Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Cool old race cars.
So here's my entry for interesting stuff that I remember (not old enough to go pre-60s).
Smokey Yunick's TransAm Camaro
Dekon Monza (AAGT cars generally)
Parnelli Jones' Funny Car Blazer
Herb Adams' TransAm Tempest
Kar Kraft Boss 429 A-Sedan
Hurst Twin Engine Toronado
The Killer B's.
Smokey Yunick's TransAm Camaro
Dekon Monza (AAGT cars generally)
Parnelli Jones' Funny Car Blazer
Herb Adams' TransAm Tempest
Kar Kraft Boss 429 A-Sedan
Hurst Twin Engine Toronado
The Killer B's.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I seem to remember a nice stretch done by the Bud Moore team with the Boss 302's. The rules stated thou shalt cover thy headlights, so the Ford guys covered theirs with a wire mesh, and fed the air to the front brakes. Kind of like the thou shalt have a single four barrel carb rule resulting in the inline autolite.
I'd like for someone to buy that 100 dollar Smokey Yunick biography for me for Christmas. Anybody??
http://www.smokeyyunick.com/
But dammmn...it's a hunnert dollars....
http://www.bmwworld.com/artcars/
I've always thought that cloning the Calder car
http://www.bmwworld.com/artcars/art_calder.htm
would be a totally cool project (assuming you could find a 2800/3.0 CS that isn't made out of iron oxide). Tisn't one of those E30 M3's, but then, what is.
Has anybody ever run into a fiberglass source for BMW coupes (flares, etc.)?
I got to see one of these things (assuming there was more than one) at Parker years ago. Not competitive, but really interesting.
It always seem to me that this would make a really interesting kit car. Get somebody like Factory Five (a cobra kit company) to cook up a frame and fiberglass body. Kind of a front engine, V8 powered rail. I have NO idea how you would license it (maybe a tag switch from a Blazer?).
It's more a chronicle of Smokey's life, and some of the inside politics of racing, along with his extremely candid opinions on NASCAR, race drivers, and politicians.
Seems to me that the only way to acquire enough knowledge to build competitive engines at a professional level is to start out as a parts washer (with MSc in materials/automotive/whatever engineering) and get plenty of OJT. If I ever stumble on a book by Travers and Coons,Sonny Leonard, or the pixies who work on factory efforts, I'll post a URL.
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/stories/hr601/best_camaro.html
I think I've got the Hot Rod magazine article on that car somewhere (from days of yore)
http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/restoarchives/summer96/sum96museumReview/smchevelle.htm
and a Pontiac
http://members.tripod.com/~SpeedZone70/beach-road/triumphant.jpg
Actually Ford was the only one that took the "ban" seriously--I think they proposed it--and boy did they take it seriously. The '58 and '59 Fords had absolutely nothing to compete with the hot Chevy 348s.
What are the supercharged 312s called, the E code engine? Somewhere I've got a magazine article about a restored '57 Fairlane 300 coupe that came with a supercharged 312, was seperated from it for years while the engine was racing in another body, and then reunited with the exact same engine. There are some mighty interesting '50s stockers with limited production engines no one has heard of for years.
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/hayes/chap2h2.jpg
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/hayes/chap2h.jpg
Twin engine mini.
Nice article on the car in Grass Roots Motorsports (which is about the only car mag I really enjoy anymore).
Who ever thought that "The Captain" would ever align himself with lowly AMC? In today's terms that would be like Roger campaigning a Kia on the NASCAR circuit.
Where their engines completely AMC, or a combination of things?
The V8 first came out in the mid '50s as a 250 and as a 327 in the first AMC musclecar, the '57 Rebel. I don't remember it getting much attention until around '69-71 when AMC finally got into performance (especially with the AMX) and there were occasional articles about it.
The V8 was fairly small and lightweight because AMC had to use it in their full range of cars from compacts to Ambassadors. The 390/401 in particular was lighter than comparable big blocks. There was also a 290 that was popular in the American (one of the better looking compacts) later stroked to a 304 that showed up in a few Gremlins. And there was a 343 later stroked to 360 CID.
Apparently the engine had a convoluted oiling system and the heads hadn't been updated to breathe like some of the better engines in the late '60s, so ndance is right that anyone building a competition AMC engine had their work cut out for them.
But they weren't dogs, at least on the street. I've read estimates that the 390 put out anywhere from 250 to 290 real horsepower, as good or better than most of the base musclecar engines. AMC offered a dealer-installed cam (I'll bet that's where the 290 hp came from) and two intake manifolds, one a ram-tuned dual quad set up although I suspect these parts were developed by the aftermarket.
I seem to recall that AMC won the Trans-Am series after the other factory teams pulled out so maybe they didn't have to run their engines on the ragged edge, but it's still quite an accomplishment.
I expect that with sedan racing at this level (in terms of both expertise and money) that practically anything can be made competitive. It isn't like a T/A car (even of that era) was a showroom stock car with some sway bars. I'll bet that lacking the strong homologation efforts that both Chevy and Ford had in terms of race parts, that the Penske guys immediately went to home brew, high dollar designs for things like brakes, suspension design (where legal), wet sump design (which was a big deal in those cars), etc.
For street cars (at least 98% of the time), I honestly don't think that the brand makes a whole lot of difference. You could probably stick a 401 AMC engine in place of a 400 Pontiac in a GTO and (if painted the same color) hardly anyone could have told them apart. About all that you lack (30 years ago that is) with makes like Oldsmobile, Pontiac (with a couple of exceptions), Buick, AMC is ultimate performance versions (ie big cam, solid lifters, holley, four bolt mains,windage trays) like Chrysler (426,440/6), Chevrolet (Z28/LT1/L78/L72/LS6), or Ford (Boss 302/351/429, 427).
If anything, the last 10-20 years has solidified the lead the most common high-performance V8's have held (SBC/BBC/SB Ford) in terms of development. It's flat amazing how many crate engines, aftermarket cylinder heads, aftermarket engine blocks, etc. have been pounded out lately.
It sounds like Penske could minimize part of the learning curve by borrowing chassis upgrades from his competition. But getting that engine to make reliable competitive power that quickly must have been one of the all-time thrashes. I wonder how many DNFs they had that first year?
You're right, most standard musclecar engines were pretty much interchangeable except for a few underperformers like the 390 GT and nailvalve Buick. Most of them got a halo effect from optional (and expensive) engines with big port/big valve heads, lumpy mechanical cam, better manifolding and more carburetion. I think the Chevy big block was the best example of this.
I remember around '69 or so Pontiac had a 5 liter V8, a destroked 400 with Ram Air IV heads, they were going to use in Trans Am racing. I think there was even a road test of one. Didn't they decide to use Chevies instead, ostensibly because Canadian Firebirds used Chevies?
The history of that serious is pretty interesting/funny. A bunch of real heavy hitters with serious money racing taxicabs. Oddities like the crossboss intake/Autolite inline (strangely enough, with the runners exactly lining up with Boss 302 ports...hey the book says 4-bbl, doesn't say how it looks). Absurdly over-carbed motors until 1970, the Penske 50 foot in the air fueling rig, the 'covered' headlights on the Boss 302 (mesh + front brake cooling duct), etc.
I wonder whatever happened to the Grey Ghost (Herb Adams' Wife's Tempest)?
I think Pontiac copping out on using its own engine speaks volumes for what AMC was able to achieve. Pontiac had its NASCAR and drag racing experience to draw on plus a lot more money, and those RA IV heads had to be lightyears ahead of what AMC started out with. If Delorean and Estes were still at Pontiac it might have been different--those guys would have outthought Chevy instead of using its engine.
The comparison with Kia is interesting but I think AMC was a more established (if still marginal) automaker facing a crisis caused in part by a stodgy image. Maybe Nissan is more apt. They haven't had a performance image leader since the 300ZX went away and they've paid for it.
I think it would be a trip to watch the Winston Cup cars race at Sears Point. Maybe that's a little like what Trans Am racing looked tlike.
I seem to recall one of the engineers being quoted as saying that they were having trouble making a high revving small engine out of a big engine. Keep in mind that Pontiac didn't have "small block" and "big block" engines like most of the other makes. They had one block size, and juggled bore/stroke to determine displacement.
What confuses people is that Pontiacs of 400 cu.in. or less had 3" main bearings, while the 421"-455" engines had 3.125" mains. These people then jump to the "big block-small block" conclusion, when in reality, the two blocks were visibly the same.
Being a long time Pontiac enthusiast, I read a lot about their Trans Am series involvement. Due to the ever present GM politics, Chevrolet always got more of the "racing" budget, and Pontiac got a lot less. Therefore, when the 303" engine didn't jell as quickly as they had hoped, as well as Jerry Titus' unfortunate death, Pontiac just backed away from the whole thing. They had the T/A that was selling well for the street, and basically that's all they cared about.
Somewhere in the depths of my memory, I thought that I also recently read something about the "Grey Ghost". I think it still might be around.
Speedshift - comparison of Kia to AMC was written for effect. I was by no means insinuating that the two manufacturers have/had a lot in common - just two lackluster auto manufacturers with less than stellar racing pedigrees, that's all.
On a completely different note. Does any body remember the Formula 1 "Fan Car"? I think it was made by Tyrell, but I'm not sure. I've heard rumors that the drivers actually considered using gravity suits to help withstand the high g-forces generated by this car.
As far as using gravity suits (I assume that's some sort of pressurized outfit), it wouldn't suprise me if that was considered at the height of the turbocharged, passive ground effects, F1 seasons. I guess those cars were real bone crushers.
Here's a picture of the Tyrell 6-wheel car (on this page)
http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/uk2kdngtn.htm
Seems like a heckuva lot of trouble to go to for some aerodynamic gain. I'll bet they ran into a bunch of front-end geometry issues.
I found it on my own. Here is a link to the very innovative, but immediately banned, fan car.
I mean, really, that sort of thing needs banning. All of the outer limit concepts in downforce not only add really ungodly stress problems to both the car and the driver, but any change in state (a belt or subsidiary engine failure, for instance) results in instant crash when the stuff is in use (pulling 3 g's around a corner for example). Those guys have enough problems with failure in the non-moving, super heavy duty stuff (tabs, or wing mounts or whatever) as it is.
So you end up with racing series like 'stock' cars which still use carbs in an era when ALL new cars use EFI vs. German touring car cars with traction control, goofy weight shifting mechanisms, the whole paddle shifter deal etc. I suppose that over time, the amount of intelligence in the car will have to be limited. I could see a quickly upcoming era with active control of the steering by a microprocessor (like control systems in modern fighters).
I really like the idea of "formula libre" ruleless racing (early '70s Can-Am was getting close) but see that it simply isn't possible. If anything, too much horsepower can be added to *any* car (the Group B ralley cars in their final iterations are a good example). The upshot is that real technical innovations will be through the cracks, the rules makers will plug and absurdly successful concept due to either danger or expense.
Are there any truly 'open' classes? Perhaps class 1 off-road racers?
Not making any real point, just musing.
But "unencumbered by facts" as I am, I still have to believe this whole episode falls into the "what were they thinking?" category.
I can understand the reliability problems and that using the proven Chevy 302 was expedient. But I'll bet AMC also had reliability problems early on and overcame them with resources that must have been a fraction of those available to Pontiac.
So as you say, it definitely seems a question of motivation, or as I'd say, leadership. Or maybe they're the same thing. It was around this time that all the people who had taken Pontiac from nowhere to number 3 were gone. I think Knudsen was at Ford then, Estes was at Chevy and Delorean was in the fast lane.
Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think any of those guys would have tried to race with their main competitor's engine. The whole idea is screwy. Now no one cares if NASCAR Pontiacs use Chevies but back then it would have mattered. If Pontiac had won a championship using Chevy 302s, all the opinion makers--the gearheads and street racers--would have known it. Why spend money on racing and advertising when you'd just be promoting the superiority of someone else's product?
Well, just my two cents worth, as we say around here. It would make an interesting case study.
I believe that because the old adage "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday" was still going strong in the 1960's, Pontiac was forced to get a car on the track ASAP.
Because of that, they originally used the Chevy engine as a "stop gap" until their own engine was ready. Unfortunately, their engine never realy became "ready", and by the time it finally got close, the Trans Am series was starting to fade away, so the whole project also faded.
One thing to keep in mind, is that the Chevy engine was used in the first generation Pontiac T/A's, but once the second generation cars were introduced, the engines were either the Pontiacs or nothing. I think that the "fan identifiction" factor entered into play, as we all knew that there weren't any "Canadian T/A's" that had Chevy engines.
It seems that Jerry Titus was a bigger motivating factor than people realized, and when he died, a lot of the momentum was buried with him. Milt Minter took over as the leading Pontiac driver, but the cars just didn't seem to have the necessary backing by then. I believe that Herb Adams was involved with the Minter efforts, and they did win a race or two, but as I said, the funding was short.
BTW I think the first generation T/A came standard with the Pontiac 400 RA III (the old HO engine with ram air) with the RA IV optional. It's been a while so I'm a little hazy on the details.
I don't think that they were revving them up quite to the 9000 RPM level, but I seem to recall 7500-8000, as valve spring technology wasn't as good as it is today. I don't remember what they were using for cranks either, as the Pontiac street cranks weren't strong enough for much over 6000 RPM. I seem to remember, however, that they had the RA V heads, which I believe were the "tunnel ports".
Pontiacs weren't know for high revs but they must have wound the 421 Super Duty pretty tight. Speaking of cool race cars, I wonder if there's a photo of a swiss cheese Catalina on the net?
Of course, unless it's a shot of the underneath of the car you don't get the full impact--about 150 holes drilled in the frame at the factory to lighten it, hence the name.
What I had forgotten were the aluminum exhaust manifolds. The text doesn't mention this but I think the manifolds would melt if the engine was run at WOT for more than about 16 seconds. They quartered in the 12s so there was a slight safety margin.
http://www.factorymuscle.com/cars/63SwissCheese.html
RAIV cam, 4.12x2.87 bore/stroke.
They do claim the car handles really well however. Shows the difference sway bars and somewhat better tires make compared to say a 396 Camaro (which handles most heinously).
Ndance, a 396 Camaro didn't handle all that greatly, but put it in a 1969-69 perspective. In that context, it wasn't to-o-o bad. 50 and 60 series radial tires have made a TREMENDOUS difference in the performance of late model cars, so we tend to forget how handicapped our "classics" were.
I didn't have time to look through my old Pontiac library last night. My S-10 has suddenly become a "hard starter", and I'm concerned because the cars are stored for winter, therefore no backup transportation. I spent last evening wading through the S-10 shop manual, "looking for clues".
I did some quick research and it looks like the 303 was based on the Ram Air V engine: 400 CID with big port heads, 2.19/1.77" valves, Holley 800, stronger block, cross drilled journals, stronger rods and 11:1 CR. It used the RA IV cam but with solid lifters. I can't find the cam specs but I think they were 308/320 duration and .472/.510" lift, with enough overlap to make the idle pretty shakey.
I don't have a test of a RA IV GTO but the RA II with standard GTO heads and less cam (301/313) is described as "soft under 3000 rpm". Put bigger ports and cam in a engine 24% smaller and you can see where the 303 might have been a bit peaky. Something like a 4.33 rear end would have been almost essential for best performance but the problem is that even a 3.90 is pretty aggressive for a street-driven car.
That 16.37 ET is embarassing but I'd like to know the trap speed--that's a better indication of horsepower. The high ET *may* be an indication they had trouble hooking up with a 3.90 and F70s, although you wouldn't think excessive torque would be a problem with that engine.
Having said that, seeing as how early Trans-Ams seem to handle pretty well, I think the fix is pretty obvious (on Camaros). Sway bars, decent tires, fresh shocks (although I wouldn't go too stiff here) and replacing rubber with urethane should make a huge difference. I seem to remember an article by Herb Adams where he took a stock '69, small block Camaro, and by judicious use of aftermarket parts made an amazing difference in handling. By the end of the article, they were limited by (I think) deflection in the front end design of some sort.
The 303 trap speed was 93.
'69 Z/28 with 4.10 gears 15.1 @ 95 mph (290 est. net hp)
'69 Boss 302 with 3.91 gears 14.8 @ 96 mph (280 est. net hp)
These are just two runs out of the many magazines did then but they're probably representative.
It would be nice to know vehicle weights but apparently the Firebird weighed about 150 lbs. more than the Camaro model for model, maybe due to more sound deadening and better trim. The Pontiac 350/400 weighs a little more than the Chevy small block but I think a little less than the big block.
Anyway my guess would be that the 303 was making about 260-270 net hp. Since its specs (cam, valves, ports, carb) seem competitive with the Chevy and Ford then either those parts needed more development to work together or they just wouldn't work on a small displacement engine. Both the Chevy and Ford 302s used parts from hi-perf small blocks, not big blocks. The Z/28 used 327 fuelie heads and cam and while the Boss pre-dated the 351C by a year I think its heads were used in '70 on the 351C-4v.
I'm surprised that Pontiac would let anyone test the engine until it was competitive. There's a story that one of the first magazine tests of a GTO was done with a dealer's wife's car, a convertible with automatic, and of the course the numbers weren't great. That irritated Jim Wangers so much he made sure that from then on the magazines only got fully-prepped cars with performance options.
No doubt the carbs had some bearing, but I'll bet that Hot Rod beat the bejeepers out of cars to get the best times. Fooled with tire pressures, timing, letting the engine cool off etc. I've been pretty hard on stuff, but I'll bet that magazine road testers are the kings of abuse.
I wonder how many of those low times were made by pro racers provided by the factory. Of course the drag racing magazines were staffed by guys who were out dragging every week-end and knew most of the tricks.
It's hard to compare "apples to apples" when quoting acceleration figures from different sources. Car and Driver did a head-to-head Boss 302 to Z-28 test in the late 60's. The Z had the 2x4 intake, and the Boss had the tunnel port heads. Come to think of it, the Mustang wasn't yet known as the Boss at that point, so the test must have been in 1968 or 1969. I know I have the magazine, but I think it's still squrreled away in my parents' attic.
Chevrolet: race what you sell, build lots of it, cheap and available...
Ford: exotic, goofy answers to problems, higher cost, available to special people only...
Although, if I ever track down a cheap Autolite inline 4 bbl carb, it'd make a bitchin' lamp stand.
http://members.home.net/rolledtaco/stuff06c.htm
It's interesting that Plymouths were competitive in those days. I had a '50 wagon that I would not have thought of racing ;-).
http://www.stormloader.com/groupb/audi.html
actually the whole site on the Killer B's is really good. These are (were) seriously scary cars.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1555611060.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg