Upcoming movie musclecar mayhem....

The holiday season always brings a slew of action flicks-I've seen a few good trailers. Tom Cruise brings "Jack Reacher" to the big screen and in the trailers drives a red with black stripes 1970 SS Chevelle. Didn't see the emblems close enough to see if it was a 396 or 454 model, but it looked authentic down to the guages and ( unlike "Faster" at least this one had a 1970 taillights and bumper, not a  71-72 setup ). Sadly, it looks like the car gets wrecked. Even sadder, if you read the books by Lee Child, "Jack Reacher" is 6' 5" not 5' 6".  Maybe they should have cast "The Rock" or John Cena instead of Tom Cruise. It might be worth a look.  Brad Pitt plays a hitman in "Killing them Softly" and drives what appears to be 1971 GS455 Buick Skylark. Its an ugly green color however.  Anyway this one looks ok.  The most promising in my estimation is "Bullet to the Head" starring Sylvester Stallone, the Asian dude from the "Fast&Furious" movies, the uber-sexy Sara Shahi ( "Fairly Legal", "The L Word" ) and directed by Walter Hill ( "48 Hrs", "Last Man Standing", and "Undisputed" ).  Stallone is an aging hitman who wants out of  "The business" and goes on a campaign of  vengance after his partner is murdered; the Asian guy from "F&F" ( I can't remember his name) is a cop whose partner was murdered by the same people. Sara Shahi is Sly's daughter; when the bad guys threaten her; hitman and cop team up to smite them in biblical fashion. Lots of action and "48 Hrs" style reluctant partner-buddy humor. And Sly drives an SRT8 Charger for at least part of the film. The only downer is Shahi is made up to look like Kat Von D ( Jesse James' tattooed slut that he left Sandra Bullock for ). Why I don't know; Shahi has no ink on her flawless bod in real life. Maybe Hill is trying to send a social message-if your dad's a criminal you end up a tattoed whore with a bad attitude. Maybe she at least gets naked, and they couldn't show it in the trailer. ( We can hope; she got naked a lot on the L word )  Anyhow, I'll probably go see all 3 and I'll give a detailed review here for all you musclecar / action movie buffs.  Mastermind          

The point of diminishing returns......

No matter how fast our cars are, hot rodders are always looking for "Just a little More." However, especially if your planning to drive the car at all-i.e. it's not a show car or a race car-sometimes you hit the point of diminishing returns. This is where the gain in power or drop in 1/4 mile e.t. isn't justified by the loss of idle quality, or driveability or smooth ride or whatever. Here's a few good examples. # 1. My own car-a 1973 Hurst / Olds 442. After blowing the crank out of the 455 3 times, I put the numbers-matching block and BOP bolt-pattern TH400 in plastic bags in my garage and installed a ZZ4 Chevy crate engine and Chevy bolt-pattern TH400. For those of you that live in a cave-the ZZ4 is GM's best-selling crate engine. It's a 4-bolt main 350 block with a steel crank, "pink" rods, Keith Black Hyperuetic flat-top pistons that give 10:1 compression with the aluminum L98 Corvette heads, a hot hydraulic roller cam, and an aluminum intake that's an exact replica of the original Z/28 / LT1 manifold. It's rated at 355 hp and 405 lbs ft of torque. What makes it such an awesome street engine is the fact that it has more than 350 lbs ft of torque from 1800-5200 rpm. It has 17 inches of vacuum at idle, works with a stock torque converter, idles at 800 rpm, and pulls hard to 6,000. The car runs mid-13s on street tires through the mufflers, and gets 16 mpg, which isn't bad for a 3,731 lb musclecar. Anyone that drives it thinks it still has the 455 in it. No one believes that a small-block Chevy has that much torque. Of course, some of my friends have great advice on how to make the car go faster. I'm not being a wise-ass; the advice is sound. Yes, the car would run faster with a bigger cam and maybe a single-plane intake and a bigger carb. But that would mean decreased idle quality which would also necessitate a higher-stall converter, and probably stiffer gears. Now the car would be running in the 12s, but it's wouldn't be nearly as pleasant to drive, and would get 8 mpg instead of 16. See what I'm saying?  If I wanted a race car with liscence plates, I'd have built one in the first place.  # 2. A friend has a 1966 GTO with a 400 out of a '74 Gran Prix and a TH350 that replaced the  two-speed ST300 ( Read Powerglide ) tranny. The short-block is stock, but he has Edelbrock aluminum heads, and a Performer intake and matching 750 cfm carb, and matching Performer cam, as well as Hedman "shorty" headers with stepped primarys. This car will literally spin it's tires as long as you want to stay on the throttle. It's an absolute blast to drive, has 15 inches of vacuum at idle, and purrs like a kitten. Until you hit the loud pedal. Edelbrock claims 387 hp and 439 lbs ft of torque with this combo. Since he often gives 400 hp modern Camaros, Mustangs and Chargers fits, I'd say this is about right. Another friend suggested he "upgrade" to the "Performer RPM" package which has a taller dual-plane manifold and a much hotter cam that's actually an exact copy of the legendary factory Ram Air IV cam. The "RPM" package makes 422 hp and 441 lbs ft of torque.  A gain of 35 hp and 2 lbs of torque. However, this gain is all above 4,500 rpm, the cam has only 10 inches of vacuum at idle, has a very rough idle, and actually makes LESS power and torque than the other one under 4,000 rpm. Your giving up quite a bit of bottom end and mid-range torque for top-end rush. He'd definitely need a 2,500 or higher rpm converter, and he'd probably need to change his 3.23:1 gears for something stiffer.  There's a reason the factory only offered them with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears!  And honestly- without slicks or traction aids-how much faster is the car REALLY going to go with 422 hp as opposed to "only" 387?  Not too much, maybe 3 /10s. Which in my mind is not worth giving up the glass smooth idle, and easy freeway cruising of the 3.23 gears and broad torque range of the "base" Performer Package for a choppy idle, LESS power under 4 grand, and  and the motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway because of the 3.90:1 or stiffer gears, so I can drop 3/10s at the drags and gain  35 hp between 4,500 and 6,000 rpm!  "Bigger" is not always Better! So think carefully before you go for the "Max" on everything. You might not like the results. Mastermind    

Proper cam selection......

We touched a little on proper cam selection in the last post, but I thought I'd expand on it more to help people not "overcam" their cars and actually have worse performance than stock, rather than better. Here's two general rules that will save you a ton of grief. # 1. Larger engines can tolerate more "cam" without ill effects because they generally have more low-end torque to begin with, and can afford to lose some in exchange for a mid-range and top-end power increase.  Here's a couple of good examples-the old standby-the "350 hp / 327 Corvette cam  ( p/n 3863143 ) ( how's that right off the top of my head? )  will absolutely kill a 305, works pretty good in a 327 with a 4-speed, better in a 350, and is really sweet in a 383 / 400 regardless of transmission. The vaunted Pontiac "Ram Air IV" cam ( p/n 9794041 ) "hits" like gangbusters about 3,000 rpm and pulls hard to 6,500 in a 400. The truth is, you give up quite a bit of low-end and mid-range torque for top-end rush.  It only makes 10 inches of vacuum and has a badass lope at idle in a 400.  It works best with a stick and stiff gearing. That's why they were only available with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears from the factory!  Automatic versions had a 2,500 rpm converter from the factory.  Put this same cam in a 455, and it smooths out quite a bit. It still has a noticeable idle, but it will work with an automatic with a stock converter and 3.23 to 3.73 gears, and pulls hard from 1,500-5,700 rpm. The factory initially put this cam in 1973 SD-455 T/As with 3.42:1 gears with either a 4-speed or a TH400. ( The 308 / 320 duration cam barely passed emissions, but it was too close for Pontiac and the EPA's liking. It was swapped for the slightly milder 301 / 313 duration RAIII cam, and the hp was down-rated from 310 to 290.)  # 2. A lot of manufacturers use "advertised duration" to make the cam look "bigger" than it really is, and obviously sell them to the unsuspecting, ininformed public. Don't go by advertised duration. The industry standard measures duration at .050 lift, and these numbers are more "apples to apples". For example the above mentioned RAIV cam has 308 / 320 degrees advertised duration. At .050 it measures out to 231 / 240 degrees. Duration is the length of time the valve stays open. Since an engine revolution is 360 degrees, you can see that 240 degrees is a lot of duration. A good rule of thumb is this-if you have 350 or more cubic inches and your cam has less than 225 degrees of duration, then you don't need a high-stall torque converter. The other factor is manifold vacuum at idle. For most cars with power brakes and other accessories you need at least 10-12 inches of vacuum at idle to operate properly. 14 or more would be better for a street machine. Most cam manufacturer's catalogs will list these specs and tell you-"Works best with 3.55 or stiffer gears"  or "Requires 3,000 rpm converter with automatic" or whatever.  # 3. Consider a modern aftermarket cam. You have to realize that GM , Ford or Chrysler, most factory performance cams and their exact replicas ( Crane "Blueprint" Series ) are based on 1964 camshaft profiles and are not computer optimized. Competion Cams Xtreme Energy series is excellent, as is Lunati's Voodoo and Streetmaster series. Sometimes a short-duration, higher lift design is the way to go. The Edelbrock Performer / Performer RPM / Torker-Plus series is an excellent choice as well if you follow the catalog's recommendations. The right cam can make or break an otherwise great engine's performance. Mastermind          

Proper Tuning / Building part 2........

To expand on the last post-there's a lot of  "hidden" power in your car that people lose because of bad tuning or simple neglect. And when guys do modify their cars, they often buy or build the wrong combination, which sometimes results in a car that doesn't run as good as it did stock. Here's some tips to avoid these problems. # 1. Exhaust. Like I said in the earlier  post-I see so many cars with $5000 paint jobs and $2000 worth of tires and wheels, and the exhaust system is crushed, rusted out, or leaking. Even if your running stock exhaust manifolds a good, free flowing dual exhaust system can add 30 or 40 hp. If your car is a 1975 and later model and you live in a state that has smog inspections that check for equipment, don't despair. The law says you can't REMOVE the catalytic converter, it doesn't say you can't ADD one. This is how the Mecham brothers slipped the "Macho T/A's" through. Research has shown that the bottleneck is not the converter itself, but the fact that the exhaust goes into a single pipe before going into the converter. This why modern high performance cars like the Mustang GT, Camaro SS, Hemi Chargers and Challengers, and Corvettes have two converters- one on each side. And no one will say these cars don't run. Summitt Racing sells EPA legal, high flow catalytic conveters, so you could build a legal, free breathing system for your '78 Z/28 or '85 Monte Carlo SS or whatever relatively cheap. # 2. Carburation / Induction.  A lot of people don't realize that if you install headers and dual exhausts, ( or just duals ) Your carb will more than likely ( unless it was over-rich to begin with ) be too lean. Some electronic carbs i.e-L69 Camaros and Firebirds, pre-'87 "5.0" Mustangs-will automatically adjust to minor changes like this, and the car will run fine. However, if you have an old-school-i.e. non electronically controlled carb you'll probably have to re-jet the carb a little richer to compensate for the freer-breathing exhaust. Here's another area where people screw up. An aftermarket intake and properly jetted carb can add as much as 50 hp, if it's the right setup. I've seen guys put a single-plane Edelbrock Victor Jr. and a 750 Double-Pumper Holley on an other wise stock '72 Camaro with a stock 8.5:1 compression  L48 350, an automatic, and 3.08 gears, and then wonder why it doesn't run as good it did stock. After all ( Insert magazine name here-Hot Rod, Car Craft, Popular Hot Rodding etc ) said the Victor Jr / 750 Double-Pumper combo made the most power on a dyno test. They forgot that the test engine was an 11:1 compression 383 stroker with a .500 lift cam, and aftermarket aluminum heads, and it was going in a car with a 3 grand converter and 4.11 gears!! A Victor Jr. is basically a Nascar manifold designed to make maximum power between 3,500-8,000 rpm, and probably LOST 25-30 lbs of torque below 3 grand compared to the stock intake! Not something you'd put on a mild street car. The guy would have been way better off using an Edelbrock Performer that's designed to make power from idle-5,500 rpm, and re-jetting his Quadrajet, or using a vacuum-secondary 600 cfm Holley or Edelbrock carb. The bottom line is it's pretty hard to out-perform a dual-plane manifold and a vacuum-secondary carb on the street. I said this to a friend back in the 1990's when "Pro Street" was all the rage-"If a Super Stock Firebird can run 11.30s with a Quadrajet on an iron manifold, why do you need a tunnel-ram and dual 660 Holleys?"  A single-plane manifold and a double-pumper would be good on a light, stiffly geared car with a stick where you could pop the clutch at 3,500-4,000 rpm.  Especially if you have an automatic transmission ( which means you can't rev the engine at the line / stoplight to clean it out ) you need a carb that comes off the line cleanly with no bog. The twin accelerator pumps and mechanical secondarys open on a Double-Pumper if you even look at the throttle, and it dumps gas down the engine's throat like flushing a toilet. An AVS-type carb where you can adjust when the secondarys open are much better for a car with an automatic, a stock converter and high ( low numeric ) gearing. # 3. "We shall overcam" seems to be the amateur hot-rodder's mantra. Unless you have a four-speed and 3.73:1 or stiffer gearing, it's better to err on the side of caution when choosing a cam. I had a customer that was kind of a do-it yourself mechanic. He wanted more power for his 350 Suburban that he towed his boat with. I told him to buy some 1 5/8 inch headers, and to get an Edelbrock Performer intake and matching cam. I told him this package would give him a big improvement in low and mid-range torque-which is what you need for towing. He goes and listens to the idiot working the counter at AutoZone, who sells him the Performer "RPM" package and  headers. He spent the whole weekend installing these parts, and then griped at me that the truck wouldn't idle and  he had no power brakes, and it didn't run as good as it did stock!!  I informed him ( and showed him the charts in the Edelbrock catalog ) that the reason the truck wouldn't idle and ran like crap at low speed is the "RPM" cam has 234 / 244 duration ( at .050 lift ) and .488 / 510 lift, and only makes 10 inches of vacuum at 1000 rpm!!  For a reference point this cam has MORE lift and duration than the Vaunted Pontiac Ram Air IV cam and the Olds "W30" cam, both of which were designed for engines 400 or 455 cubes, and were only available with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears in a GTO or a 442!! This cam has more lift and duration than the solid-lifter cam in an LS6 454 Chevelle!!  Definitely not a cam you'd put in a small-block work truck. I showed him the "regular" Performer cam had 204 / 214 duration ( at .050 ) and .420 / .442 lift, and had 15 inches of vacuum at idle. This would have given him the improvement in low-end and mid-range torque he was looking for, and operated his power accesories easily. I traded him a Performer manifold I had laying around for the "RPM" manifold ( I'm always looking for Chevy and Pontiac parts, and have friends that are too ) and since he'd installed it, he had to eat the cam. But after he bought and installed the milder cam and intake he agreed-the truck had way more power and actually got better gas mileage-16 mpg instead of 12. I asked him-"Didn't you read the box where it says "Designed for high performance vehicles only." "Not recommended for vehicles over 3,600 lbs, or for towing applications?" "But the guy at Autozone said--" he started-and I cut him off.  "The 10 dollar an hour idiot at Autozone knows more than I do, and more than Vic Edelbrock and his team of  engineers?"  He had to laugh. "When you put it that way, it does sound crazy." "I should have listened to you, or at least read the Edelbrock catalog for their recommendations."  You think?  Anyway-most cam manufacturer's-Lunati, Crane, Competition Cams, etc-will give you good advice in their catalogs on what cam works best with a certain engine size, carb and intake, compression, and whether or not it will work with a stock torque converter. If you follow these guidelines-not the advice of some self-proclaimed "expert" whose never raced a car or built an engine in his life, you'll be very happy with your car's performance. Mastermind                       

Before you start modifying it, tune it right!!

I've touched on this before, but I've had enough people asking me for advice this week that I thought I'd revisit it. Had a guy bring his 77 Z/28 into the shop the other day. He was upset that he'd installed an Edelbrock Perfromer intake manifold, and the car didn't seem to run any better. In fact, it wouldn't even spin the tires if you powerbraked it. It would just bog and sputter.  I looked at it, and the timing was way too advanced, the vacuum advance was complletely unplugged, the secondarys on the carb wouldn't fully open because of a linkage problem, and the plug wires were so bad, that when I scoped it, it was running on 6 cylinders. After I put a new set of plug wires on it, hooked up the vacuum advance, re-set the timing, and un-stuck the throttle linkage-Surprise!  It idled smooth, even sounded better, and duh-ran much better. Now, if you wanted to smoke the tires, you didn't even have to powerbrake it. Just punch it, and it would lay down a good 30 feet of rubber, and another 8-10 ft on the 1-2 shift. The owner was utterly amazed. "It hasn't run that good, ever!".  "Even when I first bought it." Which meant it wasn't running up to par when he got it. I see this all the time-guys will have a $5000 paint job, $2000 worth of tires and wheels, and because they didn't spend $60 on a Distributor cap, rotor and wires, the car is chugging around on 7 cylinders. Or the carb will be too rich or too lean, the timing will be too retarded or too advanced, the points will be closing up, the transmission will be slipping, if it's a 1975 and later model, the catalytic converter will be stopped up. People don't realize it, but bad tuning / criminal neglect can cost you as much as 50 hp even on a bone-stock engine. Proper tuning and the right combination can mean as much as 1/2 second at the drags, and help a "slower" car beat a "faster" one. Here's an instance- I had a 403 Olds powered '77 Trans-Am with an automatic and 2.56:1 gears. I drove the car five years and I never got beat in a street race by a 400 Pontiac model or by a "5.0" Mustang. Here's how-I did have headers and dual exhausts-( but so did a couple of "Machos" that I flabbergasted ). I also had a Holley Street Dominator intake manifold and a TransGo shift kit. Funny-after installing the aftermarket intake the car had noticeably more power but it still ran out of breath at 4,700 rpm. Reading the owner's manual I found out the recomended plug was an AC R46SZ-an .080 gap. I figured that even GM's mighty HEI ignition would have a problem bridging that long gap at high speeds. I was right.  I changed the plugs from an AC R46SZ ( an .080 gap plug) for an R45S ( a .040 gap plug one range colder ). Now it pulled hard to 5,400 rpm! The other thing that made a huge difference was the shift kit. I like the TransGo kits because if your speed dips below 20 mph, the trans would automatically downshift to low gear. This helped acceleration immensely-especially if you slowed down to 5-10-15 mph for a light and it turned green. Do the math-if I was having a stoplight gran prix with a 400 Pontiac / automatic version that DIDN'T have a shift kit-it would only go into low gear after coming to a complete stop. This means my car would be in low gear and the other one in second. Who's going to take off faster? It wasn't a rocket, but it would run 14.90s all day in 95 degree heat and never miss a beat and it's best time was a 14.78. This substantiates my claim-W72 T/A's from the 78-79 period even with a 4-speed-ran 1/4 mile times ranging from the fastest of 14.61 ( Hot Rod ) to a slowest of 15.62 (Road and Track ).  The fastest 5.0 Mustangs were the fuel-injected '87 and later models-they run the gamut from a 14.72 to a 15.29. You can see how my T/A would give the drivers of these supposedly "faster" cars fits. A buddy of mine had an SS396 Chevelle that blew the doors off every other big-block Chevelle in town-even a couple of SS454's. That's because his ignition was perfectly tuned, his carburator was perfectly jetted, his valves were adjusted perfectly, his cooling system was perfect, and his transmission was perfect. You'd be amazed at the cars running around like I said-with $5,000 paint jobs that have the points closing up, bad plug wires, a bleeding over carb, vacuum leaks, a slipping tranny or clutch, etc-and then their aghast when some car that they would have beaten easily if theirs was properly tuned shows them their taillights. I blew the doors off a much modified ( aftermarket intake, and hotter cam in addition to the regular "Macho" upgrades ) "Macho T/A" one day and the owner was aghast. He was a friend, and knew he should have beaten my car, so he brought it to the shop, complaining that the trans wasn't shifting properly. Turns out he was 3 quarts low on transmission fluid!! Think that'll have an effect on performance?  "When's the last time you checked the fluid?" I asked. "I don't know." I wanted to slap him. So before you start buying aftermarket parts by the boatload-make sure it's like the Army ad-"All that it can be" in stock trim. You might be surprised. Mastermind                

Still more musclecars in movies and t.v.....part 2

Seems everyone has an insatiable appettite to know about movies and shows that feature our beloved muscle machines, so I'm happy to oblige. Here's some more That I didn't think of while writing the last post.  # 1. "Impulse" directed by Clint Eastwood's ex-grilfriend Sondra Locke, this cool thriller never got the critical acclaim or the box-office success it deserved; it should have been a blockbuster like "Basic Instinct".  Sexy Theresa Russel- ( "Whore", "Black Widow", "Physical Evidence" ) gives a badass performance as a strung out detective on the verge of banktuptcy and termination from the police force. When her Bright Blue IROC-Z Camaro gets a flat one night, she goes to a bar while the tire is being fixed. When a rich guy mistakes her for a high-priced-hooker and offers her 5 grand to have sex with him, she agrees and goes home with him. Except he's a big-time drug dealer, and his enemies rub him out while she's there. Instead of calling it in, she takes the money and runs. Both the police and the bad guys figure out that the guy wasn't alone and start searching for the missing witness. Luckily, she gets assigned the case. Russel trained hard for this movie; she wasn't as buff as Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, but she was lean and hard, and showed her athleticism when again working undercover as a high-priced hooker, the assasins find her. Before they can react, she rips off the bottom of her cocktail dress, kicks off her heels, and dives into the elevator, where she pulls a .44 Magnum out of her purse. The killers take the stairs to the parking garage and get there just in time to see her sprinting up the ramp to the street. She leads them on a stunning running gunfight that ends in a small, hole-in-the-wall liquor-store. Barefoot and out of ammo, she uses some "Jailhouse Rock" ( an up-and-down the body fighting style that came out of the prison system; it's good for fighting in tight spaces, like jail cells ) moves to finish off the final two guys. When the Internal Affairs shooting investigator chides her for having a non-department issue weapon, and not calling for backup she sneers-"So give me a couple days off for violating procedure." She's even defiant to the shrink that IA makes her go to; she knows she's a bitch and a whore with a gambling and drug problem and doesn't care. She really can't understand why IA is on her ass; she closes a lot of cases-that's all that should matter. She's headed for a brick wall and doesn't take her foot off the gas. The IROC-Z gets a little chase action. Refreshing in that there's no cutesy redemption at the end; she's as messed up as when we started.  # 2. "Nash Bridges"  Years after "Miami Vice",  Don Johnson had another hit playing basically the same character. Sonny Crockett was a cool-ass detective that drove a drug dealer's confiscated Ferarri. Nash Bridges was a cool-ass detective that drove his long-lost brother's 1970 Hemi 'Cuda Convertible. Except the car has the '71 style grille, and their all  really 360 / automatics, except for the close-up car-and Johnson's favorite-that one's a 340 / 4-speed.  We can forgive all that however; Cheech Marin is a riot as Johnson's neurotic partner, and Yasmine Bleeth ( "Baywatch" ) is his sexy girlfriend and there's lots of chases and shoot'em up action. It lasted 5 or 6 seasons, which you can buy on DVD.  # 3. "Burn Notice"  This USA series features Jeffrey Donovan, Bruce Campell ( " Evil Dead" series ) and the smokin' hot Gabrielle Anwar as disgraced spies that are always in trouble. Donovan's character drives a sinister black 1973 Charger with Cragar mags. Lots of gunplay and car chases, just mindless fun for action fans. # 4. "NCIS." Mark Harmon is a Naval Criminal Investigator who sometimes drives a new Hemi Charger, and sometimes drives a yellow 1970 Challenger R / T with a 440. Cote' De Pablo and Micheal Weatherly are hilarious as his bickering underlings that can't admit they want to have sex with each other.  # 5. "NCIS: Los Angeles"  This spin-off stars Chris O' Donnel and LL Cool J as a Crockett-and-Tubbs type investigator team. LL Cool J drives a Black 2011 Hemi Challenger R / T with a magnussen blower on it, and is restoring a 1970 Challenger R / T-he mentions "Vanishing Point" and Kowalski frequently, and gets in a lot of chases in the new one.  # 6 "The Good Guys"  Dabney Coleman starred in this action-comedy series about Atlanta Cops. It only lasted one season, however it's notable that one of the cops ( I can't remember the actor's name )  drove a 1979 "Macho T/A".  T/A's get a lot of screen time in movies and shows, but this is the first time I've seen a "Macho" featured.  # 7. "Heart Like a Wheel". Stars Bonnie Bedelia ( "Presumed Innocent" "Die Hard" 1 and 2 ) as Shirley Muldowney-the first woman to ever win a Top Fuel drag racing championship. Lots of '60's and '70's musclecars and drag racing action. The movie made her look like a bitch and a whore; she leaves her husband and kids for Top Fuel Champion racer Conrad "Connie" Kalitta for no other reason than to further her racing career. She dresses like a hooker and calls herself  "Cha-Cha" early on to get attention from the Car magazines and national newspapers; then later screams about how sexist the racing business and car magazine are!. The Ironic thing is-the real Shirley Muldowney was an associate producer of the film!!  She was obviously trying to make herself look good, so I can't imagine what an asshole she was in real life. However, after the film came out both fellow racer Don Garlits and Bonnie Bedelia said she was "Beyond Bitch" and even worse than the film portrayed her. Yikes!  So there-go make a run to the video store or redbox machine. Mastermind           

Still more musclecars in movies and T.V......

Here's some more musclecars in movies and T.V. shows whether their was a chase or not.  # 1. "Faster"  Mean revenge tale starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Billy Bob Thornton. The Rock shows some real acting chops playing a heartless career criminal, and the smokin' hot Carla Gugino is wasted as Billy Bob's partner. Two musclecars in here-a 1970 SS396 Chevelle with the round taillights of the '71-72 models in the bumper-Arrrgghh!!  And a Gold 1967 GTO with a Hurst Dual / Gate shifter that's in a flashback chase. Refreshing in the fact that every character in here is an asshole; there's no real "good guy" that's falsely accused or any of the other usual Hollywood dreck. Just a good old-fashioned Jim Thompson style  ( the Getaway, the Grifters, ) crime thriller with vile characters and the kill ratio of an arcade game.  Speaking of vile characters and arcade-game kill-ratios-that brings up  # 2. "Sons of Anarchy."  Often called by critics "The Sopranos with Harleys" -this excellent FX series chronicles the exploits of the "Sons of Anarchy" a Hell's Angels type motorcycle gang.  Ron Perlman drives a 1970 SS396 El Camino, while Maggie Siff-who plays Jax Teller's wife has a 1966 Olds 442. Real-life Hells Angel and movie tough-guy Chuck Zito-( he was in HBO's excellent prison drama "Oz",)  and is most famous for kicking Jean-Claude Van Damme's ass over a stripper in the now-defunct SCORES strip club in New York, has been guest-starring, and when he's not on a Harley, he's driving a red 1979 Trans-Am. # 3. "Lights Out".  This was another excellent FX series about a retired boxer who has to fight again because he's in tax trouble. I loved the show, Holt McCallany was excellent as the boxer, as was Stacy Keach as his father / manager, and he drove a 1971 SS454 Chevelle. The fight choreography was awesome, as were the storylines.  I have no Idea why it wasn't renewed for a 2nd season; the critics raved.  # 4. "Argo". Thriller about the 1979 Iranian Hostage crisis starring Ben Affleck. Ben drives a 1964 GTO, but sadly there's no car chase action.  # 5. "Memphis Beat." TNT network Cop show set in Memphis that's filmed in post-Katrina New Orleans. Wh0's idea was that?  Balding, skinny, Jason Lee ( "My Name is Earl" ) is unbeleivably annoying as an Elvis-impersonating detective. ( Kurt Russel, Don Johnson, and Andrew "Dice" Clay are the only actors who can do a decent impression of the King ) The fact that he drives a 1964 GTO can't save this train wreck. # 6. I'd almost forgotten "Demolition Man" until it was on cable this week. Action-comedy starring Sly Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Wesley Snipes about the future where were so politically correct that even swearing or eating high-cholesterol food is against the law. Lots of action and laughs-Bullock is especially funny flubbing catch-phrases, and Stallone having to correct her. Bullock after Sly opens a major can of whip ass in a fight- "You really licked his ass."  Sly-"KICKED his ass!!"  "You mean kicked his ass!"  Anyway-there's a chase with Sly and Sandra driving a 1970 W30 Olds 442 that they stole from a museum and Snipes driving a Smart-car looking thing that's pretty funny.  # 7. "Dark Blue"  TNT cop series Stars Dylan McDermott as the head of a rogue, undercover modern "Hat Squad" type L.A. P.D. unit. Much better than "Memphis Beat";-it's actually filmed in L.A., and Mc Dermott drives a black 2010 Hemi Challenger SRT8 that he smokes the tires on a lot, and when he's not doing that or shooting bad guys, he's having sex with the smokin' hot Tricia Helfer. ( Charlie's girlfriend Chelsea's roommate on "Two and a Half Men" that Charlie had a dream sequence of a threesome with Chelsea about-hilarious ). Tricia drives a bright blue Hemi Charger, so Mopar fans will really like this one. Hope it comes back for a 3rd season. Mastermind         

More musclecars in movies that weren't utilized.....

It appears everyone has an appettite for movies with musclecars whether there's a chase or not-so here's a few more. # 1. "I, The Jury"  ( 1982 version ) Best "Mike Hammer" adaptation ever done. A young Armand Assante is totally badass as Hammer, who wins by atrrition-he kills more bad guys than they can send after him. Ultra-sexy Barbara Carrera is great as a sinister psychiatrist ( of course Hammer gets her naked ) Voluptous Laurene Landon is his faithful secretary Velda, and Paul Sorvino ( "Goodfellas" ) is his Police Captain  friend Pat Chambers who may or may not be dirty, but has the best line in the film when he tells Hammer-"Try to only kill two or three people today, okay?"  Hammer's ride is a Chesterfield Brown 1979 Z/28 Camaro, but the only chase involves a Jeep Cherokee and a Ford Fairmont. # 2. "Knight And Day". Stars Tom Cruise as a rogue CIA agent on the run who kidnaps and frequently drugs Cameron Diaz so she passes out before he commits acts of murder and mayhem. Plenty of chases and shoot-em up action involving motorcycles, trains, and suvs, and Lotus Elises. However Camaron Diaz-when she's not screaming and running with Cruise-drives a Gold 1966 GTO with a 4-speed.  # 3. "The Punisher" this flick starts out great with an awesome gunfight at a family re-uinion between Hero Thomas Jane, his father-played by the always great Roy Scheider in one of his last performances, and a group of assasins sent by drug kingpin John Travolta. Jane's whole family is massacred and he's shot several times and left for dead. He lives, and decides to get revenge. He even builds a nasty, bulletproof 1968 GTO. Then the wheels totally come off. The Goat gets wrecked, not even in a real chase, and they spend waaayyy too long focusing on his quirky neighbors that include a fat guy, a pierced, tattoed, computer nerd and Rebecca Romjin-who doesn't get naked and is totally wasted.-Jane doesn't even have sex with her-and the country-singing hitman that comes after him who drives a yellow 1970 Super Bee.  A total train wreck after a good beginning. #4.  "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot".  Another train wreck that stars Clint Eastwood, George Kennedy and Jeff Bridges. Eastwood is a retired master thief, Kennedy is his old partner that thinks he has the loot from their last job that coincidentally sent Kennedy to prison. If he want's Clint to give him hidden money-why does he spend the 1st half of the movie trying to kill him?  Bridges is a young hustler who wants Clint to teach him safe-cracking. Slow-moving and convoluted, and disappointing-Eastwood is usually great in crime capers, even if they don't involve Dirty Harry-("The Eiger Sanction", "Tightrope "). Early on he and Bridges steal a 1973 Trans Am, and then swap that for a 1973 Boat-Tail Buick Riviera. #5  "Blue Velvet"  Typical David Lynch mess, but entertaining in a sick way, the way Lynch's stuff usually is.  Dennis Hopper plays a nitrous-oxide sniffing madman who spends most of the movie sexually absuing Isabella Rosellini-while the aghast Kyle Maclaclan looks on.  But he also drives a green 1969 Dodge Charger and smokes the tires a lot. Rosellini spends most of the movie naked, or barefoot in a blue velvet robe that falls open often, showing her boobs. Maybe that's where Lynch got the title. Honestly-the Charger is the coolest thing in this mess.  #6  "Malone". Burt Reynolds gives a knockout performance as a retired CIA hitman who just wants to be left alone. He drives a 1969 Mustang Mach 1, and gets stranded in an Oregon town run by white supremacists when the tranny goes out. The kindly town mechanic and his teenage daughter let Burt stay at their house while their fixing the car. When Burt maims three of the town badasses protecting the girl, it get's ugly. Especially after they murder Lauren Hutton-his sometime lover and ex-CIA partner who may have come to help him or kill him. One of Burt Reynold's best ever performances-he's a serious, suicidally depressed badass with migraine headaches-none of the cutesy, self-deprecating jokes, of "Hooper" or the "Gator" movies-it's even darker than the excellent "Sharky's Machine" that launched Rachel Ward's career. Why it wasn't a big hit, I don't know. I guess his fans always want the "Bandit". Lots of action, none involving the Mustang except crashing the gate of the Nazis hideout.  # 7. "Physical Evidence." This one also stars Burt Reynolds as an alcoholic "Dirty Harry' type detective who may or may not have murdered a suspect in cold blood. Sex-Bomb Theresa Russel            ( " Whore", "Black Widow", "Impulse" ) is his lawyer. Of course Burt is innocent, and he and Russel work to find the real killer and have a steamy affair while the trial is going on. Best line in the movie-Burt calls Russel's yuppie, Wall-Street boyfriend "His Gucciness". Not as good as "Jagged Edge"-the same writer wrote both screenplays-but entertaining. And Burt drives a red 1974 Z/28 Camaro, but no automotive mayhem. # 8 "The Getaway". ( 1994 ) Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger tried to remake Sam Peckinpah's 1972 classic about a husband and wife criminal team on the run. Except nobody is as badass as Steve McQueen in his prime, Al Leitteiri- ( "The Godfather" "Mr. Majestyk" ) was way scarier than Micheal Madsen as sexual deviant gunfighter Rudy, and the then 42 year old Kim Basinger- while still hot in a MILF /  Cougar way-couldn't touch the raw beauty and sensuality of the then 24 year old Ali McGraw-and since her and McQueen were having a torrid affair right under producer Robert Towne's nose ( who was also McGraw's husband ) the lovers-on-the-run chemistry lit up the screen way better than bored marrieds Baldwin and Basinger ever could.  Especially the scene where Doc slaps Carol senseless after he figures out how his freedom was bought. Seing Ali bloodied and crying, and begging for forgiveness was so powerful, that I wanted to kick Steve McQueen in the balls, and I'm a huge fan. The updated, politically correct for the 1990's "I-am-woman-hear-me-roar"-scene has Basinger slap him back harder, say "Fuck you" and storm off. This only made me want Baldwin's character to slap the arrogant, cheating bitch some more.  Anyhow, Baldwin's character drives a '92 5.0 Mustang GT convertible. And the only chase involves a taxicab LTD. I know some of you will run right to the video store now. Mastermind                                    

30 grand for a car with "mechanical issues?" "Come on, man!!"

I guess people are still watching old reruns of the Barrett-Jackson auto auctions on the speed channel from back in the craziness. Besides just trying to stay up on things I'm actually looking for a musclecar to buy. I think  I said in an earlier post-I'm considering a '68-70 GTO or a '70's T/A.  Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of stuff out there that's in great condition and is reasonably priced. For example on the internet I saw a 1970 RAIII Formula 400 Firebird for 19K that had been restored and had factory a/c,, a numbers matching engine, and functional ram air.  I saw a 1979 Nocturne Blue T/A with 21,000 original miles for $22,900 and a 400, 4-speed model the same color for $18,900. I also saw an unrestored, but very well maintained '70 GTO for 13K, and another '70 model with a 400 and a 3 speed stick ( kind of weird, but std equipment and rare ) that was painted like a Judge for $18,000, and really nice '69 Goat that was a Judge clone for $16,000!!  There was also some stuff that was grossly overpriced-a 1977 SE T/A with over 100,000 miles for $73,000???  A Ram Air IV '70 Judge for $139,000???  Puhleeeze. By contrast-I also saw a 1978 WS6 SE T/A with 20,000 orignal miles for $34,000, and a 1969 RAIV GTO with 53,000 original miles, the numbers-matching engine and trans, and PHS documentation for $45,000. All of these cars were in excellent condition so it was just a matter of whether you could swallow the price or not. As much as I love 'em- 140K for a 42 year old Pontiac?  That's the price of a nice house anywhere but New York or California!! Even if I won the lottery I think I'd shop around-I saw another '70 RAIV Judge-it was even the same color-for $59,995!!!  Anyhow-what killed me was the grossly overpriced ones that needed work, or were'nt original. For example a guy wanted $49,000 for a 1969 Judge that he said in the ad had a non-original engine, and that PHS said had 4.33 gears, but now had a 3.55 geared rear end out of a Chevelle!!!  Excuse me?  You want 50 grand for a car with the wrong engine and rear end? Another guy wanted 30K for a FAKE Judge that had a 400 and a 4-speed, except the engine and tranny were out of a '79 Trans-Am!  Another laugher was the guy who wanted $25,000 for a '68 GTO that had factory air, except the compressor and all the hoses were missing!!  Are you kidding me?  Your asking 25 grand for a car and not only does the a/c not work, it's missing the compressor and the plumbing???!!!  Then there was the guy that wanted 35K for a 68 GTO that supposedly had 42,000 original miles, but the car had been sitting in a garage and had not been registered or driven since 1978!!  Hello??  35 grand for a car that may not even start, because the engine is locked up from not being run for 34 YEARS!!!  And you wonder why people aren't beating down the door to buy these cars?  Then there was the $29,995 1974 Formula 400 that had "some mechanical issues".  I'm sorry, but I don't care if it's a new Honda Accord or an old musclecar-people spend 30 grand on a car because they DON'T want any "mechanical issues".  If I wanted a Firebird with "mechanical issues" that I had to fix, I'd buy my cousins rough-but running 1967 Firebird 400 convertible for $6,500!!  I damn sure wouldn't spend 30 grand on a car with "issues"!!!    If your asking a premium price then the car should be in prermium condition, a $5,000 car is a "fixer-upper" ; a $20,000 on up car should be in pristine, "show-ready" or at least "road ready" shape. Mastermind                     

The "Rodney Dangerfields" that you don't want.....

In the last post I talked about some engines that sometimes got an undeserved bad rap, that could be viable powerplants for your musclecar-especially if you already had one in the car. There are others, however that DO deserve their bad reputation, and that are worth nothing to a musclecar owner even if you have the engine in the car. I'll list them and and then explain why they should only be used as boat anchors.  #1. 305 or 307 Small-block Chevy V8. These share no parts with the legendary 302 Z/28 engine of 1967-69. That was a pure hot rod engine that used a 327 block and a 283 crank to get it under the 305 inch limit for Trans-Am Racing. With Four-bolt mains, a steel crank, 11:1 forged pistons, 202 "Corvette "fuelie" heads, a hot mechanical cam, and a 780 Holley 4bbl on an aluminum manifold, this was a beast that could rev to 7,000 rpm all day, and was grossly under-rated at 290 hp. Buff magazines of the day put it's true output at at least 350 hp. Both the 305 and the 307 use two bolt mains, a cast crank, and have about 8:1 compression, and never made more than about 150 hp ( Except for the L69 and LB9 versions in Z/28's and Trans-Ams from 83-92 ). They acheived nearly the same displacement by slightly different means.  The 307 uses a 283 bore and a 327 crank, and was used from 1968-73,  the 305 uses a small bore and a 350 crank, and was used from 1976-92. The thing they have in common is they share the dual bad attributes of no power and crappy gas mileage. Chevy car and truck owners quickly realized that a 350 got similar gas mileage, but had substantially more power. You can't even really hot rod a 305 or a 307 if you wanted to, because the big-valve heads necessary to make any real power can't be used-the valves will hit the block. Further-building a 350 or even a 383 costs no more in parts to build or re-build, yet they make about double or triple the power depending on equipment. The TPI ( Tuned Port Injected ) 305 engines used in T/A's and Z/28s from 1985-92 made 205-230hp-but if you have one of these cars and the engine needs a rebuild and you want more power-the easy way is to drop in a 350 or 383. The TPI system will bolt up, and Edelbrock, Trick flow, and others offer ported baseplates, larger runners, larger throttle bodys, and higher lb per hr injectors to feed an engine up to 450 hp. The bottom line is a 350 costs no more to buy or build, but makes substantially more power. And-no one really cares if you have a numbers-matching 307 motivated '69 Malibu or a 305 powered '77 Camaro. The car will actually be worth more with the larger, more powerful "non-original" engine. # 2. 301 Pontiac V8. This was a lightweight "economy" motor used from 1977-81.  Except for the water pump, nothing interchanges with the "traditional" 326-455 inch Pontiac V8s. They only made about 150 hp, except for the ill-fated "Turbo" engine used in 1980-81 Formula Firebirds and Trans-Ams. These were rated at 210 hp, but had nowhere near the power of the 400 Pontiac that was rated at 220, or even the 403 Olds that was rated at 185, that were used through 1979. Popular Hot Rodding's 400 powered '79 Formula test car ran a 15.04 in the 1/4.  Hot Rod tested a 1980 Turbo model that ran a 16.3. Big difference for supposedly losing "only" 10 hp. The problem was the fledgling electronically controlled spark and carburator. If you set the timing where it would run decent, it would try to ping itself to death. If you backed the timing up where it didn't ping, it had no power. Same thing with the carb-if you set it where the car would run-it wouldn't pass smog. If you leaned it out to smog- it wouldn't run. The Buick T-Types and Grand Nationals didn't get badass untill they got Multi-Port Fuel Injection in 1985. Their carburated,1984 and earlier models were pretty much dogs too.  You can't hop-up the Turbo 301's by turning up the boost-because they are a lightweight, economy engine to begin with-the crank, rods and pistons can't take the extra pressure-you turn the engine into a grenade. And there's no aftermarket heavy-duty replacement parts available. As for a normally aspirated one-same thing-no hot rod parts available. On the upside-the motor mounts are in the same place as the traditional Pontiac engines-so a 350,400 or 455 will drop in it's place pretty easily. That's the way to infuse power into your 301 Firebird, LeMans or Gran Prix.  If you have a 1980-81  "Turbo Trans-Am" and you want it to be actually turbocharged and have some balls-I'd look for a wrecked Grand National to pull the engine and tranny out of !!  # 3. 307 Olds V8. Same thing-a lightweight, "economy" motor that never made more than 150 hp,and really has nothing in common with the "real" 330-350-403 Olds "small-block"  V8. There's not much aftermarket speed equipment out there for the 307. I've seen people try to adapt Edelbrock aluminum heads, and other stuff,  but why? A 350 or 403 will bolt right in and have substantially more power either stock or modified, and theres lots of parts available. Or if you want to be really badass-you could get a beefy 350 diesel block and stroke it to 440 inches-or you could just build a 455.  But the 307 Olds is not really any better than a 301 Pontiac-a doorstop.  # 4. 351 / 400"M" Ford V8. Used from 1975-82, these have the triple-axel of being big and heavy, having no power, and getting crappy gas mileage. Really. They weigh as much a 429 /460, and suck gas like one, but don't have near the power of even a 351W or 351C. They were used primarily in trucks and "big" cars-so unless you have a 1976 Torino with one of these slugs-you needen't worry-they were never available in Mustangs, Cougars,( before 1976 ) Montegos, Fairlanes or anything remotely resembling a performance platform. I wouldn't even take one for free. A 351W or 351C can be built way cheaper, and there's tons more speed parts available. Or if your going to spend big dollars on a heavy engine then I'd certainly build a 460 and get the monster power and torque to justify the expense. Hope this helps you not spend money on a boat anchor.  Mastermind                   

Some "Rodney Dangerfields" you may want to consider-.

There are some engines that don't get the respect of others in the same car line, and often it's not that there's anything  inherently wrong with the engines, it's just the circumstances and the models they were available in.  However, some of these can make a very viable musclecar powerplant for those of us on a tight budget, or if you happen to have one already in the car. Here they are in no particular order of importance.  # 1. 400 Small-Block Chevy. Introduced in 1970 as a "towing" engine with two-barrel carburation,low-compression, single exhaust,and stuck in 4,500-6000 lb Malibu and Impala wagons with 2.73:1 gears, they got a reputation as a "dog" compared to high compression, 4bbl 327s and 350s that were also in lighter cars. Further-they got a reputation for overheating that really wasn't fair. The problem was the siamesed bores with steam holes in the block and heads to aid cooling. The "overheating" problem came from the shade-tree mechanics wanting to hot rod them. They'd put "2.02" heads off a 350 on them ( which were not factory drilled with the steam holes ) that would block off the steam holes in the block and cause the engine to overheat. Or they'd buy a generic "Small Block Chevy" head gasket set-i.e.-283-307-327-350- which did not have the steam holes in the head gasket-and have the same problem. And because of the siamesed cylinder bores, they can only be bored .030 over. They also have a 5.565 inch connecting rod instead of the small-block's normal 5.7 inch size. And-from the late '70's until now-the hot setup became a cut-down 400 crank in a 350 block to make a 383. If your building a small-block Chevy from scratch-the 383 crank and piston kits are so cheap that it's really the only way to fly-it doesn't really cost any more to build than a 350, but makes substantially more power and torque with the same equipment.  However-if you have a 400 block in good condition or can buy one dirt-cheap-then by all means build it. They were used in various cars and trucks until 1980. You can buy crank kits with longer 5.7 rods and shorter pistons to add even more torque-and with some Iron Vortec or aftermarket aluminum heads drilled for the steam holes-with the right cam, carb and intake, etc- you'll get big-block hp and torque levels in a small-block package. Or you can step up and buy a brand-new 400 block from Dart that can be bored and stroked to 434 inches!!  # 2. 403 Olds V8. Although they were only built from 1977-79, there are millions of them around. Besides being used in countless Pontiac Firebirds and Trans-Ams, they were also used in Pontiac Bonnevilles, Buick Rivieras, Olds Toronados, 88s and 98s, and all the big GM wagons except Chevrolet. Same story as the 400 Chevy-with low (even by late'70's standards) 7.8:1 compression, a lazy cam, and  saddled with a slushbox and 2.41:1 salt-flats gearing, they got a rep as a slug.  However- in the Trans-Am and Formula Firebirds the vaunted W72 Pontiac 400 made 320 lbs of torque at 2800 rpm, and the 403 made 325 lbs-ft-as low as 1600 rpm!!. The main difference in performance was the W72 / WS6 Pontiac-engined versions got 3.23 gears with an automatic, and 3.23 or 3.42s with a 4-speed, while the Olds-engined versions got 2.41 or 2.56 gears. The good features of the 403 are they are basically a bored-out 350-huge 4.351 bore and 3.38 stroke. 6 inch rods are the hot setup for small-block Chevy racers-403s-have 6 inch rods stock. With a set of headers, a mild cam and an Edelbrock Performer intake you can make 290-325 hp and 350 lbs ft of torque on an otherwise stock engine. This may not sound like much, but it's quite a hike from the stock rating of 185 hp!!  You can use 1968-72 350 heads for a full one point boost in compression to 9.0:1. ( These have 70cc combustion chambers compared to the 403s 80cc.) However you'll have to re-tap the bolt holes for larger 9/16 bolts used on '75 and later engines. Mondello peformance sells a kit to do this. With a set of headers, an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake and matching cam-Edelbrock claims 397 hp on a 350-the extra 53 cubes of the 403 should put you over 400hp easily. If you want more than this-you can also use Edelbrock aluminum 455 heads. You'll have to use an electric fuel pump-( they won't clear a stock mechanical one, and if you try to clearance the heads you'll hit water ) and have them milled to 70cc to get proper compression ( the Edelbrock heads have 84cc chambers stock ) but they have a thick enough deck to handle this. You'll also need to use a port-matched Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold with the 455 heads. (Mondello sells these too.). The only glitches are the RPM manifold won't clear a Trans-Am shaker scoop-you'll have modify the scoop or use the "regular" Performer and give up 25 hp and 30 lbs of torque on the top-end. Also if you going to shoot for more than 400 hp or rev it over 5,500 rpm-the "windowed" mains on these engines may not hold up. However, Mondello sells a kit for strapping the mains that will allow them to rev to 6,500 and beyond. If you want to build a high-revving 403, I'd use this kit and a nodular iron crank from a 350 Olds or a forged steel one from a 330. The 330 cranks use a different flywheel than the 350 / 403s, but again- Mondello to the rescue-they have billet flywheels and flexplates that can use the 330 crank in a later 350 / 403 block. With these modifications your "smog dog" T/A can give those smug 400 Pontiac owners a lesson in humility, or you'll have a great sleeper to swap into a 350 Cutlass. # 3. 360 Mopar V8. Everyone, including hard-core Mopar-philes lamented that the legendary 340 was a much better performer. Of course it was-with 10.5:1 compression, a 4bbl, dual exhausts, and a hot cam. The 360, introduced in 1971 in trucks and vans- had 2bbl carburation, 8.5:1 compression, a lazy cam and single exhaust!!  They didn't even get a 4bbl option until 1974, and catalytic converters ruined perfromance futher in '75. So comparing a 340 to a 360 really isn't fair. However, 360's are a great base for a hot rod engine. For example the hot setup for 350 Chevy Nascar racers is angle plug heads and 6 inch connecting rods. 360 Mopars have angle plug heads and 6.123 inch rods stock. Mopar Perfromance sells a 360 crate motor with 380 hp and 410 lbs ft of torque. And, there is a ton of aftermarket speed equipment for these engines, intakes, cams, heads, etc. Eagle, Scat, and others offer stroker cranks to get 408 cubes. 1992 and later "Magnum" heads breathe better than any factory and many aftermarket heads. These will bolt up to '91 and earlier blocks; but you'll need a "Magnum" style intake manifold. No problem, Edelbrock has you covered. A properly built 360 would be absolute dynamite in a Duster or Dart, really strong in a Challenger / 'Cuda, and torquey enough to move a Charger or Road Runner fast enough for all but the most hardcore street freaks. Unless your building a 440-you'd be hard pressed to get more power than a properly built 360 could deliver.  # 4. 350 Pontiac V8. This "Rodney Dangerfield" really gets no respect because it's overshadowed by it's 400 and 455 inch brothers.  And, because Pontiacs are externally identical from a 326 to a 455-most people just chuck the 350 and literally bolt-in a 400 or 455. However-there are hundreds of thousands of LeMans, Tempest,  Firebird and Ventura models out there from 1968-77 with 350s under the hood. If you want 500 hp, then yes, you need to swap in a 400 or 455. However, if you want a reliable, powerful engine for your daily driver or weekend cruiser, or you can live with "only" about 325-350 hp and 400lbs of torque, then by all means use the 350 thats in the car. The limiting factor on these engines is the small bore. Unlike their Chevy and Olds cousins that are both oversquare designs-( big-bore, short stroke ) the Pontiac has a 3.875 bore and 3.75 stroke. The big-valve, big port heads of the 400 / 455s can't be used because the valves will hit the block. This limits the amount of power you can make. Also, the long stroke design makes lots of low-end torque, but limits high-rpm capability. Thus-what you do is simply accentuate what Pontiac did to start with-make big torque at low rpm. and redline the engine at 5,500 rpm. And when you've got 350-400+ lbs of torque from idle on up, you don't need to rev to 7 grand. Since a lot of these engines had 2bbl induction, the 1st and easiest upgrade is a 4bbl carb and intake manifold. The intakes off a 400 or 455 will bolt right on, and the factory Pontiac 4bbl intakes from 1967-74 are quite good. The '75 and later models have the EGR valve protruding into the throttle opening which severely limits power above 4,000 rpm. If you have a 75 and later engine I would get the earlier factory manifold, or use an Edelbrock Performer. Headers and dual exhausts really wake up these engines. Pontiac heads can be milled up to .060 to get a full one-point boost in compression. You also have to mill the intake side so the manifold will fit properly. As for cams-the Edelbrock Performer is an excellent choice for a 350, as is the factory "068" cam. While the timing and lift of these cams may seem mild. For a 400 or 455 they might be,trust me they are much more aggressive than they sound, and a 400 was the test mule.  My eager research bears this out.  The last thing is gears. The strongest engine in the world will seem like a slug when it's saddled with 2.56:1 gears. Stick with something in the 3.23 to 3.73 range. With these mods people will think you've swapped in a 400. They'll never believe a 350 runs that strong. Hope this helps some of you save money and go fast!  Mastermind               

De-Bunking "Gotta Haves" to save you money!!

I know the last couple posts have been cynical, but I've seen this go on since the '70's. A magazine will feature an article "Smokey Yunick's Tips for building a high-hp Small-Block Chevy."  In the article, Smokey is talking about building a 700 hp engine that has to turn 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona in a Winston Cup NASCAR race car.  If that's your objective-then yes-you need a four-bolt main block, a forged steel crank, heavy duty "Pink" rods, forged pistons, screw in studs in the extensively ported heads, etc, etc. If your re-building an engine for your daily driver, work truck, street / strip machine or show car that's never going to see the high side of 6,500 rpm even on a weekend at the drags-you don't need all that extra beef and expense. I have raced SBC-powered circle-track "Street stock" and "Hobby Stock" cars for years and never had any trouble using two-bolt main blocks, cast cranks, a stock oil pump, cast pistons, and stock heads. Yes, we had a few DNF's do to mechanical failure-but more often than not that was because the water pump blew, the fuel pump quit, the clutch let go, the ignition control module quit, etc. I NEVER didn't finish a race because we lost a main or rod bearing, or a piston failed, or anything related to the bottom end. As for valvetrain failure-once in a while we'd lose a rocker arm or a pushrod or pop a valvespring, but in 20 years-I NEVER saw a stud pull out of a head.  But "Joe Average" reading the article doesn't know this-he figures-"Smokey Yunick is THE Chevy performance guru, so if he says you need all that stuff, then you probably do."  But-and it's a HUGE But- He was talking about building a RACE CAR. I guarantee if you asked Smokey to build you a reliable 400 hp street engine and guarantee it for a year-he would tell you to go ahead and use a two-bolt main block, a cast crank, and cast pistons, a stock oil pump and stock heads. He'd tell you-instead of spending a ton of money on unnecessary beef and machine work-to save that money for a high-quality performance cam kit, a set of headers, a performance carb and intake, and maybe a higher-stall converter and some gears to put all that newfound power to the ground. John Lingenfelter said the same thing-"I would only recommend forged pistons if you were going to run a blower or nitrous." "And then I would ask-"If you have that much money and need to go that fast, why aren't you building a 454 instead of a 350?"  The same goes for other stuff. Read any Mopar Magazine and they'll tell you that you "Gotta Have" a Dana 60 rear end. Well, if you have a 700 hp Hemi with nitrous, a 5 grand converter and a trans-brake, and your running wrinklewall slicks bolted to the rims with 15 psi in them, I'd say that's probably good advice. But for anything else-I know a guy that races a Duster with a 505 inch stroker that's never had an ounce of trouble with the 8 3/4 rear. In fact I know guys with Road Runners, Chargers, 'Cudas, etc with 383s and 440s with 4-speeds that pop the clutch and powershift on 30 dragstrip passes a weekend with no problems. Honestly- in 30+ years of working on cars I've never SEEN or even heard of anyone actually breaking a Chrysler 8 3/4 rear end!!  That's like the people that say the Borg-Warner T5 transmissions can't stand up to performance use. No, they won't stand up to a 600hp 454 Chevy or 460 Ford. But I know guys with "5.0" Mustangs that run in the 12s with the stock T5 and have no problems. I know guys that have yanked the 305 out of their '80's Camaros and replaced it with a stout 350, and run low 13s, spinning all of low gear and these trannys have lasted two or three years. Up to about 350 hp, you should be fine with a T5 in a street car. If you build 400 or more hp, then I'd upgrade to a Tremec or Richmond 5-speed. But the average guy doesn't know any of this. He innocently buys a used IROC-Z Camaro and when he says he wants more power-a bunch of "experts" who have never raced or even owned a Camaro start telling him he's "Gotta have" a $3,000 TKO conversion because he wants to put an Edelbrock intake and matching cam on his L69 305!!  See what I'm saying?  I think magazines should be clearer about the intended usage of a part before they declare it a "Gotta Have."  Mastermind           

It has to be about the cash......

I've written several letters to the editors of every enthusiast mag out there asking this question-and none of them has responded. I don't like to make unfounded accusations-but I can't see any other reason than advertising money for the current state of affairs. I realize they have to showcase and recommend their advertiser's products to stay in business. But the writers-especially if the reader is a newbie to the hobby with no experience-make it sound like your car will fall apart like the Dodge at the end of the "Blues Brothers" if you don't have all this state-of-the-art stuff.  Here's what I'm talking about --# 1. Why does every single project car need a custom 9 inch Ford rear end?  Hot Rod's "Project Disco" -a 1979 Z /28 Camaro is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with Magazine Project Cars today. 1979 Z/28s came stock with GM's excellent 8.5 inch 10 bolt positraction rear end with either 3.42:1 or 3.73:1 gears!!  You couldn't ask for a better rear end for a street / strip machine!! And their tough-I have owned 400, 4-speed Trans-Ams ( They use the same rear end ) that I drag-raced and dropped the clutch at 4,000 rpm incessantly on for 5 years and I never had a problem. Ditto for Mopar guys-forget a Dana 60, I know a guy running a 505 stroker with nitrous and slicks in a Duster, and he's never had an ounce of trouble with the 8 3/4 rear. Try to keep a straight face while telling me that extra .25 or .50 diameter on the ring gear makes a big difference in durability!!  As I read the article on "Project Disco" no one alluded to any problem with the rear end. Even if it did need a rebuild-a Currie 9 inch setup with GM mounting points retails for $3,500!!  Any competent driveline shop can re-furbish a GM 10 bolt for a lot less than $3,500!!  # 2. Why does every single Project car have to have a Wildwood or Brembo aftermarket 4-wheel disc brake setup worthy of a NASCAR Nextel Cup Racer?  Are the writers saying that the front disc / rear drum setup that came on most '70's and '80's cars isn't adequate to stop the car in daily driving or on the occasional weekend trip to the drags?  Puhleeze. Again-they did this to Project Disco. And again-I had 3 '70's vintage Trans-Ams that use the same brake system as the Z/28-and I drove like a madman, drag-raced them and autocrossed them. Yes, you could make the brakes fade if you ran five or six dragstrip passes back to back to back without stopping for a minute, or if you ran two or more autocross or slalom events back to back without stopping, or if you blasted up a curvy mountain road at 100 mph for 20 minutes. However-I learned that if you used Bendix or Ferodo GM "Police Spec" D52 pads and Dot 5 brake fluid-you couldn't fade them if you tried. The "Cop Brakes" as Elwood Blues would say-actually worked better when they got hot, and the major problem was the Dot 3 fluid breaking down under this abuse. If the car sat for even five minutes between runs, you were fine. I have raced Camaros and Firebirds in 2 eight lap heat races, and a 35 lap main event on a 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile oval tracks, with generic parts store brake pads and the brakes held up as long as we used Dot 5 fluid. So I can't fathom what you'd have to do to actually "Need" a $3,000 Brembo brake setup! Don't get me wrong-I'm all for safety-and I wouldn't put a 500 hp engine in say-a '68 Chevelle that had 9 inch 4-wheel drum brakes either. But even then-you can go to a junkyard and get all the parts to put front disc brakes on it from a later-model GM "A" or "F" body. And Summitt racing and Just Brakes sell factory style systems for under a grand. Unless your racing in Vintage car races at Laguna Seca-I can't see where you'd "Need" a Wildwood or Brembo setup. # 3. Why does every single project car need a 4 or 5 thousand dollar six-speed manual or automatic overdrive conversion? To me-600 less rpm on the freeway is not worth 5 grand. Again-Project Disco came with a TH350-a stellar trans that will stand up to 500 hp easily. This tranny would have bolted up to their hot rod LS engine and with the proper converter and a shift kit-worked flawlessly. Instead they converted it to a stick-at a cost of  about 5 grand. # 4. The modern fuelie engine that cost about nine grand. Something called "Project Disco" I would assume would be done in late '70's style-like a "Macho T/A", or with flared fenders and Minilite or Center Line wheels, and maybe even sidepipes. And last time I checked '79 Camaros didn't have fuel-injected LS motors. I would have thought they'd have went with a 400 small block or Rat. I understand they were showcasing the "E-Rod" emission-legal package that Edelbrock and GM collaborated on and they had to put it in something-but why not an '80's 'Vette or a '90's Firebird or Camaro that had a fuelie engine from the start, and is laden with emission controls? Could be worse, I guess they could have chose a '55 Chevy or a '64 GTO, which would have been really offensive.  While were on the subject of engines-PHR's "Project Talledega" -a 1975 Laguna done up to look like a Nascar stocker-they built a 560 hp 408 inch solid-roller cammed small-block-to showcase Dart's new replacement block and top-end package. By the time it was done, they had something like 35 grand invested in the car. Now their talking about putting a Rat in it. Why? Even with a Rat-your going to be hard-pressed to make more than 560 hp and keep it remotely streetable-I mean how fast do you guys need to go?  Or do you just want to eventually have a race car with liscence plates instead of a street machine?  It just irks me because the neophyte hot-rod enthusiast that's not a mechanic might read these articles and think that all this stuff is a neccessity, when in reality he could build a cool, fast car for many thousands less. Magazines used to tell you how to go fast on the cheap, as well as promoting new stuff. Now it's all this state of the art stuff. Just had to vent that. Or someone correct me if I'm wrong, and it's not about advertising dollars. Mastermind

Why do people mess with perfection?

Saw a musclecar shootout in a national magazine the other day that made my head want to explode. There was not one, but TWO 1973 Pontiac Trans-Ams competing, and both of them had modern fuel-injected Chevy LS7 motors in them and extensively modified suspensions. Forget the sentiment of butchering a classic, why couldn't these guys get one of the two million or so beater 70-81 Camaros and Firebirds out there and cut that up, yada,yada,yada. No, looking at it from a strictly engineering standpoint, performance level, and bang for the buck, these guys definitely fall into the more-money-than-brains category. Here's why-# 1. Handling. These cars were so awesome back in the day, and still have a fierce following, and are gaining new disciples from the younger generation every day. The reason is Herb Adams and company designed an excellent suspension all those years ago. Back when an F60-15 Firestone Wide Oval or Goodyear Polyglas GT bias-ply was the best street tire on the market, you had to design a suspension that kept the tire perpendicular to thye road under high-speed cornering load. In other words-the car was holding the tire on the road. Now, tire technology has come so far that lazy auto engineers are using the tire to hold the car on the road. That's why front-drive econoboxes can generate high skidpad numbers if their shod with low-profile performance tires. Here's some hard data to support this fact. Car Craft decided to build a G-body project car several years back. It was a generic 1984 305 Monte Carlo. They were going to swap in a killer 383 to make it fast, and they wanted it to handle.  It didn't have the handling suspension that Monte Carlo SS's or Buick Grand Nationals did. They tested it on the skidpad with the P195/75R14 tires it came with. It registered an abysmal .67g.  For comparison-an '80s S10 Blazer has better numbers than that. All they did was install some 16X8 wheels and P245/50ZR16 tires off another staffer's IROC-Z Camaro, and tested it again- for giggles and guess what- it recorded .80g!! A stunning improvement-just by changing the tires-no springs, or shocks, or sway bars, nothing. They were stoked. They knew with proper springs, shocks and sway bars, that they could get it up close to .90g-that's Corvette and Porsche territory-with a suspension that was designed in 1963. How does this pertain to the '70's T/As? Read on.  Road and Track tested a 2010 Camaro SS and a 2010 Challenger SRT8.  We all know the skidpad is the industry standard for measuring cornering prowess. The higher the number, the better handling the car. Anyhow-the Challenger SRT8 pulled .85g on the skidpad, shod with 245/45ZR20 Goodyear Eagle F1 tires. The Camaro SS pulled a slightly higher .88g running on 245/45ZR20 ( Front ) and 275/45ZR20 ( Rear ) Pirelli P-Zeros. Car and Driver's 1979 Trans-Am came very close-laying down .82g- on skinny, S-rated P225/70R15 Goodyear Polysteel Radials!!!  It doesn't take a mathematician to do this equation-With some modern, fat,ZR-Rated rubber, the old T/A would easily surpass both of them. This was borne out with another magazine's "Project G-28". They took a 1976 Camaro-added subframe connectors,upgraded front and rear sway bars, springs and shocks, and some fat, ZR-rated 18 inch rubber. They got it up to .95g on the skidpad-and that's a bunch. I mean that's ZR1 Corvette, Porsche 911, and Ferarri F430 territory. On a solid-axle suspension that Herb Adams designed in 1969. So why do these fools put aftermarket subframes and rack and pinions in these cars? Your going the improve the handling? How?  Ditto for the 9 inch Ford Rear ends. 1970's T/A's came stock with GM's excellent 8.5 inch ring gear 10 bolt positraction unit. And their tough. I have had 400, 4-speed T/A's that I drag raced and dropped the clutch on at 4,000 rpm for five years and never had a problem. And they just keep on working like the Energizer Bunny-I pushed my buddy's Camaro up a snowy hill he was sliding backward down to his house one winter day in my '77 T/A. That's how good they work.  Try to keep a straight face while telling me that that extra .5 inch on the ring gear makes all the difference in durability!  A new Currie 9 inch with GM mounting points costs $3,500!. Even if the stock rear needed rebuilding, you could get that done at any competent driveline shop for a lot less than $3,500!!  As for the engine-a 505 hp GM LS7  ( Z06 'Vette motor ) costs 18 grand from GMPP.  Mast Motorsports sells hot rod LS motors for around 12K on up. Then you have to wire it up.  1973 T/A's had 455 cubes under the hood stock. By simply adding Edelbrock Performer RPM heads, headers, the matching cam and Performer intake- at a cost of about 3 grand- you can make 460 hp and 440 lbs of torque-and that was on a 400 test mule. A 455 would be very close to 500 hp with the same equipment. Or for around $7,500 Jim Butler Performance will build you a 455 Pontiac guranteed to have 600 hp and run on 92 octane pump gas. That's a LOT cheaper than 12-18 grand for an LS engine, and the car runs just as fast. The same goes for transmissions. '73 T/A's either had a Muncie M21 4-speed or a TH400 automatic stock. Both bulletproof, and both will stand up to as much power and torque as your wallet will muster. So why do they need a 4 or 5 thousand dollar six-speed manual or overdrive automatic swap?  To me-500 less cruising rpm on the freeway is not worth 5 grand. For $2600 you can buy a Gear Vendors overdrive that stands up to Top Fuel drag engines and would turn your M21 or TH400 into an 8-speed or a 6-speed, for a lot less money.  I'm all for people improving the performance of their cars-"Dukes of Hazzard" and action movies aside-1960's Chargers handle like the average UPS truck in stock trim-so thank God for XV Motorsports and others that make Mopar handling parts. But since Herb Adam's brainstorm has been called by Car and Driver-"A lightning-reflexed commando of a car whose handling can't be matched by cars 5 times it's price" ( meaning Ferarris of the day ) why can't these idiot's leave well enough alone?  Mastermind                

Musclecars in movies that were wasted or not used...

