More on "Butchered" projects...

A lot of people hold the opinion that a classic car that is modified in any way is "Butchered". I disagree. Gearheads have always played with cars and modified them in the never-ending quest for more speed. I saw a great article in a magazine. A guy bought a '57 Chevy. The 2nd owner had made it a race car in 1962, running a 389 Pontiac with a blower, backed by a B&M prepped Hydro-matic. It has the typical '60's "gasser" look-which I love-radiused rear fenders, straight front axle, big-n-little tires.  The car was raced up until the 1990s, always with Pontiac Power. It currently has a 400 Pontiac / TH400 combo. Refreshingly-the current owner said he was going to fix a few things and paint it,and keep running it at the drags, with the Pontiac powertrain!! He was even hunting down a Pontiac Blower setup!  Now that's preserving a piece of hot rodding history, rather spending a gazillion dollars restoring to "Just as it left the factory" status. I salute the guy and wish him luck with his very cool "barn find".  I saw two very badass Chevys at a recent show-n-shine of a local Chevy club. One was a 1965 Corvette. It had radiused and flared fenders covering huge tires on Halibrand mags, the front bumper had been removed,it had chrome sidepipes and it was powered by a nasty 396 that had dual-quads. I loved it. It was totally badass in a very '70s way, yet still looked and sounded cool today. Of course some asshole had to comment on how sad it was that someone "butchered" a classic 'Vette. By flaring the fenders and removing the front bumper?  Puhleeze. I talked to the owner-he said he bought the car in 1984-from the second owner who bought it in 1972. Like I thought-the cool mods were done in the early '70's, and thank god over the years the subsequent owners didn't feel the need to "Make it Right"-i.e.-return it to stock. The other one was a '68 Camaro. It had fat tires on Minilite wheels,flared fenders,front and rear spoilers,a domed fiberglass hood with a 427 'Vette style power bulge, and loud exhaust that exited in front of the rear wheels,giving it a very Trans-Am racer look. It was powered by a nasty 327 backed by a Muncie 4-speed. A nice little touch-it had a 750 Double-Pumper Holley on an Edelbrock "Scorpion" single-plane manifold,and the owner had painted the little cast Scorpion emblem red. It looked cool. It had finned "Mickey Thompson" valve covers-very 70's period correct-and the water pump, the alternator and brackets, and the radiator support were all chrome. The hoses all had the stainless steel braid covering that was popular in the early '80's. It was a very slick-looking car, with the power to back up the image. It reminded me of the Camaro driven by Paul LeMat-( The '32 Ford driver in "American Graffiti ) in "Aloha, Bobby and Rose". Of course some "Just as it left the factory" type had to turn up his nose at it. I don't get that. If you bought a new Mustang G/T or Challenger R/T today-would you leave it totally stock for the next ten years? You might, but chances are better that you would add a K&N air filter, a Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust, a Hurst shifter and maybe some aftermarket wheels. More hardcore types might invest in a computer chip, a cam, some higher per hr flow injectors or even a blower. And 30 years from now-some asshole will gripe how you messed up the car!!  I'm kind of a middle-ground guy on this issue. Yes I think the guy who took a pristine, for-real fuel-injected, '63 Split-Window Corvette, and "Pro-Streeted" it-I mean gutted the interior, put a roll cage in, put 33 inch slicks with wheel tubs on it, and installed a tunnel-rammed 454 back by a powerglide with a trans-brake,ought to be dragged out into the street and shot, and his house burned to the ground. On the other hand an SS396 Chevelle is not "ruined" because it has 17 inch radial tires on aftermarket wheels, halogen headlights, and an HEI Distributor!! See what I'm saying?  A Ford I saw was pretty cool. It was a '63 Falcon. I know-"Ford Falcon" and "Cool" are rarely used in the same sentence, but this one was. It had a Mustang II front clip which gave it rack&pinion steering and front disc brakes. It had a roller-cammed 302 backed by a 5-speed-obviously pirated from an '80's or '90's Mustang. The interior was cool with aftermarket gauges, and Recaro-style seats and a leather-wrapped Grant steering wheel. It was really fast, and looked cool. I know I gripe about modern fuelie swaps all the time-but this wasn't a numbers-matching Boss 302, it was a '63 Falcon!!  Who gives a shit what you do to a '63 Falcon?  Anyway-have a little tolerance-just because a car has some modification that you wouldn't do-doesn't automatically make it a piece of crap!!  Mastermind    

Sometimes something "Butchered" can be a deal....

I talk to a lot of people who pass up screaming deals on great stuff because in their opinion the car is "butchered"-i.e. doesn't have the original engine, or has bodywork or modifications that they don't like. On one hand I agree that anyone who even thinks of cutting up the trunk of a Hemi 'Cuda for wheel tubs, or putting a Coyote into a Shelby GT350H, or an LS engine into a '63 Split-Window Stingray ought to be drawn and quartered and have his entrails cut out and burned. Absolutely. But 99% of these cars I hear about and see are not nearly that offensive. In fact-sometimes the "offenses" are so mild I'm scratching my head and thinking-"Your griping about that??"  Really?  Here's some examples. # 1. 1964 LeMans. I thought this car was way cool. It had a sinister black paint job, American Racing Torq-Thrust mags and radiused rear wheelwells to clear big tires. It also had a snarling 425 Olds V8 backed by a TH400 with a transbrake. The guy had timeslips showing that the car ran 11.30's. In my opinion a cool, badass hot rod. The guy that was considering buying it turned up his nose because of the Olds engine and  the radiused rear 1/4s. Puhleeze. I told him-1st off-"It's a LeMans, not a GTO." "So it's modified." "It's totally badass and runs 11.30s!! I'd buy it and drive it the way it is!! "However-"If you want to make it a GTO clone or just convert it back to Pontiac power-it's pretty easy." "Buick-Olds-Pontiac engines have the same bellhousing bolt pattern, so you don't even need a new trans." All you have to do is find a Pontiac-any Pontiac in a junkyard that has a 400 or 455 under the hood and get everything." "By everything I mean the alternator and power steering brakcets, belt pulleys, etc." "It wouldn't be that hard to do." "I Like the radiused rear wheelwells." "Very period correct, gasser style looking." "But if you hate them-Year One and a zillion other companies sell '64 LeMans / GTO 1/4 panels." Not that hard to remedy." "And the price is dirt-cheap". "If that car had a 421 Pontiac in it, you and all the other people who have passed on it would be fighting with machetes to give him double what he's asking." "Recognize a steal when you see it." Nope. He passed it up, and paid way more for a 326 / ST300 powered '66 model that wasn't as nice because it was "original".  #2. 1965 Cutlass. Same deal-a '65 Cutlass with a straight, rust-free body, and a 454 Chevy backed by a Muncie 4-speed. The car was awesome, and quick. Again-it was an F85 / Cutlass post coupe-not a 442. I'd have drove it the way it was. I told the prospective buyer-"If you really want to convert it back to Olds Power-all you'll need is a Lakewood BOP bellhousing, and a flywheel for a 455 Olds." "Again-go to a junkyard and it doesn't have to be a Cutlass or 442-any big Olds 88 or 98 or Vista Cruiser wagon-get the 455 and all the brackets and accessories.". "You can sell the 454 Chevy and make some money back too."  Nope. No deal. # 3. 1987 Buick Grand National. This guy really needed his ass kicked for passing up this car. It was a for-real GN, with a pumped up Turbocharged 4.5 liter motor. The previous owner had spent a ton of money-and located a 252 inch Buick V6 block. He had Kenne-Bell bore and stroke it, and it was 270 inches. Quite a step up from the stock 231. It had a bigger turbo, ported and polished and o-ringed heads, a special wastegate, a Jacobs ignition that was adjustable from inside the car, a Kenne-Bell prepped TH200R4, and it had radiused and flared rear fenders to clear 275/60R15 drag radials, and Lakewood coil spring traction bars. It ran 10.60s in the 1/4. If Darth Vader or Satan drove a car, this would be it!! If I'd had the money at the time, I'd have bought it!! I even tried to get a quickie home-equity loan to buy it, but it didn't work out.  Did the ass-clown buy it? No!! He paid MORE for a stock one because it wasn't "Butchered".  UGH!!  # 4. 