Ever race a Monte Carlo SS
The Viper has struck again!!!
On 16 Mar 1997 04:35:51 GMT, belm...@hotmail.com (Dan Hemphill)
wrote:
>My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these things
>fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it perform in a
>race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4 mile time?
>
>Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
>
A stock SS may be good for low to mid 15's
brent
95Z
13....@99.49
Gary H
It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it perform in a
>>race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4 mile time?
>>
>>Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>>Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
>>
>
>A stock SS may be good for low to mid 15's
I've never been in a Monte SS but I know they have 180 hp, and about
3300 lbs to move. I think low-mid 15s is a quick estimate if its
stock. They all are automatics, but I think most come geared up,
either 3.55s or 3.73s from the factory. I knew a kid who had one, and
my other friend Brian was in it and said it felt comparable to my old
car, a '91 Cougar XR7 5.0 HO. My XR7 would have done maybe a
16.1-16.3 stock or so. He said the Monte was quicker off the line,
but my XR7 was a bit stronger on the highway. I'd guess 15.8-16.2.
Mark A. Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <332bf135....@news.erinet.com>,
The Viper has struck again!!! <vi...@dont.spam.venomous.com> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 1997 04:35:51 GMT, belm...@hotmail.com (Dan Hemphill)
>wrote:
>
>>My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these things
>>fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it perform in a
>>race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4 mile time?
>>
>>Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>>Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
>
>A stock SS may be good for low to mid 15's
>
I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
[This account protected by spamgard(tm).]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Good news. Ten weeks from Friday will be a pretty good day.
[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBMyxJRto7GDsbn4ZNAQE8LQP/SjE8qfqHlvLbIsF6VM5wOCvSCBxK8jvz
NJZr9vqmHGvF34piwVnBqZW14Lg+N0L7hkgJKKjrO4XxaiNrSwkJpp5s3xOdKLkJ
NxlcNpHxgaY2zjkUeNSQX1QMg8+8YxF3aOLOZhw/mFPVytCHp/qh2i/38pu6fcta
s07CynlLbIk=
=8NWB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Gattafoni
Mark A. Cochran wrote:
> >A stock SS may be good for low to mid 15's
> >
> I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
> happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
> 3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
> speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
> I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
Methinks the good doctor is correct on this one. I used to own an 88
Dodge Shadow ES Turbo which had all of 150hp and weighed 2700lbs. I
pulled up alongside a Monte Carlo SS once on the highway and he egged me
on to race (people did this all the time because I had the CYA NOW
licence plate even back then!). I was very surprised to pull away from
him on the highway, because I figured that even with the extra weight of
the SS, that his higher horsepower (around 175hp I believe) would win
out in a highway race. We raced from about 60mph up to around 90mph and
I kept pulling him, much to my surprise. My little Shadow was a bit
quicker than most for some reason, but I doubt that it went much faster
than high 15s in the quarter mile though.
Patrick Gattafoni
95 Trans Am-Polo Green-2.73 A4
T-roofs, leather, CD, small spoiler
Eibachs, Comp TA ZRs, HPP+, K+N FIPK, Mobil 1
13.94 at 98.8mph (bone stock time before mods)
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1320/
Memphis #1320
Charlie Bendig
Mark A. Cochran wrote:
> I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
> happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
> 3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
> speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
> I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
Dr.Mark, a few things I know about the Monty Carlo SS:
1. weight is close to 3500.
2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
3. All had TH700R4 4 speed automatics.
4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
5. The fastest Stock Monty Carlo SS I ever saw ran mid 16's in the 1/4.
I have had a few friends that have had them, they are nice drivers, they
look nice.But just like stock 3rd gen F-boys, they are not much stock.
The fastest Monty Carlo SS that I have ever driven was a car that my
good friend owned. He bought a wrecked 87 Buick GNX, and we put the the
Buick GNX drive train in his 85 Monty Carlo SS. That was good for low
14's in the 1/4. That car was a real blast to drive, and ever one
thought it was a stock Monty Carlo SS, sure surprised a lot of Mustang
owners.
Charlie
Charlie Bendig
Patrick Gattafoni wrote:
> I think the Monte Carlo SS is the perfect sleeper car! Most people
>expect them to be slow, but stick a nice big block in there and it's go
> time! :)
What about taking a 502 and droping it in to a Monty SS, puting 16 inch
Iroc wheels on it. The better 10 bolt like the GN came with, with 3.73
gears. Hotchkiss controll arms, and a cowl hood(Choo-Choo customs hood,
same folks that did the SS conversions on them). And maybe a 1 inch drop
all around(hotchkiss spring kit).
I think that would make a pretty good sleeper, it would look factory to
all but a trained eye, and might be good for 13's in the 1/4, which
would mean that 4th gen F-bodys could be taken out.
I think I shall bump a few projects off my list and add this to the #2
position. And since its a popular car it would not be hard for me to
pick one up at a good price.
Charlie
JArsen5995
That is on a god day.
Patrick Gattafoni
Charlie Bendig wrote:
> I have had a few friends that have had them, they are nice drivers, they
> look nice.But just like stock 3rd gen F-boys, they are not much stock.
> The fastest Monty Carlo SS that I have ever driven was a car that my
> good friend owned. He bought a wrecked 87 Buick GNX, and we put the the
> Buick GNX drive train in his 85 Monty Carlo SS. That was good for low
> 14's in the 1/4. That car was a real blast to drive, and ever one
> thought it was a stock Monty Carlo SS, sure surprised a lot of Mustang
> owners.
> Charlie
I think the Monte Carlo SS is the perfect sleeper car! Most people
expect them to be slow, but stick a nice big block in there and it's go
time! :) There used to be this real nice Monte around my area with
Centerlines on it and it was lowered a couple of inches and had a nice
sounding rumble to it, but the guy would never street race anyone with
it so nobody knew how fast it really was. He had the licence plate
NGHTMR or something similar to that.
It was a shame that they made the Monte's with such a slow motor, I
really think they were nice looking cars that just needed 100 more
horsepower. I guess that's why everyone bought GNs instead though.
Mark A. Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <332C30...@cris.com>, Charlie Bendig <char...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mark A. Cochran wrote:
>> I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
>> happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
>> 3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
>> speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
>> I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
>
>Dr.Mark, a few things I know about the Monty Carlo SS:
>1. weight is close to 3500.
>2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
>3. All had TH700R4 4 speed automatics.
I sit corrected on this one. Thanks.
>4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
>5. The fastest Stock Monty Carlo SS I ever saw ran mid 16's in the 1/4.
>
That's about what I thought, then.
