An observation from a newbie

[MrPbody]

Terzmo, if you have ever seen a '67 coded 389 block, I'd like to see some pics. '66 was the last year for 389. The early '67 400s had the 20 degree heads on 2-bbl. engines (similar to 389, but not the same). ALL the others had 14 degree heads with big valves and screw-in studs.
If you raced GTOs, you KNOW it takes a stroked MOPAR to beat a stocker... Show up at Dinwiddie in May, and you'll go home with your feelings hurt. MANY 8 second door cars, and a few 7 second. Some 6 second dragsters on alcohol. No Chevy engines allowed. How many big Dodges make more than 640 HP on 93 octane and flat tappet cams? I have three customers with 461 CID Pontiacs doing it. And I'm just one of the "small fish" in the Pontiac "pond". Butler has a 505 CID version making 2880 HP, turbo-charged on alcohol. Sounds a lot like Hemi country to me... Bernie never got more than 2,200 from his "Max Wedge" (499 CID, blown alcohol, '67 GTX, runs 4.90s in the 1/8). He went to the Hemi. 4.40s now.
If you're basing your Pontiac "knowledge" on anything more than 5 years old, you're not paying attention. Pontiacs are back, and with teeth in them Tigers.... Everyone knows, tigers EAT sheep (oh, sorry, rams) for lunch every day...

[terzmo]

Well....I guess you boiled it down to "My Dad can kick Your dad's ass" or whatever.....From stock "muscle cars" to track monster's....What in the Hell is a Dimwiddie....

[wedgemotor]

Terzmo, Dinwiddie is the name of the town where the dragstrip Virginia Motorsports Park is at, commonly refered to as Dinwiddie here by some of the locals. Wow it seems as if we started a full on battle on engine supremacy here. I guess in the realm of Pontiac guys, performance is back for them. I guess that's why you can go into any Pontiac dealer and order up parts for that old 400, not! The arguments you make are quite Pontiac slated. The big engines that make serious horsepower without being a hemi would be BBC, or 360 series Fords and this from a Mopar guy. Hemi's are just way too expensive. By the way your claim that a wedgemotor can't make more than 640 horsepower on 92 octane. Call up Dick Landy and he'll explain to you how he can build the one that won the engine master's challenge. Indy cylinder heads will make more power than any Poncho head as well the B-1 T/S. Sorry MrPBody.

[terzmo]

Your position is new cars....I have NO interest in new cars except for transportation. I run the dodge on the street every good day there is out there...and My definition of a good day is dry....as long as the salt is gone from the roads..temp doesn't matter...that's why I usually run it about 5000 miles in a short WNY cruise season....93 octane....almost a horse per cube....plans for next season will put it over a horse per cube and still run pump gas. On another thought....I'm not a nitrous fan....it's a cheap way for hp but it's phony to Me bacause it's not available the entire evening cruise. Squirt the bottle and eventually it's gone..I'd rather spend the money and have hp at all times.

[wedgemotor]

I try to make opinions based on both new and old. I don't take the position on just new vehicles. As you may know, I own a 70 Dart Swinger 340, hardly new. I objectively try to reason as to why someone would want a new performance car and compare it to the old. There is nothing wrong with alot of today's performance vehicles. I know Dodge doesn't have much, but that doesn't mean I am going to turn my head on alot of the new stuff. I love taking the dart out on the weekends and summer drives too. I know that there is more inherent reliability built-in to today's performance machines, you just have to take a different approach to modifying them. Hence all the power-adders of late. I would take an old car and add compression cam and heads to make power, but sacrifice drivability inturn. New cars you can modify and maintain drivability more. I know this, unless you build BIG stroker big blocks with low compression, it is hard to make alot of HP with the old technology. The new cars with all there fuel injection, and computers have power waiting to be tapped into. It just depends on what you like. If you ask me, nothing is funner than driving a Big Block musclecar with a 4-speed. Whether it's a GTO, Chevelle, Road Runner, Torino, Buick, or anything from 64-74 from detroit that had 383 or bigger and a stick. They just give you butterflies in your stomach when you drive them, that you don't get with today's smooth running power machines.

[MrPbody]

Wedgemotor, Relax. I was just razzin' him. As a professional engine builder, I am fully aware of the power potential of the RB engine. I DID see the Landy engine in Engine Masters Magazine, and it did just fine. It was, however, a big roller and all aftermarket stuff. The Pontiac I was refering to is a flat-tappet job. Both are quite impressive. I find it humorous when someone spews pure BS about the Pontiac, based on hearsay and supposition. The man claims there are '67 389s, making it quite clear he has no idea about Pontiac history, and what was or was not available. Just got off the phone this minute, with a man looking at a '67 GTO for sale. The owner claims it was an original TriPower car. The build sheet says 400 CID HO 4-bbl., TH400 transmission. I believe Pontiac before I do a seller. There are no TriPower cars in any body style, after '66.
As things are right now, the Mopes are right where they've always been. The power levels and parts availablility are good. The popularity level is still number 3, behind Chevy and Ford (in that order). Pontiac has climbed from relative obscurity since the engine was discontinued, to number 4 among racers, and is at the top of the muscle car restoration and collecting list. We owe this to NMCA, as one cannot have muscle car races without GTOs, and one cannot really call it GTO if it has a Chevy engine. Market-driven parts and services are at an all-time high for the Pontiac. We have many heads, intakes, etc. that are real race parts. Rods are now relatively cheap, making the engine a viable performance option (rids us of the old cast rods GM forced upon us).
Those of us on the "inside" of Pontiac performance, are aware of a few new pieces not yet released, but out of prototyping and beginning the arduous task of manufacture, that will change EVERYTHING in GM camps. There are three new heads (including one race-only unit that will rival "Big Chief" for flow and power potential, 400-plus CFM BEFORE porting), two new blocks (including one aluminum), a rumor of a good, non-twist forging available in various strokes, two new intakes (not remakes or knock-offs), and ALL the cam companies have jumped in. It really is an exciting time for we Injun fans. You should be seeing some of the new stuff at your local tracks by the middle of the year. There are a couple of "B" class funny cars coming, too, nitro and all!
It's kinda funny, but when we talk to old timers about the new goodies, they get a bit nerveous. They have respect and remember when they dreaded the day they would line up against a Catalina or GTO. The younger set scoffs at them and laugh. Many a dollar has been taken from such a cocky youngster with more balls than brains.
By the way, there a few new cam grinds and some other "trinkets" in the current GM Performance catelog for the Pontiac. GM is paying "lip service" the GTO craze. The valve covers are popular among the show car crowd, but aren't tall enough for real engines (roller rockers). Reports on the new cam grinds (they still offer ALL the old performance grinds through GM) are sketchy, as GM isn't known for leading edge cam technology (not since the '60s). Most opt for proven aftermarket components. But yes, there ARE parts from GM for the 400...
The simple truth is, if you apply enough money and time, you can make ANY engine make big power (relative to displacement). What is happening now is the parts are getting more reasonable in price and the level of quality and engineering have made making big power easy.
Please take my comparison comments with the humor they were intended. But don't scoff too loudly at the GTO you may have to race. One thing's for sure, we've always had the element of surprise! I know I won more than one race because the oponent (regardless of what he/she was driving) underestimated the power potential of my GTO, and got caught flat-footed at the light, while The Judge just blazed them out of the gate. Once out front, it's pretty hard to run the Poncho down. I DO recall getting embarassed real good (grammar) one night by a '69 GTX... I got him out of the gate, but long about the middle of third, he went by like I was parked! 440 Magnum. Never lost to a small Dodge, nor to anything with a 6-Pack (I suspect it was tuning issues). But those Magnums and police package 440s were AWESOME!
You should see the 499 we're doing right now! Cross-bolt mains, big XE solid roller, should make near 700 HP (11:1). You wouldn't know where there's a B-1 intake with the 4500 flange for sale, used, would you?

[RivGSmusclecar]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

Lastly, let's see... An experienced writer from the era, and a certified master with 25 years experience (and a published technical writer, legally recognized expert) say to pay attention to history for what it is, not for what you think it should be, yet you continue to argue. Name-calling and personal insults are the tactics of someone in a corner with no real ammo to illustrate their position.
**************************************************
It's okay. You can believe your Buick is better than a Pontiac. You can believe your Buick was/is the best.

I know I came off that way, but I don't think any one is better than the other, nor do I think one is best. I'm just sick of people who consider themselves to be "experts" commenting on cars they know nothing about. And what really irks me is when they use a photo of a car in a book or article that isn't even correct! I've read more false information about the cars I know best in many books and articles. That just leads to more mis-information and arguing.

Writers will never go against what the majority of their readers want to read......come on, what sells more books? Authors who don't write what the readers want to hear will not be employed very long. I don't need much ammo to prove that point.......it's obvious.

I personally insulted that guy and it was directed at writers in general.......where Buick Rivieras are concerned, I haven't read material from a magazine or book yet that is completely accurate. Maybe they get their facts from mistaken sources? I don't know, but I do know that non-facts are also presented about other cars too, so I take whatever I read with a grain of salt, and laugh when I read things that I know are wrong. I'm not perfect either, but what really pees me off is when someone writes mistaken facts and then presents them to me like I'm wrong when I know I'm right.

[BleedDodge]

Can't we all just get along?

[Twitch1]

Hey guy, no offense taken about writers. The way auto magazine have always done road tests is that they receive a vehicle from the manufacturer with all of its specs. They usually confirm many of these specs during the road test. Bond Publishing- Road & Track, Car Life, Cycle World, Dune Buggies & Hot VWs- had 2 full time mechanics on staff for some of that. I can't speak for any other media source but Bond editors wrote what they found.

Some things are pure performance-related via test instruments recordimg acceleration and such. Some things are subjective. Is a car comfortable for a 6' 4" driver? No? Then if you say the say it's uncomfortable you're doing it an injustice. It's uncomfortable only to really tall drivers. 99.9% of drivers will have no problems.

A road test is pretty much black and white. You read the performance figures. Car gets 18 MPG city and generates .65g in the skidpad. Pretty much every magazine that tests the car will get nearly identical figures. What's inaccurate there?

The car manufacturers have always done market research and created certain cars with certain images. They don't sell the steak. They sell the sizzle. It's all image. When they or the media in general named a niche the manufacturers competed for that niche. If it was compacts then each company marketed it's compact with an image to appeal to the consumer that was interested in cars in that category. Often the sizzle wasn't steak at all. It was pork chops! But they kept those lines between cars. The more lines a manufacturer had the more likely they were to snag you as a customer with something they made.

The compacts were economy cars. They soon grew to have V-8s and there never was a named category for them that stuck- performance compacts? Intermediates had lots of variance in the definition. Companies subdivided the category by making cars just a tad larger though much heavier and called it personal luxury. The '63 Riviera was advertised as a new class of car etc., etc., etc.
Other companies came out with their personal luxury cars too. Luxury cars were full sized like Lincolns or Caddies. Lines of distinction got very blurred in the 60s. Could a Mercury Marquis be a true luxury car? It wasn't a presonal-sized luxury car and it wasn't a plain Mercury. It was optioned up with luxury items. The Mercury was never considered a luxury car in its history. Was a bread and butter Ford Galaxie optioned out really luxurious?

If manufacturers had just dropped the personal luxury cars into the intermediate class there would have been confusion and loss of sales.

The actual term of the time was "supercar" in describing performance intermediates. Muscle car came somewhere around 1970 or so. I have no idea where it originated. For all I know maybe Smoky Yunnick coined it. By 1974 it was in use after all the degradation of HP and performance occured. The term described intermediate-sized cars that had had performance options that transformed the original semi-economical plain car into something else or separate lines of performance intermediates. Back in the 70s everyone knew which cars were meant when one said muscle car.

It's like pornography. It's hard to describe legally but you know it when you see it.

As for writers, they are governed by the editorial policies of the media they work for. If you have ever read mags like Car and Driver, for example, you know how immune they are to writing what readers want to hear. I can tell you for sure that all they get are the cars and the press releases. There are paid for press only shows and such but come on, in today's world where people call it like it is there is no way and magazine could survive long soliciting kick backs from manufacturers and writing how nice BMWs are if they're really crappy. Who's going to sell out their employer and their integtiry for a shrimp cocktail? There is no conspiracy of auto writers to confuse the public with inaccurate info.

Is Consumer Reports biased?

I'm curious as to what exactly you've found inaccurate in Riviera reporting within the print media. Specifications, weights and measurments can't be far apart. Performance issues such as mileage, acceleration, and top speed can't vary much. If they do it's atmospheric conditions, tire differences, tire pressures and the idiosynchrocies of the human testers involved.

The histories are public records with data and figures from the companies themselves. I can only imagine that you must mean areas that are subjective to individuials. One says the ride is too hard and another says its too soft while Goldilocks say its just right.

An editorial is an opinion expressed by one journalist reflecting the values of his publisher. A road test or historical article is quite factual for the most part, with subjective areas of variance noted.

I don't want this to sound the wrong way at all, but what do you know that Motor Trend, for example, didn't know when they tested a certain Buick in a certain year? A "non-fact" is an opinion or subjective conclusion. "We think the car is too noisy" or "none of our testers liked the soft suspension." Point is in statements like these are that some folks will NOT think the car is too noisy or that the suspension is too soft.

If a writer says the 1966 Babaloo XR had 345HP when it had 360HP then he is in error. Is he purposely misleading you? Probably not. Why would he?

I own about every automotive magazine printed from the early 1950s to about 1975. I couldn't begin to imagine finding material on all the cars they tested or all the engineering articles from any other one source. If a 1967 article interviewing Zora Duntov describes a range of SOHC, DOHC, 3-valve, 4-valve, hemi head engines and several F.I. configurations that Chevrolet experimented with I figure it's for real.

Fortunately I can go back and read the reviews, road tests and engineering articles on all the pony cars, muscle cars, sports cars, econo cars and so on.

Peering back in history attempting to apply today's values is like reading the ending of a book then wondering why the characters in the beginning don't behave as though they have your knowledge.

In truth I think the original term of the times is more accurate in "supercar." It encompasses all domestic high performance cars plain and simple.

[PMDtempest]

the term "muscle car" was coined by John Delorean in 1963 and yes he also did create the DMC-12

[65Shelby427]

A quick word about this insane,4 page arguement covering...well, everything. Mr.Buick, you win the award for "Most SUBJECTIVELY Correct Person Ever To Grace God's Green Earth". Pbody knows what he's talkig about. Dont shove your Owner's manual in his face. To be perfectly honest, I think you own this Gran Sport, Followed by 3 or 4 ricers. I say youre subjectively correct because this whole arguement is clearly a matter of opinion. Pbody and MagicRat know what theyre saying, and try to present the facts in order to correct you, and aid you in your further prowess as a car lover or enthusiast, or whatever you want to be called. Then you go and personalize it. What is this, an arguement about whose Hot Wheels is the best? Jeezus Christ dude, the fact that you dont have any personal or mutual respect for a professional engine builder makes my bones shake. What do you do? When was the last time you ripped apart an engine, rebored it,...i believe your hands are tainted, tainted with the devil's fluid, the oil of IMPORTS! MY POINT: Dont call that buick a musclecar. you saiud yourself you dont WANT to belong to that category. then stop crying and bitching, and go change the oil on your '93 Supra. Thanks.

[MrPbody]

65,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but this thread died long ago. Rivguy hasn't been back.
It's okay. We (guys like MagicRat and I) get these pot-shots taken at us all the time. As it's plenty easy to "fake" being an expert on line, I don't blame him for being skeptical.
This particular site is overrun with young bucks, too, spouting all the shade-tree and bench racing stuff they really believe to be true, 'cuz that's what they heard somewhere from someone... It's difficult to shake that, expecially when some body comes along and blows your whole arguement out of the water. Since they "know" the guy at McDonald's that spouts off and they don't know me from Adam, I MUST be wrong...
I've had no direct contact with MagicRat, just the occasional exchange here. But I'll bet, if he isn't CURRENTLY working as a mechanic or automotive machinist, he HAS, somewhere in his past. I wonder if he's an old fart like me...

Jim