Good place to get Diamond Audio?
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 75 Registered: Sep-04 | Anyone know of a good place to get Diamond Audio thats got some perty good deals.. that is new not Ebay..i dont like used stuff. Thx yall |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4613 Registered: Dec-03 | what are ya trying to find? subs? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 91 Registered: Sep-04 | yea i'm tryin to find some subs |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4638 Registered: Dec-03 | try nextag.com ecoustics.com and woofersetc.com all three carry Diamond subs I believe. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 94 Registered: Sep-04 | thx glass if theres anymore that u thnk of that sell diamond put em down.. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4670 Registered: Dec-03 | for a wuick list, go to google and type in "diamond audio subwoofer $" and search you'll get a lot of hits. those are just a few I know off hand that don't have any complaints I know of. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 96 Registered: Sep-04 | aight thx glass |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4677 Registered: Dec-03 | hey I'm nosey. what do ya drive, anyway? I have a friend who builds old GM muscle cars.. mostly all Chevy.. (his wife is the Pontiac lover.) |
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 98 Registered: Sep-04 | I'm Fixin up a 1969 Chevy El Camino SS...But right now i'm drivin a 1978 Chevy Scottsdale...My G/F dosnt care bout what car she drives.. so i'm like well what ever trips your trigger but u aint gettin a ford.. i like order fords just not newer ones but i also dont like alot of the newer chevys either.. i dont like the Bowtie frontend with the lights that look squished but they still perform pretty good |
|
Bronze Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 100 Registered: Sep-04 | yo glass u know how underated a Dimond D5 1200.1 amp would be?? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4682 Registered: Dec-03 | ah nice. that friend is restoring a 68 el camino SS 454. they're very nice. most amps are fairly close to their advertised power. see if the amp has a CEA rating. that's a very stringent and accurate way to measure and compare amp power now, if the company chooses to use and adhere to it. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 101 Registered: Sep-04 | i was just wondering because i'm pretty sure that it was u that told me it was underrated and i was wondering by how much... but my 69 only gots a 350 but she'll move just fine..its the original motor to so she's got my vote.. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4684 Registered: Dec-03 | run high octane gas. that thing was made to run on leaded fuel with an octane over 100.. heh knock much on ya? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2340 Registered: May-04 | Totally agree w/ you. I'm not a huge fan of newer cars in general, despite who or where they came from. They just seem to have lost all their character over the years since restrictions have gotten so tight. I don't really think this "American Revolution" slogan is helping Chevy at all, their restyles were plain out horrible this year. They're going to really have to put some effort into getting some more exciting cars out there, their new stuff isn't cutting it. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4699 Registered: Dec-03 | with the possible exception of the C6 platform vette, I have to agree there. those Cobalt commercials were cute, but they get annoying. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4700 Registered: Dec-03 | er, not to mention the new GTO is just an Australian model they've sold for years with a new front clip.. that quite honestly is even uglier than the .au version. The car got terrible reviews from C/D and most other respectable car reviewers. Not at all a replacement for the Camaro. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 104 Registered: Sep-04 | The SSR is suppose to replace the camaro last i herd..the ssr is bout the best that they have came out with in the last couple of years really all these new cars that anyone makes look like they're all plastic and that is no somethi i like lol..I mean the Chevy Avalanch..what were they thinking making that????its nothin but plastic. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4702 Registered: Dec-03 | The SSR is an el camino revisit. it's half pickup half car. still nothing like an SS Camaro. The Avalanche is ugly, but still not nearly as ugly as those damned Pontiac Azteks. I HATE those butt-ugly things. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 105 Registered: Sep-04 | Your are right.. but the SSR is suppose to replace the Camaro because of how much power it supposably has...dont ask me they said it on Trucks TV |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 107 Registered: Sep-04 | Yo, Ok i got my Diamond D5 1200.1 right...IF i hook up 2 Cm3 15's to it..wich can handle the most 600 watts is it gonna hurt them or should i get 3 to be safe? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4724 Registered: Dec-03 | you should be fine. mostly it'll boil down to breaking in the subs, setting the system properly, and just being judicious.. if you abuse the speakers, they'll suffer. If you don't, and you listen for any signs of trouble, you'll be fine. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 108 Registered: Sep-04 | aight....thx once again Glass |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2352 Registered: May-04 | The Honda Element is ugly too, can't forget those. eew. Remember when Honda traded engines to get Chevys Avalanche platform? Well, that truck is going to come out and the concepts for that are pretty damned ugly too. http://www.autointell.net/Events/naias-2004/naias-2004-daily/honda-sut/naias-200 4-highlights-honda-sut.htm Looks like a wussified Avalanche, which is bad enough in it's own right. Get this: The truck is supposed to be UNIBODY (how stupid can you get, unibody on a truck?) and is said to get Hondas V6 3.5L engine, producing 240 hp at 5,400 rpm, and 242 lb ft at 4,400 rpm. Fords V6 powered F150 makes more torque than that, AND at a lower RPM, not even counting the V8 models, same for Chevy and Dodge. Plus, that thing has the chassis and size of a Chevy Avalanche. I doubt this thing will win the hearts of many American men, at least not starting out. Would have looked ok with the front end of the Honda Pilot, which was what I was expecting it to be. Whatever happened to smooth lines and steel? Before we know it, engines will be made of thermal plastic *shiver* Aluminum is bad enough. |
|
Anonymous | Yeah, those Elements are pretty ugly. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 113 Registered: Sep-04 | give chevy some credit though least they dont brag bout puttin a motor that is exact same size as the sh!tty hemi that everyone is so upsessed with like dodge..the hemi and the vortec 350 are both 5.7 L |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2357 Registered: May-04 | I haven't tried the new Hemi, I'd hope they'd made some changes as a Hemi isn't exactly an ideal head design anymore, it's outdated now. The Hemi rage started during the time that it's only competition was flathead V8s. Pentroof and Crescent Chamber "Semi-Hemi" heads are better IMO. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2358 Registered: May-04 | Depends on what they're being used for, though. Can get great results out of all of them. Honestly, I haven't been impressed at all by Chevy's Vortec engines, it's been a downhill slide. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 114 Registered: Sep-04 | I havent either.. but u can modify them to be pretty nice engins.. for a price.. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2361 Registered: May-04 | Found out, they really aren't a classic "Hemi" design, they lean more towards Semi-Hemi. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2362 Registered: May-04 | I guess Chrysler could pin anything they want to on it, though, it's a trademark name. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2363 Registered: May-04 | Really, after you modify it so much, can you really still call it a Chevy engine, though? I mean, I could call my 350 a Chevy/Edelbrock/Barry Grant/AFR/Keith Black/Comp Cams/Hooker headers/so on and so forth if I wanted to . |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 115 Registered: Sep-04 | it alld epends on what u change on it.. i mean if u still got a chevy block..its still a chevy...but other than that.. i dunno |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4811 Registered: Dec-03 | the 426 street hemi was a ballsy motor in it's day. 426ci, rated at 425hp, though in reality it charts closer to 500HP on a dyno, and 490lb-ft of torque with a tq band that keeps climbing right past redline. It's a great engine, but a bear to work on. Design-wise they aren't very mechanic-inclined. the newer 350 model is only 340HP, and much less displacement considering it's mroe or less a small block design now, whereas the BB/RB blocks here considerably larger. Partly why my car is using a 440 wedge block to start out for the 493 it's becoming. The 426 was designed as a dragstrip motor and only later was it toned down and put into street cars. This is something you have to keep in mind. Also it was used to compete not only against the flathead fords, but GM's 454, 400, 396, 350, and so on that they were using in the GTO, F_bodies, El Caminos, etc. The next closest thing to the 426 dodge offered in cars was the 440 sixpack, and that came in at 390HP. The thing was though, you could easily massage it to put out as much as a hami and it was half the cost. That motor was targeted at all the younger street racers. Anyway, hard to really compare engines of the 60s to stuff today. different cars, different market, different era and atmosphere, and many other factors. gas prices, emissions laws, car weights, street laws.. (remember, there wasn't a 55MPH highway limit back in the 60s. thank the "gas crunch" and government for that.) The newer 350 hemi isn't that bad of a motor, they're just milking it a lot and sticking it in everything. It's not what I'd consider an ideal engine for a jeep.. but they dropped it in to sell them anyway. It works very well in the 300C, and will do even better when they introduce an AWD version of that and the Magnum. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 117 Registered: Sep-04 | yea serously.. I can see where you cant compare.. because back then they didnt know much about NOS and didnt really have fuel injeciton..or certin upgrades like we have now.. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4853 Registered: Dec-03 | well, nitrous is just an oxygenator. it's a power adder like a blower, supercharger, turbo, etc. we have improved a lot of things though like fully rollerized rokers, cam design, use of newer alloys for strengthened internals, and so on. Even the tech going into my 493 for the Charger is much more modern than what they had in '66. Same block, but everything else is new. crank, heads, manifold, carb, pistons, rods, alternator, condenser, water pump, etc etc. Even without any form of power adder, raw displacement is still my favorite way to make horsepower. note FI has been around a long time though. It's come a LONG way though from 40 years ago. I considered going with MPFI for my car but I'd have to get it all custom made, and the price and work involved just isn't worth it to me. I'm sticking to a good old 4bbl 850cfm demon carb for now with an electric choke and mechanical secondaries. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2370 Registered: May-04 | Totally agree. Cam and head design are IMO the biggest improvements. Manufacturing technology counts for a lot too. IMO, the 440 was a better all around street motor, the 426 was mainly track intended (although powerful on the street, but just a little more geared toward racing with the higher rpm range). Another big reason Hemis, 428CJ and 429 Boss engines, and Chevrolets big blocks made it to the street was the fact that Nascar and other racing sanctions required that the manufacturer include their racing engine in a number of their production vehicles. All were amazingly fast of course, and basically were detuned race engines, so a little modification to induction, camshafts, and exhaust went a very long way. Motors back then were underrated (to the measuring standards of then, anyway) for insurance cost purposes anyway. What I thought was cool was that Speed Channel had a Muscle car shootout on Autorotica that actually ran these cars in stock form to set the records straight, magazines of the 60s and 70s modified test cars (and the manufacturers lending them the cars) heavily when testing. So Speed compared apples to apples and ran the cars in bone stock, unmodified form on the track. They used the same fuel, brakes materials, and tires for all vehicles. The cars were: • 1969 AMX 390 Go Package • 1970 Buick GS 455 Stage 1 • 1969 Hurst Oldsmobile 442 • 1970 LS6 Chevelle SS • 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429 • 1970 Dodge Hemi Challenger Boss 429 came in first, LS6 second, I believe the Challenger was third, and so on. AMX and GTO Judge were slowest. IMO most of them made mediocre street engines to start with because they were so choked down, but a larger carb, camshaft upgrade, exhaust modifications, and removal of smog pumps went a LONG way back then. You just can't buy cars like that anymore, there is nothing more fun than seeing old videos of 60s Nascar races, it was so much better back then IMO. Real cars that you could actually own were running on a track, not some fiberglass shell with painted headlights that somewhat resembles a car you can buy on the lot(but wouldn't want). It also encouraged manufacturers to make racy cars, and those cars had to be on the street to be qualified to race. I mean, what would you give to be able to see Torinos, Chargers, and Chevelles duke it out on a road course, or a long track? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2371 Registered: May-04 | "This is something you have to keep in mind. Also it was used to compete not only against the flathead fords, but GM's 454, 400, 396, 350, and so on that they were using in the GTO, F_bodies, El Caminos, etc." Yeah, I know what you mean. I was mainly talking about the earlier Hemi designs of the 50s, when popularity of them caught on big time because they simply blew flathead designs out of the water. That's a lot of why you have the "It's got a Hemi" craze. The Hemi really was unmatched in it's early years. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4855 Registered: Dec-03 | ah yeah those were the really old Hemis.. like the 331 and such. "race hemis" were the real beasts, but like ya said, track only in mostly NASCAR or drag cars for those. you don't run one in a street car. also gotta remember we're talking about motors made to run 106 octane TEL fuels, too. Not your typical low octane MTBE pump gas of today. That makes a tremendous difference in performance when you look at the compressions the motors of the 50s and 60s ran. You're talking 12:1, 14:1.. versus about a *max* of 10.5 or 11 to 1 today. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4856 Registered: Dec-03 | oh you mentioned carbs for the old motors. just for fyi, the 426 hemi came stock with 1400CFM worth of dual carter 4bbl carbs. The 440 sixpack wasn't far behind that running 1200CFM of three 2bbl carbs with progressive linkages. some even came with stock factory cast iron headers. Pretty neat for back then. You don't see stock headers on much even today. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 118 Registered: Sep-04 | Yep.. Yall got it right... but the new hemi...isnt all that its pumped up to be..i dont think..i mean i agree the Old hemi KICKED AZZ..and like you all know i'ma chevy lover.. and i usually dont like dodge.. charger is bout only dodge i like.. but neway..The new hemi...just aint wat it use to be..if you ask me |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2377 Registered: May-04 | I really don't think many engines now are what they used to be. Carter makes a great carburetor, I've had good luck with Carter AFBs in the past. The newer Barry Grant carbs are fantastic as well. I'm a big fan of most older musclecars, there are many from all different manufacturers I've loved in the past. My boss has a lot of projects, two 69 Roadrunners, a 67 Mustang coupe, and a 72(I think 72) Dodge Demon. He also is stacked with $$$$ so fixing them up isn't a financial burden on him, plus he just pays a guy to do the work for him (no fun that way). I'd love to have an older Challenger or Charger in my garage, they're just very rare around here and expensive as hell. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4871 Registered: Dec-03 | it's all good. at heart I'm all for mopar. I have always liked GM stuff because that's the first stuff I was exposed to on a gearhead level by friends. I was never a ford person, but mainly I just tease ford folks.. it's all in good fun. I agree the new hemi engines aren't anything like the old ones were of course.. but the only really good high performance engines now are all in cars most folks can't afford anymore like Chevy's LS2, or the Ford GT's engine. Heck, when my '66 Charger was new, you could buy one right off the showroom floor for $3,000 with the 383 and a 4 speed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2389 Registered: May-04 | hehe Yeah, I had the window sticker to the 65 Mustang I used to have, $2800 bucks after all the options, including 289, automatic, A/C, 14" wheels, Am radio (to replace the stock 8 track), etc. These companies used to have a bunch of dealer installed options that you never see today like kleenex dispensers, etc, back then noone wanted them, nowadays, your typical mom would love to have stuff like that. They also used to have dealer option performance parts. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 135 Registered: Sep-04 | Hey Jonathan or GlassWolf either one of you know nething bout Xant subs.. i've herd you say there amps are good but what about their subs? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4892 Registered: Dec-03 | their subs aren't bad. Not my first choice, but you can do a lot worse. hey Jon, remember "trunk options" like ram air for the pontiacs, where you had to bolt the parts on yourself and they came in the trunk of the car? hehehe never see that sorta thing today! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2393 Registered: May-04 | Yeah . I just wish we'd have trunk options like that today. Some people were just born too late (myself included) I was a tad too young to buy any of those cars brand new. Sad thing was that most people didn't even know about rare dealer options, like custom paint colors, wheels, etc.. I found out from a magazine a while back that you could order Mustangs with a retractable sunroof from the factory, certain years offered T-tops and opera windows. Of course, very few knew that and thus very few were made. God knows what I'd buy if I could go back in time and choose one. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 136 Registered: Sep-04 | Yea specially cuz of the prices back then i mean.. everything was so much cheaper back then than it is today....lookin at at least 25,000 for decent car.. back then u could get the best of the best for 5000....i mean seriously what is this workld comming to? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4920 Registered: Dec-03 | closer to six grand if you're thinking about the 1963 427 cobra. they sold for 6,300 bucks. hehe now, you can't buy a real one for much under a number ending in six zeros. reminds me of a friend locally who had two Camaros. different colors, one hard top, one convertible, one auto, one manual trans, both had power windows.. both were 1969s.. and they had consecutive VIN numbers. also two of only 7 ever made that eyar with power windows. talk about a rare find. he didn't even realize the VINs were consecutive till it was pointed out to him. He just bought one for him and one for his wife to drive. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 137 Registered: Sep-04 | dude that would be awesome just to find that out...be worth some MOO LA!! LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2408 Registered: May-04 | You gotta consider inflation, though, back then a $3000 dollar car was great, and with inflation that car would cost around 17-18,000 dollars today. Still better cars than what $18,000 today will buy you, though. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 4937 Registered: Dec-03 | true people didn't make as much. a car costs about a year's income for most people these days. It did back then, too, or pretty close to it. My folks were both USAF officers in the 60s, and their incomes were surprisingly little, even though they lived pretty well thanks to things like housing alotments and such (both were filed as single.. heh) but anyway I do agree cars have climbed in cost a lot.. probably more than inflation would allow for, and they aren't worth as much in my eyes. The tech is great, like ABS, air bags, etc.. but the cars just don't last the way they used to, and structurally you have to pay a lot to get a car that'll survive a wreck as well as an older car, even at low speeds. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2410 Registered: May-04 | Yeah, my first vehicle I used was a 1964 Chevy C10 that my dad let me drive, I'd like to see a new car that could hit that in a head-on and come out of it in good shape I was cutting trees in my yard and had a limb about 6" in diameter break the rope I had tied to it and it fell directly on the lip of the bed (the side part w/o any bracing, just formed in an L). Hardly any dent in it, a hammer and some touch up paint fixed it no problem. The good thing about older motors (especially V8s) is when it eventually wears out, all you have to do is either bore out or hone the motor and possibly replace internal parts, all for relatively little cost. New cars? computer modules, a new engine altogether because the blocks are too weak to bore out, tranny will usually fail not long after that (if not before that). Just not worth it. New cars are built for people with the same mentality of those that buy a beater truck. Buy it, drive it til the wheels fall off, sling it in a junkyard and buy another one. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 140 Registered: Sep-04 | There is way too much platic and fiberglass on new cars. they dont use steel like they did in the old cars now they use more tin then anything i'm pretty sure.. but my older brother hit a cow with my dads 78 chevy bout a year or 2 ago and the cow died and the front end of the truck was all smashed.. duhh.. but the motor still ran is was qutie funny cuz we sold the motor and rearend for more than the truck was worth..lol and plus got money outa the deal cuz we marked the truck as totaled... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2415 Registered: May-04 | I hit a deer in that 64 at 80 mph, not a problem to the truck lol. Slung that deer a good many yards, though, and all I had to do was wash the blood and hair off the grill. |
|
Silver Member Username: DecdeCanada Post Number: 159 Registered: Sep-04 | LOL U were talking about honda a little earlier, i drove a honda cr-v for 1 year, the freagin thing is made out off aluminum. I'm driving on the highway, when i hit around70 mph, i float. If it's a windy day, the wind litteraly picks me up and pushes me wherever it want's... Not to mention that the freagin thing had a punny 140 hp lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2444 Registered: May-04 | My g/f's mom has a CR-V, older one. I just couldn't stand to ride in it, much less drive it. Uncomfortable as hell. The ground clearance and power of a car and rides like a Jeep Wrangler with a worn out suspension. It's supposed to be the other way around. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 157 Registered: Sep-04 | hey do one of you happend to know where i can get some new vinyl for my roof on my el camino??? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5149 Registered: Dec-03 | yes. http://www.yearone.com/ http://www.summitracing.com/ http://www.paddockparts.com/ (musclecarparts.com) |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 159 Registered: Sep-04 | glass i didnt find much bout vinyl roofs on der.. all i found was like vinyl decals and stuff..u wanna just give me one that takes me strait there...i already checked on ike google search and didnt find any.. otherwise i wouldnt be asking you to do this..thx if you do no problem if you dont.... -its all good either way |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5184 Registered: Dec-03 | I didn't look specifically for the top for your car. those are the sites I use for repro parts for restoring cars. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 161 Registered: Sep-04 | aight.. i didnt know what you did i checked em all out and couldnt find much about it.. i think i'm just gonna rip off the old stuff and put on some leather vinyal or just paint the roof.. i dunno what it would look like but i'll know when i get er off |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5195 Registered: Dec-03 | you can have a shop (resto shop) re-cover it custom. they'll just cut the vinyl to fit and put it in place. It shouldn't cost ya that much really. |
|
Silver Member Username: Chevy_for_lifePost Number: 162 Registered: Sep-04 | yea..but i'd rather do it myself or not at all...why pay someone to do your own work....but i'll keep that in mind if i dont find anything at the local shops to do it..myself |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | hey, i stumbled onto this thread a little late, but it's a good read so far. haven't met many car audio guys who are into classic american iron. glasswolf, nice charger - those years are some of my favorite mopars. i'm more of a GM fan, but i drove a '76 dart swinger with 225 slant 6 while in college. great little car for what it was. got me through 5 years of heavy driving with very few problems (except the time the front spindle melted and snapped at 70mph, but other than that...) anyway, here are links to my cardomains if you'd like to check out my cars: http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/663078 http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/657082 |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5341 Registered: Dec-03 | ah yes the old 225. had one in a 77 plymouth volare wagon. my first car (dad's car.. first one I had to drive myself to school in) back in teh day. those motors were bulletproof.. heh like the newer 4L straight 6 and age-old 318 V8. solid motors.. I like GMs as well. I'm just an old Mopar fan because it reminds me of the '66 my dad drove when I was little. Clinging to old nostalgia and all. There are a few of us around.. me, Jon, and some others who still mess with old cars. I respect the new import scene, it's just not me. I'm an old fan of raw displacement over smaller FI stuff. I toyed with thoughts about Gale Banks and looking at a custom twin turbo setup, or going with a blower (6-71) or spraying the 440.. but I figured over 550 horse and 600lb-ft of tq from a n/a motor is plenty for a streetable car. more than that and it's going tos tart getting hard to drive to town. Great Olds there.. lovely paint too. I passed that link along to the friend of mine helping do the Charger (he's got tools I only dream about haha) he's an old school GM guy, too. He's got a bunch of fun toys. 82 pro-street camaro, about 4 77 T/As (anniv, bandits, etc) a 68 el camino SS 454, a couple vetts (a 92 and a 72) and some other goodies here and there. Had some great cars in the past too.. he'll appreciate that one. The Riviera is pretty, too |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | thanks for the comments. quote: "I respect the new import scene, it's just not me. I'm an old fan of raw displacement over smaller FI stuff." same here. i used to not like forced induction much either, but once i drove the riv and experienced that flat torque curve - wow. the m90 blower gives this car some serious nuts. it's deceptive because it's a big luxury coupe. has the SC 3.8L V6 (decended from the original GM V6). don't know if you're familiar, but it's the one of the last remaining engines to use push-rods. makes about 300 lb-ft at 3600rpm, and almost as much at 1500. top end is typically weak, but the launches i get in this car are incredible. 0-60 feet in about 2 secs - imports just can't keep up! quote: "looking at a custom twin turbo setup, or going with a blower (6-71) or spraying the 440.." twin turbos are awesome, but i'm not a fan of using the bottle. blowers rule - they just sound good, too. but you know, with an engine like the 440, you could just get some high-flow heads, an aggressive cam, and headers and be in the 500-600hp range. if you increased compression and optimized for more power in the higher-rpms, you can get a lot out of that engine and keep it NA. i've heard it's difficult to kill the low-end torque on these big-block engines. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5377 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't care much about high RPM horsepower really. I'm sticking to low end torque. If I went to edelbrock performer RPM components for the whole top end of the motor, I'd be at 450HP and 500lb-ft, but since I'm stroking the engine to a 493, I need to go with a different cam, etc to match with the new stroke. Also sticking to a split-plenum manifold for the low end power instead of a tunnel-ram dual quad setup like I'd considered initially. Those only give ya good power at high RPM. I like low end power that plants you in the seat hard during hole shots. That's part of the reason for the trans-brake and line-locks. This car was never meant to handle super-great, so making it handle reasonably well with that weight in the front will be good enough. I could get a lot more out of the motor than I will, but my goal is to have it drivable on the street. Not build a drag car out of it. Strip is fun, but if I bother at all, it'd be bracket racing anyway, and that's racing against myself and a clock anyway. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2525 Registered: May-04 | I think a lot of us do it for the memories. The first car I ever owned was a 65 Mustang, that was just plain out fantastic car. 289 and a C4 in it. Before that I drove my dad's 64 Chevy C10 pickup. I've had a 67 Fastback with 700+ hp out of a 427 SOHC before, even with all the fun I had in it, some of the best memories I ever had go back to cruising in that 65 I had on a cool summer night riding around with the windows down. There's just something about the elegant simplicity of classic cars that a new car just can't replicate(for me, anyway). They had a lot more character, plus you felt like you're in control, not a computer or other control systems. Just you, the car, and the open road ahead of you. There were no beeps to indicate "hey, you've just opened the car door" or "great job, you just stuck the key in the ignition". There's also nothing like tuning up your own car, determining timing settings, carburetor tuning, etc. It's much more gratifying. |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | jon, good points. i used to love tinkering with my old dodge - in my case, not to improve performance, but just to keep it running. i think the satisfaction we get through tuning and fixing old cars relates to a similar feeling that comes from improving the stereo systems. in fact the car audio hobby, in many aspects, is the current generation's equivelant to the hotrodding trend of 30 years ago. alternatively, newer cars do have their advantages, and some are easily tinkered with, just in a different way than it used to be. nowadays instead of messing with timing, you might reprogram the PCM. but some things, like cams, exhaust, and other mechanical parts never change. glasswolf, i understand your concern for keeping low-end torque. i like having good throttle response as well. when i suggested improving the top-end, i didn't mean in exchange for your low-end power. i agree that with smaller engines, it's a compromise - you exchange low-end torque for top-end power. but i've heard it's different with something like a 440 or 455. it's difficult to kill the low-end torque on the big-block engines. there's just so much twist that it's not going to go away, even if you aim for a bigger top-end. just my 2¢. good luck with the project. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2536 Registered: May-04 | Yeah, that little 289 I built was testament to the tradeoff of low end torque and high end power. You can still lose torque even with a big block if you go with a big enough cam, trust me on that one, I lost some on that 427 I had, but within reason a larger cam (just slightly larger) can improve both low end and top end horsepower, and gas mileage at the same time, it just depends on the gearing, transmission used, torque converter stall, etc. Camshaft technology has come a long way since CAD came into play. You'll always lose a little throttle response from a larger cam due to reversion, but that's usually at idle speeds and a little above depending on how big you go. Reversion will always screw up fuel metering a little bit, but helps make that cool, nasty lopey idle we've all grown to love . I've had a lot of luck with the Comp Cams Xtreme Energy cams, they are very well rounded, even the smaller ones, tons of throttle response and low end torque, and high RPM pull at that. Barry Grant carburetors and Edelbrock Air-Gap manifolds kick @ss too, by the way. I agree that newer cars have their benefits, and fuel injection is very nice, just not quite my forte. I guess I'd just rather experiment with jet sizes, secondary springs, etc. to get my power, there's just nothing like a good