MUSCLECAR 1/4 MILE NUMBERS, FROM ORIGINAL ROAD TESTS.
newbie steve
forward to Ford and Mopar night!
"liquid traction painted on"....hehe
-newbie steve
NoOption5L wrote:
> The newsgroup has been full of "musclecar" talk for the last week or so, so I
> thought I'd share some of my old original magazine road test numbers with
> everyone. Tonight is Chevrolet night, but I'll soon post some numbers from the
> musclecars that wear the blue oval. Stay tuned.
>
> Oh, could someone please crosspost or just post this message for our buds in
> the F-body and Corvette newsgroups. I'm sure they'd love to read these
> numbers.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1967 Camaro SS - 350 ci (295 hp) 4-speed with 3.55 gears.
>
> Test weight - 3380 lbs
>
> Right off the street with "bum" plugs. 15.05 @ 91 mph
> Put a "curve in the ignition" and new plugs - 14.85 @ 95 mph
>
> -----------------------------
>
> '69 Camaro Z-28 - 302 ci (290 hp) 4 speed
>
> Test weight N/A
>
> Shifting at 6,000 rpm with 4.56s
>
> "Completely stock, street-legal form, but with Bill Thomas headers." 14.34 @
> 101.35 mph
>
> 29 1/2" inch tall Caslers 14.20 @ 100.89 mph
>
> Headers uncapped 13.79 @ 103.68 mph
>
> 24 degrees of advance coming in at 2,200 rpm, disconnected vacuum advance, new
> plugs, larger jets in the carb 13.64 @ 104.28 mph
>
> Traction bars and M&Hs 13.43 @ 105.77
>
> 4.88s and Hurst competition linkage 13.11 @ 106.76
>
> Interesting note: "But there - the Z-28 - is residence for probably the
> biggest sleeper ("sleeper"?) to ever hit a new-car showroom.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1971 Camaro SS 396 (300 hp) 4-speed with 3.42 gears
>
> Test weight N/A
>
> Tire pressures played with 14.87 @ 96.309 mph
>
> Removed air-filter element, advanced timing to 12 degrees. No changes in ET or
> mph.
>
> Interesting notes:
>
> "Most runs were in the very low 15s"
>
> The '71s were down on compression, thus horsepower in order to pass tightening
> emission standards. The '70s had 10.25:1 cr and were rated at 350 hp.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1967 Corvette 427 tri power (435 hp) 4-speed with 3.55s
>
> Curb weight 3340 lbs
>
> With carb work, removing all the accessory drive belts, "air the tires to 36
> psi".
>
> 13.80 @ 108
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1968 Corvette L-88 (with stock factory ZL-1 aluminum heads) 427 ci (430 hp)
> 3-speed automatic with 3.36 gears.
>
> Test weight 3420 lbs
>
> 13.56 @ 111 mph
>
> Interesting notes:
>
> "A Charger 500 Hemi we tested recently tested edged the L-88 in the
> quarter-mile times, but the Hemis are tough too."
>
> "Low-speed operation and idling are poor phases of this car's operation. At
> stop lights, with the trans left in gear, the engine pulls down low on speed,
> and will sometimes quit running. ...the only effective control is to put one
> foot on the throttle, and one foot on the brake, or to put the lever up to
> neutral."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1966 Chevelle SS 396 (360 hp) 4-speed with 3.73 gears
>
> Test weight 3,850 lbs
>
> With the vacuum secondarys modified (temperature in the low 60s, but with a 30
> mph head wind) 16.30 @ 86 mph
>
> "Tires burned through puddles of bleach for super cleaning and some liquid
> traction compound painted on." 15.70 @ 92 mph
>
> Interesting note (on the same day): There was a '65 Chevelle SS with 375 hp
> NASCAR holley, slicks, and who knows what else, that wasn't going more than a
> second quicker."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1970 Chevelle SS LS6 454 ci (450 hp) Muncie M-22 4-speed with 4.11 gears
>
> Shifting a 6,100 - 6,200 rpms
>
> "Shock changes", tire pressures played with, air-filter element removed, and
> running the engine warmer at 195 degrees (to kill some bottom end) 13.44 @
> 108.17 mph, a 13.48 and a 13.52.
>
> Interesting note: The best test mileage was 10.006 mpg. The worst was 7.30
> mpg.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1969? (I think) Nova SS 396 L-78 (375 hp) 3 speed automatic with 3.55s
>
> Test weight - 3570 lbs
>
> The best run a 13.87 @ 105.14 mph couldn't be beat or duplicated. The very
> worst ET was a 14.47. Average was a 14.228.
>
> Casler-capped Goodyear tires were too tall to improve ETs with the "rather high
> gear."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1968 El Camino SS 396 (350 hp) 3-speed automatic with 3.31 gears.
>
> Test weight 3,930 lbs
>
> "Purely stock condition (air shocks and tire pressures played with and the more
> factory advance than specified - 39 degrees total): First run 14.93 @ 95.33
> mph. On the second run "we didn't do as well. The third run was a 14.82.
>
> Removing the chrome-plated air filter top, but leaving the bottom plate. 14.70
> @ 96.98 mph.
>
> Removed power steering, and smog-pump drive belts and loosened the alternator
> drive belt slightly 14.57, then a 14.49 @ 98.79 mph.
>
> Interesting notes:
>
> 4.88 gears were optional.
>
> "After all, we had 3,500 miles (yes, they wrote 3,500 miles) showing and we had
> never received thorough maintenance other than oil changing and other routine
> items."
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Well, that's it for tonight. If someone wants some other facts about these
> cars, let me know and I'll look for the information in these articles.
>
> Patrick
>
> '93 Cobra
> 14.18 @ 99.18..and help is on the way
>
> Former original owner - '87 5 liter, 5 speed LX
> 14.2 @ 98 stock - 13.8 @ 101 lightly modded
>
> Best street tire 60 footer - 1.93
>
> I'm not brand loyal. If it's fast, I like it.
NoOption5L
Jason L.
town. Maybe??
>1970 Chevelle SS LS6 454 ci (450 hp)
>13.44 @108.17 mph
Probably, I don't know?
Jason
Pony428
you had when you went up against one. I knew of a few guys who swapped their
454 emblems for 396 numbers just to sucker people in to running them.
Racerx1128
you have any info on a 67 GTO I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Eddy
Bill Jones
NoOption5L wrote in message
<19990903005545...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1970 Chevelle SS LS6 454 ci (450 hp) Muncie M-22 4-speed with 4.11 gears
>
>Shifting a 6,100 - 6,200 rpms
>
>"Shock changes", tire pressures played with, air-filter element removed,
and
>running the engine warmer at 195 degrees (to kill some bottom end) 13.44 @
>108.17 mph, a 13.48 and a 13.52.
>
>Interesting note: The best test mileage was 10.006 mpg. The worst was
7.30
>mpg.
7-10 mpg - ACK! That's the biggest difference between then and now. That
and the tires. It would be interesting to see what this beast could do with
some decent 17" tires.
I had a 1971 Olds 4-4-2 W-30 with the 455 ci engine and the M-22 4-speed
transmission. Not sure of the rear gears, but at 60 mph it was taching at
3500 rpm in 4th gear. Still, it got about 15 mpg too, so they must have
really been killing that Chevelle!
Patrick, any tests on the 4-4-2's, particularly the 1970, which was the
best?
<remove 7of9 for e-mail replies>
--
Bill Jones
Laser red 95 GT 5-speed (stock)
Jason L.
Now that wasn't very nice of them! Well I set my engine up for a blower
but never got one. It can move but suffers. I did get a 351w a couple
years
back so if I get suckered in it will go.
Jason
NoOption5L
(Racerx1128) writes:
>Thanks for the research. I know youre going to post Ford stuff next, but if
>you have any info on a 67 GTO I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Next up are my Pontiac (three or four GTO tests) and the Olds/Buick tests. The
Ford tests will be a bit later. Stay tuned.
NoOption5L
that Seeverist guy quiet, Buick. So, buckle up and hold on, here we go...
*Someone please post these in the F-body NG*
The first test drive tonight is a '67 Firebird *convertible* with a 400 ci
motor that is factory rated at 325 horsepower and 410 ft lbs of torque. Your
transmission is a 3-speed automatic and the diff has 3.08 gears.
Test weight - A scale crushing (for a ponycar) 3850 lbs.
Plus, your buddy was riding shotgun during the test... now over 2 tons?
So, what did it run?
Guess.
15.4 @ 92 mph Couldn't even spin the tires off the line.
Interesting notes:
Pontiac wanted the Firebird to snip at Mercury's Cougar, but not at the GTO's
expense.
Now, how about a ram-air version with 500 lbs less weight...?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The previous question brings us to our next road test. A 1969 Pontiac Firebird
Trans Am Ram-Air IV with a 400 ci motor, factory rated at 345 horsepower and
430 ft lbs of torque. You're shifting through a 3-speed automatic again, but
this time with 3.90 gears out back.
Test weight is still a porky 3,720 lbs.
"With the early March arrival of T-As to dealers, Pontiac will release their
new 302-cubic inch engine. It fits the SCCA rules just fine. It's a rather
conventional 350-cubic sized block, brought down to 302. The heads are the new
feature, and the expensive one. Dual four-barrel carburetion, and plenum-feed
air intake are offered."
NoOp's question> Pontiac guys, what happened to this motor?
"The decals don't belong here; they just don't cut it in the looks department.
If metal script can't be used, it's better to have nothing at all in the
lettering department."
"Oddly enough, the ride is softer here than the normal 400 Firebird
underpinnings. We've heard a lot of complaints about that, though never found
it bad ourselves."
"The '69 Firebird doesn't have the appeal of the '67-'68 car. First off, it
doesn't look as good. Second, it doesn't have the personality - if that
applies here - of its predecessor. And finally, it's evident there's been an
attempt at fashioning this one after the new Grand Prix."
The tire pressures are played with. Your best 1/4 mile time is a....
Guess!
Best 14.10 @ 100.78
Worst 14.27, and speeds never dipped below 99 mph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your next test drive is a '70 Firebird with a 400 ci motor factory rated at 330
hp and 430 ft lbs of torque. This time with a 4-speed and 3.73 gears.
Test weight is 3,815 lbs (Ouch!)
"Pontiac and GM styling have successfully bridged a long open breach between
European styling and U.S. functionality..."
So, what did it run?
C'mon, you know how this works, you gotta guess first!
13.9 @ 102 mph
The Formula Firebird 400 in the lane next to you, without functioning ram-air
scoops, but with a 3-speed automatic and 3.31 gears, ran a 15.0 @ 93 mph.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next up, you're driving a 1964 Lemans GTO with 389 ci tri-power motor, 4 speed
trans, with 3.23 gears (A/C equipped tri-power cars came with 3.23s instead of
the normal 3.55s).
Test weight - N/A
"At a sustained 75 mph, we recorded slightly over 15.5 mpg..."
The white GTO in the other lane is "Bobcaterized" - Royal Oak Pontiac worked
the distributor, installed thinner head gaskets, blocked the heat riser, did
some carb work, added a H/O oil pump, headers, and 4.33 gears. Plus he's
wearing M&H slicks, and has "two air lifts in the coils."
So, how did your stock GTO do against the white GTO in the other lane?
You ran a 16.50 @ 90 mph. <NoOp's comment: You SUCK! You can't drive for
shit!
The white GTO ran a 15.40 @ 95 mph. With more tuning and the headers uncapped,
he eventually runs times around 14 seconds flat at between 102-103 mph. <Note:
They never "dumped out the gate.">
The class leader GTO had a balanced and blueprinted engine and ran 12's.
----------------------------------------------------------
This time you have a 1970 GTO Judge with a 400 ci engine factory rated at 366
horsepower and 445 ft lbs of torque. Yep, it's a 4-speed car and with 3.90
gears.
"Any time a supercar in ultra stock form even breaks into the 14-second range,
we're happy."
Test weight - N/A
What do you think it ran?
Your best was a 14.41 @ 99.55 mph
With you're buddy riding shotgun, you only ran a 14.83 @ 97.50 mph.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Screw this 300-400 cubic inch crap, this time you're going for a full 455 cubic
motor. You're jumping into a 1968 Hurst-Olds that's factory rated at 390
horsepower and a monstrous 500 ft lbs of earth-rotating torque.
..."executive hot rod"...
"Despite the abundance of cubic inches under the louved hood, emphasise on
handling ability is the car's greastest virtue." <NoOp's comment> Who says a
musclecar doesn't handle? =-)
So, how did it do in the 1/4 mile with your girlfriend on board?
14.10, 13.95, and 13.90 all at 101-103 mph. All runs were "hand-timed."
Your buddy's 1969 Hurst-Olds 455 (380 hp / 500 lbs tq) and 3-speed automatic
and 3.42 gears only ran a best of 14.21 @ 99.66 mph at the drag strip. His
worst was a 14.29 @ 98.57 mph.
------------------------------------------------------
These damn Oldsmobiles have to be faster than this. This time you take *two*
1970 Oldsmobiles to the drags. The first one is a W-30 442 (455 ci 370 hp/500
tq) and the other is a W-31 (350 ci 325 hp/360 tq) Cutlass S. Both have
3-speed autos and 3.91 gears.
Okay, what did they run in the 1/4?
The 442 ran a best of 13.98 @ 100.78 mph.
The Cutlass S ran a best of 14.62 @ 96.05 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------
Last up tonght is the Seeveristmobile. Well, sorta. It's a 1970 Stage 1 Buick
with a 455 ci (360 hp/and a crushing 510 ft lbs of torque) 3-speed automatic
and 3.64 gears.
Your best run (with Seeverist also on board) is a 14.40 @ 96 mph.
A 69 GS after receiving "liberal amount of handwork and equipment, produced
12.7-second ETs; and an identical 4-speed GS 400 ran very low 12-second
quarters."
--------------------------------------------------------
That's it for tonight. Next time you get the keys to the musclecars that wear
the blue oval.
Hope you enjoyed your test drives...
A Guy Named Steve
>"With the early March arrival of T-As to dealers, Pontiac will release their
>new 302-cubic inch engine. It fits the SCCA rules just fine. It's a rather
>conventional 350-cubic sized block, brought down to 302. The heads are the
>new
>feature, and the expensive one. Dual four-barrel carburetion, and
>plenum-feed
>air intake are offered."
>
>NoOp's question> Pontiac guys, what happened to this motor?
I just ran across the article again recently. They were developing both a 303
and a 366. Both engines were shelved. <shaking head>
>Best 14.10 @ 100.78
>Worst 14.27, and speeds never dipped below 99 mph
Those of us that know better (especially those who've driven big cube motors)
know that the speed tells a lot here.
Remember my Buick's best: 14.14 @ 96
>These damn Oldsmobiles have to be faster than this. This time you take *two*
>1970 Oldsmobiles to the drags. The first one is a W-30 442 (455 ci 370
>hp/500
>tq) and the other is a W-31 (350 ci 325 hp/360 tq) Cutlass S. Both have
>3-speed autos and 3.91 gears.
>
>Okay, what did they run in the 1/4?
>
>
>The 442 ran a best of 13.98 @ 100.78 mph.
>
>
>The Cutlass S ran a best of 14.62 @ 96.05 mph.
I'm actually quite impressed at the W-31. The 350 in dad's Ralley 350 was a
dog. It wouldn't get out of the mid 16's I'd bet.
>Last up tonght is the Seeveristmobile. Well, sorta. It's a 1970 Stage 1
>Buick
>with a 455 ci (360 hp/and a crushing 510 ft lbs of torque) 3-speed automatic
>and 3.64 gears.
>
>Your best run (with Seeverist also on board) is a 14.40 @ 96 mph.
I'm not impressed, especially with my times in my GS with low compression, bad
heads, no posi, and crappy gears.
>A 69 GS after receiving "liberal amount of handwork and equipment, produced
>12.7-second ETs; and an identical 4-speed GS 400 ran very low 12-second
>quarters."
That's good for a 400! Just think what the same work on a 455 would yield.
>Hope you enjoyed your test drives...
Why'd you make me give the cars back!!!? You suck!
Steve
'71 Buick GS 455
'91 Mustang LX 5.0 coupe (For Sale)
<a href="http://members.aol.com/SEEverist/index.html">Steve's GS Page</a>
"I'll add that to my threat collection." Harry Callahan
NoOption5L
So again, buckle up and hold on, here we go...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First up, you'll be driving a '65 Ford Galaxie with a 427 ci motor rated at 425
hp and backed up by a 4-speed and 3.50 gears.
The engine has dual 4 barrels for carburation, 11.1 forged pistons, and a cam
with 524 inches of lift.
The car doesn't have power brakes or steering, but still has a test weight
around 3,900 lbs.
Tonight, all testing on this car will be done with Casler 8X14 inch cheater
slicks.
Your first run with the Casler tires gets you down into 15's, after running a
full second slower without them.
BUT, the engine "felt slightly off key."
You take the car over to Ak Miller's famous garage for a full tune up.
The valves are adjusted, the timing is set at 8 degrees static advance, and new
plugs are installed.
Back at the track the car picks up and run an "unexpected sizzling 101.69 @
14.93 mph." "That a show-room machine with no special chassis tuning or
engine blueprinting can run this well is truly sensational but there were still
a few additional avenues of steam that beckoned, so it was back to the pits."
There the head pipe is unbolted from the exhaust mainfolds and the fan is
removed.
"As a note in passing, we might comment here that with the exhausts uncorked
the sound-producing capabilities of this engine is second to none...."
Back at the strip the car feels VERY healthy.
Your next pass produces a 14.43 @ get this...108.04 mph, without using fourth
gear.
Ak thinks with 4.10's the car could run possibly 110 mph.
Your buddy, Mike Schmitt's similiar Galaxie, but with headers, 90/10 shocks and
a few other tweaks has run 114.77 mph in 12.77 seconds "waltzing away from the
competition on the trophy run in AA/S."
So, after your test drive you decide you want this car. Better have $4,725.
"...it isn't cheap, but then quality and performance never are."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much money, huh? But, damn that was so fun you head off to another
dealership to test drive a '65 Fairlane. The salesperson says he has one
around back. You both walk back there and he points to a Fairlane with yes...
how can you be so lucky... another 427 cubic inch motor again backed with a
4-speed transmission. You know she's rated at 425 hp, but the saleperson
informs you that it's twisting out 480 foot pounds of torque at a low 3,700
rpm.
The saleperson throws you the keys and says have her back in a couple hours.
You HAVE to share some of this fun, so you run back to your neighborhood and
pick up your two buddies nicknamed Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet. They pile
into the car and you head off to your favorite deserted road.
Without the Crondeks set up, CJ says tells you you'll just have to watch the
speedometer and use your seat-o-pants meter.
The Fairlane you're driving is "one of three Fairlanes put together for
production evaluation and was in a rather good state of tune, though not
blueprinted."
Looking out over the factory glass hood sporting a large functional hood scoop
held down by 4 hood pins, you bring the revs up take off and use normal shifts
you cross the line just under 100 mph, with your two buddies on board.
The next run you powershift the last two gears and you cross the line at
100-101 mph.
CJ tells you that "some of the mechanics on the project confided that during
the testing program, the 427 Fairlane averaged about 100 mph in the quarter
(clocks operative) with elasped times in the 14.50 -14.60 bracket, in absolute
street trim."
SCJ tells you that "the Fairlane's times are roughly equivalent to the Chrysler
street hemi, and this was the whole idea in the first place."
"The people at Ford know that they're about 50 ponies shy of the hemi, but they
hope this is compensated for, at least in part, by a weight advantage of
200-250 pounds."
You want this car and vow to work 12 hour days to pay for it. You return back
to the dealership and tell the salesperson you'll be back with your checkbook.
He says your lucky you got a chance to test drive it. "Plans call for an
intial batch of 50 such cars to be built at the Atlanta assembly plant. (Sorry
gang, they're all spoken for).", including this one. You start geting all
misty eyed, but then your buddy CJ tells you you should test drive one of those
REALLY cool '68 Cobra Jet Mustangs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did you guess... next up you're driving a '68 428 powered Cobra Jet
Mustang. Only rated at 335 hp and 440 foot pounds of torque but the price is a
more reasonable $3,643, and this baby has a 4-speed and 3.89 gears.
You take this one to the track.
Your "first pass at Irwindale was a 13.90, 103.96 with street tires and super
wheel
hop."
Got to fix that wheel hop.
"Clamping the springs leaves and removing the accessory belts put us at
13.56, 106.64 - the fastest running Pure Stock in the history of man."
"Of course our car was not quite representative. By special order, all the
sound deadening material was omitted during the manufacture, so this Mustang
was a light 3,240 pounds."
"Ford officials were quick to point out that our particular Cobra Jet was one
of the first batch intended excusively for drag strip work."
"It didn't start out that way, but since we had just finished with a Firebird
Ram-Air 400, a comparison between it and the Cobra Jet was inevitable. On
ultimate, brute, mind-bending acceleration, The CJ. won hands down,. But do
not lose the fact that it has 28 more inches and 260 pounds less weight than a
very nimble Firebird."
"The 'sticker total' for the Cobra Jet Mustang was $3,643, or almost a grand
more than a base 2-plus-2 Mustang fastback."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's it for tonight, it's getting late, part 3 will have a part 2. I
have quite a few more Ford road tests. Maybe another 6 or so. Welp, hope you
enjoyed...
Patrick
'93 Cobra
14.18 @ 99.18
Former original owner - '87 5 liter, 5 speed LX
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
> Hey FENATIC, can you believe this guy? Claiming you can walk into a
>Ford dealership and drive a non-existent '65 427 Fairlane.
You are correct, it was a '66.
>And then
>comparing it to the Street Hemi, which didn't come out until 1966.
Now, it makes sense right?
>What a load, especially those 14 second times!
Truth hurts?
>We KNOW he can't be talking about '64 Fairlanes, and the '66's ran a lot
better >than that in real life, too.
Not in Hot Rod's road test.
>It seems as though there is an intentional angle to make RAMFM think those
cars >were slow.
Oh no, he's onto me...
>What do you think? Selective advertising here?
Just reprinting history.
If you want I'll repost the part 1& 2 that had the numbers for the Chevys,
Buicks and Pontiac's.
Anyway, I have more road tests, stay tuned...
CobraJet
<fen...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<Hey FENATIC, can you believe this guy? Claiming you can walk into a
> Ford dealership and drive a non-existent '65 427 Fairlane. And then
> comparing it to the Street Hemi, which didn't come out until 1966. What
> a load, especially those 14 second times! We KNOW he can't be talking
> about '64 Fairlanes, and the '66's ran a lot better than that in real
> life, too. It seems as though there is an intentional angle to make
> RAMFM think those cars were slow. What do you think? Selective
> advertising here?>>
>
> well, y'know, Ford never really got there act together until Ronald Reagan
> stamped out CAFE standards and the 302 GT motor was reintroduced as the mighty
> 5.0. A couple years later they really got their act together, stuck a
> hydraulic roller cam in for "efficiency" (read: unbridled horsepower) and EFI
> and O/D, not for the satisfaction of government economy mandates, but rather,
> to produce the most fire breathing V8 in FoMoCo history. Yes, its
> indisputable, folks.
Yeah, you might think that fuel injection and roller lifters didn't
come out of the 50's, if you didn't know better.
Furthermore, to prove how backwards Ford was, before
> the
> modern age, i have a July 1963 issue of Hot Rod that pretty much nails the
> coffin shut on pretensions of horsepower and performance in the "good ol'
> days." According to this period piece, Ford managed to strip these behemoths
> down to 3480 pounds, without a driver. Coincidentally, that is the factory
> weight, plus or minus 10 pounds, of a 66-67 big block Fairlane. Anyway, with
> the use of 427 FE motors, and some pretty benign, commonplace parts, they
> supposedly tested two examples, with the benefit of some pretty serious
> drivers, and ran 12.29 in a 3510 pound fatty, and 12.07 in a 3425 pound car.
> Both cars ran over 117 mph. Now, what all this means is pretty much beyond
> me,
> because Ive heard 65 Fairlanes with 427's only ran 14's at about 100. Yes I
> did. Of course, only one 65 was built with a 427, and that was Darrel Drokes
> SOHC powered car. Obviously, one of those 617-658 hp dogs wont run better
> than
> 14's, no matter what.
No shit, as it would have been stupid of Ford to produce a SOHC
motor in 1964 that would shred the 281-inch beast that they would
unleash on the unsuspecting public in 1992. That would be bad PR, huh?
And speaking of crappy designs, what's with this FE thing of making the
intake part of the heads? What were they trying to do, make for a
better shot at the combustion chambers or something? That couldn't
possibly work, could it? It must not have, since most Ford owners spent
Monday mornings unsticking their tachometer needles from the "8".
Anyway, those silly Ford dinosaurs with the 427's in 63
> used a small duration .500" lift solid lifter cam, so theres just no way they
> could keep up with a street hemi, is there?
No fucking way those archaic cam designs could produce more than 200
hp, dreamer. Just hearing the word "Hemi" makes me pee in my shorts.
Isnt that the same lift cam all
> those fools have been running in A/S with those hopeless slug 66-67 427
> Fairlanes?
Yeah, those clueless bastards. You would think they'd adapt a B303
profile to an FE stick and get their lazy asses out of the 9's. What's
that you say, they are limited to factory lift specs in that class?
Bummer.
> Whats that absolute domination of the record books for 33 years
> about anyway? Is A/S really the top of the heap for factory performance
> automobiles?
There is NO better point for evaluation. It's abso-freakin-lutely
amazing how screwed up some of those bogus "factory" tests were. Now
imagine this: You are building only 50 or so 427 Fairlanes and a
handful of Comets. They "have" to go to racers to keep the wars going,
so you don't want everybody trying to ORDER a 12-second car for 3
grand. What DO you do? "Golly gee, Mr. Magazine Writer, we just can't
seem to get these slugs out of the mid-14's. Maybe we'll eventually get
them competitive (wink wink)".
Too bad those Hemi boys had to move up to Super Stock rules to get
those motors to run.
> Maybe over the next 25 years the record books will show the
> outright, undeniable superiority of modern technology? yeah right ; )
Yeah, carbs suck, don't they?
CobraJet
know, I seem to remember an article way back when where they could only
wring out 11.50's out of the 4-spd cars and 11.80's out of the
automatics. What pieces of shit! I mean, EVERY new car these days can
run that with skinny hard tires, can't they?
And speaking of transmissions, certain fools in this group whine
about the fact that the older hi-pos had more rear gear. What they
conveniently forget is that the first gear ratio on the old manual
boxes was only 2.36:1. With a 4.57 (pn C3UZ-4209-A) ring and pinion,
the effective launch ratio was the same as a new car running
approximately a 3.25 rear. Therefore, a new ride with 3.73's is
out-gearing the recommended 427 stick gear! Kinda puts things in a new
perspective, doesn't it?
CJ
Whole Lotta Tom
4.57s, a 2.32 first and over 450 lb/ft or torque with the superior
suspension technology and huge, wide, bubblegum-stickey bias-belted
cookie-cutter tires they had back then? My god, they had to resurface the
track after every start! Yes sir, they sure had it sweet back then, the
cars practically drove themselves. Why, just about any soft, fleshy
doughnut chomping magazine writer could, uh, baby one off the line.
--
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote in message
news:260919991958028915%catzh...@mydoor.com...
CobraJet
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Hey CJ, you remember how easy it was to launch a 3500+ lb vehicle with
> 4.57s, a 2.32 first and over 450 lb/ft or torque with the superior
> suspension technology and huge, wide, bubblegum-stickey bias-belted
> cookie-cutter tires they had back then? My god, they had to resurface the
> track after every start! Yes sir, they sure had it sweet back then, the
> cars practically drove themselves. Why, just about any soft, fleshy
> doughnut chomping magazine writer could, uh, baby one off the line.
Thankfully, the body design of the Galaxies really lent themselves
to weight transfer once you got some tire under them. Not like these
damn new cars with teeth-chattering suspension and no poundage behind
the rear wheels. Why, that poor Jerry Harvey from Bob Ford had to deal
with miserable 11.78's @ 119.68 in his titanic B F/X '65 Galaxie. What
a chump! Even Tasca Ford's '63 ran 12 flat @ 117.9 a couple years
before in S/S class. Of course, that was at 3470 lbs, but then it was
with a flat-hood Low Riser engine with a factory cam and headers. Yeah,
those 427's were sloooow...
CobraJet
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
><<Hey FENATIC, can you believe this guy? Claiming you can walk into a
>Ford dealership and drive a non-existent '65 427 Fairlane. And then
>comparing it to the Street Hemi, which didn't come out until 1966. What
>a load, especially those 14 second times! We KNOW he can't be talking
>about '64 Fairlanes, and the '66's ran a lot better than that in real
>life, too. It seems as though there is an intentional angle to make
>RAMFM think those cars were slow. What do you think? Selective
>advertising here?>>
>well, y'know, Ford never really got there act together until Ronald Reagan
>stamped out CAFE standards and the 302 GT motor was reintroduced as the
>mighty 5.0.
In February of 1989, Super Ford magazine matched up a five liter LX against a
Boss 351 and a Shelby GT-500. All were in stock trim expect the Boss car had
Hooker headers.
The GT500 had a automatic and non-limited slip 3.50 gears.
The Boss had a 4-speed and a 3.91 traction loc.
The LX was a 5-speed and had 3.08s.
Here's the best numbers of the day for each.
GT500 - 15.23 @ 94.6 mph
Boss 351 - 14.18 @ 98.2
LX - 14.41 @ 96.7 mph
Proving it isn't the power, it's the total package. Yep, the 5-liter package
is a stout little performer.
> A couple years later they really got their act together, stuck a hydraulic
roller >cam in for "efficiency" (read: unbridled horsepower) and EFI and O/D,
not for >the satisfaction of government economy mandates,
Cleaner burning means more efficient. More efficient means more horsepower.
Modern fuel injection and the overdrive transmission is a hotrodders best
friend.
>but rather, to produce the most fire breathing V8 in FoMoCo history.
Oh, you guys will love this next one!
Musclecars (Schneider Performance Series Vol 5 number 7).
The magazine came out in the summer of '87.
'69 428 CJ Mustang vs '87 5-liter LX.
The CJ had an automatic and 3.50 gears.
The LX had a 5-speed and 3.08s.
"As it turns out, though, during the shootout itself, it didn't matter what we
did to the competition, as each run saw the '69 trailing us through the traps
by more than just a few car lengths. To give the CJ the benefit of the doubt,
we'll forget about the numbers generated on the clocks during our shootout (low
14's, three times in a row) and give the car an ET from its fastest published
road test time from the 60's, a 13.9. If we take that number for the '69, and
we take the '87's best showing of 13.75, the new kid on the block walks away
the victor by a full 15 hundredths. In the real world, that's about a full car
length on the 1320."
>Yes, its indisputable, folks.
You said it, not me.
>Furthermore, to prove how backwards Ford was, before the modern age, i have >a
July 1963 issue of Hot Rod that pretty much nails the coffin shut on retensions
>of horsepower and performance in the "good ol' days." According to this
period >piece, Ford managed to strip these behemoths down to 3480 pounds,
without a >driver. Coincidentally, that is the factory weight, plus or minus
10 pounds, of a >66-67 big block Fairlane.
"Overall street weight was aimed for a spot somewhere in the 3,600 pound
neighborhood."
>Anyway, with the use of 427 FE motors, and some >pretty benign, commonplace
>parts, they supposedly tested two examples, with >the benefit of some pretty
>serious drivers, and ran 12.29 in a 3510 pound fatty, >and 12.07 in a 3425
>pound car. Both cars ran over 117 mph.
You wrote, "and some pretty benign, commonplace parts,"
And these parts were...?
>Now, what all this means is pretty much beyond me, because Ive heard 65
>Fairlanes with 427's only ran 14's at about 100.
Go ahead and find an original road test where one runs faster, then post it to
the NG. I'd love to read it.
I found two and both examples ran 14's at around 100 mph in factory trim.
>Yes I did. Of course, only one 65 was built with a 427, and that was Darrel
>Drokes SOHC powered car. Obviously, one of those 617-658 hp dogs wont run
>better than 14's, no matter what.
Yeah, a real factory car. 600 plus horsepower. They littered the streets back
in the 60's.
>Anyway, those silly Ford dinosaurs with the 427's in 63 used a small duration
>.500" lift solid lifter cam, so theres just no way they could keep up with a
street >hemi, is there?
We'll see. Soon I'll post numbers for the Scat Pack.
>Isnt that the same lift cam all those fools have been running in A/S with
those >hopeless slug 66-67 427 Fairlanes? Whats that absolute domination of
the >record books for 33 years about anyway? Is A/S really the top of the heap
for >factory performance automobiles?
Who cares? We're talking about actual road test numbers - factory cars.
>Maybe over the next 25 years the record books will show the outright,
undeniable >superiority of modern technology? yeah right ; )
In less than 25 years, engines won't have camshafts. Check out the recent
edition of PHR magazine (Oct '99). Very cool stuff!
Here's just two clips.
"Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0-liter engine spin to 14,750
rpm!"
"When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made
475 hp and 454 lb-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating
assembly."
YOU really need to read this article. It'll be good for you. It might yank
you out of the 60's.
Future technology is soon going to make today's engines, and the old 60's big
blocks, look like boat anchors.
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
> Yeah, you might think that fuel injection
The 50's factory fuel injection sucked. That's why many owners switched over
their fuelie cars to a carb.
>and roller lifters didn't come out of the 50's, if you didn't know better.
Too bad the big three didn't decide to use them until the 80's.
<snip>
> No fucking way those archaic cam designs could produce more than 200
>hp, dreamer.
And a little cut and paste...
Per: Mustang Monthly - September '99. A neat article... check it out.
* denotes max
1999 GT Mustang. 4.6L/281 ci (5-speed)
RPM HP
2,800 - 138
3,200 - 162
3,500 - 184
3,900 - 205
4,200 - 225
4,800 - 242
5,000 - 244*
5,200 - 241
5,400 - 237
5,500 - 235
Torque
4,200 - 281 ft. lbs
----------------------
1967 Mustang GTA 390 ci (C6 automatic)
RPM HP
2,800 - 126
3,200 - 147
3,500 - 159
3,900 - 164
4,000 - 165*
4,200 - 164
4,800 - 154
5,000 - 146
5,200 - 136
5,400 - N/A
5,500 - N/A
------------------
1968 GT500 KR (C6 automatic)
RPMs not printed - 237.4*
Torque
3,300 - 337 ft. lbs
-------------------
1970 GT500 (C6 automatic)
RPMs not given - 232.8*
Torque
3,300 - 319 ft. lbs
-------------------
1970 Boss 429 (4-speed)
RPM HP
2,800 - N/A
3,200 - N/A
3,500 - 198
3,900 - 209
4,200 - 211
4,800 - 228
4,900 - 229*
5,000 - 228
5,200 - 222
5,400 - N/A
5,500 - N/A
---------------------
1971 Mustang SCJ (4-speed)
RPM HP
2,800 - N/A
3,200 - 210
3,500 - 218
3,900 - 227
4,200 - 236
4,700 - 247*
4,800 - 246
5,000 - 245
5,200 - 245
5,400 - 240
5,500 - 230
Note: The DOHC 4.6L Cobras typically... should, produce horsepower in the
260's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Just hearing the word "Hemi" makes me pee in my shorts.
43 and already needing Depends...?
> There is NO better point for evaluation. It's abso-freakin-lutely
>amazing how screwed up some of those bogus "factory" tests were.
You must have a bunch of them. Post 'em! Give us some real road test numbers.
<snip>
>> Maybe over the next 25 years the record books will show the
>> outright, undeniable superiority of modern technology? yeah right ; )
> Yeah, carbs suck, don't they?
For a street car, yes, they do suck...
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
>And speaking of slug-ass Fairlanes, how 'bout them Thunderbolts?
And how many did Ford build? How many actually saw street duty?
>You know, I seem to remember an article way back when where they could only
>wring out 11.50's out of the 4-spd cars and 11.80's out of the automatics.
What >pieces of shit!
Who said they were pieces of shit?
>I mean, EVERY new car these days can run that with skinny hard tires, can't
>they?
Thank the lawyers.
With modern tech, the factories could easily bury a Thunderbolt.
> And speaking of transmissions, certain fools in this group whine
>about the fact that the older hi-pos had more rear gear. What they
>conveniently forget is that the first gear ratio on the old manual
>boxes was only 2.36:1. With a 4.57 (pn C3UZ-4209-A) ring and pinion,
>the effective launch ratio was the same as a new car running
>approximately a 3.25 rear. Therefore, a new ride with 3.73's is
>out-gearing the recommended 427 stick gear! Kinda puts things in a new
>perspective, doesn't it?
No. We're talking factory stock vs factory stock.
CobraJet
vague and inconsequential that virtually nobody in this NG gives a
damn. He's so out of control he hasn't figured out that his dubious
claim of also being an early car enthusiast has been blown asunder by
repeated malicious commentary. He is, unfortunately, still under the
impression that these cars he viciously discredits were actually built
to be used as street transportation. He sticks continually to garbage
road test instead of dragstrip history, which is what they were
intended for. Poor Pit Bull. Alienating virtually every early car owner
in here with ad nauseum reposts, hoping to steer people into his
now-clear Commie agenda of pro-New Tech Superiority. What happened to
the nice Irish boy who posted humor and sprinkled various threads with
his former upbeat presence? What has possessed him so? Revenge for
ousting that limp-wrist DeFeo? Troubles at home? Job stress (after all,
he does work for the guvmint)? Kids getting too big too fast? Big Block
Envy? Any opinions out there? Poor Pit Bull.
CobraJet
CobraJet
in the 427 car right. Because, even though I was only 9 or 10 then, I
knew more about FE engines and cars than Patty will ever know.
And how can he even IMPLY that anything produced now is in the same
league as a Cobra Jet? Does it not sink in that the Jet engine was
indeed developed for the strip, with daily transportation duties not
even considered? Why else would it immediately go to dominate its
respective classes on the 1/4 mile? Because it was best suited as a
grocery getter? You know what I mean, guys?
As has been noted, the Stocker ranks were the ultimate proving
grounds for the design of factory-produced HP mills. To listen to SOME
people, you would think that time has stood still for the poor
underpowered Cobra Jet. After all, since it was built way the hell back
in the 60's, it couldn't possible have gotten any faster, right?
Lessee, here. While the 427 Fairlane rules the A/Stock class, CJ
Mustangs play in the B/Stock And C/Stock classes. Isn't it just amazing
how an engine with such sad horsepower figures as measured by inane
magazine types could actually factor up that high? Maybe the NHRA is
just stupid, huh? Maybe Ford is paying the other brands to back off a
little so the CJ's look good. I wonder how much has been spent on these
bribes over three decades?
Ya know, I just BET I have a pic of a B/Stock Jet running in the '99
season (didja know that class limits major components to factory parts?
Of course you did). Well, sonuvabitch, lookee here! Itsa pic of Steve
Hall's '68 Stocker taken this year. And will you look at that time on
his window! What a piece of junk, right?
CobraJet
Whole Lotta Tom
the stuff I want to keep cuz I have no space for the mags) about one stock
class racer goes by the name "It's Automatic". This is a 4 speed 428 CJ
Mustang running hard against the auto-equipped 454s and killing them.
Without trans-brakes. Without line lock. Without all the modern goodies.
One guy rowing. It's called fast, boys.
BTW, are you talking about the same Jim Smart that writes for Mustangs and
Fords and Mustang Monthly? If so, what of piece of work! The guy is
terrible! Makes me want to let my subscriptions lapse. I mean, he is
making up terms and being deliberately vague and he sounds like a raw
recruit. Only Bill Holder was more annoying. Bill wrote the stock M-code
351C 4V was only 35 HP less than a 428 CJ! I mean, everyone knew in 1968
after the release of the CJ that the factory rating was pure bullshit, so
why is this guy writing for a national for publication (Ford Trader) while
ignorant of the history of the mark? Man, you just gotta find out for
yourself, or get with someone who really knows. You can't drive a photo in
a magazine.
--
FENATIC <fen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990927213314...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> I suppose, if I were a lifelong subscriber to Motor Trend, I too, would be
> inclined to take the ever reprintable Jim Smart's word for the performance
> level of 66 427 Fairlanes for gospel. It is indisputable (this time i
mean it)
> that when Ford tested the 427 prototype Fairlane, all they could eke out
of it
> were 14's at over 100 mph. What does this tell us about peg leg 3.89
geared 6
> inch bias ply skinnys? Quite a bit. What have we learned about people
who
> would judge the fastest and best looking car Ford ever built by a road
test of
> a prototype that didnt even take place on a drag strip, let alone under
> conditions equivalent to just about every other musclecar road test in
history?
> Well, lets just say, Webster's should sue and injunct Jim Smart from
using his
> last name, real or imagined as it may be, because he is a fucking idiot.
Any
> list of the fastest musclecars (whatever the definition is) that doesnt
have
> the 427 Fairlane right at the top, is flawed, to put it politely. The
factory
> installed C3AE-AA cams in these cars for smoothness, or whatever reason.
