Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old Yesterday, 12:27 PM
Doug Sams's Avatar
Doug Sams Doug Sams is online now
Old Far...er...Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plano, TX resident since 1998.
Posts: 3,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewalt
JediBoss - Those old station wagons had a lot of class and could still get up and move when you wanted them too. In the 80's I bought several to get the 396's or 402's out of them for my Camaro's.

A mini van will never have the class those old wagons had or the pep to pass anything on the road.
We used to boat with a family who had a Ford station wagon. I never thought of them as being very sexy until the owner pointed out to me it had a ~350 horse 390 in it

Doug

.
__________________
YORF member #11
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Yesterday, 06:58 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 8,055
Default

Don't forget the Vista Cruiser. You could literally cruise the vistas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6yczfL9n3M

__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Yesterday, 10:53 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlazarus6660
1976 Trans Am

Thia was mine for 9 months in the early 80's.
I couldn't afford the insurance because they considered it a sports car.
Go figure!


What? No black and gold screaming eagle on the hood?? LOL "We've spotted the Black Trans Am-- it's the Bandit!"

We're watching "The Rockford Files" on Firestick TV at the moment and I'm taking a shine to that Gold Pontiac of his... nice car!

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Yesterday, 11:00 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnNGA
Mmmm, first teen car was a 63 Corvair (exhaust fumes, leaks, shake, rattle..luckily no roll).


My history teacher in high school had one of those... He was a WEIRD bird... looked enough like Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers Neighborhood) that everybody called him "Mr. Rogers" behind his back (even wore the same sweaters, boat shoes, and pants). EVERYBODY hated the guy, too...

The story was that he bought that Corvair when he graduated college... and he'd driven it ALL those years... he FINALLY traded it off in 86 for a new Buick Century, IIRC...

The guy was SO weird he had removed the rear seat to "save on gas" and the first thing he did to his new car was, you guessed it, removed the rear seat... Why he worried about how much gas he burned, nobody could figure out... the guy never dated any women as far as anyone else working at the school (even the old timers) ever knew, and he and this other weird guy science teacher lived the same little block of apartments across from the post office in town, and both were reportedly gun nuts... Neither ever married, though the science teacher had dated a woman teacher when I was in grade school-- my Dad saw them at the next town over's football game one time when we played them-- he sat on their side visiting with a friend from that town who's kid was playing ball, and he saw him and his date making out hot and heavy in the stands... course that was the last time anybody ever knew of him dating, either... that would have been the mid-70's...

Anyway, "Mr. Rogers" didn't burn much gas-- never went anywhere but to the school and back... he would walk the 15 miles to Rosenberg now and then, even walk the 5 miles out here from town, just walking up and down the roads to no purpose... like I said... weird bird...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Yesterday, 11:19 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
I'm pretty sure all 1970's 302's were Windsor blocks. (Altho the Boss 302 did use the Cleveland heads.) Anyway, I can't see crow-barring a Cleveland block into that little car.

[Edit]Wiki sez there was a 302 Cleveland, but it was exclusive to Australia.

Doug

.


Yeah, it was the 351 that were the "Windsor", "Cleveland", or "Modified"...

The 351 Cleveland was the finest performance engine Ford ever built, IMHO...

The "Windsor" was just a 302 with an inch higher cylinder block decks, to get enough stroke out of the pistons to make it 351 cubic inch displacement... of course it used basically the same 302 heads, which didn't flow ANYWHERE near as good as the Cleveland designed heads... ports were WAY smaller and more rectangular. The main difference was larger combustion chambers than the 302 heads to keep the compression ratio low enough to run on pump gas. Of course the taller block meant that the intake manifold was a couple inches wider as well, since the heads are further apart on the taller block. The intakes were also virtual carbon copies of the 302 intakes, though, just wider...

