What it really takes to run 10s....Or 11s, or 12s...etc.

I blame the "Fast& Furious" movies with Vin Diesel and the late Paul Walker constantly spouting off about "10 second" cars. The reality is very few people outside of  Pro Stock drag racers have actually driven a car that does the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds or less. David Frieburger-former editor of Hot Rod said a few years ago "If you think your car can run 12s but you've never been to the track, then your probably running in the mid-13s."  Truer words were never spoken. Most people don't know that 1/10th of a second is worth roughly one car length in a drag race. So if your buddys Subaru WRX-which according to Car and Driver runs the 1/4 in 14.1-and a guy in a Buick Grand National beats him by three car lengths-that means the GN is running 13.8. On paper-3/10ths doesn't look or sound like much of a difference. But it is. If a car was a full second quicker-say The Buick GN we just talked about ran up against a new 435 hp Mustang GT that runs 12.80s according to C/ D-it would be a totall ass-whippin'. Ditto if the Mustang ran up against a Hellcat Charger that runs 11s off the showroom floor. 10 car lengths in 1320 feet?  Thats not a race-thats total annihilation.  Anyhow I'm going to lay down what it really takes to run the 1/4 mile times that people talk about. You may be surprised.  # 1. 14 second cars. Cars in this bracket are usually fun daily drivers. They look cool, their fast enough to back up the image-you don't have to take crap from little boys in Honda Civics or soccer moms in V8 Cherokees-the engines idle smoothly, the seats are comfortable and the suspension doesn't rattle your fillings loose. Examples would be '80's and 90's "5.0" Mustangs, LB9 and L98 Camaros and Corvettes, '70's T/A's with a 4-speed ( or an automatic with an axle-ratio change ). Others would be "entry level" musclecars-like 340 Dusters, 351CJ Mustangs, 389 GTOs, 396 Chevelles, 383 Road Runners, etc.  #2. 13 second cars. These are great, fun hot rods. Cars in this bracket are usually a light car and have a warmed over small-block with a little extra mechanical advantage-i.e.-a Nova with a warmed-over 350 and a 4-speed  with 3.73:1 gears or an automatic with a higher-than-stock stall speed converter. Or a medium weight car with a mild big block-440 Road Runners, 454 Chevelles, 455HO GTOs and Firebirds, etc. They can certainly be driven every day-but increased fuel consumption causes most people to relegate these to weekend cruisers. # 3. 12 second cars. Nitrous can yank a 13 second car into the 12s, but the real glory is to run it "on the motor" which means "off the bottle". To do that you'll need at least 400-450 hp, which means a stout small-block or a warmed-over big block. You'll also need to put all that power to the ground so you need 3.73 or stiffer gears, and because of the bigger cam you'll be running to make all that power you'll either need a stick or a 2,500 rpm converter with an automatic. You'll also need some bigger tires and some type of traction aids-a posi rear end, traction bars or a pinion snubber, etc. Drivability? Sure these cars are eminently streetable-but the loud exhausts,choppy idle, drag race-oriented suspension and the motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway don't make them very viable as daily transportation. # 4. 11 second cars. Barring something really light with 350 hp-i.e. a 2,400 lb Datsun 240Z with a small-block Chevy in it or a 2,200 lb Factory Five '33 Ford Kit Car with a 302 Ford-to run 11s you'll need at least 500 hp, which is why you don't see too many 11 second cars without a blue bottle in the trunk. Sans nitrous-that means a small block with a blower or a very healthy big-block. Also most dragstrips require any car that runs the 1/4 in 12 seconds or less (although some have gone to 11.50 ) to have an 8-pont roll cage and a driveshaft safety loop.  It also probably means some upgraded drivetrain components. Sure, you can buy a 500 hp 383 Small-Block Chevy crate motor and stuff it in your '86 Monte Carlo SS or '85 IROC-Z Camaro-but guess what-the T-5 BW 5-speed only has a 280 lb ft torque rating. They break behind 190 hp L69 305s if you run them hard enough. Ditto for the 200R4 slushboxes and 7.25 rear ends. So you'll have to upgrad the tranny to a Muncie 4-speed or a Richmond 5 or 6-speed, or to a TH350 / 400. You'll also need a stouter rear axle-these GM 7 1/4 rears used in 82-92 F bodies and '78-88 G bodies break behind 305 Chevys and 307 Oldsmobiles wheezing out 150 hp-what's going to happen when you lean on that 500 hp monster? So you can see your making a serious committment to speed. Daily driver? NO!!!  Sure, you can drive it to the store-but do you really want to take the kids to soccer practice in it? "Be careful climbing over the roll cage honey, and don't step on the nitrous bottle..."  Puhleeze.  # 5. 10 second cars. Sure you could build a 12 second car and put a 300 hp nitrous system on it. Is that rich asshole in the next lane in a 650 hp ZO6 'Vette or 707 hp Hellcat Charger or 600 hp Nissan GTR going to wait while you back up your timing,and arm your nitrous system, or he just going to stomp your ass when the light turns green?  So to have a true "10 second car"-your building a race car with liscence plates. What else would you call something with an 8 or 10 point roll cage, powered by a 12:1 compression, 500+ inch, 600+ hp big block backed by an automatic with a 4,000 rpm torque converter and a trans-brake? Seriously-think of the 720 hp GMPP 572 inch crate motor-that's about the power level you'll need-and you'll need a stout car to put it in-a '70's Camaro or Chevelle with a roll cage and an upgraded rear end-a GM 12 bolt or Currie 9 inch with 4.30 or stiffer gears-and you'll need a B&M or TCI built TH400, and you'll need some serious traction aids-ladder bars or maybe even a custom 4-link setup. Drivability? Sure, anything is drivable depending on what the driver is willing to tolerate. But honestly-even with 4.56:1 gears the cars 60 mph cruise rpm is still going to be below your 4,000 rpm converter's stall speed, so how far toward the grocery store can mom go before she burns up the tranny?  So the next time some clown claims his car runs 10s or 11s or 12-demand that he produce a timeslip from a dragstrip. Chances are he can't, and he's full of shit. Hope this helps people out. Mastermind
                      

