"This is my wife and her 496 Chevelle."

mrbigbluelight

No, no .... that's not MY wife ..... just a quote from the guy shooting the video.
(that would be too much like RIGHT and it seems the Big Guy Upstairs was asleep at the switch when it came to passing out wives :rolleyes: .... couldn't be my fault)

Anyhow ... had to look up a video after watching Sal's video on the hippity-hopper cars and to pass on a little advice to you young whippersnappers.

If you want to mod your car ( Good thing ! ) to impress the ladies ( Understandable ), do it right.
If your mods involve 95 % hydraulic work, 5 % mechanical, than you're going in the wrong direction. IMO.

Nope. Get some good ol' fashioned iron (no offense to you rice burners).
Probably have to do a little body work, maybe a few engine mods although that may not even be necessary.

This guy's WIFE managed a sub-12 run on pump gas with a mild cam and a 3:31 rearend, for gawd's sake.
3:31 rearend .... heck, that's what your grandma's got in her station wagon to haul groceries !

Which is, according to the guy, what his wife does: hauls groceries and the kids, too.

So, gentlemen, if you're going to mod a car, and you want one of the ends of the car to lift, don't cheat. Don't go with your fancy-schmancy hydraulics with the rear hippity-hopping up and down all cutesy-pie-like. (if you're interested in hydraulics, get a job at the Hoover Dam).
Nope. Get that front end lifting with some good ol' fashioned American iron.
It's been scientifically documented that this will impress the ladies. Besides .... I said it was so, and my knowledge of women is ..... awesome ! :eek:


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2vDqxcTx8xg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2vDqxcTx8xg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

woodhead 2

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

No, no .... that's not MY wife ..... just a quote from the guy shooting the video.
(that would be too much like RIGHT and it seems the Big Guy Upstairs was asleep at the switch when it came to passing out wives :rolleyes: .... couldn't be my fault)

Anyhow ... had to look up a video after watching Sal's video on the hippity-hopper cars and to pass on a little advice to you young whippersnappers.

If you want to mod your car ( Good thing ! ) to impress the ladies ( Understandable ), do it right.
If your mods involve 95 % hydraulic work, 5 % mechanical, than you're going in the wrong direction. IMO.

Nope. Get some good ol' fashioned iron (no offense to you rice burners).
Probably have to do a little body work, maybe a few engine mods although that may not even be necessary.

This guy's WIFE managed a sub-12 run on pump gas with a mild cam and a 3:31 rearend, for gawd's sake.
3:31 rearend .... heck, that's what your grandma's got in her station wagon to haul groceries !

Which is, according to the guy, what his wife does: hauls groceries and the kids, too.

So, gentlemen, if you're going to mod a car, and you want one of the ends of the car to lift, don't cheat. Don't go with your fancy-schmancy hydraulics with the rear hippity-hopping up and down all cutesy-pie-like. (if you're interested in hydraulics, get a job at the Hoover Dam).
Nope. Get that front end lifting with some good ol' fashioned American iron.
It's been scientifically documented that this will impress the ladies. Besides .... I said it was so, and my knowledge of women is ..... awesome ! :eek:


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2vDqxcTx8xg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2vDqxcTx8xg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Right on!!!

faster100

yeah but looks like an 1/8 mile track close as the traps are in the video

Face

Very cool!

faster100 wrote: »

yeah but looks like an 1/8 mile track close as the traps are in the video

Nope.

tonyb

Nice....had a 396 Chevelle,fast car. Wish I still had it,worth some coin today. I love the older muscle car engines. You could work on them yourself without all the computer crap on todays engines.

disneyjoe7

Yea I'm confused by the 496... Chevy made a 396, 427, 454, 350, 327, 307, but not a 496 what is that?

AudioGenics

496 ....454 bored .060 with a 4.250 stroke and a 6.385 rod or 6.135
the bore & stroke is what makes it a 496....4.310 bore & 4.250 stroke....the 6.385 rod is 4 the tall deck

I googled it.

WilliamM2

AudioGenics wrote: »

496 ....454 bored .060 with a 4.250 stroke and a 6.385 rod or 6.135
the bore & stroke is what makes it a 496....4.310 bore & 4.250 stroke....the 6.385 rod is 4 the tall deck

I googled it.

It's also mentioned in the first comment below the video on You Tube.

AudioGenics

.....yep

F1nut

Nice car!!!

Jstas

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Besides .... I said it was so, and my knowledge of women is ..... awesome ! :eek:

What are you babbling on about now?

A few things.

