The Most Beautiful Car Ever

[Archean]

That's right Cap, the 396 from 65-68 produced from 325-380 hp and the 389 was just shy of 300 hp. and then emission standards dropped them about 100 hp.

The 389 remained the standard Pontiac V8 engine for a while, and was offered in a bewildering variety of outputs ranging from 215 to 368 horsepower.

 

[dividebyzero]

Pontiac never quite kept up with Chevy offerings even compared inches to inches. I think the average 396 chevy could usually best the 389 Pontiac. All the 389 Pontiacs were hydraulic lifters, low revving and were limited by the 3 2BBL carbs (trips). Which is not to say they weren't really fast, but the division wasn't invested in racing to the extent that Chevrolet was.

True enough in the 64-71 timeframe. I used to own a 69 Chevelle SS with the solid lifter L78 - the factory 375hp was complete bs.
Pontiac got ordered off performance from 63 I think but their 59-62 Super Duty 389 and 421's were awesome performers. There's a SD421 2x4bbl Catalina locally. Worth too much to send down the strip these days but a solid 12 second quarter miler.

 

[Archean]

That's right Cap, the 396 from 65-68 produced from 325-380 hp and the 389 was just shy of 300 hp. and then emission standards dropped them about 100 hp.

The 389 remained the standard Pontiac V8 engine for a while, and was offered in a variety of outputs ranging from 215 to 368 horsepower.

 

[red1776]

The 389 remained the standard Pontiac V8 engine for a while, and was offered in a variety of outputs ranging from 215 to 368 horsepower.

what year was the 368 hp version Arch? I looked rather extensively before getting a 396, and never came across one that was rated at more than 290hp stock....but...i am getting old!

 

[captaincranky]

That's right Cap, the 396 from 65-68 produced from 325-380 hp and the 389 was just shy of 300 hp. and then emission standards dropped them about 100 hp.

Oh yeah, emission standards. I had a 75 Tempest "LeMans". Its 350 weighed a hundred pounds or so more than a 350 small block chevy. With a 2BBL it produced a whopping 150 HP. with a rear about 3 to 1.

I think that the 400s in the '75 and up Trans Ams pounded out about 195.

In fact I'm not sure that the 350 even put out 150HP

 

[Archean]

I will try to find the year but I think it should be around 1966 or later (i'm guessing here)

 

[dividebyzero]

I think the 368hp was a special order for full size (Catalina 2+2 and Grand Prix) for 1966-67. Was a dealer install like the 400 Ram Air V (500hp) for the '70 GTO Judge

 

[red1776]

everybody pedal!

Oh yeah, emission standards. I had a 75 Tempest "LeMans". Its 350 weighed a hundred pounds or so more than a 350 small block chevy. With a 2BBL it produced a whopping 150 HP. with a rear about 3 to 1.

I think that the 400s in the '75 and up Trans Ams pounded out about 195.

In fact I'm not sure that the 350 even put out 150HP

Yikes!, not much push for a car that weighed what? about 4800lbs

 

[red1776]

I think the 368hp was a special order for full size (Catalina 2+2 and Grand Prix) for 1966-67. Was a dealer install like the 400 Ram Air V (500hp) for the '70 GTO Judge

aha, that makes sense. If i remember correctly, they put 389's in the TA's and Firebirds, and they only had 250-290hp.

 

[dividebyzero]

Only way to get around the insurance boys.
Holman and Moody offered the 63 Galaxie 500XL with a 427 / 600+hp (dual holley 4bbl) and Mr. Norm offered a 63 Dodge lightweight 330 with a 13.5:1 compression 426 wedge (550hp)with no warranty, seatbelts, carpets,and plexiglass windows the same year- street legal in the southern states on nitro-benzene and Sunoco 131 octane.

 

[red1776]

with a 13.5:1 compression

can you imagine trying to run that on today's gas? all of your pistons would have holes burned in them from the pre-ignition.

 

[captaincranky]

Nytol.....

 

[red1776]

night Cap

 

[dividebyzero]

aha, that makes sense. If i remember correctly, they put 389's in the TA's and Firebirds, and they only had 250-290hp.

I think GM tried to pitch the performance a fair bit lower to boost the Camaro's image since the Z-28 and SS350 and 396 were going to have better profit margins and Chev couldn't offer anything in the performance luxo-barge segment like the Grand Prix,

 

[dividebyzero]

very enjoyable discussion but I gotta go too. Got a build here finishing up an OC stability/torture test for a friend so I'd better let ithave some rest. night folks.

 

[Archean]

SS350 was one of the best American cars of 1970s. I am at work so thats why i keep jumping in and out of here.

nite DBZ

 

[Archean]

Just to update: atm Lancia Stratos is winning with 33% of votes .....

And to add a bit of twist, whats is the best looking man made machine would be in your view?

 

[captaincranky]

And to add a bit of twist, whats is the best looking man made machine would be in your view?

It would probably have to be an aircraft, since form necessarily follows function. Yet, it's a wide range of design objectives, so I'll give you a best in category few;

1. Best Single engine prop; ANY Lancair http://images.google.com/imgres?img...efurl=http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled

2. Best light twin engine prop; The Cessna 310Q http://www.ashleygibbs.com/db3/00236/ashleygibbs.com/_uimages/ZS-APAC310.jpg
2A: The sleekest twin engine aircraft ever designed; The DeHavilland "Comet http://www.airportjournals.com/Photos/0806/X/0806019_3.jpg
2B; The most beautiful military twin prop, the F7-F "Tigercat" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg

3. Most likely to strike fear and terror; The McDonnell Douglas F-4 "Phantom". It's outdated now, but nothing in the sky looks meaner. http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/F4rnd-01.jpg

4. Best single purpose designed aircraft ever, period; The Lockheed SR-71 http://images.google.com/images?hl=...SR71&aqi=g-sx1g1g-sx1g-s1g-sx2g1g-sx3&start=0

5. Best supersonic jet to take on a nuclear bombing mission: The B-2 "Lancer", bar none. http://images.google.com/images?hl=...B1+Lancer&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1&start=0

And in something terrestrial; the Pennsylvania Railroads retired streamliner the GG-1 Electric Locomotive http://images.google.com/images?hl=...n-US:official&um=1&q=GG1&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=21

 

[red1776]

heres my vote
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...&sigr=14usfrojp&sigi=121ntm2gn&sigb=13mb5mt8k

 

[captaincranky]

Meh, here's my hometown favorite; http://www.prslhs.com/Steam_Photos/PRR_K4_5495.jpg

Hard to imagine, but they have one of these inside the Franklin Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_60000

 

[dividebyzero]

My vote...
BAe/Aerospatiale Concorde
And something a little different

Nice choices captain. The Grumman Tigercat and the De Havilland Mosquito are neck-and-neck in my book and the SR-71 get a point taken off for the puddles of JP-6 it leaves on the ground, but solid aesthetics.
Train engines always a good choice -they always look much more impressive in the flesh.

 

[dividebyzero]

Wow, Four and a half thousand horsepower.....that's almost enough to move Donovan McNabb out of the pocket!

 

[captaincranky]

the SR-71 get a point taken off for the puddles of JP-6 it leaves on the ground, but solid aesthetics.

As I understand it, the old girl stops leaking at around mach 2 (or so). Besides JP-6 is almost solid on a chilly day, house breaking "Habu" is probably done similarly to the average pitbull, you just have to follow them both around with a shovel and a plastic bag.

Wow, Four and a half thousand horsepower.....that's almost enough to move Donovan McNabb out of the pocket!

No, you just need to show him a microphone.

The Concord and the Lancer are both an outgrowth of the ill fated XB-70 "Valkyrie" project.

They both share that afterburning 4 pack of under slung engines. I gotta say the one time they brought the Concord into Philly was a foggy day. The eddies and vortices swirling around the wings plus the high alpha of the touchdown were spectacular. Horsepower done right.

Just thought of another candidate, The Lockheed "Super Constellation". (Competing in the best 4 engine commercial prop category).

 

[dividebyzero]

I almost posted a picture of the L-749. I saw one in India a few years ago while on holiday- that graceful humpback styling was something else- a little strange to see it in grey-blue (Indian AF or Navy)
Would have loved to have seen it in TWA colours.
I like the Boeing Clippers too- maybe not sleek but an air journey with sleeper cabins that takes a few days to complete has a mystique and adventure that not really matched by jumping on a 737 (with a seat pitch made for bonsai-sized people)....although if it's adventure I'm after maybe I should seek out tickets on Aeroflot, Ariana or Cubana

 

[captaincranky]

people)....although if it's adventure I'm after maybe I should seek out tickets on Aeroflot, Ariana or Cubana

If it's adventure you want, you might also consider a flight on a old DC-9 with a dog tired U.S. Airways pilot. Sit in the back, right next to the engines for best effect.

"US Airways" has had many changes in name. In the beginning they were "Allegheny Airlines", but they had to change that after people began abbreviating it "Agony Airlines". Seating was like a game of musical chairs, they were always overbooked.

My first commercial flight ever involved a four delay, because a "tornado" hit Boston's airport, the DC-9's brakes seemed to grind, the rain, and last but not least, the pilot did panic descent over Louisville KY, then a "peel off" like has was going to do a strafing run.

And all the passengers looked at one another, but after the 20,000 foot drop, I couldn't hear a word anybody was saying. Something that continued for about 3 days