- This topic has 16 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
I’ve concluded that this is the most appropriate place to post this. I just wanted expose you to a couple of my favorite kinds of modified cars, which happen to be overlooked by much of the car enthusiast community (mostly in the US). I really appreciate insane machines, especially the sounds, but nothing more than just seeing what people will do to cars.
1st, 1/8 mile uphill sand drag racing. For the engines, it’s the same as tractor pulling (which I love, too) but it’s a completely different useless waste of a once-practical vehicle.
2nd, European Hillclimbing Cars. Incredibly unrestricted vehicle construction in a culture where people are anal about thoughtful but practical engineering. It also helps that most of Europe has laws requiring 4 weeks or more of paid vacation per year. Lots of time for working on the car!
-
Replies
-
Since you work for Mitsubishi you know their turbocharged cars stay stock for approximately two weeks after leaving the showroom. Goodby warranty.
The sweet thing about a turbocharged car is that you can change the horsepower to whatever you want by just changing the wastegate controller. That is until the engine goes pop. Then you learn a few other things need to be changed too, like the fuel pump and the injectors. Still, all of this is well within the skill set of the average enthusiast or neighborhood tuner. Go mild on the boost increase, change the exhaust, upgrade the fuel system and have a very entertaining car that is still fairly reliable. This is my favorite mod.
Modified cars, I come from the perspective that modification is great however in some cases I will look down upon it. Modification is great for numerous reasons including performance, looks, and making a car a true extension of yourself. However, when it comes to pre-80s cars, I become a lot more picky. Say you have a 426 Hemi Cuda or any first gen big block camaro, I would look down upon anything that modifies it outside of what could be done by the factory in whatever year the specific car was produced. If one of those cars has era correct aftermarket parts, that’s ok too. Engine swaps in classic stuff is fine, as long as it is era correct and the original engine is kept for the next potential buyer. I do not like modern engines and drivelines in classic American Iron and cringe when I see it…but thats me. If you are hotrodding something that can’t be restored to factory reasonably thats cool, I enjoy and admire hot rods and rat rods. Modern engines and drivelines kill the character and magic of older vehicles. Modern cars… modification beyond your wildest imagination is alright to me however I still like seeing it done tastefully.
I think people swapping LSx motors into older cars stinks. Don’t know how else to say it. So yes, I agree with you.
[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=125943]I think people swapping LSx motors into older cars stinks. Don’t know how else to say it. So yes, I agree with you.[/quote] EFI and Distributerless ignition have no place in classics. Not to mention metric bolts.
I don’t put HEI igntions in muscle cars I work on either. Points are faultless when the condensor is american and they set right. Circuit boards in modern stuff fails, nothing like that to die in old cars. Timing doesn’t need to be saddled with factory ecm, knock sensors, ect.
[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=125950]I don’t put HEI igntions in muscle cars I work on either. Points are faultless when the condensor is american and they set right. Circuit boards in modern stuff fails, nothing like that to die in old cars. Timing doesn’t need to be saddled with factory ecm, knock sensors, ect.[/quote] For a muscle car manufactured 1965-1972 I agree, points is the only way to go. However HEI was introduced for my model year and I have the original distributor, hence why I use HEI. Otherwise I’d be using points. Mine is only the 4 pin module which still has adjustable mechanical advance, adjustable vacuum advance, and no sensors at all(obviously cause it’s a ’74). 1978 is when HEI started getting computerized with the 5 pin and then late 80s the 7 pin HEI was full bore computerized. Glad I have the original B). Electronics have no place in any aspect of cars, not just ignition. I barley consider early(4 pin) GM HEI electronic.
Hei, one of my least favorite topics. Big, bulky and had lazy curves. HOWEVER, there are solutions. I have a Vega race car with a smallblock in it. Its got an HEI, but it has an external coil (factory coils heat up) and the module drives an MSD Box. Factory modules as used tend to drop spark at a higher RPM, although I had one that pull 6000 back in the day. Supposedly they decrease spark after 4500, I don’t know its that all modules. There are upgraded modules, usually 4 pins. Mine has got locked in timing (not for street) but any of the HEI units can helped by weights and springs which I do in every distributor anyway, weather it be points or HEI. Adjustable vacuum cans are around as well. The guy that built the Vega before I ended up with would have been better off to use an MSD billet or something else with an adjustable curve, but he was on a budget.