Hollywood needs to mine some old gems....

I remembered a book I read in high school-It was titled "Wheel of A Fast Car" by W.E. Butterworth. It was written in 1969, I think I read it about 1976. It would make a great action / coming of age movie. The main character is a 17 year old boy from New Jersey who tries to outrun the police one night in his Triumph TR4. He can't outrun the radio-and eventually they catch him. He loses his driver's liscence, his college scholarship, and his girlfriend over the incident. His exasperated mother sends him to live with his uncle for the summer. His Uncle is a Nascar racer from North Carolina. He gets put to work on his uncle's pit crew, meets his cousin Dewey who is a "good Ol' Boy" also on the crew. He learns a lot about life and what's really important. There's a lot of racing action and it's a great story. I'd much rather see something like this than another "Fast&Furious". Or if they must do re-makes, what about "Little Fauss and Big Halsy?"  This one featured a young Robert Redford and a young Micheal J. Pollard as motorcycle racers / buddies who want to race the big race ar Sears Point and have a falling out over a woman-a young Lauren Hutton who was totally naked in a couple of scenes. Johnny Cash did the soundtrack-and one of the songs "Wanted Man" was written by Bob Dylan and was a huge hit for Cash that year. It had great racing action and great dialogue-Redford's philosophizing is as good as anything Tarantino can come up with. Pollard's transformation from hero-worshipping geek to a man to be reckoned with is excellent. The look on Redford's face in the last shot says it all. Another good one would be "The Seven-Ups". This little known gem starred the late Roy Scheider as the head of an elite N.Y. P.D. unit-they investigated crimes where the penalty was 7 years in prison or more. Hence the title. An informant of Scheider's was kidnapping gangsters and collecting ransoms from them. There was some good suspense, and a great car chase between two Pontiacs-a '73 Ventura driven by Scheider and a '73 Grand Vile piloted by Bill Hickman-who also drove the Charger in "Bullitt". Anyhow-there's good stuff out there-they just need to think outside the box. Mastermind    

Like Cheech and Chong said...If it looks,smells and tastes like dogshit...

Had someone try to "Correct" me and tell me that the modern GM LS Motors are NOT Chevys. Huh? As I recall the first ones were introduced in the 1997 Corvette, the 1998 Z/28 and Trans-Am and 1999 Chevy / GMC trucks. They have been used in millions of Chevy / GMC trucks for the last 17 years as well as various Chevy and other GM models, and 2009 and later Camaros. If that doesn't make them a Chevy, then what the hell are they??  Way Back in the '70's, because of smog laws, GM started playing musical engines-guess what-the 305 V8 in your '79 Cutlass was a Chevy, not an Oldsmobile! The 403 in your California-emissioned Trans-Am was an Oldsmobile, not a Pontiac! The 3.8 liter V6 in your LeMans was a Buick. The 2.5 liter "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder in your Chevy Citation was a Pontiac, not a Chevy! Pontiac and Oldsmobile are no more. And there hasn't been a "Real" Pontiac V8 engine built since November 1977. ( A bunch of L78 400s were stockpiled for '78-79 Trans-Ams. )  A "Real" Oldsmobile 455 hasn't been built since 1976 or a 350 since 1980. The anemic 307 V8 in some Cutlasses and Buick Regals in the '80's was Olds designed-but they've been defunct since 1988. The 3.8 V6 that powered millions of GM cars in the '90's was Buick designed.  After the restructuring of GM following the big crash of 2008, only Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac remain. The Northstar engines in some Cadillacs are Cadillac-engineered, but the LS motors in the CTS-V, and Escalades are CHEVYS!!!!  After the merger with Daimler-Benz-the Chrysler Crossfire was basically a re-badged Mercedes SLK 230!!!  The 4.7 liter V8 used in Dodge Dakotas and Jeep Cherokees was a Mercedes design!! It may have said "Magnum" on the air cleaner-but it had zero in common with the '92-2003 318 / 360 Chrysler engineered V8s, or the 2005 and later Hemis!!  The V8 in Volvo S80s and other models was actually designed by the Yamaha Motorcycle company!!  Anyhow-I don't want to ridicule anyone-but do some research and have your facts straight before you try to "correct" someone on something they said, that they have researched!!  Mastermind  

More Projects to avoid like the plague....

Here's some more projects that even experienced mechanics and fabricators shouldn't take on. There's a reason that you've never seen certain vehichles on the cover of Car Craft or Hot Rod or Street Rodder. A good example would be '50's Buick, Olds or Pontiac offerings. They are good-looking cars-many people think they are more attractive than the much more wildly popular '55-57 Chevys. However-there's problems if you want to restore / modify them. The first problem is until 1957 or '58 the Buick, Olds and some of the Pontiacs didn't have a modern open driveline. ( Chevys did from '55 on. ) The problem this presents is the old Hydra-matics don't shift above about half-throttle, and wouldn't stand up to even the mildest-say 350 hp-modern V8. You can't just swap in a TH350 or 400 or a Muncie 4-speed or a T10 because the mounting points on the crossmember are different and the old "Torque-Tube" driveline and huge Pumpkin rear end aren't compatible. The only alternative is to fabricate a transmission crossmember, fabricate a driveshaft, and swap in a modern engine and tranny and a '57-64 Pontiac or other similar rear end.  By contrast-a '55 Chevy has a modern u-joint style driveline, and a Powerglide is the exact same length as a TH350 and has the exact same rear trans mount and driveshaft yoke / u-joint!!  If your swapping manuals-the old Borg-Warner T-85 three-speed is the same length and shares the rear trans mount location with the later T-10 4-speeds. The rear axles on them are pretty darn tough-and if you "Gotta Have" a 700 hp Rat Motor-Currie will sell you a bulletproof Ford 9 inch posi rear with the proper GM mounting points. See the difference-putting a modern 350 / TH350 or even a 454 / TH400 is practically a bolt-in for a '55 Chevy. Putting a 350 / TH350 or 455 / TH400 Buick into a '55 Buick would require custom fabricated parts from the motor mounts to the rear end!!  And what about body parts? I mentioned in an earlier post that it's easy to get doors, hoods, fenders, 1/4 panels etc for the Chevys, but not so for the other 1950's GM offerings. Let's say the body on your '55 Oldsmobile is really straight and rust-free. Great!! Where are you going to find taillight lenses or a grille for a '55 Oldsmobile?  1961-63 Pontiac Tempests and Buick Skylarks have the same problem. They were light-under 3,000 lbs, and they were good-looking cars. However-they had the transmission / rear axle assembly at the rear and had independent suspension. Pretty advaced stuff for 1961. However-the trannys would barely hold up behind a 326 Pontiac V8 with a two-barrel. If you want to swap in a 389 or 400 or 455-forget it. You have to custom fabricate a crossmember, and driveshaft and swap in a rear end out of a later Nova or Firebird and re-locate the leaf springs. I've seen a few 455 powered Tempests with this setup in the now-defunct "High Performace Pontiac" magazine, but not many. It's just too much trouble-most people just get a '64 and later model. The same goes for early Mopar stuff. Sure you can get anything you want if your restoring a '68 Charger or a '69 Road Runner or a '71 Challenger. Where are you going to get a 1/4 panel or a door for a 1960 Dodge Dart?  Or a '63 Plymouth Fury or a '64 Dodge 330?  Where are you going to find interior trim parts for a '66-67 Charger?  If your restoring any Ford other than a Mustang, Cougar or T-bird your going to have some trouble. Where are you going to find headlight doors for a '69 Galaxie XL?  Early Falcons and Comets make good drag racers because of their short wheelbase and lightweight. Where are you going to get a hood for a '64 Comet? Or a tailgate for the cute little Falcon-based Ranchero?  The bottom line is you can restore anything you want if you throw enough money at it. But if you want to have a car that's not a money pit-it might behoove you to do a '64 GTO instead of a '63 Studebaker Avanti or a '69 Chevelle instead of a '69 Rebel Machine!!  That's all I'm saying. Mastermind    

Some "Thou Shalt Nots" From Mount Olympus....Or wherever the Musclecar gods live....

Got some flack over the last post about stuff you shouldn't invest in. Hey-your all grown-ups-if you want to pour thousands of dollars into some pile of shit money pit-go ahead. I just felt it was my duty to caution people against it. And I'm going to do it right here. # 1. A rare car missing a key component is not a "deal" at any price no matter how low. Obvious examples would be a Hemi-powered Chrysler vehicle missing the Hemi engine, or a Boss 302 Mustang missing the "Boss" engine. Others would be a '63 Fuel Injected Corvette without the Fuel-Injection System, or a Super Duty 421 Catalina sans the Super Duty engine, or a 427 Thunderbolt without the 427. Get the picture?  Do you really think you can restore such a car and make a profit or even break even? If you do-like that country song- "I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona" # 2. Avoid cars with major rust damage, or fire or water damage. They are usually more trouble than their worth and are endless money pits.  99.99% of the time your better off just spending more money for a better car to start with. # 3. Pay more for the fucking car you want!!!  I get so tired of people whining that they bought a bench seat, column-shifted, automatic, drum braked '68 SS396 Chevelle because it was "All Original" or a "Good Investment" when they really wanted a 400, 4-speed, bucket seat, hood tached, disc braked, '68 GTO!!!  Why would you buy a 350 / Automatic '69 Camaro if you really wanted a 4-speed,302 Z/28 model?   # 4. Lower your sights a little. I get so tired of people whining that they can't find their dream car. I shit you not-I have had to restrain myself from physically slapping people who lust after say-an LS6 Chevelle- that have turned their noses up at pristine L78 / L89 396 11:1 Solid-lifter, aluminum head / aluminum manifold, 780 Holley, 4.11 geared, positraction, 4-speed, Cowl Induction 1970 Chevelles in great condition at reasonable prices because it's not "Exactly what they were looking for". I have seen Mopar freaks turn up their nose at a gorgeous, rust-free, Hot Rod Magazine cover quality 440 / Six-Pack '70 Charger at a dirt-cheap price because the 440 block wasn't "Numbers-matching". I've said before that a guy I knew wanted a Shelby Mustang and turned up his nose at a 1966 Mustang GT with a 225 hp 289, the Pony interior, the Rally-Pac guages,factory air, factory front disc brakes,and the "California Megaphone" exhaust with date-coded mufflers intact-for $2,300!!!  Because "It's still Not a Shelby". I'm not even a Ford guy and I bought the damn thing and sold it for a tidy profit a couple months later!!!  Get over yourselves, people!!!   # 5 A friend of mine said it best- "A rare Turd is still just a Turd."  No one cares about your 305 powered 1980 Corvette, or 301 powered 1979 Trans-Am, or two-barrel step-down engine, or three-speed stick, or two-speed automatic, or bench seats, or drum brakes, or whatever. "Rare" does not automatically mean "Valuable."  A 390 / 4-speed, '69 Javelin AMX is valuable. A 360 / Automatic, '74 Matador is a piece of shit that no one cares about!!  See the difference?  Mastermind      

A "Deal" isn't always a deal....especially if you can't find parts at any price...

I talk to so many people that buy weird stuff and then are frustrated because they can't get parts to fix it. And when I say weird-I'm not talking about some "moon rock". A good example-do you know that no one makes replacement grilles for 1972 Gran Torinos? So if you want to buy one and it has a smashed grille-What are you going to do? Drive around in an otherwise pristine car with no grille? And where are you going to find a used one 44 years later? This is why you should avoid cars with body damage unless their something REALLY popular. Yes, getting a 1/4 panel for a '69 Camaro is no problem. Getting fenders or doors for a '55-57 Chevy is no problem. But what about for a '69 Javelin AMX? Where are you going to get a fender for a '56 Oldsmobile?  # 2. Avoid cars with obsolete powertrains, unless your a mechanic and are planning an engine / transmission swap anyway. A 1964 Buick Skylark is a good-looking car and maybe a nice change from the Chevelle / GTOs that everyone fights with machetes for. There are zero parts available for the 300 Buick V8, and very little for the 2-speed ST300 ( read Powerglide ) tranny. The obvious thing would be to swap in a later model 350 / TH350 combo for a great prformance upgrade-but then the car's not original is it? And what if your not a mechanic? How are you going to get a 1968-77 350 Buick engine and matching tranny out of a junkyard, and since it came from a junkyard-chances are it needs rebuilding, so who's going to rebuild it, and put it in your car, and at what cost?  See what I'm saying? You may think a '68 Firebird with a 215 hp Overhead Cam Six-Cylinder engine is a neat car. It's certainly unique, but where in the hell are you going to get parts for a 1968 OHC Six? Not your local Napa or autozone store!! Not the Pontiac dealer-there are no more Pontiac dealers!!!  The engine was based on the 230 / 250 inch Chevy six that was in thousands of cars and trucks-the bottom end and block is pretty generic. But even Chevy dealers aren't going to stock the OHC specific stuff.  And what if it's got a cracked head? Or intake or exhaust manifold? Where in the hell are you going to find an OHC head for a car that was rare when new, and has been out of production for 48 years? I know Offenhauser made intakes for 6-cylinder engines and Hooker made headers for them back in the '70's-but who stocks them in 2016?  # 3. Unless you are a great mechanic whose very good at welding and fabrication- avoid cars with obsolete suspensions,rear ends and brakes. I talked to a guy who wanted to buy his elderly neighbor's Studebaker coupe and put a 472 Cadillac in it-a modern day "Studillac". Great Idea-in theory. I asked him-what motor mounts are you going to use? What transmission crossmember? Do you think the stock 4-wheel drum brakes will stop the car safely with a big power infusion? If so-where are you going to get brake shoes and hardware or maybe wheel cylinders or a master cylinder for a 1953 Studebaker??  If the brakes are bad or inadequate-what are you going to replace them with? Yes, Summitt and Jeg's are full of disc brake conversion kits for '55 Chevys and '60's Novas and Chevelles, A,B,and E-body Mopars, and popular full-sizes like Chevy Impalas and Ford Galaxies. If your restoring say-a '66 Olds 442-any suspension or brake upgrades that fit a Chevelle will fit the Cutlass.  But who  makes one for '53-55 Studebakers??  No one!! Now you could just put a Camaro or Chevelle front clip on it and have modern disc brakes and power steering, but do you have the skill and the shop space to actually graft a subframe from one car to another?  Ditto for the rear axle-Where are you going to find a ring and pinion or bearings for a '53 Stude? If it needs replacing, what are you going to replace it with? Currie offers 9 inch Ford rears with GM mounting points if you had a Camaro or a GTO or a Buick Grand National, but nothing for Studebakers!! You could probably adapt a GM 10 or 12 bolt-but that would take a lot of measuring, cutting and welding. And are you going to run leaf or coil springs?  # 4. Avoid cars that were Turds when new that you can't improve without extensive modification. A perfect example would be an '80-81 Turbo Trans-Am or Formula Firebird. They were dogs when new because they couldn't manage the timing, fuel flow and boost with a 1980 distributor and Quadrajet carb. And the 301 is a lightweight "economy" motor that shares virtually nothing with the larger Pontiac engines. So going to fuel injection and turning up the boost or using a bigger Turbo isn't an option because the bottom end couldn't take it. It would blow up the first time you leaned on it. And there's no aftermarket parts to "beef" them up. So the way to more power is (A) Swap in a 400 or 455 Pontiac V8, ( B ) Swap in a small or big-block Chevy-this would require a tranny change as well as Chevy engines have a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than BOP engines, or ( C ) Find a wrecked Buick Riviera or Bonneville SSEI from the '90's and pirate the Supercharged 3.8 liter V6 and wiring. None of these options is easy or cheap. If you want a fast disco era T/A-then buy one with a 400 Pontiac or 403 Olds V8 and play with that. At least there's tons of Aftermarket parts available. Another would be the '79-84 carburated Buick Regal T-Types. They just didn't work for the same reason the Turbo T/A's didn't The Ignition and the Carburators were never right. When GM came out with Port Injection in 1985-that's when the Grand Nationals burst on the scene with their blistering performance. If you want an '85-88 GN then buckle down and pay the price for one-they command a King's Ransom.  But forget the '84 and earlier ones-there's no cost-effective way to make them run. So think hard before you buy something rare or obsolete-there's a reason for that!!    

Let's see some '40's,'50's,'60s and '70s NASCAR Tributes.....

I was looking at a book showing the history of NASCAR and realized in stark constrast to today's cookie-cutter cars-( They all look like a Toyota Camry, whether their supposed to be a Ford Fusion or a Chevy Malibu or whatever ) that the old ones has serious, distinctive style. The 1949 Olds Rocket 88 stock car piloted by Buck Baker looked totally badass. One of those with a snarling 455 under the hood would be way cool. The late '50's Pontiac, Buick and Olds offerings don't have the cult following of the '55-57 Chevys so building a Nascar-themed late '50's BOP car shouldn't outrage too many people. And if you "gotta have" a tri-five Chevy-like I said in an earlier post-Woodyz Hot Rods is selling new '55-57 Bodies and chassis under liscence from GM. Some '60's models that would be cool-# 1. Full-size Pontiacs. High Performance Pontiac Magazine had a feature on someone who copied Fireball Roberts 1962 Catalina that won Daytona. It looked totally badass. In fact any Pontiac from 1960-68 would work-with 389,400,421 or cubes under those long hoods they could back up the image.  # 2. Full-size Fords. The book showed a 1965 Galaxie Stock Car. It was way cool too. And since most of the big Fords of this era had 390 cubes under the hood-they'd have the power to back it up. # 3. "Oddball" '70's Replicas. Lot's of people have done Chargers like Richard Petty's '74, and Chevy Monte Carlos like Darrel Waltrip drove. ( PHR's "Project Talledega" ) I'd like to see an AMC Matador like Mark Donohue briefly drove, or a Mercury Cougar done like the one David Pearson drove for the Wood Brothers. Or a '78-79 Dodge Magnum. Or a '77 Cutlass like King Richard drove when he retired the Iconic '74 Charger. It would be nice to see something other than Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs, and Chevelles. Mastermind

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