The "Cleveland" was a totally different engine. IIRC the 429 and 460 were patterned off it, but the Cleveland was designed as a racing engine from the get-go. The 4 barrel heads had MASSIVE oval intake ports and valves and an intake manifold to match. Even the 2 barrel heads, which had smaller versions of the same oval intake port head, would flow MUCH better than the Windsor. In fact the biggest problem that the 4 barrel heads and manifolds had was that they were TOO big and didn't idle well-- air flow would stagnate and gas would "sweat out" on the walls of the intake runners when the engine was cold. The Cleveland also used a recessed timing chain and a flat steel plate that the water pump mounted to, and was externally balanced. The heads didn't interchange with the Windsors or 302's because unlike those engines, which circulated water back out of the heads through a runner across the front of the intake manifold to the thermostat, the Cleveland ducted the water back out of the head down into a crossover in the top of the block just above the timing chain, and the thermostat was in the front of the block. (How the 429 and 460 did it too IIRC).

The "Modified" 351 was basically a de-stroked 400... they put longer rods in it and a smaller-throw crankshaft so that the pistons made a 3.5 inch stroke instead of 4 inch (IIRC... might have been a 3 inch stroke vs. 4 inch). The pistons only came down the cylinders an inch less than the 400, that much I remember for sure. The heads were the same as the 351 2 barrel and the same as the 400, but the block was a LOT heavier because it was bigger (needlessly, since it wasn't housing the larger crank and longer stroke of the 400). IOW, if you were going to mess with a 351-M, might as well go "whole hog" and get the 400...

The Boss 302 used 429/460 heads, which were outwardly very similar in design to the 351 Cleveland heads, but were modified to fit on the 302 block and had special ports milled into them and a special manifold to duct the hot water from the heads across the front of the manifold to the thermostat... Kind of a "one-off" engine...

At least that's what I remember from my Ford hot-rodding days... We had a number of 351 Clevelands over the years... the 4 barrel was simply untouchable compared to any other "stock" Ford engine... the 2 barrel was nothing to sneeze at, and the best thing you could do to a 302 was put a set of 289 4-bbl heads on it-- ups the compression and the 289 heads were designed to flow better and had a better combustion chamber design (but smaller, hence the compression hike).

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Yesterday, 11:23 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
The most important thing about the Mustang II, and I believe Iacocca would agree, it sold quite well. Nowhere near the numbers of the first half of the first generation's run, but better than the others.


Still the fugliest car Ford ever built (okay, maybe the Edsel edges it out).

A guy had a couple of them for sale not too far from here, in pretty decent condition... they sat in his yard until they were about rotted, think he sold them for scrap...

Course they were SO fugly, maybe that's where they should have gone...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Yesterday, 11:34 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
You old guys had all the fun

Seriously, growing up with all the late 60's hardware being sold, I anticipated that, by the time I turned 16 (in 1977) that I would get to enjoy some of that stuff. Instead, I got plain-jane, low-compression, unleaded, knocking-n-pinging crap

I looked in one book for 1973 which listed Ford having 4 different 351 Clevelands, and two 351 Windsor versions, and I don't think any one of them made over 140 horsepower

It was the mid-80's before we started seeing some truly good stuff again from Detroit.

Doug

.


Yeah, I've got a Mustang spec and serial number book somewhere in my old hot rodding books (which I think my brother has now) that lists the stock engines and horsepower/torque ratings for them by year...

The Mustangs didn't really go to sh!t until 72 or 73... the 70 and 71's were still "muscle cars" with high-performance engines. By 72, though, with the effects of the oil crisis, the embargo's, and the friggin' rag-heads and COMMIE-FORNIA screwing EVERYBODY over via the EPA, the engines had been "de-tuned" and choked down with emissions crap that they were a joke... that's why the 72 and 73's were "turds" performance-wise... I'm going by memory, but basically the horsepower was cut in half (at LEAST, in some cases MORE than cut in half) with all the pollution crap and detuning they did on those engines trying to reduce emissions... and things like dropping the compression ratios from 10.5-11:1 down to about 7.5:1 really sapped the power too, and of course the gas mileage as well...

