24 Jun 09 09:34, Roger Nelson wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> Not nearly as much as the Olds.

 RN> I knew people in my home town who owned Oldsmobiles all their lives
 RN> and wouldn't drive anything else.  One of my late ex gfs did.  She
 RN> also liked a lot of things I like and she was multi-lingual.

My dad did too, until he got senile. Then he bought a Dodge Caravan. Since
it had a Mitsubishi engine in it, it didn't last very long and he bought
one with a real Chrysler engine in it. He was never one to let on that he
screwed up royally and wouldn't admit that it was inferior to any Chevy
product he could have had.

 RW>> That was a bone of contention between my dad and my uncle. Dad owned
 RW>> Oldsmobiles and my uncle owned Buicks (except in the days when they
 RW>> owned

 RN> I liked the '53 Buick Roadmaster.

My ex had a 53 Tudor Special when I met her. It was the straight 8 veriety
with 3 on the tree. She sold it when we moved to Seattle and I bought her
a 49 Mercury when we moved to San Diego about 10 months later. She later
traded that for a 57 Chevy. Someone said they saw it at the bottom of
Fairmont Ave in San Diego, in a one car accident that killed it. Fairmont
Ave goes down hill from East San Diego to the river bottom where they
built the stadium. Someone speculated that the brakes went out.

 RN> My bil's dad, who was a doctor and a Col. in the Army and who passed
 RN> through Dachau when the war ended (another story), had one and it is
 RN> a nice riding car.  It had to be because it was so heavy.

I was riding in the center of the back seat of my uncles 1947 'torpedo'
Buick when he told me that half of my ass was in Wisconsin and the other
half was in Illinois, so I was a half-assed Witt. I never let him live
that one down.

 RW>> Chevys and Fords)...My dad said if you want to work on cars all the
 RW>> time, buy a Ford, my uncle said if you want a fast car, buy a Ford
 RW>> (that was in the days of the flathead). I bought a Ford and found
 RW>> out that they were both right. I never did buy into their hype
 RW>> between the Olds and Buicks, sticking to Chevys after I had worked
 RW>> on too many Fords.

 RN> You already know the tale of my '57 Bel Air.  What I ended up doing
 RN> to the engine was akin to installing a Corvette engine with 10.5:1
 RN> CR.  I had three dueces (not stock after we modified them) atop it.
 RN> It sounded like a tugboat at idle, but once the attained speed was at
 RN> least 40MPH, the sound was magical.

I remember those days. :o)

 RW>> RN> Have you ever done a valve job on a flat head Ford V-8?

 RW>> Yeup. c1959, right after I graduated from high school.

 RN> Some fun, huh?

Yes...I learned a bit from those guys in the shop.

 RW>> You did it the hard way. I had the advantage of a valve and seat
 RW>> grinder (my girlfriend's father owned a parts store with an
 RW>> automotive machine shop). I bored the block .100 over, put it
 RW>> together, only to find that the pistons and rods weren't compatable.
 RW>> I had used Mercury rods with Ford pistons, which made the pistons
 RW>> stick out of the block by 1/8 inch.

 RN> Back in the late Fourties-early Fifties we did everything the hard
 RN> way.

I had the advantage of a mechanical background in the family.

 RW>> To correc that, I bought Ford rods and everything worked just fine.
 RW>> That little flathead could beat a 55 chevy I was familiar with.

 RN> Just how familiar are you with the '55?  Do you now own it?

I didn't own that one, but I had one like it later. If you swapped the 2bl
carb for a 4brl, you could beat my little Ford. I own a 56 now and I
believe that flathead could beat it if I had it today...

 RW>> No, it was based on the fact that the radiator was mounted lower
 RW>> than the engine and to help keep the engine cooler in the head area.
 RW>> The LT-1 is a fantastic performance engine, but the reverse flow
 RW>> killed most of the cars it was in. I've owned two, but I'd never buy
 RW>> another one.

 RN> I wonder what Motor Trend had to say about that?

I have no idea. I never had any problems with the 95 after I had the
radiator replaced. That one got totaled in a Kansas rain storm. I bought
the 98 that I have now to replace it, but didn't want to waste it on
driving back and forth to work, so I bought a 94 for that. It got hot and
blew a head gasket in a I-15 traffic jam and so, I had to have the head
gaskets replaced. It was never the same after that, so I sold it.

 RW>> Not me. I think cars and computers go together like milk and
 RW>> chocolate cake.

 RN> What I like about the Mark VIII is the lamp controls.  The lamps come
 RN> on automatically at dark and off when the engine is shut off and a
 RN> couple of other things.

Those use a light sensor built into the dash somewhere.

 RN> Other than that and what you mentioned about controlling the fuel
 RN> mixture, I can do without.

You could probably do without that trunk computer that controls the ride.

 RW>> i.e. there's no other way to have your cake and eat it too, as in
 RW>> 325 rear wheel HP and 25 mpg all in one package...

 RN> I don't know what the torque is at the rear end, but I'll look it up.

Take 15% or so off of the flywheel rating and you've got a good
guesstimate.

 RW>> Just think how much better that would have been with a computer to
 RW>> control the air fuel ratio at all engine speeds.

 RN> Not too good with a carbuter, but with that humonguous Rochester fuel
 RN> injection system sitting in the place where a normal intake manifold
 RN> would be, then yes, it would be a welcome addition.

That wasn't much better than a carburator. It was mechanical fuel
injection and other than ported fuel injection, it wasn't all that great.

 RW>> 3/4 race! Today they don't use such terms...they talk about
 RW>> duration, lift, seperation degrees, etc.. I used a 3/4 race cam in
 RW>> the flathead I built (above)... Don't ask me about the particulars
 RW>> though.

 RN> I'm stuck in 1950s lingo.  (-:

That's ok, I'm familiar with it. :o)

 RN> I haven't kept up with that stuff past the age of 40, being only
 RN> interested in what John Force is doing.

Wishing he was young again, is what he's up to. I'll bet watching his
daughter do better than he's doing must give him some amount of pride, but
then he's also thinking about the end of his career.

 RN> My oldest son likes to watch 500 mile races like the Indy 500 and
 RN> that type of racing puts me to sleep.

You're like my dad. If he wanted to take a nap (he needed background noise
like I do), he'd turn on a baseball game or any kind of auto race.

 RW>> RN> Any engine that is over 250 HP is okay in my book.

 RW>> HP is over-rated. Look at the torque specs and you can get a better
 RW>> idea of how any given engine will perform. My Z28 engine makes 305hp
 RW>> to the back wheels (that's about 345hp at the flywheel), but it also
 RW>> makes 325ft lbs (about 375 at the flywheel) of torque at the back
 RW>> wheels. Meanwhile, your factory rated 250hp 4.6L engine makes only
 RW>> 280ft lbs of torque at the flywheel. Torque moves objects, HP keeps
 RW>> them moving.

 RN> It still surprises me when I accidently push too hard on the gas
 RN> pedal. See desc below:

Heh! I have a friend who owns a late model SOHC 4.6l Mustang. I gave him a
ride in my Z28 sometime last year and he was impressed with the difference
in performance. And I wasn't even trying!

 RN> ===
 RN> Powertrain Options and Availability
 RN> The Mark VIII is the recipient of the finest of Ford powertrains, the
 RN> DOHC, 32-valve 4.6-liter V8. First placed in the Town Car, the
 RN> aluminum-block engine also powers the Lincoln Continental, Ford Crown
 RN> Victoria, Thunderbird, and Mustang.

No Merc?

 RN> Two separate versions make their way under the hood of the Mark VIII.
 RN> The basic engine delivers 280 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 285
 RN> pound-feet of torque at 4500 rpm.

That's the flywheel rating, sans any accessories, except the water pump.
Subtracting 15% for drive train losses and accessories, you probably have
238hp and approsimately 240 rwt...

 RN> Select the optional LSC version and you find the 290 horsepower
 RN> version with a torque rating of 290 pound-feet at 4500 rpm. The extra
 RN> power results from a true dual exhaust system, which reduces back
 RN> pressure. The only available transmission is an electronic 4-speed
 RN> overdrive automatic.
 RN> ===
 RN> Mine is not the LSC.

Ford claimed a high HP rating (300-320hp) on their Mustang Cobra with the
DOHC 32valve engine. But they had to recall them, because they didn't make
anywhere near that number. I remember publishing that article in the
Camaro Coral, a club newsletter was the editor of at the time...I probably
still have it on one of these hardrives.

 RW>> dipstick.

 RN> It was hard to find.  I gave up looking for it and my daughter's
 RN> husband, in an act of humanity (unusual for him) showed me where it
 RN> was.

That was nice of him.

                R\%/itt

Joy lives in the fight, in the attempt, in the suffering involved, not in
the victory itself.

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000