Iron fists, velvet gloves....."Stealth" mods.....re-visited......

A lot of people ask "How can I make more power for my musclecar and still look stock?" I touched on this once before-but it's worth revisiting-I've been asked several times in the past few weeks. The answer is not always more power; sometimes mechanical advantage is huge. Anyhow-assuming you have another engine-or don't care about modifying the one in the car-here's the best tips. # 1. Increased Displacement. The old adage "There's no substitute for cubic inches, except cubic dollars" is still true. There's stroker crank and rotating assemblys available to turn a 350 Chevy into a 383, a 302 Ford into a 347, a 351 Ford into a 392, a 360 Chrysler into a 408, a 400 Pontiac into a 467, a 400 Chrysler into a 451, a 454 Chevy into a 496, a 390 Ford into a 447, a 440 Chrysler into a 505. All other things being equal, the larger engine will always make more power and torque. And no one will know just looking at the engine. # 2. Camshaft. A cam change can add as much as 100 hp depending on application. But you have to be careful not to overdo it. Let's say you have a 400 Pontiac and want to put a "Ram Air IV" cam in it. If the 400 in question is in say-a '67 GTO and has 10.75:1 compression, a 4-speed, and 3.55:1 gears-it will really rip. Especially from 2,500-6,000 rpm. If the 400 is in a '77 Trans-Am with 7.6:1 compression, an automatic, and 2.56:1 gears-it won't idle, it'll run like crap, and have LESS power under 4,000 rpm than the stock cam did. See what I'm saying? Also-larger engines can tolerate more "cam" without ill effects. Here's an example-The old standby-for small-block Chevys-the "350 hp" 327 Corvette cam. This cam has 224 duration ( @.050 ) and .447 lift. It would absolutely ruin a 305. It would pretty work good in a 327 with a 4-speed and 3.73:1 gears, better in a 350 with a 4-speed or an automatic with 3.42:1 gears, and would be really sweet in a 383 / 400 even with an automatic and 3.08:1 gears. It's best to err on the side of caution when selecting a cam, especially if you have an automatic transmission. The reason is with a manual-Idle quality isn't nearly as important-with an automatic you need your idle speed to be 600-800 rpm. Any more than that, and the car will try to "creep" ahead at a stoplight-escpecially with a stock torque converter. With a stick-even if the engine idles at 1,000 rpm or more-the driver can launch at any rpm he desires by manipulating the clutch.  Most cam catalogs-give good guidelines-like "Works with a stock torque converter" or "Needs 2,500 rpm converter and 3.70:1 gears" etc. But a cam swap is a big power maker no one can see. # 3. Carburator. Many early musclecars have Carter AFB's that were only 500 or 625 cfm. Edelbrock Performer carbs are basically an updated AFB, and they are available in 750 and 800 cfm versions. Especially on larger engines-like a 389 / 421 Pontiac, 409 Chevy, 390 / 406 Ford-the larger carb can make as much as 25 hp and 30 lbs more of torque. The Carter AVS that came on many Chrysler vehicles only flows about 585 cfm. Especially on a 440-but even a 340 or 383 would really "wake up" with an 800 cfm Edelbrock Thunder AVS.  # 4. Mechanical advantage. Gears can make a huge difference. For example most '87-93 Fox "5.0" Mustangs-either 5-speed or automatic-came with 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 gears. Before I started modifying the engine-I'd swap in some 3.73:1 gears. You won't notice it low gear, but the difference will be HUGE in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. And it won't hurt fuel economy or cruising RPM on the freeway either. The reason is 5th gear in the T5 is overdrive-.063. 63% of 3.73:1-that knocks the final drive ratio down to like 2.75:1. 4th gear in the Automatics are ovedrive too-something like '078-78% of 3.73is like 3.00:1. Highway cruising will be unaffected-but the diffrence in acceleration through the gears will be amazing. Ditto for the disco-era T/A I mentioned earlier. Swapping the 2.41:1 or 2.56:1 gears for some 3.23:1-3.42:1s will make a massive improvement in acceleration and not hurt drivability.  On the other hand-don't go overboard-if 3.42:1s are great-then 4.11s will make it really rock.....Maybe not-your engine may not have the rev range for 4.10-4.56:1 gears-you could run out of rpm before the end of the 1/4. And no one wants the engine buzzing at 4,000 rpm on the freeway!  So err on the side of caution. But these are all good ways to increase performance and look stock.  Mastermind

If your going to drive the car at all....Be brutally honest about what you need.....

I talk to so many people that pay big dollars for a musclecar and then are unhappy with it. Often this happens because they spent thousands of dollars on a something some hack in a magazine said was valuable. If your just buying some $50,000 piece of garage jewelry to trailer to shows, then get whatever you want. But if you plan to drive the car at all-even it it's only on sunny summer days-you need to think hard about what is realistically important. For example-yes, a '55-'57 Chevy is cool. But do you really want a car with no power steering, no power brakes, that handles like a UPS truck? I know guys that have built '55 Chevys that handle like ZR1 'Vettes-with custom frames, Wildwood 4-wheel discs etc-but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a vintage car, doesn't it? Anything built before 1960 is going to be pretty primitive. Even Corvettes didn't get disc brakes until 1965. So if you want at least power steering and front disc brakes-that's a reasonable minimum standard for safety and convenience. So don't bother to look at stuff that doesn't have power steering or has 4-wheel drum brakes. If you live somewhere where it gets to be 100+ degrees in the summer, it might behoove you to only consider cars with Factory A/C. If you live in a big city that has a lot of stop and go traffic-an automatic transmission might be a better choice than a manual. And the biggest, baddest option isn't always the best. I know a gentleman who bought a 1968 Solid-lifter, 435 hp Tri-Power 427, 4-speed, 4.11 geared Corvette. It was ungodly fast. But with 11:1 compression it pinged incessantly on premium fuel if he didn't add 2 cans of octane booster per tankful, his wife burned her legs on the sidepipes every time she got into or out of the car, and since they liked to take weekend trips-he wasn't real happy about the engine buzzing at 3,800 rpm at 70 mph on the freeway. I told him to sell it and buy another Stingray with a low-compression big block or small-block with a hydraulic cam and he'd be a lot happier. Luckily-being a numbers-matching 427 L89 car-he got his money back and then some. He didn't lose any money. He then bought a 1971 LS5 365 hp 454 model. It still has that mountain of torque that only a 454 has-it's fast enough that he doesn't have to take crap from little boys in WRX's or Yuppies in 3-series BMWs. With 8.5:1 compression it runs fine on regular gas, and the 3.36:1 gears are a great compromise between jackrabbit starts and easy freeway crusing. 5,700 rpm is something like 138 mph, so it's got some long legs. He loves it, and him and his wife regularly drive it to Lake Tahoe or to the wine country.  Another guy was looking at a Boss 302. It was pristine. But it had no power steering, and it had 3.91:1 gears. It was blisteringly fast-but it had very little torque below 3,000 rpm,you were constantly shifting it in traffic, and parallel parking was a nightmare. We looked at a Mach 1-that had the 351W and an FMX automatic. It also had power steering, and factory a/c.  He liked driving that one much better, and it was fast enough-it could smoke the tires at will and lay 8-10 feet of rubber on the 1-2 shift. He decided to buy the Mach 1-especially since it was not only more pleasant to drive, it was about 30K cheaper to boot. So the biggest baddest, model isn't always the best choice. Do you really NEED an LS6 Chevelle? Or could you live with an SS396?  Do you want to pay 100K for a Super Duty Trans-Am, that you'll be so afraid of blowing up that it will never see the high side of 3,000 rpm, or would you be happier in a 400, 4-speed "Bandit" or 10th Annivesary model for 30K that you can powershift to your heart's content?  Wouldn't a 340 or 383 Challenger be good enough to live out your "Kowalski" fantasies in, or does it have to be a Hemi or 440+6?  Be honest with yourself about what you really want, and you'll be a lot happier. Mastermind         

Factory restored......There's an Idea GM, Ford and Chrysler ought to latch onto.....

I was reading in Autoweek where Porsche-Audi has a program-if you ship your Porsche 356, 912, 911 or 914 to Stuttgart-and can pay the bill of course-factory trained technichians will restore the car for you and certify the restoration as factory correct. You know it will be done right!!  Nissan is offereing the same deal to 240 / 260 / 280Z owners. Nissan is taking a step further-you can add performance enhancements-for example electronic ignition instead of a point-type distributor, Weber carbs instead of SUs or a five-speed trans instead of a 4-speed. Pretty cool. I think GM, Ford and Chrysler should do something similar. How cool would a '66 GTO with Edelbrock heads and Tri-Power on a 467 inch Pontiac V8 backed by a Tremec 5-speed, and Trans-Am front and rear sway bars and 4-wheel disc brakes be? Maybe if enough people express interest they'll start a program. Kudos to Porsche and Nissan for having the guts to do it. Mastermind

I was wrong....Import guys are insane too!!.......

