More on crazy "Correctness"....

Kind of in the same vein as the last post I see some utter insanity in musclecar restorations. I read an article where a guy paid $4,000 for a carburator for a Boss 351 Mustang. To me that's insane. Mainly because my dad and I worked for Ford in the early '70's and the Autolite 4300 is the WORST carb ever made, bar none. They didn't work when they were brand-new. If you had a 351CJ  Mustang or a T-Bird or Lincoln MKIV with a 460-they would be hard to start, stumble under acceleration, get crappy gas mileage-I mean like 5-8 mpg-they were just awful. If you bitched hard enough Ford dealers would replace it with a 600 Holley 4bbl and warranty it. That's how bad they were, brand-new. I can't imagine trying to make one work 40+ years later. So if I was buying a for-real Boss 351 I'd be happy to see an Edelbrock or Holley carb sitting on top of the engine. Especially if I wanted to drive the car at all. Be honest-if your looking for a one of 1,806 1971 Boss 351s ever built, and you find one perfectly restored, with a numbers-matching engine and tranny, the color you want, the interior color you want, with a Marti report. Are you going to not buy it because it has a 750 Edelbrock or Holley on it instead of that awful Autolite 4300? I don't think anyone in their right mind would pass up an otherwise flawless car over a carburator. I read of another person restoring a COPO 427 Camaro who paid $14,000 for a "Correct" 12-bolt rear end. That's not a typo-I didn't mean $1,400-I meant Fourteen Thousand!!  For an axle housing??  Assuming the car is otherwise all there, it's still going to be worth 6 figures even with an "incorrect" rear axle-whether it's a 12 bolt with the wrong date codes, or a 10 bolt, or a Ford 9-inch or a Dana 60!!  That's just insane-especially when you can buy a brand-new Moser 12-bolt posi, or a Currie 9 inch with GM mounting points for about $3,000!!  This fetishization of "numbers" has got to stop. I mean-let's say you had $150,000 to spare and you found a for-real, numbers-matching 1963 Fuel-Injected Split-Window Corvette Stingray with the knock-off wheels, everything. Except the T10 4-speed in it doesn't have 1962 or 63 date codes, because the case on the original trans was cracked, and the guy who did the restoration installed a new Richmond unit. Or a rebuilt T10 out of a '79 Z/28 Camaro. Are you really going to not buy the car because the trans-which is technically "correct"-it's a T10-has the wrong manufacturing date stamped on it?  Really? Personally I think the restorer did the right thing. A later T10 is much more correct for the car than if he slapped a Muncie in it. Especially since a lot of Concours show organizations are allowing parts to be the "Original Type"-i.e.-a '69 Z/ 28 won't lose points because the 3310 Holley carb on it doesn't have 1969 date codes. Or should the restorer have scoured the galaxy and spent umpteen more dollars searching for a 1963 vintage T10?  Come on. A pristine, '68 GTX with a 440 is not ruined because the owner put a new Edelbrock AVS carb on it in place of the warped, leaking, bleeding over, 50 year old original Carter!!  An SS396 Chevelle is not "bastardized" if it has a Hurst shifter in place of the awful Muncie unit. At some point the voice of reason and sanity has to kick in. Mastermind          

What part of "Clone" of "Faux" i.e.-"Fake" are you not grasping?

I talk to so many people who want to build clones of ultra-cool cars, who gripe that it will be too hard or expensive to do. The way their thinking-yes it would be. I'll explain. One guy wanted to do a 427 Cobra Replica. I suggested the Factory Five kits which come complete with everything but the engine and tranny for like $19,995. You can have the frame drilled to accept a small-block Chevy, a small-block Ford, or a 4.6 / 5.4 Ford mod motor at no extra charge. I suggested the easiest way would be find a rough but running '83-'95 "5.0" Mustang and get the engine and 5-speed trans. Or call Summitt and get a 345 hp 302 Ford SVT crate engine and Tremec 5-speed. For under 25K he'd have a kickass Cobra to play with. Since they only weigh about 2,300 lbs-even with a stock "5.0" powertrain they run 12s in the 1/4!  No this guy wanted it close to "real" as possible. I told him the chance of finding a side-oiler 427 Ford for sale at any price would be chasing a moon rock. However all "FE" engines are externally identical and 390s were used in almost every Ford model from 1961-76. With some aluminum Edelbrock Heads and a dual-quad intake, he'd have the look, the sound and the feel. "But it wouldn't be correct". he sneered. I almost got coffee up my nose laughing. "Nothing about the car is correct." I said. "It's a replica!!" "A tribute". "You don't understand." He's right. I don't. Crazy guy # 2. wanted to clone a Yenko Camaro. Easy enough-find a '67-69 Camaro, Phoenix Graphics sells the emblems and stripes / stencils. Harwood sells the hood scoop. Go to a junkyard and get a 454 out of an '80's truck, and rebuild it. A TH400 or Muncie 4-speed is easy enough to find if you scour the want ads or swap meets. No he wants a for-real 427. "Fine". I said-"GMPP, Eagle, Lunati and other companies sell 3.76 stroke big-block Chevy crank, rod and piston kits." Get an internally balanced flywheel / flexplate and damper ( If you don't know 396 /402 /427s are internally balanced and 454s are externally balanced ) and voila'-instant 427. No he wants a 427 with 1967,68 or '69 date codes. Good luck with that-as "Vette restorers hog them with ferocity and want blood and a first-born child when they do sell one. Then he starts griping about not being able to find a date-correct 12 bolt posi rear end!!  Are you kidding me?  Again-I said "It's not a numbers-matching Yenko!!"  "The 10-bolt that's in the car will do fine." "In 40+ years of hot-rodding GM cars I've never broken a 10-bolt, although I know people who have." "If your going to build a killer motor and really lean on it with slicks or drag radials-Currie sells 9 inch Ford rears with GM mounting points already installed." "Or Moser sells brand-new 12 bolts if you want to keep it all GM". I showed him pictures of a friend's triple-white 1971 GTO "Judge" convertible. It's actually a LeMans Sport convertible with the "Endura" ( read GTO front bumper and scooped hood ). He added a hood tach, the "Judge" stripes and spoiler and a set of "Honeycomb" wheels. Everywhere he goes people "ooh" and "aah" over this "Judge" drop-top. The 400 / TH400 powertrain moves it down the road nicely. Mr. Would-be Yenko cloner turned up his nose. "Piece of crap". he sneered. "No." I said " It's a really cool car built for a fraction of what one of the 17 for-real '71 Judge convertibles would go for." "It's built for a fraction of what your trying to do." "All 357 '71 Judge models had 455HO engines." Where would he find a complete, running 1971 date-coded 455HO 47 years later, and for what price?" "And if he did by some miracle-the car is still a gussied-up LeMans!!!"  Who cares if it's "Correct??!!"  A Mopar guy was absolutely aghast when I suggested a 360 for his proposed Challenger T/A clone. "It has to be a 340!" When I pointed out that 340s were only used from 1968-73 and are pretty rare and usually expensive, while 360s were used in virtually every Chrysler model and Dodge trucks from 1971-1991, and are fairly cheap, he wailed the mantra-"It wouldn't be correct". When I suggested a 360 Magnum-based 408 stroker to make it really badass-he got really pissed. "Edelbrock doesn't make a Six-Pack manifold for "Magnum" heads!! When I pointed out that a 408 inch Magnum V8 with a Performer RPM intake, 800 cfm Thunder AVS carb, and matching cam would suck up and spit out a "real" 340 Six-Pack in a drag race, I got a cloud of obsenities that the kid in Christmas Story would marvel at.  I just don't get it. The car's a fake!!  If you want a  '68 Hemi Charger-and have the cash to lay out 15 grand for a Mopar Performance 426 crate Hemi and another 25-30 for a decent 383 Charger to stuff it in, more power to you!!!  45 grand is a lot less than the 100K plus that "real" ones bring. I get that. And I'd put a Tremec 5-speed behind that crate Hemi, rather than chase a 1968 date-coded A883 4-speed!!  Does this drive anyone else bonkers?  Mastermind          

It's okay to "Run what you brung" if your budget is tight....

I talk to a lot of people who lament that their car isn't a premium model and that they don't really have the money to swap engines or do a full boat restoration. You don't have to. Every car doesn't have to be a frame-off resto with every nut and bolt replaced whether it needs it or not. Have you heard the term "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  I've touched on it before but I'll say it again. I see people spending thousands of dollars replacing parts that don't need to be replaced, which drives the cost of the project way up, but doesn't get you any more money at re-sale time. I've seen people replace the radiator when it didn't leak and the car wasn't overheating. I've seen them replace the power steering pump when it wasn't leaking and wasn't making noise, and worked perfectly. I've seen them replace the alternator and starter when the car started perfectly and the battery charged perfectly. I've seen them replace rotors, drums, pads,shoes, hardware,calipers, wheel cylinders, master cylinders and boosters needlessly. I'm all for safety-but if you drive the car and it stops perfectly with no pedal vibration,doesn't pull left or right, the condition of the pads etc, is good and the hoses aren't leaking, then leave it alone! I've seen people strip an entire interior, when all the car needed was the driver's bucket seat recovered. That's insane. Don't do it. As for other mods-again-I've said it before-every car doesn't have to have a 500 hp fire-breathing monster. If you've got a Firebird with a 350 Pontiac, don't despair that you can't find or afford to swap in a 400 or 455. 350s respond well to basic hot-rod tricks-4bbl carb and intake, headers and / or dual exhausts, mild cam upgrade,etc. You can make 325-350 hp and 400 lbs of torque pretty easy and cheaply. That's enough to give you some exciting street performance and put you solidly in the 13s with proper gearing and traction. Chargers and Satellites with 318s can be nice drivers, but their too heavy for serious performance with the small engine. They really do need a 383 / 400 / 440 to really rock. However if you have a light car-i.e.-Duster, Dart, or Challenger / Barracuda-318 Mopars car really rock with a 4bbl carb and intake, headers, and a mild cam. Remember-"Magnum" heads will bolt up to earlier blocks, you just need a "Magnum" compatible intake, which Edelbrock makes. Ditto for Fords-if you have a light car like an early Mustang or Cougar, a Falcon or a Maverick-a 289 / 302 can make some serious power for low bucks.  If you have a '60's or '70's Cutlass with a 350 don't despair and search the galaxy for a 455. As anyone who's ever seen or driven a W31 will tell you, a 350 Cutlass can kick ass with the right equipment. Edelbrock claims 397 hp and 400 lbs of torque from their "Performer RPM" package on a 350 Olds. Writers spout numbers flippantly-but 400 honest hp will make any street car an absolute rocket.  GM played musical engines in the late '70's because of smog laws. If you have a Firebird with a 350 Chevy-then you basically have a Camaro. There's more speed equipment for a small-block Chevy than anything else on the planet. If you have a T/A or Formula with a 403 Olds-anything that fits a 350 Olds will fit a 403. If you have an '80's Camaro / Firebird and can't afford to swap in a 350-305s respond well to intake, exhaust and mild cam upgrades. My cousin had a 305 Camaro that was pretty damn quick with the Edelbrock Performer intake, matching cam and Hedman shorty headers. And don't forget mechanical advantage. Most '70's cars have salt-flats gearing. Replacing the 2.41:1 or 2.80:1 gears with something in the 3.23-3.73 range will give you a stunning improvement in acceleration without hurting drivability or freeway cruising rpm too much. So don't despair-you can make your base-model a fun ride for low bucks.  Mastermind    

Can we stop with the "It's not original"? Especially on minor options!!!

I see a disturbing trend in car restoration these days. I've touched on it before but I think it's worth re-visiting. I talked to a guy who was restoring a 1970 Plymouth GTX. It was a for-real 440 / 4-speed model. The only downside was it was green with green interior. Yuk. The car was pretty solid-he was going to replace the trunk floor and the rear quarters but that's common on late '60's and early '70's Mopars. Since he was going to have to re-do the interior anyway-I suggested he contact Legendary and do it in either black or white and then paint the car red with black GTX stripes. I also suggested he contact Summitt and Mopar Performance and get a "Six-Pack" setup for it. The answer-Wait for it-"But then it wouldn't be completely original." "Ok." I said. "Let me get this straight". "Your going to spend thousands of dollars restoring the body and interior of this car in a color you can't stand." "Why not paint it a color you like?" "I like red, but if you don't like red, then go blue, or Alpine white, or Plum Crazy or whatever you want." Here comes stupid defensive statement  # 2-wait for it-"But what if I want to sell it?" "What if you do?"  "Let's say you take my advice and go red and black with a six-pack induction." "Do you honestly think a prospective buyer is going to check the serial numbers and say-"Gee, a red 4-speed 440 / Six-Pack GTX has always been my dream car,and this one is beautiful and runs like a scalded cat and the price is reasonable." "But the VIN tag says it was originally a green 4bbl car." "I'm going to have to pass." "Puhleeze." "And if he did, he's an idiot." "I'm sure you'd find another buyer who could overlook the color change and the intake change." "I'm always amazed at how much people care about what some asshole who might want to buy the car down the road will think."  "I've joked about it before but did you marry your wife because you thought she'd give you an easier divorce than other women you dated?" Like talking to the wall. The response? "I'll think about it." I guarantee he'll think about it, and then paint the car fuckin' green, which he hates, because "What if he wants to sell it?"  Some other asshole might say something negative about his restoration!  Oh, Horrors!  I see this all the time, and it always drives me up the wall. Another guy I knew who had a '79 Trans-Am commented on a High-Performance Pontiac article about Dennis Mecham and the "Macho T/A's". "I remember those cars." he said. "A guy I knew in college had one." "It was so badass."  I commented that Mecham had allowed Phoenix Graphics to make the stencils so anyone who was restoring a "Macho" or just liked the look could paint their car in "Macho" Style. I suggested he do his car that way. You know the response. Now if his car was a 10th Anniversary model, I could certainly understand wanting to stay with the factory paint and graphics scheme. But it wasn't. It was a generic one of 117,000 '79 T/A's built, with a 403 Olds engine and a TH350!! I like Pontiacs-so I talk to a lot of Pontiac owners-and it kills me to see people with '70s Firebirds and T/As who like "Honeycomb" or "Snowflake" wheels, but won't put them on their car because the build sheet or the repro window sticker they got from PHS says the car originally had Rally IIs!! Really??  Another guy who had a nice '73 Formula 400 with white interior was distressed because he wanted to remove the vinyl top and paint the car Buccaneer Red, but the window sticker said the car was originally blue with a white vinyl top. Again-"What if he wanted to sell it down the road?" "What would a prospective buyer think?" "A Buccaneer Red Firebird will sell ten times faster than a blue one with a vinyl top". I said. "Trust me." "I spent 30+ years in the used car business". "In fact-not only will it sell quicker red, you'll get more money for it."  Remember my post that said "There's No Used Car Factory" to order from? Well there isn't. So I guarantee you'll get more money for a '69 Malibu with a 350 and a TH350, than you would a 307 and a Powerglide!!  Or a '67 Nova with a 327 and a 4-speed instead of a 283 and a 3-speed!!   Even if it's not "Original".  You'll get way more money for a '68 Road Runner if it's painted "Vitamin C" orange with Ansen or American Racing slot mags than you will if it's brown with "Dog Dish" hubcaps!! Even if it's not "Original."  Would you rather have a sinister triple black 400 or 440 '73 Charger with Cragars on it, or a light tan one with drab brown seats, a white vinyl top and dog-dish hubcaps?"  See what I'm saying? These minor add-ons or color changes increase a car's value, instead of hurting it. So if you want to paint the car a different color, do it!!  Or add or remove a vinyl top, or change wheels. Putting a tri-power setup on a '66 GTO or a '70 Charger will add value, not take it away. Ditto for minor upgrades. If you add later model Monte Carlo spindles, booster and front disc brakes to your '68 SS396 Chevelle that had 4-wheel 9.5 inch drums-any prospective buyer will thank you, not cuss you!!  So go ahead and paint that 383 powered '68 Coronet like a Super Bee!  Call Tony Branda and make that '66 Mustang look like a Shelby if you want. Mastermind

Some "Junkyard Jewels" that can really rock...

I talk to a lot of people that would like to have a powerful, reliable engine in their project car but don't have the big bucks for a 500+hp crate engine and don't want to scour the galaxy looking for a date-correct one. There are some engines out there that you can buy dirt-cheap and with very little work will make big hp and torque.  Here's a few in no particular order. # 1. "Vortec" 350 Chevy. Used from 1996-2003 in millions of Chevy / GMC trucks, vans and suv's these are a screaming bargain. The "Vortec" heads breathe better than any factory head and most aftermarket ones. Vortec heads will bolt up to earlier blocks, as long as you use a Vortec bolt-pattern intake. Edelbrock and Weiand both make Vortec bolt-pattern intakes that use a carburator. They have roller cams from the factory, and Edelbrock, Crane, Lunati and Comp Cams sell cams for them that can re-use the stock lifters if their in good shape, or of course they sell new roller lifters if you need them. Super Chevy did a budget buildup on a junkyard Vortec motor and with machine work and all the new parts they used it only cost $2,600 to build, and made 400 hp and 415 lbs of torque. There's also stroker crank kits to make a 350 into a 383.  # 2. "Magnum" 318 / 360 Chrysler. Their are millions of  "Magnum" engines in junkyards in Dodge Trucks,vans and suv's as well as Jeep Grand Cherokees from 1992-2003. The 318s run damn strong, but the 360's really rock. Like 15 second 1/4s in a loaded 4WD Grand Cherokee. What you think one would do in a Duster or Dart or 'Cuda?  Like the Chevy Vortecs, the "Magnum" heads breathe better than any other factory head and many aftermarket ones. Edelbrock makes "Magnum" compatible intakes. They use roller cams from the factory as well. Like the Vortecs, the Magnum heads will bolt up to earlier blocks as long as you use a Magnum intake. Eagle and other companies make stroker crank kits to turn a 360 into a 408.   # 3. 1986-97 302 / 351W Ford. Used in millions of trucks,vans, and suv's through 1997 these are plentiful in junkyards. The 302s are the same roller-cammed model used in "5.0" Mustangs. The only reason the trucks were rated at 205 hp-20 less than the Mustangs is the trucks used single exhaust and the Mustangs had duals. 5.0 "Explorer" heads breathe as good as the factory "GT-40" heads and better than many aftermarket ones. If you don't want to run fuel-injection-Edelbrock and Weiand make intakes that run a carburator. The same for the 351W's. Eagle and other companys make stroker crank kits to turn a 302 into a 347 or a 351 into a 392.  # 4. 360 AMC. These were used in millions of Jeep Grand Wagoneers through 1993 so they are plentiful in junkyards. Edelbrock makes aluminum heads for them and claims 433 hp from their "Performer RPM" package. If your restoring a Javelin / AMX and can't find a 390 / 401-this may be the way to go. Since AMC engines are like Pontiacs-their all externally identical from a 290-401-think how blisteringly fast a 360 Gremlin or Hornet would be?  Mastermind    

The biggest baddest, isn't always the best...

Sometimes the thing that makes the most horsepower is not always the best. If your building a race car then the sky's the limit-you don't care about idle quality, or fuel economy or drivability. All that matters is speed. Back in the '60's when Trans-Am racing was popular-a lot of their races were run on road courses like Lime Rock. When Ford was developing the "Boss 302" the feedback they got from racers, both factory backed and privateer-that had been previously running 289s-( The displacement limit was 5 liters or 305 inches ) was they needed peak power between 5,000 and 8,000 rpm. So that's how they designed the engine. They didn't care about anything below 5 or above 8. That's why production examples were disappointing performers. They had very little low-end torque-especially below 3,000 rpm. If you had 3.90:1 or 4.30:1 gears that helped keep the engine on boil-but if you had 3.50:1 gears they were a little sluggish. Further-to cut down on warranty claims- unbeknownst to the public Ford put rev limiters on them that killed the ignition at 5,800 rpm. That's just when it was starting to really roll. Now race examples with out rev limiters and proper gearing would totally rock from about 4,000-8,000 rpm. But the street versions felt sluggish because of the lack of low-end torque and and the rev limiter kicking in just when it was starting to really rock. In fact the 351W that was standard in the Mach 1 was actually quicker in the 1/4 mile and had great drivability. The reason being-the 2bbl 351W had 355 lbs of torque at 2,600 rpm. ( 4bbl versions had 385 lbs @ 3,200 ) This made the 351W a much better STREET engine, while the "Boss" 302 was undoubtedly the better RACING engine. The same thing with the Chrysler 426 Hemi. It was designed to do one thing-go 200 mph at Daytona. It dominated NASCAR and some people like Dick Landy or Sox&Martin had great success drag racing them. If you had headers, and a 4-speed and 4.30:1 gears, or a Torqueflite with a 2,500+ rpm converter and 4.10:1 or stiffer gears-yes your Hemi-powered street car could rock-n-roll with the best of them. But most of them had stock exhausts and 3.23:1 or 3.54:1 gearing. Popular Hot Rodding tested a 1969 Charger with a Hemi and a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears. They were very disappointed. They said it was like running with one flat tire. It couldn't break out of the 14s and went through the traps in 2nd gear. The PHR writers said it needed a stall converter and 4.10:1 gears. The 440 GTX and the 383 Super Bee they tested were both quicker in the 1/4 mile. The '69 GTO they tested in the same issue was quicker in the 1/4 mile. Does that mean that a 383 Mopar or a 400 Pontiac is a better race engine than a Hemi?  No!! The Hemi's superiority in any kind of competition is legendary. But the 383 Mopar and 400 Pontiac are much better STREET engines! Their massive low-end torque gives them great drivability. When you've got 400+ lbs ft of torque from idle on up- you don't need to rev to 7 or 8 grand. What I'm saying is-if your going to drive the car on the street at all-it's better to err on the side of caution. Sure you can write a check for 15 grand and put a mega-inch 600+ hp 12:1 compression, solid-roller beast in your car. It's choppy 1,500 rpm idle will sound badass, and if you've got a stick or an auto with the proper converter and gearing, it'll certainly rip ass on the strip. And off the strip-if it's only driven on and off the trailer or a few blocks to "Cruise Night" once a week you may not give a shit how nasty it is.  But again-if your going to drive the car on the street or the freeway at all-9.5:1 compression, ( to run on pump gas ) and a cam that idles at 800 rpm  makes a lot more sense. Like I said once before when discussing induction systems-"If a Super Stock Firebird can run 11.30s with a Quadrajet on an iron manifold, why do you need a Tunnel-Ram and dual 660 Holleys?"  Here's a perfect example. A guy I know was looking for a '68-'70 Olds 442. He ran across a 1970 W31 Cutlass. If you don't know-the "W31" was a factory-built high-performance 350 V8. They had special heads, an aluminum high-rise intake, special exhaust manifolds and a hot 308 degree cam. They were so nasty that they were only available with a 4-speed-no automatic was offered-and 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears, and you couldn't get power brakes, because the engine didn't make enough vacuum at idle to operate them! To fool the insurance Nazis they were rated at a ridiculously low 325 hp. The standard "station wagon" 350 in the Cutlass was rated at 310 hp!!  GM wants you to believe that all those go-fast goodies-intake, exhaust, heads and cam-are only worth 15 hp?  Puhleeze.  They were blisteringly fast, as was the one my friend test drove. He didn't like it. He said with the 4.33:1 gears he was always shifting it around town, and the motor was buzzing at 3,800 rpm on the freeway. He passed it up and later bought a 400 inch '69 442. He loved it. The 400 inch motor had so much torque that around town if he was in any gear but 4th-acceleration was just step on the gas, and the 3.36:1 gearing was a good compromise between jackrabbit starts and easy cruising rpm on the freeway. He told me he thought the W31 was quicker in a drag race, but the 442 was much more fun to drive all-around. Here's a couple more good illustrations. Edelbrock claims 387 hp and 439 lbs of torque for the "Performer" Package on a 400 Pontiac with 15 inches of vacuum at idle. The "Performer RPM" Package claims 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque, with 10 inches of vacuum at idle. You know what those specs tell me? That by using the "RPM" package your giving up quite a bit of low-end and mid-range torque for top-end rush. And that's if you have optimum gearing,traction, etc. In a typical street / strip machine is a car with 422 hp going to be THAT much faster than a car with 387 hp?  Probably not. Another example-when Edelbrock introduced the "Air Gap" line of manifolds-they raised the plenum so air could flow under it- cooling the fuel charge substantially-the buff magazines raved because they made 15-20 more hp on the dyno than the "regular" Performer / Performer RPM / Torker II / Victor manifolds. In sunny California this worked great. However many people in the mid-west and Rocky mountain states who ran out and bought these manifolds were furious-writing to the buff magazines and Edelbrock and demanding refunds because now their cars wouldn't start in cold weather!! Or even if they'd start-they'd experience carburator icing-or have to idle for 15 minutes or more to not die and cough and spit when trying to drive!!  That extra 15-20 hp wasn't so wonderful now!!  Many of them angrily said they were going to re-install their old intake so they could drive the car!!  So be careful-yes swapping your 2.73:1 gears for some 3.42:1s will give you a stunning improvement in acceleration without hurting drivability or freeway cruising rpm too much. If 3.42:1s are great-wouldn't 4.56:1s be totally badass?  No-because chances are you don't have the motor or the valvetrain and would run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4, and you definitely don't want the motor buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway! So err on the side of caution. The biggest and baddest thing isn't always the best. Mastermind          

