-
1 Attachment(s)
Supercars Annual '69
I am quite excited. Won a hard-to-find magazine from eBay. "Supercars Annual '69." Buying a magazine like this is almost like finding gold! I have one from '72 but the '69 cars still had high-compression engines and low-gearing available.
Here is the cover. I am going to post a few pics of test data of the more interesting cars. This may become my favorite car magazine of all the ones in my collection (1969 is my favorite year for cars), although I do like 1966, 1968 and 1970 a lot, too.
-
1 Attachment(s)
The data for the test 396 Camaro is interesting. One thing that makes it interesting is the super-deep 4.88:1 axle ratio. This was an available option from Chevy (the other available ratios were 3.07, 3.31, 3.55, 3.73, 4.11 and 4.56).
With the 4.88s, it ran a 13.0 sec @ 108.62 mph 1/4 mile. 0-60 mph was 4.9 seconds. Car was also equipped with a 4-speed manual transmission and F70x14" tires. Test weight 3,300 lbs.
The other interesting thing about this car was the fuel mileage. The low gears really affected fuel mileage... 4-9 mpg! With a 3.31:1 axle ratio, it should give about 10-14 mpg. With 4.88 gears, it would be a ball to drive, but I couldn't live with sub-5 mpg economy!
-
-
3 Attachment(s)
Lol. I don't know about the whole thing but I will scan some more.
Here are three more.
The first is a 428 Mustang Mach 1. 0-60 mph deep into the 5s and a 1/4 mile well into the 13s. The editors mentioned another Mustang they tested a few months before this one. It had the same 428 engine but with a 4-speed manual and 3.89 gears. it ran 13.42 sec @ 107 mph.
Next scan is a Plymouth GTX with the standard 440 engine. Note the acceleration results. The 7.8 0-60 and 14.29 @ 101.60 indicate that there is a major traction problem! A trap speed of 101.60 usually means a 1/4 mile in the high-13s and 0-60 mph around 6.5 seconds.
And a Ford Fairlane Cobra with (again) a 428 engine. It does break into the 13s for the 1/4 mile. And that 7 second 0-60 mph time also shows a lack of traction off the line (and when shifting).
-
Nice! They got anything with a 440-6-pack or a 340 in there? Olds Rocket 455? Pontiacs?
-
3 Attachment(s)
Yes, there are some of those cars in there, too. No 455 Olds because that wasn't around in 1969 ('70 was the first year except for the '68 (and '69?) 455 Hurst/Olds).
The 440-6 Pack was a mid-year introduction and was not yet available when the magazine was printed.
Here are three more...
The 340 Dart Swinger has a slower-than-average 1/4 mile (15.2 @ 92). Don't know why, especially when it had 3.91 gears. Maybe it wasn't fully broken-in yet or had a bad traction problem. A 340 Dart with those gears should run at least mid-14s (Car Life magazine got 14.68 @ 96.2 mph with a '68 340 Dart GTS with 3.23 gears.
Next is a 383 Barracuda with the same 3.91 gears and a 383 big-block engine. This one did quite well... a 14.12 @ 97 mph 1/4 mile. A lack of traction was mentioned. The text says, "Better traction tires would drop the e.t. a full half-second." That would put it in the high-13s... very good for a relatively mildly-tuned 383. And remember, by mid-'69, an even bigger engine was available (the 440, of course). They also said in the text, "Just dropping the clutch gave us spectacular wheel-spinning, tire-smoking starts, but bad elapsed times.
And here is an Oldsmobile 4-4-2, with the 360 hp 400-cu-in engine. It had low 4.33 gears and a 4-speed manual. 13.94 secs @ 100.5 mph. A lot of fun for not much money... these cars sold for around $3,500 to $4,500 as tested (with some options, not just the base price).
-
I'm actually surprised too...340's were one of the era's best-kept secrets, little high-winding rockets that could play with the big boys, so 15,2 is definitely slower than I'd be used to seeing. I also never realized the 383 did so well...for some reason I always had the impression it was a little doggy, a better motor for pushing along biggies than pushing you back in the seat.
I thought the 455 Olds was available in more vehicles by '69? Guess I haven't been keeping up with my GM's :D
-
3 Attachment(s)
[quote=jcp123;980650]I'm actually surprised too...340's were one of the era's best-kept secrets, little high-winding rockets that could play with the big boys, so 15,2 is definitely slower than I'd be used to seeing. I also never realized the 383 did so well...for some reason I always had the impression it was a little doggy, a better motor for pushing along biggies than pushing you back in the seat.[/quote]
Well, there are plenty of road tests in which the 340 ran deep into the 14s. Sometimes a tested car was off a little, maybe driver reaction time?