In some previous posts where I've griped about people swapping modern powertrains into vintage Iron, I have said it's odd that you don't see a 1972 240Z with the engine and tranny out of a 2015 370Z or a  1973 Porsche 911T with the powertrain out of a 2012 Carrera 4. I was wrong-I saw in Motor Trend of all places-a guy spent $250,000-that's right a quarter-million-putting the engine, trans, suspension and some interior parts out of a 2017 Lexus ISF into a 1969 Toyota Corolla!!  You butchered a 416 hp, $60,000 sport sedan to put it's guts into a subcompact that's worth what-$3,000 if it's pristine?  I've never heard of people fighting with machetes for late '60's / early '70's Corollas. Andi it cost 250K to do it???  What's next? A Nissan GTR drivetrain in a Sentra??  There are truly people with more money than brains.....Mastermind 

Insanity.....

I saw on a classic car dealer's website Carroll Shelby's personal 1983 Pantera for sale. For $250,000. Because of smog regulations Ford stopped selling Panteras in America after 1974. DeTomaso continued production in Europe until the late '80's. In the early '80's there was talk of bringing the Pantera back to America to compete with the Porsche 928, the new for '84 C4 Corvette, The Nissan 300ZX Turbo, etc. DeTomaso gifted Carroll Shelby this Pantera in the hopes that Shelby-American would market Panteras in North America. The deal never happened, but Carroll kept the car until his death. Now his estate is selling it. Great. Except Panteras sell all day long for $50,000-80,000. They want a quarter million just because Shelby owned it. Some filthy rich guy will buy it, just so he can say he has it, and never drive it. A Stutz Blackhawk bought by Elvis Presley is being auctioned at $600,000. A high-end car dealer in St Louis has a pristine, 60,000 original mile loaded Stutz Blackhawk for sale for $79,000. I saw another Stutz Blackhawk that was owned by Sammy Davis Jr, that needed restoration, for $25,000. That was a deal I thought.  I'm an Elvis fan, but 600K for an $80,000 dollar car that was $40K new?  Like Ditka says-"Come on, man!" I guarantee some fool will pay 600K for that car.  That's the price of 2 houses anywhere but New York or California. I read somewhere that some guy restoring a Boss 351 Mustang paid $4,200 for a "Date Correct" Autolite Carburator. Ugh!!!  First off the Autolite 4300 is the worst carburator ever made, bar none. Brand-new cars were hard to start, got 5-8 mpg, stumbled, ran like shit.  My dad and I worked for Ford back in the '70's and if you had a 351C Mustang, Torino, Cougar, Pantera, or a 460 T-Bird, or Lincoln and you bitched hard enough the factory would replace it with a 600 cfm Holley with an electric choke at no charge, and warranty it. That's how bad those carbs were. But this guy paid $4,200 for a 49 year old used one?  I guarantee if his pristine Boss 351 had an Edelbrock or Holley carb on it-which would make it run properly and start, etc- no one is going to not buy it because the freaking 4300 is missing!!!   There's got to be some reason and sanity. But as long as there's people with more money than brains-it will go on.

Bad decisions based strictly on dollar amount.....or "Equipment"......

There's a show on one of the cable channels like "House Hunters"-except the people are looking for classic muscle cars. Like "House Hunters" they follow as the people look at several cars and then make a decision. I watched a couple episodes and wanted to kick out the TV screen at the bonehead decisions these people made because they were cheap. The first guy wanted a classic '60's musclecar with a big-block V8 and a 4-speed. His budget was $35,000. They don't say if their paying cash or financing it or getting a home equity loan or how their coming by the money-they just say that's the dollar amount.  The first car this guy looks at is a gorgeous 1967 Mustang Fastback with the 390 / 4-speed powertrain. It had Torq-Thrust mags and a beautiful bronze paint job and saddle interior. And it ran like a scalded cat and sounded like the soundtrack from "Bullitt". It was priced at $35,000-a screaming deal in my opinion.  The 2nd car he looks at is a 1979 Trans-Am, with the 403 Olds / TH350 powertrain, that's priced at $29,000-which I think is way overpriced-if it was a WS6, 400, 4-speed model-that would be a different story-but a 403 / automatic?  There the proverbial dime a dozen.  Then he looks at a beautiful 1967 4-speed, SS396 Chevelle. That's priced at $45,000, but the seller said he'd negoriate a little on the price. Which car does he buy?  The '79 Trans-Am!!  Huh?  You want a big-block '60's musclecar with a 4-speed, and you buy a 79 Firebird with the most anemic engine they offered and a slushbox!!  Because it's cheaper than the other two!!  Personally I'd have bought the Mustang, but the Chevelle was a deal too. The other episode had a guy who wanted a classic musclecar-but since he lived in Arizona-it had to have factory A/C.  His budget was $45,000.  The first car he looks at is a pretty blue 1971 Road Runner. It was nicely restored, but it was a 383 / Torqueflite model with bench seats and a column shifter, and no A/C-your base model. It was priced at $40,000.   The 2nd car is a gorgeous 1969 Firebird Convertible that had the 400 / TH400 powertrain, the hood tach, power windows, factory A/C, bucket seats and console, tilt wheel, power driver's seat, everything. It was priced at $45,000.  The third one-I cringed at-it was a 1970 Dodge Coronet Wagon that some clown had done up like a Super Bee. It did have a strong 440 in it. But it was priced at $40,000. If he bought that, I would have kicked out the screen. The guy buys the Road Runner, because it was $5,000 less than the Firebird!! I'd have tried to negotiate with the owner on the price of the Firebird. And even if he wouldn't budge-if you've got 40K, you can get 45. Or if your financing it-the difference on the monthly payment is about $8!!!  So even though he said he liked the Firebird better-and it had Factory Air which was a major factor-he buys the Road Runner which DOESN'T have A/C- because it was priced a little less!!!  You spent $40,000 on a car you didn't really want because it was 5 grand cheaper than the one you did??  Who does that?  I look at a lot of websites and classic dealers and auctions to stay up on things. Here's a perfect example of buyer beware and really interpret the terminology. I saw two gorgeous 1969 Z/28 Camaros for sale. One had the JL8 rear disc brakes and the Cross-Ram intake with dual Holleys. It was priced at $97,000. The other one had front disc/ rear drums, and the standard 780 Holley on an LT-1 intake. It was priced at $69,000. But-and it's a HUGE "But" in my opinion-the one priced at $69,000 was MacNeish certified, and had the numbers-matching 302, an M21 4-speed, and the numbers-matching 12-bolt 3.73:1 posi rear end. And the seller had reciepts for thousands of dollars showing the professional rebuild of the engine and transmission, and restoration. The one with the Cross-ram intake had a "Date Correct" 302-which means it's not the original engine. It had an M20 Muncie 4-speed-which is incorrect-Z/28's only had M21's or M22's. It had a "Correct"-but not original 12-bolt rear with the JL8 4-wheel discs retrofitted.  So cool options nothwitstanding-one guy wants $100K for a car with a non-original engine, the wrong transmission, a non original rear axle-and cool options that aren't on the cars original window sticker or build sheet. The other guy wants $70K for a car with numbers-matching everything, that's certified by the "Camaro" guru-just like a Marti report on a Ford. Which one is the better deal?  Obviously the MacNeish certified one for $30K less than the very well done, but cobbled up one for $100k!!.  Another seller wanted $73,000 for an SS396 / 4-speed RS / SS '69 Camaro. It was beautiful. But again-the terminology-it had a "Date Correct" 396, a "Correct" M20 4-speed, and a "Correct" 12 bolt rear. Which means not number-matching.  A guy selling a nice 1970 Boss 302 Mustang wanted $79,000. Reasonable for a Boss 302. However it's "Service Replacement Block" was rebuilt by Holman-Moody. That means sometime in the past someone blew the original engine all to hell,like rods out the side of the block grenaded-and it was replaced under warranty or even customer pay by a dealer if the car was out of warranty. This happened a lot, and Concours organizations will recognize a service replacement block if you have the paperwork. But I've seen other Bosses-for the same price-with the original numbers-matching motor. You really have to watch terminology. A guy was selling a GTO built to Ram Air IV specs. It wasn't a real RAIV-and it didn't have RAIV / 455HO iron heads-it had aluminum Edelbrock heads, an NPD replica RAIV intake, round port Hooker Headers, and a Crane Blueprint RAIV cam. It was blisteringly fast-and very well done. But he was asking what people get for a "Real" RAIV for  basically a clone. Like Smokey Robinson said-"You better shop around".  Mastermind 

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.