Seems like most people on this board do smog-illegal builds, but don't have smog and thus have no reason to care. Sigh. I have California smog, forever ....
Then again, I'm old and doing a weekly driver anyway.
Am I the only one who is tired of LS swaps?
- Thread starter MrSony
- Start date
- Status
Seems like most people on this board do smog-illegal builds, but don't have smog and thus have no reason to care. Sigh. I have California smog, forever ....
Then again, I'm old and doing a weekly driver anyway.
I use the UMI conversion uppers and the UMI lowers with a roto joint at the axle side. I have the 64 to 67 version which is 2.5" wider than the G body rear. If you use the 68 to 72 A body rear that is 4.5" wider and the stock lowers work with the UMI conversion uppers
G bodies were already dated by the mid 80s, which was when they were supposed to be discontinued as GM had planed. Because of problems and delays with their replacement, the W body, GM squeezed a few more years out of the G body line. As had been posted before, the 80s Gbodies are less well made than the 70s G bodies with the downsizing and deletion of structural bracing to cut costs, resulting in a weaker body and frame structure.
As for the history of hotrodding, it got its start from rum running moonshine to be faster than the cop cars chasing you. Most of the original NASCAR racers were rum runners as their main job. Hotroding did not start from returning soldiers trying to make their old cars faster, though some surely did. Most were concerned with starting a career and a family and forgetting the horrors they saw.
I try not get attached to brand loyalty myself, but I do like old machines regardless if they are outdated. But I do dislike the modern trend of giving up control for comforts and even HP, modern cars are just too nanny. Plus there is nothing simple about modern engines, lots of failure points to shift though.
Last edited:
I was in the process of a 6.0 into my gbody wagon. My dad doesn't have much knowledge on them, more old school, so didn't really feel comfortable with it. He offered to get me a 383 Blueprint that has a warranty. I plan on a lot of track time, so why it was hard to pass up too. I couldn't refuse that, so sold off almost everything I have. Still some miscellaneous stuff sitting around.
http://www.rodauthority.com/news/moonshine-runners-and-their-role-in-the-history-of-hot-rods/
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/nascar-moonshine-and-prohibition/
http://www.hopupmag.com/hot-rod-history/
http://www.hotrod.com/features/113-0510-moonshine-runners-cars-history/
http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articles/2012/11/01/moonshine-mystique.html
Strange how Wiki, a site that can be edited by anybody is missing this bit of info?
I wasn't arguing, it says the same thing that the stuff you posted said. It mentions moonshine runners as well as running on the airbase runways and dry lake beds.
Well, I was beyond pissed when I learned after the fact that there was literally NOTHING I could do to my [9] 307 to increase its performance to a worthwhile level. Thin cylinder walls and a windowed block so you can [what?] save 7 lbs.? So, I considered going Chevy like nearly everyone else does but then toyed seriously with a heavily modded 4.0 Aurora engine [some guy had them producing over 500HP and was putting them in Fieros] but even that required moving to the 700R4 and was more money than I wanted to spend.
Literally, just because it is an actual 442, I decided to stay in the Olds family but, to get power numbers I wanted, I would have to get too wild on a 350 swap to ever get it to behave with the CCC or pass emissions. The 403 was a worthy goal but it has the thin cylinder walls and running hot reputation. So, I decided to do a mild custom [over-square ~ bore>stroke] Olds BB, use an Olds 425 crank and rods in a 455 block to have the modern cam bank angle while getting the shorter 3.975 stroke and have it all forged, get it to run off the CCC, pass an emissions sniff, and get enough gas mileage so I could make it to the next potty stop without needing a fill up which, for me, meant I needed 18-20mpg. Given vintage year BBOs were getting 12mpg, I figured if I could pull all this off, it would be a worthy goal. And, though I had some help, we did it. It was purely just a novelty that, with a 4.205 bore, we ended up with 442 CI.
Now, per my other rants, since I have no traction, if I can just make it hook up better and, what the hell, make it actually turn and stop . . .
Literally, just because it is an actual 442, I decided to stay in the Olds family but, to get power numbers I wanted, I would have to get too wild on a 350 swap to ever get it to behave with the CCC or pass emissions. The 403 was a worthy goal but it has the thin cylinder walls and running hot reputation. So, I decided to do a mild custom [over-square ~ bore>stroke] Olds BB, use an Olds 425 crank and rods in a 455 block to have the modern cam bank angle while getting the shorter 3.975 stroke and have it all forged, get it to run off the CCC, pass an emissions sniff, and get enough gas mileage so I could make it to the next potty stop without needing a fill up which, for me, meant I needed 18-20mpg. Given vintage year BBOs were getting 12mpg, I figured if I could pull all this off, it would be a worthy goal. And, though I had some help, we did it. It was purely just a novelty that, with a 4.205 bore, we ended up with 442 CI.
Now, per my other rants, since I have no traction, if I can just make it hook up better and, what the hell, make it actually turn and stop . . .
- Status
