BUILD THREAD Low low cost build

[87National]

Perhaps scrap steel in bum screw SD is high, but in my area scrap steel is dirt cheap and plentiful, just not worth much. Hardly worth the cost of transporting to a yard

Scrap iron market is similar to the price of gas in that prices will vary by region but the same trends are seen nationwide. Scrap iron prices are up everywhere.

Just saw on my local craigslist a couple of non posi ss rears for $60. 7.5s are cheap around here, 8.5s not so much.

Big difference between say.....a non-posi 2.41 rear and a posi 3.73 from a MCSS......you aren't going to touch that for anywhere near $100.

$300 you would be sitting on that 7.5 till the cows come home around here. Wow that is gouging.

Gouging??......selling something for market value is not gouging. I sold it within a few days of listing it.....had a dozen emails on it.....this was 10 years ago......I can't imagine what it would sell for now-a-days. Lots of guys are looking for a bolt in swap for their non-posi highway gear 7.5's.

 

[87National]

G bodies are cheap downsized granny cars never designed to withstand 300+ hp with their weak and heavy mild steel construction and wet noddle frames.

Turbobuick guys have been running into the 10's for decades on completely stock frames or stock frames with minimal bracing.

If the OP wants fast he better stick with that C5.

G-bodies will always be a good starting point. They are reasonably priced and have decent aftermarket support. The weak areas are easy to address (frame, transmission, rear end).

The C5 will have its own issues.......initial cost of the car is higher, if auto....a reliable 4l60e is costly....and there is not much room in the engine bay.

 

[Ratchet]

Turbobuick guys have been running into the 10's for decades on completely stock frames or stock frames with minimal bracing.



G-bodies will always be a good starting point. They are reasonably priced and have decent aftermarket support. The weak areas are easy to address (frame, transmission, rear end).

The C5 will have its own issues.......initial cost of the car is higher, if auto....a reliable 4l60e is costly....and there is not much room in the engine bay.

I agree completely that the frames and rear ends on G bodies are the weak areas. Cracked dashes are also problematic and expensive to correct (will not consider an over-lay skin). When I would drive my Malibu around town, lowered and healthy sounding SBC, I constantly got “thumbs up” and people wanting to talk about it when I stopped. The C5 gets occasional looks but that’s about it. Having a car that draws attention, is fun to build, and looks good is what attracted me to G bodies. I’m just put off by the escalating build cost.

 

[87National]

When I would drive my Malibu around town, lowered and healthy sounding SBC, I constantly got “thumbs up” and people wanting to talk about it when I stopped. The C5 gets occasional looks but that’s about it. Having a car that draws attention, is fun to build, and looks good is what attracted me to G bodies.

Same with newer Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers.......they are so common, they are nearly as invisible as minivans.

I've always liked the C5 but have never seen myself fitting in with New Balance, jean shorts, hawaiian shirt wearing, dealer servicing, middle aged accountants that drive them. G-bodies have more of a blue collar vibe to them.....its pretty well understood that g body owners wrench on their own cars........and that they aren't chasing trends..... i.e in 5 years you won't find them driving the next big thing to come out of Detroit.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Turbobuick guys have been running into the 10's for decades on completely stock frames or stock frames with minimal bracing.



G-bodies will always be a good starting point. They are reasonably priced and have decent aftermarket support. The weak areas are easy to address (frame, transmission, rear end).

The C5 will have its own issues.......initial cost of the car is higher, if auto....a reliable 4l60e is costly....and there is not much room in the engine bay.

That is why so many Turbo Regals have warp and twist damage to their bodies and frames. Doors that no longer close right, winkled rear quarters blown rear windshields, twisted rear LCA mounts, etc. Regals, except the GNX had the worst body and frame setups with deleted bracing and body mounts, a pretty sick joke from GM.

Except aftermarket support is falling off and remaining new replacement parts are sub par. As I said, they were never designed for 400 hp, even 300 is a serious strain on them. By the time you reinforce the frame and body along with replacing the trans and rear with stonger units, the build is already no longer low cost. Its like driving a Model T in the 60's.

Still has a far better frame, far far better suspension stock, ABS brakes, airbags, better rear, better weight distribution, modern A/C, no 40 years worth of rust damage to weld, no 40 years of PO jerry rigging, everything is better. There is nothing low cost making a G body match a C5, or even a C4. Even a 4th gen Camaro is a far better starting point for modern performance.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

I agree completely that the frames and rear ends on G bodies are the weak areas. Cracked dashes are also problematic and expensive to correct (will not consider an over-lay skin). When I would drive my Malibu around town, lowered and healthy sounding SBC, I constantly got “thumbs up” and people wanting to talk about it when I stopped. The C5 gets occasional looks but that’s about it. Having a car that draws attention, is fun to build, and looks good is what attracted me to G bodies. I’m just put off by the escalating build cost.

Sadly G bodies were much cheaper to build up 15 years ago than now. These days many of the low and medium cost options are long discontinued and many companies only push LS swaps with the greater profit margins and cross promontion with far newer performance cars. That and suspension kits that cost as much as my entire P71 and still only handle half as well.

Its not hopeless but it won't be cheap. For low cost staying fairly close to stock is the cheapest route. The main issue is that these cars were designed first and foremost to be granny cars in the 70s and were downsized more in the 80s which creates limitations. Even thd factory performance options were afterthoughts that suffered design issues from being afterthoughts.

Just have to decide what you want to use the car for and how far you are willing to go. Street cruiser or track racer? Most guys here are track guys who are used to performing radical alterations to their cars. My Regal developed roof cracks from just the 305, even with new body mounts and installing the missing mounts and rear seat brace.

 

[87National]

That is why so many Turbo Regals have warp and twist damage to their bodies and frames. Doors that no longer close right, winkled rear quarters blown rear windshields, twisted rear LCA mounts, etc. Regals, except the GNX had the worst body and frame setups with deleted bracing and body mounts, a pretty sick joke from GM.

It's not as prevalent as you imagine it to be....hard top cars are routinely in the high 10's with minimal frame bracing and no negative effects. And most faster than 11.5 will have a roll bar or cage....which really tightens up the chassis...so its a moot point.

Except aftermarket support is falling off and remaining new replacement parts are sub par. As I said, they were never designed for 400 hp, even 300 is a serious strain on them. By the time you reinforce the frame and body along with replacing the trans and rear with stonger units, the build is already no longer low cost. Its like driving a Model T in the 60's.

Most of the cost of frame strengthening is in steel tube, steel plate etc. if you have some fabrication skills. The knowledge is out there for the taking. There are many budget friendly options for the rear (ford 8.8) and transmission (th400 & 4l80e).

There is a reason you see so many g-bodies at the drag strip....they are cost effective platforms to get into drag racing. Only the fox body platform offers more bang for the buck.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Any G body in the 10s will have frame and body damage without proper bracing as they were never designed for that amount of stress. G body roofs warp very easily and can't take much stress. The roofs are not even welded, just brazed on and only in a few spots.

Metal working and welding tools are not cheap. Plus GM frames are wax dipped, with wax soaked deep into the metal pores making weld prep difficult for good welds. Getting a Ford 8.8 to fit a G body requires a lot of work and only the Mustang 8.8 fits right without cutting and narrowing the rear.

A drag racer is very different from a street legal car. G bodies are popular for drag racing because they run ok as long as you travel on a flat straight line. They suck hard on the slightest curve with the horrible backwards 60's inspired front suspension.

 

[87National]

For low cost staying fairly close to stock is the cheapest route.

Fairly obvious that a stock setup is the cheapest. A stock setup is also slow......and I don't get the impression the OP wants a slow car.

 

[87National]

Any G body in the 10s will have frame and body damage without proper bracing as they were never designed for that amount of stress. G body roofs warp very easily and can't take much stress. The roofs are not even welded, just brazed on and only in a few spots

For hard-top cars, it's not as common as you want to believe. As mentioned.....most cars faster than 11.5 would have a bar or cage which adds a ton of rigidity. Some T-top cars have had issues related to the frame twisting.