This
> mild 427 cam is the same one that pushed 427 low rise galaxie lightweights
to
> 12.60's in one of the very first Popular Hot Roddings ever published, with
any
> given idiot driving it. 12.60's, FOB.
> It is a simple fact that 66 427 Fairlanes could do the exact same thing,
with
> any amount of traction technology in effect. Simply because a prototype
was
> published with an unrepresentative ESTIMATION, doesnt give ANYONE a right
to
> credit it as fact or proof of performance pudding.
> That proof is in the record books of the NHRA for decades now. And still
> kicking ass. Last time I saw a National Dragster, there it was,
> A/S (or A/SA?) record holder. It gets no better. It gets no better. The
> ultimate Ford, like it or not. I like it. I love it.
Josh Turner
<spit take>
Who, what? Ultimate Ford? Did someone say ultimate Ford? Don't make me
drag out the AML V600 again, or the race-prepped RS200, or the DB7
Vantage, or the Sierra Cosworth, or the XK220, or the GT40 Mk II and
IV...
<walking away muttering>
Eurovulture
CobraJet
wrote:
Apples and oranges, BirdBoy. Feel free to post any class times from
a sanctioning organization for these cars. And don't mention the others
in the same sentence as the sacred GT40 (which is not a drag car,
either).
CobraJet
CobraJet
<jemc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <19990927010953...@ngol05.aol.com>,
> noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
> > Per: Mustang Monthly - September '99. A neat article... check it out. >
> > * denotes max
> >
> > 1999 GT Mustang. 4.6L/281 ci (5-speed)
> >
> > RPM HP
> > 4,200 - 225
> > 4,800 - 242
> > 5,000 - 244*
> > 5,200 - 241
> > 5,400 - 237
> > 5,500 - 235
> >
> > Torque
> > 4,200 - 281 ft. lbs
> > ----------------------
>
> Good grief!!! Was this thing bone stock?
>
> Here are the numbers from my car with a K&N and C&L 80mm MAF:
>
> RPM HP
> 4,200 - 207
> 4,800 - 220
> 5,000 - 221
> 5,200 - 217
> 5,400 - 213
> 5,500 - 210
>
> Torque
> 4,200 - 259 ft. lbs
>
> I wonder why mine is so low?
Unfortunately, Jonathan, that is the problem with magazine tests.
You never know what has been done to the test car, or what kind of
agenda is behind the figures. If Mustang Monthly dragged YOUR car off
the street for its test, then *it* would have become the reference.
There is nothing to do but take each car individually, as we have seen
with the Cobra fiasco that even the best laid plans can go awry.
CobraJet
>
> --
> Jonathan, '99 GT
> Best ET & MPH: 14.71 (sucks for my car) & 95.87
> Best RT & 60': .476 (oh, you meant legal? .559) & 2.21
> Best finish: 1st (out of 32 in True Street class)
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
CobraJet
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I do have a magazine article around here (in my clipped files, I clip out
> the stuff I want to keep cuz I have no space for the mags) about one stock
> class racer goes by the name "It's Automatic". This is a 4 speed 428 CJ
> Mustang running hard against the auto-equipped 454s and killing them.
> Without trans-brakes. Without line lock. Without all the modern goodies.
> One guy rowing. It's called fast, boys.
Yeah, I've seen that car! Too bitchin for words. Another thunderous
ride is Fred Moreno's SS Mustang. I don' think I've ever seen a pic of
that car with the front wheels anywhere near the pavement. Torque
rules, Tommy, and the CJ has it in spades.
And speaking of torque, you remember Hubert Platt's "Georgia Shaker"
SS/F Torino back in '68-'69? That big old car used get daylight with
nothing but dinosaur suspension under it. Damn!
>
> BTW, are you talking about the same Jim Smart that writes for Mustangs and
> Fords and Mustang Monthly? If so, what of piece of work! The guy is
> terrible! Makes me want to let my subscriptions lapse. I mean, he is
> making up terms and being deliberately vague and he sounds like a raw
> recruit. Only Bill Holder was more annoying. Bill wrote the stock M-code
> 351C 4V was only 35 HP less than a 428 CJ! I mean, everyone knew in 1968
> after the release of the CJ that the factory rating was pure bullshit, so
> why is this guy writing for a national for publication (Ford Trader) while
> ignorant of the history of the mark? Man, you just gotta find out for
> yourself, or get with someone who really knows. You can't drive a photo in
> a magazine.
Good point, Thomas. Nothing can beat personal experience. For those
of us lucky enough to indulge, it's pure heaven. Although the original
CJ's are drying up, 460's are still plentiful enough for a newbie to
have some of that experience. Did you know that a stock 460 Lincoln
engine put out 510 lbs/ft in the late 60's? Awesome, huh? What's a 281
do, 200-something?
Any idiot could see the ratings were a game back then. Let's see,
the standard 428 released in 1966 had 340 horsepower and 462 lbs of
torque. Now, kiddies, let's add a bigger cam, ass-kicking heads, high
flow intake and exhaust manifolds, and a big Holley on top. Oh darn,
now we only have 335 horsies and 440 lbs of torque. Bummer. Do you
think anyone will notice? Will the insurance companies fall for this?
Will Chevy and Chrysler fall for this? Will NHRA fall for this? Will
the magazines fall for this?
That could never happen, could it?
CobraJet
> FENATIC <fen...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990927213314...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Whole Lotta Tom
Popular Hot Rodding. A Torino GT with a 428 CJ and a C6. After fixing a
gasket problem that prevented fuel flow in the secondaries they managed to
coax a 14.34/100.33 with the open 3.23 rear while feathering the throttle
like mad to maintain something close to traction. By adding 4.33s with a
locker, slicks and Hookers, they got a 13.27/108.30. The curb weight? 4080
pounds. Tuned for the stock classes, these monsters were getting into the
11s, right? Show me a modern 4000 lb Ford that will do 13.27s with just
some gear and headers. BTW, magazines could use some reviewers like those
guys now!
--
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote in message
news:270919992126094732%catzh...@mydoor.com...
CobraJet
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Speaking of Platt, I just found an interesting "road test" in an April '68
> Popular Hot Rodding. A Torino GT with a 428 CJ and a C6. After fixing a
> gasket problem that prevented fuel flow in the secondaries they managed to
> coax a 14.34/100.33 with the open 3.23 rear while feathering the throttle
> like mad to maintain something close to traction. By adding 4.33s with a
> locker, slicks and Hookers, they got a 13.27/108.30. The curb weight? 4080
> pounds. Tuned for the stock classes, these monsters were getting into the
> 11s, right? Show me a modern 4000 lb Ford that will do 13.27s with just
> some gear and headers. BTW, magazines could use some reviewers like those
> guys now!
Damn right, I say! I had to run 300 lbs of ballast in the trunk of
my XR7 just to allow the tires to move the car forward. And it still
would burn on the 2-3 shift. A common problem with modern performance
automatic cars, wouldn't you say?
Didja see where Patrick actually caught an "omitted" letter in my
typing? That must have made his day! It certainly made mine when he
then misspelled "mispelled". You know, if I ever win the lottery I'm
gonna have to buy that Boy a big block something or another. Certainly
not that 340 Duster he's been getting a woody over. Christ, if you're
gonna dream in Chrysler color, go for the 69 1/2 Six Pack cars. There
was another torqueless slug, right Tom? Yeah, the factory was SO
concerned about road tests that they shipped the cars with steel wheels
and skinny tires. Sure could hook THOSE with the mandatory 4.10 Dana,
huh? It's too bad all you had to put on was a pair of slicks and you
could run 12.80's all day long. In my neck of the woods, which saw NO
street action whatsoever (wink), you had to watch out for those cars
even more than the Hemis.
And don't even get me started about the Max Wedge cars! (Too late,
I'm already started). What was that moron Jim Wangers at Pontiac
thinking by calling the GTO the first musclecar? Dodge and Plymouth
were putting the 413 and 426 MW engines in their intermediate cars
since 1962. Any of them would totally annihilate a GTO. Hell, I'd bet a
383 Commando Belvedere could shut down a Goat. First musclecar my butt.
CobraJet
Johnny and his GT
--
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes a very strange and disturbing post:
>Oh that poor Pit Bull. So savage in his quest to prove something so
>vague
Quotes are vague?
>and inconsequential that virtually nobody in this NG gives a damn.
So, you're speaking for the whole NG on this one?
>He's so out of control he hasn't figured out that his dubious claim of also
being >an early car enthusiast has been blown asunder by repeated malicious
>ommentary.
"Ommentary" I love your use of words, you've helped my vocabulary grow, but I
couldn't find this one in Websters. A mispell perhaps? Help.
So, I'll go with the malicious part. Everything typed in the Musclecar 1/4
mile threads that have quotations is straight out of the original road tests.
I've altered nothing. How does do this qualify in your eyes as malicious?
<pushing my chair REALLY close to the screen> I can't wait to hear you answer
this one! OBTW - I'd be MORE than happy to mail copies of the road tests to
you for your inspection. Let me know.
But, wait a minute. Don't you already have all these old road tests? So, why
are these numbers so shocking to you? Please clear this up.
>He is, unfortunately, still under the impression that these cars he viciously
>discredits were actually built to be used as street transportation. He sticks
>continually to garbage road test instead of dragstrip history, which is what
they >were intended for.
Mr. Jet, not too long ago, in an arguement with the White Tornado, I defended
the classics by stating that their 1/4 mile times were pretty much what these
original road tests have shown, and you agreed with me. I find it very
interesting that you've suddenly changed your tune. You're not trolling for me
ARE YOU...? Is it time for you to once again try to hook a regular? Now you
should know by now that this big fish will tease the lure, but he never bites.
>Poor Pit Bull. Alienating virtually every early car owner in here with ad
nauseum >reposts,
I think reposting these is a pretty neat idea. I hope there are open-minded
people out there that enjoy them.
>hoping to steer people into his now-clear Commie agenda of pro-New Tech
>Superiority.
lol This is TOO good! You had to be laughing when you typed this.
>What happened to the nice Irish boy who posted humor and sprinkled various
>threads with his former upbeat presence?
Actually, I have some humour ready to go. I've recently connected to a new
source, so I'll you should be seeing them again.
>What has possessed him so? Revenge for ousting that limp-wrist DeFeo?
Like water on a duck... rolls right off.
>Troubles at home?
Strike one.
>Job stress (after all, he does work for the guvmint)?
Strike two.
>Kids getting too big too fast? Big Block Envy?
And strike three. You're outta there.
>Any opinions out there?
Next batter?
>Poor Pit Bull.
Oh, whoa is me. Hey, it's a Mustang NG, I can use "whoa".
FENATIC
FENATIC
drag out the AML V600 again, or the race-prepped RS200, or the DB7
Vantage, or the Sierra Cosworth, or the XK220, or the GT40 Mk II and
IV...
<walking away muttering>
Eurovulture>>
i stand correct.
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
>I suppose, if I were a lifelong subscriber to Motor Trend,
Hey, it's Car & Driver... and I've only been a subscriber for 15 years or so...
give or take a few. I have a few other automotive subscriptions too, but I
read everything. Chevy, Mopar, Volkswagon, Import mags it doesn't matter... if
it's automotive related, I'll read it. Oh, and Popular Science... I think
that's the one, has some neat automotive stuff too.
>I too, would be inclined to take the ever reprintable Jim Smart's word for the
>performance level of 66 427 Fairlanes for gospel.
I simply posted...umm QUOTED some road test numbers and you two went ballistic.
As I wrote before, if you find some old road test numbers with better numbers.
I'd LOVE to read 'em! In fact, if you have them, if you don't mind, if I don't
completely piss you off by the end of this post, mail me some copies.
Please note: I've made some copies of mine in the past and mailed them to a few
NG regulars.
Second note: Please don't everyone flood me with requests for these articles.
Going off-subject if I could, if it's okay with you two, I bought a few more
old magazines this weekend at a swap meet. In one of the mags from 1970 is an
old ad for a '71 340 Demon. Bright yellow and black. Awesome car, IMO! If
fact the ad has a *separate* (7 pages in all) full page picture of each of the
scat Pack members. I'm tempted to frame these pictures and put them up in my
son's room. Hate to tear up the old magazine though.
>It is indisputable (this time i mean it) that when Ford tested the 427
prototype >Fairlane, all they could eke out of it were 14's at over 100 mph.
Thank you. So, why did you try and act like the articles are completely bogus?
>What does this tell us about peg leg 3.89 geared 6 inch bias ply skinnys?
Quite >a bit.
I know what racing on bias plys is like.
Actually, I thought the test of the Gaxalie was pretty impressive. It went
from 101 mph traps to 108 by just unbolting the head pipes and disconnecting
the fan. Not saying much for the stock exhaust system, huh? <CJ, did you miss
that part? Didn't that substantiate <see I know some big words too) one of
your points?
>What have we learned about people who would judge the fastest and best looking
>car Ford ever built by a road test of a prototype that didnt even take place
on a >drag strip, let alone under conditions equivalent to just about every
other >musclecar road test in history?
I guess you missed this following part.
"Some of the *mechanics* on the project confided that during the testing
program, the 427 Fairlane averaged about 100 mph in the quarter (clocks
operative) with elasped times in the 14.50 -14.60 bracket, in absolute street
trim."
These *mechanics* were the Ford employees.
> Well, lets just say, Webster's should sue and injunct Jim Smart from using
>his last name, real or imagined as it may be, because he is a fucking idiot.
Any
>list of the fastest
>musclecars (whatever the definition is)
Yeah, let's not go there. Not tonight anyway. Give my wounds (the one's
you've both been inflicting on me) heal.
>that doesnt have the 427 Fairlane right at the top, is flawed, to put it
politely. The >factory installed C3AE-AA cams in these cars for smoothness, or
whatever >reason. This mild 427 cam is the same one that pushed 427 low rise
galaxie >lightweights to 12.60's in one of the very first Popular Hot Roddings
ever >published, with any given idiot driving it. 12.60's, FOB.
Galaxie lightweights. How many of these did Ford build? They were probably
less common on the street then, than the '93 and '95 R models are today.
Love 'em all, but the cars that duked, and duke it out, everyday the COMMON
factory musclecars (no, Seeverist this is NOT an opportunity to define
musclecars) on the street impress me the most. That's just me though.
>It is a simple fact that 66 427 Fairlanes could do the exact same thing, with
>any amount of traction technology in effect.
But, in *pure stock trim* it couldn't. Right?
>Simply because a prototype was published with an unrepresentative
>ESTIMATION, doesnt give ANYONE a right to credit it as fact or proof of
>performance pudding.
I, being "anyone", have the right to post anything (note to any trolls who
could be reading: It has to be good automotive stuff) I want in this NG.
Get a grip guys. Try saying the following to yourselves very slowly.
*Patrick simply posted quotes from old magazine road tests.*
Breath deep now.
Hold it.
Exhale.
Say this over and over until the blood flows back into your brains.
>That proof is in the record books of the NHRA for decades now. And still
kicking >ass. Last time I saw a National Dragster, there it was, A/S (or
A/SA?) record >holder.
Great.
>It gets no better. It gets no better.
Wrong chant. See above.
> The ultimate Ford, like it or not.
In MY opinion, for NOW, it's the '95 R.
>I like it. I love it.
Me too.
NoOption5L
>I do have a magazine article around here (in my clipped files, I clip out
>the stuff I want to keep cuz I have no space for the mags) about one stock
>class racer goes by the name "It's Automatic". This is a 4 speed 428 CJ
>Mustang running hard against the auto-equipped 454s and killing them.
>Without trans-brakes. Without line lock. Without all the modern goodies.
>One guy rowing. It's called fast, boys.
Please send my a copy. Of course if you're pissed at me too... disregard.
NoOption5L
Altitude? Weather? Wrong injectors (30 pounders)?
Bill S.
around, as he would have had a lot more common sense than to post
binaries here. Don't you remember. Wouldn't it be easy to post a url to
the group since you have your own web address. And here I thought you
had finally wised up. I guess not......Such a shame too.....But, then
again, looking at the caliber of your most recent posts, I can tell that
something is just not right with you lately.......So, what's the
scoop........
Cobra Jet wrote:
> Cut Here -- cut here
>
FENATIC
Hey, it's Car & Driver... and I've only been a subscriber for 15 years or so...
give or take a few. I have a few other automotive subscriptions too, but I
read everything. Chevy, Mopar, Volkswagon, Import mags it doesn't matter... if
it's automotive related, I'll read it. Oh, and Popular Science... I think
that's the one, has some neat automotive stuff too.>>
I was gonna say Popular Mechanix too, I swear I was! Damn!!!!!!!!!
FENATIC
from 101 mph traps to 108 by just unbolting the head pipes and disconnecting
the fan. Not saying much for the stock exhaust system, huh? <CJ, did you miss
that part? Didn't that substantiate <see I know some big words too) one of
your points? >>
actually, that stock exhaust system is beautiful, probably the best and most
exotic manifold ever cast. It s the motor. That is through 2 1/2" or maybe
smaller in 65-6 dumps.
CobraJet
wrote:
Gee, a comment from the binary police. How predictable! And look,
RAMFM IS dissolving right before my very eyes! Must have been that
off-topic picture of a CobraJet Mustang in a thread about CobraJet
Mustangs in the Mustang group by a guy named CobraJet. Bummer. And how
typical that he doesn't mention the long-assed and repeated road test
postings by the guy who started all this. How predictable! Guess old
Bill still hasn't wised up, thinking I would post my address just so I
can show one picture.
Let's see what Ricky boy has over in HIS hard drive. Well lookee
here, it's a bunch of 38-63 meg music video files! THAT should liven up
this group! After all, RAMFM *was* damaged irreparably by that huge 61k
binary, so why not?
CobraJet
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
>Show me a modern 4000 lb Ford that will do 13.27s with just some gear and
>headers. BTW, magazines could use some reviewers like those guys now!
What about one that's heavier? I'm sure the new Lightning with a set of gears
and headers could run 13.2s. If it has problems doing it (I doubt it), then
the new improved Lightning in 2001 (?) with even more hp should easily do it,
and maybe do it *pure stock*.
<snip>
> Didja see where Patrick actually caught an "omitted" letter in my typing?
And, that is a FIRST!!! Don't mind admitting that. Catching you or the Frog
misspelling a word is NOT easy thing to do. But, *I* have!
So far...
CJ -1 misspell
Frog - 4 misspells
>That must have made his day!
I was doing cartwheels.
>It certainly made mine when he then misspelled "mispelled".
I'm not even going to go back and check. <shaking my head> And just when I
starting to feel good about myself. Thanks, pal.
>You know, if I ever win the lottery I'm gonna have to buy that Boy a big block
>something or another.
I certainly won't stop you.
>Certainly not that 340 Duster he's been getting a woody over.
I can't help myself. I love those cars.
>Christ, if you're gonna dream in Chrysler color, go for the 69 1/2 Six Pack
cars.
I'm okay with one of those too. I prefer a Charger... just in case you're
making yourself a note... you are right?
<snip>
> And don't even get me started about the Max Wedge cars! (Too late,
>I'm already started). What was that moron Jim Wangers at Pontiac
>thinking by calling the GTO the first musclecar?
Yeah, Wangers and some guy named (SE)Everist started that crap. Losers!
>Dodge and Plymouth were putting the 413 and 426 MW engines in their
>intermediate cars since 1962.
Goooo Dodge Boys!!!
>Any of them would totally annihilate a GTO. Hell, I'd bet a 383 Commando
>Belvedere could shut down a Goat. First musclecar my butt.
Do I dare touch this? According to you know what, the 383 Roadrunner (roughly
same size as the Belvedere) ran a substantially higher trap speed than any of
the early GTOs. But, do those you know whats REALLY prove anything anyway?
Josh Turner
CobraJet wrote:
>
> In article <37F02C49...@erols.com>, Josh Turner <sh...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > FENATIC wrote:
> > >
> > > I suppose, if I were a lifelong subscriber to Motor Trend, I too, would be
> > > inclined to take the ever reprintable Jim Smart's word for the performance
> > > level of 66 427 Fairlanes for gospel. It is indisputable (this time i mean
> > > it)
> > > that when Ford tested the 427 prototype Fairlane, all they could eke out of
> > > it
> > > were 14's at over 100 mph. What does this tell us about peg leg 3.89
> > > geared 6
> > > inch bias ply skinnys? Quite a bit. What have we learned about people who
> > > would judge the fastest and best looking car Ford ever built by a road test
> > > of
> > > a prototype that didnt even take place on a drag strip, let alone under
> > > conditions equivalent to just about every other musclecar road test in
> > > history?
> > > Well, lets just say, Webster's should sue and injunct Jim Smart from using
> > > his
> > > last name, real or imagined as it may be, because he is a fucking idiot.
> > > Any
> > > list of the fastest musclecars (whatever the definition is) that doesnt have
> > > the 427 Fairlane right at the top, is flawed, to put it politely. The
> > > factory
> > > installed C3AE-AA cams in these cars for smoothness, or whatever reason.
> > > This
> > > mild 427 cam is the same one that pushed 427 low rise galaxie lightweights
> > > to
> > > 12.60's in one of the very first Popular Hot Roddings ever published, with
> > > any
> > > given idiot driving it. 12.60's, FOB.
> > > It is a simple fact that 66 427 Fairlanes could do the exact same thing,
> > > with
> > > any amount of traction technology in effect. Simply because a prototype was
> > > published with an unrepresentative ESTIMATION, doesnt give ANYONE a right to
> > > credit it as fact or proof of performance pudding.
> > > That proof is in the record books of the NHRA for decades now. And still
> > > kicking ass. Last time I saw a National Dragster, there it was,
> > > A/S (or A/SA?) record holder. It gets no better. It gets no better. The
> > > ultimate Ford, like it or not. I like it. I love it.
> >
> > <spit take>
> Apples and oranges, BirdBoy. Feel free to post any class times from
> a sanctioning organization for these cars. And don't mention the others
> in the same sentence as the sacred GT40 (which is not a drag car,
> either).
Drag car? What do the cross-dressing proclivities of their owners have
to do with anything?
In any case, "ultimate Ford" to me doesn't mean a car optimized for the
1320. And the GT40 Mk II is just as Yurripean as any of the others
listed (of course, you probably shouldn't call the Brits Yurripean). I'd
say that the GT40 and the XJ220 have an awful lot in common.
Don't have any class times for the 1/4 on any of these cars; not so many
owners take their ultimate Fords to that kind of track (though I'd love
to see someone show up with an AML at the All-Ford Nationals or
whatever). I would like to see how long that Fairlane would last sucking
up the RS200s dust on the Grenada(but it'll always be Paris to me)-Dakar
rally. If you ask me (and no one did), it's hard to argue that from a
pure versatility standpoint any performance car is more capable than one
of them Killer Bs.
And even if you want to take dirt and mountains out of the picture, I'd
be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
(probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
Eurovulture
Circling over Mauritania, waiting for the Fairlane to die of sand
ingestion...
CobraJet
<noopt...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <270919992315317588%catzh...@mydoor.com>, CobraJet
> <catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
>
> >Show me a modern 4000 lb Ford that will do 13.27s with just some gear and
> >headers. BTW, magazines could use some reviewers like those guys now!
>
> What about one that's heavier? I'm sure the new Lightning with a set of gears
> and headers could run 13.2s. If it has problems doing it (I doubt it), then
> the new improved Lightning in 2001 (?) with even more hp should easily do it,
> and maybe do it *pure stock*.
Stock blower and all, right? Guess what, Patrick, the discussion is
over.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Didja see where Patrick actually caught an "omitted" letter in my typing?
>
> And, that is a FIRST!!! Don't mind admitting that. Catching you or the Frog
> misspelling a word is NOT easy thing to do. But, *I* have!
>
> So far...
>
> CJ -1 misspell
> Frog - 4 misspells
Problem is, skipping the first letter in an easy word like
"commentary" is considered a typo, not a misspell. However, I think it
was Steve who caught me on a word last year during the November Thunder
Alley, so we can leave the score as is.
>
> >That must have made his day!
>
> I was doing cartwheels.
Please post an .mpg file.
>
> >It certainly made mine when he then misspelled "mispelled".
>
> I'm not even going to go back and check. <shaking my head> And just when I
> starting to feel good about myself. Thanks, pal.
Anytime. It's my job.
>
> >You know, if I ever win the lottery I'm gonna have to buy that Boy a big
> >block
> >something or another.
>
> I certainly won't stop you.
>
> >Certainly not that 340 Duster he's been getting a woody over.
>
> I can't help myself. I love those cars.
No accounting for taste, is there?
>
> >Christ, if you're gonna dream in Chrysler color, go for the 69 1/2 Six Pack
> cars.
>
> I'm okay with one of those too. I prefer a Charger... just in case you're
> making yourself a note... you are right?
'69 1/2 Six Pack cars come in Super Bee, Road Runner, and GTX
flavors. I believe the closest thing to a 6 BBL Charger would be a
Daytona with that option. If I'm wrong Diego will correct me.
>
> <snip>
>
> > And don't even get me started about the Max Wedge cars! (Too late,
> >I'm already started). What was that moron Jim Wangers at Pontiac
> >thinking by calling the GTO the first musclecar?
>
> Yeah, Wangers and some guy named (SE)Everist started that crap. Losers!
I'll bet Steve can outcook Wangers, though.
>
> >Dodge and Plymouth were putting the 413 and 426 MW engines in their
> >intermediate cars since 1962.
>
> Goooo Dodge Boys!!!
Actually, if you remember the "Little Old Lady From Pasadena" TV
commercials from those days, granny pulls out of her garage with a red
Super Stock Dodge (a la Beach Boys), and says "Put a Dodge in your
garage, Honnney!" What a babe.
>
> >Any of them would totally annihilate a GTO. Hell, I'd bet a 383 Commando
> >Belvedere could shut down a Goat. First musclecar my butt.
>
> Do I dare touch this? According to you know what, the 383 Roadrunner (roughly
> same size as the Belvedere)
The Road Runner *was* an optioned Belvedere, so I would say exactly
the same size. My reference was to a '64 Belv.
> ran a substantially higher trap speed than any of
> the early GTOs. But, do those you know whats REALLY prove anything anyway?
No, they don't, but the law of averages will get you lucky once in a
while. Meanwhile, my assertion was made from experience.
Now, Patrick will have to be a good boy from now on, because BBF
owners don't take no innuendo, dispersions, implications, or other
assorted crap, thinly-veiled or blatant, about their rides from someone
who does not understand. STIFLE that comment, I could hear it from
here.
<End of involvement in this thread>
CobraJet
CobraJet
wrote:
> Drag car? What do the cross-dressing proclivities of their owners have
> to do with anything?
Clever, in a juvenile sort of way.
>
> In any case, "ultimate Ford" to me doesn't mean a car optimized for the
> 1320.
And that pretty much excludes the rest of this particular essay,
since everyone else is discussing the 1/4 mile.
> And the GT40 Mk II is just as Yurripean as any of the others
> listed (of course, you probably shouldn't call the Brits Yurripean). I'd
> say that the GT40 and the XJ220 have an awful lot in common.
>
> Don't have any class times for the 1/4 on any of these cars; not so many
> owners take their ultimate Fords to that kind of track (though I'd love
> to see someone show up with an AML at the All-Ford Nationals or
> whatever). I would like to see how long that Fairlane would last sucking
> up the RS200s dust on the Grenada(but it'll always be Paris to me)-Dakar
> rally. If you ask me (and no one did), it's hard to argue that from a
> pure versatility standpoint any performance car is more capable than one
> of them Killer Bs.
Once again, apples and oranges. I think you've been hanging around
with old "Selective Hearing" Pit Bull. In your case, however, you are
expounding on the obvious.
>
> And even if you want to take dirt and mountains out of the picture, I'd
> be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
> get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
> long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
> (probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
Not another clueless brake expert. In drag racing, drum brakes are
preferable to disc, since they are lighter (trick aftermarket hardware
notwithstanding). Consider that all 14 of my post-1965 V8 Fords and
Mercurys have factory disc brakes, and your witty innuendo becomes,
shall we say, embarassing.
CobraJet
>
>
> Eurovulture
> Circling over Mauritania, waiting for the Fairlane to die of sand
> ingestion...
I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
Whole Lotta Tom
in the 60s, and the Fairlanes and Galaxies (no shit! INERTIA!!) were there.
Mexican road races, Mercury was there. Ralleys, road courses, the Fairlane,
Mustang and Falcon was there, and all sharing very similar platforms. GT40
is in a completely different class and to try to skew this exchange to
compare them to the Fairlane is a bit ridiculous. Go compare the Mustang
to the Cobras to the GT40s. Still a bit silly, but it might keep
Eurovulture or Urinevulture busy, heh heh.
--
FENATIC <fen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990928222128...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> <<And even if you want to take dirt and mountains out of the picture, I'd
> be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
> get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
> long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
> (probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
>
>
> Eurovulture
> Circling over Mauritania, waiting for the Fairlane to die of sand
> ingestion...>>
>
> whyncha ask David Pearson? Europeein exoticas dont really twist my Ford
tail.
> I was dwelling in the land of the Thunder Snakes, not the fantasy world of
> Walter Mitty.
Whole Lotta Tom
Hey, lookie this! 1965 Winternationals. 1965 Desert Motors R-code 427
Galaxie driven by Mike Schmidt. Took the trophy in AA/S with a
12.77/114.77.
Mods:
7" Casler retread slicks
Balanger headers
90/10 Up-Loc front shocks
60/40 Down-Loc Cure Rides in the rear
Spring wedges up front
Brake adjusters removed
No fuckin' blower.
No fuckin' nitrous.
No fuckin' super sticky 12" slicks.
No fuckin' engine management system.
No fuckin' line lock.
Four speed with a 2.32 first gear and stock Ford shifter (not even a
Hurst!).
4000+ lb Stock Class Galaxie in 1965. Slow. My ass.
FENATIC sez: "I was dwelling in the land of the Thunder Snakes, not the
fantasy world of Walter Mitty."
Thunder Snakes. Yeah, Thunder Snakes rule!
(April 1965 Hot Rod)
Johnny and his GT
Sea level, 80F, 19# (stock)
--
Jonathan, '99 GT
Best ET & MPH: 14.71 (sucks for my car) & 95.87
Best RT & 60': .476 (oh, you meant legal? .559) & 2.21
Best finish: 1st (out of 32 in True Street class)
FENATIC
be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
(probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
Eurovulture
Circling over Mauritania, waiting for the Fairlane to die of sand
ingestion...>>
whyncha ask David Pearson? Europeein exoticas dont really twist my Ford tail.
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
><<>I suppose, if I were a lifelong subscriber to Motor Trend,
>Hey, it's Car & Driver... and I've only been a subscriber for 15 years or
>so... give or take a few. I have a few other automotive subscriptions too,
but I
>read everything. Chevy, Mopar, Volkswagon, Import mags it doesn't matter...
>if it's automotive related, I'll read it. Oh, and Popular Science... I think
>that's the one, has some neat automotive stuff too.>>
>I was gonna say Popular Mechanix too, I swear I was! Damn!!!!!!!!!
Aaawwwww too bad! Sorry, you only get one guess. Johnny, what do we have as a
parting gift for our contestant...?
Bill S.
It's not just one little picture, but thousands, multiply your one little
posting by the amount of different news servers out on the web, coupled with
the amount of wasted bandwidth and space, and you might get my meaning. Since
you have never dealt on a business relationship with the ISP's, you will never
completely understand what happens with binaries in a non binarie newsgroup.
Try speaking with a sys admin. one day, and they will certainly open up your
eyes. Still don't get it, then you never will. At least I try to help, instead
of antagonize people into submission.
Yours in Responsible Fords,
Bill S.
rose...@pilot.msu.edu
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
>
> '69 1/2 Six Pack cars come in Super Bee, Road Runner, and GTX
> flavors. I believe the closest thing to a 6 BBL Charger would be a
> Daytona with that option. If I'm wrong Diego will correct me.
>
Now how did you figger out that I subscribed to this NG yesterday? It
takes so long to sift through to get to the meaty stuff, however.
In 1969, the only 440-6 cars were the Super Bee and Road Runner. In
1970, it was available in all the B- and E-bodies (mid-size and
ponycars, respectively). They also make 64 Sport Fury GT's with the
engine as well.
>>> What was that moron Jim Wangers at Pontiac
> > >thinking by calling the GTO the first musclecar?
Wangers worked for Pontiac's ad agency, and the GTO _was_ the first true
musclecar. However, that's not to say there weren't musclecars before
the GTO. . .
> >
> > >Dodge and Plymouth were putting the 413 and 426 MW engines in their
> > >intermediate cars since 1962.
> >
They were shrunken full-size cars back then. And the term "musclecar" is
a lot more than a so-called mid-size car. It's a performance package!
>
> >
> > >Any of them would totally annihilate a GTO. Hell, I'd bet a 383
Commando
> > >Belvedere could shut down a Goat. First musclecar my butt.
Sorry, but back in 1964, a 383 Mopar didn't stand a chance to a Goat.
(uh, sorry, CJ, I guess I'm answering the wrong post.)
D. Rosenberg
CobraJet
wrote:
> Once again,
>
> It's not just one little picture, but thousands, multiply your one little
> posting by the amount of different news servers out on the web, coupled with
> the amount of wasted bandwidth and space, and you might get my meaning. Since
> you have never dealt on a business relationship with the ISP's, you will never
> completely understand what happens with binaries in a non binarie newsgroup.
> Try speaking with a sys admin. one day, and they will certainly open up your
> eyes. Still don't get it, then you never will. At least I try to help, instead
> of antagonize people into submission.
Well, Billy, I took your advice just now and called the admin at my
ISP (a major one) in Phoenix. I explained the situation, and he told me
that as long as the binary is on topic and less than 500k (that is not
a typo), then there is no problem whatsoever. I told him about your
"domino effect" theory, and he told me you are "living in the past" and
to "take a chill pill". This is the same person who directly deals with
Supernews (remarq), one of the largest feeds anywhere, on behalf of my
ISP. I also asked him if they had ever terminated a customer for
posting on-topic binaries into a discussion group, and he said "never",
and that "no decent ISP would do that". This comes as no surprise to
me, as I have mentioned a zillion times in the past that other
automotive groups do this on a regular basis with no problems, either.
Unfortunately, what you view as antagonizing is really a wake-up
call for you and the other binary police that you can no longer moan
about the inconsequentials of the occasional picture or sound file. I
now have my ISP and Supernews supporting my position, and it is time
for you to join the 21st Century.
For the umpteenth time, I request that you desist *your* constant
bitching about any little imaginary indiscretion. The other human
beings in this group are fully capable of deciding what they do or do
not want to view without your interference. Your outlook on bandwidth
as a precious resource is outdated and unrealistic. You have used more
if it moaning than I ever could.
Yours in Modern Day Realism,
CobraJet
CobraJet
wrote:
> In article <280919991918018118%catzh...@mydoor.com>,
> CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > '69 1/2 Six Pack cars come in Super Bee, Road Runner, and GTX
> > flavors. I believe the closest thing to a 6 BBL Charger would be a
> > Daytona with that option. If I'm wrong Diego will correct me.
> >
>
> Now how did you figger out that I subscribed to this NG yesterday?
I have my sources.
It
> takes so long to sift through to get to the meaty stuff, however.
No sweat. As time goes on, the Thunder Snake threads will build up
activity in the oldies dept.
>
> In 1969, the only 440-6 cars were the Super Bee and Road Runner. In
> 1970, it was available in all the B- and E-bodies (mid-size and
> ponycars, respectively). They also make 64 Sport Fury GT's with the
> engine as well.
The Catalog of American Car ID Numbers shows a 440+6 as an option on
the GTX in 1969, which is why I included it. Do you think that they
weren't made?
>
> >>> What was that moron Jim Wangers at Pontiac
> > > >thinking by calling the GTO the first musclecar?
>
> Wangers worked for Pontiac's ad agency, and the GTO _was_ the first true
> musclecar. However, that's not to say there weren't musclecars before
> the GTO. . .
Thou confuseth me, young Diego. You are saying that the GTO was the
first "called" a musclecar, but there were others that fit the
description before it. Right?
>
>
> > >
> > > >Dodge and Plymouth were putting the 413 and 426 MW engines in their
> > > >intermediate cars since 1962.
> > >
>
> They were shrunken full-size cars back then. And the term "musclecar" is
> a lot more than a so-called mid-size car. It's a performance package!
Uh-oh, we've been there recently in this NG, so we better digress
for while.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >Any of them would totally annihilate a GTO. Hell, I'd bet a 383
> Commando
> > > >Belvedere could shut down a Goat. First musclecar my butt.
>
> Sorry, but back in 1964, a 383 Mopar didn't stand a chance to a Goat.
>
> (uh, sorry, CJ, I guess I'm answering the wrong post.)
We have also discussed the futility of referring to road tests here.
In 1976, my best friend had a '63 Belvedere with a 361 Commando. It had
a mild Sig Erson cam, headers/duals, 4.56's, and a pushbutton
TorqueFlite. He beat not one, not two, but three GTO's in heads-up
street races that year (he didn't like Pontiacs). One of them was a
cammed '69 400 with a 4-spd and 4.10's that belonged to another friend
of mine. I beat two Goats with my 289 Mustang, but it was slightly
faster than the Belvedere.
What might have been a pretty fast GTO was the '65 owned by a Dad
two doors down from me. He drove it to work and back, and it sounded
nasty. He used to tell me stories about Flatheads and dry lakes racing,
and how the GTO was raced when new. I tried to get him to come out at
night and hang at the street races, but he gave me some crap about
responsibilities to his wife and kids. Meanwhile, his brother dropped
dead of a heroin overdose sitting at a red light in his Chevelle. Those
were some strange days.
CJ
Josh Turner
Whole Lotta Tom wrote:
>
> Christ, Eurovulger, road courses were a part of the Nascar experience back
> in the 60s, and the Fairlanes and Galaxies (no shit! INERTIA!!) were there.
> Mexican road races, Mercury was there. Ralleys, road courses, the Fairlane,
> Mustang and Falcon was there, and all sharing very similar platforms. GT40
> is in a completely different class and to try to skew this exchange to
> compare them to the Fairlane is a bit ridiculous.
Erm. Don't point fingers at me. No one said anything about comparing
either one to the Mustang. In talking of the Fairlane, FENATIC
expounded:
"It gets no better. It gets no better. The
ultimate Ford, like it or not. I like it. I love it."
I agree with you. To compare the Fairlane to the GT40 is a bit
ridiculous. One is a big motor jammed into a relatively pedestrian
sedan. The other is a purpose built racing car, designed with a nearly
unlimited budget to compete with (and beat) the best that Maranello had
to offer. One was designed to go real fast in a straight line for less
than 14 seconds. The other was designed to go real fast around one of
the more grueling road courses in the world for 24 hours.
Which do you think is the "ultimate Ford?"
> Go compare the Mustang
> to the Cobras to the GT40s. Still a bit silly, but it might keep
> Eurovulture or Urinevulture busy, heh heh.
>
> --
>
> FENATIC <fen...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990928222128...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Josh Turner
CobraJet wrote:
>
> In article <37F164FD...@erols.com>, Josh Turner <sh...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Drag car? What do the cross-dressing proclivities of their owners have
> > to do with anything?
>
> Clever, in a juvenile sort of way.
Story of my life.
> > In any case, "ultimate Ford" to me doesn't mean a car optimized for the
> > 1320.
>
> And that pretty much excludes the rest of this particular essay,
> since everyone else is discussing the 1/4 mile.
You guys need to broaden your horizons, is all I'm saying. "Ultimate"
just means "best in the 1/4"? Not to me...
> > And the GT40 Mk II is just as Yurripean as any of the others
> > listed (of course, you probably shouldn't call the Brits Yurripean). I'd
> > say that the GT40 and the XJ220 have an awful lot in common.
> >
> > Don't have any class times for the 1/4 on any of these cars; not so many
> > owners take their ultimate Fords to that kind of track (though I'd love
> > to see someone show up with an AML at the All-Ford Nationals or
> > whatever). I would like to see how long that Fairlane would last sucking
> > up the RS200s dust on the Grenada(but it'll always be Paris to me)-Dakar
> > rally. If you ask me (and no one did), it's hard to argue that from a
> > pure versatility standpoint any performance car is more capable than one
> > of them Killer Bs.
>
> Once again, apples and oranges. I think you've been hanging around
> with old "Selective Hearing" Pit Bull. In your case, however, you are
> expounding on the obvious.
Ah, well. Apples and oranges are both fruit, dontcha know. The world
doesn't end at the end of the strip, anymore than Ford built its most
powerful street engine in a decade that began with 6 or 7. I'm just
trying to liven up the joint.
> >
> > And even if you want to take dirt and mountains out of the picture, I'd
> > be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
> > get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
> > long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
> > (probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
>
> Not another clueless brake expert.
Which? All I was trying to point out was that the GT40 et al., while
perhaps not more capable in the 1/4 than the good old Fairlane, would
almost certainly have the Fairlane for lunch on anything that resembled
a road course. And if you broaden the criteria for ultimate-ness past
the end of that striaght line, its something you have to consider.
I make no claims about braking expertise. And if I expound the obvious,
well, so what. Someone has to do it.
> In drag racing, drum brakes are
> preferable to disc, since they are lighter (trick aftermarket hardware
> notwithstanding). Consider that all 14 of my post-1965 V8 Fords and
> Mercurys have factory disc brakes, and your witty innuendo becomes,
> shall we say, embarassing.
Discs all the way around then? Or might there be some drums hiding up
under the back there, after all?
> CobraJet
> >
> >
> > Eurovulture
> > Circling over Mauritania, waiting for the Fairlane to die of sand
> > ingestion...
>
> I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
An SVT Napier L.48. Didn't we go over this?
CobraJet
wrote:
> CobraJet wrote:
> >
> > In article <37F164FD...@erols.com>, Josh Turner <sh...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Drag car? What do the cross-dressing proclivities of their owners have
> > > to do with anything?
> >
> > Clever, in a juvenile sort of way.
>
> Story of my life.
>
> > > In any case, "ultimate Ford" to me doesn't mean a car optimized for the
> > > 1320.
> >
> > And that pretty much excludes the rest of this particular essay,
> > since everyone else is discussing the 1/4 mile.
>
> You guys need to broaden your horizons, is all I'm saying. "Ultimate"
> just means "best in the 1/4"? Not to me...
In this thread (see subject title), we are discussing quarter miles.
I have no argument that the other cars you mentioned have better
handling.
>
> > > And the GT40 Mk II is just as Yurripean as any of the others
> > > listed (of course, you probably shouldn't call the Brits Yurripean). I'd
> > > say that the GT40 and the XJ220 have an awful lot in common.
> > >
> > > Don't have any class times for the 1/4 on any of these cars; not so many
> > > owners take their ultimate Fords to that kind of track (though I'd love
> > > to see someone show up with an AML at the All-Ford Nationals or
> > > whatever). I would like to see how long that Fairlane would last sucking
> > > up the RS200s dust on the Grenada(but it'll always be Paris to me)-Dakar
> > > rally. If you ask me (and no one did), it's hard to argue that from a
> > > pure versatility standpoint any performance car is more capable than one
> > > of them Killer Bs.
> >
> > Once again, apples and oranges. I think you've been hanging around
> > with old "Selective Hearing" Pit Bull. In your case, however, you are
> > expounding on the obvious.
>
>
> Ah, well. Apples and oranges are both fruit, dontcha know. The world
> doesn't end at the end of the strip, anymore than Ford built its most
> powerful street engine in a decade that began with 6 or 7. I'm just
> trying to liven up the joint.
Street engine? Name a more powerful normally aspirated Ford-based
engine not built pre-80.
As for using the word "ultimate", there is a difference between
production and non-production cars. If you consider the GT40, you must
also consider the 427 Daytona Coupe. If you consider RS200's set up for
Rally, then you must consider Nascar's 215-mph Torino Talladegas. If
you want to consider blank-check AML cars, then you must consider the
most brutally accelerating Ford powered road racers in history. I'll
give you some homework: research Can Am and the Ford alloy 494.
>
> > >
> > > And even if you want to take dirt and mountains out of the picture, I'd
> > > be fascinated to watch that Fairlane try and circle Le Mans. Might could
> > > get reallll interestin' at the end of the Mulsanne strait; wonder how
> > > long it would take those drums to haul that bad boy down from its
> > > (probably not inconsiderable) top speed?
> >
> > Not another clueless brake expert.
>
> Which? All I was trying to point out was that the GT40 et al., while
> perhaps not more capable in the 1/4 than the good old Fairlane, would
> almost certainly have the Fairlane for lunch on anything that resembled
> a road course. And if you broaden the criteria for ultimate-ness past
> the end of that striaght line, its something you have to consider.
Again, no argument.
>
> I make no claims about braking expertise. And if I expound the obvious,
> well, so what. Someone has to do it.
Not really.
>
> > In drag racing, drum brakes are
> > preferable to disc, since they are lighter (trick aftermarket hardware
> > notwithstanding). Consider that all 14 of my post-1965 V8 Fords and
> > Mercurys have factory disc brakes, and your witty innuendo becomes,
> > shall we say, embarassing.
>
> Discs all the way around then? Or might there be some drums hiding up
> under the back there, after all?
Drums in back, just like most cars made today.
> > I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
>
> An SVT Napier L.48. Didn't we go over this?
I see, the Vulture is a chicken.
CobraJet
Bill S.
Email me the name of the person you spoke with, and I'll be happy to speak with
him personally, as he is most uniformed. he obviously is not a sys admin, but a help
desk person who does not have a clue. Every ISP that I know uses a similar set of
Netequitte Rules, for which posting binaries to non binarie groups is still
considered in poor taste. As for anyone ever being kicked off of an ISP, I
personally know of quite a few, and have had contact with more ISP's and their
owners/sys admins, who all still agree with my original statements.........Email
me(use a throw away hotmail account if you like) off-line with the name and number
of the person you spoke with, and we'll go from there.
Yours in Fords,
Bill S.
PS: The worst damage is usually done by the most uninformed. that statement holds
true to end users and uninformed underpaid ISP employees as well.
CobraJet wrote:
> Snipped for it's getting too long.
FENATIC
either one to the Mustang. In talking of the Fairlane, FENATIC
expounded:
"It gets no better. It gets no better. The
ultimate Ford, like it or not. I like it. I love it."
I agree with you. To compare the Fairlane to the GT40 is a bit
ridiculous. One is a big motor jammed into a relatively pedestrian
sedan. The other is a purpose built racing car, designed with a nearly
unlimited budget to compete with (and beat) the best that Maranello had
to offer. One was designed to go real fast in a straight line for less
than 14 seconds. The other was designed to go real fast around one of
the more grueling road courses in the world for 24 hours.
Which do you think is the "ultimate Ford?">>
the one that Ford built, maybe?
rose...@pilot.msu.edu
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In 1969, the only 440-6 cars were the Super Bee and Road Runner. In
> > 1970, it was available in all the B- and E-bodies (mid-size and
> > ponycars, respectively). They also make 64 Sport Fury GT's with the
> > engine as well.
>
> The Catalog of American Car ID Numbers shows a 440+6 as an option
on
> the GTX in 1969, which is why I included it. Do you think that they
> weren't made?
>
No 440 6bbl. GTX until 1970. Another fine _Cars & Parts_ product?
> >
> > Wangers worked for Pontiac's ad agency, and the GTO _was_ the first
true
> > musclecar. However, that's not to say there weren't musclecars
before
> > the GTO. . .
>
> Thou confuseth me, young Diego. You are saying that the GTO was the
> first "called" a musclecar, but there were others that fit the
> description before it. Right?
No. The GTO is the first musclecar. It was the first car packaged for
high-performance in mind. It was a lot more than just a big engine. But
that's not to say a 1960 352/360 is not a musclecar either. Sure, it
wasn't so much packaged and marketed as the GTO would be, but would you
kick it out of bed? I think not!
Besides, those guys who think the C-300 is the first musclecar are full
of crap. 16-second quarter-nile times don't cut it!
> >
> > They were shrunken full-size cars back then. And the term
"musclecar" is
> > a lot more than a so-called mid-size car. It's a performance
package!
>
> Uh-oh, we've been there recently in this NG, so we better digress
> for while.
>
> >
Fair 'nuff.
>Those
> were some strange days.
>
Try talking to Bottlebob in the F-body NG. He's got some good ol'
strange California ditties for ya.
CobraJet
wrote:
> Hey CJ,
Are you nuts? I not going to drag my ISP into a pissing contest with
you so that MY relationship with them is destroyed. You asked me to
check with my ISP and I did. I told you what I was told. To the major
newsfeeds there is no difference between a binary posted to a
discussion group and one posted to a binary group. There may be some
itty bitty news services that don't carry binary groups, but I cannot
be concerned with every single company I don't deal with. Obviously, if
such activity were such a problem, Supernews and the others would put a
restriction on the size of a post.
Your request to "straighten out" my ISP is foolish and denied. They
couldn't care less who you are, and if they ask for your industry
credential, "unemployed car show judge" is not going to cut it. You
will have no effect. I am acting in accordance with the policy I was
given by the people who carry my account, and that is all there is to
it.
Why don't you just be quiet and get a frickin' job? Maybe you can
become the head of Usenet. By the time you're done, there will only be
a few hundred posters left in all the system, and you can retire to the
Bahamas will all the extra bandwidth you have stashed in your pockets.
CobraJet
P.S. Your attitude about lower levels employees is absolutely
disrespectful and naive. To assume that, because someone is not in the
upper echelon at their company, what they say is always in error
(especially if it doesn't agrre with you) is downright stupid. How many
people in this group hold entry level jobs? Are they all underpaid and
uninformed? Does their job training go in one ear and out the other? Do
you bother to read your posts before you choose to insult the masses?
While you attempt to chide me for not having a business relationship
with my ISP (like you do, right? Oops, I forgot you don't have a job),
it is quite evident in this and past posts that you don't have the very
basic knowledge of "people" skills it takes to keep yourself from
looking boorish. Do you know how silly you look jumping on so many
spammers, the majority of which never bother to see what you said? You
waste more bandwidth than anyone else here, you hypocrite.
CobraJet
wrote:
> In article <290919991531529547%catzh...@mydoor.com>,
> CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > In 1969, the only 440-6 cars were the Super Bee and Road Runner. In
> > > 1970, it was available in all the B- and E-bodies (mid-size and
> > > ponycars, respectively). They also make 64 Sport Fury GT's with the
> > > engine as well.
> >
> > The Catalog of American Car ID Numbers shows a 440+6 as an option
> on
> > the GTX in 1969, which is why I included it. Do you think that they
> > weren't made?
> >
>
> No 440 6bbl. GTX until 1970. Another fine _Cars & Parts_ product?
Naturally. Pretty accurate *95%* of the time.
>
> > >
> > > Wangers worked for Pontiac's ad agency, and the GTO _was_ the first
> true
> > > musclecar. However, that's not to say there weren't musclecars
> before
> > > the GTO. . .
> >
> > Thou confuseth me, young Diego. You are saying that the GTO was the
> > first "called" a musclecar, but there were others that fit the
> > description before it. Right?
>
>
> No. The GTO is the first musclecar. It was the first car packaged for
> high-performance in mind. It was a lot more than just a big engine. But
> that's not to say a 1960 352/360 is not a musclecar either. Sure, it
> wasn't so much packaged and marketed as the GTO would be, but would you
> kick it out of bed? I think not!
No, I wouldn't. But I'm still unclear what the "packaging" and
"marketing" differences would be between a GTO and a Max Wedge car, and
how that relates to any car being a musclecar.
>
> Besides, those guys who think the C-300 is the first musclecar are full
> of crap. 16-second quarter-nile times don't cut it!
True. In our previous discussion on this I opined the cutoff at
15.50, as many of the "musclecars" back then would run there slippin
and slidin on factory tires. While the C-300 was a milestone car, I
don't think it would have been much faster on slicks. Back then,
though, regearing the rear wasn't too common, so it would be
interesting to see what a 300 would do with 4.56's and traction. Or a
D-501.
>
> > >
> > > They were shrunken full-size cars back then. And the term
> "musclecar" is
> > > a lot more than a so-called mid-size car. It's a performance
> package!
> >
> > Uh-oh, we've been there recently in this NG, so we better digress
> > for while.
> >
> > >
>
>
> Fair 'nuff.
>
>
> >Those
> > were some strange days.
> >
>
> Try talking to Bottlebob in the F-body NG. He's got some good ol'
> strange California ditties for ya.
I guess you didn't know that I know BB very well (or did back then),
and that I reconnected with him here on the Net last year. I wrote a
little story a few months ago that I posted here recollecting the Van
Nuys Boulevard days, and he was mentioned. He was (and still is) quite
a character. We hung out in the same general crowd, and I watched him
race many times. We were in different "classes" then because he was
doing nitrous and raced cars faster than the ones I raced. He's had the
nickname since those days, and was also called "Ponytail" by some
people because of his hair.
CobraJet
Josh Turner
CobraJet wrote:
>
> In article <37F2A768...@erols.com>, Josh Turner <sh...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > CobraJet wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <37F164FD...@erols.com>, Josh Turner <sh...@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Drag car? What do the cross-dressing proclivities of their owners have
> > > > to do with anything?
> > >
> > > Clever, in a juvenile sort of way.
> >
> > Story of my life.
> >
> > > > In any case, "ultimate Ford" to me doesn't mean a car optimized for the
> > > > 1320.
> > >
> > > And that pretty much excludes the rest of this particular essay,
> > > since everyone else is discussing the 1/4 mile.
> >
> > You guys need to broaden your horizons, is all I'm saying. "Ultimate"
> > just means "best in the 1/4"? Not to me...
>
> In this thread (see subject title), we are discussing quarter miles.
> I have no argument that the other cars you mentioned have better
> handling.
Thread title? Since when did the thread title bear any relation to the
content of the messages inside? Must be some sort of new Usenet policy,
I guess. I'm always behind the curve.
> >
> > > > And the GT40 Mk II is just as Yurripean as any of the others
> > > > listed (of course, you probably shouldn't call the Brits Yurripean). I'd
> > > > say that the GT40 and the XJ220 have an awful lot in common.
> > > >
> > > > Don't have any class times for the 1/4 on any of these cars; not so many
> > > > owners take their ultimate Fords to that kind of track (though I'd love
> > > > to see someone show up with an AML at the All-Ford Nationals or
> > > > whatever). I would like to see how long that Fairlane would last sucking
> > > > up the RS200s dust on the Grenada(but it'll always be Paris to me)-Dakar
> > > > rally. If you ask me (and no one did), it's hard to argue that from a
> > > > pure versatility standpoint any performance car is more capable than one
> > > > of them Killer Bs.
> > >
> > > Once again, apples and oranges. I think you've been hanging around
> > > with old "Selective Hearing" Pit Bull. In your case, however, you are
> > > expounding on the obvious.
> >
> >
> > Ah, well. Apples and oranges are both fruit, dontcha know. The world
> > doesn't end at the end of the strip, anymore than Ford built its most
> > powerful street engine in a decade that began with 6 or 7. I'm just
> > trying to liven up the joint.
>
> Street engine? Name a more powerful normally aspirated Ford-based
> engine not built pre-80.
I can only assume that your "Ford-based" qualifier is meant to exclude
the AML engine, though the "naturally aspirated" qualifier would do
that, too. I don't really think those qualifiers are very meaningful,
and so IMHO the AML 5.3 remains the most powerful automotive engine that
Ford has ever built for street use. If you want to artificially restrict
the inquiry by putting qualifiers on it, fine. But why choose the
qualifiers that you did? Why not ask what the most powerful Windsor
built engine with aluminum heads was? Or what the most powerful four
cylinder was? Or (the darling of the Honda set) which engine had the
highest specific output?
In the end, its run what you brung. And if a modern, small-block V8
originally designed by some crazy Brits can use twin superchargers to
put out more power than even the baddest of the old NA lumps, then, erm,
more power to it. Or something.
> As for using the word "ultimate", there is a difference between
> production and non-production cars. If you consider the GT40, you must
> also consider the 427 Daytona Coupe.
OK, fair enough.
> If you consider RS200's set up for
> Rally, then you must consider Nascar's 215-mph Torino Talladegas.
Sure.
> If
> you want to consider blank-check AML cars, then you must consider the
> most brutally accelerating Ford powered road racers in history. I'll
> give you some homework: research Can Am and the Ford alloy 494.
>
Good deal. None of those would be a Fairlane, though, eh?
snip
> >
> > > In drag racing, drum brakes are
> > > preferable to disc, since they are lighter (trick aftermarket hardware
> > > notwithstanding). Consider that all 14 of my post-1965 V8 Fords and
> > > Mercurys have factory disc brakes, and your witty innuendo becomes,
> > > shall we say, embarassing.
> >
> > Discs all the way around then? Or might there be some drums hiding up
> > under the back there, after all?
>
> Drums in back, just like most cars made today.
Appropo of nothing, CJ once again tries to make this into another new v.
old net.jihad.
1. Yes, many cars still come with drums from the factory.
2. No, this has nothing to do with whether drums resist fade better than
discs on a race course.
3. And, no, this *certainly* has nothing to do with whether a good set
of racing discs c. 196X would be a better choice on a road course than
any street brakes, but most especially street brakes c. 196X.
But, of course, here I am belaboring the obvious once more. OTOH, if its
so apparent, why do people keep replying?
> > > I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
> >
> > An SVT Napier L.48. Didn't we go over this?
>
> I see, the Vulture is a chicken.
Oh, geez, now he's calling me a chicken. <rending of cloth> O cruel
Fate, will the wicked barbs never cease?
If only to make the the rhetorical torture end, I'll divulge that these
days I drive a far-from-ultimate Ford, with four wheel disc brakes, four
doors, specific output worthy of a Honda, the engine driving the wrong
end, and a notoriously weak pinion gear that prevents it from being
anything more than a static display at the local 1/4 mi tracks.
CobraJet
wrote:
>
> Thread title? Since when did the thread title bear any relation to the
> content of the messages inside?
It does happen once in a while.
> Must be some sort of new Usenet policy,
> I guess. I'm always behind the curve.
Better than being behind the 8 ball.
> > Street engine? Name a more powerful normally aspirated Ford-based
> > engine not built pre-80.
>
> I can only assume that your "Ford-based" qualifier is meant to exclude
> the AML engine, though the "naturally aspirated" qualifier would do
> that, too. I don't really think those qualifiers are very meaningful,
> and so IMHO the AML 5.3 remains the most powerful automotive engine that
> Ford has ever built for street use. If you want to artificially restrict
> the inquiry by putting qualifiers on it, fine. But why choose the
> qualifiers that you did?
Because most Ford owners have a tough time considering the Aston
Martin a real Ford, any more than they would consider Volvo or Mazda
Fords just because Ford has some kind of involvement. I certainly
don't. I don't consider the GT40's or AC Cobras Fords, either, nor my
favorite, the Pantera. So I can basically exclude the AM from
qualifying as the ultimate Ford. The CanAm cars were definitely not
Ford produced, but, having a Ford designed engine, are a lot more Ford
than an Aston Martin.
Personally, since I have always like AM cars, it takes much of the
exotic mystique away from them to think of them as Fords.
As for qualifiers, supercharging is getting back to apples and
oranges. It puts the engine in question into a whole 'nother category,
and when you toss in the stratospherical price of that car, well...
...the AML becomes a status symbol. That amount of power for a
touring car is excessive, and very few people are qualified to deal
with it. Certainly, most of the people that can afford to buy it will
be in for a rude surprise, and you can bet some of them will die,
others will park the car or sell it, and still others will request a
"detune". All of these situations happened when the 427 Cobra was
released.
> Why not ask what the most powerful Windsor
> built engine with aluminum heads was? Or what the most powerful four
> cylinder was? Or (the darling of the Honda set) which engine had the
> highest specific output?
The CA 494's ran in excess of 800-850 horsepower, naturally
aspirated, in 1800 pound cars. They had Hilborn injector stacks,
aluminum BOSS heads, and magnesium blocks. Kinda puts everything else
in their places.
>
> In the end, its run what you brung. And if a modern, small-block V8
> originally designed by some crazy Brits can use twin superchargers to
> put out more power than even the baddest of the old NA lumps, then, erm,
> more power to it. Or something.
>
> > As for using the word "ultimate", there is a difference between
> > production and non-production cars. If you consider the GT40, you must
> > also consider the 427 Daytona Coupe.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> > If you consider RS200's set up for
> > Rally, then you must consider Nascar's 215-mph Torino Talladegas.
>
> Sure.
>
> > If
> > you want to consider blank-check AML cars, then you must consider the
> > most brutally accelerating Ford powered road racers in history. I'll
> > give you some homework: research Can Am and the Ford alloy 494.
> >
>
> Good deal. None of those would be a Fairlane, though, eh?
Not by a long shot. Can you say Lola?
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > > In drag racing, drum brakes are
> > > > preferable to disc, since they are lighter (trick aftermarket hardware
> > > > notwithstanding). Consider that all 14 of my post-1965 V8 Fords and
> > > > Mercurys have factory disc brakes, and your witty innuendo becomes,
> > > > shall we say, embarassing.
> > >
> > > Discs all the way around then? Or might there be some drums hiding up
> > > under the back there, after all?
> >
> > Drums in back, just like most cars made today.
>
> Appropo of nothing, CJ once again tries to make this into another new v.
> old net.jihad.
Uh, who was it that brought up the supposed inadequacies of drum
brakes? Hmm. Oh yeah, it was you.
>
> 1. Yes, many cars still come with drums from the factory.
> 2. No, this has nothing to do with whether drums resist fade better than
> discs on a race course.
> 3. And, no, this *certainly* has nothing to do with whether a good set
> of racing discs c. 196X would be a better choice on a road course than
> any street brakes, but most especially street brakes c. 196X.
>
> But, of course, here I am belaboring the obvious once more. OTOH, if its
> so apparent, why do people keep replying?
I don't know. Items 1-3 are very obvious to me. You are back to road
courses, when I was discussing drag cars. You must be a graduate from
the Pit Bull School of Switching Topics.
>
> > > > I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
> > >
> > > An SVT Napier L.48. Didn't we go over this?
> >
> > I see, the Vulture is a chicken.
>
> Oh, geez, now he's calling me a chicken. <rending of cloth> O cruel
> Fate, will the wicked barbs never cease?
I knew a girl named Barb once. She was wicked when no one else was
around.
>
> If only to make the the rhetorical torture end, I'll divulge that these
> days I drive a far-from-ultimate Ford, with four wheel disc brakes, four
> doors, specific output worthy of a Honda, the engine driving the wrong
> end, and a notoriously weak pinion gear that prevents it from being
> anything more than a static display at the local 1/4 mi tracks.
What, a freakin Taurus? Contour? Why is it the lower the horsepower,
the bigger the expert? I'll give you until next summer to buy a high
performance car. And it better be an Aston Martin, hotshot. Bring it by
and I'll teach you how to drive it. ;)
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
rose...@pilot.msu.edu
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
> >
> > No 440 6bbl. GTX until 1970. Another fine _Cars & Parts_ product?
>
> Naturally. Pretty accurate *95%* of the time.
Go check out what they say about the 1969 Fairlane Cobra or Torino GT.
They're clueless.
> >
> >
> > No. The GTO is the first musclecar. It was the first car packaged
for
> > high-performance in mind. It was a lot more than just a big engine.
But
> > that's not to say a 1960 352/360 is not a musclecar either. Sure, it
> > wasn't so much packaged and marketed as the GTO would be, but would
you
> > kick it out of bed? I think not!
>
> No, I wouldn't. But I'm still unclear what the "packaging" and
> "marketing" differences would be between a GTO and a Max Wedge car,
and
> how that relates to any car being a musclecar.
>
The GTO was the first car that used the old hot-rodder's trick- big
engine, small car. They then made it into a complete performance package
and marketed it with its own identity.
>
> True. In our previous discussion on this I opined the cutoff at
> 15.50, as many of the "musclecars" back then would run there slippin
> and slidin on factory tires. While the C-300 was a milestone car, I
> don't think it would have been much faster on slicks. Back then,
> though, regearing the rear wasn't too common, so it would be
> interesting to see what a 300 would do with 4.56's and traction. Or a
> D-501.
A D-501 would be one of the fastest from that era, I would guess.
>
> I guess you didn't know that I know BB very well (or did back
>then),> and that I reconnected with him here on the Net last year.
My parents lived in CA (go Trojans!) during the 1960s before moving to
Delaware. Bottlebob lived the life I could only dream my parents lived.
They were of the Pat Boone persuasion.
GT69...@webtv.net
On sunny mornings they were up at first light,
fine tuning their cars in mid "25".
Lets try this! Ace said to Stan,
Uncle Sam didn't give a damn.
Through trial and error they both had a clue,
If we do this to our car the speed will times two!
As most stories go,they married and strayed,
but not after the car makers took what they made.
There were more Aces and Stans,sure of a win,
for each had a plan to blast through the wind.
By "45" all the boys were improving their toys,
And still uncle sam made not much noise.
The boys kept the pace,improved with each race,
Of course what they did was copied every place.
The 50's slid by and the motors improved,
By the 60's they got faster and just grew and grew.
The Aces and Stans were still at their plans,
Working their magic to be the best in the land.
As the years got to moving and technology improving,
Stan claims any more speed they won't see us moving.
The time was fast some even say,
They once saw a Mustang do 9 seconds one day.
Those times seem fast to most of the masses,
But the Aces and Stans found better gasses.
9 seconds they say!
I'll blow them away.
The brain was a straining with that next idea a stewing,
When all of the sudden dark clouds came a brewing.
All of the sudden like a well placed blow,
Uncle sam turned to the boys and said thats as fast as you go.
Free breathing machines use to the finest of gas,
Were forced to drink piss with a with a cork up it's ass.
One nostril plugged and the other a clogged, Ripped off every year cause
some clod said smog.
Things looked grim from those shiny old mornin's,
And the cars got to be even a mess for the brightest of surgeons.
One would say things can not get any worse
and noone can tell the future of course,
But things came up fast since old Stan sold his horse to take his "25"
to race at the course.
But one thing for sure as I don't pull no jive,
Ace and Stan today certainly plan to break five.
Be it with floating bearings electrically charged
pushed by a laser thermostaticlly discharged.
The Aces and Stans will always be smart,
Cause they have so much talent and plenty of heart.
69 GT convertible,351w 4V,Raven black/red trim,Cruise-O-Matic,Power
brakes,steering,and top w/glass,traction lock-diff.,tach and trip
odometer,air,console,deluxe seatbelts,tint,red knit high back bucket
seats,dual racing mirrors,visability group,AM/tape,exterior and interior
decor group,export handling package,GT equipment,metric speedometer and
fine young lady riding shotgun.
NoOption5L
needed a second section. So, here's another chance to test drive a few more
of Ford's finest from the 60's and one from the 70s. Go ahead and buckle up
those lap belts, and hold on, here we go...
First up tonight is another Mustang. This one is a Steve McQueen special - the
very sharp 1967 fastback, powered by a 335 horsepower 390 cubic inch motor.
Unfortunately, though, this one is only backed up by 3 speed automatic and 3.25
gears.
Yes, we all know you wanted a stripper, but this one "had every power-driven
accessory known to man (alternator, smog-pump, power steering and air
conditioning) loaded on the front."
For your test drive you do a "thorough exterior engine check, including such
things as seeing that the Holly floats were floating where they should be."
and "...since this carb features vacuum operation on the secondaries, and there
is a rather stiff (gas saver) spring to retard them from opening quickly, 2 1/4
coils were promptly snipped off, providing full throttle action earlier in the
speed range."
The reason more wasn't done was because " a good and proper super-tune would
literally destroy the emission device (that features such virtues as an
extremely lean carburetor and retarded ignition)..."
Once at the track, "the paper-pack air filter was removed, along with the belts
driving the smog pump, power steering and air conditioner. The belt for the
viscous-coupled fan, and the alternator was loosened to its maximum (short of
spining off) and the distributor advanced 2 degrees (total 8).
"...they must have fit the 390 into the Mustang with a .020 inch feeler gauge.
Unless there is some secret plan or you come naturally equipped with asbestos
skin, resign yourself to either trading the beast or pulling the engine when
fresh plugs can no longer be avoided."
"All this jazzing around put the miles-per-gallon of premium down to a lowly
10.1"
Your best run at the track with the above tune-up?
0-60 7.1
1/4 mile 15.31 @ 93.45 mph
As tested price. 4,164.35 f.o.b. Detroit.
Here's a NoOp experience with a '67 390 powered Mustang. This encounter
happened in Virginia back around the summer of '88. Me and friend of mine were
cruising a local hot spot with my then almost new '87 5-liter LX. We were
stopped at a traffic light when a very sharp '67 Mustang pulls up next to us.
I yell over to him, hey what's that... what do you have in it? He answers a
390, then he asks me, what's that... (refering to my LX) a joke? Oh, now he's
pissed me off! What a dick! The light turns green and we both leave the line
at the same time. Getting ready to hit second I already have him by about a
1/2 a car length. I hit second gear and wind it out and the 390 Mustang is
starting to fade - he's back about 1 1/2 car lengths. I hit third and continue
to pull on him. I glance back and I can see he's backed off and getting into a
left turn lane. I get hard on my brakes and and pull into a left turn lane a
little bit up the road from him. I swing it around and notice he's still
waiting to get turned around because of traffic. Just as he gets turned around
and pulls out, I'm right next to him again and just cruising along in first
gear waiting for him to give it another try. He jumps on it, and the race is
on once again. The race ends with same results - my LX ahead by a couple car
lengths. This time he gets hard on the brakes and hangs a quick right turn
onto a side street. I'm loving it! Made him eat his words, and right in front
on his girlfriend who was riding shotgun.
Well, back to the road tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
This time out you're taking a pair of Mustangs to the track - two '68 Shelby
GT-500s. The first one is a heavily optioned convertible (A/C) with an
automatic and 3.25 gears (non-locking), and the other is a fastback with a
4-speed and 3.50 gears (traction loc).
"The KR designation, besides signifying a Cobra Jet equipped car, reportedly
means 'King of the Road.' We decided against further telling of this during
our use of either KR after the first reply to the 'What's the KR mean?'
question evoked incredulous laughter. Evidently the young set isn't ready for
that title yet."
Yes, Cobra Jet means 428 cubic inches with 335 horsepower and 440 ft lbs of
torque. The convert weighs in at 3740 lbs and the fastback at 3570 lbs.
First up, you take the convertible.
"After detaching the belts and air-cleaner element, plus raising the front tire
pressure to 45 psi and the rear to 32, we achieved a 97.71 mph top end and e.t.
of 14.58 seconds. This was the best. It had dropped to a poor 14.94 e.t
earlier."
Then the fastback.
"Our four-speed car never dropped below 100 mph in all its runs and never
transversed the quarter in more than 14.20 seconds."
"Five or six close runs produce unreal fade and slip (clutch). We did feel
content - relatively speaking - when the four-speed car ticked off a
14.01-second quarter and a top end of 102.73 mph."
As tested prices. Fastback $4,857.13 / Convertible $5,350.39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Too pricey, huh? Okay, here's one that should fit your budget. It's a 1969
Mach 1 with a 290 horsepower 351 (385 ft lbs torque) backed up with a 3-speed
automatic and 3.25 gears. Price as tested - $3,656.00. Test weight 3,650 lbs.
"The '69 Mustang is the best one they've ever produced, and very nearly the
best in the entire pony-car field."
"Handling is worthy of good comment on Mach 1's."
"The weight difference between the Cobra Jet 428 and the 351 is 254 lbs, and
the 390 tips in at 121 pounds more than the 351 - makes the front end like a
magnet, the rear end like a roller skate. Lotsa fun!"
"Right off the street and weighing 3600 pounds, the Mach 1 took 15.46 seconds
to eat up the Orange County asphalt. Without the air cleaner, the timing
bumped up to 10-11 degrees BTC on the crank damper, the hood scoop block
removed, we lowered the time to 15.13 and upped the speed to 93.07 mph."
"Our next pass was good for the best time of the day, at 15.05 seconds, but the
speed was down to 90.72 mph. We'd taken the power-steering drive belt off for
this run, and the rpm climb was quicker, achieving 6000 right at the center
timing light. We let off before getting to the last speed light, not caring to
know this stocker's absolute rev limit."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Next up is a Maverick Grabber. Not sure of the year, but it has a 302 cubic
inch motor that is rated at 210 horsepower @ 4,600 rpm (same as the '85 GT
Mustang?) and torque is 296 ft lbs @ 2,600. Compression is 9.0:1. The
transmission is a 3 speed auto (no manual is offered) twisting 2.79 grears
housed in a 8 inch rear end.
The first wheel spinning runs resulted in low 18.0's and a speed of 78 mph.
Finally, you're able to whittle the time down to a 17.1 @ 81.5 mph. 0-60 was
in 9.8 seconds.
Braking from 60-0 was 155 ft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Well that's it for tonight. I'm too tired to road test the last of my Fords.
Hope you enjoyed. Look for part 3 section 3, hopefully, tomorrow night.
FENATIC
must have been running a smog pump.
CobraJet
<fen...@aol.com> wrote:
> hahahahaahahah where were you when my 390 was tying 5.0's to trees? poor guy
> must have been running a smog pump.
There seems to be a sig missing from this post. I wonder where it
went? Musta got sucked into the smog pump (mini bike supercharger). It
seems someone still has a case if "Liter Envy" (it's a bummer only
having 5 when you coulda had 7).
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
CobraJet
wrote:
> In article <300919991808449787%catzh...@mydoor.com>,
> CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > No, I wouldn't. But I'm still unclear what the "packaging" and
> > "marketing" differences would be between a GTO and a Max Wedge car,
> and
> > how that relates to any car being a musclecar.
> >
>
>
> The GTO was the first car that used the old hot-rodder's trick- big
> engine, small car. They then made it into a complete performance package
> and marketed it with its own identity.
I don't know that I would call the GTO a small car, but I tell you
what. I know you are a Poncho man, so you probably have the wheelbase
and weight stats for a '64 GTO handy. Give me a couple days and let me
see what I can dig up similar for the MW Mopars, out of curiosity. I'll
be gone tomorrow, so I'll do some checking Sunday.
(snip)
>
>
> My parents lived in CA (go Trojans!) during the 1960s before moving to
> Delaware. Bottlebob lived the life I could only dream my parents lived.
> They were of the Pat Boone persuasion.
BB will be the first one to tell you that there were parts of his
life you would not envy, and you certainly would not wish that on your
parents. However, he persevered, as most smart cookies do.
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
Michael Keller
SNIP
>
> The GTO was the first car that used the old hot-rodder's trick- big
> engine, small car. They then made it into a complete performance package
> and marketed it with its own identity.
>
SNIP
---
Geez, did everybody forget about the '32 V8? Ford took the '32 Model B
and tossed in his new V8. A light car with an optional V8 twice the size
and much more powerful than the base model engine. Sound familiar?
Sounds like he beat the boys at Pontiac by say, 32 years.
Maybe the '32 ought to be considered the first muscle car.
-Mike.
Josh Turner
That amount of power is excessive for any street car, which is why even
after the bloom of hyper-exotics in the 80s and 90s the AML remains one
of the few cars ever sold to offer 600 net hp. Of course, in the Aston
that power is damped by two and a half tons of weight, but even in a
5000 lb. car, 600 will get your attention.
> Certainly, most of the people that can afford to buy it will
> be in for a rude surprise, and you can bet some of them will die,
Perhaps, though this is why Aston offers a range of engines. Most status
seeking buyers will likely be content with the 300 odd hp from the
supercharged six in the DB7 or from the NA V8. Some will prefer more,
and elect the 420 hp V-12, which in the end offers performance fairly
similar to the Ferrari 456 and Jaguar XKR. An even smaller number will
want the "standard" s/c 550 hp V8. Given the enormous cost penalty, I
have a feeling only the true enthusiast (albeit a really well-heeled
one) will select the "V600" option. No reason to think that just because
the person who buys a V600 has a lot of money, he is any less an
enthusiast or any more dangerous to himself (or herself) and others than
the ordinary Joe who plunked down X dollars for the big block sedans of
yore.
> others will park the car or sell it, and still others will request a
> "detune". All of these situations happened when the 427 Cobra was
> released.
All of these situations happen when many limited edition
high-performance cars are introduced.
> > Why not ask what the most powerful Windsor
> > built engine with aluminum heads was? Or what the most powerful four
> > cylinder was? Or (the darling of the Honda set) which engine had the
> > highest specific output?
>
> The CA 494's ran in excess of 800-850 horsepower, naturally
> aspirated, in 1800 pound cars. They had Hilborn injector stacks,
> aluminum BOSS heads, and magnesium blocks. Kinda puts everything else
> in their places.
Yep. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to see the return of the
unlimited formula in motor racing--how much power could a modern racing
engine, not artificially limited by displacement caps and restrictor
plates, really make? The 917Ks were pushing 1200 in road race trim from
5 liters in 1972; think that would improve? I do. OTOH, a racing series
truly designed to showcase the limits of technology would probably also
be a blood bath, since even the best drivers in the world would probably
find it hard to control a 900 lb, 4000 hp full-ground effect road racing
car.
Yes. Drum brakes are inadequate, at least on road courses. But I didn't
say anything about old cars v. new cars, because believe it or not I
knew prior to you pointing it out that many new cars still come with
drums from the factory.
> >
> > 1. Yes, many cars still come with drums from the factory.
> > 2. No, this has nothing to do with whether drums resist fade better than
> > discs on a race course.
> > 3. And, no, this *certainly* has nothing to do with whether a good set
> > of racing discs c. 196X would be a better choice on a road course than
> > any street brakes, but most especially street brakes c. 196X.
> >
> > But, of course, here I am belaboring the obvious once more. OTOH, if its
> > so apparent, why do people keep replying?
>
> I don't know. Items 1-3 are very obvious to me. You are back to road
> courses, when I was discussing drag cars. You must be a graduate from
> the Pit Bull School of Switching Topics.
<proudly gazing at diploma on wall> Yep, only took me six years to
finish. Switching topics keeps your opponents on their toes, and helps
heighten mental acuity.
> >
> > > > > I forgot, what was it that you drive again?
> > > >
> > > > An SVT Napier L.48. Didn't we go over this?
> > >
> > > I see, the Vulture is a chicken.
> >
> > Oh, geez, now he's calling me a chicken. <rending of cloth> O cruel
> > Fate, will the wicked barbs never cease?
>
> I knew a girl named Barb once. She was wicked when no one else was
> around.
>
> >
> > If only to make the the rhetorical torture end, I'll divulge that these
> > days I drive a far-from-ultimate Ford, with four wheel disc brakes, four
> > doors, specific output worthy of a Honda, the engine driving the wrong
> > end, and a notoriously weak pinion gear that prevents it from being
> > anything more than a static display at the local 1/4 mi tracks.
>
> What, a freakin Taurus? Contour?
Contour.
> Why is it the lower the horsepower,
> the bigger the expert?
Way of the world. That's why tose 127 hp fart-tipped Civic pilots are in
such high-demand, advice-wise. What you want to do is go pull 5 plug
wires off of your V8--you'll be amazed at the epiphany that ensues. Do
us a favor and videotape the process; I want to see the beatific smile
that spreads across your face as the knowledge flows into your mind.
> I'll give you until next summer to buy a high
> performance car.
Bah. Easy for you AZ guys to say. All I know is that 500 lbs ft of
torque + non-galvanized steel + 3 feet of snow + 6 cubic yards of
salt/day/mile = Not a daily driver. Even the winsome characteritics of
the 5.0L Mustang began to get a little grim and tiring in the dead of
winter.
> And it better be an Aston Martin, hotshot. Bring it by
> and I'll teach you how to drive it. ;)
Cool. That gives me six months to either a) win the lotto (might be
easier if I actually played), or b) Somehow replace Reitzle as the head
of the PAG in London (most recent Automobile notes that he has a Vantage
Volante on the way as a company car).
I'll report back on my progress.
Josh Turner
CobraJet
> Contour.
...causing this old snake much ROTFLMAO'ing. As the group's leading
authority on European kinda stuff, he was queried...
>
> > Why is it the lower the horsepower,
> > the bigger the expert?
...and as his sage-like countenance furrowed with ponderous thought,
he simultaneously belched and theorized...
>
> Way of the world. That's why tose 127 hp fart-tipped Civic pilots are in
> such high-demand, advice-wise. What you want to do is go pull 5 plug
> wires off of your V8--you'll be amazed at the epiphany that ensues. Do
> us a favor and videotape the process; I want to see the beatific smile
> that spreads across your face as the knowledge flows into your mind.
...unaware that would lead to a CJ quickie...
One night in 1974 I was changing spark plugs in my 289 Mustang.
Having to go inside the house for something, I returned to the garage
somewhat distracted. I leaned in and started the car, and was rewarded
by an idle that sounded like a container of heating popcorn coming to
life. Aghast at the idea that I may have actually crossed some wires, I
ran around to look under the hood. There was my little V8, rumping
along with all four of the passenger side plug wires laying across the
intake manifold. I couldn't believe this thing was running on one
cylinder bank! My expression was anything but beatific, but I learned
the meaning of "double check" that night...
...subsequently, a challenge was issued...
>
>
> > I'll give you until next summer to buy a high
> > performance car.
...thusly treating me to a mixture of advanced mathematics and
world-class postulation...
>
> Bah. Easy for you AZ guys to say. All I know is that 500 lbs ft of
> torque + non-galvanized steel + 3 feet of snow + 6 cubic yards of
> salt/day/mile = Not a daily driver. Even the winsome characteritics of
> the 5.0L Mustang began to get a little grim and tiring in the dead of
> winter.
