"Stuntman Mike's" favorites.....

A bunch of people inquired about the classics I quoted in the last post and who Kurt Russel was playing. If your not a Quentin Tarantino fan-Kurt Russel played a sadistic stuntman who murdered women with his car in "Death Proof"-which was the 2nd feature of "Grindhouse"-QT's collaboration with buddy Robert Rodriguez-( From Dusk till Dawn, "Desperado", "Once a Upon a Time in Mexico ) that included "Planet Terror" a Zombie flick. There's a great monologue where "Stuntman Mike" talks about his career and how moviemakers are charlatans and pussies with the advent of CGI. He longs for the "Vanishing Point" days, the "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry days, the "White Line Fever" days-where you had great men doing great things with great cars. I quoted him in the last post and listed other classics. People have asked me to expand on them-I aim to please-so here goes.# 1.  "Vanishing Point". This cult classic from 1971 gets the top spot, and it's still cool today. Barry Newman plays Jimmy Kowalski-who we learn in flashbacks is a Vietnam Veteran, an ex-cop, and an ex-stock car and motorcycle racer who's wife died tragically in a surfing accident. That's why he doesn't give a shit about anything. He's working as a delivery driver for a luxury car service. He bets his drug dealer the tab for some speed that he can make it from Denver to San Francisco in 15 hours. He's driving an Alpine White 1970 Dodge Challenger. ( They had 5 cars-4 were 440 / 4-speeds, the camera car was a 383 / automatic. ) That's why he's going so fast and not stopping for the police. Along the way he's guided over the radio by "Super Soul" a blind, and maybe clairvoyant outlaw DJ ( Played brilliantly by a young Cleavon Little-this was made even before "Blazing Saddles" )  ala' "Wolfman Jack" who tells him how to avoid the police. He meets a snake-charmer, some Jesus freaks and a naked motorcycle rider who help him along the way as the nationwide manhunts tightens around him. Try to get the U.K. version on DVD-it has extra minutes that show him fighting in Viet Nam, and a brilliant scene with Charlotte Rampling as a hitch hiker he has sex with who may or may not be his dead wife come to get him. These were cut from the U.S, theatrical release. The car-chase action is awesome, the music by Mountain, Jerry Reed, Kim Carnes, Big Mama Thornton, and Rita Coolidge is awesome, and the blaze of glory finale is great. The smile on Barry Newman's face as he drives into the bulldozers is priceless.  # 2. "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry"  This 1974 classic stars Peter Fonda who really hadn't done much since the spectacular "Easy Rider". It actually has a good robbery / kidnapping plot gone wrong, and there's some excellent car-chase action early on in a '66 Chevy Impala. Fonda is a career criminal who used to be a NASCAR driver. The smokin' hot Susan George ( "Mandingo", "A Small Town in Texas" ) is a floozy he picks up along the way. She's largely wasted as Fonda and his mechanic / partner make fun of her a lot. But since she spends the entire move barefoot in ultra-tight hip-hugger jeans and a skimpy denim halter-top, we don't complain. The finale is them trying to out run the law in a yellow "Dukes of Hazzard / Bullitt Charger that in some scenes is a '68 and in others a '69. Awesome automotive mayhem and the blaze of glory finale where they hit a train was used as the opening sequence for  Lee Majors hit show about a stuntman / bounty hunter- "The Fall Guy."  # 3. "Bullitt"  Steve McQueen is the epitome of cool as "Dirty Harry" type detective Frank Bullitt who gets screwed while protecting a key mob witness, and tries to find out who's pulling the strings. Robert Vaughn is excellent as the smarmy,ambitious D.A. who will do anything to advance his career, and Norman Fell ( yes, the future "Mr. Roper" on "Three's Company" ) is sinister as a police captain who may or not be dirty. To the letter police procedures, and the classic chase make it realistic even 40 years later. # 4. "White Line Fever"  This 1975 cult classic stars a young Jan-Micheal Vincent as a Viet Nam vet who buys a big rig truck and tries to make a living as an independent trucker. However he soon runs afoul of corrupt trucking company officials, corrupt union officials, and corrupt cops. A young Kay Lenz is smokin' hot as his beleguared wife, and Slim Pickens, L.Q. Jones and Bo Hopkins round out the excellent cast of thugs against him. He becomes a union organizer, and the Blaze of Glory finale when he drives the "Blue Mule" through the corrupt union headquarters  had people cheering in the aisles in the '70's. # 5. "White Lightning". Burt Reynolds at his "Good Ole Boy" best. He plays Gator McCluskey- a career criminal / moonshiner who we find in prison at the beginning of the film.   After his college-boy brother is murdered by a corrupt Arkansas Sheriff-he makes a deal with the feds to get the Sheriff on income tax evasion charges. When he gets out of prison, he goes home to Bogen County, Arkansas. The baddies may see him coming, but it's too late to get out of his way. When Matt Clark tells him "If you want to get J.C. Connors, your gonna have to kill him."  Burt doesn't flinch. Great car-chase action, and Jennifer Billingsley-who spends most of the film barefoot in a skimpy, mini-sndress, her dark brown roots showing in her bleach-blond hair, is poignant and sexy as "Shake a Puddin'" - a southern slut that can't help falling for the wrong guys, In my opinion Burt's best movie except for "Malone". # 6. "The Seven-Ups" 1974 thriller Starring Roy Scheider as the head of an elite cop unit that specializes in major crimes that carry sentences of 7 years or more. Hence the title. Tony LoBianco is great as his child hood friend who feeds him mob info and busts, and may be setting him up for a big fall. The chase involves two Pontiacs- a Grand Ville and a Ventura and since it was directed by Phillip D' Antoni-who worked on "Bullit" it's realistic and exciting and the finale is a huge surprise. If they could have got Steve McQueen, this actually could have been a sequel to "Bullit" but Roy Scheider did a great job. Anyhow like "Stuntman Mike" said-these flicks all had great action that was done by men and women risking life, limb and property not on a computer screen. Mastermind                
.

I want believable action....Not physically impossible CGI.....

I knew it-a bunch of people asked me why couldn't I just enjoy Fast & Furious 6 as a mindless action flick? Because almost none of the action was believable. I have to plagiarize Kurt Russel in "Death Proof"-"I long for the Vanishing Point Days, the Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry days-when you had great men doing great things with great cars. "Bullitt" is exciting to this day more than 40 years later-because Stunt drivers Cary Loftin, Steve McQueem, and Bill Hickman were actually going 115 miles per hour through the streets of San Francisco. No speeding up the camera, just raw action. You can forgive them passing the same VW three times or the Charger losing 8 hubcaps, because the rest of it is so raw and viscereal.  In "Vanishing Point" Carey Loftin ( subbing for star Barry Newman ) actually jumped that creek in one of the five Challengers they had. The only modifications he made to the car were cranking up the torsion bars and installing heavy-duty Koni shocks. In the blaze of glory finale-when Kowalski drives into the bulldozers- If you look real close at the wreckage-you can see the car that blew up at the end was a Camaro; but the fact remains-they actually ran a car into the bulldozers at high speed. ( Loftin towed a junk Camaro that had explosives under the hood behind the camera car toward the dozers at 100 mph and had a quick release-tow cable ). It wasn't computer generated bullshit. When the Pontiac Ventura rear-ended the semi in the "Seven-Ups" while chasing the black Grand Ville-they actually did it. Those '72 LTD's-most of the cop cars and Burt Reynolds' "Whiskey Runner" didn't corner too well-but they were actually bouncing down those country roads and flying over the bumps in "White Lightning." Except for the bridge jump-Burt Reynolds and Director / Stunt coordinator Hal Needham actually did all the Trans-Am's stunts in "Smokey and the Bandit". They totalled 10 T/A's in filming. It's said that during the 1979-85 run-"The Dukes of Hazzard" totaled 216 '68-70 Chargers doing stunts. It may not have always looked pretty-but they were actually doing it. Now with CGI their just putting a video game on screen. The same with fight scenes and martial-arts movies. Jet Li-jumps six feet in the air, rotates his body clockwise, kicks three guys in the face, does a backflip, and lands on his feet ( Romeo Must Die ). That's believable. I personally like Jason Statham as an actor and he's a gifted athlete; I've read about his grueling workout routine. But some of the stuff in the "Transporter" movies either in the fight scenes or with the cars is literally, physically impossible!! Like Jumping the BMW onto the truck or the Audi onto the train. Why does everybody have to be "The Matrix?" That was ok, it was supposed to be an alternate reality where anything is possible. But in these other movies they want you to believe the hero can run up walls and fly through the air. At least if Chuck Norris, or Jean-Claude Van Damme, or even Jackie Chan did something, it might have looked inelegant, but you knew they were really doing it. Now,-the crap they do-it can't be done, we know it can't be done, we know the actor / stuntman isn't doing it, so why put it on screen?  Is the target audience 12 year old boys?  I like a good action flick as much as the next guy-but it's got to be somewhat believable. The first "Die Hard" was about as far as you can go. After that they got stupid. Remember Lethal Weapon 2?  Where Mel Gibson pulls the house off the cliff with a Chevy truck??!!  A million-dollar beach house in California, who has the strictest building codes in the nation, where everything has to be "Earthquake Proof", and some asshole can pull the house OFF IT'S FOUNDATION with a pickup and not even break the axle or the tranny on the truck!!!!  Oh yeah, that's possible!!!  Here's a novel idea guys-how about write an interesting, original story, and have plausible action instead of relying on a gazillion dollars of special effects?  An example-I saw "Mud" starring Matthew Mconaghy as a fugitive that's helped by some junior-high kids. Matt was awesome as a dangerous, slightly unhinged predator obsessed with trailer-part slut Reese Witherspoon. Strutting around braless in a tank-top, barefoot in "Daisy Duke" shorts, showing her tattoos, she played the southern "Trailer Park Barbie" flawlessly-even topping Jennifer Billingsley in "White Lightning" for sheer white-trash tramp, that's both disgusting and sexy at the same time. Sam Shepherd was excellent as Mud's only friend who knows what a loser he is, but helps him evade the law and death anyway. The finale is exciting, and surprising. And guess what? No explosions, no running up walls, no cars chasing airplanes, just great storytelling and believable action. That was a satisfying movie experience that we need more of.  Not big-budget CGI contests. Mastermind      

There doesn't need to be a Fast & Furious 7.....

