Speaking of Chrysler - Dodge Charger, 440 big-block with a Holley carb - not a bad car. Seemed to work for the Dukes of Hazard.

Gosh, that's nice.

"Speaking of Chrysler - Dodge Charger, 440 big-block with a Holley carb - not a bad car. Seemed to work for the Dukes of Hazard."


Let's not leave out the legendary Chrysler 426 Hemi. Two 4 barrel Carter carbs. An automotive legend along with the Ford 351 Cleveland 4 barrel.

A neighbor was selling a 1973 silver Corvette and I was tempted to take him up on the offer.

I've usually been a faithful Chevy/GM man but I will heartily recognize the 351 Cleveland as one of the better motors of the Ford/Mercury product line. My very first car was a gold 1972 XR-7 with black trim and the sequential turn signal lights. I put a 4-bbl on it eventually.

Rochester made some decent truck carbs as well - not racy, but dependable.

My first car was a New Yorker with a 392 hemi. I easily outran the mustangs of the time. I later moved to Pontiacs and liked the 400 cu in engines. I wanted a 455 but my insurance company would have croaked over that one. Now, economy rules but I still remember those old cars. They were fun!

I had a '69 Pontiac Catalina with a 400 2 barrel, and a '70 Catalina with a 350 2 barrel that I later 4 barreled. I always liked the big Pontiacs more than the Firebirds and GTOs. I'd still like to get a nice '70 Bonneville with a H.O. 455, but most survivors are convertibles.

byzanTN, What year and model of Pontiacs did you own?

My first car was a Volkswagen beetle. My second car was a Karman-Ghia. My third car was a Volkswagen beetle. Then I was talked into a larger car.

The current pseudo-beetle is nowhere near the quality of the old ones.

Fr. Serge

The new Beetle doesn't that distinctive Prrrrrrt sound either.

My first Pontiac was a 64 Catalina. I went through a series of Trans-Ams from early to late 70s, and finally bought something more economical in 1982.

I still covet my cousin's candy apple red 78 Trans Am Firebird with 403 Oldsmoblie engine. He still has it although he rarely drives it anymore considering it gets like 10 miles/gallon.

What's with these wimpy little engines?

1972 Cadillac Eldorado convertible.

500 cubic inch V-8.

In my garage, about 30 feet away. The 4bbl quadrajet carb is about 15 feet away on the kitchen counter, with my wife caught between dismay & amusement.

Currently white & beige, but I plan to turn it red with white top by the time I'm done.

And it will have significant amounts of custom wood, by necessity rather than choice.



(hey, why isn't the picture showing? It's at http://dochawk.org/caddie/car/caddie.2.090215.800x600.jpg)

And for Fr. Serge:

My first car was a '74 superbeetle. Today I have a Miata, which was as close as I could come to what the Karman Ghia was. For a while we had mine, my brother's regular '74 beetle (previously my grandfather's), and my father's '64 all in a row on the front curb.

hawk

Displacement is nice, but modern engines can generate significantly more horsepower and torque on a much smaller block. Take my prospective midlife crisis car, the Honda Civic Si, which gets 197 hp on a 2.0 litre 4-cylinder engine. Put that on a 1500 lb car, and you have serious go power.

Keep us up to date on the restoration with pictures, if possible. Those Eldorados were beautiful cars.

Sure, Stuart, but think of what happens if I do similar things to this engine

The 1970 Eldorado 500 put out 400hp out of the factory. Compression was dropped the next year to allow the use of unleaded gas. The rated power dropped in 1972, but that was due to the change from gross to net rating (and after that, they were emasculated further almost every year )

If I'd feed it a lubricating supplement, I could put in pistons off a 70, heads off a 472 from that era, and be above that. And then fuel injection, or . . . 800hp off a 500 with a quadrajet carb is not unrealistic. And this has a *real* turbojet 400 transmission, which should handle that kind of power--but what would I do with the power? Stock, this thing can slam this 5,000 lb behemoth to any speed that I'm willing to pay the gas for . . . these beasts were designed to cruise all day at 100 with the AC running . . .

I don't plan on it (but I may do the 472 heads for fuel economy).

The stock engine puts out more than enough power for anything I'd really want to do in a car that big--it will never whip around a corner on a mountain road, no matter what I do [hmm, except flying off the curve, of course :)].

And you can get the power out of a smaller engine today, but it was possible then, too--but there's really no substitute for cubic inches. You *can* tell the difference in ride just betwen a 350 and a 400. There's just nothing like the casual, effortless acceleration of a large eight. You can match the acceleration, but not the ride. (or the fuel consumption

hawk, off to play with the carburetor.

Sniff....

Just spoke with a friend whose sister can use my old 1992 Acura Integra GSR. I can't justify keeping it anymore and don't drive it all that much. But it is still in very good condition even though it has 225,000 miles on it. My mechanic says the engine is good for at least 100,000 more. I know it is not a classic in the proper sense of the word but it was a fun car to drive (I love 5 speed stick shifts!).

I always loved GM cars of the 40's through 60's, but after about 1970, it seems like they turned in rust-buckets and junkpiles. I really did like the Pontiac Grand Prix from the early '60's to '68 when it was still based on the full size Pontiac platform. There's a guy I see driving around town occasionally who has a mint-condition '67 Grand Prix that I'd love to drive.

As a kid in Texas, I was always fascinated by the mid-fifties GM cars - and Lincolns - with factory air that had the trunk-mounted units with clear plexiglass tubes in the back window to route the cold air into the headliner-mounted outlets.

Sadly, my family's car at the time was a second-hand '54 Chevy sedan with a straight six, three-on-the-tree and "roll the windows down when it's hot" air conditioning. Still it was fun for me and my brother in the back seat on trips. We amused ourselves by poking sticks down through the holes in the rusted out floorboard and dragging them on the road as we rode along.

I always thought the '68 Grand Prix was a good looking car, with the halo vinyl roof, hideaway headlights, and the unique rear end treatment. Pontiac execs didn't think so. One called it "a big fat turkey that nobody bought".

http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Pontiac/1968_Pontiac_Grand_Prix_2dr_Sport_Coupe-03.jpg

I agree! Thanks for the '68 Grand Prix pic...

S

I like my six

But you'd really think that with six gears, at least *one* would be an overdrive, but no; it's not even a particularly high gear. I turn nearly 3500 RPM going 70 . . .

hawk, who wants two overdrive gears added to his transmission [and would also like an overdrive Turbo-400 for his '72 Eldorado]

Did anyone else, besides me, ever own a Checker? I loved that big box. What I had was not the Marathon - which was a beautiful beast in itself - but the simplistically named A-11, the basic taxi model.

Sitting in the back seat, even I - at 6'2" could stretch out my legs and not touch the rear of the front seat, despite it being fully set back.

No, it wasn't elegant nor a speed demon, but it was fun - and near indestructable.

Many years,

Neil

Did it have the little pop-up seats in the floor (horribly unsafe, since they had no locks)? My grandfather drove a cab in New York, and would give us rides in the Checker. We loved sitting on those little round seats, and I for one was crushed when he traded it in for some sort of Oldsmobile.

Stuart

It did indeed have them - the actual terminology was 'jumpseat'; there were two, a third could be had as an additional option. By the time I bought mine - a 1972 - bought new, they did lock in place. There was another alternative. a 'jumpbench', but it would have added a bit more to the price than I could afford at the time.

One could easily sit 4 across comfortably on the back seat, as the floor was nearly flat across. Ground clearance height was such that most of the drivetrain hung below floor level and it barely raised a bump in the middle.

For long distance driving, the Checker and my 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis Station Wagon were the most comfortable cars I ever owned. Others were sportier. but those 2 - 1 as utilitarian as you could ever imagine, and the other the absolute height of elegance for a wagon - were my favorites for their incredible versatility.

Many years,

Neil

Ahhh...nostalgia. You just reminded me of my childhood. Whenever we went to 'the city' (that is how New Yorkers from the boroughs and even the suburbs refer to Manhattan) and needed to get around, those were always a fun way...they were the best taxi cabs ever...just as nice and roomy as the black cabs of London. (Do they exist anymore?)

When travelling with family or a group of friends, there was no worry that you wouldn't all fit. Ofcourse, we children loved to take the cute little round pop-up seats (which seemed to be designed-- or so we thought-- just for us!)

Here's a few pics of one of the nicest '70 Pontiac Bonnevilles I've ever seen. The Rally II wheels are the icing on the cake.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boozysmurf/2834039306/in/set-72157607436965695/

How about the sticker price of $5,499.48. Just imagine what it would cost to build that same car today!