12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway)

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> CobraJet wrote:
>
> > > In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally
> > > original 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66
> > > 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register
> a
> > > best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".
>
> > A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.
>
> 13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell something
> too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
> considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
> Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids, shift
> kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver. Hell,

Stevie doesn't leave with a 40-lb flywheel turning 5000 rpm and
shifting a 2950-lb car at 7800. Stevie admits to leaving his car in
Drive to shift by itself. Night and Day.

> even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in the
> 13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam, and
> better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further. My
> brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
> because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
> both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low
> 14-second car.
>
> Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289 Mustang?
> For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at it.

This car has been discussed in detail in this newsgroup. If your
memory fails you, there's always Google.
>
>
> > > The numbers of which are not too
> > > different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
> > > prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
> > > time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a
> 4-speed,
> > > weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test.
> > > The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were
> mounted
> > > on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2
> with
> > > a 105 mph trap.
>
> > The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie stickshift
> car
> > from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
> > headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.
>
> And its trap speeds were?

Like I took notice of them knowing that I'd have to inform you 20
years later. Nitwit.

>
> Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with headers,
> slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.

Evan's car was a unibody Fairlane, some 600 pounds lighter than the
full-frame Galaxie. You really don't know much about this stuff, do
you? And I'll bet you didn't figure that the Medium Riser heads and
increased overlap cam on the '66 is worth 50-60 horsepower more than
the 63's Low Riser setup.

You can whine all you want about the fact that both engines carry
the same alleged hp number. The MR was underrated, like the CJ and the
Hemi. But consider this: the Medium Riser Fairlane has the highest
rated factor of all the Fords in Stock Eliminator, placing it at the
top of the heap in a class that mandates unmodified castings and
original carbs. Only the COPO Camaro is of any concern. The Hemi runs
in a lower class. The fastest A/S car in the world remains Pond's ride,
which runs C5AE-F castings and a single quad sidewinder. Run your
numbers for that car at 9.89/135 at 3575 lbs race weight.

>
> > > > Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in
> > > > 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to
> > > > think about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master
> cylinder.
>
> > > > >> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
> > > > >> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
> > > > >> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
> > > > >> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)
>
> > > > > Same thing with these two. What HP numbers ring up?
>
> > > > 442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a
> 506
> > > > hp 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for
> > > > blueprinted and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these
>
> > > > two engines.
>
> > > "Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
> > > faster than their peers, you know something is up.
>
> > It's called competition. These aren't poorly-tuned trailer queens.
> > ****es you off, doesn't it? It's obvious.
>
> Please read the following very, very slowly. I don't want you to miss
> this.
>
> "Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
> REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't even
> have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
> _flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.
>
> And before you get all ****y with me, ask the SEEverist what his old
> 455 laid down.

I don't have to get ****y. NHRA factored the CJ at 400 horsepower
from the get go. The Pure Stock rules would allow oversized valves,
zero deck height, internal block massaging, adjustable rockers,
non-stock cams with optimized cam phasing, twelve inch increase in
displacement, loose piston clearance, lowered oil pump pressure, a
switch to a wide ratio gearbox (works much bettere with broad torque
engines), blueprinted automatic, and a host of other mods I can
eventually think of.

The fact is, it passed tech for the race like everyone else and
turned 12's.

>
> > > > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before
>
> > > > my time anyway.
>
> > > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.
>
> > So what?
>
> Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing the
> whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it! Hey
> CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread talking
> about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag out
> scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.

As I mentioned elsewhere, old tests are for bench racers. This
series is the here and now.

>
> > This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
> factory > style Muscle Cars.
>
> Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
> Appearing, Stock Tired.

Now you're getting into stroker cranks and way more room for
refinement.

>
> "Pure stock", on the other hand, should be as close to PURE STOCK as
> possible! Which means lots of 15, 14 and 13-second cars, and just a
> smattering of 12-second cars.

Ah, but there *are* 12-second cars. Isn't that the point?

>
> > Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
> subpar > example.
>
> You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
> factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial. I'd
> say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.

What's sad is you've forgotten how many of these cars I grew up
with, and how many I raced. And back in the day, nothing stayed stock
for more than few days.

>
> > The playing field is scienced out and leveled. Deal with it however
> you > can; see a shrink, smoke some crack, drink to excess, or beat up
> Girl
> > Scouts and take their cookies.
>
> No thanks. I have no need for your personal remedies.
>
> > Wake up, you new-tech-worshipping basket case.
>
> Hey 180Out, me and you are wearing the same label.

Pathetic outcast, I don't even come close to thinking the same about
the two of you.

>
> > Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
> all
> > Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
> undergeared
> > at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in intermediates. The
> big
> > Merc was the only one geared right with a stick. The Mach I,
> > considering that stock converters are required for automatics, would
> > probably be even faster with a manual.
>
> All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires, and
> they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.

That's because you don't know Jack **** about these engines. All the
canted-valve Fords were designed for high-rpm use, and the street
versions were severely undercammed. I own and raced a 3.50-geared
Cyclone Spoiler 4-speed. It was undergeared for the quarter. My friend
had a 4V Cleve Torino stick car. He changed to 3.89's and still was
undergeared. See, Patrick. First hand experience. You never had it and
you never will.

>
> > So, despite some impressive times, there is still room for
> > improvement. Pop a pro driver behind the wheel...
>
> A pro driver who's familiar with a car normally can knock a few tenths
> off.
>
> > My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and
> a
> > mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch wheels).
> > Bummer, huh?
>
> Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the [unlisted]
> mods you did to it?

I'm being sarcistic, nitwit. The car had over 100k on the stock
bottom end, lots of blowby, cut front springs with no weight transfer,
no traction device, leather interior, power windows, all the A/C parts
except the actual compressor, and 300 pounds of ballast in the trunk to
keep the rear from skating under accel.

>
> Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t. and
> trap speed?

Why bother? You'd just make up some more **** to dodge the facts.
Did I mention my Fairlane Cobra stick car was faster? Did I mention my
455 4-4-2 was in the 12's? Did I mention my '70 Road Runner had
12-second time slips? Did I mention I still own all these cars? Did I
mention that I have a better grasp of in-depth musclecar dynamics and
combustion physics than you and 180 could ever accumulate in a lifetime
of heated collaboration?

And what do you have? An outdated Mustang and a monkey on your back.
Oh yeah, and the naivete to think nobody can see you're a hypocrite
with an agenda steeped in ignorance.

Let's see, where's that "special" RAMFM button on my keyboard? Ah
yes...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAHAH!

>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> CobraJet wrote:
>
> > > In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally
> > > original 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66
> > > 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register
> a
> > > best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".
>
> > A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.
>
> 13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell something
> too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
> considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
> Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids, shift
> kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver. Hell,
> even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in the
> 13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam, and
> better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further. My
> brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
> because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
> both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low
> 14-second car.
>
> Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289 Mustang?
> For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at it.
>
>
> > > The numbers of which are not too
> > > different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
> > > prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
> > > time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a
> 4-speed,
> > > weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test.
> > > The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were
> mounted
> > > on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2
> with
> > > a 105 mph trap.
>
> > The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie stickshift
> car
> > from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
> > headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.
>
> And its trap speeds were?
>
> Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with headers,
> slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.
>
> > > > Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in
> > > > 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to
> > > > think about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master
> cylinder.
>
> > > > >> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
> > > > >> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
> > > > >> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
> > > > >> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)
>
> > > > > Same thing with these two. What HP numbers ring up?
>
> > > > 442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a
> 506
> > > > hp 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for
> > > > blueprinted and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these
>
> > > > two engines.
>
> > > "Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
> > > faster than their peers, you know something is up.
>
> > It's called competition. These aren't poorly-tuned trailer queens.
> > ****es you off, doesn't it? It's obvious.
>
> Please read the following very, very slowly. I don't want you to miss
> this.
>
> "Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
> REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't even
> have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
> _flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.
>
> And before you get all ****y with me, ask the SEEverist what his old
> 455 laid down.

Man, how'd I get drug into a thread I had been ignoring for the last few
days!?

Since I've been volunteered, here's what I had:

1971 Buick GS455 (not a Stage 1)

As bought:
Engine had been freshened up with honed cylinders, original pistons, new
rings. Heads were fresh, but not ported or worked - the guy didn't do any
sort of racing, it was just a collectible driver for him. Stock cam was
reground. Original intake and Quadrajet carb.
Original compression ratio is 8.5:1 in 1971
TH400 possibly never rebuilt
3.08 gears without a posi
Non-air car with buckets
Running on 225-70-14 Cooper Cobra street tires I managed to coax a best of:
13.98 @ 96.8 mph

As modified:
Edelbrock Performer
Original Quadrajet with larger primary jets and skinnier secondary rods
TA Performance 1 7/8" primary headers
TA Performance mandrel 2.5" exhaust system
No crossover H or X pipe (sorry Patrick)
Walker Dynomax 17749 long case super turbos
3.42 gears with an Eaton posi
Hotchkis lower rear trailing arms. Stock uppers.
Airbag in right rear, usually around 10-15 lbs in it.
M&H Racemaster DOT drag tires - bias ply. G60-15 (~26.5" tall)
(Switched to Hoosier Quick Time Pros when M&H's wore out)
13.43 @ 99 mph (best mph was 101)
Went 13.67 on the same Cooper Cobras, but it tended to wheel hop.

