Beware of what's written by self-proclaimed "Experts"....

If your searching for a musclecar you really have to beware of falsehoods out there that are perpetuated by self-proclaimed "experts". I grew up in the '60's and '70's, followed my dad into the car business and spent my life working in dealerships and speed shops. Often I was in charge of "PDI"-"pre-delivery inspection" of new cars as they came off the truck. The reason I bring this up is I almost got in a fistfight with a "Know it all" who argued with me that "Road&Track's" 1977 Road Test of a 400, 4-speed Trans-Am was wrong because the writer alluded to the car having a "Rock Crusher" 4-speed. ( If you don't know,GM musclecars used 3 Muncie 4-speeds, the M20,the M21 and the M22. The M20 was a wide-ratio with a 2.52 1st gear. The M21 and M22 were close-ratios with a 2.20 1st gear. The M20 and the M21 had helical cut gears which made for quiet running and smooth shifting. The M22 had straight-cut gears for additional strength. This is why M22s were only used behind L88 427 Corvettes, L78 396 Chevelles, RAIII and RAIV 400 GTOs and Firebirds, 455HO T/A's and GTOs, W30 400 and 455 Olds 442s and 302 and 350 Z/28 Camaros and LT1 Corvettes. Because of the straight-cut gears they were noisy, especially when cold, making a grinding sound that sounded like a kid's rock polisher. Hence the nickname "Rock Crusher". However, some of the buff magazines also hung this moniker on the M21, because it shared the same 2.20 low gear ratio with the M22. In reality, only an M22 is a true "Rock Crusher". ) Anyway-this clown argued that after 1974 Trans-Ams and Z/28 Camaros only used Borg-Warner T10s. He had obviously read this in a magazine. I explained that the writer for Road&Track wasn't wrong, that his test car very well could have had an M21 4-speed. Especially since my dad and I bought a barnd-new 1978 WS6, W72,400, 4-speed T/A in 1978, and I went to the dealership with him to order it, and saw the salesman look in th GM order book and put "M21" on the order sheet in the transmission box!. And when the car was delivered,we put it on the rack in our shop and it did in fact have a Muncie M21 trans, just like it said on the window sticker!! Now some other guys we knew also bought T/A's of this vintage, and some of them had T10s, and some of them had Muncies! I pointed out that except for Z/28's and L79, L46 and LT1 'Vettes, that the Muncies were used almost exclusively with big-blocks. If you had a 350 Camaro, Nova or Chevelle, or a 350 Firebird or LeMans with a 4-speed it was probably a Saginaw 4-speed, which GM used extensively from 1968-79. This guy got spittingly hysterical, quoting more buff magazine articles, and factory sales literature. I tried to explain that what appeared in early sales literature, didn't always make production. Here's a huge one. In early 1973 sales literature the SD-455 was listed as optional in the Firebird, GTO, LeMans, Grand Am, and Gran Prix models. "Cars" Magazine even voted the 1973 GTO their "Car Of the Year". However, we all know that the SD-455 had trouble passing emissions with the hot RAIV cam, which was swapped for the milder RAIII cam and hp down-rated from 310 to 290. They also trouble with connecting rod failure on early prototypes, and with EGR valve function. The engine was finally EPA certified in April 1973 in the Firebird line only. That's why only 295 were built-252 in Trans-Ams and another 43 in Formulas, all with April, May or June production dates.  This isn't an isolated example. Early 1972 Chrysler sales literature lists the 440 "Six-Pack" as optional in the Road Runner and Charger, rated at 330 hp, with 9:1 compression. Quite a drop from the 385 hp and 10.3:1 of the '71 model. However, they had trouble passing the stiffer 1972 emissions standards and the option was scrapped, leaving the 280 hp 440 4bbl as the top performance option. Rumors persist that 10 or 12 "slipped out", but I have never seen one, nor has one ever been verified by any buff magazine or Chrysler engineer, or build sheet.  In 1972 Ford offered a high-performance 351C in Mustang Mach 1s, that was a step above the 266 hp hydraulic-cammed 351CJ.  It had 8.8:1 compression, a hot solid-lifter cam, and was rated at 285 hp. It was only available with a 4-speed manual trans and 3.91:1 gearing. It was basically a detuned "Boss 351" which in 1971 had 11.3:1 compression and 330 hp. In early literature it was even called "The Boss". Ford later re-named it the "351HO". Not many were sold because people didn't know about them, and Ford didn't promote the option. I remember my dad PDI-ing one at Serramonte Ford in South San Francisco. It sounded nasty. In original 1964 sales literature the 442 option is listed as available on any Cutlass or F85 model including sedans and wagons. Again-no one has ever produced a 442 sedan or wagon, no build sheet for one has ever been discovered, and no Olds engineer or employee has ever verified one!  In 1970 the LS6 454 was supposed to be available in the Camaro SS and the Nova SS as well as the Chevelle line. Zora Arkus-Duntov, cheif Corvette engineer fully expected the much more radical LS7 to make production as the Vette's top dog, so the LS6 wasn't offered in the Corvette. At the last minute the brass decided to cut down on "model proliferation"-whatever that means-and the LS7 was killed ( It was sold in parts depts for years later as a crate engine ), and the LS6 installed in the Chevelle line only. That's why there were no 1970 LS6 'Vettes.  In 1967 Pontiac introduced the 400 V8 which had much better breathing cylinder heads than the '59-66 389 and made more power and torque even though it was only available with a single 4bbl. This was partly evolution and partly a GM edict to drop multi-carb setups. Zora-Arkus Duntov and Chevrolet defied the order having a 3-2bbl option on 427 'Vettes until 1969. Buick, Olds and Pontiac complied dropping their tri-power and dual-quad setups at the end of 1966. Since Tri-Power ( 3-2bbls ) had been a Pontiac Performance staple since 1959, the buff magazines howled to the high heavens. All the parts of the '65-66 setup were available through dealership parts depts and it would bolt up to the new engine. Some Dealers like Royal Pontiac would even have their service departments install it if you paid extra. So some clown's dad or older brother could have feasibly bought a new 1967 GTO with Tri-Power on it. But there was NEVER a factory built version!! In early 1965 sales literature,the 409 is listed as available in 1965 Impalas. However the much more modern, "Porcupine" 396 that was introduced in 1965 was the new "big dog" of Chevrolet Performance and the "W" series 409 was dropped. I personally have never seen a 1965 409 Impala, although some people claim that "a few" exist. ( Like 1972 440 Six-Packs ). If anyone can come up with a window sticker, or build sheet, or vin number verified by GM historical services, I will stand corrected. Otherwise I don't think there are any 409 powered '65 Impalas. But I could be wrong. The point I'm making is just because something MIGHT have been offered 40 or 50 years ago, doesn't mean it actually made production. So do some checking before you spend your hard-earned money, and don't take some lunkhead's word just because he has old issues of Car Life or old GM, Ford, and Chrysler sales brochures!!  Mastermind