Junior Stockers

Mark Yacavone · 06-05-2011, 04:03 PM

Interesting that this Larry Davis article didn't have the usual amount of mistakes in it.
When you can read the info right off the picture, it makes it easier ,I guess.

Here's a few though:

Pic 1, I don't what exactly he was trying to say about the HP rating. All models were rated the same, and I think 135 was the original rating anyway.

Pic 6 , The Camaro converts weren't heavier because of the metal top bows.
They were a little sturdier in the rocker panel and floor pan areas, but the majority of the extra weight was due to the 100 pounds of vibration dampener "tanks" in all four corners of the car.

06-05-2011, 04:03 PM	#2
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,819 Likes: 2,910 Liked 5,127 Times in 1,955 Posts	Re: Junior Stockers Interesting that this Larry Davis article didn't have the usual amount of mistakes in it. When you can read the info right off the picture, it makes it easier ,I guess. Here's a few though: Pic 1, I don't what exactly he was trying to say about the HP rating. All models were rated the same, and I think 135 was the original rating anyway. Pic 6 , The Camaro converts weren't heavier because of the metal top bows. They were a little sturdier in the rocker panel and floor pan areas, but the majority of the extra weight was due to the 100 pounds of vibration dampener "tanks" in all four corners of the car. __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers Last edited by Mark Yacavone; 06-05-2011 at 09:13 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode