In: Cruising with a friend in his V-8-powered '68 Cougar
Out: Getting beat in that Cougar by a bone-stock late-model Grand Am GT (that really happened)
In: Friends admiring the musclecar in your garage
Out: It will stay there for the next 180 days due to license suspension from speeding tickets
Brad Erwin
via e-mail
You're Confused?
I am confused. In your "In & Out" list (Straight Scoop, Aug. '03) you state that LT1s are out, and LS1s are in. However, a few pages later there was a great article about easy mods for the LT1 ("Late-Model Builder's Guide: The Gen II LT1"). If I didn't know better, I would think you were running for public office.
Chris McCabe
via e-mail
Wolf In Grandma's Clothing
The only giveaway that the '65 Bel Air feature car ("Wolf In Grandma's Clothing," May '03) is not stock is the wider tire? Yeah, I remember seeing 502 fender emblems on the showroom floor.
Dave Ferencik
via e-mail
0401 H/O
Titan Response
Engine shootouts such as the latest Battle of the Titans never fail to aggravate someone, and this one did not disappoint. However, I would like to point out one major discrepancy that I ran across while reading all the installments of this battle. In the Sept. '04 issue regarding the Ford buildup, I thought it odd that the compression ratio was nowhere to be found. Both the Chevy and Mopar specs were given.
I work on the Federal Mogul technical hotline specializing in chassis and brakes, but I have access to all the same information as our underhood guys have who sit right across from me. Needless to say, I couldn't help doing a little homework and figuring out the Ford compression ratio. I was able to come up with a range of 9.5 to 9.7 compression for the Ford. There is a major difference between 9.5 and 10.4 or even 10:1.
I have personally built a 351W with 10.25:1 compression and iron heads that ran on pump gas with less duration than your cam. It had power disc brakes and I drove it everyday. Your combo could have definitely used more compression to give it more of a chance. Up the 351W's compression and let the chips fall where they may.
Enough ranting. In the future, please use specs that are closer to each other or have more of a guideline so that you can see each combination's true colors.
Matt Housewright
Wellston, MO
We agree with you Matt, along with the dozens of other readers who wrote in about the discrepancy in the cam timing figures for the Ford. You're also right on the money with the Ford's compression at 9.5:1. We received so much mail from the Ford faithful that we are going to shave the heads and bolt in a Crane cam that more closely matches the other two engines so the Ford gets its day in the sun. It should make for interesting reading, especially if the Ford ends up making more power!
Inter-Galactic Errors
While reading your fine magazine is the highlight of my month, I am disappointed that on page 81 of the Nov. '04 issue you have a picture of one of my favorite cars-and then screw up the caption by misidentifying the year!
The caption for Len Richter's car says it is a '62 Ford Galaxie-wrong! It is a '6311/42 Galaxie 500! The '63 part is easy. The roofline is the '64 design that bowed as a '6311/42. The chrome on the side is 500 trim.
In: Seeing one of your favorite cars in Car Craft
Out: The caption getting the year wrong!
In: Factory Drag cars with chrome!
Chris Perry
Beaver, PA
Geoff Stunkard and our editor have been sentenced to watch hundreds of hours of old Doris Day movies and identify the year of each vehicle in order to do penance for this grievous error, Chris.
HP Hoopla
I just read Jeff Smith's article on rear-wheel horsepower numbers in the latest CC ("The Brutal Truth," Nov. '04). It's a good look at the new phenomenon of RWHP figures and how to improve them, but it's a bit misleading if someone is looking for actual in-car performance increases.