On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.
It also allowa them to make more power and still be streetable -
think variable valve timing and cyl to cyl timing advance settings to
tune out detonation under any condition. You forget that 1 hp per
cubic inch was the "holy grail" in the sixties - 200 is not a big
stretch today on a normallt aspirated engine running on pump gas.
(600HP on a 300 cu inch engine, and 250 on a 2.5 liter) - and at those
power levels they can still meet emissions and give significantly
better gas mileage than the cars of the sixties/seventies.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:36:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/23/2017 9:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:03:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:

I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
it's age. 1921 model.


When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
much more than scrap value, I'd guess.

A Stutz? I guess you haven't seen the auto auctions on the TeeVee.


I have and this one sold for $594,000
http://blog.caranddriver.com/youd-be...-1921-bearcat/

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

On 3/24/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.


My last car was a 2.0 ltr. 4 cylinder with turbo. The guy driving the
Camero could not understand why my sedan could pass him no matter how
hard he pushed the pedal.

Even modest cars today have pretty good performance. There were some
bad years though when the first pollution stuff was hung on engines.
IIRC it was about mid 70's.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

Modern engines have overhead cams and much "cleaner"
intake manifolds - result is much better airflow into
the engine. Modern engines have fuel injection -
which means the exact right amount of fuel for best
combustion, 60's engines had carbs, which just gave
a rough approximation of the right amount of fuel.
Engines today have knock sensors and electronic
ignitions, which means you can have higher compression
(better thermodynamically) and the spark occurs at
the optimum time for mechanical advantage (you want
peak cylinder pressure with the piston about 1/4th
down the cylinder, for best leverage on the crank).

All these things (and that doesn't even touch on
variable valve timing and turbos and other exotica)
mean engines today produce twice as much power per
cubic inch displacement as 60's engines did. They
are far more powerful than those dinosaurs.

John

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:44:39 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.

I don't remember looking at them in the showroom.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in :

There were some
bad years though when the first pollution stuff was hung on engines.
IIRC it was about mid 70's.

Two things happened there in the early 70's. One was the
emissions controls (and the US industry has no-one to blame
but themselves for that, hoping they could band-aid their
existing designs instead of investing the money to design
a proper fix). The other was the SAE deciding horsepower
should be specified using the "net" method instead of the
"gross" method.

The net horsepower rating eliminated a lot of the tricks
the manufacturers used to cheat on horsepower ratings.
So you'd see a "400hp" engine suddenly drop to maybe
220hp net, and then to maybe 165hp after the emissions
controls were added.

John

On 3/24/2017 8:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.


I am not arguing that, HP in the 60's, but they got terrible gas
mileage. That is why I said getting rid of carbs and adding electronics
is how the HP has returned and fuel economy.

On 3/25/2017 8:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/24/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.


My last car was a 2.0 ltr. 4 cylinder with turbo. The guy driving the
Camero could not understand why my sedan could pass him no matter how
hard he pushed the pedal.

Even modest cars today have pretty good performance. There were some
bad years though when the first pollution stuff was hung on engines.
IIRC it was about mid 70's.


My wife's V6 Camry can out accelerate my sons 84, mint condition,
Corvette, on the highway.

On 3/25/2017 9:52 AM, John McCoy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

Modern engines have overhead cams and much "cleaner"
intake manifolds - result is much better airflow into
the engine. Modern engines have fuel injection -
which means the exact right amount of fuel for best
combustion, 60's engines had carbs, which just gave
a rough approximation of the right amount of fuel.
Engines today have knock sensors and electronic
ignitions, which means you can have higher compression
(better thermodynamically) and the spark occurs at
the optimum time for mechanical advantage (you want
peak cylinder pressure with the piston about 1/4th
down the cylinder, for best leverage on the crank).

All these things (and that doesn't even touch on
variable valve timing and turbos and other exotica)
mean engines today produce twice as much power per
cubic inch displacement as 60's engines did. They
are far more powerful than those dinosaurs.

John


+1 ;~)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:44:39 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.
On the street? On pump gas?

252 cu inch, 15+:1 compression, 4 valve dohc 420HP.Turbo'd, ovewr
1000HP

In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

In article L7-dnfIq04WrCEvFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 8:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.


I am not arguing that, HP in the 60's, but they got terrible gas
mileage. That is why I said getting rid of carbs and adding electronics
is how the HP has returned and fuel economy.

Yes, the electronics and so on allow emission
controlled engines to work well. But that does
not alter the fact that the emission controls
pulled performance way way down for a long time.

And a car in the '60s could get good mileage,
it's just that that cost more than the typical
American was going to spend--Ferraris got quite
remarkable mileage considering the performance.

In article 56dddcdck6r8coh5gps5nd5d3ir04u0ghj@
4ax.com, says...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:44:39 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in,
and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.
On the street? On pump gas?

252 cu inch, 15+:1 compression, 4 valve dohc 420HP.Turbo'd, ovewr
1000HP

Good luck running pump gas at 15:1 compression.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:07:34 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 3/25/2017 8:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/24/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.


My last car was a 2.0 ltr. 4 cylinder with turbo. The guy driving the
Camero could not understand why my sedan could pass him no matter how
hard he pushed the pedal.

Even modest cars today have pretty good performance. There were some
bad years though when the first pollution stuff was hung on engines.
IIRC it was about mid 70's.


My wife's V6 Camry can out accelerate my sons 84, mint condition,
Corvette, on the highway.
And the 4 cyl Camry today would not be too far behind!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:36:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.
Gross vs net horsepower, for one, and a whole lot of changes to
things like compression ratio and cam profilkes that made it far from
"the same engine". The laws of physics didn't change.The accountants
running the auto companies over-rode the engineers so radical
engineering that could have met the emissions targets and fuel economy
targets never saw the light of day.- Untill the Japs did it and the
American companies had to follow or die. By this time the technology
required was becoming mainstream.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:39:38 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article L7-dnfIq04WrCEvFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 8:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.


I am not arguing that, HP in the 60's, but they got terrible gas
mileage. That is why I said getting rid of carbs and adding electronics
is how the HP has returned and fuel economy.

Yes, the electronics and so on allow emission
controlled engines to work well. But that does
not alter the fact that the emission controls
pulled performance way way down for a long time.

And a car in the '60s could get good mileage,
it's just that that cost more than the typical
American was going to spend--Ferraris got quite
remarkable mileage considering the performance.

They weighed half what a Mustang weighed too, and had less flat plate
area and a lower Cd.

wrote:

Guys - learn how to snip!

--
-Mike-


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2017-03-25, J. Clarke wrote:

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

Emission controls?

ALSO! ppl's laziness!

I usta have an '87 Honda Civi Hatchback (SI). No power anything! Not
seats, not windows, not mirrors. The car weighed in at under 1500 lbs
and was considered pretty hot on the stock race circuit. By '93, the same
model had electric everything. Weighed almost twice as much. Sure,
engine performance had improved. Unfortunately, so has ppl's sloth!

Also, '70 Vettes were pigs! I read, somewhere, an early Stingray had
a chassis that weighed more than a Cadillac's. True? I have no idea,
but know from first-hand-experience, both my step-father's Stingray's
('63, '65) were lead-balloon pigs!

nb

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:03:57 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 56dddcdck6r8coh5gps5nd5d3ir04u0ghj@
4ax.com, says...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:44:39 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in,
and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.
On the street? On pump gas?

252 cu inch, 15+:1 compression, 4 valve dohc 420HP.Turbo'd, ovewr
1000HP

Good luck running pump gas at 15:1 compression.
Read the rest of my post - they were running alky - and most oftern
also nitromethane.

Hiowever, with today's engine technology 15:1 CR is totally doable. -
stock Mazda engines are routinely running 14:1 on regular gas with
direct injection The Infinity QX50 2 liter turbo engine varied from
8:1 to 14:1 depending on driving conditions and puts out 268 hp and
288 ft lbs of torque.

With GDI and variable valve timing and variable CR,Static compression
ratios in the diesel realm are becoming possible.

An older engine with a static compression ratio of 13:1 and a wild cam
often had an effectice CR of only 9.6:1 due to valve overlap (which
lowered the volumetric efficiency of the engine at low speeds and
improved the volumetric efficiency at higher speeds, where a standard
cam would cause the vo;lumetriv efficiency to drop off.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

Apples and oranges comparison there. You're looking
at the gross horsepower rating of an engine designed
with no consideration for emissions or fuel economy,
to the net rating of an engine designed (poorly) to
have reduced emissions and better fuel economy. To
call them the "same engine" shows a misunderstanding
of what those two engines are.

Specific to those two engines, about 120hp of the
difference came from the change to net horsepower
ratings. Most of the remainder came from the 1970
engine being 11:1 compression ratio, and the 1981
version being 8:1 compression to run on regular gas
instead of premium.

John

Markem wrote in
:

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.

Engineering wise, the Offy was far far far advanced
over what Detroit was putting in production cars in
the 60's (despite the Offy having been designed in
the 30s). It's a fascinating design.

A good test of someone who thinks they know engines
is to ask them to describe an Offy head gasket.

John

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:34:28 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Markem wrote in
:

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.

Engineering wise, the Offy was far far far advanced
over what Detroit was putting in production cars in
the 60's (despite the Offy having been designed in
the 30s). It's a fascinating design.

A good test of someone who thinks they know engines
is to ask them to describe an Offy head gasket.

John
They arfe a real bitch to do a valve job on too - - -

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:23:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:44:39 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:29:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert


WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

No, cars produce a lot more power now. It's not unusual to see a six
delivering 300HP now. I recall any 300HP sixes from the 60s, or 650HP
stock anything.

Offies did a lot more than 300HP with four cyclinders.
On the street? On pump gas?

252 cu inch, 15+:1 compression, 4 valve dohc 420HP.Turbo'd, ovewr
1000HP

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:36:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

The law that brought you the EPA and cafe standards. Death, taxes and
bureaucrats the things you can not avoid. The 1970 350 was reported at
370 for insurance purposes.

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

In article 3aeedcp36rt99rpvkn2drpgrvnsdt5g2o3@
4ax.com, says...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:36:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

The law that brought you the EPA and cafe standards.

What part of "physics" are you having trouble
with?

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:09:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 3aeedcp36rt99rpvkn2drpgrvnsdt5g2o3@
4ax.com, says...


The law that brought you the EPA and cafe standards.

What part of "physics" are you having trouble
with?

Sorry, you are humor impaired for right now.

In article mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?

In article rvgedctkuikegovgffqmeuquc5p4b978kv@
4ax.com, says...

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:09:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 3aeedcp36rt99rpvkn2drpgrvnsdt5g2o3@
4ax.com, says...


The law that brought you the EPA and cafe standards.

What part of "physics" are you having trouble
with?

Sorry, you are humor impaired for right now.

Read the whole damned thread and you'll know
WHY.

On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote:

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.


Fast, but could it make right turns?

On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?



You seem to be in over your head here.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in :

On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote:

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

Fast, but could it make right turns?

If it was a turbo Offy, yes, altho poorly. Before
the turbos the Indy Offy was a "lay down" design,
with the crankcase on the right and the head on the
left. Turning right with those engines would lead
to lubrication failure.

The dirt car Offys turned right surprisingly well:

http://bangshift.com/bangshiftapex/e...-the-greatest-
racing-upset-in-american-motorsports-history/

John

In article jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?



You seem to be in over your head here.

Rather than explaining why they are required by
"the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
Congress, you start with the insults. Very
good.

In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

Ed Pawlowski wrote in :

On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote:

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1
compression that was mentioned as one of the
characteristics of the high output engine that
was mentioned?

Fast, but could it make right turns?

If it was a turbo Offy, yes, altho poorly. Before
the turbos the Indy Offy was a "lay down" design,
with the crankcase on the right and the head on the
left. Turning right with those engines would lead
to lubrication failure.

The dirt car Offys turned right surprisingly well:

http://bangshift.com/bangshiftapex/e...-the-greatest-
racing-upset-in-american-motorsports-history/

John

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1
compression that was mentioned as one of the
characteristics of the high output engine that
was mentioned?

Not sure what relevance that has to anything, but
no, those engines would have been around 10:1.
Bearing in mind that this was late 30's to early
50's, and production car engines would have been
6:1 or less. (also bearing in mind that Offys
were built to order, and they would happily
make any compression ratio you wanted).

John

On 3/26/2017 3:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?



You seem to be in over your head here.

Rather than explaining why they are required by
"the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
Congress, you start with the insults. Very
good.


No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
HP. There were NO laws governing HP. Pollution control robbed high HP
engines of their power.
And as I mentioned several posts back, electronics and the abandonment
of the carburetor brought back HP and lowered emissions.

In article XnsA744ACBF6BA53pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1
compression that was mentioned as one of the
characteristics of the high output engine that
was mentioned?

Not sure what relevance that has to anything, but
no, those engines would have been around 10:1.
Bearing in mind that this was late 30's to early
50's, and production car engines would have been
6:1 or less. (also bearing in mind that Offys
were built to order, and they would happily
make any compression ratio you wanted).

John

Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the
context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline
and the example used was an Offy with 15:1
compression it's very relevant that the example
did not run on pump gas.

In article -OadnSEerI1Kr0XFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/26/2017 3:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.



First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?



You seem to be in over your head here.

Rather than explaining why they are required by
"the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
Congress, you start with the insults. Very
good.


No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
HP. There were NO laws governing HP.

And now you start with the straw men. Nobody
asserted that there were laws governing
horsepower. That's something that you're making
up in an effort to derail the conversation.

Pollution control robbed high HP
engines of their power.

And why did engines have pollution control?

And as I mentioned several posts back, electronics and the abandonment
of the carburetor brought back HP and lowered emissions.

Which nobody is disputing.

Why can't you just admit that the emission
control systems came about because men passed
laws and not because of any requirement of
physics and quit wasting everybody's time?