Cool old race cars.

ndance

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.

speedshift

Didn't Smokey have a 3/4-scale '66 Chevelle for NASCAR racing? Looked like the real thing until someone stood next to it. I don't know much about NASCAR but that seemed like the ultimate in good ol' boy rule stretching.

ndance

You know, I've seen pictures of that thing and I don't think it's particularly different in size from the street car. No doubt though, there are a million rule stretches/cheats in that car. There is the famous time he drove back to the pits with no gas tank after one too many violations. I've no idea if that is a true story either.

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??

speedshift

I have a copy of "Smokey Yunick's Power Secrets" that I'll read aloud to you.

ndance

Got that one. I'm talking...

http://www.smokeyyunick.com/

But dammmn...it's a hunnert dollars....

Mr_Shiftright

So, okay, go blow it on food and rent then!

ndance

Cool old race car(s) du jour....

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.)?

ndance

http://www.desertdust.homestead.com/13_Parnelli_Jones_p1.html

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?).

speedshift

Well, I'm just a poor boy from Florida so my idea of a cool old race car would be any NASCAR stocker built before say 1960. I don't know much about NASCAR racing but every once in a while I see a film clip of some old race and it's wild to see what's getting drifted through the turns. Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Chrysler, Hudson as well as the usual suspects--it wasn't just the current Ford vs. Chevy show in those days. I'm not sure when most of them left, maybe after the so-called racing ban, although didn't Lee Petty win the '59 championship in an Olds?

leadfoot4

Yeah, the book(s) are a cool addition to your collection, but if you're looking for a "Race Prep Secrets" manual, this isn't the book.
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.

ndance

As to books, in this case I'm very interested in his life (that was one smart dude). I'm drowning in car books over here, but have NEVER (I think I can make that statement) seen a book which was of much use towards professional engine building (the S.Y. articles that used to run in Dirt Track were pretty good though).

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.

ndance

Smokey Day....

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

avalanche325

They actually ran convertables for a few years. Maybe more scarey than cool.

lleroi

withdrawing from racing in 1957/58(?).

speedshift

Well, the ostensible reason is that the manufacturers were getting flack from safety advocates about advertising how hot their cars were, but I've read that they were really more concerned with how expensive racing was getting. So yeah, it's possible they just got tired of having to up the ante every few months.

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.

ndance

fact that I was just doing some vacuuming...

http://people.ne.mediaone.net/hayes/chap2h2.jpg

http://people.ne.mediaone.net/hayes/chap2h.jpg

ndance

http://www.knights19.freeserve.co.uk/Twin_Mini.JPG

Twin engine mini.

Nice article on the car in Grass Roots Motorsports (which is about the only car mag I really enjoy anymore).

corsicachevy

I've always had a place in my heart for the old Penske AMC Matadore Trans Am Cars. With the red, white and blue paint and low slung bodies, these things looked like life-sized Hot Wheel cars.

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.

ndance

Just imagine what the guys at Traco had to go through to build racing engines for the Trans-Am and NASCAR out of AMC V8's. I suppose, if nothing else, you do get the advantage of clean-sheet design. By assuming that the components aren't optimal, the way is cleared for using either internally designed parts (for things like oil pans, etc) or the best aftermarket stuff (connecting rods, maybe) from the get-go.

avalanche325

Weren't they famous for using parts from other manufacturers and putting them together? If I remeber right, they used ford A/C units.

Where their engines completely AMC, or a combination of things?

speedshift

I think the alternators were also of Ford design but the AMC V8 (and six) were AMC designs.

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.

ndance

the Penske Javelin took on the full boat, factory sponsored Ford team (in addition to the Chaparral Camaro/Gurney Barracuda/etc.). They actually did pretty well (2nd for the season I think) and were competitive throughout. In 1971, the leftover 1970 Mustangs were fielded by Bud Moore as kind of an independent (after Ford pulled out) and the Javelins won the series.

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.

ndance

while I don't know a whole lot about AMC V8's, I expect that they lack quite a few advantages. Just looking at the years and dollars invested in small block Chevy's, it's kind of a miracle that any U.S. built stock-block V8's win anything in classes against the SBC. As far as I can tell, the only times that other companies have been very successful is times where the car itself is kind of a rolling billboard for the brand and thus gets the funding needed to make up the difference in development dollars. Cases where the cars are brand-neutral (sprint cars for example) always seem to use Chevrolet designs.

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.

speedshift

I wonder how many cubic dollars AMC had to throw at racing to get from zero to championship so quickly (and so publicly).

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?

ndance

Oh yeah....I've got that old Trans Am Pontiac article somewhere (Motor Trend maybe?). You're right about the whole Canadian Firebird deal (so they could use the 302 Chevy, don't blame 'em, just throw some money at an established engine builder and blammo, competitive V8 at your doorstep). I expect that if the Firebirds (Titus?) had been competitive, there would have been some serious objections raised by the other teams.

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)?

speedshift

You remember a lot more about the series than I do but I do remember the Grey Ghost. I'm pretty sure it first raced at Lime Rock and maybe Adams was a GM engineer. Anyway the car got several pages in one of the magazines (Car & Driver?) then. I think it's still around. I vaguely remember someone testing it for a magazine a few years ago.