>I have had a few friends that have had them, they are nice drivers, they
>look nice.But just like stock 3rd gen F-boys, they are not much stock.
Agreed. They do look nice, and if they just had an engine with some
guts, they'd run nice.
[This account protected by spamgard(tm).]
PGP and .sig file follows.
If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.
[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBMy1SD9o7GDsbn4ZNAQE9rQP/VqsHXBmNsfPfD6e+PQKQ/5Jsv92kxagO
8KMI7NUAeEjUqGkh4yvLhBagCcZCHxbQVMu8WPcqxPbXPFajxKv7WYKq5QFQyCpR
gfKBm43OZOIFZ1vLnrhgockw+PFb/Vv2AUwJ8NtTDkmZNv7UgrTkS649RjjnvTk8
erTrOjTkMDw=
=yhGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Gattafoni
Charlie Bendig wrote:
> What about taking a 502 and droping it in to a Monty SS, puting 16 inch
> Iroc wheels on it. The better 10 bolt like the GN came with, with 3.73
> gears. Hotchkiss controll arms, and a cowl hood(Choo-Choo customs hood,
> same folks that did the SS conversions on them). And maybe a 1 inch drop
> all around(hotchkiss spring kit).
> I think that would make a pretty good sleeper, it would look factory to
> all but a trained eye, and might be good for 13's in the 1/4, which
> would mean that 4th gen F-bodys could be taken out.
>
> I think I shall bump a few projects off my list and add this to the #2
> position. And since its a popular car it would not be hard for me to
> pick one up at a good price.
> Charlie
Charlie that sounds like an awesome project! My cousin has been
thinking of dropping a 502 crate motor into his 1980 Z28 for a while
now, and sooner or later he will do it. He works for GM in St.
Catherines and can get the 502 for a real killer price. All the torque
of the 502 would make the car an awesome street car, even with highway
gears in the car. His car has a TH350 in it right now but he's been
considering switching over to a 4 speed manual for a while now, and
would definitely need to do something with the switch to a 502! That
TH350 would come apart like crazy behind that much torque! I have a good
friend who has a 1979 El Camino with a 427 in it making about 425hp, and
has run 11.70s with it straight motor (he's gonna run nitrous this year
though!). He had the car in a car show so he borrowed someones TH350
just so that he could drive the car into the show. Well he got a little
crazy a few weeks before the show and took the car out for a quick boot
up in the boonies up north where his brother lives (and where his car is
stored for the winter). He made one hard launch with the car and
destroyed that borrowed TH350 big time! He spit parts all over the
place! He was running a TH400 with it last year when he ran at the track
and even broke that, which is why he needed the TH350 just to get the
car mobile to drive it into the show.
PS-if you do up a Monte Carlo SS-make it black with dark tint-they look
evil like that!! :-)>
The Viper has struck again!!!
>I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
>happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
>3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
>speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
>I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
My parents have a 86 SS that they bought new....i thought they were a
little quicker than 16's.....also thought the 305 had 210
horse...whoops.
My parents car is a 4 speed auto....with 225/65/15's.
Not that skinny of a tire
brent
95Z
13....@99.49
Charlie Bendig
Patrick Gattafoni wrote:
> Charlie that sounds like an awesome project! My cousin has been
> thinking of dropping a 502 crate motor into his 1980 Z28 for a while
> now, and sooner or later he will do it. He works for GM in St.
> Catherines and can get the 502 for a real killer price. All the torque
> of the 502 would make the car an awesome street car, even with highway
> gears in the car. His car has a TH350 in it right now but he's been
> considering switching over to a 4 speed manual for a while now, and
> would definitely need to do something with the switch to a 502! That
>friend who has a 1979 El Camino with a 427 in it making about 425hp,and
>has run 11.70s with it straight motor (he's gonna run nitrous this year
> though!). He had the car in a car show so he borrowed someones TH350
>crazy a few weeks before the show and took the car out for a quick boot
> stored for the winter). He made one hard launch with the car and
> destroyed that borrowed TH350 big time! He spit parts all over the
> and even broke that, which is why he needed the TH350 just to get the
> car mobile to drive it into the show.
Patrick
Yea you have to watch what you put behind a 427, they will kill a tranny
pretty quick. Not to say a 454 is any thing to sneeze at, but I have
seen a few stock 427's that have a tad more torque than your advrage
454. And I know how easy it is to melt down TH350's my Chevelle is about
to have its 8th TH350 since 1990. The guy I got it from killed 5 in it.
And the orginal owner went thru 3 of them. I was impressed when I killed
a B&M Built TH350 with my lil ol Chevelle. I think if I leave the 502
alone(as per chevys internal workings) it might not kill a TH700R4.
Have you seen the Elderbrock/Weber Fuel Injection? if not check it out
some time it would go perfectly with this car.
Now execpting donations to fund the build up of this car!
>PS-if you do up a Monte Carlo SS-make it black with dark tint-they look
> evil like that!! :-)>
I was thinking a blue like is on my T/A, and of course to make people
think it just some punks car gotta have either "Bite Me" or "Fear Me"
stickers on it.
Look at these pics of my T/A you can see the color im talking about:
http://www.cris.com/~charlie6/my85ta.gif
http://www.cris.com/~charlie6/biteme.gif
Charlie
Chris Keen
Mark A. Cochran wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <332C30...@cris.com>, Charlie Bendig <char...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Mark A. Cochran wrote:
> >> happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
> >> 3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
> >> speeds at that) and they've got skinny little rocks for tires.
> >> I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
> >
> >1. weight is close to 3500.
> >2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
> >3. All had TH700R4 4 speed automatics.
>
> I sit corrected on this one. Thanks.
>
> >4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
> >5. The fastest Stock Monty Carlo SS I ever saw ran mid 16's in the 1/4.
> >
> That's about what I thought, then.
>
> >I have had a few friends that have had them, they are nice drivers, they
> >look nice.But just like stock 3rd gen F-boys, they are not much stock.
>
> Agreed. They do look nice, and if they just had an engine with some
> guts, they'd run nice.
>
My second car was an '84 Monte Carlo SS. I bought the thing on 8/8/88.
I truely loved that car. It was an overweight rattle trap that thought
of itself as fast, but it wasn't. When I bought it, the car was
metallic blue, and had 24K on it. The guy who had owned it was a
diabetic, and he didn't take care of himself. He didn't make it. His
mother inherited the car, and would not sell it because it was special
to her for it belonged to her son. The mother finally got tired of
looking at it and having to drive it a few times a month, and sold it.