1979 Indy 500 Pace Car Mustang. This one was cool. It was originally a 4-banger model. The seller had bought this one not running. He then took the 205 hp Turbo engine, 5-speed tranny, disc-braked 8.8 rear end, 16" wheels and tires, and Recaro seats out of his totalled '86 SVO Turbo Mustang and put them in the '79 body!!  He drove it for a year or two, and when he got married and had kids decided to sell it and get an SUV. But the car was awesome-it had the cool Pace Car Paint Job and graphics, and the badass SVO powertrain. The propective buyer turned up his nose because it wasn't "original". I was incredulous. "Who in the hell wants an "Original" '79 Mustang??!!" "They were dogs!!" "You'd rather have a normally aspirated 2.3 liter 4-banger that wheezes out 85 hp, or a 2bbl 302 that wheezes out 120 backed by that crappy wide-ratio manual 3-speed with an overdrive that Ford gratuitously called a 4-speed or a C4 slushbox-I mean that's the two powertrain options for '79 Pace Cars-instead of the state of the art 205 hp, high-winding SVO / Close-ratio 5-speed setup." "Yes."  Like Ron White says-"You can't fix stupid."  # 5. 1974 Camaro. This car had Minilite wheels on it, and a rip-snorting 396 Rat Motor. It had a two-tone paint job like the Baldwin-Motion cars, although it wasn't a Motion car. It was however, a great looking Camaro that really ripped. It would smoke the tires as long as you wanted to stay on the throttle. The prospective buyer pooh-poohed it because it had an aftermarket flip-up sunroof.  I'm not kidding. That was the major objection. These stupid little flip up sunroofs were immensely popular in the '70's and '80's. I don't particularly like them either-but their are a lot of '70's and '80s Camaros, Chevelles, Firebirds, Mustangs and Dusters, etc that have them, unfortunately. You could live with it, if it doesn't leak-or check with a reputable body shop about patching the roof-if you really love the car otherwise and it's cheap enough. Anyhow-I didn't see any of these previous owner mods as irreversible or a deal-breaker but these other people did. You have to decide for yourself on the individual car. But think hard before you blythely dismiss something that may be deal of the century because of one little thing.  Mastermind                    

Sometimes you just have to trust people...And your gut...

I've had some people agonizing over whether or not to buy really nice cars because they can't fully document them. If your buying a Ford you can send in the vin number and get a Marti Report that will tell you everything. If your buying a Pontiac-you can contact Pontiac Historical Services and get a copy of the original window sticker. Other stuff can be harder to chase down. For example for the entire time they existed-1964-87-El Camino sales weren't tracked separately. They were lumped in with Chevelle / Malibu sales. So if your trying to document an LS6 El Camino SS-or an LS5, or L34 or L35 for that matter-it's going to be hard if the seller doesn't have a build sheet or window sticker. And who does on a 50 year old car that's had 10 or more owners?  You'll just have look at the car carefully. And sometimes hi-performance models were options on the base car. In 1964 the GTO package and the 442 package were options on the LeMans / Tempest and Cutlass / F85.  From 1965 to 1971 the GTO and 442 were separate models. In 1972 they reverted to option status. So if the vin number says your 1972 GTO / 442 is a LeMans / Cutlass-don't panic. Chances are the car's not a "fake". For example-the Z/28 package has always been an option on the Camaro-even in the glory days-1967-72. The Super Bee package was an option on the Coronet, except for 1971-when they based it on the Charger. However-the Road Runner was always a separate model from 1968-72. Most premium GM models built from 1967 on have front disc brakes. I say most-I had a '68 SS396 El Camino that had 4-wheel drum brakes. But for the most part SS Chevelles, GTOs,442s, etc-will have front disc brakes.  Not so with Mopar stuff. I have seen 440 GTX's and Chargers and Road Runners and Super Bees with 4-wheel drum brakes. I saw a 440 / Six-Pack Super Bee once that had drum brakes, and was original and documented. Now who ordered a 4,000 lb car with a 390 hp engine, and didn't get power disc brakes??  