carburetor, or hearing moaning secondaries and feeling the pull of a power valve or metering rod kicking in. |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | good stuff. i'm not as experienced with the older stuff as you guys are. most of what i know is what i've read or heard from guys who really know. what i was saying about the larger engines not loosing torque came from a carcraft article on 455 build-ups. they built an olds 455 using edelbrock performer rpm heads (high flow for more top-end power) and comp cams xtreme energy XE274H-10 cam (aggressive lobe also a top-end power builder). other mods were a performer intake manifold, 750cfm speed demon carb, speed-pro forged pistons, hooker headers, and MSD electonic distributor. the finished carcraft 455 made 470 hp @ 5200 rpm. torque was through the roof. measured 565 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm and climbing on the way down. they estimated 600 lb-ft in the lower rpms, but the dyno couldn't measure that high. the only thing they wished they could have done better was go with an intake optimized for high rpm performance to take full advantage of the heads, but at the time edelbrock did not have a performer rpm intake available. their reasoning, quote: "An olds 455 makes so much torque it's almost impossible to hurt the bottom end." i guess i assumed this would apply to all large displacement engines, but maybe there's something about the 455 that makes it different than a 440 or 427. anyway, thanks for all the info. i'll probably get your advice when i start working on mine. quote: "there's just nothing like a good carburetor, or hearing moaning secondaries and feeling the pull of a power valve or metering rod kicking in." i agree. love the sound of the Q-jet's big double barrels opening up. i even flip my air cleaner over on occasion to enhance the sound. about the only thing i like better is the whine from the roots blower in my riviera as it spools under full throttle... just wish it was a V8. no, i take that back. just paid $2.25 for gas today. i'll stay with the V6. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2545 Registered: May-04 | They definately have tons of torque, but that Xtreme energy 274H isn't terribly big for the size motor they put it in either. A 274H is more of a street torquey midrange cam on a 455, regardless of what they say, as big as the motor is you'd have to put a XE294H or a Magnum 292H or 305H to really see some serious low end torque issues. It depends a lot on the compression as well. Most factory cams were too small to begin with and choked the motor overall, but that helped emissions and made the engine run a little smoother. Upping the cam size can improve everything, not counting that they put higher flowing heads, carb, intake, exhaust, etc., and that will always help overall power. As far as the 455 goes, there is a little difference in the motors, I'm not as familiar with the 440, but the 427 is a shorter stroke, bigger bore motor. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 5403 Registered: Dec-03 | the 440 magnum is 4.350 bore X 3.750 stroke stock. When I finish, it should be 4.370 bore X 4.150 stroke so really a 498cu in (8.16L) that's after boring, honing, stroking, and getting the block all cleaned up with a fresh hot-tanking and magnafluxing. |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | now you guys have got me wanting to get started on the 455. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2551 Registered: May-04 | 427 SOHC was 4.232" Bore X 3.784" Stroke, so the 440 and 427 are relatively close as far as the stroke goes, didn't know that. |
|
BlownRiv Unregistered guest | since this seems to be the thread dealing with the subjects of torque, engines, and fast cars, i thought i'd share something that happened tonight: i went out to mail bills at the post office (the one that's open til 12am), and i pull in and see a black cadillac CTS sittin' in the lot. i didn't think much of it, and it was dark out. then i notice something different: two chrome exhaust tips - big ones, and they say "corsa" on them. so i'm immediately thinking, "could it be?". and then i saw that IT WAS. a CTS-V! the owner came out and i told him i liked the car and wow, what a cool dude. he pops the hood, starts the engine, and lets me sit in it and basically do everything but drive it. DAMN, THIS IS THE EPITOME OF THE MODERN DAY MUSCLE CAR. it's like a Z06 vette wearing a tuxedo! we talked about the car for a bit, then he takes off and those corsa pipes sounded super bad-a$$. i know it's not an old classic car, but man what a sweet ride. to me, it's an example of how cars might've evolved if we hadn't replaced them with those tiny, fuel-efficient econo-boxes of the 70s & 80s. more on the CTS-V: http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=ctsv&df=y |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics