A "Vanishing Point" redux could fly...If they stick to the Original Script....

Someone asked me the other day if I thought a "Vanishing Point" remake would be a good Idea. I said both yes and no. No because the original was so freakin' good. Barry Newman and Cleavon Little were awesome as Kowalski and "Super Soul". The action-choreagraphed by Carey Loftin-( stunt coordinator of "Bullitt"-the grandadday of all car-chase flicks ) still looks good today, and the soundtrack featuring music by Mountain, Jerry Reed, Kim Carnes, Rita Coolidge-( then in Delaney and Bonnie and Friends, before she met Kris Kristofferson ) Big Mama Thornton and more-would be almost impossible to improve on. Also because a 1997 attempt starring Viggo Mortenson was horrible. They totally changed the story-I've gone over this before-so I'll be brief for those who don't know-instead of trying to get from Denver to San Francisco in 15 hours to win a bet with his drug dealer, they had Kowalski racing home to his pregnant wife who was dying from Lupus and childbirth. 1st off gag me with this cutesy supposedly heart-wrenching plot. Secondly, park the car and get on an airplane, stupid!! Thirdly, they implied that Kowalski somehow bailed out of the car at 100 mph before hitting the bulldozers and survived to raise his kid happily ever after. Again-Gag. Now if someone wanted to do it right all you'd have to do is stick to the basic storyline. Kowalski could be a Iraq or Afghanistan vet ( instead of Vietnam ) who busted out being a cop, dabbled in auto racing and now had a job as a delivery driver for a high-end car dealer. He could bet his drug dealer / buddy the tab for some weed or speed that he could make the trip in 15 hours. He could be driving a 707 hp Hellcat Challenger, or a 470 hp R/T. The race with the Jaguar would fly-you could use a 550 hp F-Type. "Super Soul" could still be a blind, black clairvoyant DJ running an outlaw station in the Nevada desert-who feels a real connection to Kowalski and genuinely wants him to make it. ( As long they don't cast freaking Kevin Hart!! Like Alan Arkin said in Grudge Match-he's short and annoying. ) His life could be shown in flashbacks like the original-including his wife dying in a surfing accident, him fighting the war, dealing with a corrupt partner as a cop, etc. And let's have the naked motorcycle rider that offers Kowalski a joint and a roll in the hay be actually naked-( like the original, not in a t-shirt and shorts and combat boots like they did in the awful remake. )  And forget CGI-do the finale the way Loftin did the original-tow a car with explosives under the hood behind the camera car with a quick-release cable and really smack it into the bulldozers at 80-plus. Kowalski dying in a blaze of glory was poetry. Leave it at that. No room for a sequel. If they do that-they might have a big hit on their hands. But if they sissify the story or try to leave room for a sequel it'll flop. With Hollywood you never know-they butchered "The Mechanic" a few years ago-and even though Arthur Bishop and Steve McKenna both died in the original-they made it look like Bishop survived and now their doing another one. Stop. Please. I personally like Jason Statham as an actor-but no one should have attempted to top Charles Bronson as a morally conflicted Hitman. Just like Jeff Bridges is a good actor-but shouldn't have tried to match John Wayne in the True Grit remake-which sucked-by the way.  We can hope for the best.  Mastermind    

More BAMF movie musclecars......

Had some people call me out for overlooking a few badass musclecars that appeared in movies and T.V. Some I agree I shouldn't have overlooked, others not so much. Anyhow here's the list. # 1. How could I forget "Gator McLuskey's" '71 Ford LTD whiskey runner? With Super Bee style black steel wheels and chrome lug nuts and white letter tires, and a 429 with a Hurst Competition Plus shifted Top-Loader 4-speed-( except for the scenes when Burt or Jennifer Billingsley obviously use an automatic column-shifter ) the "Brown See-dan" definitely qualifies for "BAMF" status.  # 2. How could I forget Popular Hot Rodding's legendary Yellow '57 Chevy-"Project X" that had a 350 with a 6-71 Blower on it driven by Tony Danza in "Hollywood Knights"?  And the 427 Cobra driven by the "Chinese Bandits" was pretty cool too. # 3. "Eleanor". The Yellow 1973 Mach 1 Mustang that H.B. Halicki piloted to cinematic immortality-to quote Tracie Thoms in "Death Proof"-in the original "Gone in 60 seconds" not that Nic Cage / Angelina Jolie Bullshit". It survived through 40 minutes of automotive mayhem not equalled before or since. That's got to be worth something. # 4. How often do you see an Orbit Orange 455 powered 1970 GTO Judge in a movie? This was the other star of "Two-Lane Blacktop", driven by Warren Oates. And gearheads hate to admit it-but in their flat-out cross-country race to Washington DC-the 455 / TH400 / 3.08:1 geared Highway Friendly Judge would have smoked the tunnel-rammed, 4-speed, 4.56:1 geared 1/4 mile warrior '55. Just saying. # 5. You don't often see a Carousel Red RAIII '69 Judge in a movie either. However this was the star of the inane comedy "Sex Drive." Unless you count the incredibly sexy Amanda Crew who spent most of the movie barefoot in short-shorts and a tight tank-top. ( This stems from a weird sub-plot about good karma from throwing shoes in a tree. ) Personally-if I was the director of a dipshit / car chase / coming of age comedy, I wouldn't need a scientific reason to keep the hot female lead barefoot and scantily clad for the entie pic. Precedent setting- References: "White Lightning" and "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry."  Plus Seth Green is hilarious as a wise-ass Amish Mechanic who helps them repair the Judge after a highway breakdown. #6. "The Rockford Files." This action series about a Private Eye named Jim Rockford that ran from 1974-81 starred James Garner and initially a Gold '74 Pontiac Firebird Formula 400. They ususally had decent car-chase action in most episodes. They went through several different Firebirds over the years. Some base models, some Formulas with the scooped hood and some with or without rear spoilers. I guess the producers figured since they were all gold with Rally II wheels, no one would notice. Well we did. # 7. Sorry "Knight Rider" fans-can't get excited about a 305 powered '82 T/A that wheezed out 165 hp ( and that's if it had "Cross-Fire Injection", 4bbl models only had 145 hp!!! ) couldn't smoke the tires on dry pavement and had a talking computer with an annoying accent, and a pre-"Baywatch", mullet-wearing, wooden acting David Hasselhof for a driver. Just can't do it.  #8. Sorry "Starsky&Hutch"  fans. Same here. The show had good writing, good action, and great chemistry between stars David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser. I just can't get too excited over a '76 Gran Torino with bench seats and an anemic 2bbl 351M under the hood. The red and white paint job and slot mags tried to make it look like a hot rod. Didn't work. If Jim Parsons- ( Sheldon on the "Big Bang Theory" ) dons a sport coat, Ray-Bans and a .44 Magnum-your not going to believe that he's "Dirty Harry". Just like no one besides Tom Cruise thinks Tom Cruise is "Jack Reacher". I didn't think Sally Field was very convincing as an enraged vigilante in an "Eye for an Eye". Then again-Charles Bronson would have made a lousy Flying Nun.  Sorry, getting off on a rant there. Anyhow-regarding "Starsky& Hutch"-liked the show, never thought the car was that cool. Mastermind                  

The baddest movie musclecars.....

Someone asked me the other day to rate the baddest movie musclecars. I aim to please, but I took that to mean what the cars could do in real-world performance, which might change the rankings from people's perceptions. # 1. Has to be the BAMF '55 Chevy that starred in both "Two-Lane Blacktop" and "American Graffiti" with minor changes. This car was built in 1970 and featured a straight front axle, a fiberglas tilt front end, and a 12:1 tunnel-rammed 454 backed by a muncie 4-speed. This was a "10 second car" before Vin Diesel was born. # 2. The "California Kid". The Iconic '34 Ford with the black,red and orange flamed paint job built by Pete Chapouris for the movie starring Martin Sheen and Vic Morrow is still around. It still appears at car shows. It's simple, but it works. A pumped-up 302 backed by a C4 is both powerful and bulletproof, and in a light '34 Ford, rocks then and now. 'Nuff Said.  # 3. A 440, 4-speed, 4.10 geared '70 Challenger R/T has to rank pretty high. I know Mopar-ites want to rank it # 1, but do you really think Kowalski's Challenger could out run the badass Rat-motored '55 from Two-Lane blacktop, or the lightweight "California Kid in a drag race?"  # 4. "Milners small-block Chevy powered '32 from "American Graffiti" has to get some respect. We know it couldn't beat the Rat-motored '55. The Challenger from "Vanishing Point" or the similar power-to-weight ratio "California Kid?" That's open to debate. But reputation matters as much here as performance, so I'm not going to argue. # 5. Ford guys are going to be pissed, but according to stunt coordinator Carey Loftin-the 440, 4-speed '68 Charger would leave the 390 / 4-speed Mustang so badly, that they couldn't even film it. Star Steve McQueen was furious. Loftin and head mechanic Max Balchowski hopped up the camera car with headers and an Edelbrock intake, a Holley carb, and a Mallory distributor. Much to their dismay-the Charger would still outrun it-but McQueen and Stunt double Bill Hickman could stay close enough to film it!!  Loftin said the main challenge was taking parts off the other cars to keep the camera car running. The Charger, with torsion bar front suspension and a Dana 60 rear end, had no problems other than throwing hubcaps while bounding over the streets of San Francisco at speeds up to 115 mph. If you watch the movie closely, the Charger loses 8 hubcaps during the chase. The Mustangs were constantly ripping through shock towers, and falling apart. That's why only one or two of the five "Bullitt" Mustangs are known to exist today. The others were crushed as junkers after filming!  # 6. All that aside, we have to include the Highland Green '68 Mustang Fastback from "Bullitt" simply because with it's loud exhaust, Torq-Thrust mags, and all chrome trim removed, it looked and sounded so fucking cool. And with it's open rear end and lead-foot McQueen driving, it lit one-tire fires better than anything before or since. # 7. It's demise was shown every week in the opening credits of the Lee Majors hit stuntman-turned-bounty-hunter series "The Fall Guy"-but you gotta love the yellow 440 '69 Charger from "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry." And the barefoot, hip-hugger jean,bursting halter-top clad Susan George. Or turn in your man card. Period. # 8. Scoff if you want, but the 400 powered black Trans-Ams driven by Burt Reynolds in "Smokey and the Bandit" were the fastest cars available at the time. And Burt and director / buddy / Stunt coordinator Hal Needham made the most of them and sold hundreds of thousands of cars for Pontiac from '77-79. I know some people are going to bitch about a few omissions-but I don't care and here's why. I didn't include the "Dukes of Hazzard" Charger because we all know they wrecked 216 '68-70 Chargers during the series run, and many of them were 318 / Automatics. As far as I know only GL #26-built by stunt coordinators to beat a Traco-engined "Knight Rider" '82 T/A in a friendly race with the "Knight Rider" stunt crew-had a pumped 440 and a beefed-up suspension. I'm not going to worship a bunch of clunker, 318, 2bbl automatic cars whose main function was to crash well!!  Ditto for the "Fast&Furious" movies. I'm going to go "Stuntman Mike" here. ( The deranged car-driving serial killer played by Kurt Russel in Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" ). He said he hated CGI and longed for the "Bullitt" days, the "Vanishing Point" days,-when you had great men doing great thing's with great cars. He's right. The Charger in the "F&F" movies had a fake blower and a 350 Chevy under the hood!!! And pulled the front wheels with the help of hydraulic jacks!!  Vin Diesel's Chevelle had a 502 and a TH400-( not a 4-speed like they showed in the movie ) but it had 500 lbs of lead in the rear bumper to make it wheelie. Even the Grand National-had a 350 Chevy and a TH400 powertrain-and the body was mounted backwards to make it look like he was going so fast in reverse!!  Not the same as McQueen and Hickman going 115 through San Francisco or Carey Loftin jumping the creek in a Challenger that was stock except for Koni shocks and cranking up the torsion bars!!  Or Robert Mitchum actually flipping a '50 Ford in "Thunder Road".  Mastermind          

R.I.P. Muhammad Ali....Truly the Greatest....

Unless you live in a cave-you probably know by now that the world is a little bit less cool place after the death of Muhammad Ali. Ali was as much a part of the '60's and '70's as our revered musclecars and he changed the world for the better for a lot of people, both black and white, which is why I felt compelled to comment. He was born in 1942 and his birth name was Cassius Marcellus Clay. He won a gold medal at the Olympics in 1960 at age 18 and then turned pro. In 1964, he upset Sonny Liston-a fearsome champion-and became heavyweight champion of the world. Shortly after he converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali. If I wasn't a stupid kid when I was a teenager-I could be a millionaire now. A friend of my mother's had gotten me his autograph before the Liston fight. I had it framed and hung on my bedroom wall for years. It was signed "Cassius Clay." How much would that be worth now? Sadly I lost it in 1977 when my family moved from California to Nevada. Anyhow-Ali was a gifted athlete 6'3" and 210 lbs, he had the speed of a Welterweight. He could dodge an opponent's punches without even putting his hands up and make them look like a fool. And when he threw combinations-violence has never looked so good. He was undefeated in 29 fights. Then, in 1967-he was drafted and refused induction into the Army on religious grounds. He was stripped of his title and not liscenced to box anywhere in the United States. This was pure racism. Quakers and Amish didn't have to go to war when they claimed it was against their religion. But they were white. And denying him his liveliehood? If a Quaker truck driver protested being drafted, would they have pulled his driver's liscence? Bruce Springsteen ran off to Canada to avoid going to Viet Nam and Gerald Ford pardoned him in 1975. By 1985, he was screaming "Born in the USA" at Republican rallies. Asshole. What did Ali get? He lost three years of his career from 1967-1970 while the supreme court jerked off with his case. Everyone knows the age of 25-28 is a boxers absolute prime. He's still young and physically gifted; but he has experience and toughness too. We will never know how great Ali might have been. The fact that he went three years without fighting or income, and waited for the Supreme Court's decision showed what a great American he was, and that he believed in the American Justice system. Think about this. He could have easily fled to Canada or Europe. European fight promoters doubtless would have paid him millions to fight in London, Rome, Berlin, etc and risk his title. Roman Polanski made movies in Europe for years after fleeing the U.S. to avoid child-molestation charges. He didn't. He waited and won. Ironically-he had some of his most legendary fights when he was over 30 and past his prime. Going 12 rounds with Ken Norton with a broken jaw. Upsetting George Foreman to regain the title in Zaire. The "Thrilla in Manila" with Frazier. The comeback against Earnie Shavers. Winning the title an unprecedented an unequalled since third time in 1978 against Leon Spinks. He retired from boxing in 1981 but continued to be in the public eye. In the '90's he lit the Olympic Torch. In the 2000's after September 11th he railed against the terrorists and said on national TV-"You know me as a famous boxer." Islam is a religion of peace." "These people do not represent 99.99% of the people who practice Islam." "If I wasn't Ill with Parkinson's disease, I would fight these people personally as hard as I fought anybody in the ring." He negotiated the release of Hostages from Islam extremists. Till the end he visited children's hospitals and performed magic tricks for them. Sylvester Stallone says he wrote "Rocky" after watching his fight with Chuck Wepner in 1975. If you saw the movie-who hasn't?- "Apollo Creed"-played brilliantly by Carl Weathers-was a thinly disguised Ali. Joe Frazier-Ali's ring nemesis-had a cameo in the film-taunting Creed-at the Rocky fight-saying "Stop Ducking me." Weathers responded-"You next,Joe,You next Joe!"  Stallone and Ali both always said Ali got a big kick out of that.  Anyhow-like him or not-you have to admit-he had a big influence on a whole generation of people. Mastermind  

I have met the baddest mofo on the planet...And his number is Z06.....

A friend of my dad's came to visit yesterday and he was driving a 2016 Z06 Corvette. Of course he let the old man and me and my brother take it for a spin. 650 hp and 650 lbs ft of torque. This is far and away the fastest, most powerful car I've ever driven. It would suck up and spit out a 600hp Nissan GTR or a 674 hp Roush Mustang. I know, because I've driven them too. Their startlingly fast, but they pale in comparison to the Z06. I hit it going up a freeway on ramp, and it went sideways at 40 mph. I waited until I was going 70 on a long straight stretch of freeway. I floored it, and the car SPUN the tires for ten feet and rocketed to 120 mph before I could blink or let off the throttle!! You look at the gas pedal at any speed and it rips the tires and rockets to waaayyy over the speed limit. The brakes are like a Formula One car. You have to learn a light touch, or you'll put yourself through the windshield. No matter how fast your going, you can stop instantly. The handling is in another league. Put the suspension in sport mode, and it's firm, but not bone-jarring, and it's like driving a big go-kart. It responds right now to the slightest driver's input. And unlike a Porsche 911 Turbo which doesn't suffer fools lightly-it's a forgiving car. Let off the gas or inadvertandtly hit the brakes in a turn and it just slows down. No histrionics or end-swapping as the suspension unloads. A moron could drive this car and look like the long-lost Andretti brother. GM hit it out of the park with this one. If I bought one I'd have to get a personalized liscence plate. It would be simple. KNG KONG. Anyone who thinks I'm exaggerating-go test drive one and then talk crap. Like Clint says-"Go Ahead, Make My Day." Mastermind    

Even in the early '70's Political Correctness ruined things.....

I read an article today about some stuntmen and car buffs that worked on the Car-Chase Cult Classic "Vanishing Point" that were angry at Chrysler Corporation. Their were five Alpine White 1970 Challenger R/T's lent to the movie company for filming. Four were 440 / 4-speeds and and one-the camera car-was a 383 / Torqueflite. Star Barry Newman said the 440s were monsters, but that he also loved the camera car. He said- "You'd put that Hurst shifter into first and pop the clutch and it would almost rear back." "Those cars were like a locomotive. They just kept pulling and going faster." "The camera car was a 383 automatic, but it was no slouch." "It was really quick too." "Honestly-I think that 383 would run just as fast as the 440s." Stunt coordinator Carey Loftin said the cars were basically stock-except for cranking up the torsion bars and adding Koni shocks to the one he jumped the creek in. Loftin also said that by the end of filming all the cars were basically junk, and he was taking parts off the others to keep the camera car running. And everyone knows he towed a junk 1967 Camaro with dynamite under the hood and an impact-sensitive switch in the bumper behind the camera car toward the bulldozers, and used a quick-release cable to make it look like Kowalski actually drove into the bulldozers. It was a spectacular crash-, but if you look closely at the wreckage-you can see that it's a Camaro, not a Challenger. Some of the guys who worked on the film wanted to buy the cars. Obviously-thinking it would be cool and profitable-years later someone paid over 100k for a Trans-Am that Burt Reynolds drove in "Smokey&The Bandit." However-some Chrysler executive has a hissy fit because he thought the film glorified drug use and running from the police, and not only refused to sell the cars, but demanded they be shipped back to Hammtrack and crushed!!  To quote Patrick Swayze taunting Marshall Teague in "Road House"-"You are such an asshole."  It's probably the same guy who caved into a few griping Christian groups that complained about the little smiling Devil-with-a-pitchfork decals and the "Demon" name on Dodge's cooler 1971-72 version of the Duster 340. The "Speed Demon" emblems were nixed and the name changed to "Dart Sport" for 1973. Ugh. Anyhow-if anyone claims to own a surviving "Vanishing Point" car-according to Stunt coordinator Carey Loftin and director Richard Sarafian-both unfortunately decaesed now-their lying because they were all crushed by Chrysler. At least the "California Kid" lives on.....Mastermind    

"Little Brothers" can be both affordable and fun....

All the buff magazine's glorify the premium big-block cars, and with good reason. They are awesome performers. However this has driven prices so high that "Joe Average" can't have a musclecar. I don't have an extra $25,000+ laying around to spend on a second or third car that I'd only drive on weekends. I know-first thing everyone is going to say is "You said you were a mechanic, you don't have to buy a frame-off restoration, buy something that needs work and fix it yourself."  Ok.  Forget the cover of a magazine-I don't have an extra $10,000 to spend on something that needs another 10k worth of work just to make it reliable and road-worthy. The solution to this problem is to lower your sights a little. For example-Chevrolet built 243,000 Camaros in 1969. Out of that total only 19,000 were Z/28 models and about another 13,000 were SS396 models. That means the other roughly 210,000 cars sold that year were base models. Which isn't a bad thing. 68,000 or so had 307 2bbl V8s. The other 140,000 or so ( except for a few strippy 6 cylinder models) were 350s. We all know there's more speed equipment available for the Small-Block Chevy than anything else on the planet. It would be much easier and cheaper to buy or build a decent base model '69 Camaro than it would be to chase after a restored or needing work, but still grossly overpriced Z/28 or SS396. This isn't an isolated example. Of the 400,000+ V8 Chevelles that Chevrolet built in 1968-only 58,000 were SS396 models. Ford built 299,000 Mustangs in 1969. Only 1,628 were Boss 302s and only 13,193 were 428CJ models. That means the other 285,000 ( again excepting a few 6-cylinder strippys ) were 302 or 351W powered. Which certainly isn't a problem-there's just as much speed equipment available for small-block Fords as there is for Chevys or anything else. Of the 113,000 Firebirds Pontiac built in 1969, only 697 were Trans-Ams. That leaves 112,000 others with either 350 or 400 V8s.  Of the 81,000 Road Runners Plymouth produced in 1969-over 77,000 were 383 powered. Think they'll be a little cheaper to buy than the remaining 1,000 or so 426 Hemis and 2,000 or so 440 / Six-Packs??  See a common thread here?  The bottom line is-if you don't "gotta have" the absolute top of the line, you can still find a bargain and have a cool ride without re-financing your house or winning the lottery. Mastermind            

Some more "Dogs" that can be Pit Bulls....

Remember comedian Bill Engvall's hit comedy song-"Here's Your Sign?" ( That said-"I'm Stupid" ). Got a couple emails about the last post from someone who needs a sign. He said I was wrong about some engines not really being "dogs". He pointed out how the 360 Chrysler didn't have anywhere near the performance of the 340 and that the Chevy 400 small-block wasn't anywhere near as good as a 327 or a 350, and the 403 Olds wasn't anywhere near as good as a 350. Here's your sign. I say this-because just like I pointed out about the various GM, Ford, and Chrysler big-blocks-he's comparing apples and oranges for the same reasons!  The 340 from 1968-71 had 10.5:1 compression, a hot cam, and big-port heads with 2.02 / 1.60 valves, and a Carter AVS 4bbl. In '72-73 the compression was dropped to 8.5:1 to run on low-lead fuels which dropped the hp rating from 275 to 240-but they still had everything else-good heads,cam and intake,etc. The 360 was introduced in 1971 in trucks and vans and never had more than 8.5:1 compression,and had small-valve ( 1.88 / 1.50 ) 318 style heads, a lazy cam and 2bbl carburation, and single exhaust!!  In fact-a 4bbl carb was only offered on a few 1974 Dusters and 'Cuda / Challengers, and Charger / Road Runners, and the '78-79 Li'l Red Express pickup. The millions of other 360s in various Dodge cars and trucks and Chrysler / Plymouth vehicles through the '70's all had 2bbl carburation. Again-all other things being equal-heads, cam, intake, exhaust, compression ratio,axle ratio-the 20 extra cubes of the 360 will be worth at least 25 hp and 30 lbs ft of torque. As for the 400 Chevy-same thing. The 275 hp 327 and 300 hp 350s had 10.25:1 compression. and Quadrajet 4bbls. The 350 hp L79 327 and the 370 hp LT1 350s had 11:1 compression, "202" heads, hot cams, and 780 Holley carbs on an aluminum high-rise intake. The 400 Small-block was introduced in 1970 as a "towing" engine in Impalas, station wagons and trucks. It had 9.0:1 compression, "194" heads, a lazy cam and was only available with a 2bbl and single exhausts. In 1971 compression was further lowered to 8.2:1. A 4bbl wasn't even an option until 1976 in the trucks. Every magazine writer whose ever done an article on building a high-performance small-block Chevy will tell you that a 400 will make tons more power and torque than a 350!!  50 extra cubes makes a BIG difference. And now that Dart is selling brand new 400 blocks building one has never been easier. Ditto for the Olds engines. Late '60's and early '70's 350 Olds engines had 10.5:1 compression, and were rated at 310 hp. The high-performance "W31" had larger valve heads,a 308 degree cam, and an aluminum high-rise intake. It was grossly under-rated at 325 hp and was only available with a 4-speed and 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears!!  The 403 was GM's "corporate" big-block in the late '70's. It had 7.9:1 compression, a lazy cam, and was only available with an automatic and 2.56:1 gears. A few WS6 Firebirds had 3.23:1 gears. Again-all other things being equal-53 more cubes means more power and torque!  Mastermind        

Here's a tip-some '70's "Dogs"...Aren't really dogs....they just need a little help...

I love listening to self-proclaimed "experts" who give people bad advice. One of these idiots was pontificating at the shop I work at the other day. He was saying that a 429 Ford engine is a great performance engine, but a 460 is a dog. He also said that a 427 Chevy was a great engine, but a 454 is a dog, and that 383 Mopars and 428 Pontiacs were great, but 400 Mopars and 455 Pontiacs were dogs. I had to correct him. All other things being equal-the larger engine will always make more power and torque. The key words being  "All other things being equal".  429s up to 1971 were rated at 375 hp and had 10.5:1 compression. '72 and later 460s had about 205 net hp and 8.0:1 compression and a lazy cam. '60's 427 Chevys-depending on if they were in an Impala or a Corvette and depending on whether they were a 390 hp,425 or 435 hp versions ( L71,L72,L88,L89 ) -had 10.25:1, 11:1 and 12.5:1 compression!! And high-lift hydraulic and solid-lifter cams, and aluminum high-rise intakes with a 780 Holley or  3 Holley 2bbls!! With the exception of the 1100 or so 425 hp LS6 454s that were put in Corvettes and a few SS Chevelles in 1971-most '71 and later 454s had 8.25:1 compression, an iron manifold with a Quadrajet, and a lazy cam. Ditto for the Mopars and Pontiacs. The 383 Magnum had 10:1 compression and the heads and cam, and the excellent Carter AVS 4bbl carb and intake from it's big brother the 440 Magnum. '72 and later Chrysler 400s had 8.2:1 compression,a "station wagon" cam and a Carter ThermoQuad carb. Some '75 and later models had the horrible "Lean Burn" ignition systems, and single exhausts with catalytic converters that really choked them. 428 Pontiacs had 10.75:1 compression and either the "066" or "068" cam and were rated at 370 and 390 hp respectiveley. All '71 and later 455s-had only 8.0:1 compression and a lazy "smog" cam. '75-76 models had even more anemic 7.6:1 compression and catalyst choked exhausts. The rare and vaunted '71-72 455HO and  '73-74 455SD models-while having good RAIV style heads, and a decent cam and intake-only had 8.4:1 compression-a far cry from the 10.75:1 of the old 428!  And in addition-whether GM, Ford or Chrysler- most '60's cars-even if they weren't performance models had axle ratios like 3.23:1 or 3.55:1-especially if they had a towing package. Most '70's cars had salt-flats gearing like 2.56:1 or 2.80:1, which further hindered acceleration. So this clown was half-right. Yes a '66 Impala with a 10.25:1 compression 390 hp 427 backed by a TH400 and 3.31:1 gears will blow the doors off a '73 Impala with an 8.25:1 compression 245 hp 454 with a TH400 and 2.73:1 gears!!  Yes, your 10.75:1 compression 390 hp 428 powered '69 Gran Prix with 3.23:1 gears will suck up and spit out a '76 Gran Prix with a 7.6:1 compression 455 and 2.56:1 gears!!  A '69 T-Bird with a 375 hp 10.5:1 429, a C6 and 3.25:1 gears will run a lot faster than a 7.9:1 compression 460 powered '73 model with 2.80:1 gears!!  Thank you, Captain Obvious.  So remember the "All other things being equal"-factor-the larger cube engine will always make more power. Always. Just had to vent that. Mastermind              

How many times do I have to say it? "Period Correct" doesn't always mean bone stock...

Saw a really nice 1953 Ford F100 for sale the the other day. It was jet black with chrome wheels. It also had a Mustang II front clip-which gave it front disc brakes and power rack and pinion steering. It had a warmed over 302 V8 and a C4 automatic trans. Typical late '70's "Restification". Ford guys would vomit-but the other way was a Chevelle front clip with a big-block Chevy / TH400 swap. Either one made the old trucks blisteringly fast-and made them stop and handle decent. This was par for the course in the late '70's. Ditto for a '55-57 Chevy with a "Pete and Jakes" straight front axle and disc brakes, and a snarling small or big-block and radiused rear wheelwells and big tires. 'Vettes with headers and sidepipes were very common. Firebirds with Rat motors were common too.  So if you see a nice car modified in this fashion but well preserved, it's as much a piece of history as a Concours "Just as it Left the Factory" Mustang with a repro Autolite Battery and Coker Tire Firestone Wide Ovals. I'd much rather see a '69 Nova with a 350 with headers and a "30-30" solid-lifter cam,an Edelbrock "Scorpion" manifold and a 750 Holley, and a 3.11 1st / 2.02 second geared "Saginaw" 4-speed out of a Vega with Cragar mags and traction bars that was built in 1975 than one with an LS3 / 4L80E and 4-wheel disc brakes and a DSE front and rear subframe that was built in 2012!!  A "Macho T/A" with a Hooker chrome rollbar, Hooker headers,a "Doug Nash" 5-speed, and 15" "Snowflake" wheels is way more '70's cool than a T/A with an LS3 and a 6-speed and 20 inch wheels!!  If your having a "Disco" party your going to play Donna Summer, not Beyonce'!!!  Capice?  Mastermind      

Be "Arnie" from "Christine" if you want....Just don't expect everyone else to drink the Kool-Aid!!

I get a lot of flack for some of the things I post. Like the last post-making fun of the guy with the plain-jane Nova that he thought was "too valuable" to drive. Here's the deal people-I started this blog to help people make good buying decisions when searching for a musclecar or to let them know what was and wasn't a factory option on a certain vehicle, and to share stories about racing history, how certain models came to be, and chat about musclecars in movies, and anything related to mine and millions of other people's love for these cars. What I won't be is a cheerleading, modern parent type-"Everyone gets a trophy" just for showing up. If you didn't read the classic Stephen King novel or see the movie-"Christine" was about a nerdy 16 year-old who bought a piece of shit '58 Plymouth Fury from a miserable old bastard who died soon after and came back to haunt the kid. The car consumed the kid's life-he put all his money and time into it, alienated his parents,his girlfriend and best buddy, and started running drugs and contraband for the crooked auto shop owner he worked for. And everyone who crossed the kid, got killed, and he eventually died at the end. Read the book-( it's much better than the movie). My point being-if you want to invest hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars in some piece of shit-go ahead. It's your time and money. But just don't expect me or anyone else to go apeshit and tell you how wonderful and priceless we think your Edsel is!! I try to tell people the honest truth. For example-in our local newspaper a guy is trying to sell a '72 Malibu for $28,000!!!  Not an SS454-a bench seat, 350 automatic 2 dr Malibu. How he came up with that figure-I don't know. Maybe that's what he spent restoring it. In the same newspaper another guy is selling a 400, 4-speed '69 GTO with "Judge" stripes and spoiler for $27,000. ( It's not an original "Judge", but it is a for-real, numbers-matching GTO ). Which is the better deal?  RK Motors in Charlotte, North Carolina-which specializes in restored classic cars has two Mopars for sale. One is a 440 / Six-Pack '69 Super Bee and the other is a 440 / Six-Pack '71 Charger. Their asking $99,000 for the Super Bee and $89,000 for the Charger. Both have Torqueflite transmissions. The Charger is the way better deal, and not because of the 10k price difference. If you have that kind of cash-they's probably work with you on the price. Here's why the Charger is the better deal. The Charger has power steering, power front disc brakes, power windows,bucket seats and a console,and factory a/c, a factory AM/FM,recording stereo and a 4.10 Sure-Grip rear end. The Super Bee is a bench seat,column-shifted model with 4-wheel drum brakes, manual steering, and has a 3.23:1 open rear end. Now which car is going to be both nicer to drive and faster? The one with power steering, disc brakes, A/C and 4.10 gears, or the 3.23 geared,drum-braked, manual steering model?  So am I an asshole for advising someone who wants a classic Mopar B-Body and has 100k burning a hole in his pocket that in my opinion the Charger is the better deal? Am I an asshole If I tell a Pontiac buyer that a 400, 4-speed, 4-wheel disc braked, t-topped 10th Annivesrary T/A with 66,000 miles on it priced at $14,900 is a much better deal than the hardtop, 403 Olds / Automatic that's priced at $11,900???   Buy anything you want-and restore it how you want. But don't expect me or anyone else to jump up and down and tell you how great it is. I have a friend whose into old Porsches. If he buys a '69 911S I'll be duly impressed. If he buys a '68 912-( the 911 body with a 4-cylinder VW engine!! ) I'll laugh in his face and say "What the hell were you thinking?"  If he gets butthurt over that-then he needs to be thicker skinned!  Mastermind        

A small-block Nova that's "Too Valuable" to drive?....Not in my universe....

Spoke to someone the other day who was lamenting that he might not bring his car out to Hot August Nights this year because he's afraid someone might hit it, and it's "Too Valuable" to risk damaging it. Was this a Hemi 'Cuda convertible?  One of the eight '69 Trans-Am convertibles? One of 116 L88 '69 Corvettes?  A 427 Thunderbolt Fairlane?  No, this was a Nova. Not an L78 / L89 396 / 4-speed model. Not a Nickey Chevrolet or Baldwin-Motion L88 427 or LS6 454 model. This was a small-block model. With a 2bbl. And an automatic. That's right-it wasn't a low-mileage  L79 350 hp 327 / 4-speed '66-67 model, or an LT1 / 4-speed 370 hp '70 Yenko Deuce. It wasn't even an SS350 model.  No-this was a '72 "Rally Nova" with an 8.5:1 compression L65 2bbl 350 rated at 165 net hp backed by a column-shifted TH350. ( it had bench seats, not buckets ). Puhleeze. The "Rally Nova" package in '71-72 consisted of taking a base-model strippy Nova, adding a stripe down the side that said on the 1/4 panel-duh-"Rally Nova" and 14X6 slotted steel wheels. That's it. No special engine, or suspension-they had 4-wheel drum brakes!! ( Front discs were an extra-cost option ). This is "Too Valuable" to drive? On what planet? Certainly not Earth in 2016!!! I don't mean to deride someone's pride and joy, but come on. A drum-braked, bench-seat, 2bbl, automatic Nova? I've had similar conversations with the owner of a "Too Valuable" 301 powered '79 Trans-Am, and the owner of a bench seat, drum-braked, 318, 3-speed '72 Duster. Here's the hard news people-"Rare" doesn't automatically mean "Valuable." I talked in an earlier post about 305 / automatic 1980 Corvettes. There's way less of those than there are 1971 425 hp LS6 454 models. Guess what-a nice, documented '71 LS6 'Vette will bring 100K in any state in the union. If you asked 10K for a 1980 305 model-people would laugh themselves sick. A friend of mine used to say-"A rare turd is still a turd."  He's right. If you want to play with some, rare, obscure car-like a V8 Gremlin "X", or an OHC 6-cylinder-Firebird go ahead-just don't get pissed when someone argues that it's not worth anywhere near the price of say-a 390 / 4-speed AMX or an SD-455 Trans-Am!! That's all I'm saying. The guy with a for-real 1963 SD-421 Catalina or the owner of a for-real '"DZ" 302 '69 Z/28 who won't run his car at the Pure Stock drags because he doesn't want to risk blowing it up-I understand that, and I respect their position completely. The guy who says the same thing about a '70's Formula 400 Firebird or a 350 Chevelle needs his ass kicked. See the difference? Just had to vent that. Mastermind              

You don't have to lie about a car's performance......

I blame the "Fast&Furious" movies for this with their incessant spouting about "10 second" cars. How many people have actually driven an honest-to-god 10 second car?  I haven't. The fastest cars I've driven have been my Judge ( which ran 11.80s ), a 675 hp Roush Mustang which reportedly runs in the high to low 11s,-depending on if you fry the tires halfway down the track or all the way down the track, and a Nissan GTR which according to Car and Driver does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds and the 1/4 in 11 flat. Those cars were so eyeball-flattening fast-that if you actually "need" anything quicker-then you either need a Top Fuel dragster, a competent therapist, or a cage. I know without a doubt that most of the people spouting numbers have never actually ran their car on the track. Hot Rod said several years ago-"If you think your car can run 12s and you've never been to the track, then your probably running low 13s." Truer words were never spoken. What made me think of this was a guy older than me that was bragging how fast his '65 GTO was. A stock, 4bbl '65 GTO, not the tri-power model. I had to really bite my tongue to keep from laughing out loud. The reason is even at the height of the musclecar era-very few cars could run low 13s right off the showroom floor and with just maybe headers and slicks could drop into the 12s. You can count them on one hand-Hemi 'Cudas, LS6 Chevelles, 428 CJ Mustangs, W30 442s, RAIV GTOs.  440 / Six-Pack Mopars, and 427 'Vettes would make the list too, but that's about it. The fact is-most peoples "Musclecar Memories" whether their talking about their own car or a friend or relative's-involve "Entry-Level" musclecars-i.e. 389 GTOs,396 Chevelles, 383 Road Runners, etc. Or stuff like 340 Dusters, 350 Camaros, 351 Mustangs, and 400 Firebirds. Tales of nearly pulling the front wheels, being pushed back in the seat and third-gear rubber seem silly when someone pulls out a yellowed, dog-eared copy of Hot Rod or Car and Driver and we find that the machine in question ran in the 14.60's. There's nothing wrong with that. I think the car I loved the most of all the ones I've owned was my '77 Trans-Am that I had in the mid-'80's. It certainly wasn't the fastest car I ever had-but I enjoyed the hell out of it. It looked cool, it handled like a slot car, the engine idled smoothly, the seats were comfortable, the suspension didn't rattle your fillings loose, and it was fast enough that I didn't have to take crap from little boys in 305 IROC-Z's and 5.0 Mustangs, or older guys in late '70's and early '80's 'Vettes. Your 383 Road Runner or whatever can be your all-time favorite ride. But you don't have to exaggerate and tell tall tales about how ungodly fast it was, because we know it wasn't!!  Just had to vent that. Mastermind        

More on What's "Right" for a given car....

Here's the deal-no matter how pristine it is, no matter how anal the owner. no 40 or 50 year old car is completely original!!  Even if someone bought say a GTO brand new in 1968 and kept it until now, it's not original. Here's why. In say 1970-when it had maybe 25,000 miles on it-those bias-ply Firestone Wide Ovals were probably worn out. So the tires aren't original. Chances are if he drove it hard-around the 30k mark it probably needed new front brake pads. After a couple of years of summer and winter weather-it probably needed wiper blades. He wanted to keep it well tuned, so doubtless he replaced the spark plugs and the points and condenser and maybe the wires. Pre-1969 GM Quadrajets had problems with the floats sinking and the baseplates leaking. If the dealer replaced it under warranty with the updated replacement carb-guess what Mr. Conours Judge? The car doesn't have a numbers-matching carburator!! Pre-1970 Pontiacs were notorious for throwing their timing chains because of the plastic gears. Dealers would replace them with steel gears under warranty or customer pay. If it was a 4-speed, eventually he's going to need a new clutch. See where I'm going with this? Even if the original owner didn't add headers or Cragar mags, etc-before the car was five years old, it had all kinds of "non-original" parts on it. So today this car may have a numbers-matching engine and trans in it-but if  they've been rebuilt-after 48 years they most surely have-the internal parts like pistons,rings, bearings, etc aren't original. Pontiac is no more, and the last 400 rolled off the assembly line in November 1977. ( A bunch were stockpiled for '78 and '79 T/A's ). GM quit making replacement parts for '70's Pontiacs in 1997.  ( 20 years ) So that RAIII cam that you bought-is a replica from Melling, TRW, Crane, Lunati etc-not a "Genuine" GM replacement.  So some snooty bastard at a Ford meet with a Mustang with Coker Tire Repro Polyglas GT's, and an Exide battery with a phony repro Autolite case, etc-who looks down his nose at someone who has BFG Radial T/A's on their car and a Die Hard under the hood is a double asshole-because his car is just as "unoriginal" as the other guys!!!  This is why the Pure Stock Drags and some Concours show organizations have amended their rules to allow "Original Type" parts. No one expects a 50 year old carburator or distributor to work flawlessly. So if your 1970 Z/28 has a #3310 780 Holley on it that you bought at Summitt last week-that's ok. No one's going to disqualify you because it doesn't have 1970 date codes on it. If your '67 GTO has a Muncie 4-speed that came out of a '71 Chevelle or a TH400 that came out of a '73 Firebird-they don't care-it's the original type. When you rebuilt your front end with new ball joints, tie rod ends, control arm bushings, drag link and idler arm from Just Suspension-guess what? Your car now has an "unoriginal" front end!!!  Good thing, because you probably couldn't hold it in the road otherwise!!   So don't be one of these idiots-it's okay to use Wagner brake pads, Moog suspension parts, and Dayco belts and hoses, but KYB or Gabriel or Monroe shocks are taboo because their not shipped in a Delco, Autolite or Mopar box??  Like Ditka says-"Come on, Man!!"  Mastermind            

The "Just as it Left the Factory" shit is worse than a Gypsy curse.....

Had an argument the other day with a guy who spent $99,000 on an SD-455 Trans-Am. He asked about increasing it's performance. I said the main thing would be to add some Hooker Round-Port headers and full dual exhausts. Everyone knows the awful "crossflow" muffler system of '70-'74 Firebirds cost the big 455HO and SD 'Birds at least 25 hp, with the stock manifolds. For example- the RAIII was rated at 335 hp in the T/A and 366 hp in the GTO- a difference of 31 hp. The RAIV was rated at 345 hp in the Firebird and 370 hp in the GTO- a difference of 25 hp. 1971 drag tests bared this out. '71 455HO powered GTOs were nearly 1/2 a second quicker in the 1/4 than 455HO T/A's because they had a full dual exhaust system instead of the 2-into-1 "Crossflow" muffler of the F-bodies. And that was with stock iron manifolds. With headers and re-jetting the carb richer to compensate for the improved exhaust flow, headers and a 2 1/2 or 3 inch true dual exhaust system could add as much as 50 hp to a healthy 455 powered '70's F-body. I also suggested using 1.65:1 rockers to bump lift on the RAIII cam from .414 to .455-within a hairsbreadth of the RAIV's .470, and installing a shift kit in the TH400. I said these simple mods could easily drop him into the low 13s with the stock 3.23:1 or 3.42:1 gearing, and if he wanted to go for 3.73:1 or 3.90:1 gears he could probably get in the 12 s pretty easily, and keep the car more or less basically stock. He was mortally offended. "I didn't spend 100 grand on a pristine numbers-matching car to modify it!!" he sneered in a snotty email. Really?? Then why did you ask my advice on how to make it go faster? What the hell did you think I was going to say? Run premium gas in it? Bump the timing? And honestly-again-I've said it a thousand times-why do people care so goddamn much about what a car will be worth if and when they sell it? If he did want to sell it-is a potential buyer going to go-"Gee, bud-the car is pristine and low-mileage and numbers-matching and one of 731 ever built, and certainly worth the money, but those headers ( even though you have the original manifolds ) and the shift kit and 3.90:1 gears ( even though you have the original 3.23:1s ) is  a real freakin' deal breaker, sorry, I'll have to pass." Like Mike Myers said in "Wayne's World" "NOT!!!".  Get over yourself!!!  If you put a Holley or Edelbrock Carb on a Boss 351 in place of the awful Autolite 4300, you've done the world a favor!!!  If you put a Hurst Competition-Plus shifter in an SS396 or 454 Chevelle in place of the awful Muncie unit, you've done the world a favor!!!  99.999% of people get that!!! So don't worry about offending .0001 % of possible buyers, if or when you ever decide to sell your prize car!!!  Are we clear on that? Mastermind        

You can add options to your car....

In the last post I said there was no "Used Car Factory" where you could get exactly what you wanted. That doesn't mean you have to settle for something you don't really want. You can add options to a car without compromising it's value. For example-if you have a '71 Charger with a 440 4bbl and you buy the Edelbrock "Six-Pack" manifold, the three Holley 2bbls, and the air cleaner and linkage and put it on the car-enjoy the increased performance and the cool sound. And you've INCREASED the value of the car, not hurt it. Keep the 4bbl carb and intake in case you want to sell the car to someone really anal, but otherwise enjoy it. If you've got a Chevelle with a bench seat and you want buckets and a console-buy them from Year One or NPD and put them in the car!!  If your '70's Firebird has Rally II wheels and you prefer the "Snowflakes"-then get them!!  If you buy a 340 Duster with a 3-speed stick and a standard steering wheel, and you want a 4-speed and a "Tuff" steering wheel-that's not that hard a swap. If you want to put a spoiler and "Judge" stripes and emblems on your '69-71 GTO go ahead. Phoenix Graphics sells the stencils-if you want to paint your '77-79 T/A like a "Macho T/A"- or dress up your Cutlass like a "Hurst / Olds" you can. If you buy a six-cylinder, 3-speed '69 Nova and drop in a 350 and a 4-speed, have you "ruined" it's value?  If you buy a "Plum Crazy" '70 Challenger and want to paint it white because you love the movie "Vanishing Point"-What's stopping you? If you ever sell it and the buyer wants it the original color, then he has to paint it, or look for another car, right?  Don't let the "Just as it left the factory" crowd bully you into leaving a car a color you don't want or running ugly wheels, etc. It's your car-do it how you want. Mastermind      

There is no "Used Car Factory" to order from....

I get so much mail of people whining that they can't find their dream car, that I want to vomit day-glo. Here's the reality-regardless of your bank account, the chance of you finding a 40 or 50 year old car with the exact engine, transmission, axle ratio, interior and exterior color, and other options is almost nil. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery. Here's how to find a car you can love and live with at a reasonable price.  # 1. Lower your sights a little. Yes, we'd all love to have a Hemi ' Cuda, LS6 Chevelle, Boss 302 Mustang-etc, etc. For example- Chevrolet only built 4478 LS6 Chevelles in 1970-so the real problem is finding one for sale at any price. However-Chevrolet built 49,826 SS396 Chevelles that same year. Except for the engine, they are the exact same car. And honestly-do really "need" more punch than a 396 has to offer? This is not an isolated example. Boss 302 is your dream car? Good luck as Ford only built 1,603 in 1969 and another 7,113 in 1970. By constrast-Ford built over 70,000 fastback Mustangs in 1969 alone, and most of them have 351W motivation, which is a much better street engine, if your going to drive the car at all. '69 GTO Judge lights your fire? Of the 72,225 GTOs sold in 1969, only 6,833 were Judge models. Of the 243,000 Camaros sold in 1969, only 19,000 were Z/28 models. By considering the less-than ultimate model you just increased your chances of finding a car tenfold, and that's if you "Gotta" have a one-year model. Which brings up the next point. # 2. Consider different model years of the same car. If the Chevelle enthusiast could live with a '68-69 SS396 he just increased his chances by 58,000 '68 models and 86,000 '69 models. Our GTO buyer could choose from 87,000 '68 models and 40,149 '70 models. Pontiac only built a little over 10,000 Trans-Ams in 1970-73. However they built nearly 330,000 T/A's from 1974-79, nearly all of them with 400 Pontiac power which with very little work-intake, exhaust and an axle-ratio change-could easily equal or surpass the performance of the much higher-priced earlier models. # 3. Consider different options. For example-if you want a "Vanishing Point" Challenger would you pass up a 383 model because Kowalski's was a 440? Or if you want a "Bullitt" Mustang-would you turn your nose up at an automatic '67 390 GTA, because Steve McQueen drove a '68, 4-speed model? Could you live with a black "Smokey& The Bandit" '77-78 T/A if it didn't have T-Tops?  # 4. Consider a lesser model. Wouldn't a Formula 400 be as much fun as a T/A? Would a "regular" TPI '85 Z/28 be as good as an "IROC-Z?"  Almost all 1971-73 Mustangs have 351C motivation, so do you really "need" a Mach 1? There's a lot more small-block Novas out there than there are SS396 models. See what I'm saying?  So stop whining and find a car to play with. Mastermind        

Buy the Damn car you want....Regardless of insane "Brand Loyalty" your dad or older brother had!!....

I've said many times how sick I am of seeing a jacked-up Ford or Dodge pickup with a sticker of "Calvin" of the comic strip-"Calvin and Hobbes" fame-pissing on a Chevy emblem. It's ridiculous. And I'm not talking about 20 year old morons just out of high school. I've talked to 50 year old men with the attitude that an SS396 Chevelle is awesome, but a 400 GTO, or 442, or 383 Road Runner "sucks".  Or a 351C Mustang Mach 1 is way cool, but an LT1 powered Z/28 Camaro "sucks".  Really? Are you 12? Are we still in junior high? Are you still pissed that the Steelers beat the Cowboys in Super Bowl X??  I've said many times that my dad was ( and still is ) a die-hard Pontiac guy. His first car was a 345 hp Tri-Power 389 1959 Pontiac Catalina. Over the years he had a '64 GTO, a '65 Catalina, a '65 2+2, and a '78 Trans-Am. My first car was a Ram Air III, 4-speed, 4.33:1 geared '69 GTO Judge. I think he wanted it as much for himself as he did for me. My brother's first car was another '69 GTO. Because of dad-we loved Pontiacs too. But I remember-I even posted the story of the legendary "American Graffiti" Drag Race that I was privy to in Missouri at the age of 10 in 1971 or 72. My dad-by then already a legend at tuning multi-carbs was tasked with tuning both a 440, 4-speed, Six-Pack '70 GTX and a 426 Hemi / Torqueflite '68 Road Runner that were vying for the title of "King Kong" in our town. The driver's agreed that having the same mechanic tune both cars would ensure absolute fairness. They didn't have to worry about losing because of pointa closing up or an over-rich carb(s)-they'd only lose to the other driver. Like the Johhny Cash / Waylon Jennings song-"The Devil's Right Hand"-that was talking about guns-when I saw that 1970 GTX-Red with black stripes, and a white interior and that "Pistol-Grip" Hurst shifter, and "Air Grabber" hood, "I thought it was the finest thing I ever had seen." The fact that the Hemi Road Runner beat him by half the length of the front fender-almost a "Photo finish" didn't diminish it's appeal. Until I saw "Vanishing Point."  Kowalski's Alpine White '70 Challenger R/T that led the Police on a cross-country chase was burned indelibly in my imagination. I wanted a Challenger. Then I saw "Bullitt." I couldn't care less about the hero's Mustang. The ominous black Charger that the bad guys drove got my attention. Even though I was born and raised a GM guy-I liked Mopars. When I grew up-besides the GTO, I had an SS396 El Camino, a couple of disco-era T/A's, a couple of Pontiac Venturas, but I also had a couple of '68-70 Chargers, a V8 Vega, a couple of Mustangs, a Toyota pickup and a couple of Ford pickups. I like what I like. If I hit Megabucks tomorrow I'm just as likely to buy a pristine '70 440 / Six-Pack GTX as I am a 2016 Shelby GT350R Mustang, or a restored RAIV '69 Judge. Or a '66 Toronado or a '65 Galaxie coupe with a 390. Like Vin Diesel told Gal Gadot in "F&F 4"-I appreciate a fine body no matter who builds it." And that's the way adults should be when spending megabucks on a restored car!!!  My dad is still a hardcore GM guy. But you know what? If I found a good-condition '79 Dodge Li'l Red Express truck-my dream car before we found the "Judge"-he'd be happy for me-he wouldn't deride it!!  Everyone should be the same way. Mastermind    

You can go fast on a tight budget...If the old "But the numbers don't match" whine can be overlooked...

A lot of people gripe about how expensive it is to build a high-performance engine. Their half-right. If you copy magazine buildups and have to have the best of everything, yes it's going to be pricey. But you can make serious power with stock or even junkyard parts by picking the right combination of parts. In order to do that-you may not be able to keep everything numbers-matching. And on some cars it doesn't matter. A Boss 302, or Six-Pack Road Runner, it matters. Other stuff not so much.  Does anyone really care that a '74 Camaro has a 1980's GM "Targetmaster" replacement 350 under the hood?  Or that a '68 LeMans has a 400 out of a '73 Catalina in it?  Anyhow here's some tips to get big power for low bucks. The easiest way to big power for low bucks is increased breathing and compression. On many engines this is accomplished by swapping cylinder heads. Not Edelbrock or Brodix or Trick Flow aluminum heads. Low-budget, remember?  Here's a few great examples. # 1 Small-block Chevy. A lot of people don't know that the '81-86 305 "smog" heads have 58cc combustion chambers. ( Much smaller than the 76cc chambers on most 350s.) Putting a set of these on a 350 will bump the compression ratio from 8.2:1 to about 9.6:1 which is about the limit with iron heads on cheap gas. The 305 heads have smaller 1.72 intake valves, but the slight loss of airflow is more than offset by the big power and torque gain of the added compression. And any competent machine shop can put the 1.94 valves in the 305 heads for a nominal fee. Their are millions of these engines in junkyards so they will be cheap. The other way is a set of "Vortec" heads. Scoggin-Dickey will sell you a brand-new pair for $650. Many machine shops want $500 or more to re-furbish your old heads, so this is a deal. These breathe better than any stock head and many aftermarket ones. These have 64cc chambers which will still give you about 9.2:1 compression when replacing 76cc heads, and the improved breathing is worth 30-40 hp. You'll have to get a "Vortec" bolt pattern intake, but GMPP, Edelbrock, and Weiand sell performance "Vortec" intakes for about $200. # 2. Small-Block Mopar. '92 and later "Magnum" heads breathe better than any factory head and many aftermarket ones. There are millions of these engines in junkyards in Dodge Trucks and Vans and Jeep Cherokees. They will bolt up to '91 and earlier blocks, but you'll need a "magnum" style intake. Edelbrock sells Performer and Performer RPM "Magnum" intakes. # 3. 350 / 403 Olds. '73 and later small-block Olds engines have 83cc combustion chambers which gives them 8.0:1 compression. '68-'72 350 heads have 70cc chambers that will bump that up to about 9.2:1. On '75 and later models you'll have to re-tap the bolt holes for 1/2 inch bolts. ( '74 and earlier used 7/16 ) but that's relatively easy.  # 4 Pontiacs. '76-79 "6X" heads breathe better than any factory head except the vaunted RAIV's. Their 90cc chambers will give you about 9.2:1 compression on a 455 which is great. On a 400 you'll need to mill them .060 to bump the c.r. from 8.0:1 to 9.0:1. Don't forget to surface the intake sides too-so the manifold will fit. The other one is '68-69 #46 heads. These came on a lot of 350 V8s and 428s in the "big" cars. Their 72cc chambers will bump the compression on a '71-79 400 from 8.0:1 to about 9.7:1. They have 1.96 / 1.66 valves as opposed to the 6x's 2.11 / 1.77, but the slight loss of airflow will be more than offset by the big power and torque boost of the increased compression. And since stock Pontiac heads don't really breathe with valve lifts much over .480 inch and the bottom-ends should be redlined at 5,800 rpm-I wouldn't waste the time or money putting the bigger valves in. Spend that on a cam, gears, etc. You may have to change alternator brackets on '70 and later engines, but that's not a crisis. The other big power maker is more cubes. Eagle and other companies offer stroker crank kits to turn a 350 Chevy into a 383, a 302 Ford into a 347, a 360 Mopar into a 408, a 400 Pontiac into a 455 and a 400 Mopar into a 451. If your rebuilding the engine anyway-often these stroker crank, rod and piston kits aren't very much more than stock replacement stuff. And all other things being equal-a larger engine will always make more power and torque with the same equipment. Something to consider....Mastermind  

Why The "Latest&Greatest" isn't always great....

A lot of gearheads, in the never-ending search for more power invest a lot of money in the latest and greatest thing that the buff magazines are testing and are often severely disappointed. I'm not bashing the buff mags-they stay in business by testing and promoting their advertisers products. And they accurately report their findings. The problem is the readers either don't read the whole article or don't understand what the writer is saying. All they think is "Wow! This new part is worth 40hp!!" "I gotta have that!" Here's a few exmples of this gone terribly wrong. # 1. "ZZ4 Crate motor Hop-up". If you don't know-the ZZ4 was an awesome street engine sold by GMPP for many years. ( The ZZ5 that replaced it now has "Fast Burn" Vortec heads ). I had one and loved it. They had 10:1 compression, a roller cam, aluminum L98 Corvette heads and an original Z/28 / LT1 style intake with a 770 Holley on it. They were rated at 355 hp and 418 lbs of torque. What made them such an awesome street engine is it made more than 350 lbs ft of torque from 2,000-5,200 rpm! That broad torque range is what makes for exciting street performance and wins races. Anyhow-Hot Rod decided to see if they could get another 100 hp out one-get it up to 450 hp or more with bolt-on parts. The first two things they did was install a bigger carb and intake and a hotter cam. This netted them like 80 more hp. About 30 with the carb and intake and about 50 with the cam. To me-this would have been enough-they were well over 400 hp-and even though the torque peak was higher in the powerband, they hadn't really hurt real-world drivability that much. However, they were determined to hit the magic 100+ hp gain. They installed a set of Trick Flow aluminum heads and gained another 40 hp. Mission accomplished. Or was it? 1st off-the Trick Flow heads cost $1,400 for the pair. And here's the real kicker-the "Antiquated" L98 stock heads were actually better below 3,200 rpm, and above that sometimes the gain was only 1 or 2 hp!! In fact-the L98's were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm level up to 4,700 rpm!! The 40 hp gain was at 6,100 rpm!!  Now in a Nascar racer or a drag racer that's run wide-open all the time that 40 peak hp might be a good investment. But in a daily driver or street / strip machine that maybe goes to the drags once a month-how often are you going to be between 4,800 and 6,100 rpm??!!  And for $1,400 you could get a great nitrous system that would add 250-300 hp all through the range-not just 25-40 hp in a 1,300 rpm window from 4,800-6,100 rpm. In my opinion-the head swap was a waste of $1,400 that could have been spent on a nitrous system, a higher stall-speed converter, stiffer gears, tracition bars, bigger tires-all kinds of stuff that would give you more speed and more "bang" for the buck.  # 2. Edelbrock Performer RPM "Air Gap" manifold test. This one pissed off thousands of people. Hot Rod tested the "Air Gap" Performer RPM intake that keeps the plenum cool and ( at least in sunny southern California ) is worth 15-20 hp over the regular Performer RPM. However a bunch of people in Northern and Rocky mountain states that rushed out and bought these intakes discovered that in cold-weather this latest and greatest power enhancer caused severe cold-starting problems and carburator icing!! Several people wrote in and said that they had to let their car run for 15-20 minutes to get it to not die and sputter-if it would start at all!!  Several demanded ( to no avail obviously ) that the magazine re-imburse them for the cost of the intake and the labor to pull it and re-install their old intake that worked fine!! That 20 hp was definitely not worth it to these people. # 3. Roller Cams. These are all the rage right now. If you have a 1987 and later Chevy, Ford, or Mopar engine that had a roller cam from the factory then yes-these are the only way to fly. But if you have a 1986 and earlier engine that has a flat-tappet cam, they are not the cat's meow. The simple reason is cost. High Performance Pontiac magazine tested one on a hot 455. Yes, the roller setup made more power. But the cost to convert it was $1,800!! Whether Melling, or Crane or Lunati etc-most flat-tappet cam kits cost around $200-300!!  For that extra $1,500 you could buy a carb and intake, a set of headers, a higher-stall converter and some stiffer gears to put all that newfound power to the ground!!  Even for a small-block Chevy which is generally the cheapest thing to buy parts for-An Edelbrock Performer RPM flat-tappet cam kit is $209.71 in the Currnet Summitt Racing Catalog. The Edelbrock Rollin'Thunder cam kit for the same SBC is $1,023.48!!  That extra $800 could buy you a lot more than the 30 hp or so that the cam will make!!    # 4. Fuel-injection systems. Again-if you have a 1985 or later Chevy, Ford or Mopar V8 that was fuel-injected from the factory-the manifolds,throttle bodys,injectors etc sold by Edelbrock,Accel, Trick Flow and others that work in conjunction WITH the factory system are good investments. They offer great power and torque gains for relatively low bucks. What is a waste of money is the aftermarket systems offered by these same companies to convert a carburated engine to EFI. Again-even for a small-Block Chevy these systems start at $2,000. For anything other than a small-block Chevy most are over $3,500!!  As opposed to a simple, $600 carb and intake combo that often makes the same or MORE power than the EFI setup??  Honestly-$3,500 for an induction system?? For $3,500 GMPP, Ford SVT or Blueprint engines will sell you a high-performance crate engine complete from carb to oil pan!!!  So think hard before you run out and buy the "latest and greatest" thing!! Mastermind