Car was left in drive and shifted itself at around 5300 rpm.
Best 60 foot time was 1.855, done after mods, but before I swapped to the
Performer.
Consistent 1.90 60 foot times with the Performer, but quicker overall ET's.

Outside of that, me hates these threads about stock muscle cars, pure stock
muscle cars, and stock appearing muscle cars.

Steve
72 Skylark Custom455

>
> > > > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before
>
> > > > my time anyway.
>
> > > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.
>
> > So what?
>
> Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing the
> whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it! Hey
> CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread talking
> about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag out
> scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.
>
> > This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
> factory > style Muscle Cars.
>
> Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
> Appearing, Stock Tired.
>
> "Pure stock", on the other hand, should be as close to PURE STOCK as
> possible! Which means lots of 15, 14 and 13-second cars, and just a
> smattering of 12-second cars.
>
> > Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
> subpar > example.
>
> You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
> factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial. I'd
> say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.
>
> > The playing field is scienced out and leveled. Deal with it however
> you > can; see a shrink, smoke some crack, drink to excess, or beat up
> Girl
> > Scouts and take their cookies.
>
> No thanks. I have no need for your personal remedies.
>
> > Wake up, you new-tech-worshipping basket case.
>
> Hey 180Out, me and you are wearing the same label.
>
> > Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
> all
> > Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
> undergeared
> > at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in intermediates. The
> big
> > Merc was the only one geared right with a stick. The Mach I,
> > considering that stock converters are required for automatics, would
> > probably be even faster with a manual.
>
> All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires, and
> they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.
>
> > So, despite some impressive times, there is still room for
> > improvement. Pop a pro driver behind the wheel...
>
> A pro driver who's familiar with a car normally can knock a few tenths
> off.
>
> > My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and
> a
> > mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch wheels).
> > Bummer, huh?
>
> Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the [unlisted]
> mods you did to it?
>
> Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t. and
> trap speed?
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

"CobraJet" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
>
> > CobraJet wrote:
> >
> > > > In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally
> > > > original 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66
> > > > 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register
> > a
> > > > best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".
> >
> > > A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.
> >
> > 13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell something
> > too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
> > considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
> > Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids, shift
> > kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver. Hell,
>
> Stevie doesn't leave with a 40-lb flywheel turning 5000 rpm and
> shifting a 2950-lb car at 7800. Stevie admits to leaving his car in
> Drive to shift by itself. Night and Day.

I'm a lazy driver, what can I say???
Leave at 5000 rpm!? Hell, my GS was just about to shift then!
I found out a week ago what happens when you leave a stock Buick shortblock
to shift at 5900 rpm!


Steve
72 Skylark Custom455

>
> > even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in the
> > 13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam, and
> > better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further. My
> > brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
> > because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
> > both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low
> > 14-second car.
> >
> > Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289 Mustang?
> > For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at it.
>
> This car has been discussed in detail in this newsgroup. If your
> memory fails you, there's always Google.
> >
> >
> > > > The numbers of which are not too
> > > > different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
> > > > prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
> > > > time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a
> > 4-speed,
> > > > weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test.
> > > > The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were
> > mounted
> > > > on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2
> > with
> > > > a 105 mph trap.
> >
> > > The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie stickshift
> > car
> > > from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
> > > headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.
> >
> > And its trap speeds were?
>
> Like I took notice of them knowing that I'd have to inform you 20
> years later. Nitwit.
>
> >
> > Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with headers,
> > slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.
>
> Evan's car was a unibody Fairlane, some 600 pounds lighter than the
> full-frame Galaxie. You really don't know much about this stuff, do
> you? And I'll bet you didn't figure that the Medium Riser heads and
> increased overlap cam on the '66 is worth 50-60 horsepower more than
> the 63's Low Riser setup.
>
> You can whine all you want about the fact that both engines carry
> the same alleged hp number. The MR was underrated, like the CJ and the
> Hemi. But consider this: the Medium Riser Fairlane has the highest
> rated factor of all the Fords in Stock Eliminator, placing it at the
> top of the heap in a class that mandates unmodified castings and
> original carbs. Only the COPO Camaro is of any concern. The Hemi runs
> in a lower class. The fastest A/S car in the world remains Pond's ride,
> which runs C5AE-F castings and a single quad sidewinder. Run your
> numbers for that car at 9.89/135 at 3575 lbs race weight.
>
> >
> > > > > Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in
> > > > > 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to
> > > > > think about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master
> > cylinder.
> >
> > > > > >> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
> > > > > >> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
> > > > > >> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
> > > > > >> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)
> >
> > > > > > Same thing with these two. What HP numbers ring up?
> >
> > > > > 442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a
> > 506
> > > > > hp 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for
> > > > > blueprinted and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these
> >
> > > > > two engines.
> >
> > > > "Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
> > > > faster than their peers, you know something is up.
> >
> > > It's called competition. These aren't poorly-tuned trailer queens.
> > > ****es you off, doesn't it? It's obvious.
> >
> > Please read the following very, very slowly. I don't want you to miss
> > this.
> >
> > "Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
> > REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't even
> > have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
> > _flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.
> >
> > And before you get all ****y with me, ask the SEEverist what his old
> > 455 laid down.
>
> I don't have to get ****y. NHRA factored the CJ at 400 horsepower
> from the get go. The Pure Stock rules would allow oversized valves,
> zero deck height, internal block massaging, adjustable rockers,
> non-stock cams with optimized cam phasing, twelve inch increase in
> displacement, loose piston clearance, lowered oil pump pressure, a
> switch to a wide ratio gearbox (works much bettere with broad torque
> engines), blueprinted automatic, and a host of other mods I can
> eventually think of.
>
> The fact is, it passed tech for the race like everyone else and
> turned 12's.
>
> >
> > > > > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before
> >
> > > > > my time anyway.
> >
> > > > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.
> >
> > > So what?
> >
> > Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing the
> > whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it! Hey
> > CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread talking
> > about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag out
> > scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere, old tests are for bench racers. This
> series is the here and now.
>
> >
> > > This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
> > factory > style Muscle Cars.
> >
> > Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
> > Appearing, Stock Tired.
>
> Now you're getting into stroker cranks and way more room for
> refinement.
>
> >
> > "Pure stock", on the other hand, should be as close to PURE STOCK as
> > possible! Which means lots of 15, 14 and 13-second cars, and just a
> > smattering of 12-second cars.
>
> Ah, but there *are* 12-second cars. Isn't that the point?
>
> >
> > > Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
> > subpar > example.
> >
> > You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
> > factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial. I'd
> > say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.
>
> What's sad is you've forgotten how many of these cars I grew up
> with, and how many I raced. And back in the day, nothing stayed stock
> for more than few days.
>
> >
> > > The playing field is scienced out and leveled. Deal with it however
> > you > can; see a shrink, smoke some crack, drink to excess, or beat up
> > Girl
> > > Scouts and take their cookies.
> >
> > No thanks. I have no need for your personal remedies.
> >
> > > Wake up, you new-tech-worshipping basket case.
> >
> > Hey 180Out, me and you are wearing the same label.
>
> Pathetic outcast, I don't even come close to thinking the same about
> the two of you.
>
> >
> > > Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
> > all
> > > Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
> > undergeared
> > > at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in intermediates. The
> > big
> > > Merc was the only one geared right with a stick. The Mach I,
> > > considering that stock converters are required for automatics, would
> > > probably be even faster with a manual.
> >
> > All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires, and
> > they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.
>
> That's because you don't know Jack **** about these engines. All the
> canted-valve Fords were designed for high-rpm use, and the street
> versions were severely undercammed. I own and raced a 3.50-geared
> Cyclone Spoiler 4-speed. It was undergeared for the quarter. My friend
> had a 4V Cleve Torino stick car. He changed to 3.89's and still was
> undergeared. See, Patrick. First hand experience. You never had it and
> you never will.
>
> >
> > > So, despite some impressive times, there is still room for
> > > improvement. Pop a pro driver behind the wheel...
> >
> > A pro driver who's familiar with a car normally can knock a few tenths
> > off.
> >
> > > My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and
> > a
> > > mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch wheels).
> > > Bummer, huh?
> >
> > Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the [unlisted]
> > mods you did to it?
>
> I'm being sarcistic, nitwit. The car had over 100k on the stock
> bottom end, lots of blowby, cut front springs with no weight transfer,
> no traction device, leather interior, power windows, all the A/C parts
> except the actual compressor, and 300 pounds of ballast in the trunk to
> keep the rear from skating under accel.
>
> >
> > Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t. and
> > trap speed?
>
> Why bother? You'd just make up some more **** to dodge the facts.
> Did I mention my Fairlane Cobra stick car was faster? Did I mention my
> 455 4-4-2 was in the 12's? Did I mention my '70 Road Runner had
> 12-second time slips? Did I mention I still own all these cars? Did I
> mention that I have a better grasp of in-depth musclecar dynamics and
> combustion physics than you and 180 could ever accumulate in a lifetime
> of heated collaboration?
>
> And what do you have? An outdated Mustang and a monkey on your back.
> Oh yeah, and the naivete to think nobody can see you're a hypocrite
> with an agenda steeped in ignorance.
>
> Let's see, where's that "special" RAMFM button on my keyboard? Ah
> yes...
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAHAH!
>
> >
> > Patrick
> > '93 Cobra
> >
>
> --
> CobraJet
> Thunder Snake #1

wrote:
> Wound Up wrote:
>
>
>>Talking about irony... intentional in this case,
>>but I will point it out anyway. ?You just
>>plagiarized Bill flaming you!
>
>
> No, really? I didn't see the turnip truck you fell out of on your way
> into town, but now I'm sure you landed on your head and got flattened
> by the next three in line. Your cluelessness is actually kinda scary,
> you know that?

If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy
retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your
meaningless bull**** and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the fact
it was obvious YOU would know.

You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was
just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke.
You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to
indicate "good-natured sarcasm".

What was it that Mark Twain said regarding lies and statistics?
I'm quite sure you'd know.

>
> <Backing slowly out of the room>
> Out the 180th
> Thunder Snake the [4]28th
> Troll Level the 3rd, or the .5th, depending on who you ask
> White Tornado the 2nd
> Dust Devil the 1st
>


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Wound Up wrote:

> If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy

> retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your
> meaningless bull**** and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the
fact
> it was obvious YOU would know.
>
> You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was
> just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke.
> You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to
> indicate "good-natured sarcasm".

Ohhhh, now I get it. Too subtle for me, I guess.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the NG. 90% don't even
read these old car threads anyway, and the 10% that do, they're
probably better off if they don't get my little jokes.

180 Out

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wound Up wrote:
>
> > If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy
>
> > retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your
> > meaningless bull**** and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the
> fact
> > it was obvious YOU would know.
> >
> > You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was
> > just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke.
> > You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to
> > indicate "good-natured sarcasm".
>
> Ohhhh, now I get it. Too subtle for me, I guess.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the NG. 90% don't even
> read these old car threads anyway, and the 10% that do, they're
> probably better off if they don't get my little jokes.
>
> 180 Out

I read 'em. Don't understand 'em, but I read 'em.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Wound Up wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy
>>
>>>retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your
>>>meaningless bull**** and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the
>>
>>fact
>>
>>>it was obvious YOU would know.
>>>
>>>You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was
>>>just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke.
>>>You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to
>>>indicate "good-natured sarcasm".
>>
>>Ohhhh, now I get it. Too subtle for me, I guess.
>>

No, I don't think so. I think you just shot from the hip.

>>I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the NG. 90% don't even
>>read these old car threads anyway, and the 10% that do, they're
>>probably better off if they don't get my little jokes.
>>
>>180 Out
>
>
> I read 'em. Don't understand 'em, but I read 'em.
>
> dwight
>

I'd guess Kate, Mike, WF and a number of other regulars read them, too.
And, it was just over the threshold of "worth pointing out" ; )

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

In article >, dwight
> wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Wound Up wrote:
> >
> > > If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy
> >
> > > retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your
> > > meaningless bull**** and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the
> > fact
> > > it was obvious YOU would know.
> > >
> > > You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was
> > > just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke.
> > > You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to
> > > indicate "good-natured sarcasm".
> >
> > Ohhhh, now I get it. Too subtle for me, I guess.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the NG. 90% don't even
> > read these old car threads anyway, and the 10% that do, they're
> > probably better off if they don't get my little jokes.
> >
> > 180 Out
>
> I read 'em. Don't understand 'em, but I read 'em.

What don't you understand?

>
> dwight
>
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1