I know this is going to piss a bunch of people off, and I know no one in Hollywood is going to listen-as long they keep grossing zillions-Justin Lin and Vin Diesel will keep cranking them out. But Fast & Furious 6 was terrible. Fast Five was a little over the top with them dragging the safe through the streets of Brazil, but I have  enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy a mindless action flick as long as it's not too far-fetched. At the end of Number Five Diesel and crew supposedly split 100 million bucks and all lived happily ever after. They should have left it at that. Part 6 opens with a cat & mouse race through the mountains of Spain between Vin Diesel driving a Hemi Challenger and Paul Walker driving a Nissan GT-R. For those of you that don't know-the GT-R -nicknamed "Godzilla" by the buff magazines is an all-wheel drive sports car with a twin-turbo V6 that puts out 560 hp and is backed by a six-speed automatic. They do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 11.5 seconds and have a top speed of close to 200 mph, and pull something like .098G on the skidpad according to Car & Driver magazine. An SRT8 Challenger on the other hand-with it's 470 hp Hemi and either a six-speed stick or five-speed auto-does 0-60 in like 4.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 12.7 and pulls only .085g on the skidpad. Sorry Mopar fans-a full second 0-60 and in the 1/4 is 10 car lengths. In a drag race or the twisties the rice-rocket would have smoked the Challenger. Anyhow they had this buddy-buddy race to a convent where Jordana Brewster is giving birth to her and Paul Walker's baby. ( She announced she was pregnant in #5 ). Why a convent? What? They don't have hospitals in Spain? So Walker and Jordana are lving happily ever after in Spain with their baby-as is Diesel with the hot Brazilian cop he hooked up with in #5. They show everyone else-the Asian dude and the hot Isreali girl, Ludacris, and motormouth Tyrese Gibson all living the high life. Then the Rock shows up with a picture of Michelle Rodriguez- who supposedly died two pictures ago. They had a funeral-Who or what did they bury in number 4?  And Walker and Diesel bringing down the drug-dealer "Braga" in #4 was Vengenance for her murder!!  But no-she's alive-she just has amnesia and can't remember her old life or old friends. But she remembers how to drive and do all the other criminal shit she used to do and now she's doing it for some shadowy, untouchable British guy. The Rock recruits Diesel to go after her and the British guy who is trying to steal some satellite weapon controlling computer that the government doesn't want to fall into enemy hands. So Dominic Toretto has gone from a street-racing ex-con who supplements his income by boosting electronics to James Bond. The Rock-with all the resources of the FBI, Interpol, and the Dept of Justice is helpless without Diesel and his gang of car thieves. So when Dom calls all these millionaire fugitves drop what their doing and rush to meet him and the Rock. Excuse me? I've got 10 million dollars and I'm living high on the hog in a non-extraditional country, and you want me to chase some international criminal and maybe get killed because your ex-girlfriend who you believed to be dead for years may or may not be alive and may be working with this asshole? And even though the FBI, and Interpol can't catch this guy and his crew of master criminals, our band of street thugs can?   And wants to because hey were all tight and devoted to each other. Riiigghht. Then Walker-who's on the FBI's 10 most wanted list-goes undercover in the American prison Braga is in with the help of the FBI agent he beat up and was at fargin war with in #4!! Of course nobody checks his fingerprints or anything!!!  Then Braga comes to threaten him with two thugs. Of course-Paul Walker-who's what-5' 9" and 160 lbs? can kick the shit out of THREE bigger career criminals armed with knives in a jail cell, and not get a scratch. Ok. Plot twist-Braga works for the British Guy!! Of course prison officials are not going to question why this "man with no name" was brought in by an FBI agent, maims 3 other prisoners within an hour of his arrival and then is miraculously bailed out by the same FBI agant who brought him in. The rival Fed who was trying to screw over Walker all through #4 is now going to risk his career for him?   Ok. MMA fighter Gina Carano is there to swagger through the film with her big tits bouncing next to the Rock, who swaggers through the film with his big biceps glistening. She does have a fight with Michelle Rodriguez in a train station. Of course a Latino girl from East L.A. can go toe to toe with a Krav Maga trained FBI agent because hey-she's a tough chick from the 'hood right?  And even though Gina Carano who supposedly choked a bull-necked 200 lb man unconcious in 10 seconds with her iron-pipe thighs in "Haywire", can't put scrawny assed, scrawny-necked Michelle Rodriguez to sleep with this hold for a full minute, because hey-those Barrio chicks are tough. After miraculously not passing out from Gina's crushing leg-scissor-she escapes on the subway and then shoots Vin Diesel in the chest when he confronts her. But he doesn't hold it against her, and doesn't even need to go to the hospital he pulls the bullet out himself and dresses the wound in a garage. And in all the ensuing mayhem, this wound doesn't split open or bleed, or cause him any pain. There's a totally implausible chase sequence involving cars and a tank, and a completely impossible scene where Rodriguez leaps off  the tank that's going off a freeway overpass and Diesel leaps out of a moving car, from the other side of the freeway, flys like Superman across the abyss, catches her in mid-air and they land on the hood of a car, and don't get a scratch.  Another plot twist-Gina Carano works for the British Guy and was feeding him intel on the dream team the whole time!! And he has Jordana Brewster!!  In the finale-the team brings down a jet with cars while Rodriguez and Carano have a fight to the finish, on the jet- which of course Rodriguez wins by shooting her with a spear gun. At the same time also on the jet the is British Guy's hulking bodyguard- I hate when they do this in movies-both 6' 4' and 270 lb Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Vin Diesel who's 6' 2" and about 230 can't scrap this asshole quickly?   Two guys-one the size of an NFL Defensive tackle, and the other the size of  a linebacker-one a military trained Cop and the other a street  thug who's been to prison-both hitting and kicking him at the same time can't stop this bodybuilder / steroid monster?   Puhleeze.  The Rock and Diesel hit him with punches that would be-head the average man, or at least break his jaw and drive his nose up into his brain, and break your ribs and puncture your lungs. I mean you'd be dead or out cold from sheer blunt-force trauma in about 30 seconds, but this guy doesn't even flinch, or even get a bloody nose, and like the Terminator gives the two of them an ass-whippin' before they finally break his neck. And of course neither the Rock or Diesel get a bloody nose or fat lip or a scratch either during this death-match. Ok. The cars bringing down the plane is totally implausible, and the Isreali girl dies saving the Asian guy. Then after the Rock pardons everyone, Diesel dumps the hot Brazilian he's been shacking with for Michelle who still doesn't remember him, and the Brazilian girl is totally cool with it. Then after the credits-we see the Asian guy get killed in Tokyo by surprise!--Jason Statham!!! Who calls Dom and says-Torretto? "You don't know me but your going to."  To supposedly set up #7. Ugh!  Let's hope they stop after this mess. Mastermind        

More big bucks for less performance.....

Read an article in a street rod magazine about a guy who was building '32 Ford hot rod. The owner wanted it to be unique, yet "Old-school" so instead of using the ubiquitous 350 Chevy or 289 / 302 Ford that 99% of builders of these projects do he decided to go with a 389 Pontiac. Refreshing, and doubtless a torquey big-block Pontiac will move the "Deuce Coupe" along with greater alarcity than a small-block Chevy or Ford, probably for less money and look cooler to boot-especially if he went with a Tri-power or Dual-Quad induction setup. I'm not dissing the idea; I think it's great. My dad and I actually tried to buy "Project '32" from Popular Hot Rodding back in 1978. It was a '32 Ford 5-window with a Ram Air IV 400 Pontiac engine backed by a TH400. It ran 12 flat on street tires, through the mufflers. Unfortunately-another reader showed up with the cash a few hours before we did. Anyway-back to the current article-they did a standard rebuild-boring the block .030 over, new pistons, rings and bearings, polishing the crank, re-sizing the rods, new oil pump, etc. That's standard procedure. Then they went off the rails. Of course-they had to have a hydraulic roller cam. Like I said in an earlier post-if you have a late-model Small or Big Block Chevy, Small-block Ford or Chrysler "Magnum" engine that had a roller cam from the factory-that's the only way to fly. But older stuff especially anything other than a Chevy-is very expensive to convert. High-Performance Pontiac did an article on this. By the time you get the raocker arm studs, rockers, pushrods, cam and lifters, cam button, lifter retaining "spider" ( so the lifters don't drop out the bottom of the lifter bores and gouge the cam )  springs, retainers etc-your looking at $1,800. As opposed to $200 for a conventional flat tappet hydraulic cam from Crane, Lunati, etc. Then they re-did the small-port pre-64 "Bathtub" heads, and spent $1,600 buying and refurbishing an old '59-64 tri-power setup. By the time they were done they had over 5 grand in the motor. Then they dyno'd it and it made 352 hp and 433 lbs of torque. Big deal-a bone-stock 1964 Tri-Power GTO was rated at 348 hp and 424 lbs of torque. And the '59-64 manifold won't work with '65 and later heads-you'd need a '65 or '66 unit to do that. And we all know that the '67 and later heads are the best ones for performance. ( Other than RAIV's or Edelbrocks. ) For a lot less than the $3,400 they spent on the roller cam and induction-they could have put a stroker crank assembly in it and later iron heads that would have netted 461 cubes and a lot more grunt ( like 450 -475 hp ) in a stock looking package.  Or they could have stuck with the 389 short-block and bought the Edelbrock Performer RPM top end package ( cam, heads, and intake ) which makes 422 hp and 441 lbs ft of torque on a 9.5:1 400..  They could have used Edelbrock heada and a Barry Grant "Six-Shooter" setup-( a modern take on the Tri-Power setup that fits '65-79 models ). That BG claims  makes the same power and more torque as the "RPM" setup. Or they could have used the Edelbrock P65 dual-quad intake and the matching Perfomer heads and Torker-Plus cam and made 402 hp and 439 lbs of torque, while having 15 inches of vacuum at idle. You may say they wanted it to look as original as possible-but that argument won't fly-it was going in a '32 Ford, not a '62 Grand Prix or '65 GTO!!  They could have had way more "Bang" for the same or less bucks if they'd used the right combination of parts. And I hate to harp on the same point-but it's being cross-bred into a Ford for God's sake-not a pristine 2+2 or Bonneville or GTO convertible!!! Who cares if it's stock or not?  Sorry just had to vent that. Mastermind        

Another 100K+ race car with liscence plates.....That can't be raced!!

Saw a '55 Chevy featured in Street Rodder magazine. This car had the requisite 4-wheel disc brakes, narrowed 9 inch Ford rear end, etc but what got me was the powertrain-a GMPP 572 inch crate engine with a BLOWER and Hilborn Fuel Injection.  Since the basic carburated 572 makes "only" 620 hp-of course you need a blower to give it 1000+ hp. And this was backed by a custom-built 4L80E trans with a high-stall converter and a trans-brake. Who needs that?  He can't run it on the strip-because it doesn't have an 8-point roll cage or a driveshaft safety loop which most tracks require on any car that runs faster than 11.50. This monster would be a 7 or 8 second car if you could get enough traction. Why build something like that if your not going to run it at the drags? It's certainly not a daily driver so what do you do with it? Just show it to people?  I don't begrudge anyone building a car as badass as their wallet and imagination will allow but to me this car is a waste-yes anything is drivable depending on what the driver is willing to tolerate-we've had that conversation before. But be honest-a car with 1,000 hp is not a "driver' in any sense of the word. Why build a car that can run 8 second 1/4's but don't install the equipment required by the track to legally run it? So you can show people your $100,000 piece of garage jewelry?  And for what it's worth-come on-the 620 hp $14,000 crate engine-that would have put it easily in the high 10s-still well below the 11.50 cutoff where you'd still need a cage and a driveshaft saefty loop-isn't enough power-you need to spend another 5 grand on a blower and a fuel injection system so now you have $20,000 in an engine you can never unleash fully? I just don't get it. Or if you just "Gotta Have" a blown rat motor in your shoebox-he couldn't buy a 454 HO for $5995, and add a blower and for $10,000 live with "only" 700 hp, no you "GOTTA HAVE" 1,000 hp, in a vehicle you can NEVER run full-throttle. ( Don't say it-anyone who lets a 7 or 8 second car rip on a public street needs his liscence taken away FOREVER ).Just Chalk it up to the more money than brains crowd. Mastermind

Sometimes "Low Tech" is the way to go.....

Still hearing from people saying I'm a "Techno-phobe" and too "Old school." I'll say it again-I have nothing against technology-if it offers the most performance improvement for the lowest cost. Let me re-iterate the Article from High-Performance Pontiac magazine-they tested an aftermarket fuel-injection system on a stout 455 Pontiac engine. It made 558 hp, and cost $3,800. The Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold costs $249 and the 850 Holley carb cost-$499. This combo made 573 hp-15 hp MORE than the fuel injection setup. Explain to me why I should spend an extra $3,150 to make LESS power?  If the difference was only $100-200 then the "Cool factor" might swing it-and let's face it-on a 550+ hp engine your not going to notice 15 hp one way or the other. But a difference of $3,000??!!  Think of this-if your building an "Ultimate" Street / Strip or Pro Touring car- 3 grand will buy you a complete with shifter, crossmember, driveshaft yoke, speedo cable, everything-Tremc 5-speed overdrive transmission set-up. Or a complete Currie 9 inch Ford Rearemd with a Posi, GM mounting points and any gear ratio you want from 3.08:1 to 5.14:1. Whether it's a Chevy, Ford, Mopar, Olds or Pontiac-three grand will buy a complete Edelbrock "Top-End" kit-which includes Aluminum Performer RPM heads, a Performer RPM or Torker II Intake, a Performer RPM cam, lifters, timing chain, and all the bolts and gaskets to install it. That's what I'm saying-the "Bang for the Buck" factor is wildly in favor of the $750 carb and intake combo as opposed to the $3,800 injection system. Here's another example-Hot Rod magazine wanted to get more power out of the ZZ4 350 Chevy crate engine in one of their staffer's '34 Ford street rod. If you don't know-the ZZ4 is pretty hopped up in stock trim-10:1 compression, hydraulic roller cam with .474 / .510 lift, aluminum heads, Z/28 / LT1 aluminum intake, 770 cfm Holley "Street Avenger" carb and a performance curved HEI distributor. Their rated at 355 hp and 418 lbs of torque by GMPP. What makes them such a great street engine is the fact that it makes more than 350 lbs of torque from 1,800-5,200 rpm. Anyway-the guy wanted more power than that-so they started throwing parts at it. A single plane intake and bigger carb gained them 28 hp. A hotter cam gained them another 27. Right now they've gained 55 hp for $400. The guy had the bigger carb in his garage, and the intake was roughly $200 and the cam was roughly $200 through Summit Racing. 55 hp for 400 bucks and a few hours work is a worthwhile investment if your looking for extra speed. Then they spent $1,400 on a set of  215 cc Trick Flow aluminum heads. Here's where they hit the wall of diminishing returns. The "Antiquated" 163cc GMPP L98 heads were within 5 hp and 5 lbs ft of torque at every rpm level up to 4,500!! In fact-the Trick Flows didn't show a noticeable gain-i.e. at least 20 hp-until 4,900 rpm. And in all honesty-how much faster is a car with 400 hp going to run than a car with 380? Not enough to notice in the seat of your pants or in a timeslip. Be honest. In your street machine / weekend cruiser how often are you going to be above 5,000 rpm?  Finally at 6,100 rpm the Trick Flows showed a 40 hp gain. Think-40 hp in an 1,200 rpm window. In an all-out drag car that might be worth 3-4 tenths. But in a street machine? Honestly how much faster is a car with 440 hp going to be than a car with "only" 400?  When you factor in traction, gear ratios, converter stall speed, shift points, driver skill, air quality, track conditions,-it's a crapshoot. Either car could win. They didn't say anything about the cars drivetrain, tires or suspension. If he was running a Powerglide certainly spending that $1,400 on a B&M or TCI TH350 and performance converter would give him a massive performance gain. Way more than the heads. If he was running an open rear end and street tires- investing in an Eaton posi unit, some traction bars and some drag radials would substantially lower his e.t. for less than $1,400. For less than $1,400 he could add a well-planned 200 hp Nitrous system-i.e. with an auxillary fuel pump, throttle-position operated solenoids, with MSD or Jacobs ignition so he could adjust the timing by turning a knob on the dash. 200 extra hp at the flick of a switch would make him a lot faster than that 40 hp above 5 grand.  Here's another good example- Super Chevy tested a GMPP 454 HO crate engine. Same thing-425 hp and 500 lbs of torque wasn't enough. They started throwing parts at it. An Edelbrock Performer RPM intake made 20 more hp than the GMPP dual plane. Then they switched to a hotter cam and picked up another 40. Now tantalizingly close to that magic 500 hp number with very little work-they put some 1.8:1 Crane Roller Rockers on it. It actually lost a ton of power and had valve float as low as 4,000 rpm. They attributed it to the stock heads "zero lash" setup. They put in regular 1.7:1 factory stamped steel long-slot adjustable rockers and studs. GMPP sells these kits, and they can be easily installed on Gen V / VI Rat motors without machine work. The power level came back to normal and it pulled hard to 6,200 rpm. Then they swapped on some aftermarket heads and an even bigger cam. Now it pulled hard to 6,600 and was well over the 550 hp mark. They tried the roller rockers again and even on the aftermarket heads-they lost 100 hp and had valve float at 4,400 rpm. Why?  Because the roller rockers made the valvetrain too heavy for the hydraulic roller cam and springs they were running. They put the stamped steel stock rockers back on, and the power came right back. The lesson learned- #1 If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The stock rockers were working fine with well over 500 hp-why mess with them? # 2. The high-tech 1.8:1 Gold Roller Rockers were too heavy and just didn't work on this engine. Now if it had been a MKIV with a traditional solid-lifter or hydraulic flat-tappet cam-the high lift rockers might have added as much as 30 hp-because the valvetrain would have been much lighter. On the Gen VI-with a heavy roller valvetrain-no dice. I'm fine with "High-Tech" if works better than something "Low-Tech". I.E-I much prefer Tuned Port Injection to a throttle body-they make way more power and torque and are much more tunable, and will feed a 500 hp engine with the right components. The 470 cfm TBI can barely feed an 8.5:1 305 and they really choke off even a 9:1 350. So if I buy an '85-92 Camaro or T/A and swap a 383 into it-I'll use the TPI instead of a carburator. Hope that clears things up. Mastermind              

Hollywood has no imagination.....

Fast & Furious 6 is out in theatres. My son wants to see it to I'll probably go this weekend. Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and the Rock all return and they added MMA fighter Gina Carano ( "Haywire" ) and brought back Michelle Rodriguez so they'll have some major action I'm assuming. We can hope that Jordana Brewster or Gina Carano gets naked-but that's probably too much to ask. The last time this series had any sex appeal was four pictures ago when we got the smokin' hot Eva Mendes in a white bikini for a few minutes. ( I love dark women in white ). Maybe we'll at least get to see Carano put a sleeperhold on Michelle Rodriguez and choke the annoying bitch out. I never liked her character anyway. They also have Diesel driving yet another '68-70 Charger-how many have they wrecked-3 or 4 now? This one has a Daytona / Superbird front end on it. Any how-it looks like a re-hash of the other movies but who knows-the stunt work may be good.  Any how want to talk about not having any imagination-I read in a magazine that people have been offering Chad McQueen big bucks to do a remake of "Bullitt". If you don't know-he's the legendary Steve McQueen's son and he dabbled in acting in the '80's and '90's. He was one of the bullies in the original "Karate Kid" ( the classic with Pat Morita and Ralph Macchio, not the horrid remake with Jackie Chan and Will Smith's brat ) and he did some cool martial-arts movies with Cynthia Rothrock. Anyhow-I have great respect for him-he refused and explained why. He said- #1 you won't be able to top the legendary classic-I didn't like the "True Grit" remake-you can't top John Wayne in his prime and you can't top Steve McQueen. I loved my father and he was good to me my whole life-I got to go to France with him while he was filming "LeMans" I don't have daddy issues or anything-I'm just not going to open myself to the derision that the press would have for it. No one's asking Kyle Eastwood to re-do "Dirty Harry". "I personally like Jason Statham-but "The Mechanic" with him and Ben Foster didn't come close to the original with Charles Bronson and Jan-Micheal Vincent." "Robert DeNiro was nowhere near as scary a Max Cady as Robert Mitchum in the "Cape Fear" movies and Mitchum couldn't even say the "F" word." ( In the 1962 original ). Hollywood needs to get some new Ideas."  "I said I'd do an action movie about a badass "Dirty Harry' type detective-I've got the martial-arts background-my dad was taught by Bruce Lee- I can do just about anything that Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme can do-and I'm younger than them." "And the McQuuen name will sell tickets, I realize that." "But were not going to call him Frank Bullitt." "Guess what?" "That was the deal breaker." "Millions to rip off my father's masterpiece and get crucified for doing it, or zero if I want to call him John Smith." "I don't need the money-so I'll take the zero."  What a smart guy who didn't sell out. I love the "Jack Reacher" books by Lee Child. In the books Reacher is 6'5" and 270 lbs. Hmm. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnsons? "Stone Cold" Steve Austin? Dolph Lundgren? I know-Tom Cruise!! Who's 5' 8" and about as threatening as a golden retriever puppy. Puhleeze. The same with "Shooter" that was based on Stephen Hunter's classic "Point of Impact". Mark Wahlberg is a good actor-but he's not "Bob Lee Swagger". Who was a Vietnam Vet and a master sniper-based on Carl Hitchcock-a real-life Marine Sniper and war hero who served in 'Nam.. The book was set in 1992 when Bob Lee Swagger would have been 46 years old. They couldn't get Tommy Lee Jones or Chuck Norris or Fred Dryer ( "Hunter", "Death Before Dishonor" ) or a myriad of other actors who are old enough to have been to Viet Nam? They have to change it and make him a "Desert Storm" vet???!!!  I had friends in Desert Storm-the Iraqis would surrender if you'd give them a bowl of Cheerios!!  "We have not eaten in three days-feed us and we will renounce Saddam." Not the same combat background!!  Ugh!  Let's hope someone listened to Chad McQueen and comes up with some original ideas. I published a book a few years ago under a pen name. "Men of Steel" by Shane Collins. My garndfather was a union organizer in the '40's and he worked with Jimmy Hoffa and Harry Bridges and other famous people. It's the story of his life, and how the mob got involved in the unions. A book reviewer called it "Roots", "Goodfellas" and "Walking Tall" all rolled into one. Hear that Mr. Spielberg? or Mr. Tarantino?  Mastermind            

Not cheap or pig-headed.....Just looking at performance gain per dollar

After the last post I got some emails accusing me of being pig-headed and too "Old-school" and not embracing technology. I beg to differ-I know the GM LS engines are the future-just like the small-block Chevy replaced the Ford Flathead as "The" hot rod engine in the lat '50s and early '60's. If you want to hot rod one of these modern marvels go ahead. With their electronic fuel management they can make awesome power and still retain decent drivability. But like I've said before-you buy something old because it's different from what's new. I don't understand buying a '55 Chevy and putting a Morrison frame under it with rack&pinion steering and 4-wheel disc brakes and an LS engine and a six-speed automatic. If you want a new Camaro SS or Corvette-go buy one. What I'm talking about is people building "Old-school" cars-I.E,-a '55 Chevy or a '68 Road Runner or even a '77 Trans-Am. Let's take the '77 T/A for example. These cars are experiencing a real renaissance right now and values are skyrocketing. That's because people have found out what great cars they actually were and how much potential they have. What irritates me about every single Pontiac ever featured in a magazine is 1st off-they all have a cut-down 455 crank, longer big-block Chevy rods and custom pistons stuffed in a 400 block so they can get 461-470 ci. That's nice, except-these rotating assemblys cost 2 grand. And that's just for the parts-that doesn't include the machine work you'll need to use this assembly. So your going to have $2,500 in the crank, rods and pistons. Consider this-if the 400 in the car ran good, had good oil pressure, and good compression, and didn't use any oil-$2500 would buy you an Edelbrock Performer intake, a hotter than stock cam kit from Edelbrock, Crane, Competition Cams, Lunati-etc, a set of headers and a good dual exhaust system,a higher-stall speed torque converter and  some 3.42:1 or 3.73:1 gears to put all that newfound power to the ground. I'd much rather be driving my T/A with 150 or so extra hp and be enjoying it rather than having it engineless while I scrape up another 4 grand to finish my stroker engine. The other thing I see is they all have to have hydraulic roller cams. Again if your building a late-model small or big-block Chevy or small-block Ford that had a roller cam from the factory-yes that's the way to go. You can run a bigger cam without excessive valve spring pressure or ruining the idle quality. Absolutely. But Pontiac never made a roller-cammed engine and the valvetrain parts necessary to convert a 1962-79 Pontiac engine to accept a roller cam costs about $1,800 on up-depending on which manufacturer you call. Now considering that the average aftermarket flat-tappet cam and lifter kit for a Pontiac costs about $200-I think I'll save the other $1,600 and live without the extra 25 hp and 30 lbs ft of torque. Or use that $1,800 to buy some Edelbrock or Kauffman aluminum heads-which will give you a lot more improvement than the 25 extra hp switching from flat-tappet to a roller. Especially if you already have the cam, exhaust, gears etc to complement the free-breathing heads. Why are NASCAR racers running flat-tappet cams to this day?  Certainly not to keep costs down-no the roller valvetrains are too heavy and aren't as reliable trying to run 8,000 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona!  The other thing that kills me is fuel injection. Now if you have a Camaro / Firebird, Corvette or Mustang that was fuel injected from the factory-yes Edelbrock, Accel, Trick Flow and other companies offer ported manifolds, larger throttle bodies, high-flow injectors, etc that work in conjunction with the factory system and will feed engines over 500 hp. That's the way to go. I'm talking about the aftermarket systems sold by Edelbrock, Holley, and others. They start at 2 grand-and that's the most basic kit for a small-block Chevy. For anything else they run more than 3 grand. $600 will buy you an Edelbrock intake and matching carb for any popular engine out there. And here's the kicker-in every test I've read-be it a Chevy, Ford, Mopar or Pontiac-the carburator made MORE power!!!  High-Performance Pontiac magazine tested on a STRONG 455 powered Trans-Am. The Edelbrock Performer RPM / 850 Holley combo made 15 MORE hp on the dyno than the $3,800 injection system. Explain this math to me-why would I spend an extra $3,200 to make LESS power?  So I can open the hood and show it to people? $3,800 for an induction system?  I read an article called "Junkyard Jewell" where Car Craft built a 400 Pontiac that had 500+ hp and 500+ lbs of torque for $4,400-for the whole engine from carb to oil pan, including machine work and the Edelbrock heads!!  I'll say it again- Hot Rod's "Project Disco" a 1979 Z/28 Camaro. 1st-off how is an LS motor and a six-speed tranny "Disco-Era Cool?"  That aside- why did it need a custom 9 inch Ford rearend? '79 Z/28's came from the factory with GM's excellent 8.5 inch ring gear Limited-Slip rear end with either 3.42:1 or 3.73:1 gears. Perfect for a street machine. Why did they have to spend $3,300 on a Currie custom? Oh yeah, that 1/2 inch on the ring gear makes a huge difference in toughness. Really? Because I have owned 400, 4-speed T/A's that use this same rear end and have dropped the clutch at 4,500 rpm incessantly drag-racing them every weekend and never broke the rear end. Why did it have to have a $5,000 six-speed conversion?  '79 Z/28s had either a BW T10 4-speed or a TH350 automatic with a 2,400 rpm converter nothing less than stellar to start with from the factory. Either one would have bolted up to their LS engine and performed flawlessly. If they wanted overdrive- a Gear Vendors overdrive only costs $2,600 and would give you six gears with the TH350 and 7 with the T10 ( the company doesn't recommend using the O/D in low gear with a stick ). I like technology fine-if it offers the biggest improvement for the lowest cost. But technology just for technology's sake-or to be able to say "I have the latest and greatest" even though it costs twice as much and makes less power is asinine. Mastermind      

More Major Dollar Overkill on magazine project cars.....Don't they get their average reader doesn't have 100K to put in a car?

Saw this months "Super Chevy" today and I again had to ask "Why?" They were talking about their recent project-a Rat-motored '72 Nova. You would think that would be a blue-collar guy kind of project-The factory put 396's in Novas from 1968-1970 so the motor mounts, springs, radiators etc are available from Jeg's, Summit Racing, Hooker, and various other suppliers. I figured they'd stuff a 454 in it with a TH350 or 400 behind it, slap on some traction bars and drag radials and let it rip-Call it "Project Cheap Shot" or something. Oh no-this baby has to have a custom front subframe, a custom 9 inch Ford rear end and 4-link drag-race style suspension, Wildwood 4-wheel disc brakes, and a 509 inch Dart-built monster backed by a TH400 with a 4,500 rpm converter and a trans-brake. Come on guys. I understand them not wanting to scour junkyards for a 454 out of a truck. Why couldn't they buy a brand-new GMPP Gen VI 427 / 454 block for $1500 and put whatever crank, rods, pistons, heads, to get whatever displacement they wanted from 427-496 ci.. Or buy a 454HO short block that has a forged crank, rods and pistons, and comes with the balancer, flywheel and oil pan. They could have used one of several "Turn-Key" Top End kits that come with heads, cam intake, etc- Like the Edelbrock Performer RPM Top-end kit-, or the ones from Trick Flow, Dart, or Brodix that all guaratee 550-600 hp on a 9.5:1 454. Anyway their 650 hp 509 inch Dart "M" based monster was leaking oil profusely from the oil pan or the the timing cover-they couldn't tell. So they had to pull the motor out to fix the oil leak. Hey that happens to the best of us-that I understand. But then decide while the engine is out-to change the cam. Why? They said the damn thing showed something like 663 hp on the dyno-who needs more than that? The car was already 10.70's in the 1/4. Any how they changed the cam-from a hydraulic roller to a solid roller-no less, and were just stoked as hell that it picked up 2 inches of vacuum at idle and went 10.47 in the 1/4. Ok-1st off if you've got a 663 hp engine backed by a trans with a 5-grand converter and a trans-brake-I don't think you were too worried about a glass-smooth idle. And I don't think dropping from 10.70 to 10.47 is worth pulling the cam and spending another 500-1,000 bucks over what you've already spent to convert your valvetrain from hydraulic roller to solid-roller!! I mean 2/10s for all that work?  I understand they have to push their advertiser's products to stay in business-but why can't they ever build say- a Camaro or Nova with subframe connectors, traction bars-and an "Old-School" small or big block with a T10 or Muncie 4-speed or TH350 / 400? Why does everything have to have an aftermarket subframe, rack&pinion steering, Wildwood or Brembo 4-wheel disc brakes, a custom 9 inch Ford rear, a $15,000 crate motor and a $4,000 4, 5 or 6-speed tranny?  State-of-the-art stuff is always cool, but can we once in a while feature a car that the average guy could afford without winning the lottery?  I applaud Popular Hot-Rodding this month-their cover car is a way-cool '68 Charger with a 383 and a 4-speed that the guy built for $25,000.  That's the stuff that 95% of us can afford and would like to read about.-so let's see more of them instead of page after page after page of  LS motors, SRT Hemis and Ford Coyotes stuffed into vintage iron with 100K+ pricetags.  Mastermind    

Beware of "Professionals" and their advice.......

I feel I need to clarify something for the average person who may be fooled by someone's title. The definition of a "Professional" is someone who gets paid for doing something. Whether or not their any good at it is a crapshoot. The definition of an "Expert" is someone who is very good at doing something whether or not he or she gets paid for it. For example-the 19 year old college girl that works at Autozone for $8.25 per hour who doesn't know where the jack is on the Honda her dad bought her is a professional auto parts person. So is Vic Edelbrock. They both sell auto parts for a living right?  Who would you rather ask about what camshaft to put in your small-block Chevy racing engine?  The 16 year old boy that flips burgers at McDonalds is a professional cook. So is Emeril LaGrasse. The 18 year old boy that delivers pizza for Domino's is a professioanl driver. So is Dale Earnhardt Jr.  The 75 year old man that checks your bag and receipt when your leaving Wal-Mart is a professioanl security guard. So are the Secret Service agents guarding the White House. The guy who sings and plays guitar at your local bar on Friday night is a professioanl musician. So is Kid Rock. See the point I'm making?  Conversely-an "Amateur" middleweight Golden Gloves boxer who had 100 fights and won 95 of them would certainly be considered an "expert" fighter even though he never got paid for doing it. A macho jerk that has 6 months training and has entered 10 MMA "Cage" fights and lost 4 of them while getting paid $100 a bout is a "Professional" fighter. His friends are shocked when the "Amateur" he challenges to a fight destroys him in a minute and a half.  I think you get the point-before you spend your hard-earned money following some "Pro's" advice-find out how much experience he has and what level of "Professional" success he's had. Nick Saban who's won multiple national Collegiate Championships coaching at LSU and Alabama and once coached the Miami Dolphins in the NFL and makes 5 million bucks a year is a professional football coach. So is the history teacher clown that coaches your son's JV team for an $800 stipend for the season that's gone 1-8 the last five years. They both get paid for coaching right? Their both "Professionals" right?  Mastermind            

A "Clone" may be the only way some of us can have our dream car....

Got a bunch of heat from "Purists" over the last post-but I don't care. I've gotten crap from people over my Hurst / Olds-which while rare-it's not a Hemi 'Cuda convertible-But even if it was-Where do you get your balls big enough to walk up to another man, a total stranger-and tell him he's stupid for driving his own car? Or for drag racing it during "Hot August Nights" or on the Hot Rod "Power Tour" or some other event? I've had people actually swear at me in the pits when they see the Chevy engine under the hood. Excuse me-It's my property, I can do whatever I want with it. Secondly-I put the Chevy engine in it so I could run it as hard as I wanted and not worry about putting a rod through the side of a rare, numbers-matching block. I have the original 455 Olds V8 and BOP bolt-pattern TH400 in my garage in case I ever want to sell the car to a "Just as it left the factory" type. For the right price I'll sell it with both engines, or I'll pull the Chevy out and put the Olds powertrain back in. But I don't need some Pompous ass telling me I've "ruined" the car or that I'm crazy for driving it. I don't want a $10,000+ piece of garage jewelry that I show to people and never drive because I'm afraid of wrecking it or putting too many miles on it. If you were married to Pam Anderson   would you make love to her every day and take her out often or would you lock her in a closet because your afraid of "damaging" her or decreasing her "Star Power"?  As to the Clone deal-I saw one at an auction on TV-it was a 1970 Chevelle SS454 LS6 clone. The seller freely admitted it wasn't original. He'd taken a 2 dr Malibu and decked it out like an SS and rebuilt a junkyard 454 to LS6 specs. The price was $22,000!! That was a screaming deal for the buyer. Even if you are an expert mechanic / bodyman and can do all the labor yourself, you can't buy a small-block Malibu, and all the exterior and interior trim parts from Year One, and build an LS6 spec 454 and paint it for $22,000. No way. And a "Real" LS6 will cost you 4 times that. You'd have a hard time finding an L34 SS396 in any kind of shape for 22K. So they both made out-the seller sold his car and the buyer made the deal of the century. Like I said when he's banging through the gears he's not thinking about VIN numbers and when people "Ooh" and "Ahh" over it at gas stations or the drags nobody knows it's a fake unless he tells them!  As long as he doesn't try to sell it as an original for an exorbitant price, who cares? And shut up about the argument that clones hurt the market for numbers-matching cars. Does the fact that Colt makes Single-Action Army Revolvers and .45 ACP automatics to this day diminish the value of an 1873 SAA revolver or WWII vintage 1911 pistol?  Of course it doesn't!!  But guess what? The shooting enthusiast can go to his local gun shop and buy a brand-new Colt 1991A1 .45 ACP pistol for about $900 bucks and put thousands of rounds through it at the range or in competitive matches and not worry about it. Ditto for the "Cowboy Action" shooter-he can buy a new SAA .45 revolver for about $1,200 and play "Wyatt Earp" to his heart's content. Neither of these guys can afford $5,000 on up for an "Original" and if they could-they damn sure wouldn't put 500 rounds a weekend through it!!  It would probably be hanging on the wall in an expensive walnut and glass showcase. That's what I'm saying-just like guns were meant to be fired-cars are supposed to driven. I understand not wanting to put a lot of miles on an expensive, rare car. But if you drive it 100 miles a month-your only adding about 1,000 miles a year. So in ten years is your pristine 440 / Six-Pack Charger or RAIV Judge or whatever really going to be worth a penny less because it has 69,000 miles on it instead of 59,000??  I'd rather have enjoyed it on all the sunny days I wanted to rather than preserve every last ounce of "Resale Value". Who-besides a real-estate speculator-buys something with the paramount attribute being what it will be worth if or when I want to get rid of it?  Did you marry your wife because you thought she'd give you a less-expensive divorce than the other women you dated?  Come on, guys. You could take a '65-68 Mustang fastback and with the help of the aftermarket build a great GT350 or GT500 clone for about 25K, including the purchase price of the base car-( say 10K for a good, driver-quality Mustang ). You can't touch a "Real" Shelby for under a 100 grand. So why can't the guy have a unique fast car and not spend the price of a house?  A lot of guys, over the course of a couple years can scrape up 15 or 20 grand for a hot rod project. But I don't know anyone who can write a check for 80 or 100 grand for what is almost certainly going to be a third or fourth car in the family. If you can do that-good for you. But 90% of the rest of us can't. So don't deride the clone builders. That's the only way many people can have a musclecar. Mastermind      

Do you think about serial numbers when your getting rubber into 2nd or blasting down the 1/4 mile?

I was talking to a guy the other day that was looking at a website where they were selling a 1969 427, 4-speed Corvette for $65,000. He lamented that a 427 Corvette was his dream car, but he'd never be able to afford one. "Build one." I said "What do you mean?" he asked. I pointed out an ad in our local newspaper where some used-car lot was selling a pretty decent 1976 Corvette with a 350 and a 4-speed for $3995!!  "You can probably buy that 'Vette for $3,500 cash."  "For $5995 Scoggin-Dickey will sell you a brand-new 454 with 440 hp and 500 lbs of torque." "All you need is a carburator, distributor and headers." "Spend 3 or 4 hundred more on a big-block radiator and your all set."  "You'll have a Rat-Motored 'Vette that hauls ass for like 11 grand." "Put 427 valve covers on it if you want."  He says-"It wouldn't be original." Arrrrgggghhhh!!!  "It's also not $65,000 either." "You'd only have 1/6 of the money in it, and you'll have way more fun because you won't be afraid to drive it like you stole it." "If you wad up a '76 'Vette that you paid 3 grand for, who gives a shit?"  "If you blow the motor-GMPP gives you a 2 year 50,000 mile warranty." "If you blow it up after the warranty period ends-as long as a rod doesn't go through the block-you can put a crank in it or rods and pistons for a couple grand."  "I guarantee if you hit the lottery right now and bought that $65,000 one-you'd never drive it because you'd be afraid of it getting wrecked or putting too many miles on it." "If you did drive it, you'd drive it like a little old lady because you'd be deathly afraid of throwing a rod out the side of a -numbers-matching block." "Your probably right." he lamented. "I know I'm right." "So let's go look at it." We go look at it-and it was in good shape-it needed paint-but the interior was clean and it ran good. "Buddy-if  you don't buy it-I'm going to and put the ZZ4 out of my Olds in it, and put the 455 back in the Olds." "That's a screamin' deal."  "You can have your Rat-powered 'Vette for around 10 grand." At that moment the salesman comes over and says that a guy who looked at it the day before just walked in an laid down $3,600 cash, so it was sold.  "Damn" my pal says. "Hey, they'll be others." I say. "I see '70's small-block C3s for 5 grand all the time-especially the '75-79 models."  "I wish I was rich." he said ruefully. "So you could look at your $65,000 'Vette instead of driving it." I said-being sarcastic. "Yeah." he admitted. Unbelievable. I got the same crap from another acquaintance who wanted a '70's Trans-Am to play with. We looked at a website that had an unrestored but well-maintained 400, 4-speed, 1978 "Macho T/A"  for sale for $14,000. They also had a 1971 455HO model for $49,000. "I'd love to have that one." I asked the same questions-"You can't afford that one, and if you could you wouldn't drive it much and you certainly wouldn't drive it like Burt Reynolds in "Smokey and the Bandit." "You'd be too afraid of grenading the 455HO." "You can afford the "Macho"-"They said they offer financing, you've got good credit-you can put two or three grand down and get it." "You could put a 455 crank in it and some Edelbrock heads and have a real rocker that you could run hard."  "And if you grenade a 1978 400 big deal." "You can always find a generic 400 Pontiac for less than a couple grand." "Seems to me that "Macho" is deal of the century.' Then he lights on another one-a numbers matching 1973 SD455 model for $59,000. "Why are you looking at 50 or 60 thousand cars that you can't afford?"  "Just dreaming" he says. "You can afford the '78 and It's just as fast as the others-those "Machos" rocked back in the day." "Quit dreaming and start driving."  "It's not the same." he says. "Your an idiot." I say. "I know a guy that built a '55 Chevy just like the one in "American Graffiti" and "Two-lane Blacktop"-complete with tunnel-rammed, solid-lifter 454, a Muncie 4-speed and a tilt front end." "When he's powershifting at 6,800-7000 and ripping off 11 second 1/4s he has a big smile on his face." "He doesn't pout that it's not THE real movie car." "I know another guy that has a Charger done up like the "General Lee". "He loves driving that thing and all the attention it gets." "He doesn't care that it was never on the show, or that it's a 318 model that he stuffed a 440 in."  "Stop dreaming about stuff that you can never afford, and wouldn't play with anyway if you hit megabucks tomorrow."  "You don't understand."  He's right. I don't understand. My next project is going to be a clone of either a Motion Camaro or a Yenko Chevelle. I figure 10 grand will buy me a nice small-block 2dr '68-69 Malibu or '70-'73 Camaro body-another 5K to trick it out, and another 8k for the GMPP 454 crate motor and Richmond Super T10 4-speed, and I've got a fast, unique ride for under 25K. Which is about 1/6 what a "Real" Yenko or Motion car would cost. And when I'm smoking the tires all the way through 1st and 2nd gear, I WON'T be thinking-"Gee this would be much cooler if it was a "Real" Yenko and I'd paid the price of my house for it."  Get over yourselves, people. Mastermind                        

Do it right the first time......It will be way cheaper in the long run!

I have a lot of people asking me to de-bunk a lot of  "Gotta Haves" that they read in magazine articles. Some of the "Gotta Haves" are valid, some aren't. For example if your building a small-block Chevy-there are "Experts" that will tell you that you "Gotta Have" a 4-bolt main block, a steel crank, forged pistons, aftermarket heads with screw-in studs, roller rockers, etc. Their half-right. If your building an 850 hp NASCAR Nextel Cup engine that has to turn 7,800 rpm for 500 miles at Daytona-Yes, you need all the beef you can get. But if your building a street / strip car or even a weekend "Street Stock" racer that's only going to have 450 hp and never see the high side of 6,500 rpm-you'll be perfectly fine with a two-bolt main block, a cast crank, and cast pistons. I have raced "Hobby Stock" and "Street Stock" circle track cars for over 20 years and I have NEVER seen a stud pull out of a head. I've seen broken rocker arms, broken pushrods, broken valvesprings, jumped timing chains-but I have never, ever seen a stud pull out of a head, in the usage I described.  Here's where you need to be brutally honest with yourself about what your building and how you plan to use it. For example-if your building a Big-Block Chevy for your tow rig or warmed-over street machine motor to put in your Camaro or Chevelle that you use as a weekend cruiser and maybe take it to the drags once every couple months-a 454 "Truck" motor-i.e. something out of a pickup or Suburban etc-will be a fine base. As long as your not constantly running it over 6,000 rpm-a two-bolt main block, cast crank and pistons will be fine, the stock heads will be fine and with the right cam, and carb and intake combo-you can make 450 hp pretty easily and it will have a glass-smooth idle and tons of torque, and probably run 100,000 miles before you need to re-build it again. Which is what makes a great street machine engine. However-if you want a Rat Motor to really beat on-I mean you want 600 normally aspirated horsepower or 800 with a blower or nitrous and your going to run it 7,000 rpm regularly-then step up and buy a GMPP 454 HO short-block. It's a Gen VI 4 bolt-main block with a one-piece rear main seal and it's machined for high-lift roller cams. It also has a forged steel crank, forged rods with 7/16 bolts, and forged pistons. It also comes with the balancer, flywheel, oil pan and timing cover. Now you can put whatever cam, heads, induction or exhaust that you want on it, and it will take any abuse you want to lay on it as long as you keep rpms under 7,200. That's much smarter than trying to slide by with a cheap short-block with a cast crank and 3/8 rods and cast pistons and blowing it up three times before realizing that your overloading the stock bottom-end and you'd have been many dollars ahead if you'd got beefier parts in the first place. Here's a guy I don't understand. He's a Mopar guy that runs a Duster at his local track-in some kind of unlimited class-nitrous is allowed.-Anyway he's got this '73 Duster set up with a great drag-style suspension-90/10 front shocks, a pinion snubber on the rear end, fat drag radials-so it launches great. He's got 4.11 gears in the rear end, and he's got a well-thought-out 400 hp nitrous system-I mean an extra fuel pump to and solenoids to supply extra fuel with the nitrous-two-stage switches, an MSD iginition to adjust the timing from inside the car along with an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake and Barry Grant carb that he has to swap every time-all top-notch. For an engine he goes to the junkyard and buys a 318 or 360 out of a Dodge truck or wrecked Jeep Cherokee, slaps it in the car, and runs 10 or 11 second ets with it until it grenades. Then he goes to the junkyard and gets another one. Sometimes these engines last 30 or 60 days, sometimes they don't last one weekend. If he's only paying $300 or $400 for these engines and he does that say 8 times a year-he's invested $2,400-3,200 in engines that are now doorstops or boat anchors. If he had put $3,000 into the first engine-i.e. a high-quality Scat or Eagle crank, forged rods, forged pistons, got a Comp cams or Lunati grind specifically for heavy nitrous use-and o-ringed the heads-He'd have had a reliable engine that would have lasted him all season-and he wouldn't have had to swap the engine out of his car 8 or 10 times, plus the labor for yanking them at the "U-pull-it" Yard. To me that's a lot of un-necessary work, and he's not really saving any money. The other is driveline parts. Yeah, I get sick of every single magazine project car you ever see-has a custom 9-inch Ford rear end. If you have a 70's GM car with an 8.5 inch ring gear 10 bolt rear end or a '70's Mopar with an 8 3/4-your probably ok with all but the most monster combos- unless your running a 700 hp engine backed by a TH400 or 727 with a 4 grand converter and a trans brake and are running wrinklewall slicks bolted to the rims-I don't think you'll break the rear end in daily driving or a weekend trip to the drags. However-if youhave a '78-88 GM "G" body-Monte Carlo, Malibu, Cutlass, Gran Prix, etc- or an '82-92 Camaro or Firebird-the 7.5 inch ring gear axle in those won't even stand up to say a 350 hp small-block. Ditto for the trannys-( unless you have a T/A or Z/28 with an '88 up 700R4 ) the T5 5-speeds only have a 300 lbs ft torque rating. That's why you couldn't get a 5-speed with a 350, only a 305. I know guys that run them behind 350s-but were talking mild 350s-with maybe 325 hp. I wouldn't trust one behind anything with real power-i.e. a ZZ4 or ZZ383 crate engine. If you want a stick behind a powerful small-block or big-block in one of these cars you need a Richmond T10 4-speed or a Richmond or Tremec five-speed conversion.  Ditto for the automatics-the TH200 / 250, and 200R4's that came behind the 231 inch V6's and 305 inch V8s that had maybe 165 hp-and 240 lbs of torque will not stand up to a 450 hp small-block. You need a TH350 / 400, or you need to buy a high-performance 200R4 from TCI or B&M or another reputable builder. Buick Grand National racers run 10s with 200R4s-but they are beefed-up substantially, in stock trim-they won't stand up to something with 400+ hp. See what I'm saying-sometimes spending a little more at the start of a project is better than going through the frustration of multiple parts breakage and laying out the extra bucks anyway. Mastermind            

Take "Stock" or "Street" with a grain of salt......

Saw basically the same thing in two different magazines. Articles about cars run in the "Pure Stock" drags that are blisteringly fast but aren't really "stock" or steetable. Case #1 was a woman and her husband who won the Tournament last year with a scorching 11.54 1/4 mile time. Their car was a '69 "L88" Corvette. 1st off it wasn't a real L88 car-it was a 390 hp model that was built to L88 specs. The rules say engines don't have to be numbers-matching, it just has to have been an option on that model that year. For example you could run a 426 crate Hemi in a '71 Charger because although rare, the 426 Hemi was a factory option in 1971. Converseely, you can't run an LS6 454 in a '68 Chevelle because the 454 didn't become an option until 1970. That part of the rulebook I understand. But the rest of it-they say they borrow NHRA stock class rules-well the rules are skewed. For example-the guy was running 12.5:1 compression-reasonable-that's what the original L88 was back when you could buy 100 octane gas at your local station. However the guy bragged that he was well below what's allowed-the rulebook allows 13.7:1 compression!!. Excuse me? When did Chevrolet ever offer a big-block with 13.7:1 compression??!! The L88 was 12.5:1 and the over-the-counter-only LS7 454 was only 12.25:1. I'm sorry-but a compression ratio of almost 14:1 is not "Stock" in any way, shape or form. The cam has to be the original "type" which means a flat-tappet solid-lifter design- no rollers- But that leaves duration and lift-wide-open. They also allow electronic ignition conversions-like the Petronix setup that fits under a stock cap. And the guy was running 4.56:1 gears. Case #2 was a 1970 Pontiac Firebird Formula 400 built to Ram Air IV specs. The RAIV was a 400 inch V8 available in GTOs and Firebirds and Trans-Ams in 1969 and 1970. They had 10.5:1 compression, special round-port heads and exhaust manifolds, an aluminum intake, and a hot cam with 308 / 320 duration and .520 lift. They were grossly under-rated at 345 hp in Firebirds and 370 in GTOs. Same thing-only worse-your allowed to be within 15 inches of original displacement. This car had a custom 3.79 inch stroke crank ( stock is 3.75 ) which with a .030 overbore gave it 415 inches. It also had custom longer-than-stock connecting rods-6.800 inches-stock Pontiac rods are 6.625-and custom pistons which gave 12.4:1 compression when paired with the allowed 62cc chamber heads. Except stock RAIV heads have 72cc chambers. He's also running a custom Quadrajet that flows 1000 cfm and a cam with over .600 lift. And 4.88:1 gears. So yeah-it's ungodly fast-it runs something like 10.90 with slicks. But an engine with a custom crank, longer-rods ( small-block Chevy racers know this makes more power ) 12.5:1 compression with a .600 lift cam and a 1000 cfm carb is nowhere near stock!!  Stock would be 10.5:1 compression with stock rotating assembly,a .520 lift cam and an 800 cfm carb. Think this engine was a tad stronger than stock? By like 150 hp?!!  I applaud these builders for finding every last ounce and staying within the rules-I'm not slamming the car owners-I'm saying the rules are messed up. "Stock" should be a lot closer to stock. Like head cc / compression ratios, cam duration and lift, and carb size. I remember Car Craft pulling this 20 some years ago. They bragged about their "Stock" 5.0 Mustang that ran in the high 13s. When Hot Rod and Car and Driver and Motor Trend and everyone else recorded times between 14.72 and 15.29 for stock "5.0" Mustangs of '87-93 vintage. Yeah their test mule was stock alright-except for the K&N air box, Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust, swapping the stock 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 gears for some 3.73:1s and swapping the stock P225/60VR15 radials for some M&H bias-ply 235 / 60R15 wrinklewall drag tires. Yep, bone-stock. Except for the improved intake and exhaust, stiffer gears and stickier tires!! Why do you have to be such a nit-picker?  Anyhow- next time you read about some unbelievably quick "stock" car-I think you'll find it's nowhere near stock. Mastermind          

Don't fall into the "I have to have the biggest,baddest thing they make" trap!

I see an alarming trend in all the buff magazines lately. The stroker engine craze-"Bigger is Better" has really gotten out of hand in my opinion. For example Hot Rod dyno-tested a bunch of headers on a big-block Chevy. They concluded that the 2 1/4 inch headers made the most power. Except their test mule was a 650 hp 540 incher!!  Honestly-how many people actually have a 540 inch Rat Motor in their car? So the average joe reads that article and puts these huge headers on his car or truck and wonders why they killed his low-end and mid-range performance. Maybe because your 9:1 454 with a stock cam and heads doesn't breathe nearly as well as the 12:1 solid-roller cammed, Brodix-headed monster test mule?  Even if someone had a VERY HOT 454-they'd get more power and torque all through the range with 1 7/8 or 2 inch headers. Most people who had a streetable 427 / 454 or especially a 396 / 402 would be better served by even smaller 1 3/4 headers. Especially if it was a street machine or tow rig that never sees the high side of 6,000 rpm. GMPP, Blueprint Engines, Smeding, and a bunch of other companies are selling 496 inch, 540 inch or even 572 inch Big-block Chevys. These engines all cost 12 or 15 grand. For $5995 GMPP will sell you a complete ZZ454 engine. That has 440 hp and 500 lbs ft of torque. Super Chevy magazine  tested one, and with only a cam change and swapping the GMPP intake for an Edelbrock Performer RPM-they pulled 521 hp and 530 lbs of torque. Now honestly-who in the hell needs more power than that in anything but a full-on race car? Magazine writers spout numbers flippantly-but believe me an engine with 520 honest hp will turn any street car into a rocket. If you had the tires and suspension to handle it-that would put you solidly in the 11s, at over 115 mph in the 1/4 mile. How many people have actually driven an honest-to-goodness 11 second car? ( I mean with a timeslip from the strip; not what your buddy "thinks" his car can run )  If you "Need" to go faster than that then you need a Pro Stock drag car, a competent therapist, or a cage. It's the same with small-blocks. Dart offers a 427 inch small-block Chevy short-block assembly ( That can further stroked to 454 inches if you want ). For $5599. Then you still have to add a flywheel and balancer, all the tin, and heads, cam,intake, exhaust, carburator and distributor. By the time your done the price tag has easily topped 10 grand. Why? for $5599 you can buy a Complete ZZ383 engine from Scoggin-Dickey or Summit that has 425 hp and 449 lbs of torque. For $4399 you can buy the famous ZZ4 350 crate motor. Or for $2600 you can buy a ZZ4 short block-with 4-bolr mains, a steel crank, LT1 / "Pink" rods and Keith Black pistons. Add another $2600 for a Trick Flow top-end kit-heads, cam, rockers, springs timing chain and intake-and you've got 500 hp and 450 lbs of torque for $5200!! That's $400 bucks less than Dart wanted for the 427 SHORT-BLOCK!!!  Now, doubtless the stroker will make more power than a 350-Blueprint's 454 Small-block stroker claims 575 hp-but costs 11 grand!! In my mind 75 hp isn't worth another 5 grand!! Seriously-if you want or need more power than a 350 or 383 can deliver-then-like I said-you can get over 500 hp from a 454-Big Block for a lot less than 10 grand. It's not just Chevy people either. Ford Racing offers 351-based 427 inch strokers with 500+ hp for $12,999!!!  Mopar performance offers 505 inch 440 based motors and 472 and 528 inch Hemis-for $15,000 on up!!  The hot setup now for Pontiacs is to put an aftermarket crank and rotating assembly in a 400 block to get 461-477 ci. Kauffman Racing and Butler Performance will build you a "Real" Pontiac with 500-600 hp on pump gas-but again your looking at a $10,000 engine. Whatever your restoring-or "Restifying"  you can have plenty of power without a mega-buck, mega-inch $15,000 engine. A 350 Chevy or a 396 or 454, or a 400 Pontiac or a 383 Mopar or 351 or 390 Ford or whatever will make more than enough power. Again forget the magazine writer's flippantly spouting numbers-any of these engines can make 400 hp or more reliably and cheaply-and 400 hp will make any street car into a rock-n-roller. If you can afford one of these mega-buck monsters good for you. But if you can't-don't despair. $5,000 will allow you to buy or build a VERY Strong powerplant. You don't need to spend 10 or 15 or 20K to have a badass ride. Mastermind  

Tuning tips for maximum performance.....Even if your car is concours-stock!

I talk to so many musclecar owners that complain about being beaten in a "Stoplight Gran Prix" by a supposedly slower, newer car, or they went to the drags and their car didn't run anywhere close to what an old "Hot Rod" or "Car and Driver" road test said it could do in the 1/4. I see it all the time-cars with $5,000 paint jobs and $2,000 worth of tires and wheels that run like total crap. Here's why-sloppy maintenance and bad tuning. Here's how to solve this problem easily and cheaply. # 1. Ignition. You'd be amazed at the number of musclecars running around with bad plug wires, the points closing up, the vacuum advance disconnected, and the timing either too far advanced or retarded. Ask somebody at a "Show-n-Shine" someday when's the last time they changed the spark plugs, or the distributor cap, rotor and wires?  You'll get a blank stare and an answer like "Huh?" "Why?" After they complained about it not running right. So do a complete tune-up-points and condenser, cap , rotor , wires, plugs, and make sure the vacuum advance is working and hooked up and set the timing to the factory specs. # 2. Carburation. This is the big one. If the car has a single 4bbl-chances are it hasn't been rebuilt in years. The floats are sinking, the throttle shafts are warped, it's full of dirt, the throttle linkage doesn't open fully. Ask the average guy when's the last time he changed the fuel filter? Or they've just put a new Holley or Edelbrock or Demon carb on the car and can't understand why it doesn't run up to par. They either over-carburated it like a 750 cfm Holley Double-Pumper mounted on a single-plane "Victor Jr" intake- ( Yes It worked great on the magazine's 11:1 383 with a .520 lift cam, a 3 grand coverter and 4.11 gears ) I don't understand why it totally killed the bottom-end and mid-range on an otherwise stock 8.5:1 compression 350 with a stock torque converter and 3.08:1 gears?  "I just don't get it." They also don't get that on their otherwise stock car they'd be better off with a Dual-plane Edelbrock Performer or Weiand Stealth and a 600 cfm vacuum-secondary Holley or Edelbrock carb.  Or they didn't read the instructions that said  "Some tuning may be required". It's rare that you bolt a carb on and it works perfectly out of the box. Depending on your application their usually either too rich or too lean. And even on vacuum-secondary carbs sometimes the secondarys open too quick which can cause a bog. Take the time to jet the carb right and tune it right and the performance increase will be amazing. It's worse on tri-power or dual-quad setups. They drive like my grandmother on prozac and the second it fouls a spark plug, they start screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start, much less run properly. Have someone who's experienced in multi-carb setups tune the system with a carb syncronizer. If your going to drive like grandma then go a range or two hotter on the plugs. You can always change the plugs if you decide to take a long trip or go to the drags. # 3. Do a compresssion test. Ultra-performance crate motors may have readings of 175-200 lbs or more. Most healthy stock engines will have 140 lbs. Even an 8:1 compression "Smog" motor should have 125 lbs, and all cylinders should be within 5-10 psi of each other. If your only reading 90 lbs on one or more cylinders-then you have a serious problem-bad rings, burned valves, or a blown head gasket. You'd be amazed at the number of cars running around on 6 or 7 cylinders. # 4. No high-rpm power. I'm not talking 7,000 or 8,000 rpm-many cars don't have the valvetrain or bottom-end strength for that. But a 318 Dodge with a two-barrel will pull smoothly to 5,000 rpm or so. If your car is backfiring, or missing, or won't rev over 4,000-4,500 rpm-you could have a flat cam, or bad valvesprings or a lot of timing chain slop. You'd be amazed at the number of cars with $5,000 paint jobs that can't pull 5,000 rpm in low gear!  # 5. Transmission. If you have an automatic transmission-when's the last time you changed the fluid?  Is your vacuum modulator hooked up? Is your kickdown linkage working properly? . Have you installed a "Shift Improver Kit?" If you don't know the answers to these questions then you could be losing a substantial amount of performance through a slipping, or improperly shifting trans.  All these factors contribute. Bad tuning or lack of maintenance can cost you as much as 50 hp on a bone-stock engine. Get to work and make your car run up to it's potential. Mastermind    

Magazines are always going for the maximum....The biggest numbers don't always mean the best performance in the real world!

Talking about recipes for speed-I can't stress it enough really read what a magazine is printing and take it with a grain of salt. Like the '69 Chevelle that Hot Rod used in their "Crate Motor Shootout". The LS3 6.2 liter 'Vette motor than ran in the 11s with 4.44:1 gears and a 5,000 rpm torque converter? Yeah, that's a streetable combination!! When they tested the ZZ427 big-block they changed the gears to 4.11:1s but they still had a converter with a 4,800 rpm stall speed. Come on guys-even with 4.11 or 4.44 gears your 65 mph cruise rpm is going to be at least 1,000-1,500 rpm BELOW the converters stall speed. If you try to drive this car on the street at all- You'll burn up the tranny in less than 50 miles!!  If they had run a more reasonable and streetable 2,500-3,000 rpm converter no the car wouldn't have been nearly as fast with either engine but the public would have gotten a more accurate view of what kind of real-world performance they could expect if they put this engine in their car. I mean seriously-no one drives around with a 5 grand converter. The same for the test mule that Car Craft used in their intake manifold comparison. A 408 inch small-block with 10.5:1 compression, Dart 215cc heads and a .630 lift solid roller cam is not what the "Average" guy is running in his Camaro. It's wonderful that this motor made 560 hp; however the Dart or Holley / Keith Dorton single-planes topped by an 850cfm double-pumper Holley that made the most hp and torque on the dyno for this combo would absolutely destroy the performance of the average Joe's  8.5:1 or 9:1 350 with stock heads and a cam with say-470 lift. This fellow would be much better off with a dual-plane intake like an Edelbrock Performer or Weiand Stealth and a vacuum secondary carb with 600-750 cfm. They didn't say that in the article-but I think they need to. "By the way our engine was a full-on race motor-this combo probably won't work well in your street car or work truck". I say this because I see it all the time. Guy goes and buys a Victor Jr intake and a 750 Double-pumper carb and puts it on his otherwise stock 350 Camaro that has an automatic with a stock converter and 3.08:1 gears. He can't understand why it falls flat on it's face, doesn't run as good as the stock iron manifold and Q-jet combo did, has no power below 4,000 rpm and is all done in by valve float at 5,200!!  "But ( Insert magazine name here ) said this made the most power and ran the best 1/4 mile time on their Camaro."  Yes-that had a 10:1 383 with a .525 lift cam, a 3,000 rpm converter and 3.73:1 gears!!  Yes, on that car that had 400+lbs of torque from idle on up-it could afford to lose some bottom end-it probably helped the car launch better with less wheelspin, and it hit like "gangbusters" about 3 grand and pulled hard to 7,000 because their motor had the compression, valvetrain and gearing to take full advantage of the big carb and intake. On the guys 8.2:1 compression 350 with a stock cam with .390 / .410 lift, that mad maybe 280 lbs ft of torque at the peak- a stock torque converter and high ( low numeric ) gearing it killed the bottem-end, and the car didn't have the valvetrain or the gearing to rev to the point where the Victor manifold made it's most power. ( 4,000-8,000 rpm .) He'd have been better off with a Performer and a vacuum secondary carb that built up low-speed and mid-range torque. Then he have noticed a big improvement in performance from idle-5,000 rpm. I said it once before-but I think it's relevant here. I told a customer of mine that wanted more power out of his 350 powered Suburban tow rig to buy an Edelbrock Performer intake, the matching cam, and some 1 5 /8 inch headers. He was a diy type guy-so I offered to set up his distributor and re-jet his carb after he was done. He comes over completely furious. The truck won't idle below 1,000 rpm, has no power brakes, and doesn't even have the power it had stock. I look under the hood and see 1 / 7 /8 chrome headers, and a Performer "RPM" intake topped by a 750 double-pumper Holley. "What cam did you use?" i ask "The matching "Performer RPM". he says. "You didn't listen to me." "I said get the Performer package, small-tube headers, and I'd re-jet your Quadrajet for you." "Didn't you read the box-where the cam says only for high-performance vehicles not for use in vehicles over 3,600 lbs or towing applications.?"  "But the guy at the parts store said-"  "You listened to the Idiot at Autozone instead of me." I showed him on Edelbrock's website that the SBC  RPM cam had more lift and duration than the one used in an LS6 454 Chevelle or a 455 SD Pontiac Trans-Am, and it only had 10 inches of vacuum at 1,000 rpm. I showed him that his headers were WAY too big- he could have use 1 /3/4's but 1 /7 8 were too huge for a truck motor.  I also showed him how the "Regular" Performer cam had 15 inches of vacuum at idle and built low-speed torque. I traded him a Performer intake for the "RPM" intake, and he returned the carb and headers after cleaning them up.. He had to eat the cam since it had been installed. After he installed the smaller-tube headers, the Performer cam and intake, and his re-jetted Q-jet he was amazed. The truck idled at 750 rpm, the power brakes and everything worked fine, and it had a TON more torque-especially in the 2,000-4,500 rpm range where he did most of his towing. And it got better gas mileage-16 mpg instead of 12. He was esctatic-and apologetic. "I should have listened to you" "I don't know why I listened to that idiot at the parts store."  "It was a costly lesson" "If you'd called me before you bought that 1st batch of stuff I'd have told you to ignore the parts guy and look in the Edelbrock catalog-all the specs are in there." "I'm glad it worked out." "I'm still out the $250 bucks on that other cam." "Maybe I can sell it for you and recoup part of it." "Thanks. " "Sure."  The moral of the story is- be brutally honest with yourself about what you want and how you plan to use it. Sure, all of us look in a magazine and think we'd like to have a 12:1, solid-roller 650 hp monster motor. But in reality- for 99% of us a 9.5:1 engine that runs on pump gas and idles at 800 rpm makes a lot more sense. Bigger is not always better-especially in a street application. Mastermind                      

Recipes for speed aren't always exact or set in stone....Their general guidelines!

My recent post about recipes for speed stirred up the usual spittingly hysterical maniacs, because I didn't include their car or said their car wasn't as fast as they think it is. The horsepower and power to weight ratios I listed are general guidelines. I guess some of these people didn't read the part about extra mechanical advantage-i.e. a 4-speed or 4.11 gears or a high-stall speed torque converter. When I said you needed 400+ hp to run in the 12s I was assuming we were talking about the typical 3,500-4,000 lb musclecar-i.e. Chevelle, GTO, Road Runner / Charger, or Camaro / Firebird, or 'Cuda / Challenger. Like I said I know a guy that got kicked off the track on the first run-he had a small-block Chevy in a Datsun 240Z. This combo makes an amazing drag racer-the independent rear suspension really bites hard, and the motor being slightly set back helps weight transfer. And the car only weighs about 2,300 lbs. A 350 Chevy V8 only weighs about 75 lbs more than the big Nissan inline 6-so the handling of the car isn't adversely affected. He had a mild cam and an Edelbrock Performer intake-so he had maybe 325 hp. But in a 2,300 lb car with 4.09:1 gears it ripped off a blistering 11.90 second pass. And he didn't have a driveshaft safety loop or a roll cage which this track required for any car running 12 flat or less. Some tracks have lowered this to 11.50-but that's the rule. Think about this-that's like having 650 hp in a 4,600 lb car-i.e. a GMPP 572 in a '67 Impala SS. That would run high 11s pretty easily, right?  I know guys with 340 Dusters that eat the lunch of big-block cars, and I know a guy that has a 289 '62 Falcon with a 4-speed and 4.56:1 gears that kicks ass-he only has maybe 300 hp-but the car weighs about 2,600 lbs and has 4.56:1 gears! His only friend who can give him a race is a guy with a '65 Nova with a 327 and a 4-speed and 4.11s.  Like I talked about the guy that put the LS Motor in the Chevelle-his only ran 13s-with street tires, a stock converter and 3.55 gears. He was pissed that it didn't run 11s like Hot Rod's Chevelle-that had an 8-point cage, wrinklewall slicks, a 4.44:1 axle ratio, and a 5,000 rpm converter!  Think that'll make a difference?  I've mentioned it before but I had a buddy in high school who had a 440 Six-Pack Super Bee. He was always spewing about how his car could run 12s. He assumed this because of an Old Car Life road test where Chrysler engineers had Pro Stock Drag racing champion Ronnie Sox piloting a dyno-tuned "Protoype" Road Runner with a 4-speed, 10 inch slicks, and 4.30 gears to a string of 13.0s and 13.10s with the best being a 12.88. He was shocked when his car with street tires, 3.23:1 gears and an automatic ran something like a 14.10 at our local track. When I tried to explain that he didn't have Ronnie Sox's lightning reaction time at the tree, and that the slicks and 4.30 gears made quite a difference, regardless of who was driving, he didn't want to hear it. He was doubly shocked when my warmed-over 4-speed, 4.33:1 geared RAIII Judge beat him in a drag race, and my dad's Tri-Power 421 Catalina 2+2 with 3.90:1 gears  gave him a helluva run up to 90 mph. He couldn't grasp the concept of mechanical advantage-his stock converter stalled about 2,100 rpm, and the big 440 still lit the G70-15 Goodyear Polyglas G/T tires up like they were on fire. I had a posi and soft-compound M/T N50X15 tires on the rear, and Lakewood traction bars. After heating the tires-I could rev to 3,500-4,000 rpm and drop the clutch hard. The GTO would rip off the line with just enough wheelspin to get engine up on it's torque curve and the car moving with alarcity. Trust me, if a Ram Air III Judge with 4.33:1 gears jumps you two or three car lengths off the line-your not getting it back. Ask the Hemi Charger driver, the 427 / 390 hp Corvette driver, and the 429SCJ Torino Cobra driver- all of whom I beat at our local track. A friend of mine had a 350 in a Chevy LUV pickup that was lightning-fast, and another guy had a Gremlin with a 401 in it that was a rocket. It's not always about raw power-gearing, traction, weight transfer all make a difference-you should have seen that short-wheelbase Gremlin, or that Chevy-engined 240Z rocket out of the hole!!  The rule of thumb - "If you think your car can run 12s but you've never been to the drags, then your probably in the mid-13s" is usually dead-on. People don't know-or forget that 1/10 of a second equals one car length. So if your buddy's car runs 13.60s and you beat him by 3 car lengths-your running 13.30s-not twelve-anything. Got it?  I've said it before-but I'll say it again-very few people had Hemi 'Cudas, LS6 Chevelles, Boss 429s, etc-most fond "Musclecar Memories" are from base models-383 Road Runners, 396 Chevelles, 389 GTOs, etc- tales of pulling the front wheels and third-gear rubber seem silly when someone pulls out a yellowed, dog-eared copy of Hot Rod or Car and Driver and we find the machine in question ran in the 14.50s. There's more to speed than just horsepower-that's all I'm saying. Mastermind              

What the hell do you people want?

I said earlier-I'm trying to sell my beloved Hurst / Olds 442. It's a 1973 model one of 1,097 ever made. It has the original paint, original swivel bucket seats, the original Hurst Dual / Gate shifter, the original owner's manual and the original spare. The body is virgin- I'm the third owner and it's never been wrecked or painted and it's rust-free being an original Nevada car. It currently has a ZZ4 Chevy crate motor and Chevy bolt-pattern TH400 in it. I advertised it for 13 grand with both engines or for 9 grand with the original numbers-matching 455 Olds and TH400 tranny because I wanted to put the Chevy crate engine in another car. I had a guy who said he was really serious. I said I'd take six grand for the car but he'd have to put the Olds engine and tranny back in himself. He said he'd pay $7,500 if I'd put the Olds drivetrain back in it. I said I would if he'd send me a $1,000 deposit, that I didn't want to change engines and trannys and then him change his mind and not show up. He never called me back or tried to negotiate further. Like the Tom Cruise movie- "Show me the money". Screw you-I'm supposed to pull two engines and trannys because you might want to buy the car?  I'll set the the goddamn thing on fire before I'll sell it for less than $6,000. Where are you going to find a numbers-matching original one of 1,097 Hurst / Olds that's never been wrecked or painted, with original swivel buckets, dual / gate shifter and digital tach for $6,000? When people are paying $50,000 for "clone" Judges?  Excuse my language- but fuck you and die. You whine about not finding a "Deal". Puhleezze. Mastermind.  

Read the ENTIRE article before you make a buying decision on anything!

Got two interesting emails this week that really reinforce the term "Buyer Beware". One was from a guy who spent major bucks installing an LS3 / "E-Rod" crate engine in his '72 Chevelle. The car ran great, but he was disappointed when he took it to the track. He only bought the package largely because of two magazine articles-Hot Rod's Crate Motor Shootout-where they tested 8 different GM engines-and Hot Rod's "Project Disco". Both of these LS3- powered Project cars ran in the 11s, yet his Chevelle could only run a 13.55 at his local track. He asked me if something could be wrong with his engine or car combo. I replied, no, that his car was running as good as it possibly could-a 4,070 lb Chevelle that runs 13.55 with street tires, through the mufflers,and using a TH350 with a stock torque converter and 3.55:1 gears is pretty damn good performance in anybody's book. The '69 Chevelle that Hot Rod tested-with a box-stock LS3- was a gutted race car with a 10 point roll cage, a fiberglass hood, a 9 inch Ford rear end and a ladder-bar suspension that weighed 3,520 lbs. In addition to being 500 lbs lighter-this car also had 28X10.50X15 wrinkelwall slicks, a 4.44:1 axle ratio, open exhausts, and a TH400 with an 8-inch TCI 5,100 rpm stall converter!!. I asked if he'd read the article thoroughly-all this information was disclosed. Of course Hot Rod's test mule-being 500 lbs lighter and having slicks, 4.44:1 gears, a drag-race optimized suspension, and a 5-grand converter is going to run substantially faster than his car with street tires, 3.55:1 gears, a stock suspension and a stock converter!!  "Project Disco" was a 1979 Z/28 Camaro that they stuffed an LS3 engine into. This car weighed 3,660 lbs, had a Tremec five speed stick, and a 3.73 posi rear end, and it only dropped into the 11s with a "Shot of Nitrous". Again- it was a lighter car with more mechanical advantage-a stick and stiffer gearing, and oh yeah-don't forget the nitrous. Now Hot Rod magazine didn't do anything wrong-they printed all the information about both vehicles. He just didn't read it-all he saw was the 1/4 mile times. If I buy that engine-I'll go that fast. I asked him-has he read a road test of a new Camaro SS. Yes he had. Ok I said- a 2012 Camaro SS weighs about 4,000 lbs and has a 400 hp LS3 engine and a 3.45:1 axle ratio and every test I've seen in magazines has them running low 13s in bone-stock trim. Why would you think that your 4,000 lb Chevelle with the same engine and similar gearing would run 2 full seconds faster?  "Because of those magazine articles". AAAAUUUGGHH!!!!  "Didn't you read anything I emailed you?" "I read it." "Then read it 500 times until you understand how gearing, nitrous and traction affects performance!!"   The second one was a guy who had a '77 L82 Corvette that ran low 13s in street trim. It had a TH350 with a 2,500 rpm converter, 3.55:1 gears and he'd added headers, and an Edelbrock Torker II intake and matching cam. He was totally happy with the car's performance-it would smoke the tires as long as he wanted to stay on the throttle, and if he drove like a normal person it got 16 mpg. Then he read a single-plane intake comparo in Car Craft. The Torker II was ranked #1 in "bang for the buck" but ranked low in total power when compared to some other offerings by Dart, Brodix, Weiand, and some other Edelbrocks. He asked me if he should replace his intake with one of the manifolds that fared better in this test!!  My answer-Absolutely not!!  Here's why-the test mule- was a 10:1 406 inch small-block Chevy with 215cc Trick Flow heads, an MSD ignition, an 850 cfm Holley carb and a solid-roller cam with 248 / 256 dgrees duration at .050, and .613 lift!!!  This was a 500+ hp race motor to start with. So yes,-the Torker, the Weiand X-celertor, and other basically street intakes are going to make less power than the competition style Dart, Brodix, Super Victor style etc on a peak hp dyno pull on this MONSTER test mule. In fact-if he put one of these bigger intakes on his 9:1 350 with stock 157 cc heads and a cam with "only" 232 duration and .488 lift-( Compared to a 10:1 400 with 215 cc heads and a 256 duration / .613 lift cam )  he would show a big loss in low-speed and mid-range torque, and very little, if any top-end improvement. And these competition style intakes wouldn't fit under his hood!  Luckily-he understood what I was saying and decided to leave his car that he liked alone!!  What I'm marvelling at is his initial reaction-a magazine said this intake was better-so I should immediately go buy it. Here's where you have to really read the articles. The part that makes the most peak hp on a dyno is not always the best-especially for a street-driven car. So read-I mean really read all the specs before you rush out and buy the latest and greatest piece of equipment that a magazine is dyno-testing.              

Recipes for speed.......

I've had several people ask about what it takes to run 13s, 12s, 11s, and mainly because of the "Fast&Furious" movies and their casual references to "10 second cars"-what it takes to run 10s. There are various combinations to do this- for example- a small-block Chevy in a Datsun 240Z is an easy to build 11 second ride-but we can't cover all the possibilities here. I can give you some general guidelines on what you'll need for a mild to wild street machine-regardless of the nameplate. What the average person doesn't know is in a 1/4 mile drag race-1/10 of a second equals 1 car length. So if your car runs say a 14.9 in the 1/4 and your buddy's car runs a 14.5-that doesn't sound like a big difference, but it is!  He just smoked you by 4 car lengths!!  If  your pal's car ran a 14.0-he beat you by 9 car lengths, which is a serious ass-whippin'-even though both cars technically run "In the 14s". That's why I laugh at the "F&F" movies and their casual references to "10 second" cars!  Anyhow- I'll break it down for everyone here.  # 1. 14 second cars. Like I just said-this is a lot of room from 14.00-14.99-but you'll get the general idea. Cars that fall into this realm are generally stock for the most part and consist of-small-block 327 and 350 '60's and '70's Novas and Camaros, '69-73 351 Mustangs, and '70-74 340 / 360 Dusters or 'Cuda / Challengers. You'll also find some "entry-level" big-block musclecars-i.e.-389 GTOs, 383 Road Runners, 396 Chevelles , etc. Also in this category would be 400 powered '70's Firebirds and Trans-Ams, '85-92 LB9 and L98 Tuned Port Injected Camaros, Firebirds and Corvettes, and '83-93 "5.0" Mustangs. These cars look and sound cool and are fun to drive, and are often used as daily drivers. They are fast enough to back up the image-you don't have to take crap from little boys in Honda Civics, old men in Northstar Cadillacs, or soccer moms in V8 Cherokees. The engines idle smoothly, the seats are comfortable and the suspensions don't rattle your fillings loose. # 2. 13 second cars. In this realm-you have some of the above mentioned cars mildly warmed over-aftermarket carbs and intakes, headers, maybe a mild cam or additional mechanical advantadge-i.e.- a 4-speed, or a higher-stall speed torque converter and 3.73 or stiffer gears. You'll also find the typical premium big-block musclecars here-454 Chevelles, 455HO / SD GTOs and Trans-Ams, 440 Road Runners / Chargers / Challengers, 455 Olds 442s, and 455 Buick GS Skylarks. Later stuff would include '85-87 Buick Grand Nationals, '93-2002 LT1 / LS1 Camaros, Firebirds, and Corvettes,2004-2006 GTOs, as well as 2005 and newer Hemi Chargers and Challengers,2009 and newer Camaros, and 2005 and newer 4.6 and "5.0" Mustangs. # 3. 12 second cars. Now your getting into some serious power. Nitrous can yank a 13 second car into the 12s, but the really glory is to run it "on the motor" which means "off the bottle". In order to do that, you'll need at least 450 hp-which means a stout small-block or a warmed over big-block. Additionally you'll need some traction aids to put all that power to the ground-a limited-slip rear end, larger, stickier tires, and traction bars or a pinion snubber. And, you may have to beef up the driveline to handle the extra power-for example upgrading the transmission or rear end.  # 4. 11 second cars. Now, your getting to the edge of streetability. It's rare to see an 11 second street car without a blue bottle in the trunk, but you can do it without nitrous. You'll need 500-600 hp depending on the weight of the car. This means a stout small-block with a big shot of nitrous, or a blower, or a pretty serious big-block.  Most strips require any car that runs the 1/4 in less than 12 seconds to have a driveshaft safety loop and an 8-point roll cage. To put all that power to the ground you'll definitely need a drag-race style suspension and an upgraded driveline-i.e. a TH400 or 727 or C6 automatic, or a heavy-duty Muncie, BW or Richmond 4 or 5-speed stick and a 12 bolt , Dana 60, or Ford 9" rear to avoid parts breakage.  # 5. 10 second cars. You can do this two ways-give an 11 or 12 second car a big shot of nitrous, or build a STOMPIN" big-block. To run 10s without nitrous-you'll need 600+ hp-which means a blower, or a 12:1 compression, 500+ inch big-block with a serious cam, which means you'll also need racing gas, a 3,500-4,000 rpm converter, 4.11 or 4.56 gears, and a reinforced chassis-an 8 or 10 point cage, subframe connectors, ladder bars, etc. Yes, anything is drivable-depending on what the driver is willing to tolerate-but these cars are really stretching the limits of "Streetability".  Buff magazines that blurb on their covers about 7,8 or 9 second "Street Cars" are full of shit, plain and simple. A car that runs the 1/4 in 7,8 or 9 seconds at better than 140 mph is not a street car, it's a race car. What else would you call a car with a 700 hp+ engine, a 4,500 rpm converter and a trans-brake, a 10 point roll cage,4-link ladder bar suspension, and rolling on 29 or 31 inch slicks or "DOT legal"-wink,wink, wrinklewall street tires or drag radials?  Most states require any car built after 1978 to have a smog and safety inspection which often includes checking for equipment like catalytic converters, EGR valves, etc. How does one get a 720 hp, 572 inch Rat powered '86 Monte Carlo SS legally registered?  And even with 4.56:1 or 4.88:1 gears-your 55-65 mph highway cruising rpm is going to be well below your 5 grand converter's stall speed, so how far toward soccer practice can mom go before she burns up that expensive B&M or TCI racing tranny?  Hope this clears some things up. Mastermind