After mentioning the behind-the-scenes work in "Bullitt" the other day-I had a few people ask about more movies with musclecars in them. Since weve recently done several posts on the good chases and the bad ones I won't re-hash them, but here's some movies where the stars drove musclecars but there was no chase scene. Here's the list in no particular order of importance.  # 1. "Rush". Set in 1975, based on Kim Wozencraft's classic novel about underover cops addicted to drugs, Jason Patric's character drives a '68 Charger with Cragar S/S mags on it. Tense action and dialog, but no car chase.  # 2. "An Eye for an Eye".  Chuck Norris martial-arts thriller set in San Francisco. Chuck drives a Buccaneer Red 1973 Trans-Am. Lots of fisticuffs, but no car chase. Chuck did have a decent chase scene driving a beater '75 Formula 400 in "Code of Silence," but nothing in the mighty red T/A here.  # 3. "McQ"  John Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry" before it was offered to Clint Eastwood, and after that film became a mega-hit he realized his mistake. So he took on the role of Lon McQ, a "Dirty Harry" type detective battling corrupt cops in Seattle. It was a good story, and nobody plays a tough guy like the "Duke", but unfortunately "Magnum Force" -the "Harry" sequel came out about the same time, with Eastwood battling-you guessed it-corrupt cops. "Magnum Force" was another blockbuster, while "McQ" never got the recognition it deserved. More than 30 years later, it's still cool; unlike a lot of '70's movies it doesn't seem dated.  Anyhow, the "Duke's" ride was a Brewster Green 1973 Trans-Am that gets wrecked between two dump trucks. # 4. Which reminds me-in "Marked for Death"  Steven Seagal drives a sinister-looking black 1973 Mustang Mach 1. There is a chase-involving a Dodge Ramcharger and a 5 series BMW. Yuk.  However, the badass Mustang gets wrecked between two dump trucks. Wonder where they got that idea?  # 5. "The Mechanic" Charles Bronson thriller about a lonely hitman who takes the son of one of his victims under his wing and teaches him the business. A young Jan-Micheal Vincent plays the protege' and he drives a Red 1972 Mustang Mach 1, that gets blown up during the finale. A couple of cool chases-but one involves dirt-bikes, and the other Fiats in Italy. Awesome action flick / psycological thriller-the scene with Jill Ireland playing a Hooker that writes Bronson a love letter is especially poignant-, but no chase scene for the red Mustang. # 6. "Blue Thunder"  Action thriller starring Roy Scheider as a Viet Nam Vet-turned Police helicopter pilot who steals a military attack helicopter prototype. Malcolm McDowell is evil as his nemesis from "Nam, who drives a 1982 Corvette Special Edition, and Scheider drives a Black and Gold SE Trans Am that in some scenes is a '79 model with the shaker hood and "Snowflake" wheels, and in other scenes is a 1980 Turbo model with the offset "Turbo Bulge" hood, and the "Turbo" wheels. Scheider smokes his tires a lot, and lots of aerial helicopter action, but no car chase, unless you count the police chasing Candy Clark in a Vega-yes, I said Vega-while Scheider fubars them from the chopper.  # 7. "Tango and Cash"  Sly Stallone and Kurt Russel teamed up for this action / comedy / shoot-em-up ala' "Lethal Weapon."  Russel's character drives a 1962 Corvette convertible, but no chase scene. Look for a pre-"Desparate Housewives", pre-anorexia Teri Hatcher when she still had a rack to rival Jeri Ryan's. # 8. "Basic Instinct". Murder mystery that catapaulted Sharon Stone to stardom. Micheal Douglas drove a '92 Mustang GT Convertible in this flick, and chased Leilani Sarelle driving a Lotus Esprit for a few blocks before she crahes and dies, but nothing like "Bullitt" or any other classic. You watch this flick to see Sharon Stone and Jeanne Tripplehorn naked, not for the cars.  Now you've got a "Must Rent" list for next weekend.  Mastermind            

Like Micheal Corleone, today we handle all this Ford vs GM & Chrysler crap!

I'm sorry that some Ford enthusiasts don't want to admit the truth.  But here's some irrefutable facts-gleaned from old Car Life, Motor Trend, and Hot Rod road tests, and as far as my research goes-none of these cars were "ringers" like we discussed previously and I think the 1/4 mile times will bear this out.  A 1968 390, 4-speed Mustang GT ran a 15.6 second 1/4. A 1968 4-speed SS396 Chevelle ran a 14.60, a 1968 Firebird 400 ran a 15.1 with an automatic.  A 1968 383 / 4-speed Road Runner ran a 14.58.  The Mustang was put on the trailer every time, by at least 1/2 second-which equates to about 5 car lengths. That's an ass-whippin' in anybodys book. Also-In doing research for an article for Musclecar Review on movie chases featuring musclecars I found both written interviews and video interviews with Steve McQueen, and Stunt Coordinator Carey Loftin, and stuntman Bill Hickman-who drove the Charger in "Bullitt." Ford supplied five 390 / 4-speed Mustangs for the movie. McQueen and Loftin bought the Charger off the showroom floor from a San Francisco Dodge dealer with their own money because McQueen didn't want two Fords in the chase. ( Ford offered a Fairlane, and Chrysler said-Ford has the contract with Warner Brothers-have a nice day.) The Charger was a 440 / 4-speed, and would leave the Mustang so badly that they couldn't even film it.  Loftin and mechanic Max Balchowsky pumped up one of the Mustangs with headers, an Edelbrock intake and Holley carb and a Mallory distributor. The headers and glasspack mufflers is why the car sounds so badass on the soundtrack. Now, the Charger would still beat it in a close drag race, but at least now McQueen and Loftin ( who shared stunt-driving duties in the Mustang ) could stay close enough to Hickman and the flying Charger to film it. The Charger's Torsion bar front / leaf spring rear suspension was ( pun intended ) bulletproof, and it's only problem bashing over the hills of S.F. at high speed was it kept throwing the hubcaps off. The Mustangs meanwhile, were ripping the shock towers out, and breaking things every day. Loftin, and Balchowski worked day and night taking parts off the other Mustangs to keep the camera car running. That's why 3 of the 5 were crushed after filiming and only one of the two remaining ones is still known to exist.  As for the later 351C Mustangs competing against the GM and Mopar offerings in the early '70's-things didn't get much better for the Blue Oval boys. Motor Trend's 1972 351CJ Mach 1 ran a 15.07. Cars magazine's 1972 340 'Cuda test car ran a 14.35, and Hot Rod's 1972 340 Duster ran an almost identical 14.34. Motor Trend's 1972 350 LT1 Z/28 ran a 14.69.  As for the "Big Dog's"-A 1972 Gran Torino Sport with a 429 couldn't even break out of the 16's-a 16.10 was it's time. And oddly-the 429 was only rated at 205 hp, while the 351CJ was rated at 266 hp. A 351CJ / 4-speed Torino was quicker than it's 429 / automatic brother-but it still only ran a 15.62. By contrast- a 455HO powered 1972 GTO ran a 14.58, a 455 powered 1973 Olds 442 ran a 14.90, while a 1972 400 / Torqueflite  Road Runner ran a 15.35, and a 1973 440 Charger ran a 15.0.  The fastest Ford in this era was Hot Rod's 1973 Pantera test car that ran a 14.53. A Pantera is definitely a "niche" car, not very common. You want to use the one-year-only, Boss 351 of which only 1,806 were built-I only saw two road tests of these-one ran a 14.05 and the other a 13.81.  You want to bring out 428 Mustangs and 429 SCJ Torinos from 1969-71-then you have to include LS6 Chevelles, Hemi 'Cudas, RAIV GTO's, and W30 442s-all of which are quicker than the Ford offerings in road tests of the day. Ford made some very cool cars in the musclecar era, but the bottom line is the GM and Mopar offerings were generally quicker, and you could swap GM and Chrysler engines from model to model without changing all the brackets, accessories, the bellhousing, the transmission, etc-not true with the Fords. Now, if this FACT offends anyone, then they'll just have to live with it and shut up. Mastermind       

More facts.....Not prejudice

Caught some flak from Ford fans saying I'm biased against Fords, and very pro-GM, and Pro-Mopar.  I'm not, and if stating irrefutable facts like the Autolite 4300 is a lousy carburator, or that the 390FE is a heavy truck engine that leaks oil, or that you can't swap engines around as easily as you can with a Chevy, Pontiac or Mopar offends some people, then go ahead and be offended. Good carburators is what made the Mopars and Chevys and Pontiacs such great street performers. The Carter AVS that came on most 383s and 440s from 1966-71 only flowed about 585 cfm. But they had no gaskets below the float level-( no leaking, unlike a Holley, no power valves to blow, unlike a Holley ) and you could adjust the secondary opening infinitely, and change jets without disassembling the carb or removing it from the engine. The design is bulletproof, and gives awesome, reliable performance. That's why Edelbrock resurrected it.  We all know, especially on a stock engine with an automatic transmission ( it's a documented fact that more musclecars are automatics than 4-speeds ) that you can't rev up at the line to clean out- a smaller carb with leaner jetting comes off the line cleanly with no bog and provides crisper acceleration.  As for GM-ditto for the Quadrajets. The small primaries ensure great drivability and throttle response-and the large secondarys let it breathe deep on the top end. That's why they work equally well on a 350 Chevy or a 455 Pontiac. Meanwhile, most Fords were saddled with the Autolite 4300 4bbl that brand-new, was too rich or too lean, blew power valves, the floats sank, the needle and seats stuck-they were horrible, and the cars didn't run well. People replaced them with Holleys-and that didn't really help. The vaccuum secondary Holleys leaked, bled over, blew power valves, and generally didn't do much better. If you had a 4-speed, a mechanical secondary Double-Pumper would work ok, but every time you looked at the gas pedal both accelerator pumps would open and it was like flushing a toilet. Gas mileage would drop from say 13 mpg to 5-8 mpg, and would foul plugs if you weren't "on it" all the time.  Which brings up the next point. Fords had notoriously weak igniton. While GM and Chrysler point-type distributors would be good up to about 6,000 rpm, the points on a Ford would "sign off" about 5 grand, and start bouncing and popping. If you went to the drags in the '60's or '70's, every guy there running a Ford had two extra sets of points in his toolbox and a feeler guage and a dwell meter!!  Or he'd got smart and put in an aftermarket Accel or Mallory distributor!  The performance of the Ignition and carburation are the main reasons why a 396 Camaro or 383 Road Runner would blow the doors off a 390 Mustang or Fairlane in a drag race.  The third thing was axle ratios. Most 396 Chevelles had 3.31 or 3.55 gears. Ditto for Pontiac GTOs. Most Chargers or Road Runners had 3.23 or 3.55 gears. Unless it was a 428 SCJ with the Drag Pak option-( which included 3.91 or 4.30 gears ) Most Mustangs and Fairlane / Torinos had 3.00:1 gears with a 4-speed, and 2.80:1 with automatics, which certainly wasn't conducive to blistering acceleration.  After 1970 Ford Made the 351C their "Performance" engine. The 429 and 460s were strictly "big car" engines. This left the 351C to carry the Ford performance banner. With ports and valves literally the size of a 427 Chevy-these heads-originally designed for 302 Trans-Am racers who had a power band between 5 and 8 grand really sucked on the street. They made very little power below 3 grand, and with Ford's weak ignition and crappy carbs-were all done in by 5,800. In a Boss 351 with 11.3:1 compression, ( which only came with a 4-speed and 3.91 or 4.30 gears ) or a Pantera ( which had a 5-speed and 4.22:1 gearing ) this flaw was masked by the stiff gearing. But in 99% of  the other Mustangs and Torinos out there that had automatics and 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 gears, they were a dog. Never mind a 440 Charger, a 340 'Cuda would outrun a 351 Mustang in a drag race. And as for GM- a 454 Chevelle, 455 Olds 442, or 455HO  Trans-Am?  Come on, a heavy, 7.9:1 compression, 351 Mustang or Torino tugging on Superman's cape?  I stand ready to apologize for anything I said that wasn't true. Mastermind                          

Old Road Tests.....Again

I read Road tests of new cars in Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track, as well as Hot Rod, Car Craft, and Popular Hot Rodding. These should be taken as a baseline of what a given car is capable of-not gospel on performance. You really have to take the vintage road tests with a grain of salt for two reasons.    #1. A lot of the time the factories sent "Ringers".  A few examples-after 45 years-Jim Wangers finally admitted what we already knew-Car and Driver's May 1964 GTO test car that ran a blistering 4.6 second 0-60 time and a 13.1 second 1/4 mile time ( on 7.75-14 bias-plys smoking halfway down the track! ) was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the 389 and replaced it with a blueprinted 421. In 1969 when Chrysler introduced the 440 Six-Pack option they advertised that their Road Runner prototype ran "Very low 13s and very high 12s" in testing. Except the car's engine had been "brought to the top of specifications" and had a 4-speed, 4.30 gears and drag slicks, and the "Professional Driver" was Pro Stock drag racing champion Ronnie Sox!!  Do you think maybe a showroom example with street tires and 3.54 gears, piloted by "Joe Average" would run a just a TAD slower than the 4.30 geared, dyno-tuned, drag-slicked test mule piloted by a pro race car driver??  You think??  In 1973-the SD-455 Trans-Am blew everyone away. Hot Rod tested one that ran a blistering 13.54 in the 1/4, and Road and Track recorded a 13.75. If you look at the pictures and read the liscence plate-it's the same car. This "Prototype" had the regular "455" emblems on the shaker hood scoop, not the "SD-455" emblems of later production models. Further, the engine wasn't certified or available to the public until April or May.  This was because they had trouble passing emissions with the Ram Air IV cam, and the EGR valve function was questioned by the EPA. To make them legal Pontiac changed the EGR valves, and swapped in the milder Ram Air III cam, which caused them to change the horsepower rating from 310 to 290-although we all know an RAIV cam in a 455 is worth way more than 20 hp, and although these Road tests appeared in the April and May issues of these magazines, the tests were done months before-in January. The test car had the illegal EGR valve, and the illegal RAIV cam. Then Hot Rod opened the shaker scoop, re-jetted the carb, re-curved the distributor, added a shift kit in the trans, and added M&H "Street Slicks " which resulted in a blistering 13.15 e.t.  No surprise that the production examples for 1974 ran "only" low 14s. To this day-no one knows what happened to the badass '73 prototype. Some say a GM executive bought it, others say it was crushed after it's "Rock Star" magazine test tour. I mentioned before the Red and Silver 1973 Olds 442 that Motor Trend tested that in their "1973 Performance Car Preview" that blew the doors off a 454 Corvette, a 455 Trans-Am, and a 440 Dodge Charger, respectively. The Olds engineers grinned and said it had been "mildly massaged". "Mildly Massaged" turned out to mean a W30 cam, a 2,800 rpm Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter and swapping the standard 2.73:1 gearset for a 3.42:1.   # 2. Like I just said-a lot of the time the magazines modified the cars. The '69 Z/28 that Car Craft said ran a 13.11 had headers, slicks, traction bars, and 4.56:1 gears!! Think that might run a little quicker than a stocker with iron manifolds, street tires and 3.73s?  Hot Rod did the same with a 340 'Cuda-headers, slicks, and a Hurst shifter. This kind of crap continued until the present day. Car Craft boasted that their "Stock" '91 Mustang GT test car ran a blistering 14.19 e.t.  "Stock" except for the K&N airbox, swapping the 3.08 gears for 3.55s and swapping the 225/60VR15 radials for 235/60R15 M&H drag radials. Car&Driver's 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GTVR4 than ran a blistering 13.7 e.t.  accomplished this by the engineers disabling the rev limiter, disabling the knock sensor, filling the tank with 104 octane racing gas, lowering the tire pressure to 15 psi , and having the "professional driver" drop the clutch at 6,200 rpm and powershift at 7,000 which grenaded the $5769 transaxle after two runs. A neighbor of mine that had one was shocked when my Hurst / Olds showed him it's taillights one day, and when he later took it to the drags and ran a 14.58. Pretty quick for a 3830 lb all-wheel-drive car, but nowhere near 13.70's that Mitsubishi advertised. Besides the "stealth" modifications you have to be sure your comparing apples to apples. A friend with a "Macho T/A" was surprised when his 403 Olds, automatic, 2.56:1 geared model ran "only" a 15.62 in the 1/4. He thought it should have ran a 14.29 like Hot Rod's 400 Pontiac, 4-speed, 3.42:1 geared test car!!  Read carefully before you start spouting these old test results!  Mastermind              

Buying the car you want.......Pt 2!!

I guess I should have been clearer on the last post.  Got some griping-"Not everyone can afford an LS6 Chevelle ot a Boss 302".  When I said  "Buy the car you want" that's not what I meant. What I meant was if you want a four-speed then search until you find that model with a 4-speed, don't buy an automatic and then try to convert it, or if you want a big-block Chevelle, then look harder to find one in your price range, but don't buy a small-block version and then spend a ton more money swapping in a Rat. The same goes for other options-it's much easier and less expensive in the long run to shop around and find a car that has factory air conditioning or front disc brakes, than it is to try to add that stuff to a base model not so equipped. On the other hand-don't go overboard and pass up a great deal on a Trans-Am.because it has Rally II wheels and you want Snowflakes, or turn up your nose at a great Chevelle because it doesn't have a Cowl Induction hood!!  We talked about this before- on the other hand-If you have a 440 Road Runner or Charger and can swallow the $2,300 list price for a "Six-Pack" setup-by all means put it on-the car's value will be increased a lot more than 2 grand even though it's not "Original".  Ditto for Hurst Dual / Gate shifters for 1967 and later GTOs and 442s with automatics. I can't afford an original RAIV GTO either, but if you have a "regular" Goat or want to buy one and want RAIV performance-Crane, Lunati and Edelbrock sell the cam, NPD just came out with an exact replica of the RAIV / 455HO aluminum intake, and if that isn't enough, Edelbrock has the round-port heads. ( which are patterned after the RAIV heads ) Yes, all that will probably cost 3 grand when your done-but spending 3K on a $20,000 car is a lot cheaper than selling your soul for a $75,000 "original." Ditto for L34 and LS5 Chevelle owners that want L78 or LS6 performance-remember the article in Car Craft where the rectangular-port heads didn't show a gain until 6,200 rpm?  Keep your oval-port heads and add the intake and Cam. GMPP sells the intake and Crane and Lunati both sell the cam. Mastermind

Make your life easier and just buy a car with the options you want!!!

I talk to so many people who aren't really mechanics that want a musclecar, but listen to some "shade-tree" expert on how "easy" it is to swap engines or transmissions or to add options. Except for wheels and tires or maybe a spoiler-there's no "options" that are easy to add.  For example-something as simple as adding a hood tach on a '60s GTO or Firebird requires meausring, drilling holes, painting, and wiring not only to the ignition but also to the headlight system-so it lights up at night with the dash lights. A magazine article might say this is a "simple" operation-but I definitely wouldn't want a novice to attempt it! And something like this is a lot simpler than changing engines or transmissions. I have discouraged several people from making this mistake- and they all thanked me later. For example I talked to a guy who was all hot to buy his neighbor's 1981 Trans-Am with a sick 301 Turbo-it couldn't even chirp the tires a little. His neighbor had fed him the line how a 400 or 455 would be a "bolt-in" swap. I showed him on several websites and in Hemmings, if he wanted a 400 T/A -that he could buy one in good shape that ran great for no more than his pal was asking for this beater that needed a new engine-regardless of whether you tried to fix the 301 or swap in something else-it needed a new motor. Another guy was going to spend $6,000 on an admittedly pristine-350 Malibu in the hopes of making it an SS396 or 454 clone. Again-I showed him-he could buy a decent for-real SS396 for $15-25K. And even if he could do all the labor and bodywork and paint himself-( He couldn't, he wasn't a bodyman or a mechanic ) it would cost more than 15K in parts alone to "convert" this bench-seat,drum-braked, TH350, small-block Malibu to a 4-speed, or TH400, 396 or 454,with bucket seats, front disc brakes, cowl induction hood, SS clone. The internet is a great tool-and unless your looking for a moon rock-i.e. a Boss 429 or an L88 'Vette, etc-and unless you have Donald Trump's bank account-you can't afford it anyway-your dream car is out there. Especially if were talking a 396 Chevelle, 400 GTO, Firebird or Trans-Am, 383 or 440 Road Runner, or Charger, 351 Mustang, 350 or 396 Camaro, or 455 Olds 442.  I see these cars in very good condition for under 20 grand all the time. Now I'm not talking frame-off restos where every nut and bolt has been replaced-but cars in this price range are usually well-maintained-no rust issues, they have good paint, they run good-and have good tires, brakes, etc-they may need a little work-but their generally a solid car. You can't buy a new Honda Civic or Toyota Corrolla for 20 grand, so a classic musclecar for less than that is a screamin' deal. For example-Trans-Am Specialties in Florida just sold a  400, 4-speed, WS6 10th Anniversary 1979 T/A  with 66,000 original miles for $14,900!!!. There's no way you could buy a T/A that "needs restoration" the usual sellers- terminology  for clunker-for say 3 or 4 grand and make it that nice by only investing another 10 grand. No way. I saw a really nice, ( The site had a lot of pictures )  3 owner-1970 GTO for sale for $13,000 on the internet the other day. I also saw a 1971 351CJ, 4-speed Mustang Mach 1 in great condition for $12,000. The deals are out there-just don't get excited and overpay for some piece of junk that isn't what you really want. Be patient, and you'll find the right car. Mastermind