History Of The Dodge Charger: A Quick Look

Many muscle cars of the 1960’s all share a very similar story. While this decade is commonly referred to as the golden era of these fast, flexing street machines, there was a literal war between the companies designing and subsequently serving these cars as hot as possible to feed the market’s insatiable need for speed. 

The Dodge Charger wasn’t the first of these cars types to emerge from the drawing board. In fact, its very existence came in hopes to steal a share of the muscle market from General Motors and Ford, which had already achieved huge success on the streets with the 1964 release of the Pontiac GTO and Ford Mustang respectively. The younger audience that was buying these cars was hopped up on adrenaline, constantly scanning the horizon looking for the next big hit. In 1966, Dodge was there to enter a new horse in the race. 

The Charger came out sprinting to catch up to the frontrunners with four different V-8 engine offerings, one of which was the much-anticipated 426 Street Hemi mill. While the Dodge Charger displayed a strong initial showing during its first year of production, a slower-selling 1967 prompted the company to act fast. What happened next was an alteration to their approach in hopes to remain a viable competitor to the industry’s leading performance models. 

Little did Dodge know the impact said changes would make for the Charger’s second-generation success. At first glance, everyone who laid eyes on the car’s fresh redesign knew right away something big was about to happen. The sleek Coke bottle shape and integrated rear spoiler made the car look fast and capable before the key was even turned. Even today, the ’68-’70 Charger (namely the ’69) remains one of the most recognizable silhouettes in automotive history, as it has been forever immortalized with its multiple big screen appearances. 

…The sleek Coke bottle shape and integrated rear spoiler made the car look fast and capable before the key was even turned…

Backing up the Charger’s aggressively updated appearance, Dodge designated four big block V-8 powertrain options available for the coupe. The mild, entry-level 145-hp 3.7L I-6 was enough to make new-to-market drivers happy, but for the more wild at heart, two big V-8 engines were lying in wait to exponentially make things far more interesting. Buyers had a hell of a decision to make when starting at the 7.0L Hemi or the 7.2L Magnum power plants, but there was surely no losing with either selection. 

The third generation of the Charger received a second package redesign that was right on par with the looks of many other vehicles of the 1970s (think overly curvy), but lacking a longer lasting appeal that the previous gen had going for it. It was during this time that the Charger tells a shared tale of woes of other performance vehicles in the industry. Increasingly rising insurance premiums and gasoline prices proved to be major threats to the muscle car species as a whole. If that lethal combo wasn’t enough to take them out, the upcoming federal emissions regulations was sure to be certain death for their kind. 

Thankfully for Dodge, the Charger was still able to eek out some semblance of an existence until the end of the 1978 model year when it was taken out of production. Before the plug was pulled on it, the Charger had somehow appeared in the personal luxury car category. For the first time in the car’s history, performance output was not placed at center stage, and to be honest, neither was its styling with regards to today’s standards. The writing was definitely on the wall for the struggling Charger. 

…Increasingly rising insurance premiums and gasoline prices proved to be major threats to the muscle car species as a whole…

After the release of a Charger R/T concept car in 1999, which received good enough reviews, there weren’t any more whispers of the sleeping giant’s name in public again until 2005 when Dodge legitimately rereleased the car as a 2006 model year. The first question on everybody’s mind was quickly answered with authority—yes, this car was worth the wait! 

Even though there was some grumbling from a small sect of Charger ultra purists, the sedan version didn’t look bad—not at all. Even those who had something to say about the car’s extra two doors remained quiet when learning about the Charger’s top-end 6.1L Hemi V-8 SRT8 model—425 ponies and 420lbs-ft of torque will do that. 

A major overhaul came in 2011 for the Charger, which notably included aggressively restyled bodywork and a 6.4L Hemi-equipped SRT model. The car continued to evolve with the introduction of the SRT Hellcat model four years later. The Charger claimed a lot of bragging rights under this badging with the inclusion of a supercharged 707hp 6.2L Hemi attached to an 8-speed paddle-shifted ZF auto transmission. Yeah, those are big numbers, especially for a five-passenger sedan.

 It’s safe to say that 56 years after its inaugural release, there’s never been a more exciting time to own a Dodge Charger. 

A Quick-Hitting History Of The Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet’s Impala is an iconic nameplate that has been around since 1958 until 2020 when it was yanked from production for the second time. Throughout the years, and 10 generations later, this car has seen its fair share of restyling and reconfiguration to fit in with the auto industry’s ever-changing climate. 

First introduced to the world as the Bel Air Impala, the name itself designated itself as the top-of –the-line trim package for Chevy’s well-established, deluxe full-size car line. While the first example of the Impala was built to commemorate Chevy’s 50^th anniversary, it gained enough traction to become a stand-alone production model the very next year. 

Car fans fell in love with the styling of the ’58 Impala with its wide yet sleek appearance, but the factory quickly tweaked its appearance to give it a fresh identity that was all its own. In its second year and generation, the brand new Impala line featured exterior tail fins and teardrop shaped headlights, and sat atop of an X-frame chassis that promoted a lower ride height and had great structural integrity. The Impala was made available in multiple body variations such as a two-door hardtop or convertible and a four-door hardtop or sedan—the options were plentiful. 

While the Impala was quickly gaining popularity in its first couple years on the street, it wasn’t until the very start of the third generation in 1961 when things really got interesting when the release of the Super Sport performance package was first made available. While the SS model was available with many powertrain options to choose from, including Chevy’s brand-new 409ci 360hp V-8, which really allowed the Super Sport designation to live up to the hype. While upgraded performance gains were the major reason consumers opted for this premium badging, its many plush interior features and heavier-duty chassis components were also just as desirable. 

The exterior packaging changed again during the Impala’s third generation, and overall, the car became boxier than before. The new look of this particular redesign has had long-lasting power and is one of today’s most popular selections for restorations and full custom rebuilds throughout the car’s history. You’ve most likely seen Impalas of this vintage cruising in music videos or heard about rolling in a ‘six-four’ on the radio a time or two before. 

…this particular redesign has had long-lasting power and is one of today’s most popular selections for restorations and full custom rebuilds…

While the fourth generation saw its own redesign, which brought a more sleek and modern aesthetic to the Impala’s exterior, it also represented the car’s seeming most popular iteration to date for car buyers of the era, as it sold over a million units alone in 1965. Another interesting happening during this generation was the dropping of the availability of the wagon option in 1969, which had been a great family-friendly package from ’65-’68. 

During 1971-1976, the Impala once again went through another major appearance overhaul, while still offering the outstanding comfort and interior space consumers had come to associate with the nameplate. It was also during this time that the Feds began cracking down on emissions regulations, which in turn directly led to dramatically lower performance offerings being made available. These limitations were not specifically unique to the Impala, or the Chevy brand for that matter—the strain was felt all throughout the automotive industry.

…It was also during this time that the Feds began cracking down on emissions regulations, which in turn directly led to dramatically lower performance offerings being made available…

After going though yet another repackaging starting in 1977, the Impala’s sixth generation saw the car’s retirement from production in 1985. The premium Caprice package trim, which had proved to be popular in years past, began outselling the Impala as a sports coupe, yet the sedan Impala was still a popular selection for families during this period. Either way, the Impala was out, and the Caprice was given a chance to run as its own model.  

When the Impala became a fond memory, there were no plans to bring it back until almost a decade later in 1994. This 7^th generation only lasted two years in production, but since this release was strictly an SS model equipped with a decent 5.7L 260hp LT1 power plant, critics weren’t overly thrilled with the four-speed automatic transmission that was made the only option available. While the upgraded suspension setup was praised, however, this version didn’t have the right moves to hold the market’s attention for long. 

After being sidelined yet again, the Impala took another breather for another four years until it was revived again in 2000. This time, it remained on the street until it was recently canned once more in 2020. This most recent run spanned two whole decades that proved to be rather influential throughout the years as it hung around at the top as Chevrolet’s luxury full-size car offering. 

Many wonder if the Impala will make yet another return. It’s hard to count this car out, as it has been sent to pasture multiple times only to be roped back into production rotation. If the car does come back, it’ll be interesting to see what it will look like and what kind of new features it’ll be flexing. If the Impala does remain in extinction this time, it will remain near and dear in the hearts of millions of car enthusiasts.  

Then & Now: A Quick Look At The Dodge Challenger’s Past & Present

With so much buzz given to the Hellcat and Demon trim packages these days, it sometimes seems like there is somewhat of a disconnect from the Dodge Challenger of the early 1970’s. While the level of excitement surrounding the modern muscle car currently sits at an all-time high, the beginning stages of Dodge’s entry into the pony car scene some 52 years ago weren’t much more than hopes based on performance-centric auto market predictions.

Introduced to the market in 1969 as a 1970 model, the OG Dodge Challenger showed up as the new kid on the block to those into manufacturer-tuned performance cars. With the Ford Mustang and Chevy Camaro already well established names during the golden era of the American muscle car segment, the Challenger was originally designed to be a worthy and capable stable mate for Plymouth’s Barracuda to help take on the competition.

…the Challenger was originally designed to be a worthy and capable stable mate for Plymouth’s Barracuda…

While the Challenger did its part of raising awareness of Chrysler-branded performance cars, it also simultaneously carved out its own devout fan base rather quickly in its short production run. When it was first introduced, the Challenger won so many consumers over based on the sheer amount of customizations available to buyers at dealerships nationwide.

The Challenger boasted a wide range of powertrain selections to admire from a modest 225ci 144hp inline six engine to a 440-cubic inch 390hp V-8 power plant, the car was made available in a total of nine total engine configurations to perfectly suit the many types of owners looking to bring one home.

To build upon the Challenger’s generous powertrain menu, the first generation was originally offered in either a two-door hardtop or convertible model with trim packages ranging from the base platform Special Edition (SE), mid-level Road/Track (R/T), and a limited edition Trans-Am (T/A) model that was one of the first production vehicles to offer staggered front and rear tire sizes while meeting the qualifications for legit Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Trans-Am racing. The Challenger also had one of the most impressive number of color palettes in the industry of paint codes to select from as well.

It was an exciting time for Chrysler, and even more so for fans of the Challenger specifically. The car’s appeal to gear heads, as well as to folks simply looking for a sporty car to drive was nearly immediate. But like all good things, the Challenger’s future was snuffed out all too quickly in 1974. The hike in insurance premiums during that time, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, along with a worldwide gasoline crisis going on in 1973, the carbureted muscle car industry was hit blow after blow, ultimately resulting in one challenge the Dodge Challenger just couldn’t overcome.

It wasn’t until 2006 at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit that a sign of the Challenger’s possible resurrection was made public. A concept vehicle based on the styling cues of the first generation and presence of a 6.1L HEMI engine under the hood, went over better than expected, and eventually led to yet another production run in 2008 due to overwhelming demand. The Dodge Challenger was back on the streets—kind of.

While only a limited number of high-end, fully loaded SRT8 models were made available in that first year back, not everyone who wanted a new Challenger could get their hands on one. 2009 proved to be the car’s full return to consumers looking to buy one according to their preferred specifications. Muscle car admirers were once again able to hop back into the driver seat with a base model SE equipped with a 3.5L 250hp V-6 with the option to upgrade to a R/T package complete 5.7L 375hp HEMI engine with even more options and performance add-ons to select from.

…2009 proved to be the car’s full return to consumers looking to buy one according to their preferred specifications…

Throughout the years, the Challenger became available with more aggressive HEMI packages, but found itself becoming overshadowed by the competition, namely Ford’s Mustang GT500 and Chevy’s Camaro ZL1. Dodge’s response to potentially being hopelessly overpowered by these cars was its release of the SRT Hellcat—a car equipped with a 6.2L rendition of the Gen III HEMI that was teamed up with a 2.4L twin-screw supercharger to produce 707hp and 650-lb fit of torque.

This escalated the Challenger to the top of the heap, but in an effort to remain ahead of the pack, the same 6.2L HEMI found in the Hellcat was blessed with a larger 2.7L supercharger, along with a suite of upgraded engine components to make for the 808hp nucleus available in the notoriously powered SRT Demon package that was limited to only 3300 units.

For 2022, there are a total of nine different Dodge Challenger trim levels topped off with two high-end cars—the SRT Hellcat Redeye and SRT Super Stock premium models. The Challenger still remains attractive to a wide audience, from the entry-level 303HP V-6 AWD package to an 807hp rocket in the Super Stock trim that thrives on 91-octane pump gas.

It’s safe to say that the Challenger remains a crowd pleaser to this day more than 50 years after its original release. Even with the plug being prematurely pulled back in ’74, the legendary car has sat through a decades-long hiatus and has come back swinging for the fences.

Strange Custom Cars at SEMA

Tank Treads, Fabricated Bodies, and Unique Paint Jobs

These custom cars at SEMA this year really push the limits on what it means to have a modified car. SEMA is a show which primarily focuses on aftermarket performance and cosmetic modifications on cars, and the companies who make them. But among the supercars, tuners, truck, and muscle you get some very creative, and strange creations from some innovative and possibly mentally unstable builders. These guys bring a unique perspective, and love them or hate them, they definitely set the bar for modifications.

These are our best and strangest custom cars we saw at SEMA this year in Las Vegas.

First up we saw a couple of snow track oddities that were not the Ford Bronco. The riveted one being a Custom Bug Out Jeep Gladiator built by Expedition Vehicle Outfitters with custom metalwork done to it. If one of the treads somehow falls off they have a spare Milestar Patagonia Tire attached to the back of the vehicle as well, just in case.

We also saw this Humvee with snow treads, but this one had a giant Battleship horn attached to it by ProdigyTV on youtube.

Artist Rocketbyz, showed off this Pikes Peak ready Audi Quattro with his signature neon paint splatter paint job. Reminiscent of all the previous art cars from the past.

Chevy Revealed a custom desert Off-Road concept truck called the Chevy Beast based off the Silverado platform. It has 5 link suspension, Four wheel drive and a body that looks like its built for the UNSC.

Next Up we have a couple of Custom Trucks, one low one hight. The blue one is a Hodson JRT10 Truck with a Jeep Wagoneer front end and a Viper V10 engine.

This one is a 6×6 C10 with 1000hp and a wing instead of a truck-bed built by Deberti.

Classic V8 Muscle Cars

Clean and Low Restomods at SEMA 2021

Muscle cars and Hot Rods have been the backbone of SEMA since the beginning. Year after year not only do they show up, they are some of the most immaculate and classiest builds the 2021 SEMA Show has to offer. As we were perusing the show floor, we happened to see some beautiful examples. Lets take a peek at what V8s are rumbling around SEMA. (none probably, we’d be surprised if anything actually ran at SEMA)

Right off the bat are a couple of Chevelles so clean and modded you can barely recognize them!

Next we have this gorgeous blue Fastback Mustang and this slick Camaro. Both retain that classic styling but have opted for much more modern trim pieces, bringing these old geezers into the 21st Century.

Next up we have a couple of Old Chevy Trucks done in two completely different finishes. One With a nice slick green paint job that highlights those 50s body lines.

The other finished in a patina paint so strong it looks like it was pulled out of a lake! But there probably isn’t a spec of rust on this Apache.

Update: The owner of the build reached out to us and confirmed that this Apache is indeed 100% real patina.

“My Apache literally burned to the ground in the 2018 NorCal Paradise Fire and was on live tv doing so […] No rattle can patina, pure fire, then rain.  […] It was important for me to build this ride so people wouldn’t forget the devastation of that fire and when they see the truck, they know something survived.”Jason Fonte

The Great American Pickup Trucks

Examining Chevy C/K & Ford F-Series Platforms

While this is not meant to be yet another Chevy versus Ford truck debate, it is more of an examination of some of the differences, the similarities, and what made both so popular among their individual fan bases. Now, the battle between Bow Tie and Blue Oval groups will never die—surely you’ve experienced some degree of it over the years. When it comes down to the core of the situation, it really is a brand preference thing—Coke VS. Pepsi, Duracell VS. Energizer, Burger King VS. McDonalds, you get the idea. While the decision of what vehicle to purchase far outweighs what to eat or drink for lunch, there is something to be said for the slight modifications between competing brands and what they bring to the table. 

Both C/K and F-Series pickups were the flagship vehicles in the work truck segment for both Chevrolet and Ford respectively. Both brands held the top shares of sales back when C10 and F-100 model trucks were brand new, and they have since laid the foundation for modern Silverado and F-150 models to still rule supreme in today’s marketplace. 

Both C/K and F-Series pickups were the flagship vehicles in the work truck segment for both Chevrolet and Ford respectively…

Ford’s first generation F-series pickup went by the F-1 name, which was introduced in 1948 and lasted until ‘52, when the F-100 title was put into place just one year later. For 31 years, Ford’s F-100 pickup helped hard working Americans earn their livings behind the wheel of a truck that was one of the top selling models in the country. For diehard Ford enthusiasts, the F-100 was the only game in town when the time came for purchasing a pickup, while neutral consumers who bought one did so based on its own merit. While the F-100 had a pretty good run for itself, it did help pave the way for Ford’s F-150, which hit the streets in ’75. In its first 9 years (while the F-100 was also still for sale on the market) the F-150 quickly rose to even higher popularity, which led to the F100’s graceful exit in ’84. 

While Ford did have a jump on the pickup market in the early 50’s with their updated F-Series truck, it wasn’t until 1960 when General Motors rolled out what was arguably the most popular American pickup during its run. When the C/K platform began rolling out at dealerships throughout the country, the buzz behind GM’s sleeker looking, smoother riding pickup truck was growing at an impressive rate. The C-10 era C/K rode out 27 years, and finally gave way to a new generation, the OBS (old body style or original body style), which ran a 10-year span until the Silverado was released in ’99, and we all know how well that changeup went over. 

While there were other pickup trucks available to consumers during the CK/F-Series heyday (we see you Dodge fans), it was these two that sat alone with a commanding market share. At first glance though, both the Chevy and Ford trucks in the 60’s and into the 70’s didn’t really stand out that much from each other. Sure, you could easily tell one apart from the other, but there were no glaring differences like what a Jeep Gladiator would look like in direct comparison. Both Chevy and Ford models offered two similar bed styles, the Fleetside and Stepside (or Styleside and Flareside as Ford dubbed their versions) but those didn’t really make much of a difference from one make to the other. Small exterior changes like headlight shapes and grille styling (and constant restyling) help greatly in determining one year from another. It’s really all on how you look at these two trucks during these times and which particular style speaks to you more. Either way, they were both uniquely qualified to share the spotlight as America’s best looking working class sweethearts. 

C/K and F-Series pickups were looked at as being very modernized, forward-designed versions of what many thought of trucks at that point, which was simply clunky and overly utilitarian. To help change this rationale, both Ford and Chevy designed their chassis to improve overall ride quality with and without full payloads. The F-100’s 2WD model was given a twin I-beam front suspension with coil springs while the C10 featured an independent front suspension while utilizing torsion bars, which were soon ditched for coils as well. Chevy soon added independent coil trailing arms to their C-10 platform, giving it improved feel, especially while carrying a full load. Both companies were always looking for new ways to give their fans new solutions when development permitted. It was these early upgrades that eventually led to the technological wonders we have in place today in the form of highly evolved suspension systems in pickup trucks. 

In the age of restoration and customization, the C10 and F-100 platforms are nearly sitting on even ground, although the slight advantage might lean a bit in Chevy’s favor. The aftermarket support for both trucks is huge, making it easy and less stressful to order the parts needed for a full suspension rebuild, body and interior renovation, as well as rebuilding or replacing the factory engine. The simple fact is that classic Chevy and Ford trucks are still as popular now as they were back when they were new. Newly developed products have allowed builders to not only build them to ride and handle better than ever, but they can now be so finely tuned to meet individual needs down to the smallest of details.

The simple fact is that classic Chevy and Ford trucks are still as popular now as they were back when they were new…

There is no runaway winner of the timeless debate between Chevy and Ford trucks, and there really doesn’t have to be. Devout fans and customizers, no matter which brand truck they choose to build, are the true champions because of their unwavering dedication to preserving the machine of their preference. Whatever the make, model or year of the truck, there are parts to make it not only whole again, but better than any member of the Ford and GM engineering teams could’ve ever dreamed possible for these old, yet highly desirable work horses. 

You Bought A New Track Car – Now What?

Essentials for Hot Laps on a 5k Budget

So you’ve taken the plunge and bought yourself a dedicated track car. You did your research, found what you were looking for in sound mechanical condition and not already so far from stock that you’d have to rip everything out before doing it the way it should have been done in the first place, and you’re eager to get it prepped and put some laps on it. But you’re not made of money, and your meme stocks only got you into low earth orbit instead of to the moon, so you have a $5,000 budget for everything you’re going to need. 

Some hard choices will have to be made, because every dollar spent in one area means a dollar less to spend somewhere else. Here’s how we would allocate those 50 Benjamins most effectively – while your priorities are going to vary from ours, having a plan is the difference between a car on the track and yard art on jackstands for another year because you ran out of money and motivation.

Helmet – $350 ($4,650 Remaining)

Yes, we know you already have a helmet you bought off Craigslist. Yes, we know you are the one driver who will never, ever crash. This is still non-negotiable. Every reputable track day event organizer will insist on an ‘in-date’ skid lid that meets an accepted testing standard. Most often this is Snell SA or its equivalent – some sanctions will accept a Snell M-rated helmet, but the DOT-only models are almost always not considered good enough, for a reason.

Helmets designed to meet the SA and similar ratings have features that make them better suited for automotive use, where sharp impacts with objects that can penetrate the shell are more likely than the types of forces involved in motorcycle crashes, and they’ll have a fire-resistant liner. The “in-date” part is important too; the impact-absorbing liner has a finite lifespan, which gets shorter the more it is exposed to temperature extremes or solvent and gasoline fumes. 

While it’s possible to get an open-face helmet that carries a SA2020 tag for as little as $160, we recommend a full-face model, and as the list price goes up you’ll also get better fit and finish and improved comfort, which is important when you’re trying to concentrate on-track. Throw in another $40 or so for a fire resistant head sock (also good for comfort, as well as keeping the liner of the helmet cleaner) and $350 is a reasonable starting point for this critically important item.

Tires/Wheels – $2000 ($2650 Remaining)

We’re assuming that if you’re limited to a $5k overall budget for track car upgrades, you’re probably not going to trailer to and from events. We’re also going to assume that you will want a separate set of wheels and tires so that you’re not burning through expensive high-performance tires daily driving on them (though mad props to you if you are hardcore like that – we’ve been there ourselves). Like everything else on this list, wheels aren’t an area where you want to cut corners, but it’s entirely possible to get into a set of four new, quality wheels from a reputable manufacturer for around a grand. For that price, you are looking at cast rather than forged wheels, so the tradeoff is slightly higher weight for a lower price, as well as not being as forgiving or repairable when tweaked during inevitable encounters with debris or curbs.

Like everything else on this list, wheels aren’t an area where you want to cut corners, but it’s entirely possible to get into a set of four new, quality wheels from a reputable manufacturer for around a grand…

Tires are consumables, and depending on how hard you run them and what your level of compromise is between grip and longevity, these may have to be replaced several times a season. Fortunately, it’s often possible to find a well-heeled fellow enthusiast who always has used tires that have ‘gone off’ for full-boogie competition purposes but still have plenty of laps left in them for less serious use, so we’re compromising and putting a cost of $250 a corner out there to give some wiggle room for that initial set. Like always, your experience may vary, and cars with uncommon fitments or really big meat will tend toward the more pricey end of the spectrum. 

Brake Upgrades – $1250 ($1400)

Here’s another area where there is a wide range of possibilities – if your track car has decent stock brakes, all that may be necessary for anything less than full competition use might be a change to a different brake compound, braided stainless flex lines, new rotors, and a fluid flush and bleed. On the other hand, most cars of interest to the track day crowd have a lot of bolt-on options at surprisingly reasonable prices. If you don’t go totally nuts, our budget should at least cover a front caliper upgrade in addition to the other things mentioned above, plus a spare set of pads to be bedded in and brought with you if you’ve chosen a soft-but-grippy compound and a tight course to run on for a mid-day swap.

if your track car has decent stock brakes, all that may be necessary for anything less than full competition use might be a change to a different brake compound, braided stainless flex lines, new rotors, and a fluid flush and bleed…

Suspension upgrades – $1400

We’re going to take the last of our remaining budget and allocate it toward suspension. On the less expensive end of the scale, a complete, properly engineered and matched set of quality replacement springs, dampers, anti-roll bars, and polyurethane bushings can set you back as little as $750, while the sky is the limit for a complete competition-spec coilover conversion with multi-way adjustable dampers. We’re splitting the difference here, but odds are you will come in either substantially above or below our average estimated price. Depending on what kind of tracks you prefer, you may prioritize suspension above brakes, or the other way around, and adjust your spending on these last two categories accordingly.

One thing you absolutely do not want to do under any circumstances is to cheap out here; there are a lot of janky ‘lowering kits’ and coilover conversion setups with suspiciously low price tags and brand names you have never heard of, but spending any money on components of dubious quality and unclear origin can only lead to disaster. 

That Money Went Fast…

As you can see, it doesn’t take a whole lot to blow through $5k getting your new toy set up properly, but going into it with clear expectations for the cost and effort involved can keep your dreams from dying before you ever get to the track. Keep in mind that this is just a start, and in order to keep your racing fun sustainable, it’s a good idea to set aside money for every event you attend in some place where you won’t spend it, to be used for future consumables like tires, brakes, and maintenance items. Budgeting is never fun, but it makes the fun stuff possible, and helps you to drive more and dream less. 

Hot Swaps

Engine And Chassis Combos Limited Only By Imagination

Engine swaps might seem like a recent thing, but OG hot rodders did it back in the 1950s, putting the then-new small block Chevy V8 into Ford Model T chassis, and when Cadillac created a long-stroke 500ci version of their corporate big block in 1970, wrecked Eldorados became a prime target for drag racers looking for as many cubes as they could get. Today, despite tightening regulations that threaten to make any kind of automotive modification illegal, let alone a complete motor swap, mixing and matching cars and drivetrains has never been more popular. Let’s look at some of the most common types of hybrid chassis and engine combinations (and we mean that in the cool way, not the electric motor ‘hybrid’ sense) and the reasons behind them.

All In The Family

In terms of sheer numbers of completed swaps, updating (or backdating, in some cases) a particular car with an engine from the same manufacturer takes the top position. In the import and sport compact world, the most common swaps involve upgrading Hondas with more powerful engines – the trend began with taking lightweight Civic or CRX shells originally equipped with fuel-sipping but low-output D-series four cylinder engines and replacing them with more powerful B-series engines from models higher up on the price and performance ladder. With the introduction of the even more powerful and versatile K-series, those became the donor engines of choice, despite being somewhat more complicated to swap due to the necessity of changing transmissions as well. The extra effort is worth it, though; 200 horsepower or more from a completely stock engine in a late-90’s Civic that tips the scales at under 2,400 pounds makes for very entertaining performance at an affordable price.

In terms of sheer numbers of completed swaps, updating (or backdating, in some cases) a particular car with an engine from the same manufacturer takes the top position…

Honda engine swaps have become so popular that you can find ready-made components like engine and transmission mounts, headers, and ECU adapters for pretty much any reasonable (and more than a few unreasonable) combination of engine and chassis. With the trailblazing handled, potential compatibility issues have all been sorted out by somebody somewhere. It just takes a bit of research to come up with a proven recipe to follow, and entire books have been written on the subject covering every last detail.

Another common form of swap involves putting an engine not available in the US market into a chassis that was sold here, with the first example that comes to mind being the Nissan 240SX. Known in Japan as the 180SX and Silvia, when the company brought this fun little RWD coupe to America, they decided to replace the JDM CA and SR series turbocharged engines with KA series naturally aspirated ones. This decision was likely based on the fact that the KA engines were already “federalized” for US emissions regulations and would be less expensive than bringing in a new powerplant without an existing approval. Though well-suited for mainstream buyers, since these engines had previously been used in Nissan’s Hardbody line, they were derided by some as ‘truck engines’ unworthy of the car’s sporty image.

Of course, enthusiasts care not for things such as EPA regulations, and many CA and SR engines got strapped to pallets in Japanese wrecking yards and shipped to the west coast to be reunited with S13 and S14 240SX models here. Some particularly ambitious souls went as far as to cram RB26DETT twin turbo inline sixes from the JDM Skyline GT-R (among other applications) into that chassis as well.

Speaking of legendary Japanese turbo sixes, let’s not forget the Toyota 2JZ-GTE. This engine powered a whole generation of the company’s flagship performance models, but only came to US showrooms in the Mark IV Supra Turbo. This engine has found its way into a number of different swaps, including both Lexus IS300/GS300/SC300 models as a replacement for its naturally-aspirated sibling, the 2JZ-GE, as well as other non-Toyotas with engine bays long enough to accommodate the sizeable inline six. 

Could Have Had a V8

Don’t think this is just limited to import brands, either. When Ford ended production of their classic pushrod 5.0 liter V8 engine in the mid-90s and replaced it with the high-tech overhead cam Modular family, it was only a matter of time before those engines started to find their way into Fox-body Mustangs and even classics. One of the disadvantages of overhead cam cylinder heads in a V-configuration engine layout is that compared to pushrod designs of similar displacement, they inevitably end up larger in width and height. Adding cams and timing gear to the top of the cylinders makes them inherently taller than engines that simply have to accommodate rocker arms beneath the valve covers. In a bit of irony, older muscle cars with their large engine bays have more room to accept Modular V8 swaps, making them somewhat easier to work on than modern factory Fords with cramped under-hood layouts. 

While Ford was breaking ties with their previous engine architecture, GM took a less radical path, introducing the first LS-series engines. These successors to the original small-block Chevy V8 and its follow-on “Gen II” LT replacements are in many ways a “what might have been” look at the direction Ford could have taken with their own small-block pushrod architecture. Though the Gen II engines had a lot of problems including a notoriously unreliable optical ignition pickup and were widely panned by gearheads, the Gen III/IV LS family turned out to be a huge success.

Lightweight, powerful, durable, plentiful, and cheap, they quickly replaced the venerable SBC as the engine of choice for GM swaps. Like the aforementioned Honda engines, a huge aftermarket has developed to make putting an LS into an older car easy, right down to complete kits that handle ignition and carburetion should you choose to go old-school and ‘downgrade’ from EFI. Another factor that led to their popularity was that they were manufactured in both iron and aluminum block form, so that those in search of an inexpensive and bomb-proof bottom end could simply grab a low-compression iron block truck motor from the local pick-a-part and feed it a decent amount of boost or nitrous without a lot of drama.

Cross Breeding

While mixing and matching engines and chassis from the same manufacturer often makes things somewhat easier because of shared mechanical and electronic components, taking an engine from one maker and stuffing it into another company’s car has been popular forever as well. As we mentioned before, early hot rodders who started out by putting Ford Flathead V8 engines into Model Ts embraced the original small-block Chevy with great enthusiasm as soon as they started turning up in junkyards. Today, purists will howl in outrage about LS-swapped Fox Mustangs, but a dispassionate look at it shows this is the same kind of thing gearheads have always done. Mustang engine transplants aren’t limited to just Chevy engines either – Most famously, the notable 2006 documentary film The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift included a 1967 Ford Mustang Fastback with a Nissan RB26DETT as a ‘hero car.’

Today, purists will howl in outrage about LS-swapped Fox Mustangs, but a dispassionate look at it shows this is the same kind of thing gearheads have always done…

Like Honda swaps, the popularity of the LS Fox combination has led to an entire range of aftermarket parts to make the process close to turn-key, and all the information necessary to make it happen successfully is easily accessible online and in print. In fact, there has been a strong “LS all the things!” movement in the enthusiast world, with practically every rear wheel drive platform becoming a candidate for a Gen III/IV GM V8 swap. It’s even reached the point where a backlash has occurred against it – many people see the commonality of the LS as a detriment to the originality and creativity of Pro Touring builds, preferring original or at least period-correct engines. Odds are that any SEMA resto-mod build that isn’t intended to specifically highlight another engine will have some flavor of LS power, to the point where it’s become a running joke among writers and photographers.

Regardless of one’s feelings about LS engine transplants, they’re going to be with us for the foreseeable future, and not just in cars. They’ve become the weapon of choice for inboard-powered boats of all kinds, as well as aircraft and even homebuilt helicopters. But eventually something new will come along, and it’s entirely possible that we may one day see all-electric powertrains with ‘universal’ designs developed to simply drop in place of an internal combustion engine and transmission. While one-off attempts at this have come and gone, as the hardware becomes standardized for OEM use (and thus also becomes more affordable) and battery technology advances to increase energy density, peak output, and cruising range, garage mechanics who want something completely different under the hood will embrace these swaps as well. 

About the Author: Paul Huizenga is a California-based freelance contributor who has owned, raced, and written about everything from Subarus to Mustangs to Corvettes over the last two decades. He is currently studying the feasibility of an LS4 engine and transmission swap into a Fox-body to convert it to Chevy power and front-wheel drive, because some men just want to watch the world burn.

Springs vs. Coilovers vs. Bags: What’s the Difference?

Are Springs, Coilovers, or Air Suspension Best for Performance?

It might seem like common sense that having more choices when it comes to just about any decision is a good thing. In many circumstances, that’s true, but when presented with too many options, ‘decision paralysis’ can set in, making it harder instead of easier to choose the right path. Instead of making life easier, it causes anxiety, slows down or even stops decision-making, and can even lead to remorse after the fact as you churn through all the possibilities you didn’t pick. 

When it comes to upgrading a car’s suspension for high performance street or track use, we’ve reached the point where for many popular platforms, there’s no clear winner for every situation out of a wide variety of aftermarket setups. While we can’t guarantee you’ll avoid ‘paralysis by analysis,’ we might be able to help clarify your priorities with the following look at the pros and cons of the three basic categories of mods: Spring and damper replacement, coilover conversion, and air suspension. 

Springs and Shocks/Struts

This category encompasses replacing the factory-spec springs and dampers (whether those are conventional shock absorbers, MacPherson struts, or a combination of the two) with upgraded aftermarket parts.  

Pro:

• Likely to be the least-expensive option, both to buy and to install (if you don’t do it yourself)
• Properly-engineered matching suspension kits take the guesswork out of picking the right spring rates and compression/rebound settings
• Durability is often as good as or better than factory parts
• Some high-end kits offer limited damper adjustment for fine-tuning
• Fewest compromises in ride quality and noise for dual use street/track cars

Con:

• Limited range of spring rates for applications ‘out of the mainstream’
• Systems on the most affordable end of the spectrum usually offer no ride height or damping adjustment

The Bottom Line:

Usually the least-expensive and most-available option, but with significant compromises in adjustability and performance as the tradeoff.

Coilover Conversion

For the purpose of this discussion, we’re going to define coilovers as a complete replacement of the factory spring and damper setup, whether those are individual components or struts, with aftermarket alternatives. This is the most typical choice for serious track applications, but also has a wide fanbase for street/track use as well – partially because of the serious race cred and the ‘hardcore’ aura that goes with the tradeoffs involved. 

Pro: 

• Short of a completely re-engineered suspension right down to the control arms and chassis attachment points, coilovers offer the best possible handling and the widest range of adjustment, as well as more precision and repeatability when changing settings
• Good coverage from multiple manufacturers for the most popular car applications
• Narrower coilover units can offer more clearance for wider wheels and tires without fender modification
• Adjustable ride height without altering spring rates
• Dampers available in configurations from non-adjustable to 4-way (high/low speed compression and rebound)
• Relatively simple and easy to change spring rates with ‘universal’ springs to suit different track conditions

Con: 

• A very, very wide range of quality/price, from pro level down to “I bought this off of Wish – why doesn’t it fit?”
• A whole new form of decision paralysis – lots of adjustment often means more ways to get it wrong
• Systems intended for track use can be noisy and harsh on less-than-perfect pavement
• Expect to either replace or rebuild the dampers on a regular basis, as they are usually designed with longevity as a lower priority
• Less-common performance cars may need to have coilover sets pieced together from components if ‘all in one box’ kits aren’t available

The Bottom Line:

Not the best choice for comfort or street driving, but the de-facto standard for full-race use. Beware of pitfalls in quality at the low end of the scale, and excessive complexity at the high end.

Air Suspension

Commonly referred to as “bags,” today’s performance-oriented air suspension systems are a far cry from the lashed-together rigs that pioneered the technology. Once strictly an option for “stance” and car shows instead of performance, it’s now a solid contender for track-oriented builds.

Pro:

• Adjustable ride height is the main attraction here – modern air springs offer a wide range of spring heights selectable simply by adding or reducing pressure, and clever design of the air bags themselves achieves this without significant changes in spring rate
• Compatible with multi-adjustable race-spec dampers for suspension tuning
• Systems with quality air springs rival conventional factory steel springs for durability
• A great choice for cars that will see use on both the race course and the street, making low ride height that would be a disaster with a ‘static’ coilover suspension achievable in a car you can still drive to and from the track
• Complete, ready-to-install kits are available for more applications every day

Con: 

• Trends towards the expensive end of the scale compared to anything but full-race coilover systems
• Additional hardware like compressors, tanks, solenoids, and pressure gauges required for adjustment on-the-fly, which adds expense and weight
• Modern air springs only allow changes in ride height while spring rate remains the same, requiring complete replacement of a relatively expensive component to alter it
• Like coilovers, less-popular applications may require ‘a la carte’ component selection instead of an off-the-shelf solution

The Bottom Line:
The king of adjustability, at the expense of additional weight and cost. Limited (but growing) off-the-shelf choices.

Wrapping it Up

There’s no one-size-fits all solution to picking the right path for the suspension on your project car or daily driver, and the wide variety of choices (made worse by conflicting advice from all directions) doesn’t help. Hopefully we’ve made it a little bit easier for you to organize your priorities, from the cost involved to the complexity of installation and tuning to your personal intended use (which often turns out to be somewhat different from where you actually end up in practice). Relax, take a deep breath, and consider the options we have set before you as a starting point in your search for the perfect suspension.

State of Speed Los Angeles: An August Affair

Three shows down and hundreds of cars rolling through, we are incredibly pleased with the turnout of the State of Speed Los Angeles Car Show, presented by Milestar Tires. From the beginning, we knew the local car scene had a ton to offer, and that the monthly meet would end up being a melting pot of incredible builds and bonafide gear heads of all stripes.

This time around, the Los Angeles automotive enthusiast heads came out in droves.

First, The Cars!

Dusting off then gassing up your ride and heading to the event early is indeed the way to go. Cars start rolling in before the clock hits 7 AM to grab the prime spots, and of course, the glorious early morning photo op!

Most of the time you’ll hear them before you see them, and it’s a guessing game as to what is about to pull in next. It doesn’t take much time before the lot starts filling up with builds of every interest. Restored classics and restomods to old school JDM’s and some serious off-road machines —  there’s sure to be something for every taste.

The People

Great builds take more than some spare change, and it’s the car owners that bring these projects to life.

They’re out there answering questions about each and every minute detail of their ride; whether you’re just genuinely interested in the labor behind someone’s rotary swapped Datsun, or are looking for some recommendations on a bigger turbo, each and every owner is more than happy to chop it up about their ride.

A Day Well Spent

As the shows continue to take place each month, and the crowds continue to grow, we are excited to see the scale of State of Speed Los Angeles in the times to come. We’re grateful to collaborate with Milestar Tires to bring this event to fruition, and there isn’t a better place out there to hold the event than the Tireco headquarters in Gardena, CA.

So for those that have previously shown up for State of Speed Los Angeles, we look forward to seeing you again, and for those who haven’t, stop by, grab a coffee, and bring your ride!

What Is a Supercharger?

Which Is the Right One for Your Car or Truck?

Most custom car and truck enthusiasts pay lots of attention to their engines. While keeping them in tip-top running condition is a given, increasing performance is always a more interesting topic of conversation. Now, there are plenty of methods to bumping up horsepower and torque output, from simple bolt-ons to digital reconfigurations (depending on the vehicle), but one of the most popular pieces of equipment to add more power in a hurry is a supercharger. 

While the blanket “supercharged” term does get the point across—that there is major performance enhancement made to an engine, there is more to understanding exactly how that enhancement is made. Some might not care all too much to know the details, but to inquisitive minds, knowing what type of supercharger that is attached to an engine tells a lot about where the extra power is coming from and how. 

What Is a Supercharger? 

Those who are even somewhat familiar with how engines work know that the more oxygen that is introduced to an engine, the better. Building on that basic theory, a supercharger basically creates and injects more (much more) oxygen into an engine, which in turn, increases fuel burning efficiency. This directly increases the amount of power that engine can put out. Now, there are different types of superchargers that vary in the way of accomplishing that exact mission, which we will expand upon soon enough, but for the purposes of building a good foundation of information, let’s first understand this first piece of the equation. 

What A Supercharger Is NOT!

The terms “supercharged” and “turbocharged” may sound like they could be interchangeable. Granted, both are in essence very similar, as they are both air compressors that “charge” an engine with a much-higher-than-normal flow of oxygen into the combustion chamber, but it’s the way they get that job done that presents the difference between them. 

Any type of supercharger is a “parasite” in the sense that is it powered by the very source (the engine) that it is designed to enhance. It’s belt-driven by the crankshaft (or an electric motor in some cases), and while a supercharger does require energy to function, the amount of energy it allows an engine to make far exceeds its cost of operation. A turbocharger, on the other hand, utilizes the velocity of expelled exhaust gasses to create energy that, in turn, directs more air into the engine. Props to the turbo for turning wasted energy into a renewable source of power though, right? 

Three Major Types of Superchargers

While there are other types of superchargers out there, there are three notable variations that you may already be familiar with. While you may not have known the exact difference(s) between these styles, they do provide their each set of pros and cons depending on their application. As previously mentioned, each of these superchargers is dependent on power from the engine to operate, but the fashion in which each operates is a bit different. But of course, each is designed to provide the same end result. 

Roots “Blower” Supercharger

You’ve heard of a blower, right? Well, in case you didn’t know exactly what somebody was referring to when talking about their latest engine tweak, a roots type supercharger is what they mentioned. The path of air in which the blower starts with comes directly from the air intake, through the throttle body, into the supercharger, where two oppositely spinning, lobed rotors are doing their thing. These rotors direct the high capacity oxygen through an intercooler (because this process does produce high levels of heat) and into the engine where the rate of combustion is increased, which in turn makes all the extra power. The roots supercharger is ultra reliable, probably the most inexpensive across the board, and offers good low RPM boost, making it highly appealing. 

Twin Screw Supercharger

The twin screw design is similar to the roots supercharger as far as set up, placement on the engine and overall appearance is concerned. It is inside the supercharger itself where the mechanics make all the difference. Instead of spinning away from each other, as in the roots style, the two rotors (screws) spin towards each other, and because of the design of these rotors, the air is compressed inside this supercharger, and not in the engine itself as with the roots style units. This directly leads to higher thermal efficiency. 

BOTH the roots and twin screw superchargers are positive displacement types, which simply means that torque levels are increased across the RPM board. So, whether you’re cruising around town or have the pedal mashed to the metal, you’ll experience increased performance gains throughout. 

Centrifugal Supercharger 

The design of the centrifugal supercharger is a lot like a turbocharger, as both rely on an impeller to suck in air at an increased rate, then distribute that air through the rest of the engine system. Instead of being powered off exhaust gases like the turbocharger, however, the centrifugal supercharger is still belt-driven by the engine, unless it is an electric style that would be equipped with its own alternator, battery and motor.  

The centrifugal design also differs from the roots and twin screw superchargers being that it is not a positive displacement unit. Since the impeller on a mechanical (non-electric) centrifugal charger only spins as fast as the engine’s RPM output at any given time, there really is only a major increase of torque at the top end RPM range. The electric version offers much better performance at all RPM ranges but there is a considerable amount of extra equipment that also goes along with the installation. 

Also consider the fact that the actual size of centrifugal type superchargers are much more compact than the two others, and don’t have to be mounted vertically on top of the engine like they do either. It can be placed “before” the throttle body, and therefore is much more flexible as far as placement on the engine. 

Superchargers make a big difference under the hood, and luckily there are multiple types to ensure that there is an absolute right one to best meet your vehicle’s individual needs. And if the right supercharger for the job turns out to be a turbocharger, well then, hey go ahead and run with it. 

Inaugural State of Speed LA Car Show Recap

Incredible builds, delicious coffee, great people — what more could have come from a successful inaugural State of Speed Los Angeles car show? First off, let’s start off by saying thank you to each and every person that showed up for the event, Milestar Tires for sponsoring the show, and Clutch and Coffee for providing the fresh brews.

It’s refreshing to know that a group of gearheads that share the same passion for their rides can come together for an extraordinary time!

Now, let’s dive on into the turnout of immaculate builds that showed up for the State of Speed LA event! As stated before the event, this was most definitely not a run of the mill car show. It was expected that a truly diverse group of cars would show up, from JDM and Euro to Off-Road and Mini Trucks. There was no shortage of any, either.

Once the clock hit 7 o’clock, people were rolling in to collect their limited edition State of Speed Los Angeles t-shirts, and boy did those go quick! Once parked and hood popped, the next most important thing to do was grab a cup of coffee, and a delicious one at that. Clutch and Coffee supplied the goods, and it was a hit!

By 9AM, the Tireco parking lot was popping, but no, not audibly. A huge thanks to everyone for also being respectful of the show and keeping the engine noises to a minimum! The lot was packed, and the three hours flew by, but there was plenty of time to check out each car and talk to the individuals behind the builds. Once 10AM came, cars slowly started to head out while bystanders headed towards the exits to hear the sweet tones of each car as they departed.

Overall, our inaugural State of Speed LA show was a huge success! Another thank you goes out to our lead sponsor, Milestar Tires, our coffee vendor, Clutch and Coffee, and most importantly, those who showed up with some killer rides. We look forward to the next event and hope everyone can make it out, so stay tuned!

Engine Swap Fundamentals: Trucks

Classic pickup trucks are great candidates for engine swaps for many reasons. For starters, the original motor in any vehicle more than 20 years is bound to be tired and in need of an intensive overhaul if it hasn’t been properly and regularly serviced throughout the years. Enthusiasts who are interested in giving their old truck a new breath of life with a modern engine with far more power, an engine swap is the best way to go given the amount of ready-to-go crate engines and install kits that can make the job doable, and rather affordable too. Whatever the case may be, a new engine can make a world of difference in the experience in building and driving a custom classic truck or vehicle of any type, really. 

New or Used? 

Either way, there’s no losing when replacing that old, whipped engine that’s way past its prime.

Depending on the type of truck you’re working on, there will be plenty of engine options to consider. “New VS. Junkyard Find” will always be a heated battle that will almost always favor a brand new mill given the reliability and warrantied performance at a slightly higher premium when compared to a used engine that would require maintenance and refurbishment before installation. While a good amount of builders will resort to ordering a virgin engine, there is a respectable sect that prefers to scour the junkyards and partake in the thrill of the hunt when looking for that perfect transplant motor that can be had at a fraction of the price. Either way, there’s no losing when replacing that old, whipped engine that’s way past its prime. 

Engine Types

While Coyote 5.0L Mustang engine swaps are trending in classic Ford pickup builds, LS engines have been all the rage in the C10 market for some time now. Since the size is similar to a small-block Chevy (SBC), there is plenty of room to plant one under the hood of just any year classic GM truck.

While there are plenty of other engine SBC V-8 options to select from such as a 350, 327 or 305 models, nowadays the LS platform has taken center stage with a very wide selection of aftermarket kits to assist in the swap of your truck’s new engine. Whichever engine route you decide to take, it will be a drastic change in performance compared to your truck’s dated power plant. 

Adaptability 

While available room isn’t an issue so much when installing a smaller, more modern engine into a classic truck, the matter of properly placing the engine becomes the real factor during a swap. While there are many installation kits available for LS and other engine platforms to pick from, the job itself is anything but plug and play—no matter what you see advertised online. Selecting correct engine mounts is paramount, and luckily, finding the right ones isn’t hard these days.

Aside from getting the new engine to sit in the right place, you’re also going to want to consider swapping out the transmission, driveshaft and all the fixins, especially if you’re going with a more high performance engine. While not necessary at first (but highly recommended), just keep in mind that the OE equipment, especially depending on its age, wasn’t designed to handle the kind of power an LS unit is capable of. Oh, and don’t forget a torque converter. 

Breathing and Cooling Options 

A new engine will require a fresh exhaust system with an emphasis on a proper exhaust manifold and header selection. While there is a range of affordability here to fit any budget swap, you’ll want to take clearance into heavy consideration here. 

A capable radiator is also of utmost importance since heat will definitely not be your new engine’s friend. Depending on the engine you’ve selected to run with, it may be more feasible to go the aftermarket route, maybe even an engine-specific selection, instead of saving a few bucks salvaging one from the scrapyard. 

Gassed 

Let’s say that you went with an LS engine to swap into your old truck. If that’s the case, then you may be ecstatic to ditch a carbureted setup and run with an EFI setup, unless you’re a big, big, BIG fan of the carb. Choosing EFI will make you consider fuel tank and pump options that will vary based on price and level of installation that you’re comfortable with. And if you just can’t stand to stray from a carbureted fuel system, there won’t be as much of an issue, but just be prepared to handle the pros/cons of whichever option you choose. 

Take Control 

It might not click instantly when planting a modern engine underneath the hood of your old truck, but new engines carry with them their own sets of characteristics to take into consideration. Now, when it comes to the ECU (electronic control unit) and wiring harnesses, you’ll have options to choose from to better dial in the installation process. This is where things can get exponentially interesting. Depending on how you plan to drive your truck, you can select an aftermarket ECU controller package that can handle the wiring, as well as enable you to unlock your engine’s true performance capabilities. Builders looking to race their truck or run it through the autocross course will get the most out of topping off the swap with the right ECU package for the job. 

Kick start your sluggish pickup project by tossing the old engine out, and swapping in a brand new crate engine or freshly rebuilt motor in its place. While an engine swap does encourage the replacement of the transmission at the same time, as well as a lot of other key equipment pieces, the job can really update a classic truck in more ways than initially realized. Increase horsepower by the ton, while also delivering a new sense of reliability in the truck you plan on getting real seat time in with whether it be at the track or open stretches of highway. An engine swap isn’t the easiest or cheapest things to do with your truck, but one that will certainly make the biggest impact in the way you enjoy it. 

A Streamlined Guide to Aero

What Do All Those Wings and Fins Do, Really?

Getting into the subject of aerodynamics as they relate to cars is asking for trouble. Whether you’re talking about imports with big goofy wings and dive planes that look like anime road catfish, or even just owners of a certain domestic brand who steadfastly refuse to remove the banana-yellow shipping guards on their cars’ factory splitters, it’s a topic that draws a lot of derision. Sometimes that’s warranted, but there is a place for aero mods in the tuner’s toolbox. Understanding the goals of functional aero is the first step in moving from the realm of questionable styling choices into something worth doing for the sake of improved performance. We’re going to jump in with both feet and banish the poser-tech to the Land of Wind and Ghosts, so hang on…

No Free Lunch

Aerodynamic modifications to a car serve one or both of two main functions; reducing drag and reducing lift. Most changes affect both drag and lift, and while downforce can be important, achieving meaningful results in that area without a huge drag penalty can require some finesse. Drag is especially important because it increases with the cube of velocity – drag-inducing elements of a vehicle’s design that aren’t worth worrying about at low speed become big problems on the highway or racetrack. Like almost any part of car design, the ability to maximize the desired effects while minimizing the drawbacks is what separates winners and losers.

An excellent example of this that’s become ubiquitous over the last two decades in OEM car designs is limiting the volume of air that passes underneath a car. In older designs, this was a source of both lift and drag, and as a result, modern vehicles have become lower and they’ve added aerodynamic features to the nose of the car to redirect flow. These changes cost virtually nothing for manufacturers to implement but provide real benefits.

One area of special attention that was often poorly-understood or simply ignored in the past was air passing through the front grille, into the engine bay, and out through the open underside. Smaller air inlets better-sized to the radiator core and ‘bottom breather’ noses that actually relieve pressure at the lowest point under the bumper, plus aerodynamic trays covering the underside of the engine compartment are all examples of the way modern designs improve aero in this region.

We have to admit that we’ve been among those who have either intentionally removed an engine bay undertray to make maintenance less of a pain, or simply lost one due to ill-advised encounters with curb stops or speed bumps, but not having them in place as intended is a significant source of both drag and lift. There’s little point in trying to improve aerodynamics at the nose of the vehicle with added parts if the primary flow-control features of the factory design are missing. 

Presuming that you’re starting from an intact, OEM aero standpoint, is it possible to modify things yourself and achieve meaningful, non-cosmetic results? The answer is a qualified yes – like every other aspect of automotive engineering, factory designs are always a compromise between competing goals, and the compromises you might choose as an enthusiast aren’t always the same as the ones that are aimed at satisfying the greatest number of ‘normie’ potential customers. In the case of aero, low drag, stable handling at freeway speed, and low noise top the factory wish list. 

As an enthusiast, you may be willing to trade away some extra drag (and lose a bit of fuel economy at cruise) in exchange for added downforce to improve traction. Increased wind noise may also not be a concern for you, and you might be willing to accept the negative consequences of a lower ride height, like increased susceptibility to damage from potholes and curbs. These are just a couple of considerations when planning out aero changes to your vehicle. 

With all this in mind, let’s start from the front and work our way back, describing different aero components and how they function (or at least are supposed to function).

Nose Dive

It used to be that air dams with splitters (a horizontal plate attached at the bottom of the air dam) were only seen on race cars, but they’re appearing with greater and greater frequency on factory cars as well – often with the aforementioned plastic protective bananas still attached, because reasons. The purpose of a splitter is to cleanly divide flow between the air moving around and through the nose of the car and the air traveling underneath the body, as well as limiting how much air goes low instead of high. To be truly effective, splitters need to be quite close to the ground, and even though factory-designed ones are usually higher than ideal, they still provide an endless source of horrible scraping noises over curbs, driveway entrances, and other obstacles if the driver isn’t careful. 