It's the whole package, not just horsepower...

It's funny how the internet works. I guess "cookies" or "web crawlers" bring up random stuff depending on what type of google search the user is doing.  Because of this I get hate mail for stuff I posted 5 years ago. A recent one was regarding a post I made about lowering your sights a little-i.e.-You may not be able to find or afford an LS6 SS454 Chevelle, but you could get an SS396, or a Boss 302 might be beyond your means, but a 351W Mach 1 would do nicely. I stated that way back in 1994-( That was when I bought the H / O ) I was frustrated looking for a GTO when I ran across my 1973 Hurst / Olds 442. I said I loved the car because it was really nice to drive, looked badass and was quick enough to back up the image, that I didn't have to take crap from "5.0" Mustang drivers. I got all kinds of profanity laced emails saying I was delusional and offers to race for thousands of dollars or "Pink Slips" from assholes who owned "5.0" Mustangs. I'll duplicate my response here. Everyone knows that the fuel-injected 1987-93 Mustangs were quicker than the 1983-86 Carburated models. I stated before that various buff magazines had tested "5.0" Mustangs and that the 1/4 mile times varied-the slowest being a 15.29 and the quickest being a 14.72.  I couldn't find a road test of a '73 Hurst / Olds, but I did find two for a "regular" Cutlass 442 with the 455 / TH400 powertrain. One ran a 14.65, the other a 14.90. I'd say that pretty much cleared the air about me "not taking crap" from "5.0" Mustang drivers. I then got a bunch of hate mail from "5.0" owners saying "Big deal you beat a stock Mustang" "But I have-( Pick one ) a blower or nitrous or an Edelbrock or Trick Flow Top-end kit ( heads, cam and intake ) challenging me to drag races. Ironically, shortly after buying the H / O-it spun a crank bearing. Having to rebuild the 455 anyway-I decided to spice it up with headers, a Lunati cam with 224 / 234 duration ( @ .050 ) and 496 / .520 lift, an Edelbrock Torker intake and 750 Carb, and an MSD HEI distributor. I also decided to replace the stock 3.08:1 gears with 4.10:1s to really put all that newfound power to the ground. I gleefully accepted the challenges saying that these assholes should come find me at Hot August Nights events and that I would gladly race their modified Mustangs with my modified 442. Now, as it did back then, it made me shake my head at how people who have never been on a racetrack perceive how drag races go. I remember a muscle car drag event I went to several years ago. A guy with a 1970 W30 455 Olds 442 was matched up against a 1966 Nova SS with an L79 327. The announcer joked about what a mismatch it was-saying "Come on guys, a small-block Nova tugging on Superman's cape? " The announcer, the crowd, the 442 owner and everyone but me was shocked when the Nova won easily. I knew the Nova was going to win. Here's why: A 1970 442 weighs 4,070 lbs. The 455 was rated at 370 hp. A 1966 Nova weighs 3,100 lbs. The L79 327 is rated at 350 hp. Guess what? 20 hp wasn't enough to overcome 1,000 lbs of extra weight!!  Further-the 442 was an automatic with 3.42:1 gears, and the Nova was a 4-speed with 4.10:1s.  So in addition to a huge power to weight advantage, the Nova also had the mechanical advantage of stiffer gearing.  It amazes me that people can't grasp this. A friend of my brothers has a late-model Dodge Ram Crew-Cab 4WD pickup with the 5.7 liter Hemi rated at 390 hp. It moves pretty good for a big truck-but this guy who's parents drove VW's and who's last car was a Honda Civic thinks it's a rocket. He challenged my brother to race him with his GTO. My brother and I were rolling on the floor laughing. My brother's '69 GTO has a 400 that we built from a junkyard engine for less than $2,000. I've stated before that it dyno'd at 381 hp and 430 lbs of torque. Not bad for a cheap rebuild on a junkyard engine. Anyhow the guy with the truck would not shut up until my brother agreed to race him, and was utterly flabbergasted when the GTO blew his doors off by about 10 car lengths. "How can that be?" "My truck has 390 hp, 9 more than your car." he said-dead serious. When my brother stopped laughing again he explained. "It's power to weight ratio." "Yeah, we both have roughly 400 hp." "My GTO weighs 3,730 lbs." "According to Car and Driver, a crew-cab Dodge Ram like yours weighs 5,790 lbs".  "Of course I blew your doors off." "I'm pulling 2,000 lbs LESS weight!!"  A couple of car salesmen I know learned this. One had a 400, 4-speed '77 Trans-Am, the other had a 350 / Automatic '74 Ventura GTO. Both were rated at 200 hp. The T/A had 3.23:1 gears, the GTO had 3.08:1s. So power and gearing were roughly the same. The GTO won by about a car length and a half. How? Power to weight ratio. A '77 T/A weighs 3,890 lbs. A '74 Ventura weighs 3,278 lbs. 600 less pounds gave it the win. You have to remember the rule of thumb-which is "All other things being equal, a 3,000 lb car with a 300 hp engine will run just as fast as a 4,000 lb car with a 400 hp engine."  The key words here are "All other things being equal". The monkey wrench is mechanical advantage-like a 4-speed, or a high stall converter,a shift kit or stiff gears. Here's a perfect example. I got a ton of hate mail when I said I beat my friend's 427 powered '67 Impala in a drag race with my dad's '65 Pontiac Tri-Power 421 Catalina 2+2. Because there's no way a 421 Pontiac can outrun a 427 Chevy, right?  Here's the facts. Both cars weighed about 4,400 lbs. Both had TH400 transmissions. The Tri-Power 421 was rated at 376 hp. The 4bbl 427 was rated at 390 hp. We all know that 14 hp on paper is not going to make an ounce of difference in a real-world drag race. So weight, cubic inches, and hp are all dead even. The Impala had 3.31:1 gears and an open rear end, the 2+2 had 3.90:1s a posi, and a TransGo shift kit. That was enough to let me get about  1/2 a car length off the line. That was it. Neither car could gain an inch. We did it 3 times and the results were exactly the same. I'd jump him by half a car length and hold onto it until we let off at 90 or 100 mph. Now if the 2+2 had 3.23:1 gears or the Impala had 3.90:1s the outcome might have different. Traction makes a huge difference. Besides the pumped-up RAIII 400 and 4.33:1 gears, one thing that made my Judge so brutally quick was the fact that it had Lakewood coil-spring traction bars, and I was running N50X15 Mickey Thompson "Hot-n-Sticky" tires on the rear. They were about 12 inches wide, and as advertised when they got hot, they were very sticky. I could pop the clutch at 4,300 rpm and rocket off the line with very little wheelspin. Now what poor bastard with regular street tires-who can launch at maybe 2,500-3,000 rpm if his car is a stick before he frys the tires-or the same if he's got a stall converter on an auto-is going to compete with that?  And once I get a car length or two or three lead-the RAIII on steroids is going to hold on to it, or maybe even open it up more. To catch me you'd need a SERIOUS package-like L88 or LS6 with 4.56:1 gears, or Hemi with 4.90:1s serious-to have a prayer. And never under-estimate a light small-block car. Back in the day-my cousin had a '63 Nova with a 283 that he bored to 301 inches and pumped up backed by a 4-speed and 4.88:1 gears. It was brutally quick, because it only weighed about 2,700 lbs. Another friend that had a 340 Dart that stunned a lot of big-block cars,and his brother had a pumped up 273 powered '65 Barracuda that was awful fast. A buddy of mine with a 440 Road Runner was shocked one night when a 302 Maverick showed him it's taillights. Remember the Chevy Monza? A light little coupe that could be had with a 4 cylinder, a 231 V6, or a V8. The buff mags called them the "Factory V8 Vega". Most had a 305 with a 2bbl that wheezed out 145 hp. But for a couple years-1975 and '76 I think-the 305's weren't California emissions certified. So if you ordered a V8 Monza in California you got a 350! Their pretty rare, but a guy I knew had one back in high school and it was damn quick. Especially after he put a 4bbl carb, some dual exhausts and a shift kit in it.  My dad and I put a 350 Chevy in a Datsun 240Z for a guy and it was so fast that he got kicked off the track for not having an 8 point cage and a driveshaft safety loop! Which you need if you run quicker than 12 flat-or 11.50 on some tracks!!  It only weighed about 2,300 lbs-and the warmed-over 350 didn't weigh any more than the Nissan 6 it replaced. But it had more than double the power. So don't summarily dismiss someone because of a horsepower rating you read in a magazine. They may surprise you and blow your doors off.  Mastermind          

More advice for first-time restorers......

Everyone wants something cool and unique, but often in this pursuit we get sidetracked and allow emotion to over-rule common sense. When restoring a classic car this can be a disaster, both emotionally and financially. Here's some more good advice to keep people from making costly mistakes.  A rare or special car missing major components is not a deal at any price. Obvious examples would be a Hemi powered Chrysler vehicle without the Hemi engine or a Boss 302 or 429 Mustang sans the "Boss" engine. You find an engineless Road Runner or Charger and check the VIN and discover it was originally a Hemi car. OK-now what do you do? You could slap a Mopar Perfromance 426 crate Hemi into it, but they cost 15 grand, just for the engine. You'd still have to chase down all the accessories-alternator,water pump,power steering pump, fuel pump, exhaust manifolds or headers, all the brackets. And after that-the car's still not numbers-matching, which will decrease it's resale value. You could try to chase down a date-correct Hemi engine-but good luck with that. Even if you can find a running or at least rebuildable 426 Hemi with 1968 or whatever year you need date codes-the seller is going to want blood and a first-born child for it. By the time it's in the car and running you'll have more in it than you would if you went the new crate Hemi route. Sure now, if you sell the car you can say the motor is "Correct" but that's still not numbers-matching. And do you want to invest 50 grand+ and countless man hours building this car just so you can sell it and make a small profit? I say small because someone may be willing to pay 60K for a non-numbers-matching Hemi Challenger or whatever, but their not going to pay 100K+ like "Real" Hemi cars bring. The same goes for the Boss Mustangs. Pristine Boss 302s usually bring around 80K. Sure you can build a "Mock Boss" 302 engine with Edelbrock or Trick Flow heads and Intake, but it's still not the real deal. As for a Boss 429, with only 1359 ever built you'll never, ever find a Boss-Nine motor for sale at any price. I saw a '70 Mustang on the internet that someone had stuffed a Jon Kaase built 600 inch Boss Nine into. The ad said the car dyno'd at 912 hp and 826 lbs ft of torque. I believe it. Especially since they admitted that the engine alone cost 36K!!  These are obvious "DUH!" examples but I hope they drive the point home for other stuff. For example a fuel-injected '57 Bonneville or Corvette without the fuel-injection system is not a bargain. A Thunderbolt Fairlane without the side-oiler 427 is not a deal. Those too, bring the "DUH!" response. Ok, let's say you find an engineless '67 Plymouth GTX-not a Hemi, or a '67 Impala SS. Where are you going to find a 440 Mopar or 427 Chevy with 1967 date codes? If your not trying to sell it for a zillion dollars and you just want to drive it, and maybe race it at classic drag events, sure you could grab a 440 out of a '74 Imperial or '78 Sport Fury or a 454 out of an '80's truck and build a badass engine that looks correct. I'm saying you'll play hell finding a Chevy or Mopar engine that was plentiful back in the day. What if your trying to find a 390 AMC for an AMX?  You might get a 360 out of an '80's Grand Waggoneer and have the look-but actually finding a 390?  Good luck. Or a 428 CJ Ford for that engineless Fairlane or Cougar Eliminator that's "such" a deal?  Again-390 Fords are plentiful and look the same-but 428's are scarce. See the point I'm making?  So think hard before you lay out hard-earned cash for some screaming "deal" that's missing a major component. Mastermind  

Some building guidelines for first-time restorers.....

Some of the cable networks have TV shows called "House Hunters" or "Property Virgins", etc-that chronicle experienced Real Estate agents helping first-time home buyers get a good deal on a house. I think we need one for novice classic car restorers.  Most of the time when you talk to someone who bought a car, didn't finish it, and usually sold it at a loss, it's because they "Bit off more than they can chew." In other words the car needed more work than they were mechanically and financially able to do. Here's how to avoid this pitfall. # 1.  Avoid "Basket Cases" like the plague. Any car that is just a body and frame or is missing major components is a money pit. 99% of the time your way better off just spending more money and getting a better car to start with. Also-do some research-a missing component may not be available at any price. For example no one makes a replacement grille for a 1972 Ford Gran Torino, or a rear glass for a 1971-73 "Boat Tail" Buick Riviera. This brings up...  # 2. No matter how cool or unique you think the finished product might be, some projects should not be attempted by anyone, much less someone who is not a mechanic or bodyman by profession. Everyone loves '55-57 Chevys. So much so that you can now buy or build a complete, brand-new one. That's awesome, if you want one. Let's say you think a '55 Buick Roadmaster would be cool, with a 455 / TH400 powertain, modern disc brakes,  killer suspension etc. Good Idea, in theory. In reality-unlike '55 Chevys that have a modern, open driveline and rear axle-'55 Buicks have the old "Torque Tube" driveline with a huge Pumpkin rear end and a "Dynaflow" automatic that slipped, and couldn't handle the power of the 322 inch nailhead V8 that was stock. Trying to install a modern powertrain would be an absolute nightmare. Motor mounts, crossmembers, trans mounts would have to be custom fabricated, holes driiled in the frame to mount this stuff, the rear suspension would have to be custom fabricated. You'd have to find which GM or 9 inch Ford rear end is the proper width, you'd have to decide if you were using leaf or coil springs, and fabricate the mounts, and you'd have to have a driveshaft and yokes custom-built. The front suspension is the old "Kingpin" style. As far as I know no one makes aftermarket control arms and ball joints, or spindles that mount disc brakes for '55 Buicks. It's almost impossible, no matter how much money you have. Now some of you will say-"Nothing is impossible". Manned space flight is possible-but it isn't cheap or easy!!  By contrast-if you want a killer '55 Chevy-the engine bay will accept any engine from a 283 to a 454. A TH350 is the exact same length and uses the same driveshaft yoke and rear trans mount as a 1955 Powerglide!!  The stock rear axle will hold up to anything short of a 600 hp monster, and if you want that-Currie makes 9" Ford rears with GM mounting points and spring locations pre-installed!!  The front end has control arm suspension stock, and CPP and other companies offer aftermarket ones,and front and 4-wheel disc brake conversions. You can see-building a killer "Pro Touring" '55 Chevy with a modern drivetrain and suspension would be a piece of cake. Doing the same with a '55 Buick would be practically impossible and mega-expensive. See the point I'm making?  # 3. Avoid oddball cars that have body damage. Again-where are you going to get the parts, regardless of cost?  You can get anything you want for a '57 Chevy. Where are you going to find a front fender or rear 1/4 panel for a '56 Oldsmobile 88?  You can get anything you need if you have a late '60's or '70's Camaro / Firebird, Chevelle / GTO / 442, Road Runner, Charger, 'Cuda or Challenger. But what if you have something else. Where are you going to find a hood for a 1974 Ventura GTO?  Sure dozens' of T/A resto shops sell the "Shaker" scoop. I'm talking about the actual hood panel, with the hole for the scoop cut out of it, for a Ventura, not a Firebird!!  Guess what? No one makes it. Now you can get a flat hood off a '71-74 Ventura-but even that's going to be a moonrock in a junkyard-and have the hole custom-cut by a body or metalworking shop, but how much hassle is that going to be? You can get anything you want for a Mustang or a T-Bird. What if you've got a Cougar? Or a Mercury Montego like David Pearson raced for the Wood Brothers?  Sure some suspension parts from a Mustang or Torino will interchange, but what if you need body parts or interior trim?  Where are you going to find headlight doors for a '70 Sport Fury GT?  I'm not saying you have to build a "Cookie Cutter" car-I'm just saying the reality is it's a lot easier and cheaper to restore a '69 Camaro than it is a '69 AMC Rebel Machine. It's a lot easier and cheaper to restore a '65 GTO than it is a '65 Barracuda. ( Where would you find that huge rear glass? )  Even between car lines-You can get anything you want for a '68 Mustang. What about a '68 Fairlane? Or Ranchero?  # 4. Get the engine / transmission / suspension combo you want. If you want say-a '68 SS396 Chevelle and you really don't care if it's a stick or an automatic, or if it has disc brakes or not, then that opens up a lot more possibilities of finding a good deal on the base car. If you "Gotta Have" a 4-speed, and front disc brakes that's going to narrow it down quite a bit. If it's got to be a solid-lifter L78 car instead of the hydraulic-lifter L34 / L35 models-your choices get way fewer and the price goes way up. Don't buy an automatic car and think you'll convert it to a stick, or vice-versa. Yes, it can be done, but it's a pain in the ass and expensive. Same with engines. If you want a big-block Challenger or 'Cuda then step up to the pay line and get one that has a 383 or 440 from the factory. Don't buy a 318 model and think you'll convert it. Besides the new engine and accessories- You'll need a new front k-member,big-block torsion bars, a new radiator, a 727 Torqueflite to replace the 904, and an 8 3/4 rear end to replace the 8.25 stocker and big-block leaf springs. That would be a MoFo of a job in a state of the art shop; Your going to attempt it in your driveway with hand tools?  Here's where you may have to compromise a little-If you want a big-block Camaro-the 396 / 402 was only available in the Camaro from 1967 until 1972 and those are pretty rare. By contrast-400 Firebirds are everywhere-and you could get a 400 in a Trans-Am or Formula Firebird until 1979 and the 455 was available until 1976. The Gran Prix is to the Monte Carlo what the Firebird is to the Camaro-the better buy of the two. Rat-Powered Monte Carlos from 1970-74 are rare and pricey. The Pontiac Gran Prix? 400 power standard all years from 1969-76, and a fair number of '70-76 "SJ" models had 455s!!  My sister had a '72 GP in high school. It had power everything, and it felt like a GTO. She showed her taillights to many a shocked Camaro and Mustang driver. Take the path of least resistance the first time, and don't be a dumb ass. I know a guy who wanted a '68-70 Charger. He passed up a one-owner little-old-lady pristine "time capsule" '68 model because it had bench seats, stock hupcaps and skinny tires and a 2-barrel carb on the 383!!  And then paid nearly as much for a '69 that had Cragar Mags and fat tires, a non-numbers matching 440 and bucket seats. And needed a new trunk floor and 1/4 panels and, had a leaky radiator and and a leaky power steering pump!!  Moron!!  # 5. Remember the KISS principle. ( Keep it simple, stupid ). Don't go crazy on your first project. If your doing say a '55 Chevy let's go with a 350 and a 4-speed or TH350.  Don't attempt an LS motor and a 4L80E, or a 454 and a Tremec 6-speed.  If your doing a '65 Mustang-the 289 / C4 combo will work just fine. Don't try to swap in fuel-injected 4.6 Mod motor and a 5-speed. Like I used to tell people back in the '90's when "Pro Street" was all the rage-if a Super Stock Firebird can run 11.30s with a Quadrajet on an iron manifold, why do you need a tunnel-ram and dual 660 Holleys?   Mastermind          

More "Tales From the Crypt".....

In the last post I talked about testing and tuning and finding the right combination to get the maximum performance out of your car. People don't realize how important this is. Even on a bone-stock engine bad tuning or simple neglect can cost you as much as 50 hp. When was the last time you changed the plugs and wires on your musclecar? The points, condenser, rotor and distributor cap?  When's the last time you changed the fuel filter? Is your carb jetted rich or lean or "right on?" When's the last time you checked the timing? Is it advanced or retarded?  Is your vacuum advance hooked up and working properly? Does the throttle linkage open fully without sticking or hanging up? On automatic cars-is the kickdown hooked up and functioning? Is the vacuum modulator hooked up and working? When's the last time you changed the fluid?  All these things are cheap, easy fixes, but if their neglected can cost you a ton of performance. Once all that's working and your getting maximum performance from your stock combo-then you can think about modifications. You have to remember that an internal combustion engine is basically an air pump. The more air and fuel you can make it flow-the more power you'll have. Now that's a very simplistic view-and right now we don't need to go into port velocity, cam timing etc. For this discussion that sentence will fly. The largest improvement you can make on any car regardless of make or model is improving the intake and exhaust. These offer the most "bang for the buck". A friend of mine bought an '83 Camaro with the LG4 305 4bbl, a 5-speed stick and a 3.73:1 rear end. He was crushed when my '77 T/A blew his doors off. Adding insult to injury-my car was not a 400 / 4-speed W72 model, but a lowly L80 403 Olds / TH350 model!!  As I said in the last post-my car was not exactly stock and surprised many a 400 Pontiac powered T/A, as well as Corvettes, "5.0" Mustangs, IROC-Z's, and another pal with a 2WD short-bed 454 pickup. He asked for my help in hopping the Camaro up. We put some Hedman shorty headers on it that had AIR tubes and an O2 sensor port from the factory. We also installed an Edelbrock Performer intake with an EGR valve. We did put real dual exhausts on it with some shorty glasspacks. It sounded badass. I told my pal that since we had the 02 sensor hooked up, the ECM would compensate the fuel mixture on the electronically controlled Q-Jet carb, and we might not have to mess with re-jetting the carb at all. We didn't. We had another drag race, and it was too close to call. The Improvement in the car's performance was stunning. Before I could just run away from him. Now depending on who spun their tires less-it was hard for either of us to get even a 1/2 car lead. The intake and exhaust improved the perfromance  that much on an otherwise stock 305 Chevy. He decided to go "whole hog" and we installed the matching Edelbrock Performer cam. Now he could beat me by 2 or 3 car lengths depending on launch. Which he got better at. You don't think of a 305 Chevy as having a lot of torque. The cam made a stunning improvement in the mid-range and top-end, but it did lose some on the bottom-end. This actually made the car quicker-because he had less wheelspin. Before if he dropped the clutch at any rpm over 3 grand, he just roasted the tires. Now he could drop the clutch at 4,500 rpm, spin the tires for 30 feet and rocket off the line!!  Shifting at 5,500-5,700 rpm, he totally stunned many LB9 / L98 Z/28 and Corvette owners, and crushed every "5.0" Mustang that challenged him. The best race he had was with a Buick Grand National. Since they ran low 14's right off the showroom floor, that demonstrates the HUGE improvement we made from the stock LG4 that wheezed out 150 hp!!  My pal asked what could he do next to get even more oomph. I laughed and said he should be happy with what he had, that unless he wanted to invest in a nitrous system, he had about reached the limit of the 305's potential. More power than he had would require swapping in a 350. He kept the 305 until he sold the car a couple years later-because "It's so damn much fun to drive as it is, that I can't bring myself to pull the engine and start over". In the early '60's Chrysler found more performance not in the engine, but the transmission. With the introduction of the Torqueflite in 1962-they dominated stock and super stock drag classes. Manual trans cars require quite a bit of driver skill, and let's face it-the best of us give it too much throttle or miss a shift once in a while. The automatics would launch consistently at the same rpm every time,with much less wheelspin, and would shift at the same rpm every time. Any racer will tell you that consistency is the key to winning. GM lagged behind. The TH400 was introduced in 1965-in "big" cars like the Impala and Catalina. If you wanted an automatic in a Chevelle, or a GTO or even a Corvette you got the awful 2-speed Powerglide / ST300!!  The TH400 wasn't available in a GTO or Chevelle until 1967, and the Corvette until 1968. Now most of your musclecars-will have Torqueflites if their Chrysler, TH350 or 400s if their GM or C4 / C6's if their Fords. All of these are excellent trannys and with the proper shift kit and torque converter can really rock. Part of the reason my T/A was so deadly in a "Stoplight Gran Prix" was the TransGo shift kit. It would kick down to 1st gear below 20 mph. This was a huge advantage. Think-If me and say a 400 Pontiac-powered automatic T/A-or even a 383 Road Runner or 396 Chevelle with an auto are coming up to a red light-we start slowing down to stop. We get down to 10-15 mph, but still moving. The light turns green and we punch it. My TH350 kicks down to low gear. The T/A / Chevelle / Road Runner's tranny kicks down to 2nd. We've both just floored it, we've both got 400 cubes in roughly a 3,700 lb car. Except I'm in 1st gear and the other guy is in 2nd. Who's going to accelerate harder? And once I get that car length or two lead-it's going to be awful hard for the other guy to make it up. Unless he's got a SERIOUS motor-he's not going to. A friend of mine had a 340 Dart with a Torqueflite and this shift kit that stunned many a big-block car. He had 3.55:1 gears which is a great compromise between jack rabbit starts and reasonable freeway cruising rpm, and like I said-if the cars were moving at all he'd be in low and the other guy'd be in 2nd. That's how we beat many a "faster" car. In fact we'd tell people that to avoid wheelspin being a factor we'd prefer to run from a 10-20 mph roll!! And they'd fall for it, thinking they'd really smoke us now. Surprise!!!  The reason is most automatic trannys are programmed to downshift to low gear only from a complete stop. If the car is moving at all-even 10 mph-they'll kick down to 2nd, but not low. TransGo and B&M make shift kits and governor weight kits to solve this. Even on later cars with AOD trannys like a 700R4-these kits will give you automatic kickdown to low gear and a full-throttle upshift to 4th.  My pal with the 454 pickup grenaded the Rat one day. Another friend gave him a 400 small-block out of his wife's wrecked station wagon. He rebuilt the 400 installing the old standby-the "350 hp" 327 Corvette cam, a set of headers and a 3310 Holley on an Edelbrock Performer intake. The 400 actually had more torque than the 454!  With the 454 it would smoke the tires if you wanted to, but it actually came off the line really good. The 400 just fried the tires. He had to work on walking it off the line and hitting it maybe 20 feet out to avoid excessive wheelspin. Once he got the launch down, the truck was really quick. He gave my buddy in the pumped-up '83 Camaro a run for the money neither of us will forget. Scoff if you want-but a 4,300 lb pickup that runs low 14s, and has 15 inches of vacuum at idle is pretty cool. Anyone who drove or rode in that truck couldn't believe a small-block could have that much power. It was a simple but effective combination. The old L79 350 hp cam was a little lumpy in a 327, which is why it was only available with a 4-speed in a Corvette, Chevelle or Nova. It's better in a 350, but really sweet in a 400. And the intake and exhaust allowed it to breathe as it should, and the pickup's 3.73:1 posi rear certainly helped put that power to the ground. Sometimes less is more. Never under-estimate a simple, perfectly tuned combination with an experienced driver. A buddy of mine restored a '72 440 Road Runner. He used the stock 440 Magnum cam. It didn't even have headers on it-he used the stock exhaust manifolds, with a good Dynomax system behind them. He used an Edelbrock Performer intake and matching 750 cfm carb. He did install the TransGo shift kit, and swapped the 3.23:1 gears for some 4.10:1s. Funny-the 4.10s didn't seem to help one ounce in low gear. However-they made a HUGE difference in 2nd and 3rd!!  This car smote many a "badass" hot rod in biblical fashion. He showed his tailights to everybody, including my 455 / TH400 '73 Hurst / Olds. In my defense-at that time my car still had the stock 3.08:1 gears. If I had 4.10s ( which I later installed ) or if his car had the stock 3.23s-it might have been a different story. But that's "bench racing".  His car was really quick. He ran it at Reno-Fernley Raceway one time and it ran 13.54. Not bad on street tires with a mild combo. We all know how strong a 440 Magnum is, even basically stock. Anyhow-it takes a little trial and error, but it's worth it in the logn run to maximize your performance.  Mastermind          

You need to do testing and tuning to get the best results....

I talk to a lot of people who complain that their cars don't perform up to magazine test cars results. As I said in a previous post sometimes the test cars are "ringers" i.e.-supertuned or mildly modified. Even when their bone stock there can be glaring differences in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.  The last 400 4-speed Trans-Ams tested in 1979 are a good example. Car and Driver's test car ran a 15.3 second 1/4 mile time. Hot Rod's ran a blistering 14.61. Was Hot Rod's car a ringer?  No it wasn't. The difference is the driving technique. Car and Driver launched the car a 2,200 rpm with "some wheelspin" and all shifts were lift-throttle. Hot Rod Revved it up to 3,500-4,000 and dropped the clutch hard, and powershifted their way to the 14.61. Popular Hot Rodding and High-Performance Cars tested 400 / 4-speed Formulas. PHR ran a 15.04. High-Performance Cars ran a 14.78. The difference could have been weather-maybe a headwind, or track conditions or driver skill, or maybe one car was just a couple tenths quicker. That happens. In the early 90's several magazines tested "5.0" Mustangs. The 1/4 mile times varied the quickest being a 14.72 and the slowest being a 15.29. The test cars were all 5-speeds, some had 2.73:1 gears and some had 3.08:1s. Some had only 250 miles on them; one had 5,600. Certainly small differences could be attributed to one having a better broken-in engine, or slightly stiffer gearing. But 14.70-15.30 is a broad range-six tenths, which would be six car lengths in a drag race. ( The rule of thumb is 1/10 equals 1 car length ). Most of this was launch technique and shift points. All the testers said the car's would spin the tires as long as you want to stay on the throttle. While that's great for a burnout contest, it's not conducive to quick 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. Most of the testers would pop the clutch between 2,500-3,000 rpm which would cause the excessive wheelspin-and would shift at the 5,500 rpm redline. Hot Rod got the fastest time by slipping the clutch and walking it off the line at 1,800-2,200 rpm, and short-shifting at 4,800-5,000 rpm. This avoided the excessive wheelspin on launch and made maximum use of the 302's tractor-like torque curve. Yeah, the engine would rev to 5,500 and beyond, but it wasn't making any more power above 5,000 rpm. Revving to 5,500-5,700 was just beating up the valvesprings unnecessarily. I learned this when I had my '69 Judge and again when I had my '77 T/A. The Judge was a Ram Air III / 4-speed model with 4.33:1 gears. It also had an Offenhauser Dual-Quad intake with two 750 AFB's on it, a hot Crane Solid-lifter cam, and Hooker Headers. It also had Lakewood Ladder bars and N50X15 Mickey Thompsom "Hot-n-Sticky" rear tires. It launched best if I popped the clutch about 3,800-4,300 rpm. Below 3,500 and the car would go slower. Above 4,500 and it would blow the tires off. But in that 500 rpm window it would come out of the hole like a rocket, with just enough wheelspin to get the car moving with alarcity and the engine up on it's torque curve. Because of the RAIII 400's massive torque times didn't vary much if I shifted between 5,800-6,200 rpm. I could run it to 6,500-6,800 if I wanted to-but the car didn't go any faster; I was just beating up the bottom-end and the valvesprings for no reason. Once I had mastered this technique I was deadly in a drag race. Rev to 4,000, side-step the clutch, powershift at 6,000, rock-n-roll baby!!  But I had to play with shift points and launch rpm to know this. And it matters even on cars that aren't super-hot like the Judge. My '77 T/A was a 403 Olds model with a TH350 and 2.56:1 gears. When it was bone-stock I figured out it made no difference on launch if I just punched it off-idle or if I powerbraked it to 2,000 rpm. Neither technique showed a noticeable gain over the other. This was probably because the 403 made 325 lbs ft of torque at 1,600 rpm. This torque rating was identical to the 400 Pontiacs, except the Pontiac's torque peak came much higher in the range. I learned that shift points made a difference even with an automatic. The car ran quickest if I shifted manually at 4,900 rpm ( 1-2 ), and 4,400 rpm ( 2-3 ). After I modified it with Hooker Headers, a Holley "Street Dominator" intake, a custom-jetted Quadrajet, a TransGo shift kit, and swapping the R46SZ ( .080 gap ) plugs for R45S ( .040 gap ) plugs the 1/4 mile time dropped substantially-from 16.3 to 14.9!! The plugs made a big difference. Even with the headers and the single-plane intake-the car had noticeably more power-but it would start to run out of breath about 4,700 rpm. Even GM's mighty HEI couldn't bridge an .080 gap at high rpm. With the .040 gap plugs it would pull hard to 5,400 rpm. With this serious extra power infusion, I had to change my driving technique. Now the car launched better if I powerbraked it  to 2,000 rpm. And it ran quicker if I shifted at 5,200 rpm 1-2, and 5,000 rpm 2-3.  So it's definitely worth it to take the time to play with launch rpm and shift points and find your car's "Sweet Spot".  That's how my T/A beat many supposedly "faster" cars.  Mastermind      

We need a good "Southern Fried" Revenge tale....

There has been talk of Quentin Tarantino doing a remake of the cult classic "White Lightning". I talked at length about this in a post a couple years ago. I don't think it's a good idea. 1st off-with marijuana now legal in most states it would be a pretty hard sell to make the audience believe that anyone gives a shit about untaxed whiskey in this day and age. Secondly-in order to do all the car stunts Tarantino himself had Kurt Russel's "Stuntman Mike" in "Death Proof" rail at length about CGI "ruined" action movies and that new stuff couldn't compare to "Bullitt" or "Vanishing Point" or "White Line Fever"-you couldn't use new cars. The airbags would trigger, the fuel pumps shut off, the suspensions fall out if they were abused like '71 LTD that "Gator" drove. You'd have to set it in the late '60's and use old cars. Third, the acting was awesome. Burt Reynolds played a badass, good ole boy convict perfectly. He'll buy you a beer, tell you a joke, screw your woman, and kill you for a nickel. "Gator" tells the feds what they want to hear to get out of prison-that he'll catch JC Connors for income tax evasion and taking money from whiskey runners. It's pretty clear that Gator plans to kill him from the outset, and doesn't care if he dies or goes back to prison as long as he gets the man who killed his little brother. That's a badass motherfucker. No cutesy "Good guy in bad circumstances" or "Innocent Man Falsely Accused" crap that was so popular in the '70's. Ned Beatty-who played the meek businessman raped by hillbillies in Deliverance does a complete 180 and is utterly chilling as the corrupt, ruthless, murdering Sheriff J.C. Connors. He was more threatening in my opinion than Strother Martin ( "What we have here is a failure to communicate" ) in "Cool Hand Luke". That's range as an actor. Matt Clark was great as a tragic Federal Informant, and Bo Hopkins and R.G. Armstrong are both good as evil moonshiners who turn on Gator when they figure out he's undercover. The greatest performance however was by Jennifer Billingsley-"Shake-a-Puddin". Her brown roots showing in her bleach-blonde hair,barefoot in that skimpy sundress for most of the movie, she just oozed sex appeal, and has sex with Gator in a pond while her boyfriend ( Bo Hopkins ) sleeps in the house up the road. She's not even angry when Gator sets her up for rape so they can escape "Big Bear" and his henchmen. Together they kick ass and she even drives the wounded Gator to a home for unwed mothers for medical attention. Other actresses have tried valiantly to nail the southern slut that men die and kill for-Kim Basinger in "No Mercy", Teri Hatcher in "Heaven's Prisoners" and most recently Reese Witherspoon in "Mud", but none can top Billingsley's epic performance. The movie as a whole is awesome. I just don't think you could improve on it. Just like they shouldn't have done "True Grit". You can't top John Wayne in a western. Like the original "Vanishing Point" "White Lightning" should be on the movie director's "Thou Shalt Not Remake" list. However there's other classics that you could successfully re-do. Here's my list. # 1. "Thunder Road". This made Robert Mitchum a big star. He played Luke Doolin a Korean War Vet who was at war with the feds and other moonshiner's trying to take his business.  Mitchum got this project bought because he had Elvis Presley committed to star in it. Col Parker-Presley's manager convinced him that playing a gangster would tarnish his good-guy image. When Elvis pulled out-Mitchum stepped in, starring and singing the title song. It was a huge hit. In a remake-I'd set it in the late '60's and make Doolin a Viet Nam Vet. I'd also have the gangsters running drugs as well as booze and dabbling in gambling and prostitution. You could use classic musclecars in the chases and Doolin and fellow Vets could kick a lot of ass. Let the screen writer decide if Doolin goes out in a blaze of glory like the original, or if he changes it and he survives and gets away, or goes to prison. I think it would fly, especially if the stunt work was "old school" not CGI.  # 2. "A Small Town in Texas." This one starred Timothy Bottoms, Bo Hopkins and Susan George. It was written by William Norton who also wrote "White Lightning".  Timothy Bottoms played "Poke" Jackson a Texas football hero who just did 5 years in prison on drug charges. He may or may not have been set up by the evil sheriff played with glee by Bo Hopkins. All he wants to do is retrieve his high-school girlfriend ( George ) and their son and move to California where he has a job lined up. However while he was away the sheriff has been dating his girl. Further complicating things-Poke witnesses the Sheriff murdering a popular Hispanic politician. He realizes he's between a rock and a hard place-he either has to run or kill the sheriff to ensure his and his girlfriend's safety. If he kills the sheriff, there's a good chance he'll go back to prison. Try selling that you killed a cop in '70's Texas in self-defense.  He's leaning towards just leaving the state either with or without Susie and the kid. He's that worried. Then the sheriff goes too far kills his best friend. He decides he'll kill the asshole and worry about consequences if he survives. There's some good chase action-one with a 650 Triumph motorcycle and the other with a '64 Chevy pickup that's supposedly 427 powered. Susan George turned in her usual performance which was look sexy in skimpy clothes and yell at the hero a lot-just as she did in "Straw Dogs", "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" and the Civil War potboiler "Mandingo"-where her inter-racial sex scene with boxer Ken Norton ( this was 1975, remember ) got her some Sharon Stone "Basic Instinct" style notoriety for a few years. Mostly she just looked good in a straining halter-top. Anyhow it was good revenge flick and worthy of re-visiting if it's done right. You could even set the story in modern times. Football Hero set up by dirty cop? People would buy that. # 3. "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". This one starred Susan George and Peter Fonda and a yellow '69 Charger. The film actually has a good plot. Fonda is a former race-car driver who decides to fund his return to NASCAR by robbing a Wal-Mart type mega store. Him and his mechanic buddy kidnap the manager's wife and kids and force him to co-operate. The kidnapping and robbery sequences are suspenseful and believable,and there's some good car-chase action early on in a '66 Chevy Impala. Susan George is a one-night stand that Fonda takes along. She looks incredibly sexy and spends most of the movie barefoot in a straining denim halter top and hip-hugger jeans that barely cover the crack of her ass. They swap the Impala for the Charger and make a run for freedom. Fonda and George trade wise-cracks at each other while the mechanic tells Fonda he's "over-driving" the car. Vic Morrow is great as an obsessed sheriff trying to catch them. They go out in a blaze of glory at the end-hitting a speeding freight train. This spectacular crash was used in the opening credits of "The Fall Guy" for years. Anyhow-the robbery-kidnapping-force the employee to help plot would still fly today-especially with cell-phones and computers etc. Just change the dollar amounts. You could use a modern Challenger or Charger. I vote for Chris Hemsworth for the role of "Larry" and Scarlett Johansen as "Mary".  Scarlett Johansen barefoot in a halter-top the whole movie-that's worth the price of admission right there. # 4. "Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw."  This one starred a pre-"Wonder Woman" Lynda Carter and Evangelist-turned-action star Marjoe Gortner.  Carter is a waitress who wants to be a country singer who takes up with Marjoe, who fancies himself a modern-day Jesse James or Billy the Kid. Lynda Carter gets naked a lot.  Some good action as they go on a crime spree and some good chases in cars Gortner steals. As with all '70's movies of this type it doesn't end well for the dynamic duo. Did I mention that Lynda Carter gets naked a lot?  The only problem I see with this one is casting. Lynda Carter was smokin' hot and could sing, and Marjoe was a good-looking sonofabitch, and had charisma in spades. How else do you go from being a traveling, fire-and brimstone-basically a real-life "Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show" Bible-Thumping Huckster to a movie star? Talk about balls and self-esteem? This guy thought Elvis might be as cool as himself. He also guest-starred on a bunch of TV shows in the '70's like "Charlie's Angels" "Fantasy Island", and made some other "B" movies. What modern actors can fill those shoes?  Are you listening QT?  Mastermind            

If you want to build a copy of a "Movie" car or something else do it!! .....Just don't go batshit crazy making it "Correct"...

I talk to many enthusiasts who'd like to copy a "Movie" car or something else but worry it would cost so much they couldn't possibly do it. Now I mentioned the one-off factory-built manual transmission BMW 733I driven by Jason Statham in the original "Transporter". Yes, if it could even be done-converting a 740i  from automatic to stick would be astronomically expensive. However-the 540i Sport models have the same V8 as the 7 series and were available from the factory with a 6-speed manual!!  So if you want to live out your "Transporter" fantasies-start looking for a stick-shift 540i !!  If you want a "Bullitt" Mustang clone-you don't need to spend $25,000+ on a for-real '67-68 390 GT.  Buy a 289 Fastback and play with that. Torq-Thrust mags and a Dark Highland Green paint job and you've got the look.  Since it's a fake anyway-you could swap in the engine and 5-speed tranny out of a '90's fuel-injected "5.0". Or buy a nasty 351W crate engine from Ford SVT or Blueprint engines. Want to play "Magnum P.I?"  I see 308 / 328 GTB / GTS Ferarri's for anywhere from 25-50 grand all the time, depending on mileage and condition. That's not chump change-but I'd much rather spend 40 grand on a for-real Ferarri than 100K+ on an "Eleanor" clone!!  Or you can hop up a base-model. I've talked before about a friend who bought a 6-cylinder / 3-speed '69 Camaro at an auction back in the '80's for $900. A mild 350, a Saginaw 4-speed, a cowl-induction hood, some Rally wheels and paint and emblems-and everyone "oohs" and ahhs" over his "Z/28". Total investment-$ 3,500!!  Even 30+ years ago that was unbelievably cheap. With only 697 built you can't touch a 1969 T/A for under 100 grand. But 15 grand will buy you a nice example of the other 115,000 V8 Firebirds built that year. Year One, Ames,NPD and other places sell the scoops and spoilers, hood tach if you want it, etc to clone a Trans-Am. It's a fake anyway-so who cares if it's a 350? Or if you just "gotta have" an RAIII or RAIV spec motor-It wouldn't be that hard to find a 400 if you wanted one,put some Edelbrock heads and other goodies on it, and even with paint work and everything for less than 25K you'd have a car that no one would know wasn't the real deal unless they checked serial numbers or you told them!! And it would still be big fun to drive. Ditto for a '65-68 GT350 or GT500 Shelby Mustang. Tony Branda and other companies sell the body trim. You could hop up a 289 or swap in a 347 crate motor for a cool "GT350". Want a GT500?  428s are hard to find-but 390s are plentiful and externally identical. Edelbrock claims 452 hp from a 390 with their "Performer RPM" package. That'll get you down the road quickly!!  The point I'm making is you can have a fun toy for not a lot of money if you don't go crazy. Don't scour the galaxy looking for an overpriced "Li'l Red Express" pickup with a smog-dog E58 360. Buy a '74-79 Dodge 1/2 ton, put a stompin' 440 in it with dual-quads or a Six-Pack,( or a 472 Crate Hemi!! ) paint it monochromatic black and get a license plate that says "TRMNATR"!  See what I'm saying?  Mastermind          

More "Movie" and "TV" cars to avoid....

