pre 1980's muscle car ****

ben62670

My buddy's dad gave him a mint 69 Firebird with the 400, scopes, and tach on the hood. It only had about 5,000 on it. He got it with the money from serving in Vietnam. The president wanted to award him with the purple heart, and he declined. He didn't want the medal, or the car. My dumb **** buddy traded it for a jeep Cherokee:( I can't look at him without thinking of that car. It sat in a garage for 20 years mint:mad: What an idiot.

nikolas812

Spiro Pappas Nasty 69 Camaro.....



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JKxyHycSEjQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JKxyHycSEjQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

audiobliss

Wow, that thing's vicious!!

However, I thought the trap speeds were way too low for the times for the first passes. I'm a thinking wrong? Or did I just see wrong? The first pass was 8.78 @ 105. That can't be right. then we had 6.99 @ 152. That seems like a more appropriate trap speed for that previous run. Then we get a 6.72 @ 215. That seems more appropriate!

Anyway, that's a HUGE turbo and an awesome idle!!

BAD ASP

shack wrote: »

The 7 Litre is the Galaxie with Ford's 428 vs the 427. The 427 was the "high performance" of the two and one could not get the Galaxie with power steering, air conditioning, etc with the 427. Ford recognised that those options might be desireable with the full size Galaxie purchasers so that option was made available starting in 1966...thus the 7 litre. The 428 in that car is very different from the 428 CJ and 428 SCJ that were offered in the Mustangs, Fairlanes and Torinos starting in 1968.

True, an interesting additional fact is that " in the day" a "stock car race" had to be between manufacturers "stock" cars meaning that if you raced it on Sunday the consumer had to be able to buy the same stock car on Monday. So Ford offered the 427 cammer to the public but in lieu of this finicky race engine they offered the 428 with 345 hp. Hence Ford decided to classify the Galaxie a 7 litre and offer both engines... actually pretty smart.

The 428 scj that I have in my Torino is a different engine. It has higher compression and solid lifters making 370 hp with the shaker intake.
These cars aren't just cool to look at, they are automotive history and should be enjoyed for that too.

nikolas812

audiobliss wrote: »

Wow, that thing's vicious!!

However, I thought the trap speeds were way too low for the times for the first passes. I'm a thinking wrong? Or did I just see wrong? The first pass was 8.78 @ 105. That can't be right. then we had 6.99 @ 152. That seems like a more appropriate trap speed for that previous run. Then we get a 6.72 @ 215. That seems more appropriate!

Anyway, that's a HUGE turbo and an awesome idle!!

The first pass he let out of it a half track. Hence the speed drop.

The second pass he might have had to let out of at the top end of the track.

The thrid pass was a full pass for sure.;)




Nick

BAD ASP

audiobliss wrote: »

Wow, that thing's vicious!!

However, I thought the trap speeds were way too low for the times for the first passes. I'm a thinking wrong? Or did I just see wrong? The first pass was 8.78 @ 105. That can't be right. then we had 6.99 @ 152. That seems like a more appropriate trap speed for that previous run. Then we get a 6.72 @ 215. That seems more appropriate!

Anyway, that's a HUGE turbo and an awesome idle!!

The trap speeds appear low seemingly because the driver got out of it before going through the traps. He made sufficient speed to get down the track but got off the go pedal at the end in the first two runs lowering his speed through the traps. The last run you can hear that he stays in it through the trap.

disneyjoe7

shack wrote: »

The 7 Litre is the Galaxie with Ford's 428 vs the 427. The 427 was the "high performance" of the two and one could not get the Galaxie with power steering, air conditioning, etc with the 427. Ford recognised that those options might be desireable with the full size Galaxie purchasers so that option was made available starting in 1966...thus the 7 litre. The 428 in that car is very different from the 428 CJ and 428 SCJ that were offered in the Mustangs, Fairlanes and Torinos starting in 1968.

I wasn't aware the Ford made a 427, isn't that a Chevy motor?

nadams

Love seeing that car squat down as he's spooling the turbo at the line... awesome!

ND13

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I wasn't aware the Ford made a 427, isn't that a Chevy motor?

Ford made at least 3 types of 427s.....1=427 side-oiler of Shelby Cobra fame, 2=427 SOHC..that's right single overhead cam with semi-hemispherical combustion chambers(MONSTER EFFING ENGINE)and the one that went into the Galaxie 500 GT from 65-67, iirc.

Ford's 427s were at the very least on par with any GM 427, with the 427 SOHC being way beyond.

http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=133

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine#427_SOHC_.22Cammer.22

Those numbers on the SOHC are very conservative. I've read on many occassions that that engine topped with one 750 cfm carb was capable of producing upwards of 750hp gross, so that 616 rating may be net(at the rear wheel).

Edit..7 versions

shack

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I wasn't aware the Ford made a 427, isn't that a Chevy motor?

You are aware of the Shelby "427" Cobra aren't you?



They were in the Thunderbolts as well.

Shelby also used it the Super Snake...A 1967 Shelby GT500 #544...



