|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton, MD
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
![]() Quote:
And yes, I am familar with the narrower dash and the colapsable steering column differences on the 66/67 Chevy II
__________________
Bub Whitaker |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts
|
![]()
Jim R,
Your right on the Shelby. The 1968 GT-350, came through with a 302-4V/250HP. Totally useless. They should have utilized the 289/306HP for one more year. And those 1969 Ford Torino GT's with the 390/320HP didn't scare anybody either. Problem with the early Boss 429's, monster connecting rods, hydraulic cam and weak valve springs. Don't think that engine saw the north side of 5000 RPM's. PC |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Billings Mt
Posts: 282
Likes: 195
Liked 54 Times in 18 Posts
|
![]()
409/425s were turds from the factory because Chevy built them with 2 head gaskets on them to drop the compression. Removing one really brought them to life. That wasnt very well known at the time though or even now..
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 1,605
Liked 1,915 Times in 430 Posts
|
![]()
The one we bought not only had two head gaskets, but was missing the inner valve springs. It had the rear cam bearing in wrong from the factory, and had been replaced, so it sat in a dealership for 10 years or so, and then in a dealership mechanic's basement for 5-6 more.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boise, Id
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
1980 Corvette with the 180HP low compression California 305. Mid 17's out of the box, even with the 4 BBL. Can't imagine forking out the $$$ for one of those. Good thing that was the only year GM did that.
Ditto on the 454SS truck. My friend's '72 Surburban with a slightly (and I mean slightly) modded 427 annihilated one. Wasn't even funny.
__________________
Rich Hedden 6011 BF/S |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boise, Id
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
Wait, forgot one. Any of the Iron Duke Camaro's. Poor Camaro........
__________________
Rich Hedden 6011 BF/S |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 1,605
Liked 1,915 Times in 430 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
The guys I worked with bailed on Modified when it was merged into Super Stock, so that's not the era I was talking about. Again, they raced a 67 Camaro as a 68 (changed the doors, tail lights, and back up lights), so the rule was no real concern to us. I just remember guys who did race the Chevy II's joking among themselves about "cheating", and I remember a couple of cars being tossed as 66's. That rule probably was not in effect when you ran your Chevy II, or I may remember it wrong. Maybe Travis, Dave, or Terry will correct me.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 06-09-2010 at 05:32 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
Any of the mid/late eighties Camaros/Monte Carlos w/ the 305ci were dogs in street trim. They were marketed as 'fast', had the price tag to match, but not the performance.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 1,605
Liked 1,915 Times in 430 Posts
|
![]()
Thanks Terry, I stand corrected. We ran both, Super Modified, and Modified Production. We ran C in both classes, so I guess I got the rules confused.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|