[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=125989]Hei, one of my least favorite topics. Big, bulky and had lazy curves. HOWEVER, there are solutions. I have a Vega race car with a smallblock in it. Its got an HEI, but it has an external coil (factory coils heat up) and the module drives an MSD Box. Factory modules as used tend to drop spark at a higher RPM, although I had one that pull 6000 back in the day. Supposedly they decrease spark after 4500, I don’t know its that all modules. There are upgraded modules, usually 4 pins. Mine has got locked in timing (not for street) but any of the HEI units can helped by weights and springs which I do in every distributor anyway, weather it be points or HEI. Adjustable vacuum cans are around as well. The guy that built the Vega before I ended up with would have been better off to use an MSD billet or something else with an adjustable curve, but he was on a budget.[/quote] Interesting, so you prefer to convert HEI to external coil for coil cooling purposes? I run a big block truck as you know, my power is low end anyways so I never get to 4.5k. Of course since my 454 is built, the distributor is modified a bit(weights, springs and vacuum advance) but still, I make my power/torque low end. At 4k which is the most I’ve ever reved the truck to it still fires fine.
I had a stock 427 hydraulic lifter oval port that would shift a T400 at about 5500 each and every time (never an ounce of trouble with it). Stock 390 hp GM cam. At another place and time I had a different 427 in a different car with an LS6 solid lifter cam and intake ports like sewer pipes… Rear wheel dyno hp/torque would peak at a much higher number that the first motor, but this was a points unit driving an MSD box. Now some folks talk about points floating at a given rpm, but the guy running the dyno held the Holley carburetor fully open by accident (and it stayed like that) in neutral (4 speed car), and the motor threw the fan belt off while at the same time making scrap metal out of my motor in the high 7 range, and I am pretty certain an HEI module would have given up the ghost before the motor did and of course hydraulic lifters would have too. Maybe GM designed stuff this way for a reason. Needless to day, I had to throw away the motor and never went back to that dyno shop either.
[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=125993]I had a stock 427 hydraulic lifter oval port that would shift a T400 at about 5500 each and every time (never an ounce of trouble with it). Stock 390 hp GM cam. At another place and time I had a different 427 in a different car with an LS6 solid lifter cam and intake ports like sewer pipes… Rear wheel dyno hp/torque would peak at a much higher number that the first motor, but this was a points unit driving an MSD box. Now some folks talk about points floating at a given rpm, but the guy running the dyno held the Holley carburetor fully open by accident (and it stayed like that) in neutral (4 speed car), and the motor threw the fan belt off while at the same time making scrap metal out of my motor in the high 7 range, and I am pretty certain an HEI module would have given up the ghost before the motor did and of course hydraulic lifters would have too. Maybe GM designed stuff this way for a reason. Needless to day, I had to throw away the motor and never went back to that dyno shop either.[/quote] Big blocks don’t like high RPMS in stock form period. Of course they can be built to handle it better but I still wouldn’t rev one past 6k. A small block on the other hand will do better with more revs but you sacrifice low end. I’d rather have low end torque. In any case, I’m not saying HEI is better in any way, I do love points.
Why do you suppose big blocks don’t like Rpms ? Could it be the 4 inch stroke in the 454 ? Ah, the age old question. The real answer is this. In a short stroke big block 396/427, which is 3.76, they have similar geometry as, say a 400 smallblock chevy. What I have seen go to pieces in bigger chevies is that canted valvetrane. Yes, guys build them up, a lot, but it cost a TON of money up top to make that porcupine setup hold together. I knew two people, same car, 70 camaros. One had a short stroke sbc 377 with brodix heads –simple solid cam roller cam mouse really. Other had had a 540 with every trick imaginable. Times were similar – low 11s, but being in the high altitude we are here, we simply do not have the oxygen to make a 540 work to its full potential. That smallblock car would put that other Camaro on the trailer everytime. The 540 finally blew up and that little 377 mouse kept on ticking for YEARS after that 540 was recycled. Don’t get me wrong, I have a 454 in my work truck, and am building several other big blocks as we speak, but they are for stock muscle cars, not race cars. With the cost of original big block parts now, it would be crazy to race the stuff in this day and age. In own personal 442 I have a big valve short stroke E block 400 oldsmobile factory fully forged motor that if were to be blown up would be irreplaceable. No racing that one.
My vega 360 (40 over 350) cubic in motor would make most big blocks that are not super expensive go home and cry. Straight valve typical mouse setup, even though its small is tough as nails. It does, however have an insane cam and other crap that makes no street use at all. This was an age old debate bb vs sb. One I pondered and argued for years, had a bunch of both. Then I discovered LSX stuff and, well my vega never saw another day at the track. And those are, of course straight valve motors. Better ports than either of the above engines ever had and insane power with full streetability. Practical, yes, but no soul like a fully wound out Rat. Nothing is like that.
I was refering to long stroke engines like the 454 as well as stock cams. You make alot of great points. The 396 and 427 were more for racing for sure and I attribute it to the shorter stroke. A 454 is built for torque, not high end horsepower. A 427 is a whole nother ballgame. The 427 BB and the SB DZ302 are two of the better racing motors.
Chevyman, this ones for you:
I am not really what the purpose of a 396 was. Possibly because Gm would not allow a 4oo or bigger in anything but a corvette or full sized car before 1970 ? 427 Copos, Yenkos yea, there were exceptions, however not mass marketed (I had a friend who had a Green 69 Yenko that was passed to another who recently sold in an auction for 400+ thousand.. Interestingly enough, most 396s I have been in some that were just things that went down the road, not impressive. The 396 325 hydraulic cam was horrid. Most people didn’t race these because the small bore would shroud the valves. I had experienced some lower compression later model 402s that I could get up and walk faster than they went. 325 hp worth of boringness. There were a few stepped up ones, but for the most they were just what they were. The reason chevy, and all the other GM makes went to 454 or 455 ci in 1970 was two fold. Gm lifted their rule about 400ci in intermediates, and more importantly, the clean air act of 1970 increased emissions standards and LONGER stroke motors burn cleaner due to hydrocarbons burning off longer cylinder walls. Hmmmm..(Oldsmobile cast crank 455s were just plain junk compared to the earlier, nasty forged short stroke 400). That being said, a solid lifter LS6 454 in 1970 with the other hipo parts carried over from the L72 427 cubic in motors of the 60s were absolute balls of fire as anybody would tell you (1970 only). There was an LS7 too, but by the time it was out was insurance companies and EPA had beaten the car companies out. That being said, here is something to ponder. Every light duty truck Gm made starting in 70 had a 454, or some of the early ones had 402, however by the close the 70s, the 454 was the only big block engine for passenger cars and trucks. I once assumed this was for torque, however, there was a never a 454 tall deck motor, even if somebody says different. School busses, BIG trucks all got tall deck motors that were either a 366 in the early years, or a 427.(in a davidsfarm video he actually has a bluebird school bus with a tall deck 427 and a factory Holley) My rat that blew up actually had a crank from a Brinks truck in it. Same 3.76 stroke, but the heavy duty trucks had a 4 ring piston and a bast*rd block that is all but useless except for the crank. The heads were peanut port specials, like I have in my truck, which were to build torque but never used any car that I know of. 99 percent of the BBs in cars and light trucks had big ovals, but one of the biggest difference in the early 396, 427, and the 70 model hipo engines were the rectangular port heads which have become scarce 99 big ovals to one set of rectangles and usually abused to no end for decades in race cars only to be refurbished and put back on the top dog BB motors. Oval vs Rectangle is an ongoing argument if you google it, quite interesting, but myself I have done my time with big ovals and now only do rectangles due to the cars they are going into, values, number, ect. Due to budgetary stuff, most people now will build an big oval port 454 and call it a day. HUGE power cheap. I had once had a 73 3/4 farm truck with this setup, and it pulled like nobodys business, but it had a totally different persolity, than say, a short stroke bbc with a rectangle port head or a 427 with a big oval which would simply tear ones head off. Square port shorts strokes which were soggier at lowend but would wind up till it blew up, as my previous post had stated it ended by the 60s.
[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=126002]Chevyman, this ones for you:
I am not really what the purpose of a 396 was. Possibly because Gm would not allow a 4oo or bigger in anything but a corvette or full sized car before 1970 ? 427 Copos, Yenkos yea, there were exceptions, however not mass marketed (I had a friend who had a Green 69 Yenko that was passed to another who recently sold in an auction for 400+ thousand.. Interestingly enough, most 396s I have been in some that were just things that went down the road, not impressive. The 396 325 hydraulic cam was horrid. Most people didn’t race these because the small bore would shroud the valves. I had experienced some lower compression later model 402s that I could get up and walk faster than they went. 325 hp worth of boringness. There were a few stepped up ones, but for the most they were just what they were. The reason chevy, and all the other GM makes went to 454 or 455 ci in 1970 was two fold. Gm lifted their rule about 400ci in intermediates, and more importantly, the clean air act of 1970 increased emissions standards and LONGER stroke motors burn cleaner due to hydrocarbons burning off longer cylinder walls. Hmmmm..(Oldsmobile cast crank 455s were just plain junk compared to the earlier, nasty forged short stroke 400). That being said, a solid lifter LS6 454 in 1970 with the other hipo parts carried over from the L72 427 cubic in motors of the 60s were absolute balls of fire as anybody would tell you (1970 only). There was an LS7 too, but by the time it was out was insurance companies and EPA had beaten the car companies out. That being said, here is something to ponder. Every light duty truck Gm made starting in 70 had a 454, or some of the early ones had 402, however by the close the 70s, the 454 was the only big block engine for passenger cars and trucks. I once assumed this was for torque, however, there was a never a 454 tall deck motor, even if somebody says different. School busses, BIG trucks all got tall deck motors that were either a 366 in the early years, or a 427.(in a davidsfarm video he actually has a bluebird school bus with a tall deck 427 and a factory Holley) My rat that blew up actually had a crank from a Brinks truck in it. Same 3.76 stroke, but the heavy duty trucks had a 4 ring piston and a bast*rd block that is all but useless except for the crank. The heads were peanut port specials, like I have in my truck, which were to build torque but never used any car that I know of. 99 percent of the BBs in cars and light trucks had big ovals, but one of the biggest difference in the early 396, 427, and the 70 model hipo engines were the rectangular port heads which have become scarce 99 big ovals to one set of rectangles and usually abused to no end for decades in race cars only to be refurbished and put back on the top dog BB motors. Oval vs Rectangle is an ongoing argument if you google it, quite interesting, but myself I have done my time with big ovals and now only do rectangles due to the cars they are going into, values, number, ect. Due to budgetary stuff, most people now will build an big oval port 454 and call it a day. HUGE power cheap. I had once had a 73 3/4 farm truck with this setup, and it pulled like nobodys business, but it had a totally different persolity, than say, a short stroke bbc with a rectangle port head or a 427 with a big oval which would simply tear ones head off. Square port shorts strokes which were soggier at lowend but would wind up till it blew up, as my previous post had stated it ended by the 60s.[/quote] Absolutely correct with everything you said. Agree 100%. Lets not forget how all heads became open chambered effectively lowering compression. Closed chamber heads were very common late 60s. Rectangle port were high output high Rpm, big ovals were second best. 400ci was the limit until 1970 and engineers skirted around that rule including Delorean himself. Finding loopholes was what GM designers and engineers were great at.
All 454s were open chamber except 70 LS6. All 427s were closed chamber except second run L88. All 396s were closed chamber. Most rectangle port heads were closed chamber, although Chevy made open chamber 990 rectangle port for 454 engines heads for about 30 years for boats and aftermarket stuff. They are not at as valuable as they were on Marine engines and so they don’t really have a place on restored muscle cars. One can put a closed chamber head on a flat top 454 with good results, however, going the other way around will result in a mess of low compression. Peanut ports were all sorts of things. I knew somebody who took a later model peanut port 454 with a roller cam from a tow truck and ran similar results as an earlier rectangle engine just due to low end grunt. Stock for stock, of course. If he could get all the power under 5000 grand, then why the heck not. There are many, many folks who highly favor oval ports. At my altitude NOBODY runs rectangles in a street car and makes it work as well as ovals, we just don’t have enough air density to make them work well for anything that is not full out RPMs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.