There's other little tells to look for. For example-if your considering a 340 Duster-remember the 340 package included an 8 3/4 rear end-an upgrade from the slant-six / 318 models 8 1/4 rear. If it's an automatic 340 models got a 727 Torqueflite; six-cylinder and 318 models got a 904. With GM stuff for the most part big-block cars got TH400s, small-block cars got TH350s. For the most part. However I know for a fact that 350HO Firebirds and LeMans models had TH400s. Corvettes from 1968-72 even 327 and 350 base models got TH400s. Conversely-1975 and later Formula Firebirds and Trans-Ams-even 400 models got TH350s. Partly because the engines weren't as powerful as the older models, but mostly for Catalytic Converter clearance!!  As for GM manuals-except for Z/28 Camaros and W31 Cutlasses-which had M21 or M22 Muncies-small-block cars usually had Saginaw 4-speeds. A lot of the big-block cars 396 Chevelles, 400 GTOs and Firebirds, 400 442s-had M20 Muncie 4-speeds which was considered a wide-ratio and had a 2.52:1 low gear. The M21 and M22 were close-ratios and had a 2.20:1 low gear, and for the most part were used behind Ram Air III and IV Pontiacs,as well as 455HOs, W30 Oldsmobiles, and L78 396s and 427 and 454 Chevys. And a posi was an extra-cost option on most models. My best friend in high school had a 1970 SS396 Chevelle. It was an L34-350 hp model. It had front disc brakes and the cowl induction hood and rally stripes. Yet it had no console, no tachometer and a 3.31:1 open rear end. It did great one-tire burnouts!!  You have to remember that back in the '60's and '70's you could order almost anything you wanted on any model. Their rare-but I have seen Gran Prix's and Monte Carlos with 4-speeds from the factory. Bucket seats were optional on most models. So it's very likely that you will find a 383 Road Runner or 396 Chevelle with bench seats and a column shifter!! ( If it's an automatic ). While there's a lot of strippy Mustangs out there-most Cougars from 1967-73 are going to have cool options like front disc brakes, upgraded interiors, factory A/C, and larger engines. Most non-Mach 1 Mustangs have 289 / 302 motivation. Almost every Cougar I've ever seen has 351W, 351C, or even 390 motivation. The point I'm making is do some research and have common sense. A lifelong Pontiac enthusiast-I've had a guy try to sell me a '70 "Trans-Am" that had a wood dash and no tach and a 350 V8. All 1970 and later T/A's had the brushed aluminum dash panel and full instrumentation-and the standard engine was always 400 cubes, except for '71-73 which all had 455s. This was obvioulsy a base-model or Formula 350 Firebird that he'd put T/A body trim on!!  The same thing-another guy tried to sell me a '68 "GTO" convertible that had a 350 and a 2-speed ST300 trans. Obviously it was a gussied up LeMans. 1968 GTOs all had 400 cubes standard, and if they were automatics, they were TH400s!!  So be careful, and sometimes you have to trust that the seller is on the level.  Mastermind    

More classic flicks that didn't get sequels...or shouldn't have

Part of the problem with doing follow-ups to cult classics goes back to the writer's vision. Back in the '70's everything was existential, and you had to be punished for your misdeeds. How could they do a sequel to "Vanishing Point" when Kowalski went out in a blaze of glory at the end?  Ditto for "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". The death crash with the train was used in the opening credits of "The Fall Guy"-the hit series with Lee Majors as a stuntman / bounty hunter for years. I wish they'd have went a different direction. What if Vic Morrow's obsessed sheriff caught them and sent them to prison?  Mary could have lied and said they kidnapped and raped her and walked away scot-free. She could have even took the money from the robbery and hidden it.  After a few years in jail Larry and his mechanic could either escape or get paroled. And now they'll seek out Mary to get their money back. She can be living the good life-maybe even have a husband and a kid. And now her past has caught up with her. She can beg for her husband and kids safety and offer to get them the money. Like in the first one-"Mary"-the smokin' hot Susan George-could have spent a lot of the movie scantily clad, and since they don't trust her maybe even drugged and / or bound and gagged. She has to find a way to get away from them or kill them, because she's pretty sure once they get the money they'll kill her. Vic Morrow's obsessed sheriff could be on their trail again-out of his jurisdiction. Maybe Mary even contacted him in the hopes that he'll save her. That would have been a great crime / revenge thriller-except they killed everybody at the end of the first one!  Another one that had room for a sequel if they hadn't killed the sheriff at the end was the "California Kid". If you've seen the movie Martin Sheen's character had a poignant, almost romance with Michelle Phillips who was a lonely waitress working in the town's only diner and living in a trailer behind it. What if she decided to go with him when he left town? He could still outrun the Sheriff on the deadly road. But instead of the sheriff crashing to his death he could put out an apb saying that the "Kid" kidnapped the waitress against her will. The maniacal sheriff-played with glee by Vic Morrow again-could lead the pursuit across state lines. Plenty of opportunity for car chases and "Getaway" style action as Sheen and Phillips try to prove their guilty of nothing but driving too fast. That would have been cool. Or how about "Thunder Road?"  Robert Mitchum's character went out in a blaze of glory-are you seeing a recurring theme here? But his younger brother who he was trying to keep out of the moonshine business could take over. That would have worked. Of course there's others that they definitely shouldn't have tried or thankfully didn't. They tried to do a 3rd "Bandit" movie without Burt Reynolds. It was awful, and it flopped. I thought the "Dukes of Hazzard" movie sucked. The TV show was definitely done tongue-in-cheek, but it was cute. John Schneider and Tom Wopat had good chemistry as good ol' boys living on the edge, Catherine Bach was smokin' hot as cousin Daisy and Denver Pyle was cool as uncle Jesse-a semi-retired moonshiner. The now deceased Sorrell Booke was hilarious as the scheming Boss Hogg, and James Best was likable as the Barney Fife like sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane. And like Kurt Russel's evil stuntman Mike said in Death Proof-the stunts were real, no CGI. They totalled something like 216 '68-70 Chargers during the series run. The casting in the movie was awful. Stifler as Bo Duke??!!!  I can't help it, poor Sean William Scott will always be the horn-dog dipshit with the sexy whory mom from the "American Pie" movies. Johnny Knoxville as Luke?  Again-all I see is "Jackass". Jessica Simpson worked out hard for months to get her body bikini-ready-but her phony southern accent was like fingernails on a blackboard, and her wooden acting made Donna Douglas on the Beverly Hillbillies look like an Oscar winner. Burt Reynolds must have really been in tax trouble to lower himself to play Boss Hogg, and ditto for Willie Nelson doing uncle Jesse-who tee-hee-smokes weed. I can't remember the plot. Thank god it didn't gross enough for the greedy studio to want to do another one. The worst one though was "Drive". This starred Ryan Gosling as a mechanic / race car driver / getaway driver. What was maddening to me is his wooden acting was so bad-he showed no emotion whatsoever. Charles Bronson looks like Tom Hanks compared to this guy. And it's never explained why he wants to be a criminal and risk prison and death when it appears he makes a decent living as a mechanic / auto racer. Even the action sucked. Any others I missed?  Mastermind    

There's a reason some car flicks don't have sequels, or the ones that do fail....

Some people were asking me why some classic action / car chase movies didn't have sequels. ( Some did, but they suck ). One reason is sometimes the actors and producers aren't interested. "Bullitt" the grandaddy of them all that's still thrilling 50 years later was a huge hit. I loved the catch-phrase from the poster. "There are good cops and there are bad cops." "And then there's Bullitt". For whatever reason, Steve McQueen wasn't interested in continuing the adventures of Frank Bullitt, or doing another similar character.  A lot of people don't know it-but Clint Eastwood wasn't the 1st choice for "Dirty Harry".  John Wayne was, and he turned it down, and regretted it when it became a huge hit. It was then offered to Frank Sinatra who turned it down and to Steve McQueen-who said it was "Frank Bullitt" with a different name and he didn't want to do two cop pictures back to back. Eastwood was cast and the rest is history. Seeing the monumental success of "Dirty Harry" John Wayne decided to take a break from westerns and do a couple of modern police thrillers.  Wayne made an excellent "Dirty Harry" type movie in 1974-"McQ"-he played a Seattle detective and he drove a Brewster Green 73 Trans-Am in it. However it came out about the same time "Magnum Force" the "Harry" sequel did-and they had similar plots-dirty cops after the hero. "Magnum Force" was a smash; "McQ" got critical acclaim but didn't do much at the box office, which was why there wasn't a follow-up. Everyone loved "White Lightning". Burt Reynolds was never cooler than Robert "Gator" McLuskey who negotiates his way out of prison to seek revenge on the corrupt sheriff who killed his younger brother. The dialogue was crisp, the action exciting-and Jennifer Billingsley just oozed sex as "Shake-a-Puddin"-spending the entire movie barefoot in tight mini-sundress, her dark brown roots showing in her bleach-blond hair, while she drove Burt and the audience wild. She totally nailed the southern slut that men die and kill for. Others have tried it-Kim Basinger in "No Mercy", Teri Hatcher in "Heavens Prisoners" and most recently Reese Witherspoon in "Mud". Those were noble efforts, but none could top Billingsley for raw sensuality. Gator does kill the sheriff-the Feds take him and Billingsley away at his funeral. People say there should have been a sequel. There was, and it was awful. Made in 1976 Burt Reynolds starred and directed. It was his first time directing, and I think he couldn't decide if he wanted to make a badass revenge flick like the first one, or a dipshit comedy.  Jerry Reed did alright as a sawed-off shotgun toting redneck crime lord. However there were too many characters and subplots. Gator has a teenage daughter?  Where did that come from? In the first movie there's no mention of an ex-wife or kids. And him and the daughter live in a swamp with his dad? In the first movie his dad wasn't speaking to him because Gator was turning "liquor people" in to the Feds. And what happened to the family farm and his mother? There's no mention of her dying or the farm being foreclosed on!!  Gator's handler is an incompetent fat slob named Irving Greenfield who I guess is supposed to be funny, and there's a crazy cat lady that gets involved. The love interest is Lauren Hutton who's acting career peaked years earlier when she spent a lot of time naked in "Little Fauss" and Big Halsey". Since Reynolds was 40 and she was 33 when the movie was made-her "plucky girl reporter" / Nancy Drew act is just annoying, as is their "meet cute" and ill-fated romance. While Burt and Jennifer Bilingsley seemed to have actual heat between them-him and Hutton had no chemistry at all. And it's never explained why "Gator" and "Bama" McCall-Jerry Reed's character have such mutual respect for each other even though their on opposite sides of the law. Did they go to high school together? Serve in the army together? Do time in the same prison?  