It’s hard to look at these cars and the ones
that preceded them from the ’80s objectively
because they are, as McGean pointed out,
sandwiched between the original muscle car
era and the current mega-horsepower ma-
chines. But back then there was genuine ex-
citement over these cars, especially from GM
owners who were tired of getting their butts
handed to them by the Blue Oval team. But
all that excitement didn’t translate into sales,
which lef many people shaking their heads.
GM fi nally gave my generation the F-bodies
we wanted, and then we didn’t turn up in the
showrooms to buy them. The auto industry
has changed how it markets and builds these
cars today. Back then they were still being
marketed to “kids” and were therefore priced
accordingly. I can honestly say that my ’
was leaps and bounds a better-engineered
and -built car than my ’85. But in retrospect,
they still used a lot of crappy materials to
build those cars, specifi cally on the interiors.
But damn, they sure were fun. Oddly, I fi nd
myself more drawn to the third-gen F-bodies
these days but will always cherish my ’
Formula.
Neil Johnson
Via email
NO-HYPE HEMI?
The writer of the “Over-Hyped Hemi” letter in
your July issue (HMM #191) was somewhat
misinformed. I agree with your answer. I start-
ed at Chrysler in 1966 and, afer going on a
special mission for LBJ, went to Highland
Park Engineering. Part of my time there was
as an engine development engineer. The 1971
SAE net of 350 hp was at 5,000 rpm with air
cleaner, alternator, fan, and power steering
pump. Street Hemis on the dyno were making
between 485 and 510 hp at over 6,000 rpm
through the cast-iron headers, but without
alternatororfan.Wefound an all-aluminum
427 Chevrolet lying on the street outside the
complex and threw it on the same dynos. It
made 530 hp with its single quad.
A few years before that, I helped run a ’
Satellite 383 four-speed that started, out of
the showroom, at 14.7 on stock tires at 94
mph. Afer receiving 4.10 gears, headers,
slicks, and a Super Stock suspension, the
car turned 13.5 at 110 mph. The engine was
unchanged. The hole-shot a ected top-end
speed, as did the gearing that allowed the
engine to stay at peak power.
I had a ’68 Hemi Charger that, three years
ago, turned 13.7 at 104 in Pure Stock. In 1968,
Car and Driver got an automatic ’68 Hemi
Charger to turn 13.5 at 105 mph with 3.
gearing, also on stock tires. They couldn’t get
out of the hole without smoking the tires, and
never got out of second gear.
The Street Hemis were jetted rich from
the factory and fouled plugs on a regular
basis, leading to their bad street rep. Tires,
a gear, headers, and tuning made all the
di erence, especially since Jerry Stahl
was turning 10s in an A/Stock ’66 Hemi
Belvedere in 1966. You want to raise top-
end speed — a better hole shot has more
to do with trap speed than an incremental
increase in power. The ’71 Buick and Olds
455 A-bodies you featured in that same
issue were faster street racers in showroom
condition than other earlier muscle cars be-
cause they had wider tires, lots of low-end
torque, and more weight on the rear.
Jack Van Wingerden
Via email
Thanks for the insighful recollections.
I have corresponded with the writer of the
letter, Robert Angeli, an engineer who pres-
ents a thorough case for his views. I respect
his opinion, though the two of us are still
not completely on the same page. That said,
I fi nd your input to be very interesting.WINA 2019 SHELBYGT350.MedfordYouthHockey’s12thAnnualCarRaffle.Draw-
ingSeptember26th,2019.Tickets$100eachor 3 for$250.Only1,500ticketswillbe
sold.Shadowblacktri-coatw/blueracestripe, 526 hp5.2LV8,Tremec6-spdmanual,
handlingpackage,electronicspackage,leathertrimmedsportseats,MSRP$65,855.
Visitwww.winashelbygt500.comforcontestrulesandinformation.Topurchasetickets
[email protected]SUBSCRIBETO
HEMMINGS
MUSCLE
MACHINES
TODAY!800-
227-
4373
ext.
79550