Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
psst... I'mma girl.
I am excited... I guess the reason I let her sit is because it was too depressing to do anything to her if I couldn't actually finish her. I've had people offer to buy her, even in my hardest financial times, I couldn't bear to let her go. The thought of seeing someone else drive her 'round town just turned my stomach.
Some how you mixed a qoute of mine with a quote of T. Damon's.
I bought my first car in 1964 and it was a 1962 Triumph Spitfire. And then from the get go here I knew you wuz a Girl!
I could tell because you tawk funny about cars. You did so in the first post.
12Go, You are a better Poncho tech for engines than I am. I just had that 1967 Firebird in the day. That buggy was pretty quick too. It had a lot of engine mods like crane solids and rockers. It had a Holly 850cfm 4 barrel. Ladder bars were added to the suspention. A barnett clutch, and a Hurst shifter, a sticker that said "Shift as hard as you please, but don't break your arm.
If I had that car today it would be worth around $70,000.00 in mint shape of course.
It had 2 bad habits. One was eatting starter motors each 90 days, and the other was it got me in a lot of trouble. I remember once it ate a starter, and some girls offered to help me push start it, on a one way road. There was a slight incline to assist in a warm push start in reverse. It took 3 tries, but when it burped to life ka tanka tot ka tanka tot ka tanka tot, I placed it in 1st, got up some revs, and sat there still smokin the rears. The girls were impressed i could tell, and so were the cops who were behind me watching all this tom foolery. BUSTED! LOL
I am, or was a Euro foreign car tech in the day we were called mechanics. I do rust because i am a snow belt dweller. If sugar maples would just grow in a warmer climate, and still make sugar I would move.
IF 'SHE' will follow my directions to care for the rust totally, and with out a squawk, there will never be any more rust again ever.
I strongly reccomend she takes up my offer to see that Volvo and spends time sorting out the pics.
Some pics are hard to understand what's shown, Many pics you can see the wooden deck I built under the car for a lack of a shop, LOOKING right thru the car.
Other pics are my adapting plastic front inner fender liners to the rear. I bought a set of front liners to install in the rear wheel wells from a bone yard.
When I adapted these I did it before painting. I worked and fit by cutting dry. Once they fit and were screwed in place, I removed them for ATF, then tar, and screwed them on to wet roofing tar, and the tar gushed out. No problems there today.
The floor pans are protected by new engine oil and tar mixed to a slurry inside the car. No water can get there now. I added a closed cell (camping pads) foam to replace the buffaleo fur under carpet which holds water like a Bank holds gold!
If I forget to close th windows and it rains, and I do forget, I pull up the carpets and see standing water, but it never touches steel.
Under the car I added tar with a brush, after misting ATF. Plain roofing tar will dry hard in time.
You want all the parts you would replace in before tar happens. ATF is no problem to work around, and the longer it soaks in the better off you are.
After the tar is dry (apx 1 year) I ATF right over it, whether it needs it or not.
As a dealer tech, we did Rusty Jones and other rust treatments on new cars. What I saw happen is that stuff, and i don't care who made it, that stuff would dry, and delaminate away from the steel, and still stay in place to hold every last drop of water that got there. Worse than nothing.
In that time i fixed plenty of leaking rear tranny seals on slush box trannies on every Euro car there is and a few no one here has heard of. I am not the smartest guy that ever dragged his knuckles on Earth either, but after a long time i noticed no cars with ATF leaks had rust where ever ATF got.
Hmmmmmmmm
To me there is order.
Clean every detail, which means the seats, carpets, and door pannels all come out. The car is cleaned inside and out everywhere.
Then all body rust and dents are fixed to be in primer, and top coated with junk paint.
Next, all mechanicals are done, engine, brakes, what ever is wrong is fixed, and done right no wild a$$ rigging make do. Once we had a better term for that, but no longer can it be used.
Then with maybe on 2 bolts to hold the drivers seat the car gets painted. This means all that junk paint goes away.
Last with great care to detail the seats, door panels, and the rest of the interior go back in and with out bumping, knicking, or anything to the new paint.
At that ending the car should be so right that for the next 120 days it needs nothing but a key and a driver.
And Lady if you let a kid have this car to drive, you are wacko in the head! NO NO NO. That kid has 2 good legs and let her? use them! If not, get her a modern junker, which are common new, on any dealership floor brand new.
This car as you appear to know is one of the last Classics. Let her have it after you can't. With any luck she will be 55 years old by then. Maybe she will know something by then.
Some how you mixed a qoute of mine with a quote of T. Damon's.
I bought my first car in 1964 and it was a 1962 Triumph Spitfire. And then from the get go here I knew you wuz a Girl!
I could tell because you tawk funny about cars. You did so in the first post.
sorry about the mix up.
I guess I do tawk funny. I am not going to come in here acting like I know all about cars, because quite frankly I do not. I know enough not to mess one up and the basics of how the engine works. I was married to a mechanic for 10 years and you pick up some car information by osmosis. I have a kid who works with me who's father is a mechanic. They are going to come over and look at it, get her running, then take her to their house where they can work on her in a nice, dry garage. I know a great body man (who has retired, sadly) and see what he can tell me about getting the body in line. I have printed out the waterproofing instructions so that I can get that done too. * I just called my body man!!! he is willing to work on her!!! Now, fist things first.... finding tires
Any recommendations on brand? These may not be the tires I use when she is done, but something solid to get her up on her feet.
When I get home from work today, I will get out there and get the leaves off of her.
I do not have a preferred brand on tires,other than make them one of the brands made here. And avoid the very quick to dry rot yokohamas. (I bet i misspelled that one!)
Doesn't that car have like, all of 180 horsepower from that huge smog control strangled engine? Christ! Four Bangers have more than that these days.
Smokey and the Bandit or not that car is a bit of a dog, though a bitchin' looking dog I'll warrant you that.
I had one in Martinique Blue of that same model year back in the day... got 12.5 mpg... an I believe the rating was 170 h.p. of the "Z" motor, the 400 Pontiac with the 4 barrel, LOL!
Had the Hurst Hatch version with Turbo-Hydro 400.
Easy car to love, but yeah, the numbers were pretty crappy.
Have a supercharged 2.3 liter (i.e 140 cubes...) in the current car... that gets 30 mpg on the highway and is rated at 210 hp, LOL!
But something is amiss in the ratings because I tried a number of the wedge shaped Firebirds before replacing that one with a GTA with the 5.7 'vette engine in it. All the lesser wedge Firebirds didn't pull as hard as the 400. The 5.7 definitely beat it though, at more like 20 mpg.
So it seems like the 400's hp rating was conservative, but the fuel mileage did suck.
Anyway, yeah, most contemporary motors are rated at many more hp per cube than GM motors from the 70's.
Just as an extreme example, the RX-8's rotary gets 232 hp. out of 1.3 liters... all of 80 cubes... with awful by today's standards fuel mileage (about 22 mpg) but still, awesome power to displacement ratio.
Anyway, a more real example might be the Lexus IS 350 at 308 hp or the IS 250 at around 260 hp. on much less displacement.
Well, bottom line, the '78 T/A's had something about them that was easy to fall for, but straight up performance wasn't it, LOL!
I had one in Martinique Blue of that same model year back in the day... got 12.5 mpg... an I believe the rating was 170 h.p. of the "Z" motor, the 400 Pontiac with the 4 barrel, LOL!
Had the Hurst Hatch version with Turbo-Hydro 400.
Easy car to love, but yeah, the numbers were pretty crappy.
Have a supercharged 2.3 liter (i.e 140 cubes...) in the current car... that gets 30 mpg on the highway and is rated at 210 hp, LOL!
But something is amiss in the ratings because I tried a number of the wedge shaped Firebirds before replacing that one with a GTA with the 5.7 'vette engine in it. All the lesser wedge Firebirds didn't pull as hard as the 400. The 5.7 definitely beat it though, at more like 20 mpg.
So it seems like the 400's hp rating was conservative, but the fuel mileage did suck.
Anyway, yeah, most contemporary motors are rated at many more hp per cube than GM motors from the 70's.
Just as an extreme example, the RX-8's rotary gets 232 hp. out of 1.3 liters... all of 80 cubes... with awful by today's standards fuel mileage (about 22 mpg) but still, awesome power to displacement ratio.
Anyway, a more real example might be the Lexus IS 350 at 308 hp or the IS 250 at around 260 hp. on much less displacement.
Well, bottom line, the '78 T/A's had something about them that was easy to fall for, but straight up performance wasn't it, LOL!
I belive the 6.6 HO T/A had 220HP and was faster then the same model corvette of that era. the 77-78 T/A was one of the fastest american muscle cars of the late 70's and with the WS6 pkg could handle great in it's day.
best power to displacment is the 2.0 ecotec turbo-4 it has 130HP per liter or the 3.7 mustang V6 getting 306 horspower and 31MPG
also comparing the 5.7 TPI to a 6.6 liter emission choked poncho of course the TPI 5.7 will get better MPGs also don't forget it had a 4 speed overdrive. plus people don't buy muscle cars for awsome fuel mileage. I bet if you swapped out the 3-speed Th400 for a T-56 6-speed and put in some 3.42 gears it would of got some decent mpgs.
comparing modren cars to 35-40 year old muscle cars in terms of power to fuel economy is stupid because computers and modren EFI and emissions controls have come along way. cars burn fuel alot better and they get more power out of less gas by buring it more efficent and varible valve timing, DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder plus 5-6 speed overdrive trannys or CVT's help to get even better city and hwy mpgs.
I am not going to pretend I understand what all these numbers mean. As for which car is better, that is subjective. I've driven 'vettes and they are alright... kinda like sitting on a skateboard with an engine. As for modern cars... they disconnect you too far from the feel of the vehicle. When I drive a T/A I feel the hum of the car go through me. Yes she sucks gas through a straw. But this is not a commuter vehicle.... it is a toy to be played with and enjoyed. The gas mileage, that is something that comes with the package.
I belive the 6.6 HO T/A had 220HP and was faster then the same model corvette of that era. the 77-78 T/A was one of the fastest american muscle cars of the late 70's and with the WS6 pkg could handle great in it's day.
best power to displacment is the 2.0 ecotec turbo-4 it has 130HP per liter or the 3.7 mustang V6 getting 306 horspower and 31MPG
also comparing the 5.7 TPI to a 6.6 liter emission choked poncho of course the TPI 5.7 will get better MPGs also don't forget it had a 4 speed overdrive. plus people don't buy muscle cars for awsome fuel mileage. I bet if you swapped out the 3-speed Th400 for a T-56 6-speed and put in some 3.42 gears it would of got some decent mpgs.
comparing modren cars to 35-40 year old muscle cars in terms of power to fuel economy is stupid because computers and modren EFI and emissions controls have come along way. cars burn fuel alot better and they get more power out of less gas by buring it more efficent and varible valve timing, DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder plus 5-6 speed overdrive trannys or CVT's help to get even better city and hwy mpgs.
I'm thinking the RX-8 is getting 232 hp out of 1.3 liters. Isn't that about 178 hp / liter? But it burns fuel like it too... 23 mpg or there abouts.
Yeah, the 5.7 TPI with the 4 speed OD tranny does do better. (Still own it, it has just 25,000 miles on it.) But it's an '87, so not too terribly newer than the '78 400. But yeah, OD helps. It was clearly a more technical engine, if but because of the TPI. After that one, I've stopped trying to work on them. I consider it the last car I've purchased that I can do anything major on at home, unless I were to invest in some serious tooling.
I'm thinking the RX-8 is getting 232 hp out of 1.3 liters. Isn't that about 178 hp / liter? But it burns fuel like it too... 23 mpg or there abouts.
Yeah, the 5.7 TPI with the 4 speed OD tranny does do better. (Still own it, it has just 25,000 miles on it.) But it's an '87, so not too terribly newer than the '78 400. But yeah, OD helps. It was clearly a more technical engine, if but because of the TPI. After that one, I've stopped trying to work on them. I consider it the last car I've purchased that I can do anything major on at home, unless I were to invest in some serious tooling.
My '78 only had WS-4. :-(
yeah but it made that at 6500-7000RPM and had no botton end torque as for fuel economy a 6.2 liter V8 camaro SS get the same fuel mileage according to:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/***/sbs.htm (broken link)
got to laugh that a little 1.3 liter wankel is as fuel efficent as a 6.2 liter pushrod V-8 plus those apex seals wear like crazy because they were meant for high RPM driving not city commutes and it burns them up like crazy.
I had one in Martinique Blue of that same model year back in the day... got 12.5 mpg... an I believe the rating was 170 h.p. of the "Z" motor, the 400 Pontiac with the 4 barrel, LOL!
Had the Hurst Hatch version with Turbo-Hydro 400.
Easy car to love, but yeah, the numbers were pretty crappy.
Have a supercharged 2.3 liter (i.e 140 cubes...) in the current car... that gets 30 mpg on the highway and is rated at 210 hp, LOL!
But something is amiss in the ratings because I tried a number of the wedge shaped Firebirds before replacing that one with a GTA with the 5.7 'vette engine in it. All the lesser wedge Firebirds didn't pull as hard as the 400. The 5.7 definitely beat it though, at more like 20 mpg.
So it seems like the 400's hp rating was conservative, but the fuel mileage did suck.
Anyway, yeah, most contemporary motors are rated at many more hp per cube than GM motors from the 70's.
Just as an extreme example, the RX-8's rotary gets 232 hp. out of 1.3 liters... all of 80 cubes... with awful by today's standards fuel mileage (about 22 mpg) but still, awesome power to displacement ratio.
Anyway, a more real example might be the Lexus IS 350 at 308 hp or the IS 250 at around 260 hp. on much less displacement.
Well, bottom line, the '78 T/A's had something about them that was easy to fall for, but straight up performance wasn't it, LOL!
If you only got 12.5 mpg, you seriously had it out of tune!!! But then most people do not have a clue how to actually tune a low compression engine from the 70's. Remember the car companies were trying to figure out how to make engines meet the biggest fraud of all time requirements from the most unConstitutional gov. agency ever, the e.p.a. The Z code 400 was in the base 400, .364 lift, 194@ .050 duration cam, and 7.1 to 1 compression. Milling the heads or replacing them with the 6X heads from the Pontiac 354 was a way to get them up to 7.7 to 1 compression. (even tho Pontiac rated some 400's at 8 to 1 or even 8.4 to 1, they were not that much compression. Pontiac always over rated the compression ratios by at least half a point).
All 77, 78, and 79 400 Pontiac 4bbl engines had the 800 cfm quadrajet, which is one of the very best all round carbs ever made when done by a competent carb person. It always amazed me the idiots the would replace them with a too small 600 or 650 cfm carb. Or the idiots behind a parts counter selling a carb saying all you need is a 600-700 cfm carb.
As for what I do with these engines to wake them up and get more power from them, it's easy. add 1.65 rocker arms, put in a new timing chain and gears that I can advance 2 degrees, bump the initial timing to 14, buy a recurve kit and use the medium springs, but keep the stock weights in the distributor, (the aftermarket weights will not help performance and in fact hurt whatever gain you got from the lighter springs).
I always used either the factory pre egr intake (made before 1973) or an aftermarket Edelbrock Performer or prefer the Performer RPM. The Perfomer sits same height as stock, while the Performer RPM sits a bit higher and pushes the scoop up higher. Next open up the back of the scoop!!! Let it breathe! With a 3.08 to 3.23 rear gear in these cars, ths set up is will run 14.0's in the qtr. Not bad for a 70's car that wieghs 4000+ lbs. With this set up I've also gotten high teens for mpg.18-19. If someone wants more power, a cam swap to the Melling SPC-7 (which is the stock Pontiac GTO cam of the late 60's)along with the 1.65 rockers, will get the low 13's in the qtr. with 1 3/4" primary 4 tube headers, and a 2 1/2" dual exhaust with Magnaflow mufflers. Flowmasters will only get you a 13.90 e.t. (and you have to really watch now that if you buy headers they are not selling you the wimpy 1 5/8" dia. headers!!! There is just zero reason to buy those
1 5/8" headers for anything over a 302 inch engine!!!)
Yes, I have found the stock Q-Jet performs every bit as well as any aftermarket carb. But very few people know how to rebuild them right. Most rebuilders do not replace the wellplugs, which is 90+% of the Q-jets issue causes. And rebuild kits do not come with them.
Use a A R46tsx spark plug gapped at .045 max. I know factory rating is .055", but thats too wide. I prefer the .040" gap as it has worked best for my late 70's 400 engines. Another plug I like how it runs is the Autolite version, and it seems to be worth about .04 in the 1/4, but they will not last as long.Same gap works best with them too.
My nephews 78 T/A with these things done tom it run 13.00 at Gateway with a 2.73 rear gear. His T/A has the base 180 hp rated engine, I put in the Melling SPC-7 cam, added the 1.65 rocker arms, advanced the cam 2 degrees, put the heddman 1 3/4" headers on it, with 2 1/2" duals, Magnaflow mufflers part# 14249, (which is actually a 3" in/out muffler) and 2 1/2" over the rear axle tailpipes ging to the original style splitter exhaust tips. In early spring and later fall the car runs 12.85-12.90's.
Oh, he runs the 235/60/15's on front, and 255/60's on back, and honestly, I don't even remember which brand they are currently on it. It is easy to over tire these cars. Running my favorite tire size was too much ( performance wise it hurt it)on back of his, which is the 275/60-15's.
Last edited by 12GO; 07-04-2010 at 07:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