...and upon further qualification...
>
>
> > And it better be an Aston Martin, hotshot. Bring it by
> > and I'll teach you how to drive it. ;)
...was given a not-surprising insight into his preferred reading
material...
>
> Cool. That gives me six months to either a) win the lotto (might be
> easier if I actually played), or b) Somehow replace Reitzle as the head
> of the PAG in London (most recent Automobile notes that he has a Vantage
> Volante on the way as a company car).
...and the breath-holding promise...
>
> I'll report back on my progress.
...as if we all had the patience of a Vulture or something...
CobraJet
<GT69...@webtv.net> wrote:
Interesting prose. Where'd you get it?
What? No factory Kleenex dispenser? What a piece of junk! (Just
kidding, of course) Pics/info anywhere? I'd like to see that speedo.
The fine young lady would be fine, too.
CobraJet
Thunder Snake#1
GT69...@webtv.net
console glove box when I bought it from the son of the original owner
who's father had passed away.He drove it until he died in his late 80's
and he bought it new in "69" in his 50's.
As for my attempt of a poem....after reading the back and forth talk of
who was best,I got to thinking of all the unknown and forgotten guys who
made these fine machines evolve into what they are today and it took
about an hour but I imagined the evolution of the American boys doing
the same things they still do today and thats just how it came out.
I thought it rather good....even if I couldn't get everything to rhyme
right,but I think I made my point without causing any trouble and
hopefully opening the minds of some to the fact that old man you see at
the stop light may be the same guy who 40 years ago not only would of
built a better car but would of flattened some of the trolls if what
they say here they would of said in their face before the internet.
Been to a wedding... beer all ran free,
Hated to leave but it was no more for me,
Out for the night without even a fight,
Now must grab my lady and kiss my Mustang goodnight.
NoOption5L
<catzh...@mydoor.com> writes:
>In article <19991002010752...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, FENATIC
><fen...@aol.com> wrote:
Surprise, surprise... ol' Tic and Tac are back and again trying to discredit my
thread.
>> hahahahaahahah where were you when my 390 was tying 5.0's to trees?
Oh yeah, that's right you say you never lose. Sure... real believable.
Stop trying to fuck us with that no late model can beat a classic nonsense.
We're not buying it, so get off us.
>>poor guy must have been running a smog pump.
His 390 was probably near stock like my lil' 5 oh, that's why he got big block
ass spanked.
Still haven't learned to quote I see. Here, I'll take care of it for you.
-----------Fenetic is refering to the
following-------------------------------------------
Here's a NoOp experience with a '67 390 powered Mustang. This encounter
happened in Virginia back around the summer of '88. Me and friend of mine were
cruising a local hot spot with my then almost new '87 5-liter LX. We were
stopped at a traffic light when a very sharp '67 Mustang pulls up next to us.
I yell over to him, hey what's that... what do you have in it? He answers a
390, then he asks me, what's that... (refering to my LX) a joke? Oh, now he's
pissed me off! What a dick! The light turns green and we both leave the line
at the same time. Getting ready to hit second I already have him by about a
1/2 a car length. I hit second gear and wind it out and the 390 Mustang is
starting to fade - he's back about 1 1/2 car lengths. I hit third and continue
to pull on him. I glance back and I can see he's backed off and getting into a
left turn lane. I get hard on my brakes and and pull into a left turn lane a
little bit up the road from him. I swing it around and notice he's still
waiting to get turned around because of traffic. Just as he gets turned around
and pulls out, I'm right next to him again and just cruising along in first
gear waiting for him to give it another try. He jumps on it, and the race is
on once again. The race ends with same results - my LX ahead by a couple car
lengths. This time he gets hard on the brakes and hangs a quick right turn
onto a side street. I'm loving it! Made him eat his words, and right in front
on his girlfriend who was riding shotgun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> There seems to be a sig missing from this post. I wonder where it
>went? Musta got sucked into the smog pump (mini bike supercharger). It
>seems someone still has a case if "Liter Envy"
Size doesn't matter, only the performance.
>(it's a bummer only having 5 when you coulda had 7).
Not when you're out running those 7s.
NoOption5L
buckle up those lap belts and hold on, here we go...
Tonight, we'll start with the 60's version of the sport utility vehicle.
Titled the "Super Hauler" we're going to be driving a '68 Ranchero powered by a
390 cubic motor backed up by a 3 speed automatic and 3.00 gears. This one just
like the 90's SUVs has every available option - in the 60's this meant A/C,
bucket seats, console, automatic transmission, GT interior and trim, 390 V8,
disc brakes, etc.
Horsepower is rated at 335 @ 4,800 and torque is 427 ft. lbs. Test weight is
3375 lbs. Price as tested - $4,012.76.
Talking about the brakes. "They work on par with an aircraft carrier landing
cable. "But the Ranchero stopped over and over in sub-130-foot distances from
60 mph..."
"The one major design change that causes more comments than all else is the
absence of vent side windows on the '68 Fairlane."
<A NoOp comment. Why did they ever stop making these "wing windows"? These
things were great! You could crack them open, but keep the side windows up and
you'd have nice interior ventilation. I for one would love to see automakers
bring 'em back.>
Time to take the Ranchero to the track to get some numbers.
Manually shfting the automatic at 5,200 - 5,300 rpm. "Our initial quarter-mile
pass at Irvingdale Raceway felt good, but turned out to be a 16.32 seconds e.t.
and carried a speed of 85.38 mph."
"Trying the car in 'Drive' really slowed things down to 16.48 seconds because
the fully-automatic blast shifted at 4,500-4,700 rpm, just below peak
horsepower mark."
Removing the air-conditioner and power steering belts brought about a best of
15.98 e.t. with a speed of 89.90. Removing the air-cleaner lid dropped the
e.t. to 15.60 at 91.80 mph. Jacking the advance to a total centrifugal of 33
degrees at 4,000 rpm versus the stock 29 and lowering the tailgate improved the
numbers to 15.52 at 98.34 mph. <NoOp's comment> with better weight
distribution and traction this truck could be running low 14s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Next up is a 1965 Mustang fastback packing a 271 horsepower (311 ft lbs of
torque) 289 that's shifted with a four-speed manual transmission. Gearing is a
nice set of 3.89s.
*Curb* weight is 3,000 lbs. Base price is $2,589 As tested (which also
included front disc brakes, hd suspension, Rally Pac, radio, heater, console,
whitewalls, seat belts, misc. access.) was $3,695.50. <A NoOp comment. Can you
imagine today *asking* for a radio, heater, and seat belts to be added to your
new car?>
The Rally Pac (tach and a clock) was a $70.80 option.
HD suspension was a $31.30 dollar option.
Front disc brakes was a $58 dollar option.
"In our opinion, with a long enough run our test car would easily have topped
120 mph."
"Last year's Mustang (four wheel drum brakes) took 172 feet for a 60-mph stop -
our 1965 disc-braked Mustang required only 150 feet."
"Our test car managed 15.5 mpg at a steady 65 mph, but normal driving brought
between 13 and 14 mpg."
Performance with *two* people on board.
0-30 mph - 2.9 seconds
0-45 mph - 4.4
0-60 mph - 7.6
1/4 mile - 15.9 @ 89 mph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Out next test drive is another 390 car - a '69 Torino GT. Once again factory
rated at 335 horsepower and 427 foot lbs of torque.
"'This is one of those cars that grows on you, observed Van Deventer as the
'390' flattened out the winding hills of Highway 80 heading east from San
Diego. Riding on high performance wide oval F70 x 14 tires and heavy duty
suspension, the car stayed 'glued' to the road very well."
"At the drag strip (we just happened to stop off and check on the progress of a
Car Craft drag test being conducted by CC's John Raffa) the Torino GT cranked
off some sub-100 (but just barely) runs in the high 14s (14.85 @ 99.50 mph).
Remember, this was strictly in assembly line trim and running all the air
emission controls."
"With the 390 running 10.25 compression, we stayed with premium fuel, but it
isn't nessessary to pull all the way to the high priced pump, just good Ethyl."
"A couple of days after our road test was completed, Ford announced the
availability of it's new tunnel port kits, so we headed the blue Torino to the
garage for a little 'changee-changee. Designated the 'Cobra Jet' the new
engine (see Feb '68 CC) features the competition proven tunnel port design
which routes the pushrod through a special shaft located in the center of the
intake port."
Back to the track for more testing.
14.23 @ 104.54 mph, without a limited slip diff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
And our last two test drives are once again Shelbys. This time they're 67's -
a GT 350 and a GT 500.
The GT 350 has a 306 horsepower (329 ft lbs of torque) 289 (750 Holley) and a
4-speed with 3.89 gears. Test weight 3,048 lbs. Base price is $4,195.
The GT 500 has a 428 with dual 600 cfm Hollys (355 HP/ 420 foot lbs) an
automatic transmission and 3.25 gears. Test weight is 3,576 lbs. Base price
is $4,395.
"This year you can buy the Shelby products in a wide range of colors and the
bold, cop attracting stripes have been left off. Shelby employees have found
their 'ticket ratio' substantially reduced in the unstripped version."
"...the solid lifters in the 350 are especially noticeable."
"The GT 500, with its very efficient automatic transmission (at this writing it
still hasn't been decided if this model will be offered with manual four-speed
or not) doesn't perform much better than the GT 350 in a straight line, but it
does it with comparative ease and with a great reduction in noise level."
"Top speed of both models is nearly identical. The 500 got to 132 mph with a
slow reading speedo. Only the last ten mph came hard. The 350 worked fairly
hard from the century mark up, but, even with ignition break-up at top speed,
it still indicated 129 mph on a slightly fast speedo."
"Our congradulations to the guys who built it, were shrugged off with. 'Wait
until you see what we on the market in a couple of years if you think this one
is more sophisticated!'"
The acceleration tests:
GT 350 GT 500
0-30 2.8 2.8
0-60 7.1 6.7
1/4 15.3 @ 91 mph 15.3 @ 92 mph
Test MPG - 13 9.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
That's it for the Ford tests. Next up is some Mopar muscle. I have lots of
Hemi road tests. Stay tuned....
Ken Davis
you quoting these passages from?
-Ken
'99 Mustang GT (chrome yellow)
13.81 @100.7 mph 60'-->2.04 R/T .518
Best trap speed 103.7 mph
Best 60' (street radials) 1.82
http://members.aol.com/yella99gt/home/HomeKD.html
(last updated 8/16/1999)
NoOption5L
yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>Patrick, I missed a lot of part I and II of this thread.
Don't worry, I'll repost them all soon.
>What magazines are you quoting these passages from?
Many of these are from Hot Rod, some are from Motor Trend, Car Craft, Popular
Hot Rodding, and a few are from Sports Car Graphic. It's very neat reading
about upcoming technolgy that has already happened. Plus, the old ads are very
cool.
Ken Davis
>Hot Rodding, and a few are from Sports Car Graphic. It's very neat reading
>about upcoming technolgy that has already happened. Plus, the old ads are
>very
>cool.
>
>Patrick
I was getting a kick out of those classic prices myself ; ) Where did you get
such a collection of old car rags? Maybe a garage sale or flea market?
Also, did you post the question about gears because just swapped them into the
Cobra? If so, I'd say it's time for another trip to the track to get the
elusive 13 second timeslip.
CobraJet
<fen...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>
> >Patrick, I missed a lot of part I and II of this thread.
>
> Don't worry, I'll repost them all soon. >>
>
> oh joy.
> Failing to resist the temptation to ignore ignorant, and/or bigoted
> propaganda,
> Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
It's hard to do, especially when you get such gems as "Tunnel Port
Cobra Jet" heads. Since when do C8AX heads have anything to do with a
CJ? And how well are they going to work with flat top pistons and a
lo-po cam? Weren't TP cams bumpin near .600 lift or something (I have
to look)? What a clueless magazine. I need some Pepto Bismol.
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
FENATIC
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
><<yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>>Patrick, I missed a lot of part I and II of this thread.
>Don't worry, I'll repost them all soon. >>
>oh joy.
I knew YOU'D be excited.
>Failing to resist the temptation to ignore ignorant, and/or bigoted
propaganda,
Why would posting these numbers be "bigoted propaganda?" Remember, I've driven
big blocks before and I've owned some classics. I just believe, unlike you,
that the automotive world (and music) didn't stop somewhere around the early
70's.
I'll request this again. You being a "fenetic" about 60's musclecars surely
you must have some old magazine articles that posted better numbers than what
I'm finding and posting. Right? Nah.. probably not... you'd rather live in
your fantasy world where every factory big block musclecar runs 12's.
>Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
I've written quite a bit about my automotive background, why don't you go ahead
enlighten us on yours?
NoOption5L
yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>>Many of these are from Hot Rod, some are from Motor Trend, Car Craft,
>>Popular Hot Rodding, and a few are from Sports Car Graphic. It's very neat
>>reading about upcoming technolgy that has already happened. Plus, the old
>>ads are very cool.
>I was getting a kick out of those classic prices myself ; )
Cool! That's what I hoped for. It's neat to see how the modern stuff compares
to the old classics. Just don't focus too much on the e.ts, keep your eyes on
the trap speeds. That's the better power to weight indicator.
>Where did you get such a collection of old car rags?
I've had many of them, but recently I've picked up a few more. You can find
them at swap meets... and at one time we had a store here in Albuquerque that
sold nothing but old car magazines. Unfortunately, they've recently closed up.
>Maybe a garage sale or flea market?
Yeah, just look around... you can find 'em. Sometimes you can see ads where
people are selling them.
>Also, did you post the question about gears because just swapped them into
>the Cobra?
Yep. I've had the gears laying around for a couple weeks and everytime I
planned to have them installed for me something would come up. Then recently
a friend of mine said he'd do them for me. I figured it would be a good chance
for me to learn how to set them up. I just expected him to have ALL the tools
(dial indicator) to do the job the right way. Only after we had pulled
everything apart did I learn that we were going to kind of wing it. We
installed a Motorsport gear set and an install kit, used the factory shims, and
we torqued everything to spec. After we brought the car down off the rack, I
really expected to hear the gears whine, but so far (I still have my fingers
crossed) it's as quite as stock. I don't know... is it possible to set up
gears without a dial indicator and not have any problems? Anyone...
>If so, I'd say it's time for another trip to the track to get the elusive 13
second >timeslip.
I think it would have run 13's a month ago after my son and I installed the Mac
headers. Now, she better be running mid 13's (corrected) with gears and this
good fall air.
Ken Davis
>>>Many of these are from Hot Rod, some are from Motor Trend, Car Craft,
>>>Popular Hot Rodding, and a few are from Sports Car Graphic. It's very neat
>>>reading about upcoming technolgy that has already happened. Plus, the old
>>>ads are very cool.
>
>>I was getting a kick out of those classic prices myself ; )
>
>Cool! That's what I hoped for. It's neat to see how the modern stuff
>compares
>to the old classics. Just don't focus too much on the e.ts, keep your eyes
>on
>the trap speeds. That's the better power to weight indicator.
The trap speeds have not gone unnoticed, in fact it gave me some consolation
that I didn't even break 13's when I got a 103.7 trap speed out of the yellow
car right after the Bassani install.
I also recognixe that the numbers are on bone stock cars that would respond
incredibly to a set of cams, intake and high CFM carbeurator. It's good that
your taking the time to share some of this stuff with us. Very interesting
thread.
>>Also, did you post the question about gears because just swapped them into
>>the Cobra?
>
>Yep. I've had the gears laying around for a couple weeks and everytime I
>planned to have them installed for me something would come up. Then
>recently
>a friend of mine said he'd do them for me. I figured it would be a good
>chance
>for me to learn how to set them up. I just expected him to have ALL the
>tools
>(dial indicator) to do the job the right way. Only after we had pulled
>everything apart did I learn that we were going to kind of wing it. We
>installed a Motorsport gear set and an install kit, used the factory shims,
>and
>we torqued everything to spec. After we brought the car down off the rack, I
>really expected to hear the gears whine, but so far (I still have my fingers
>crossed) it's as quite as stock. I don't know... is it possible to set up
>gears without a dial indicator and not have any problems? Anyone...
We didn't use a dial indicator on my gears, and essentially used the same
techniques you described. Tightening the pinion down seemed like the artform
on my gear install. We'd tighten a bit with the airgun, check for the desired
play in the diff, tighten some more, until we found the same play we had with
the stock gears. I've not had any problems with my gear swap with
driveability, whine or anything.
>>If so, I'd say it's time for another trip to the track to get the elusive 13
>second >timeslip.
>
>I think it would have run 13's a month ago after my son and I installed the
>Mac
>headers. Now, she better be running mid 13's (corrected) with gears and this
>good fall air.
I've missed out on what you've been doing to the Cobra. How did those MAC
headers work out for you? Are they shorties or long tubes? Feel any
difference? That's great you got your son involved in the car hobby. I can't
wait til mine are old enough to work on cars with me.
FENATIC
propaganda,
Why would posting these numbers be "bigoted propaganda?" Remember, I've driven
big blocks before and I've owned some classics. I just believe, unlike you,
that the automotive world (and music) didn't stop somewhere around the early
70's. >>
actually, in a sense, it did. Thats what government safety and then fuel
economy and insurance demands did to the natural evolution of automobile
design. Ask Bill schenk, the guy who designed the 1970 Torino. Probably the
last pure style driven Ford design.
<<I'll request this again. You being a "fenetic" about 60's musclecars surely
you must have some old magazine articles that posted better numbers than what
I'm finding and posting. Right? Nah.. probably not... you'd rather live in
your fantasy world where every factory big block musclecar runs 12's.>>
Actually, I have an overflowing milk crate in my living room that a guy gave me
a few monthes back. Nothing but 60's Hot Rods and PHR's, in great shape. In
fact the first year of PHR was in a PHR labelled binder. I gave those to a
friend. Youre welcome Brien. Mostly because I already had several of them, in
cherrier condition. Those are the issues that "road test" the lightweight
Galaxies (12.60's) Thunderbolt Fairlanes (11's) and pretty much make a joke
out of every single factory offering since then (1963). Yeah, I have a ton of
magazines, on top of those. I dont need to read them anymore, cuz I have the
cars I need. Like maybe ten Fairlanes and Torinos, all but 3 are big blocks.
Another 7 Ford/Mercs, only one Mustang, go figure.
>Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
I've written quite a bit about my automotive background, why don't you go ahead
enlighten us on yours?
Patrick>>
cuz Im not a self righteous expert? Just a big block 60's Ford enthusiast.
Who knows what hes talking about, occasionally. If you cant sift through the
inequities of magazine tests that very often included highly deceptive factory
prepped cars (Pontiac never held back on those opportunities), Musclecars that
received bolt ons, and ones that didnt, etc. You might as well be quoting Jim
Smart, he has a thing for reprinting magazine test results, too. Restomod,
anyone? (Gag me with a subscription! Thanks Brien!)
Michael Keller
>
SNIP
>
> It's hard to do, especially when you get such gems as "Tunnel Port
> Cobra Jet" heads. Since when do C8AX heads have anything to do with a
> CJ?
They printed it...it *must* be true.
> And how well are they going to work with flat top pistons and a
> lo-po cam?
NOT.
> Weren't TP cams bumpin near .600 lift or something (I have
> to look)?
The C8AX-6250-D cam specs at .006" lift are as follows:
INTAKE - OPENS 60 BTDC CLOSES 90ABDC - LIFT .600"
EXHAUST - OPENS 94 BBDC CLOSES 56ATDC - LIFT .600"
1.76 Rocker ratio.
Lobe center angle 107 degrees.
Intake center line 105 degrees.
My friend is running this cam on the street in his medium riser
equipped '68 Torino GT. A little soggy on the bottom end but you had
better have the car pointed in the right direction once the motor wakes
up. The combination of lots of squeeze and idle chop (if you want to
call what this motor does at 1800rpm an idle) makes this cam the
ultimate hamburger stand item this side of a 14-71 sticking up through
the hood. He's had people walk away from a blower equipped car just to
come over and see whats under the hood. It sounds *that* intimidating.
And its not the car. The car is Navejo Beige with no GT stripes and
black 15x7 wheels. Its not something that catches your eye but it sure
does sing pretty.
-Mike Thundersnake #5
Whole Lotta Tom
being a troll. Well, as always...
Fuck Trolls.
And untill he realizes the footprints on his dick are his own and he stops
being a troll, fuck him.
--
Tom
Thunder Snake #3
"Li'l Thunder '58"
CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote in message
news:270919991349114635%catzh...@mydoor.com...
> Oh that poor Pit Bull. So savage in his quest to prove something so
> vague and inconsequential that virtually nobody in this NG gives a
> damn. He's so out of control he hasn't figured out that his dubious
> claim of also being an early car enthusiast has been blown asunder by
> repeated malicious commentary. He is, unfortunately, still under the
> impression that these cars he viciously discredits were actually built
> to be used as street transportation. He sticks continually to garbage
> road test instead of dragstrip history, which is what they were
> intended for. Poor Pit Bull. Alienating virtually every early car owner
> in here with ad nauseum reposts, hoping to steer people into his
> now-clear Commie agenda of pro-New Tech Superiority. What happened to
> the nice Irish boy who posted humor and sprinkled various threads with
> his former upbeat presence? What has possessed him so? Revenge for
> ousting that limp-wrist DeFeo? Troubles at home? Job stress (after all,
> he does work for the guvmint)? Kids getting too big too fast? Big Block
> Envy? Any opinions out there? Poor Pit Bull.
>
> CobraJet
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
><<>Failing to resist the temptation to ignore ignorant, and/or bigoted
>propaganda,
>Why would posting these numbers be "bigoted propaganda?" Remember, I've
>driven blocks before and I've owned some classics. I just believe, unlike
you,
>that the automotive world (and music) didn't stop somewhere around the early
>70's. >>
>actually, in a sense, it did. Thats what government safety
I'm not a proponent of airbags, but safety glass, shoulder belts, padded
steering wheels, emission controls, crumple zones, etc. are all very good
things.
>and then fuel economy
The fuel economy issue has helped performance. A more efficient engine is a
more powerful engine.
>and insurance demands
Some people screw the system, causing the system to screw everyone.
>did to the natural evolution of automobile design.
Government intervention has been a mix of good and bad, mostly good though.
Could you imagine living in cities today with all the cars still running on
leaded fuel, without emission controls, and getting around 10 miles per gallon?
>Ask Bill schenk, the guy who designed the 1970 Torino. Probably the last pure
>style driven Ford design.
Style is cool, but function (aerodynamics) is more important.
><<I'll request this again. You being a "fenetic" about 60's musclecars surely
>you must have some old magazine articles that posted better numbers than what
>I'm finding and posting. Right? Nah.. probably not... you'd rather live in
>your fantasy world where every factory big block musclecar runs 12's.>>
>Actually, I have an overflowing milk crate in my living room that a guy gave
>me a few monthes back. Nothing but 60's Hot Rods and PHR's, in great shape.
>In fact the first year of PHR was in a PHR labelled binder. I gave those to a
>friend. Youre welcome Brien. Mostly because I already had several of them,
>in cherrier condition.
Do any of those issues have articles of common factory stock musclecars running
better times than the ones I've been posting?
>Those are the issues that "road test" the lightweight Galaxies (12.60's)
>Thunderbolt Fairlanes (11's) and pretty much make a joke out of every single
>factory offering since then (1963).
A couple of very limited production factory race cars. Neat, but BFD. Before
you jump me, I feel the same way about the today's Cobra Rs. The average
enthusiast will never get a chance to own, race, or race against any of these.
The common everyday musclecars earn my respect.
>Yeah, I have a ton of magazines, on top of those. I dont need to read them
>anymore, cuz I have the cars I need.
I'm sure you remember their numbers, and point has been those numbers. In pure
stock trim (no aftermarket parts) the classic musclecar on average are no
faster, if any faster, than today's offerings.
>Like maybe ten Fairlanes and Torinos, all but 3 are big blocks.
Wow! Would you happen to have a web page with pics? Are all in running
condition?
>Another 7 Ford/Mercs, only one Mustang, go figure.
That's okay, you met the NG's minimum requirement.
>>Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
>I've written quite a bit about my automotive background, why don't you go
>ahead enlighten us on yours?
>cuz Im not a self righteous expert?
You think that talking about your automotive background will make you a
"self-righteous expert"? ;-)
Oh shit, hate to tell yah, but you've unwittingly moved yourself way up on the
list for a NG interview.
>Just a big block 60's Ford enthusiast. Who knows what hes talking about,
>occasionally.
Just so that I can use this against you at a later date... define
"occasionally". What is it... 1 out of 5, 1 out of 10...?
>If you cant sift through the inequities of magazine tests that very often
included >highly deceptive factory prepped cars
Inequities is the wrong word. Magazines writers... at least the gear head
magazines are trying to get the best numbers possible (they wouldn't have been
adjusting tire inflations, removing belts, advancing timing if they weren't).
Remember, sensational news sells.
If you compare road tests from a few different magazines you'll get a
performance range.
Case in point. Back in '87-'88 when I bought my LX, the magazine range for
that car was from 13.7 to a 14.6. Traps ranged from 96 to 100 mph. When I
raced my LX in stock trim (7-8 passes) my ETs were between 14.2 and 14.4 and my
traps speeds were between 96-98 mph. My ETs and trap speeds were a bit above
average, but then I didn't powershift.
Were the road test times the best a 5-liter LX could do... are the old road
test numbers in this thread the best the "classics'" could do? No. With a few
choice aftermarket parts and some "tuning", all could run considerably faster.
Did they give a range of what you could expect in stock trim? Yep.
>(Pontiac never held back on those opportunities), Musclecars that received
bolt >ons, and ones that didnt, etc.
Yeah, maybe some more than others, but I think they all received some "tuning"
at one time or another.
>You might as well be quoting Jim Smart, he has a thing for reprinting magazine
>test results, too.
Who's Jim Smart?
I think it's better that I'm posting the information *from the day*, not from
someone's memory.
>Restomod, anyone?
I love restomods! Surprised, huh? I'm not condoning chopping up RT's, Cobra
Jets, SSs, etc (I'd help you kill those people), I'm talking about using the
old entry level cars.
>(Gag me with a subscription!
Fuel injection, modern brakes, chassis upgrades, overdrive transmissions, big
inch wheels added to an old body... very cool stuff!
NoOption5L
Oversensitive Tom" <nos...@nospam.com> writes:
>All I know is, he is trolling his own newsgroup. Make no mistake, he is
>being a troll. Well, as always...
"As always, huh"? Maybe you should get a little clarification from CJ (your
leader?) on the definition of a troll or the term trolling.
>Fuck Trolls.
Yeah, I hate 'em. Fuck them trolls.
I post "quotes" from old magazines and Tom goes off and brands me a troll. I
find this very interesting, and kinda strange too.
>And untill he realizes the footprints on his dick are his own and he stops
being a >troll, fuck him.
Tom, I'm afraid you're in for a long and bumpy ride then because I ain't
stopping until I post road tests from all the manufacturers. Hell, I've even
been requested to *repost* 'em.
The Mopars are next... stay tuned!
>Tom
>Thunder Snake #3
>"Li'l Thunder '58"
>CobraJet <catzh...@mydoor.com> wrote in message
>news:270919991349114635%catzh...@mydoor.com...
>> Oh that poor Pit Bull. So savage in his quest to prove something so
>> vague and inconsequential that virtually nobody in this NG gives a
>> damn. He's so out of control he hasn't figured out that his dubious
>> claim of also being an early car enthusiast has been blown asunder by
>> repeated malicious commentary. He is, unfortunately, still under the
>> impression that these cars he viciously discredits were actually built
>> to be used as street transportation. He sticks continually to garbage
>> road test instead of dragstrip history, which is what they were
>> intended for. Poor Pit Bull. Alienating virtually every early car owner
>> in here with ad nauseum reposts, hoping to steer people into his
>> now-clear Commie agenda of pro-New Tech Superiority. What happened to
>> the nice Irish boy who posted humor and sprinkled various threads with
>> his former upbeat presence? What has possessed him so? Revenge for
>> ousting that limp-wrist DeFeo? Troubles at home? Job stress (after all,
>> he does work for the guvmint)? Kids getting too big too fast? Big Block
>> Envy? Any opinions out there? Poor Pit Bull.
>> CobraJet
NoOption5L
yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>>>I was getting a kick out of those classic prices myself ; )
>>Cool! That's what I hoped for. It's neat to see how the modern stuff
>>compares to the old classics. Just don't focus too much on the e.ts, keep
your >>eyes on the trap speeds. That's the better power to weight indicator.
>The trap speeds have not gone unnoticed, in fact it gave me some consolation
>that I didn't even break 13's when I got a 103.7 trap speed out of the yellow
>car right after the Bassani install.
Ahhh, 103 mph should be getting you high 13's..13.7s or 6s maybe even 5's.
looks like (from your sig line) you only need to put a nice run all together.
Your best 60 foot time with your best trap speed.
>I also recognixe that the numbers are on bone stock cars that would respond
>incredibly to a set of cams, intake and high CFM carbeurator.
Oh, I know they would (hell, one picked up around 4-5 mph with some exhaust
mods), but that's not what the thread is about.
>It's good that your taking the time to share some of this stuff with us. Very
>interesting thread.
Honestly, I thought the "classic guys" would enjoy the thread. Oh well...
>>>Also, did you post the question about gears because just swapped them into
>>>the Cobra?
>>Yep. I've had the gears laying around for a couple weeks and everytime I
>>planned to have them installed for me something would come up. Then
>>recently a friend of mine said he'd do them for me. I figured it would be a
good
>>chance for me to learn how to set them up. I just expected him to have ALL
the
>>tools (dial indicator) to do the job the right way. Only after we had pulled
>>everything apart did I learn that we were going to kind of wing it. We
>>installed a Motorsport gear set and an install kit, used the factory shims,
>>and we torqued everything to spec. After we brought the car down off the
rack,
>>I really expected to hear the gears whine, but so far (I still have my
fingers
>>crossed) it's as quite as stock. I don't know... is it possible to set up
>>gears without a dial indicator and not have any problems? Anyone...
>We didn't use a dial indicator on my gears, and essentially used the same
>techniques you described.
<wiping some sweat off my brow>
>Tightening the pinion down seemed like the artform on my gear install. We'd
>tighten a bit with the airgun, check for the desired play in the diff, tighten
some >more, until we found the same play we had with the stock gears.
<starting to sweat again> We didn't play with it that much.
>I've not had any problems with my gear swap with driveability, whine or
anything.
<knocking on wood> So far... so good...
>>>If so, I'd say it's time for another trip to the track to get the elusive
>>13 second timeslip.
>>I think it would have run 13's a month ago after my son and I installed the
>>Mac headers. Now, she better be running mid 13's (corrected) with gears and
>>this good fall air.
>I've missed out on what you've been doing to the Cobra. How did those MAC
>headers work out for you?
Great.
On 5 liters, seems everyone to goes for sound - cat backs, mufflers, and even
off-road pipes. They should be concerned about getting the exhaust out of the
heads first.
>Are they shorties or long tubes?
EL shorties... I like being emission legal.
>Feel any difference?
Love 'em. A nice HP improvement.
>That's great you got your son involved in the car hobby.
You should see his bedroom! Model cars are everywhere.
>I can't wait til mine are old enough to work on cars with me.
My son is my track helper. He ices the intake, adjusts the Konis, sets the air
pressures, helps push the car through the staging lanes... he's awesome.
FENATIC
inch wheels added to an old body... very cool stuff!
Patrick>>
since I didnt want to repeat everything you wrote, just to prove youre full of
shit, the last statement will certainly do. I believe I fully rebutted you,
and closed my case. You would go on arguing like some
rabid animal. EFI, OD, big wheels. yechh. Not cool at all. Go buy a new car.
be happy. walk funny. cuz the car manufacturers are screwing you.
FENATIC
air
pressures, helps push the car through the staging lanes... he's awesome.
Patrick
'93 Cobra
14.18 @ 99.18>>
all that and you run 14's? poor kid. does he wear a paper bag?
FENATIC
<<<A couple of very limited production factory race cars. Neat, but BFD.
Before
you jump me, I feel the same way about the today's Cobra Rs. The average
enthusiast will never get a chance to own, race, or race against any of these.
The common everyday musclecars earn my respect. >>>
whatever.
>Yeah, I have a ton of magazines, on top of those. I dont need to read them
>anymore, cuz I have the cars I need.
I'm sure you remember their numbers, and point has been those numbers. In pure
stock trim (no aftermarket parts) the classic musclecar on average are no
faster, if any faster, than today's offerings.>>
sure.
>Like maybe ten Fairlanes and Torinos, all but 3 are big blocks.
Wow! Would you happen to have a web page with pics? Are all in running
condition? >>>
yes. no.
>Another 7 Ford/Mercs, only one Mustang, go figure.
That's okay, you met the NG's minimum requirement.
>>Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
>I've written quite a bit about my automotive background, why don't you go
>ahead enlighten us on yours?
>cuz Im not a self righteous expert?
You think that talking about your automotive background will make you a
"self-righteous expert"? ;-)
Oh shit, hate to tell yah, but you've unwittingly moved yourself way up on the
list for a NG interview.
>Just a big block 60's Ford enthusiast. Who knows what hes talking about,
>occasionally.
Just so that I can use this against you at a later date... define
"occasionally". What is it... 1 out of 5, 1 out of 10...?>>>
on a scale of 10, im perfect in every way.
>If you cant sift through the inequities of magazine tests that very often
included >highly deceptive factory prepped cars
Inequities is the wrong word. Magazines writers... at least the gear head
magazines are trying to get the best numbers possible (they wouldn't have been
adjusting tire inflations, removing belts, advancing timing if they weren't).
Remember, sensational news sells.
If you compare road tests from a few different magazines you'll get a
performance range. >>>
but, how do you go about getting a clue?
CobraJet
The reason, Patrick, that many of us consider your posts in this
thread utter trash is the way you dig for the slowest times you can for
the cars we know to be faster. As they do today, times vary
considerably according to equipment weight and gearing. I mentioned to
somebody recently that I knew a guy with a high-15 second 427 '63
Galaxie back in the 70's. You can get excited over the fact that his
car was slow, ignoring the fact that it was a single quad, standard
compression Q-code with 3.00 gears, Cruise-o-Matic, and A/C in a 4400
pound convertible. It was NOT representative of a performance car in
performance trim, but it was still a "427 Galaxie". The point is that
there are numerous road tests from that era of cars in basic form that
ran much quicker than the sleds you are picking out of your pile.
Believe me, I can find a ton of slow times for 5.0 and 4.6 in MY pile,
but I will not stoop so low as to infer that there were none quicker. I
refuse to play your game. And, you need to have the knowledge to filter
out tests with non-existent cars and equipment (like the Tunnel Port CJ
heads) and bogus weights like the '67 Mustang that weighed 4200 pounds.
That is about 700 pounds over, and the only way it could get that heavy
is if there 4 people in the car at the time. You have not shown me or
anyone else that your posting is anything but biased.
Today I had time to give Rob a call at work to catch up on things. I
mentioned your attempts at equating old big block performance with
factory late-models. He had a real good laugh over that one. Now, here
is a guy that sold off his built 5.0 so he could put together a 12.7
Vobra for daily transportation, and he thinks you're nuts, too. He also
had some less-than-praising comments about the cars Mustang Monthly
tested. You see, people who know better, just know better.
There is an upside to this, though. The one or two guys that are
naive enough to think they can choose off a CJ car in a money race will
be sitting ducks. And the one or two guys who actually might buy a late
model over an FE car are doing collectors like me a favor. In fact, I
wish everybody else would stop buying them altogether so I can pick up
a few more cheap! Maybe you can talk everybody into abandoning their
classics in my front yard.
In another post you claimed you could not find faster times, which
is bullshit. Here's a challenge for you: post the musclecar tests from
the Jan '69 issue of Car and Driver. The challenge will be to see if
you can write an unbiased account.
CobraJet
ThunderSnake #1
Ken Davis
Fenatic, or whoever you are, I gotta say your stooping low with that one. Your
also over reacting to Patricks posts (which I'm capable of understanding within
the context of bone stock cars with lots more potential) in a way I don't quite
understand. What the fuck is your problem with the thread anyway? He's
obviously tried to reach some common ground with you on the classics, but you
have a low tolerance for differences of opinion. So take a shot at him as a
Father, what the fuck... Best I can determine, you feel disrespected because
Patrick thinks that some of the newer cars fare pretty well in stock trim
against the stock classics. He's just re-posting magazine articles, it's not
like he's pulling this stuff out of his ass. I happen to agree with a lot of
his points, so I guess you can take a shot at me too.
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
><<Fuel injection, modern brakes, chassis upgrades, overdrive transmissions,
>big inch wheels added to an old body... very cool stuff!
>since I didnt want to repeat everything you wrote, just to prove youre full
>of shit,
So basically what your saying is that you have no argument.
>the last statement will certainly do.
I like it, and you don't. No need to get all hostile.
>I believe I fully rebutted you, and closed my case.
You fully rebutted and closed your case with what?
>You would go on arguing like some rabid animal.
"Rabid animal"? Wouldn't that go to a person who goes off about someone
posting quotes from old magazine road tests?
>EFI, OD, big wheels. yechh. Not cool at all.
As opposed to carbs, compromised gear choices, and 14 inchers. Yeah, okay.
>Go buy a new car.
Does a '93 and a '95 count?
Patrick
'93 Cobra
14.18 @ 99.18
Former original owner - '87 5 liter, 5 speed LX
NoOption5L
fen...@aol.com (FENATIC) writes:
>>My son is my track helper. He ices the intake, adjusts the Konis, sets the
>>air pressures, helps push the car through the staging lanes... he's awesome.
>Patrick
>'93 Cobra
>14.18 @ 99.18>>
>all that and you run 14's?
Yep, for now.
>poor kid. does he wear a paper bag?
So, you've been reduced to posts like this one. That's too bad...
NoOption5L
(FENATIC) writes:
>>A couple of very limited production factory race cars. Neat, but BFD.
>>Before you jump me, I feel the same way about the today's Cobra Rs. The
>>average enthusiast will never get a chance to own, race, or race against any
>>of these. The common everyday musclecars earn my respect. >>>
>whatever.
>>>Yeah, I have a ton of magazines, on top of those. I dont need to read them
>>>anymore, cuz I have the cars I need.
>>I'm sure you remember their numbers, and point has been those numbers. In
>>pure stock trim (no aftermarket parts) the classic musclecar on average are
no
>>faster, if any faster, than today's offerings.>>
>sure.
That's an effective rebuttal.
>>>Like maybe ten Fairlanes and Torinos, all but 3 are big blocks.
>>Wow! Would you happen to have a web page with pics? Are all in running
>>condition? >>>
>yes. no.
And the web address is?
>>>Another 7 Ford/Mercs, only one Mustang, go figure.
>>That's okay, you met the NG's minimum requirement.
>>>>Thunder Snake # 2 (mind the Fangs, I just brushed, OK?)
>>>I've written quite a bit about my automotive background, why don't you go
>>>ahead enlighten us on yours?
>>cuz Im not a self righteous expert?
>You think that talking about your automotive background will make you a
>"self-righteous expert"? ;-)
>Oh shit, hate to tell yah, but you've unwittingly moved yourself way up on
>the list for a NG interview.
>>Just a big block 60's Ford enthusiast. Who knows what hes talking about,
>occasionally.
>Just so that I can use this against you at a later date... define
"occasionally". >What is it... 1 out of 5, 1 out of 10...?>>>
>on a scale of 10, im perfect in every way.
Well, at least your mom says so. =-)
>>If you cant sift through the inequities of magazine tests that very often
>>included highly deceptive factory prepped cars
>Inequities is the wrong word. Magazines writers... at least the gear head
>magazines are trying to get the best numbers possible (they wouldn't have
>been adjusting tire inflations, removing belts, advancing timing if they
weren't).
>Remember, sensational news sells.
>If you compare road tests from a few different magazines you'll get a
>performance range. >>>
>but, how do you go about getting a clue?
Sorry, I don't have time to help you with this right now....
NoOption5L
yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis) writes:
>><<My son is my track helper. He ices the intake, adjusts the Konis, sets
>><<the air pressures, helps push the car through the staging lanes... he's
>><<awesome.
>>all that and you run 14's? poor kid. does he wear a paper bag?
>Fenatic, or whoever you are, I gotta say your stooping low with that one.
>Your also over reacting to Patricks posts <snip>
Ken, I appreciate your support, but let it go.
FENATIC
>><<the air pressures, helps push the car through the staging lanes... he's
>><<awesome.
>>all that and you run 14's? poor kid. does he wear a paper bag?>>
Daddy, why do all those Fairlanes run 10's?
Cuz theyre not stock, son.
But Daddy, the class is called Stock?
Well, theyre not emissions legal, son.
Daddy, how come theyre arent any late models running 10's in Stock?
Because, Son, they cant.
Daddy, lets get a real car.