000 rpm or so. Now a modern Performer RPM or Torker II or Victor Jr might make a bit more hp and torque on a dyno-But on a given engine-say a hot 350 or even a 454-in real-world drivability or at the drags I doubt that you'd notice a difference in the seat of your pants or on a timeslip. And this just doesn't apply to Chevys. Edelbrock still makes the "Old" Torker for some engines-351C Fords, 455 Olds,360-401 AMCs. Holley had a line of single-plane intakes in the '70's and 80's-they were called "Street Dominator" and "Strip Dominator"- and they worked great. The "Street Dominators" made power from idle to 5,500 rpm. The "Strip Dominators" made power from 3,000-7,200.  I had one on my 403 Olds powered '77 T/A, and I had one on a 400 Pontiac powered '78. They were also available for small and big block Chevys, small and big block Fords, and Mopars. A buddy put a "Strip Dominator" on his 396 Chevelle and it made a Huge difference in the mid-range and top-end performance, and didn't really hurt the the bottom end. Weiand had their "X-Celerator" line of manifolds, and Offenhauser had a line of single and dual-quad intakes. I had an Offy Dual-Quad intake on my Judge and it was awesome. I have one in a box in my garage that I bought from PAW years ago in case I decide to build another Stompin' Pontiac!  The point I'm making is these parts are great buys, their "Period Correct" and honestly-if a modern Performer RPM or Team G makes 10-15 more hp-guess what? You won't miss it!  # 2. "Old-Style" distributors. Accel and Mallory still make point-type and electronic old-style-i.e.- point-type cap design distributors. Petronix makes an excellent electronic conversion that fits under a point-type cap and looks stock. Their still selling because they still work-way better than a 40 or 50 year old stock point type-and they don't ruin an "Old-School" car's look like a large-cap HEI or an MSD Billett distributor would. # 3. "Classic" or "Reproduction" Cams. Crane, Lunati, Competition Cams, and other companies all offer exact replicas of classic musclecar cams, both hydraulic and solid-lifter designs. Since people can't see the cam-I'd go with a more modern design that's computer optimized and has more power and torque,more vacuum at idle, better gas mileage etc. But if you "Gotta Have" the classic sound and feel, there's nothing wrong with an "Old School" cam. The classic 350 hp 327 Chevy cam won't pass smog like the later L46 / L82 cam-( which had identical duratuon and lift, but less overlap ) or make as much peak power as a modern Comp Cams Magnum or Edelbrock Torker II design-but in a 350 or 383 with 3.42:1 or stiffer gears it will rock-n-roll, and pull hard to 6,500 rpm. The same goes for other classics-you can buy a cam that makes more power and torque than the "440 Magnum" cam-but the old standby will be good enough for 99% of the people who love Mopars. And if your car is say an L78 Chevelle-nothing sounds like a high-compression, solid-lifter Rat motor at full wail!!  I don't care if a new hydraulic "Rollin Thunder" roller can make 25 more hp, it can't touch the sound!!!  Anyhow-you can have the classic look and great performance with these Old School parts. Like Arnold said in the last Terminator movie-while kicking some serious ass- "Old, not Obsolete."  Amen. Mastermind        

More tips from the vault of vast experience...

Here's some more tidbits I've learned over the years that may save people some money or grief when restoring a car.  # 1. I don't like Holley carbs. Other people have had great success with them, but in 40 years I have never had much luck with Holleys. The power valves blow,the floats sink, they bleed over. The double-pumpers get horrible mileage even by musclecar standards. When I bought a ZZ4 GMPP crate engine a few years ago it came with a brand new 770 cfm Holley Avenger carb, supposed calibrated specifically for the ZZ4 by GM and Holley. It worked for about three weeks. Then the car became very hard to start when hot. I would have to crank and crank the engine to get it to start. Thank God I had a strong battery and starter! It also developed a stumble at low-speeds. I replaced it with a Jet Performance Quadrajet and the car ran flawlessly and started easy cold or hot. I've had this experience on many cars owned by me, or my friends or my customers. I have had great luck with Carter AFB's, with Edelbrock Performers, with Quadrajets, with Carter Thermo-Quads, and Demons. I'm not disparaging Holley Products-I'm just saying that I personally never had much luck with them. That's why I always recommend Edelbrock carbs-I've never had a problem with one of them.  # 2. I don't like Champion Spark Plugs. I've had great luck with AC, Autolite, and NGK plugs in domestic and import cars and motorcycles over the years. Champions seem to foul a lot. And it doesn't matter how rich or lean the carb is. I've had people with cars and bikes that ran horrible. Swapped the Champion plugs for Autolites or NGKs-ran like a champ. Again-other people swear by Champions. I swear at them. Just my experience. # 3. Don't use Auto Parts store Ignition components. I don't care if it's Autozone, Pep Boys, Napa or whatever-these "house brand" points don't work. They will close up, they'll bounce over 4,000 rpm won't hold a dwell setting. The rotors burn up, the caps arc between cylinders, the stuff is terrible. If your running a point-type distributor use Genuine AC-Delco points, condenser, rotor and cap on GM stuff, Motorcraft stuff on Fords and Mopar Performance stuff on Chryslers. Or use Accel, Mallory, or MSD parts. These premium brands have brass contacts instead of potmetal or aluminum, and the plastic is higher grade. Ditto for wires. The house brand wires break, they jump fire between cylinders, cause static in your radio, etc.  If your not using Delco, Motorcraft, or Mopar wires then use Borg-Warner, Accel, MSD, or Mallory. You'll get much better performance and reliability with the premium components. # 4. Use Hooker or Hedman or Doug Thorely Headers. These three brands have given me many years of trouble-free performance on various vehichles. Whenever I had a customer with major exhaust leaks, warped or cracked headers or constantly blowing exhaust gaskets, they invariably had some "off brand" of headers like Blackjack, Flow Tech, etc. When they switched to Hooker or Hedman, no more problems. They use a higher grade of steel to start with, their machining is better, their contact surfaces are straighter. If your going to put headers on your car-spend the 300 or so bucks for these. The $129 specials will give you nothing but grief-ill-fitting, leaking, cracking, etc.  #5. Don't use "House Brand" cams. I have never had a problem with Crane, Lunati, or Edelbrock Cams. People who have bought Summit cams, Chet Herbert cams, Howards cams, etc-have had them go flat in less than 3,000 miles, backfire through the carburator etc. Stick with the name brands. They flat work. Crane and Lunati offer exact replicas of classic musclecar cams both solid and hydraulic if you want to go that route. They also have some that are computer optimized and actually make more power and torque and retain good idle quality. Think-do you want a 1964 camshaft profile or a 2016 one?  Anyhow-I'm not disparaging certain products, I'm just stating what I've had good and bad luck with. And hopefully that will save people some money and hassle. Mastermind