Sale-proof cars that people butchered......Why?

Ive said before that I hate people butchering classic iron. Now I'm not the type that thinks an SS396 Chevelle is "ruined" because it has an HEI distributor, halogen headlights and radial tires. On the other hand-I hate seeing '58 Corvettes with LS3 engines, six-speed automatics, rack&pinion steering, etc. Ive said many times sports car guys are smarter-you never see a '71 Datsun 240Z with the engine and tranny out of a 2011 370Z or a 1969 Porsche 911S with the drivetrain out of a 2015 Carerra, or a vintage Jag XKE with the motor and tranny out of 2017 F-Type. Ditto for motorcycle enthusiasts-you never see a 1971 Harley Super Glide with the engine and tranny out of a 2009 Softail, or a 1973 Kawasaki Z1 with the engine and tranny out of a 2014 Ninja !! Lately I've seen a bunch of cars in magazines and on the internet that are completely sale-proof. Their owners better love them-because no one else wants them at any price.  #1 This guy put a 389 Pontiac in a '57 T-Bird. Why would you do that? This car outraged GM and Ford guys alike. If he wanted more power than the ancient 292 / 312 "Y-Block" why didn't he swap in a later 302 or 351W? Or even a 390? At least a Ford engine, right? Ugh. # 2. This guy had a Chevy LS engine in a Fox Mustang. Again-Why?  Not performance. I know guys that are running 10s with 302s and 347s. An LS swap into a Mustang is an absolute nightmare, and what do you gain? Ford guys don't want it, Chevy guys don't want it. # 3. Angered the muscle car crowd and the import tuner crowd because he ruined 2 classics. This clown put the engine and tranny out of a 1998 Toyota Supra in a '67 Camaro. And he couldn't understand why people were storming his house with torches. # 4. The all-time more money than brains winner goes to.....The guy who put a 426 Hemi Crate engine in a Ford / DeTomaso Pantera!! Sports car guys lost their minds, Mopar guys lost their minds, and Ford guys lost their minds. A Pantera is a cool car. They look like a Ferarri, and they had a 351 Ford Cleveland V8 mounted mid-engine. And they were really fast. The buff magazines called them the "Poor Man's Lamborghini"-although at $10,000 in 1972 dollars-no poor people bought them. That was more than a Porsche 911S.  A Pontiac Trans-Am was $4,255 in '72. A Corvette was $6,000. Anyhow-again-if he wanted more power there's tons of speed equipment for 351C's-Edelbrock and Trick Flow make heads,Crane, Comp Cams and others make cams, etc. Or a 429 / 460 has the same bellhousing bolt pattern as a 351C and isn't much larger externally. But a Chrysler Freakin' Hemi?? Arrrggghhhh!!!!  # 5. This guy spent $250,000 that's not a typo-I didn't mean 25K, I mean a quarte of a million-putting the Turbo Diesel engine and Allison Transmission out of a 2014 GMC 3500 truck into a 1970 Chevelle. Why? For 100K you can buy numbers-matching LS6 Chevelles and 427 Stingrays all day in any of the 50 states, as well as Boss 302 Mustangs, Ram Air IV Judges,  440 Six-Pack Road Runners, 'Cuda AARs.  For 250K you can buy numbers-matching Boss 429s, or 427 Shelby Cobras. But this guy wants a Chevelle with a Diesel in it.  # 6. This clown spent 100K building a Kit Car-a Porsche 356 Speedster Replica. Now most of these kits cost about $20K for the complete kit which usually includes everything but the engine and tranny. Most guys go with a pumped up VW 4-banger, which will have more oomph than the original Porsche 4-banger, look and sound correct, and be dead-reliable. For $25K you could have a nice replica of a car that sells for 100K+ if it's original. If you wanted to invest a little extra bank-you could put a 6-cylinder 911 motor and matching tranny in it, and it would really rock. And still cost maybe 40-45K. No this genius spent 100K putting the drivetrain out of a Subaru WRX in it!!!  Porschephiles went ballistic. Kit Car guys rolled their eyes. Who in the hell wants a Porsche replica with a Subaru engine in it???  If he had 100K to spend why wouldn't he buy an original?? For 100k he could buy a prisitne '70'sor '80's 911 Turbo Carerra!!! He was shocked that when he tried to sell it he got zero offers. No shit sherlock!!  I don't know what these people were thinking. Mastermind     

New "Bullitt" Mustang.....

Ford is releasing a "Bullitt" edition Mustang for 2020. It looks pretty cool. It's available in Dark Highland Green of course, and Black. It's got Torq-Thrust style wheels,and a 480 hp Coyote motor backed by a 6 speed. It's got Recaro seats. I'm waiting to see if Car&Driver or Motor Trend or Road&Track tests one. I'm also wondering if Chrysler is going to counter with a "Bullitt" edition Charger-with a 465 hp Hemi, and black paint and special suspension.  The magazines could race around San Francisco. Now that would be cool. Mastermind

Childhood influences....

I guess Freud was right-childhood influences form your preferences as an adult. Maybe it's true with cars. My dad had a '64 GTO. It was a 389 / 4-speed. It was a 4-barrel model, not a tri-power, but it had 4.33:1 gears which made it really quick in a drag race. I remember my dad's buddy Dave coming to our house with his brand-new-1967, 400, 4-speed Firebird convertible. Like Waylon Jennings said in the "Devil's Right Hand" about guns-"I thought it was the finest thing I ever had seen." I didn't give a shit that my dad's GTO beat it in a drag race ( the Firebird had 3.36:1 gears ). I thought it was the coolest car ever. My dad's friends were all gearheads. Paul had a split-window '63 Corvette Stingray. Jan had a 289 Cobra. Sonny had an SS396 Chevelle. I grew up with musclecars. When my parents took me to see "Bullitt" I didn't care about the hero's Mustang. I loved that ominous black Charger. When I saw "Vanishing Point" in 1971-my dream car was an Alpine White Challenger. My mom's driver was a 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 with the tri-power 421. My dad was a carburator wizard. He was great at tuning multiple carbs. Besides musclecar owners, he had Porsche, Datsun Z and Ferarri owners lined up to have him syncronize multi-carb setups. I remember the two guys who had the fastest cars in town-one was a 440 / Six-Pack GTX and the other was a 426 Hemi Road Runner, agreed to race after a bunch of people bet a bunch of money. It was like "American Graffiti" on crack. The stipulation was one mechanic would tune both cars. The best in town. My old man. I was at the shop at midnight the night before when this was being done. I was at the race. The hemi won, by half the length of the front fender. It was that close. Both parties agreed that my dad was the "Man" that both cars performed as good as they possibly could have. Tuning wasn't an issue. My first car was a 1969 Ram Air III, 4-speed, 4.33:1 geared GTO Judge. Who buys that for a 16 year old? My old man. I think he wanted it as much for himself as he did me. I lost my driver's liscence in less than a year. My dad was a Pontiac guy since 1959 when he bought his Tri-Power 389 Catalina. He later had the Goat, the 2+2. I remember as early as 1970 he wanted a Trans-Am. "Smokey and the Bandit" sold millions. My dad had a 400, 4-speed, WS6 1978 T/A my junior year if high school. I thought it was the finest thing I ever had seen. Like Waylon said. I bought one used, in 1983. I loved that car. It looked cool, the seats were comfortable, the engine idled smoothly,the suspension didn't rattle your fillings loose, and it was fast enough to back up the image. I didn't have to take crap from Corvette owners or "5.0" Mustang owners. It's weird, because even though I liked the "Transporter" movies-I have no desire to have a hot BMW or Audi. Their's just something about an old school-musclecar. My brother is a lifelong Pontiac Guy. He has a '69 GTO. But now his obsession is a 428 Mustang. He's been scouring the internet looking for a deal. I told him-you'll have to sell the goat and pony up some big cash-they don't give those away. He's still searching. Mastermind 

Had someone ask me the other day-"Which car in "Bullitt" was really the fastest?" The answer is the Charger. Ford supplied 5 Mustangs, all 390 / 4-speeds. The problem was the 390 was a truck motor-tons of torque, but not really a high-performance platform. Ford hastily made the 390 an option in 1967 becuase you could get a 396 in a Camaro and a 400 in a Firebird. All a 289 Mustang was going to see of a 396 Camaro or 400 Firebird is the taillights. Sadly, that was true for the 390 as well. Motor Trend tested a 396 Camaro, a 390 Mustang, and a 400 Firebird in 1967. The Camaro was the quickest in the 1/4-posting a 14.8 second time. The Firebird posted a 15.1 second time, and the Mustang a 15.6. That may not sound like a lot-but in drag racing 1/10th is one car length. So the Firebird smoked the Mustang by 5 car lengths, and the Camaro did it by 7. That's not even a race. Anyhow-Ford had the contract to supply cars for Warner Brothers. Steve McQueen didn't want two Fords in the chase. He thought it would be hokey to have the bad guys driving a Fairlane. GM and Chrysler refused to help out-citing Ford's contract. So McQueen and Cary Loftin-the stunt coordinator bought the Charger off the showroom floor of a Bay Area Dodge Dealer with their own money. The Charger was a 440 / 4-speed. In early practice Bill Hickman-the Charger driver, left McQueen and Loftin ( who shared the duty of driving the Mustang ) so badly that they couldn't even film it. Steve McQueen was furious. Cary Loftin and his chief mechanic, Max Balchowsky-hopped up one of the Mustangs with headers, and shorty glasspacks, an Edelbrock intake and 750 Holley carb and a Mallory distributor. That's why it sounds so badass on the soundtrack.  The Charger was still quicker in a drag race, but now they could film it, without Hickman having to slow down and wait for Loftin / McQueen. This happened other times. In the "Smokey and the Bandit II"-director / stuntman Hal Needham had a big problem. In the first "Bandit" if he or Burt Reynolds wanted to smoke the tires, it was easy-with the 400 cubic inch '77 T/A's. If the stunt car was a 4-speed, just pop the clutch. If it was an automatic, powerbrake it a little, and then floor it. ( If you watch the film sometimes you see a clutch pedal and you can hear Reynolds shifting it. In other scenes you can see the automatic shifter on the console ) However by 1980-the 400 inchers were no more, and were replaced with the anemic 301 Turbo. ( Honestly-why didn't they just buy some low-mileage '79's with the 400 Pontiac and 403 Olds engines-they'd smoke the tires and wer e'nt even a year old ) Hot Rod magazine howled to the high heavens. Their 400, 4-speed '79 test car ripped off a blistering 14.61 in the 1/4. ( Hot Rod was faster than all the other buff mags, because Motor Trend, Road &Track etc-launched with"some wheelspin" and all shifts were lift-throttle-they all ran 15.20's.) Hot Rod revved to 3,500-4,000 rpm and dropped the clutch hard-which allowed the posi-equipped T/A to rocket off the line. And they powershifted. Hence the much quicker time. Anyhow-their 1980 Turbo model while supposedly only being down 10 hp from the 400's-couldn't smoke the tires on dry pavement!! It ran a 16.30 in the 1/4. Ugh. They didn't have anywhere near the power of the 400 inchers. So Needham had nitrous oxide installed on one of the 1980 T/A's used in filming. It was strictly the "Burnout" car. It's said the stunt crew of the "Rockford Files" used '78 Firebirds until the series ended in 1981 because star James Garner didn't like the front end of the '79-81 models and said they were "dogs" He was right. The show went through several gold Firebirds in it's 1974-81 run. Some were Formula 400s, some were base models. We know the 400s had balls, but even the base models usually had 350 Pontiacs which had some oomph. The last '77-78 models-even thought GM was playing musical engines because of smog laws- in the base model in California-you could get ( I'm sure the producers used California models ) a 350 Chevy, which still ran pretty damn good. The non-turbo 301 V8 of 79-81 wheezed out 135 hp. That's why they were "dogs".  The "Dukes of Hazzard" wrecked 216 '68-70 Chargers during the show's 1979-85 run. A funny story-the stunt crew of "Dukes" and the stunt crew of "Knight Rider" had a friendly contest. Most of the Chargers they wrecked were clunkers-some 318 2bbl models. The Duke guys put a healthy 440 in GL26, and some Koni shocks, and aftermarket front and rear sway bars on it. The Knight guys figured the WS6 suspension of the '83 T/A was good enough, but they swapped the 305 for a Traco-built 350 crate engine. I don't remember who won, but I remember reading an article in a magazine that the stunt drivers griped constantly after ward that the mechanics couldn't make all the cars run and handle like GL26 or "Super Kitt"!!  Mastermind     

I thought magazine writers were supposed to be objective.....

A trend that really rubs me the wrong way lately is the buff magazines having comparison's and then declaring the car they like the winner, regardless of test results. Here's a few really offensive ones. "Bandit vs General Lee". The magazine found a couple guys one with a '69 Charger done like the "Dukes of Hazzard" car, and one with a black and gold '77 Trans-Am. Since the Charger had a high-compression 440 V8 with real dual exhausts and the T/A's 8:1 400 was choked with a catalytic converter and other smog gear, obviously the Charger was quicker in a drag race. However-the T/A trounced the Charger in every other performance category. The skidpad-the T/A ripped off a blistering .82g. The Charger had a UPS truck-like .67g. In 70mph panic stopping-the T/A stopped consistently in 144 ft. The Charger took like 212 feet, and got worse with every try. The T/A smoked it in the slalom, and in lap time around Willow Springs. At the end of the article-they declared the Charger the winner. Huh? How does that work?  Another one tested a Mustang GT against a BMW M3. The Mustang was equal to or better than the M3 in every single category-0-60, 1/4 mile, slalom, braking, lap time around the track, everything. And the Mustang cost $35,000, the BMW $64,000.  They declared the BMW the winner. Another one was subcompact performance cars. They tested a Subaru WRX, a VW Golf GTI, a Honda Civic SI, a Nissan Sentra SER, and a MazdaSpeed 3. The Subaru was the best in every performance category, and was the lowest priced.  They declared the VW the winner.  In a high end sports car comparo-they pitted a Porsche 911 Turbo against a Corvette Z06, a Nissan GT-R, an Aston-Martin V12 Vantage, and Audi R8. The Corvette and the GT-R were the consistent performance winners. The Nissan was quicker 0-60, but the 'Vette was quicker in the 1/4. The Nissan was better in the slalom, but the 'Vette was quicker on the track ( by small margins either way ). The others were consistently behind. The 911 did win the braking test. They said the one they liked the best was the Aston Martin, even though it placed last in almost every test. Why? The exhaust sounded cooler than the others, and it felt like a "real" sports car. The others just didn't feel the same. Huh? I've never driven an Aston Martin, but I have driven a Z06 'Vette, and a GT-R and a 911 Turbo and an R8. They are all ungodly fast and don't suffer fools lightly. If you have 100K+ to spend on a badass sports car, you really can't go wrong with any of them. But the Aston was the priciest, and had the lowest performance-if you consider 12 second 1/4's and 180+ top speed "low" performance-the others ran low 11 and high 10 second 1/4s and had 200 mph top speeds. If you want to pretend your James Bond, I guess that would be the way to go. I was curious as to why they didn't have a Jaguar F type. With 575 hp and all-wheel drive, I would think it would be right up there with the 'Vette and the GT-R. Maybe Jaguar didn't have one in their test fleet. I get personal preferences. I'd rather have a '60's 427 Stingray than a new Z06, even though the Z06 will run off and leave it. I'd rather have a '69-70 Boss 302 than a new Shelby GT350R even though the new car will smoke it in every performance category. But if I'm writing an article for a magazine-I'm not going to tell the reader that he should invest 70-100K in a 50 year old car instead of a brand-new one that has twice the performance, a warranty etc.  It just blows my mind. And they've been doing it for 50 years. I remember a motorcycle test one time-they were comparing 750cc "Superbikes"-this was the early '70's when 750cc was a "big" motorcycle motor, not like now where their pushing 2 liters. Anyhow, they compared a Honda, a Triumph, a Kawasaki and a Yamaha. The Kawasaki was a 2-stroke triple. The Triumph was a four-stroke triple, and the Honda and Yamaha were four-stroke four-cylinders. The Kawasaki blew the others away in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. It ran something like 12 flat or 11.90 which was ungodly even for a bike back then. The others weren't even close. They declared the Honda the winner-because it was the smoothest and easiest to ride. They said the Kawi would smoke the tire or wheelie too easy if you weren't careful with the throttle. Guess which bike everyone wanted to buy? Today those Kawis have a "Cult" following. I'd buy one if I could find one that wasn't priced in the stratosphere.  Anyhow-I think they should be more objective. Numbers don't lie. Yes, their entitled to their opinion-but be reasonable.  Mastermind

R.I.P. Rocky Johnson.....

On January 15th Rocky Johnson passed away at the age of 75. He was a wrestler from the '70's until his retirement in 1991. Him, and Pat Patterson, Peter MaVia, Bruno Sammartino were the pioneers. He is also the father of WWF Star and Movie star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson who's been in several of the Fast&Furious movies and the recent "Hobbes&Shaw".  Everyone who ever met him said what a friendly guy he was, always willing to talk to fans and shake hands. Condolences to Dwayne Johnson and his family during this rough time. Mastermind

"Nice Guy" Scores big....Not!!! This is why I hate the internet....

There's a video blowing up on You Tube about a guy who found a 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 in a barn in Iowa that had been stored since 1980. Their playing it up about what a wonderful guy the buyer is because he called in a respected Shelby Expert to appraise the car and agreed to offer the owner what the appraiser said was fair. What Bullshit. First off, the owner knows damn well Shelby Mustangs are worth a mint and she wasn't going to give it away for a song. Secondly-this prick wanted to protect himself and make sure it was original-which it wasn't. The appraiser said someone had swapped a 427 short block in and used the 428 heads and intake etc. It didn't have a numbers-matching engine. If he restored it the best he could do would be to find a date-correct 428 Police Interceptor block-a "Moon Rock" and install that. It had an aftermarket Hurst shifter, and there was some rust damage. Still the appraiser said it was worth $60,000. Restored, it would be worth $150,000-200,000. I don't know why it rubbed me the wrong way so bad, but it did. They never talked to the owner-it's not like she was a demented old lady who's son had bought it before being deployed to Viet Nam and being killed and she stored it for 50 years, and pulled out the window sticker and said "Well, he paid $4,500 for it.". And the guy felt bad. He wasn't so altruistic and not wanting to screw the owner-he was covering his own ass. And if you can you can spend $60,000 on a car that needs another $30,000 worth of work-F#4k you!!!  I don't want to hear what a philanthropist you are, because you paid someone market value for an Ultra-rare car-that they knew was Ultra-rare, and they probably agreed to sell it to you for the professional appraisal, because they were greedy bastards and didn't want to quote you a price too low!!!  I't 's played like everyone had a happy ending. I don't know why it made so freaking mad, but it did. Mastermind. 

More inquirys on building copys of movie cars....

I get a lot of inquirys from people asking me how can they get "Movie" cars. The answer is unless you can spend six figures or more, your not going to get an actual car that was used in a movie. I saw that actress Olivia Brown-who was on "Miami Vice" has a Daytona Spyder replica for sale. But god knows what the price is. The only way to do it is to build one. Depending on what your looking for it can be easy or hard. "Bandit" Trans-Am? Go buy a '77-78 T/A and paint it black, if it isn't already. "Bullitt" Mustang? How anal do you want to be? You could buy a '67-68 fastback, even if it's a 289 / C4 model, paint it Dark Highland Green, add some Torq-Thrust mags and call it good. If you want a 390 / 4-speed model-that's going to cost substantially more. "Vanishing Point" Challenger? I'd go buy a new White one with a Hemi!!  Or you could get any '70-74 318 Challenger, paint it Alpine White, put Rallye wheels on it and call it good. If it has to be a '70 440 / 4-speed R / T model, then your looking at major bucks. See the point I'm making? I've had many people ask about Burt Reynold's Ford in "White Lightning". Finding a '71-72 Ford Custom / Galaxie / LTD 4-door sedan shouldn't be too hard. Most will have a 351 or 400C engine. This isn't bad-as there's plenty of speed equipment available-heads, cams, intakes, etc. Paint it brown, put a loud exhaust on it, get some black wheels and chrome lug nuts and white-letter tires and your there. Now if it's "gotta have" a 429 / 460 and a 4-speed that's going to be a problem. 1st off-99% of these cars are going to be automatics. There was a manual trans option, but not many had it. Converting to a stick is going to be a nightmare. You might be able to adapt Mustang clutch linkage or F100 / 150 truck linkage-but it's still going to be a major pain in the ass. I'd stick with an automatic and get a floor mounted aftermarket Hurst or Mr Gasket or B&M shifter that looks like a 4-speed shifter. And I'd run whatever engine was in the car.  The "Mad Max / Road Warrior" Interceptor gets a lot of inquirys. You can't go to Australia and get a 1973 Ford Falcon XB GT coupe. However a '71-73 Mustang or a '70-71 Torino look real close. When I first saw the movies I thought that's what the car was. It's easy enough to get black wheels and fat tires and fender flares, and "Zoomie" exhaust pipes. There's also companies that sell fake blowers that can be turned on and off like the movie. Or you could cut a hole in the hood, and put a real blower on the 302 or 351 Ford engine. It'll be close enough, people will get the idea.  "Rockford Files" Firebird? Easy. Get any '74-78 Firebird, paint it gold and put Rally II wheels on it. You decide how much power you want under the hood. If your a "Nash Bridges" fan-never mind a Hemi ( they said it was a hemi, the actual stunt car was a 340 model ) your going to have a hard time finding a 70-71 Barracuda convertible, even a 318 model.  The "Death Proof" Nova? Easy enough. Find a '68-74 Nova, paint it flat black, put Rally wheels and loud exhaust on it, and your there. Even it it's a 307 2bbl model. The "Starsky&Hutch Torino? Easy. Find a '74-76 Torino, put slot mags on it and paint it red with a white stripe.  You just have to use your imagination and ingenuity. Mastermind 

Apologies for not posting more quality stuff.....

I want to apologize for not posting as often this year as I have in past years, and not always having Ultra-Fresh stuff. I'm not making excuses-but this year has been a terrible one for me. My mother passed away unexpectedly, I had some health problems, and a work-related injury, my son lost everything in a fire in his apartment complex. He got out with the clothes he was wearing. The fireman found the cat. Everything else was lost. Anyhow that's behind us and I'm recovering, workmen's comp is paying the doctor bills, my son and I have a new place. So I'll be back soon hopefully with interesting and entertaining stuff. Thanks to all the people who read and comment. Happy Holidays!!  Mastermind

I hate to be devil's advocate-but for god's sake I've got 50 years of experience....

I get so tired of hearing about "Gotta Haves" in buff magazines and from idiots who are only quoting them. For example-people talking about 4-bolt mains and stel cranks, and screw in studs and roller rockers, etc. I know people that had 283 Chevys bored to 301 inches or 289 Fords tha regularly ran them 7,000 or 8,000 rpm with a solid-lifter cam with no problems. Small-Block Chevy's didn't get 4-bolt mains untilm 1969. I know people who have raced small-block Chevys for 40 years-and I have never seen a stud pull out of a head. I've seen broken pushrods, jumped timing chains, but never a stud pulled out of a head. I've seen stock Chevy and Ford Rocker arms last 2 whole seasons in an IMCA race car without failure. "Pontiacs aren't high revvers." It's true that the basic head design-except for Ram Air IV's and Edelbrocks don't make much power above about .480 lift, and the bottom ends don't like to go 7,000 rpm. But I know may guys that run 400's to 6,400 without trouble, 428s to 6,000 and 455's to 5,800 with no problem. And if you have 500 lbs of torque from idle on up you don't need to rev to 7,000.  "You need a single 4-barrel to go really fast." "That's buff magazines trying to make everyone idiot-proof. Multi-carbs didn't go away because they didn't perform-in perfect tune a 426 Hemi or 409 Chevy or 421 Pontiac with dual quads can really rock. As can a 389 GTO with Tri-Power or a 427 Corvette with Tri_power or a 440 / Six-Pack.  Porsche and Ferarri enthusiasts prefer the carburated 911S and Ferarri 308 models over the fuel-injected versions. Datsun 240 / 260 /280Z restorers prefer the dual or triple Weber setups to fuel injection. Single-carbs and fuel-injection came into vogue because of ever-tightening smog laws-not lack of power. People don't know how to tune them. I've seen it. Guy restores a car and it's never driven more than on and off the trailer. Or if it is, he's so god-damnded afraid of blowing it up that it never sees the high side of 3,000 rpm. The second it fouls a spark plug, he starts screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. If your going to drive like grandma on Prozac, then go a range or two hotter on the plugs to avoid fouling. If you do decide to go the drags, a plug change is an easy fix. The other is driveline beef. In Summit's catalog-their new T10 4-speeds have a like a 325 lb or 375 lb torque rating. That's absurd. 1960's muscelcars like 409 Impalas, 421 Catalinas, and 406 Galaxies used T10s and had way more torque than that. The 421 had 459 lbs ft, which was under-rated, the 409 had 425 lbs ft,-and the '60's versions had much softer gears than the modern versions!!  I hate that every single magazine project car has to have a Brembo or Wildwood brake system worthy of a NEXTEL Cup or Formula 1 car. A buddy of mine raced Hobby Stock and Pro Stock circle track for years on a '70's Camaro with a stock brake system. Even on a 1/4 mile track running an 8 lap heat race, a 25 lap semi, and a 50 lap main event back to back to back-we never had brake fade as long as we used Ferodo or Bendix Metallic Police-spec D52 pads, and Dot 5 fluid. Even at the end of a 50 lap main-with the rotors glowing red-the car still stopped. I just get tired of self-proclaimed "experts" who don't know shit, giving advice.  Mastermind

Certain cars are just stars.....

Someone asked me the other day what musclecar had the most movie appearances and I realized I couldn'r just spout an answer. I told him I'd research it and get back to him. However-I may have missed some so my list might not be accurate. Anyhow- here's what I came up with in no particular order. # 1. 1968-70 Charger. Besides the obvious-"Bullitt" and the "Dukes of Hazzard" these Chargers have appeared in "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry", the "Fast&Furious" movies, the "Blade" series, "Drive Angry" and others.  # 2. Pontiac Trans-Am. Besides the obvious-"Smokey and the Bandit" and it's sequesls, and "Knight Rider" John Wayne drove a Brewster Green T/A in "McQ". Chuck Norris drove a Buccaneer Red one in "An Eye for an Eye". There was a red one in a chase in the "Star Chamber" about corrupt judges doling out vigilante justice. Steve McQueen drove one in "The Hunter", a 10th Anniversary Model was used in "Georgia Peaches" a little known gem that also features country music star Tanya Tucker in bondage!!  The "Loser" drove one in the finale of "The Driver". Roy Scheider drove one in "Blue Thunder".  # 3. Ford Mustang. Besides "Bullitt" Mustangs were used in "Diamonds are Forever" a James Bond film, my personal favorite-a barefoot in shorts Farrah Fawcett-Majors on the hood of a "Mustang II" for a promo for "Charlie's Angels",  "The Mechanic" with Charles Bronson, the original "Gone in 60 Seconds", "Marked for Death" a Steven Seagal stinker, "Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw" which featured evangelist turned action movie star Marjoe Gortner and a pre-"Wonder Woman" Lynda Carter who got naked a lot-the movies only saving grace, "Basic Instinct" "Menace to Society", "Hannibal".  # 4. Pontiac GTO. Goats have appeared in "Two Lane Blacktop" "Dazed and Confused" "Sleepless" ,"Sex Drive" "Knight and Day" "Faster" and maybe some others I missed.  # 5. Dodge Challenger. Besides the obvious-"Vanishing Point" Challengers have appeared in "Moonshine County Express", "NCIS" , "Dark Blue".  # 5. Chevy Camaro. Camaros have appeared in "Aloha, Bobby and Rose", "I the Jury", "Christine" "Remember the Titans" "Walking Tall Part Two" "Miami Vice" "Impulse", "Physical Evidence" and others I may have missed.  # 6. Chevy Chevelle. Chevelles have been in the "Fast&Furious" movies, "Drive Angry" "Lights Out", "Faster" "John Wick" "Jack Reacher" and others. If i missed any please feel free to chime in with information,!!  Mastermind

"Ford vs Ferarri" is well worth seeing......

I saw "Ford vs Ferarri" last week and I loved it. What's so good about it, is even if you weren't a gearhead and didn't know a lot about cars, you'd still enjoy it. It's the story of Ford going racing at LeMans with the express purpose of shutting Enzo Ferarri's arrogant mouth.  Matt Damon is excellent as Carroll Shelby who Hank the Deuce ( What insiders called Henry Ford II ) tasked with building the car-eventually the GT40. Christian Bale is excellent as Ken Miles-the driver Shelby thinks is the man for the job. The film shows some of the politicking in the car business, and Shelby and Miles' uphill fight to do it the right way. There's excellent racing action, and good performances all around, but it's really Matt Damon and Christian Bale's show. Their love-hate relationship is awesome. They can punch each other in the face and still have each other's back when necessary. It's not just the best car racing film, it's a great movie period. Too bad Carroll Shelby didn't live long enough to see it. He'd have loved it.  Mastermind.

Cadzilla's are ok within certain parameters.....

I've had several people ask me why more people don't build modern day "Studilacs" -a popular swap in the '50's was stuffing a Cadillac V8 into a Studebaker coupe.  I saw an article in "Street Rodder" where a guy had put a 472 Cad V8 / TH400 in a '61 Impala. It certainly made it a nice driver, and the 472 moved the big car quite briskly-quicker than the 283 or 348 V8s that were available stock. I knew a guy who put a 500 Cad into his '79 Chevy Pickup. It was a great tow rig.  Another acquaintence put a 472 Cad into an '81 Firebird. I know other guys that put them in '78-88 "G" bodies-Cutlass, Monte Carlo, Regal, etc. It's a cheap easy power infusion to be sure-anything 472 or 500 cubes is going to have massive low-end torque. The downside is, these engines are not high revvers-I mean their pretty much done by 4,500 rpm. Edelbrock makes a Performer manifold for them, but that's about it. There's not a lot of hot-rod parts for them. Depending on what body your running-a 455 Pontiac or Olds or Buick would be a much better choice, for two reasons.  The BOP 455's are reliable up to 5,800 rpm. And there are heads, cams, headers, intakes, crank kits etc available for these engines. It would be a lot cheaper and easier to build a 500 hp Pontiac or Olds than it would a Cadillac. Further-LS engines are getting cheap enough and plentiful enough in trucks and SUV's in junkyards that they may be a better way to go, and their's certainly a ton of aftermarket parts for LS motors. I'm not saying don't do the 500 Cad swap, I'm just saying understand it's limits, and realize that their may be cheaper, better performing stuff available.  Mastermind

Don't fall into the "Bigger is Better" trap....

In all the buff magazines all their project cars and and featured reader rides all have mega-buck, mega-cube stroker motors. 572 inch Chevy Rat Motors,514 inch Boss-Nine Fords, 528 inch Chrysler Hemis, and 505 inch ( 440 based ) wedge engines. There's crank kits to turn a 400 Pontiac into a 467, a 400 Mopar into a 451. There's 392 and 427 inch "Small-Block" Fords, 383, 427 and 454 inch "Small-Block Chevys. There are 410 inch ( 360 based ) "LA" Mopars.  All of these mega buck, mega horsepower crate engines are fine if you can afford one. But many of us can't shell out 15 grand just for the engine for a toy. Be honest-most musclecars are the fourth or fifth car in a household. You've got your daily driver, your wife has one, and if you've got teenage kids they have one. So putting 15 large for just one component into the 5th car usually isn't in the cards. But don't despair. Just run the engine that came in the car. And you can make some improvements. For example-if your car has a 350 Chevy in it, you couldn't ask for a better base for a hot rod. The small-block Chevy has been the test mule for new parts for like 60 years. If your rebuilding it, Eagle, Scat and other companies are selling crank and piston kits so cheap, that it won't cost any more to build a 383. The extra cubes will definitely give you a big boost in hp and torque whether you build it mild or wild. Ditto for a 302 Ford. Whether you have a '68 Cougar or a '91 Mustang, Eagle, Ford SVT and other companies sell rotating assemblies to turn a 302 into a 347 or a 363. And you can just "Run what you brung". A 396 Chevy can make serious power. You don't need a 454 or a 572. Experienced Chevy builders will tell you that all other things being equal-i.e.-heads, cam, etc-a 454 will make 20 hp more than a 427 and a 427 will make 20 hp more than a 396 / 402. Ok. Edelbrock claims 540 hp and 538 lbs of torque from their "Performer RPM" Package on a 454. Using this rule of thumb-a 396 would still have 500 hp. Magazine writers spout numbers flippantly, but 500 honest hp will make any car an absolute rocket. Depending on car weight, traction and gearing you'll easily run in the 12s, and maybe high 11s. That's serious power. The same goes for other "Mid-size" big blocks. Edelbrock claims 434 hp from their Performer RPM package on a 390 Ford. They claim 387 hp and 439 lbs of torque on a 400 Pontiac with 15 inches of vacuum at idle from the base Performer Package. That would really rip on the street-low 13s or high 12s depending on traction and gearing-with a glass-smooth idle. Edelbrock claims 422 hp and 441 lbs of torque on the Pontiac "RPM" Package on a 400. A 383 Mopar makes 417 hp with this package. See what I'm saying?  So if your Chevy has a 396 / 402, or your Pontiac has a 389 / 400 or your Ford a 390 or your Dodge a 383 / 400-use it. Don't search the galaxy and spend thousands more than you need to buying and building up a junk 454,455, 460 or 440.  If you need an engine for your Javelin / AMX but can't find a 390 / 401 AMC engine, don't despair. There's literally millions of 360 AMC engines in junkyards in Jeep Grand Wagoneers from the '80s and '90's. Edelbrock claims 433 hp for their Performer RPM package on a 360. A 403 Olds is a bolt-in replacement for a 330 / 350, and you know 50-70 more cubes is going to give a serious boost to hp and torque. You don't need a $15,000 500+ inch mega motor to have fun.         

Some engines are only useful as boat anchors.....

I get asked all the time by people for tips on hopping up or rebuilding some obsolete turd. It's odd, because these people seem obsessed with using something that no one else wants. For good reason. Here's my list, in no particular order. #1. 265 inch small-block Chevy. Unless your Concours restoring a '55-56 Chevy to the nth degree, these are doorstops. People loved 283s, because they could be bored to 301 inches. 327s are great if you have one.  Avoid the 307 used from '68-73. They have no power, and they don't rev high. And with 350s a dime a dozen why would you mess with a 307?  # 2. 300 / 327 / 340 Buick V8.  There is zero aftermarket support for these engines, and they don't make anywhere near the power and torque of the '68-77 350. # 3. 301 Pontiac. These share virtually nothing with the "traditional" 326-455 Pontiac V8 and there is zero aftermarket support.  # 4. 255 Ford V8. These early '80's "Economy" V8's share nothing with the traditional 260 / 289 / 302 small-block Ford. They have the triple axel of no power, crappy gas mileage and zero parts availability. # 5. 260 / 307 Olds V8. These are different from the 330-350-403 Olds small block. The motor mounts are in the same place which makes the 350 / 403 an easy swap. # 6. 360 Ford V8. A lot of '70's trucks had these turds. They have the double whammy of no power and crappy gas mileage. They are an FE engine, but they don't run near as well as a 390, or even a 352 in an old Galaxie.  # 7. 361 Chrysler. These are a "B" engine, but they don't run nearly as well as a 383 / 400. They don't run as well as the "LA" 360 small-blocks. Don't throw good money away on a turd. Mastermind

Writers should do research if their going to be specific,,,,,

A pet peeve of mine is when writers make mistakes describing cars in books. In a Danielle Steel novel about a young man who was sent to Viet Nam-it was set in 1965. He wanted a Camaro. Ugh. We all know the Camaro was introduced in 1967. In 1965 he'd have wanted a Mustang or a GTO.  In the Stephen King novel "The Dark Half" the killer drove a '67 Olds Toronado. King alludes to the driver rowing the Hurst manual shifter, and spinning the rear tires. Except Toronados are all automatics, and are all Front-wheel drive!!  With 425 cubes under the hood, a Toro will spin the front tires. He should have just said he "spun the tires."  I understand the statement he was trying to make-the guy had to have a badass vintage luxury / muscle car. He should have used a Pontiac Gran Prix. '60's GP's had 389, 400,421 or 428 cubes depending on year, and were available with a 4-speed manual trans with a Hurst shifter. In the Stephen Hunter novel "Night of Thunder" the killer drives a Dodge Charger with a 6.7 liter Hemi engine. Except since resurrecting the Charger nameplate in 2005 up to the present-Chrysler has never offered a 6.7 liter engine. They have offered Hemis in 5.7 liters, 6.1, and 6.4 liters. The "Hellcat" models use a 6.2 liter Hemi with a Supercharger. Never, ever has there been a 6.7 liter option. Chrysler offers a 6.7 liter Diesel in the Ram trucks; but no Hemi. It's not just a typo-the car is a big part of the story, it's alluded to several times in the story. Stephen King blows it again in "Christine". "Christine" was a haunted '58 Plymouth Fury that commits much mayhem and posseses it's teenage owner with the evil soul of it's mean-bastard first owner. It's a scary story. However King alludes to the car having a 382 inch V8. Now "Joe Average" might think it's just a typo-he probably meant a 392 Hemi, right? Wrong. The only two engines available in 1958 were a 318 inch V8 and a 350 inch V8. In 1959 the 350 was replaced with a 361. Ugh!!  In the Thomas Harris novel "Hannibal" FBI agent Clarice Starling is once again on the trail of serial killer Hannibal Lecter, who escaped from jail in Tennessee and is believed to be in Europe. Mason Verger, a filthy rich meat-packing magnate and Lecter's only surviving victim offers his assistance but he'll only talk to Starling. She supposedly drives a 1988 Roush Mustang. Again the car is talked about in detail. A marine guard at the gate at Quantico is amused when she smokes the tires leaving and gets rubber into 2nd. Verger asks if it has the 5.0 engine. Verger's sister, Margot-asks Starling if it could beat her Porsche. Starling replies "Depends on which Porsche it is." Lecter breaks into it while Starling is running in the park, and sits in the "Recaro" seats, and licks the "Momo" steering wheel. However there never was an '88 Roush Mustang.  Roush performance built a prototype with a turbocharged 351 V8 ( 5.8 liters ), but it never made production. It's in the Roush Racing museum.  The first Roush / Ford collaboration that was sold through dealers to the public was a 1997 model. The book was published in 2002, so the writer could have had her driving a '97 model. Or if he wanted her to have a special '88 model there was a Mclaren / ASC '88 Mustang, and there was a 1988 Steve Saleen version as well.  But there was no Roush model!!!  I know it sounds nit-picky-but if you know something is completely wrong, it irks you. If these writers are going to be specific, they should do research and make sure what they say or print is accurate.  Mastermind       

Road Test "Ringers" revisited......

I'm amazed at the comments I get about stuff I posted two or three years ago. Anyhow-I aim to please so here's the list of Road Test "Ringers" i.e.-cars that were modified by the manufacturer to go much faster than any production example. Why did they do this? Because they wanted the magazine to write how blisteringly fast the car was and thus sell thousands of them.  # 1. 40 years later, Jim Wangers finally admitted what we already knew-Car&Driver's May 1964 GTO test car was a ringer. Royal Pontiac had pulled the 389 and replaced it with a blueprinted 421, that also had a re-curved distributor, custom-jetted carbs,thin head gaskets, and rocker arm lock nuts. The car ran an ungodly 4.6 second 0-60 time and a 13.1 second 1/4 mile. Other magazine's testers and production examples could only run low 14s.  # 2. 1969 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6. Chrysler advertised the 440 Six-Pack option in national magazines claiming it ran 12s off the showroom floor. The disclaimer said it was done on a racetrack, under controlled conditions, with a professional driver. The "controlled conditions" were a blueprinted engine with custom jetted carbs, a 4-speed, 4.30:1 gears, 28 inch slicks, and a pinion snubber. The "Professional Driver" Pro Stock drag racing champion Ronnie Sox, who ripped off a string of 12.70's. Shocker-production examples tested by magazines ran 13.50's.  # 3. 1973 SD-455 Trans-Am. Car&Driver ran a 13.75 and Hot Rod ran a 13.54. If you look at the pictures in both magazines-check the liscence plate number. It's the same car!!  The road tests were done in January 1973. However because of production problems the SD-455 wasn't certified by the EPA and released to the public until April 1973. Early prototypes had the Ram Air IV cam; engineers were worried about passing emissions so production models had the much milder Ram Air III cam and hp was down-rated from 310 to 290. Federal noise regulations cause Pontiac to seal up the "Shaker" hood scoop on '73 models. On 1970-72 models it had a solenoid operated trap door that opened up on acceleration. Look at the pictures-the C/D / Hot Rod test car has an open hood scoop. Production models ran low 14s. Great performance for a 3,800 lb car in 1973-74; but nowhere near the blistering mid-13s of the prototype. No one knows what happened to the prototype. Some say it was crushed; others say it was sold to a Pontiac executive. # 4. 1973 Olds 442. In late 1972 Motor Trend had a "1973 Performance Car Preview".  A silver and red 442 blew the doors off an SD-455 Trans-Am, a 400 / 4-speed Formula Firebird, a 454 Corvette, an L82 350 / 4-speed 'Vette,  a 440 Dodge Charger, a 401 Javelin AMX, a 429 Gran Torino, and a 351CJ Mustang. Turns out that instead of a stock 455 Olds backed by a TH400 with 2.73 or 3.08:1 gears the "Prototype" had a re-curved distributor, a re-jetted carb,the super-hot 328 degree cam from the vaunted 1970 "W30" 455, a Hurst shift improver kit, a Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter with a 2,800 rpm stall speed and a 3.42:1 axle ratio. The Olds engineers thought it was hilarious as the Cutlass showed it's taillights to all those other contenders. They 'fessed up, after the big laugh and production examples were nowhere near that fast. # 5. 1978 Dodge Li'l Red Express pickup. In November 1977 Car&Driver ran a "Double the Double Nickel" article-testing a bunch of vehicles that could go faster than 110 mph. The Li'l Red truck blew the doors off a W72 Trans-Am and an L82 Corvette in a drag race. However-the 360 V8 in the "Prototype" had catalyst-free dual exhausts, Nascar-spec "W2" cylinder heads, the hot cam out of the old 340 "Six-Pack", and a 650 cfm Double-Pumper Holley Carb on an aluminum Holley "Street Dominator" intake. No surprise that production examples with a stock cam, stock heads, and a Carter Thermo-Quad on an iron manifold with an EGR valve were substantially slower.  # 6. 1989 "5.0" Mustang. Every other magazine's Mustang test cars ran 15.20's. Car Craft's "basically stock" Mustang ran a blistering 14.19. Except CC's car had a K&N airbox and filter, a Flowmaster "Cat-Back" exhaust, the 225 / 60R15 Goodyear Gatorback rear tires swapped for 235 / 60R15 M&H drag radials, and the 2.73:1 gears swapped for 3.55:1s. If your going to nit-pick.....jeez.... # 7. 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4. This one rivals the engine swap for sheer audacity. Mitsu engineers advertised the 3000GT as running a 13.8 second 1/4 mile. The "Controlled Conditions" consisted of disabling the rev limiter, disabling the knock sensor, filling the tank with 105 octane racing gas, lowering the tire pressure to 15 psi, and the "Professional" driver dropping the clutch at 6,200 rpm and powershifting at 7,000. Which grenaded the $5,749 transaxle after three runs. Shocker-production examples ran 14.50's. # 8. 2018 Challenger Hellcat / "Demon".  Chrysler advertised the Demon as being the fastest production car ever with a 9.65 second 1/4 mile run. However no magazine has been able to get even close. Most run mid to high 10s, which is incredible for a production car. But no one has even ran a 9.90-10.30. Not even close. Gear heads with 90 grand bought them all-no need to fudge anything.  Oh well.....Mastermind           

As usual "Experts" are wrong.....

I love reading tech articles written by self-proclaimed "Experts" who dispense advice that is either wrong or is generic advice that they read elsewhere-in someone else's article or on the internet. Their so adamant about what you can and can't do, and act like your a moron if you disagree with them.  Some of my personal favorites.  # 1. Fuel Injection makes more Power than carburators. While electronic fuel management and ignition control-knock sensors, self-adjusting timing through ecms, variable valve timing etc-have enabled modern manufacturer's to get maximum power out of modern engines, the big switch from carburators to fuel injection in the late '70's and '80's was because of ever-tightening emission standards, not lack of power. Many Porsche and Ferarri collectors prefer the carburated versions of the 911 and the 308 GTB / S over the fuel injected versions. I was in Bill Pennington's shop when they removed the Tuned Port Injection from a then-new Corvette and installed an Edelbrock Torker II intake and 750 Holley carb and made a dyno pull. It made 50 more hp than stock, and that was before any jetting changes. NASCAR teams made 850 hp from their race engines with a carburator-sometimes a 750 cfm carb with a restrictor plate, or a 390 cfm 4-barrel!!  I love the modern musclecars like the Challenger Hellcat or ZL1 Camaro. No question that electronic fuel management has done wondrous things.  But if your restoring a '60's or '70's car-you'll be fine with a carburator. # 2. You need a single 4-barrel to go fast, multiple carbs don't work. Again-GM, Ford and Chrysler went away from multi-carb setups because of tightening smog laws, not lack of performance. I see it every Hot August Nights. Whether it's a 409 Impala, 426 Hemi, 427 'Vette, 440 Six-Pack, Tri-Power Pontiac or whatever-guy will spend umpteen thousands restoring a car-and then drive it like grandma on prozac. If it's driven more than on and off a trailer, it never sees the high side of 3,000 rpm because their so goddamnded afraid of blowing it up. Then, the second it fouls a spark plug, they start screwing around with the carburators. Pretty soon it won't even start. The buff magazines tell their readers to use a single 4bbl to try to be idiot-proof.  I have a lot of experience with multiple carbs, and if their tuned right, they can really rock. I remember a truck pull winner back in the '90's who was running 4-Webers on a 454 Chevy with alcohol!!  The earth shook when that thing fired up. Most often-guys run the wrong combination. I know 2 guys running Tunnel Rams on the street. One car really rips, the other one's a dog and doesn't run as good as it did stock. Here's why. The one guy has a Nova with a 327 and a 4-speed. He's running 4.10 gears, the "350 hp" Corvette cam and two 450 cfm Holleys on his tunnel-ram manifold. He revs it up to 3,500-4,000 rpm and drops the clutch hard. The car leaves with just enough wheelspin to get the car moving and up on it's torque curve, and he shifts at 6,500 rpm. It'll rev to 7,000, but he'd just be beating up the bottom-end and valvesprings-it doesn't really make any more power above 6,500. It runs 12.80's on street tires, and 12.30s on drag radials. It's a fun car. It doesn't have a lot of bottom-end torque, but the 4.10 gears help mask that and from 3,000 rpm on it's a rocket. The other guy has a 396 Chevelle with an automatic and 3.31 gears, and he's running the stock L34 hydraulic cam, and dual 660 Holleys. It's a slug. It bogs off the line, coughs and spits and doesn't run as well as it did with a quadrajet. The problem is-it's WAY OVER-CARBURATED!!  1320 cfm-is way too much for a stock 396, with a lazy cam. The stock cam starts to run out of power about 5,000 rpm-which were the manifold is just starting to rock-n-roll. I'd go to two 500 cfm Edelbrocks.  Plus the Automatic trans and stock converter hurt it, as does the 3.31 gears. For it to run properly he'd need a stick, or at least a 2,800 rpm converter and some 4.10 gears, and a short duration, high lift hydraulic or solid-lifter cam. # 3. You gotta run a dual-plane manifold on the street. I beg to differ. I love single-planes. I had a Torker on my 442 and my brother has a Torker II on his GTO and they both really ripped on the street. I know-"Sure, with 400 or 455 cubes and gears they work fine."  Well my Olds had 3.23:1 gears when I got it, and my brother's Goat has 3.36:1 gears. And they both showed a noticeable improvement over the stock intake, even before we changed the cam or anything else. A friend had a '72 El Camino with a 350, TH350 and 2.73:1 gears. It had a 2bbl from the factory. I told him to buy a #2101 Edelbrock Performer intake and #1405 600 cfm vacuum secondary carb. He bought the 600 cfm carb, but the speed shop was out of SBC Performers and he bought a Torker II. We installed the carb and intake, and the improvement was huge! If it lost any low-end torque it wasn't noticeable, but you could really feel it "hit" about 2,500 rpm, and it pulled hard to 5,500. If he'd had a hotter than stock cam, I don't doubt that it would have kept pulling to 6,500 and beyond. Even with the stock 2bbl cam,and 2.73:1 gears it still ran like a scalded cat, and was quicker in a drag race than other friends who had 350 / TH350 4bbl Camaros and Chevelles, one of whom had a Performer on it.  My '77 T/A with a 403 Olds had 2.56:1 gears and it ran great with a single-plane Holley Street Dominator intake. Even with the salt-flats gearing and the 403's lazy "smog" cam-it showed a huge improvement from 2,800-5,400 rpm. Which brings up......# 4. You have to remember that the test mule for everything is a small-block Chevy. So manufacturer "Guidelines" that are for a 350 Chevy are probably not optimum for a 440 Chrysler or 460 Ford, or 455 Pontiac!!  Larger engines can take more "Cam" without ill effects than smaller ones. For example-the old standby-the "350 Hp" 327 Corvette cam for a small-block Chevy. It has 224 duration ( @ .050 ) and .447 lift. This cam would ruin a 283 or a 305. It works pretty good in a 327 with a stick and 3.70 or stiffer gears. It's better in a 350 with a stick or an automatic with 3.42 gears and a 2,500 rpm converter, and it's really sweet in a 383 / 400 regardless of transmission, even with 3.08:1 gears.  So guidelines aren't set in stone.....Mastermind       

Ask someone who knows......Before you buy!!

I talk to a lot of people who have sometimes spent a great deal of money on a car that some schyster cobbled-up in his garage. They ask my opinion of the car, and when I give it to them, their usually aghast, and say "Gee, I wish I'd met you before I bought this piece of shit". Almost everybody knows somebody who's a gearhead that lives and breathes cars, and can tell you what's right or wrong about a certain model. If you don't, most reputable restoration shops will charge you an hour's labor-usually $90-120-to check out a car. That's money well spent to avoid spending thousands on something that's not what the seller says it is, or worse yet, is junk. Here's some horror stories that are absolutely true.  Victim # 1. Paid top dollar for a 1970 LT-1 Corvette. Except it wasn't. It had LT-1 emblems on the hood, and the vin number said it was an LT-1 car, but I knew the engine was wrong the second the guy opened the hood. "That is not an LT-1 engine." I said. "You know that by looking at it for 2 seconds?" the guy said arrogantly. "Yes." I said "1st off-GM didn't start using HEI distributors until 1975." "LT-1s had a #3310 780 cfm Holley carb on an aluminum intake." "This thing has a Quadrajet on an iron intake, and an EGR valve, which they didn't get until 1973". "And the heads don't have the "Camel Hump" casting mark., and it doesn't have the "Ram's Horn" exhaust manifolds. " "Some asshole stole the LT-1 and put a generic L48 350, probably out of a '75 or later pickup in this thing." "So you got royally fucked." His arrogance instantly turned to despair and disgust. "What can I do about it?" he asked. "If you bought it from a liscenced dealer, maybe sue the guy and try to get some or all of your money back." "But he'll probably claim he had no Idea the engine wasn't the correct one." "Unless you can prove that he purposely deceived you, you'll probably lose in court." "If it's an individual-your really fucked, because he has no business liscence to lose, and again he can claim ignorance, that he's not a mechanic and had no idea the engine was the wrong one." "Will you go to court and tell the judge what you just told me?" "I could, but I don't think it would do you any good as far as trying to get your money back." "Any small-claims court judge is going to say you should have had someone like me verify it BEFORE you bought it." "That's why they say "Buyer Beware". "Sorry." He was devastated. He eventually found a correct LT-1 engine, but it cost him a pretty penny, and he never got any restitution from the person that sold him the car.  Victim # 2. Bought a 1964 Olds 442. It was a for real 442, but it too had the wrong engine in it. As soon as the guy opened the hood, I said-"That's a '75 or later 350, not a 330." "How can you tell?" "Well, GM didn't use HEI distributors until 1975, and it has a Quadrajet carb, and an EGR valve on the intake." "GM didn't use Quadrajets until 1967, and didn't get EGR valves until 1973. " "And there's the numbers "350" cast into the side of the block."  "Oh." "What can I do?" "Drive it." "Put an Edelbrock Performer intake and matching cam on it and some headers." "Have fun with it." "Or swap in a 455 and make it really badass." "The chance of you finding a 330 Olds V8 with 1964 date codes is almost nil." "You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning on the golf course."  Victim # 3. Bought a 1977 Pontiac Trans-Am. I noticed the "Shaker" hood scoop didn't fit right. It sat too low. I opened the hood and said "Oh shit." without thinking. "What?" the owner asked anxiously. Sitting there in the engine bay was not a 400 Pontiac or a 403 Olds, which were the two engine choices that year. No-this 'Bird had a 350 Buick in it!! With two broken plug wires!!  When I explained this, the guy began swearing, and then griping. "I knew something was wrong" "I thought T/A's were supposed to be fast!" "This thing wouldn't even smoke the tires!" "So don't buy it." I said "There's tons of '77-78 T/A's with either a 400 Pontiac or a 403 Olds in them." "I already bought it." "Why would you do that?" "The price was too good to be true." "Except now it isn't" "Shit." I felt sorry for the guy, but he should have had a mechanic check it before he pony'd up the dough.  Victim # 4. Paid top dollar for a 1968 GTO Convertible. Except it wasn't a for-real GTO, it was a LeMans with a GTO front clip on it. And instead of a 400 Pontiac backed by a 3 or 4-speed stick or a TH400, it had a 350 Chevy engine in it, backed by a Powerglide!! He was really distraught. Especially when I explained that besides needing a 400 Pontiac, he'd need all the accessories-fuel pump,water pump, power steering pump, all the brackets etc. And since Chevys have a different bellhousing bolt-pattern than BOP engines, he'd also need a new transmission, even if he went with a TH350 ( which is the same length and uses the same driveshaft yoke and rear trans mount as a Powerglide ) he'd still have a cobbled-up LeMans convertible, not a numbers-matching GTO! He was inconsolable. He eventually put a TH350 behind the Chevy engine, and then sold it to someone else. I don't know how much money he lost, but he was furious for a long time. But he had no one to blame but himself. I mean if you can't tell a Chevy engine from a Pontiac, you shouldn't be looking for a musclecar without a knowledgeable friend along!!  Victim # 5. Bought a 1974 Dodge Challenger with a 383 and a 4-speed. Except the only two engines available in 1974 were a 318 and a 360. And it didn't run very good. It had a flat cam. It popped and missed above 3,000 rpm. And above 60 mph-you couldn't hold it in the road. I mean the front end was shot. When I explained all this the guy had a fit. Of course the beater lot he bought it from sold it "As Is" and refused to fix anything. "Why would you buy this?" "Didn't you test-drive it?" "No." "Why would you buy any car without test-driving it?" The guy had my shop put a new cam in it and rebuild the front end. After that it was a nice enough car to drive, but it cost him another $1,400 in parts and labor over and above the purchase price to make it drivable.  So if you don't know, ask someone who does before you part with your hard-earned cash.  Mastermind   

How NASCAR allowed King Richard to change it forever.....

Back in the '60's and '70's NASCAR's "Golden Age" the competition was fierce. Most racing organizations-especially NASCAR, the NHRA, and the SCCA-which sponsored the Trans-Am series-said Manufacturers had to sell at least 500 units of any model year car or engine to the general public to race them. This rule brought us great stuff like the Super Duty Pontiac 421, the 427 Chevy, the 426 Hemi, the Z/28 Camaro, the Boss 302 and 429 Mustangs, Plymouth Superbird / Charger Daytona, Thunderbolt Fairlanes, Hemi Darts, and others I can't remember off the top of my head. Anyhow people loved NASCAR because the cars were instantly recognizable, and you could buy a similar car from your local dealer. That's where the term "Win on Sunday,Sell on Monday" came from.  Another rule was bodystyles couldn't be more than 5 years old. After the Hemis, and Boss-Nines and other big-blocks were outlawed, and cubic inches limited to 366 ci- teams went to small-blocks. GM guys ran Chevelles and Monte Carlos with the ubiquitous 350 Chevy. Ford guys ran the venerable 351 Cleveland and Mopar guys ran the 360 Chrysler. The competition was still hot. Cale Yarborough won a lot of races for Chevrolet, David Pearson won a bunch in the Wood Brothers Mercurys, and Richard Petty won a bunch for Dodge. Richard and Pearson's duels at Daytona are still legendary. However-after the '79 season-NASCAR told Petty he could no longer run his iconic '74 Charger that had won so many races in 1980, citing the 5 year rule on bodystyles. Petty tried to run a '78 Dodge Magnum body, but it wasn't competitive. Then team Petty switched to GM. They figured out that the slope-nosed, fastback 1976-77 Olds Cutlass was much more aerodynamic than the flat-nosed, notchback Monte Carlos and Chevelles that most GM teams were running. Petty won several races in a row. The other NASCAR teams griped, because Petty was running the Ubiquitous small-block Chevy race engine. They argued that Petty should have to run an Oldsmobile engine, their train of thought being that the Olds engine wouldn't be nearly as powerful as the Chevy. I don't know why Team Petty didn't at least try to run an Olds engine and see if it was competitive. Obviously, the small-block Chevy had much more aftermarket speed equipment, and racing development than the 350 Olds.  However, the high-performance "W31" 350 Olds from 1968-70 was grossly UNDER-RATED at 325 hp; and was competitive in stock and super stock class drag racing with the Vaunted LT-1 350 Chevys and 340 Mopars. Further, back in the 70's ( and up until his death a few years ago ) Joe Mondello was THE Olds guru. Obviously,he devoted a lot of time to 455 engines, because a lot of customers wanted big-blocks, but he also built some stompin' 350's that went well beyond stock "W31" performance, and he discovered that you could use 455 heads on a 350 block, with a custom intake manifold. ( Today, Edelbrock's 350 Performer RPM will work in this application, but it didn't exist back then ) The 455 heads flowed way more than 350 heads. With the big port, big valve 455 heads, the 350 Olds would have breathed as well as the vaunted 351 "Cleveland" Fords. ( Which have ports and valves the size of a 454 Chevy ).  If Team Petty had collaborated with Mondello Performance, I have no doubt that they could have built a 350 Olds racing engine that could run with the 350 Chevys and 351 Fords. And the bottom end of the small-block Olds was bulletproof. If it could withstand being converted to diesel and running 22.5:1 compression with minor changes,it should have held up on gasoline for 500 miles at Daytona! I'm sure it was just easier and cheaper to run the Chevy race engine. Luckily for Petty-in the late '70's GM was playing musical engines because of smog laws. Depending on model, besides the 301, 350 and 400 Pontiac engines, you could get a Pontiac Firebird with a Buick 231 V6, a 305 or 350 Chevy and a 403 Olds. You could buy an Olds Cutlass with a 305 Chevy, a Buick Regal with a 301 Pontiac, an Olds Omega with a Buick 231 V6 or a 305 Chevy, and a Cadillac Seville with a 350 Olds.  Petty argued that since GM was selling Oldsmobiles with Chevrolet engines in them to the public, he ought to be able to race one. NASCAR sided with Petty and said that teams could run any GM engine in any GM body. Other teams quickly switched to the more aerodynamic Cutlass bodies. In my mind, this was the beginning of the end. Through the '80's they did this. The championship winning Buick that GM was comemmerating with the Grand National had a 350 Chevy in it, not a Turbo V6 like the production model!!  When GM cancelled the G-bodys in 1988 things really went to hell. I don't know why GM teams didn't simply switch to Camaros and Firebirds. They were rear-drive and remained in production until 2002. ( I know the Camaro was resurrected in 2009 ). Instead NASCAR allowed them to run front-drive Chevy Lumina bodies on a tube frame. Which led to Ford running Taurus bodies, Dodge running Intrepids, and Toyota running Camrys. Ugh!! Which brought us to now where the "Car of tomorrow" is a plastic body on a tube frame running 1965 technology. No roller cams? No overhead cams?  I think it would be much better if they allowed to Ford run Mustangs with the Coyote, Chrysler to run Chargers or Challengers with Hemis, Chevy to run Camaros with the LS engine and Toyota to run the Lexus coupe with the i-Force V8.  That would be way cool and the cars would be easily recognizable. And they need to change their scoring system-I've never been able to understand it. They need to get back to their roots-"National Association of Stock Car Racing"!!!!  I know that since the '50's Robert Duvall's immortal words from "Days of Thunder"-"There's nothing stock about a stock car" have been true. However-the cars were at least production based, up until the '80's when Bill Elliot drove a T-Bird and GM guys had Monte Carlo SS's.  After that, Chevy Lumina and Beretta bodies? Yuk.  Mastermind