Their relationship is never explained, so I can't be that invested in it. I usually like Burt Reynolds, but this one's just a mess. Burt had a megamash the following year-"Smokey and the Bandit" out-grossed everything but "Star Wars" in 1977. It was funny, had good car-chase action and sold about a million T/A's for Pontiac in the ensuing years. In 1980 they tried a sequel, and it was awful. If you remember at the end of "Smokey and the Bandit" Big Enos Burdette bets them double or nothing that they can't make a run to Boston for some Clam Chowder. They should have stuck with that, and with Jackie Gleason's maniacal lawman chasing them. Instead they get off on some weird plot about transporting a pregnant elephant, and surprise-Jackie Gleason is a triplet- and his two brothers are cops too! It was just awful with none of the charm of the original. I honestly don't think I laughed once. Another one was one of Quentin Tarantino's favorites-"The Driver" starring Ryan O; Neal as a getaway driver and Bruce Dern as a cop obsessed with catching him. I loved the movie for 90 minutes and then hated the end-O'Neal is chasing a '76 T/A in a '76 Chevy Pickup!!  If the truck was a 454 it might have been a match in a drag race-but around corners?  The T/A would leave it in 3 blocks. And Ironically-earlier in the film-O'Neal was driving a '77 Firebird!!  Why wasn't he chasing the T/A in that?  That would have been believable. Anyhow O'Neal gets away clean and Dern goes to jail. The movie made money, and certainly a follow-up with Dern out of jail and out for vengenace would have been good. I don't know why-maybe O'Neal and Dern weren't interested-but there was never a sequel.  "Drive Angry" was a surprise hit in 2011. Nicolas Cage gives a wonderfully over-the-top performance as a "badass motherfucker" who escaped from hell to save his granddaughter from a Satanic cult. The baddies can't kill him, because he's already dead! Amber Heard is smokin' hot as a woman he hooks ups with-she also has a sinister black 440 powered '69 Charger. William Fitchner is hilarious as the Devil's Bounty Hunter who's trying to bring Cage back to hell. The mayhem is non-stop, and Amber agrees to care for his granddaughter and Cage willingly goes back to hell with Fitchner in an awesome '57 Chevy. Plenty of room for a sequel, and a lot of people have asked. It made a pile of money-so I don't know why the original producers or someone hasn't stepped up. I know Cage desperately needs a hit-he's been doing straight-to-video stuff lately, Amber Heard hasn't done anything noteworthy except divorce Johnny Depp and briefly date Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Come on guys-we'd much rather see "Drive Angry 2"  Than "Fast&Furious" 12 or wherever they are!!  Mastermind

Avoid "Basket Cases" like the plague...

I talk to a lot of people that buy cars they think are a deal, and realize too late that their just money pits. Often they end up selling the car unfinished, at big financial loss. I don't care what it is-nothing is worth restoring from a basket case. Nothing. Because if it's a Hemi 'Cuda or a Boss 302 missing the Hemi or "Boss" engine and other major parts it's a bottomless money pit. 1st off-where are you going to find a Correct, complete, 1969 or 1970 vintage Boss 302 engine for sale, at any price? Chances are you won't. You could build  your own "Boss" using Edelbrock or Trick Flow heads and intake, but that's still not correct is it?  The same for the Hemi-where are you going to find a complete, running or at least rebuildable 426 Hemi engine with 1970 or 71 date codes, for sale, at any price? You could buy a Mopar Performance crate Hemi-but that's still not correct and numbers-matching is it?  Even if by some miracle you located a correct engine and all the other parts you needed to finish the car-I guarantee by the time it's done your dollar investment will be MORE than what you would have had to spend on a complete, correct already restored car!!  I've told this story before but it's worth re-visiting. A guy I know wanted a '70's Firebird for a hot rod. He looked at one that was $500. It was a straight body but that's it. I mean this was an engineless, transmissionless, radiatorless, gas tankless, interiorless hulk. We looked at another one that was $2,500. The body was straight, the paint was oxidized and it needed the front seats recovered, and the vinyl top needed to be removed or replaced. But it started right up,had good oil pressure, didn't smoke,ran good, the transmission shifted smoothly, the brakes were good, the suspension seemed tight. I told him to buy it. He starts talking about the $500 one being a better deal. UGH! "No, this one is the better deal". I said. I pointed out that by the time he chased down an engine and tranny, gas tank and radiator, brackets and hoses, and all the interior parts and trim pieces necessary to get the other one in drivable, registerable condition-which this one already was-he'd have a lot more than $2,500 invested. He came to his senses and agreed that even though the price was 5 times more than the other one, it was the better deal. All he'd need to make the car really nice is some paint and upholstery work, and if he wanted more power-there's tons of speed equipment available for a Pontiac V8. He was going to be way ahead of the game by just starting with a better car. This is not an isolated example. Another guy wanted a "Bullitt / Dukes of Hazzard" 68-70 Charger. He bought an engineless, transmissionless one for $600. He towed it home and when he put it up on a lift-he discovered it had major rust damage-it not only needed new fenders and 1/4 panels and a trunk floor-the floorboards in the interior were practically gone. The guy from the body shop said-it would be so costly to fix that he'd be better off just getting another car. He did find another car-with a running 383, a straight body and good interior, that only needed a trunk floor for $4,000. I told him to buy it. Again-even though the price was nearly 7 times higher-it was a much better deal. Beware of cars missing things besides the engine and tranny. Say you find a not-running 409 Impala or a '64 GTO for a screaming price. The owner says he'll "throw in" a date correct engine. Great! except this "engine" turns out to be a block and heads. An engine is much more than block and heads. Where are you going to find the alternator brackets,power steering pump brackets,belt pulleys, oil pan,timing cover, valve covers,water pump,distributor, fuel pump,exhaust manfolds, intake manifold, etc-for a 1964 409 Chevy or 389 Pontiac? Yes, all that stuff is available through the aftermarket, but you'll have to chase it down or mail-order it or order it online, and it adds up-expenses you didn't plan on. I know a guy who bought a '63 Gran Prix. He didn't like the "Slim Jim" hydro matic trans. They won't shift above about half-throttle. And no one makes a shift kit or valve body for them. He decides to "drop" in a TH400. He can even use the stock shifter in the console-it has the same number of detents-he just has to remember that reverse is now low. Except now he's perplexed-there's no place to mount the starter! Huh? That's right- Pontiacs up until 1963 had the starter mounted on the bellhousing. 1964 and later models had the starter mounted on the engine block! Since the TH400 was introduced in 1965-the bellhousing had no place to mount the starter. Luckily for him-1963 blocks had the pad machined on the block to mount the starter in anticipation of the changeover. All he had to do was have the pad drilled and tapped, and he could use the '64 and later starter, and modern TH400 trans. However-if the car had been a '62 or older model-he'd have been really screwed-the older blocks don't have the machined pad. He'd either have to keep the crappy trans, or get a later model engine to be compatible with the modern trans. The point I'm making is go ahead and restore anything you want-but there has to be something there to restore!  A couple of good examples-a guy bought a '77 T/A that was missing the T-Top panels. He had a hell of a time chasing those down. Because some '76-77 models had Hurst T-Tops, and some '77-78 models had Fisher T-Tops, and their different. And there's no list of VIN numbers or production dates or anything to help you narrow it down. He finally did find some that fit, but it was a bitch and took literally months of searching. Another guy wanted to restore a '64 Cadillac Convertible like Phillip Micheal Thomas drove on "Miami Vice". Except the top was missing. Not just the canvas-all of it-the frame, the folding pieces that hold it up, the electric motor. He had a hell of a time chasing that stuff down. Like I said in an earlier post-if it was a '68 Chevelle-no problem. But a '64 Caddy-sorry Charlie. Just remember that anything missing major components is not a "deal". I know a guy that was restoring a '68 Ford F100 stepside. They may be available now-I don't know-but back in the '80's he could not find replacement rear fenders anywhere, new or used. He finally bought Chevy stepside fenders and re-worked them and welded them to the Ford bed. It actually looked really good-better I think than the stock Ford fenders-but it was a TON of work. Like I said in the previous post be careful to not bite off more than you can chew. Mastermind