Dad told me about his friend's 66 Galaxy 500 with a 289 Four barrel in it... thing was just awesome stock, FAST, and STILL got about 24-25 mpg... STOCK... Course that engine had 11.5:1 heads on it STOCK IIRC from the books... BUT, the higher the compression ratio, the higher the combustion temps, which equals more NOX, so they cut the compression ratios to reduce NOX emissions... it was only after they started putting EGR's on it and bleeding burned exhaust gases back into the intake that they started ramping up the compression ratios (and thus the performance and economy) again... Why diesels WERE so much more efficient than gassers-- higher compression ratios for compression ignition of injected diesel fuel... that is, until they started putting all that pollution crap on the new diesels and have now ruined them too...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Yesterday, 11:43 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
To their defense, they had California's emissions laws, the EPA's leaded fuel laws, the Arab oil embargo, and Carter's huge inflation issues to deal with. Even as some of the issues subsided, they had a long lasting effect on the industry and on consumers. It's a wonder Detroit didn't start selling mopeds. The Chrysler K car wasn't much more than a moped, but it saved the company.


Yeah, and in the days of no-computerized engine controls, ie carburetors and primitive electronic ignition (at most) one step above points-n-condensors, EPA was demanding they reduce pollution (and friggin California) and they didn't really have the technology to do it... They detuned the engines, reduced compression ratios to reduce NOX levels, retarded the timing for better burn and lower combustion pressure and temperatures, and wimped out on the cams and stuff like that to reduce emissions, so naturally performance and economy went in the toilet. When the gas crunch and Carter's double-digit inflation put a double-whammy on gas prices, and the lil Jap cars started selling like hotcakes, they started putting smaller, wimpier motors in everything trying to compete...

The first primitive computer-controlled engine systems came on full force in the early 80's, but it wasn't until the mid-late 80's that they really started working the bugs out of it and making them worth a d@mn... I know we had a bunch of early 80's cars that were complete crap-- the electronic gremlins in those things were worse than in the movie... It took them basically about 10 years (late 70's to the late 80's) before they could REALLY build a halfway decent computer controlled engine with good power and economy that was fairly reliable, from my experience...

Now they're doing the same thing with diesels... and like then, it's gonna take them about 10 years or so to work the bugs out of it and start making a decent electronic injected pollution controlled diesel engine that's worth a crap... maybe longer... diesels have been computer controlled for awhile now, but the pollution crap has sent them back to square one from what I've seen... probably won't see a truly decent diesel that can compete with the old 80's and early 90's diesels for power, economy, and RELIABILITY (longevity) for another 5 years or more IMHO...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Today, 01:40 AM
mwtoelle's Avatar
mwtoelle mwtoelle is offline
Flying since 1977
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
Yeah, I've got a Mustang spec and serial number book somewhere in my old hot rodding books (which I think my brother has now) that lists the stock engines and horsepower/torque ratings for them by year...

The Mustangs didn't really go to sh!t until 72 or 73... the 70 and 71's were still "muscle cars" with high-performance engines. By 72, though, with the effects of the oil crisis, the embargo's, and the friggin' rag-heads and COMMIE-FORNIA screwing EVERYBODY over via the EPA, the engines had been "de-tuned" and choked down with emissions crap that they were a joke... that's why the 72 and 73's were "turds" performance-wise... I'm going by memory, but basically the horsepower was cut in half (at LEAST, in some cases MORE than cut in half) with all the pollution crap and detuning they did on those engines trying to reduce emissions... and things like dropping the compression ratios from 10.5-11:1 down to about 7.5:1 really sapped the power too, and of course the gas mileage as well...

You forgot to mention that the way horsepower was measured in 1972 to SAE Net, that is the readings are now taken at the rear of the transmission with all accessories (altenators, power steering pumps, etc.) installed and operating. Previously, the SAE Gross method was used to measure engine power, which was measured at the flywheel without all the extra stuff on the engine. In fact, on some engines the horsepower rating was deliberately understated to try to pull one over on the insurance folks. On the other hand, the anti smog equipment wasn't helping power, either. Many hot rodders would ditch the anti smog equipment to get better power back in those days, especially in places that did not require emission tests.
__________________
'Til next time,

Mike Toelle

NAR 31692 L1

SAM 0373
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
Doug Sams
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe 1998-2017