I spoke in the last post how I know for sure that no one has a "Vanishing Point" Challenger, "Bullitt" Mustang, "Bandit" T/A etc. You really have to be careful when buying because there are schysters everywhere who will try to make a quick buck off an unsuspecting consumer. I have a friend who has been in the movie business for 30+ years and she said most of the time a car used in a movie is crushed after filming because the film makers are afraid of liability claims. For example BMW built a one-off manual transmission 733i for the "Transporter". If someone bought that ( impossible; it was blown up in the film ) and drove it-how would a dealer gets parts to repair it? Would BMW warranty it? It's just too risky financially for the car builders and film companies. Someone buys the car-then crashes it and is injured or injures someone else. A lawyer proves that the wreck was caused by mechanical failure due to parts breakage from the stunt work in the film. The "Deep Pockets" rule is used and the movie company takes it in the shorts because some idiot rolled a car while pretending to be Jason Statham or Vin Diesel. They just won't risk it. If it's something really unique often it ends up on display at the Peterson Automotive museum or at Universal Studios. But that doesn't stop scammers from trying to soak the public. I saw a few advertised just the other day. One was a 1969 Charger. It was yellow with black stripes and Ansen slot mags. It had a 440 and a Torqueflite. The seller didn't say that it was the actual car from "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" ( It couldn't be-we saw that car's demise at the end of the movie and in the opening credits of "The Fall Guy" for 5 years ) but he sure hinted at it. I have seen numerous "Eleanor" Mustangs for sale all over the internet. This one really cracks me up. The original "Gone in 60 Seconds" starred H.B. Halicki and a yellow '73 Mustang Mach 1 nicknamed "Eleanor". The final 40 minutes of automotive mayhem is still entertaining to watch 45 years later. Like Tracie Thoms said in "Death Proof"-several years ago Nicholas Cage, Robert Duvall, and Angelina Jolie were in a stinker re-make that wasn't nearly as good, even though it had a much bigger budget. And the Mustang called "Eleanor" was a '67 Mustang with a body kit on it. It was supposed to be a Shelby GT500 but it was obviously a fake. The car is cool looking no doubt about that; but compare it to a for-real GT500-and you'll see the glaring differences. Plus the cars were not 428CJ models. They had 351W crate engines and C6 automatics!!  All of them were priced over 100K. Huh?  I see for-real, numbers-matching documented with a Marti Report 428 CJ Shelby GT500s for sale all the time-some under 100K, some over.  Think about this. You can buy a fully restored, numbers-matching, for-real 428CJ Shelby GT500 for your $100 grand, or you can buy a 351W powered "kit car" that someone cobbled up that's a copy of a car that never existed!!  Which line do you want to be in?  The original "Batmobile" was built by George Barris on a Lincoln Futura chassis. I don't know anyone who doesn't know this. However there are dozens of "Batmobiles" for sale on the internet every day, and god knows what they are made from! I see all kinds of "Starsky&Hutch" Torinos. Once in a while they'll have something really cool-like a 460 backed by a Tremec 5-speed. Most of the time it's a nothing '74-76 Torino 2 dr painted red with a white stripe, with 14" slot mags, with bench seats and a column-shifted FMX behind a 2bbl 351M!!  Now who could resist that?  Every once in a while you'll see a "Miami Vice" Daytona Spider for sale. Except it's not a Ferarri. Neither was the one on the show driven by Don Johnson. It was a Kit Car based on a 1981 Corvette built by Tom McBurnie. And it was blown to bits in the season 2 opener. However-McBurnie and a company called Rowley Corvette and a few others were selling these kits that used a '68-82 'Vette chassis for a few years in the late '80's. However Ferarri sued NBC and the Producers of "Vice" for copywright infringement for using a fake Ferarri and passing it off as real and won-that's why Sonny Crockett got a White Testa Rossa in season 2. Ferarri supplied that as part of the settlement. They also got an injunction that made Rowley and McBurnie and others stop selling the kits. But anyway-now and then you see one advertised on the 'Net or in Hemmings, usually for some astronomical price like 150K. And these are almost always based on an L48 /TH350 '76 model or something similar. If I wanted a '76 Corvette-I could find one for 3-5 grand in any state in the union!!  I've never seen one with a snarling aluminum-headed 454 and a 5-speed. Not that that would be worth 150K either; I'm just saying these cars are never anything really badass their just a '70's Vette with a different fiberglass body!! You may not be able to buy a Real Daytona Spider for 150 grand, but if you want a real Ferarri-I see 308 / 328 GTS's, 512BBs,Testa Rossas and F430's all the time for between 30 to 100K depending on mileage and condition. The all-time winner for sheer Chutzpah goes to the guy who was selling a gold '78 Firebird. With a 301 with a 2bbl and an automatic. Who wanted $30,000 for it becuase it's "Just Like" the "Rockford Files" car!!  ( James Garner drove several gold '74-78 Formula and Esprit Firebirds on the series that ran from 1974-1980 ). Excuse me?  I've seen 400, 4-speed, 4-wheel disc braked, 10th Anniversary Trans-Am models with low mileage for sale for 15K, and you expect someone to pay 30 grand for a 2bbl 301 base model??  What's next the blue and white Mustang II from "Charlie's Angels?" Farrah has sadly passed away, and even if it came with a barefoot, bikini clad Cheryl Ladd-( She still looks awesome ) who really want's a '76 Mustang II?  Anyhow just remember the old saying-"Buyer Beware".  Mastermind        

Do your research BEFORE you spend your money on a "Movie Car" !!

I always get a kick out of people who think their "stealing" something special or getting an incredible deal on something ultra-rare, and then it bites them in the ass. And it serves the greedy bastards right. Here's a few examples. # 1. "Vanishing Point" Challenger. Several people over the years have claimed to have bought and sold or owned one of the cars featured in the cult classic. Their all liars. Here's why. Chrysler supplied five Alpine White Challenger R/T's for the movie. Four were 440 / 4-speeds, and one was a 383 / Automatic. Although they were pretty trashed,a few members of the stunt crew wanted to buy the cars after filming wrapped. However-the Chrysler brass didn't like the movie. They thought it glorified drug use and running from the police, and demanded the cars be shipped back to Hammtrack and crushed. So any asshole who claims he has one of the "Vanishing Point" cars is lying through his teeth, because they were all destroyed in 1971!!   # 2. "Bullitt" Mustang. Tons of people over the years have claimed to have one of these. Ford supplied five cars for the movie, all 390 / 4-speeds. Ford guys don't like to hear it-but in early practice runs for the chase-the 440 / 4-speed Charger would leave the Mustangs so badly that it was unfilmable. It wasn't even a race. Steve McQueen was furious. Stunt Coordinator Carey Loftin ( who also worked on "Vanishing Point" ) and head mechanic Max Balchowski hopped up one of the Mustangs with headers, an Edelbrock intake and Holley carb, and a Mallory distributor. That's why it sounds sooo badass when McQueen is winding it up. The Charger would still win a drag race,by a car length or two, but now they could film it. Bounding over the streets of San Francisco at speeds up to 115 mph-the Charger kept throwing hubcaps. If you watch the film closely the Charger loses 8 hubcaps in the chase!  However-the Mustang was literally falling apart. The shock towers ripping out, suspension parts bending, door handles falling off. Loftin and Balchowski worked overtime every night taking parts off the other cars to keep the camera car running!! By the time filming was over, only two of the five were left standing. The other three were crushed. One was bought by some guy in New York and has been stored in his garage for nearly 50 years. Chad McQueen-Steve's son and an accomplished racer and car buff himself tried to buy it several years ago and was rebuffed. I'm not sure if the same guy still owns it now. The other one seeming ly was lost to the sands of time until a few months ago someone found it in a junkyard in Mexico. "Basket Case" would be an understatement. It's basically a rusted out body and a vin plate. However the vin number does match one of the five Ford sent for the movie. The current owner has vowed to restore it to it's former glory. How? With a new Dynacorn body and all new and old parts? Even if he finds 390 and a Top-Loader 4-speed with 1968 date codes how much of the original car is left?  Does a vin plate constitute a car?  Also-if you watch the film-the cars have all the chrome and all emblems removed. I don't know how many "Bullitt" cars I've seen with all the emblems and chrome intact!  And given all the facts I just stated-all these people are lying!!  # 3. "Smokey and the Bandit" Trans-Am. Pontiac supplied 10 T/A's for this film and they were all destroyed. Some were 4-speeds-in some scenes you see the clutch pedal or they show Burt Reynolds shifting it, or you can hear him rev the engine and pop the clutch before doing a smoky burnout.. In other scenes you see the automatic shifter on the console!  Rumor has it that Sally Field couldn't drive a stick, and director / stunt coordinator Hal Needham gave up trying to edit the shifters out of the dailies, figuring no one would notice or care. Anyhow all 10 were damaged badly and crushed after filming. Since over 15,000 of the 68,000 T/A's Pontiac sold that year were black and gold SE models-a lot of assholes have claimed to have a "Bandit" car. They don't, they don't exist. Trans-Am Specialties of Florida has the 1976 455 / 4-speed 50th Anniversary SE that Pontiac put a '77 front end on for an early ad campaign, that caused Reynolds and Needham to decide-"That's the car we need".  They also have a black and gold T/A that was owned and driven by Burt Reynolds, but it was not used in the movie. So again-any dolt who claims to have a for-real "Bandit" car is full of shit. # 4. Steve McQueen Porsche 911. This one got a high-end car dealer and Hemmings Motor News and other publications in hot water. They claimed to have Steve McQueen's "personal" 911S for sale. Steve McQueen did in fact buy a 911 brand-new in 1969. Seeing the ad-Chad McQueen sent them a letter that basically said-"Gentlemen-I know without a doubt that you do NOT have Steve McQueen's 911S, because it's my garage."  "My father bought it new in 1969 and drove it for several years." "Before he passed away in 1980 he gave the car to my sister who enjoyed it and maintained it for many years."  "When she died of breast cancer a few year ago her husband gave the car back to me."  "It has never left the family."  "So please stop advertising that you have my father's car, because you don't!!"  Upon hearing about this, the poor slob who doubtless paid way more than the car was worth-sued the dealer and the publications wanting some or all of his money back. Some research was done and hears what happened. While filming the racing movie "LeMans" in France in 1970-Steve McQueen drove a real Porsche 917 race car in the film, and because the Porsche factory was heavily involved in the film he formed a friendship with Ferdinand Porsche-the CEO. One day on the set-they were talking and McQueen commented on the great curvy country roads and said "I wish I had my 911 over here."  Wanting to make his friend happy-Ferdinand Porsche called Stuttgart and had a 1970 911S shipped to France and said McQueen could play with it on his days off. McQueen wrecked it playing grab-ass on a country road. He wasn't injured, but the car was nearly totalled. McQueen offered to pay for it, but Ferdinand Porsche said not to worry, they'd write it off as an expense of doing the the movie since they were supplying the race cars as well. The car was repaired and sold as a used car later on, obviously with this interesting story attatched. Somehow in the intervening years someone either innocently or intentionally embellished the story and the car's status changed from "Driven by Steve McQueen" to "Owned by Steve McQueen". The car buyer was compensated and apologies issued all around, but it embarrased a lot of people. # 5. "Fast&Furious" Charger. They wrecked a 1970 Charger at the end of the 1st movie. The second one and third one didn't have Vin Diesel in them. Paul Walker was in the 2nd one. The 4th one had the original cast re-united. The stunt crew paid $30,000 for a decent '70 Charger and $16,000 for a junk one and other figures in between on '68-70 models to make cars for F&F 4. The "Promotional" Charger that went to movie premieres and now is in a musclecar museum was pretty trick and had a supercharged 528 inch Mopar Performance crate Hemi. The stunt cars used in the movie had fiberglass front ends and Mopar guys are cringing-350 Chevy engines and Turbo 400 trannys!!  The blowers were bolt-on fakes. And they were all wrecked in filming. Even if they weren't, who in the hell wants a cobbled up Charger with a fake front clip and a Chevy engine anyway??   Anyhow be very careful when some clown assures you that this is "The car used in the movie". Because it more than likely isn't!!  Mastermind            

More Road test Ringers....

In the last post I promised some more Road Test "Ringers". I aim to please, so here they are. # 1. 1987 Buick Grand National. The Grand National was a big hit with the buff magazines in the late '80's. The '84 and earlier versions of the GN and Regal T-Type which had an electronically controlled Rochester Quadrajet Carburator on the Turbo 3.8 were erratic performers at best. Like the ill-fated Turbo Trans-Am of 1980-81-they just couldn't make the cars run and pass emissions with a Turbo and a Carburator. That all changed in 1985 with the debut of Multi-Port Fuel Injection. With MPFI the engineers could program the fuel curve precisely and set the ECM to back up the timing if detonation was detected. An intercooler also helped greatly. Now instead of stumbling and chugging and running high 15 or low 16 second 1/4 mile times, the Fuelie models ripped off blistering low to mid 14 second times. Car and Driver ran a 14.41, Hot Rod ran a 14.30. Since most L98 Corvettes ran 14.50's Buick could lay claim to building the fastest American production car. One tester however-at Englishtown New Jersey ripped off a blistering 13.85. Other magazines and Buick engineers wanted to examine the car and test it themselves. On the first pass it laid down a 13.95. Subsequent passes were a string of 14.01s, 14.03s and the slowest a 14.05. Still a good 3 or 4 tenths quicker ( 3 or 4 car lengths ) than the other magazines, but except for the first pass-no 13 second runs. It was finally ascertained that the car was running a 160 degree thermostat instead of a 195, and had a modified electric fan switch that turned the fan on at 180 degrees instead of 220. Do you think the engine running 40 degrees cooler would net a much cooler, denser fuel charge-which would help the Turbo's performance greatly? Further the car was filled with 104 octane racing gas-which would ensure that the ECM would deliver full timing all the time, rather than retarding it to run on 87 or 91 octane pump gas!!  Think this made a difference?  Lastly-the original tester also admitted that he put wet towels on the intake manifold between runs!! This all explains how this "stock" GN could break into the 13s when all others could only manage mid 14s!!  # 2. 1991 Ford Mustang LX "5.0".  Car Craft boasted about their "Basically Stock" "5.0" Mustang that ripped of a blistering 14.04 second 1/4. Since other magazines ran between 14.72 ( Hot Rod ) and 15.29 ( Road and Track ). This merited investigation. Yes CC's Mustang was "basically stock". Except for a K&N airbox and filter,a Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust system, swapping the 3.08 gears for some 3.73:1s, and swapping the 225/60VR15 Goodyear Gatorbacks for 235/60R15 M&H Drag Radials. So come on guys-the car's stock-except for the intake and exhaust, stiffer gears, and stickier tires!!  I mean if your going to nit-pick.... # 3. 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4. These swoopy Japanese exotics featured a twin-turbo V6 and all-wheel drive. Their "Controlled Conditons with a professional driver" is almost as audacious as Pontiac swapping the engines in 1964. Most of the buff magazines ran 14.50s with these cars. Mitsubishi claimed a blistering 13.75. This was accomplished by disconnecting the rev limiter, disconnecting the knock sensor, filling the tank with 104 octane gas, and lowering tire pressure to 15 psi. The "professional driver" then dropped the clutch at 6,300 rpm and powershifted at 7,000 ( 500 rpm over the redline ) which grenaded the $5,749 transaxle after 3 runs!!  My neighbor had one of these cars and was totally shocked when my Hurst / Olds blew his doors off.  Not so much when I showed him the "Contolled Conditions".  Like the old saying goes only believe half of what you read and none of what you hear... Mastermind  

Road Test "Ringers" revisited....

Someone asked me the other day why production examples can almost never match the blistering 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of magazine test cars. This guy was upset because two people he knew had new cars and the performance was nowhere near what the magazines claimed. One was a Turbocharged 4-cylinder Mustang. Car and Driver's test mule ripped off a blistering 13.9 second 1/4.  The best his friend's could do was a 14.5. Definitely quick for a 4-banger, but more than 1/2 a second ( about 5 car lengths ) slower than the "Prototype". The other was a Dodge Demon Challenger. The one that has 840 hp and comes from the factory with a trans-brake and drag radials. Chrysler claims a 9.65 second 1/4 mile time. The fastest ever for a production car. This guy's buddy took his to the drags and ran 10.60's. Now that's still ungodly fast-but it's a full second off the manufacturer's claims. Are the manufacturers cheating?  Yes and no. Magazine test mules are tuned flawlessly to "The top of specifiactions". In other words they run as good as they possibly can. Production examples are hit and miss. I worked for Pontiac back in 1983. I remember we had two Trans-Am's on the lot-a black one and a white one. Both had "Cross-Fire" Injected 305 V8s and TH700R4 automatics. The white one would lay 30 feet of rubber on take-off, and lay another 8-10 feet on the 1-2 shift. The black one couldn't spin the wheels at all. Why? I don't know. Anyhow my answer to this guy was this-besides being perfectly tuned, test mules are usually filled with 100 octane gas. This insures that the engine doesn't "ping" under load, and ensures that the ECM doesn't back up the timing to avoid this. Especially on Turbocharged or Supercharged cars-this alone makes a HUGE difference. The car is going to run way better on 100 octane race gas than it will on 87 or 91 octane pump gas!!  The other thing is the test is performed "under controlled conditions with a professional driver."  That means they play with tire pressure, launch technique and shift points. Sometimes it takes them 30 passes to get the best result. A recent example was one of the magazines tested a new Subaru WRX. They listed a blistering 5.4 second 0-60 time and a 13.8 second 1/4. They did disclose that they got this by lowering tire pressure to 25 psi-( factory recommendation is 36 psi, and the tires max is 44 psi ) and popping the clutch at 5,500 rpm!!  Now who drives around in their new $40,000 WRX with 25 psi in the tires ( and low tire pressure light on ) and drops the clutch at 5,500 rpm to jump someone from a light?!  They conceded that with 36 psi in the tires and a reasonable launch-say 3,000 rpm-that the 0-60 time was closer to 6 seconds and the 1/4 mile took 14.3. Still really quick for a 3,800 lb car with a 4-cylinder engine-but not what the readers are led to believe. And sometimes in the interest of selling the cars the manufacturers do cheat. Here's some of my personal favorites. # 1. 1964 Pontiac GTO. After 50 years-Jim Wangers finally admitted what we already knew. Car and Driver's May 1964 test car that ran a blistering 4.6 second 0-60 time and a 13.1 second 1/4 was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the stock 389 and replaced it with a Blueprinted 421. In addition to the extra cubes it had thin head gaskets to raise compression, loosely adjusted valves with rocker arm lock nuts to rev higher, a mechanical throttle linkage on the Tri-Power ( instead of vacuum ) custom-jetted carbs, and a re-curved distributor. Small wonder that production examples with an assembly line built 389-could only run 14.50s.  # 2. 1969 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6. Chrysler advertised the 440 Six-Pack Road Runner as a 12 second car right off the showroom floor. The ad had a list of mid-high 12 second times they had run during testing. The test mule had a blueprinted 440 with custom-jetted carbs, a custom curved distributor, a 4-speed, a 4.30 geared posi rear end with a pinion snubber, and 28 inch drag slicks. And the "Professional Driver" was Pro Stock Champion Ronnie Sox of "Sox&Martin" fame. Shocker-Hot Rod's production example with a stock engine, 3.54 gears and street tires and a writer driving could only manage a 13.56. That's damn quick-but still nearly a full second off of the advertisements claims!!  # 3. 1973 SD-455 Trans-Am. The "Prototype" Buccaneer Red T/A that ran a blistering 13.54 for Hot Rod and 13.75 for Car and Driver was a ringer. If you look closely at the pictures you'll see the numbers on the Michigan liscence plates. It's the same car. Further-although the Road tests were published in the May and June issues-the tests were done in January. This is relevant because the SD-455 was initially going to be offered in the GTO, the Grand Prix and the Grand Am as well as Trans-Am and Formula Firebirds. "High Performance Cars" magazine made a collossal goof. They named the SD-455 1973 GTO their "Car of the Year". However-the engineers had trouble with connecting rod failure, EGR valve function,and trouble passing emissions with the hot RAIV cam. The cam was swapped for the much milder RAIII cam and hp was down-rated from 310 to 290. The project was almost scrapped. Only the tireless efforts of Herb Adams saved it, and in April 1973 the engine was finally EPA certified in the Firebird line only. That's why only 295 were built-252 T/A's and another 43 Formulas. Another 943 were built in 1974. Anyway-the prototype had the hotter RAIV cam,  an EGR-less 1972 aluminum 455HO / RAIV intake and an open "Shaker" hood scoop. Production examples had the milder RAIII cam, an iron intake with an EGR valve, and the hood scoops were bolted closed because of noise regulations. Other SD-455 cars tested by other magazines in the '73-74 period ran low 14s. Awesome performance for a 3,800 lb car with only 8.4:1 compression; but nowhere near the blistering 13.50s of the "Prototype". No one knows what happened to the prototype. Some people say it was sold to a Pontiac executive, other people say it was crushed. # 4. 1973 Olds 442. Motor Trend had a "1973 Performance Car Preview". The red and silver Cutlass 442 blew the doors off all comers including an SD-455 Trans-Am, a 454 Corvette, a 440 Dodge Charger, a 401 /4-speed AMC Javelin AMX, and a 351CJ Mustang. Olds engineers admitted that "Just for Kicks" they had re-curved the distributor, re-jetted the carb and swapped the stock cam in the 455 for the hot "W30" cam out of the 1970 442. They also put a Hurst shift kit and 2,800 rpm "Shotgun" Torque converter in the TH400 and were running 3.42:1 gears. Shocker-production examples with a stock engine and tranny and 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 gears were substantially slower!!  # 5. 1978 Dodge Li'l Red Express Pickup. I touched on this one in a recent post about one or two year wonders. Car and Driver's "Prototype" blew the doors off both an L82 / 4-speed Corvette and a W72 Trans-Am. However the 360 V8 in the "Prototype" had NASCAR-style "W2" heads,a single-plane aluminum Holley "Street Dominator" intake with a 650 Double-Pumper Holley on it, a hot cam out of the old high-performance 340 V8 and catalyst-free exhaust. Needless to say-production examples with stock heads, a stock cam,an iron intake with an EGR valve and a Carter Thermo-Quad were substantially slower, and their owners shocked when a Corvette or T/A owner showed them their taillights!!  # 6. 1978 Z/28 Camaro. Popular Hot Rodding gushed over their test car that ran blistering ( for 1978 ) 1/4 mile times in the 14.30s. Since Hot Rod' magazine's Z/28  tester ran a 15.21, and Car and Driver's ran a 15.60-this merited further investigation. Dennis and Kyle Mecham of DKM inc had great success with the "Macho T/A". Pontiac Trans-Ams that they hopped up with recurved distributors, re-jetted carbs, Hooker Headers and real dual exhausts. They also had custom graphics. The buff magazines raved, and they couldn't build them fast enough to meet demand. Since they were working out of their dad's Chevrolet / Pontiac dealership in Glendale, Arizona, they got the idea to give the "Macho" treatment to a Z/28 Camaro. Well-PHR's badass test car was the "Macho Z" prototype-it had Hooker headers and dual exhausts, the custom jetted carb, re-curved distributor, open hood scoop-the full "Macho T/A" treatment. That's why it was so much faster than a stocker. The Mecham brothers also did an L82 Corvette that had a Doug Nash 5-speed that was tested by Car Craft that got rave reviews. However-for some reason Chevy dealers weren't as enthusiastic as Pontiac dealers for selling hot-rodded cars, and the "Macho Z" and the L82S never took off like the "Macho T/A's" did. The Macho Z prototype is the only one built. It's in a musclecar museum. No one knows what happened to the L82S prototype. Maybe Dennis Mecham does. There's other cases in the '80's and '90's, but that's another post for another time.....Mastermind