quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

PS: I suck at putting up photos.

Feel free to email me at numzaan@zoho.com with any pics you want posted & I'll either do it for you or just email you the codes so you can just cat & paste them into your own posts

Thanks so much, Shakari.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
What is the silver-blue car in the third picture?

I'm not sure but think it's one of the Jensen range. The car looks so familiar to me but I can't quite place it.

It's not a Jensen Interceptor, those have FOUR headlights that are tucked into the grille vaguely like the way the headlamps are ounted in a first generation Camaro's grille.

What was on the tip of my tongue was acually a
Similar looking Alfa-Romeo (a "Montreal"), but It's actually a Maserati Mistral

They look "sexy" (What Maserati doesn't?) but that car at best has a 4liter 255hp DOHC Twin-spark Inline 6cylinder (it is actually the last inline six powered Maserati) not particularly "exciting" in a car with a live rear axle and a "dry" curb weight of 3200lbs.

I would HOPE the Lucas injection has been removed in favor of Weber Sidedrafts as the lucas injection was likely as problematic as on every other car ever equipped with it.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
Yeah, a 426 Hemi would have been nice in the Interceptor. I have seen one Jensen that I remember. Even then someone had to tell me what it was. Around my parts, the main ones that carried Chrysler V8's were Dodge Chargers/Plymouth Roadrunners or Dodge Challengers/Plymouth Barracudas.

The Jensen Interceptors came with big block Mopar engines and still managed to fairly easily break things in the Suspension.

I nearly aquired one with a worn out 383 engine and a stone Dead Torqueflite trans in the 1980's
and frankly the only reason I was interested in the car was because the owner had previously owned one of the rare manual trans cars and had the manual clutch shifter and conole pieces sitting in cardboard boxes in the trunk.

What I wanted to do with it was discard the 383 engine and slip in the more powerful 1968 340 small block engine I had sitting on an engine stand in my garage.

Swapping in a physically smaller engine where a bigger one has been is usually fairly easy

Allan,

Well spotted. I reckon you're right.

http://www.google.pt/imgres?im...d=0CCwQ9QEwAA&dur=82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Mistral

Just gumph! No Toyotas.

Sorry I kind of wandered off here, Steve.

Good call on the Maserati, Allan. I'm just not that familiar with them other than in photos on the Web. I looked up the Mistral in Carfolio.com and was surprised to see that it had a straight-6 cylinder, like you said. It was a fairly hot six for the day and sounds similar to Jaguar's famous six that worked so well in the XKE. I'm pretty sure the 255 horsepower would be according to the old gross horsepower rating of that period. I would guess the actual output of the engine in the car would be in the neighborhood of 190-200 brake horsepower. This might make it good for about 87-90 mph speeds in the quarter mile.

I think 383 Chrysler V8's were only halfway decent street performers. I agree that the 340 would have been ideal for the Jensen. There was also a 340 "Six Pack" with the 3 two barrel carbs. As with the Mistral, that 440 "Magnum" was rated at 375 brake horsepower according to the gross method. Actually, as installed in a car with dual exhaust and standard options, the net brake horsepower was 305 at a modest 4700 or 4800 rpm. This isn't a great improvement over the actual 290 horsepower of the 340 Six Pack. My guess is the added weight of the 440 was a drag on performance. The only advantage to the bigger 440 engine I could think of would be enormous amounts of torque, which a car of that size wouldn't really need anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
Sorry I kind of wandered off here, Steve.

Good call on the Maserati, Allan. I'm just not that familiar with them other than in photos on the Web. I looked up the Mistral in Carfolio.com and was surprised to see that it had a straight-6 cylinder, like you said. It was a fairly hot six for the day and sounds similar to Jaguar's famous six that worked so well in the XKE. I'm pretty sure the 255 horsepower would be according to the old gross horsepower rating of that period. I would guess the actual output of the engine in the car would be in the neighborhood of 190-200 brake horsepower. This might make it good for about 87-90 mph speeds in the quarter mile.

I think 383 Chrysler V8's were only halfway decent street performers. I agree that the 340 would have been ideal for the Jensen. There was also a 340 "Six Pack" with the 3 two barrel carbs. As with the Mistral, that 440 "Magnum" was rated at 375 brake horsepower according to the gross method. Actually, as installed in a car with dual exhaust and standard options, the net brake horsepower was 305 at a modest 4700 or 4800 rpm. This isn't a great improvement over the actual 290 horsepower of the 340 Six Pack. My guess is the added weight of the 440 was a drag on performance. The only advantage to the bigger 440 engine I could think of would be enormous amounts of torque, which a car of that size wouldn't really need anyway.

People often talk about how Chevrolet "lied" about engine power specs because of the various performance engines, avoiding the "10-to-1 rule"

But Chrysler lied as well. the 4bbl 340 engine was "quoted" at 275hp and the Six-Pack engine at 330hp.

This makes sense, because the lightest car that
the 4bbl 340 engine was sold in was a Dart.
My 1968 340Dart-GTS 4sp car weighed 2820lbs "wet", and on the relatively narrow Eagle-VR tires (235/60-15 in back 225/60-15 up front) I ran on it, it would do the quarter mile in the low 13's at just above 120mph with massive launch wheel-spin. but the car was set up more to irritate BMW drivers than quick quarter mile times.

So I was getting around 290hp at the wheels
which "suggests" that the 4bbl engine was actually making closer to 335-340hp at the flywheel.

So what was a six-pack engine REALLY capable of?

What was funny was what I did later... I cobbled up a fuel injection system for the 340engine. Bosch K-Jetronic "CIS".

The neat thing about it was that it never had trouble starting on cold mornings.

Sadly I never did attempt to turbocharge a slant-six.

quote:

People often talk about how Chevrolet "lied" about engine power specs because of the various performance engines, avoiding the "10-to-1 rule"

But Chrysler lied as well. the 4bbl 340 engine was "quoted" at 275hp and the Six-Pack engine at 330hp.

This makes sense, because the lightest car that
the 4bbl 340 engine was sold in was a Dart.
My 1968 340Dart-GTS 4sp car weighed 2820lbs "wet", and on the relatively narrow Eagle-VR tires (235/60-15 in back 225/60-15 up front) I ran on it, it would do the quarter mile in the low 13's at just above 120mph with massive launch wheel-spin. but the car was set up more to irritate BMW drivers than quick quarter mile times.

So I was getting around 290hp at the wheels
which "suggests" that the 4bbl engine was actually making closer to 335-340hp at the flywheel.

So what was a six-pack engine REALLY capable of?

What was funny was what I did later... I cobbled up a fuel injection system for the 340engine. Bosch K-Jetronic "CIS".

The neat thing about it was that it never had trouble starting on cold mornings. Smiler

Sadly I never did attempt to turbocharge a slant-six.

Well, from the early 50s until about 1971, every car maker "lied" about horsepower numbers because of the type of dynomometer they were using. This rated the bare engine without exhaust system and even (IIRC) the carburetor, just the intake manifold. This gave completely unrealistic figures, like 425 horsepower 409's, 365 hp 327's, etc.

Best example I can give is what was told to me by a Ford engineer who worked on the 428 Cobra Jet project in the '60s. (I think I have the bands right.) In what he called "Band A", the engine developed slightly north of 400 horsepower at the flywheel with no accessories. Torque was (I think) about 475 lb-ft. "Band B" showed a drop to 335 horsepower with everything on the engine but the mufflers. This was also what was quoted in the literature. "Band C" showed a net flywheel horsepower of about 310 with mufflers. This was later called the "net" horsepower. So it's pretty clear that probably the biggest impediment to performance cars back in that day were the carbs. A good fuel injection system would have turned them into monsters, like you said!

The "Six Pack" increased air/fuel flow into the engine which boosts RPM to a degree. There probably was a slight boost to the engine to give it more peak torque. For a 440 Six Pack from a factory engine, this meant an RPM peak of only about 5500-5600 rpm (IIRC.) The stock 440 Magnum redlined at only 5100 rpm, by comparison. But with a 340, I think the "Six Pack" went up to about 5600-6000 rpm (best I remember.)

I don't know how "geeky" you are, but I've had a formula that I've used for a long time which is simple but it gives a reasonably accurate estimate of the rear wheel horsepower of a car. Take the quarter mile trap speed of the car and divide by the constant 245. Now cube this result. And now multiply this result by the vehicle weight (with driver & gas.) This should be close to the rear wheel horsepower.

So for your Dart: 120 x 120 x 120 / 245 / 245 / 245 x 2820 = 331 (approx) horsepower at the wheels.

I wish I had taken the car to the track again with the fuel injection... but I should note that I was already running the "improved" 1972-73 360heads, the EFI want on at the same time as a pair of professionally prepped W2 Race heads and conversion to a solid lifer camshaft...

Imagine a Jensen with more power, but less torque and 200lb less weight on the front axle...

I hope the guy that has that 340 engine now (he was putting it into a Dodge Dakota...) didn't kill himself with it

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
I wish I had taken the car to the track again with the fuel injection... but I should note that I was already running the "improved" 1972-73 360heads, the EFI want on at the same time as a pair of professionally prepped W2 Race heads and conversion to a solid lifer camshaft...

Imagine a Jensen with more power, but less torque and 200lb less weight on the front axle...

I hope the guy that has that 340 engine now (he was putting it into a Dodge Dakota...) didn't kill himself with it

Aha! I figured that 340 was good bit more than the factory 340. That one, I would guess, got more in the neighborhood of 390 brake horsepower because of the 14-16 percent drivetrain loss from the manual transmission.
Come to think of it, I suspect a late-model 5.7 liter Hemi would do wonderfully in the Jensen.
Ah, so many cars, so little time! And even less money!

You misunderstand the 360 heads, "mildly prepped" were more
of a "reliability improvement" because cause of improved rocker-shaft pedestals and induction hardened valve seats.

the W2 heads didn't go on until AFTER my one and only trip to the track.

W2 heads were factory race heads that were based on the 360 heads but machined differently, mostly relocated push rod bores to allow far more radical porting than was possible without the intake porting running out of metal.

with the w2 heads on the engine and the camshaft I was running power could have been in the 425 range.

I can compare that engine very directly to a 351-4V Cleavland, because at one point I actually owned a genuine 4V Cleveland engine's Mustang, the Dart was faster.... MUCH faster

But, I only had the Mustang for nine days, before some idiot stole it and managed to wreck it not quite three blocks from where they stole it from.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
You misunderstand the 360 heads, "mildly prepped" were more
of a "reliability improvement" because cause of improved rocker-shaft pedestals and induction hardened valve seats.

the W2 heads didn't go on until AFTER my one and only trip to the track.

W2 heads were factory race heads that were based on the 360 heads but machined differently, mostly relocated push rod bores to allow far more radical porting than was possible without the intake porting running out of metal.

with the w2 heads on the engine and the camshaft I was running power could have been in the 425 range.

I can compare that engine very directly to a 351-4V Cleavland, because at one point I actually owned a genuine 4V Cleveland engine's Mustang, the Dart was faster.... MUCH faster

But, I only had the Mustang for nine days, before some idiot stole it and managed to wreck it not quite three blocks from where they stole it from.

Bummer about the Mustang! No doubt that loss almost physically hurt! The 351C was another engine that showed you didn't need big cubic inches to get horsepower. You just need rpm. A lot of people just thought they needed big blocks in a Mustang and other cars like that, but mostly this didn't work out too well. No doubt that happened with the Jensen.
OK, so your 340 was pretty much stock, if I understood right. I don't remember much about all the drag racing classes now but I'm sure that would have been hard to beat in one of the Pure Stock classes!

The thief ran it across a curb, and into some guy's front lawn busting out both shock towers and basically totaling the chassis.

Car still looked cosmetically perfect, but nothing could have been further from the truth...
I had a friend about the same time with an early Cougar with a 351W and when I showed up with the mustang, a non metallic Maroon "Grande" (Notchback) with that 71 351-4V his knee jerk response was "So someone put a 4bb intake onto a 2V 351 engine... My response was "let's pull the valve covers and see..."

It was the first time either of us had seen a set of Crower's Stainless steel needle bearing rocker arms... or for that matter the INSIDE of an engine painted with Glyptol...

The short story behind the car was I bought it from the mother of the previous owner of the car who had managed to kill himself by driving his Harley in the rain... while drunk.
(Motorcycles don't mix well with either Alcohol or Water)

As it turned out later the engine, which must have had an interesting travel to where I found it was one of the spares originally built for Ak Miller's Pikes Peak Mustang.

Along with the engine I got a call from the mother of the seller a week after the car was wrecked that she had found several boxes of "car parts" that she believed belonged with the car.
When I went to pick the stuff up I found along with other interesting "bits" a more or less complete dry sump system for the 351C engine. (the only thing actually missing was the reservoir tank) I eventually sold that stuff for more than I paid for the entire car.

So while it would have been "nice" to wreck it myself, I can't really get too teary-eyed over it, because I came out somewhere around $6000 ahead by the time all was said and done.

In fact not too long ago I sold the very last piece of that car...
I had managed to hang onto the complete "Swing away" steering column. a column I carefully rebuilt in 1981 and never got a chance to install into the car. a "plain Jane" steering column was temporarily installed in the car when it was stolen & wrecked.

He thought a 351 Cleveland was like a Windsor with just a 4 barrel intake??? Blasphemer!
If I had to choose a stock, real performance vintage Mustang, I would have to go with a 351 Boss (Cleveland) in preference to practically any big-block Mustang. As best I recall, there was even enough torque in those engines that you might not be completely embarrassed coming off the line. Windsors might have made nice mild street engines, but you weren't about to get a great deal of power from them to be really competitive with anything but other nice, mild street engines.
At any rate, it sounds like the previous owner had done everything right with that Stang! And so did you when you parted it out! I couldn't have that kind of luck!

quote:

Best example I can give is what was told to me by a Ford engineer who worked on the 428 Cobra Jet project in the '60s. (I think I have the bands right.) In what he called "Band A", the engine developed slightly north of 400 horsepower at the flywheel with no accessories. Torque was (I think) about 475 lb-ft. "Band B" showed a drop to 335 horsepower with everything on the engine but the mufflers. This was also what was quoted in the literature. "Band C" showed a net flywheel horsepower of about 310 with mufflers. This was later called the "net" horsepower. So it's pretty clear that probably the biggest impediment to performance cars back in that day were the carbs. A good fuel injection system would have turned them into monsters, like you said!

Caroll Shelby once stated that he would be surprised if the 428 Mustang had an honest 225 at the wheels.

quote:

Caroll Shelby once stated that he would be surprised if the 428 Mustang had an honest 225 at the wheels.

Shelby would certainly be the one to know about that.
I recall the standard 428 used in the big Fords and Mercs wasn't a horsepower champion by any stretch. I remember a comparison test in one of the 60s car magazines between a 427 Chevy Caprice (the 427/385, I think) and a 428 Ford Galaxie. I think the Galaxie ran the quarter in mid 16's, while the Caprice did it in high 15's.