Race this brand new '57 Plymouth? - Page 2

bill dedman · 06-10-2007, 01:16 PM

Jason,
In case you're NOT kidding (which is entirely possible), I'll answer that.

"Sputnik" was the name Russia gave their satellite, which was launched into earth orbit in 1957, thereby launching the "space race." It was the first successful satellite launch of that nature... by anyone.

I remember going downtown (Little Rock, Arkansas) on several nights,(about 2:00 a.m.,) in September of 1956 (I was 17) and watching them unload the new '57 cars off the trailers and drive them into the showrooms, which had their windows blanked out by opened-up newspaper sections. The cars were carried on trailers with car-covers on them, so nobody could tell what the new cars looked like.

It was all cloaked in secrecy, and very exciting!

Most cars were all-new (body-wise) for 1957, except some G.M. cars, which had re-do's so extensive that they LOOKED all-new.

The stodgy styling of the '56 Plymouth had given way to a space-age, finned, creation whose slogan was "SUDDENLY, IT'S 1960!!!" LOL!

The year 1957 was a landmark year for gearheads because nearly all cars that year, offered high performance engine packages.

Chevys were now available with fuel injection and 1 hp per cubic inch, and you could get multiple carburetion on about 90-percent of the cars offered. Dual-quad Cadillacs, Chevys, Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, DeSotos, Fords, Mercurys, and three-two-barrel setups on Pontiac, and Oldsmobile, were offered, while supercharged engines were available on Fords, Packards, and Studebakers, which gave nearly everyone a fast NEW car, if you opted to pay the freight on the package.

DeSoto matched Chevrolet with a 345 HP, 345cid engine in its "Adventurer" high-end car that year. Even Rambler had a performance car, the "Rebel," with a 327 motor that made 255 HP in a light car...

It was probably the most exciting year ever, for a "car guy." Certainly, up to that point, although 1955 was just as exciting for its styling revelations.

I remember being surprised that a Chevy didn't witn Stock honors at the NHRA Nationals (Okie City) that year. The top stocker there turned out to be a '57 Pontiac stick shift 2-door sedan with the 317-HP Tri-Power option, which was available with a ~VERY~ nasty, solid-lifter cam...

It went 94-mph on street tires, through the mufflers, with the air cleaner "on." That was back when "stock" meant "STOCK!"

1957... that wonderful year...

Bill

Bob Rice · 06-10-2007, 01:28 PM

Bill,
Thanks for the history lesson. I think I was born 10 to 15 years too late!
Bob Rice

bill dedman · 06-10-2007, 01:30 PM

Bob,
If you were going to be 69 this year, you wouldn't feel that way; trust me!!! :

Bill

Geerhead55 · 06-10-2007, 11:44 PM

Thanks for the memories, Bill. I knew there were a few on here that remembered what Sputnik was all about. Danny Durham

sg1838 · 06-11-2007, 10:51 AM

Bill,

I was kidding, as I did know what Sputnik was, but I'm glad I made my smart-*** remark because it caused you to write your little history lesson, which I enjoyed. Unfortunately, I had the pleasure of being a kid during the time of the gas-crunch, and by the time I was old enough to drive the great cars I had to choose from were those classics like the '78 Aspen, or maybe if I was lucky an '81 K-car.

I just wish I would have somehow found the money at the time ($20K - $40K) to have purchased at least one Hemi car. That would have been difficult given I was only making $3.35/hr. at the time, but given that those cars now sell for over $300K, I'm kicking myself for not begging, borrowing, and stealing from every person that I could have (I would have paid back the people that I stole from).

Oh well...I have a few more woulda, coulda, shouldas for you if you'd like to hear them...

Thanks again for the interesting perspective!

Jason Oldfield
S/G & S/ST 1838

bill dedman · 06-12-2007, 12:34 AM

Danny and Jason,

Thanks for the kind words. I am not qualified to give lessons in anything, but it is fun to talk about how things used to be, and how they've changed.

The main two things that have changed since I started going the drags in 1955 are how fast the average car is, now, and how much "speed" costs.