The paint was starting to oxidize badly on the top surfaces, and though
I massaged what I could from the paint, I knew it was going to need some
new skin soon. I finally painted it black. It had the blue cloth
interior (bucket seats). It was really clean, and a nice ride. I got
lots of looks out of it, that's for sure. It always had lots of squeaks
coming from the rear of the car - trunk I think - that I could never
track down. Other than that and being a little weak in performance, I
loved it. I got the only tickets of my life in that ride! I sold the
thing before going into the Air Force in late '90. The guy who bought
it had another '84 Monte SS. It was the same blue that my car was
originally. He said he had to have another one he loved his so much.
His was in nice condition, and I felt really good about letting it go to
him. He was a nice guy. Fastest I've ever sold a car too. I put the
thing up for sale in the sunday paper. Sunday morning he called, 30
minutes later came by, and it was sold. Ahhh... what a nice trip down
memory lane.
Chris.
Patrick Gattafoni
Charlie Bendig wrote:
> Yea you have to watch what you put behind a 427, they will kill a tranny
> pretty quick. Not to say a 454 is any thing to sneeze at, but I have
> seen a few stock 427's that have a tad more torque than your advrage
> 454.
My friend with the 427 wants to build up an even bigger motor at the
end of this year, at least 550+ cubes so he'd better find a good tranny
first!! He's shooting for high 9s on the spray, which sounds reasonable
considering he could easily go high 10s right now on the spray with his
427. The car is tubbed so he's not going to have a traction problem!
And I know how easy it is to melt down TH350's my Chevelle is about
> to have its 8th TH350 since 1990. The guy I got it from killed 5 in it.
> And the orginal owner went thru 3 of them. I was impressed when I killed
> a B&M Built TH350 with my lil ol Chevelle. I think if I leave the 502
> alone(as per chevys internal workings) it might not kill a TH700R4.
> Have you seen the Elderbrock/Weber Fuel Injection? if not check it out
> some time it would go perfectly with this car.
My same friend with the 427 in the El Camino also has another El Camino
which he's going to use as the tow vehicle, it's actually in that blue
color that you want to do for your Monte project! That bright blue is
one of my favorite colors, I wish I could've found a new TA in that
color when I bought mine, but they are rare. He also wants to put a
700R4 in it, so that he can get a bit better mileage out of it while
running 3.73s in it. He figures he will keep it in 3rd gear when towing
(so as to not burn up the overdrive) and then he'll use the overdrive
when driving without the trailer.
It's nice to get back to talking about cars again!
BrianCh302
a stock 85 Monte Carlo will run mid 16's at around 86 mph
Giray Kaya
belm...@hotmail.com (Dan Hemphill) wrote:
>My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these things
>fast?
It depends what you think is fast. I kept playing around with one on the
PA turnpike about 6 years ago. He was alone, I had a passenger and one
suitcase. Beat him every time. Straights, uphills, you name it. At the
time my car was stock.
Giray
'88GTA Notchback, T-tops, 5-spd
Scott
Patrick Gattafoni wrote:
> It was a shame that they made the Monte's with such a slow motor, I
> really think they were nice looking cars that just needed 100 more
> horsepower. I guess that's why everyone bought GNs instead though.
What's a shame is it would have been so easy for Chevrolet (or GM) to
do. They could have done with the Monte Carlo SS what they did with the
Impala later, i.e. drop the Corvette engine into it from the factory. I
guess the problem was that with the Grand National (and Olds 442), the
only competition was from other GM makes (the V8 T-Bird was a joke) and
hence, no need.
I've never much liked the thought that the 4-door Impala SS should be
considered the last 'true' musclecar. I've always felt that the honor
should have went to the eighties' Monte Carlo SS, and it likely *would*
have if they had put the Corvette 350 of the day into it.
-Scott
Charlie Bendig
Patrick Gattafoni wrote:
>My same friend with the 427 in the El Camino also has another El Camino
> which he's going to use as the tow vehicle, it's actually in that blue
> color that you want to do for your Monte project! That bright blue is
> one of my favorite colors, I wish I could've found a new TA in that
> color when I bought mine, but they are rare. He also wants to put a
> 700R4 in it, so that he can get a bit better mileage out of it while
>running 3.73s in it. He figures he will keep it in 3rd gear when towing
>(so as to not burn up the overdrive) and then he'll use the overdrive
> when driving without the trailer.
What he should do for the tow car/truck/ split personality type
thing(its a car, its a truck, no wait its both). Is to get a TH700R4
from a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton truck. The shift points will differ from the
other TH700R4's. The one out fo the trucks can usually handel towing in
over drive, and GM usually included a tranny cooler with them.
While he is at it he could get buckets and a consel out of a Monty Carlo
SS and have a nice floor shifter. Since the Monty Carlo SS and the Elky
are G bodys(78-88) the int parts will interchange with out much work. He
could even use Monty Carlo SS Gauges in it.
Charlie
Scott
Austin J. Schroeger wrote:
>
> If everyone bought a G.N. instead of a MCSS, then why (in 1987) did
> they sell over 14,000 of them, and the Grand National's production
> stop in the production number of aroun 2,000. I'm not sure of the
> exact number of G.N's produced, but I'm pretty sure it was only 2,000
Price.
Charlie Bendig
Grand Nationals(GN's) where a limited production high cost car. Now look
at the production figures for the Turbo Regal, same engin and drive
train as a GN, but not a limited prodution car, no special nich like the
GN's.
Charlie
REVEREND KIRBY (and his 'puter)
i owned (as in just sold) my monte carlo. it had SS detals ie:front
end,fin etc. i dropped a 350 in it. charlie is right. a terrific sleeper
car. stangs pullin up and laughin at me and the noise my car made. (it had
custon 3 1/4 inch exhaust) as it kind of whined and bellered. sounded like
it was gonna die.
quarter mile time was probably (i'm guessing) low 13's maybe high 12's.
but off the line! good bye. thing laid patches everywhere and was clocked
at top speed courtesy of a nice police officer at 198km/hr. thing never
shook or made any noises at that speed. it was my baby and i miss it
dearly. The cop let me go to. said he wanted to see under the hood, so i
showed him. he laughed and said " man, this is one funny fuckin car! get
outta here kid, and smarten up a little kay?" you have to understand, the
reason he let me go was due to the fact it was a quite country road and i
wasn't endangering anyone but myself! :)
i bought it it with almost everything done to it. it just needed the right
engine. i was thinking of a 454 near the end, but sold it instead. what
a shame, would of been cool. and to look at it? nice looking car, but it
definitely looked slow.
laterzzzzzzzzz
da rev.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
******** MY SIG IS INSIG ********
************************* **************************
******** YOU DIG? ********
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief
The factory rating for the 1/4 mile was 15.75 sec or so.
If it is close to stock, I would expect it to run mid to low 15s with
a good tune, timing advance and good gas.
Just make sure the "305" isn't a wolf (350) in sheep's clothing.
On 16 Mar 1997 04:35:51 GMT, belm...@hotmail.com (Dan Hemphill)
wrote:
>My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these things
>fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it perform in a
>race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4 mile time?
>
>Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
>
Chief
'84 Monte SS
Charlie Bendig
Derek A wrote:
>
> OK, the strait scoop from a SS owner and a fanatic......
>>>Dr.Mark, a few things I know about the Monty Carlo SS:
>>>1. weight is close to 3500.
>>>2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
> No SS has FI. ALL were L69's (Q-jetted 305s)
Gee wiz maybe that 87 SS that my buddy bought new did not have a TBI
injection on it, but wait it had to be with 2 injectors. I did all the
service on the car, even though he worked in the service dept. of a
chevy dealership.
> > >3. All had TH700R4 4 speed automatics.
> False see above.
True, thus acording to the Holender Excange Manual because I needed to
get a TH700R4 and wouldnt you know it I found it in a Monty Carlo SS.
Not only that but my buddys 87 came factory with one. I do know the
diffrences between a 700 and a 200.
> > >4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
>False.83-85 had "styled steel wheels" / 86 up is the "SS" aluminum rim.
Ever Monty SS that I have ever seen that had the factory wheels had the
cast aluminum 15x7 wheels. Which by the way are the same wheels used on
82-88 Camaros, with diffrent Center caps, there is no such thing as a
SS wheel when talking about a Monty Carlo SS. I sugest that you learn
what parts interchange with what before you make a blanket statment like
that. Also Styled steel wheels are not the correct term, it is Rally
wheels, rally wheels came in diffrent types over the years. Oh yea my
Cousins 84 Monty Carlo SS came with the Aluminum wheels, almost forgot
about that, and you know what I was at the dealership in 1984 with her
when she took deleavery of it. You know some thing it even had the
correct wheel centers.
Charlie
Austin J. Schroeger
If everyone bought a G.N. instead of a MCSS, then why (in 1987) did
they sell over 14,000 of them, and the Grand National's production
stop in the production number of aroun 2,000. I'm not sure of the
exact number of G.N's produced, but I'm pretty sure it was only 2,000
-Austin Schroeger
1984 Monte Carlo SS (MINT)
Austin J. Schroeger
1984 Monte Carlo SS
(MINT)
Derek A
OK, the strait scoop from a SS owner and a fanatic......
Mark A. Cochran <coc...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> >> I doubt it, but if anyone has solid numbers to prove me wrong, I'll be
> >> happy to see them. A Monte Carlo SS has less than 200HP and more than
True 83 SS's had 175 HP and in 84 it was upped to 180 HP stayed that way
through 88.
> >> 3300 pounds to drag down the track. They're all autos (and IMSC, 3
True and False.... All Autos / 83-84 TH350C , 85-88 TH200-4R
> >> I'd be suprised if a stock SS could get under 16.0 in the 1/4.
Stock, around 15.8 is the best I've seen. A few mods such as limited slip
(not a manditory option, but some had 'em), MSD, and a shift kit will
come close to a flat 15 second run.
> >Dr.Mark, a few things I know about the Monty Carlo SS:
> >1. weight is close to 3500.
> >2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
No SS has FI. ALL were L69's (Q-jetted 305s)
> >3. All had TH700R4 4 speed automatics.
False see above.
> >4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
False. 83-85 had "styled steel wheels" / 86 up is the "SS" aluminum rim.
> >I have had a few friends that have had them, they are nice drivers, they
> >look nice.But just like stock 3rd gen F-boys, they are not much stock.
>
> Agreed. They do look nice, and if they just had an engine with some
> guts, they'd run nice.
Yup, If GM had only put the TPI 305 in em or a 350 then they would have
kicked ass, but GM was concerend about the MCSS's comming close
to the F-body in performance so they intentionally left them "a step
behind"
If you wanted a fast GM you were to get a F-body or Vette.
Derek A
86 Grand Prix, 84 Monte SS, 82 Regal, 71 Torino
http://sol.parkland.cc.il.us/~datteber/carshow/carshow.html
Doug DePew
Mark A. Cochran wrote:
> >Dr.Mark, a few things I know about the Monty Carlo SS:
> >1. weight is close to 3500.
> >2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
>
All were carbed engines. All were the 305HO. Early models were a
TH350, then replaced in 84/85 (can't remember 100%) with the TH200R4,
NEVER a 700.
>
> >4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
> >5. The fastest Stock Monty Carlo SS I ever saw ran mid 16's in the 1/4.
1986 was the debut of the aluminum wheels. They were styled steel prior
(83-85)
Doug D.
1948 Chevy Truck
1976 Camaro LT
1985 Monte Carlo SS
1989 IROC-Z
1993 Indy Pace Truck
1995 Tahoe
Patrick Gattafoni
Austin J. Schroeger wrote:
>
> If everyone bought a G.N. instead of a MCSS, then why (in 1987) did
> they sell over 14,000 of them, and the Grand National's production
> stop in the production number of aroun 2,000. I'm not sure of the
> exact number of G.N's produced, but I'm pretty sure it was only 2,000
I'm not sure about this, but I had thought that they made something
like 50,000 GNs in 1987. I do know that they extended the building of
them past Sept 87 because they were selling a few more than they
expected at the end. Does anyone know for sure what the production of 87
GNs was? It was certainly more than 2000, I do know that. The GNX
limited edition was around 500 I think, so maybe that is what you were
referring to?
Jeff Taggart
I just noticed some monte carlo ss bashing and just wanted to say mine
has never lost a race with a camaro or firebird.
Abe Jones
BrianCh302 wrote:
>
> a stock 85 Monte Carlo will run mid 16's at around 86 mph
Honestly, my 1990 4 door buick skylark 3.3liter will too.
i have suprised more than one mustang owner.
Mark A. Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <332F15...@sprintmail.com>,
Jeff Taggart <jt...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I just noticed some monte carlo ss bashing
Then you've got an overactive imagination. Nobody was "bashing" the
Monte, just discussing factory equipment. Equipment that was,
undeniably, underpowered, especially considering the engines which GM
had available and did *not* put in the Monte.
>and just wanted to say mine
>has never lost a race with a camaro or firebird.
What, you've never raced anything but V-6 F-bodies?
[This account protected by spamgard(tm).]
PGP and .sig file follows.
Garbage In -- Gospel Out.
[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBMy8dGNo7GDsbn4ZNAQFtDQP6Av0ZP/kCjxw7J6oHEzRqlzKvIhsyrJPb
ETguLlxIWgQ0SrajFC/6KPTOCZ7e6R59SZmVDF/oICKGC1pbXxynT4TPYcdxSYZk
maHb4qYDBihI7TL99QvVk8TPHtF7ESNX4R9DZL+T8FkbT5/VlDp8ksdgqS2ilwy7
iKPHKJxg58E=
=RKLB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rexven
Jeff Taggart <jt...@sprintmail.com> did declare in their infinite wisdom
>I just noticed some monte carlo ss bashing and just wanted to say mine
>has never lost a race with a camaro or firebird.
I haven't noticed any 'bashing' going on, but I will ask a question.. how come
they build the NEW Monte Carlo's as tiny FWD platforms with weak engines and (As
far as I know) don't even offer an automatic, but race them as a front engine,
rear driven V8.. can't they swallow what they sell themselves? As someone stated
in this weeks autoweek.. "They ought to be made to race the shit they sell to
us!"
Don Thompson
Austin J. Schroeger wrote:
>
> If everyone bought a G.N. instead of a MCSS, then why (in 1987) did
> they sell over 14,000 of them, and the Grand National's production
> stop in the production number of aroun 2,000. I'm not sure of the
> exact number of G.N's produced, but I'm pretty sure it was only 2,000
>
than 14,000. And lets not forget the OTHER turbocharged Buicks that
were made that year which basically are GN's in sheeps clothing. If you
count those and the 547 GNX's that were made, there were a total of
27,590 turbo Buicks made that year about twice your MCSS figure.
Don.
67 RS/SS
86 Buick Regal T-Type
Charlie Bendig
Timothy McArdle wrote:
> chevy should take that 350 motor and make the monte SS they didn't
> make before
> 350 6 speed rear wheel drive
> then i may switch back to a monte from my camaro
You buy all the parts, and the Newer Monty Carlo Body shell(with clear
title) and I will build you the car you want for $5000 labor.
Charlie
Charlie Bendig
Don Thompson wrote:
> Don.
> 67 RS/SS
> 86 Buick Regal T-Type
Is your Regal T-Type a turbo 3.8, or the NA 4.9? There was this gold
Regal T-type I rode in years a go, 3.8 turbo, gold cloth int, factory(or
dealer installed) sun/moon roof. It was a nice car, would look nice in
my drive way.
Charlie
Timothy McArdle
Dan Hemphill wrote:
>
> My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these things
> fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it perform in a
> race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4 mile time?
>
> Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
> Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
He will lose with the Monte SS 180 horsepower. I had an 1986 SS
great car but the camaro is faster.
Would buy another monte and build it up, much more room than the 2
camaro tin cans I drive now.
91 Rs Convertible, 67 SS/RS 350
--
Timothy McArdle - N2YLT
Timothy McArdle
make before
350 6 speed rear wheel drive
then i may switch back to a monte from my camaro
Austin J. Schroeger
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:51:17 -0800, Doug DePew
<doug....@gsbsc.gensig.com> wrote:
GM
>documentation and find SOMETHING substantive to back your point,
OK. OK.. I can't stand it any longer. wanna know the differences in
SS's from 1983-1988? well here are the specs of ALL types of Monte
Carlo's from 1983-1988
As for the wheels.. Steel rims in 1983-1985 Trust me aluminum
wheels were added in 1986
HERE!!!!!!
1983
no bucket seats
bench seat was blue w/ white only (SS)
Packages: Sport Coupe, Sport Coupe SS
Engines: 229, 231, 262 diesel, 305, 305HO, 350 diesel
Transmissions: TH-200C, TH-250C, TH-350C
1984
buckets seats were blue only
bench seat was blue w/ white only (SS)
SS's now had a "sport" steering wheel, while 1983 SS's had standard
steering wheel
Packages: Sport Coupe, Sport Coupe SS
Engines: 229, 231, 305, 305HO, 350 diesel
Transmissions: TH-200C, TH-250C, TH-350C, TH-200-4R (only 3 made)
1985
new pinstripe design package
Packages: Sport Coupe, Sport Coupe SS
Engines: 231, 262, 305, 305HO
Transmissions: TH-200-4R, TH-200C
1986
3rd brake light added
oval type side mirrors changed to "aero" type mirrors
aluminum wheels added to SS (15")
LS now sported single composite headlamps
Packages: Sport Coupe, Sport Coupe SS, Sport Coupe LS, Aero Coupe
SS
Engines: 231, 262, 305, 305HO
Transmissions: TH-200-4R, TH-200C
1987
new pinstripe design package
mid year change, "lay-down" spolier added sometime in June we
speculate
Packages: Sport Coupe SS, Sport Coupe LS, Aero Coupe SS
Engines: 231, 262, 305, 305HO
Transmissions: TH-200-4R, TH-200C
1988
all 1988 Monte Carlos were actually assembled in 1987
1988 was the last year for Monte Carlos for 6 years and so far
still the last year for the Monte Carlo SS
the last Monte Carlo was built on Friday December 11th 1987 at
5:29PM
Packages: Sport Coupe SS, Sport Coupe LS
Engines: 262, 305, 305HO
Transmissions: TH-200-4R
I hope you all enjoyed your visit to Austin's school of Monte Carlo's.
I look forward to your next visit.
-Austin :)
Don Thompson
Charlie Bendig wrote:
> Don Thompson wrote:
> > 67 RS/SS
> > 86 Buick Regal T-Type
>
> Is your Regal T-Type a turbo 3.8, or the NA 4.9? There was this gold
> Regal T-type I rode in years a go, 3.8 turbo, gold cloth int, factory(or
> dealer installed) sun/moon roof. It was a nice car, would look nice in
> my drive way.
Its the turbo 3.8 version. White with t-tops. Burgundy interior. A
real sleeper. I've been to Kenny Duttweiler's seen his shop and bought a
few things for it (big front intercooler, stage 4 turbo, dual exhaust,
chip, throttle body, cam, heads, etc....) I haven't installed all the
items yet, but will after I finish my Camaro. (which will be even faster
than the Buick.)
I used to race the MCSS (and Stangs) all the time after I bought the
T-Type, but I quickly became bored. People talk alot about the new
Monte Carlo SS, but I honestly believe the Buick Grand National was the
Baddest of the big bad black musclecars.
Don.
Gary H
>Honestly, my 1990 4 door buick skylark 3.3liter will too.
>
>i have suprised more than one mustang owner.
A guy at work has an Olds Achieva that he says has a 3.3. I thought
they only put 3.1s in there? Anyways, how much hp/torque does you car
have, and how quick is it?
Doug DePew
> >>>1. weight is close to 3500.
> >>>2. 305(4bbl, or FI(in 88)) same engins as the 3rd gen F-bodys.
> injection on it, but wait it had to be with 2 injectors. I did all the
> service on the car, even though he worked in the service dept. of a
> chevy dealership.
Wrong on both counts Charlie. Any time you want to dig through GM
documentation and find SOMETHING substantive to back your point, fell
free, since there is nothing.
>
> True, thus acording to the Holender Excange Manual because I needed to
> get a TH700R4 and wouldnt you know it I found it in a Monty Carlo SS.
> Not only that but my buddys 87 came factory with one. I do know the
> diffrences between a 700 and a 200.
>
> > > >4. All had 15x7 cats alumnimum wheels.
> >False.83-85 had "styled steel wheels" / 86 up is the "SS" aluminum rim.
>
> Ever Monty SS that I have ever seen that had the factory wheels had the
> cast aluminum 15x7 wheels. Which by the way are the same wheels used on
> 82-88 Camaros, with diffrent Center caps, there is no such thing as a
> SS wheel when talking about a Monty Carlo SS. I sugest that you learn
> what parts interchange with what before you make a blanket statment like
> that. Also Styled steel wheels are not the correct term, it is Rally
> wheels, rally wheels came in diffrent types over the years. Oh yea my
> Cousins 84 Monty Carlo SS came with the Aluminum wheels, almost forgot
> about that, and you know what I was at the dealership in 1984 with her
> when she took deleavery of it. You know some thing it even had the
> correct wheel centers.
Wrong yet AGAIN on this. Derek is correct, steel wheels from 83-85.
86-88 had aluminum, which were NOT from the 82-up F-body, but WERE the
same style as found on the 80-81 F-body. Now, there WERE aluminum
wheels available on a REGULAR Monte Carlo, but NOT the SS.
Doug DePew
Jim (Cheater8) Stoltz
> looks any where it goes, and glares from 5.0 owners that have tryed to
> run one before. I have been debating with my self as to weither or not I
> should trade my brothers 79 Buick Lesabra for a 82 Turbo Regal with a
> bad turbo. I have also been thinking about slinging a 3.8 turbo in to
> his 79 Buick that way it could hit 25 in under a minute.
> Charlie
I think the WS6 T/As are a close second for the sinister looks.
I love the GNs, don't get me wrong, a lotta car for the buck.
I've been spanked by a couple in my day. Hence the recent
forced induction kick on my Stang. There's always someone
faster.....
Jim
Charlie Bendig
Scott
Jim (Cheater8) Stoltz wrote:
>
> Charlie Bendig wrote:
> > It probably was one of the most sinister looking as well. A GN will get
> > looks anywhere it goes, and glares from 5.0 owners that have tryed to
> > run one before.
>
> I think the WS6 T/As are a close second for the sinister looks.
While the above two certainly qualify in the "sinister-looking"
department for recent vehicles (although I think the WS6 Formula bests
the T/A), I think that Chrysler would probably be the historical leader
in marketing aggressively-styled vehicles (as long as you could keep the
stripes, spoilers and other doo-dads off of them). "Sinister-looking",
to me, implies a certain purposeful look (all business) which these
accoutrements detract from.
My favorite would be the black '68 Charger R/T in _Bullitt_.
-Scott
Charlie Bendig
Scott wrote:
> While the above two certainly qualify in the "sinister-looking"
> department for recent vehicles (although I think the WS6 Formula bests
>the T/A), I think that Chrysler would probably be the historical leader
> stripes, spoilers and other doo-dads off of them). "Sinister-looking",
> to me, implies a certain purposeful look (all business) which these
> accoutrements detract from.
I understand what your saying. I have never cared for Mopars at all, and
hold a diffrent view on there looks. To me my 72 Chevelle in Flat Black
Primer looks Sinister, you know out to raise hell, but with a cirtaint
amount of stealth. And for Sinister in the pure evil since that would
have to be a tie between my Chevelle(trust me that thing is evil) and my
71 Chevy C20 pick em up(ment to say em), it had this evil grawling sound
it made when running.
Charlie
Charlie Bendig
Doug DePew wrote:
> Wrong on both counts Charlie. Any time you want to dig through GM
> documentation and find SOMETHING substantive to back your point, fell
> free, since there is nothing.
The car is still around, I know the current owner. And I have the window
sticker around here from it. Since the car was purchesed new from White
Allen Chevorlet in Dayton Ohio I have done all work on it. Now why would
I need to dig GM records when I have the car handy, have done all the
service to it since day one, have the window sticker, and was there when
the thing came off the truck?
> Wrong yet AGAIN on this. Derek is correct, steel wheels from 83-85.
> 86-88 had aluminum, which were NOT from the 82-up F-body, but WERE the
> same style as found on the 80-81 F-body. Now, there WERE aluminum
> wheels available on a REGULAR Monte Carlo, but NOT the SS.
Actully according to the Holender Wheel Excange book your wrong, and
even on both counts. I went to a local wreck yard today and checked with
the Holender books. if you really want to know what parts fit what, then
spend the $800 and get a Holender Excange Manual, over 3000 wreck yard
sware by them. A GM dealer does not know what parts fit what because
they have to look at GM part numbers, which change from year to year
alot of times. A Holender Excange Manual tells you what parts will are
the same, and what has to be changed at times to make a part fit a
diffrent car.
Charlie
Rexven
Timothy McArdle <radi...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> did declare in their
infinite wisdom
>Rexven wrote:
>> I haven't noticed any 'bashing' going on, but I will ask a question.. how come
>> they build the NEW Monte Carlo's as tiny FWD platforms with weak engines and (As
>> far as I know) don't even offer an automatic, but race them as a front engine,
>> rear driven V8.. can't they swallow what they sell themselves? As someone stated
>> in this weeks autoweek.. "They ought to be made to race the shit they sell to
>> us!"
>chevy should take that 350 motor and make the monte SS they didn't
>make before
>350 6 speed rear wheel drive
>then i may switch back to a monte from my camaro
Tim, with the exception of the 6-speed they DO make such a beast. The Impalla SS
is running the LT1 engine but is stuck with an automatic. It's also got a
different (and restrictive looking) intake system though I'm not sure how the
performance is affected. (Just opened the hood and it looked like it could use a
bit more open breathing). If I'm not mistaken, '96 is the last year for the
Impalla SS.. ?
Due to morons with auto-spam, remove * from reply to adress
for E-mail.
Patrick Gattafoni
The 3.3 litre engine is actually a smaller version of the 3.8 liter
Buick engine. I do know that in 1992 and 1993 the Grand Ams came with
the 3.3 litre engine and they made 155hp and 185lb ft of torque. When I
bought my 94 Grand Am GT, it was the first year that the Grand Am got
the all new 3100 engine, which is an improved version of the good ole
3.1 liter. The 3100 version differed in that it made more horsepower and
had a few changes over the regular 3.1 liter 140hp version offered in
the Cavaliers and other GM cars in the past. The 3100 engine also has
155hp and 185 lb ft of torque. The 3.3 liters torque peak was at a much
lower rpm though. The 3.3 liter engines only came with a 3 spd auto,
while the new 3100 came with the new electronic 4 speed auto, so it
actually ended up getting a better axle ratio to make up for the low rpm
torque difference.
David A. Lyons
Dan Hemphill wrote:
>
> My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these
> things fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it
> perform in a race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4
> mile time?
>
> Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
> Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
If it's stock, it's not fast. I raced one (it had a "fastback" or
something like that, what were those called, aerocoupes or something?)
in a bone stock 2.73-geared '88 Mustang GT and smoked him like a cuban
cigar.
On the other hand, there was a bad ass Monte running around where I grew
up with a built TPI 350. Never raced him.
--
David Lyons
mailto:lyo...@alf.dec.com
mailto:lyo...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
Geoff Moores
You know its disappointing, all that I hear about mustangs seems to be
a load of crap. We have a old air strip where I live and my 76
Firebird with a stock 403 oldsmobile blows them off the track.
Including all these done up monte's.
Austin J. Schroeger
the quality of the driver has a lot to do with th speed of the car.
Remember, better make sure the guy your racing, is actually racing you
too. This guy in town here in a 84 stang, saying he kicked my ass.
Tell you the truth, I didn't know he was racing me. I never went over
the speed limit :)
-Austin
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 06:32:04 -0500, "David A. Lyons"
<lyo...@alf.dec.com> wrote:
>Dan Hemphill wrote:
>>
>> My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these
>> things fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it
>> perform in a race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4
>> mile time?
>>
>> Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>> Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
>
>If it's stock, it's not fast. I raced one (it had a "fastback" or
>something like that, what were those called, aerocoupes or something?)
>in a bone stock 2.73-geared '88 Mustang GT and smoked him like a cuban
>cigar.
>
>On the other hand, there was a bad ass Monte running around where I grew
>up with a built TPI 350. Never raced him.
>
>--
>David Lyons
>mailto:lyo...@alf.dec.com
>mailto:lyo...@mindspring.com
>http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
>
Austin J. Schroeger
1984 Monte Carlo SS
(MINT)
Scott
DSuperBee wrote:
>
> I always thought that Mopar had some truly evil looking cars, especially a
> 68 or 69 Charger, with black paint, black interior, and heavily tinted
> windows. MEAN! I also like the 66 GTO, triple black, heavily tinted
> windows, again, one mean looking car!
I was going to mention the '65 GTO as well as the '65 Cyclone, '67
Fairlane, '69 Chevelle and '66 Chrysler. All of these cars have the
'Forward-look' pioneered by Chrysler in the late fifties where the
headlights are jutting forward at an angle ahead of the bumper.
Looks great but not too good for aerodynamics.
Also, the '69 Super Bee is pretty good, too (without the bumble-bee
stripe), with the subtle arched-eyebrow front end until they took the
styling too far the next year.
-Scott
-Scott
DSuperBee
I always thought that Mopar had some truly evil looking cars, especially a
68 or 69 Charger, with black paint, black interior, and heavily tinted
windows. MEAN! I also like the 66 GTO, triple black, heavily tinted
windows, again, one mean looking car!
Brian Kast
DSup...@aol.com
When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather did. Peacfully, in his sleep. Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car.
Scott
Charlie Bendig wrote:
> I understand what your saying. I have never cared for Mopars at all, and
> hold a diffrent view on there looks. To me my 72 Chevelle in Flat Black
> Primer looks Sinister, you know out to raise hell, but with a cirtaint
> amount of stealth. And for Sinister in the pure evil since that would
> have to be a tie between my Chevelle(trust me that thing is evil) and my
> 71 Chevy C20 pick em up(ment to say em), it had this evil grawling sound
> it made when running.
Yeah, flat black primer would help make most anything look sinister. Did
you know that American Motors had actually planned to build a muscle
version of the Rebel (before the "Machine") that came from the factory
already painted entirely in flat black? It would have been years ahead
of its time prior to the "stealth" look becoming fashionable? I've seen
a picture of the prototype and it was definitely different.
-Scott
Scott
DSuperBee wrote:
>
> I always thought that Mopar had some truly evil looking cars, especially a
> 68 or 69 Charger, with black paint, black interior, and heavily tinted
> windows. MEAN! I also like the 66 GTO, triple black, heavily tinted
> windows, again, one mean looking car!
I was going to mention the '65 GTO as well as the '65 Cyclone, '67
Jim (Cheater8) Stoltz
Now that you mention it, my '67 Goat (and I'm not saying this 'cause I
owned one) was pretty mean looking. I had a Le Mans, same year, and
it looked pretty docile by comparison - same color paint same color
top. The wire mesh grill, the parking lights in the grill, and the
scoop on the hood made for a cool combination of things. <sigh>
I tell people that I sold it for the down payment on my house,
but in retrospect I think I'd rather be living in my GTO. Oh
well...someday I'll have another.
Jim
Charlie Bendig
Scott wrote:
>Yeah,flat black primer would help make most anything look sinister. Did
> you know that American Motors had actually planned to build a muscle
> version of the Rebel (before the "Machine") that came from the factory
> already painted entirely in flat black? It would have been years ahead
>of its time prior to the "stealth" look becoming fashionable? I've seen
> a picture of the prototype and it was definitely different.
I never heard that, that would have ruled as far as looks go. As much as
I love GM cars I like AMC's alot, never really liked there hood scoops,
but there body lines are truly timeless. Maybe I feel this way because
my gandfather used to own a AMC dealership.
One thing about flat black priemer that I do not like now is. After I
started to use it on my cars, I started seeing alot more people doing
it. What is worse is there is anouther flat black primered 72 Chevelle
that is here in Dayton. That guy gets in alot of trouble, and unless
some one takes a good look at his car they mistake it for me, Even the
cops stop me looking for him.
Charlie
Marc2365
>>> My buddy just got a 1987 Monte Carlo SS.. seems fast.. are these
>>> things fast? It has the stock 305 that came with it.. how does it
>>> perform in a race with a 350 Camaro? What should he expect in the 1/4
>>> mile time?
Back in 88 an (obviously stock) MMSS barely beat my 88 Escort GT.
>>> Just wondering because im going to race him soon in my 1981
>>> Camaro..350/325 horsepower..questions? comments?
You with beat him if you have anywhere close to 323hp.
>>If it's stock, it's not fast. I raced one (it had a "fastback" or
>>something like that, what were those called, aerocoupes or something?)
>>in a bone stock 2.73-geared '88 Mustang GT and smoked him like a cuban
>>cigar.
>You know its disappointing, all that I hear about mustangs seems to be
>a load of crap. We have a old air strip where I live and my 76
>Firebird with a stock 403 oldsmobile blows them off the track.
>Including all these done up monte's.
Sorry but you Firebird will not beat the stang. I've owned both. Either
his car is a slug, his wife should be driving, or your Firebird is not
stock.
Marc
Brett Anderson
The ultimate in sinister cars has to be the 76 Falcon Coupe that Mad Max
drove, ya'll know the one........the one with the switched super charger !
--
Brett Anderson
BMW and ASE master technician
Jim (Cheater8) Stoltz <jst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<333308...@worldnet.att.net>...
Charlie Bendig
Brett Anderson wrote:
>The ultimate in sinister cars has to be the 76 Falcon Coupe that Mad
Actully I was told by a female I know that lives in Cairns Austraila
that the car they used was a Holden Trana. Holden is/was GM Aussie
devision(I head a roomer that GM sold it). Now I could be wrong but I
think thats what Liisa told me. Ya know them Aussie women are pretty
hot.
Charlie
Scott
Brett Anderson wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, Car Craft magazine continues to hype this falsehood.
> The Holden Torana was a much smaller car. I owned a four door and a
> hatchback.
> The only Holden in the first film is the red HX Panelvan that he and his
> wife drive in.
> The police cars are 4 door XB Falcons and the pursuit car is a 2 door XB
> Falcon.
Wasn't the 2-door Falcon know as the XC?
-Scott
Brett Anderson
Unfortunately, Car Craft magazine continues to hype this falsehood.
The Holden Torana was a much smaller car. I owned a four door and a
hatchback.
The only Holden in the first film is the red HX Panelvan that he and his
wife drive in.
The police cars are 4 door XB Falcons and the pursuit car is a 2 door XB
Falcon.
--
Brett Anderson
BMW and ASE master technician
Charlie Bendig <char...@cris.com> wrote in article
<333390...@cris.com>...
Brett Anderson
The X? is the year model XA, XB and XC were available in 2 and 4 door
versions from about 72 - 79, XA being the early cars and XC being the last
of that body style. 80 brought the XD which is a totally different body.
Holden did the same with HQ in 71-74, HX 75-77 and HZ 78-79
Toranas were known as HB, LC, LJ, LH, LX and UC, depending on the year. An
Aussie car freak like us can tell what year the car is by the letters of
the model, If you read any car ads on the web from Australia, you will
rarely see a Ford or Holden listed under year, only model letters
--
Brett Anderson
BMW and ASE master technician
Scott <*abwe...@idt.net> wrote in article <33340D...@idt.net>...
> Brett Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, Car Craft magazine continues to hype this falsehood.
> > The Holden Torana was a much smaller car. I owned a four door and a
> > hatchback.
> > The only Holden in the first film is the red HX Panelvan that he and
his
> > wife drive in.
> > The police cars are 4 door XB Falcons and the pursuit car is a 2 door
XB
> > Falcon.
>
David A. Lyons
Yes, he knew I was racing him. After all, we lined up on the highway a
short ways out of town where the "quarter" is marked off. There was a
"3-2-1-GO!" count and we got on it. Maybe he wasn't a good driver, but
I beat him by so much that even if he was a good dirver, it wouldn't
have made a difference.
Austin J. Schroeger wrote:
>
> the quality of the driver has a lot to do with th speed of the car.
> Remember, better make sure the guy your racing, is actually racing you
> too. This guy in town here in a 84 stang, saying he kicked my ass.
> Tell you the truth, I didn't know he was racing me. I never went over
> the speed limit :)
>
> -Austin
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 06:32:04 -0500, "David A. Lyons"
> <lyo...@alf.dec.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >If it's stock, it's not fast. I raced one (it had a "fastback" or
> >something like that, what were those called, aerocoupes or
> >something?) in a bone stock 2.73-geared '88 Mustang GT and smoked him
> >like a cuban cigar.
--
Jw32375
Shit man, the '87 Monte Carlo SS's only came with 180hp.
They were running 0-60mph in the high 10's to low 11's and the 1/4 mile in
the high 17's to the low 18's and topped out around 110mph. Big fuck'n
deal. I have an '83 full size 4 door Pontiac with a stock 305, stock
gears, no NOS, no turbos, and no superchargers, that is running about 40hp
and 20 lbs/ft of torque over stock and it could easily hang with an '87
Monte SS.
Ever wonder why you never see them (80's model Monte SS's) racing? It's
'cause they know every fucking car out there now days can kick their ass
all over the street. A four door Northstar Cadillac could smoke them.
HA!
JLarson793
Those cars are nuggets....
LSparks709
They are dogs! I know a guy at work who has one ( '86 model) and was
bragging on how quick it was, that is until we got into a stoplight race,
and my bone stock '82 Skylark stayed nose to nose with him up until around
45mph or so when he started to gain momentum. He never said another word
about it!
Rick Lanoue
I agree with you totaly. I had a 84 z28 and I had to have smoked every
one that I raced.Those cars are sleds.All looks with no balls.
Derek A
Once again a judgement based on one vehicle. A friend of
mine had a 82 Camaro with the cross-fire setup, and that
thing was a pooch! However I don't go around calling
F-bodies dogs. I drove a gal's 85 IROC 305 one time, and
was totally impressed with it, while cruising about 105 down
the highway.
True the SS was not the quickest from the factory (mid to high
15 second quarters) but most of us who acquire SS's don't
keep 'em stock very long! A few hi-po parts (exhaust,
ignition, K & N, tranny shift kit) and we're looking at low
14 second times.
I ran a 10.4 eighth last October, but that was with a bad computer.
I'm sure I can come close to a 10.0 or so with the new Delco
computer. That's on a stock ignition, closed air-cleaner, stock
manifold's, true dual setup.
Many other SS's are running alot quicker than me... check out
http://www.access.digex.net/~miked/monte.html
-Derek Atteberry
http://sol.parkland.cc.il.us/~datteber/carshow/carshow.html
LSparks709 <lspar...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970327053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...