Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Fred Holdorf

goinbroke2,
I tried the '83 T-Bird V6 and ran out of money, (fixed income). Carb is 1.08 and if it had a manifold to go with it,maybe? Intake is a smog piece with three 3/4" tubes running thru the plenum for EGR use. They take up all the plenum. A switch to a '84 TBI (2BBL-not legal) manifold brought a .5 second improvment. 16.30 ET's at Bakersfield were my best and then Mark built the turbo Mustang! No cam blanks for this engine exsist. I'm too old to start over, so it became a "bracket car", with a junk yard 5.0L V8, instant 13.60's and goes rounds. Thanks for the thread, very enlighting, Fred

P.S. I have over 600 runs on the 6 cyl AOD trans (shift kit, small convertor) and 7.5" Equalok rear end (4.10 gears) without breakage. (1.90, 60ft's)

Back when Billy and I talked about that combo, we determined the carb was too small.
The cylinder heads looked killer though. I was going to classify those tubes as emission devices ,which are removable and then see if anyone missed them. I doubt it.
There are later model 232 V6s that look pretty good on paper.

[Mark Yacavone]

Lately ,I ' ve been looking at the 77 Pontiac 400/180 in the big cars. It's down to 260 hp, where the same motor in the Firebird is 285.
I've got a Bonneville 2 dr here that will make N/SA with no rollbar, if anyone's interested.

[Kenny Wigington]

Thanks to you guys with the wealth of info, that you have, this is one cool thread ! Thanks for the great reading !

[Dwight Southerland]

Mark -

Hush on all those Pontiacs.

[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.

[Todd Boyer]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Actually, Ronnie, the 318 2-bbl at 185 is one of those "Why doesn't somebody do that?" combinations for me. I know everyboy complains that the carb is too small, but the '65 273 with the same specs is rated at 176. Surely 45 cubic inches is worth 9 hp!

Gentlemen, I'm guessing the '69 Dart with 318-2V 230/230 wouldn't be nearly as good a combo as the 318-2/185??? '69 Looks like an N-O-P combo. Your thoughts ??????

[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.

[Dwight Southerland]

Although I targeted the Camaro and Firebird combinations for the late 70s Chevy 305, one of the reasons I have been "pushing" this engine for such a long time is that it is available in so many bodies during those production years. Look at full size Chevrolets, Pontiacs, Buicks, and Oldsmobiles for applications. There are even '76-'77 Chevelles and Novas that make U/SA, if that is interesting to you. Cutlasses, LeMans and a variety on mid-sized Buicks used that engine at various times. Lots of possibilities!

[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

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

NHRA accepts the 82 with auto.
Upon further review, it probably would be less expensive in the long run to go with the 8.8 and be done with it. It still would fit in the budget.

Ok, I see this 1982 mustang combo and am interested to make it a dime rocket. I have car in mind just a short drive away.. I was told before purchasing check all areas on the uni-body where Anything bolts onto it...This car is 2700lbs..... very light in my opinion.

The car classification guide doesn't specifiy auto/manual or I don't see it anywhere...oh...the engine blueprint section...got it!

Will NHRA bother you if you use a five speed manual only making four shift down the track? I'd like to daily drive this car, I beleive that is a distiguised trait often overlooked but, appreciated by the distinguised...

I'll post pics and video of the entire step by step if I do indeed spend less than $5000.

I really would enjoy this fiscally sound project and have others buy into it aswell.. My chevelle is not going to be done sooner and for less money, that's a fact!

Thanks for the thread!