If you want the most "Bang" for the buck, then learn the nuances of your chosen car line....

With modern cars having so much computer-controlled electronic ignition and fuel management, automatic shift points etc-"Tuning" is becoming a lost art. However-if you have an old musclecar it can make a huge difference in performance. Even on a stock engine-bad tuning can cost you 40-50 hp. And every engine line is different in what they need and "like".  My dad worked for GM and Ford for years, and I did too, as well as Chrysler. If you want to read old tech articles by Dick Landy,Nunzi Romano,Smokey Yunick, Carroll Shelby, etc-you'll see that what I'm telling you came from the old masters, as well as personal experience. Here's some tips you won't see in the modern buff magazines-because their writers don't know it!! Some of these engines were out of production before the editor was born!!  # 1. Pontiacs like a lot of timing and a lot of fuel. They always have. Many years ago-Popular Hot Rodding had a project car called "Project '32". It was a '32 Ford 5 window that they'd stuffed a Ram Air IV 400 Pontiac and TH400 in out of a staffers wrecked GTO. Needless to say-it was badass-it ran low 12s on street tires and high 11s on slicks-in the mid-70's. They discovered that it ran even stronger when they replaced the Quadrajet with a 1000cfm Carter Thermo-Quad, and went richer than stock on the jetting. It ran stronger still when they kept bumping the timing, finally losing power at 42 degrees total advance!!  The now defunct High Performance Pontiac magazine had similar results. They tested a strong 455 HO that they built. It had a custom 850 cfm Quadrajet with a larger .149 needle and seat. They got the most performance at 38 degrees total-after losing power at 40. However-they were using 91 octane pump gas, and PHR was using 104 octane race gas. Still-the engine liked a lot more timing than stock. They also found that hp and torque increased at every rpm by increasing fuel pressure. The hp and torque numbers were still rising at 9 psi- (which is a lot for a carburated engine; I know modern fuel-injected engines run 40 psi or more ) when they went to 11 and blew the needle and seat off the carb!!  My Judge ran high 11s with two 750 cfm Carter AFBs on an Offenhauser Dual-Quad intake, and it had a stock mechanical fuel pump on the engine, and a Carter Electric pump in the trunk-one pushing, one pulling- and a 1/2 inch fuel line. No one who ever drove or rode in this car would say it was over-carburated!!  Remember-a 455 Pontiac needs more juice than 327 Chevy!!  So if you have a GTO or Firebird or whatever-taking the time to play with timing, jetting, and fuel pressure will easily add 30-40 hp when you finally get it right. # 2. Fords are notoriously under-carburated. The Autolite 4bbl used on 289 Mustangs and other '60's Fords-even 390s-flows about 470 cfm. Carroll Shelby bumped the hp from 271 to 306 on the 1965 289 GT350 simply by adding tri-y headers and a 715 cfm Holley on an aluminum intake. And the buff magazines said that was under-rated-they thought it was putting out closer to 350 hp!  The Autolite 4100 and 4300 are the worst carbs ever built, bar none. I've said before-in the early '70's if you had a Mustang or a T-Bird with cold-starting problems, stumbling, etc-and bitched hard enough-dealers would replace them with a 600 cfm Holley and warranty it!! Now think about this-the performance of your 429 or 460 inch T-Bird is vastly improved with a 600 cfm carb??!!  If you have an automatic transmission I would recommend the 750 cfm Edelbrock Performer as the "default" carb-they come off the line very cleanly-which is important in an automatic transmissioned car-you can't rev them up at the line to "clean them out". They won't over-carb a hot 302, and they'll feed a 390 / 428 or 429 /460 just fine. If you have a manual transmission-then dual 600 Edelbrocks give 452 hp on a 390-more than the 418 registered by the Performer RPM single-quad. Or you can use a 750 or 850 double-pumper Holley on your hot 351, 390, 428 / 429 or whatever-with a stick you can launch at whatever rpm you desire. I've seen Edelbrock and Barry Grant dual-quad and tri-power setups work great even on a 289 with the right cam, gears, etc. Think about it-a 351C or 390 Ford V8 with a 470 cfm carb is like a 250 lb NFL running back trying to run while breathing through a straw!!  Don't go overboard-but I think you get the picture. # 3. Mopars are also badly Under-carburated. The original Carter AVS 4bbl that was used on most Mopars until 1971-only flowed about 585 cfm. They had crisp throttle response-a smaller carb will do that at low-speeds and in the mid-range-but at the sacrifice of quite a bit on the top end. 585 cfm is a little small for a stock 340; for a 383, 400 or 440 it's laughable. Luckily-Edelbrock offers an 800 cfm "Thunder AVS" carb that would be just the ticket. If your car is a '71 or '72 and later with a Carter Thermo-Quad, and it's not warped or cracked ( the bakelite bodies sometimes do ) you can rebuild that-they flow 750 cfm. Summitt offers remanufactured Thermo-Quads in 750 and 850 cfm versions. Or you could use an Edelbrock Manifold and the 800 AVS,-their adjustable secondarys are perfect for an automatic- or if you have a stick-an 850 Holley-especially on a 383 or 440 with a big cam and stiff gears-will rock. Or you could go with a Six-Pack setup or dual-quads. # 4. "Rat" motors need to breathe. I've said it before-and it's true-nothing makes more power for less money than a big-block Chevy. Since engines are basically an air pump-it's true to some extent with all engines-but a Rat will really "wake up" with additonal breathing-headers, cam, and carb and intake. With the possible exception of an 8:1 engine with an automatic and 2.73:1 gears-it's almost impossible to over-cam or over carburate a Rat. Stick to the guidelines of the cam manufacturers-they'll tell you "needs 3.42:1 or stiffer gears and 2,500 rpm converter" or needs at least 750 cfm carb, etc."  Again-think of the 454 as a 275 lb NFL lineman-trying to breathe through a straw!  This is very basic stuff-but sticking to basics can get you a big edge in real-world performance!!  Mastermind              

You have to accept some harsh realities when your buying and restoring a musclecar....

I talk to a lot of people who don't want to accept the realities of classic cars and what it takes to restore or maintain them. They often take on projects that are too much for their finances or mechanical ability or both. Then their disillusioned and angry when they lose money on a project or can't finish it. Here's some good advice to avoid this problem. The first and foremost rule is: Don't expect to make a profit. If you want to go into the business of selling used cars-then do it. But if your buying or building your dream car-then resign yourself to the fact that your out "X" amount of dollars-whether it's $10,000 or $100,000. Chances are-you'll have more in the car than you can ever sell it for. But if you love it, and don't want to sell it, then that doesn't matter. That aside-here's some irrefutable facts that will save you a ton of money and aggravation. # 1. Like it or not-Chevys-and by proxy-other GM stuff are the most popular cars, and are the easiest and cheapest to restore. Nothing makes more power for less money than a small or big-block Chevy. 340 /360 Mopars, 351 Fords, 350 Olds, and 360 AMCs can make as much or more power than a 327 / 350 Chevy-at 1 1/2 times or double the cost. A Chrysler Hemi or Boss-Nine Ford can make as much or more power than a Rat motor-at 2 or three times the cost. A case in Point-the "454HO" GMPP 454 Crate engine makes 425 hp and 500 lbs ft of torque and retails for $5995. The Mopar Performance 426 Hemi crate engine makes 465 hp and 500 lbs of torque and retails for $14,995. You can get an extra 40 hp out of a 454 Chevy-with a better intake or a slightly larger cam-that would cost maybe 300 bucks, not 9 grand!! Pontiac engines are externally identical from a 326 to a 455. Olds engines from a 330 to a 403, and the 400-425-455 stuff all interchanges. Same for 400-430-455 Buicks. All BOP engines have the same bellhousing bolt-pattern. That means you can buy a TH350 out of a wrecked '73 Cutlass and put it behind a 389 Pontiac in a '66 GTO ( in place of an ST300 ) or a 400 in a 78 T/A and it will literally bolt in. Ditto for body and trim parts-a fender or hood, or 1/4 panel or whatever-is going to be cheaper for a Camaro or Chevelle, than it is for a "Cuda or Road Runner, and the Mopar parts are going to be cheaper than parts for an AMC Javelin! And because a lot of GM stuff interchanges- like suspension and brake parts, shocks, crossmembers, trans mounts, radiators, etc-anything that fits a Chevelle will fit a LeMans / GTO, a Cutlass, a Buick Skylark / Regal, and a Gran Prix or Monte Carlo. Anything that fits a Camaro / Firebird, will usually fit a Nova-and a Ventura, Omega or Apollo. Lust after, buy, and restore anything you want-but a Mopar is going to cost more than a Chevy or a Pontiac, and a Ford-especially anything other than a Mustang- is going to cost more than a Mopar. For example-a 302 Ford uses a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than a 351W, which is different than a 351C, which is different than a 390 / 428. And worse yet-unlike Chevys, Pontiacs and Mopars-where oil pans,water pumps, power steering pumps and brakcets, alternator brackets etc are all pretty much the same for many years for the whole line-or at least the small and big blocks-i.e-283-327-350-400, or 273,318,340-360 or 383-400-413-440, or 396-402-427-454, or 326-455-EVERY Ford is different!! In other words-a 390 in a Mustang uses a different oil pan than a 390 in an LTD, which is different than a 390 in a T-Bird, which is different than an F150 Pickup!!  I'm not bashing Fords-I'm just saying that they don't have anywhere near the parts interchangeability of GM and Chrysler stuff-which makes them harder and more expensive to buy parts for. It's just a fact of the business. If your a sports-car nut-it's going to cost less to restore a Datsun 240Z than it is a Porsche 911. The 911 is going to cost less than a Ferarri 308 GTS, and the Ferarri is going to cost less than a Lamborghini Countach!! Get the picture?  And being mad about it isn't going to help!  Mastermind          

Want to find your dream car and save a mint? Lower your sights just a smidgen....

I monitor prices of musclecars all over the net from junkers to frame-off restorations and I'm still amazed at the prices of some of the "premium" cars. Like Nicholas Cage said in the "Gone in 60 Seconds" re-boot-"There's too many assholes out there with too much money. " Here's a couple that left me shaking my head. If I could afford these cars-I'd have bought the lower-priced "lesser" versions. Even if I'd just won the lottery. # 1. On the same website-I saw a restored, numbers-matching, 4-speed, LS6 454 1970 SS Chevelle for $139,000!!  They also had a restored, numbers-matching, 4-speed, L78 396 1969 SS Chevelle for $59,000!!!  They both looked pristine from all the pictures and videos the site had. If you don't know-the L78 and the LS6 share the same compression ratio,solid-lifter cam,rectangular-port heads,780 Holley carb, etc. The only difference is the cubes-396 / 402 vs 454. And the horsepower difference is less than you think. The LS6 is rated at 450, and the L78 at 375. However-the L78 was rated at 425 hp in the 1965 Corvette and some 1965 Impala SS's. The 1966-69 version is identical. It was down-rated because prior to 1970-for some insane reason-maybe insurance rates-GM didn't want their intermediates to have an engine over 400 cubes,or less than a 10 lb per hp ratio. So in a Chevelle it had "only" 375 hp. Pontiac did this too-the Ram Air III 400 had 366 hp in a GTO and only 335 in a Firebird, the RAIV grossly under-rated at 370 in a GTO and 345 in a Firebird!! Maybe because you could get a 426 Hemi or a 440 in a Road Runner, Charger, or Challenger / Cuda, and a 428 in a Mustang-GM allowed the big dogs for 1970-the 454s and 455s. Further-the LS6 was slated to be available in the Camaro and the Nova, but was ultimately only put in the Chevelle line. Except the intake manifold was lowered to clear the low hoodline of the new for 1970 Camaro. The 1970 LS6 intake is so flat that the fuel flows uphill from the carb. The taller, L78 / L72 396 / 427 manifold from '66-69 is worth 15-20 hp MORE than the 454 intake!!  So the percieved power difference is really not that much. In fact-in a real-world drag race the winner would be determined by gearing-i.e.-3.31:1 vs 4.11:1 and traction-whoever got a better launch more than real-world power difference!!  Is 50 cubes worth another $80,000??!!!  Not in my pocket book-even if I'd just won Megabucks in Vegas!! The L78 was a way better deal!! They also had a pristine, LS5 ( 360 hp ) 454 '70 SS for $69,000!! 70K cheaper!! Maybe a grand for an Edelbrock Torker intake and matching cam and carb-and you'll have LS6 performance and save the other 69K!! On the same website they had a pristine 1969 440 Plymouth GTX for $59,000. They also had a pristine 1970 440 Six-pack GTX for $99,000!! Huh? Do you people realize that Edelbrock still sells the manifold, Holley still sells the carbs, and Mopar Performance still sells the throttle linkage and air cleaner? And the whole shebang would cost about 2 grand?  A manifold and carburators are worth 40G's??!!  Again, not for me!!  Trans-Am specialties in Florida had a pristine Buccaneer Red, L75 455, 4-speed '73 T/A for sale for $49,000. They also had a Buccaneer Red SD-455, 4-speed '73 for $149,000!!!  I know-there was only 252 SDs built. But a 100K price difference? I guarantee if you drove them both-you wouldn't feel a $100k difference. They also had an automatic '74 SD-455 T/A-one of 943 built-for $79,000!!  Again-the engine is worth 30 grand?  When for about 2 grand-you could put the Edelbrock Performer RPM Top-End kit-which is basically RAIV aluminum heads, cam and the RPM intake on the "standard" 455 and have-according to Edelbrock-470 hp and 530 lbs of torque!! A helluva lot more than the SD's 290 and 395!!!  I can't see spending that kind of money just to say you have something rare. Of course, I don't have Jay Leno's bank account, but if I did, I don't think I'd be that frivoulous!!  Mastermind        

Good advice for buying and / or restoring a musclecar....

There's a show called "Property Virgins" on one of the cable channels where Real Estate agents help first-time home buyers avoid costly mistakes. Maybe we need something like that for car restorers. Anyhow-here's some good advice that will save you a ton of money and grief.  # 1. Make sure the car has a legal, clear title. This should be a no-brainer, but you'd be amazed at the number of people that buy stuff without a title, or a salvage title and then are furious when they can't get it registered or sell it or trade it in. Because a DMV clerk transposed 2 numbers 18 years ago-I had a helluva time-I had to get a lawyer-getting a clear replacement title for my 442 when I wanted to sell it-and I had  registered, insured, and driven the car for 18 years!! Nothing is a "deal" if you can't register it or sell it!!  # 2. Avoid "basket cases" or cars with major rust damage or water or fire damage. These cars are not a deal no matter how cheap they are. Fixing them will cost about five times what you think it will. Trust me, your way better off in terms of money saved and grief avoided, by just spending more money and getting a better car to start with. # 3. A rare or special car missing a major component is not a deal. Obvious examples would be a Hemi-powered Chrysler vehicle missing the Hemi engine or a Boss 302 or 429 Mustang missing the "Boss" engine. The cost of trying to find a replacement engine for one of these would be so prohibitive that even if you had an unlimited bakroll-your better off just searching for a complete car. Think about it-Where in the hell are you going to find a complete, for-real "Boss 429" engine for sale, at any price? I'm sure some of you are saying right now-"Well, Duh!" "Anyone knows that". Ok. What about a fuel-injected '57 Bonneville or '63 Corvette missing the fuel-injection system? Also-"Duh".  Then you'll consider buying an '87 Buick Grand National or '86 Mustang SVO that's missing the Turbo engine!!  Where are you going to find replacement back glass for a '71-73 "Boat-Tail" Riviera? Or a "Shaker" hood for a '74 GTO?  ( T/A resto shops sell the scoops; I'm talking about the HOOD with the whole in it, for the scoop, for a Ventura, not a Firebird. Good luck with that. ) Which brings up...#4. Unless you want to actually race it on the vintage racing circuit as a toy with a modern crate engine-avoid old race cars like the plague. To "restore" one to drivable,streetable condition is almost impossible. Their always gutted, and they always have an unoriginal engine and drivetrain. You buy a 1970 Pontiac Trans-Am race car. Your going to restore it to "Original" race specs? Guess what? You'll never in a million years find a 303 Pontiac engine. The SCCA allowed 302 Chevys because Canadian Firebirds had Chevy engines, but where are you going to find a 302 Chevy engine that '67-69 Z/28 restorers haven't hoarded?  Your best bet would be throw a small-block Chevy crate engine in it and have fun. Ditto for a Mustang or Challenger. Your not going to find a for-real 305 Mopar or Boss 302 race engine for sale at any price!! With Edelbrock or Trick Flow heads you could build a "Mock" Boss engine, and you could throw a 360 crate engine in the Dodge, but it'll never be "Original" like the ones Parnelli Jones and Sam Posey and Jerry Titus raced!!  The old saying-"If you want to make a million dollars racing, then start with two million" is true. # 5. Be honest about what your going to use the car for. If it's an investment or a show car, then do anything you want. But if your going to drive the car at all-then there's things you should consider. If it gets really hot where you live-Las Vegas, Arizona, Florida, etc-you get the picture. It might behoove you to get a car with working or at least repairable factory A/ C.  If you live in a big city with a lot of stop-n-go traffic-like San Francisco or Los Angeles-an automatic might be a better choice than a 4-speed. If you want a Corvette to cruise the wine country with your wife on weekends do you think a low-compression, hydraulic-cammed small-block model might a little more pleasant to drive ( especially on pump gas ) than an 11:1, solid-lifter, Tri-Power, 4.11:1 geared 427 model?  # 6.  "Run What You Brung". At least on your first project. Yes, it's possible to put a 460 based 514 stroker into a Fox-Bodied Mustang, but do you really want to attempt it?  Especially when I know guys running in the 11s with 302s!!  Manned space flight is possible, but it isn't cheap or easy!!  If you want a big-block 'Cuda, then step up to the plate and buy one that already has a 383 or 440 in it. Don't buy a 318 model and think you'll "Drop" a 440 in it later. After you buy a big-block crossmember,and radiator, torsion bars, swap the 904 Torqueflite for a 727, and replace the 8 1/4 rear with an 8 3/4 or Dana 60 and big-block springs....get the picture?  # 7. Pick the right car for the purpose. If you want to build a corner-carving "G" machine you'd be better off starting with a '75 Trans-Am than you would a '65 GTO! If you want to build a stompin' drag racing big-block Camaro-your better off with a '70's Camaro than you are an '80's IROC-Z. Why? 1st off-a Rat was an option until 1972-so it'll fit easily without a lot of custom fabrication, unlike the 3rd gen models. The 8.5 inch 10 bolt rear ends can take a lot of abuse. Unless you have a 700 hp motor and are running wrinkelwall slicks bolted to the rims-you probably won't have a problem. The 7.5 inchers in the later F-bodies break behind 165 hp 305s!!  Ditto for transmissions. A stock TH350 will hold up behind a 500 hp engine, as will a Muncie or BW 4-speed. The T5 5-speeds only had a 300 lb torque rating. They wouldn't last at all behind a Rat. 200R4s and 700R4s can live behind a Rat, but only after they've been significantly beefed up by a pro tranny shop. See what I'm saying?  #8. Avoid "Niche" exotics and old Kit Cars. They may sound cool in theory-but again-if your going to drive the car at all, eventually it'll need repairs. Where are you going to find a master cylinder for a Sunbeam Tiger? A heater core for a Pantera?  Brake Pads for a Mangusta? Anything for a Bricklin?   Are you really going to go 100+ mph in a "Manta Ray" or "Kelmark GT" that some clown built 30 years ago with a Pinto front end and a Corvair swing axle?  I wouldn't!!  Hope this helps people avoid "Money Pits". Mastermind                                

Ya gotta love the internet....For entertainment value at least!!!

I never got this memo-but somewhere there has to be internet etiquette guidelines that read like this. # 1. If something early in a post rubs you the wrong way, stop reading and vent your anger immediately. # 2. Use profanity so the writer knows you mean business. Racial slurs and homophobic comments will show how intelligent you are. # 3. If the writer responds with proof that you are wrong-i.e.-by citing a sentence or paragraph that you failed to read, you are under no obligation to publicly apologize. This is the internet. You can silently slink away until you decide to pop up again like a noxious weed and spew your hateful venom on someone else.  I say this because some people were apparently mortally offended that I said that under certain conditions-a '66 GTO could beat a '66 Hemi Charger in a drag race, and that a 389 / 400 / 421 / 455 Pontiac was a better STREET engine than a 426 Hemi, or a 427 Ford or a 427 Chevy. I was also "Terminally Stupid" by saying that sometimes "faster" cars can lose to "slower" ones. Well, I feel the need to educate these poor souls. Yes-427 Chevys and Fords and 426 Hemis dominated NASCAR and drag racing in the '60's. Their power-making ability is undisputed. However-If you want to read old road tests-Popular Hot Roddings '69 Hemi Charger road test-they were the people who said the car felt like it was running with one flat tire. It had a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears-and they couldn't break out of the 14s. They said it went quicker by keeping it in 2nd till the end of the 1/4, and that it needed more converter and 4.10:1 gears to hit it's full potential!!  Hot Rod tested an L88 '69 Corvette and were disappointed that in ran high 13s-2 seconds from where "It should be". This was their own words. The L88 had a TH400 and 3.36:1 gears. The writer said they griped at the Chevy test fleet-and later tested one with a 4-speed and 4.56:1 gears that ran lows 12s. Bully for them.  4.56:1 gears?? The engine buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway-that makes for a pleasant driving experience!!  The Hemis and the 427s and Boss Nines are great RACING engines, and under full-race conditions, no the Pontiacs can't make anywhere near that power level. Neither can the 390 / 428 Fords, 383 / 440 Mopars, and 400 / 455 Olds V8s!!   But for STREET driving-the smaller heads etc-build massive low-end torque and will run faster in a drag race / "Stoplight Gran Prix " than these monsters-especially with street tires, mild gearing, and full exhaust systems!!  I want to ask these people-are they 12? Do you have a bumper sticker of "Calvin" ( from the comic strip "Calvin&Hobbes" ) pissing on a Chevy or Ford emblem?  I love the guy who said there was absolutely no way that my Judge could have beaten my friend's 440 / Six-Pack Super Bee in a drag race. Really? You don't think that even bone-stock, a car with 366 hp, a 4-speed and 4.33:1 gears, can get a car length or two off the line and hold onto that lead against a car with 390 hp, an automatic and 3.23:1 gears?  What math are you doing? And-here's the kicker- the RAIII 400 in my Judge wans't stock. It had Hooker Headers, a hotter than stock Crane Cam and roller rockers, an Offenhauser dual-quad intake with two AFBs, and it also had Lakewood coil-spring traction bars and N50X15 Mickey Thompson hot-n-sticky "Street Slicks ". And the guy I bought it from had a bunch of 12.01, 12.03, 12.05 timeslips from a dragstrip in California in the glovebox, and the best one was an 11.79!!  So yeah bud, I'm lying-there's no way that car could beat a bone-stock, automatic, 3.23:1 geared Six-Pack Super Bee running on GR70-15 Sears Radials!!  Who the hell am I kidding? Because a Pontiac can't beat a Mopar, ever right?  Ditto for the clown who said I was "Dreaming" when I said I beat a kid in a '67 SS 427 Impala in my dad's '65 2+2.  Because again-a 376 hp ( stock rating ) 421 powered Catalina with Tri-power,ported '67 GTO heads, ( which had 2.11 / 1.77 valves and bigger ports than the 1.96 / 1.66 "Bathtub" heads ) a "744" cam with 1.65:1 rockers, ( upgraded from the "068" cam and 1.5 rockers ) a TH400 with a TransGo shift kit and a 3.90:1 Posi rear-couldn't possibly outrun a bone-stock Quadrajet 390 hp 427 Impala with 3.31:1 gears!!  Because Big-block Chevys rule, and everything else sucks, right?  The best-though was the guy who said I was "Delusional" when I said that I used to beat '80's "5.0" Mustangs and 400, 4-speed 70's T/A's in my 403 Olds / TH350 powered '77 T/A. I've said before that my T/A had headers and a Holley Street Dominator intake,a custom Carb Shop Jetted Q-Jet, upgraded ignition and a TransGo shift kit. I've also said that it would run 14.9s all day, and it's best ever was a 14.78. If you read road tests of 400, 4-speed, WS6 disco-era T/A's-the fastest was  Hot Rod running a 14.61  and the slowest was Road&Track running a 15.62. ( I guess you could include Hot Rod's July 1978 DKM "Macho T/A" that ran a 14.29-but it was modified; this clown was saying stockers would have stomped my ass ) . If you read road tests of  '87-93 "5.0" Mustangs ( enthusiasts agree these are faster than the '83-86 carburated models ) the fastest was a 14.72 and the slowest a 15.29. So me saying my car that ran consistent 14.9s regularly beat these people or gave them a run for the money they'd never forget-is a bald-faced lie. Ok. And of course there's never driver error, right?  Like the guy in the LS6 Chevelle who got beat by my buddies L34 396 Chevelle, because he totally fried his tires all the way through 1st and 2nd, and by the time he caught traction, my pal was too far ahead!!  But again-were lying because there's no possible way a 396 Chevelle can beat a 454 Chevelle, right?  Like I've said so many times, read the WHOLE article, not just snippets, before you start telling someone how wrong they are!!  Mastermind       

Learn the difference between "Street" and "Race"....And "Bigger" isn't always "Better....

Had some people quoting buff magazine dyno tests after the post on generic engine building guidelines. Do these people ever read the WHOLE article?  One quoted a recent Car Craft single-plane vs dual-plane intake comparo. He didn't understand why the writer said that of all the single-planes, the Edelbrock Torker II offered the most "bang" for the buck for the average guy, even though the hp and torque champ was a Dart / Keith Dorton intake. I understand fully-because I read the whole article, not the just power and torque numbers!!  The test mule was an 11.4:1 compression 406 small-block Chevy with 215cc ( intake port volume ) aluminum heads,1 7/8 headers,and a solid roller cam with 242 / 240 ( @.050 ) duration and .594 lift!!  On THAT combo-yes-the taller than a Victor Jr NASCAR-spec Dart intake made the most power!! However-99% of the people reading the article aren't going to have a combo that radical-11.5:1 compression and a cam with .600 lift??!!  The writer explained that the Torker II would work just as well on a basically stock 8.5:1 350 with stock 153cc heads and a mild cam, or a 10:1 383 with 205cc heads and a hot cam. He was saying unless you went hog-wild-like the test mule-that it was almost impossible to out-power the Torker II, which made it the best deal for mild or wild combos. Another area where bigger is not always better is cylinder heads. Most people don't understand the concept of combustion. Once the cylinders are fully charged, their fully charged!!  Example-if you have a one-gallon bucket-and your filling it from a five-gallon or ten gallon bucket-guess what-when the ond-gallon bucket is full, it's full!! Doesn't matter how much you have left in your bucket. And if you keep filling it-any more is going to be wasted and spill out onto the ground! That's the simplest, best analogy I can make. Understand it?  Several years ago Car Craft built identical 454 Chevy engines-same compression, cam, headers, carb and intake, etc. The only difference was one had "standard" oval-port heads and the other had "High-Performance" rectangular port heads. Guess what?  The rectangular port heads did not show a noticeable gain on the dyno until 6,300 rpm!!  Think about that-now on a street engine or even in a race car-how often are you going to be above 6,300 rpm??  In another one Hot Rod had a ZZ4 350 Chevy that they puit some 210cc Trick Flow heads on. Yes they showed a 40 hp gain-at 6,100 rpm. Here's the kicker though-the "antiquated" stock, 163cc L98 heads were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm up to 4,600!! At some rpms there was no difference, or it was only 1 or 2 hp and 1 or 2 lbs ft.  Again-in most situations-how often are you above 4,700 rpm?  The guy who wrote a book on building high-performance Pontiac engines has a '71 LeMans 455 wagon that runs 11.30s with a Quadrajet, 165cc heads and 3.55:1 gears!! It has Ram Air IV replica cam with 231 / 240 ( @.050 ) duration and .470 lift.  He shifts it at 5,700 rpm.  How is that possible?  Simple-he just accentuated what Pontiac did from the factory-make massive power and torque at low rpm. When you have 500 lbs of torque at 2,500 rpm, you don't NEED to rev to 7 grand!!  He just put together the perfect combination. Since stock Pontiac heads don't breathe much over 6,000 rpm or .480 lift-he doesn't NEED a cam with .575 lift!! With a Pontiac V8-less is more, more often than not. That's why Pontiacs were such awesome STREET engines. While Chevy, and Ford and Mopar were trying to homologate NASCAR engines-the 427s, and the 426 Hemi-etc. The "Little GTO" with small "Bathtub" heads and only 389 inches ruled the street. Again-with 424 lbs ft of torque at 2,700 rpm-you don't need to rev high. Port velocity, and cylinder filling. Remember the one-gallon bucket? That's why a '66 GTO with a 389 could run off and leave a '66 Charger with a Hemi from a light. Especially if the Charger had an automatic and 3.23:1 gears or even a 4-speed and 3.54:1s. Because the Hemi was designed to go 200 mph at Daytona, not rip ass on the street!! With stock gearing it was like running with one flat tire. Testers wouldn't get out of 2nd with Torqueflites or 3rd with 4-speeds by the end of the 1/4!! Now if the Hemi had a 4-speed and 4.30:1 gears, or a 2,500 rpm converter and 4.10:1s, it would have been a very different story, because the mechanical advantage would have got the Hemi into it's powerband quick enough to pass the Goat before the end of the 1/4.  This is how "faster" cars sometimes lose to "slower" ones. This is why many magazines said that the 383 and 440 engines were better on the street than a Hemi. This is why the 428 "FE" is a much better street engine than a Boss 429. I know a guy who bought a "Boss 302" Ford SVT stroker crate engine a few years ago and put it in his '69 Mustang that had an automatic and 3.25:1 gears. He was severely disappointed. It wouldn't idle-and didn't have much bottom-end-in fact it didn't do much below 4,000 rpm. The problem? I can't remember if it was a 347 or a 363-but it was the biggest, baddest one they had in the catalog at the time. It was rated at 450+ hp. I asked him-when you read the brochure and Ford recommended a stick or a torque converter with a 3,500 rpm stall speed and 4.56:1 gears-didn't that throw up a red flag that it might be a little too radical for a daily driver??!!  Why didn't you buy one of the 360 hp or 385 hp 351Ws that would have kicked ass on the street?  "Well, I just went for the one with the most power."  "Guess I should have done some more research."  You think?  A 3,000 rpm B&M converter and some 4.10:1 gears made it much more tractable and livable on the street, and it was really fast when you got on it, but he still didn't like the loose converter around town and the motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway too much!!  So remember "Bigger is not always better ". Hope this helps save people from buying parts they'll be disappointed in!  Mastermind                 

Where does Charlize Theron from the new "Furious" fit on the all-time list? Too early to tell....

A couple times over the past few years people have enjoyed debating my list of the "Hottest Women in Musclecar / Action / Car Chase movies". Had quite a few people ask where I would rank Charlize Theron. If you live in a cave-she was the female lead in the "Mad Max" Fury Road epic last year, and she's the villain in the 8th "Fast&Furious" movie according to the trailers. Couldn't get too excited over "Fury Road". Tom Hardy's Max was a shell of the badass "Man with No Name" type revenger played by Mel Gibson. I mean he spent half the movie tied to the front of a car. Any ass-kicking that was done, was done by Charlize. I know it's not politically correct-but couldn't get turned on by Charlize with a shaved head and a prosthetic arm!! Sorry,just can't do it. Personally-I thought she was her absolute hottest as Keanu Reeves' doomed wife in "Devil's Advocate". I also liked her turn as the evil queen in "Snow White and the Huntsman". I want to meet the guy who kept her chained up naked and barefoot in the wagon-before Snow White's father saved her and married her, and sealed his doom!!  But I digress....All I've seen of the "Fate of the Furious" is the trailers. The action looks way too CGI-enhanced over the top, and all Vin Diesel does is scowl. Charlize does look smokin' hot with the hair extensions dressed in black tactical garb. I'll have to see the movie before I can give her a ranking. But judging from the previous "F&F" movies I seriously doubt if she's going to usurp Jennifer Billingsley, Susan George, Darlanne Fluegel, Jacqueline Bisset, Ali McGraw, or any of the other top-rankers on the list. Had some people gripe that I don't give modern ladies a fair shake. Not true. You have to take into account their performance and how it impacted the movie as a whole. If sheer hotness was all it took-then Raquel Welch would be the undisputed champ. The opening credits of "Fathom"-she doesn't say a word-but she's barefoot in bikini panties and a t-shirt and makes packing a parachute sexy as hell! No "Hannie Caulder" "Kansas City Bomber" and "Mother, Jugs, and Speed" are not classics by any means, but all Raquel had to do was stand there and breathe, and guys would watch. As for modern girls-I think Eva Mendes is smokin' hot and a pretty good actress. Gal Gadot is going to be awesome as "Wonder Woman" But does their 30 seconds in a bikini in "F&F 2" and "Fast Five" respectively top Darlanne Fluegel as "Ruth"-William Peterson's informant / hooker / parolee / girlfriend in "To Live and Die in L.A." who sets him and his partner up to rob a federal agent and tries to abscond with the money? The look on her face when his partner confronts her and says-"Your working for me now". is awesome. I love Scarlett Johansen, but has anything she's done in the "Avengers" "Lucy" or anything else compare to "Carol McCoy" the wife in "The Getaway"-played by Ali McGraw-who screwed a politician to secure Steve McQueen's release from prison, and then killed the guy when he was going to shoot Steve, and stayed with him through numerous car chases, gunfights and other mayhem?  Are you really going to argue that?  Are you going to say with a straight face that Jordana Brewster-woodenly pleading with Paul Walker and Vin Diesel-"Don't fight guys" "I love you both" through 5 movies ( she wasn't in 2Fast 2 Furious or "Tokyo Drift" ) tops "Shake-a-Puddin" from "White Lightning"- played flawlessly by Jennifer Billingsley-who knows she's a slut and doesn't care-tells Burt Reynolds "Roy isn't gonna be standin' there watchin' us"-referring to Bo Hopkins-her gangster boyfriend-while offering Burt a roll in the hay, and  isn't even offended when Burt sets her up for attempted rape by "Big Bear's" henchmen-she helps him escape and drives his wounded ass to a home for unwed mothers for medical attention. We find out that she gave up a child for adoption once. Jordana separating Walker and Diesel once a movie tops that?  There were some other gripes, but I have to refute them too. # 1. Smokey & The Bandit". She may have been the love of Burt Reynolds' life, but just can't excited over chipmunk cheeked Sally Field. "Gidget" "The Flying Nun". Can't do it.  # 2. "The Dukes of Hazzard". The AWFUL movie with Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott and Jessica Simpson. Jessica's horrible, phony, overdone southern accent was grating and annoying and the bikini scene fell flat as overly gratuitous even in a mindless comedy. Catherine Bach-the original "Daisy" was so smokin' hot that the producers made her wear pantyhose under the iconic shorts because they thought showing her bare legs could get them in trouble with the FCC!! ( Kind of like not showing Barbara Eden's abs / belly button on "I Dream of Jeannie" She could run around in the harem girl outfit with her nipples barely covered, saying stuff like "Please don't punish me, Master"-but a belly button is too damn much! ) Nope. Catherine all the way.  # 3. "The Getaway" ( 1994 Version ). Sorry fellas-a then 41 year old Kim Basinger-( still 3 years away from her Oscar win for "L.A. Confidential" ) while hot in a MILF / Cougar way-doesn't come close to the 24 year old Ali McGraw. Her and Steve McQueen had a torrid affair while filming-he left his wife and she left her husband-one of the producers of the film-that must have been awkward-and their chemistry ignited the screen. And Alec Baldwin trying to top the King of Cool?  Like MC Hammer said-"Can't touch this". He and Kim were married at the time, but they couldn't generate anywhere near the heat and passion that Steve and Ali did. # 4. "The Mechanic: Resurrection". Someone brought up this stinker sequel to the stinker re-make of the Charles Bronson classic. Since Arthur Bishop and Steve McKenna killed each other in the 1972 original-the fact that they made out like Bishop survived-obviously to leave room for a sequel-is offensive on it's own.  Jason Statham phones in his usual-"I'm a serious badass, so don't fuck with me" persona, and Jessica Alba-still smokin' hot,yes-but her wooden "damsel-in-distress" performance here makes her turn as a stripper in "Sin City" look Oscar-worthy by comparison. I thought Linda Cristal was way cooler in "Mr Majestyk". She drove the truck in the iconic chase-( footage was used in the "Built Ford Tough" ads for years after ) and helped Bronson take on the gangsters that were threatening him. Alba simply looked fetching and screamed while waiting for Statham to save her repeatedly. No comparison. Anyhow-we'll see in April how Charlize Theron rates-if she even does at all-on the all-time list. Mastermind               

Remember "Guidelines" have "Default" settings....

All the buff magazines tech articles and a lot of the "How To" books-i.e.-"How to Hotrod Small-Block Chevys" "How to build Max Performance Mopar V8s" "How to Build Big-Block Fords", etc, etc use general guidelines on their advice. You have to realize that for the industry as a whole the default test mule is a small-block Chevy. So a "rule of thumb" when choosing a cam, header tube size, a carb and intake, whatever is geared toward a 350 Chevy. And not an 11:1, 370 hp fire-breathing LT1. The industry "test mule" is the 8.5:1 L48 350 that powered millions of cars and trucks in the '70's and '80's and is still being sold as a base-model GMPP crate engine to this day. It has about 200 hp and 280 lbs ft of torque. So if your building a 460 Ford or 455 Pontiac or 440 Mopar-using the "basic" guidelines are going to be very conservative-probably too conservative to get the best performance out of the larger engine.  Here's some myths that definitely need "busting".  # 1. A single 4bbl on a dual-plane intake is the only way to fly. This is a falsehood that's been perpetuated for 50 years. Tri-power 389 and 421 Pontiacs, 427 'Vettes, Six-Pack Mopars, 409 Impalas, 426 Hemis, 427 Fords, all absolutely rock with multi-carb setups, if their tuned right. Edelbrocks Performer RPM dual-quad setup made MORE hp and torque-over 600 hp-on a ZZ502 crate engine-more than their vaunted Performer RPM and Victor intakes!!  Ferarris, Porsches, Lamborghinis and other exotic sports cars had multiple carbs for years. I helped tune a "truck pull" champion a few years ago. It was a Chevy pickup with an alchohol-burning 454 with 4 Webers on it. It smote all comers in biblical fashion, including a Dodge with a blown Hemi in it!!  Manufacturers went to single carbs and later fuel injection because of stiffening federal emission laws and fuel economy guidelines, not lack of perfromance!!  The buff magazines have been saying a single 4bbl is the way to go for 50 years because of ease of tuning, and the ability to make them pretty much idiot-proof.  Like I said in a previous post-some clown buys a Six-Pack Super Bee or whatever-and the second it fouls a spark plug he starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start, much less run properly. If you want the look and sound of a multi-carb setup,especially on a big-block-like a 454 Chevy or even a 400 Pontiac or 383 Mopar-dual-quads will rock if their jetted properly. As for single-plane intakes-they generally make power higher up in the rpm band at the expense of bottom-end torque. So yes-putting a Torker II or Victor Jr. on that L48 350-that loses 30 lbs of torque at low speed- when you only had 280 lbs at the absolute peak-will absolutely kill the performance. However putting a Torker on a 455 Pontiac that makes 500 lbs ft at 2,700 rpm-even if you lose 30 lbs-you still have 470 lbs of tire-frying torque!!  You won't notice any difference in the bottom-end, but the mid-range and top-end will hit like "gangbusters". That Victor Jr that killed the 8.5:1 L48?  Guess what?  On an 11:1 383 it'll make more power ALL through the range, even topping a dual-plane Performer at the low end!!  Even on a 9:1 '79 L82 350 Corvette with a 4-speed and 3.70:1 gears-you'd get better performance from a Torker II or a Weiand Team G than you would a Performer. Because the L82 has the heads and the cam and the gears to use the boost from 2,800-6,500 rpm. The L48 with it's lazy cam and probably 2.73:1 gears behind a TH350 wouldn't do well. See what I'm saying?  # 2. We Shall Overcam. Again-most of the "Guidelines" you see on cam recommendation is based on the ubiquitous SBC. So yes-a cam with 234 ( @ .050 ) duration and .470  lift is going to have a lumpy idle  in a 350 Chevy and need a stick or a 2,500 rpm converter and 3.73:1 gears to work properly. A cam with 232 / 232 duration and .475 lift will idle smooth and work with a stock torque converter and 3.08:1 gears in a 455 Olds!  ( I know, that's the stock cam my 442 had! )  Larger engines can take more "cam" without ill effects-because they have more bottom-end and mid-range torque to start with. Manual transmission cars can tolerate more "cam" than automatics because engine vacuum isn't as important ( most automatics have a vacuum operated modulator that controls shifting. ) and the driver can launch at whatever rpm he desires by manipulating the clutch. Here's a good example. The old standby-the L79 350 hp 327 Corvette cams. It has 224 / 224 ( @.050 ) duration and .447 lift. Even with a stick, this cam would absolutely kill a 305. It will work pretty good in a 327 with a 4-speed and 3.70:1 or stiffer gears. It will be even better in a 350 with a 4-speed or an automatic with a 2,000 rpm converter and 3.31:1 or stiffer gears. It would be really sweet in a 383 / 400 even with a stock torque converter and 3.08:1 gears. So remember-if your building a 460 Ford-what Crane or Edelbrock or Lunati says is a "mild" cam-will look gargantuan compared to the guidelines for a 302 or a 351W!!  Get the concept?  # 3. Gears make it go. Up to a point. Then you hit the wall of diminishing returns. For example if you have a "Smokey & The Bandit" '77 T/A with a 400 Pontiac / Th350 combo with 2.56:1 rear end gears-swapping to something in the 3.23:1-3.42:1 range will give you a huge boost in performance-drop your 0-60 and 1/4 mile time by 1/2 a second or more without hurting freeway cruising rpm or drivability too much. So if 3.42:1s are good, wouldn't 4.33:1s be awesome?  No!!  Here's why. 1st off-the stock L78 400-while having a lot of torque for a low-compression "smog" engine-is pretty much all done in by 5,000 rpm. With the 4.33:1 gears you'd literally run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4 mile!!  And having the motor buzzing at 3,800 rpm at 65 mph on the freeway wouldn't really be a pleasant driving experience!!  Especially with big blocks-gearing isn't as important as people would have you think. I swapped the 3.08:1 gears in my Hurst / Olds for some 4.10:1s figuring it would make it really a rocket off the line. You know what's funny? The car wasn't one iota faster in low gear. My 60 ft time didn't change one ounce. It was however noticeably faster in the 1/4 and MUCH stronger on the top-end in 2nd and 3rd, due to the extra torque multiplication! Huh?  That's because the 455 had enough torque to launch the car quickly even with the 3.08:1s. And the 4.10:1s only worked because the 455 had a hot Lunati cam, headers and an Edelbrock Torker intake and I shifted it at 6,200 rpm ( 1-2 ) and 6,500 rpm ( 2-3 ). If the engine had been stock-where it had massive torque but was all done in by 5,200 rpm-like I said I'd have run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4.  Gears mainly help small engines-a 302 Ford, a 327 Chevy a 340 Mopar-these high winding engines are going to do better with 3.91:1 or 4.30:1 gears than say a 440 or a 454 or a 460. I know a guy who built a mega-torque 454 for his '74 Chevelle Laguna. The car ran 12.80s with 2.73:1 gears. Pretty impressive. He figured hell-I swap in some 3.73:1s and break into the high 11s easily. He swapped the gears and the car was faster, but not much. With the 3.73:1s it only ran 12.40s. He hit the point of diminishing returns. Yes, he could have hit the 11s-but he'd have needed a bigger cam, a higher stall speed converter, maybe a bigger carb and intake-which would have ruined the cars drivability and idle quality. What made it so cool was it purred like a kitten-till you hit the loud pedal-and then "Dr Jekyll" turned into "Mr Hyde!".  To get to the 11s he'd have had to live with "Mr Hyde" all the time!  Which he didn't want. He switched back to the 2.73:1s because he liked the top-end on the highway and the relaxed cruising at 65-75 mph. So be careful, and try to err on the side of caution-but remember-"basic" guidelines are always set for a stock small-block Chevy!!  Hope this helps everyone out. Mastermind                     

Besides being "Period Correct" "Old School" parts can really rock...

If your "Restifying" a '60's or '70's car you probably want it to run like a scalded cat, but you don't want a bunch of 21st century parts on it. I get it-you want your say '68 Camaro to look 60's cool under the hood. You don't want an MSD HEI distributor, Vortec heads, a Performer RPM intake and a Demon carb, etc. Well don't despair. There's a lot of "Old School" parts out there at swap meets and on the internet that still make SERIOUS power, and have the added bonus of being "Period Correct". Here's stuff to look for. #1. Aftermarket Intake Manifolds. As long as their not cracked, a 40 year old intake will flow air and fuel just as well today as it did 40 years ago. In the '70s Edelbrock had some single-plane intakes for small and big block Chevys. There was the Torker, the Tarantula and the Scorpion. They all really rocked from 3,000-7,000 rpm or so. Now a modern Performer RPM or Torker II or Victor Jr might make a bit more hp and torque on a dyno-But on a given engine-say a hot 350 or even a 454-in real-world drivability or at the drags I doubt that you'd notice a difference in the seat of your pants or on a timeslip. And this just doesn't apply to Chevys. Edelbrock still makes the "Old" Torker for some engines-351C Fords, 455 Olds,360-401 AMCs. Holley had a line of single-plane intakes in the '70's and 80's-they were called "Street Dominator" and "Strip Dominator"- and they worked great. The "Street Dominators" made power from idle to 5,500 rpm. The "Strip Dominators" made power from 3,000-7,200.  I had one on my 403 Olds powered '77 T/A, and I had one on a 400 Pontiac powered '78. They were also available for small and big block Chevys, small and big block Fords, and Mopars. A buddy put a "Strip Dominator" on his 396 Chevelle and it made a Huge difference in the mid-range and top-end performance, and didn't really hurt the the bottom end. Weiand had their "X-Celerator" line of manifolds, and Offenhauser had a line of single and dual-quad intakes. I had an Offy Dual-Quad intake on my Judge and it was awesome. I have one in a box in my garage that I bought from PAW years ago in case I decide to build another Stompin' Pontiac!  The point I'm making is these parts are great buys, their "Period Correct" and honestly-if a modern Performer RPM or Team G makes 10-15 more hp-guess what? You won't miss it!  # 2. "Old-Style" distributors. Accel and Mallory still make point-type and electronic old-style-i.e.- point-type cap design distributors. Petronix makes an excellent electronic conversion that fits under a point-type cap and looks stock. Their still selling because they still work-way better than a 40 or 50 year old stock point type-and they don't ruin an "Old-School" car's look like a large-cap HEI or an MSD Billett distributor would. # 3. "Classic" or "Reproduction" Cams. Crane, Lunati, Competition Cams, and other companies all offer exact replicas of classic musclecar cams, both hydraulic and solid-lifter designs. Since people can't see the cam-I'd go with a more modern design that's computer optimized and has more power and torque,more vacuum at idle, better gas mileage etc. But if you "Gotta Have" the classic sound and feel, there's nothing wrong with an "Old School" cam. The classic 350 hp 327 Chevy cam won't pass smog like the later L46 / L82 cam-( which had identical duratuon and lift, but less overlap ) or make as much peak power as a modern Comp Cams Magnum or Edelbrock Torker II design-but in a 350 or 383 with 3.42:1 or stiffer gears it will rock-n-roll, and pull hard to 6,500 rpm. The same goes for other classics-you can buy a cam that makes more power and torque than the "440 Magnum" cam-but the old standby will be good enough for 99% of the people who love Mopars. And if your car is say an L78 Chevelle-nothing sounds like a high-compression, solid-lifter Rat motor at full wail!!  I don't care if a new hydraulic "Rollin Thunder" roller can make 25 more hp, it can't touch the sound!!!  Anyhow-you can have the classic look and great performance with these Old School parts. Like Arnold said in the last Terminator movie-while kicking some serious ass- "Old, not Obsolete."  Amen. Mastermind        

More tips from the vault of vast experience...

Here's some more tidbits I've learned over the years that may save people some money or grief when restoring a car.  # 1. I don't like Holley carbs. Other people have had great success with them, but in 40 years I have never had much luck with Holleys. The power valves blow,the floats sink, they bleed over. The double-pumpers get horrible mileage even by musclecar standards. When I bought a ZZ4 GMPP crate engine a few years ago it came with a brand new 770 cfm Holley Avenger carb, supposed calibrated specifically for the ZZ4 by GM and Holley. It worked for about three weeks. Then the car became very hard to start when hot. I would have to crank and crank the engine to get it to start. Thank God I had a strong battery and starter! It also developed a stumble at low-speeds. I replaced it with a Jet Performance Quadrajet and the car ran flawlessly and started easy cold or hot. I've had this experience on many cars owned by me, or my friends or my customers. I have had great luck with Carter AFB's, with Edelbrock Performers, with Quadrajets, with Carter Thermo-Quads, and Demons. I'm not disparaging Holley Products-I'm just saying that I personally never had much luck with them. That's why I always recommend Edelbrock carbs-I've never had a problem with one of them.  # 2. I don't like Champion Spark Plugs. I've had great luck with AC, Autolite, and NGK plugs in domestic and import cars and motorcycles over the years. Champions seem to foul a lot. And it doesn't matter how rich or lean the carb is. I've had people with cars and bikes that ran horrible. Swapped the Champion plugs for Autolites or NGKs-ran like a champ. Again-other people swear by Champions. I swear at them. Just my experience. # 3. Don't use Auto Parts store Ignition components. I don't care if it's Autozone, Pep Boys, Napa or whatever-these "house brand" points don't work. They will close up, they'll bounce over 4,000 rpm won't hold a dwell setting. The rotors burn up, the caps arc between cylinders, the stuff is terrible. If your running a point-type distributor use Genuine AC-Delco points, condenser, rotor and cap on GM stuff, Motorcraft stuff on Fords and Mopar Performance stuff on Chryslers. Or use Accel, Mallory, or MSD parts. These premium brands have brass contacts instead of potmetal or aluminum, and the plastic is higher grade. Ditto for wires. The house brand wires break, they jump fire between cylinders, cause static in your radio, etc.  If your not using Delco, Motorcraft, or Mopar wires then use Borg-Warner, Accel, MSD, or Mallory. You'll get much better performance and reliability with the premium components. # 4. Use Hooker or Hedman or Doug Thorely Headers. These three brands have given me many years of trouble-free performance on various vehichles. Whenever I had a customer with major exhaust leaks, warped or cracked headers or constantly blowing exhaust gaskets, they invariably had some "off brand" of headers like Blackjack, Flow Tech, etc. When they switched to Hooker or Hedman, no more problems. They use a higher grade of steel to start with, their machining is better, their contact surfaces are straighter. If your going to put headers on your car-spend the 300 or so bucks for these. The $129 specials will give you nothing but grief-ill-fitting, leaking, cracking, etc.  #5. Don't use "House Brand" cams. I have never had a problem with Crane, Lunati, or Edelbrock Cams. People who have bought Summit cams, Chet Herbert cams, Howards cams, etc-have had them go flat in less than 3,000 miles, backfire through the carburator etc. Stick with the name brands. They flat work. Crane and Lunati offer exact replicas of classic musclecar cams both solid and hydraulic if you want to go that route. They also have some that are computer optimized and actually make more power and torque and retain good idle quality. Think-do you want a 1964 camshaft profile or a 2016 one?  Anyhow-I'm not disparaging certain products, I'm just stating what I've had good and bad luck with. And hopefully that will save people some money and hassle. Mastermind  

In 40+ years of experience you learn some things....

A lot of people ask me why I often contradict articles written in the buff magazines, or that I blithely poo-poo some "Experts" advice on what you "Gotta Have".  Here's why. My dad was a gearhead and restored and raced cars for many years. My mother says-not joking-that I could swap valvesprings in a small-block Chevy cylinder head before I could ride a two-wheel bike!  I worked in car dealers and independent shops for 38 years, and my friends and I drag-raced cars, ran "Street Stock", "Hobby Stock" and "Super Stock" cars on circle tracks for 20+ years. You learn quite a bit from your own experiences, and from talking to other people about theirs. That's why I'm confident, and yes I'll admit-sometimes even arrogant about my opinions. Anyhow-today I'll play "Mythbuster", and tell you why you don't need many of the "Gotta Haves" that you read about in the buff magazines.  # 1. Drivetrain and Suspension / Brake Upgrades. Have you noticed that every single magazine project car of late has a custom Currie-built 9 inch Ford rear end, a Richmond or Tremec 5 or 6-speed stick, or a beefed up 700R4 or 4L80E overdrive automatic and a Wildwood 4-wheel disc brake setup worthy of a NASCAR Nextel Cup car?  I'm all for safety and reliability, but honestly-let's take a look at Hot Rod's "Project Disco"-a 1978 Z/28 Camaro. First off the name implies that they were going to do a late '70's style project. Which would have been cool, with flared fenders, Minilite Wheels, and a snarling small or big-block Chevy. No-like all the mags-they should change their name to "Modern Fuelie Swap Monthly"-they put an LS3 and a six-speed in it!!  That's not very "Disco-era" at all!!  However-even choosing the modern LS motor-they spent a ton of money they didn't need to. '78 Z/28's had either a BW T10 4-speed manual or a TH350 automatic as standard equipment. Either one would have bolted up to the LS engine, and worked just fine. They didn't need to spend an extra 3 grand on the six-speed conversion. For what? To reduce freeway crusing rpm by 500 rpm?  Ditto for the rear axle. '78 Z/28's have an 8.5 inch ring gear positraction rear end with either 3.42:1 or 3.73:1 gears. Perfect for a street / strip machine. And their tough. I've had 400 and 455, 4-speed Trans-Ams with this rear end, and popped the clutch at 4,000 rpm many times drag racing or just screwing around and never broke the rear end. As for the brakes-are they saying that the factory front disc / rear drum setup isn't adequate to stop the car safely in daily driving or on a weekend trip to the drags? I have a friend who Autocrossed a '76 T/A ( They use the same braking system as the Camaro ) very successfully with the stock brakes. He figured out that if he used Bendix or Ferodo Police-Spec Semi-Metallic D52 pads and Dot 5 fluid, that the brakes would not fade, even after back to back to back runs!!  In fact-the main problem was the Dot 3 fluid boiling and causing a mushy pedal. With the Dot 5 fluid-everything was peachy. Same thing for a Circle-Track racer who had a '70's Camaro front clip on his "Super Stock" champion car that ran on 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile tracks. Even on a 50 lap main event on a 1/4 mile track-his stock braking system never faded-if he used Dot 5 fluid and the Police-Spec pads!!  So this project car in no way "needed" the additonal 10 grand that they spent on the Currie 9 inch rear,Wildwood 4-wheel disc setup and six-speed conversion!! They do that stuff to sell their advertisers products. They have to to stay in business. But honestly-I have never seen anyone break a Chrysler 8 3/4 inch rear, ( Even with a 505 stroker with nitrous in a 9 second Duster! ) or an 8.5 Gm 10 Bolt. Does that extra 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch on the ring gear really make that much difference?  I guess if you were running a 720 hp GMPP 572 with a stick or a TH400 with a 5,000 rpm converter and a trans-brake and wrinklewall slicks bolted to the rims, it might. But for the other 99% of you-you probably don't NEED a Dana 60 or a custom 9 inch rear!!!  Same thing for transmissions. Unless you have over 500 hp-a TH350 or a C4 will work fine with a shift kit and the proper cooler. You don't "Gotta Have" a TH400 or a C6. Some of the newer T10s advertised in Summitt may only show a 375 lb torque rating. Puhleeze. GM used the T10 ( the design has never changed, only the metallurgy of the gears and the modern ones are a lot stronger than the old ones ) behind Super Duty 421 Pontiacs and 409 Chevys-that easily had over 500 lbs ft of torque!!  The T5 BW 5-speeds used in '80's Camaros and Mustangs supposedly only have a 300 lb torque rating. I know a guy that swapped in a STRONG 350, and it lasted 13 months with him going to the drags every weekend and powershifting through probably 30 hard passes a week! If he'd drove the car normally ir probably would have lasted 5 years!  I know Mustang racers with nitrous that run 10s and have never blown their T5. I wouldn't put one behind a 454 or a 392 stroker, but you get the gist. You don't need to upgrade your tranny on your 302 'Stang or 305 IROC-Z because you installed an Edelbrock intake and matching cam!!  # 2. Bottom-end and Valvetrain Beef.  "You gotta have a 4-bolt main block" "You gotta have a forged crank." "You gotta have screw-in studs" "You gotta have forged pistons" and so on. These "Experts" are half-right. If your building a NASCAR engine that has to go 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona, yes you need all the beef you can get. But for a STREET engine, that will never see the high side of 6,500 rpm, and only maybe get the occasional weekend trip to the drags-you don't need all that stuff. Save your money for cams, headers, carb and intake, gears, etc-stuff that really gives you "bang for the buck". Here's why. People don't know-it's not load or rpm that breaks things. It's SUSTAINED load. That's why through the '70's and '80's GM medium and heavy-duty trucks with 350 Chevys in them always had 4-bolt mains and steel cranks, even though Camaros and Corvettes often had 2-bolt main blocks and cast cranks. Huh? The reason is the trucks were going to be constantly loaded and or towing heavy loads which put much more strain on the crank than the occasional full-throttle blast of the Camaro and Corvette owner. Ford NEVER had a forged crank for 351 Cleveland engines. And neither did the aftermarket. Yet drag racers like "Dyno Don" Nicholson and Bob Glidden ran 9 second 1/4s in Pro Stock, often shifitng at 8,000 rpm with stock 351C cranks!! Bud Moore and Bobby Isaac campaigned a 351C Torino in NASCAR with a stock crank. They were that tough. As for rods-most people don't know it-about 97% of rod failure-even in racing engines occurs AT THE BOLT. So if your rebuilding an engine-you don't need an ultra-expensive set of Eagle or Milodon forged rods. A set of chrome-moly rod bolts is good insurance. Even on supposedly "weak" factory rods. Pontiac rods ( Except for forged Super Duty's ) have a reputation for being "weak". However my friends and relatives have had numerous GTOs and Firebirds and Ventura project cars over the years-many which ran in the 11s or 12s-so they had SERIOUS power-and as long rpms were limited to 6,400 on a 400 or 5,800 on a 455-we never had a rod failure!!  Ditto for forged pistons. Their noisy, and they require loose clearances ( they expand when hot ) so they use some oil. Cast pistons run quiet and are dead-reliable. I'd recommend forged pistons only if you going to run a blower or nitrous. And to that I'd ask-if you have that much money and need to go that fast-then why aren't you building a 454 instead of a 350? Or a 440 instead of a 360? Or whatever-you get the point. As for valvetrain-people will tell you you have to have screw-in studs, or roller rockers, or chrome-moly pushrods, or a stud girdle, or whatever. Again-if your buidling that NASCAR engine, yes. A street / strip machine or even a short-track racer?  No. I know guys who have ran small-block Chevy and Ford engines in circle-track racing classes for years with two-bolt main blocks, cast cranks and pistons and stock heads and have run the engines two whole seasons without a problem. And these engines are under much more sustained load than your street car will ever be. As for failures-I've seen broken valve springs, broken pushrods, broken rocker arms, and jumped timing chains. But in 40 years I have NEVER seen a stud pull out of a head!!  So before you spend your hard-earned money on a bunch of beef and machine work that you don't really need, talk to some of us old guys. We might be able to save you big bucks. Mastermind
           

Make sure everything's right before you start throwing parts at it....

A lot of people ask me how to get the most performance out of a certain car for a certain budget,and they always ask-what should I buy first? Gears? Headers? A carb and intake? One thing they forget is to make sure the car is in top operating condition BEFORE you start modifying it. Here's a list of important things that many people don't check. # 1. Do a simple compression test. Even an 8:1 "smog" motor will have 120-130 psi of compression. Higher performance engines will have 150 psi or more. The main thing is the readings should be uniform for all 8 cylinders-within 5-10 psi of each other. If one or more cylinders only has 80 or 90 psi-you could have a serious problem like burned valves, bad rings or a blown head gasket. You'd be amazed at the number of cars I see limping around on 6 or 7 cylinders.  # 2. No high rpm power. I'm not talking about 7,000 or 8,000 rpm; many cars don't have the valvetrain or bottom-end for that. But a 318 Dodge with a 2bbl and 150,000 miles on it will rev to 5,000 rpm or so. If the car starts missing or popping above 3,500-4,000 rpm, you could have a flat cam or excessive timing chain slop. You'd be amazed at the number of cars I see with $5,000 paint jobs and $2,000 worth of tires and wheels that can't pull 5,000 rpm in low gear. # 3. Bad Ignition. This one is probably the most prevalant. I see cars all the time where the vacuum advance is unplugged or inoperable, the timing is way too slow or way too advanced, the points are closing up, it has one or more bad wires, a cracked distributor cap, etc. Again-you see cars with $5,000 paint jobs sputtering around and the owner can't tell you the last time-if ever-he changed the points,plugs, and cap, rotor and wires!!  # 4. Bad or improperly adjusted carb(s). I see cars all the time where the throttle linkage doesn't open fully, the kickdown cable isn't hooked up,the throttle shafts are warped, the float is sinking, their jetted way too rich or way too lean, theirs vacuum leaks everywhere. It's worse on Tri-Power Pontiacs, Six-Pack Mopars, 409 Impalas, Hemi Chryslers, and other multi-carb vehicles I may have missed. Their so afraid of blowing it up that they drive it like grandma on Prozac. It never sees the high side of 3,000 rpm, and usually is only driven on and off the trailer. Then, the second it fouls a spark plug, the owner starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. Here's how to avoid this. Put your 50 year old, numbers-matching carb in a box in case you ever want to sell the car or re-install it for a Concours show. New Holley or Edelbrock 4bbls work pretty damn good out of the box on 99% of applications. If you have a multi-carb setup-take it to a shop that has an infrared anaylyzer and a carb synchronizer and have them re-jet or adjust the carbs properly and then leave them alone!!  If your going to drive it like grandma, then go a range or two hotter on the plugs. If you decide to take a road trip or go to the drags, changing back to the colder heat range plugs for high-speed driving is pretty easy. And like the GTO song-once in a while you need to "Turn it on, wind it up, blow it out". I'm not saying run your Hemi 'Cuda to 7 grand and risk putting a picture window in the side of the block; But running it up to say 4,500 rpm through the gears occasionally or a full-throttle blast up a freeway on-ramp once in a while will go a long way towards keeping it running properly for when you DO want to put the hammer down. # 5. Bad transmissions. You'd be amazed at the number of cars I see with slipping or chattering clutches, shift linkages that bind up, automatics that are 2 qts low on fluid, or the fluid looks like mud, the vacuum modulator is unplugged or inoperable, etc. If you have a stick make sure the linkage works properly and that the clutch isn't slipping and is adjusted properly. Hurst has a rebuild program where you can send in your factory shifter and they'll re-furbish it with new bushings, shift rods, etc. If you have an automatic-make sure the fluid is clean and full. Make sure the vacuum modulator is working properly and that the kickdown linkage is hooked up properly. A B&M or TransGo shift improver kit is pretty simple to install and will greatly improve shift quality and performance. Making sure these simple things are right can make a huge difference in preformance. A shop I worked at had a dyno and we offered performance dyno tuning. Even on a bone-stock engine, bad tuning can cost you as much as 50 hp!  So before you go plunk down your credit card for a cam kit, or headers or a carb / intake combo or a high-stall converter or whatever-make sure the car is in top running condition to begin with. A hot cam isn't going to help if you've got a blown head gasket!  Mastermind    

You may not always like what I say....But it'll be the truth!!

Had some people upset with my review of  "John Wick Chapter 2" and my bagging on "Gator"-the "White Lightning" follow-up. What did you want me to do, lie and say I liked them?  Both the "John Wick" movies had plot holes you could drive a semi through. And I am sick of CGI. Guy jumps six feet in the air, rotates his body clockwise, kicks 3 guys in the face, does a backflip and lands on his feet. It can't be done, we know it can't be done, we know the actor isn't doing it, so why put it on screen?  Is the target audience 13 year old boys?  At least if Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme, or Jackie Chan, did something even if it looked inelegant-you knew you had an actor / athlete doing something 99% of the rest of the population couldn't do. Classics like "Bullitt" and the "Seven-Ups" and the "French Connection" are still watchable today because you had brave stuntmen and actors- ( Steve McQueen and Gene Hackman did some of the stunt driving in "Bullitt" and the "French Connection" ) doing great things with great cars. Unlike the CGI dreck of the "Transporter" movies and the later "F&F" movies. ( The 4th one was the last one that had any remotely believable or do-able stunts. Like putting lead in the rear bumper of Vin Diesel's Chevelle to make it wheelie )  Anyhow-"White Lightning" was a good movie. "Gator" wasn't.  "Smokey and the Bandit" was a cute and funny, light-hearted car-chase comedy.  The second "Bandit" was awful-with the pregnant elephant and Jackie Gleason's Buford T. Justice having triplett brothers,-ugh!!  The Original "Death Wish" was a compelling commentary on crime in society, and one man's 180 degree reversal of his beliefs after his family's tragic attack. Bronson should have got an Oscar.  Bronson was also great in the original "Mechanic" and in the Elmore Leonard penned "Mr. Majestyk". The multiple "Death Wish" sequels that he phoned in in the '80's and '90's were terrible, even by mindless action-movie standards. If something's good I'll say it, and If something's bad, I'll say it. And you can have good and bad things in the same film. For example I liked "The Driver" with Ryan O' Neal and Bruce Dern for the most part. Except for the finale. O' Neal is driving a 2wd, stick-shift ( those '70's trucks were so awful to shift with those "granny" transmissions ) '76 Chevy Pickup. The guy he's chasing is driving a '76 Trans-Am. If the truck was a 454 / TH400 a drag race would have been competitive, but going around corners over city streets?  The T /A would leave him in 2 blocks!!  Ironically-earlier in the film, O 'Neal was driving a '77 Firebird!!  Now if he was chasing the T/A in that, it would have been believable!!  And as for the women in "White Lightning" and "Gator"-like I said-Jennifer Billingsley was sexy as hell and played her part perfectly. Lauren Hutton was as wooden as she always was, and at the time the movie was made-Burt Reynolds was 40 and she was 33. Both too old for the '70's "meet cute" "I hate you, now I love you" bullshit that was popular in the late '70's / early '80's. And her "Plucky Girl Reporter" schtick made me think-"Nancy Fuckin' Drew"-at 35!!  ( If you don't know Nancy Drew was a teenage-girl detective in several young adult books and a TV series starring a pre-Dynasty Pamela Sue Martin ). Anyhow-her New York TV Station bound city girl would have thought Gator was coarse and a hick, and Gator would have thought her stuck-up and longed for another roll in the hay with the barefoot "Shake a Puddin"!!  I just couldn't care if they had sex or not!!  And they could have really dug into "Bama McCall's" character-which they didn't. And the crazy lady with the cats?  Whose Idea was that?  Anyhow-hopefully the next flick with musclecars in it will be better written and directed. And I'll tell you honestly if it is, or if it isn't!!  Mastermind  

"Gator" just doesn't cut the mustard...

There's talk of Quentin Tarantino doing a remake of "White Lightning." I gave my opinion on that in a previous post, and a lot of people consider "White Lighning" not only a great action film and a "cult classic" but perhaps Burt Reynolds' best work besides "Deliverance."  I agree. "Lightning" was a lean, mean revenge thriller with a great cast and great action. It opens with "Gator" being visited in prison by his cousin, telling him that his college-student younger brother has been murdered in Bogen county and that they think the corrupt sheriff was involved. After a botched escape attempt, Gator cuts a deal with the feds to get the Sheriiff on income-tax evasion and bribery charges in exchange for getting out of prison. Burt was at the top of his game-this was when he still acted-before "The Longest Yard" and "Smokey and the Bandit" and "Cannonball Run" where he began phoning in his "Good Ol' Boy" persona in lighweight comedies. Ned Beatty-was awesome as the Corrupt Sheriff Connors-his scary performance rivaling Strother Martin's in "Cool Hand Luke". ( "What we have here is a failure to communicate." ) Since he was the meek businessman raped in "Deliverance" his portrayal of an evil, sadistic southern badass shows exceptional range as an actor. Bo Hopkins and R.G. Armstrong were excellent as corrupt moonshiner's, as was Matt Clark as a tragic government informant who reluctantly helps Gator. Jennifer Billingsley just oozed sex as "Shake a Puddin'"-her dark brown roots showing in her bleach-blond hair, barefoot in that skimpy mini-sundress for most of the movie, nailing the southern slut that men die and kill for. Others have tried it-Kim Basinger in "No Mercy", Teri Hatcher in "Heaven's Prisoner's" and most recently Reese Witherspoon in "Mud", but none come close to Jennifer's performance. Anyhow-Matt Clark's advice to Gator early on plays out. "If you want to get that Sheriff, your gonna have to kill him." "Gator" opens after the events of "White Lighning", with Gator out of prison and living in a Swamp with his father and teenage daughter. Ok-here's a cutesy twist- and a big plot hole that just doesn't fly. In the first film, there's no mention of Gator having any kids. He visited his mother and father on a large family farm. His dad-who had apprently retired from making illegal moonshine and was living happily on this farm, was angry at Gator for working for the Feds and refused to speak to him further after finding out he was turning "liquor people" over to the Feds. His mother was sad, and didn't want him to get killed like his brother. So what happened to his mother? There's no mention of her dying or leaving the old man. And what happened to the family farm? There's no mention of it being lost to foreclosure or back taxes. And where did this teenage kid come from? There's no mention of her mother, ever. So the Feds tell Gator they'll throw him back in Jail and take his kid away unless he helps nail "Bama Mc Call"-a gangster who runs drugs and prostitution and extortion all over the State of Georgia. Why Georgia? "Gator" was set in Arkansas. Jerry Reed does a fair job as a sawed-off shotgun toting crimelord. The rest of the movie is a wreck. It's like the director-Reynolds in his directing debut-couldn't decide if he wanted to make a badass southern fried revenge tale-ala-"A Small Town in Texas" or a dipshit comedy. There's the lard-ass, bumbling New Yorker Fed "Irving Greenfield" and the crazy cat lady, who get involved in the investigation. There's also model Lauren Hutton-who's best work was spending a lot of time naked in "Little Fauss and Big Halsy" as a TV reporter who senses a big story-but comes off as a too-old and too feminist Nancy Drew. Her and Burt have no chemistry whatsoever-unlike the white heat he and Billingsly had in "Lightning"-you really can't care about their by-the-numbers romance that can't go anywhere. Even the fight-to the finish between Bama and Gator on a beach isn't that good. It's just a mess. They tried to do too much very late '70's social issues laced with inane comedy. They should have delved into Gator and "Bama's relationship more. Did they go to high school together?  Serve in the Army together? Do time in prison together? Why do they have this great mutual respect even though their on opposite sides of the law?  Anyway-people ask often why there wasn't a "Lightning" sequel. There was, it just wasn't very good!  Mastermind          

John Wick Chapter 2 is just as bad as the first....

Back in 2014 Keanu Reeves had a surprise hit playing a retired hitman who goes on a rampage of vengance after his wife dies and the puppy she left him is killed and his 1969 Boss 429 Mustang is stolen by Russian mobsters. It had plot holes you could drive a semi-truck through-( Why did this supposedly healthy, gorgeous, maybe 35 year old woman played by-Bridget Moniyhan-Tom Brady's ex and Tom Selleck's daughter on "Blue Bloods"-suddenly drop dead? And how did she know the exact moment of her demise so she could send him the puppy the day of her funeral? )  Why and how did he have such a unique car as a Boss 429, that's probably worth $250,000?  Besides the plot holes, it also had a bunch of over-the-top action sequences and the kill-ratio of an arcade game. Anyhow it made a pile of money, which of course spawned a sequel.  Chapter 2 opens with a pretty good chase scene between a motorcycle and a 1970 SS396 Chevelle-which chop-shop owner John Leguizamo had loaned Wick in the first one after the theft of the "Boss". You don't see the driver's face, until he's searching the dead motorcyclist for something. He finds the lead, and goes to a taxi company / chop shop, Where the brother of the Russian gangster he killed in part one has the Boss 429 and other hot premium high-end cars stored. Here I start to cringe. The Russian mobster's underling has the right idea. "If this man is so lethal,why don't we just give the car back and apologize and avoid further bloodshed?"  Of course that reasonable idea is nixed. Now I start to cringe. The Boss gets basically destroyed in a demolition derby / chase with gangsters in taxis and on motorcycles. As I watch it I hope the stunt crew bought a beater '69 Mach 1 and dressed it in Boss regalia-spoilers,scoops,louvers etc. Even if the original movie grossed hundreds of millions I hope that no one would actually destroy a "real" Boss 429!!!  It was sickening to watch if you like musclecars. Anyway he kills everyone, has a drink and declares a truce with the gangster and limps the totalled Boss home. He buries his weapons again and decides to retire again. Leguizamo shows up with a tow truck and promises to restore the Boss to it's former glory. Again were treated to small cell-phone camera glimpses of the smokin' hot Bridget Moniyhan, but no "flashback" back story of how this wonderful woman got involved with a mob hitman, no clue to what killed her-heart attack, brain tumor? Poison by his enemies?  Nothing. That's maddening in itself.  They could have had just a few minutes of scenes of them together explaining their relationship that would have went a long way to making it a better film, and explaining the first one. Nope. We've got explosions and video-game violence to get back to. Can't waste time on stuff like dialogue or character development!!  This other gangster who supposedly helped Wick retire the first time is calling in the favor wanting Wick to kill his sister who has a seat on the high commission of gangsters. Of course the commission won't disallow this prick from inheriting her position after he has her murdered, right? Another UPS truck-size plot hole. Wick refuses so the guy blows up his house. Wick then goes to the "Continental" a chain of luxury hotels / safehouses ( this was introduced in the first one ) where hitmen and other intelligence types can find sanctuary and no killing is allowed on the premises. Ian McShane returns as the proprietor of the place and tells Wick that he has to do the job for the guy, that all contracts must be honored. So Wick goes to Rome where the sister is having a big party. Upon meeting Wick they have a polite conversation about her brother's plot, and she takes her clothes off, slashes her wrists and bleeds to death while Wick holds her hand and apologises. Now the fact that she killed herself, I would think might go a long way to getting Wick off the hook with the powers that be, and screwing the brother. No he puts a bullet in her head anyway. Why? She was already dead, so why "Sign" your work?  He almost escapes when he runs into the Rapper "Common"-who was excellent on the western series "Hell on Wheels" as Anson Mount's sometime friend / nemesis. Common was the woman's bodyguard. Him and Reeves shoot each other-but they both have bulletproof suits on. So now Common and a bunch of other thugs go after Reeves who has to mow them all down in more arcade game style violence. Common and Reeves have a big fight that ends in the lobby of the Rome "Continental" where manager Franco Nero reminds them of the "no-kill" rule and offers to buy them both a drink. They have a drink and agree to kill each other another time. The brother of the slain woman then double-crosses Wick, instead of declaring his debt paid, he puts out an open contract for $7 million to avenge his sister. Now professional hitmen ( and women ) come out of the woodwork at every turn causing Reeves to show a good bit of athleticism and martial-arts training as well as much gunplay and knife-fighting. There's also a hitwoman / bodyguard of the crooked brother that for some unexplained reason is a mute that commuicates in sign language, but apparantly has the training of a Navy Seal. There's also Laurence Fishburne who apparently is some kind of intelligence operative that has an army of people also with Navy Seal type training and state of the art weaponry that masquerade as homeless people. This is never explained either. Reeves has to kill Common on a train, and about fifty other people including the mute girl before catching up with the guy who betrayed him in the bar of the "Continental". Ian McShane begs him not to do it, but Wick blows the guys brains out in the bar, violating the Cardinal Rule. Why? The guy can't live in the safehouse forever. You wait until he comes out and get him on the street. Or since Ian McShane knew the whole story, and thought Wick was totally being screwed-they could have went  to the "Commission" and had the other guy "excommunicated".  No the director wanted to rip off Charles Bronson ,Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, and every other '70's action star for one moment. Which paints him into a corner. Mc Shane has no choice but to "excommunicate" Wick from the "Continental's" services. This of course will set up "Chapter 3" with more video-game mayhem. Too bad. If they'd spent a little more on story and character development, and a little less on blood and bullets and mayhem, they might have really had something. Instead you got two hours of "Grand Theft Auto". When is Hollywood going to learn?  Not until people stop paying good money for dreck like this and the "Fast&Furious". That sequel is coming out too. How did "Dominic Toretto" go from street-racing thug to James Bond? That's another rant for another time...Mastermind      

More "Factory Freaks" that people think are valuable....But Aren't!!

Some people were offended by me saying that certain cars aren't valuable, just weird. Sorry if the truth hurts, people. Here's some more people who think they have a diamond that's really a chunk of coal. # 1. 1972 Chevelle SS. From 1966-1970 the "SS" moniker on a Chevelle meant a Rat motor-usually a 396, for 1970 a 402 ( marketed as a 396, but actually 402 inches ) or a 454. For some reason in 1971 Chevrolet made the SS option available on any V8 Malibu. Which meant you could have a badass looking ride with a 2bbl 307 V8 that wheezed out 130 hp. This clown had the L65 350 with a 2bbl that had 165 hp. Of course because it's "rare" he thinks it's worth major bucks. Sorry, pal "rare" doesn't always mean "valuable".  # 2. 1972 Olds 442. Same thing here. From 1965-71 the 442 was it's own model and had either 400 ( 1965-69 ) or 455 ( 1970-71 ) cubes as standard equipment. In '72 the 442 package became an "Appearance and Handling" package on any 2 dr Cutlass model. So this guys 442 that has a 160 hp 2bbl 350, bench seats, and a column-shifted automatic is NOT worth as much as a 455, 4-speed W30 1970 model, even though there were fewer 350 2bbl models produced!!  Like I said about the "Turnpike Special" GTO-no one wants a Chevelle SS or 442 that can't outrun a 4-cylinder Honda Accord from a light!!  # 3. 1979 Trans-Am. For some insane reason in 1979 if you wanted to knock $150 off a ten grand sticker-in place of the 400 Pontiac and 403 Olds engines you got a 301 Pontiac V8 that wheezed out 150 hp. This guy is proud of his-it's black and gold-full "Bandit" regalia-T-Tops, 8 inch snowflake wheels, 4-wheel disc brakes, WS6 suspension, etc. It's a great looking car. That again-will gets it's ass handed to him by a soccer mom in a Camry. He doesn't understand why he can't sell it for $30,000!! Because hey-a buddy of his got 40k for his '79 T/A.  A 400, 4-speed,WS6, 10th Anniversary model with 8,000 original miles!!  Does the term "Apples and Oranges" come to mind?  # 4. 1971 T-37 Tempest. This guy was mortally offended when I suggested that he swap the 2bbl 350 / 3-speed manual for a 400 or 455 and a 4-speed, and put some front disc brakes on it from another A-body-( Chevelle, Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Buick Skylark, LeMans ) or get a conversion kit from Summit. "And ruin it's value?" he sneered incredulously. Tell me, what value does a 2bbl 350, 3-speed manual,4-wheel drum braked, strippy Tempest have?  If it had a 455HO ( which was an option ) and a Rock-Crusher 4-speed or a TH400 ( which were mandatory with the 455HO ) it would be worth major bucks. But If anyone actually wants a 350 Tempest or LeMans-who ISN'T planning on making a GTO clone-you can buy them for a lot less than this guy thinks his is worth. You can buy a Ram Air III Judge for less than what this guy THINKS the Tempest is worth!!  # 5. 1981 Z/28 Camaro. For some insane reason in 1981 if you bought a Z/28 with an automatic you got a 190 hp 350 backed by a TH350 and a 3.42:1 posi rear. If you wanted a 4-speed-you got a 305 that wheezed out 145 hp. I say insane reason because 1981 emission standards were not noticably stricter than 1980. And you could get a 350 / 4-speed combo in the Corvette. ( In 1980 Z/28's you could get a 4-speed with the 350. You got a 3.08:1 rear axle, but the tranny had a 3.44 1st and a 2.28 second. A great combo-harder acceleration than previous years 2.64 low and 3.73:1 rear, and much better fuel economy and top-speed on the highway! )  Anyhow-this guy is proud of his 305 model that even has the "Cowl Induction" hood. Sounds badass while you run 17 second 1/4's and get your lunch eaten by little boys in Honda Civics and soccer moms in non-turbo Subaru Foresters!!  He too was aghast when I suggested he swap in a healthy 350 or 383. If you want to buy and love some oddball car that's fine. I've always been a "Whatever Floats your Boat" kind of guy. But don't be offended and deride others who may not think it's the cat's meow, and might innocently point out that the same model with different options would be more valuable to the general public!!  Again-"Rare" doesn't always compute into "Valuable". There's a good reason why certain combinations didn't sell a lot!  Mastermind                

"Factory Freaks" aren't collectible....Their just weird!

I've had several people email me telling me about their ultra-rare cars, and some lamenting that they don't understand why they can't sell the car for the insane asking price-I mean after all it is 1 of 1 right?  A buddy of mine used to say "A Rare Turd, is still a Turd." Truer word were never spoken. Here's some of the more entertaining ones. # 1. 1966 427 Corvette. This guy is perplexed that even though he's asking $100,000 for the car-no one's even offered him 50. Why? you ask-427 Stingrays go for 50-100k all the time in Hemmings, right? What's wrong with this one?  It's a 390 hp 427 backed by a Powerglide!!  Why GM was doing this I don't know. The excellent 3-speed TH400 that was used well into the '90's was introduced in the "big" cars-i.e Chevy Impala, Pontiac Catalina, etc in 1965. Yet if you bought a musclecar-a 396 Chevelle, a GTO or 442-and wanted an automatic you got the awful 2-speed Powerglide / ST300. The TH400 wasn't used in GTO's or Chevelles until 1967! And why in God's name did they offer a Rat-motored 'Vette with one? You couldn't get a TH400 in a 'Vette until 1968!!  With a 1.76:1 low gear and a 1:1 second-anything with a Powerglide was a dog. ( TH400s have a 2.48:1 1st, a 1.48 2nd and a 1:1 third. TH350s have similar gearing-2.52,1.52,1:1.)  So even a 427 powered 'Vette is going to be a slug with a "Powerslide" and 3.08:1 or 3.36:1 gears, when others had a 4-speed and 3.70s or 4.11s!! On the upside-a TH350 is an exact bolt-in for a Powerglide-their the exact same length and use the same rear trans mount and driveshaft yoke. So the owner or a prospective buyer could swap in a TH350 and get a huge performance boost. But the exorbitant price he's asking-I mean let's be honest-I've seen documented L88's for 100 grand! And I've seen Tri-Power 435 hp, 4-speed models for 50-75!! People just go-okay that's unique, but not interested. # 2. 1967 GTO. This guy is proud of the fact that his GTO has 265 hp 2bbl engine-( The "Turnpike" special ) backed by a TH400 and 2.93:1 gears. Oh, and it has a Hurst Dual / Gate shifter. Why some dumb-ass sales manager ordered a GTO with a step-down engine and a ratchet shifter, I don't know. Maybe it was "price leader" come on gimmick. Anyway, this guy doesn't know why people aren't in awe of his pristine GTO that can't outrun a Honda Accord from a stoplight!  When I suggested he invest in a factory or aftermarket 4bbl carb and intake and some 3.55:1 gears to get a huge performance boost, he was aghast. "Modify a rare classic?" he said incredulously. Couldn't convince him that his car wasn't worth anything other than being a clean GTO body; he thinks it's worth more than a Ram Air IV Judge-because there's less of his model! Good luck with that. Which brings up Idiot # 3. 1980 Corvette. For a short time in 1980 Chevrolet had no 350 V8s cerified with California emissions. So while the other 49 states could buy 1980 Corvettes with a 190 hp L48 350 with either a 4-speed or a TH350, or the 230 hp L82 with a TH350-in California you could only get a 305 that wheezed out 145 hp backed by a slushbox. Enthusiasts and the buff magazines howled bloody murder. Chevrolet reacted quickly and got the 350s EPA Certified for California, and the great disturbance in the force was quelled. However, every once in a while you see some idiot advertsing his "Ultra-rare" 305 'Vette for sale for some outrageous price-usually more than what people ask for late '70's L82 / 4-speed Silver Anniversary or Indy Pace Car models. And their shocked that they have no offers. Anyhow-cars like this aren't collectible, their just weird. I've seen Mach 1 Mustangs with stripes,spoilers,hood scoops,rear window louvers, and Magnum 500 wheels-full badass regalia-with 2bbl 351s under the hood. I've seen Dodge Chargers with 2bbl 383s and 400s under the hood. Three-speed sticks, two-speed automatics, cars with no power steering, etc-are just odd. I've seen Pontiac Gran Prixs with 4-speed manuals behind 400s and 428s, I've seen Monte Carlos with 4-speed sticks, and with a three on the tree! Back in the '60's and '70's if something was standard equipment or optional-you can bet some idiot wanted it-no matter how odd it was. But I wouldn't pay big bucks for one. Here's a perfect example a guy is asking $70,000-that's righ I said seventy grand not seven-for a 1971 Dodge Demon. He say he can document that it's the only one sold by Mr Norm's Grand Spaulding Dodge. It has a 340 V8 that Mr Norms supposedly put a "Six-Pack" induction system on as a dealer-installed option. The car also has ugly plaid vynil bench seats, no power steering, no guages, four-wheel drum brakes, and it's a 3-speed stick. And it has a vynil top. On the same website their selling a pristine 1973 340 Duster that has a Torqeflite,bucket seats and a console, power steering, power front disc brakes, and factory a/c. And a factory sunroof. And it was priced at $29,000. I say priced because it sold in less than a week. Gee, wonder why the "1 of 1" Demon hasn't sold for 70K??  70 K? That's 440 / Six-Pack Charger or Challenger money pal, not for a strippy 340 Demon with ugly upholstery!!  Anyhow-unless their dirt-cheap, I'd avoid these "rare" turds. I mean birds. Mastermind

Why going for "Every Last Ounce" isn't always a good idea...

Gearheads have a tendency to never be satisfied, to always be looking for the next edge in performance. Sometimes that's a good thing, but sometimes it can bite you in the ass. Here's a few examples. # 1. "Air Gap" intake manifolds. NASCAR racers discovered that by raising the plenum and allowing air to flow under the runners, that they gained 10-15 hp on the top end because of the cooler fuel charge. Edelbrock, Holley and other companies began selling these "Air-Gap" manifolds to the public. In sunny California or at Daytona, this works fine. Whether or not you can actually feel a 10-15 hp gain in the average street car remains open for debate. However, in many northern or Rocky Mountain states people that ran out and bought these intakes were furious in the fall,winter and spring. Their cars would not start and idle properly, sometimes taking 20 minutes or more to warm up, and many wouldn't run at all because of carburator Icing! The buff magazines were deluged with angry letters, and Summit, Jeg's, and other retailers of speed parts were getting angry letters and emails from people demanding refunds, saying they re-installed their old intake so the car would start properly! That 15 hp wasn't looking that good now!  # 2. "We shall Overcam". As we all know-"bigger" isn't always better. Especially on a street machine with an automatic transmission,when it comes to cam selection, it's better to err on the side of caution. Here's a perfect example, and thankfully my friend didn't take the advice of the "expert" at Summitt. He had a '78 T/A with the W72 400, a TH350, and 3.23:1 gears. He installed the Edelbrock Performer package-heads, cam, intake and headers. According to Edelbrock this combo makes 387 hp and 439 lbs of torque and makes 15 inches of vacuum at idle. I believe it. This T/A would literally spin it's tires as long as you wanted to stay on the throttle, idled smooth, and had more power than you'd ever need. He was escatatic. Then some idiot salesman told him he should "upgrade" to the Performer RPM cam and intake because that combo made 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque. He asked me what I thought. I told him absolutely, positively do not change a thing on his car!!  Here's why-1st off-why spend a bunch of money and time to gain 35 hp and 2 lbs of torque? Honestly-all other things being equal-and especially with street tires-not slicks or drag radials-is a car with 422 hp going to be noticably quicker than one with 387 hp?  And-the "Performer RPM" cam is an exact replica of the factory RAIV cam-which was only available with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears for a reason! It barely makes 10 inches of vacuum at idle, and your giving up quite a bit of low-end and mid-range torque for top-end rush. To take full advantage of it, he'd need to swap his 3.23:1 gears for some 4.10s and he'd probably need a 2,500 rpm torque converter as well. Which would ruin the car's wonderful drivability. The motor buzzing at 3,500 rpm on the freeway at 70 mph is not pleasant. Luckily-he took my advice and is still very happy with his car's performance-with roughy 400 hp-it blows the doors off  95% of the stoplight challengers he encounters, it idles smooth, cruises effortlessly on the freeway and purrs like a kitten until you hit the loud pedal. He doesn't need that "last ounce" of performance at the expense of a LOT of good drivabilty. Motor Trend made this point in an ultra-exotic sports car comparo recently. They said they loved the Aston-Martin V12 Vantage for it's all around feel and great performance up to "8 or 9 / 10ths ". What they meant was-yes, the Nissan GTR, the Corvette Z06, the Porsche 911 Turbo were faster around the Nurburging and Willow Springs raceway. But 99 out of 100 people who buy them are never going to push the cars to that absolute limit. Hence-the 8 or 9 tenths comment. When is Joe Average going to run a Z06 or GTR or 911 Turbo absolutely flat-out?  The same goes for your musclecar. If all your doing is drag racing it, then by all means do everything you can to get every last tenth shaved off your time. But if your going to drive the car at all, it might behoove you to leave a tenth or two on the table in the interest of a pleasant Sunday drive or Wednesday night cruise!!  Mastermind  

Read the whole article before you decide to buy or not buy parts....

Like I said in a previous post a lot of people are disappointed in their projects because they read snippets of a magazine article or read some quote from some "expert" on the internet and then spend money-or worse yet-don't buy parts they need because they didn't read the whole article. Here's some examples of why taking one paragraph of an article is a bad idea.  # 1. High-Performance Pontiac magazine did an article called "Junkyard Jewel" about building up a 455 that they bought from-duh-a junkyard. It came out of a '76 Gran Prix. It had 7.6:1 compression and was factory rated at 200 hp. They did some baseline testing on the stock engine and then started throwing parts at it. The first thing they did was put a set of headers on it. This showed exactly no gain on the dyno. Then they put an Edelbrock Performer intake on it. This also showed no gain. They were perplexed. Then they put a hot cam in it, and it LOST power! This further perplexed them.  Then,one of these geniuses figured out that with 7.6:1 compression and the lazy "smog" cam-the engine didn't breathe enough to NEED the headers and the intake upgrade. And that the "hot" cam effectively lowered the static compression ratio to like 6:1-which killed what little power it did have. They added a set of 87cc Edelbrock Heads. In addition to the better breathing the much smaller ( stock was 114cc ) combustion chambers bumped the compression from 7.6:1 to like 9.2:1. With the stock iron intake and stock manifolds it gained almost 100 hp, but was all done in by 4,400 rpm. After re-installing the headers and the Performer intake, they gained another 100 hp. And it pulled hard to 5,700 rpm!  After fiddling with the timing,carb jetting and distributor curve-they ended up with 440 hp and 467 lbs ft of torque!!  A gain of 240 hp!! Not bad for heads, cam, intake and headers on a junkyard motor!!  The '76 intake had the EGR valve intruding into the throttle opening, which severely restricted power above 4,000 rpm!! After this article came out I talked to a guy that had a disco-era T/A. I told him the three biggest improvements he could make would be a Performer intake, headers and dual exhausts and swapping the 2.56:1 gears for some 3.42:1s would make it really rock. "Maybe I'll change the gears, but I read in High-performance Pontiac that headers and the intake didn't help" Arrrggghhhh!!!!  I told him to read the WHOLE article-that the intake and headers did help immensely-just not on an engine with the wrong cam and 6:1 compression!!  # 2. This guy bought a set of headers for his truck and was aghast because it ran better with the stock manifolds. He'd read in Hot Rod that Hooker Headers with 2 1/ 4 inch primary tubes made the most power on a big block Chevy. Except the test mule was a 12:1 compression, 720 hp 572 inch stroker with a .714 lift solid roller cam!!  And even on the monster 572-these only showed a gain over 2 inch tubes above 5,500 rpm!!  Obviously, these huge headers killed the bottom-end and mid-range torque on his otherwise stock 454!! I told him-engines need some backpressure to run properly, and that he'd be much better off with 1 3/4 inch headers or 1 7/8 max, even if he added a bigger cam and intake!!  He went to 1 3/4 headers and was happy as a clam-the truck had noticably more power all through the range, and got better gas mileage too!  # 3. I had two disco-era T/A's back in the day. One had a 400 Pontiac and the other had a 403 Olds. My 403 Olds T/A blew the doors off many other surprised T/A  owners, including the owner of a 403 DKM "Macho", and a 400,4-speed Pontiac model. The way I did it was mine had headers and real dual exhausts, and a Holley "Street Dominator" intake. This vastly improved power, but it still wouldn't rev over 4,700 rpm. "Experts" in magazines said the 403s had a "lazy" cam, and that I'd have to change the cam, lifters, and valvesprings and get an adjustable valvetrain and roller rockers to do better, and that without a big cam change, the intake and exhaust upgrades wouldn't help. I figured out that 403s used AC R46SZ plugs which had an .080 gap. ( A longer spark burns cleaner and makes less smog ). Even GM's mighty HEI couldn't bridge an .080 gap at high rpm. By simply changing to R45S plugs-a .040 gap-the engine pulled hard to 5,400 rpm!! A gain of 700 rpm on the top end! This made a huge increase in performance. ( Obviously-I didn't need to change the cam and whole valvetrain! )  I also had a TransGo shift kit that would automatically kick down to low gear below 15 mph. So if another T/A and I were coming up to a light that turned green and we punched it-I'd be in low, and he'd still be in 2nd. All other things being equal-who's going to accelerate harder?  Then factor in the intake, exhaust and ignition changes-and you can see how I'd smoke supposedly "faster" cars. I simply maximized the performance of the car without spending a ton of money. 403s were rated at 185 hp stock. Mine dyno'd at 260!! An increase of 75 hp!!  I proved all the "Experts" wrong who said hopping up a 403 was a "waste of time" because of the 8:1 compression and "lazy" cam!!  # 4. A friend of mine was building a "Street Stock" claimer circle track 350 Chevy engine. Everyone told him you "Gotta Have" "2.02" heads. I gave him a set of '81-86 305 heads. The 58cc combustion chambers ( opposed to 76cc 350 heads ) bumped the compression on his L48 350 from 8.2:1 to 9.6:1. The 305 heads have 1.84 inch intake valves ( as opposed to 1.94 on standard 350 heads or 2.02 on hi-performance heads ). I told him the huge power and torque boost of the added compression would more than offset the slight loss of airflow of the slightly smaller intake valves. He was amazed at the power bump these "free" heads gave him. This left the money he would have spent on a set of heads to go for cam, exhaust, intake, and ignition. And he was still under the $1,500 rule. He won quite a few races beating people who had spent way more money on their engines-even though they'd lose it if someone excersised the "claim" rule. The point I'm making is, do some research and make sure you have ALL the information before you spend your hard-earned money, or discount a part or a procedure as a "waste of time." Mastermind