Here is a link to the various configurations....

http://www.thecarsource.com/fords/engines/427.html

ND13

Shack,

Great minds!!!

disneyjoe7

Ok guess I'm not a heavy Ford fan.

Learn something everyday, thanks for being up to speed.

Jstas

I knew a guy with old SOHC 427's in a speed boat. (He had more money than brains) They were supercharged with Whipple twin-screw style superchargers. They each made 1100 horses each, on an engine dyno on about 14 pounds of boost and 92 octane fuel.

The SOHC or "Cammer" 427 was intended for use in NASCAR to beat up on Dodge and the 426 HEMI. But even though Ford met the requirements, the "Cammer" was legislated out of competition. There is a good deal or speculation and politics surrounding it but common belief is held that the Ford engine was a top end beast and would have dominated the race and been unsafe since chassis at the time were not capable of safely handling 200+ MPH speeds. Current NASCAR small blocks put out almost 800 horses in race trim. The "Cammer" would have been closer to 900 and in a lighter chassis with no where near as much safety equipment.

The "Cammer" found it's heyday in top fuel drag racing though where it gave more than enough competition to the 426 HEMI. The only reason the 426 HEMI survived and teh "Cammer" didn't was cost of production. It was banned from stock classes but it was legal in the A/FX classes where it wiped the floor with any competition. It also was a formidable opponent in top fuel where big name guys like Connie Kalitta and Don Prudhomme made their names riding on the back of a "Cammer".

At one point, there was a MkV chassis for the Ford GT40 being prepped to use the "Cammer". It never came to fruition though because of rules changes in LeMans racing. Apparently, the Americans running at 230 MPH on the Mulsanne straight and winning LeMans on the trot was too much for the sophisticated Europeans. So they changed the rules to keep the backwoods American farmers from showing up the aristocracy of gentlemanly motorsports. That marked the end for the GT40. I heard Holman-Moody has a couple of prototypes of the GT40 "Cammer" hanging around. It'd be awesome to see what that could do with some modern rubber, wheels and that "Cammer".

BTW, the "Cammer" was an FE engine, the same general design at the 427 side oiler and even the 428/428CJ/428SCJ. It was the most memorable because it struck fear in so many hearts that most sanctioning bodies outlawed it before it ever ran a mile in anger.

But the pushrod 427 FE was no slouch either especially with tunnel port heads. It was a beast of an engine and positively a torque monster. It was a big hit in stock classes of drag racing because of all the grunt down low in the RPM range. It really helped with 60' times if you had slicks wide enough handle the power.

They were all eventually replaced with the 385 series and the BOSS 429 engine which was not quite as powerful but just as much of a torque monster and cheaper to build. Then again, you can now get Ford Racing Performance Parts blocks that can handle up to 640 cubic inches of displacement.

shack

BAD ASP wrote:

True, an interesting additional fact is that " in the day" a "stock car race" had to be between manufacturers "stock" cars meaning that if you raced it on Sunday the consumer had to be able to buy the same stock car on Monday. So Ford offered the 427 cammer to the public but in lieu of this finicky race engine they offered the 428 with 345 hp. Hence Ford decided to classify the Galaxie a 7 litre and offer both engines... actually pretty smart.

That is correct and it was referred to as homologation by NASCAR. The mfgs. had to produce and SELL to the public a certain number of vehicles to meet NASCARs homologation requirments. It was as low as 200 for Chevy's Monte Carlo Aerocoupe, but was usually at least 500 or as much as 700.

It is the reason for the winged Mopars...Daytona Charger and the Superbird...



The Torino Talledega and Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II



Then of course Ford put their NASCAR 429 "hemi" in the Mustang Boss 429 to meet the requirements. There was a Charger 500 produced that had an aero rear window but did not have the wing.

The same was true for Tran-Am which is why the Mustang Boss 302, Camaro Z28, AMC AMX and others hit the market.

ohskigod

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I wasn't aware the Ford made a 427, isn't that a Chevy motor?

ooooooooooh,

thats almost "revocation of your man card" status right there boy..LOL

remind us to kick you in the balls at the next Polkfest.....it's what we call a "cup check"


just kiddin brotha

ND13

Back in '81 or '82, Hot Rod Mag had a cover story of a dude that had made 2 1969-70 Mach One bodied Stangs with SOHCs in them. They were freakin impressive, to say the least. Even at that time, the cost of getting a rebuildable SOHC was $20k. Let me see if I can locate the issue.

shack

ND13 wrote:

Back in '81 or '82, Hot Rod Mag had a cover story of a dude that had made 2 1969-70 Mach One bodied Stangs with SOHCs in them. They were freakin impressive, to say the least. Even at that time, the cost of getting a rebuildable SOHC was $20k. Let me see if I can locate the issue.

Even better.....From a Mustang Monthly article...

SOHC It To Me

Other than the aftermarket wheels and certain tiny emblems on the front fenders, you'd never know that Jim Weigle's '05 Mustang is anything other than a standard GT. Those vintage emblems say "SOHC," which is a dead giveaway that the factory 4.6L has been replaced by a real 427 SOHC from the '60s. Jim, from West Virginia, purchased the Mustang new specifically for swapping in the cammer, which tucks in neatly between the strut towers and looks like a factory install. Jim even had the original window sticker modified to include the 427 SOHC as a $60,000 option. We have a feeling that the 17/25 fuel-mileage numbers no longer apply.

ND13

Shwing!!!!

Talk about a sleeper.

madmax

danger boy wrote: »

oh please can I have one of these some day?

1970 Ford Grand Torino Cobra

Schweet!

Thats been a favorite of mine since the early 70's!

66chevyIISS

Shack your last post is the Pot calling the Kettle black

No 2005 mustangs allowed in a pre 80's thread!

pearsall001

Now for the "Big Dawg!!!!! Nothing else comes close.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic.php?imagenum=3&carnum=93

shack

66chevyIISS wrote:

Shack your last post is the Pot calling the Kettle black

No 2005 mustangs allowed in a pre 80's thread!

Nope...simply responding to Noels post about a 1960's 427 cammer in a later model vehicle. My post was about the motor...not the car.

Joe08867

How about limited production cars?

Coyote from Hardcastle and McCormick


And a Bricklin

Jstas

Some of you guys should learn how to post pictures.

for pearsall001:

ND13

While some will always put the Cobra and Vettes in the muscle car category....they are not. They are Sports Cars...totally different animal. Muscle cars were mainly designed for straight-line performance, with a few exceptions, ie Shelby 302 Stang or the rare 302 Z-28 Mos. Also, exotics like Panteras(Italian chassis with 351 Cleveland) are not muscle cars.

That being said, I still love em all.

Some will contend the first muscle car was the GTO, but I suggest it was the 1961 Impala 409 SS

ohskigod

shack wrote: »

Even better.....From a Mustang Monthly article...

SOHC It To Me

Other than the aftermarket wheels and certain tiny emblems on the front fenders, you'd never know that Jim Weigle's '05 Mustang is anything other than a standard GT. Those vintage emblems say "SOHC," which is a dead giveaway that the factory 4.6L has been replaced by a real 427 SOHC from the '60s. Jim, from West Virginia, purchased the Mustang new specifically for swapping in the cammer, which tucks in neatly between the strut towers and looks like a factory install. Jim even had the original window sticker modified to include the 427 SOHC as a $60,000 option. We have a feeling that the 17/25 fuel-mileage numbers no longer apply.

That is so ridiculous.....and glorious at the same time.

though I hope he either has, or has plans to do some, suspension mods. eeesh!!
***EDIT, the rear end does look lowered from the picture. the front end looks lower than stock, though with that engine, who's surprised?LOL

I love the sleeper aspect.....thats right up my alley

ND13

I'd say that it probably handles like it's on rails. Someone that's gonna put that motor in that car will likely do the whole thing right. I'd love to see the look in the eyes of some Z06/Ferrari/Viper/insert name here driver when he get's utterly humiliated by that car.

Jstas

ND13 wrote: »

Some will contend the first muscle car was the GTO, but I suggest it was the

No way dude, Olds Rocket 88



1949, Olds takes the big V8 from the 98 and drops it into the small, lightweight 76 body and makes what many regard as the formula for the muscle car. The biggest engine available in a mid-sized body.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gOULEQlSGg8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gOULEQlSGg8&hl=en&fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

shack

ND13 wrote: »

While some will always put the Cobra and Vettes in the muscle car category....they are not. They are Sports Cars...totally different animal. Muscle cars were mainly designed for straight-line performance, with a few exceptions, ie Shelby 302 Stang or the rare 302 Z-28 Mos. Also, exotics like Panteras(Italian chassis with 351 Cleveland) are not muscle cars.

That being said, I still love em all.

Some will contend the first muscle car was the GTO, but I suggest it was the 1961 Impala 409 SS

Noel the origin of the term "muscle car" has been discussed ad nauseum around the car hobby for many years. Some will say it was the early Olds with the Rocket engines, while others contend it was the 1957 AMC Rebel with their new 327 because it was the first high performance, mid sized sedan. Others say the original "phrase" was coined in describing the Pontiac Tempest (the original GTO was a Tempest option package). The purists will tell you that a muscle car is a mid-sized American sedan or coupe with a big block, HIGH PERFORMANCE engine. The full sized vehicles like the Impalas and Galaxies don't fit in the category and the Mustangs, Camaros, Cudas etc fall into the Pony Car ranks and the Vettes and Cobras were sports cars. Interestingly during the era the cars were actually being made and driven...the term muscle car was rarely used (I have a bit of first hand knowledge in this area). The more common term was "supercars". The popular term muscle car became much more prevalent in the mid to late 70's. I still like the term supercars.

Today, for most, the term encompasses just about every American vehicle made between the late 50's to the early 70's that was considered "high performance". The puruists will argue...but isn't that half the fun?

ohskigod

shack wrote: »

The puruists will argue...but isn't that half the fun?

yeah, but thank god we dont have arguments like that in our Audio hobby right?........oh wait ;):p