Still more Movie and TV cars that you can build....

Had a reader write in with some more good ideas on cool movie cars that you can replicate. Some will be cheap, some not so cheap, but they were all great ideas. # 1. "Death Proof" Nova. I don't how this one slipped my mind-but the flat black,menacing Nova driven by Kurt Russel in Tarantino's Grindhouse classic would be easy to do. Find a '68-72 Nova, paint it flat black with a skull on the hood, some loud exhausts,some Rally Wheels,and some longer shackles or even air shocks to give it the jacked up rear-end look and your there. A snarling small-block would help too, and if you want to go all the way-Summitt offers bolt-in roll cages for X-bodies. # 2. "American Graffiti" '32 Ford. I make the same recommendation here that I did for the "California Kid". Get a Factory Five Racing '33 Ford Hot Rod Kit-the base kit is $11,995 and the turn-key one with everything but the engine and tranny is $19,995. Hot Rod magazine built one with a wicked 347 that ran low 11s in the 1/4 for under 25K. Paint it yellow,pay extra for a vanity plate that reads THX1138 and you've got Milner's ride. Or close enough. # 3. "Nash Bridges" 'Cuda. Several years after Miami Vice ended Don Johnson had another hit playing a Sonny Crockett type San Francisco detective who had a '71 Hemi 'Cuda convertible. ( Ok, they said it was a Hemi-but the close-up camera car-and Johnsons's favorite was a 340 / 4-speed model. The other stunt cars were 318 models with the scooped hood. ) The problem is finding any 'Cuda convertible is going to be hard-they were only built in 1970 and 71 and even 318 models are rare and thus a little pricey-people want 15k for rough 318 models that need a lot of work. However-if you "Gotta Have" Nash Bridges' ride-you could buy a 318 Barracuda drop-top and put the scooped hood on it and paint it orange. You could put in a Mopar Performance 380 hp 360 crate motor or go whole hog and spend 15K for a 465hp 426 Hemi crate motor. Probably cost you 50k to build, but that's way less than the $250,000 on up a that a "real" Hemi 'Cuda convertible would cost. # 4. "Mission Impossible" Sport Fury. Your mission,should you choose to accept it-is to find a clean 1970-72 Plymouth Sport Fury. With cool hidden headlight, fuselage styling and 383,400 or 440 cubes under the hood Mr Phelps ( Peter Graves ) did have a cool ride. # 5. "Boss Hogg" Caddy. The Iconic Charger wasn't the only cool ride on the "Dukes of Hazzard". Sorrell Booke ( "Boss Hogg" ) was driven around in a triple-white 1969-70 Cadillac Deville convertible. I personally wouldn't put the big bull horns on the hood-but I'd love to have a classic Caddy drop-top with 472 cubes under that long hood....Or......# 6. "Daisy Duke" GTX. Most people remember Catherine Bach in the short-shorts and the Jeep CJ5 with no top. ( The Jeep, not Catherine, damn it ) But in the first season Daisy had a '71 GTX. You could get by with a '71-72 Satellite or Road Runner...# 7. "Dynasty / Colbys 1963 Ferarri GTO. Miles Colby ( Maxwell Caulfield ) drove a '63 Ferarri GTO. But it was really a Datsun 240Z with a fiberglass body kit and a snarling small-block Chevy under the bonnet. Check Kit Car magazine-I'm pretty sure the company that sold the bodies is still in business-it was a front-end and rear valance kit-most of the 240Z body was used. 1970-78 240 / 260 / 280Z's are plentiful-and even if you don't want to swap in a Chevy V8-there are headers, cams, and Weber carb kits that really wake up the 6 cylinder Z motors. Mastermind      

More Iconic movie and TV cars....

Had some people ask about some other movie and TV cars and how to get them cheaply. These may not be cheap, but they won't cost you fifty or a hundred grand.  # 1. "The Dark Half". George Stark-the fictional killer in the Stephen King thriller drove a jet-black '67 Toronado with a bumper sticker that read "A High Toned Son of a Bitch".  Any Toro from '66-70 would do-and honestly-any Buick Riviera from '66-69 has the same bodystyle and has the advantage of being rear-wheel drive. ( Toros are all front-drive.) A blacked out Riv with a snarling big-block Chevy, and 17" Torq-Thrusts would be a high-toned son of a bitch indeed.  Just Saying. # 2.  "Road House" Patrick Swayze drove two '63-65 Rivieras in this action flick-ironically-because he didn't want his 380SEC Mercedes trashed. It's a running joke through the film-like "I thought you'd be bigger."  These Rivs have kind of a cult following of their own-so you might have to spend 10 grand on up for a decent one-but that's better than 25. # 3. "The Transporter". I know-it's an Import, not a musclecar, but a lot of people asked and I aim to please. The badass BMW that Jason Statham drove in the original ( and best ) "Transporter" was a one-off European-spec 733i that BMW built special for the movie with a manual transmission. So no, you can't buy one at any price. But you can buy a 1995-2000 540i with a V8, a six-speed manual, and sport suspension that looks very close to Statham's ride and has the performance to match-5-second 0-60 times. And I have seen them on used car lots for less than $8,000.    # 4. "Miami Vice". The Ferarri Daytona Spider that Don Johnson drove on "Vice" was actually a kit car built by Tom McBurnie on a '68-82 Corvette chassis. McBurnie and several other companies sold the kits for years until Ferarri filed a lawsuit. You can probably find one either finished or unfinished in Hemmings Motor News, Kit Car magazine or on the internet. The beauty is the Corvette chassis and drivetrain. Replacement parts are readily available at your local Autozone store. I'd put four Webers on a snarling 383 to really have the look....Dynamite if you could find one.  # 5. "Goodfellas". Ray Liotta drove a '68 Gran Prix in this gangster classic. 400 or 428 cubes under that long hood and Cadillac-like luxury-you can't go wrong. # 6. "Hard to Kill". Steven Seagal's 2nd-and I think best action flick. Early on he drove a cool black '63 T-Bird with wire wheels. '61-63 "Bullet Birds" aren't cheap- you'll probably need at least 15K to find a decent one-but that's still less than any decent '60's Mustang will cost. # 7. "American Beauty". Kevin Spacey's classic line in response to Annette Benning sneering-"What is that thing in the driveway?"  "1970 Pontiac Firebird". "The car I always wanted, and now I have it." "I rule!".  Actually any '70-73 model will be the same bodystyle, but the Formula 400 models offer the most "Bang for the buck".  Mastermind    

If you want an iconic movie car you don't have to spend 100K+.....

I was talking with some people the other day about legendary movie cars and I was amazed at how literal and nit-picky these people were. They were lamenting that if you wanted an iconic movie car replica it would cost you 100 grand to buy and or build one. I disagree-you could build almost anything for under 25 or 30 grand-as long as your not trying to copy it down to the nth degree. Here's some of my favorites that could be very easily done. # 1. The "California Kid." Yes, it would cost a mint to hot rod an original '34 like Pete Chapouris' classic. But Factory Five racing offers their '33 Ford Hot Rod kit for $19,995 turn-key with everything except the engine and transmission. You can have the frame and crossmember set up to accept any small-block Chevy or LS engine,or any small-block Ford or Coyote and matching tranny. You could buy a 345 hp SVT 302 crate engine and a B&M or TCI C4 for less than 6 grand. So for 25K you've got a car that runs low 12s or high 11s in the 1/4 ( they only weigh about 2,400 lbs-about 800 less than a Fox Mustang ) handles like a slot car and looks cool as hell. Even if you spent another 5 grand on a black pearl and red,yellow and orange flamed paint job you've still got only 30K in the whole shebang. Or if your a mechanic / bodyman-get the basic kit for $12,995, buy an '83-2004 V8 Mustang and pirate the running gear, suspension and electronics and probably get it done for under 20K. Now that's a bargain. # 2. "Thunder Road" '50 Ford. Again-hunting down and building a for-real '50 Ford Coupe would cost a mint. Check the internet-I can't remember the company name off the top of my head but their still in business. They offered body kits that bolt onto an '89-'97 Ford T-Bird body and look exactly like a '50 Coupe. If you got a '91-95 "5.0" V8 model-or a '96-97 4.6 V8-virtually any speed parts that fit a Mustang fit these cars-you'd have unlimited performance potential. If I remember correctly-I think the kits are $5,995 and I have seen '89 and later T-birds as low as $1999 on used car lots. If you could do the labor yourself, you could build a stompin' '50 replica for like 10 grand. # 3. American Graffiti / Two-Lane Blacktop '55 Chevy. We all know this was the same car with minor body and trim changes for each film. And no-I'm not suggesting you cut up and "Gasserize" an original '55. Hot Rod magazine did an article and so did Street Rodder-there's a company called Woody's Hot Rods-under liscence from GM-that is selling brand-new '55-57 Chevy bodies and chassis. Hot Rod built theirs with a 396 Rat Motor and a 4-speed for 25K. Street Rodder did theirs with a 350 and a TH350 for under 25K. That's what an original '55 that needs another 30 grand worth of resto work would cost!!  Purists might think it blaspehemy-but another guy built one for under 20 with a  straight front axle,radiused rear wheelwells and a stompin' 400 Pontiac / TH400 that he had in his garage out of a wrecked Tempest race car!  It's not original anyway so who cares?  A badass Tri-Five Chevy for under 25 grand?  You can't go wrong.  # 4. Burt Reynolds' "White Lightning" LTD. There's been a lot of debate about these cars. At least one was supposed to be a 429 / 4-speed.  In some scenes they show the Hurst shifter and him shifting it. It others you clearly see him or Jennifer Billingsley operating an automatic column shifter. No matter-nobody's asking a King's Ransom for '71-72 Ford Galaxie or LTD 4-door sedans. Get some black wheels with chrome lug nuts ala'-Super Bee style and white-letter tires. Most will have 351 or 400C motivation which isn't bad. Headers and loud exhausts with glasspacks will give you the sound and an Edelbrock Perfomer intake and matching carb and cam will give you the torque to do smoky burnouts. Paint it Chesterfield Brown and your there. Cheaply. Since Ford didn't offer a manual transmission in these models those of you who "Gotta Have " a 4-speed are in for a rough go. You'd either have to find Mustang / Torino Clutch linkage and pedals or F100 Truck Linkage and pedals and adapt that. Plus you'd have to find the proper bellhousing and Find a T10 or Top-Loader 4-speed and trans and figure out which disc, pressure plate and Throw-Out bearing to use-because Fords are all different-a 351 is going to need different stuff than a 390, which is going to need different stuff than a 429,-see what I'm saying. Finding all the parts and converting it would be expensive and a nightmare. Just live with the C6 or FMX auto and get a Hurst Auto Stick 1 or Mr Gasket or B&M shifter that LOOKS like a 4-speed shifter. You'll be happier and have a lot less grief and more cash in your wallet. # 5. Mad Max / Road Warrior Interceptor. Mel Gibson's Iconic ride was actually an Australian 1973 Ford Falcon XB GT coupe. No I'm not suggesting you have a '73-76 Falcon shipped from Australia. ( Although there is a company called "Aussie Coupes" that will custom-build you one and ship it to America if you have the cash. ) No there's two ways to do this cheaply. Like I said in an earlier post when I first saw the movie I thought it was '71-73 Mustang fastback. After looking closer,-especially at the taillights-I thought it might be a '70-71 Torino.  Either car will be close enough after you de-chrome it and black out the trim. You can graft van flares onto the wheelwells and get some wide black wheels and fat tires and there's several companies on the internet that sell Top-Fuel style "Zoomie" upswept side exhausts. Depending on if you want to look badass-or actually be badass-there's companies that sell fake GMC blowers. Or you could actually put a Weiand blower on your 302 or 351 Ford V8. # 6. "Ramrod" Bronco. This 1981 Cult-Classic "Vice Squad" starred Season Hubly as a Hooker / Police informant trying to help Cop Gary Swanson nail a killer pimp / drug dealer named "RamRod" played with wicked glee by Wings Hauser-who also sang the opening title song- "Neon Slime". Ramrod was a mean MoFo-and he drove a sinister black '78 or '79 Bronco with Center Line wheels, huge tires,loud exhaust and the "Nite" flourescent stripe package that Ford offered back then. He also had a cool spare tire cover on the back that said "Ramrod" in big letters. I thought that was the coolest looking truck when I saw the movie in '81-and It still looks cool on DVD or late-night cable today-34 years later. I know it's technically a truck...But still.....Which brings up  # 7...."Lone Wolf McQuade" Ramcharger. This movie is where CBS got the Idea for "Walker: Texas Ranger"  Chuck Norris was a duh-Texas Ranger who kicked a lot of ass. He also had some cool sex scenes with Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model turned actress Barbara Carrera and he drove a wicked, Supercharged '79 Dodge Ramcharger. A Ramcharger with a Roots-Type blower? If it's good enough for Chuck, it's good enough for me.  Any of these cars could be built cheaply and would be way to cool to show off in. Mastermind                        

More BAMF musclecars......

Had some people tell me about a few BAMF musclecars I missed in the last post. I aim to please so here they are.... # 1. 1968-71 Dodge Super Bee. With the cool sunglass and helmet-wearing Bee with smoking tires for an ass graphics,scooped hoods, simple black wheels with chrome lug nuts, and at least 383 cubes under the hood with the 440s and the Hemi optional these stripped-down street fighters were lean and mean. '68-70 models were based on the Coronet body; for '71 only they were based on the Charger. # 2. 1969-70 Cougar Eliminator. Cool hidden headlight styling, Boss 302 style graphics and spoilers and 428 cubes under the hood? I'd say that qualifies. # 3. 1971-73 Mustang Mach 1. With the NACA ducts in the blacked-out hood,front and rear spoilers and fat tires on the swoopy fastback body-these cars still look mean today. When I first saw "Mad Max" and the "Road Warrior"-I thought the Interceptor was one of these. ( It's actually a 1973 Falcon XB coupe-an Australian Ford Musclecar that looks a lot like a Mustang. There's a company called "Aussie Coupes" that will build you a Mad Max interceptor as mild or wild as you like ). Or you could just buy one of these 'Stang's and copy it....Most have 351C motivation and there is a ton of speed equipment still available for these engines. # 4. 1978-79 Dodge Li'l Red Express pickup. With a cool red and gold paint job,fat tires on chrome wheels, and vertical semi-style dual exhaust stacks,and a Police Interceptor 360 V8-these stepside 2WD pickups were the the third-fastest American production vehicle those years-edged out only by the L82 Corvette and WS6 Trans-Am. Dynamite if you can find one. # 5. 1989 20th Anniversary Trans-Am. These cars had a cool white and blue paint job, Recaro seats and the vaunted Turbocharged V6 out of the wicked Buick Grand National. Since the GN motor had more power and was lighter than the LB9 and L98 small-block Chevys-these cars were not only substantially faster than a regular T/A they also handled better-and the cars were nothing less than awesome handlers to start with. These command a King's Ransom-but their worth it. Let me know if I overlooked any others...Mastermind        

The most BAMF musclecars of all time....

I've said before that musclecars are definitely like Jules' wallet from "Pulp Fiction". ( The one that says Bad Mother%*r on it ). However some are way more badass than others. Some for power and handling, some for just sheer audacity, the fact that the engineers had the balls to build them in the first place. Here's my list of the greatest "BAMF's".  #1 1969 Charger Daytona / 1970 Plymouth Superbird. These slope-nosed big rear winged monsters were built specifically to top 200 mph on the big NASCAR tracks and they still look badass 45 years later. And with the mighty 440 Magnum under the hood standard, with the 440 Six-Pack and the 426 Hemi optional they can back up the image. If Darth Vader drove a car-it would be a Superbird. # 2. 1969-70 Boss 302 Mustang. Larry Shinoda's Masterpiece and again-they still look cool 45 years later. And with 11.0:1 comprsssion, a hot solid-lifter cam, Cleveland heads with ports and valves the size of a big-block Chevy,an aluminum intake and a 780 Holley-it only made 290 hp-the same as the "station wagon" 351W that was standard in the Mach 1. Riiiggghhhht. There's a reason they only came with a 4-speed and 3.91:1 or 4.30:1 gears!  Built so Ford could homogolate them for Trans-Am racing-only 1,600 were built in 1969 and a little over 7,000 in 1970 so they command a King's Ransom-but boy are they worth it. If you've ever driven one-or even just Heard One at full wail-you'd agree. # 3. 1970-71 Mercury Cyclone. Another Nascar warrior. Swoopy styling, cool graphics and 351C, 428FE or 429 Thunderjet motivation-you can't go wrong. # 4. 1969-71 GTO Judge. A play on Flip Wilson's "Laugh-in" skit "Here Comes Da Judge"-other than the Carousel Red paint,big rear wing and wild striping-these were nothing to sneeze at. With the Mighty RAIII standard and the vaunted RAIV optional they were'nt a paper tiger-you'd see taillights if you took one lightly and were driving anything but maybe a Hemi 'Cuda or LS6 Chevelle. I know-I had  a 4.33:1 geared, 4-speed RAIII model that smote every challenger in biblical fashion. Only 357 were built in '71,but they had the Mighty 455HO standard. Driving a Judge is like dating a stripper or eating a noisy bag of chips in church. People may frown at you in feigned disgust; but secretly they really,really want some too.  # 5. 1977-79 DKM "Macho T/A". The Mecham brothers took the already wildly popular Trans-Am and gave it a shot of adrenaline. Cool graphics,a re-curved distributor,a re-jetted carb, an opened hood scoop and Hooker Headers with two cats and no mufflers made these cars sound badass. And they were-Hot Rod's "Macho" test car ripped off a 14.29 et-the same day a stocker turned in a 15.20 at the same track. Options included a Chrome Rollbar in the interior, Recaro seats, and even an H/O racing specialties Turbocharger. When performance was in the darkest days-and every manufacturer was shying away-( The Freakin' Mustang II? A six-cylinder powered Hornet based AMX ? The Charger as a re-badged Cordoba?  Really? )  Pontiac, and Herb Adams and the Mecham Brothers gave the "Finger" with both hands to the EPA and the safety Nazis and the pipe-smoking, tweed-cap wearing automotive press that derided solid axles and big V8's.      # 6. Mother Mopar scores again. 1970 Challenger T/A / 'Cuda AAR. With the blacked out scooped hoods,Go-Wing,small front tires / big rear tires, LOUD side-exit exhausts and a snarling 340 Six-Pack under the hood-these cars shout "I'm Sexy and I know it".  "I work out....Look at that Body..."  # 7. Baldwin-Motion MakoShark. Remember the 'Vette Mark Hamill built in "Corvette Summer?"  When everyone else was giving up-Joel Rosen came up with these wildy styled,side-piped, flared fendered, monster tired "Vette's on Steroids. And you could order one with a fire-breathing LS6 or LS7. God, I miss the '70's.  Feel free to send in any I may have missed.  Mastermind        

Why magazines can't always do "Apples to Apples"....

After all the posts about road test ringers I had someone ask why can't the buff magazines always test "Apples to Apples"-i.e. the top option vs the top option of whatever cars their comparing. They try to, but their at the mercy of the manufacturers and what they have in their test fleet. It's been that way since the '60's and it's still that way. For example way back in 1969 Popular Hot Rodding tested a bunch of musclecars. They got a Hemi Charger with a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears. They said it was like running with one flat tire. They went through the traps in second gear and couldn't even break out of the 14s. Now if they'd had a 4-speed and some 4.10 gears it would have really rocked. They also tested a GTO Judge with a 3-speed stick! Really? The scribes bitched and correctly stated-that the car would have been much quicker with either a 4-speed or a TH400. They asked for a Ram Air IV GTO with a 4-speed and 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears. What did they get? A Ram Air III with a 3 speed and 3.55:1 gears!!  They got an L88 Corvette with a TH400 and 3.36:1 gears, when they asked for one with a 4-speed and 4.56:1 gears. Wonder why the test results weren't truly indicative of what the cars could run?  In 1971 a mag tested an LS6 Corvette against a 455HO Trans-Am. The 'Vette won the drag race easily by 3 or 4 tenths. However-the 'Vette was a 4-speed and had 4.11:1 gears and the T/A was an automatic with 3.08:1 gears. Had the T/A been a 4-speed with the standard 3.73:1 gears-the results would have been different. Or if the 'Vette had been an automatic with 3.08:1 gears it would have been different-the T/A would have won both times. The absolute worst one was a 1973 Motor Trend "Ponycar Comparo" That they declared a Javelin AMX the best peformer over a Chevy Camaro, a Pontiac Firebird, and a Ford Mustang. Except the AMX was a 401 / 4-speed model-the top performance option, and the Camaro wasn't even a Z/28-it was a Type LT with a 165 hp 2bbl 350 and a TH350!! The Firebird wasn't a Trans-Am or even a Formula 400-it was an Esprit with a 2bbl 350 and a slushbox, and the Mustang had a 351 2bbl with 177 hp and an automatic! Now if the Camaro had been a Z/28, the Firebird a Trans-Am or even a Formula 400 and the Mustang a 351CJ-the Javelin would have finished dead last!!  But that's all GM and Ford had available in their test fleets at the time. They did have an addendum on the article-that included test results of the premium models-and they added a 340 'Cuda to the mix as well-and the results were very different. The 340, 4-speed, 3.91:1 geared 'Cuda smote everyone in the drag race except the SD-455 Trans-Am! The Ford guys got the shaft a second time-The Mach 1 supplied this time did have the 266 hp 351CJ engine-but it had an automatic and 3.00:1 gears! If it had been a 4-speed with either 3.50:1 or 3.91:1 gears-which were options-it might have beaten the 'Cuda and givcn the T/A a run for the money. This still happens. As late as 2011 a magazine tested a Camaro SS, a Mustang Boss 302 and a Dodge Challenger R/T. The Dodge Boys got screwed. The Camaro had 426 hp, the Mustang had 444 and the Challenger 370. Why? Because a 425 hp SRT8 Challenger wasn't available at the time. Not that the results would have been totally different-the Boss 302 still would have won-but it would have been a lot closer because in addition to the extra hp-the SRT8 package included better tires and Brembo brakes. What you have to do as readers is gather the data and decide for yourself and take into account things like different gear ratios etc. For example-the supercharged 662 hp GT500 Mustang is only a couple tenths quicker in the 1/4 than the 435 hp base model GT. The reason-it smokes the tires all the way down the track. The car is literally doing about 90 mph when the wheelspin stops. Here's the catch 22-if you put drag radials on the GT500-the times would drop dramatically. But then you'd lose the world-class cornering of the street tires. That's where the old term "Buyer Beware" came from. Anyhow-don't be too hard on the magazine guys-their doing the best they can with what their given. Mastermind      

Even more road test ringers....

This subject has sparked a lot of interest so here's some more Road Test Ringers.  #1. 1979 Z/28 Camaro. In the late '70's the Mecham Brothers had great success marketing the "Macho T/A". In addition to cool graphics and some suspension tweaking they also had Hooker Headers and real dual exhaust ( with two catalytic converters instead of one ) a re-jetted carb and a re-curved HEI distributor and the "Shaker" hood scoop opened up. These mods were said to add 50-70 hp. Hot Rod's July 1978 Macho T/A test car ripped off a blistering 14.29 e.t. Nearly a full second quicker than the 15.20 ran by a stocker on the same day at the same track.  Anyhow nearly a year later Popular Hot Rodding had on the cover a blurb about their new Z/28 test car that ran "low 14s" right off the showroom floor. It was right off the showroon floor-of Mecham Chevrolet-Pontiac in Glendale, Arizona-the home of the "Macho T/A." The Mecham brothers had decided after the phenomenal success of the "Macho T/A" ( they were selling 300 cars a year and couldn't keep up with demand mainly because of the positive reviews from the buff magazines ) that maybe they could do the same thing with a Z/28. So this Z/28 had the full "Macho" treatment-Hooker Headers and dual cats with no mufflers, just resonators,a custom-jetted Q-Jet and a re-curved HEI distributor and an opened hood scoop. It was a "Macho Z" prototype.  Predictably it ran a string of  14.3's-substantially quicker than Car Crafts bone-stock tester which ran a 15.21 and Car and Drivers which ran a 15.60. For whatever reasons-Chevy dealers weren't as interested in selling hotted-up Cars as Pontiac was-and this was the one and only "Macho Z" know to exist. But it wasn't a stock test car!!!  # 2. 1987 Buick Grand National. High Performance Cars magazine had a drag race between a new Grand National and a 1970 LS6 Chevelle. The LS6 won the "shootout" running a 13.49 and a 13.61 vs the GN's 13.85 and 13.90. Huh?  Back in the day-Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, Hot Rod, everyone tested '86-87 GN's and most of them ran 14.30's. Which back then was blisteringly fast-L98, 4-speed 'Vettes were running about 14.60-and LB9 Z/28's and "5.0" Mustangs were running low 15's. So how did these guys run 13.85?  Well, first they decided that since GN's were tire fryers-and since the Chevelle had drag radials on it-in the interest of "fairness" the 215/65R15 Goodyear Radials that came stock were swapped for some 235/60R15 M&H Drag Radials. And the tank was filled with 100 octane unleaded racing gas ( Which-duh-on a Turbo'd, intercooled engine with a knock sensor that backs up the timing when itn senses detonation-would certainly run way better than 87 or 91 octane pump gas! ) And the owner of the car had installed a 160 degree thermostat instead of the stock 195 and installed a fan switch that kicked the fan on at 185 degrees instead of 220. He had obviously figured out the car ran much faster when cold than hot. Oh, and they put wet towels on the intake manifold between runs.  Think that might make a wee bit of difference over one running street radials,at 220 degrees on 87 octane gas?  Yeah!!! About 4 or 5 tenths in the 1/4!!!  But that kind of pushes the envelope on "Stock" I'd say. Wouldn't you?  Which Brings up....# 3. 1989 "5.0" Mustang. I said in an earlier post that most stock '87-93 Mustangs ran between 14.72 and 15.29 in 1/4 mile testing by various buff magazines. So how did Car Craft run a blistering 14.05 with their stock "5.0" test car? It was stock....except for the 225/60R15 Goodyear Gatorback radials being swapped for some 235/60R15 M&H Drag tires,the 2.73 axle ratio being swapped for some 3.55:1's, a K&N airbox and filter being added and a Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust sytem. I mean if your going to nit-pick..... # 4. 1992 Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR4. This one rivals the Royal Pontiac '64 GTO for sheer balls in cheating. Mitsubishi advertised their twin-turbo, all-wheel-drive sports car as running a blistering 13.75 in the 1/4 mile "under controlled conditions with a professional driver".  Since showroom examples and test mules tested by the magazines were running mid-14's you may wonder how this was accomplished.  The "Contolled Conditions" were these-they filled the tank with 100 octane racing gas, disconnected the knock sensor,disconnected the rev limiter,and lowered tire pressure to 15 psi. Then the "professional driver" popped the clutch at 6,200 rpm and powershifted at 7,000 ( 500 rpm over the redline on the tach ). This gave them the quick time-and blew the $5,769 transaxle after three runs.  Gee, I wonder why my neighbor who had one and waved that ad in my face and was running pump gas and 35 psi in his tires,with all the electronic nannies enabled, and tried to launch about 3 grand, couldn't outrun my Hurst / Olds from a light?  Needless to say he was more shocked than I was...... Mastermind        

Still more editorial favoritism.......

Had a reader respond to the last post about another magazine blatantly favoring one car over another. The magazine was Musclecar Review and the test was Cobra vs L88. They located two guys-one who had a for-real, documented 427 Shelby Cobra and another who had a documented L88 Corvette, and they were willing to drag race them and show once and for all who was really "King Kong."  Initially both cars ran very low 13s and very high 12s depending on whether they spun the tires halfway down the track or all the way down the track. The problem was the street tires. Both cars then were equipped with drag radials. With decent traction the Cobra's time dropped into the 12.30-12.40 range. The L88 ripped off a string of 12.0's and the best was a blistering 11.88 at 121 mph!!  Then they decided to run heads up two out of three, winner take all. The L88 won the first run. On the second run the Cobra broke an axle shaft and the Corvette's clutch let go. They decided to meet again at a later date after both cars were fixed. At the second meeting, the Corvette driver had trouble with the new clutch. He couldn't make the car launch properly either slipping it or dropping it. He still ran a 12.47 which was barely beaten by the Cobra's 12.41. The second round-same thing the 'Vette ran a 12.50 and the Cobra ran a 12.39. So the magazine writers declared the Cobra the winner and still undisputed heavyweight champion....Huh?  What about the first time when they ran both cars about ten times in practice runs and 10 out of 10 times the 'Vette was at least 4 tenths quicker-which in a drag race is 4 car lengths!!!???  How about a third meeting after letting the 'Vette guys resolve their clutch issues?  Like the reader said-he's reminded of what Jimmy Stewart told the reporter in the "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".  "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."  People get caught up in this and will not listen to reason. A while back someone sent me a profanity-laced email saying I was a bald-faced liar because I said my RAIII '69 Judge had beaten my buddy's 440 Six-Pack Super Bee in a drag race and that my '73 Hurst / Olds "didn't have to take crap from little boys in "5.0" Mutangs.  Let me give you some details. My buddys Super Bee was bone-stock with a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears and G70-15 street tires. My GTO was a 4-speed and had 4.33:1 gears and N50-15 Mickey Thompson "Hot-n-Sticky" drag tires. Those things alone would give me the win, However-my car also had Hooker Headers, a hotter than stock Crane Cam, and an Offenhauser dual-quad intake with two Afbs's on it.  So yeah-I was lying when I said my pumped-up,4-speed, 4.33:1 geared GTO walked away from a bone-stock, automatic, 3.23:1 geared Super Bee. Damn! You caught me. As Wayne and Garth used to say "NOT!!!!"  As for the H / O, there were no road tests available for a '73 Hurst / Olds but I did find two on 1973 442's with the 455 / TH400 powertrain. High Performance cars ran a 14.65 in the 1/4 and Car Craft ran a 14.90. Now we all agree that the '87-93 Fuel Injected "5.0's" are the quickest ones. In researching road tests of various stock "5.0" models by various mags-Hot Rod was the quickest with a 14.72 and Motor Trend the slowest with a 15.29. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do that math. Hmm...One car runs between 15.29 and 14.72,and the other runs between 14.90 and 14.65...Gee,which one is faster?  Before you start spewing hatred on someone because they said Car A beat Car B, make sure you have all the facts.  Mastermind              

60's and '70's Road Test Ringers re-visited......

Had some people ask about other magazine test gaffes or favoritism after the last posts. I've touched on them before, but I aim to please so here's my list of the biggest offenders. # 1. After more than 40 years Jim Wangers finally admitted what we all knew. Car and Driver's May 1964 GTO test car that ran a blistering 4.6 second 0-60 and a 13.1 second 1/4 mile time was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the 389 and replaced it with a hopped up 421. In addition to the extra cubes-the ringer had thin head gaskets to raise compression, rocker arm lock nuts and loosely adjusted valves to get another 500 rpm on the top,mechanical throttle linkage on the Tri-Power instead of the stock vacuum unit, the carbs were jetted richer and the distributor was re-curved for maximum performance. Showroom versions only ran in the low 14s-but man did that article sell a lot of cars-32,450 in the short '64 sales year-and another 75,000 in '65 and 96,000 in '66. GTO fever was so hot-That Chevrolet-with a dealer network twice the size of Pontiac's-could only sell 77,000 SS396 Chevelles that year.  # 2. 1969 440+6 Road Runner "Prototype". Car Life tested a "Prototype" 440 Six-Pak Road Runner that ran a string of very low 13 and very high 12 second e.t.s  Chrysler even used it in their ads. However the "Prototype" had been "Brought to the top of Specifications"-i.e. Blueprinted-and the carbs custom-jetted and the distributor custom-curved. And the car had 4.30 gears and slicks, and a pinion snubber. And the "Professional Driver" was Pro Stock Drag Racing Champion Ronnie Sox of  "Sox&Martin" fame. Small wonder that production examples were more than 1/2 a second slower!  # 3. 1973 SD-455 Trans-Am. This "Prototype" ran a blistering 13.75 for Car And Driver and and an even quicker 13.54 for Hot Rod. If you look at the pictures closely-you can see it's the same car-down to the Michigan liscence number!  The reasons I say it's a ringer are because the SD-455 wasn't released until April 1973 and this is why only 295 were built-252 in T/A's and another 43 in Formulas all with May or June production dates. The road tests were published in the May and June issues, but the actual tests were done in January. The car is a ringer because it had a 1972 aluminum RAIV / 455HO intake on it. Production SD-455s had an Iron Intake with an EGR valve on it. Part of the delay problem in getting the engine EPA certified was EGR valve function. Also-the prototype had the hot RAIV cam-which had 308 / 320 duration and .470 lift. ( With 1.5 rockers; RAIV's had .520 with 1.65 rockers ). It had trouble passing smog with this cam which was swapped for the much milder RAIII cam which had 301 / 313 duration and only .414 lift. Horsepower was down-rated from 310 to 290. This is why production examples could only run 14.30's. # 4. 1973 Olds 442. Motor Trend had a 1973 "Performance Car Preview". At this test a silver and red Cutlass 442 blew the doors off all comers which included an SD-455 Trans-Am, a 454 Corvette, a 440 Charger, a 401 / 4-speed Javelin AMX and a 351CJ Mustang Mach 1.  Olds engineers later admitted that the 455 in the car had the ultra-hot 328 duration "W30" cam, and the TH400 trans had a 2,800 rpm stall torque converter and a Hurst Shift kit installed, and the stock 2.73:1 gearing had been swapped for 3.42:1's! Production examples had none of those things.  Think that made a difference?  # 5. 1978 Dodge Li'l Red Express Pickup. In November 1977 Car and Driver had a "Double the Double Nickel" test-all cars which ran faster than 110 mph. The half-ton 2WD 360 V8 Dodge Pickup blew the doors off both an L82-4-speed Corvette and a WS6, W72 Trans-Am. How? This "Prototype" had Catalyst-free real dual exhausts, Nascar-style "W2" cylinder heads,the hot cam out of the legendary 340 "Six-Pack", an aluminum Holley "Street Dominator" intake manifold and a Holley 650 "Double-Pumper" carb. No surprise that production examples with stock heads,stock cam,and an Iron intake with a Carter Thermo-Quad were substantially slower!!.  It was all done in good fun and the interest of selling cars......Mastermind          

More skewed magazine results.....

Had some people ask about other magazine tests I didn't like besides the "Bandit vs General Lee."  It's not a matter of liking or not liking the results, it's a matter of objectivity. The numbers don't lie. So how is it that the car with best performance numbers doesn't win?  Because the magazine writers vote for their favorites no matter what. Car and Driver loves German cars. Anytime there's a comparo between American, Japanese, and German cars they always call the BMW, Mercedes, or Audi the winner. Even if the numbers don't bear this out. The worst was the article called "America's M3".  A base model Mustang GT which had 412 hp and cost $32,000 ran a faster lap time around Willow Springs Raceway than a $64,000 414 hp BMW M3. The 0-60 and 1/4 mile times were within 1/10 of a second and the braking distance was within 10 feet. Basically-the Mustang was equal to or better than the Bimmer in every performance category and cost half as much, yet they rated the BMW # 1!!!  Ditto for a "Supercar Shootout". Even though a Nissan GTR blew the doors off an Audi R8, a Corvette Z06, and a Porsche 911 Turbo in almost every category-the 911 had the shortest braking distance-they declared the R8 the winner. Car Craft was so bad that angry readers wrote in and said they should change the name to "Chevy Craft". For the same reason-they declared a Chevy the winner every time. In the early 90's they tested a '92 Mustang GT against a '92 Z/28. Even though the Mustang had a quicker 1/4 mile time, a higher top speed, and cost 3 grand less, they declared the Camaro the winner.  Their worst one was a "Crate Motor Shootout" a few years ago. They put up a 345 hp ZZ3 350 crate engine in a '69 Camaro with a 4-speed  against a 345 hp 302 Ford SVO crate engine in an '84 Mustang GT and a 360 hp Mopar Performance 360 in a Duster. The Duster blew the doors off both of them in the 1/4. The Mustang was the second fastest and the Camaro last. Not that the Camaro was slow-it ran something like a 12.85-but the Mustang ran a 12.47 and the Duster ran a blistering 12.11. They derided the Duster because it had a choppy idle!!!  Gee, guys a cam with .513 lift and 284 duration will do that! And were we not testing "Apples to Apples-that's why the hp ratings were so close-Ford offered a 351 with 385 hp and a 351-based 392 stroker with 450. Chevy offered a 383 with 425 hp and Mopar offered a 408 inch 360 based stroker with over 400. They were trying to keep it as fair and even as possible. Mopar guys had a right to be pissed. The Mustang was a gutted race car that weighed only 2,800 lbs and the Camaro had a 4-speed and 4.11:1 gears. The Duster had a Torqueflite and 3.55:1 gears and a full interior. And it still prevailed. Yet the CC writers all 3 said they liked the Camaro best. Like it all you want-but it was not the winner of this shootout!!!  Anyhow we all wish they'd be more objective. Like whatever cars you want-but when it gets beaten fair and square take it like a man, not like a kid with "Calvin" pissing on a Ford or Chevy emblem!!  Just had to vent that. Mastermind

General Lee vs the Bandit? How does that math work?

A while back I commented on a compact sport sedan comparo that was in Motor Trend or Car and Driver-I forget which. But I remember it because it pissed me off so badly. They compared a Subaru WRX,a VW Golf GTI, an SVT Ford Focus and a Honda Civic SI. The Subaru was the fastest 0-60, the fastest in the 1/4 mile,had the shortest stopping distance from 70 mph,and had the highest numbers on the skidpad, and the lowest price!  Yet they declared the VW the winner. Huh?  Why? Because it had more cupholders?  How in the hell, in a performance comparison does the car that won every single performance test finish second? Well, one of the buff mags has done it again. This one was the Bandit vs the General Lee. For those of you that have lived in a cave for the last 38 years the "Bandit" is a black '77 Trans-Am driven by Burt Reynolds in the classic car chase / comedy "Smokey and the Bandit" which out grossed everything but "Star Wars" back in '77. The General Lee is an Orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate flag on the roof driven by John Schneider and Tom Wopat in the campy TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard".  ( There was also an awful movie with Johhny Knoxville and Sean William Scott, but real fans always think of the TV show. ) Anyhow they found a couple guys one with a Charger done up like General Lee and another with a well preserved Black and gold SE T/A and did the usual performance tests. With catalyst-free exhaust and 440 cubes it's a no-brainer to say that the Charger was quicker in a drag race than the smog-choked 400 inch Trans-Am. However-in every other performance category the "Bandit" stomped "The General". It had a way shorter 70-0 stopping distance,and the gap got larger as they tested because the Chargers 4-wheel drums faded badly and the T/A's front disc / rear drums didn't. The T/A smoked the Charger on the skidpad-staying remarkably composed and registering a blistering .82g while the Charger wallowed around like the Titanic and scored a dismal .67g-about the same as what an F250 Ford truck scores!!  In the slalom and a race up a curvy country road the Pontiac again left the Dodge in the dust because it cornered way better and braked way better, and the seats kept the driver firmly planted behind the wheel. The Charger driver complained that the flat smooth seats had him sliding out from behind the wheel during hard cornering so badly that he had to hang onto the door strap in left turns and hang onto the shifter for dear life in right turns. One of the writers pointed out that it would be pretty easy to add Horsepower to the Pontiac which would really make it an ass-whippin'. The other guy said-wrongly-that if the Charger had factory disc brakes it would have fared better. I say wrongly because in checking old magazine road tests a '77 T/A stopped from 60 mph in 144 feet, while a disc-braked '69 Charger took 207 feet. The Mopar fans said that you could by sway bars and subframe connectors and different springs and shocks to make the Charger a g-machine. That's true but if your comparing "Apples to Apples"-theirs tons of upgraded suspension parts for '70's Camaros and Firebirds as well. Either bone-stock or modified-like it or not-a '70's T/A is a much better performance car than a '60's Charger. That's simply because suspension and tire technology made huge advances in the intervening years. A 2015 Mustang GT will smoke a 1969 428 CJ in every performance category. 45 years of technology advances will do that!!  Anyway-even though the T/A bested the Charger in every single category except the drag race, these guys voted the Charger the winner. Really??  How does that math work?  I'd love to have a 1967 427 Stingray. But a 2015 Corvette will run off and leave it in any performance category.  Go ahead and love the old one-but don't say it's a better performer-the numbers don't lie!!  Anyhow, I just had to vent that.  Mastermind  

A tough choice of Blue Oval muscle.......

My brother is thinking very seriously about getting a new Mustang. He's torn between a Shelby GT350R and a Roush Stage 3. The Roush would be the "King Kong" drag racer with 675 hp on tap-a Hellcat fighter for sure. The Shelby is a better balanced package overall. We'll be checking them both out and I'll post about what decision he makes and why. I've driven a Roush Stage 3 and they are definitely "Jule's Wallet" from Pulp Fiction. I'd like to drive a GT350 and compare. Anyhow I'll let everyone know how the search goes. Otherwise Happy New Year to everyone.....Mastermind

An F14 fighter jet is an airplane....But it's not something you'd fly 100 people to Hawaii in...

Got a bunch of the usual flack about the post stating that 7 and 8 second cars weren't street machines, but race cars with liscence plates. "Go buy a Camry you pussy if you want a smooth idle."  Real adult stuff like that. Anyhow-I'm here to say that I personally and my friends have had some badass rides. My GTO had 12:1 compression, a cam with 337 duration and .575 lift, two 750 AFBs on an Offenhauser dual-quad manifold,Hooker headers and it was backed by a Rock-Crusher 4-speed and a 12-bolt posi rear with 4.33:1 gears and Lakewood ladder bars. Rear tires were Hot-n-Sticky N50X15 Mickey Thompsons. I had an 11.79 time slip from a strip in California. Yes, it was brutally quick. Yes, I loved it.  It also got 5-8 mpg while needing two cans of octane booster per tankful and the motor buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway didn't really make for a nice commute to work. My '73 Hurst / Olds and my '77 Trans-Am weren't nearly as fast but they were a lot easier to drive on a daily basis. A friend had a Cobra Replica with a blown big-block Chevy in it. It was ungodly fast-the first time he ran it on the track it ran something like 9.90 in the 1/4-( 500+hp in a 2,300 lb body will do that ) and he got kicked off the track for not having a full cage and a driveshaft safety loop-which most tracks require on anything quicker than 11.50. However-it oveheated if it idled for more than two minutes, you had to crane your neck to the left to see around the blower to drive, driver's and passengers alike burned their legs on the sidepipes getting in and out, and about every fifth run the Jag rear end would spit out a half-shaft and it would have to be towed home. As this demonstrates-anything is drivable depending on what the driver is willing to tolerate. But to qualify as a "Street Machine" like I said in the previous post-you ought to be able to drive 150 miles without stopping for gas,enter or exit a sloping driveway without denting the oil pan or the exhaust system,idle in 90 degree heat for ten minutes without overheating and drive 10 mph over the posted speed limit on a curvy road in the rain. You know things that a 15 year old Honda Accord or a 20 year old Buick LeSabre can do!!  If you want to drive some fire-breathing monster go ahead. But don't try to convince the rest of us that it's as comfortable a daily driver as your neighbor's Chrysler 300.  Mastermind

Another blast from the past...."Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" could be updated....

After talking about possible remakes of The "California Kid" and "Thunder Road" someone mentioned "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry." It's usually on the list of greatest car-chase movies in buff magazines or on the internet. For those who aren't action / car movie buffs-It starred Peter Fonda and Susan George. Fonda was an ex-Nascar driver who with his former crew chief decide ro rob a major supermarket to fund their next attempt to run the Winston Cup circuit. It's largely lumped in with campy stuff like "Eat My Dust" or "Moonrunners" but it actually has a pretty good robbery / kidnapping plot gone wrong and good suspense. There's also some good automotive action early on with Fonda driving a '66 Impala, that they later dump for the Iconic '69 Charger used in the finale. Susan George was smokin' hot in the early '70s-she had the barefoot, halter-top wearing southern slut that men die and kill for down pat. She played Dustin Hoffman's wife in the Sam Peckinpah thriller "Straw Dogs", she played Timothy Bottoms girlfriend in the revenge flick "A Small Town in Texas" and her hot inter-racial love scenes with Boxer Ken Norton in "Mandingo" gave her the same kind of notoriety that Sharon Stone got from "Basic Instinct" years later. Others have tried it-Kim Basinger in "No Mercy", Teri Hatcher in "Heaven's Prisoners" and most recently Reese Witherspoon in "Mud"-but none of them come close to Susie as the bubble-headed Mary or Jennifer Billingsley as the over-sexed "Shake a Puddin'" in "White Lightning". As to whether Susie or Jennifer has the more enticing, sympathetic portrayal of the whore-with-a-heart-of-gold-it's too close to call. Susie was a little more biker bitch, in-your-face-with her sexuality and attitude,going insult for insult with Fonda and his pal while showing her smokin,tanned body in-the skimpy denim halter-top and ultra-tight hip-hugger jeans that barely covered her ass-crack-while Jennifer was more demure- wearing a flowery sundress and running her bare foot up and down Burt Reynolds bicep and cooing-"If you want it Gator, just say so." "If you don't it's ok." That scene causes a "Wayne's World" type "Schwing!" for me every time I see it. Anyway you want to rate them-Susan pretty much had that market cornered in the mid-70's. Vic Morrow-ironically following the role of the Maniacal sheriff in the "California Kid"-is cast here as-guess what? An over-zealous lawman that you feel doesn't want to catch Fonda & crew and send them to jail, he wants to kill them. The fatal crash at the end was used in the opening credits of "The Fall Guy" for years.  Anyhow-the kidnapping / robbery plot would still fly-you'd just have to change the dollar amounts. For cars a Hellcat Charger would be the obvious choice-but you could also use a Camaro SS or a Mustang GT. I'd say use Chris Hemsworth ( "Thor" "The Avengers," "Blackhat" ) in the Peter Fonda role and Scarlett Johansen as Mary. ScarJo wouldn't even have to talk-90 minutes of her barefoot in skimpy jeans and a barely-there halter top would be worth the price of admission. Now if Chris got tired of her bitching and put her bound and gagged in the backseat??!!!!  Ok, sorry getting too close to porn there......But still..... Anyhow I think it could be a big hit.  Mastermind  

A "Thunder Road" redux might fly.....

After the post about the "California Kid" I got some inquirys about other car-chase classics that might benefit from a re-boot to modern times. Obviously "Bullitt" would fly-you just change the dollar amounts that Johnny Ross embezzled and put the records on computer disc. And of course you can use a new Hemi Charger and a new Mustang GT. That's a no-brainer. The one I thought of though that would be better and more original is "Thunder Road."  The original was made in 1958 and starred Robert Mitchum as a Korean war vet who was running Moonshine and fighting not only the Feds but other Moonshiners who were trying to take his territory. I spoke once before about updating it to the Viet Nam era and using late '60's musclecars and also maybe adding drugs and hookers to the mix. That would fly too. However the other day I got an Idea for a modern TR.  Luke Doolin and his buddys can be returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets that live in Washington or Colorado where Marijuana is legal. One of the guys can use his disabled veteran status to get a legal dispensary. They can quickly figure out that they could make HUGE profits by running the weed to neighboring states that aren't so progressive, while flying under the radar with their "legal" business. Soon local law enforcement can find out and want a piece of the action to look the other way. The DEA and the IRS can get interested, as well as gangsters who contol the drug trade in the neighboring states. This will obviously set up great suspense and action. Besides using Chargers and Challengers and Mustangs to elude the law-obviously they want to do business in the winter time too- they could also use Subaru WRX's-all-wheel drive with Blizzak tires would surely haul ass over snowy mountain passes a lot better than Crown Vic or Charger cop cars or even Ford Explorer SUVs that Police agencies use. They could also use 400 hp Ford Raptor 4X4 pickups to make their own roads through the woods. Because of their training in desert and mountain warfare it won't be easy for the law or the gangsters to take them down. I think it would be a badass, unique original story that would be a mega-hit. Especially if the director kept it real. By real-I mean no CGI-just great men doing great things with great cars. And real fight action-no "Matrix" like flying through the air and walking up walls-we'll see-blood and bones breaking, and how a real fight looks-not the usual Hollywood crap of two guys kicking each other in the face for ten minutes and they both look like they just left the barber shop. I think it would be a mega mash if someone did it right. You listening, Quentin Tarantino of Brian De Palma? ( "Carlito's Way" ).  Mastermind      

"Period Correct" Or "Proper Date Coded"....Still isn't original!!!!.......

I see a disturbing trend in the sales of high-end musclecars. By high-end-I mean stuff  that people want over $100,000 for. That's right-the price of a house anywhere but New York or California and it's not original!!. I mentioned in a earlier post that I saw a Shelby Mustang that was for sale for $140,000 and had a "date correct" Police Interceptor engine in it. What that means is the original owner probably put a rod through the side of the block around 1974 and it's been through several Ford engines since-and when this last guy decided to restore it he managed to find a 428 out of an old cop car. This is isn't an isolated example. I've seen several Hemi powered Road Runners, Chargers, and Challengers selling for $80,000 on up. Except their not original Hemi cars. Their 318 or 383 models that someone stuffed a Mopar Performance Crate Hemi in. I saw a '57 Chevy Bel Air that was very nicely done and was selling for $99,000. Yep. Another one for 100K. And it was proudly stated that it had a "period correct" T10 4-speed trans and 283 V8. Except it wasn't "period correct".  Period Correct would be with 1957 date codes. The engine and the trans had 1964 date codes!!  I saw a '69 Trans-Am Convertible for sale for $100,000. Except it's not one of 8 ultra-rare cars. It's a Firebird convertible that someone cloned a T/A out of.  Don't get me wrong-I'm not disparaging the builders or sellers of these cars. They disclosed that the cars weren't original-it's not like their trying to defraud anyone by selling fakes as the real thing. No I'm saying theres way too many people with more money than brains. If I was going to spend six figures on a car-it damn well better be the real deal.  Here's where the term "Buyer Beware" comes into play. Do some research and shop around. If the '69 GTO your buying has a 400 out of a '75 Bonneville in it-that wouldn't be a deal breaker-if the price was under 10 grand. But it should be if someone's selling it for 50 grand!!!!  That's all I'm saying. Mastermind    

More "Gotta Haves" that you don't really need.....

Here's some more tips on getting the most bang for your buck. Like I said in the last post the buff magazines have their way of doing things and often they are giving good advice-if your building an all-out race engine. If your building a street machine that might go to the drags one weekend a month you don't need 3/4 of the "Gotta Haves." Here's a perfect example-a while back one of the major mags-I think it was Hot Rod was chronicling a small-block Chevy buildup. They went down the list-you "gotta have" a 4-bolt main block, a forged steel crank,forged "pink" rods, forged pistons, screw in studs in the heads etc, etc. Their half-right. Yes, if your building a NASCAR Nextel Cup engine that has to go 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona, you need all the beef you can get. But if your building a street engine that will never see the high side of 6,000 rpm you don't need any of that. In fact-even if your building a circle track "Hobby" stock or "Street Stock" car that won't go over 6,500-your good with standard stuff. Two-bolt main blocks and cast cranks are fine for this kind of use. I would only recommend forged pistons if your were planning to run a blower or nitrous. And then my question would be-if you have that much money and need to go that fast-why aren't you building a 454 instead of a 350?  I know people that have run small-block Chevys in circle track and 1/4 mile drag cars for 20 years that have NEVER had a stud pull out of a head. Hot Rod tested some Trick Flow aluminum heads on a ZZ4 crate engine. If you don't know-the ZZ4 is a 350 V8 rated at 355 hp and 405 lbs feet of torque. What makes it such an awesome street rod or hot rod engine is it makes over 350 ft lbs of torque from 1,800 to 5,200 rpm. They also added a bigger cam and a different intake in the search for more power. Here's the funny thing. The Trick Flow heads cost $1,400, and did net a 40 hp gain-at 6,100 rpm. Now if it's a drag racer or a circle-track car thats run wide-open all the time-that's a worthwhile gain.  However-on the dyno test the "antiquated" factory L98 heads were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm up to 4,700. Now in a daily driver or a street / strip machine how often are you going to be above 4,800 rpm?  And for $1,400 you could buy a carb and intake, a cam kit, a higher-stall converter,some gears-a variety of things that will gain a lot more than 40 hp in a 1,400 rpm window from 4,700-6,100 rpm!! This is not an isolated example. Car Craft tested identical 454 Chevy engines with standard oval port heads and high-performance rectangular port heads. The rectangular port heads did not show a noticeable gain until 6,300 rpm. Now how often are you going to be above 6,200 rpm??  Here's another one-Edelbrock has been very successfull with their Performer and Performer RPM power packages-i.e.-heads, intake and cam. The Performer Pontiac package tested on a 400 makes 387 hp and 439 lbs ft of torque and has 15 inches of vacuum at idle. A perfect street combo-glass-smooth idle and 400 lbs of torque from idle on up. The Performer RPM package-which is basically a replica of the factory RAIV package. It makes 422 hp and 441 lbs ft of torque. However, it only has 10 inches of vacuum at idle and most of the power gain is above 4,500 rpm. Your trading quite a bit of idle quality and low-end  and mid-range torque for top-end rush. Honestly-is a car with 422 hp really going to be that much faster than a car with 387 hp?  Does 35 hp really do that much? Especially when you consider traction,gearing, etc. Before you spend your hard earned dollars just look carefully at how much bang for your buck your getting.  Mastermind    

"Gotta Haves"....That you don't really need if your trying to go fast on a budget...

Even though I sometimes write for the buff magazines It may seem that I'm awfully critical of them. On one hand I love reading them, and I realize it's their job to feature new and innovative things, and to push their advertisers products. That's how they stay in business. On the other hand It seems that every project car they build costs 40 grand or more and has to have state of the art everything. This is discouraging to younger people and those of us with families to support that would like to have a hot rod but can't invest 50 grand in a toy. I'd just like to show that you could build a fun, safe,cool car that runs 12 second 1/4 mile times or is a corner carving "G" machine without breaking the bank. The way to do it is to apply two simple rules of hot rodding-# 1. "Run What You Brung".  # 2. K.I.S.S. ( Keep It Simple Stupid ).  # 1. Is important because a lot of people think you need the latest and greatest and biggest and best of everything. Let's say you buy a '78 Camaro to play with. Yes, if you have the bank account to spend 20K on the engine alone, by all means swap in a 620 hp 572 inch GMPP rat motor or a 638 hp LS9 out of a ZR1 Corvette and enjoy it. If you don't have that kind of budget then you'll have to use the engine that came in the car which is most likely a 350 V8. You can't ask for a better base for a hot rod. There is more speed equipment available for the small-block Chevy than anything else on the planet. Magazines always rebuild their engines from the ground up. You don't have to do that. If the engine in the car runs good, has good oil pressure, doesn't use any oil, and doesn't smoke, why on earth would you spend the time and money pulling it out of the car and rebuilding it?  If you want more power-that's easy. The first two things are bolt-ons. Get an Edelbrock or Weiand performance intake manifold and re-jet the Q-Jet carb that's on the car. Or replace it with a new Edelbrock or Holley carb. Add a set of headers and a good dual exhaust system. These two simple mods will add at least 50-70 hp to your engine without affecting gas mileage or idle quality. In fact-because of the increased efficiency besides the power increase you'll probably get a 2-3 mpg increase in fuel economy. The next thing is mechanical advantage. Chances are, especially if the car has an automatic transmission-that is has Salt-flats gearing like 2.56:1 or 2.73:1. Swapping the 2.56:1 axle ratio for something in the 3.23-3.73:1 range will give you a HUGE increase in acceleration-more than 1/2 a second off your 0-60 and 1/4 mile time without adversely affecting drivability or freeway cruising speed too much. A TransGo or B&M shift kit in the TH350 will further maximize performance. Right now-assuming you can do the labor yourself-you've spent $600 for the carb and intake, $150 for the headers, $ 150 for the gears, maybe $250 for an exhaust system at a muffler shop and $50 for the shift kit. You've only invested $1,200-but I guarantee the improvement in the car's performance is stunning, and you haven't hurt drivability or reliability one ounce. If you want to go faster than that-the next steps would be maybe a hotter cam and slightly higher stall speed torque converter to complement the cam. You'd still be under 2 grand in dollars invested and you probably dropped the 1/4 mile time from somewhere in the 16s to somewhere in the 13s, and the car is still dead-reliable and easy to drive on a daily basis if you want to. If you "gotta" get it in the 12s-an entry-level Nitrous system will yank a 13 second car into the 12s easily, and your still under 3 grand in total investment. It's not sexy-but it's wicked fast and dead-reliable. Even if the engine did need to be rebuilt-Super Chevy built a 400 hp 350 from the ground up using all-new parts and it cost $2,600. Magazine writers spew numbers flippantly-but 400 honest hp will make any street car into an absolute rocket. "Run what you brung" also applies to the transmission, rear end and suspension and brake systems. Let's take our sample Camaro. Chances are it has a TH350 or if it's a 4-speed a Saginaw or Borg-Warner T10. All of those will be perfectly fine behind a 400 hp small-block. You don't need to spend 3 grand on a Richmond or Tremec 5 or 6-speed stick or a tricked-up 700R4 4-speed auto. Why? To say you have it, or to drop 500 rpm at 65 on the freeway?  Ditto for the rear end. The stock 8.5 inch 10 bolt rear will be fine. I have had 400, 4-speed Trans-Ams with this rear and popped the clutch at 4,000 rpm incessantly for five years street racing and drag racing and never broke the rear end. So you don't "need" a $3,000 custom Currie-built 9 inch Ford setup!!!  Ditto for the brakes. I have friends who have autocrossed '70s T/A's and used '70s Camaros and Firebirds in Circle-Track "Street Stock" and "Super Stock" classes and won many races with the stock front disc / rear drum setup. The only modifications needed were going to Bendix or Wagner or Ferodo D52 "Police Spec" semi-metallic pads and using Dot 5 brake fluid instead of Dot 3. With these simple things my buddys Camaro race car's brakes never faded, even in a 50-lap main event on a 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile track!!  So the stock brakes will certainly stop your car safely in daily driving and the occasional weekend trip to the drags!!!  You don't "need" a $3,000 Wildwood or Brembo 4-wheel disc setup worthy of a NASCAR Nextel Cup Champion!!  This brings up # 2....The KISS theory will save you money and grief. For example a lot of the buff mags have been testing and espousing aftermarket fuel injection systems that to me are both worthless and grossly overpriced. Let me be clear here-If your car is Fuel-Injected from the factory-say an '87-'93 "5.0" Mustang or a TPI LB9 or L98 '85-92- Z/28-Edelbrock, Trick Flow and other companies offer larger throttle bodies, ported intakes,larger runners etc that work in conjunction WITH the factory system. These are all worthwhile, reasonably priced upgrades that can add 40 or more hp to your car and stay emissions-legal. I'm talking about complete aftermarket systems for engines that originally had a carburator. These START at $2,000 and that's for a small-block Chevy. For anything other than a small-block Chevy they're over $3,000. You have to hook up oxygen sensors and other monitors, you have to get a laptop computer to program the fuel curve, it's not cheap or simple. And here's the real kicker-they don't make any more power than a simple $600 carb and intake combo. High-Perfomance Pontiac tested one of these systems on a hot 455 Pontiac engine that a staffer had in his '74 Trans-Am. With an Edelbrock Performer "RPM" intake an an 850 cfm Quadrajet the engine made like 469 hp and 544 lbs of torque on the dyno. With the $3,800 fuel injection system-which required using a Ford ECM and adapting a "5.0" Mustang Mass Air Flow sensor and other major mods-it made 455 hp and 505 lbs of torque. Huh?  That's right. The "State of the Art" $3,800 fuel injection system made 14 LESS hp and 39 lbs LESS torque than the "antiquated" $600 carb and intake combo!!!  Think about this-let's say you buy a '78 T/A to play with because you loved "Smokey and the Bandit" as a teenager. For $3,800 you could buy a set of Edelbrock Aluminum Heads,and matching intake, carb and cam, some shorty headers, some 3.73:1 gears and higher stall converter to put the 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque that Edelbrock claims your 400 will make with this package to the ground. Or you could put that fuel injection system on and make 14 hp less than the factory's anemic 220!!!  Gee, which line are you going to be in? This isn't an Isolated example. Take Roller cams for intance. Again-yes if you have a late-model Ford, Chevy or Chrysler V8 that had a roller cam from the factory-yes that is the only way to fly-and the aftermarket roller cams offered by Edelbrock, Trick Flow, Crane, Comp Cams, etc are all excellent. However- Mopar Performance tested a roller cam setup on a hot 440 they were building. Yes, it made like 20 more hp than the flat tappet setup. But the cost of the parts to convert an engine that didn't have a roller setup from the factory was $1,800!!! As opposed to about $300 for your normal cam and lifter kit. For that extra $1,500 you could have bought a lot of stuff that would make you a lot more than 20 peak hp on a dyno!!  The same goes for new-to-old engine swaps. Let's say you have a '68 Nova or a '72 Duster that you want to play with. Going to a junkyard and getting a low-mileage L31 "Vortec" 350 Chevy out of a wrecked '96 and later Chevy or GMC truck or van is a cheap easy, way to get a great performance engine at a low price. Ditto for getting a 318 or 360 "Magnum" engine out of a Dodge Truck or Van or a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Research has shown that the "Vortec" and "Magnum" heads breathe better than any factory head and many aftermarket ones. Now for me-Edelbrock sells carburated Performer intakes that fit the Vortec / Magnum engines for about $200. A new Edelbrock carb is about $350. So for less than $600 you can stuff this motor in you car and have big power for low bucks. Or you could rip the wiring harness out of the donor car or spend big dollars chasing down new stuff to hook up the crank sensors, cam sensor, 02 sensors, ad nauseum to keep it fuel-injected-which will make less power than the carb and intake!! And none of that crap is required to register a '68 Nova or '72 Duster, so Why in hell would you do all that??  Technology is great, but not just for technologies sake. Think carefully about getting the most "bang" for your bucks. That's all I'm saying. Mastermind                        

The "California Kid" redux....It might fly......

Had someone send me a comment the other day about an old post about the "California Kid." If you don't know-the "California Kid" was a made for TV 1974 movie starring Martin Sheen, Vic Morrow and Michelle Phillips. It was set in 1958 and Vic Morrow was an evil small town sheriff who pushed speeders to their deaths with his hopped up cop car. Sheen was a returned Korean War Hero who's brother was killed by Morrow. Sheen's ride was a '34 Ford built by Pete Chapouris that was black with red,yellow and orange flames. The car and it's color scheme is so iconic that when I bought a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle a few years ago-you could pay extra and get a "California Kid" paint job. Anyhow the film was remarkably good by any standard not just TV. It had good acting and dialogue and a lot of suspense as it built to a fight-to-the-finish showdown on a curvy road between Sheen and Morrow. If you can find it on VHS or DVD it's worth gettting. However the conversation got me thinking-Hollywood is always wanting to re-make old classics and this would be a good one to do in the modern era. The evil sheriff could have a Hemi Charger cop car and the "Kid" could be a Roush Mustang or a Factory Five '33 Ford kit car with a supercharged "5.0" Coyote in it. Sheen's character could be a returning Iraq or Afghanistan vet. You could make the sheriff really evil-he's using returning vets to smuggle guns and drugs back and selling them to gangs. The "Kids" brother discovers this and threatens to go to the Justice Dept and of course has to be eliminated....Then big bro comes for retribution.....Don Johnson or Kurt Russell would be good as the evil sheriif. Bradley Cooper is super-hot right now and he could certainly play the Kid. Or they could think outside the box and get Kid Rock or maybe Lucas Black-he was the Quarterback in "Friday Night Lights" and was in a couple of the "Fast and Furious" movies. There was talk that Quentin Tarantino wanted to re-do the Burt Reynolds classic "White Lightning"-I posted about that a while back. But perhaps the "California Kid" would be a better vehicle.... ( Pun intended ).  Mastermind  

Can we please stop calling all-out race cars "Street Machines?" 7 second 1/4 times?? Really??

I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of all the buff magazines featuring articles on "Real Street Heroes" or "Ultimate Street Challenge."  Yes, anything is drivable depending on what the driver is willing to tolerate. But let's be reasonable. A car with an 8 or 10 point roll cage rolling on 29 inch slicks with a 12:1 compression, nitrous-fed 500 inch, 700 hp engine backed by an automatic with a 5,000 rpm converter and a trans-brake that runs the 1/4 in 7 seconds at 160+ mph is not a street car, it's a race car. If you want to argue-consider these points.  Even if the car has 4.56:1 gears the 60 mph cruise rpm is going to be well below the 5K converter's stall speed. How far can mom go toward soccer practice before she burns up that $3,000 trans-braked TCI or B&M tranny? And how does she secure the kids? "Be careful climbing over the roll cage, honey and don't step on the Nitrous bottle."  Most tracks require anything that runs quicker than 11.50 to have a full cage and a driveshaft safety loop. Most states require anything built after 1978 to have some kind of safety and / or smog inspection that requires checking for equipment like Catalytic Converters, EGR valves,AIR pumps etc. How does one get say-a 572 inch 720 hp '86 Monte Carlo SS legally registered?  Even if you go old school-i.e a '68 Road Runner or a '72 Chevelle-paying 12 bucks a gallon for a 5-gallon jug of 110 octane race gas to feed that 12:1 528 inch Hemi or 572 inch Rat that gets 5-8 mpg is going to get old real quick. And those big fat slicks or Drag radials are going to be awesome in the rain or snow. Here's a little checklist-if your car can't make a 150 mile trip without stopping for gas,idle for ten minutes in rush-hour traffic in 90 degree weather without overheating, enter or exit a driveway or parking lot or go over speed bumps without denting the oil pan or exhaust system, and safely drive ten mph over the posted speed limit on a curvy road in the rain-things that any 15 year old Honda Accord can do-then guess what?  Your car is NOT a "Street Machine!!!"  Calling some of these 6,7 or 8 second cars street machines is like calling an armored, Hummer H1 with an M60 mounted on the roof and anti-tank missiles and Law's Rockets in the cargo area a "Sport Utility Vehicle"!!!  Right? All the upscale soccer moms in Baghdad want one of those!!  Especially now-a new Mustang GT or Camaro SS runs 12s right off the showroom floor. A shot of nitrous and some drag radials would put you in the low 11s or high 10s. And it will get 20 mpg on the highway, idle all day in summer rush hour traffic and start in 10 degree winter weather. If you really "Need" to go faster than that-honestly then you need a Top Fuel dragster, a competent therapist, or a cage. Don't get me wrong-I'm not saying you can't be-as Dennis Rodman used to say-"As Bad as you want to be". You want a 6 second car-if you got the bank account and the ability to build it-more power to you-and enjoy it ON THE TRACK where it belongs. Think about this-do you want your wife or teenage son or daughter to innocently pull out of a driveway or shopping center in front of some fool who's just put the hammer down on his 7 second alchohol-burning Rat-Motored Nova on what he thought was an empty street and is going 135 instead of 35? Will he be able to stop that sonofabitch before he kills your family member and probably himself and anyone else nearby? I think not. If the buff mags want to feature these monsters that's fine, but don't call a race car with liscence plates a "Street Machine". Robby Knieval's Jump Bike is a motorcycle,but it isn't a "Street Cruiser".  A stripped down-P51 race plane is an airplane, but it's not a "Passenger Plane!"  Mastermind