balthazar

It really wasn't that clean of a run, seemingly. Couple of off-road blips, seeming a bit of excess sawing at the wheel- seems to this 'Ring-uneducated eye that time could be bettered.

>>"Funny how the LS9 Supercharger adds weight to the ZR1 and take power from the engine and GM found ways to keep the car balanced and fast."<< Funny how that 40 lbs (Eaton SC) resulted in a horsepower increase of around 200.

I also have a few items I'm looking for on the GP...

Meh- BMWs are generica here- the roads are clogged with them attempting to dart in & out of traffic; nothing exclusive whatsoever. Besides that- they are supposed to be about performance: subbing an LS for a 1.8 is like putting a ferrari engine in a yaris.

'46-47 Hudson 2-dr coupe, very nice original

^ miniscule detail only apparent when the doors are open. This is about as pertinent as the trunk hinge design.

^ Watch the Standard Catalogs: mine is full of hand-written corrections.

I've never had a Pontiac 400, but I've had -8- 389s.

Yea- I never have committed to memory which year the Chevelle SS396 is first a SS402. I believe Chevy stuck with "396" because of the recognition factor, esp in the Chevelle SS. Why they did the same with the F/S cars is unknown to me. My buddy has a '71 MC with a 402, the original air cleaner says "400".

^ Gotcha. I don't have weights handy for those 2, but supposedly a Pontiac 421 weighed 685 (full dress) and a Chevy 427 weighed 695. Pontiac 455 may have had a tiny bit less beef in the block- not sure. It's just weird that the brand new '71 Chevy 400 came out... and it came primarily in the MC & F/S... the 402 came out the next year. If they were trying to shoehorn the 402 into the Vega or something, I could see the 400 SB, beyond that I don't get why it was. But you know the big cars never shared engines then (tho it was short spin into the future before they would).

If you want accuracy, you have to cross-reference sources, and there I primarily mean books. On the web I would go to marque-specific sites over Wikipedia. You can find at least 1 source to legitimately contradict just about any info found online. But only checking as many sources as possible will you get the best information. I've been actively researching auto history nearly every evening since March.... and the sheer volume of info to wade thru is very daunting.

There's a house I pass on the way to one long-term job, last summer he had a 1st gen Camaro in the drive... I disremember which year exactly, but I think it's a '68. IIRC (only seen it sleeping under a cover recently), it's a big-tired car with a brawny hood. The twist? He lives at #396, and has Camaro 396 badges for his mailbox numbers.

^ That dude above is on the 1896 Quadracycle of cell phones.... mine isn't THAT bad.

If your phone is a '65 Malibu, mine is a '29 Model A with a 4-banger.... and i LIKE it that way. Yet... no one is surprised by that here...

^ That was the definition in Year 1 ('64.5), it was 400/4bbl/duals after that. We gots to have our automatics.... It's basically here in the text : http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z294/hadbetterwork/Ads4/A0051307.jpg

Wait- why would they borrow 1. a Pontiac motor, especially a 455 when 2. they had their own 454?

GMtruck forum Silverados handily average 15-16 in normal driving. 2 people I know say they get 23-24 on the highway (5.3L). I didn't realize an HHR could hit 60 MPG (15 x 4 = 60). Might want to recheck your calculations.

'65 according to what I read. Of course that's right; in '65 442 stood for '400, 4bbl, 2 (dual) exhaust'. Buick had 2 different 400s, though, right? The Nailhead 401 '400' up thru '66 and a 400 from the '67-69 that was of a different engine family (i.e. the Nailhead replacemen that had a 425 and later 455). The GS400 was a 401, so technically it wasn't a '400'- just marketed that way. But including that marketing, you're correct again. WRT the Chevy 400, just seems as if it wasn't necessary. Chevy could've had a stouter, more mod-friendly package had they offered their own 383 (350 stroker).

Pontiac ~ 400 : '67-79 Of note: PMD 400RA: "LS1", SD455: "LS2", 455HO: "LS5" Buick ~ had the 401 : '59-69. Buick marketed it as a '400' name-wise when the 'Skylark Gran Sport' of '65-66 was renamed the 'GS400' from '66-69. Tho the bore & stroke were the same, the GS had to be called a '400' to get by the Corporate edict that no intermediates could have over 400 CI. Whether or not this is a snapshot of the autonomy Divisions had vs. corporate oversight this late or not, is open to conjecture... but seems logical IMO. Olds ~ got a 400 with the '67 442. I believe it only lasted thr '69, when the 442 went to the 455. Chevy ~ the 400 and the 402 came out for '70. 350 : 4.000 x 3.48 396 : 4.094 x 3.76 400 : 4.125 x 3.75 402 : 4.126 x 3.76 I see the 402 being an overbore on the 396... I just don't see where the 400 is a typical enlargement of the 350. Different crank? Not that up on the Chevys- Camino- you prolly kno better than I.

I respect GOOD results from thinking outside the box, not EVERY result from thinking outside the box. I've seen maybe 4 to date- still not moving here. The kia dealer has one on the lot- seems far too new to have been traded in already, but I guess the owner didn't care for it.

>>"Got some things done that would have been painful during the heat."<< Agreed- was only 80 up in the attic where I had to work today, vs. the 102 I vetoed working in a few days ago.

If the "only" demographic that goes for IBC is the Corvette pool (and you are totally assuming it's IBC that made them purchase in the first place), the question WRT the GTR offering a newer tech IBC option or not would be answered immediately on which valve actuation technology has more buyers; the Corvette or the GTR. Naturally, people do not buy cars based on such singular criteria, or according to theory here, the GTR would be outselling the Corvette 10:1. True- Too many here always believe the grass is greener over the fence/border, dismissing the grass here because it's 'here grass'. These would be the first group to damn the abandonment of the Corvette's heritage when it didn't show any bump in volume (as if the Corvette chasing volume was in anyway an advisable approach).

~ Autoblog

>>"The small block provided enough power in the 60's to do what nearly all Impala owners ever needed to do. Unless they were towing a big trailer or were running a special weight class in drag racing the engine was more a novalty than anything else. Don't make it anymore than it was."<< What am I making it out to be?? A 3800 lb Impala with a 195 HP 283 certainly got people from Point A to Point B.... but saying 'that's enough' is the same as people proclaiming a 275-HP DTS 'does all it's needed to do' in it's segment in 2011. Might as well just stick with the 155 HP I6 for the Impala- not much power difference between 155 & 195. Point is; Chevy exploded once they delivered V-8 power, AND they had the BBC on the shelf- offering it in the Impala was easy, natural, in demand, and GAVE RESULTS. BIG difference between a 195 hp SBC and a 385 HP BBC. And again; it's the results at play here, not the buyer showing around the window sticker to let other's know how much power he bought. When you have to open the hood of your sports car and wave people over to show them your giant, wide, heavy DOHC heads, hoping they'll forget how your ride was slower vs. a Corvette, you've lost twice. >>"Ferrari has no issue, Jaguar has no issue BMW has no issue, Aston has no issue Mclaren has no issue in dealing with the power, weight or handling. "<< Ferrari has very little model heritage to pay tribute to (but plenty of brand heritage); they change models constantly. Also- the per car mark-up is so extraordinary- they always have ample development money. Jag has no sports car. But BMW has very real weight issues- the 3 was 2200 lbs when it came out, the current M3 is 3700. It needs to lose AT LEAST 1000 lbs. immediately. Another discussion. >>""De-tuning the power with a heavier engine & worse handling is NOT going to raise the appeal ante'" Where do you really get this stuff?"<< Repeating myself- I used the example mentioned above for comparison; the nissan TT V-6 with DOHCs. Less power, heavier weight. >>"Hell where were you when they added the weight to the ZR1 with the supercharger."<< You're disabling your position with this one. The ZR1 gained 273 lbs (with a LOT of hi-po equipment; not just the SC'er), but it also gained 133 HP and major TRQ, it didn't lose HP & TRQ; it got MUCH QUICKER. As long as the performance increases, weight gain is basically immaterial. When it came out, the ZR1 was putting around 535 HP to the wheels, where the GTR was putting down only 420 (later increased). Again, for family sedans this is not overly important, but for exotic sports cars, results are everything. Results is the only reason to have an exotic sports car, overlooking their many many compromises. Sure; likely Corvette engineers could make a more powerful DOHC motor, but the compromises are very real, and at the current IBC's 505 hp / 470 lb-ft- is it really worth it? Corvette does not 'need' a DOHC offering as far as performance & being competitive goes, far from it, and in that there's no comparitive DOHC motor already on the shelf and money being as tight as it is, it's better spent elsewhere. By the same token and logic you've presented here (semantics) : the GTR should offer a IBC motor for the fans of that configuration.... surely you support that, right?

Has your wife turned mile 1 in this yet?? It was supposed to be for her, was it not- yet the only one driving it/ taking pics/movies/ slobbering helplessly over it is YOU, sir.