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.

leadfoot4

Pontiac didn't "cop out" on not using their own engine in the Trans Am series. They spent a ton of money trying to develop the 303 cu.in. engine strictly for the series. Both the factory engineers and TRACO did a lot of work, and they got to where they had around 490-510 hp. Reliability was still somewhat shaky, however.
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.

corsicachevy

Car and Driver did an article on the Grey Ghost about a year and a half ago. It was pretty interesting. If I remember correctly, they even took the car out and abused it a little bit. :-)

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.

ndance

The only fan car I can think of is the Chaparral 2J.

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.

corsicachevy

http://8w.forix.com/fancar.html

I found it on my own. Here is a link to the very innovative, but immediately banned, fan car.

ndance

That's right, that's right... I remember that.

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.

ndance

Brings up the rather interesting point of rules generally. Since the point of racing is either for fun (knocking over cones) or to make money (rolling billboards, like stock cars), there really aren't inherently obvious limitation in design.

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.

speedshift

Leadfoot, it sounds like you know more about Pontiac's Trans Am program than I do. I do know that Pontiac never had a small block, let alone a high-revving small block. The 326/350 was just a small bore version of the 389/400.

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.

leadfoot4

Not having been there, I depend on what I've managed to read over the years, however one of the original Trans Am series "privateers" is a good friend of mine. He has also managed to feed me some interesting information as to what went on back then.
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.

speedshift

It would be interesting to know the specs on the Pontiac 303. My recollection is that "street version" tested by Hot Rod(?) had the Ram Air IV heads and cam which in a short stroke 303 would put the hp peak up around 9500 rpm ;-). If I remember right the writer thought it wasn't making as much power as it should. The 400 RA IV made about 370 real hp, close to its advertised rating (Pontiac was one of the few automakers to underrate its engines).

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.

leadfoot4

You're correct on the RA III & IV engine in the 1969 T/A's. Somewhere in the depths of my library I have some details about the 303's, and if I can remember where, I'll look them up.
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".

speedshift

No, I was kidding about the 9500 rpm but with those heads and that bore/stroke combination it had to be a torqueless wonder. I think you're right about the tunnelport heads. I'll check my '69 shop manual ;-).

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?

speedshift

I did a search for "swiss cheese Catalina" and came up with a lot of sandwich shop sites--go figure--but I did find a nice photo of the lightweight '63 Catalina Jim Wangers drove.

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

ndance

found a 303 Trans Am article in the October 1969 Motor Trend. The car turned the 1/4 mile in 16.37 (ouch!). The claim was that with that big a cam and high rear end (though 3.90:1 doesn't strike me as super high) the acceleration from a standing start was hurt. I expect they didn't beat on the car as hard as Hot Rod or Car Craft would have.

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).

leadfoot4

I just read a complete article on the Swiss Cheese cars. I believe it was in the last issue of Muscle Car Review,
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".

leadfoot4

I meant to say 1968-69 Camaro in the above post

speedshift

Ndance, thanks for looking that up. I've got a photocopy of that test around somewhere but it would take me hours to find it.

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.

ndance

Having owned several 396 Camaros (convertible and hardtop both), I've gotta say those cars handle badly for a car of *that* era. Tell you the truth, I think the small block cars are pretty bad too. Now, a decent Boss 302 (with power steering of course, makes a huge difference in the fun to drive angle) actually isn't too bad, and while the numbers won't compare to a new car, they actually do just fine from a seat of the pants standpoint. Suprisingly, I always thought SS Chevelles felt more sure-footed than the Camaros...YMMV of course.

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.

speedshift

That's not a competitive trap speed but it's relatively better than the ET, so traction was a problem during testing. I have the following numbers for the 302 Z/28 and Boss 302:

'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.

ndance

It's pretty funny how all over the map 1/4 times were. I've got an old Hot Rod showing a 1969 Z/28 time of high 13's (13.8 maybe?). On the other hand, I seem to remember Sports Car Graphic testing a Z/28 (with that cool looking dual quad system) of the same year with low 16's.

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.

speedshift

A cynic would say that the lower the times the more integrity the magazine had. Some of those test cars had been breathed upon to the point that they were obviously unrepresentative of what the average buyer would or could get. The first Car & Driver test of a GTO is a classic example of that, and of getting creative with a hand-held stopwatch.

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.

leadfoot4

Just my $.02 worth regarding ET's. As ndance mentioned, the "gearhead" mags probably beat on the cars somewhat harder. In the case of the 2x4 Z-28, I would be tempted to say that the induction system might have been a little "soft" on the low end. Launching the car was probably a bit tricky, but the car must have come on at the top end.
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.

ndance

The Mustang was a 1968 tunnel port car (and was a notchback to boot). Now *that* would be an interesting setup to track down someday. The whole deal was a great example of the two companies approach to homologation...

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.

speedshift

Here's a link to more cool race cars. I wish F1 drivers would dress like Fonty Flock.

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 ;-).

ndance

OK, check this stuff out...

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.

speedshift

check this out.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1555611060.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg