No seriously look at the angle the red would go on the hood would almost PERFECTLY fit the louver pattern! It's PERFECT!
Great history (and images) Tony ... thanks! By the way, when/where was this picture taken? And were the front-bumper decals used to cover the slots from the (former) tow-bar brackets?
The famous cover shot that brought 'respectability' to Powerglides. Posted before, but always worth another view!
The picture was sent to Chuck Norton and he sent it on to me. John Hartwell fixed the bumper. Location of picture probably Pittsburgh International, just a guess
In the time honored tradition of any auto racing endeavor short of true "Run Whatcha Brung," the appropriate answer is, "No comment." Or, another old standby, "If you don't like something that you see on my car, put your money on the table and we'll find out together. By the way, if you're going to protest me, bring your own car and gaskets when you do it!" Here's one for the ages, "I have a letter from NHRA that says I can run (insert name of part) it this way. Oops, must have left in the glove box in the other truck." Or, "If you don't get caught, it ain't cheating." How about, "Every body in Division (insert number) is running it that way and it's getting by." Last resort, "How come you're picking on me. Everybody else is cheating, too." In the final analysis, just about every car had or has, at minimum, one thing that could be considered outside the spirit if not the intent of the rules. Where does "liberal interpretation" end and "cheating" begin? The days of requiring racers to swap out the steering column on a '68 Nova in order to run it as a '69 have pretty much gone out the window. There are still, however, occasional returns to the bygone standards but they're fairly rare and usually based on personal issues. c
Alas, some most-certainly did! Like an old adversary I ran into at the York reunion a few years ago. He and his partner had a similar '56 Pontiac and we only ran into them at Capitol Raceway. He beat us perhaps twice out of 5 or 6 class run offs we met him in. Well, he recognized me and we briefly chatted. The conversation ended when he asked "which (cu.in.) engine were you guys running?" I was incredulous! ... The only (cu. in.) engine for '56 Pontiacs was a 317, and (it turns out) he ran a (later) 348! Most of the 'other' (legal) guys were ‘creative’ that's for sure. I remember getting the new rulebook in ‘68 (or perhaps it was ‘69) and wondering 'why in the world' NHRA decided to forbid vacuum leaks! Why I pondered, would anyone actually ‘want’ a vacuum leak? Then I remembered the garden hose spigots I saw being ‘tuned’ in the staging lanes on intakes of some of the killer 265/162 and 283/185/170 HP 2-B 4-speed cars. You gotta admit … it was pure genius! Hog out the (2) tiny jets, open the spigot as ‘far as you dare,’ struggle to get staged, while ‘idling’ @ three grand. ‘Wa-La’ ... Now it’s (the equivalent of) a ‘three barrel’ 265 or 283! Cheating? No ... not at all. At least until it was banned! Remember Wally Parks original NHRA mantra … “Ingenuity In Action”? Methinks Junior Stock Racers really subscribed to that notion!
Thanks for that, I'm not saying they all were "cheaters" just wanted to get some old stories going, they were very smart racers and perhaps tried harder than other classes with details. I spoke with Jere Stahl at length on day a few years back, man was that a great experience to here some of the stuff. Jr. Stockers ruled!
Just the winners ! Seriously we all pushed the rules to the limit. I put a V8 on 6 cyl mounts in my P/S 283/185 59 Chevy Biscayne {originally a 6 cyl car} and inadvertantly moved the engine back a few inches. I didnt know it until we tried putting stock manifolds on it after it was retired and the outlets ran straight into the front crossmember. The V8 frame mounts were different. Perhaps I wasnt the only one, who knows but it wasnt intentional.
nice 57 mr. janes! id like to invite you (and mr norton) to bring to bring your cars to show at our friday night car show, hosted by the american streetrodders, atRubys diner at the whittwood town center in Whittier, id like to see the 57 inperson!
Mr. bundyracingdaman, You may have misunderstood me and Tony as well. All those wonderfully nostalgic cars we romanticize about have been out of our possession for over thirty years. We sold them off years ago to finance the next levels of competitive Stockers. My original I/S '57 Corvette (sold as a roller for $1000) became a J/SA '66 Nova (sold as a roller for $150), then an M/SA '64 Impala (sold to the crusher for $12), after that an F/SA '68 Camaro (sold for a lot more than $12), morphed into a SS/IA '97 Firebird (sold for more than my first house), and is now masquerading as a C/SA '97 Camaro SS (for sale for an arm and a leg). All but one of them won at least one small "Wally" and all have been Stockers or Super Stockers. Tony has owned and/or driven a similarly comprehensive list of cars. As things stand now, we strive to maintain respectably competitive race cars but, as a result, we have no exciting nostalgic garage toys. My "cruiser" is a hideously modern '95 Firehawk, not exactly a car that would excite the imagination of Junior Stock aficionados at a cruise night. Tony does have a rather snappy '68 Malibu wagon but I seldom see him driving it. We frequently reminisce about some of the more desirable iron that has passed through our hands but, sadly or not, not much of it stuck around. Thanks for the invitation. c
no misunderstanding, i assumed the cars were history, when i saw what looked like a modern picture of the Barkley #2 car i had hoped Mr Janes still had it. although you dont currently have a pre 73 car, you and Mr Janes are more than welcome to come and enjoy the show! tonys snappy 68 malibu wagon would fit right in!
Leaf spring cars of the Stock genre, early Super Stock, and the first Pro Stock cars all need some sort of device to limit the deflection of the portion of the spring that is in front of the attachment point of the rear housing. The longer the front portion of the spring, the greater the need. The solutions I've seen over the years included a commercially available version marketed years ago under the name "Traction Master" that bolted solidly under the housing and under the front spring eye. Later, Chrysler engineers resolved the problem by sliding the spring leafs forward to accomplish the same goal. They went to great lengths to design leaf combinations for a variety of horsepower levels. The greatest disadvantage to their approach turned out to be the weight of a set of their leaf springs as compared to a mono-leaf and a "slapper" bar. The ubiquitous "slapper" bar has proven, over the years, to be one of the most effective and least costly designs to reproduce. I usually made my own out of rectangular tubing and a stock spring support plate. They are visible under most of the leaf sprung Junior Stockers of the day.
Yesterday I had an email from George Cureton regarding a video clip I sent him of his Nova which had a slow motion shot of the launch. He said "Really good footage. That was my Jack Arnew suspension. He put Hemi Cuda leaf springs under the car and it really worked anywhere"
Later on, Gregg Luneak (the same guy who just won the Jeg's All-stars event in Super Stock) made multi-leaf springs (ala the Mopar technology) for just about any leaf spring car. I had a set on my Camaro stocker for a while. Then, Steve Hanby in Division 6 developed a variation on an "under spring" design bar that really works on automatic transmission cars. Many of the good A/SA Camaro Stockers today use a variation on that design. Check pictures of Bobby DeArmond (first stocker to run in the 9's with a 427 Camaro) and the Sorensen Brothers (10.14 in B/SA at Boise altitude). One major advantage of the switch was the fact that the mulit-leaf springs were very heavy. I replaced them with a set of mono-leaf springs and put 100# in the weight box where it did more good. c
We fabricated the same type for our wagon but ours were clamped to the spring in the front. Worked OK but kind of stiff. Later, on the McMaster 4dr. car we had a Stahl bar that worked really well that provided more flexability. With a special machined rear end cap my brother made at work combined with Chrysler Posi gears and Henry axles I was leaving at 6000+ rpm's (valve float in those days with legal springs and hydraulic lifters) with no breakage or tire spin on 7'' tires. A real nice ride with a 4 speed.
i have something a friend found that was thrown out on township junk day.I'll post a pic and tell me if it's correct or not plz.
J.G. Giant, I believe that the Stahl set-up was probably one of the most advanced suspension pieces developed in the days of Junior Stock. For what it's worth, look at that system in comparison to the torque arm set-up on the 3rd and 4th generation F-bodies. Look familiar? I'd have loved to run that on my '68 Camaro but the rules of the "new" Stock Eliminator don't permit it. In fact, the 2009 NHRA Rulebook states, "OEM or aftermarket torque arm permitted only on vehicles OEM-equipped with a torque arm." The Stahl bar would probably be better than anything else available today if it was legal. I think that's called "reverse progress."
Thats a pretty cool shot. I have the same bars on my wagon with a 57 rear. Mine clamp on the front. When I bolted them on and then placed the car down the suspension preloaded and raised the car 1 inch. Im sure it wil have some serious bite.
That looks like a bar that was made for the GM "B" body cars (Chevelle, GTO) that had a coil spring rear. I always thought they looked cheap!
I dunno seem a bit long for that(bout 3 ft) and they are pretty heavy. i have no idea what they are lol there in good shape just dirty. so just go with good old traction bars?
FYI, GM 'B' bodies are the big cars. 'A' body indicates the GTO, Chevelle, etc. Just for clarification.
The Jalopy Journal
