your fave pony & GT cars...

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Camaro Story . . .

A friend of mine had one of the very first Camaros made. In the fall of '66 he was a young guy working for his dad's contracting business when they had a project at a local Chevy dealership in the San Fernando Valley part of Los Angeles. One of the GM plants that made Camaros was in the Valley, so once a car rolled off the assembly line it only had to be trucked a few miles to a dealership. During his lunch break he spied two interesting cars just off the transporter, something that he'd never seen before, and being a real, serious motorhead he'd seen just about everything. He took a closer look and saw two of the first Camaros ever, one was a stripper but the other had been ordered as a "showroom queen", with a hot 350/four speed combo, vinyl top, rallye wheels, etc., etc.  At the time he was driving a '59 Corvette and was instantly in love with the hi-po Camaro, so he went to talk to a salesman.

 

Initially the salesman said Chevy wasn't allowing any sales for two weeks until the official introduction, but my friend was very persistent, and of course they knew his family owned a good sized contracting business so relented. They even offered him $250 (some money in 1966!) to let it sit on the showroom floor for two weeks. He said no way and drove off in it that evening. According to my friend, the reaction at gas stations for the next two weeks was wild: eveyone knew it was a new car, but most thought it was a new '67 Mustang. When they saw the Chevy badge they'd exclaim "Oh wow, a Chevy Mustang!". He street raced the car extensively and discovered that the hi-po 350 was too strong for the rear suspension as it had to be repaired under warranty three times - everyone pretty much knew why it broke but since Chevy couldn't prove it they had to fix it. That 350 had to be one of the very first 350s as well, the 327 was still in full production through '68 and 350 availability was limited until then.

[this post was last edited: 2/25/2012-20:32]
 
cool story!-my '69 had the "monoleaf"rear springs.My'69 camaro was built at the
norwood ohio plant,but my '82 was built at VanNuys-4th week of march,1982:just
about to hit 30!-doesn't seem that long ago i had a 30th celebration for my '69...
 
Another buddy of mine has one of the last generation Firebirds - about a '99 - but I believe he said his car was built in Canada. He's had it since new and maintains it absolutely by the book, but it has tended to break a lot. It is an interesting car because it was custom ordered with pretty much all the hi-po stuff, hottest engine available, quick steering rack, etc., but is a Formula rather than a Trans-Am. Basically, he liked the Firebird but not the ugly twin nostril Trans-Am hood hence the special order.

 

To be honest I've never liked that car since I took a nasty spill while trying to get into it late one night when he picked me up at the airport: some idiot at Pontiac put a HUGE buldge in the floorboard right where you put your feet. It was icy outside and as I slid my left foot along the floor and started to lower my tail into the passenger's seat my heel caught on the carpeted buldge. It threw me off balance, my right foot slid on the ice and I ended up falling onto the sill and then the parking lot. This happened when the Firebird was nearly new - first time I'd been in it - and during the many, many years when I was running Fiat/Bertone X1/9s as daily drivers. I had three of them, and must have spent way over 200,000 miles in those, plus quite a few miles in one of my sister's DeTomaso Panteras. In short, I do know how to get into a low car, but I've never seen anyone other than Pontiac make a floorboard into an obstacle course like that. What were they thinking?
 
passenger floor bulge

that bulge(for catalytic converter clearance)has been present from at least 1982
to 2002 on camaro/firebird.75-81 2nd gen might have the bulge too.Those long,heavy
doors of 2nd and 3rd gen can be a bit of bother too,especially 2nd gen.i think 4th
gen doors are lighter.4th gen,'93-02, was made in canada-at st.Therese Quebec.5th
gen is assembled at oshawa,ontario-GM holden helped with development of the 5th
gen.
 
I also like the '65 Plymouth Barracuda. But no need to turbocharge the six - the car was available with a 278 V8 that year.

However you are correct that the slant six did have hot rodding potential. I know several guys who used to soup up their slant sixes - one of them used to race them on grudge nights as part of a group called "Mini Mopars". Another one modified the engine to run on alcohol with a 13:1 compression.

I have a '64 Valiant with the 225 six; it has the same grill (horizontal slat) as some versions of the '65 Barracuda. Which I like better than the '65 Valiant grill.

I also like the '71 Barracuda. Very nicely done shaker hood scoop etc.
 
Chrysler Australia had a variant on the slant six with a hemi head, supposedly quite fast, too bad Chrysler here couldn't be bothered. The slant six ought to be rugged, it's heavy enough! Both Chevy and Chrysler used their full-sized sixes in the Chevy II and Dart/Valiant, while Ford created a whole new line of lightweight sixes for the Falcon while keeping their big sixes for truck and full size sedan use.

 

Chevy and Olds made the first production turbocharged cars for '63, with the Corvair and F-85 respectively. The F-85 turbo only lasted one year, as it used the Olds version of the Buick 215 aluminum V-8 which was discontinued in all forms after '63 because the '64 F-85/Cutlass, Buick Skylark, and Pontiac Tempest all got larger and could use the smaller displacement versions of their respective divisions' big iron V-8s. This was lots cheaper than the 215, which of course ended out being reborn as the first Range Rover engine. The Corvair turbo lasted for several years, but truthfully turbos really didn't work very well until the '80s when it became feasible to build sophisticated engine management computers that could control both fuel injection and ignition. Without this turbo lag was a part of most every turbo engine, and a clogged injector or carburettor jet could result in a big hole in a piston if the system went to full boost. Because of this, the 273 was a much better and more reliable idea than trying to turbo the six. Too bad they didn't have the 340 back then, but Chrysler just didn't seem interested in a really high performance small block to compete with the Ford 289 Cobra or especially Chevy's hotter 327s.

 

When I was a kid an aunt of mine had a '65 Barracuda, white with blue bucket seats, pushbutton Torqueflite, and the 273. She divided her driving time between the Barracuda and a lovely '62 Studebaker Hawk GT in black with a red interior and four speed manual.
 
Actually I've never heard of anyone trying to turbo charge a slant six.

But I believe that when it came to hopping the motor up, a better start would be with the "smaller" 175 cu in model, rather than the 225. That's the because the 225 got its extra displacement from a longer stroke, which resulted in a lower rpm limit than the 175 or 190 could do. This is similar to the philosophy that leads one to conclude that the Chrysler 340 V8 is a better start for hot rodding than the 360 V8.

The stock 225 carb on my '64 is a relatively tiny single barrel affair. Major performance gains could be accomplished by replacing the intake manifold and carb with a two or four barrel setup. And of course fuel injection is a possible modification these days, although I'm not aware of any ready to install kits for the purpose for the 225.
 
To make a really good carburetted inline six you've got to have more than one carb. One of the inherent characteristics of an inline six is that you can't get even fuel distribution from one cylinder to another with only one carb as the center cylinders will run rich and the end cylinders will run lean. Two carbs work OK, but three work even better. I'd guess that two progressive carbs (i.e., the primary barrel opens fully before the secondary barrel begins to open) would improve economy as well as performance.

 

So long as you're not asking for lots of revs that long stroke isn't all bad as it contributes to a nice flat torque curve, the downside being that as revs go up the piston speed on a long stroke engine gets high, which loads the bearings and contributes to bore wear. Some manufacturers got away with long stroke performance engines however, just check the stroke on a Jag XK six, like the old 3.8 and 4.2 units used in the E-type (plus pretty much anything else Jag built from '49-'71 and even after). With the twincam head they breathe well enough, but they do not like to rev, it was all done with torque. A good mid '60s Chevy 327 with the Duntov cam just loves to rev happily to 6500, overhead valves and all, which surprises people who think of old 'Vettes as sloggers and E-Types as high strung revvers. Maserati also made some really long stroke stuff with the 3.5, 3.7 and 4.0 inline sixes used in the 3500, Sebring, and Mistral, all of which were pretty rapid devices during the '60s. They didn't rev either but with their twincam heads, twin ignition, and from about '62 fuel injection they didn't have to.

 

I will confess that while I'm not a V-8 guy at all, and not a Corvette guy either, those old "mid years" 'Vettes made from '63-'67 are pretty decent cars. The steering isn't too hot and oh yes they rattle, but the chassis isn't half bad, and a hot 327 with the little Muncie four speed trans is a very nice combination indeed. The tranny shifts as well as a good Alfa, and with the short gearing many of them had you can punch it at highway speeds and not even downshift - it just squats and goes with a lovely V-8 whine. There is a price to be paid, however: I once drove a semi-tired '66 convertible on a 100 mile freeway trip and ate 9 gallons of premium, though I will admit to seeing 90 whenever I could :)
 
One of the benefits of the slant of the Chrysler six is that the intake runners could be made longer, resulting in better delivery of the fuel-air mixture.

The only way to make all the runners even length would be to have six carbs, in which case multiport fuel injection becomes a better option.

Also, uneven intake runner lengths can function to widen the power band. The longer runners help low end torque, the shorter ones help with power at higher revs. However for high performance applications equal length intake runners seem to be preferred:

Me want one


sudsmaster++2-26-2012-00-59-27.jpg
 
That manifold is probably as good as it gets for a single carb inline six, might be worth investing in.

 

You don't need six carbs for equal fuel distribution in a six cylinder engine, three will do just fine. One of the most classic carb setups for an inline engine is to use one Weber DCOE two barrel sidedraft carb for each pair of cylinders, since the DCOE is non-progressive each cylinder gets one barrel all to itself and thus no unbalanced airflow in the manifold that can be caused by one cylinder interfering with the other. Still not as good as modern fuel injection, but is probably the ultimate carb setup for smoothness and performance, if not economy.
 
They are claiming big economy boosts with the long runner carb setup (two barrel progressive carb) from Aussie. Like 30 mpg out of a slant six equipped car.

My Valiant has been parked for about 15 years now... still runs, but the brakes will have to be serviced (fluid leaked out a while ago). It's not super great on gas (best it ever got was around 20 mpg, as I recall) but it doesn't have to be smogged.
 
My baby...

....that I bought new in 69 and is once again running the I-10 outside of PS--
My Olds 442 convertible. It was parked from 86 till Sept. 2009 and never once turned over.

dick_s.++3-5-2012-22-25-17.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top