Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Pat Cook

OK Mark you and talked a little about this one, 92 SC T-Bird. These things are usually sitting in somebody's yard with a blown head gasket. C4 will bolt up to the engine, 8.8 rear axle, headers..would be expensive and the car is a bit on the heavy side, I believe it would fit into R.

Pat, No superchargers allowed in this discussion LOL

I would look at the 90-92 232 V6 PFI combo @ 170 hp. It seems high for a 232 ,but compare the specs to a 99 Firebird 231 Buick motor that's competitive @ 205 in N/SA
T-bird will make V, which is 6 or 4 cyl. only.

The T-bird is IRS, isn't it? Still 8.8 internals?

[Todd Boyer]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Todd - The 318 2-bbl is rated at 185 in Stock, 230 in SS in 1969. Look at the bottom of the engine column that has one asterisk (*) to see the power rating factor.
When NHRA defactored this engine back in '05, they hit every engine in every year from 1967 thru 1982. Because there are so many years this engine combination was produced, it would behoove somebody interested in racing it to research all the specs for every year and the bodies you can use. Slight advantages may be found in all those intake manifolds and carburetors. I will tell you that the cylinder head selection is basically the same for all years and that I could not find any camshaft advantages.
If you already have a '69 Dart, it probably has as much potential as any other combination. You didn't say which body style you have, but a GT hardtop has a weight break of 16.01 and will make it an O-P-Q car, which would be able to get away from the more populated 15 and 16 lb classes. I also think the engine will be more capable of producing competitive torque than hp, which would favor the heavier combo.

Thanks Dwight, I don't read the sheets enough ...... I see the factors now. I do have a '69 Dart which will ultimately have a 340 for E-F automatic, but I'm thinking a 318 may be a good way to get the car into class racing on the (relatively) cheap. I'm thinking the 318 won't make enough power to hurt itself anyway, so I may get away with a stock-ish short block ....

[cicero819]

Grassroots Motorsport Magazine has had a challenge for the past few years called the Grassroot challenge and depending on the year this challenge falls upon you can not spend more than the year, this year the participants cannot spend more than $2011 for their build. We should start the same Challenge called build a stocker for less than $5.999.99. I'm sure that we could get enough sponsors to make it a fun event. Claude

[ALMACK]

Originally Posted by cicero819

Grassroots Motorsport Magazine has had a challenge for the past few years called the Grassroot challenge and depending on the year this challenge falls upon you can not spend more than the year, this year the participants cannot spend more than $2011 for their build. We should start the same Challenge called build a stocker for less than $5.999.99. I'm sure that we could get enough sponsors to make it a fun event. Claude

Cool Thread Here !

Be kind of cool to see if someone could build a Stocker for under 5-6K.

I just bought a 4 cyl. 90 Mustang Coupe with the intent in turning it into a N/SA 5.0 stocker. I am going to claim it as an '89 tho.

I paid a bit too much for it @ $ 1,800, but it all there and clean, so I have 4K to go.....LOL
As posted earlier, 8.8 rears are cheap for these cars, as well as engine components.
I have everything already (used parts of course). Just need to freshen up the shortblock.

I looked at the '86 T-Bird 5.0 combo, but as posted earlier, the heads are restictive and it is factored too high @ 205. The 89 Mustang factored @ 215 is a better choice considering the heads and upper intake are better. Cam too I think, but not sure tho.

[mtkawboy]

Me & 2 buddies built a P/S 59 Chevy Biscayne 283/185 4 speed 45 years ago in 1966 for $600 including the $45 car which amounts to $4484.52 today. That took home made headers & max scrounging back then. It sounds like a tough challenge to me. Id love to see someone do it

[goinbroke2]

Jason, DO IT!!!
(I'll have to live vicariously through you hehehe)

Almack, tried and true yes a 89 notch is a good choice. I could swap noses on my 83 and go fuelie but I like carbs...yeah that's a dumb excuse but it's all I got.

Speaking of which, the earlier foxes are lighter than the later, would it bounce in tech if the 89 nose and tailights are on it but the interior and vin are 83? Just thinking, lighter body so I could swap weight around better than a true 89.

I just picked up a 460 last weekend but it's a 79...not in the guide. I was told it was out of a 78, and was thinking S/GTB for IHRA. Getting so damn many engines in the garage I'm going to have to do SOMETHING! LOL

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by treessavoy

Billy or one of you guys will know this.

Is the 230 Chevy inline in the early (60-64) Chevy II a viable combo? If I remember correctly you could get this with a 4 sp as well as auto and 3sp.

JimR

You have to watch the early 230s as I think(I'm not looking at the guide) some have really small cams. The other big difference is the carb. 68 and up (my stuff) uses a monojet and the older stuff uses a 1g. The sizes are about the same but I have no experience with the 1g. All of the later Novas are 3 speed only but 68 and 69 Camaros could be had with 4 speeds.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by ALMACK

Cool Thread Here !

Be kind of cool to see if someone could build a Stocker for under 5-6K.

I just bought a 4 cyl. 90 Mustang Coupe with the intent in turning it into a N/SA 5.0 stocker. I am going to claim it as an '89 tho.

I paid a bit too much for it @ $ 1,800, but it all there and clean, so I have 4K to go.....LOL
As posted earlier, 8.8 rears are cheap for these cars, as well as engine components.
I have everything already (used parts of course). Just need to freshen up the shortblock.

I looked at the '86 T-Bird 5.0 combo, but as posted earlier, the heads are restictive and it is factored too high @ 205. The 89 Mustang factored @ 215 is a better choice considering the heads and upper intake are better. Cam too I think, but not sure tho.

It's 200 hp.
I think you are succumbing to street or internet forum thrash talk about the 86 motor.
Look at it this way: The later 215 has to carry 240 more pounds in it in P/SA .Do you think the later improvements will carry that much extra weight with same short block, cam and throttle body?
I don't.

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Jason, DO IT!!!
(I'll have to live vicariously through you hehehe)

Almack, tried and true yes a 89 notch is a good choice. I could swap noses on my 83 and go fuelie but I like carbs...yeah that's a dumb excuse but it's all I got.

Speaking of which, the earlier foxes are lighter than the later, would it bounce in tech if the 89 nose and tailights are on it but the interior and vin are 83? Just thinking, lighter body so I could swap weight around better than a true 89.

I just picked up a 460 last weekend but it's a 79...not in the guide. I was told it was out of a 78, and was thinking S/GTB for IHRA. Getting so damn many engines in the garage I'm going to have to do SOMETHING! LOL

I don't think I have a choice now...If its bound to be then its up to me....

I pick up the car in two weeks from the Friday, already called him, the pistons "cp" and now pondering clutch set up for an effecient set up per the 320 HP I plan to make @ 6100 rpm.....That will do the trick..

All other avenues are covered cause I'm a cnc machinist programmer with all the machines available....
I'm not a Ford guy at all but, the thread is too inspiring... Billy knows what he is talking about too..

[ALMACK]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Jason, DO IT!!!
(I'll have to live vicariously through you hehehe)

Almack, tried and true yes a 89 notch is a good choice. I could swap noses on my 83 and go fuelie but I like carbs...yeah that's a dumb excuse but it's all I got.

Speaking of which, the earlier foxes are lighter than the later, would it bounce in tech if the 89 nose and tailights are on it but the interior and vin are 83? Just thinking, lighter body so I could swap weight around better than a true 89.

I just picked up a 460 last weekend but it's a 79...not in the guide. I was told it was out of a 78, and was thinking S/GTB for IHRA. Getting so damn many engines in the garage I'm going to have to do SOMETHING! LOL

Your 83 would be legal as long as the interior and exterior looked like an '89. They don't check vins.

Last year, I bought a rolling chassis '91 Mustang Coupe with a 10 pt cage, spooled rear, and drag suspension and picked up parts to build a 1974 460 (the best 460 year choice) with a Thermoquad.
Got the correct intake and fitted the 460 to fit under the stock hood using the stock k-member.
Since I want to go combo racing in the 1/4, the closest 1/4 mile track won't allow IHRA Stock GT cars to run.
So, the project has been put on hold.
Thus the idea for the N/SA 89 coupe.
My 95 H/PS I will run combo races at the 1/8th mile track near here.