I know, I have a lot of work scheduled for the Mustang. This includes interior work and yes maybe doing it all at once would be a good idea. But I drive it a couple of times a week and the seat is getting worse. So I decided it needed to be fixed.
The kit is from TMI and I think I purchased it from a Mustang parts dealer, but I don’t recall which one. Here’s a couple of videos on it.
What I noticed is the black piping. I know that the car was re-upholstered before I purchased it, so I’m guessing that this was not original, at least they don’t make them in the reproduction world.
I was ready an article in one of the many auto related magazines (can’t recall which one…I’m behind on my reading….a bit <<>>>) and the author was stating that it’s no longer the Mopar guys vs. Ford guys or vs Chevy, but now it’s just tuner vs. tuner.
I first realized that, he was indeed correct and secondly that it really extended into many more areas of life. But for now, I’ll stick with why I’m writing this.
When I was a kid (60’s and 70’s) there were clean lines. My Dad was a GM guy or more specifically a Chevy guy, his Dad had Mopars (but really anything that got him to a store for a ‘soda’ was fine with him). On other side of the family (Mom’s side) there wasn’t much going on there with my uncles (except one who introduced me to Corvettes at the age of about 4 or 5), except my grandfather who always seemed to have a Ford – actually they were always the huge Mercury Marques or similar Merc model.
So there were many discussion on which brand lasted longer, ran better, had more power and a very important are for ‘way’ upstate New York State, which one rusted slower (seems there were two types of cars no matter what brand – those with rust holes and those about to have rust holes). Now school was where things got hyped. Even as far back as grade school there were discussions about which car brand was better….I recall even then the full name of F.O.R.D – “Found On (side of) Road Dead”.
That was the core of a car guy’s or gal’s life back then. Even those that made a living working on them had preferences.
But that is all being lost. It’s hard to tag the exact cause or point in time this happened. However, I’m going to blame racing. Yup straight up, drag racing and oval track racing. The thought that a funny car is really a Mustang or the template fitted oval track car is a Camaro or a Camry, is merely an illusion. When the running of “real” cars stopped, the rivalry began to die.
Funny Car “Mustang” This is John Forces car…no offense intended
Not a Mustang
Camry Funny Car
Looks like the stang.
Ford Mustang
NASCAR Camry
NASCAR CAMARO
Coming up next: So where does the lack rivalry lead us?
Like you, I grew up in a GM only family. My dad bought Chevy Station Wagons (stripper Biscaynes) for family hauler duty and Buick LeSabres for his personal daily drivers. Each and every car he bought faithfully lasted 100K miles with only minor repairs and service.
Then, in the 1980s several things happened that destroyed car loyalty. One, all GM cars were exactly alike both in appearance and crappy reliability. My dad was devastated that his 1982 Buick with Olds 305 V8 was in the shop 100 days per year, each and every year of the 36 months he owned that car, then his 1989 Beretta was the same in reliability. Second, the Japanese, or rather JAPAN, INC, realized that turning cars into ‘appliances’ was exactly what America needed and wanted. Styling is not as important as 200K reliability and 60% re-sale value. Finally, Detroit failed the American consumer by trying to make big profits on SUVs rather than compete on quality car products. All of this contributed to the errosin of car loyalty.
I read an article awhile back that stated that the Asian brand cars have loyalty among themselves in that Honda people buy Toyotas and Toyota people buy Hondas, and some people only consider all Asain brands both Japanese and Korean, but American loyalty has boiled down to the large truck market only. Pick Up truck owners are loyal to only GM, Ford, or Chrysler. In fact, the article mentioned that MOST F150 owners are likely to own Toyota products as their car product.
For me, I was a “MOPAR, or NO CAR” loyal Chrysler buyer for all of my driving life. My first car was a 1969 Dodge Coronet 440 that ruled the street of my neighborhood (less the occasional MACH1 that would beat me). My second car was a Road Runner that never lost a race. Then I matured into a Plymouth Horizon, a Plymouth Laser, followed by a Shelby Charger, a Shelby Lancer, and the present day LeBaron Convertible. I bought Chrysler products because they were the underdog of the Big 3, because Lee Iacoccoa needed our support, because they were the most patriotic brand, and because they were the biggest bang for the buck.
The Daimler takeover ended that loyalty. The FIAT ownership makes permanent that I will not buy another MOPAR.
Today, I am not loyal to any car manufacturer. I can pretty much guarentee you that I won’t buy foreign in that I ‘follow the money’; in other words, Ford and GM money do come home no matter where the assembly point, or source of the car. I lean towards Ford products in that they did not take a bail out, Bill Ford is a family owner of the company, Alan Mullay is an engineer that realizes crappy cars do not sell, and the Mustang is still the very best Muscle Car for the money. Always has been, and I hope will always will be!
Submitting my rant for the day, Bill
RT @JERZEEBABY1: Auto racing returns to Trenton, NJ this weekend! http://t.co/j5p8i8dltS
RT @dustinlong: Covered Auto Racing RT @APSE_sportmedia: Retiring Bill Center 1 of a kind. Nobody outworked him. http://t.co/vasTGbmbY2 vi…
Nicola Romeo is credited with setting the foundation for Italian car maker Alfa Romeo. What a lot of folks don’t know is that Alfa was a car manufacturer before Nicola came around.
Afla stood for Anonima Lombardo Fabbrica Automobili and began production in Milan in 1910. They actually produced French cars (the Darracq) under a license, all hand built.
Darracq 1906
Nicola had an engineering degree from Turin. He first worked with mining equipment and eventual purchased Alfa’s plant in Portello.
His management skills and love of racing helped build this car .company in to a lasting enterprise.
Although, apparently their latest offering to the U.S. market of the Giulia, was not well received, design wise and the parent companies Fiat–Chrysler killed it until 2013.
This one was in the parking lot of the a local auto parts store Checker’s or O’Rielly’s….or….all those mergers are making hard to have common name that everyone can related too (remember when there was just NAPA….can’t find them very often).
1969 Chevelle 454 Restored shell
This 1969 Chevelle was merely as shell…oh but is extremely well done restoration. The paint was excellent (makes ya wonder why it was being dragged round uncovered), the inside of the shell had been as expertly sprayed as the exterior..it was almost a shame to put in the interior in there.
Reproduction gauges and not much in the way of interior yet.
The badge on the car shows that this car housed or will house 454. But however, the 454 didn’t show up on the scene until until 1970 so this must be a retro fit.
You can see the big power plant is missing.
It looks absolutely ready to for dropping that monster engine back in and hitting the strip. Hey I don’t even mind the wheels!!!
Didn’t find the owner (or driver) , part store was crowded.
Of course this isn’t a 1970, I’ll update the data a bit later.
Some 1970 Chevelle facts:
– The 454 was produced between 1970 thru 1976.
– It produced 450 hp configured with 4bbl carb
– It was designated the LS6 with 475 ftlbs of torque and 9.0:1 compression ratio
The majority of the Chevelle’s (approx. 13,000) had V8 in 1970 and approx. 10,000 had 6 cylinders.
Having grown up working in my Dad’s body shops, was often given the honorable task of taping (masking) off the areas that weren’t going to get sprayed and areas, like windows and mirrors where you don’t want over-spray landing. I learned a few tricks that help speed up the process, but more importantly help ensure a good clean paint job. Removing over-spray is not a fun process.
I’ve tried the machines that merge the paper and the tape, great for straight lines, like the Coca Cola trucks we painted but for tight corners it just doesn’t work.
To save time, which equals a money saver and to get sharp clean lines, outline the areas with thinner tape, 1/4 inch works best. After that use the tape and paper machine and run that along the previously laid tape.
Here’s one more.
I can’t possibly tell you how much a pain it can be to tape off emblems and name plates and it’s never clean. Do yourself a big favor, figure out how they are attached to the sheet metal and purchase replacement them. You know where I’m going… remove the badges and emblems. That is the only way to do it right.
At the entrance. Here are two of the cars that are up for raffling. There is also the a vette you can “try on”. In this clip I stated that the vettes at the end of the building were there for customer to sit. No true. That is where the code R is fulfilled. Code R is for delivery at the NCM. You can view a 1984 C4 in the window.
Charles – Thanks for dropping by and giving us some of your insight.
Here is what he provided:
Hi, i’ve never heard of the Chevy reaction in 38 years of studying GM’s history. Pontiac was violating GM’s rule of limiting cubic inches of cars smaller than full-size to one cubic to every ten pounds of car’s weight, so cars like Pontiac’s Tempest/Le Mans, Buick’s Special/Skylark, Old’s Cutlass/F85, and Chevy’s Chevelle/Malibu were limited to 330 cubic inch displacement. Pontiac marketed the 336 as a 326, and after some time, someone in GM figured out the actual bore and stroke made 336 cid. Pontiac had to change the 336 down to the 326. Then for 1964, Pontiac (Thank You – John DeLorean) created an option for the Le Mans, the GTO option, since the standard Le Mans engine obeyed the limit rule, there was nothing in the rule saying you couldn’t offer an optional extra cost, bigger engine. Can you say 389 cid, 348 horsepower ?, OH YES, turn it on, wind it up, blow it out, GTO.
So I just can’t let the 283 go. I will find one, restore it and hang it from my garage ceiling, umm…yeah..I don’ t think the misses will have a problem with that….ok maybe just store it a corner of the garage..or turn it to a coffee table..yeah……um…no.
Check out his 1966 Corvair with 300 hp 283.
Link is here: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1012_1966_corvair_corsa/index.html
REVIEWS:
First Drive: 1966 Corvair Corsa
From the December, 2010 issue of Automobile Magazine
By Don Sherman
Photography by A. J. Mueller
The Chevy Corvair’s swing axles and heavy tail are implements of the devil, at least according to Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed diatribe. Paul Siano, the creator of the mid-engine Siano Special, doesn’t buy any of that. He has owned, modified, and drag-raced Corvairs for more than half of his seventy years without suffering a single unintended spinout.
Siano bought — brand-new — what began life as a 1966 Corvair Corsa after supercharging a Volkswagen Beetle and owning a ’64 Corvair Monza Spyder convertible. He drove the coupe 50,000 miles before ripping out the stock 180-hp turbo engine.
A vintage Crown Manufacturing kit provided the means of upping the cylinder count and moving the engine from the back porch to the rear seat. That package included a tubular-steel subframe, an engine-to-transaxle adapter plate, a new transmission input gear, cooling-system pipes, a new shift linkage, and two new antiroll bars.
Siano’s prize possession is a rare, experimental, 283-cubic-inch aluminum engine block that General Motors pitched out as scrap. Engine builder Bryce Flinn added a roller cam, aluminum heads, and the induction overkill. Siano fabricated the necessary bits and brackets with an emphasis on minimal weight. He also added four-wheel disc brakes, Minilite wheels, radial tires, and a Ron Davis aluminum radiator.
Siano didn’t partition off his eight-pack of Weber intake trumpets, because he’s a patron of the rolling, reverberating, internal-combustion arts. Living with Webers is not for the meek of heart. When cold, they spit and stumble. When they’re up to operating temperature, they fill the interior with a combustible cloud of reversion gases. Smoking is discouraged.
Headphones are available for those rides when hearing preservation takes precedence over the din of a barely muffled Chevy V-8. Only two things keep the whirring water-pump pulley from biting the occupants’ elbows: the flush bolts that Siano installed in place of hex-head screws and every human’s natural preservation instincts
REVIEWS:
First Drive: 1966 Corvair Corsa
|
When we drove to the test track, Siano’s homebuilt special revealed evil streaks: quick but heavy steering, vague shift linkage, and a throttle pedal that offers yes and no but very little maybe. However, a few miles were enough to establish an amicable working relationship.
Offered the opportunity to redeem itself, the Siano Special settled into stride to post a reasonably impressive performance report: 0 to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds, the quarter mile in 13.9 seconds at 104 mph, and a top speed of 130 mph. More amazing, the handling balance is excellent, offering just under 0.90 g at the limit of adhesion and only a touch of easily controlled oversteer when the fourteen-inch BFGoodrich Radial T/As finally let go. The cobbled-together chassis held firm over bumps, and the dampers kept body motions nicely controlled throughout the testing gauntlet.
Back in the Corvair’s day, GM fiddled with various mid-engine sports cars, only one of which (the Pontiac Fiero) ever made it to a production line. Leave it to a motivated Corvair enthusiast to demonstrate what can be achieved by adding a couple of cylinders and relocating the engine to a more productive location.
The Specs Engine: 4.6-liter (283 cu in) OHV V-8, 300 hp (est.) Weight: 2600 lb Weight distribution f/r: 44.0/56.0% Drive: Rear-wheel
The 326 was used as the base model for the Pontiac Tempest. That was going to be the extent of the division’s uses for this engine.
For 1963 and 1964 production years that was the case.
But in the 1960’s GM had a rule that production A-body or intermediate-size car would carry no more than 330 cubic inches and none were to be sold. Pontiac had the idea that they would bring on the Tempest GTO would have the 389 as its base engine, but GM set the rules. So the best Pontiac could do was to offer the GTO with the base engine as the 326.
1964 Tempest GTO, Yes you'll find 'em with a 326
However, on the order form there was a check box to order the 389. This is how the 326 got in to one of the most famous iconic cars of the muscle car era.
1965 was the year and the 326 offered was with 250 and 285 hps in both automatic and manual transmissions.
That’s enough to make it a piece of historical automotive hardware. But there is one more noteworthy pair of shock towers this power plant was mounted between that was the 1967 Pontiac Firebird. Yup it powered up its second iconic car with a 250 hp version and a 285 hp version.
326 in a 1967 Firebird
67 F-bird
And that, fellow car crazies, was the short life of Pontiac’s 326.
