Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I have a good friend who has a nearly perfect '70 Boss 429 and he also has or had a lot of oddball factory race engine stuff for it. He had some intakes that were never fully machined.

I worked on muscle cars all the time back in the '60's and '70's. Did all kinds of work and whatever was in vogue as far as add ons.

My good friend bought a new Road Runner in about '68. 383 4 speed. all black. I did a few things to it. Headers. mufflers....messed with the carb and some other stuff. Raced it one day at Island Dragway.....I drove. Was missing above 5000 with oepn headers. I short shifted the pistol grip shifter that would nearly hit the dash! Wound up winning the G/S class that day and beat an AMC Scrambler in the final on a holes hot......13.87 at 100+. It was one of the most fun days I can recall driving that big tank and trying to keep it out of the misfire zone........Open headers often let you really hear the missing...usually a new set of spark plugs was the cure or maybe some points....MSD's were not out yet and trick ignitions were mostly factory CD stuff or Accel......I loved those days as I always had a car to work on and see what it could do on the streets.....

My '67 GTO easily whipped my friends bloated '71 or so GTO every time......

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I'll check my rule book, still have it, at the shop, for 1970.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

C/SM was for 1967 and newer vehicles.......My good friend converted a '66 Nova bracket car to a '67 so he could run the class. He changed the front fenders as they are different. Another friend bought it in 1980 and still owns it today.....

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bub,
The old rule books used to say the Super Modified classes were for 67 and newer cars. There were some real minor differences between the 66 and 67 Chevy II, such as the steering column and some dash pieces, some hidden, some not. I saw a couple of people tossed for having a 66. A lot of people did it, some were caught, some were not. There is no real meaningful difference, competition wise, between the 66 and 67 Chevy II. There were just a lot more 66's than there were 67's. The "cheating" joke about running a 66 Chevy II as a 67 was just something that went around when Modified was still around. I figured you'd heard it before. The guys I was working with back then ran a 67 Camaro as a 68.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Under-performing on the street: 409/425 chevy's, Street Hemi's, any of the Shelby Mustangs built after '68 and almost any multi-carb motor...tune them for the strip and they were the hot cars to have.

Most disappointing street or strip combination's were the boss 429 and the ZL1....iron head 427's regularly out performed them on the strip.

JimR

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1970 Rule book, Modified Elimator, Modified Production, reserved for American built cars with American production engines, incorporating a wheelbase of 90 inches or more. No year limit, has a little blurb about pre-1960 unblown 4-cylinder can compete in flathead classes. This was designated Modified Production, I ran C/MP with a 327. What I think you are referring to is a Superstock class? that came after they canned Modified...
And yes, I am familar with the narrower dash and the colapsable steering column differences on the 66/67 Chevy II

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jim R,
Your right on the Shelby. The 1968 GT-350, came through with a
302-4V/250HP. Totally useless. They should have utilized the
289/306HP for one more year.
And those 1969 Ford Torino GT's with the 390/320HP didn't scare anybody either.
Problem with the early Boss 429's, monster connecting rods,
hydraulic cam and weak valve springs. Don't think that engine saw the north side of 5000 RPM's.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

409/425s were turds from the factory because Chevy built them with 2 head gaskets on them to drop the compression. Removing one really brought them to life. That wasnt very well known at the time though or even now..

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bub, the rule book I saw later showed 1967 and later cars, it was probably around 1979. I'm not sure about the 1970 rulebook, I don't have a copy, I was about 7 at the time. In the late seventies and up until Modified was killed off, I remember the rule as being 67 and later, I'm not sure why they did that. Like I said, it was a joke among the Modified racers, the Chevy II guys in particular, near the end of the class, they knew 66's were masquerading as 67's.

The guys I worked with bailed on Modified when it was merged into Super Stock, so that's not the era I was talking about. Again, they raced a 67 Camaro as a 68 (changed the doors, tail lights, and back up lights), so the rule was no real concern to us. I just remember guys who did race the Chevy II's joking among themselves about "cheating", and I remember a couple of cars being tossed as 66's.

That rule probably was not in effect when you ran your Chevy II, or I may remember it wrong. Maybe Travis, Dave, or Terry will correct me.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The one we bought not only had two head gaskets, but was missing the inner valve springs. It had the rear cam bearing in wrong from the factory, and had been replaced, so it sat in a dealership for 10 years or so, and then in a dealership mechanic's basement for 5-6 more.