A properly-designed splitter and air dam combo will reduce both drag and front end lift by reducing turbulent flow to the underbody, and will also help the engine bay tray (if present) to do its job. A secondary purpose is to help guide flow around the front wheel openings, which are a major source of drag. 

Dive planes, canards, fins, or whatever you want to call other small aero devices placed on the quarter panel in front of the wheel arches also serve this purpose, as do longitudinal fences at the gap between the fender and the hood. Properly engineered canards can also help promote the flow of air from brake cooling ducts that source air from the high pressure area in the bumper by creating a local region of lower pressure to draw air away from the rotors and wheels after it has done its job. 

Care has to be taken with hood fences, though – viewed in profile, a car is shaped somewhat like an airplane wing, and just like a wing, air that is accelerated over the upper side creates an area of reduced pressure, generating lift. Ideally, fences will keep high pressure air from spilling over the fenders (thus increasing front downforce) without forcing it to follow the curve of the windshield over, rather than around, the passenger cabin. Fences, as well as canards/dive planes to a lesser extent, can also greatly increase turbulence around external mirrors – while this isn’t a huge source of extra drag, it can create a lot of interior noise ranging from a very-low-frequency ‘brown note’ rumble to intolerable high-pitched whistling. 

Side View

Extended lower sills along the sides of the body are another example of managing airflow beneath the vehicle. Like splitters, to be completely effective they need to be impractically (at least for on-road use) close to the ground, but they aren’t totally useless even when compromised for the sake of clearance. 

An interesting side note here is that a number of competition vehicles, ranging from the 1970 Chaparral 2J Can Am car to modern Formula SAE karts have been built with ‘powered downforce’ using a fan to pull air from underneath the car. Working like a reverse hovercraft of sorts, the front, sides, and rear of the underbody were sealed to the road surface via flexible skirts with polycarbonate sliders at the bottom to reduce air leakage, and a slight vacuum created by the fan across the entire underside of the car delivered enormous downforce at zero MPH with no aerodynamic drag. It was said that the 2J could develop enough suction to allow it to stick to the roof of a tunnel at a standstill, and the pair of 17 inch fans, driven by a separate snowmobile engine, could drive the car forward at 40 MPH just by their thrust alone.

Of course, in Can Am competition the technology was immediately outlawed, as these things tend to be, but in racing situations where it isn’t outright banned by the rulebook, this unique form of “aero” is still an extremely effective one. In the real world with roads that aren’t billiard-table smooth, the skirts take a beating, and getting rocks and dirt actively sucked up through powered fans does not make the people driving behind you very happy. Nonetheless, a good front splitter and side skirts, combined with a rear end shaped to create a low pressure area can still take advantage of this same effect, though only in motion and with much less total downforce. 

On the roof of the car, vortex generators can be fitted along the back edge just ahead of the rear window. These are small triangular features that are actually designed to create turbulence, but in a very controlled way. By inducing a narrow band of swirling flow, they act in the same way as a solid fence and can help keep flow attached to a surface, with a small drag penalty. Originally vortex generators (as well as fences) were found on aircraft wings as a way to stop span-wise (side to side) airflow and improve stall performance. In the automotive world, you’ve undoubtedly seen these on factory Mitsubishi EVO sedans, and their budget cousins can easily be found in the stick-on plastic whatsis aisle at your local auto parts store, alongside portholes, fake vents, and chrome Punisher symbols. Usually, these cheap little pyramids are poser tech, but they can actually be effective when used in the right spots. Unfortunately, without sticking tufts of yarn all over the outside of the car to see how air is moving locally across the roof and backlight, the ‘right spots’ are impossible to determine beyond an educated guess. 

Winging It (Spoiler Alert)

Finally, we get to what you’ve all been waiting for, the defining piece of aero hardware – the wing or spoiler. First, though, please understand that the terms aren’t interchangeable, and although both reduce lift/increase downforce on the rear end of the vehicle, they do it in different ways. Let’s start with the simpler of the two, the spoiler. 

The name for this aerodynamic device comes directly from its function; ‘spoiling’ the lift of a wing-shaped surface. Earlier, we described how the body of the entire car in side-view resembles an aircraft wing with a curved upper surface, and just like an aircraft wing, since air has to travel farther and faster across the top than the bottom, it will generate lift. A spoiler on the back of the car works exactly as it would on a wing, disrupting that flow of air to kill some of the lift being produced. 

Just as importantly, a spoiler can actually reduce total aerodynamic drag despite being an impediment to the smooth flow of air. Back at the dawn of ‘streamlining’ (as aerodynamics were first called 100 or so years ago) inventors looked at the teardrop shape of a falling droplet of water and concluded that nature was providing them with a blueprint for the perfect low-drag shape. As a result, a lot of the first efforts at streamlining included long, pointed tails to allow the airflow to smoothly rejoin behind the vehicle without producing an area of low pressure.  

As zippy as these designs looked, they were somewhat impractical for road vehicles, and designers searched for other solutions. The most successful was developed by a German fellow by the name of Wunibald Kamm in the late ‘30s when he discovered that an abruptly cut off vertical shape at the back of the car was nearly as effective in reducing drag as a pointed tail. By inducing some of the boundary layer air close to the surface of the body to tumble into that space behind the car, it created an area of turbulence that didn’t mix with the other air flowing around the car and worked like an invisible (and weightless) pointed tail.

Since that time, the “Kammback” has been widely adopted, and can be seen in cars ranging from the original Honda CRX to many modern hybrids. For best results, the vertical surface should be placed at a point where the body’s cross section has sloped back down to about 50% of its maximum, but this limits the workable roofline and tail shapes quite a bit. Add a spoiler to the trunk lid or the back edge of the roof on a hatchback, though, and you get a similar drag reducing effect as a full Kamm rearend. 

Wings, particularly those that are intended to do something more than just look cool, are somewhat more complex. Ideally, a wing will be placed far enough away from the body of the car to be in “clean” air instead of sluggish and turbulent boundary layer flow. Interestingly, the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona and 1970 Plymouth Superbird, with their fender-mounted ‘basket handle’ rear wings that were higher than the roofline had ideal placement for them, but it wasn’t for aero reasons – they had to be that high so that the trunk lid could still open underneath them!

A few years earlier, the Chaparral 2E Can Am design had debuted a tall strut-mounted rear wing that had what would be now considered “active aero” – A pedal on the floor would flatten out the angle of the wing and simultaneously close a shutter on the air dam that normally allowed air out through a vent in the front bodywork when depressed, letting the driver reduce drag when downforce wasn’t needed along high speed straights. The struts for the wing were also directly connected to the suspension, so force was applied straight to the rear tires instead of through the springs. While it worked very well, it proved to be fragile and after a few failures in the cars adopting these kinds of movable wings, they were outlawed (leading to the aforementioned Chaparral 2J ‘sucker car’).

Today, it is very common to see high-end (and even some not so high-end) sports cars with rear wings that automatically deploy and adjust their angle based on road speed and cornering forces. For aftermarket race-style wings, the angle of the airfoil (or in many cases, multiple airfoils) can be changed in the garage by altering the mounting points in order to customize the balance between drag and downforce for a particular race venue. Spill plates on the ends of the wing serve the same purpose as the winglets commonly found on commercial jets, reducing drag caused by vortexes shed by the ends of the wings. 

It’s also worth noting that a wing can help high-speed stability side-to-side by moving the car’s center of pressure rearward. The center of pressure is the imaginary point where all the aerodynamic forces are balanced, and the farther behind the car’s center of gravity it is, the more the car will want to travel in a straight line. Any kid who’s built a model rocket and decided to put all sorts of fins on the front will tell you that having the center of pressure at or ahead of the center of mass gets you something that flies like a pinwheel instead of an arrow, and the same applies to car aerodynamics. We should also point out that the ever-popular ‘wing on the back of a FWD car’ isn’t necessarily just poser-tech. At high speed the car doesn’t care that much about which wheels are doing the motivating, and since FWD cars tend to have a forward weight bias in the first place, a properly-designed rear wing can greatly increase stability and cornering balance.

Finally, we get to the last details as we reach the very tail end of the car. Wings and spoilers often have small features on their rear lips to enhance their effectiveness, which can be either fixed or adjustable. A small tab, usually a half-inch high or less and mounted at the very trailing edge of a wing or spoiler at a right angle to the surface is usually referred to as a “Gurney flap.” It gets its name from the legendary racer and team owner Dan Gurney who came up with the idea as a quick handling fix for his driver Bobby Unser’s car. To hide the true purpose of the modification, he initially floated the story that it was just a way to protect crewmembers from the sharp trailing edge of the wing while working on or pushing the car, but soon enough everybody figured it out and it became commonplace in race car aerodynamics.

A taller, usually adjustable trailing edge lip is typically called a ‘wickerbill,’ and explanations for the name are easy to come by but none are definitive. These fall into the category of aero devices that can be tuned in the garage or pit to suit the race course by sliding them up or down in their mounting slots. 

So there you have it – the incomplete guide to understanding car aerodynamics. We hope that we’ve fired your imagination and that you’ll follow up on the subject with further reading, since it’s a topic of pretty high importance for both factory and modified vehicles. Plus, aero stuff looks cool when it’s done right, but you already knew that…

Top 5 Affordable Supercars

Let’s say you’ve come into some money. Not life-changing, private island money, mind you. More along the lines of catching a hedge fund in a short squeeze, getting into (and out of) cryptocurrency at just the right time, or even just scratching a particularly good lottery ticket. While a new Lamborghini isn’t going to be in the budget, what are some head-turning cars that you can actually drive and enjoy, but are within your financial reach?

We’ve come up with a list of a few different ideas, should you want to scratch that supercar itch without paying a price tag that’s more in line with real estate than something you can park in a garage. It’s not all-inclusive, and we’re sure that many readers will have their own top choices, but daydreaming is always fun and it’s even better when those dreams are within the realm of possibility.

Honorable Mention: “Component Cars”/Replicas

Though ‘kit cars’ got a bad reputation decades ago when they were mostly based on aircooled Volkswagen or Fiero chassis and a LOT of optimism about your own fabrication skills, the industry has come a long, long way in terms of quality and value-for-money. Companies like Factory Five Racing and Superformance offer the chance to own cars like a Cobra, Daytona Coupe, Corvette Grand Sport, or GT40 that would simply be out of financial reach if you wanted an original. As a plus, with modern components and drivelines, they’re going to be a whole lot more reliable and drivable than the originals (and potentially a whole lot faster on the track), and you can customize them to suit your own must-have list.

You will need a warm, dry, comfortable place to work, a bitchin’ set of tools, some mechanical aptitude, and an unusually high level of patience if you chose this route, though. If you are like the author and are the kind of person who loses interest in the 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle after the edges and two out of the three kitten faces are done, this is not for you. 

#5: 996 Porsche

For a lot of people, the Porsche 911 family defines the idea of an aspirational sports car. Many of those reading this article had a poster of the original 911 Turbo on their bedroom wall as a kid. None of those reading this article can afford one, and even if you could, it would try to kill you the first time you drove it. 

Fortunately, though, the long history of the marque offers some choices that are within our parameters for affordability and that are actually reliable and fun to drive. We’ve singled out the 1998-2004 996 as our favorite in this category because it’s about the least expensive way to get into a Porsche that you can actually be proud of (apologies to those 914, 924/944, and 928 peeps out there. You know we’re right.) A little history explains why these cars are what they are – they represent a radical shift from previous 911 models, trading a new water-cooled flat six for the old air-cooled design that was no longer capable of meeting ever-stricter environmental and noise standards, and sharing a ton of parts with the less-expensive Boxster that had just been introduced. Porsche purists clutched their pearls in dismay, but despite the somewhat meh styling, the 996 was a huge hit with new car buyers and a ton of them were produced in many variants. 

While there are a lot of keyboard warriors who make a big deal out of the faulty design of the intermediate shaft bearing that can do expensive damage to the M96 engine in non-GT2, GT3, and Turbo 996 models if it fails, by now most of the cars susceptible to this problem have already been either junked or fixed – just be sure to get a car with a verifiable service history that shows it has been corrected, or budget another two grand or so for a shop to replace it with the improved design.

#4: V8 Ferraris

Is there a manufacturer more closely-associated with the term “supercar” than Ferrari? And yet, thanks to the miracle of depreciation, you can get yourself into a good one for less than a new optioned-out Ford F150. While the Italian carmaker is known for their screaming V12 engines, bargains can be found if you can live with four fewer cylinders. 

In the ‘classic’ (or at least classic-adjacent) category, we have cars like the 308 GTB/GTS from 1975-85, which will make you feel like Thomas Sullivan Magnum III every time you turn the key, its improved successor, the ‘86-’89 328 GTS which is actually known for its (relative) reliability and easy maintenance, and the 348 which replaced those in turn for the 1989-1995 model years if you want Testarossa strakes on a budget. 

Moving on to more recent V8 models, prices start to rise, as you might expect, but you can still get an awful lot of Ferrari for the money with cars like the F355 (produced from 1995-1998), the 2000-2004 360 Modena, or even the front-engine 2009-2014 California if you can stretch your budget to six figures.    

The caveat here is that maintenance costs are not for the faint of heart, and depending on where you live, even finding a mechanic who has ever even seen one of the Ferraris you just bought off of Facebook Marketplace may not be possible. But hey, even a broken Ferrari in your garage is still a Ferrari in your garage, right?

#3: Nissan R32 Skyline GT-R

The EPA giveth, and the EPA taketh away – while there’s currently a fight going on to preserve the right to even work on your own car, let alone modify it, there’s also the 25-year rule that turns unimportable pumpkins into glittering carriages as soon as they hit the quarter-century mark. And no forbidden fruit was quite so attractive to an entire generation raised on racing video games than the original Godzilla, the 1989-1994 Nissan Skyline GT-R. 

Over the course of the production run, Nissan cranked out more than forty thousand R32 GT-R models in a variety of specifications, and since 2014 every one of them has been legal to own in the US (at least as far as the Feds are concerned; your state may suck like the author’s does and impose its own restrictions). As far as all-wheel-drive turbocharged cars designed in the late 1980s go, they’re reliable and have a robust supply chain plus plenty of folks here in the ‘States who know how to work on them. 

Despite their large production numbers, though, prices are on the rise and we predict that before long they’ll exceed what’s sensible for a car you actually want to drive on a regular basis. Get in now if one of these right-hand-drive dream cars is on your wishlist.

#2: C6 Corvette Z06/ZR1

The 2005-2013 Corvette earns our ‘bang for the buck’ award on this list, especially in the form of the naturally-aspirated LS7-powered Z06 and supercharged LS9 ZR1 models. When these cars were new, there was nothing that could touch them in terms of performance per dollar spent, and the arrival of the C7 for the 2014 model year helped drive down their resale value. Throw in the introduction of the mid-rear engine C8 for 2020 and the bottom got knocked out of prices for used sixth-gen Corvettes, making them the performance bargain of the 21st century. 

The Z06 and ZR1 have very different personalities; the 505-horsepower LS7 in the former is about as good as a non-forced-induction big displacement V8 engine gets, and the car was clearly aimed at track performance with a first-for-Corvettes full aluminum chassis and suspension tuning that owed a lot to the experience earned in competition with the previous C5’s near-interchangeable underpinnings. The 638 horsepower ZR1 is a T-Rex of a car, and driven hard you’ll find yourself unexpectedly bumping the redline because the blown powerplant just doesn’t nose over and run out of breath as it climbs the tach.

Another big plus with these cars is their reliability and serviceability. Maintenance and repair is well within the ability of a home mechanic, and if you’d rather have somebody else take care of it, literally any Chevy dealership on the planet can get parts. There’s a huge aftermarket if you want to upgrade the suspension or engine as well. While some Z06 models had issues with the LS7 dropping valves, by now they’ve all either been fixed under warranty or they’re not going to fail. About the only downsides are that the interiors are just “good for a Chevy” rather than extraordinary, and you will also be required by law to wear jorts and white New Balance tennis shoes while driving one.

#1: First-Gen Acura NSX

You knew this one would make the list, since part of the original mission statement for the 1990-2005 NSX was to be the original ‘affordable supercar.’ The goal was to match the performance of the Ferrari 328/348 without the reliability issues or the price tag, and the styling was closely based on the Pininfarina-penned HP-X concept car. Honda being Honda, the NSX would also avoid all the ergonomic woes common to other mid-rear exotics, with decent interior room and really excellent all-around visibility from the driver’s seat.

The NSX started out with a 270 horsepower 3.0 liter V6, which was replaced for 1997 with an improved 3.2 liter, 290 horsepower engine. In such a light car (depending on model and year, curb weight was between 2,800-3,160 pounds) this made for plenty of performance, and in 1992 a NSX-R variant was introduced with a focus on track use, trading away a little bit of street manners. 

The car got a facelift for 2002, most easily recognizable by the replacement of the original pop-up headlights with less-fun fixed projector HID units, and beneath the skin there were some changes to the suspension calibration with stiffer springs front and rear and a higher-rate rear anti-roll bar. Regardless of the model year, these cars have held their value well and remain insanely fun to drive while still being about as practical as a mid-rear two seat sports car can be. Best of all, even though they’re “just” a Honda/Acura, they still turn heads thirty years after they hit the market, punching way above their weight class in terms of coolness.

So that’s our supercar list – like any of these things are, it’s subjective, and your opinion may place other cars higher than the ones we’ve picked out here. The important thing, though, is that there are more affordable, desirable supercars available on the used market today than there have ever been, so being on a budget doesn’t have to mean living with something boring in the driveway. 

10 Engines That Changed the World

We take a lot of things for granted today – engines that start with the turn of a key, deliver abundant horsepower from minimal displacement, squeeze every mile possible out of a gallon of gas, and run for a hundred thousand miles and beyond with only routine maintenance. But over the last century or so, there have been some definite turning points where new technology and fresh ideas have radically changed how we drive. Here’s a look at ten of them that deserve recognition.

Ford Model T – 1908

Henry Ford’s car for the masses was one of the few vehicles in history that actually got simpler and cheaper over its long production run, and the basic 144 cubic inch inline-four under the hood, delivering a whopping 20 horsepower, was the perfect powerplant for the job. With a 3.98:1 compression ratio, this side-valve engine wasn’t all that sensitive to fuel quality, which was an important selling point in a world where the availability of highly-refined gasoline was pretty much non-existent.

Everything about the Model T’s engine was simple by design. There was no fuel pump, with the single sidedraft carb relying on gravity feed much like a lawnmower engine, and spark was provided via magneto and four “trembler” coils to step up the voltage. After an initial short run of a few hundred engines equipped with a water pump, Ford switched to a ‘thermosiphon’ cooling system that relied on the natural circulation of hot water. Hand crank starting was supplemented with an optional electric starter in 1919.

Although Model T production ended in 1927, the engine continued to be manufactured all the way up through the fall of 1941 for use in industrial and marine applications to power pumps and generators. 

Ford Flathead V8 – 1932

Though the V8 engine configuration, with two banks of cylinders sharing a single case and crankshaft, dated back to the turn of the 20th century, Ford’s original 221 cubic inch “Flathead” V8 was revolutionary in 1932. Most widely-produced car engines up until that time were either inline four or six cylinder designs, and even luxury cars with powerful (for the time) eight cylinder engines almost always were inline block layouts. The relatively compact Flathead was initially rated at 65 horsepower, then improved via an increased compression ratio to 85, and the design morphed into a number of different displacements ranging all the way up to a 337 cubic inch version and shrunk down to a diminutive 60-horsepower 136CI model.

Despite having cooling issues stemming from the necessity of routing exhaust passages through the block, and the general inefficiency of the valve-in-block cylinder head design, it’s impossible to understate just how important the Flathead was as an automotive powerplant. It was the engine that spawned the original hot rod movement, and countless aftermarket performance parts, up to and including overhead valve “Ardun” cylinder head conversions. Eventually overshadowed by more modern V8 engine designs, the Flathead still remained in production (albeit in highly-modified form) all the way up until the mid-1960s, and it continues to be popular with hot rod builders interested in retro or period-correct power.

Volkswagen Flat Four – 1936

Designed during the era of German nationalism that metastasized into the Nazi Reich, the horizontally-opposed, air-cooled flat-four engine from the “people’s car” ended up powering decades’ worth of vehicles that became synonymous with peace and love, and remained in factory production for more than 50 years, eventually spawning a water-cooled successor and laying the groundwork for Porsche’s legendary aircooled 6-cylinder “boxer” engines.

Despite its uber-simple design, which utilized a horizontally opposed layout to make it as compact as possible and fan-driven air cooling to eliminate the need for complex castings incorporating passages for liquid coolant as well as the weight of a water pump and radiator, the VW flat-four featured some remarkably sophisticated engineering for the era. The heads were manufactured from aluminum, while the finned cylinders were cast iron, and the crankcase was made from lightweight but strong magnesium.

With displacements ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 liters, and horsepower ranging between 24 and 99+ in factory trim, the VW flat-four found its way into a lot of vehicles other than the iconic Beetle – vans, the mid-engine Porsche 914 and “entry level” 912, countless dune buggies and kit cars, and even aircraft. As a matter of fact, its similarity to the widely-used Continental and Lycoming horizontally-opposed air cooled aircraft engines led not only to conversions for experimental kit planes, but even certified versions for aviation use. Its simplicity, durability, and tuner-friendly nature mean that the VW aircooled four will be popular for as long as internal combustion engines still exist.

Jaguar XK6 – 1948

There were inline-six engines before the Jaguar XK, and there were dual overhead cam engines before it as well. But the 3.4L engine that first appeared in the Jaguar XK120 sports car (their first sporting model since the unpleasantness on the Continent ended production of the SS100 in 1939) was the engine that all subsequent I6 designs and all DOHC powerplants of any cylinder count worth mentioning can claim as an ancestor.

When Nissan, Toyota, and even BMW set out to build their own I6 powered sports cars, the XK6 provided the archetype, so if you are a fan of the RB, 2JZ, or M30, you owe a debt of gratitude to this seminal design.

The XK6’s iron block was topped by an aluminum cylinder head; the material had been selected not only for light weight but also for its ability to efficiently move combustion heat into the cooling system, which allowed a higher compression ratio without detonation (and took advantage of the massive increases in fuel knock resistance that the war had brought). Widely-spaced, large valves and ports designed to increase intake charge swirl let it breathe, and the XK6 quickly went from a rated 160 horsepower to 210, then 250.

The Jag 6 was the result of a generation of engineers who had been pushed hard for a decade to defeat an existential threat to their nation turning their now-razor-sharp skills on making the best auto engine they possibly could, and between 1948 and the end of its run in 1992, the design in all its variations and displacements made its way into dozens of different Jaguar models, and even powered the Scorpion and Scimitar armored fighting vehicles.

When Nissan, Toyota, and even BMW set out to build their own I6 powered sports cars, the XK6 provided the archetype, so if you are a fan of the RB, 2JZ, or M30, you owe a debt of gratitude to this seminal design.

BMC A-Series – 1951

The Austin Mini holds pride-of-place as the car that first put together all the elements of the modern automotive transportation appliance in the same package: All the bulky mechanical parts out ahead of the passenger compartment, with a transaxle powering the front wheels driven by a transverse inline-four engine. The diminutive car required a similarly-tiny engine, and the BMC A-Series, ranging in displacement from 0.8 to a whopping 1.275 liters, was the perfect companion.

While outside of Japan’s Kei sub-sub-compacts, almost every other FWD car is huge compared to the original Mini, but they all draw inspiration from it. Nissan’s CA family can show a direct engineering family tree to the BMC A-Series, having been built around a licensed version of the little Austin’s blueprints. The A-Series inline four wasn’t anything particularly revolutionary in terms of performance or mechanical engineering, but it led the way in how engines would be packaged in the future to free up maximum space for people and things on the inside of the vehicle, making an impact on the automotive world that was as enormous as the engine itself was small.

Chrysler Hemi – 1951

Born from an experimental aircraft engine design that reached maturity just a bit too late to contribute to the Allied war effort in 1945, Chrysler’s hemispherical cylinder head concept was, at heart, the engineering solution to the problem of fitting the biggest possible pair of valves into any given cylinder bore diameter. Once civilian car production re-started, the company took what they had learned in developing that engine and applied it to their FirePower 331 cubic inch V8 that debuted in 1951, delivering between 180 and 300 rated horsepower depending on configuration.

Thanks to the design’s wide bore spacing, displacement grew throughout the decade, and DeSoto Fire Dome and Dodge Red Ram and Power Dome versions of the same architecture were introduced. But the second-gen Hemi, introduced in 1964 and displacing 426 cubic inches, was what put the name on the performance map. The over-the-counter version available to the driving public from 1965 to 1971 was rated at 425 horsepower (gross, with no accessories like a water pump drive or alternator to put parasitic drag on the engine) and 490 pound-feet of torque. In competition, NASCAR and professional drag racing teams embraced the enormous (and enormously powerful) Hemi, and there are still traces of the original 1964 Hemi DNA in today’s nitromethane-burning supercharged Top Fuel and Funny Car engines.

While the name was revived (rendered in all caps – “HEMI” – don’t you forget it!) for a third generation in 2003 that continues in production today, the engine bears little resemblance to its forebearers – a true hemispherical combustion chamber as seen in the second-gen engines, while allowing very large valves, ends up with a “squish” space that looks like an orange peel. This makes the design sensitive to fuel quality and ignition timing to make sure that large, thin volume of compressed gas and air burns smoothly and completely. Modern multi-valve “pent roof” cylinder heads with four facets for a pair of intake and exhaust valves, plus a fifth for the spark plug, achieve the same airflow advantages of a two-valve Hemi head while allowing more efficient combustion chamber shapes. Nevertheless, Chrysler’s Hemi remains as an iconic turning point in performance engine design.

Small Block Chevy – 1954

Arguably the most popular engine of all time, the original “small block” Chevy V8, first introduced in the 1955 model year Corvette and Bel Air, caught lightning in a bottle, and its descendants continue to be manufactured today for use in cars like the mid-rear-engine C8 Corvette. Unlike the Flathead, Chevy’s V8 utilized an overhead-valve cylinder head that allowed for higher compression, a more efficient combustion chamber design, and improved cooling.

The original 265 cubic inch design eventually grew into 400CI factory engines with the same bore spacing, and the SBC was one of the first production engines to deliver more than one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. Over five separate generations, there have been countless changes to the original Chevy V8, including various mixes of cast iron and aluminum blocks and cylinder heads, distributor-fired and coil-per-plug ignition, carburetors, mechanical fuel injection, and EFI, and even cylinder deactivation for “displacement on demand” and variable valve timing.

Through all these changes, from the original 162 horsepower Gen I in 1955 to today’s naturally aspirated Gen V LT2 rated at 490 horsepower in the 2020 Stingray and the 638-horse supercharged Gen IV LS9, the SBC has retained one archaic design feature (with the exception of the unique Lotus-designed DOHC 1989-1995 LT5) – a single cam located in the center of the vee, with pushrod valvetrain actuation. In a world dominated by overhead cam designs, GM’s venerable cam-in-block design continues to prosper in everything from trucks to sports cars.

Wankel Rotary – 1964

Out of all the engines on our list, the Wankel is definitely the most revolutionary (pun intended). Forgoing the conventional piston-engine layout, the design originally conceived by Felix Wankel and patented way back in 1929 is a graduate-level education in geometry and physics. Instead of reciprocating, all the internal components in a rotary spin in the same direction, and although it operates in the same general way a four-stroke piston engine does, it has the power delivery characteristics of a two-stroke, with one power “event” per turn of the output shaft for each rotor assembly.

…but whenever there’s a need to pack a huge amount of horsepower in a high-RPM engine the size of a pony keg, the Wankel is ready to answer the call.

German manufacturer NSU was the first to bring a semi-practical design to mass production, but it took Mazda to really embrace the Wankel, licensing the patents and working out many of the unique challenges posed by the design, which included developing combustion seals for the rotor apexes and between the rotors and housing sides that would be durable enough to compete with piston engine technology that had several decades’ head start. Legendary Mazda cars like the Cosmo, RX-2, -3, -4, -7, and -8, and even a compact pickup (which was singularly unsuitable for rotary power in practical terms, but an awesome example of Mazda’s “Wankel all the things!” enthusiasm) featured rotary power, and many US manufacturers considered using variations of the design for everything from subcompacts to Corvette concepts.

Unfortunately, some inherent drawbacks remained hard to overcome – apex seal lubrication required a small, but continuous consumption of oil as there was no crankcase to separate lube from the combustion process, and although Wankel rotaries are very compact and mechanically simple compared to piston engines that deliver the same power, they’re also thirsty thanks to the thermodynamic inefficiency of their continuously variable combustion space. In the end, even Mazda more or less gave up on rotary engines for production vehicles, but whenever there’s a need to pack a huge amount of horsepower in a high-RPM engine the size of a pony keg, the Wankel is ready to answer the call.

Honda B-Series – 1988

Where would a list of the Ten Engines that Changed the World be without the Honda B-series? For one thing, the author would be risking violence at the hands of a pitchfork and torch wielding mob of Honda fans, but this particular inline four earns its place on merit. It’s arguably the most-popular modern inline four in history, and it combined all the features and technology we take for granted in high-tech engines today. Although it was never intended for turbo– or supercharging, it proved itself to be readily adaptable to boost, and there’s no small-displacement engine family that can boast as much aftermarket support as Honda’s killer B.

With displacements ranging from 1.6 to 2.0 liters in factory trim and rated horsepower from 126 to 190, there were a wide range of variations in both short and tall deck versions, with a panoply of different details like cylinder head design. But the big thing Honda gave the world with the B-series was the widespread introduction of VTEC, their term for a system to switch cam profiles through the use of a hydraulically-actuated cam follower setup. Activated by a signal from the ECU, VTEC allowed the engine to flip between valve timing, lift, duration, and overlap optimized for fuel economy to higher performance and back again, foreshadowing all the current variable valve control technology incorporated into state of the art engines today.

Like the Ford Flathead and classic Small Block Chevy, the Honda B-series has become a favorite of racers and enthusiasts due to the broad availability of performance parts and the extensive tuning knowledge gained over the past thirty years (has it really been that long?)

Nissan VC-Turbo / Mazda Skyactiv / Hyundai Cvvd – Today

It might seem like a bit of a cheat to give the last spot in our top ten list to a whole group of modern engines, but there are so many new technologies being introduced to production internal combustion engines that we can’t simply ignore their effect on the landscape. Gasoline direct injection (GDI) was the first to become relatively commonplace, offering both performance and fuel efficiency increases, but compared to what’s come after, it seems almost quaint – after all, Diesel engines have more or less always been direct-injection.

Nissan’s recently-released VC-Turbo engine uses a multi-link connecting rod assembly to provide a continuously variable “static” compression ratio, from 8:1 for turbocharged operation under boost to a miserly 14:1 under low load and atmospheric intake pressure for maximum efficiency.

Mazda introduced a whole range of new technology under their “SkyActiv” trademark, from the aforementioned GDI to a low-compression (14:1) advanced diesel with two-stage turbocharging to eliminate a large percentage of the particulate and NOx emissions normally associated with compression-ignition engines. They’ve even rolled out a gasoline “SkyActiv-X” engine with two-stage direct fuel injection and variable spark or spark-plus-compression ignition that promises 20-30% greater fuel efficiency.

The “camless” engine has been the holy grail of powerplant design since the middle of the last century, and while certain exotic-but-impractical designs have been proposed or used for pure race engines, and some production engines like BMW’s N55 have implemented systems that can dynamically control cam phasing and variable lift, Hyundai’s Continuously Variable Valve Duration (CVVD) technology comes as close as we’ve seen so far to offering complete control over when and how much a conventional tappet valve opens. While it still relies on mechanical contact between a cam lobe and a follower, it’s a good compromise between practicality and theoretical “perfect” control of valve motion.

We’ve done our best to pick the most significant engine designs without prejudice or favoritism, but we’ve undoubtedly left some of you scratching your heads as to why we overlooked your personal selection in our Top Ten. Make your case in the comments below, and we might just revisit the topic in a future article to mend the error in our ways…

Business in the Front, Party in the Back

The Chevy El Camino

The pickup truck is as American as apple pie and the Chevy El Camino is apple pie à la mode. Of course, being an agricultural driven country the pickup has been the vehicle of choice for generations and as we have often seen, GM was caught back footed when Ford introduced their Ranchero in 1956. The Ranchero was based on a two-door, station-wagon platform that had an integrated cab and pickup bed unlike a regular pickup that has a separate cab and bed.

But wait, the history can be traced to Australia where Ford offered two roadster pickups in 1932, one with a straight-side bed known as the Standard Utility Car or ‘Ute’ for short. The popularity of such a beast caused one lady to apparently write to Ford Australia asking for “a vehicle to go to church in on a Sunday and which can carry our pigs to market on Mondays”.

The letter caused Ford designer Lewis T. Bandt to begin work later that year on marrying a coupe to a pickup. His happy marriage appeared in 1934 when a coupe body was joined to an integrated pickup bed. The Ute was only ever really popular in Australia until the Ranchero was invented to meet the same needs for a comfortable pickup that could do double duty as a utility vehicle and a cruiser. While the concept was sound, sales for 1957 did not reach 22,000. Nevertheless, its mere introduction caused GM to take notice.

While GM was behind Ford, there were some directional indicators in 1955 when Chevy introduced their factory-customized Cameo Carrier pickup. Although based on Chevy’s regular pickup, the Cameo had many car-like features including car-like interior, optional engines, automatic rather than stick transmissions and power-assisted brakes and steering. The big difference initiated by designer Chuck Jordan was the ditching of the running boards and the use of fiberglass bedside panels to afford a more integrated appearance. Chevy sold some 5,200 units in ’55 but sales slumped in ’56 to 1,460 and in ’57 to 2,240. Only 500 were sold in ’58 and the model was dropped.

The new-for-’59 Chevy El Camino, which means “the path” or “the way” in Spanish, was based on the Brookwood two-door station wagon as was the sedan delivery and it emulated the styling of the full-size Chevy Impala. Up front there were twin intakes above a full-width grille flanked by dual headlights. The greenhouse featured a huge wrap-around windshield and an unusual and dramatic “flying wing” top that was an abbreviated version of the tops on full-size cars.

The rear was equally wild with sweeping airplane influenced “batwing” fins that emanated from just behind the cab and ran the entire length of the bed—it was about as far as fins would go. Wide “cat’s eye” taillights were split along the bed line. This was no hog-hauling pickup this was cruiser personified.

The new-for-’59 Chevy El Camino, which means “the path” or “the way” in Spanish was based on the Brookwood two-door station wagon…

Under the vast hood, Chevrolet offered a 3.9L 235 ci straight six, the 4.6: 283 ci V8 and the Turbo-Thrust 5.7L 348 ci V8 producing a max of 335 hp. Three or four-speed manuals were available as was a two-speed Powerglide auto.

Sales of the ’59 El Camino were brisk at 22,246 units but they were by no means staggering and they fell off the following year to 14,163. “The road” came to an end, at least for the time being.

As Ford persisted with the Ranchero, Chevrolet had little choice but to reintroduce their version in 1964, however, it was based on a mid-size platform rather than the preceding full-size platform. Car design had moved away from the fins of the fifties and the new Camino was a very clean design based on the Chevelle two-door wagon. Indeed, it carried both badges.

Under the hood there was three optional sixes plus two versions of the 327 rated at 250 and 300 hp. The hot version featured a high, 10.5:1 high-compression, a larger 4bbl carb and dual pipes.

For the following year the Chevy El Camino was subject to the same facelift as the Chevelle with a sharper V’d front end behind which you could get a new L79 327 producing 350 hp. At the dragstrip it could run the ¼ in the low 15s at 90 mph.

We recently dropped in on Kevin Elliott of Kev’s Rod & Custom, La Habra, CA, where they recently completed the full restoration of a ’65 for Charlie Currie of Currie Enterprises.  “This was quite a rust bucket,” said Kevin “We had to replace everything but the roof, the firewall and the front fenders. You know when you send a car out for blasting and only part of it comes back? Well, nothing came back. It has a complete new floor and we had to make special tools to repair the bed.”

Under the hood, Kevin installed a 331 ci Gen I L79 fitted with Edelbrock induction and MSD ignition. It produces 334 hp at 5,500 rpm and 362 lb-ft of torque at 3,800 rpm. There’s a GM 4L60E tranny and, of course, a Currie Enterprises F9 rear axle. The wheels are E-T Classic Vs: 17×8.5 in front and 18×9.5 in back.

From Kev’s the Currie El Co went to Mickey Larson at Twins Custom Coaches that, at the time, was located in Pomona, CA. There it was painted at Mick’s Paint but not by Mick’s Paint. The color is GM Arrival Blue by PPG.

Finally, in 1966, Chevy dropped in the 6.5L 396 that could put out a max of 375 hp and now run the ¼ in the 14s. It was a hot rod truck alright. Besides the engine there was new bodywork, a new dash with horizontal sweep speedo, optional tach and optional Strato swiveling bucket seats.

In 1967 there was another facelift and minor changes but the big news came in ’68 with the introduction of the Super Sport SS-396 of which the L78 version had solid lifters, large-port heads and an 800 cfm Holley 4bbl carb. As it did in 1966, the L78 produced 375 hp. The vehicle was now longer but still based on the Chevelle station wagon with a 116-inch wheelbase and overall length of 17 feet, three inches.

More minor changes came in 1969 and ’70 when the body became a little squarer. The latest SS396 was now actually 402 cubic inches or 6.6 liters; however, there was a honking 454 ci engine that produced 450 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque pushing the El Co through the ¼ in the 13s at more than 100 mph.

Recently, we were able to check out a ’70 El Co SS built for Amir Rosenbaum of Spectre Automotive at the SO-CAL Speed Shop. The truck was built to compete in autocross events, specifically the Optima Ultimate Street Car Challenge, and features a set-back 7.0L 427 ci Corvette Z06 LS7 engine. It produces 650 hp and almost as much torque transmitted through a Tremec six-speed manual trans. The suspension came from Global West, the six piston brakes from Baer and Italian five-spokes from OZ. The truck, featured on the TLC TV show ‘Hard Shine,” was painted in single-stage black with silver stripes at Micks Paint, Pomona, CA.

New front-end styling came in for 1971 but emissions controls were lurking and the dreaded ‘smog pump’ was added strangling performance. For example, the LS5 454 only produced 365 hp and the LS6 454 was nixed. The switch to ‘net’ figures came in and the 402 ci 396 was rated at 240 hp while the 454 that was only available in the SS model, was rated at 270 hp.

By the time of the fourth Generation, 1973-’77, the El Co was breathing hard, constricted by smog devices and getting heavy. It was middle age spread and the vehicles no longer looked svelte and cool. Gen IV was the largest El Camino and they had wide bumpers like boat transoms and optional fake wood grain side trim. Sales of Gen IV started well at just under 65,000 units for ’73 but by the end of the run in ’77 they were down 10K units.

Things did improve for Gen V (1978-’87), however, the El Co now shared a frame with the Malibu and V6 engines replaced the big-blocks. Those days were done. Nevertheless, overall the car looked better after it’s Weight Watcher’s program, more clean and sharp edged and a lot less boat-like.

Things got smaller under the hood too when the standard engine became the 3.8L V6 producing a whopping 110 hp. California, meanwhile, got the anemic Buick V6. And, the SS model was now shipped out to Choo Choo Customs of Chattanooga, Tennessee it did not, however, get the L69 engine of the Monte Carlo SS.

In 1985, GM moved production to Mexico but the public had lost interest and sales slumped to a total of 13,743 units for 1987 and a mere 420 for 1988. What killed the Camino? Why, the new Chevy C/K pickup introduced in April 1987 as an ’88 model. The C/K was a hot rodder’s dream and it was the end of the road for the Chevy El Camino.

Hot Rodding’s Alive and Kicking at Detroit Autorama 2020

In the years immediately following World War II the hot rod and custom car scene boomed across America as returning service men and women enjoyed newfound prosperity with money to spend on cars. Magazines, car clubs and car shows exploded across the nation especially in the rust belt where the winters were long and the snow was deep. Nowhere was this auto-enthusiasm more evidenced than in the Motor City—Detroit.

In 1952, the Michigan Hot Rod Association (MHRA), that had formed the previous year with 22 clubs and 400 members, held the first Detroit Autorama car show at the University of Detroit Field House. Ostensibly, the profits were to build a dragstrip. In 1956, the MHRA hired a local, professional promoter, Don Ridler whose expertise grew the show quickly until there were funds for the Motor City Dragway that opened in 1957.

Sadly, both the Motor City Dragway and Ridler are gone but his name lives on in the annual Don Ridler Memorial Award established in 1946. Presented by Meguiar’s, the Ridler, with a cash prize of $10,000, is the highest accolade at the annual Detroit Autorama, now in its 68^th year.

Over the years, everything from a Corvette to a ’57 Chevy to a ’65 Impala to ’59 Cadillac wagon have won—it’s an eclectic mix. From the dozens of contenders, selectors choose the ‘Great 8 Finalists’ from which the eventual winner is chosen.

This year, the Great 8 comprised the following:

George Conrad’s 1966 Ford F100 Custom Pickup

Jeffrey Hess’1956 Oldsmobile 98 Custom Convertible

Frank and Debbi Hinmon’s 1955 Cadillac Coupe DeVille

Jerry Logan’s 1934 Ford Altered Pickup,

Bob Matranga’s ’55 Chevy ‘Brute Force,’

Brad, Brady and Cory Ranweiler’s 1963 Chevy Custom Wagon ‘Impressive’

Tim Wheeler’s 1969 Camaro Pro Touring

Greg and Gail Wilson’s 1929 Ford Model A Woodie pickup ‘Driftwood,’

Of course, seeing the Great 8 surrounded by the not so great is a little disconcerting as you contemplate all the blood, sweat and dollars that went into those unsuccessful builds that didn’t quite make it. Also, one is nagged by the question, “What do you do with it now?” High build show cars are by definition extreme, over the top, caricatures almost and as such hard to get the groceries in. They’re more art than car but rather than wall hangings they are more wall flowers. All the more reason, therefore, to venture down the escalator to ‘The Basement’ where there is a vibrant, alternative show full of old original and recreated racecars, some ratty and some not so ratty rods, customs with a k and a spattering of weirdness and the just for the heck of it. The basement has a totally different, lively vibe that’s missing from the floor above where it’s tangibly more serious.

“The Basement is not the showcase for your home, but it is where you keep things you value and the place only your best friends ever get see.”Larry Erickson, Designer

One of the fun parts of The Basement show is the celebrity picks where automotive stars such as designers Chip Foose, Camilo Pardo, Larry Erickson, and builders Roy Brizio, Josh Shaw and Gene Winfield among others pick the basement cars that appeal to them. It’s a diverse selection that give this particular group of participants a chance at the trophy that they wouldn’t normally get. It’s great fun, not taken too seriously and rewarding. Designer Larry Erickson, said, “This is the Midwest, so The Basement is not the showcase for your home, but it is where you keep things you value and the place only your best friends ever get see.  Participating in the pick is good fun.”

All too soon we escalated back upstairs to the main floor of what was Detroit’s Cobo Hall to what is now TCF for the awards ceremony. Bob Matranga’s ’55 Chevy ‘Brute Force’ was the odds-on favorite but as Barry Meguiar of Meguiar’s made the announcement the trophy went to Brad, Bray and Cory Ranweiler of New Ulm, Minnesota, for their family-built ’63 Chevy wagon ‘Impressive’.

Built upon an Art Morrison frame, Impressive is undoubtedly impressive in its build featuring a home-built 409 bored and stroked to 509 cubic inches producing 615 hp with Hilborn 8-stack electronic fuel injection. However, what makes Impressive so different is that it’s actually a two-door wagon created from a four-door wagon there being no two-door factory ‘Nomad’ wagons that year. Whether the distinctive body mods were the clincher is only for the judges to know but it was, nevertheless, Impressive and a well-deserved if un-expected win.

History of the Chevelle:
America’s Most Popular Mid-Size Muscle Car

GEN I 1964-1967

As Chevys go, the Chevrolet Chevelle had a short life of just 13 years from 1964 to 1977—not very long from the point of view of brand life, nevertheless, in those short ‘baker’s dozen’ years the Chevelle carved a niche for itself in the hearts of Chevy lovers.

The Chevy Chevelle, a name derived from a Hebrew girl’s name meaning “My God is a vow,” was introduced on September 26, 1963, as a ’64 model positioned between the Chevy II/Nova and the Impala. Unfortunately, the Chevelle negatively impacted sales of the compact Chevy II. It also competed with the Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass and the Pontiac Tempest that were all built on the same mid-size, A-body platform. However, despite all this competition that included the Ford Fairlane, the Chevelle, priced from $2,231, notched up sales of 370,834 units of which 17,608 went for export. There were also some 16,285 units built in Canada.

Base engine for 1964 was the lowly 120 hp six-cylinder but by mid-year the top of the line Malibu SS could be had with the optional 300 hp 327. There was, apparently, a 365 hp 327 that never made it to production. That was a shame because Chevy were well into the performance wars and the ’64 Malibu SS L76 would be the one to own.

The Chevelle [is] a name derived from a Hebrew girl’s name meaning “My God is a vow.”

The following year, Chevy upped the anti with a 350 hp L79 327 as well as the stonking Z16 396 option, however, only 201 396s were built, a fact that I think supports the argument that the whole muscle car market was more hype than anything else. Yes, the buff magazines touted performance and the cognoscenti talked a lot about it but the general public tended to buy the more pedestrian models.

As with other Chevy models, the Chevelle came in a range of body styles from two- and four-door sedans through coupes, convertibles and wagons and even the two-door sedan pickup known as the El Camino because in Chevy-speak the El Co was in fact a Chevelle derivative. Top of the line was the Malibu SS that was also available as a rag top. Production stayed buoyant in ’65 and totaled 378,618 with another 19,132 units in Canada. SS coupes accounted for 71,984 while convertibles hit 9,128. The one to have would be the Malibu SS Z16 396.

Proving the Chevelle’s popularity, production jumped in 1966 to a healthy 447,364. The ramp-up was, however, due to completely new, aggressively styled, less boxey, more forward-thrusting sheet metal. And, the hits kept a’comin’ as ’67 saw new front and rear fascias, front disc brakes, a dual master cylinder and a collapsible steering column. Sales slipped a tad but only to 403,963 of which a little more than 60K were SS 396 models.

GEN II 1968-1972

Despite the ’66 facelift, Chevelle got another make over for the 1968 model year giving it yet more aggression with a three-inch shorter, 112-inch wheelbase and semi-fastback styling for the coupes. Engines now ranged from a 3.8L 230 ci in-line six to a range of big-inch’ big- and small-block engines: 396-, 400-, 402-, 427- and 454-ci V8s. With three- and four-speed manuals, they were the muscle cars dreams were made of. And, red-stripe tires were optional on Super Sports. The facelift was obviously popular because total production jumped to 503,352 units. No wonder the Chevelle was advertised as “America’s most popular mid-size car.”

As we have seen elsewhere in the history of Yenko, GM allowed select dealers to use the Central Office Production Order (COPO) system to order from an internal menu of high-performance options. It’s confirmed that Yenko ordered 99 Chevelle’s fitted with the L72 427 ci V8 that produced 425 hp at 5,800 rpm and 460 lb-ft or torque at 4,000 rpm. There were a total of 323 COPO orders including the 99 Yenkos.  There was also a police RPO B07 package available on the four-door 300 Deluxe that could also be optioned with the RPO L35 396 engine along with a boxed frame. It all made for one tuff cruiser.

We spoke to David Steele, director of the American Hot Rod Foundation and a long time fan and current Chevelle owner. “I come from a Chevelle family, “said David. “Our Dad bought his ’69 L78 four-speed convertible when we were kids, my older brother had a ’70 SS as his high school ride, and the ’71 SS I bought as my first car drove me to high school and is still getting me around today. I own two now ( including my Dad’s old convertible ) along with my wife’s ’64 El Camino–of which I’ve owned four. I just think they’re great cars. Perfectly balanced and just the right size. To me, an Impala is a serious commitment and a Camaro is just a little undersized to feel solid and brawny. With a Chevy Chevelle you get a medium size car that looks great, is really comfortable, and rides and handles like only a full-frame car can. I think they’re the perfect package.”

No wonder the Chevelle was advertised as America’s most popular mid-size car.

That said, even 50 years ago, we were searching for an antidote to our gasoline addiction and consequently GM developed a steam-powered concept Chevelle. Designated SE 124, the steam punk Chevelle was powered by a 50 hp V4 Besler steam engine—it didn’ fly—it only got 15 mpg and topped out at 60 mph.

The classics Coke-bottle styling of the ‘69s was downplayed in 1970 as the sheet metal was tightened up and shared with the Buick Skylark but not on the wagons or the El Co. Top of the line Malibu SS models were available with the 402 ci 396 or a new 7.4L 454 ci that produced 360 hp. The LS6 option, of which 4,475 were produced, was fitted with a 4bbl 800 cfm Holley and put out 450 hp at 5,600 rpm and 500 lb-ft of torque at 3,600 rpm. The cool factor of the SS was enhanced by the Cowl Induction hood that opened with a stab of the throttle.

Yet another sheet metal revision came in 1971 when the front and rear were restyled. Big news for muscle car fans was the mid-year introduction of the ‘Heavy Chevy’ that was the base Chevelle available with any V8 including the 402 ci but unfortunately not the 454.  Base engine for the SS was a 5.0L 307 rated at 245 hp but at the top of the pile was the LS5 454 with cowl induction. Unfortunately, the LS6 was nixed early in the model year.

“With a Chevy Chevelle you get a medium size car that looks great, is really comfortable, and rides and handles like only a full-frame car can. I think they’re the perfect package.”David Steele

The world was changing though and GM had to mandate that all divisions engineer their engines to run on unleaded, low-octane fuel. Compression ratios fell from highs of 10 or 11:1 in 1970 to 9:1 in 1971. Total production for 1971 was 515,625. But the following year production jumped more than one hundred thousand units to 631,661.

GEN III 1973-1977

By 1973 and the Gen III the Chevelle’s edge had gone and the corporate fat had set in. The new Colonnade wheelbase remained the same at 112 inches but the length of the coupe hit 205.7 inches, up from 197.2 of Gen II and Gen I’s 197 inches. The cool factor had been erased leaving only the two-door coupe, four-door sedan and the four-door station wagon—gone was the convertible and the two-and four-door hardtops—all in the name of safety and possible Federal roll-over standards. Chevrolet also touted the largesse as offering more interior room and 25-to 35-percent more glass depending upon the model but big is not always better and the Chevelle had lost its ‘pony’ car agility. Gone too was the SS, replaced in 1974 by the Laguna S-3 and in ’75 the big block was nixed.

However, it was a body style that found favor on the NASCAR circuit with Cale Yarborough notching up 34 victories. In 1976, Yarborough won the Winston Cup Grand National Championship driving the #11 Junior Johnson/Holly Farms Chevelle.

The cool factor had been erased [and] the Chevelle had lost its “pony” car agility.

The available engines were also reduced and ranged from a 4.1L 250 ci six through the 7.4L 454 big-block. There was, however, a 6.6L 400 ci small-block as well as the regular 305, 307 and 350 ci small-blocks. Unfortunately, the cars were billed as “a size whose time has come.”

In 1977, Yarborough won his second Daytona 500, won nine of his 30 races and won his second Grand National title, however, it was the end of the road for the third generation Chevelle. At least it went out with a roar rather than a whimper. 

Exhaust 101

Everything You Need to Know About Exhaust

One of the most popular upgrades for any performance vehicle, from V8 Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers through pickups and SUVs to “tuner” turbo cars is an aftermarket exhaust. Considering how common it is for owners to discard the factory pipes in favor of something different, we’re going to take a look (and listen) to the basics of exhaust systems from start to finish to highlight what you need to know. Whether you are looking for more horsepower, a better sound, or both, your bank balance and your neighbors will thank you for educating yourself before you strap on a new aftermarket exhaust. 

An exhaust system has to achieve a few primary functions – First (and most importantly from a performance standpoint), it has to efficiently move spent gasses away from the combustion chamber to allow room for a fresh charge of air and fuel to enter for the next power cycle. Second, it has to move those gasses to someplace that won’t dump a lot of waste heat in the engine compartment (Fun Fact: 40% or more of the heat generated during a car engine’s operation ends up going out through the exhaust) or asphyxiate the driver and passengers. Third, except for pure competition applications, it has to moderate the volume and sound quality of the exhaust noise. Finally, in modern OEM applications, it has to incorporate emission control systems to reduce the amount of pollutants released by the exhaust.

Understanding these functions is the key to understanding why factory exhaust systems are built the way they are, and knowing what the tradeoffs involved in modifying your exhaust will be. Let’s follow the path of a puff of exhaust from the cylinder to the tailpipe to see how all the components involved contribute to the process.

When the exhaust valve opens, hot, energetic, pressurized, but diffuse waste gas exits the cylinder and travels through the exhaust port and out of the cylinder head. Each cylinder has its own port, and those outlets are connected to each other by a manifold. In most OEM designs that manifold is made out of cast iron, which is a good choice for durability and keeping the overall size of the engine package small, but it can come with a performance penalty. To keep things compact, the manifold may have runners for each individual cylinder that are different lengths or even different diameters, and this offers performance part makers their first opportunity to find a few extra horsepower.

Current state-of-the-art engine designs often make things difficult for anyone trying to build performance headers…

A manifold made of tubular steel, referred to as a header, is a common performance upgrade. Individual runners, called “primary tubes”, carry exhaust gasses to a collector where the output of several cylinders combines into a single stream. The collector does a couple of things besides just simplifying the plumbing from that point on – it reflects pressure waves along the primary tubes back to the cylinder head, and it lets each cylinder “talk” to each other. By carefully designing the length of the primary tubes and the volume of the collector, a good header can actually flow more efficiently than an exhaust port that’s open to the outside world by letting the waves of high and low pressure work together from cylinder to cylinder to actively scavenge exhaust gas in the engine’s main operating RPM range. 

Current state-of-the-art engine designs often make things difficult for anyone trying to build performance headers; because of ever-increasing emissions standards, it’s very common to have a catalytic converter built into the factory exhaust manifold so that it gets up to operating temperature as quickly as possible to reduce the amount of pollution during a cold start. Some engine designs even combine all the exhaust runners into the cylinder head itself, eliminating the manifold entirely. And in the case of turbocharged engines, the cast exhaust manifold is usually (but not always) also the mounting point for the turbo. All of these factors will determine whether a performance header is a worthwhile upgrade, or indeed even an engineering possibility, for your particular application. 

Speaking of turbos, you’ll frequently see a component called the downpipe listed as a performance upgrade. This particular piece of exhaust plumbing connects the outlet of the turbine section to the down-stream parts of the system, and in some factory engine designs it’s a well-known bottleneck for exhaust flow. Turbochargers like having as little restriction at the outlet of the turbine as possible; this is what lets them extract energy from the exhaust and use it to spin the compressor on the intake side. A well-designed aftermarket downpipe can increase horsepower throughout the RPM range as well as reducing boost lag. 

For both forced-induction and naturally-aspirated OEM engines, the next stop is usually the main catalytic converter(s). In V6 and V8 RWD cars, they’re often incorporated into an X-, H-, or Y-pipe, while inline engines with a single header have a simple section of exhaust pipe that incorporates this emission control device. Back when catalytic converters first became necessary in order to meet tailpipe pollution standards, they posed a serious obstacle to performance, causing a major restriction to exhaust flow that the engine had to fight. Today, both factory and aftermarket catalysts take a very minimal toll on horsepower, and depending on how aggressively emissions laws are enforced in your neck of the woods, removing or defeating them can be very expensive if you happen to get caught. Ultimately it’s between you and your conscience if you decide to roll the dice, but the performance penalty for a catalyst-equipped exhaust is much lower than it was back in the day.

You’ll often see variations on the term “cat-back” in aftermarket exhaust descriptions – this usually means the system has no effect on emission controls and is legit in all 50 states (at least from a pollution perspective). Factory exhausts need to meet specific sound level limits, as well as being durable enough to not wear out during the car’s warranty period even in salt-encrusted rust belt states, while being as inexpensive as possible. A good aftermarket cat-back system will offer superior materials and construction – typically stainless steel – while being lighter than the OEM exhaust, and if it’s particularly well designed (and the factory system is particularly bad) it may even increase horsepower and torque. 

Mufflers use a variety of different engineering approaches to reducing and changing the sound of the exhaust. Solid or perforated baffles inside the muffler body can be used to suppress specific frequencies by reflecting sound waves back on themselves, and packing materials like fiberglass are sometimes employed to absorb sound energy, though if the muffler is poorly designed, they can get compressed or even blown out over time, compromising the effectiveness of the system. Mufflers with a “straight through” design typically give less flow restriction at the expense of less sound reduction than designs that force the exhaust to change direction or travel through multiple internal chambers. Even the overall size of the muffler plays a role in how it sounds – more internal volume gives the designer more opportunity to modify overall noise levels and tune out unwanted frequencies. 

Of course, the main reason to replace the factory resonator and muffler system is to get an exhaust note that you like better than stock, and this comes down to personal taste. The only advice we can give you in this respect is, if it’s in any way possible, find somebody who already has the cat-back aftermarket exhaust you are considering and listen to it in person. Video and audio clips on the internet are better than nothing, but they are no substitute for hearing it yourself. It’s also important to ask yourself if it’s something you can live with all the time if it’s your daily driver, and if your need to flex on everybody who pulls up next to you at a stoplight is worth your neighbors actively hating your guts. A good exhaust system is music to your ears, but there are plenty of people out there who have hung new pipes on their car but secretly wish they’d picked something else, no matter how much they tell their friends it’s exactly what they wanted it to sound like. 

The bottom line is that your exhaust system is one of the first things people will notice about your car, and one of the last things you want to get wrong. Make sure you educate yourself, get input from other people who have done the upgrades you’re considering, and be realistic about how much of a performance increase you can expect and how much additional noise you’re willing to live with to get it.

The Best Cars of the Grand National Roadster Show 2020

Now in its 71st year, the Grand National Roadster Show in Pomona, California, is still alive, and very much kickin’. 

Roadsters from around the Nation show up at GNRS, the longest running indoor car show in the world.  

There is no shortage of Awards at the show, but the most sought after is America’s Most Beautiful Roadster, last year won by a ’36 Ford named ‘3 Penny Roadster’.

As you can see, some of these builds are crazy enough that they just work.

The show will continue to run through Sunday, 1/26, so grab a friend and check out some of the coolest Roadster builds around, you won’t want to miss it!

Barrett Jackson’s Wildest Rides

Every automotive enthusiast has unique taste, whether you’re a purist, hot rod connoisseur or rat rod junkie. These worlds tend to collide every once in a while, however, every enthusiast can respect a properly restored, resto-modded, or custom built ride. 

We happened to take a trip down the aisles and across the block of Barrett Jackson in Scottsdale, Arizona, only to find some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring builds the show has to offer.

’72 Dodge Challenger Custom Hardtop

When it comes to Resto-Mods, this Challenger is the cream of the crop. 

Incorporating a 6.1-liter HEMI V8 with a 727 5-Speed automatic transmission shows that this beast is utilizing the best of modern technology while still utilizing tried and true parts. 

’39 Chevrolet Custom COE Pickup

Grabbing the attention of attendees at Barrett Jackson is no easy feat as there are so many cars to look at, but this custom pickup shows how it’s done.

This old tanker turned modern beauty is a sight to behold from the outside, but what you don’t see is the LS1 sitting under the seats and coilovers on all four corners. It’s no wonder this bad boy sold for $95,700.

’67 Volkswagen Type II Double-Cab Custom Pickup “Double Deluxe”

Going all out and creating a car that never existed is taking a custom build to the next level.

Kindig It Design in Salt Lake City, Utah, integrated the best parts of a Deluxe bus and a double-cab to create this unique “Double Deluxe”, a true masterpiece.

You’d better have deep pockets to get your hands on this puppy as it was taken home at $161,700.

’69 Chevrolet Camaro RS/SS Custom Coupe

For the fans of Pro-Touring builds, this Camaro is one you’ll want to take a nice long gander at. What started as a 396-ci V8 soon turned into a 502-ci V8, but why stop there?

The 502-ci crate engine was bored to a 540-ci, squeezing every ounce of extra ponies out. To add a unique touch, the dash is straight out of a ’59 Chevy Impala, proving that this car is all in the details.

’67 Ford Mustang Eleanor Tribute

What started as a ’67 Fastback soon became a licensed Official Eleanor Tribute Edition Mustang after a ground-up restoration. With a signed dash by none other than Carroll Shelby, this Eleanor is the definition of a custom build, and a jaw dropping one at that.

’70 Plymouth Barracuda Custom Coupe

At first glance, you might think this ‘cuda rolled off the assembly line yesterday. After a two and a half year build, this Plymouth Barracuda comes complete with a 528-ci HEMI, rebuilt 4-speed manual transmission and a Dana 4.11 rear end.

’62 Morris Mini Cooper

There’s something about the simplicity of a Mini Cooper that always looks good, and with some subtle touches, they can really stand out.

All it took for this custom Woody wagon was some fender flares and a set of wider tires to get an aggressive stance and become a real attention grabber.

’67 Ford Mustang Custom Fastback

For those of us that like to go fast, and look good doing it, this is the ride to be in. With a supercharged Ford Racing Coyote 5.0 L V8, this thing is sure to throw you into the back seat.

’58 Volkswagen Custom Roadster

Last on our list of fine Barrett Jackson customs is one ride that is sure to make you look twice. This take on a steampunk VW is nothing shy of perfection, and the craftsmanship behind this build is even more intriguing.

With only 40 miles on the build, the next owner will be proud to break in the fresh 1.4 L, four cylinder, air-cooled engine.

Overall, the builds you’ll see at Barrett Jackson consist of top-notch craftsmanship and creativity, and definitely cost a pretty penny!

Big Red:

Maybe the World’s Baddest ’69 Camaro

Over the years there have been some bad ass Camaros but few have enjoyed the longevity, diversity and reputation of Big Red. From the rough roads of the La Carrera Classica to the Silver State Classic to the Bonneville Salt Flats to Pikes Peak Big Red has been there, done that and yet the story continues.

The saga of Big Red begins more than 30 years ago in 1987 when Dan Gottlieb and his son RJ embarked upon the creation of the baddest Camaro in captivity—a car that would take on the best in the toughest Mexican road race known as La Carrera Classica. Father and son put together what they anticipated would be a winning combination that utilized a stock ’69 Camaro body and frame, a roll cage and a 540-inch, all-aluminum, dry-sump Donovan built by the legendary John Lingenfelter. In flat-out trim Red was capable of 200 mph and quickly proved to be a contender.

Unfortunately, during its 1987 La Carrera II debut and while 18-year old RJ was leading the race and Chris Kaufmann was riding shotgun the Camaro had, well, a big accident at over 140 mph. They’d pushed too hard and the stock uni-body and sub frame was just not up to it. The car veered off the highway and was destroyed; only the Lingefelter engine and the rear end were salvageable. Luckily RJ and Chris walked away.

“That’s the magic of Big Red, making it look as much like a factory Camaro as possible but, and it’s a big but, it has to run consistently over 200 mph”RJ Gottlieb

Undaunted, and even before RJ was home, father Dan had located another ’69 from which to rebuild the racecar albeit this time with a full tube, stock car-style chassis assembled by Bill Osborne. Lessons had been learned; they wouldn’t make the same mistakes twice. Nevertheless, the car looked as stock as possible from its steel body with glass windshield to its roll-up windows. In fact, Dan had the crew take the extremely rare, at the time, and expensive all aluminum block and heads and paint them factory GM orange to look like a stock, iron block.  He rather enjoyed popping the hood, pointing and saying, “Look it’s just a warmed over 427.” 

“That’s the magic of Big Red,” commented RJ, “making it look as much like a factory Camaro as possible but, and it’s a big but, it has to run consistently over 200 mph.”

For the rebuild Larry Mollicone overhauled the original Lingenfelter engine and dyno pulls resulted in 850 hp and 750 lbs-ft of torque. Backing up the naturally aspirated engine was a Jerrico four-speed and a 9-inch Detroit Locker rear end with Koni coil-overs and twin-caliper vented discs.

In 1988, after almost a year in the making, RJ and his new copilot Bill Osborne won La Carrera III. The following year they were leading by miles when they smoked the clutch and ended their race prematurely. Unfortunately, they were never invited back. That same year they also went on to win the Silver State Classic. They covered the 94-mile, two-lane black top in just 27 minutes, 54 seconds with an average, yes average speed of 197.99 mph. To maintain that average they hit a top speed of 222 mph. I’ve driven that road to Bonneville many times and it doesn’t look possible. RJ was just 19 years old. They won again the following year but intake valve issues reduced their speed.

Big Red was an attention getter and as a consequence Road & Track magazine invited RJ to compete in a top speed challenge at the Nissan/Calsonic test track at Casa Grande, AZ. Big Red trounced the competition with a top speed of 203 mph. The organizers didn’t believe the speed and made RJ run again but he backed it up. Unhappy that a mere muscle car won their supercar top speed shoot out Road & Track cropped Big Red out of the cover photo.

For RJ, it was time to go back east and go to school, consequently, Big Red was loaned to Don Laughlin’s Auto Museum, Laughlin, NV, where it was displayed for almost 10 years. In 2003, RJ returned to California and collected the car with the intention of taking it to a few shows, however, once a racer always a racer and RJ and Dan soon set about yet another ‘Red-surrection’.

Driving the modifications was a new Brodix-based 598 ci engine fitted with a modified Braswell “Severe Duty” carburetor flowing 1350cfm. Again, built by Larry Mollicone—it produced an insane 1,100 hp. To compensate for the huge increase in horsepower the team added safety improvements and bigger brakes. And, they turned to the Baer Brakes’ Z2Z Challenge for a new venue to express Big Red’s prowess. Once again, they took top honors in the acceleration/deceleration contest.

In 2006, it was back to the back roads of Nevada for the Silver State. Unfortunately, fuel problems caused them to splutter through the first 20 miles, nevertheless, after shutting down and rebooting the system RJ took off like a banshee to take first place in the Unlimited Class.

Over the ensuing five years, RJ competed in numerous events including The Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational, The Texas Mile, Vintage Auto Racing’s “Big Bore Bash” at Willow Springs, the Mojave Mile, the Mojave Magnum and the Virginia City Hill Climb. RJ took top honors at nearly every event while Red was featured in the 2009 movie the ‘Fast and the Furious 4’.  It was also in the 2017 feature film version of the hit 70’s TV show “Chips” directed by Dax Shepard who is a big fan.

If you really want to see Big Red in action, and who doesn’t, the whole process has been filmed by Josh Oliver in an eight episode docuseries, “The Original Outlaw Racer” and is viewable here.

In 2013, with a blown 1,800 hp motor the team tried their hand at the Bonneville Salt Flats where they ran a strong 227 mph. Despite all the different venues at which RJ had wheeled Big Red he had still not attempted the infamous Colorado spike known as Pikes Peak. Unfortunately, during a test session at California’s SCCA Buttonwillow track, in preparation for Pikes Peak, Big Red caught fire due to a fuel fitting vibrating loose. The fire was devastating and any plans for future events had to be put on hold while the car was rebuilt, yet again. Undeterred, as always, Big Red was rebuilt to run at the Mojave Mile in April 2017 where it broke its own record of 251 with a blistering run at 253.7 mph.

This ProCharged version of Big Red was both an evolution and a tangential move away from the road race and hill climb combination toward a quest to discover the ultimate top speed of a ’69 Camaro. This development began with mile racing in 2009 in Texas with the 598 road race set up that continued to evolve over the years through a dual quad ram to nitrous for the Mojave Mile to a ProCharged version for Bonneville running on methanol with water injection. 

The secret to this build is the ‘switchability’ and versatility: one minute its in road race trim, the next hill climb mode and the next its set up for balls out land speed racing. Indeed, as the car has evolved and gone faster and faster the team has learned the secret of prepping the car for each specific racing venue. For example, the set up employed for the Mojave Mile would not be the same set up used for hill climbs. Purpose-specific tuning resulted in a very competitive 11:08.357-second run to the clouds placing them fourth in the Pike’s Peak Open Class. 

StateofSpeed.com caught up with RJ and the Big Red team at the recent East Coast Timing Association Arkansas Mile event at Blytheville, AK, where RJ had run 244.4 in June 2018. The weather was not cooperative and Big suffered mechanical problems, nevertheless, RJ managed a run at 246.238 mph besting his own record.

From Arkansas the team moved north to Limestone, Maine, for a run at the 1.5-miles course operated by the Loring Timing Association loringtiming.com. There, RJ ran a strong 256 mph taking the class record from Roadkill’s David Freiburger and running just shy of his best run ever of 266.2 mph at the Mojave 1.5 Mile.

So, what’s next for RJ and Big Red? Well, there are more records to be broken, hills to climb and speeds to be bettered. It ain’t over yet.

Odd and Obscure Cars You’ll Find at Barrett Jackson Scottsdale

There’s no doubt that the majority of cars at Barrett Jackson in Scottsdale, Arizona are Muscle and Super Cars, but there’s also a small niche of odd and obscure cars that may pique your curiosity.

1956 BMW Isetta 300

The first car on our list is a ’56 BMW Isetta 300, which some may recognize as Steve Urkel’s ride of choice from Family Matters. The beautiful two-toned red and white exterior catches your eye in a heartbeat. It even has a sunroof and an air-cooled 2 cylinder engine, just make sure the door is closed up front!

1937 Morgan F4 Roadster

Next is a ’37 Morgan F4 Roadster, and while in today’s day and age we see three wheeled “cars” on a daily basis such as the Polaris Slingshot, they probably weren’t your every day occurrence in the ‘30s. 

1952 Kaiser Henry J Custom Coupe

This ’52 Kaiser Henry J Custom Coupe looks like it could have come straight from Whoville, but that doesn’t take away from its coolness factor. Just look at that scoop!

1985 Ford LTD Custom Station Wagon

Here we have an ’85 Ford LTD Custom Station Wagon, the “Family Truckster”. Whether it’s the wood paneling, the green paint, or the fact that whoever built it doubled down on the headlights, this thing sticks out like a sore thumb, and we are kind of digging it.

1971 Lawil S3 Varzina

This boxy car is a ’71 Lawil S3 Varzina, built by a company known for making these microcars. Nothing like some chains to keep you feeling nice and secure while driving. You’ll want to stay out of this bad boys way with its whopping 12 horsepower.

1957 Jato Golf Cart

This executive ’57 Jato Golf Cart is definitely one unique ride. Just imagine hitting the back 9 in the ‘50s cruising around in this puppy. From a fringed fabric top to original chrome, this thing is sweet! From the looks of those handle bars though, you better hope your passenger turns at the same time as you.

1972 Cadillac Custom Wagon

We end this list with what once was a Cadillac Hearse. While we’re still trying to figure out what exactly is going on with this thing, we do know that it’s named the “Pirate Surf Mobile”. We are also sure that this thing purrs and definitely catches attention.

That does it for our list of some of the most odd and obscure cars at Barrett Jackson in Scottsdale, Arizona!

Barrett Jackson

Prep for the Gavel

Some of the most extraordinary cars you’ve ever seen are auctioned off at Barrett Jackson, and with the swing of the gavel, another pristine automobile goes off to the highest bidder, but not before some of the most extensive preparation.

There is more to the process than meets the eye, and a ton of patience and elbow grease goes into each vehicle that crosses the Barrett Jackson auction block.

From paint-correction and detailing to frame-off restorations, each car has a unique story and an owner that has put their blood and sweat into maintaining their cars legacy.

Days leading up to and even the day of the auction, the owners meticulously inspect and clean every nook and cranny of their prized possessions.

It’s no wonder the largest sponsors for Barrett Jackson are some of the biggest detailing names in the game, such as Meguiar’s, Mother’s, and Adam’s Polishes.

But it doesn’t stop at the exterior, every inch of these vehicles is polished to perfection.

Cars of all shapes and sizes enter the block at Barrett Jackson, but one thing they all have in common is the pure joy they bring to their owners.

Prepping a car for auction is more than securing the highest bid, but a final farewell.

LS Is More

Everything You Need to Know About Chevy LS Engines

Certainly, there were overhead valve V-8 engines before the 1955 introduction of the small-block Chevy but it was the combination of a high-performance, lightweight package that got the cognoscenti’s attention. It didn’t matter if you were a drag racer, an oval tracker or just a guy driving his ’55 on the street that ‘mighty mouse’ roared.

The Gen I small-block was manufactured by GM almost unchanged for almost 40 years, however, emissions and efficiency requirements dictated a redesign and in 1992 GM gave us the LT1 and soon after the first LT4. Unfortunately, it was merely a face-lift and despite a reverse cooling system and some high-swirl ports, the Gen II did not live up to expectations and struggled to meet its goals. It was obvious; therefore that some new, clean sheet thinking was necessary.

The sheet wasn’t exactly clean though. The list of ‘needs’ included: a simple, lightweight design with higher efficiency and lower emissions, reduced noise, vibration, and harshness. More power and improved quality went without saying and, it had to surpass the Gen I small-block.

GM engineers Tom Stephens and Ed Koerner are considered the fathers of Gen III (ironically, nobody takes credit for Gen II) and in fact, some engineering drawings were made of what Gen III might look like as early as 1991. Meanwhile, however, GM had purchased Lotus Engineering in England and was experimenting with a double overhead cam (dohc) V-8 that initially found a home in the Corvette Indy/CERV III concept cars. Built for GM by Mercury Marine, the LT5 was what they thought the future looked like.

According to Will Handzel writing in his excellent CarTech book How to Build High-Performance Chevy LS1/LS6 V-8s, a group of GM execs were asked in May 1992 to test two different Corvettes. It was a ‘blind’ test in that the execs didn’t know that one Corvette had a Gen II LT4 engine and the other had the dohc LT5. The results surprised everybody—the execs unanimously preferred the easy grunt of the Gen II pushrod engine compared to the high-tech Lotus engine. That settled it: Gen III would be a pushrod V-8, albeit a better pushrod V-8.

Built for GM by Mercury Marine, the LT5 was what they thought the future looked like.

Lucky for us gearheads, Ed Koerner, a former drag racer, was made Chief Engineer and Ed pulled heavily from his racing experience in developing the new engine saying, “We wanted something of simple elegance. An engine that incorporated refined race technology.” Everything from the long-skirt aluminum block for added strength to the lightweight plastic intake known internally at GM as the IARF or integrated air/fuel module indicated performance.

The 5.7L (345.7 ci) LS1 made its debut in the new C5 Corvette for ’97. The new design certainly set the Corvette world alight but I’m not sure that the hot rod world looked at the LS1 and it’s coil-on-plug arrangement with affection. It was kind of a funky, cluttered engine and not at all ‘clean’ like its predecessors. Nevertheless, one could not argue with the engine’s power-to-weight ratio. The block weighed just 103 lbs and produced 345 hp—not much by today’s standards but remember this was more than 20 years ago.

GM was quick to realize the LS1’s potential and in 1998 it was made available in the Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. The following year, 4.8L, 5.3L and 6.0L variants were offered in GM trucks. Of course, this proliferation and the realization that this was the small-block of the future caused the aftermarket to start making everything from dress-up to speed parts—a market was developing.

“We wanted something of simple elegance. An engine that incorporated refined race technology.”Ed Koerner

In 2001, GM upped the ante with the LS6 variant that was available in the Corvette and some Camaros and Firebirds. The LS6 had a slightly smaller bore at 3.465 in compared to the LS1’s 3.898 in. They both had the same 3.66 in stroke but the LS6 had a higher compression ratio (cr) at 10.46: 1 compared to the LS1’s 10.19:1. The intake manifold was also changed. As impressive as was the LS1, the LS6 ‘dropped-floor’ intake manifold has more volume, flows better, and doesn’t need an EGR valve because of an improved camshaft/controller combination.

Incidentally, the fuel injection system was new for GM. Previously, GM’s fuel injection systems were batch- or bank-fire systems, however, the LS1 was a much more sophisticated sequential system where each injector opened only once during a complete firing sequence. While this does not offer huge power increases, it does reduce emissions and improves low-rpm drivability.

With an ambitious program of continuous development and improvement, GM introduced the Gen IV in 2005.  The Gen IV program began with the 6.0L LS2 and went on to include the 6.2L LS3, LS9 and L92, and the 7.0L LS7. The big difference for the Gen IV is that the cam-timing sensor moved from the rear to the front of the block. And that, according to Mike Mavrigan writing in his book LS Gen IV Engines 2005-Present is the only major reason for the Gen IV designation.

In 2006, GM introduced the 7.0L LS7 in the new Z06 Corvette. This was a hand-built engine in the tradition of companies such as Aston-Martin. The LS7 had titanium rods, CNC-machined heads and a race-style dry-sump oil system. It produced 505 hp and was the most powerful naturally aspirated engine in the LS family.

Introduced in 2008, the 6.2L LS3 with a 10.7:1 cr produced a healthy 436 hp and became and instant retrofit favorite. Mick Jenkins at Mickspaint.com, Pomona, CA, just dropped one of these into Louie Atilano’s ’65 Chevy truck saying, “We’ve swapped a lot of LSs into 60’s vehicles and it an easy-enough process.”

Mick also likes the LSA that first appeared in 2009. “The LSA is a supercharged version of the 6.2L that stock produces 556 hp. We put one into Jeff Pont’s ’64 Lincoln convertible and Pauly Riviera added 1956 Lincoln MkIII valve covers and other accessories to give it a more retro appearance.”

Over at Steve Strope’s PureVisionDesign.com, Simi Valley, CA, they also dropped a supercharged LT4 into the ‘Novaro’ they are building for comedian Joe Rogan. The LT4 is based on the same Gen 5 small block foundation as the 6.2L LT1 naturally aspirated engine, however, it was the most powerful production engine ever offered in a General Motors vehicle. It was introduced in the 2015 C7 Corvette ZO6 and then came in the 2016 Cadillac CTS-V and the Camaro ZL1. The 6.2L LT4 produces 650 hp at 6,400 rpm and 650 lb-ft of torque at 3,600 rpm and is available as an off-the-shelf crate engine for far less than $14K. The answer to its power is a compact, lightweight, low profile, Eaton four-lobe, 1.7L supercharger that produces 9.4 lbs of boost. The LT4 produces 457 lb-ft of torque just off idle and 625 lb-ft of torque at only 2,800 rpm. In comparison, the V-12-powered Ferrari F12 Berlinetta produces about 28 percent less torque than the Z06, despite offering about 12 percent more horsepower and its peak torque isn’t achieved until 6,000 rpm. The LT4 maintains 90 percent of its peak torque v  or 592 lb-ft from 2,500 to 5,400 rpm.

According to Steve Strope, “The LS9 and the LT4 are similarly supercharged engines, however, in my opinion, the LT4 has the slight edge over the LT9 even though the latter makes more horsepower in stock form. The LT4 also has a 3-inch lower supercharger/intercooler than the LS9 and therefore makes it an easier swap. It’s just a more refined engine. Also, GM provides a factory-matched ‘Connect & Cruise’ engine and transmission harness that includes specially calibrated controllers and wire harnesses designed for retrofit installations in older vehicles.”

As you can see, it’s very difficult to get your head around the LS nomenclature—there are just so many variants from the ’97 LS1 all the way through the current LS376/525 that with a .525-inch lift, 226 (Inlet)/236 (exhaust) degree cam delivers 525 hp at 6,200 rpm and 485 lb-ft of torque at 5,200 rpm.

But wait, there’s more: Just around the corner is the latest Corvette C8 due for release on July 18, this year. Speculation calls for a naturally aspirated (na), entry-level, LT-1-based 6.2-liter V8 producing somewhere around 460-500 hp, however, the rumor is that there might be a dohc 5.5L V8 with a flat-plane crankshaft, possibly producing 600 hp. There are even rumors of a twin-turbo version producing 800 hp. We shall have to wait and see. Needless to say, the LS story is far from over yet.

Innovative Turbo Engines You Should Know

Factory Turbo Engines Have a Deeper Back-Story Than You Might Think – Here’s a Short History Lesson on the History of Boost

Any gearhead can tell you anything you want to know about the RB26DETT from the Skyline GT-R, the MKIV Supra’s 2JZ-GTE, Mitsubishi’s 4G63 that held a starring role in the Eclipse and Evo (and the 4B11T that replaced it in the Evo X), and perhaps even the 13B-REW that propelled the Mazda FD. But if you want real bench-racing credibility, there are turbocharged engines that paved the way for every modern factory boosted powerplant, from WRX STI to Focus RS, and we are going to show you how previous generations suffered and triumphed in the name of boost. Here are the turbo engines that paved the way…

1962 Olds Jetfire / Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder

More than five decades ago, General Motors answered a question literally nobody was asking with the first two US domestic OEM turbocharged engines to hit the market. Keep in mind that in the 1962 model year, the world-beating Chevy small block V8 engine was less than 7 years old, and that the future de-facto standard 4-inch bore 350 cubic inch version had just been introduced.

…owners had to keep a small tank of Oldsmobile “Turbo-Rocket Fluid” (actually a 50/50 mix of water and methanol) topped up.

At the time, Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac (known as “BOP” collectively) were still using their own engine architecture instead of shared “corporate” powerplants, and Oldsmobile took their little 215 cubic inch, all-aluminum V8 and boosted it to a nominal 5 PSI with a single Garrett T5 turbo. To combat detonation and increase the effective octane of the required premium fuel, owners had to keep a small tank of Oldsmobile “Turbo-Rocket Fluid” (actually a 50/50 mix of water and methanol) topped up.

Rated at 215 horsepower, the 1962 Olds Jetfire wasn’t a huge success, and the added hassle of having to keep the water/meth tank full meant many owners eventually just had their cars converted to natural aspiration, making original Jetfires very rare and collectable today.

The Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder, also a 1962 model, had a very different engine layout than the Olds – a horizontally-opposed 6 cylinder air cooled engine sat over the rear wheels, displacing just 145 cubic inches (later raised to 164 with a longer stroke in 1964 models) and topped by a single turbo that increased horsepower from 80-95 for the naturally aspirated engines to a rated 150.

Neither the Jetfire or the Spyder set the world on fire, and both had very short production runs. With low gasoline prices and the domestic horsepower wars centered around larger and larger naturally-aspirated V8 powerplants, these two seminal turbo cars were simply too far ahead of their time.

Porsche 930 (1975-1989)

If you’re starting to get mailers from AARP lately, chances are that during your formative years, the word “Turbo” had a single meaning – the Porsche 911T. Known by its internal 930 code, the 911 Turbo started out as a homologation special to meet minimum production numbers for FIA competition, but almost immediately became synonymous for over-the-top performance for street cars. The original 3.0 liter horizontally opposed, air-cooled flat 6 engine used a single KKK (an unfortunate brand name, but not offensive in this context) turbocharger to deliver 256 horsepower.

…those with average or below skill could find themselves going from power-on oversteer to understeer to lift-throttle oversteer in the time it took to ruin a pair of pants.

Between 1975 and 1977, just over 2,800 911 Turbos were produced, and for 1978, the engine was given a 10 percent bump in displacement, an air-to-air intercooler plus a larger ‘whale tail’ spoiler to house it, and an increase in rated horsepower, now listed at 296. While it remained the flagship of the Porsche lineup, the new front-engine V8 928 was intended to replace it as the top of the line, and in 1980 it was dropped from the US market to save the expense of making changes to the engine to meet emissions regulations.

The 928 proved to be a sales dud, and for 1986 the 911 Turbo was back in the US with a 278 horsepower, smog-compliant powerplant. It would remain available through the 1989 model year, when the 930 was succeeded by the 964. During its production run, the combination of a strong rear weight bias due to the engine position and power delivery that suffered from turbo lag gave the original 911T a fairly-well-deserved reputation as a car that was best known for activating rich doctors’ life insurance coverage. Driven well, it was stupid-fast, but those with average or below skill could find themselves going from power-on oversteer to understeer to lift-throttle oversteer in the time it took to ruin a pair of pants.

Future generations of the 911 would tame the Turbo’s bad habits and make it a car that was not only quicker but more accessible to non-professional drivers, but there will never be another car that embodied the word “Turbo” so perfectly.

Mitsubishi 4G6 Family

While Porsche was introducing the world to the term “turbo” as a synonym for superlative automotive performance, Mitsubishi was hard at work in what might best be described as their “boost all the things!” era. In the early 80’s other Asian manufacturers were focused on capturing market share by building reliable, economical, durable vehicles for the US export market; Mitsubishi decided to do all that, but then offer a turbo-powered performance variant of almost everything they made as well, from subcompact hatchbacks to family cars. As a result, the world ended up with things like turbocharged versions of the Colt, Galant, Sapporo, Cordia, Tredia, and of course the Starion. Their engine of choice was the inline four cylinder “Sirius” platform, known internally as the 4G6 family.

This engine would eventually become well-known to US enthusiasts thanks to its presence in the Eclipse and Lancer Evolution in 2-liter 4G63 form, but variants ranged from 1.6 liters to 2.4 over its long production history, and 135 horsepower to more than 270 for the factory turbocharged variants. It found its way into all sorts of chassis layouts, including transverse FWD, transverse AWD, and longitudinal RWD.

…Mitsubishi was hard at work in what might best be described as their “boost all the things!” era.

Though the platform had some specific issues (like the infamous “crank walk” familiar to anyone who’s built a high performance 4G63) when pushed beyond factory spec, the durable cast iron block with a ‘closed deck’ design that supports the cylinder bores at the top where they encounter the greatest stress proved to be a winning design, making the 4G6 family one of the most successful turbo engines of all time.

Chrysler Turbo I/II/III/IV

Determined not to be outdone by their rival and sometimes engineering partner Mitsubishi, the Chrysler corporation developed their own lineup of turbocharged inline four cylinder engines during the early 1980s based off of their 2.2 and 2.5 liter architecture. This was a time of both enormous creativity and innovation at Chrysler (“Let’s build a small, practical FWD van that drives like a car and absolutely kill the market for station wagons!”) and complete, shameless cost-cutting (“…and we’ll build it on the same miserable K-car chassis as everything else we are trying to sell!”)

While the bean counting was necessary to save money, and along with $1.5 billion in loan guarantees helped to pull the company from the brink of bankruptcy, there were still powertrain engineers looking to make lemonade out of the post-oil-crisis lemons they had been handed. The Turbo I design added a T03 turbo pushing a little over 7 pounds of boost to the 2.2 liter engine, taking it from the low-90-horsepower range to over 140. Upgrading the mechanical wastegate to a computer-controlled one for 1985 allowed temporary spikes to 9 PSI and another couple of horsepower “at the brochure,” though the real benefit was more power under the curve that made more of a difference in actual acceleration than peak numbers would suggest. The larger-displacement 2.5 liter Turbo I found a home in the iconic Caravan/Voyager minivans starting in the 1989 model year, with 150 horsepower on tap.

The Turbo II added an intercooler and some other tweaks to the 2.2 liter Turbo I for use in the Shelby GLH-S in 1986 by Shelby Automotive, and for 1987 the factory began doing the same thing, but with better engine internals. More Shelby-badged performance cars followed using the Turbo II powerplant, rated at 12 PSI and 175 horsepower, as well as the LeBaron GTS and GTC. A switch to a Lotus-sourced 16 valve dual overhead cam cylinder head (replacing the previous SOHC head came with the Turbo III; very few cars (perhaps less than 2,000 total) were equipped with this 224 horsepower engine, primarily 1991-1993 Dodge Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T models.

“Let’s build a small, practical FWD van that drives like a car and absolutely kill the market for station wagons!”

Then there’s the Turbo IV. Despite the nomenclature, it was actually introduced before the Turbo III, making its first appearance in the 1989 Shelby CSX, then being offered in 1990 in Shadows, Daytonas, and LeBarons. This SOHC, 8-valve 2.2 liter engine was notable for the fact that it used a Garrett “Variable-Nozzle Turbo” – this technology, which has made its way into diesel turbo applications today, uses a ring of movable vanes that surround the turbine wheel that allow the engine management system to dynamically adjust the characteristics of the turbo to allow fast spool-up without choking performance at high RPM. While rated horsepower was still set at 175, once again the area “under the curve” on the horsepower graph was greatly improved, making for a much quicker car. A relative handful of Turbo IV cars were made, and today, ones with unmolested factory VNT setups demand a premium from collectors.

Chrysler’s 2.2 and 2.5 turbo family combined some interesting technological innovation along with mass-market production numbers (at least for the Turbo I/II) and the common K-car platform made modifications and swaps pretty straightforward. We know there’s at least one 9-second street-legal turbo Voyager minivan out there, and these cars make excellent sleepers with their durable, easily upgradable engines.

Volvo Redblock

“What is Volvo doing in here?” you ask, quite rightly. “They’re that company that made a bunch of boring cars that looked like they were built from LEGO bricks in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and now all they do is weird, expensive crossovers.” While this is mostly true, some of those bricks were turbo-powered, and just like capital-T Turbo is intertwined in the gearhead consciousness with Porsche, capital-I Intercooler belongs to Sweden’s homegrown brand (even if they are owned by China’s automotive super-conglomerate Geely these days.)

“They’re that company that made a bunch of boring cars that looked like they were built from LEGO bricks in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and now all they do is weird, expensive crossovers.”

The Volvo “Redblock” engine family came about as an overhead cam replacement for their tried and true pushrod inline-fours from the 1960s, debuting in the 200 series cars. 2.1 and 2.3 liter turbocharged versions made their way into models bound for the US market. Power was modest at first – 127 horsepower for the low-boost 6.5 PSI B21FT – but soon enough, Volvo dropped the “IBS” (Intercooler Boost System) B21FT on us, complete with 157 horsepower and a big “INTERCOOLER” badge on the trunklid, rising to 162 horsepower for mid-’80s turbo 240s.

Turbo Redblock engines made the transition from 200 to 700 series cars at the tail end of the ‘80s, picking up a 16-valve head in the process and another 40 or so horsepower, before eventually being replaced by the prolific and very successful Volvo Modular family in the 800 and 900 series of FWD/AWD cars. Even though they weren’t around for as long as some of the designs we’ve looked at here and weren’t exactly sports cars on the same plane as the 911T, they led to a long line of popular turbocharged Volvo vehicles and put the word “Intercooler” firmly into our vocabulary.

Tony’s Top Ten SEMA Builds

At this time of the year there’s a worldwide buzz in the auto industry as it gears up for the annual SEMA Show. Today, the acronym stands for Specialty Equipment Market Association but back when it began in 1963 the letters stood for Speed Equipment Manufacturer’s Association. These were the boys that made cars go fast and to spread the word they formed a trade association and got together under Dodger Stadium to sell their speed secrets.

Now, almost 60 years on, SEMA has grown to be an international powerhouse with the largest automotive trade show in the world. Unfortunately, the show, held annually in Las Vegas, is not open to the public but through the wonders of modern technology the world can see what goes down in ‘Lost Wages.’ What happens in Vegas no longer stays in Vegas.

When I began working the show almost 30 years ago there were almost no vehicles displayed in the show. It was purely a trade event with sellers and buyers. Then vendors began to realize that displaying their products on a vehicle attracted attention and the concept of display and project vehicles began to explode. SEMA is now regarded as the largest auto show in the world with more than 1,500 custom vehicles on display.

As you would expect, there’s everything from the sublime to the ridiculous and everything in between. StateofSpeed.com was there to capture the craziness and here are my Top 10.

’53 Lincoln Capri ‘Golden Sahara’

Back in the fifties, George ‘King of the Kustomizers’ Barris created the ‘Golden Sahara’ from his wrecked ’53 Lincoln Capri complete with glowing tires. Restored, it’s now part of the KlairmontKollections.com

Datsun 510 ‘Brock Buster’

There were a lot of vintage Japanese cars on display and this Datsun 510 ‘Brock Buster’ created by Cobra Daytona designer Pete Brock even had a vintage 1979 Revell model of the car on the dash.

’61 Chevy Apache by Honda

It take cajones to put a different brand of vehicle in your corporate booth so I admire Honda for putting this vintage ’61 Chevy Apache truck in their display complete with a vintage Honda 50 and a CB160.

Webasto Electric Ford Mustang

I’m not big on eco design but this 900 hp electric Mustang caught my eye and won a Ford Design Award for builder Webasto.

Chevrolet ‘E-10’ Concept

Yet another electrified vintage vehicle was Chevrolet’s ‘E-10’ concept based on a ’62 C-10 pickup fitted with a double stack of Chevrolet Performance concept electric crate (eCrate) motors.

Rick Dore and Marcel’s Custom Metal Custom

The art of coach building automobile bodies is disappearing but Rick Dore working with Marcel’s Custom Metal continues to build outstanding automobiles, many for James Hetfield of Metallica.

Chopped ’59 Chevy El Camino

I love ’59 Chevy El Camino pickups but I’m not sure about this chopped, sectioned, shortened specimen complete with blown Chevy and side pipes. I might have preferred the uncut version.

#89 Mercedes-AMG GT4

It was almost too far in the air to see but once spotted you couldn’t take your appreciative eyes off the #89 Mercedes-AMG GT4 built by renntechmotorsports.com.

Dodge Charger Wrapped by Rastaman

Wraps and graphics are a huge part of SEMA because they can be easily removed when the show is over. Rastaman built this wrap design.

Ed ‘Big Daddy’ Roth Inspired “Bubbletop”

I’m not sure I like this but I do like the concept of a tribute to Ed ‘Big Daddy’ Roth whose  ‘Bubbletop’ creations of the 1960’s turned me on to the wilder side of auto customizing.

SEMA 2019: Impressions

SEMA 2019 is here and bringing the all-around automotive goodness we’ve come to expect. We don’t know if you’ve heard, but there were a lot of new A90 Toyota Supras out there. Despite this year being called “The Year of the Supra”, the show had an abundance of other fantastic builds that deserve some love.

Here are some of our Supra-free highlights from SEMA 2019.

IMPORTS

This Datsun 240z has a completely carbon fiber body and is powered by 5.3L Chevy V8 out of a Silverado. This truck powered beast is owned and raced by Shawn Bassett and is built to tear up the track at any time attack.

MUSCLE

Check out this ’72 Riviera by Gas Monkey Garage of Discovery Channel’s Fast n’ Loud. It’s powered by a Katech LT4 and boosted with a Magnuson Supercharger.

Koni showed off their heritage with a Shelby GT350 at their booth sporting the shocks they developed for the original release in the 60s.

OFFROAD

Milestar Tires displayed their newly released UTV/Side-by-Side specific Patagonia SXT tire.

CLASSICS/HOT RODS

The AMC Gremlin was once classified as one of the ugliest cars ever made, but that title definitely doesn’t fit this one. This custom Gremlin hot rod is built by Jacob Griffin and proves that these ugly little cars do have some potential.

EURO/EXOTICS

Eibach collaborated with Hot Wheels to present this clean BMW 2002 along with its miniature version at their booth. Some lucky attendants even got to take home their own Eibach x Hotwheels collectible 2002.

The Camaro Story

1967–Present

GEN I 1967–1969

You can trace the history of the muscle car back to 1949 when GM’s Oldsmobile division dropped their new 135 hp ohv 303 ci V8 into a lightweight body. They called it the Rocket 88 and it rocketed Olds to the top of the NASCAR tree with six wins out of nine late-model division races in 1949. The Rocket 88 had such an impact that in 1951 Jackie Brenson and Ike Turner penned the hit song Rocket 88 and inadvertently gave birth to Rock and Roll. It went to #1 on the Billboard R&B chart.

…the name Camaro was reportedly derived from Heath’s French English Dictionary as a term that translated to “friend” or “comrade.”

Fast forward to the early sixties and the youth revolution. Suddenly, kids had spending money, the disposable income they called it, for things like music, movies, clothes, and automobiles. Ford may have been on the ball faster than GM though it wasn’t something you’d expect from the staid ol’ Ford Motor Company; nevertheless, they answered the call of the youth market before GM with the 1964-1/2 Mustang. The Mustang took the market by storm selling 1.5 million cars in the first three years.

It caught GM on the back foot and it took until the ’67 model year for them to retaliate with the Camaro. Introduced on Sept. 29, 1966, the Camaro was originally codenamed ‘Panther’ but Automotive News says the name Camaro was reportedly derived from Heath’s French English Dictionary as a term that translated to “friend” or “comrade.” We checked this with French friend Phillipe Dahn of Frog Specialties and he has never heard of such a word in French. GM product managers also told reporters that the term also meant “a small, vicious animal that eats Mustangs.” And the stage for the ongoing rivalry was set.

Described as being long of hood and short of deck, the rear-wheel-drive Camaro was built on GM’s F-body platform and was available only as a coupe or convertible with 2+2 seating. It was available with nearly 80 factory options and 40 more dealer options. The base engine was a 140 hp 230 ci six-cylinder but you could get almost any engine that Chevrolet made all the way up to the 375 hp 396 ci in the Camaro SS version. The Camaro SS was also available with a 350 ci engine.

Sales were brisk but not Mustang brisk and Chevy sold only 220,906 in 1967 when Ford sold 472,121 Mustangs. Nevertheless, the Camaro paced the ’67 Indy 500 and to commemorate this Chevy built 104 Pace cars. Chevy also offered the Z/28 ‘Special Performance Package’ so that they could be eligible for SCCA Trans-Am racing. The package included a special 302 ci V8 with solid lifters, Muncie 4-speed trans, heavy-duty radiator, special suspension, dual exhaust, 15×6 in wheels, 3.73:1 Positraction rear axle, power-assisted front disc brakes and a special ‘skunk’ stripe package. Only 602 Z/28s were produced in 1967 making them extremely rare and valuable.

Sales were brisk but not Mustang brisk and Chevy sold only 220,906 in 1967 when Ford sold 472,121 Mustangs.

All U.S. Camaros were built either in Norwood, Ohio, or Van Nuys, California. However, cars were also built overseas in the Philippines, Belgium, Switzerland, Venezuela, and Peru. I wonder how many survivors there are in those countries?

At the top of the Camaro Gen I tree was the COPO 9560 ZL1. In 1969, two Central Office Production Orders (COPO), numbers 9560 and 9561, were offered as the result of some dealers, notably Canonsburg, Pennsylvania’s Yenko Chevrolet, installing 427 ci engines in Camaros despite GM forbidding dealers installing engines bigger than 400 ci.

COPO 9561 used the solid-lifter L72 427 that made 425 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque. Yenko ordered 201 of these to create the legendary Yenko Camaro. Apparently, in total there may have been as many as 1,000 Camaros fitted with L72 engines. Conceived and designed for drag racing by Dick Harrell, the COPO 9560 used an all-aluminum, hand-assembled ZL-1 427 rated at 430 hp with 450 lb-ft of torque. Only 69 ZL-1 Camaros are supposed to have been built.

GEN II 1970–1981

The Gen II Camaro was unveiled on February 26, 1970, and while it retained its F-body platform with uni-body construction, 2+2 seating and general engine family its styling was a radical departure from Gen I despite the retention of the long hood, short deck architecture.

The new [Gen 2] Camaro was actually quite an aggressive, good looking car […]  however, it did not sit so well with the public…

Apparently, GM designers looked to Europe for their styling queues. The grille, rather than being full width with integral headlights was now a pronounced pouty orifice with a distinctly European egg-crate insert flanked by split-bumpers and separate head and driving lights. It was said to borrow liberally from early-60s Ferrari designs even down to its twin round taillights.

The new Camaro was actually quite an aggressive, good looking car with a distinct sweep to the fender line, nicely flared wheel arches, slightly less chrome, no side vents, wider doors, however, it did not sit so well with the public who only purchased 124,901 examples when Mustang sold 191,239. In 1971, it fared even worse due to a two-month worker’s strike at the Norwood, Ohio, plant—the only plant now building Camaros.  Sales were even worse at 114,630.

Unfortunately, even more, problems faced GM and new emissions and safety standards were introduced and the first fuel crises were on the horizon and insurance rates were rising. There was even talk in 1972 of canceling the Camaro altogether when sales plummeted to just 68,651 units.

There was a major change in the engine line up as there were now only seven rather than 10 options. A 3.8L V-6 was added; all the small V-8s were eliminated as was the brutish 427. Nevertheless, consolidation made sense especially in light of the looming fuel crisis when members of OPEC, Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo lasted just six months by which time the price of gas had quadrupled. A recession and another oil crisis would not help the Camaro’s sales, nevertheless, the Gen II Camaro survived more or less unchanged for 11 years until 1981.

GEN III 1982–1992

As we have seen, the turbulent seventies caused Detroit all sorts of upset. Their business model had been to build big, gas guzzling cars that remained unchanged for years save for some additional accessories. After the recession, the oil crises and market attack from imports, things would never be quite the same.

This was the era of factory fuel injection, four-speed automatics, and five-speed manuals—all in the name of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Some things don’t change though and the third generation Camaro retained the trusty F-body platform with coils up front and leaf (buggy) springs in the rear. And now, because oil prices would never be the same, the engine line-up included a 2.5L four cylinder, the so-called ‘Iron Duke,’ and three V6s. There were now only two V8 options, the 305 and the 350. Long gone were the heady days of 396 or 427 cubic inches. This was the era of factory fuel injection, four-speed automatics, and five-speed manuals—all in the name of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Only 51-percent of buyers chose the V-8, the others, four- or six-cylinder models.

Designed by Jerry Palmer, the Gen III Camaro retained that long-nose, short deck configuration but with some differences. The windshield was raked back at 62 degrees; the first GM design to break their internal 60-degree edict. And in back, there was a European-style hatch back to access a cavernous cargo space when the rear seats were folded down.

It was quite the different Camaro from previous generations and three models were available: Berlinetta, Sport Coupe and Z28. The Sport Coupe was actually the base model and came with 4, 6, or 8 cylinders; the Berlinetta started with the V6 but the 5.0L V8 was optional. The Z28, however, came standard with the 5.0L V8 that boasted a staggering 145 hp with a single 4bbl carb. Even with the optional LU5 twin Throttle Body ‘Cross Fire’ Injected 305 it only produced 165 hp and that lack of power in the Z28 was one of the criticisms leveled at this otherwise well received model.

Sales of the Gen III never set the world afire but as the year progressed the car got better.

There was a more powerful version built to pace the Indy 500 and although some 6,000 visually similar cars were sold, they did not come with the hopped-up 5.7L V8 of the pace car. Meanwhile, in Europe, a Z28E (E for Europe) was shown at the Geneva Auto Show with a 155 hp carbureted V8.

Sales of the Gen III never set the world afire but as the year progressed the car got better. In 1983, the Z28 got more juice with a 190 hp High Output 5.0L. The big news came in 1985 and the introduction of the IROC-Z named after the International Race of Champions. With tuned suspension and ‘Gatorback’ Goodyears, the IROC also benefitted from the Corvette’s TPI engine.

In 1987, for the 20th anniversary, Chevy had American Sunroof Corp., chop the top off and offered a convertible Camaro for the first time since 1969. It didn’t help much, sales were only 1007 units and production at Norwood, Ohio, was ended.

By 1988, another recession was looming and the Camaro line-up was reduced eliminating the LT model as well as the base Z28.

Approaching ten years, the Gen III was nearing the end of its life. To give it a little Viagra, the Rally Sport designation was re-introduced featuring a ‘ground effects’ body package. The top dog continued to be the IROC-Z 1LE supposedly tuned for SCCA Showroom Stock competition; however, despite its racecar pretentions apparently only 111 1LE-optioned Camaros were built. A total of only 34,986 Camaros were built in 1990 and the last Gen III was produced on December 31—it was the end of the line—so to speak.

For 1991, the Camaro was given a shave and a haircut and all RS and Z28 models received a new body package, sadly, however, the IROC-Z had to be dropped because the Dodge Daytona was now the IROC car of choice. A new B4C option was introduced and this ‘Special Service’ read ‘Cop car’, edition rated the 350 ci engine at 245 hp at 4,400 rpm and 345 lb-ft or torque at 3,200 rpm.

The 25th anniversary 1992 Camaro was a bit sad because the Z03 ‘Heritage Package’ performance upgrades intended were nixed in favor of some badging and graphics.  It was the last year for the Gen III and the last year for production in Van Nuys, CA, as production moved to Quebec, Canada.

GEN IV 1993–2002

For anybody looking, a strong hint of the GEN IV Camaro had surfaced in January 1989 when Chevrolet unveiled the Chevrolet California IROC Camaro concept car at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Though still attached to the F-body platform, the body, tagged ‘cab-forward’ design was a radical departure created under design director John Schinella.

Concept cars don’t usually make it to production but the GEN IV looked an awful lot like the concept right down to the side mirrors that flared out from the tops of the front fenders. The big news was an all-plastic body except for the hood and the rear quarter panels.

Standard it came with a V6, first a 3.4L and then in ’95 a 3.8L. Standard for the Z28 was a multi-port fuel injected (MPFI) 350 ci LT1 that had first appeared in the ’92 ’Vette, however, there was an SS version available with the 330 hp LT4. 1993 also saw a police package while ’94 saw a six-speed manual and traction control for the Z28.

The infamous SS model was brought back in ’96 and it enjoyed 25 more hp than the Z28—much of this work was done by Ed Hamburger’s SLP Engineering. Another aftermarket outfit fettling the Camaro was Callaway and in 1994 they intro’d the ‘SuperNatural’ with a 404 hp LT1 and a dramatic body package. However, Doug Rippie Motorsports topped that with their 430 hp DRM.

Things in Camaroland remained much the same until 1997-’98 when the car was given a facelift inside and out and under the new hood came a new all-aluminum 5.7L LS1 that had first appeared in the C5 Corvette introduced in 1995. With 300 hp, the LS1-powered Camaro became one of the fastest cars in its class. However, sales were inching down due to many factors not least of which was declining interest in two-door sport coupes. In 2001, Chevy sold only 29,009 Camaros. In 2002, Chevy offered a 35th anniversary trim package but the car was the same as it had been for the past two years and sales barely exceeded 40,000. It appeared that Camaro had had its day but Chevy had sold almost 4.4 million during its 35-year lifespan.

GEN V 2010–2015

Just as GM had been two years behind the Mustang they were caught on the back foot again when Dodge introduced the retro-styled Challenger in 2008 and it would be two years before GM brought the Camaro back in 2010. In my opinion, the exterior design wasn’t quite as clean at the Challenger but that’s just my opinion.

[the LSA powered Camaro] produced a staggering 580 hp and was the fastest Camaro ever built to date.

Gone, finally, was the F-body platform, replaced by a rear-wheel drive Zeta platform developed by GM’s Australian subsidiary Holden. The cars, however, were built in Oshawa, Canada.  The base engine was a 312 hp 3.6L V6 backed by either six-speed manual or automatic transmissions. The top of the line Camaro SS was powered by a healthy 426 hp 6.2L LS3. It was apparent that the horsepower wars were back and over the next few years GM and Chrysler and even Ford would keep adding power to up the bragging rights.

A convertible was added to the line in 2011 but the big news came in 2012 and the 45th anniversary when Chevy threw the 6.2L supercharged LSA first used in the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V into the ZL1. It produced a staggering 580 hp and was the fastest Camaro ever built to date.

In 2014, the Camaro was given a facelift with a new grille, taillights and the return of the Z28 featuring a 505 hp version of the C6 Corvette 7.0L LS7 engine—it was worthy of the Z28 moniker. To give the Z28 even more of an edge at the track it was put on a diet and weight was reduced where possible, even to the point of using thinner glass in the rear quarter windows. Sales reached their best since 1995 and a total of 86,297 for 2014. Mustang sold slightly fewer and unfortunately, sales would continue to decline.

GEN VI 2016–

Visually, the GEN VI Camaro is not that different from its predecessor, however, it was built on yet another new platform and weighed some 200 lbs less. This time it would be built on the Alpha platform and production had finally returned to the U.S. in 2015 and cars were built at the Lansing Grand River plant in Michigan.

For the first time since 1985, an in-line four cylinder was offered and with a turbocharger it produced a respectable 275 hp. A new 3.6L V6 produced 335 hp, the Camaro SS had a 6.2L 455 hp LT1 and the ZL1 version featured another supercharged LT4 producing a whopping 650 hp making it the most powerful factory-produced Camaro ever. Transmissions ranged from a six-speed manual to an eight-speed automatic and even a ten-speed auto option for the ZL1.

The race was on and for 2017 the ZL1 had a claimed top speed of 205 mph. Chevy engineers even took it to the infamous Nürburgring Nordschleife in Germany where the Camaro lapped the 12.93-mile track in just 7:16:4 minutes. Despite the accolades, the engineering and technical achievements, the public weren’t buying it and 2017 saw sales slip yet again to just under 68,000 units.

Unfortunately, 2018 would be even worse when sales slumped almost 20,000 units to a tad over 50,000. Mustang, on the other hand fared better with sales of more than 75,000.

At the 2018 SEMA Show, Chevrolet announced a 50th anniversary-themed 2019 COPO racecar that you could ‘apply’ to buy. Available only in metallic blue to emulate the original COPO Camaro, the 2019 COPO featured an exclusive grille and engine accessories to make it look like the original. Only 69 cars were to be built, the same number as were built in 1969.

Perhaps more interesting was the announcement, also made at SEMA, of an eCOPO concept developed in partnership with HancockandLane, North Bend, Washington. Entirely electric powered, eCOPO is driven by a pair of BorgWarner HVH 250-150 motor assemblies, each generating 300 lb-ft of torque providing the equivalent of more than 700 hp and 600 lb-ft of torque. Maybe it’s the future.

Over its lifespan, Chevrolet has sold more than 5.5 million Camaros and I guess that’s not all bad for a long-nose, short tail, niche vehicle.

21^st Shelby American Reunion

Perhaps nobody other than Enzo Ferrari commands as much loyalty as American racing legend Carroll Shelby. Unlike Ferrari, Shelby switched allegiances depending on the prevailing climate. In the 1950s, he raced for Allard, Aston-Martin, Healey and even Ferrari. He even raced Formula One in 1958 and ’59 before launching his own car in 1962. Even then he switched from Ford to Chrysler/Dodge to GM’s Oldsmobile as the business climate shifted. However, it is the Cobra and associated vehicles such as the Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 and GT500 that are logged in our memory chips as iconic American performance cars.

The Cobra came about because Shelby had learned to like American-powered, lightweight European sports cars with the Cadillac-powered Allards. When the time came to build his own sports car he planned to combine the lightweight, aluminum-bodied British AC Ace chassis with a Ford V8. The AC had an aging Bristol 4-cylinder that was underpowered and outdated. In 1962, the Ford V8 was as modern as it got.

“…[We] worked around the clock to build the first Cobra in Moon’s cramped shop. Shelby sat on a stool and watched the action. I was just a kid.”Roy Gammell

Sans engine and paint, an Ace was shipped to Dean Moon’s hot rod shop in Santa Fe Springs, California. There, a small group of rodders including Phil Remington, Roy Gammell and his son Doyle installed a 260-cubic-inch, small-block Ford and had hot rodder Dean Jeffries paint it yellow for the 1962 New York Auto Show. The rest, as they say, is history. Incidentally, that first Cobra, now painted blue, sold in 2016 for $13.75 million.

Hugely successful on the race track but less so in the showroom—only 654 small-block Cobras and 350 big-block cars were sold—the Shelby Cobra is possibly the world’s best known sports car and its legacy continues to this day with related car clubs, clothing lines, and continuation cars—the Cobra being possibly the most copied car on the planet. They say there are probably more Cobras now than there ever were ever built originally and I don’t doubt it.

There are also numerous events such as the recent 21^st Los Angeles Shelby American Automobile Club Shelby Tribute and Car Show at the Shelby headquarters in Gardena, California. This huge facility is now home to a small museum of Carroll Shelby’s vehicles, an event space and Original Venice Crew Mustangs (OVC) building continuation GT350s using original ’65 Mustangs. The show is an annual free event open to the public. The several hundred cars on display can be anything relating to Shelby automobiles from Falcons, Ford-powered Sunbeam Tigers and De Tomaso Panteras to an array of the new Ford GT including the custom painted black, white and orange one owned by ex-Ford designer Camilo Pardo who designed the previous GT model. And, of course, there’s a huge selection of Cobras and Mustangs that included a rare station wagon built out of a ’66 coupe and one of only four Mustang GT350 convertibles. What’s literally very cool is that many of the cars are displayed inside the cavernous building out of the hot sun.

You get the run of the building; get to see Shelby-associated celebrities such as Roy Gammell who worked on Cobra numero uno to Doug Dwyer, Ted Sutton, Jim Marietta who operates OVC Mustangs and racing driver/instructor Bob Bondurant. All are approachable and have great stories to tell. We spoke to StateofSpeed.com friend Roy Gammell who worked with his father on that very first Cobra: “We had no time, so dad, myself, Phil Remington, Larry Maldonado and Fred Larsen worked around the clock to build the first Cobra in Moon’s cramped shop. Shelby sat on a stool and watched the action. I was just a kid.”

Two of our favorite cars on display were the one and only 1968 Shelby Lonestar that was built as a stillborn supercar continuation of the Cobra and CSX 3047. This ‘survivor’ Cobra was one of only two painted Hertz gold by the factory in 1965. Despite its well-patinated paint, it is said to be the most original 427 SC left in existence.

…The Shelby Cobra is possibly the world’s best known sports car and its legacy continues to this day.

For more information about LASAAC and the Carroll Shelby Tribute Car Show visit, lashelbyclub.com

Building the Schwab Challenger

Like the company that gave it life, the Dodge Challenger has had a checkered history. The first generation, built from 1970 to 1974 is now regarded as an appreciating classic. The mid-term 1978 to ’83 Mitsubishi Galant Lambda for want of a Dodge badge is possibly best forgotten. However, the new generation introduced in 2008 lives up to Dodge’s original.

For many of us the Challenger that most quickly comes to mind is the Alpine White 1970 R/T 440 Magnum that appeared in the 1971 movie Vanishing Point starring Barry Newman. Newman played Vietnam Vet turned car delivery jockey Kowalski who is tasked with delivering the car from Denver, Colorado, to San Francisco in 15 hours. For the next 98 minutes, Kowalski is pursued and persecuted along the 1,250-mile route until he can’t stand in anymore and nose-dives the Challenger into a police roadblock comprising a pair of bulldozers.

The ending is a Thelma and Louise moment that leaves the average viewer contemplating life but leaves car people wondering what happened to the car. In fact, there were four, possibly five cars loaned to the production company by Chrysler. All were badly damaged during filming and all were apparently crushed at the end of production. If you’re into ‘Americana’ and car chase movies in particular, Vanishing Point directed by Richard C. Sarafian is worth the time.

Chrysler were apparently not happy about Kowalski’s use of bennies to keep awake and one has to say Vanishing Point didn’t do them much good as sales tanked from a high of 76,935 in 1970, the year it intro’d, to a mere 26,299 in 1971.  It was worse in 1972 at 22,919, up a tad to 27,930 for 1973 and a scant 11,354 for 1974. It didn’t help that new safety regulations and the Oil Crises of 1973 were forcing muscle cars off the road. Nevertheless, the movie did as much for the Challenger as Bullitt did for the Mustang and it remains one of the quintessential, genuine muscle cars.

No wonder then that banking group Charles Schwab would pick a ’73 Challenger to give away as a prize at the recent Charles Schwab Challenge at the PGA Tour stop at Colonial Country Club, Fort Worth, Texas. There’s a rationale for the prize: “Charles Schwab has been ‘challenging the status quo’ in its industry since 1973. The Colonial has ‘challenged’ some of the world’s best golfers for 73 years. Hence, the event selecting a 1973 Dodge Challenger to reward its winner.” This is the first of a four-year sponsorship of the event at Colonial for Charles Schwab. Hopefully, that means more giveaway cars of this caliber.

To build the car, Schwab turned to industry veterans Steve Strope of Pure Vision Design and Mick Jenkins of Mick’s Paint. Strope found the car in excellent condition in New York before it was taken to his shop in Simi Valley, California, where the car was stripped down to bare metal and fitted with a new Mopar 6.4L SRT-8 392 crate Hemi producing 485 hp. In back of the engine is a Chrysler A-727 TorqueFlite automatic trans with Gear Vendors overdrive. Out back is an 8-3/4-inch Chrysler rear end with 3.55 gears.

[the Challenger] was stripped down to bare metal and fitted with a Mopar 6.4L SRT-8 392 crate Hemi producing 485 hp.

To make this Challenger stand out from the crowd a new 73 Magum 440 hood with twin scoops and the letters SCHWAB replacing DODGE was fitted while Kelly Cox hand-formed that beautiful polished aluminum side trim that accentuates the Aston Martin-style vents let into the front fenders. The other subtle changes include the use of early 1970-’71 bumper brackets, ’71 Challenger TA spoilers front and rear and the replacement of the stock rectangular side markers with small round units from the ’68 Dodge Charger.

Meanwhile, underneath, AlterKtion suspension components from ReillyMotorsports.com replaced the stock factory torsion bars with a coil-over system and the stock steering with rack-and-pinion. The brakes are 14-inch Baer 6s with nickel-plated 6-piston calipers while the rims are B-Forged items from BilletSpecialties.com: 18 x 8s in front and 19 x 10s in back.

After all the engineering was complete, the car was shipped out to Mick’s Paint in Pomona, California, where Mick’s team worked around the clock to meet the deadline.  Once the car had been painted in Aston Martin Glacier Blue it went on to GabesCustom.com, where the diamond-stitched white leather upholstery was jazzed up with the exact same plaid used in the signature tartan Colonial jackets. The interior includes climate control by VintageAir.com, instruments from DakotaDigital.com and a sound system from Kicker.com. 

From there it was back to Mick’s for final fit and finish before it was back to Pure Vision for final assembly. All in a total time of six months. According to Strope, “Mick’s Paint makes us look good and I’m over the moon in appreciation of his team getting it done on time.”

The car was won by professional golfer Kevin Na who immediately turned and flipped the keys to his caddy and long time friend Kenny Harms saying, “I don’t know how my caddie convinced me to give him the car, but he’s a good salesman I guess. But I’m more than happy to give it to him. He deserves it.” Kenny had been eyeing the car all weekend and the pair had a pact that if Na won Kenny got the car. Na took the remaining $1.314 million.

It remains to be seen whether a custom Challenger with the name SCHWAB instead of the name DODGE can retain its value but you can’t deny the car’s excellence. Whatever the outcome, the Dodge Challenger remains one of the high points of the muscle car era whether it’s restored, rodded or raced.

It remains to be seen whether a custom Challenger with the name SCHWAB instead of the name DODGE can retain its value but you can’t deny the car’s excellence.

Martini Mustang

As international brands go, Martini and Mustang are two of the best known and strongest in their respective markets. The Martini & Rossi liquor company was founded in the mid-19th century, as a vermouth bottling plant in Pessione, Italy. They began sponsoring auto racing under the Martini Racing banner in 1968, and sponsored Scuderia Ferrari until 2008. The Mustang, of course, was introduced in 1964 and became an immediate hit with the public selling 418,812 units in the first year.

As both Martini and Mustang have extensive and successful racing provenance it seemed obvious to Steve Strope of PureVisionDesign.com to combine them and build the Martini Mustang. As seen on TV’s Hand Built Hot Rods, Steve has a unique ability to build not only amazing muscle cars but also concoct a back story that qualifies their existence. In the case of the Martini Mustang Steve posed the hypothetical question; what if Ford were talking to Martini in the mid-sixties when the Mustang had just been introduced and was being raced to great success in Europe by Alan Mann Racing? Would they have developed this Martini-striped Mustang to take on the best Europe had to offer? And, had they built it would they have powered it with Ford’s DOHC Indy engine? That’s unlikely but Steve never lets a fact get in the way of a good story.

…take a ’66 Mustang, splash on the Martini livery, throw in the DOHC Ford Indy engine and you have the T-5R Martini Mustang.

Our story starts with a ’66 Mustang chosen because of its compatibility with contemporary Shelby R (racing) parts. Steve then went in search of a suitable engine and landed at Ed Pink Racing Engines (EdPink.com), Van Nuys, California. There, general manager, Frank Honsowetz revealed that he had four 255 ci dual-overhead-cam V8s that were popular Indy car engines from 1964 to 1978. It was the same engine that powered Brit Jim Clark to win the Indy 500 in 1965.

In Steve’s vernacular, take a ’66 Mustang, splash on the Martini livery, throw in the DOHC Ford Indy engine and you have the T-5R Martini Mustang. The one issue with the race-bred engine was that it was, well, a race-bred engine when, in this application, it needed to be a tractable street engine. Consequently, the team at Pink’s began by stroking and boring to achieve a capacity of 292 ci. Billet steel rods from Lunati are topped with CP forged pistons that have a compression ratio of 10.5:1. Obviously, there are no off-the-shelf cams for this engine so they had to be specially ground to Pink’s specs. 

Originally, the Ford Indy engine had stack fuel injection and Steve wanted to retain that look and turned to Holley for their Dominator ECU and EFI components modified for individual runners. To help build low-rpm power, the injector stacks were made as long as possible. Peak torque of 362 ft-lb comes at 5,600 rpm and max horsepower is 426 giving the 2,900-pound pony a great power-to-weight ratio. According to Honsowetz, “We got the power where we wanted it with a combination of cam profile, increased intake runner length and diameter, and header tuning.”

… Steve has a unique ability to build not only amazing muscle cars but also concoct a back story that qualifies their existence.

Two unusual aspects of this engine swap are the exhaust system and the fact that the engine in its original racing application had no on-board starter—instead, hand-held starters were used. Luckily, Steve was able to adapt a Quarter Master bell housing to the C&R Performance four-speed. Located in Mooresville, North Carolina, C&R built the 63-pound box for NASCAR Sprint Cup cars but it was banned because it was too light. “You can carry the gearbox under your arm, it’s that light,” Strope said, “and it shifts butter smooth.”

The sharp-eyed among you will notice that the engine valley where the intake would normally sit is empty. That’s because Pink’s flipped the heads so that the exhaust would exit in the normal position, below the inlet, and not through the windshield.

While Pink’s fettled the engine, Steve’s capable team in Simi Valley, CA, reworked the Mustang’s chassis and suspension. Up front they installed Detroit Speed and Engineering’s Corvette-inspired Mustang Aluma-Frame front clip. Mounted on a lightweight aluminum cradle, it’s a direct replacement coil-over setup that even includes the spindles. It radically alters the driving dynamics of any Mustang offering up to six inches of suspension travel and the precision of rack-and-pinion steering. In the rear, there’s a four-link system and the brakes are Wilwood all round.

For wheels Steve turned to EVODIndustries.com who produced a unique, one-off set of four-spoke, 17-inch pin-drive wheels that emulate those used on the ’66 Lotus Ford Indy racing car. The rears are 12 inches wide, which necessitated a slight tubbing of the rear inner body. The tires are Kuhmo Escta V710s that are just about street legal.

Attention to detail could be Steve’s middle name and this trait is exemplified in the department of the minimalist, rally race-style interior. The period-correct, dark blue, low-back bucket seats upholstered by Eric Thorsen are superbly framed with a Shelby rollcage. The instrumentation, complete with map-reading lamp and dash timers, comprises simple, round, analog gauges reworked using AutoMeter internals by RedlineGaugeWorks.com. Their German script gives a nod to that invented European racing heritage, as does the Momo Prototipo steering wheel. Shelby-style knobs, handles, and even an R-model radio-delete plate sourced from Tony Branda add to the authenticity as do 427 AC Cobra pedals.

Steve’s tribute to Shelby continued through the body mods that included lightweight, Maier Shelby-style fiberglass reproduction parts, including the hood, front fenders, bumpers, etc. Likewise, Shelby Plexiglas rear quarter-windows and an R-model-style Plexiglas rear window were fitted, along with “shaved” hood hinges.

The Mustang was then shipped to Pomona, CA, where the team at MicksPaint.com applied the Martini-inspired Porsche Carrera white PPG paint and graphics. “We raised and flared the rear wheel arches and made outer wheel tubs for it.” Said Mick. “We made an aluminum deck lid skin for it, made a custom front valance, and custom front and rear bumpers for a better fit. The paint, however, was basic Porsche white throughout with Martini stripes laid out by Steve.”

Finally, there are those custom T-5R badges likewise designed by Steve: T-5 was the designation of Mustangs that were shipped to countries such as Germany and Canada where the word Mustang name was not allowed because it was already in use on another vehicle. And, if this was a shipped car, it would be an R model, hence the T-5R designation. We said he told a good story.

The Martini Mustang went on to win numerous awards including the prestigious Ford Design Award at the SEMA Show becoming a fitting tribute to the Martini and Mustang brands.

Your First Dragstrip Pass:
Safety Equipment

…once you’re hooked, you will absolutely want to empty your wallet and fill your driveway with cars just for the track.

The great thing about going to your local drag strip’s grudge night or test and tune day is that you get the chance to actually race your car on the track with very little extra effort or expense – it’s one of the best ways to get involved in motorsports without having to spend a ton of money or have a specially-prepared race car. Don’t get us wrong, though; once you’re hooked, you will absolutely want to empty your wallet and fill your driveway with cars just for the track. But in the meantime, the car you already have will do just fine as an inexpensive gateway drug.

 
One of the things that holds people back from getting out of the stands and into the staging lanes is concern over tech inspection and track safety rules. Depending on how quick your car is, you’ll have to meet some basic equipment standards in order to be allowed to run at a dragstrip that follows the NHRA or IHRA rulebook, and today we are going to take a look at those requirements so there are no surprises when the nice man with the clipboard asks you to hand him your tech card and pop your hood.

Safety requirements are broken down into three basic categories: How quick your car is (elapsed time), how fast your car is (trap speed), and what specific modifications you’ve made (things like adding an aftermarket supercharger, turbo, or nitrous system). The main criteria is elapsed time, and for each level of required equipment, you’ll see a break point for both quarter mile and eighth mile ET. The rules are divided up that way in order to make sure that cars running the shorter track length but accelerate just as hard as their quarter mile cousins have similar levels of safety equipment. Each level builds on the previous requirements unless otherwise noted, and please keep in mind that this isn’t the ultimate authority to what’s allowed or required – consult the NHRA rules and your local track officials if you’re in doubt

All Vehicles

In general, your car needs to not be leaking any fuel, oil, or coolant. Your battery needs to be properly secured with a real hold down clamp (no zip ties, shoelaces, or other janky fixes), and you will have to have a radiator overflow catch reservoir. Your tires should be in good condition, and you can’t have any broken wheel studs or missing lug nuts. Factory seatbelts are another necessity, and you will be required to wear a shirt, long pants, and closed-toe shoes. Finally, you’ll need a valid driver’s license or NHRA/IHRA competition license.

Plain old DOT-rated motorcycle helmets do not meet this requirement, so don’t grab the chrome-plastic skullcap you wear on your Harley and presume you are good to go.

Some tracks will have specific additional rules – in some places, all drivers will be required to wear a helmet, no matter how slow their car is, and you may also find tracks that prohibit anything but plain water in your cooling system, so check if you aren’t sure.

13.99 and Quicker (8.59 ⅛ mile)

• Approved helmet – this will need to have either a Snell or SFI rating sticker from within the last 10 years (for example, in 2019, the oldest acceptable Snell-rated helmet would be a M2010 or SA2010). Plain old DOT-rated motorcycle helmets do not meet this requirement, so don’t grab the chrome-plastic skullcap you wear on your Harley and presume you are good to go.

13.49 and Quicker (8.25 ⅛ mile)

• Convertibles only – an approved roll bar, and SFI-rated seat belts. Be aware of the fact that there are specific design requirements for drag racing roll bars that are different from those required for road racing or track days, so consult the rulebook if you are unsure whether yours meets the specification.
• Rotaries only – SFI certified clutch and flywheel plus flywheel shield.

11.49 and Quicker (7.35 ⅛ mile)

• Approved 6-point roll bar (see above)
• SFI-rated seat belts – this includes an ‘anti-submarine’ strap (making it a 5-point restraint) and it has to be either manufactured or recertified by the manufacturer in the last two years, as shown on the tag attached to the belt. As an aside, this is often a cause of grumbling among racers who think that recertification every two years is excessive, or even a way to force people to buy new belts they don’t need. The reality is that next to helmets, belts are the most important personal safety item in your car, and they’re easily damaged by sunlight, heat, and abrasion. If you’re putting together a car that will need SFI 16.1 belts, do yourself a favor and wait until you are completely done and ready to run the car before you buy them so that you get the most use out of them as possible before they need recertification. If you don’t want to go to the hassle of sending them back to the manufacturer for inspection after two years and just want to replace them, check out your local off-road forums to sell your old ones, because harnesses that are out of date but still serviceable are popular with ‘wheelers who aren’t concerned about high speed crashes.
• Manual-transmission cars – SFI certified clutch and flywheel plus flywheel shield.
• Rear-wheel-drive cars – Driveshaft loop.
• Jacket meeting SFI Spec 3.2A/1.

10.99 to 10.00 (6.99 to 6.40 ⅛ mile)

• Automatic Transmission – SFI-rated transmission shield and locking dipstick tube. The transmission shield can be either rigid or blanket-type, as long as it meets SFI 4.1 specifications.
• Rear-wheel-drive cars – Aftermarket axles and axle retainers.
• SFI-spec harmonic balancer.

9.99 and Quicker (6.39 ⅛ mile)

Single-digit timeslips are a big break-point for safety rules, where a whole bunch of new requirements kick in, including a competition license for the driver. Cars this quick are beyond the scope of this article, and by the time you’ve built one capable of running under a 10-flat quarter mile, you will already be well-acquainted with the safety requirements.

Trap Speed Safety Requirements

Note that these requirements apply to both quarter- and eighth-mile trap speeds, but generally speaking if you are going fast enough to trigger them, you’re already way past needing our advice…

• 135 MPH – SFI-spec padding anywhere the driver’s helmet may come in contact with roll bar or cage components.
• 135 MPH – All the same requirements as a car running faster than 10.00, regardless of actual elapsed time.
• 150 MPH – Parachute.

Modification-Related Safety Requirements

On the other hand, if you show up in your HEMI Challenger with a big aftermarket supercharger strapped to the top, all bets are off.

Here’s the part that trips people up; once you start modifying your car with speed parts, an eagle-eyed tech inspector may find certain changes trigger additional safety rules. For the most part, as factory cars have gotten quicker and quicker over the years, drag racing sanctioning bodies have been pretty lenient about allowing them to run in unmodified form even if they are technically past the ET limits for some requirements. This allows cars like late model ZR1 and Z06 Corvettes, Nissan GT-Rs, Shelby Mustangs, and Dodge Hellcats and Demons to pass tech.

On the other hand, if you show up in your HEMI Challenger with a big aftermarket supercharger strapped to the top, all bets are off. Here are some examples of safety regulations that are triggered by modifications made to your car, regardless of what elapsed time you are running:

• Non-OEM turbo, nitrous, or supercharger – SFI 3.2A/1 jacket for the driver.
• Water/Methanol Injection – The tank, pump, and lines can’t be in the passenger compartment, and if the tank is in the trunk, a solid bulkhead of .024-inch steel or .032-inch aluminum is required to isolate it from the driver.
• Nitrous Oxide – If the bottle is in the passenger compartment, it must be equipped with a “blow down” tube that vents the pressure relief valve outside the vehicle. No matter where it’s located, it must be “permanently mounted”; hose clamps and tie wraps aren’t acceptable, and you can’t just stuff it in the back seat footwell and run the passenger seat all the way back to jam it in place.

• Drag Slicks – If you’re running quicker than 14-flat in a RWD car and running slicks, you’ll need a driveshaft loop. Tires with DOT approval for street use don’t trigger this requirement until you go quicker than 11.50, as mentioned above.

• Spool – RWD cars with a “locked” differential need aftermarket axles and axle retention devices to go with, regardless of ET.
• Relocated Battery – If you’ve moved the battery from the stock location to the trunk, a master electrical cutoff mounted at the rear of the car and accessible from outside is required.

Preparation is the Key

We’ve covered the major points of required safety equipment here, but this article isn’t intended to be the final authority on the subject. Our goal is to give you an overview of what you’ll need to pass tech and have a safe, enjoyable day at the dragstrip. For most street-driven cars, the safety requirements are very easy to meet; first-timers are often wildly optimistic when estimating just how quick their whip actually is, so chances are that a good helmet and a car that isn’t dripping oil or antifreeze is all you will need.

200 MPH Ford Maverick

When conjuring up images of American muscle cars, the Ford Maverick doesn’t immediately rocket to the retina, but when you think Pony Cars, then the Maverick is right there, if only because of its name.

…the rear-wheel drive Maverick was able to flex its muscles—it was a contender.

Introduced on April 17, 1969 as a 1970 model, the Maverick was based on the 1960 Falcon that was falling out of public favor due to the popularity of the Mustang, the ultimate Pony Car. The Maverick was introduced as an import fighter, but its initial powerplants were 170, 200 and 250 ci straight sixes. However, in 1971, Ford added a 210 hp 5.0L 302 V8 to the long nose fastback and suddenly, the rear-wheel drive Maverick was able to flex its muscles—it was a contender. That said, and despite sales of almost 600,000 in the first year, it was still never high up on the hot rodder’s list of must dos.

Enter the Greening Auto Company, a father and son team operating out of Cullman, Alabama. There, Jeff and son, Jesse, have built some outstanding performance cars, one of which is this 200 mph Maverick for owner Jimmy Shaw. StateofSpeed caught up with the boys at the recent East Coast Timing Association Arkansas 1-Mile Challenge at Blytheville International Airport, Blytheville, Arkansas.

Looks aren’t everything though, and it’s what’s under the hood that counts.

Illustrated by Eric Brockmeyer, Shaw’s Maverick is a subtle combination of old meets new in that it’s a very low mileage, rust free ’71 body with very contemporary styling, incorporating very extensive body modifications and a custom color mixed specially by BASF/Glasurit. The car made its debut in the Baer Brakes booth at the 2018 SEMA Show where it picked up the Ford Design Award. It subsequently took top honors from Goodguys, Mothers, BASF and more, including Gran Turismo.

Looks aren’t everything though, and it’s what’s under the hood that counts. In this case, it’s a twin turbo, 427 ci Ford Windsor built by Bennett Racing Engines, Haleyville, Alabama. The fuel delivery is controlled by a FAST engine-management system that can operate in a docile street mode or race mode. The combination produces 1,200 hp and backing it up is a Bowler Transmissions 4L80E overdrive trans and a Currie rear axle. All of this is hung on a Roadster Shop chassis fitted with Baer brakes with XTR rotors.

The five-spoke, pin-drive wheels were again illustrated by Eric but machined in-house at Greening. They’re 18s in front and 19s in back fitted with 295/30/18 and 355/30/19 tires. 

Despite its performance pedigree, this lil’ Maverick has a fully equipped interior custom built by Wayne McGriff’s MM HotRod Interiors, Holly Pond, AL. It features custom buckets seats upholstered in black leather with Alcantara inserts and Stroud racing. The carbon fiber dash is highlighted by a Racepak IQ3 digital display as well as a Momo steering wheel. Incidentally, cool air is provided by Vintage Air and the sound system by Kicker.

We spoke to Jesse Greening at Blytheville where they gradually crept up on that elusive 200 mph mark. “We had a really good time at the Arkansas Mile,” said Jesse. “It was our first time at that event, and Jimmy was determined to hit 200. Thankfully, no issues and we just tweaked it until we hit the marker with a speed of 169.364 at the ½-mile and a stout 202.748 at the mile.

“After 200-mph run at Blytheville, the Maverick was scanned by Sony for their Gran Turismo sim racing game then it was on to Columbus, Ohio for the Goodguys’ 22^nd PPG Nationals where we picked up the 2019 PPG Street Machine of the Year Award.

“We were invited to Saudi Arabia but winning the Street Machine of the Year Award means we will go on to the Goodguys event at Scottsdale, AZ. We’re not done with racing though and we plan to be back at Blytheville in 2020 to try to bump our top speed.”

“Jimmy wanted a car that was capable of autocrossing, drag racing, road course racing and standing mile runs. Hopefully, we delivered that in spades, and more, and owe him a big thanks for allowing us to build his dream.”

How It’s Made: Cast, Forged, and Flow Formed Wheels

A Look At Modern Wheel Manufacturing Methods

Let’s face it, when it comes time to select custom wheels for our vehicles, most of us only care about price, and style. While the right set of wheels can enhance the looks, and performance of your vehicle, having the wrong wheels can be downright dangerous. Anytime you increase the outside diameter of your wheels/tires, you put more demands on your brakes, and steering. It also affects your acceleration. A larger overall diameter can strain your driveline components to the point of failure. Manufacturing processes like flow form, forging, and casting is another thing to consider. With a little research, you can select a wheel that not only looks great, but actually enhances your vehicle.

Materials

Aftermarket wheels were originally made from magnesium, hence the name “Mag” wheels. Currently they are made from several materials including steel, aluminum, exotic alloys, carbon fiber; even plastic. We will focus on aluminum as most aftermarket wheels are made from aluminum alloy. During your selection process, do some research into the weight rating of the wheels you like, and how they are made. If you are racing on pavement, you probably want the lightest wheels possible. Light is easy, but strong and light takes more effort, and you will pay for the extra care and materials involved. You might be tempted by a big heavy wheel that is cheap. It may seem to be safe, but that’s not always true.

Standards

Cheap, heavy wheels made with inferior practices or to nonexistent standards, can be less expensive, but are no bargain. Properly constructed wheels will perform much better. The processes used, and the attention to detail may increase costs, but are crucial to a quality final product. Look for wheels that are tested to accepted benchmarks, and have been certified for quality. SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), TÜV (German regulatory agency), ISO (International Standards Organization), and JWL (Japan Light Alloy Wheel Standard) all have standards for aftermarket wheels. You want the strength of your wheels confirmed in the lab, not on a public road or challenging trail.   

Techniques

Aluminum wheels can be made by several different techniques. The most prevalent are casting, forging, and flow forming. Casting and forging are unique. Flow forming uses a combination of both. Cast wheels have somewhat of a bad reputation for ultimate strength, but that reputation was earned by poor quality wheels from substandard suppliers. Cast wheels can be plenty strong as long as quality materials, and proper manufacturing techniques are followed.

In order to make a cast wheel, the aluminum alloy is brought up to a high enough temperature to melt it into a liquid. The liquid aluminum is then poured, injected, or drawn by a vacuum into a mold. One benefit of casting is that each part is an exact copy of the mold. Tight tolerances and uniformity is maintained. The cast part will have extra material (called flash) that still needs to be removed, but overall, the surface is smooth. The finished wheel can be polished or left as is. Due to the casting process, the aluminum material has a random grain structure. 

Forging

The forging process for aluminum wheels uses heat and pressure to form the part. Unlike the cast part, the surface can be irregular, and require a machining process to get it smooth. Hot forging is common on larger, thicker parts that require more movement of the material. Forging a complex part may require multiple operations with progressive dies to achieve the desired shape. Each additional step adds to the cost of manufacturing. The hot forging process begins with an aluminum slug that is heated until it becomes pliable. The slug is then placed into the forging press and it is either struck (mechanical press) or compressed (hydraulic press) into a formed die.

The part emerges looking like the shape of the die. These forging presses create incredible forces in order to move the material, and are huge in scale. Mechanical presses can be three stories tall with over half of the press underground. The building has to be built around the press. The big advantage of forged parts is the grain structure it produces. Since the material is formed, the grain structure is long, and continuous. A forged part is stronger, so the part can be made thinner, and therefore lighter.

“[Flow Forming] uses less material but is stronger, and lighter; all at a lower cost.”Sean Kleinschuster, Engineering Manager, Method Race Wheels

Flow Forming

Flow forming has benefits of both the casting, and forging processes. The wheel begins to take shape as a casting. The wheel face is cast, taking on the smooth finish that makes a casting precise, and cost effective. The casting is then heated and put on a turning die. While the part spins, hydraulically controlled tooling puts pressure on the part to draw the material out into the barrel shape. It allows the rim section to be thin for light weight, while having the strength of a forging.

“The public is more educated than ever about flow forming so they ask for it,” says Sean Kleinschuster, Engineering Manager for Method Race Wheels. “It uses less material but is stronger, and lighter; all at a lower cost. We use a proprietary heat treatment to our wheels that is higher than industry standards. We are getting material properties out of cast materials that are approaching that of a forging. Not only do we use computer generated finite element analysis, but we do extensive testing in race conditions. Our company started out in racing, and that’s where we validate some of our ideas. It’s good marketing, but we also use it for R&D. The technology we develop with rally racers and the top Trophy Truck racers goes into the same wheels you can buy off the shelf. We don’t have a separate race wheel department. We use the same materials and processes on every wheel we make.”

Because of the latest manufacturing technology, you can have a set of wheels that perform as great as they look. With flow forming, you can have race quality strength, and light weight, at an off the shelf price.

Your First Dragstrip Pass: Heads Up or Handicapped?

Or, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Dial-In”

One of the great things about drag racing is that, in the words of legendary broadcaster Dave Despain, “It’s racing that you do, not racing that you watch.” Most motorsports have a high barrier to entry—in order to be competitive at even the lowest levels, you need a dedicated race car, a trailer and something to tow it with, and a fair amount of disposable income.

Of course, if your dream is to be the next John Force, you’ll need a dump truck full of money to reach that goal, but drag racing has always been about run-what-ya-brung competition going all the way back to its origins in the 1950s, and it’s definitely possible to have a lot of fun (and win some races) on a budget. It comes down to the difference between “heads up” competition and handicapped racing, and today we’re going to break down how these two broad categories work.

Heads Up Racing

Conceptually, heads up competition is the simplest form of drag racing, but in practice, things get a lot more complicated. Two cars line up, and both get the green light at the same time. First past the finish line wins, barring a “red light” start where one (or both) drivers jump the gun and leave the line before getting the green. In order to keep things fair, a set of class rules defines which cars run against each other, based on power, weight, and traction (or a combination of all three).

Power can be equalized by limits on engine displacement, which power adders are allowed, and even the type of fuel used. It’s common to see heads-up classes where cars powered by large-displacement naturally aspirated engines compete against others with smaller boosted engines (which are also limited in turbocharger or supercharger size) and nitrous-fed combinations that are restricted by the number of “stages” and nitrous jet size.

Weight is another way to try to make things fair; some combinations may be required to run a higher minimum weight across the scales at the end of a run than others in order to balance things out. Traction is the final piece of the puzzle—by limiting the size or type of tire, a heads up class can level the playing field, and by restricting the modifications allowed to a car’s suspension, another way of evening out the difference between combinations is introduced.

…A set of class rules defines which cars run against each other, based on power, weight, and traction.

Balancing all these factors is one of the hardest things a race series has to do, and it’s critical to how successful that organization’s races are in terms of the number of competitors. Nobody wants to build a car to the limit of the rules, then be uncompetitive because of a mid-season change that nerfs their combination, but it’s equally crucial to make sure that there isn’t a runaway escalation that turns the class into “pay to win.” As a result, even “entry level” heads up classes tend to be expensive, since they require a car that’s built to take full advantage of the rules if you want to be a frontrunner.

Handicapped Racing

Fortunately, a very long time ago drag racers figured out a way to let cars with vastly different speed potential compete against one another on a level playing field. Handicapped-start drag races, most commonly seen in the form of “bracket” racing, reward consistency and driver skill over raw speed. Here’s how it works:

Let’s say you have a moderately-quick street car. When you bring it out to test and tune night at your local drag strip, you typically run mid-13-second quarter mile passes, run after run. Your buddy has a car that’s got more power and more tire, and he’s running high tens. If you lined up against each other and started at the same time, you’d lose every race.

But you’ve street raced a bit, and so you know that to make things fair, you can negotiate a head start. On some rural two-lane, that might be getting a couple of car lengths, or having your buddy wait until you move before he does, but at the track, you can build that handicap into the timing system.

The beauty of handicapped-start drag racing is that literally anyone in any car can run against anyone else on a level playing field

If you know your car runs 13.50 in the quarter mile, and he knows his car runs 10.75, these predicted elapsed times can be “dialed-in” to the timing system. Because your car is slower, your side of the tree will show you a green light 2.75 seconds before your buddy, so if both of you have the same reaction time and run exactly on your predicted elapsed time, you’ll reach the finish line at the same instant. Just like that, a race that wouldn’t be a fair fight comes down to who reacts quicker.

“But wait!” you say. “Can’t I just sandbag and say my car is slower than it really is, and give myself a huge head start?” You certainly could, but that’s where the “breakout” rule comes into play.

In a bracket race, if you run quicker than your predicted elapsed time, you “break out” of your bracket and lose the race, unless your opponent did the same thing but by a greater margin. If you dialed in 13.50 and ran 13.48 while your buddy ran 10.78 on his 10.75 dial, you may cross the finish line first but still lose the race.

The beauty of handicapped-start drag racing is that literally anyone in any car can run against anyone else on a level playing field, but consistent success requires you to be able to very accurately predict your car’s elapsed time, and cut a quick reaction time. It’s a true test of how well you know your equipment and your driving skill.
Some drag racers will disparage bracket racing as being inferior to running a heads-up class, but it’s the easiest way to get on the dragstrip and build your experience and skill. Running your 13.50 street car down the track every Friday night beats sitting around in the stands and running your mouth about how you’re going to have a fast heads-up car “someday, when I can afford it” every time.

Chevy Yenko

The Ultimate Muscle Cars

Such an odd name, Yenko, possibly Hispanic origin, but in the automotive history books it ranks right up there with Shelby and Roush.

Let’s back up though, all the way to 1921 when the Durant car company was founded by William “Billy” Durant in New York after he had been fired by General Motors. Unfortunately, Durant folded in 1926 but Billy resurfaced two years later in 1928 and began building cars again. The following year, Frank Yenko who now had a one-year-old son Donald “Don” Frank, opened a Durant dealership in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, Durant failed again in 1932 and with no option; Yenko switched allegiances to General Motors and in 1934 opened a Chevrolet dealership in Bentleyville, PA.

Yenko Chevrolet thrived but at the time, Frank’s son Don was more into planes than he was automobiles. He gained his pilot’s license at age 16 and soon joined the US Air Force. After his military service, Don pursued a degree in business admin at Penn State before joining the family business. Frank, meanwhile, was doing so well selling cars he opened up a second dealership at 575 West Pike Street, Cannonsburg, Pennsylvania. In 1957, when Don was just 30, he took over the dealership that would make Chevy Yenko a household name.

Despite what Ralph Nader had to say about the Corvair, Chevrolet’s answer to the Volkswagen Beetle, Don Yenko saw its potential and applied to the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) for approval to race the Corsa. The Corsa was Chevy’s hot rod Corvair that was offered with an optional 180 hp boxer-six. The SCCA approved with a back seat delete and some performance mods and consequently, Yenko went on to build 100 certified examples of the “Yenko Stinger.”

“His fellow Corvette racer, Denise McCluggage, once described Don’s driving style as ‘brutish.’ ”David Steele, Executive Director, American Hot Rod Foundation

1966 Stingers were white with blue racing stripes in the style of the Ford GT40 but over the top rather than along the sides. Incidentally, this white and blue combination was recognized then as the United States’ international racing colors. In 1967, the Monza replaced the Corsa and now Stingers came in Marina Blue and Bolero Red, likewise with stripes. That year also saw a Yenko Stinger win an SCCA D Production national championship. Maybe as many as 400 were built between 1966 and 1973.

According to David Steele, Yenko fan and executive director of the American Hot Rod Foundation: “It’s true that Yenko was successful in SCCA racing with the Corvair but it was with a slightly less nimble car, an early Corvette, that he originally made his name in road racing. Considering the fact that his fellow Corvette racer, Denise McCluggage, once described Don’s driving style as ‘brutish,’ it’s no wonder that his best-known creations, his big-block Chevelles, Camaros and Novas, carried this same personality.”

Unfortunately, the Corvair was doomed, not only by Nader’s raiders but also by Chevrolet who introduced their Mustang fighting Camaro in 1967. Although Yenko continued to build Stingers through the end of Corvair production in ’69, his attention switched to the Camaro. At the time, GM forbade its dealers from installing engines larger than 400 ci in intermediate-size vehicles, nevertheless, Don ordered an L72 427 that made 425 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque and dropped it into a Camaro creating the Yenko Camaro.

Typically, a Camaro came with a 350 or 396 ci engine but again according to Steele, “Supercar dealers invariably went for the big-block 396—specifically the L78/375 hp version because it had the correct fuel lines, tach, radiator, etc., and then just install the 427/425 engine.” Chevrolet turned a blind eye but the efforts of Yenko and others such as Baldwin Motion often accomplished performance options that the factory wanted to deliver but couldn’t because of various regulations.

It’s uncertain how many Yenko Camaros were built in this way but 54 appears to be the best guesstimate for ’67 and 64 for the following year. However, in 1969 Yenko was able to exploit Chevrolet’s Central Office Production Order (COPO) #9561 to have the L72 installed at the factory.

Yenko ordered 198 Camaros, 99 Chevelles and 38 Novas but by now other dealers had cottoned onto the wheeze and ordered their own 427-powered cars. For example, Dick Harrell used COPO 9560 to order an all-aluminum, hand-assembled ZL-1 427 rated at 430 hp with 450 lb-ft of torque.

In 1970, Yenko continued to apply his magic to the Nova and ordered a further 175 equipped with the high-performance LT1 350 ci small-block V-8 from a Corvette. He called that model the “Deuce,” as in Chevy II.

Unfortunately, a number of events conspired to nail the lid on the muscle car coffin. Insurance rates were rising on these fast cars, Federal regulations required cars use unleaded fuel and to make matters worse, the oil crises began in October ’73. It wasn’t over yet though and in 1971 and ’72, again using the COPO system, Yenko ordered a couple of hundred Vegas, Chevy’s small-car, to which he intended to fit factory turbochargers.

Yenkos, especially the Camaros and despite numerous clones, are highly respected, sought after and expensive automobiles.

Unfortunately, the EPA required a 50,000-mile durability test and consequently, Yenko sold the Vega along with an optional performance package that could include the turbo. The story goes, Yenko ordered a little more than 125 Vegas but less than a dozen appear on the COPO.com registry site.

In 1981, Yenko tried once more with the Camaro Turbo Z, a turbocharged 350, but apparently, only 19 were sold and the following year he sold the dealership. Sadly, despite being an experienced pilot, he crashed his Cessna 210 on March 5, 1987, while trying to land near Charleston, West Virginia. He was only 59 years old, however, he left a lasting legacy: Yenkos, especially the Camaros and despite numerous clones, are highly respected, sought after and expensive automobiles.

For those interested, check out a new CarTech book titled Lost Muscle Car Dealerships by Duncan Brown. It covers the history of Yenko as well as others such as Nickey, Grand Spaulding Dodge, Yeakel, Reynolds, and others. It’s well worth a read.

Your First Dragstrip Pass: Know Before You Go

Essential Information for Graduating from the Bleachers to the Burnout Box

Drag Racing is the most American form of motorsports, and is the one form of competition where almost anyone can participate. It’s “racing that you do,” not just “racing that you watch.” Maybe you’ve been to a couple of events at your local track, or maybe you live your life a quarter mile at a time on the street – here’s the essentials you need to know before you make your first dragstrip pass.

It’s Not Expensive

Most dragstrips try their best to keep “grudge night” and “test and tune” entry fees low. In most places, $25-$50 will get you as many passes down the dragstrip as you care to make during normal weekly racing. You might have to pay a little bit more for entry into events where there is an elimination ladder and prizes at stake, but if you just want to drive your car flat-out on the track, it will cost you less than dinner at a nice restaurant.

“But street racing is free!” you might say – well, while it doesn’t cost you anything up-front, there’s always the chance of thousands of dollars in tickets and court costs if you get busted, not to mention the fact that you aren’t getting an ambulance, safety safari, and EMTs on standby in case something goes wrong. You also aren’t getting the assurance that the guy lined up next to you isn’t driving some dangerous piece of junk either. Which brings us to…

You Can Race Just About Any Car That’s Safe Enough To Drive To The Track

Tech inspection, the process where your car is looked over by a track staffer to make sure it meets the minimum standards to race, might seem a bit intimidating. But in reality, unless you have a highly modified car, it’s going to come down to a few simple checklist items which are all just common sense. Is your car leaking anything? That’s going to be dangerous for you, and for anyone behind you, so it will definitely send you back for a refund on your tech card. Are you missing lug nuts? Trust me, telling the tech guy “You let Hondas run with four per wheel” will not convince him to let you race your five-lug Mustang down the track with a couple of sheared-off lugs. Do you have a proper battery tie down? Electrical fires are no fun, and a shoelace or a couple of zip ties aren’t going to cut it, even on the street.

“Get the trash, recyclables, crown-shaped air freshener, and basically anything you wouldn’t want hitting you in the junk out of there.”

Once you get inside the car, you’ll need working factory seatbelts at a minimum, but one of the most common ways to waste everybody’s time in the tech line is to roll up with a bunch of loose stuff rattling around in the passenger compartment, just waiting to hit you the moment you have to brake hard. Get the trash, recyclables, crown-shaped air freshener, and basically anything you wouldn’t want hitting you in the junk out of there.

For you nitrous enthusiasts, there are a couple of special considerations. First, the tank has to be properly secured to the body/frame of the vehicle, so that in the event of a crash it won’t become a projectile. Just pinning it in the back seat footwell by pushing the seat all the way back isn’t good enough, nor is bolting it to a loose piece of plywood and hoping for the best (both things I have actually seen people try before, by the way). Second, any time a nitrous tank is sharing space with your fragile human body, it needs what’s known as a “blow-down tube” that connects to the pressure relief valve and is designed to safely route the gas outside the body of the vehicle in the event the burst disc ruptures. If you have your bottle in a separate trunk, you don’t need a blowdown tube per the rulebook, but it’s still a very, very good idea.

You’ll Need A Few Things

For most street-driven cars, there isn’t a lot of special “safety equipment” you’ll need, but there are a couple things that often trip up new racers. Technically, most sanctioning bodies don’t require helmets on cars slower than a certain elapsed time cutoff, but many tracks have gone to a “helmets for everyone” policy to make it easier for the staff and safer for everyone. To get started, you don’t need anything fancy, but some helmets that are technically legal for use while riding motorcycles on the street aren’t considered sufficient for drag race use. At a minimum, you’ll want an open-face helmet with a SFI or Snell rating sticker that’s no more than 10 years old – no DOT beanies, weird chrome plated WWII biker helmets, skate lids, or the like. Many tracks have a few loaners on hand that you can borrow, but it’s best not to depend on it, and let’s face it – other people’s heads have been in there, and other people are often gross.

“Don’t try to go down the track looking like the love child of The Dude and Freddy Mercury in your mesh tank top and flip-flops.”

The second piece of gear you will absolutely need is long pants. This can literally be almost anything that covers your legs all the way down to your ankles, from sweatpants to jeans. It just can’t be shorts, and if you try to sneak around this rule because it’s too hot to sit in the lanes with long pants on, I can guarantee the person working the starting lanes will look inside and notice. You don’t need a long-sleeve shirt, but tank tops are also right out, as well as open-toe shoes. Don’t try to go down the track looking like the love child of The Dude and Freddy Mercury in your mesh tank top and flip-flops.

Pay Attention To The Track Staff, And Learn Basic Etiquette

Nobody is born knowing how things work at the dragstrip, and a good track staff will be happy to answer a first-timer’s questions to make your inaugural racing experience a positive one. Even if you’ve been a spectator before, there are still some things that might not be obvious if you’ve never raced.

First, if you are on street tires (not drag radials or slicks), don’t drive through the water box when the person running it motions you forward. You will drag a bunch of water and bits of rubber up to the starting line with you if you do, and everyone who IS on drag radials or slicks in the staging lanes behind you will silently judge you. Drive around it to the outside of the track. For that matter, don’t try to do a long, smoky burnout halfway down the track like you’re John Force – this is pointless on street tires, as they will develop less traction when they’re overheated, you’ll tear up the rubber laid down on the track, and usually if you go past the start beam during your burnout, you won’t be allowed to make a run anyway. A short “dry hop” to clean the tread of any debris before rolling up to the line is more than sufficient for street tires.

Once the starter motions you forward, edge forward carefully until your prestage beam lights. Check where your opponent is, then move the rest of the way to fully stage once they are also ready in the prestage beam. Don’t be the noob who didn’t pay attention to where the photocells are, who either drives right through the beams and tries to stage on the back tire, or worse yet, drives all the way up right next to the tree. The starter will have to walk all the way out there to talk to you and get you to back up, and that’s not fun for anyone.

“…Get that battery secure, fix those leaks, and get out of the stands and into the staging lanes…”

When you get the green light, keep it pointed straight, try not to miss any shifts, and if something doesn’t feel right, don’t stay in it – If your car has real problems, move to the side of the track as quickly but safely as you can, instead of laying a stripe of oil or coolant all the way down through the finish line. If everything does go well, once you are past the finish, remember that usually (but not always! Check your local track for their particular procedure) the car in the lane closest to the turn-out has right of way to prevent cutting across the path of another vehicle.

Obviously, we can only scratch the surface in the space we have available here, but there’s lots more to learn – Stay tuned, because there’s more to come! In the meantime, get that battery secure, fix those leaks, and get out of the stands and into the staging lanes of the closest drag strip near you…

Chevy Nova

The Little Chevy That Could.

The story of the Chevy II Nova can be traced back to Germany and the Volkswagen Beetle, believe it or not. VW’s Bug made such an impact on the automotive world that it jump-started GM to develop its own air-cooled competitor, the Corvair. Despite the “Nader-sayers,” the Corvair did well and forced Ford to develop the Falcon that debuted late in 1959. The Falcon took off and sold a staggering 417,000 units in the first year.

GM was caught off guard, meanwhile, Ralph Nader was killing the Corvair, saying it was dangerous; GM had to do something, and quickly. According to Chevrolet designer Clare MacKichan, “There was no time for experimentation or doodling around with new ideas from either the engineers or from us in design, and it had to be a basic-type car. I think that was the quickest program we ever did at any time,” he continued. “We worked night and day on that car, and it didn’t take very long to run it through our shop because we had a deadline.”

Indeed, the development of the Chevy II, as it was called, took a scant 18 months until the first production car came off the Willow Run assembly line in August 1961—almost two years behind the Ford Falcon. Conventional like its rival and definitely not experimental like the Corvair, the Chevy II, code name H-35, was described by Chevrolet General Manager Ed Cole as offering, “Maximum functionalism with thrift.”

“There was no time for experimentation or doodling around with new ideas from either the engineers or from us in design.”Clare MacKichan, Chevrolet Designer

While the Falcon was a “clean sheet” design with uni-body construction, the Chevy had a front sub frame that bolted under the body. Power options were either a 2.5L 153 ci four-cylinder or a 3.2L 194 ci in-line six. Both were brand new, but the four was the first four from Chevy since 1928. There was no V8—yet. As did the Falcon, the Chevy II came in two- and four-door versions plus a two-door hardtop Sport Coupe as well as a convertible and a station wagon. The Nova was the top of the line and Chevy II sales were brisk at 326,607 units, but not as brisk as Ford’s rival.

Sales improved in 1963 when Chevy II had its best year ever with sales of 372,626 units, of which 42,432 were the new Super Sport featuring bucket seats, a floor shifter and special gauges on the inside and exterior emblems, hub caps and side moldings on the outside. Mind you, the package only cost $160.40. There was still no V8.

When the 195 or 220 hp V8 did come in 1964, sales tanked to a mere 191,691 units of which only 25,083 had the new 4.6L 283-ci V8 power. The cause of the slump was similar to that of the Falcon when Ford introduced the Mustang because Chevy intro’d the Chevelle and put a nail in the Nova. However, in April 1964, Chevrolet unveiled the “Super Nova” concept car at the New York Auto Show. A little fat through the middle, and resembling the ’63 Buick Riviera, Super Nova never made it to production.

The second generation Nova came in 1966 and it’s knife-edge styling may have been influenced by the Super Nova. Regardless, it was a sharper, better-looking car. Sales increased over ’65 but only to 172,485 cars, of which 43,265 were V8s. Maybe customers were confused by the sales brochure that proclaimed “Chevrolet Chevy II Nova Super Sport.” What really grabbed buyer’s attention was the new 5.3L Turbo-Fire 327 ci V8 producing 350 hp. With a close-ratio four-speed the Nova was finally a performance car—10,589 were sold. Nicknamed the “Chevy Deuce,” the ’66 327 car was a hot rodder’s dream.

One such hot rodder was GM designer Larry Shinoda, designer of several Corvettes. Folklore has it that Larry drove a tricked-out Chevy II, and driving into the GM Tech Center one day he was stopped by the security guard for what the guard perceived as overzealous driving. The guard apparently said, “Why don’t you try that again.” Not to be told twice, Larry backed up, gave it some revs, side stepped the clutch and smoked the tires right through the security zone. He never looked back and the guard didn’t move.