Remember, the 383 was available in hi-po form and used the same cam and other goodies from the 440. It was possible to buy a 383 Road Runner which could run low-to-mid 14s at 96-100 mph for only about $3,400. A good performance-per-dollar buy. The 383 was at times called the "Baby Big Block." And makes the torque of a big block and revs like a small block (all things being equal, a 383 can rev higher than a 440 which means you can wind out the gears longer).
[quote]I thought the 455 Olds was available in more vehicles by '69? Guess I haven't been keeping up with my GM's :D[/quote]
GM brass would not allow the muscle cars to have engines over 400-cu-in until the 1970 model year. That is why there are no 455-cu-in Olds, Pontiacs and Buicks in the magazine. And the 454 Chevelle began in 1970.
Here are three more.
A 396 Chevelle. It should be pointed out that it had the "mid" powered engine (it could be had in 325-, 350- and 375-hp form. The 4.10 gears certainly helped.
Next a Pontiac GTO with the 370-hp/400-cu-in engine. Again, fitted with low gears (4.33:1). A very good trap speed for the 1/4 mile (107 mph) as is the 5.1 sec 0-60 mph.
And a Mercury Cyclone CJ with 428 engine. Typical performance.
-
Do the tests contain comparisons of laptime figures on specific tracks?
-
[quote=henk4;980658]Do the tests contain comparisons of laptime figures on specific tracks?[/quote]
No, these guys (the editors) were hardcore drag racers. To them, an "economy" axle ratio was 3.55:1!
I do have an ad in Car & Driver which does have acceleration, braking and lap times of the 1970 Mopars ('Cuda, Duster, GTX and Road Runner). I was thinking of posting them in this thread so I may as well...
-
That was great for you. Scan the whole thing and enjoy!
-
3 Attachment(s)
Here are three more scans.
First a 383 Dodge Super Bee. The acceleration times are below average for some reason. Maybe it wasn't fully broken-in yet or the usual lack of traction.
A 383 'Bee with 3.55 gears should run mid-6s for 0-60 mph and the 1/4 mile in the mid-14s at 95-100 mph.
Next is a Pontiac Firebird 400. A very good 5.4 0-60 and the 103 mph trap speed for the 1/4 mile shows it making very good power. Would be in the 13s with better tires.
And a Mercury Cougar with the 428 engine and deep 4.30 gears (a factory option). Yet another one dipping into the 13s. The 5-10 mpg would be hard to live with, almost as bad as the 396 Camaro's 4-9 mpg.
-
Another great buy. You made my day, Fleet! Just glanced through this thread and see that weights are more in line with what I was preachin in the 71 Supercars Annual thread. One observation about some of the slower times could be that those cars were not supertuned; just driven in off the lot. Engines may not be freshen up due to other magazine testers beating them to death. Actually, many 383 Super Bee and Road- Runners would ET in the low 15s stock with an automatic. I would not say its slow just an accurate none perfomance tuned run-of-the-mill car.
-
[quote=jcp123;980650]I'm actually surprised too...340's were one of the era's best-kept secrets, little high-winding rockets that could play with the big boys, so 15,2 is definitely slower than I'd be used to seeing. I also never realized the 383 did so well...for some reason I always had the impression it was a little doggy, a better motor for pushing along biggies than pushing you back in the seat.
I thought the 455 Olds was available in more vehicles by '69? Guess I haven't been keeping up with my GM's :D[/quote]
Only in the Hurst/Olds and the full size cars until 1970. You could actually order a Delta 88 with 455-390 hp W-33 cold air induction engine in 1969. Another was the Toronado with the same engine as the Delta, but rated at 400 hp and designated W-34.
-
[quote=dog ear;982051]Only in the Hurst/Olds and the full size cars until 1970. You could actually order a Delta 88 with 455-390 hp W-33 cold air induction engine in 1969. Another was the Toronado with the same engine as the Delta, but rated at 400 hp and designated W-34.[/quote]
There was a Ram-Air Toronado in the '69 Supercars Annual issue. 455-cu-in engine, 400 (gross) horsepower, 500 lbs-ft torque 3.21:1 axle ratio. No exact weight given... just "almost 5,000 lbs."
1/4 mile was 15.4 secs @ 91 mph.
-
[quote=Fleet 500;982052]There was a Ram-Air Toronado in the '69 Supercars Annual issue. 455-cu-in engine, 400 (gross) horsepower, 500 lbs-ft torque 3.21:1 axle ratio. No exact weight given... just "almost 5,000 lbs."
1/4 mile was 15.4 secs @ 91 mph.[/quote]
I do not think that I have that full road test on hand, although I have some of the specs for it on my database. I do have at least one road test on the W-34 Olds Toro model. I believe that it is the Car Life article, but I will have to check. I do have other articles on the 68-70 Olds Toro.
I also have at least two Olds Delta 88 W-33 road tests from 1968-69. I can post them if you are interested.
My uncle bought an original 1970 Olds Delta 88 Custom Royal W-33. it had the auto & a 2.94.1 non-posi rear. Very quick car and a story I will relate soon.
-
[quote=dog ear;982055]I do not think that I have that full road test on hand, although I have some of the specs for it on my database. I do have at least one road test on the W-34 Olds Toro model. I believe that it is the Car Life article, but I will have to check. I do have other articles on the 68-70 Olds Toro.
I also have at least two Olds Delta 88 W-33 road tests from 1968-69. I can post them if you are interested.
My uncle bought an original 1970 Olds Delta 88 Custom Royal W-33. it had the auto & a 2.94.1 non-posi rear. Very quick car and a story I will relate soon.[/quote]
It was a one-page test, no test data chart; the test results were mentioned in the text.
I have at least two Toronado tests by Motor Trend from '69-'71.
Okay, post that '68/'69 Delta 88 test if it ran a good 1/4 mile!
-
2 Attachment(s)
I am going to try an experiment: posting an inkling of my database for you readers to critique. Understand that this portion is not nearly finished.
Let's see if I can do this properly. I was going to upload it in a PDF but I just pasted the excell doc into 2 pics for now. keep in mind, that this database was originally intended only for the 0-30 to 0-100 mph times and not mre, but, so many newer cars as well as the cxlassic European mdels went typically faster than the American versions of the musclecar / supercar, I decided to include those extra times across the board. Only problem I see is that it makes for a long excell document.
Anyway, tell me what you think?
-
[quote=dog ear;982058]I am going to try an experiment: posting an inkling of my database for you readers to critique. Understand that this portion is not nearly finished.
Let's see if I can do this properly. I was going to upload it in a PDF but I just pasted the excell doc into 2 pics for now. keep in mind, that this database was originally intended only for the 0-30 to 0-100 mph times and not mre, but, so many newer cars as well as the cxlassic European mdels went typically faster than the American versions of the musclecar / supercar, I decided to include those extra times across the board. Only problem I see is that it makes for a long excell document.
Anyway, tell me what you think?[/quote]
Thanks for posting those. Some impressive times! Quite a few in the 13s and faster.
I find most interesting the 0-60, 0-100 mph times and, of course, the most important one, the 1/4 mile e.t. and trap speed.
-
I will dig the Olds book out tomorrow and scan the Delta 88 W-33 and the Toro W-34 tests, as well as a 67 Delmont 88 Police Apprehender 425-375 hp article that I think you will like.
Now that we are on a full-size kick, I will toss in a few Caddy, Chrysler 300, Big Ford and Mercs tests as well. I even have a few Dodge Polara articles.
-
3 Attachment(s)
Here is a quick 3-car test from 1970. I believe that it is from Motor Trend...cannot be sure...do you have this one Fleet?
-
So you think that you like fast Toronados...
-
6 Attachment(s)
Here is one for you to savor!
-
A built engine and 5.12:1 axle ratio? I bet it really moves!
-
[quote=dog ear;982061]Here is a quick 3-car test from 1970. I believe that it is from Motor Trend...cannot be sure...do you have this one Fleet?[/quote]
Yes, I have that one. Definitely from Motor Trend. From 1969. The New Yorker did well... 1/4 mile deep into the 15s.
-
[quote=Fleet 500;982066]A built engine and 5.12:1 axle ratio? I bet it really moves![/quote]
I recall reading about the Pikes Hill Climb Toro years ago and the various iterations that have competed there, have always impressed me. You would need (5.12.1) gearing in order to make it up the mountain in style, but imagine the racket that 14.5 C.R. engine would have made at the starting-line? Basically, they would have been super stock W-30 type engines with hard core aftermarket upgrades like the article insinuated. 500 gross hp would have been an easy mark. Not sure about the longevity of the engine with that king of compression…probably a grenade waiting to happen.
Have you ever read about the ‘’Terrifying Toronado’’ exhibition style drag car? Or, the duel-engine 1966 Olds Toro road-going car that ran around Germany in the late 60s? Admittedly, I have scarce information on these cars, but, I do possess a few tidbits. They were awesome cars.
Later on down the road, I have two unique stories to tell about (two) real-world Toro’s that I actually seen, and experienced during the seventies.
-
5 Attachment(s)
Here is an early February, 1968 Popular Mechanics article on the Delta 88 W-33 Police Apprehender.
-
Yes, I have that road test. I would list the tests I have but it would take a long time!
That Olds did well for acceleration considering it it a full-sized car and weighed well over 4,000 lbs.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Here is a test of a 1963 Dodge Ramcharger (also known as Max Wedge).
A 4.2 second 0-60 mph and 12.5 @ 114 mph!
-
5 Attachment(s)
For comparisons sake, take a look at this July, 1969 Road Test Magazine article on the ‘’standard’’ 1969 Olds Delta 88 with the optional 4V 455-365 HP engine. This was the engine that most people remember in these cars. Most people never heard of the W-33 option even though it was widely available. Nonetheless, the W-33 was way faster than the base model in every aspect.
I am aware that the base model 455-4V engine did have better acceleration in other magazine road tests of the period, but, I do not have access to them at this time. I will look in my database, and check for better specs just to be certain. If I find anything better I will post them.
-
5 Attachment(s)
Now, my final entry for the Delta 88 series is this March, 1970, Car & Driver test.
-
I don't have that one; thanks for posting.
Wow, over 4,500 lbs and only a 2.93:1 axle ratio yet it still gets to 60 mph in under 7 seconds. And a 140 mph top speed.
-
[quote=Fleet 500;982076]Here is a test of a 1963 Dodge Ramcharger (also known as Max Wedge).
A 4.2 second 0-60 mph and 12.5 @ 114 mph![/quote]
I do not have that road test. I only had the basic 1/4 mile times in my database until now. I just copied that part to my collection.
All Max Wedge cars are simply awesome. As you very well know the 62-64 Dodge and Plymouths were very light cars compared to the competition and the Max Wedge jobs were soundly engineered and highly developed from the beginning, hence their name, Max Wedge.
Most were not street-driven. In fact, Mopar cautioned buyers against running them wide open for more than 14 continuous seconds at a time, because they were not designed for that kind of operation. Their valve guides and seals were only designed to operate for about 13 seconds, or less. They were notorious oil burners. That’s because the whole engine was set up very loosed, just the ticket for drag racing.
I actually knew a guy who owned one of them suckers in the mid-seventies. He had it set up to run on the street and it was a true eye-opener. Apparently, the car took out a lot of so-called heavies. However, most people never liked them because they were always kind of ugly.
My second cousin, Kenny used to own a 1964 Dodge Polara with a mildly modified 383 that was said to be a very quick car. With a pair of old skinny 7.75-14 bias-ply specials on the rear, it could easily burn rubber for one-hundred feet.
Believe it or not, Kenny later owned an original 1965 Barracuda with a weird late-fifties 365 CID Caddy engine transplant. Why? Who can say really? I think that the Caddy was just lying around, and it was made use of in that un-orthodox fashion.
Kenny had that mother jacked up in the air three feet or so in period style dragster fashion. It burned rubber like crazy, handled evilly, and somehow ‘looked’’ just right, painted in a sinister black over red interior. More stories on that car later…
-
[quote=Fleet 500;982079]I don't have that one; thanks for posting.
Wow, over 4,500 lbs and only a 2.93:1 axle ratio yet it still gets to 60 mph in under 7 seconds. And a 140 mph top speed.[/quote]
My Uncle Len bought one brand new in 1970, which was very similar to the one in the C&D test. Len’s was Aztec Gold with the Gold Brocade bench-seat interior. His would only pull a ‘police certified’ 133 mph on the speedometer.
Living in Val Caron, a suburb in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, that car was truly unique in that it was the only one around. Len street raced lots of cars with the big Delta and come away victorious often. It would really get away from a dead stop and the torque just kept it going strong all the way to redline.
Len being the better driver often won right off the line, even though the Olds was peg-legged with no limited slip. Being heavy helped somewhat. That same Olds took out his brothers 1971 429 Cobra Jet Torino GT hands down.
Admittedly, Uncle Cecil was a menace. He was incapable of leaving the line without huge rooster tails of tire smoke curling up behind him for 100 feet. At the time, I never liked the big-assed ‘yellow-bird’ as Cecil aptly named it. It was painted in Canary Yellow with white interior.
Uncle Len even smoked off a new 1971 LS6 Monte Carlo SS454. I was not present when it happened but bad news travels fast and soon enough the Montes reputation was at stake. In those days, Sudbury Nickel was not happy as long as that W-33 ran amok.
-
[quote=dog ear;982080]
Most were not street-driven. In fact, Mopar cautioned buyers against running them wide open for more than 14 continuous seconds at a time, because they were not designed for that kind of operation. Their valve guides and seals were only designed to operate for about 13 seconds, or less. They were notorious oil burners. That’s because the whole engine was set up very loosed, just the ticket for drag racing.
[/quote]
It says a lot about automotive engineering that, almost forty years later, you have people complaining they can ONLY use the launch control a handful of times on the Nissan GT-R to do neck-snapping starts before fail-safe mode kicks in when the Max Edge Mopar couldn't even be DRIVEN at full blast for more than a 14 second. :D
-
3 Attachment(s)
[quote=kingofthering;982082]It says a lot about automotive engineering that, almost forty years later, you have people complaining they can ONLY use the launch control a handful of times on the Nissan GT-R to do neck-snapping starts before fail-safe mode kicks in when the Max Edge Mopar couldn't even be DRIVEN at full blast for more than a 14 second. :D[/quote]
And like the car magazines back then said, why would you want to use full throttle for more than 15 seconds when it runs a 12.5 second 1/4 mile!
Here are 3 more scans from the same issue...
A 428 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ. It weighs quite a bit (4,400 lbs), yet still has good times. This would make a good luxo-cruiser.
A Dodge Charger 500 with the 426-Hemi engine and 4.10 gears. As expected, very good acceleration even what must have been a big traction problem.
And a 427 Chevy Impala. This one seems kind of heavy for an Impala (4,358 lbs). Usually the weigh 3,800-3,900 lbs.
-
[quote=dog ear;982080]I do not have that road test. I only had the basic 1/4 mile times in my database until now. I just copied that part to my collection. [/quote]
I knew about the road test and the performance but did not obtain the magazine until about 2 years ago.
[quote]All Max Wedge cars are simply awesome. As you very well know the 62-64 Dodge and Plymouths were very light cars compared to the competition and the Max Wedge jobs were soundly engineered and highly developed from the beginning, hence their name, Max Wedge. [/quote]
Yes, very sneaky of Mopar to do that... the weight-savings which is as good as adding horsepower.
[quote]Most were not street-driven. In fact, Mopar cautioned buyers against running them wide open for more than 14 continuous seconds at a time, because they were not designed for that kind of operation. Their valve guides and seals were only designed to operate for about 13 seconds, or less. They were notorious oil burners. That’s because the whole engine was set up very loosed, just the ticket for drag racing.[/quote]
Yes, not practical for the street, that's for sure.
[quote]I actually knew a guy who owned one of them suckers in the mid-seventies. He had it set up to run on the street and it was a true eye-opener. Apparently, the car took out a lot of so-called heavies. However, most people never liked them because they were always kind of ugly. [/quote]
Yep. As much as I like the power of the Max Wedge Mopars, my top pick is still the '69 Dodge Coronet R/T 440-Magnum. If bought new, I would choose 3.55:1 gears and Torquflite automatic transmission (which I would almost immediately put in a shift kit). I did win another magazine from eBay. I should get it in a few days. The April, 1969 issue of Super Stock. In it, are tests of a Pontiac GTO and GTO Judge, a Hemi Charger and a Coronet R/T. I already know the 1/4 mile figures for the Coronet, which was tested with a 4.10 axle ratio and 4-speed manual trans... 13.83 @ 102.27 mph.
[quote]My second cousin, Kenny used to own a 1964 Dodge Polara with a mildly modified 383 that was said to be a very quick car. With a pair of old skinny 7.75-14 bias-ply specials on the rear, it could easily burn rubber for one-hundred feet. [/quote]
A good engine, those 383s. As you know, I own a '66 Plymouth Fury VIP with the engine. Very good low-end torque. Someday, I may replace the Fury with a lighter Mopar also with a 383. Something like a '66 Plymouth Satellite or a "plain" '69 Dodge Coronet (not an R/T). My Plymouth weighs 4,330 lbs and those two cars weigh more like 3,600-3,700 lbs. I would put in headers, 3.55s and (again) a shift kit. Should run somewhere in the 14s so equipped. Maybe low-14s at about 98 mph. Of course, the engine could always be built to about 450-475 (or more) hp, which would easily put it in the 13s. But I don't want to drive a car which only gets about 6 mpg!
[quote]Believe it or not, Kenny later owned an original 1965 Barracuda with a weird late-fifties 365 CID Caddy engine transplant. Why? Who can say really? I think that the Caddy was just lying around, and it was made use of in that un-orthodox fashion. [/quote]
I'm surprised a 365-cu-in Cadillac engine fits in the engine compartment of a '65 Barracuda! It should have made for a very responsive Barracuda. The 365-cu-in Cad engine, in a '55-'58 Cadillac, could run 0-60 mph in 11 seconds.
[quote]Kenny had that mother jacked up in the air three feet or so in period style dragster fashion. It burned rubber like crazy, handled evilly, and somehow ‘looked’’ just right, painted in a sinister black over red interior. More stories on that car later…[/quote]
Yeah, I don't jack up my cars, never did. It adversely affects handling. I don't mind if the rear is slightly higher than the front, though.
-
[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofthering
It says a lot about automotive engineering that, almost forty years later, you have people complaining they can ONLY use the launch control a handful of times on the Nissan GT-R to do neck-snapping starts before fail-safe mode kicks in when the Max Edge Mopar couldn't even be DRIVEN at full blast for more than a 14 second. [/COLOR]
Quote:
Posted by Fleet
And like the car magazines back then said, why would you want to use full throttle for more than 15 seconds when it runs a 12.5 second 1/4 mile!
reply by dog ear
Lots of fools might have wanted to take one out for a midnight run in Nevada in order to ‘see’ what they would do top end. Or, they might try to overtake the big four: Cobra, Vette, Ferrari, and Jag, or worse yet, depending on one’s sanity, try to out-run a cop.
Quote:
Posted by Fleet
And a 427 Chevy Impala. This one seems kind of heavy for an Impala (4,358 lbs). Usually the weigh 3,800-3,900 lbs.
Reply by dog ear
I have road tests for full-sized big block Chevys that weigh as much, or more, as early as 1966. Biscayne and Bel-Airs were lightest of all.
Quote:
Posted by dog ear
Believe it or not, Kenny later owned an original 1965 Barracuda with a weird late-fifties 365 CID Caddy engine transplant. Why? Who can say really? I think that the Caddy was just lying around, and it was made use of in that un-orthodox fashion.
Posted by Fleet
I'm surprised a 365-cu-in Cadillac engine fits in the engine compartment of a '65 Barracuda! It should have made for a very responsive Barracuda. The 365-cu-in Cad engine, in a '55-'58 Cadillac, could run 0-60 mph in 11 seconds.
reply by dog ear
Never did understand it myself. When I first heard about the engine swap, I thought that everyone who said Caddy 365 must have been mistaken, and meant Mopar 361, but such was not the case.
I never did look under the hood, but I know that it was indeed a 365 Cad plant. I am not sure how fast it actually was, but it certainly was not as quick as uncle Lens 455-powered W-33 Delta 88, nor uncle Cecil’s 71 429 Cobra Jet Torino.
I do know that it maxed out somewhere around 120 mph. I also know how it feels to hear them old nylon ply tires start to disintegrate at that speed on a pot-holed secondary highway. After stopping 17 miles later, you could see that very large chunks of rubber was missing from the tires, so much so that you could actually ‘see’ the heat-blistered tubes inside.
Scariest thing was Kenny just laughed, had a few more beers later on into the night, and then drove home another 10-12 miles without bothering to change the tires.
-
A 340 is a very good engine to put in a '64-'66 Barracuda because it's about the same size as the 273 V-8 and it makes good power for its size.
I don't think I've heard of a Cadillac engine in a Barracuda. But it's probably one-of-a-kind!
Yes, for drag racing, the Biscayne and Bel-Airs are the best choice (lighter weight).
The Max-Wedge would not be a good choice for a top end run, unless the rear end was changed to higher gearing, like 2.93s or 2.76s. They are also not at all aerodynamic which would make it kind of hard to get them up to high speeds.
-
Yes, the Cad - Barracuda was a one-of-a-kind swap. Never heard of it before oe since. Why would we? The 340 is exatly the same size demensionally as the 273, and will run circles around the 365 Caddy, anytime.
That 365 Cad was very heavy also; much more than even a Mopar 440 would have been. The swap itself only made sense to someone who did not give a shit for commom sense and just wanted to see if it could have been done. Simply put; a wacko job.