camoro or firebird

[1g1yy]

Wow, veeery impressive!! Oh, sorry, I meant your egos need for self-aggrandizement -- not your car-smarts!

Look, we could argue about this forever and never change each others opinions. I am not a Chevy lover blinded to the truth as some on this forum. In fact I have owned more Pontiacs than any other make by far. I was around in the sixties, and have owned a bunch of cars from that era, including Firebirds and Camaros. My best friend, then and now, owned two Z-28s. Our cars were not showroom stock -- I didn't know any guys back then who went to the track without at least headers, carb work and the distributer recurved, and tires. Without at least these mods no cars from the sixties were fast -- at least not the ones accessible to the average guy. No Firebird 400 ever -- EVER -- outran my friends '69 Z-28! And he weighed 260 lbs.! Yes, it would bog down off the line, but by the middle of second gear he would have caught them, and it was all over! And you know what? The sad part is that car never ran better then 13.8s at about 104! Most cars from that era are now highly overrated.

The degree of misinformation that is put forth as gospel is ridiculous! When I watch American Muscle Car I want to pull my hair out. They talk about how certain engines were underrated (HP) for insurance or other reasons. Hogwash! Even this forum is guilty of this. Check what it states as the "unofficial" horsepower rating for the Z-28. That's right, 360 to 400!! And then look at the quarter mile times and MPH. Doesn't chive, does it?

Anyway, you have your experiences and sources of information, and I have mine. Neither of us are going to change the others mind about Pontiac or Chevy engines. I agree with you that Pontiacs were more upscale and better styled, in and out. But Poncho engines were heavy and didn't rev and pull like Chevys! (That is, of-course, with similar mods. I'm not saying you couldn't make a Pontiac run hard -- it just took more work and money.)

[1g1yy]

Oh, and I almost forgot! A '69 Camaro with an LT-1, hugh? I would hate to have you testifying as an expert for me!

[slothboy]

Its Funny That Someone Preferred The Fb Rather The The Cmro Due To The Body Style. In Both The Diff Is So Suttle That If You Didn't Know What To Look For, You'd Have To Wait Until The Ass End Was In Frt Of You.the Sheet Metal From Yr.to Yr. Pretty Much Interchanges!the Diff.comes From Under The Hood!

[slothboy]

Whats To Compare A B.o.p Motor To A Chevy?

[slothboy]

You Know I Own A 68 Tempest Custom Stock W/a B.o.p 350 & 2-spd Powerglide.but I'm A Chevy Girl All The Way. If You Know Motors You'd Know That A Chevy 350 Blows The B.o.p 350 Out Of The Water!

[MrPbody]

From late '69 through '72, Chevrolet Division produced a 350-horse 350 CID engine found in Camaros and Chevelles, known as engine LT-1. This is NOT the same as the mid-90s LT-1. It came with the solid lifter cam part number 3972178, sporting 242/254@.050 duration, .438/.460 lift on a 116 LSA. There were other cams that came later. Some are referred to as "Z-28 first design and 2nd design". The heads were the 041 castings, with the Wieand-made dual plane high rise intake, similar to the old 365 horse 327 intake, "TRW" pistons and "pink" rods. All of these engines also had the 1182 forged crank, and a Holley carb. Good performers. MUCH better than the 302s (cubes equals power).
GM is now using another old designation for a modern power plant (LS-6). In '70-'72 (and later over the counter), LS-6 was the 450 horse 454. Good runner, but hardly the modern LS-6.
I had a '70 GTO (in '73) that went 12.63 @103 with headers and a Holley, 3.55 gears and the obligitory Muncie 4-spd (only girls drove automatics in those days). It was a 400. That was at Orange County in California. I heard all the BS about Pontiacs blowing up and not making power. True enough, if you tune a Pontiac to make power like a small block, it will both be a stone AND die a horrible death. BUT... If you do a little research, and tune the Pontiac to make power where Pontiacs make power, it takes a TON of small block (read: $$$) to catch it. Smokey Yunich knew it. He built both. He actually had a "stock block" small block FINISH (the only one, ever) the Indy 500. It didn't win. But he also built the Pontiacs that finished the '62 season as the single most dominant year of any one manufacturer in both NASCAR and NHRA.
Why is it Chevy boys get so nerveous and defensive when the talk turns to Pontiac? I'll give you the point on cheaper...As with my business, we have no quarrel with who sell for less. They know the value of their product. PAX

[MrPbody]

What is a b.o.P. engine? Are you refering to the three very different 350s of the unChevy variety? If you own a '68 Pontiac with a 2-speed and a Pontiac V8, it isn't a PowerGlide. It's a 2-speed alright. It's a Super Turbine 300, and shares nothing but shift pattern with PowerGlide. PowerGlide is a much better transmission for racing, especially in lighter cars. ST 300 is a very tough transmission, but very heavy and does not lend itself well to high performance applications.
Slothboy, I see you like the 350 Chevy. I advise against putting it in that Tempest, as you will undoubtedly be disappointed with the performance of the small engine in such a large car. If you MUST run a Cheviac, at least do the car justice by using a big block. Be prepared to get your doors handed to you by a Pontiac, though! (:-

[1g1yy]

Well, Mr. Wiseacre, er -- I mean MrPbody, this is why I suggested you find a better source for information. You stated you had driven a '69 Camaro with an LT-1. And now you quote a source stating that the LT-1 was produced from 1969 through 1972. (Obviously thinking I was unaware that Chevy had used this engine designation previously.) Well, I was around in those days, I have owned Camaros, and my best friend owned two '69 Z-28s. We were always talking about how we wished his Z-28s had the LT-1, instead of the DZ-302. Alas, the LT-1 was not offered till 1970. I suppose you could say that, well, you had driven a '69 Camaro that had a retro fitted LT-1 but... Anyway, even though it is obvious you know far more about cars than most on this forum, some of what you write reads as if you might have taken lessons from that reporter who worked for the Times!

[1g1yy]

Oh, and it was also offered in the Corvette from 1970 -- 1972. But rated at 370HP (in 1970).

[slothboy]

Mrpbody Your Choice And Format Of Words & Part #'s And So On May Have Other People Fooled. Who Are They To Question Such An Inquisitive Looking Presentation. Your Confusing Your Facts,maybe You Should Do A Little More Research.i May Be A Girl But I Know What Im Talking About. If Im Not Postive About Somthing I Won't Come Across As If I Did. I'll Research & Understand It Before I Go By Word Of Mouth & Make It So I Understand It.im Not Sure How Old You Are Or What Your Profession Is But If Cars Is Just Your Hobby Maybe You Should't Be So Critical. Or Maybe You Feel Threatened Because Im A Girl. It Must Be A Pride Thing

[slothboy]

The B.o.p Motor Was The Less Fortunate Gm Motor. They Called It The Bop Because It Was The Most Common Engine That Most Of The Buicks,oldsmobiles And Pontiacs Came Stock W/. Notice I Said Most. Referring To Your Comment On The Pon.chev. Post. Remember All Of The Above Are Manuf.by Gm.
When Your Trying To Find Parts For A Pontiac Eng The 1st Question Tey Ask Is???is It Pontiac Motor,and Thats Determined By The 5th Character Of The Vin #!

[MrPbody]

Slothboy, What exactlky IS a "boP motor"? Pontiac, Olds and Buick all had different engine designs than Chevy in the muscle car era. They were all different from each other, as well. Nothing from an Olds 350 will fit a Buick or a Pontiac, and so on. The truth is, before the late '70s, there was no such thing as a "BOP Engine". Since then, ALL GM cars have shared (except Cad and some Olds models).
You should do your parts research somewhere other than Advance Auto or "the Zone", as those guys aren't parts people, they're computer terminal operators. One does not need a VIN code prior to '79 for most applications, simply because they (the engines) were all different.
When trying to find parts for a Pontiac engine, for them to ask if it's a Pontiac would be redundant. All good parts people know the difference between a 400 Pontiac and a 400 Chevy. You might want to find the "old guys" in your town and learn from them, rather try to adapt the old car world to the modern one.
1g1yy, I fail to understand your point. The Z cars had 302s. MANY '69 Camaros had 350 and 360 horse engines. I suppose there were no Z-28s in '68, either. I read your post where you were "not bashing Pontiacs, but...". You obviously carried a Chevy mentality into the build , or you wouldn't have been dissatisfied with the results. There are many different methods of making power. The two approach it from completely different philosophies.
I build engines for a living, and I live okay. I could do better, but I choose to not lie to customers or cheat them out of their money. I won't belabor the point anymore. but understand I'm not here to put you down or to make myself look important. I share real world information to help stem the rising tide of myth and superstitious bullshit this hobby is loaded with. And if you still think Pontiacs don't run, I've got a customer with a daily-driven '65 GTO ragtop that would gladly illustrate how slow his car is... Unless you run mid-11s (no adders), you'll get a bird's eye view of his tail lights! And no, it isn't a monster 455. Actually, it has a hydraulic, flat tappet cam and 3.73:1 gears and is a smaller CID.

[1g1yy]

MrPbody,
My point was that you stated you had driven a '69 Camaro with an LT-1. Since LT-1s were not offered in Camaros till '70, you either "invented" this experience or remembered it wrong. Either way this is a discussion dealing with accuracy and facts. Your "mistake" on this point calls into question the accuracy and facts of other aspects of your posts. (Though I will be the first to admit that I agree with the overwhelming majority of what you have to say.)

As I said before, I like Pontiacs and I know they can be made to run. But I also know that to get a '65 GTO into the elevens requires major head work, etc., etc.

Anyway, I am outa here!

[BleedDodge]

It's about time that those guys who took all this acid in the sixties would be having their relapses by now...

I'm just kidding, but this is pretty dumb. This is a message board and you guys are fighting like idiots on it. Remember, it's just a message board. You guys don't need to fight each other and put everyone down like that...

[MrPbody]

1g1y, I suppose I went off "half-cocked" and for that I apologize. I DO remeber driving many Camaros (worked in both dealerships and independent repair shops in SoCal during the early '70s). If my vernacular is innaccurate, I will refrain from it in the future. We called most 350s with solid lifters, 041 heads, aluminum (factory) intakes and 11:1 compression "LT-1". Maybe '69 had a different designation for the engine. It was a good engine, though.
And yes, just like Fords, Chevys, Dodges, Ramblers (AMC for the younger set) or any other car of the era, it takes a ton of work to get ANY car into the 11s. To keep things in perspective, the vast majority of Chevrolets today, that run hard, have aftermarket heads on them. Many have aftermarket blocks, too. Why is it considered negative to have a Pontiac with aftermarket parts on it, too? It takes good parts to make anything run well. In olden times (just for you, bleeddodge), all any of us had to work with were factory-produced performance parts. In a class where factory manifolding and valve train are required, you need a big block, usually around 454+ cubes, to outrun a 400 Pontiac. Once the aftermarket variables enter the picture, Chevy gets an advantage due to sheer volume. It would be foolish to say the small block isn't a good performer. In some applications, it is absolutely the best. But in other applications, there are superior designs. The Pontiac really shines in a heavy car at street speeds. BTW, the car I refer to is Rick Holladay's '65. It runs 12.0s consistently. With a 4-speed manual, he won three bracket races in N. Carolina last year, and goes several rounds on most occasions. Who says you can't win with a stick?? And to top it off (no pun intended), he runs a '66 TriPower unit. It would probably be a couple tenths quicker with a good Holley and Torker.
What has changed here is the availablity of high-end performance parts of modern design, for the Pontiac. You can look at the Edelbrock catelog to understand this. There are heads for the Olds (one version). There are no heads for Buick. There are no Victor intakes for Olds OR Buick. There are three part numbers for the Pontiac heads, and there is Victor, in both 4150 and 4500 flanges, just like the Chevy! (Thanks, Vic, Jr.!).
I post on other boards and am usually more subdued. I will try to be non-condescending and accurate in all details in the future.
One last thing, slothboy, please stop saying your '68 Tempest is the same as a '69 GTO. The only body parts that interchange are the hood (if yours was a GTO), the front and rear glass, and MAYBE the front bumper. Other than that, there are few parts with the same number. And a Tempest is NOT a GTO, even if it were the same year. There was overlap between models in '64 and '65, but from '66 through '71, GTO was an independent model of the Pontiac version of the GM A-body. It again became an option on LeMans in '72. And I'm still waiting for a specific definition of what a "boP engine" is/was...