Don't fall for the Overkill that magazines feature!

I've see a lot of cars where people mimic a car they've seen in a magazine and then are disappointed with it. The way to avoid this is to err on the side of caution. With most musclecars less is more anyway. Here's what I mean:  #1. Induction-multi-carb systems look and sound cool. If you want a Tri-power system ( 3-2bbl carbs ) on your GTO, Corvette or Road Runner, I'm certainly not going to talk you out of it. When their tuned right, they work great. The problem is, as soon as the car fouls a spark plug, the owner starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. The same goes for dual-quad ( 2-4bbl ) setups. They work well if their tuned right. These are kind of a buy-it-if-you-like-it decision. As for performance-think about this-If a Super Stock Firebird can run 11.30s with a Quadrajet on a stock iron manifold, why do you need a tunnel-ram and dual 660 Holleys?  # 2. "We shall Overcam" seems to be the hot-rodders motto. 50 years ago-say about 1962-when "American Graffiti" was set-High-performance engines used solid-lifter cams. This was because the hydraulic lifters of the time would "pump up" and the engines would run out of rpm about 5,000. Solid lifters allowed racers to rev to 6,500 or 7,000 and beyond, but made noise and required frequent adjustment. Modern camshaft and lifter design has come a long way since then, and you can run a flat-tappet hydraulic cam that requires no adjustment, runs quiet, and pulls hard to 7,000 rpm. Crane, Competition Cams, Lunati, Edelbrock and others have excellent performance hydraulic cams for most popular engines. However, now roller cams are all the rage. If you have a 1987 and later Chevy V8, a 1986 and later Ford, or a 1992 and later Chrysler "Magnum" engine ( Why are you running these in a '60s or '70s musclecar anyway? ) that had a roller cam from the factory, then that's the only way to fly. But if your engine didn't have a roller cam stock-the parts to convert the valvetrain often run as much as $1,800!! That's a lot more than the $300 or so that most flat-tappet hydraulic cam kits cost. If your building a drag racer or a Nascar racer that has to go 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona, yes you need all the beef you can get. But for a street / strip engine that's never going to see the high side of 6,500 rpm it's a total waste of time and money. # 3. Too much Converter. "Hi-Stall" converters came into being in the late '50's and early '60s to help racers with automatic transmissions whose car's small, high-revving engine didn't have enough torque to launch the car properly. Again-were talking a 301 Chevy ( bored-out 283 ) with a 1.76:1 low gear Powerglide or a 289 Ford with a C4. If you have a  mild big-block-even a bone-stock 396 Chevelle or a 383 Road Runner, all a higher stall speed converter will do is blow the tires off-create excessive wheelspin which will actually make you run slower. You have to realize the benchmark for rating converters is 230 lbs ft of torque. About what a stock 1984, 8.0:1 compression, LG4 4bbl 305 Chevy has. If you have a 455 Pontiac that has 480 lbs ft of torque at 2,700 rpm-what's going happen if you put a 3,000 rpm converter behind that? Your going to blow the tires off. Here's the rule of thumb for replacing a stock converter-If your camshaft has less than 225 degrees intake duration at .050 lift-( about 280 advertised duration ) you really don't need a performance converter. Remember a larger engine can take more cam without ill-effects-i.e.-hurting idle or driveability. Here's some good examples.  A cam that absolutely kills a 305 Chevy-i.e. the original "350 hp 327 Corvette" grind- will work pretty good in a 350 with a stick, and be really sweet in a 383 / 400 regardless of tranny.  A "Ram Air IV" cam will kill a 350 Pontiac, be a little lumpy in a 400 but good with a 4-speed, and be absolutely awesome in a 455 with a stick or automatic. Follow the cam manufacturers recommendations for axle ratios and converters-there's a reason a Boss 302 Mustang or an RAIV GTO only came with 3.90:1 or 4.33:1 gears!! Which brings up..... # 4. Not enough Gear. This is the problem with most '70's cars. Manufacturers went to higher ( lower numeric ) gearing to reduce emissions. But it really screws up the neophyte hot-rodder. Here's why-a 1968 GTO with a 10.75:1 compression 400 and 3.55:1 gears is so strong-that you really can't kill it-even if you went with a big cam and a single-plane intake ala' Torker II-the loss of bottom-end torque would actually help you launch with less wheelspin, and the increaed top-end rush will help you cut a lower e.t.  Do the same thing to your '77 "Bandit" T/A with an 8.0:1 400 and 2.56:1 gears and it's a dog-it won't even run as fast as it did stock. Your choices with the T/A would be to run a milder cam and a dual plane intake, or increase compression to about 10:1 and add 3.42 or 3.73 gears. If your car has salt-flats gearing-2.56:1 or 2.73:1 then you need to change to something in the 3.23:1 to 3.73:1 range. If your car has 3.08:1 or lower ( higher numeric ) then your probably ok unless your just going hog-wild with the engine to the point where you'd need 4.11:1 or 4.56:1 gears. If you remember the "Less is more" rule when building a street driven car- you'll be ok. Mastermind