For example, the average new car in 1955 had the capability of running the standing-start quarter-mile in about 19 seconds at perhaps 72 mph. There were faster cars, such as the "power pack" versions that had a 4bbl-carb and dual exhausts (most of them could manage mid-to high 17-second times in showroom trim), but the great majority had small V8s, single exhausts and a small, two-barrel carb.

The horsepower race had already taken off, however, and this 1955 average climbed astronomically the next few years, and by 1965, the average car's performance had jumped to a quarter-mile average of probably mid-16's.

Of course, the birth of the musclecar era in 1964, with the advent of the GTO, and all its competitors, had changed the perception of what constituted a "fast car", forever.

The run-of-the-mill '64 GTO's I watched at the strip, with showroom trim and street tires, would usually run high 14's through the mufflers, at about 98-99 mph.

Lots of their competitors were no faster, with the slowest of the bunch that I RECALL, being the 390 Ford GTA Mustangs and Fairlanes, clocking in at 15.30s... Boy, howdy; has THAT changed!!!

But, that was enough to bring the average car into the 15-second range. Engines had grown by leaps and bounds, with big block everything appearing in family sedans, which usually made the grocery-getter a lot nore fun to drive.

We all know what happened in the '70s, with lowered compression for unleaded gas, and the gas crunch making performance a naughty word in Detroit, so the march toward fast cars was put on hold during that sad period.

The '80s weren't much better, but did give us a V8 Mustang with potential, and some worthwile fuel injected motors from Chevy.

By the late '80s, things were starting to look up again, and by the time the nineties got rolling, the Viper and LT-1 motors heralded the dawning of a new performance era that is going great guns, today, with supercharged Cadilacs, and 600 HP American sports cars on the horizon.

One interesting phenomenon I have noticed is the creeping up of what is considered the "norm" in the overall performance of "average cars."

A case in point would be the 2007 Toyota Camry, a front-wheel-drive, soccer-mom sedan with NO sporting pretentions.

I don't have any hard data on that particular car, but Car and Driver road tested its big brother, the 2007 Avalon about a year ago, and it ran the quarter in something like 14.6 at 99 mph.

The Camry V6 gets the same engine (no changes) in a lighter car, so there's no way it''s going to run less than 100 mph in the quarter.

This 3.5-liter, automatic, soccer-mom car, with NO sporting aspirations, is going to tour the quarter-mile quicker than a bone-stock '64 GTO "MUSCLECAR" did.!

and, that is the NORM, today!!!

Back around 1960, I had a (partnership) race car (B/Gasser) that ran competitively with several others in my class, and it NEVER ran 100mph on its best day!!! ('35 Pontiac coupe/'55 Olds/Hydro/Engle cam/3 2bbls/milled heads/4.27:1 rear gears/BRUCE slicks) Wooopeee ding dong!

See my point?

The perception of what constitutes "fast" has changed dramatically, since I became involved in drag racing.

When I graduated from high school in 1956, any street car that could run in the 15s was "God-awful FAST!"

Now, a 15-second car on the street is just a normal grocery-getter and no great shakes.

The downside of all this is the cost of quick acceleration.

I don't have to tell any of you how much the cost of racing has escalated in recent years, but the extent to which just building a reasonably-quick street car has climbed can be astonishing when you consider what was possible in, say, 1972.

I had a'64 Valiant I had paid $750.00 for the previous year, and it had a 273 V8, but was somewhat anemic, by my standards. I located a low-mileage '71 340 in a junkyard, and bought it (complete), along with its bell-housing, clutch, 4-speed, driveshaft, and 8.75" Sure-Grip rear end, for $500.00. It had 13,000 miles on it.

It bolted into the Valiant with only one hitch; the exhaust manifolds wouldn't fit, so I put a set of $35.00 (no kidding!) fenderwelll headers on it.

Some $8.00 slapper-bars, blocked heat risers, and a pair of M & H slicks borrowed from my ex-partner, Harry Sparks, and I had myself a low 13-second street car. The Demon I pulled it out of had a 3.91:1 gear, so I was okay, there.

Total cost was just under $1,500.00 1972 dollars, including the cost of the car! That would be $7285.00 today... according to this online cost-of-living calculator.

Was it a good deal? It made me smile...

At any rate, hot rodding continues to be one of the best and most educational ways to spend your time and money, I think.

I am just amazed at how fast some of you guys can make a legal Stocker go...

Thanks for the excitement and education you have provided for me over the years! You guys are the best....

Bill

Bruce Fulper · 06-13-2007, 01:31 AM

Cool stuff there Bill. Hard to think you couldn't crack 100 mph in the gasser. Wild. Love to find a set of Bruce slicks !

Jason: Don't feel too bad about not buying a Hemi way back when. I was smart enough to know better too, when in 1969 my cousin offered to sell me his hot rodded '63 split window Vette. It was only a 283 at the time of the offer, but it was a 4 speed and of course that was way cool when you're 16. (I was.) But my 1.65 an hour grocery job and the fact that my Dad wouldn't lend me the money killed that deal.

Oh, how much? $1400 dollars.......

"The future isn't what it used to be."

bill dedman · 06-13-2007, 04:47 AM

Matador Man,

There were a couple of reasons why that old tub wouldn't go 100, not the least of which was, it sat "tall in the saddle" and had the aerodynamics of a barn door. The cam was an Engle 116, which was a quick-rate-of-lift, short duration model, that was better-suited to a dirt track than the drag strip... shoulda gone with the more aggressive "95."
This thing floated the valves at 5,800 rpm, and we were turning that just before the traps.... it was kind of like a mechanical rev-limiter/speed-limiter.

Our competition wasn't equipped to match our 60-foot times, which were amazingly good for such an otherwise s-l-o-w car, so if they beat us (which they did, a lot!!!) they always had to catch us.

We learned, early-on, that the only way to make a Hydro car competitive was to make it hook 100-percent, so we locked the rear end, ballasted the back of the car, and ran slicks that would allow us a full-throttle stall launch with no wheelspin. We had a car that ran inordinately fast for the first block, and not so fast for the next 3 blocks.

I think our usual e.t. was a 13.80, which sounds absurd, now, but was right in the middle of the field at the time. We won as much as we lost... but never won anything significant. Our only claim to fame with that car was to garner runner-up B/G honors to Don Biggers at the '62 AHRA Nationals at Green Valley (Texas.)

If I had to guess, I'd think we had maybe $1,000 1962 dollars in the whole car... engine, hydro, and all. That equates to just over $6,700.00 in today's currency.

What kind of a race car can you build for that kind of money, today?

Not much... and, we didn't HAVE much, but we were relatively competitive in class racing (no handicap racing back then; everything was heads-up), AND we had a ton of fun with that ol' heap.

However, it's humiliating to think that a showroom 2007 Toyota Camry sedan can turn more MPH in the quarter than we ever did, though... LOL!

My, my; how times change....

Bill

sg1838 · 06-13-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Jason: Don't feel too bad about not buying a Hemi way back when. I was smart enough to know better too, when in 1969 my cousin offered to sell me his hot rodded '63 split window Vette. It was only a 283 at the time of the offer, but it was a 4 speed and of course that was way cool when you're 16. (I was.) But my 1.65 an hour grocery job and the fact that my Dad wouldn't lend me the money killed that deal.

Oh, how much? $1400 dollars.......

Bowtie,

It's funny you use that as an example, because though you probably don't know it, that's the car I race today. I could have NEVER afford to buy this car now, but I was lucky enough to have had a dad that bought the car in 1964, and kept it. It's not much of an original '63 Corvette anymore (the body and trim parts, and even the body has been cut), but I do still have MOST of the original parts for it (the drivetrain was blown up or sold LONG ago). The funny thing is, I'm not sure the original parts are really worth anything to me, because if I were to ever put the car back on the street, I would not put it back to all original. The car would be a Pro Street car, and even then, I'm not sure I wouldn't just go buy replica parts from Eckler's for the stuff that I did want to put back on the car.

There is a downside to owning this car, and it's that I can't sell it. Not that I would want to, but I would LOVE to build a purpose-built race car, but I can't afford to do so without selling what I have. If my dad never sold the car for the 27 years he owned it, I'm certainly not going to tarnish the family name by doing so!

What's weird is what just struck home with me...I've now "owned" the car for 16 years since my dad passed away. It's hard to believe that the car has been in my care for that long, and that in 10 years I will have had it in my possession just as long as my dad did. But, I've never really considered myself the owner of this car. It's my dad's car, and I'm just borrowing it until he tells me I can't use it anymore.

Jason Oldfield
S/G & S/ST 1838

Bruce Fulper · 06-13-2007, 12:07 PM

I didn't know. I'll have to go to Autoimagery and look you up sometime.
With the year restriction lifted off the GT class I've dreamed about putting a Pontiac in an early Vette. Wouldn't THAT irk some purists. ha!

"The future isn't what it used to be."

06-10-2007, 01:16 PM	#11
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Jason, In case you're NOT kidding (which is entirely possible), I'll answer that. "Sputnik" was the name Russia gave their satellite, which was launched into earth orbit in 1957, thereby launching the "space race." It was the first successful satellite launch of that nature... by anyone. I remember going downtown (Little Rock, Arkansas) on several nights,(about 2:00 a.m.,) in September of 1956 (I was 17) and watching them unload the new '57 cars off the trailers and drive them into the showrooms, which had their windows blanked out by opened-up newspaper sections. The cars were carried on trailers with car-covers on them, so nobody could tell what the new cars looked like. It was all cloaked in secrecy, and very exciting! Most cars were all-new (body-wise) for 1957, except some G.M. cars, which had re-do's so extensive that they LOOKED all-new. The stodgy styling of the '56 Plymouth had given way to a space-age, finned, creation whose slogan was "SUDDENLY, IT'S 1960!!!" LOL! The year 1957 was a landmark year for gearheads because nearly all cars that year, offered high performance engine packages. Chevys were now available with fuel injection and 1 hp per cubic inch, and you could get multiple carburetion on about 90-percent of the cars offered. Dual-quad Cadillacs, Chevys, Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, DeSotos, Fords, Mercurys, and three-two-barrel setups on Pontiac, and Oldsmobile, were offered, while supercharged engines were available on Fords, Packards, and Studebakers, which gave nearly everyone a fast NEW car, if you opted to pay the freight on the package. DeSoto matched Chevrolet with a 345 HP, 345cid engine in its "Adventurer" high-end car that year. Even Rambler had a performance car, the "Rebel," with a 327 motor that made 255 HP in a light car... It was probably the most exciting year ever, for a "car guy." Certainly, up to that point, although 1955 was just as exciting for its styling revelations. I remember being surprised that a Chevy didn't witn Stock honors at the NHRA Nationals (Okie City) that year. The top stocker there turned out to be a '57 Pontiac stick shift 2-door sedan with the 317-HP Tri-Power option, which was available with a ~VERY~ nasty, solid-lifter cam... It went 94-mph on street tires, through the mufflers, with the air cleaner "on." That was back when "stock" meant "STOCK!" 1957... that wonderful year... Bill __________________ Bill

06-10-2007, 01:30 PM	#13
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Bob, If you were going to be 69 this year, you wouldn't feel that way; trust me!!! : Bill __________________ Bill

06-12-2007, 12:34 AM	#16
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Danny and Jason, Thanks for the kind words. I am not qualified to give lessons in anything, but it is fun to talk about how things used to be, and how they've changed. The main two things that have changed since I started going the drags in 1955 are how fast the average car is, now, and how much "speed" costs. For example, the average new car in 1955 had the capability of running the standing-start quarter-mile in about 19 seconds at perhaps 72 mph. There were faster cars, such as the "power pack" versions that had a 4bbl-carb and dual exhausts (most of them could manage mid-to high 17-second times in showroom trim), but the great majority had small V8s, single exhausts and a small, two-barrel carb. The horsepower race had already taken off, however, and this 1955 average climbed astronomically the next few years, and by 1965, the average car's performance had jumped to a quarter-mile average of probably mid-16's. Of course, the birth of the musclecar era in 1964, with the advent of the GTO, and all its competitors, had changed the perception of what constituted a "fast car", forever. The run-of-the-mill '64 GTO's I watched at the strip, with showroom trim and street tires, would usually run high 14's through the mufflers, at about 98-99 mph. Lots of their competitors were no faster, with the slowest of the bunch that I RECALL, being the 390 Ford GTA Mustangs and Fairlanes, clocking in at 15.30s... Boy, howdy; has THAT changed!!! But, that was enough to bring the average car into the 15-second range. Engines had grown by leaps and bounds, with big block everything appearing in family sedans, which usually made the grocery-getter a lot nore fun to drive. We all know what happened in the '70s, with lowered compression for unleaded gas, and the gas crunch making performance a naughty word in Detroit, so the march toward fast cars was put on hold during that sad period. The '80s weren't much better, but did give us a V8 Mustang with potential, and some worthwile fuel injected motors from Chevy. By the late '80s, things were starting to look up again, and by the time the nineties got rolling, the Viper and LT-1 motors heralded the dawning of a new performance era that is going great guns, today, with supercharged Cadilacs, and 600 HP American sports cars on the horizon. One interesting phenomenon I have noticed is the creeping up of what is considered the "norm" in the overall performance of "average cars." A case in point would be the 2007 Toyota Camry, a front-wheel-drive, soccer-mom sedan with NO sporting pretentions. I don't have any hard data on that particular car, but Car and Driver road tested its big brother, the 2007 Avalon about a year ago, and it ran the quarter in something like 14.6 at 99 mph. The Camry V6 gets the same engine (no changes) in a lighter car, so there's no way it''s going to run less than 100 mph in the quarter. This 3.5-liter, automatic, soccer-mom car, with NO sporting aspirations, is going to tour the quarter-mile quicker than a bone-stock '64 GTO "MUSCLECAR" did.! and, that is the NORM, today!!! Back around 1960, I had a (partnership) race car (B/Gasser) that ran competitively with several others in my class, and it NEVER ran 100mph on its best day!!! ('35 Pontiac coupe/'55 Olds/Hydro/Engle cam/3 2bbls/milled heads/4.27:1 rear gears/BRUCE slicks) Wooopeee ding dong! See my point? The perception of what constitutes "fast" has changed dramatically, since I became involved in drag racing. When I graduated from high school in 1956, any street car that could run in the 15s was "God-awful FAST!" Now, a 15-second car on the street is just a normal grocery-getter and no great shakes. The downside of all this is the cost of quick acceleration. I don't have to tell any of you how much the cost of racing has escalated in recent years, but the extent to which just building a reasonably-quick street car has climbed can be astonishing when you consider what was possible in, say, 1972. I had a'64 Valiant I had paid $750.00 for the previous year, and it had a 273 V8, but was somewhat anemic, by my standards. I located a low-mileage '71 340 in a junkyard, and bought it (complete), along with its bell-housing, clutch, 4-speed, driveshaft, and 8.75" Sure-Grip rear end, for $500.00. It had 13,000 miles on it. It bolted into the Valiant with only one hitch; the exhaust manifolds wouldn't fit, so I put a set of $35.00 (no kidding!) fenderwelll headers on it. Some $8.00 slapper-bars, blocked heat risers, and a pair of M & H slicks borrowed from my ex-partner, Harry Sparks, and I had myself a low 13-second street car. The Demon I pulled it out of had a 3.91:1 gear, so I was okay, there. Total cost was just under $1,500.00 1972 dollars, including the cost of the car! That would be $7285.00 today... according to this online cost-of-living calculator. Was it a good deal? It made me smile... At any rate, hot rodding continues to be one of the best and most educational ways to spend your time and money, I think. I am just amazed at how fast some of you guys can make a legal Stocker go... Thanks for the excitement and education you have provided for me over the years! You guys are the best.... Bill __________________ Bill

06-13-2007, 04:47 AM	#18
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Matador Man, There were a couple of reasons why that old tub wouldn't go 100, not the least of which was, it sat "tall in the saddle" and had the aerodynamics of a barn door. The cam was an Engle 116, which was a quick-rate-of-lift, short duration model, that was better-suited to a dirt track than the drag strip... shoulda gone with the more aggressive "95." This thing floated the valves at 5,800 rpm, and we were turning that just before the traps.... it was kind of like a mechanical rev-limiter/speed-limiter. Our competition wasn't equipped to match our 60-foot times, which were amazingly good for such an otherwise s-l-o-w car, so if they beat us (which they did, a lot!!!) they always had to catch us. We learned, early-on, that the only way to make a Hydro car competitive was to make it hook 100-percent, so we locked the rear end, ballasted the back of the car, and ran slicks that would allow us a full-throttle stall launch with no wheelspin. We had a car that ran inordinately fast for the first block, and not so fast for the next 3 blocks. I think our usual e.t. was a 13.80, which sounds absurd, now, but was right in the middle of the field at the time. We won as much as we lost... but never won anything significant. Our only claim to fame with that car was to garner runner-up B/G honors to Don Biggers at the '62 AHRA Nationals at Green Valley (Texas.) If I had to guess, I'd think we had maybe $1,000 1962 dollars in the whole car... engine, hydro, and all. That equates to just over $6,700.00 in today's currency. What kind of a race car can you build for that kind of money, today? Not much... and, we didn't HAVE much, but we were relatively competitive in class racing (no handicap racing back then; everything was heads-up), AND we had a ton of fun with that ol' heap. However, it's humiliating to think that a showroom 2007 Toyota Camry sedan can turn more MPH in the quarter than we ever did, though... LOL! My, my; how times change.... Bill __________________ Bill

06-10-2007, 01:28 PM	#12
Bob Rice Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Bern, NC Posts: 617 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Bill, Thanks for the history lesson. I think I was born 10 to 15 years too late! Bob Rice

06-10-2007, 11:44 PM	#14
Geerhead55 VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tacoma, Washington Posts: 1,632 Likes: 0 Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts	Thanks for the memories, Bill. I knew there were a few on here that remembered what Sputnik was all about. Danny Durham

06-11-2007, 10:51 AM	#15
sg1838 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 80 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Bill, I was kidding, as I did know what Sputnik was, but I'm glad I made my smart-*** remark because it caused you to write your little history lesson, which I enjoyed. Unfortunately, I had the pleasure of being a kid during the time of the gas-crunch, and by the time I was old enough to drive the great cars I had to choose from were those classics like the '78 Aspen, or maybe if I was lucky an '81 K-car. I just wish I would have somehow found the money at the time ($20K - $40K) to have purchased at least one Hemi car. That would have been difficult given I was only making $3.35/hr. at the time, but given that those cars now sell for over $300K, I'm kicking myself for not begging, borrowing, and stealing from every person that I could have (I would have paid back the people that I stole from). Oh well...I have a few more woulda, coulda, shouldas for you if you'd like to hear them... Thanks again for the interesting perspective! Jason Oldfield S/G & S/ST 1838

06-13-2007, 01:31 AM	#17
Bruce Fulper Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 651 Likes: 4 Liked 54 Times in 33 Posts	Cool stuff there Bill. Hard to think you couldn't crack 100 mph in the gasser. Wild. Love to find a set of Bruce slicks ! Jason: Don't feel too bad about not buying a Hemi way back when. I was smart enough to know better too, when in 1969 my cousin offered to sell me his hot rodded '63 split window Vette. It was only a 283 at the time of the offer, but it was a 4 speed and of course that was way cool when you're 16. (I was.) But my 1.65 an hour grocery job and the fact that my Dad wouldn't lend me the money killed that deal. Oh, how much? $1400 dollars....... "The future isn't what it used to be."

06-13-2007, 12:07 PM	#20
Bruce Fulper Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 651 Likes: 4 Liked 54 Times in 33 Posts	I didn't know. I'll have to go to Autoimagery and look you up sometime. With the year restriction lifted off the GT class I've dreamed about putting a Pontiac in an early Vette. Wouldn't THAT irk some purists. ha! "The future isn't what it used to be."