More inquirys on building copys of movie cars....

I get a lot of inquirys from people asking me how can they get "Movie" cars. The answer is unless you can spend six figures or more, your not going to get an actual car that was used in a movie. I saw that actress Olivia Brown-who was on "Miami Vice" has a Daytona Spyder replica for sale. But god knows what the price is. The only way to do it is to build one. Depending on what your looking for it can be easy or hard. "Bandit" Trans-Am? Go buy a '77-78 T/A and paint it black, if it isn't already. "Bullitt" Mustang? How anal do you want to be? You could buy a '67-68 fastback, even if it's a 289 / C4 model, paint it Dark Highland Green, add some Torq-Thrust mags and call it good. If you want a 390 / 4-speed model-that's going to cost substantially more. "Vanishing Point" Challenger? I'd go buy a new White one with a Hemi!!  Or you could get any '70-74 318 Challenger, paint it Alpine White, put Rallye wheels on it and call it good. If it has to be a '70 440 / 4-speed R / T model, then your looking at major bucks. See the point I'm making? I've had many people ask about Burt Reynold's Ford in "White Lightning". Finding a '71-72 Ford Custom / Galaxie / LTD 4-door sedan shouldn't be too hard. Most will have a 351 or 400C engine. This isn't bad-as there's plenty of speed equipment available-heads, cams, intakes, etc. Paint it brown, put a loud exhaust on it, get some black wheels and chrome lug nuts and white-letter tires and your there. Now if it's "gotta have" a 429 / 460 and a 4-speed that's going to be a problem. 1st off-99% of these cars are going to be automatics. There was a manual trans option, but not many had it. Converting to a stick is going to be a nightmare. You might be able to adapt Mustang clutch linkage or F100 / 150 truck linkage-but it's still going to be a major pain in the ass. I'd stick with an automatic and get a floor mounted aftermarket Hurst or Mr Gasket or B&M shifter that looks like a 4-speed shifter. And I'd run whatever engine was in the car.  The "Mad Max / Road Warrior" Interceptor gets a lot of inquirys. You can't go to Australia and get a 1973 Ford Falcon XB GT coupe. However a '71-73 Mustang or a '70-71 Torino look real close. When I first saw the movies I thought that's what the car was. It's easy enough to get black wheels and fat tires and fender flares, and "Zoomie" exhaust pipes. There's also companies that sell fake blowers that can be turned on and off like the movie. Or you could cut a hole in the hood, and put a real blower on the 302 or 351 Ford engine. It'll be close enough, people will get the idea.  "Rockford Files" Firebird? Easy. Get any '74-78 Firebird, paint it gold and put Rally II wheels on it. You decide how much power you want under the hood. If your a "Nash Bridges" fan-never mind a Hemi ( they said it was a hemi, the actual stunt car was a 340 model ) your going to have a hard time finding a 70-71 Barracuda convertible, even a 318 model.  The "Death Proof" Nova? Easy enough. Find a '68-74 Nova, paint it flat black, put Rally wheels and loud exhaust on it, and your there. Even it it's a 307 2bbl model. The "Starsky&Hutch Torino? Easy. Find a '74-76 Torino, put slot mags on it and paint it red with a white stripe.  You just have to use your imagination and ingenuity. Mastermind 

Apologies for not posting more quality stuff.....

I want to apologize for not posting as often this year as I have in past years, and not always having Ultra-Fresh stuff. I'm not making excuses-but this year has been a terrible one for me. My mother passed away unexpectedly, I had some health problems, and a work-related injury, my son lost everything in a fire in his apartment complex. He got out with the clothes he was wearing. The fireman found the cat. Everything else was lost. Anyhow that's behind us and I'm recovering, workmen's comp is paying the doctor bills, my son and I have a new place. So I'll be back soon hopefully with interesting and entertaining stuff. Thanks to all the people who read and comment. Happy Holidays!!  Mastermind

I hate to be devil's advocate-but for god's sake I've got 50 years of experience....

I get so tired of hearing about "Gotta Haves" in buff magazines and from idiots who are only quoting them. For example-people talking about 4-bolt mains and stel cranks, and screw in studs and roller rockers, etc. I know people that had 283 Chevys bored to 301 inches or 289 Fords tha regularly ran them 7,000 or 8,000 rpm with a solid-lifter cam with no problems. Small-Block Chevy's didn't get 4-bolt mains untilm 1969. I know people who have raced small-block Chevys for 40 years-and I have never seen a stud pull out of a head. I've seen broken pushrods, jumped timing chains, but never a stud pulled out of a head. I've seen stock Chevy and Ford Rocker arms last 2 whole seasons in an IMCA race car without failure. "Pontiacs aren't high revvers." It's true that the basic head design-except for Ram Air IV's and Edelbrocks don't make much power above about .480 lift, and the bottom ends don't like to go 7,000 rpm. But I know may guys that run 400's to 6,400 without trouble, 428s to 6,000 and 455's to 5,800 with no problem. And if you have 500 lbs of torque from idle on up you don't need to rev to 7,000.  "You need a single 4-barrel to go really fast." "That's buff magazines trying to make everyone idiot-proof. Multi-carbs didn't go away because they didn't perform-in perfect tune a 426 Hemi or 409 Chevy or 421 Pontiac with dual quads can really rock. As can a 389 GTO with Tri-Power or a 427 Corvette with Tri_power or a 440 / Six-Pack.  Porsche and Ferarri enthusiasts prefer the carburated 911S and Ferarri 308 models over the fuel-injected versions. Datsun 240 / 260 /280Z restorers prefer the dual or triple Weber setups to fuel injection. Single-carbs and fuel-injection came into vogue because of ever-tightening smog laws-not lack of power. People don't know how to tune them. I've seen it. Guy restores a car and it's never driven more than on and off the trailer. Or if it is, he's so god-damnded afraid of blowing it up that it never sees the high side of 3,000 rpm. The second it fouls a spark plug, he starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. If your going to drive like grandma on Prozac, then go a range or two hotter on the plugs to avoid fouling. If you do decide to go the drags, a plug change is an easy fix. The other is driveline beef. In Summit's catalog-their new T10 4-speeds have a like a 325 lb or 375 lb torque rating. That's absurd. 1960's muscelcars like 409 Impalas, 421 Catalinas, and 406 Galaxies used T10s and had way more torque than that. The 421 had 459 lbs ft, which was under-rated, the 409 had 425 lbs ft,-and the '60's versions had much softer gears than the modern versions!!  I hate that every single magazine project car has to have a Brembo or Wildwood brake system worthy of a NEXTEL Cup or Formula 1 car. A buddy of mine raced Hobby Stock and Pro Stock circle track for years on a '70's Camaro with a stock brake system. Even on a 1/4 mile track running an 8 lap heat race, a 25 lap semi, and a 50 lap main event back to back to back-we never had brake fade as long as we used Ferodo or Bendix Metallic Police-spec D52 pads, and Dot 5 fluid. Even at the end of a 50 lap main-with the rotors glowing red-the car still stopped. I just get tired of self-proclaimed "experts" who don't know shit, giving advice.  Mastermind

Certain cars are just stars.....

Someone asked me the other day what musclecar had the most movie appearances and I realized I couldn'r just spout an answer. I told him I'd research it and get back to him. However-I may have missed some so my list might not be accurate. Anyhow- here's what I came up with in no particular order. # 1. 1968-70 Charger. Besides the obvious-"Bullitt" and the "Dukes of Hazzard" these Chargers have appeared in "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry", the "Fast&Furious" movies, the "Blade" series, "Drive Angry" and others.  # 2. Pontiac Trans-Am. Besides the obvious-"Smokey and the Bandit" and it's sequesls, and "Knight Rider" John Wayne drove a Brewster Green T/A in "McQ". Chuck Norris drove a Buccaneer Red one in "An Eye for an Eye". There was a red one in a chase in the "Star Chamber" about corrupt judges doling out vigilante justice. Steve McQueen drove one in "The Hunter", a 10th Anniversary Model was used in "Georgia Peaches" a little known gem that also features country music star Tanya Tucker in bondage!!  The "Loser" drove one in the finale of "The Driver". Roy Scheider drove one in "Blue Thunder".  # 3. Ford Mustang. Besides "Bullitt" Mustangs were used in "Diamonds are Forever" a James Bond film, my personal favorite-a barefoot in shorts Farrah Fawcett-Majors on the hood of a "Mustang II" for a promo for "Charlie's Angels",  "The Mechanic" with Charles Bronson, the original "Gone in 60 Seconds", "Marked for Death" a Steven Seagal stinker, "Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw" which featured evangelist turned action movie star Marjoe Gortner and a pre-"Wonder Woman" Lynda Carter who got naked a lot-the movies only saving grace, "Basic Instinct" "Menace to Society", "Hannibal".  # 4. Pontiac GTO. Goats have appeared in "Two Lane Blacktop" "Dazed and Confused" "Sleepless" ,"Sex Drive" "Knight and Day" "Faster" and maybe some others I missed.  # 5. Dodge Challenger. Besides the obvious-"Vanishing Point" Challengers have appeared in "Moonshine County Express", "NCIS" , "Dark Blue".  # 5. Chevy Camaro. Camaros have appeared in "Aloha, Bobby and Rose", "I the Jury", "Christine" "Remember the Titans" "Walking Tall Part Two" "Miami Vice" "Impulse", "Physical Evidence" and others I may have missed.  # 6. Chevy Chevelle. Chevelles have been in the "Fast&Furious" movies, "Drive Angry" "Lights Out", "Faster" "John Wick" "Jack Reacher" and others. If i missed any please feel free to chime in with information,!!  Mastermind

"Ford vs Ferarri" is well worth seeing......

I saw "Ford vs Ferarri" last week and I loved it. What's so good about it, is even if you weren't a gearhead and didn't know a lot about cars, you'd still enjoy it. It's the story of Ford going racing at LeMans with the express purpose of shutting Enzo Ferarri's arrogant mouth.  Matt Damon is excellent as Carroll Shelby who Hank the Deuce ( What insiders called Henry Ford II ) tasked with building the car-eventually the GT40. Christian Bale is excellent as Ken Miles-the driver Shelby thinks is the man for the job. The film shows some of the politicking in the car business, and Shelby and Miles' uphill fight to do it the right way. There's excellent racing action, and good performances all around, but it's really Matt Damon and Christian Bale's show. Their love-hate relationship is awesome. They can punch each other in the face and still have each other's back when necessary. It's not just the best car racing film, it's a great movie period. Too bad Carroll Shelby didn't live long enough to see it. He'd have loved it.  Mastermind.

Cadzilla's are ok within certain parameters.....

I've had several people ask me why more people don't build modern day "Studilacs" -a popular swap in the '50's was stuffing a Cadillac V8 into a Studebaker coupe.  I saw an article in "Street Rodder" where a guy had put a 472 Cad V8 / TH400 in a '61 Impala. It certainly made it a nice driver, and the 472 moved the big car quite briskly-quicker than the 283 or 348 V8s that were available stock. I knew a guy who put a 500 Cad into his '79 Chevy Pickup. It was a great tow rig.  Another acquaintence put a 472 Cad into an '81 Firebird. I know other guys that put them in '78-88 "G" bodies-Cutlass, Monte Carlo, Regal, etc. It's a cheap easy power infusion to be sure-anything 472 or 500 cubes is going to have massive low-end torque. The downside is, these engines are not high revvers-I mean their pretty much done by 4,500 rpm. Edelbrock makes a Performer manifold for them, but that's about it. There's not a lot of hot-rod parts for them. Depending on what body your running-a 455 Pontiac or Olds or Buick would be a much better choice, for two reasons.  The BOP 455's are reliable up to 5,800 rpm. And there are heads, cams, headers, intakes, crank kits etc available for these engines. It would be a lot cheaper and easier to build a 500 hp Pontiac or Olds than it would a Cadillac. Further-LS engines are getting cheap enough and plentiful enough in trucks and SUV's in junkyards that they may be a better way to go, and their's certainly a ton of aftermarket parts for LS motors. I'm not saying don't do the 500 Cad swap, I'm just saying understand it's limits, and realize that their may be cheaper, better performing stuff available.  Mastermind

Don't fall into the "Bigger is Better" trap....

In all the buff magazines all their project cars and and featured reader rides all have mega-buck, mega-cube stroker motors. 572 inch Chevy Rat Motors,514 inch Boss-Nine Fords, 528 inch Chrysler Hemis, and 505 inch ( 440 based ) wedge engines. There's crank kits to turn a 400 Pontiac into a 467, a 400 Mopar into a 451. There's 392 and 427 inch "Small-Block" Fords, 383, 427 and 454 inch "Small-Block Chevys. There are 410 inch ( 360 based ) "LA" Mopars.  All of these mega buck, mega horsepower crate engines are fine if you can afford one. But many of us can't shell out 15 grand just for the engine for a toy. Be honest-most musclecars are the fourth or fifth car in a household. You've got your daily driver, your wife has one, and if you've got teenage kids they have one. So putting 15 large for just one component into the 5th car usually isn't in the cards. But don't despair. Just run the engine that came in the car. And you can make some improvements. For example-if your car has a 350 Chevy in it, you couldn't ask for a better base for a hot rod. The small-block Chevy has been the test mule for new parts for like 60 years. If your rebuilding it, Eagle, Scat and other companies are selling crank and piston kits so cheap, that it won't cost any more to build a 383. The extra cubes will definitely give you a big boost in hp and torque whether you build it mild or wild. Ditto for a 302 Ford. Whether you have a '68 Cougar or a '91 Mustang, Eagle, Ford SVT and other companies sell rotating assemblies to turn a 302 into a 347 or a 363. And you can just "Run what you brung". A 396 Chevy can make serious power. You don't need a 454 or a 572. Experienced Chevy builders will tell you that all other things being equal-i.e.-heads, cam, etc-a 454 will make 20 hp more than a 427 and a 427 will make 20 hp more than a 396 / 402. Ok. Edelbrock claims 540 hp and 538 lbs of torque from their "Performer RPM" Package on a 454. Using this rule of thumb-a 396 would still have 500 hp. Magazine writers spout numbers flippantly, but 500 honest hp will make any car an absolute rocket. Depending on car weight, traction and gearing you'll easily run in the 12s, and maybe high 11s. That's serious power. The same goes for other "Mid-size" big blocks. Edelbrock claims 434 hp from their Performer RPM package on a 390 Ford. They claim 387 hp and 439 lbs of torque on a 400 Pontiac with 15 inches of vacuum at idle from the base Performer Package. That would really rip on the street-low 13s or high 12s depending on traction and gearing-with a glass-smooth idle. Edelbrock claims 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque on the Pontiac "RPM" Package on a 400. A 383 Mopar makes 417 hp with this package. See what I'm saying?  So if your Chevy has a 396 / 402, or your Pontiac has a 389 / 400 or your Ford a 390 or your Dodge a 383 / 400-use it. Don't search the galaxy and spend thousands more than you need to buying and building up a junk 454,455, 460 or 440.  If you need an engine for your Javelin / AMX but can't find a 390 / 401 AMC engine, don't despair. There's literally millions of 360 AMC engines in junkyards in Jeep Grand Wagoneers from the '80s and '90's. Edelbrock claims 433 hp for their Performer RPM package on a 360. A 403 Olds is a bolt-in replacement for a 330 / 350, and you know 50-70 more cubes is going to give a serious boost to hp and torque. You don't need a $15,000 500+ inch mega motor to have fun.         

Some engines are only useful as boat anchors.....

I get asked all the time by people for tips on hopping up or rebuilding some obsolete turd. It's odd, because these people seem obsessed with using something that no one else wants. For good reason. Here's my list, in no particular order. #1. 265 inch small-block Chevy. Unless your Concours restoring a '55-56 Chevy to the nth degree, these are doorstops. People loved 283s, because they could be bored to 301 inches. 327s are great if you have one.  Avoid the 307 used from '68-73. They have no power, and they don't rev high. And with 350s a dime a dozen why would you mess with a 307?  # 2. 300 / 327 / 340 Buick V8.  There is zero aftermarket support for these engines, and they don't make anywhere near the power and torque of the '68-77 350. # 3. 301 Pontiac. These share virtually nothing with the "traditional" 326-455 Pontiac V8 and there is zero aftermarket support.  # 4. 255 Ford V8. These early '80's "Economy" V8's share nothing with the traditional 260 / 289 / 302 small-block Ford. They have the triple axel of no power, crappy gas mileage and zero parts availability. # 5. 260 / 307 Olds V8. These are different from the 330-350-403 Olds small block. The motor mounts are in the same place which makes the 350 / 403 an easy swap. # 6. 360 Ford V8. A lot of '70's trucks had these turds. They have the double whammy of no power and crappy gas mileage. They are an FE engine, but they don't run near as well as a 390, or even a 352 in an old Galaxie.  # 7. 361 Chrysler. These are a "B" engine, but they don't run nearly as well as a 383 / 400. They don't run as well as the "LA" 360 small-blocks. Don't throw good money away on a turd. Mastermind

Writers should do research if their going to be specific,,,,,

A pet peeve of mine is when writers make mistakes describing cars in books. In a Danielle Steel novel about a young man who was sent to Viet Nam-it was set in 1965. He wanted a Camaro. Ugh. We all know the Camaro was introduced in 1967. In 1965 he'd have wanted a Mustang or a GTO.  In the Stephen King novel "The Dark Half" the killer drove a '67 Olds Toronado. King alludes to the driver rowing the Hurst manual shifter, and spinning the rear tires. Except Toronados are all automatics, and are all Front-wheel drive!!  With 425 cubes under the hood, a Toro will spin the front tires. He should have just said he "spun the tires."  I understand the statement he was trying to make-the guy had to have a badass vintage luxury / muscle car. He should have used a Pontiac Gran Prix. '60's GP's had 389, 400,421 or 428 cubes depending on year, and were available with a 4-speed manual trans with a Hurst shifter. In the Stephen Hunter novel "Night of Thunder" the killer drives a Dodge Charger with a 6.7 liter Hemi engine. Except since resurrecting the Charger nameplate in 2005 up to the present-Chrysler has never offered a 6.7 liter engine. They have offered Hemis in 5.7 liters, 6.1, and 6.4 liters. The "Hellcat" models use a 6.2 liter Hemi with a Supercharger. Never, ever has there been a 6.7 liter option. Chrysler offers a 6.7 liter Diesel in the Ram trucks; but no Hemi. It's not just a typo-the car is a big part of the story, it's alluded to several times in the story. Stephen King blows it again in "Christine". "Christine" was a haunted '58 Plymouth Fury that commits much mayhem and posseses it's teenage owner with the evil soul of it's mean-bastard first owner. It's a scary story. However King alludes to the car having a 382 inch V8. Now "Joe Average" might think it's just a typo-he probably meant a 392 Hemi, right? Wrong. The only two engines available in 1958 were a 318 inch V8 and a 350 inch V8. In 1959 the 350 was replaced with a 361. Ugh!!  In the Thomas Harris novel "Hannibal" FBI agent Clarice Starling is once again on the trail of serial killer Hannibal Lecter, who escaped from jail in Tennessee and is believed to be in Europe. Mason Verger, a filthy rich meat-packing magnate and Lecter's only surviving victim offers his assistance but he'll only talk to Starling. She supposedly drives a 1988 Roush Mustang. Again the car is talked about in detail. A marine guard at the gate at Quantico is amused when she smokes the tires leaving and gets rubber into 2nd. Verger asks if it has the 5.0 engine. Verger's sister, Margot-asks Starling if it could beat her Porsche. Starling replies "Depends on which Porsche it is." Lecter breaks into it while Starling is running in the park, and sits in the "Recaro" seats, and licks the "Momo" steering wheel. However there never was an '88 Roush Mustang.  Roush performance built a prototype with a turbocharged 351 V8 ( 5.8 liters ), but it never made production. It's in the Roush Racing museum.  The first Roush / Ford collaboration that was sold through dealers to the public was a 1997 model. The book was published in 2002, so the writer could have had her driving a '97 model. Or if he wanted her to have a special '88 model there was a Mclaren / ASC '88 Mustang, and there was a 1988 Steve Saleen version as well.  But there was no Roush model!!!  I know it sounds nit-picky-but if you know something is completely wrong, it irks you. If these writers are going to be specific, they should do research and make sure what they say or print is accurate.  Mastermind       

Road Test "Ringers" revisited......

I'm amazed at the comments I get about stuff I posted two or three years ago. Anyhow-I aim to please so here's the list of Road Test "Ringers" i.e.-cars that were modified by the manufacturer to go much faster than any production example. Why did they do this? Because they wanted the magazine to write how blisteringly fast the car was and thus sell thousands of them.  # 1. 40 years later, Jim Wangers finally admitted what we already knew-Car&Driver's May 1964 GTO test car was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the 389 and replaced it with a blueprinted 421, that also had a re-curved distributor, custom-jetted carbs,thin head gaskets, and rocker arm lock nuts. The car ran an ungodly 4.6 second 0-60 time and a 13.1 second 1/4 mile. Other magazine's testers and production examples could only run low 14s.  # 2. 1969 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6. Chrysler advertised the 440 Six-Pack option in national magazines claiming it ran 12s off the showroom floor. The disclaimer said it was done on a racetrack, under controlled conditions, with a professional driver. The "controlled conditions" were a blueprinted engine with custom jetted carbs, a 4-speed, 4.30:1 gears, 28 inch slicks, and a pinion snubber. The "Professional Driver" Pro Stock drag racing champion Ronnie Sox, who ripped off a string of 12.70's. Shocker-production examples tested by magazines ran 13.50's.  # 3. 1973 SD-455 Trans-Am. Car&Driver ran a 13.75 and Hot Rod ran a 13.54. If you look at the pictures in both magazines-check the liscence plate number. It's the same car!!  The road tests were done in January 1973. However because of production problems the SD-455 wasn't certified by the EPA and released to the public until April 1973. Early prototypes had the Ram Air IV cam; engineers were worried about passing emissions so production models had the much milder Ram Air III cam and hp was down-rated from 310 to 290. Federal noise regulations cause Pontiac to seal up the "Shaker" hood scoop on '73 models. On 1970-72 models it had a solenoid operated trap door that opened up on acceleration. Look at the pictures-the C/D / Hot Rod test car has an open hood scoop. Production models ran low 14s. Great performance for a 3,800 lb car in 1973-74; but nowhere near the blistering mid-13s of the prototype. No one knows what happened to the prototype. Some say it was crushed; others say it was sold to a Pontiac executive. # 4. 1973 Olds 442. In late 1972 Motor Trend had a "1973 Performance Car Preview".  A silver and red 442 blew the doors off an SD-455 Trans-Am, a 400 / 4-speed Formula Firebird, a 454 Corvette, an L82 350 / 4-speed 'Vette,  a 440 Dodge Charger, a 401 Javelin AMX, a 429 Gran Torino, and a 351CJ Mustang. Turns out that instead of a stock 455 Olds backed by a TH400 with 2.73 or 3.08:1 gears the "Prototype" had a re-curved distributor, a re-jetted carb,the super-hot 328 degree cam from the vaunted 1970 "W30" 455, a Hurst shift improver kit, a Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter with a 2,800 rpm stall speed and a 3.42:1 axle ratio. The Olds engineers thought it was hilarious as the Cutlass showed it's taillights to all those other contenders. They 'fessed up, after the big laugh and production examples were nowhere near that fast. # 5. 1978 Dodge Li'l Red Express pickup. In November 1977 Car&Driver ran a "Double the Double Nickel" article-testing a bunch of vehicles that could go faster than 110 mph. The Li'l Red truck blew the doors off a W72 Trans-Am and an L82 Corvette in a drag race. However-the 360 V8 in the "Prototype" had catalyst-free dual exhausts, Nascar-spec "W2" cylinder heads, the hot cam out of the old 340 "Six-Pack", and a 650 cfm Double-Pumper Holley Carb on an aluminum Holley "Street Dominator" intake. No surprise that production examples with a stock cam, stock heads, and a Carter Thermo-Quad on an iron manifold with an EGR valve were substantially slower.  # 6. 1989 "5.0" Mustang. Every other magazine's Mustang test cars ran 15.20's. Car Craft's "basically stock" Mustang ran a blistering 14.19. Except CC's car had a K&N airbox and filter, a Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust, the 225 / 60R15 Goodyear Gatorback rear tires swapped for 235 / 60R15 M&H drag radials, and the 2.73:1 gears swapped for 3.55:1s. If your going to nit-pick.....jeez.... # 7. 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4. This one rivals the engine swap for sheer audacity. Mitsu engineers advertised the 3000GT as running a 13.8 second 1/4 mile. The "Controlled Conditions" consisted of disabling the rev limiter, disabling the knock sensor, filling the tank with 105 octane racing gas, lowering the tire pressure to 15 psi, and the "Professional" driver dropping the clutch at 6,200 rpm and powershifting at 7,000. Which grenaded the $5,749 transaxle after three runs. Shocker-production examples ran 14.50's. # 8. 2018 Challenger Hellcat / "Demon".  Chrysler advertised the Demon as being the fastest production car ever with a 9.65 second 1/4 mile run. However no magazine has been able to get even close. Most run mid to high 10s, which is incredible for a production car. But no one has even ran a 9.90-10.30. Not even close. Gear heads with 90 grand bought them all-no need to fudge anything.  Oh well.....Mastermind           

As usual "Experts" are wrong.....

I love reading tech articles written by self-proclaimed "Experts" who dispense advice that is either wrong or is generic advice that they read elsewhere-in someone else's article or on the internet. Their so adamant about what you can and can't do, and act like your a moron if you disagree with them.  Some of my personal favorites.  # 1. Fuel Injection makes more Power than carburators. While electronic fuel management and ignition control-knock sensors, self-adjusting timing through ecms, variable valve timing etc-have enabled modern manufacturer's to get maximum power out of modern engines, the big switch from carburators to fuel injection in the late '70's and '80's was because of ever-tightening emission standards, not lack of power. Many Porsche and Ferarri collectors prefer the carburated versions of the 911 and the 308 GTB / S over the fuel injected versions. I was in Bill Pennington's shop when they removed the Tuned Port Injection from a then-new Corvette and installed an Edelbrock Torker II intake and 750 Holley carb and made a dyno pull. It made 50 more hp than stock, and that was before any jetting changes. NASCAR teams made 850 hp from their race engines with a carburator-sometimes a 750 cfm carb with a restrictor plate, or a 390 cfm 4-barrel!!  I love the modern musclecars like the Challenger Hellcat or ZL1 Camaro. No question that electronic fuel management has done wondrous things.  But if your restoring a '60's or '70's car-you'll be fine with a carburator. # 2. You need a single 4-barrel to go fast, multiple carbs don't work. Again-GM, Ford and Chrysler went away from multi-carb setups because of tightening smog laws, not lack of performance. I see it every Hot August Nights. Whether it's a 409 Impala, 426 Hemi, 427 'Vette, 440 Six-Pack, Tri-Power Pontiac or whatever-guy will spend umpteen thousands restoring a car-and then drive it like grandma on prozac. If it's driven more than on and off a trailer, it never sees the high side of 3,000 rpm because their so goddamnded afraid of blowing it up. Then, the second it fouls a spark plug, they start screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. The buff magazines tell their readers to use a single 4bbl to try to be idiot-proof.  I have a lot of experience with multiple carbs, and if their tuned right, they can really rock. I remember a truck pull winner back in the '90's who was running 4-Webers on a 454 Chevy with alcohol!!  The earth shook when that thing fired up. Most often-guys run the wrong combination. I know 2 guys running Tunnel Rams on the street. One car really rips, the other one's a dog and doesn't run as good as it did stock. Here's why. The one guy has a Nova with a 327 and a 4-speed. He's running 4.10 gears, the "350 hp" Corvette cam and two 450 cfm Holleys on his tunnel-ram manifold. He revs it up to 3,500-4,000 rpm and drops the clutch hard. The car leaves with just enough wheelspin to get the car moving and up on it's torque curve, and he shifts at 6,500 rpm. It'll rev to 7,000, but he'd just be beating up the bottom-end and valvesprings-it doesn't really make any more power above 6,500. It runs 12.80's on street tires, and 12.30s on drag radials. It's a fun car. It doesn't have a lot of bottom-end torque, but the 4.10 gears help mask that and from 3,000 rpm on it's a rocket. The other guy has a 396 Chevelle with an automatic and 3.31 gears, and he's running the stock L34 hydraulic cam, and dual 660 Holleys. It's a slug. It bogs off the line, coughs and spits and doesn't run as well as it did with a quadrajet. The problem is-it's WAY OVER-CARBURATED!!  1320 cfm-is way too much for a stock 396, with a lazy cam. The stock cam starts to run out of power about 5,000 rpm-which were the manifold is just starting to rock-n-roll. I'd go to two 500 cfm Edelbrocks.  Plus the Automatic trans and stock converter hurt it, as does the 3.31 gears. For it to run properly he'd need a stick, or at least a 2,800 rpm converter and some 4.10 gears, and a short duration, high lift hydraulic or solid-lifter cam. # 3. You gotta run a dual-plane manifold on the street. I beg to differ. I love single-planes. I had a Torker on my 442 and my brother has a Torker II on his GTO and they both really ripped on the street. I know-"Sure, with 400 or 455 cubes and gears they work fine."  Well my Olds had 3.23:1 gears when I got it, and my brother's Goat has 3.36:1 gears. And they both showed a noticeable improvement over the stock intake, even before we changed the cam or anything else. A friend had a '72 El Camino with a 350, TH350 and 2.73:1 gears. It had a 2bbl from the factory. I told him to buy a #2101 Edelbrock Performer intake and #1405 600 cfm vacuum secondary carb. He bought the 600 cfm carb, but the speed shop was out of SBC Performers and he bought a Torker II. We installed the carb and intake, and the improvement was huge! If it lost any low-end torque it wasn't noticeable, but you could really feel it "hit" about 2,500 rpm, and it pulled hard to 5,500. If he'd had a hotter than stock cam, I don't doubt that it would have kept pulling to 6,500 and beyond. Even with the stock 2bbl cam,and 2.73:1 gears it still ran like a scalded cat, and was quicker in a drag race than other friends who had 350 / TH350 4bbl Camaros and Chevelles, one of whom had a Performer on it.  My '77 T/A with a 403 Olds had 2.56:1 gears and it ran great with a single-plane Holley Street Dominator intake. Even with the salt-flats gearing and the 403's lazy "smog" cam-it showed a huge improvement from 2,800-5,400 rpm. Which brings up......# 4. You have to remember that the test mule for everything is a small-block Chevy. So manufacturer "Guidelines" that are for a 350 Chevy are probably not optimum for a 440 Chrysler or 460 Ford, or 455 Pontiac!!  Larger engines can take more "Cam" without ill effects than smaller ones. For example-the old standby-the "350 Hp" 327 Corvette cam for a small-block Chevy. It has 224 duration ( @ .050 ) and .447 lift. This cam would ruin a 283 or a 305. It works pretty good in a 327 with a stick and 3.70 or stiffer gears. It's better in a 350 with a stick or an automatic with 3.42 gears and a 2,500 rpm converter, and it's really sweet in a 383 / 400 regardless of transmission, even with 3.08:1 gears.  So guidelines aren't set in stone.....Mastermind       

Ask someone who knows......Before you buy!!

I talk to a lot of people who have sometimes spent a great deal of money on a car that some schyster cobbled-up in his garage. They ask my opinion of the car, and when I give it to them, their usually aghast, and say "Gee, I wish I'd met you before I bought this piece of shit". Almost everybody knows somebody who's a gearhead that lives and breathes cars, and can tell you what's right or wrong about a certain model. If you don't, most reputable restoration shops will charge you an hour's labor-usually $90-120-to check out a car. That's money well spent to avoid spending thousands on something that's not what the seller says it is, or worse yet, is junk. Here's some horror stories that are absolutely true.  Victim # 1. Paid top dollar for a 1970 LT-1 Corvette. Except it wasn't. It had LT-1 emblems on the hood, and the vin number said it was an LT-1 car, but I knew the engine was wrong the second the guy opened the hood. "That is not an LT-1 engine." I said. "You know that by looking at it for 2 seconds?" the guy said arrogantly. "Yes." I said "1st off-GM didn't start using HEI distributors until 1975." "LT-1s had a #3310 780 cfm Holley carb on an aluminum intake." "This thing has a Quadrajet on an iron intake, and an EGR valve, which they didn't get until 1973". "And the heads don't have the "Camel Hump" casting mark., and it doesn't have the "Ram's Horn" exhaust manifolds. " "Some asshole stole the LT-1 and put a generic L48 350, probably out of a '75 or later pickup in this thing." "So you got royally fucked." His arrogance instantly turned to despair and disgust. "What can I do about it?" he asked. "If you bought it from a liscenced dealer, maybe sue the guy and try to get some or all of your money back." "But he'll probably claim he had no Idea the engine wasn't the correct one." "Unless you can prove that he purposely deceived you, you'll probably lose in court." "If it's an individual-your really fucked, because he has no business liscence to lose, and again he can claim ignorance, that he's not a mechanic and had no idea the engine was the wrong one." "Will you go to court and tell the judge what you just told me?" "I could, but I don't think it would do you any good as far as trying to get your money back." "Any small-claims court judge is going to say you should have had someone like me verify it BEFORE you bought it." "That's why they say "Buyer Beware". "Sorry." He was devastated. He eventually found a correct LT-1 engine, but it cost him a pretty penny, and he never got any restitution from the person that sold him the car.  Victim # 2. Bought a 1964 Olds 442. It was a for real 442, but it too had the wrong engine in it. As soon as the guy opened the hood, I said-"That's a '75 or later 350, not a 330." "How can you tell?" "Well, GM didn't use HEI distributors until 1975, and it has a Quadrajet carb, and an EGR valve on the intake." "GM didn't use Quadrajets until 1967, and didn't get EGR valves until 1973. " "And there's the numbers "350" cast into the side of the block."  "Oh." "What can I do?" "Drive it." "Put an Edelbrock Performer intake and matching cam on it and some headers." "Have fun with it." "Or swap in a 455 and make it really badass." "The chance of you finding a 330 Olds V8 with 1964 date codes is almost nil." "You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning on the golf course."  Victim # 3. Bought a 1977 Pontiac Trans-Am. I noticed the "Shaker" hood scoop didn't fit right. It sat too low. I opened the hood and said "Oh shit." without thinking. "What?" the owner asked anxiously. Sitting there in the engine bay was not a 400 Pontiac or a 403 Olds, which were the two engine choices that year. No-this 'Bird had a 350 Buick in it!! With two broken plug wires!!  When I explained this, the guy began swearing, and then griping. "I knew something was wrong" "I thought T/A's were supposed to be fast!" "This thing wouldn't even smoke the tires!" "So don't buy it." I said "There's tons of '77-78 T/A's with either a 400 Pontiac or a 403 Olds in them." "I already bought it." "Why would you do that?" "The price was too good to be true." "Except now it isn't" "Shit." I felt sorry for the guy, but he should have had a mechanic check it before he pony'd up the dough.  Victim # 4. Paid top dollar for a 1968 GTO Convertible. Except it wasn't a for-real GTO, it was a LeMans with a GTO front clip on it. And instead of a 400 Pontiac backed by a 3 or 4-speed stick or a TH400, it had a 350 Chevy engine in it, backed by a Powerglide!! He was really distraught. Especially when I explained that besides needing a 400 Pontiac, he'd need all the accessories-fuel pump,water pump, power steering pump, all the brackets etc. And since Chevys have a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than BOP engines, he'd also need a new transmission, even if he went with a TH350 ( which is the same length and uses the same driveshaft yoke and rear trans mount as a Powerglide ) he'd still have a cobbled-up LeMans convertible, not a numbers-matching GTO! He was inconsolable. He eventually put a TH350 behind the Chevy engine, and then sold it to someone else. I don't know how much money he lost, but he was furious for a long time. But he had no one to blame but himself. I mean if you can't tell a Chevy engine from a Pontiac, you shouldn't be looking for a musclecar without a knowledgeable friend along!!  Victim # 5. Bought a 1974 Dodge Challenger with a 383 and a 4-speed. Except the only two engines available in 1974 were a 318 and a 360. And it didn't run very good. It had a flat cam. It popped and missed above 3,000 rpm. And above 60 mph-you couldn't hold it in the road. I mean the front end was shot. When I explained all this the guy had a fit. Of course the beater lot he bought it from sold it "As Is" and refused to fix anything. "Why would you buy this?" "Didn't you test-drive it?" "No." "Why would you buy any car without test-driving it?" The guy had my shop put a new cam in it and rebuild the front end. After that it was a nice enough car to drive, but it cost him another $1,400 in parts and labor over and above the purchase price to make it drivable.  So if you don't know, ask someone who does before you part with your hard-earned cash.  Mastermind   

How NASCAR allowed King Richard to change it forever.....

Back in the '60's and '70's NASCAR's "Golden Age" the competition was fierce. Most racing organizations-especially NASCAR, the NHRA, and the SCCA-which sponsored the Trans-Am series-said Manufacturers had to sell at least 500 units of any model year car or engine to the general public to race them. This rule brought us great stuff like the Super Duty Pontiac 421, the 427 Chevy, the 426 Hemi, the Z/28 Camaro, the Boss 302 and 429 Mustangs, Plymouth Superbird / Charger Daytona, Thunderbolt Fairlanes, Hemi Darts, and others I can't remember off the top of my head. Anyhow people loved NASCAR because the cars were instantly recognizable, and you could buy a similar car from your local dealer. That's where the term "Win on Sunday,Sell on Monday" came from.  Another rule was bodystyles couldn't be more than 5 years old. After the Hemis, and Boss-Nines and other big-blocks were outlawed, and cubic inches limited to 366 ci- teams went to small-blocks. GM guys ran Chevelles and Monte Carlos with the ubiquitous 350 Chevy. Ford guys ran the venerable 351 Cleveland and Mopar guys ran the 360 Chrysler. The competition was still hot. Cale Yarborough won a lot of races for Chevrolet, David Pearson won a bunch in the Wood Brothers Mercurys, and Richard Petty won a bunch for Dodge. Richard and Pearson's duels at Daytona are still legendary. However-after the '79 season-NASCAR told Petty he could no longer run his iconic '74 Charger that had won so many races in 1980, citing the 5 year rule on bodystyles. Petty tried to run a '78 Dodge Magnum body, but it wasn't competitive. Then team Petty switched to GM. They figured out that the slope-nosed, fastback 1976-77 Olds Cutlass was much more aerodynamic than the flat-nosed, notchback Monte Carlos and Chevelles that most GM teams were running. Petty won several races in a row. The other NASCAR teams griped, because Petty was running the Ubiquitous small-block Chevy race engine. They argued that Petty should have to run an Oldsmobile engine, their train of thought being that the Olds engine wouldn't be nearly as powerful as the Chevy. I don't know why Team Petty didn't at least try to run an Olds engine and see if it was competitive. Obviously, the small-block Chevy had much more aftermarket speed equipment, and racing development than the 350 Olds.  However, the high-performance "W31" 350 Olds from 1968-70 was grossly UNDER-RATED at 325 hp; and was competitive in stock and super stock class drag racing with the Vaunted LT-1 350 Chevys and 340 Mopars. Further, back in the 70's ( and up until his death a few years ago ) Joe Mondello was THE Olds guru. Obviously,he devoted a lot of time to 455 engines, because a lot of customers wanted big-blocks, but he also built some stompin' 350's that went well beyond stock "W31" performance, and he discovered that you could use 455 heads on a 350 block, with a custom intake manifold. ( Today, Edelbrock's 350 Performer RPM will work in this application, but it didn't exist back then ) The 455 heads flowed way more than 350 heads. With the big port, big valve 455 heads, the 350 Olds would have breathed as well as the vaunted 351 "Cleveland" Fords. ( Which have ports and valves the size of a 454 Chevy ).  If Team Petty had collaborated with Mondello Performance, I have no doubt that they could have built a 350 Olds racing engine that could run with the 350 Chevys and 351 Fords. And the bottom end of the small-block Olds was bulletproof. If it could withstand being converted to diesel and running 22.5:1 compression with minor changes,it should have held up on gasoline for 500 miles at Daytona! I'm sure it was just easier and cheaper to run the Chevy race engine. Luckily for Petty-in the late '70's GM was playing musical engines because of smog laws. Depending on model, besides the 301, 350 and 400 Pontiac engines, you could get a Pontiac Firebird with a Buick 231 V6, a 305 or 350 Chevy and a 403 Olds. You could buy an Olds Cutlass with a 305 Chevy, a Buick Regal with a 301 Pontiac, an Olds Omega with a Buick 231 V6 or a 305 Chevy, and a Cadillac Seville with a 350 Olds.  Petty argued that since GM was selling Oldsmobiles with Chevrolet engines in them to the public, he ought to be able to race one. NASCAR sided with Petty and said that teams could run any GM engine in any GM body. Other teams quickly switched to the more aerodynamic Cutlass bodies. In my mind, this was the beginning of the end. Through the '80's they did this. The championship winning Buick that GM was comemmerating with the Grand National had a 350 Chevy in it, not a Turbo V6 like the production model!!  When GM cancelled the G-bodys in 1988 things really went to hell. I don't know why GM teams didn't simply switch to Camaros and Firebirds. They were rear-drive and remained in production until 2002. ( I know the Camaro was resurrected in 2009 ). Instead NASCAR allowed them to run front-drive Chevy Lumina bodies on a tube frame. Which led to Ford running Taurus bodies, Dodge running Intrepids, and Toyota running Camrys. Ugh!! Which brought us to now where the "Car of tomorrow" is a plastic body on a tube frame running 1965 technology. No roller cams? No overhead cams?  I think it would be much better if they allowed to Ford run Mustangs with the Coyote, Chrysler to run Chargers or Challengers with Hemis, Chevy to run Camaros with the LS engine and Toyota to run the Lexus coupe with the i-Force V8.  That would be way cool and the cars would be easily recognizable. And they need to change their scoring system-I've never been able to understand it. They need to get back to their roots-"National Association of Stock Car Racing"!!!!  I know that since the '50's Robert Duvall's immortal words from "Days of Thunder"-"There's nothing stock about a stock car" have been true. However-the cars were at least production based, up until the '80's when Bill Elliot drove a T-Bird and GM guys had Monte Carlo SS's.  After that, Chevy Lumina and Beretta bodies? Yuk.  Mastermind

         

The worst action movie chases......

Since we did the best movie chases people also are interested in the worst ones. I've touched on these a couple years ago, but it's worth re-visiting. You wonder what the directors are thinking. Don't they look at "Dailys" and go wait a minute-"That looks like shit, and it's totally impossible".  "Maybe we ought to re-think it." Apparently not. Anyhow here's my opinion of the worst. # 1. "Wanted" Even a briefly naked Angelina Jolie couldn't save this this stinker. Jolie and Morgan Freeman telling James Macavoy to "Curve the bullet"? Shooting bullets around corners? Everyone knows a bullet goes in a straight line until it hit's something or eventually runs out of energy and drops to earth! Ugh!  Worse than that, early on there's a chase scene where Jolie and James Macavoy are in a DODGE VIPER!! and their being pursued by a guy in a UPS type step van!! Really??  The Viper would leave the van by 30 car lengths in a block and be out of sight leaving the van driver scratching his head as to which way they went!!  But no, the van stays with the Viper for several minutes. Gag, retch, puke. And then it goes downhill from there. Really. At the end Jolie kills herself and several other people by shooting a bullet that goes in a complete circle and through several people's head, including hers. 1st off-again-you don't have to be a firearms expert to know bullets only travel in a straight line. Secondly-A hollow-point bullet mushrooms on impact, so it probably wouldn't have left the first guys skull, it would have just turned his brains to mush. If it was a full metal jacket bullet, It might have over-penetrated and went through the first guys head, but after plowing in and out of a hard human skull and through three lbs of brain tissue, it's trajectory would have been crazily skewed-there's no way to predict where it would have went next, and it certainly would have been slowed enough that it wouldn't have enough energy to penetrate and exit 3 or 4 more skulls!!!  The only thing stupider that I ever saw in a movie was in Rambo: First Blood Part II, where Stallone shoots down the Russian fighter plane from inside a Huey helicopter with a Law's Rocket. A Law's rocket has a backblast of 55 feet-so he just blew the ass end off his own helicopter and killed his crew!!  But not in the movies. I've said before-I'll give a certain amount of suspension of disbelief-like for James Bond's gadgets-but when something is absolutely impossible-why put it on screen?  Like I said, even Angie's bare ass couldn't salvage this one.  # 2. "Marked for Death". This Steven Seagal stinker really irritated me. Seagal plays a DEA agent who's suspended after a sting in Mexico goes sideways. He goes home to visit his sister in Chicago. Except the old neighborhood has been taken over by Jamaican drug dealers. He's driving a sinister black 1973 Mach 1 Mustang with American Racing wheels on it, so I'm figuring at some point there might be a chase. The Mustang gets wrecked between two big trucks-a total rip-off of John Wayne's "McQ" where his T/A gets totaled. The chase is later and Seagal and his buddy are driving a Dodge Ramcharger SUV-an underpowered, ill handling 4wd truck. There chasing drug dealers in a BMW 633CSI-a fast, great handling sports car. The BMW would leave that truck in a heart beat. And even if the RamCharger had a 440 in it-a 4wd Dodge truck is no match for a BMW around corners!!  The Bimmer would dust it and be gone in two blocks!!  Why they didn't have him chasing the Bimmer in the Mustang, and then wreck it later, I don't know. Anyhow the chase and the whole movie sucked.  # 3. "Cobra".  Riding high after releasing "Rocky" and "Rambo" sequels that were blockbusters in 1985-Sylvester Stallone stepped on his dick with this stinker. He plays Marion Cobretti a badass detective who's a member of the "Zombie Squad"- the guys called out as a last resort-sort of a badder than SWAT team. Stallone swaggers through the film wearing mirrored sunglasses and leather gloves-even when eating pizza and watching TV at home-and carries a pearl-handled, cocked and locked Colt .45 automatic with a Cobra snake emblazoned on the grips, stuffed down his pants by his dick. We never see it in a holster. Another totally implausible scene is where he bumps a custom '64 Impala low-rider out of a parking space and then rips the t-shirt of the driver. Not only do the 6 gang-bangers in the car NOT kick the shit out of him, or stab or shoot him,they don't trash his car after he swagger's away. Because he's such a badass, right? Anyhow, A group of crazies are ax-murdering people trying to create a "New World". This is never explained. Brigitte Nielsen plays a woman who is the only witness to these heinous crimes and Stallone and Reni Santoni ( who was Clint Eastwood's partner in the 1st "Dirty Harry" ) are charged with protecting her. The awful chase features Stallone driving a souped-up '50 Ford hot rod with nitrous, that apparently can't out run a 318 4-door Plymouth Volare!!!  Seriously. Ugh. Stallone single-handedly takes out about 50 guys including the ringleader, and then rides away with Nielsen on a Harley taken from one of the dead bad guys, after slugging another cop he doesn't like. Okay.  # 4. "Get Carter" I'm really not picking on Sly, people. I loved "Rocky", I thought "Nighthawks" was under-rated, "Demolition Man" was hilarious, and the "Expendables" flicks were entertaining. I'm actually looking forward to the new "Rambo" flick.  But I was really disappointed in this 2000 remake of the 1971 classic starring Michael Caine. In the original Carter kills 3 people and has phone-sex with Britt Eklund in the first 15 minutes. Now that's a start to an action flick!  Carter is a hitman who returns to London to investigate the death of his brother, who was an upstanding citizen. He finds out his baby bro was killed because he found out other gangsters had forced his daughter-Carter's niece-who's really HIS daughter we find out-into doing a porn movie, and threatened to go to the police. Carter and his brother's wife had a thing before his brother married her. The wife and Carter never told the brother the kid wasn't his, and they never told the girl either. Carter kicks the hell out of the London underworld and dies in a blaze of glory at the end. I was actually thinking the remake might be good. I was wrong. Instead of a hitman, Sly is a "Collector" for a Vegas loan-shark / casino owner. He finds out his brother has been killed in Seattle and goes to investigate, against his mobster boss's wishes. And he's having an affair with the boss's girlfriend. Smart. His sister-in-law hates him, and they never explain or even imply that the "niece" is really Carter's kid, which I felt was important. Also the brother was cheating on his wife with the smokin' hot Rhona Mitra who's totally wasted in her few scenes and later murdered. Stallone again swaggers through this film wearing mirrored sunglasses and an Armani suit, and threatening people by telling them he's going to take things to another level. However he never takes things to the next level.  Anyway there's not one, but two awful chases. One between a bad guy driving a 1980 Volvo and Carter, driving a stolen '80's Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham D' Elegance-you know the rear wheel drive model that looked like a '79, but unlike the '79 that had 425 cubes under the hood, had an anemic 4.1 liter V8-that slug?  Anyhow this one ends with the Volvo crashing and the airbag triggering. On a 1980 Volvo???  The other one is between Sly driving a rental 2000 Seville STS and John C. McGinley-Sly's co-worker who ratted him out to the boss and is supposed to bring him back to Vegas to face the music. He's driving an '70's Jaguar XJ6 or maybe it's an XJ12-it's hard to tell. But the 320 hp Northstar Caddy with 235/60R16 ZR rated tires would have easily left the underpowered Jag that's riding on S-rated 205 / 70R15 Dunlops!!  Anyhow they run around and finally play "Chicken" and the Jag crashes. There's a totally unrealistic fight between him and Mickey Rourke, and of course he doesn't die at the end and has a cutesy good-bye with his niece at his brother's grave. Not even close to the original. Only Jason Statham's bastardization of the Charles Bronson classic "The Mechanic" was worse. Like I said, I usually like Stallone, but in these two flicks he bombed. # 5. The "Driver" This 1978 action flick starred Ryan O'Neal as a professional getaway driver that gangsters hired to drive them away from bank robberies, etc. Bruce Dern was a cop obsessed with catching him. Good automotive action early on in a '78 LTD and a great scene where he destroys a Mercedes in a parking garage while the gangsters in the backseat scream like schoolgirls. It goes off the rails in the finale. O' Neal is driving a '78 Chevy Stepside pickup with a granny-gear 4-speed. He's chasing a guy in a '76 Trans-Am. Really??  If the truck was a 454 / automatic it might have been close in a drag race, but around corners?  The T/A would leave him in two blocks. The sad thing is-earlier in the film O'Neal was driving a '77 Firebird. If he was chasing the T/A in that it would have been believable. But the granny-geared ( have you ever tried to shift one of those quickly? ) truck??  Puhleeeze.  Of course the guy in the T/A crashes, and O' Neal doesn't. Right.  Let me know if I missed any other stinkers. Mastermind                   

The hottest women in car-chase / action movies revisited.....

After reviewing the best movie chases, of course the next subject was the hottest women in car chase / action flicks. In order to make this list, the character had to be an integral part of the story, and really make the viewer like her and be sympathetic to her character; not just look good and make guys from 16 to 60 drool-that's why Gal Gadot and Eva Mendes-both smokin' hot aren't on this list-their 30 second bikini scenes in different "F&F" movies aren't enough to make the cut. Anyhow here's my picks. # 1. Jennifer Billingsley "White Lightning".  Her dark brown roots showing in her bleach-blond hair, barefoot in that skimpy sundress practically the whole movie, "Shake-a-Puddin'" just oozed sex,while still having that southern belle like charm. When she runs her bare foot up Burt Reynold's bicep and coos-"If you want it, Gator just say so." "If you don't it's ok" ( Definitely a "Wayne's World" "Schwing!" moment ) Ditto for the Tarantino-ish scene where, while her gangster boyfriend sleeps in a house maybe 100 yards up the road, she kneels on the dock by the river to feed a skinny-dipping Gator his breakfast she cooked for him and we get an extreme close-up of her very dirty soles, before Burt convinces her to join him. She doesn't even get mad when Gator sets her up for attempted rape to escape "Big Bear" and his henchmen. She saves the wounded Gator and drives the car and takes him to a home for unwed mothers for medical attention. She personified the Southern Slut that men die and kill for. Others have tried it-Kim Basinger in "No Mercy", Teri Hatcher in "Heaven's Prisoner's" and most recently Reese Witherspoon in "Mud", but no one has been able to top "Shake-a-Puddin".  # 2. "Ruth" "To Live and Die in L.A."  Classically trained stage actress Darlanne Fluegel was awesome as "Chance's" hooker / informant / girlfriend. She brazenly walked around naked, or topless and barefoot, in just pantyhose and when she griped at William Peterson- "Some guy I set up for you is going to kill me someday." "What would you do If I stopped giving you information?" and he replies "I'd violate your parole and send you back to jail". You know she's going to set him up. And she does. At the end when "Chance" and everybody else is dead, and Chance's partner ( John Pankow) asks her where the rest of the money he and Chance took from the dead FBI agent is, she lies and says she got ripped off. The look on her face when he says "Let's not get off to a bad start Ruth".  "Your workin' for me now."  is priceless.  # 3. " Carol McCoy" "The Getaway" ( 1972 version ). The master of action-Sam Peckinpah-( The Wild Bunch, the Osterman Weekend ) directed, and shot the film in sequence.  No one was hotter than a then 24-year old Ali McGraw. Apparently Steve McQueen thought so, because they started a torrid affair and he left his wife for her, and she left her husband who was a producer on the movie. That must have been awkward. Their chemistry was obvious and their passion ignited the screen. Anyhow "Carol" sleeps with gangster Jack Benyon to get her husband out of prison, and then they have to do a robbery for Benyon as well. It goes bad, and when they go to split the money with Benyon, "Doc" ( Steve McQueen ) realizes he's been set up and Benyon plans to kill him. However Carol shoots Benyon first. Figuring out how his freedom was bought an angry Doc slaps the shit out of Carol. "Why did you do it?' he asks. "Because Benyon wanted it." "Because the deal wasn't good enough." "He wouldn't get you out if I didn't"  "Then you should have walked away."  "And left you in prison?"  "I figured you'd do the same for me." "Right, Doc?" "You would humiliate yourself if that was the only way to help me?"  It's said during filming this scene that McQueen and McGraw miscalculated their movements, and he accidentally hit her full force, bloodying her nose and almost knocking her out. He went to her trailer later in the day to check on her well-being and apologize, and this is when their affair started.  Anyhow, they go on the run together from the law and Benyon's gangster henchmen. "Carol" kicks a lot of ass of her own, driving the car during a chase and shooting several bad guys. She's no shrinking violet. Per the title they do get away in the end. It's a badass action flick with great performances all around. Roger Donaldsen tried a remake in 1994, and he shouldn't have. Like the MC Hammer song-"Can't Touch This."  The '94 version starred Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger who were married at the time, but they couldn't re-create the white-heat that McQueen and McGraw had. No one was cooler than Steve McQueen, not even Clint Eastwood. Baldwin tried valiantly to put his own spin on the character-but the critics couldn't help it they said he couldn't shine McQueen's shoes. Ditto for the then 41 year old Kim Basinger. While 3 years from her Oscar win for L.A. Confidential, and still smokin' hot in a MILF / Cougar way-she still couldn't top Ali McGraw for sheer hotness, and either she or the director decided to put a '90's "I am woman, hear me roar" spin on the scene where Doc slaps the crap out of Carol. Except he doesn't. She slaps him back, they have a little slap fight and she tells him to fuck off and walks away. It really took away from the scene, and the movie as a whole, and put a whole different spin on the relationship between Doc and Carol. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning violence against women. But the original scene was so powerful because Carol wasn't really physically hurt; she was emotionally hurt. As a career criminal's wife, she'd obviously been hit before-if not by him by other gangsters, their women, and maybe even cops. She was aghast because she'd slept with a man that sickened her, not once but several times to help her husband, and instead of showing gratitude, he responds with anger, accusations and violence. She didn't fight back not because she was hurt or afraid, she was shocked that he was such an ungrateful bastard. The Baldwin / Basinger "fuck you, fuck you back" slap fight wasn't near as powerful. And conversely, I thought higher of McGraw's Carol for "Standing by her man".  Basinger's portrayal made out like she was just sticking around for her share of the money, that she was willing to walk at any time, and didn't much care if "Doc" lived or died. Maybe Basinger or the director were trying to send some social message to young girls. That's altruistic, but a badass gangster flick with the kill ratio of an arcade game is not the place to do that.  Michael Madsen tried, but no one could play the sexually deviant gunfighter "Rudy" better than Al Letteiri  ( The Godfather, Mr. Majestyk ), and I like James Woods, but as always he over-acts, which paled in comparison to Ben Johnson's quietly sadistic Benyon. Sorry to get off on a rant there, but I thought my position needed to be explained.  # 4. Jacqueline Bisset "Bullitt". I can't remember her character's name, and all Steve McQueen callsher in the movie is "Baby".  If you thought she was hot a 33 when she made "The Deep" ( Her wet-t-shirt poster outsold everything but Farrah Fawcett in the red bathing suit that year ) you need to see her at 24 in "Bullitt".  Her puking after seeing a corpse and rebuking McQueen for his callousness kept her from ranking higher.  # 5. "Mary" "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". Susan George was hot in the mid-70's. She played Dustin Hoffman's slut wife in "Straw Dogs", and her inter-racial love scenes with boxer Ken Norton in "Mandingo" brought her some "Basic Instinct" type noteriety for a few years.  She's probably best known for this role however-spending the whole movie in a straining halter top ( and I mean straining, it barely contains her large, tanned breasts ) and hip-hugger jeans that barely cover her ass-crack. The action is good and her and Peter Fonda trade wisecracks well. She basically does the same thing ( wear a straining halter top and scream a lot ) in "A Small Town in Texas".  # 6. Lynda Carter "Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw". This was a B-movie action flick that starred a pre-Wonder Woman Lynda Carter and Evangelist-turned-action star Marjoe Gortner. Lynda plays an aspiring country singer who takes up with a charismatic car theif who fancies himself a modern-day Jesse James or Billy the Kid. Lynda gets naked a lot, and theirs some chases in cars that Gortner steals. Did I mention that Lynda get's naked a lot? The movie pretty much sucks, but if you want to see "Wonder Woman" in her prime totally nude and barefoot, here's your chance.  As for also rans-I've said it before nothing against Sally Field-but "Frog" just doesn't do anything for me. I know Jessica Simpson trained hard for the big-screen version of the "Dukes of Hazzard" ( which was awful ) but her phony southern accent was like fingernails on a blackboard, and the gratuitous bikini scene seemed contrived even for a mindless action-comedy.  Finally-I also left Jordana Brewster ( The Fast&Furious movies ) out. She's a hottie, but refereeing the bromance fights between Vin Diesel and Paul Walker ( "Don't fight,guys I love you both" ) through 4 movies doesn't get her on the list. Sorry. Mastermind                       

Best Musclecar Movie Chases revisited......

I get a lot of mail about stuff I posted two or three years ago. That's ok, I agree with Madonna-any attention is good attention.  Anyhow some people have asked me to go over a couple of old posts again. I aim to please, so here we go. First off-my picks are limited to flicks featuring musclecars, or at least American cars.  This disqualifies "Ronin", the "Transporter", "The Italian Job", and others featuring import cars. Those were great flicks with great action, but were talking about musclecars, not everything ever done.  Anyhow, here's my rankings. # 1. "To Live and Die in L.A."  I can hear purists screaming now that "Bullitt" isn't in the top spot.  Hear me out. "To Live and Die in L.A." starred a pre-CSI  William Peterson as a Secret Service agent obsessed with catching a counterfeiter that murdered his partner. The counterfeiter was played with evil glee by a young Willem Dafoe. Peterson and his partner decide to rip off another criminal to get the front money for Dafoe. The mark turns about to be an underover FBI agent. Shit goes sideways, and Peterson and his buddy flee with many feds in pursuit. The action is great as Petersen ( or his stunt double ) pilots a Chevy Caprice cop car the wrong way down the LA freeway. It's exciting and realistic. Others have copied it over the years-but no one has been able to top William Freidkin's work here-( He also directed "The French Connection" which is on this list too). It tops "Bullitt" for two reasons-as great as it was-it's still fun to watch 50 years later-they pass the same VW multiple times, and the Charger loses 8 hubcaps in the chase if you watch closely and count. And that falls on the film editing dept, not Carey Loftin ( the stunt coordinator ) or Peter Yates ( the director ) or Steve McQueen. ( The Star ).  # 2. "Bullitt" This is the grandaddy of them all, the one that started it. Steve McQueen was an avid auto and motorcycle racer in his spare time. It bolstered his macho image when it was said that he did his own stunt driving in this film. He did some-he overshot a turn, smoked the tires a lot-that's all in the film. However the heavy lifting was done by Carey Loftin in the Mustang and Bill Hickman in the Charger. It still looks good today because they didn't undercrank the camera-( a trick to make cars look like they were going faster than they were ). They tried it and it looked like shit. So McQueen, Loftin and Hickman were going up to 115 mph at times. If you watch closely-besides the Charger losing 8 hubcaps, the gas station actually blows up BEFORE the Charger hits the pumps ( one of the stunt guys who was supposed to detonate the charges-screwed up) but it's incredible considering it's 50 years old, and except for those minor mistakes it's still viable today.  # 3. "Vanishing Point".  This cult classic deserves all it's accolades. Barry Newman was awesome as Kowalski-a sad Vietnam Vet who-as we see in flashbacks-has been a car and motorcycle racer, and a  Cop, who lost his wife in a surfing accident. He bets his drug dealer the tab for some speed that he can make it from Denver to San Francisco in 15 hours in his hot rod 1970 Challenger. Much automotive mayhem ensues-( Carey Loftin was stunt coordinator on this one too ) and he's helped by a black,blind,clairvoyant DJ named "Super Soul" ( beautifully done by a young Cleavon Little; this was before he shot to fame in "Blazing Saddles " ) and along the way he meets a snake charmer, two gay guys who try to rob him, and a naked dirt-bike rider.  The police put bulldozers on the highway to stop him and the finale is amazing. Newman's smile as he drive's toward the bulldozers at full speed is ethereal. The car that blows up is actually a junk 1967 Camaro with the engine compartment packed with explosives and an impact-sensitive switch that Loftin towed toward the bulldozers at 80 mph behind the Challenger camera car and pulled over at the last second after releasing a quick-release tow cable. It works spectacularly. It looks like they actually drove a car into the bulldozers. Plus the hero dying in a blaze of glory was a shock. Back then ( 1971 ) hollywood was big on "happy" endings, so this definitely wasn't the norm. I love this movie, no matter how many times I've seen it.  # 4. "White Lightning".  Arguably Burt Reynolds' best movie. A pure southern-fried revenge tale. Burt is Robert "Gator" McCluskey, a moonshiner who's in prison when the film opens. Hearing his younger, college-boy brother was killed under dubious circumstances after being arrested by a corrupt sheriff, he makes a deal to get out of prison if he can prove the sheriff is taking bribes from whiskey runners and other criminals. The Feds supply him with a 1971 Ford Custom sedan that's been customized with a 429 and a 4-speed. ( You have to overlook a scene where he obviously puts an automatic column shifter in park. Maybe there was more than one stunt car ). Great automotive action, a poignant romance between "Gator" and a trailer-park Barbie nicknamed "Shake a Puddin" ( an awesome performance by Jennifer Billingsley ) and of course it comes down to a showdown between "Gator" and the corrupt sheriff ( played sadistically by Ned Beatty, who was the meek businessman raped in "Deliverance". That's range as an actor ). Good story,good acting, good action. Overall a satisfying revenge flick.  The sequel-"Gator" starring Burt and Lauren Hutton was awful. # 5. "The French Connection". Gene Hackman was great as "Popeye" Doyle, a New York detective trying to break up an international narcotics ring. After being shot at by a sniper he pursues the man on foot who jumps onto a subway train, that's going on overhead bridges. Hackman hijacks a Pontiac Tempest and chases the subway train through the streets, sometimes going the wrong way. It's a great scene with great action. The only reason it didn't rank higher is the film is actually kind of boring before the chase, as they show how the dealers operate and Hackman's frustration at the bureucracy of the police department. But it won Oscars and it's certainly worth watching, if for the chase scene alone.  # 6. "The Seven-Ups"  Roy Scheider stars as the leader of an elite police unit that only investigates serious felonies-that carry a minimum sentence of 7 years or more. Hence-the title. He finds out that someone is kidnapping high-ranking mobsters for ransom, and then killing them even if the organization pays the ransom. There's an awesome chase between two '74 Pontiacs, a black Grand Ville and a silver Ventura. Scheider ( or his stunt double ) is driving the Ventura and Bill Hickman ( who drove the Charger in "Bullitt" ) piloted the Grand Ville. It ends with the Ventura crashing into the rear of a perked semi.  # 7. "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". This one had a good plot. Peter Fonda is an ex-race car driver who plans to fund his return to NASCAR by robbing a Wal-Mart type superstore, by kidnapping the manager's wife and kids, and forcing him to give up the weekend's take in exchange for getting his family back.  The kidnapping plot is plausible, and would fly today-you'd just have to change the dollar amounts. Susan George is a one-night stand he takes along. Her major contribution is she spends the entire movie barefoot in a straining halter top and hip-hugger jeans that barely cover her ass-crack. There's some good automotive action early on in a '66 Caprice, which they dump in favor of a '69 440 Charger. Then the action really ramps up as Fonda tries to elude not only cop cars but a crazed sheriff in a helicopter played by Vic Morrow. He and Susie trade wise cracks while his mechanic and partner bitches that he's "overdriving" the car.  The fiery crash into a train at the end was used in the opening credits of the Lee Majors TV show "The Fall Guy" for years. Overall an entertaining action flick.  # 8. "Smokey & The Bandit" Burt Reynolds and his pal Hal Needham were basically playing grab-ass on-screen in this light-hearted action-comedy. It ended up out-grossing everything but "Star Wars" in 1977, and sold about a quarter-million Trans-Ams for Pontiac.  Burt's character-"Bandit" bets Big Enos-$80,000 he can bring back 400 cases of Coors beer from Texarkana to Atlanta in 28 hrs.  Burt drives the T/A, Jerry Reed drives the truck and they pick up Sally Field along the way who jilted a hillbilly at the alter. There pursued by the hillbilly and his dad-Sheriff Buford T. Justice. Jackie Gleason almost steals the show as the redneck, foul-mouth sheriff who doesn't care that he's hundreds of miles out of his jurisdiction, he's going to get the Bandit at all cost. Lots of chases with Burt and Hal sliding the T/A around, and a lot of gimme-five humor. For a mindless action-comedy, it's really cute and entertaining.  It spawned two sequels that were just awful. I'm sure a lot of people will gripe that this one didn't rank higher. Don't get me wrong; I liked it when it came out when I was in high school and I still like it. I watch it if it comes on TNT or one of the other cable networks once in a while. But since were also comparing action and storyline-this was fine for what it was-a dipshit comedy. But "Live and Die in L.A.", "Bullitt", even Burt's own-"White Lightning" and the others had serious storylines and better action.  But I agree no list of car-chase flicks would be complete without the "Bandit".  I know I'll hear griping about some of the "Fast&Furious" flicks being left off. Too much CGI and not believable stunts. Using hydraulic jacks and having the Charger smoke the tires and wheelie at the same time?  If your smoking the tires, you don't have enough traction to wheelie!!  Putting lead in the bumper of the Chevelle and Camaro to make them wheelie, and mounting a GN body backwards on the frame to make it look like Vin Diesel was going 70 in reverse was certainly innovative-but regular cars-no matter how much horsepower they had couldn't do that stuff. I'll go to the movies with a certain amount of suspension of disbelief-you have to to watch a James Bond flick-but the F&F movies went from bad to worse. Dropping cars out of planes onto a country road with pinpoint accuracy? Bringing down a 747 with cars?  Jumping the Mclaren or Lamborghini or whatever it was from skyscraper to skyscraper, not once, but twice?  Come on, man!!  I know I left a few favorites out  "Eat My Dust" and "Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw" to name a couple but I felt they didn't measure up to the others. Let me know if I missed any classics. Mastermind       

For god's sake.....Sometimes you have to "Run what you brung!!!".....

I don't know what it is, but I think sometimes people think something is cooler if it's hard to do. I never went to that school. I was always taught to take the path of least resistance. At least when it came to working on cars. I say this because of several conversations I've had with people the last few weeks. Hot August Nights was just here so I got to talk to more people than usual about the projects their working on or considering buying. One guy was considering buying a '57 T-Bird. It was in good condition and had the 292 Y-Block V8 backed by a 3-speed manual trans. It had a Hurst shifter on the floor which a previous owner had added way back in the '70's. Otherwise it was all there. I thought it was kind of cool, as most of the '55-57 T-Birds I had seen over the years were automatics. He asked me what it would take to convert it to an automatic. Groan. "More trouble than it's worth." I said. I explained how Fords all had different bellhousing bolt-patterns, and that finding a correct Ford-o-Matic that would bolt up to a '55-57 292 / 312 V8 would be very hard, as would finding the other pieces-shift linkage,crossmember, rear trans mount, neutral safety switch, etc.  I suggested that if he wanted an automatic '55-57 T-Bird, that he just look for another car-as I said almost every other one I had ever seen had a slushbox, including several at this year's HAN auction!!  "So it's possible." he said. Ugh! Manned space flight is possible, but's it's not cheap or easy! Another guy who was looking at a '62 Gran Prix asked me a similar question. This car had the 389 / "Slim Jim" Hydramatic automatic trans combo. He asked me how hard it would be to install a TH400. "Impossible" I said. "Unless you look for a '65 and later model and get the engine and transmission together regardless if it was a 389,400,421 / 428 or 455. " I explained that up until 1963 Pontiacs had the starter mounted on the bellhousing. In 1964 they started mounting the starter on the engine block. I told him about a guy I knew who swapped a TH400 into a pre-'63 Pontiac-and then discovered that he had nowhere to mount the starter.  I further explained that some late '63 blocks had the pad to mount the starter machined in to the block, so you could tap the block and then use a later trans and starter behind those. However-if his 1962 model had the original engine-it would not have this pad machined into the block, and there would be no where to mount the starter. I said I didn't like the "Slim Jims" because they wouldn't shift above about half-throttle, and perhaps he should consider converting it to a 4-speed, as it would be more feasible than changing the engine and transmission, and the 4-speed would make it more desirable even if it wasn't original. I pointed out that in Buff magazines and on the internet, a lot of companies offered the pedals, clutch linkage,bellhousing etc to convert the '59-63 Pontiacs to stick. I pointed out that used Muncie 4-speeds could be bought off the internet for as little as $500, and that Summit sold brand new Richmond T10s for about $1,500. "Could a good machine shop put the starter mounting pad on my block?"  NOOO!!!!  There's no material on the block to machine!! If you want to upgrade the tranny-you have to do the stick conversion, or find a later 389 / 400 / TH400 from a '65 and later car. Those are your only choices." "Unless your really lucky and a previous owner put a '64-66 389 in the car." "You'll have the factory machined pad to mount the starter on the block, but that also means your motor is not numbers-matching to the car." "You've got a real "Catch 22" there pal."  "There must be some other way."  ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!  "I just gave you your only two choices!!"  Still another guy was looking at a 1990 Rally Sport Camaro. It had a throttle-body injected 305 backed by a T5 5-speed manual. Chevrolet sold a ton of these from 1989-92 as they were several thousand cheaper than the Z/28 / IROC-Z. He asked me how hard it would be to convert it to Tuned Port Injection. "Too hard and too expensive". I said. He would need the whole system, the mass airflow sensor and the wiring harness, which you'd have to pirate from a TPI car. However, the LB9 and L98 TPI engines are valuable, and most junkyards want to sell the whole engine for a pretty penny to people restoring '85-91 Corvettes and IROC-Z's and T/A's, and won't let you just take the intake manifold and injectors. Further-I said-"Edelbrock makes a Performer manifold and matching cam for TBI engines that would really "Wake up" the 305. And Rally Sport Camaros had 3.08:1 gears. 3.73:1s would be an easy swap that would give a stunning improvement in acceleration through the first 4 gears, and that since 5th is overdrive, it wouldn't hurt highway cruising rpm. These simple mods would give him a huge performance increase-enough to easily outrun a stock Tuned Port Model.  Also if he wanted to swap in a 350-the TBI manifold and throttle body would adequately feed a 350. Like talking to the wall. He thanked me and decided to start searching for a complete TPI system for sale.....Good luck with that.  The last guy had bought a nice '73 Duster that had been very well maintained. It had a 318 with a 3-speed manual. He inquired about converting it to a 340 / 4-speed. "That's do-able, but probably too expensive." I said. "The reason is the 340 was only used from 1968-73 and are pretty rare, and thus pricey."  I suggested he go to a junkyard and find a Dodge Dakota with the 318 "Magnum" engine and a 5-speed stick and get the engine and tranny. Edelbrock makes manifolds to run a carburator on '92 and later "Magnum" engines. Hurst makes aftermarket shifters for these trannys. You might have to shorten the driveshaft and adapt the Dakota rear trans mount to the transmission crossmember, but that's not too hard.  I pointed out that the 318 Magnum / 5-speed combo would probably have better performance than a stock 340 / 4-speed, and would have better drivability and fuel economy. I also suggested a 360 Magnum out of a Dodge Truck or Jeep Grand Cherokee, in front of his stock 3-speed. I also suggested he sell his pristine Duster for a profit and look for a 340 model. Nope. He's searching for a used 340. I wish him luck, I just don't think he's going to find a deal on a running or at least rebuildable 340. Maybe I'm wrong, and he will find a deal. Like Jimmy the Greek used to say-"The race may not always be to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."  Take the path of least resistance-you'll be much happier. Mastermind           

Buy the right car.....even if it costs more initially....you'll be ahead in the long run...

I talk to so many people that make the wrong decision when buying or restoring a musclecar. Usually these are people who are not mechanics or bodymen by trade and they "bite off more than they can chew" and end up with a money pit that never gets done, or gets sold in disgust a year or two later.  Here's how to avoid this. # 1. I've said it before-but it needs to be said again. A special or rare car missing key components is not a deal at any price. Obvious examples would be any Hemi powered Chrysler vehicle without the Hemi engine, or a Boss 302 or 429 Mustang sans the "Boss" engine. You found an engineless Thunderbolt Fairlane in some hillbilly's barn for peanuts? Great-where in the hell are you going to find a running or at least rebuildable side-oiler 427 ??!! And at what price? Where are you going to find a complete fuel-injection system for a '57 Bonneville or '63 Corvette?  Where are you going to find a complete, Ram Air IV 400 Pontiac or SD-455 to put into that engineless GTO Judge or Trans-Am that you "stole?" A '69 Z/28-where are you going to find a 302 Chevy with the one year only "DZ" block? You could stuff a badass GMPP 350 crate motor in it, but that would piss off a lot of buyers if you ever wanted to sell it!  Let's say you find a really nice '65 Impala SS sans engine. Sure you could simply stuff a 350 or 454 crate motor into it, but that would detract from it's value to most people. Do you think you might have a bit of trouble locating a 327 or a 396 with 1965 date codes?  And that's a Chevy I'm talking about-god help you if your trying to find 390 AMC engine for an AMX!  # 2. Get the powertrain you want. I talked to a guy who had an L98 IROC-Z. That's the 350 'Vette engine backed by a TH700R4.  A buddy of his had an LB9 Trans-Am. The TPI 305 backed by a 5-speed stick. Even though the 350 / Automatic IROC-Z was faster in a drag race, he thought his pal's 305 / 5-speed T/A was much more fun to drive. He asked me how hard it would be to convert the IROC-Z to a stick. "Too hard, and too expensive" I said. I told him-if he really wanted a manual-trans Camaro or Firebird-the best thing to do would be sell his car and go buy one with a factory 5-speed. I told him he didn't have to limit himself to LB9 cars; that there are plenty of carburated LG4 and L69 305 F-Bodies with 5-speeds out there,and with very little work-an Edelbrock intake and a cat-back exhaust-could easily match or beat the L98's performance.  Don't fall into the buff magazine's "It's an easy conversion" trap. For a professional mechanic with $40,000 worth of tools in a state of the art shop, that may be true. For "Joe Average" with hand tools in his driveway, not so much. For example you get a screaming deal on a 318 / automatic powered '70 Challenger. You decide you'll just "drop" a 440 in it later. Really?  Because 1st off you'd need a big-block K-member, big-block torsion bars, heavier springs, a big-block radiator, a 727 trans ( a 904 won't bolt up to or hold up to a 440 ) and a new rear end. The 8.25 that comes with slant-six / 318 models won't do. You'll need an 8.75 at least. Then-the 440's been out of production for 41 years!! Where are you going to find one? And worse yet-all the brackets for the alternator, power steering pump, etc? The belt pulleys, the balancer?  It's a lot more trouble than just "dropping" an engine in!!  So don't buy a 350 Malibu with the intent of swapping a 454 into it.  If you want a big-block Chevelle, then step up and pay the price for an SS396 or 454.  Don't buy a 289 / 302 Cougar or Mustang and plan on swapping in a 351C or 390. Just get a 351C or 390 model to begin with.  # 3. Get the options you want. At least the major ones. Like front disc brakes, or power steering or air conditioning. Those factory options definitely add value and drivability. Other stuff-you can easily add a hood tach to any '60's GTO or Firebird. Spoilers, stripes, vinyl tops, different wheels, that stuff is easily added or removed. But trying to add disc brakes to something can be a real pain in the ass. On some cars you might need different spindles and different control arms.  # 4. Something with major rust issues or body damage or water or fire damage is not a deal at any price. They are endless money pits-because they are always in worse shape than they initially appear to be. Just spend more money and get a better car to start with. # 5. Don't get stuck on "Just as it left the Factory".  I'm not talking about modifying the engine here. Even if it's a 318 model- A bright red '69 Charger with a white interior and a white top and Magnum 500 wheels is way cooler and will sell for way more money ( if you do decide to sell it ) than an Olive-drab green one with green interior and dog-dish hubcaps, even thought it's "original".  A '78 Trans-Am painted white and blue like a "Macho T/A" with blue or black interior is way cooler and will sell for way more than a canary yellow one with red interior!! I hate the green and brown "earth tones" that GM was big on in the late '60's and early '70's. If you want to paint your car a non-stock color do it, or if you want bucket seats instead of a bench-by all means do it.  Good luck and I hope this saves some people from making a bad decision. Mastermind       

Stuff I DON'T hate.....

It's funny the perceptions that people develop. I've been called out several times by people asking why I "Hate" Fords.  This stems from two posts. One was several years ago talking about classic chase scenes in movies featuring musclecars. I quoted a 1987 interview with Carey Loftin who was stunt coordinator on "Bullitt".  He said that Steve McQueen didn't want two Fords in the chase. However since Ford had the contract to supply cars to Warner Brothers, GM and Chrysler refused to give them cars. He and McQueen bought the Charger from a Bay Area Dodge dealer with their own money. The Charger was a 440 / 4-speed. The Mustangs supplied by Ford were 390 / 4-speeds. Loftin said in early practice the Charger would leave the Mustang so badly that they couldn't even film it. Steve McQueen was furious. Loftin and his mechanic Max Balchowski hopped up one of the Mustangs with Hooker Headers and dual exhausts with shorty glasspacks ( which is why it sounds so badass ) an Edelbrock intake and 750 Holley double-pumper carb and a Mallory distributor. Now McQueen and Bill Hickman ( the Charger driver ) could play cat and mouse sucessfully. The other problem was-going up to 115 mph through the streets of San Francisco-the Charger had no problems except throwing hubcaps off. If you watch the film closely-the Charger loses 8 hubcaps in the chase. The Mustangs were falling apart-breaking shock towers and other suspension parts, door handles falling off, etc. Loftin and Balchowsky worked every night taking parts off the other cars to keep the camera car running. Now some people say this article "Bashes" Fords. How? I simply re-printed what was written in the original article. What was I supposed to do? Lie?  Accuse Carey Loftin of being a liar?  The second thing is when I wrote a post about engine swapping. I simply said that unlike a small-block Chevy or Pontiacs, or AMC engines or small and big-block Chryslers where just about everything interchanges, Fords are all different. They are!!  A 390 in an LTD has a different oil pan, water pump, alternator and power steering brackets than a 390 in a T-Bird,which is different than a 390 in a Mustang, which is different than a 390 in an F100 pickup. And unlike the others-Fords have different bellhousing bolt patterns. A 289 /302 is different from a 351C, which is different from a 390 / 428.  Unlike a Chevy where you could bolt a TH350 or 400 up to anything from a 283 to a 454, or a Pontiac where you could do the same to anything from a 326 to a 455.  How does that "Bash" Fords?  I'm simply stating an irrefutable fact-that Fords don't have the easy parts interchangeability of GM and Chrysler stuff. Which novice engine-swappers need to know!!  Further-I've owned two Ford F150 pickups both bought brand-new and paid off and kept 8 or 10 years. I've had 2 Mustangs-a '66 GT and an '83 "5.0".  I don't "hate" Fords. If I could find one that wasn't priced in the stratosphere I'd love to have a '55-57 T-Bird, or a '67-70 390 Cougar, or a '69-70 Mach 1 with a 351W.  I'd even settle for one of the "Eleanor" clones that are popular-'67-68 Mustang fastbacks done up like the one in "Gone in 60 Seconds"-the one with Nicolas Cage and Angelina Jolie- not the classic with H.B/ Halicki.  The other thing I get is people say I "hate" modern fuelie swaps. Wrong again. If you want to put the engine and tranny out of a '95 "5.0" Mustang into a '66 Mustang-of which 600,000 were built go ahead, make your day. Just don't do it to a K-code, 271 hp solid-lifter, 4-speed GT or a Shelby GT350 !!  You want to put an LS motor and a 4L80E  into a beater LeMans go ahead. Just don't use a numbers-matching Judge!!  You want put an SRT8 Hemi in a 318 Charger-knock yourself out. But don't do it to a for real numbers matching 440 R / T model !!!  That's all I've ever said. But somehow it got misquoted and misconstrued. Hope this clears things up. Mastermind 

"Class Acts" of the internet.....At least their entertaining.....

There must be an etiquette guideline for posting on the Internet somewhere.  It must read like this:  If something early in a post rubs you the wrong way, stop reading and vent your anger immediately. Use profanity so the writer knows you mean business. If the writer responds with irrefutable proof that you are wrong-i.e.-by citing a sentence or paragraph you failed to read, or other sources-Factory Literature, magazine road tests, etc-you are under no obligation to apologize. Simply slink away until the next thing offends you and you can spew your noxious venom on someone else. Apparently some people were mortally offended by a couple sentences in my last post. Specifically saying that the '73 Hurst / Olds was faster than a '72 SS454 Chevelle and that a '72 455 Gran Prix was faster than '72 440 Road Runner. I found two road tests for a '72 SS454 Chevelle. Both were 4-speeds with 3.31:1 gears. One ran a 15.1 in the 1/4, the other a 14.7.  I couldn't find any road tests of a '73 Hurst / Olds . I did find two road tests of a '73 Cutlass 442 with the 455 / TH400 powertrain, and 3.23:1 gears.  One ran a 14.90; the other a 14.65.  Those times are very close, and in a real-world drag race it might be too close to call or the winner could be who took off with less wheelspin. However the fact remains-that my statement was accurate-the Olds was quicker in the 1/4, if only by a tenth or two. Ditto for the Pontiac vs Mopar race. I found two Mopar road tests from '72 one for a 440 Charger, the other for a 440 Road Runner. The Road Runner ran a 15.35. The Charger ran a 15.12. The '72 GP SJ with a 455 ran a 15.0. Again, that's slight, but accurate. I love these guys with their insane "Brand Loyalty" like "Calvin" ( of the comic strip "Calvin&Hobbes" ) pissing on a Chevy Bow-Tie or Ford Blue Oval. Grow up guys and learn to do math. A couple of my personal favorites were the guy who said I was lying when I said my Ram Air III, 4-speed, 4.33:1 geared '69 Judge had beaten my buddies Torqueflite equipped, 3.23:1 geared 440 / Six-Pack Super Bee in a drag race.  Any experienced drag racer knows that the 4.33;1 gears alone would give me the win since the cars weighed about the same-3,700 lbs and had similar power out put-366 hp vs 390. However I also freely admitted that my GTO was not stock-it had Hooker Headers, a hot Crane Cam, and an Offenhauser dual-quad intake with two AFBs.  So yeah, there's no way a 400, 4-speed GTO with those mods and and 4.33:1 gears could beat a bone-stock Six-Pack Super Bee with an automatic and 3.23:1 gears!!  Cause Mopars rule and Pontiacs suck right?  Ditto for the guy who scoffed when I said my dad's Tri-Power 421 '65 2+2 had beaten a buddy's '67 427 Impala SS in a drag race. Ok. The Impala had the Q-jet equipped 390 hp 427, a TH400 and 3.31:1 gears. The 2+2 had the 376 hp Tri-Power 421, a TH400, and 3.90:1 gears.  Again-in addition to the gearing advantage-I freely admitted that the 421 had '67 GTO #670 heads ( whose closed chamber 2.11 / 1.77 valved big port heads flowed way better than the 1.96 / 1.66 "bathtub" '59-66 heads ) a 301 / 313 duration RAIII cam with 1.65:1 rockers, the tri-power intake port-matched to the gasket, the carbs custom jetted, and the 421 "HO" exhaust manifolds ported and extrude-honed and a TransGo shift kit in the trans. So ok, yep there's no way a 421 Catalina with all those trick parts and 3.90:1 gears could outrun a bone-stock 427 Impala with 3.31:1s!!  Because there's no way a 421 Pontiac can outrun a Big-block Chevy right?  The all-time best was the guy who said I was living on "Fantasy Island" when I said my friend's '83 Z/28 was a great sleeper and had shown it's taillights to many "5.0" Mustangs as well as many L98 Corvettes and and a couple of Grand Nationals. The Camaro was a 305 / 5-speed model with 3.73:1 gears. We installed Hedman Headers with O2 hookup and real dual exhausts-( no catalytic converter , illegal, but we did it ). We also added an Edelbrock Performer Intake and matching Performer cam and lifters. Since a stock '83 Z/28 ran low 15s in the 1/4-it would be easy to see how ours with all those mods could easily run low-14s-easily quick enough to beat a "5.0" Mustang or L98 'Vette and enough to give any stock GN a run for the money they'd never forget.  The cam ( that was designed for a 350, not a 305 ) took away a little bottom-end torque but that helped us launch and the massive improvement in the mid-range and top-end was well worth the trade. He could pop the clutch at 4,500 rpm and rocket off the line with just enough wheelspin to get the engine up on it's torque curve. Powershifting at 5,600 rpm, we'd beat most challengers off the line so bad ( 5.0 Mustang owners were notorious for frying their tires ) and hold onto it till well over 100 mph. If GN drivers didn't fry the tires, that could be anybody's run. L98 'Vettes? Either stick or auto our "Holeshot" would usually carry us to victory by at least two car lengths, maybe three. It was just the right combination. I love the doubters-I didn't say the car ran 12s-I said it ran low 14s-which is eminently reasonable considering the combination of parts we had. Anyhow before you start berating someone and calling them names-actually read what they wrote and understand it.  Or not-just get another "Calvin" pissing on a Chevy or Ford emblem bumper sticker......Mastermind         

What is a "Musclecar" in the public's narrow definition?.....

I had a reader comment on the post about 2 bbl musclecars. His opinion was that a car with a 2 bbl carb and single exhaust is not a musclecar.  I responded with the question-"You don't think a '68-74 Charger with a 383 or 400 V8 is a Musclecar?" "Or a '67-70 Mustang with a 390, or a '70-74 Firebird with a 400 V8?"  Because of the carburator and exhaust system?  How does that work?  Another guy said that no "Real" musclecars were built after 1972!!  Still another said no "REAL" musclecars had automatic transmissions.  Really?  The 1973-74 SD-455 Trans-Am is not a musclecar??  A '73 Charger with a 440 , a Torqueflite and 3.55 geared 8 3/4 is NOT a musclecar?  The 1976 T/A with a 455 and a 4-speed or the '79 with a 400 and a 4-speed is not a musclecar?  The Buick Grand National is not a musclecar? I had a '73 Hurst / Olds 442 with a 455. Is it not a musclecar because it has an automatic trans or because it was built after '72?  Is the 717 hp Charger Hellcat NOT a musclecar because it has an automatic and 4-doors??  Come on guys. You can poke fun at "Bandit" T/A's or 80's "5.0" Mustangs and 305 and 350 powered Camaros and Firebirds from that era, but the bottom line is they were the fastest cars available at that time, and kept the flame alive, which is why we got cool stuff like the Grand National, and why we now can buy 500 hp Mustangs and 700 hp Challengers off the showroom floor. Is a '75 Monte Carlo with a 454 or a '76 Gran Prix with a 455 or a '76 Torino with a 460 NOT a musclecar? They have single exhaust, right?  Or you could say their not a musclecar, their a "Personal Luxury Coupe" which is what the buff magazines called them back then.  Really?  Isn't that kind of splitting hairs? I Remember years ago a magazine writer claimed that the Porsche 928 was NOT a sports car because it  was available with an automatic transmission. Now almost all the supercars are autos. But according to this guy the Nissan GTR, Jaguar F-type, and Audi R8 are NOT sports cars because none of them have manual transmissions!!  Ok, bud keep your 1950's TR3 without synchros, because REAL men drive 4-cylinder, two seat convertibles with sticks!!  Or shut the fuck up and go buy a Miata!! But don't tell me that a Nissan GTR isn't a badass sports car!!  Several years ago Webster's or Funk and Wagnalls had a definition of a Musclecar. It read- "A compact or mid-size american sedan with a powerful mid-size or large V8 engine, designed to accelerate rapidly." Like the Road Runner cartoon's definition- "Accelerati Rapidus Maximus" .  Let's stop arguing semantics. I mean really-a '72 Chevelle with a 454 is a musclecar, but a '73 Hurst / Olds is not, even though the '73 Olds is quicker in the 1/4 ?  A '72 Road Runner with a 440 is a musclecar, but a '72 Gran Prix SJ with a 455 is not, even though the GP is quicker in the 1/4?  We all love our musclecars, new and old.  Mastermind               

Is a carburator worth $5,000, or $10,000 ?......

I see a phenomenon that I just can't fathom. I saw it again at this year's Hot August  Nights auction. I don't want to call anybody stupid, but I can't think of any other way to describe it.  What I'm talking about is musclecars with 2 bbl carbs from the factory. Their way more plentiful than you think. I have seen a lot of Chargers and Satellites and Coronets with 2 bbl 383s and 400s. And I have seen people pass up these really nice cars and pay more money for one with a 4 bbl that isn't as nice. It's insane. Maybe because they were standard engines or a slight upgrade over a 318 say-they were purchased by older people and were better kept and much less abused than their 4 bbl counterparts. And it's not just a Chrysler thing. I've seen a lot of 1969-73 Mach 1 Mustangs with 2 bbl 351W's and 351C's. Cougars too. I've seen many 289 2 bbl '64-68 Mustangs, and I've seen several 2 bbl 390 models. I've seen many 350 2bbl Cutlasses and Buick Skylarks, and tons of 350 powered LeMans and Firebird models. I've seen quite a few Esprit Firebirds and Luxury LeMans models and Gran Prix's with 2 bbl 400s. I've seen a ton of 2 bbl 350 Camaros, Chevelles and Monte Carlos. A few El Caminos with 2 bbl 400 small-blocks from the factory.   An Edelbrock Performer intake is about $200 for most engines through Jeg's or Summitt and a Holley or Edelbrock carb is about $400. Or it wouldn't be hard to chase down a factory 4 bbl carb and intake off the internet or at a swap meet for most GM , Ford and Chrysler applications. $600 and a couple hrs labor and you have a stunning improvement in performance and drivability. And no one in their right mind is going to say that a carb and intake hurt the value of the car!!  It's crazy but people snub these cars like the plague. I mean I've seen people buy automatics when they wanted a 4-speed, or buy something in a color they hate because it was otherwise a good deal. But a carb and intake? That's a deal breaker! Ugh! The one that killed me was the guy who wanted a '71-73 Mach 1 with two-tone red and black paint and graphics and two-tone red and black interior and Magnum 500 wheels. He finds a '72 Mach 1 with all of that in great shape-and then passes on it because the 351C had a 2 bbl!! He bought a gold '73 model with a 4 bbl that wasn't nearly as nice!!!  Another moron wanted a '70's Formula Firebird with T-tops and yellow and black graphics. He finds one in that exact color combination with T-Tops, and a 350 and a 4-speed!!-and passes on it in favor of gold hardtop 400 / TH350 model-because you guessed it-the 350 had a 2 bbl!!!  Like Ron White says "You can't fix stupid".  Anybody have an explanation for this?  I can't think that a carburator makes that much difference!!  Mastermind