Pfeil

Bore 3.5625 X 3.25 stroke = 194.4 cu. in.

I posted this on a paint thread. Prior to the car I'm working on, the last time I shot a car in lacquer was in 1992 and before that 1974. In 1974 I shot my 65 Sea Blue Beetle, http://www.pismoderelicts.com/photogallery/new format 834/images/img_0138_edited_1.jpg The Beetle was done in the usual way of shooting acrylic lacquer cars I had done in the past. This means shooting a couple of coats and then when I could get some free time like a week or two, wet sanding and another couple of coats and so on until the desired coats is reached. In 1992 I decided to shoot my 69 Pontiac LeMans. Because I'm the original owner and the miles were so low a body-off was a waste of time however the front clip was removed and the deck lid too. This new color was PPG black, and I would shoot the car over several months (like I did the beetle). When the car was finally ready for paint, I had the hood and deck lid on easels and painted them first for their first coats. The next day I wet sanded them, tacked them off and hit them again and the proceeded to go around and shoot the rest of the car. When I got back to the hood and decklid the paint on them had shriveled up like crinkle paint!😬. My neighbor across the street was a PPG rep. so I asked Jeff what's going on. Didn't you read the container instructions??? NO! I've been painting cars in lacquer for a donkey's age! Why would I want to read the label? Turned out with this new lacquer (1992) you will do the first coat and keep going round and round until the desired amount of coats are put down. So I had to re-strip and start over again! http://www.pismoderelicts.com/photogallery/new format 937/images/p1020752.jpg

Trivia question. 1964-1966 Pontiac GTOs automatic transmission is the ST300 1964-1966 Oldsmobile F-85 or Cutlass 442s automatic transmission is the ST300 What's the difference?

Thats right! Exhausting 100LL from a car is illegal, but they don't mind exhausting lead from 100LL on you flying overhead.

The new "A" body 1964-65 GTOs are LeMans with the GTO option. Since LeMans is its own series, it's not called Tempest LeMans. GTO is not called Tempest GTO, just LeMans GTO. Did you know that the new Oldsmobile "A" body 442 option could be ordered on either a F-85 or a Cutlass? Question for Rocketrader or Joe Padavano; Since the Oldsmobile price structure is above Pontiac was it possible to get a F-85 442 cheaper than a LeMans GTO?

Here's one for you. Yes, DeLorean was the father of the GTO but his boss (Pontiac General Manager) Pete Estes was the guy that let this option fly (options didn't need 14th floor corporate approval and that's why GTO's are an option on the 1964-65 LeMans) which could have ruined his career at General Motors. BTW, Estes became President of G.M. later....but in the interim Estes became General Manager of Chevrolet and DeLorean took his place at Pontiac as General Manager. As you all know the 68 Pontiac Grand Prix had become a huge car and not really worthy of such a name and so DeLorean wanted to make a new car to fit the Grand Prix name. Problem was Pontiac division didn't have enough money to develop a whole new car model line, so he went to his old boss now at Chevrolet and he and Estes worked out a deal to make this car happen for Pontiac and also a new car for Chevrolet. Since Pontiac had the idea it would be released first in 1969 (that one year exclusivity clause), and the next year 1970 as the Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Thus, the new "G" body was born. 1968 Pontiac Grand Prix "B" body 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix > 1970 Monte Carlo

Because automobiles can't fall out of the sky and injure and damage things. Fuel wise, aircraft get the best. FAA doesn't like it when an aeroplane engine loses power due to a fuel related issue. The EPA could care less if you burn a valve with your non protected iron heads, in fact they are probably hoping you scrap that vehicle!

5 gallons of 100LL to 15 gallons 92 unleaded worked very good in my 455 Pontiac with 10.75 compression. Things got complicated after 911 and required a card to get onto the airport, still my friend had a hangar and a RV6 so I would coordinate a rendezvous for fuel. Then one day we got a visit from the FAA while doing a transfer of fuel to 5-gallon cans. I already knew that it's illegal to run racing fuel with lead and 100LL, but he reiterated the point again. So, a change of heads to lower the compression to 9.8 and the car runs well.

It's interesting to me that a 265 could be that smooth. I only say that because the 301 and 265 crankshafts and those Siamese intake ports were terrible. Those two engines only had end counterweights, that plus block webbing reduction made them vulnerable. I suppose if it's balanced to the 9's it will be smooth. My dad won many contests of idle smoothness with our 50 Pontiac straight eight. That engine had an idle speed of 450 rpm in drive and that quarter on the head never moved. Back in those days a good engine was determined by its smoothness and quietness.

If it was so good, then why the "W" engine, Why the Mark 4? The Pontiac engine, just one engine from 287 to 455.

I'm sorry Joe, I was actually referring to two responses. It was your response to Jim Skelly and the only reason I included you is that you mentioned the 326 Pontiac engine as a small block, which it isn't. So sorry about that. Here is what I was referring to. The Buick 425 was a nailhead based on 1950s thickwall casting technologies. The Olds 425 was a 1960s thinwall casting design based on a tall deck version of the 1964 330 motor. The Buick went out of production a year after the Olds was introduced. The displacement similarity was more a function of GM corporate standards (7 liter) than anything else. There's a reason why all GM divisions at that time had 425 - 427 - 428 - 430 cu inch displacements. There's a reason why the GM intermediates all had 396 - 400 - 401 engines. There's a reason why the small blocks were all 326 - 327 - 330 - 340 cu in.

I agree with most of what you say except with Pontiac. Pontiac V-8 production was supposed go in the 53 Pontiac (53-54 cars are made for it) it was held back by corporate with the biggest complaint from Buick division. The Pontiac V-8 was the pioneering division for thin wall casting, and its valve train was designed in 1948, a valve train that was taken from Pontiac to be incorporated into Ed Cole's SBC, circumventing G.M. policy of one year exclusivity for a new invention. All Pontiac V-8 engines (except later 265 and 301) use the same rod journal and the same connecting rod and pin at 6.625" and you can use that rod from a 1955 287" in a 455". The bore spacings never changed threw out its life. Dimensionally all Pontiac V-8 are the same. After the 389 came out in 1959 crankshaft main journals remained a 3" until the 421 came out at the end of 1961 at 3 1/4". Pontiac V-8's are not divided into big block or small block, they are medium size blocks. 3" main V-8 crankshafts all have 3 3/4 strokes and 3" main cranks go in 336, 326, 350 (really a 354) 389 and 400 engines. 3 1/4" main cranks go in 421, 428 (really a 426) and 455 (really a 456). D port head and round port heads can interchange, and engines of different displacement can change heads as well. The last 455 I built I used big valve 400" heads so I could use this fuel we have today. All of those Pontiac engines as well as the Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder-1/2 of the 389 V-8 were machined and built on the same assy. line and use the same tooling. This is why for Pontiac it was cheaper to do their own engines, than to throw into the mix another divisions engine. One basic engine for all those displacements, no basic redesigns, no small blocks, big blocks, no gen 1 with variations, and gen 2 short and tall decks. George Delaney and his team designed a very memorable engine.

I was just saying you could do a step further. Mustang is built on the same platform as Falcon.

OK with that logic and going a step further, Mustang is a Falcon, Edsel is a Ford.

It may have been a cost decision initially to eliminate the different engines but the consequences of losing loyal customers later was greater. Most never came back. As far as certifications go, the engines were already developed and by 1975 most of the exhaust emissions were now done externally (we actually fattened up the engines to give more drivability) with the use of catalyst. Other systems ATC, EGR, Spark timing, Carburetion, etc. were basic to all G.M. products and the only thing left to do was to cater each basic devise to that particular engine and the environment it was to be driven in (like high altitude cars-Ca. cars etc.). Such a lost opportunity.

How about ten? - retro Victoria, Skyliner, Starliner, Galaxie, LTD And Ford touted these cars as "all new" cars.

403

I've read that the 1950 Nash Rambler is considered the first U.S. made compact car. It had a unibody construction, 100" wheelbase, and weighed 2500 lbs. 1933=4 American Austin Bantam Engine Location :FrontDrive Type :Rear WheelPrice :$335Weight :1040 lbs | 471.736 kgCombined MPG :40.00 ExteriorLength :120.0 in | 3048 mm.Width :52.0 in | 1321 mm.Height :54.3 in | 1378 mm.Wheelbase :75.0 in | 1905 mm.Front Track :41.5 in | 1054 mm.Rear Track :41.5 in | 1054 mm.Ground Clearance :8.4 in | 213 mm.

I agree with your choices and since "successful" was never mentioned in the in the original heading question that's why I agree.

" O0h It wasn't a dream!!!

I'm sure the interior is quite different between a 210 and a BelAir. but I like the body side view on the 210 better than the BelAir. Just m.o.p.

How do you guys feel about "fixed up" cars? This guy is from another planet.

Well Lumpy had a decent 40 FORD until Wally and Eddie took Ward Cleavers tow chain and hooked the chain to a tree, When Lumpy drove away the axel and torque tube assy stayed in Freds driveway. That episode "Wallys practical joke" probably inspired this;