Hydraulics are mechanical. If all of a sudden, they aren't, that's news to me. Just because they are actuated by fluid pressure doesn't mean it isn't a mechanical action.

What's body work have to do with anything? What if the car's straight as an arrow with gorgeous original paint? Does it make it any less of an impressive ride? Don't answer because the answer is no. If anything, it's more impressive and more valuable.

Mild cam? With 496 cubic inches, it's making some power. But the engine was built by a pro and is honestly kinda weak. The dude is sand-bagging the description too 'cause a "mild cam" and a displacement increase doesn't make 150+ more horsepower over stock either. He has more done. Popular Hot Rodding built a 496 out of a beat up truck engine a few years ago and pulled 578 horses on an engine dyno on what is a mild build and included new cylinder heads. New heads are not worth a piddly 30 horsepower. Especially not with all the valvetrain upgrades done. Besides, his power band is likely in the sky if he needs a 3500 RPM stall converter. It must be a pain in the rear to drive on the street. "Leah" should stop **** around with the used E/T's and get a set of cheater slicks or new slicks. She should also have a trans brake and be standing on that throttle at the tree. She'd probably hit 10's if he courage didn't run out first.

Grandma's station wagon likely has a 2.60:1 final drive. 3.31 or close to it is what's available in many cars like Mustangs and Camaros now. Then again, with today's larger wheels and tires, it's more routine to see 3.30-4.10 to 1 final drives because they compensate for the bigger overall wheel height. This makes them perform like more economical 2.40-2.90 to 1 final drive ratios.

I didn't see that Chevelle lift a single wheel off the ground. So I have no idea where that's coming from. That 'bu did though and quite well I might add but it was a far cry from that Chevelle.

I will say it's a nice car. High 11's is pretty good for a nose heavy 3600 pound pig. Could probably stand to lose a few pounds without sacrificing driveability and comfort.

I don't disagree about heavy iron making big power easily and twisting frames but you could have found a much better example that illustrates your points better.

Like this one:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNGtrQ0gvWo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNGtrQ0gvWo?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

or this one:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvfjCyzeWfc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvfjCyzeWfc?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Here's the Popular Hot Rodding article:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0806phr_chevy_496_big_block_engine_build/index.html

F1nut

Geesh John, take a chill pill.

faster100

Face wrote: »

Very cool!



Nope.

Does it say somewhere, just curious. looked like a short track to me.

Very clean car, looked like a pooch off the line but looks nice

audiobliss

Haha, that was definitely not an 1/8-mile track.

Face

There are a few things that can affect how the car traps in comparison to E.T. Optimum power band in relation to gearing and converter, how hard it launches, weight, aerodynamics, etc...

I.E., my 99 Regal ran a 13.58 @ 98mph. I added a few more mods and then ran a 13.52 @ 100.3mph due to making more hp up top. My 98 C5 ran 11.6 @ 114 with a 1.6 60'. I added another 70+ hp and ran a 11.02 @ 120 with a 1.49 60'. The car still launched hard and power was added almost evenly throughout the powerband.

Have you ever seen the average modded Supra at the track? It's funny to see them run 12's @ 130mph due to soft launches and not making much power down low without spray.

Sherardp

Love it, kills the Hondas and Toyotas all day.

faster100

didnt pay attention to the mph, def not 1/8 mile @12 sec run

greg2350

Nice 70 chevelle heres some pics of my 70. Mild 454 more street than strip.

read-alot

I knew the Hot Rod pros of this forum would pick apart this one.

Tell your wife this old hot rodder was impressed and to keep on keeping on.

mrbigbluelight

F1nut wrote: »

Geesh John, take a chill pill.

All good ! My expansive knowledge of women has been known to inspire outrage before.
...mainly by women, but that's besides the point

Jstas wrote: »

What are you babbling on about now?
A few things.
Hydraulics are mechanical. If all of a sudden, they aren't, that's news to me. Just because they are actuated by fluid pressure doesn't mean it isn't a mechanical action.

Hydraulics use fluid motive power to achieve a mechanical action.
Hydraulics is the primary, driving force; the result achieved is through mechanical action (driven by the fluid motive force).
So unless we're putting liquid mercury into our brake lines, hydraulics should not be considered mechanical.

Jstas wrote:

What's body work have to do with anything? What if the car's straight as an arrow with gorgeous original paint? Does it make it any less of an impressive ride? Don't answer because the answer is no. If anything, it's more impressive and more valuable.

I agree, but Jstas ... you're missing the point of my original post: trying to get today's misguided youth back on the straight and narrow track to Babe-dom (and the acquisition thereof).
The point is: Get some old iron. Mechanically, as-is, if it's working you're halfway home. Now if the quarter-panels are rusted out, or the headliner's drooping to the floorboard, ... that's no good. The ladies don't like that. You've got a little spucing up to do.
If it's straight as an arrow, with gorgeous original paint, you're home, brother !
Better stop at Walgreens to pick up some .... well .... :redface: .... you're going to need 'em !

Jstas wrote:

Mild cam? With 496 cubic inches, it's making some power. But the engine was built by a pro and is honestly kinda weak.

While it would probably have been more accurate to describe it as a "relatively mild cam", it definitely wasn't a hot cam. Without looking at a spec sheet, there's a couple of ways to tell; by sight and sound.
Get a hot enough cam in an old piece of iron, and it'll rock the car at idle.
You can see it.
Get a hot enough cam, and you can be blind, and know it's a hot cam by the "BLAAAT BLAAAAT BLAAAAAT" factor at idle. You can hear it.

Old School Rule of Thumb: The hotter the cam, the hotter the chick.
( involves sonic waves inducing euphoria into certain regions of the female brain ..... it's all scientific stuff. But it's true ! )

Jstas wrote:

Besides, his power band is likely in the sky if he needs a 3500 RPM stall converter. It must be a pain in the rear to drive on the street. "Leah" should stop **** around with the used E/T's and get a set of cheater slicks or new slicks. She should also have a trans brake and be standing on that throttle at the tree. She'd probably hit 10's if he courage didn't run out first.

With my well-trained eye for the well-turned ankle, I think we should allow Leah a little fun driving to the grocery store with the kids. She's good at the track, she's obviously a good cook, good with the kids (rides to the Shop n' Save are probably the highlights of the kids' day as Momma lays rubber at every stop sign), good looking ....... Jstas, this is the point I'm trying to drive across to the youngsters today ! You're not going to get that kind of package driving around in a 50-cc rice burner, with Thrush mufflers to make it "sound good", hippity-hopping in the 7-Eleven parking lot. Nosireeebob !
(for proof, look at the "ladies" attracted by that style of car in Sal's video).

Jstas wrote:

Then again, with today's larger wheels and tires, it's more routine to see 3.30-4.10 to 1 final drives because they compensate for the bigger overall wheel height. This makes them perform like more economical 2.40-2.90 to 1 final drive ratios.

Agreed that today's tires are higher. Actually the rims are higher, with 1/8" of rubber around the circumference. What's up with that ?
Nope, time to go Old School again, where one big old set of fatties on the rear end practically took the dailey production from the North Slope oil fields to produce.
Old School Rule of Thumb: "More rubber will require more rubber". :redface:

Jstas wrote:

I didn't see that Chevelle lift a single wheel off the ground. So I have no idea where that's coming from. That 'bu did though and quite well I might add but it was a far cry from that Chevelle.

Agreed that the Chevelle's front end didn't come off the ground, and that's a good thing. But that again proves the point I'm trying to make: Just because you can get your car hippety-hopping doesn't mean you're going to be bippety-bopping later. And that's valuable information that I'm generously willing to share from the Vaults of MBBL'S "Secrets of Women" ! :eek:

Jstas wrote:

I don't disagree about heavy iron making big power easily and twisting frames but you could have found a much better example that illustrates your points better.

I like the one I posted; nice car, nice looking gal, the whole schlemiel !
(Did I mention that she cooks, too ? And .... nice looking ?)

Here's the Popular Hot Rodding article:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0806phr_chevy_496_big_block_engine_build/index.html[/QUOTE]

Nice article. I've been thinking about publishing an article on "Hot Rodding", but ... well ..... don't want to give away all my secrets.

gdb

Touche' Sir ! (clapping smiley here)

audiobliss

Hooray, sir!

stuwee

Great fun! Thanks! My '70 RS/SS split bumper Bad Boy

nikolas812

Our Recently Sold 496 Chevelle.:frown:

1968 SS
496ci
Best quarter mile time 9.82
Best 1/8th mile time 6.19




[URL="[IMG]http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/nikolas812/Picture252.jpg[/IMG]"][/URL]
[URL="[IMG]http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/nikolas812/Picture250.jpg[/IMG]"][/URL]
[URL="[IMG]http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/nikolas812/Picture249-1.jpg[/IMG]"][/URL]
[URL="[IMG]http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/nikolas812/Picture253.jpg[/IMG]"][/URL]

sda2mike

big cubes = big tourque...you could run a 2.73 rear and still kick ****..plus it would be docile until called upon