question for Joe Mechanic, DB....

On 15 Aug 2006 16:38:06 -0700, "455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot
of the gods" wrote:

http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/re...momuscle12.htm


you think a 455 RA V can't make 500 HP- the smaller cube 421 SD was
making 410 HP back in 1963 snip

Mine was a '62 Bonneville...WITH the HM315 HydraMatic, NOT the Roto
used in the Grand Prick. That's why I could wipe any Grand Prick off
the map...the Rotos were garbage. During the disastrous Roto
HydraMatic years of 1961-63, Pontiac wisely reserved the "real"
HydraMatic for their top of the line Bonnevilles, while saddling the
lesser cars (including the Grand Prick) with those cheapie "Slim Jim"
disasters. Oldsmobile wasn't quite so smart. My '62 Olds Starfire
had a Roto. What a waste. Good road fuel economy, though.

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 16:38:06 -0700, "455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot
of the gods" wrote:

http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/re...momuscle12.htm


you think a 455 RA V can't make 500 HP- the smaller cube 421 SD was
making 410 HP back in 1963 snip

Mine was a '62 Bonneville...WITH the HM315 HydraMatic, NOT the Roto
used in the Grand Prick. That's why I could wipe any Grand Prick off
the map...the Rotos were garbage. During the disastrous Roto
HydraMatic years of 1961-63, Pontiac wisely reserved the "real"
HydraMatic for their top of the line Bonnevilles, while saddling the
lesser cars (including the Grand Prick) with those cheapie "Slim Jim"
disasters. Oldsmobile wasn't quite so smart. My '62 Olds Starfire
had a Roto. What a waste. Good road fuel economy, though.


Rotos were a real slushbox- agreed. Lots of slippage and poor gas
mileage actually. A friend had a ' 62 Cataliina I did some work on and
drove it. base 389-2bbl

keep in mind these engines were originally designed and built when gas
was a dime a gallon in the 1950's- any old timer will tell you- who
cared about gas mileage- gas was cheap

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 16:14:34 -0700, "455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot
of the gods" wrote:

With the discovery of issue #4 of the 1973 Craftsman Service News set,
all theories were validated with a simple, one-paragraph statement on
page 54 entitled, "Threaded Rocker Arm Studs". The paragraph clearly
states that all Pontiac V-8 engines would receive threaded rocker arm
studs beginning with engine #709986 which was assembled on or about May
7, 1973 and would carry throughout the remainder of 1973 engine
production and on to 1974. What has been proven as an attempt to save
material costs and a step in the machining process as well as to
eliminate the need to stock a specific yet redundant part, Pontiac
engineering streamlined production by discontinuing the pressed-in stud
installation process and machined all heads for threaded studs. snip

Reason: PRESSED STUDS FAIL.


not on a Pontiac they don't- try removing one sometime

almost all the small block Chevys had pressed studs as well

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 16:10:57 -0700, "455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot
of the gods" wrote:

You're wrong about the pressed in studs too- ALL Pontiac 4-barrel heads
from 1967 to 1979 had screw in studs. They were quite common. ANY
run of the mill Pontiac from 1975 to 1979 had screw in studs as well. snip

Well, shazam. By 1975, I'd never touch a Potty-tank again, and all my
experience was with the "good" Pontiacs prior to '65. I had a 421,
and it had pressed studs, although they never pulled out.

I don't mind educating you on this at all- snip

You couldn't educate a mealybug on anything.

Your driving a Honda because of gas mileage alone. In all other
respects, your Honda is inferior. snip

Let's see...it's lasted almost 30 years now. How many 1970s GM cars
have lasted that long? Answer: VERY FEW.

And if you had an old Poncho, you'd have a ball with it.snip

Obsolete fodder for the crusher, if anything after 1964, AFIAC.

I'm starting to get the impression that when you went to UCLA, those liberal
professors friggin' brainwashed you- into thinking anything made in USA
or anything patriotic is bad. snip

What a moron! Typical "proud to be stupid" right wing justification
for their own stupidity.

I see where "****us In The Family"'s Hitleristic learder, James
Dobson, is going to try to steal the election this time out. Ain't
gonn work...all the church nutters are already registered, and, as has
been proven in '04, they've already hit the polls at their maximal
strength, and are losing clout. Dobson will suffer the same fate as
Raphie Reed, you watch. All those delusional church 'tards do,
eventually.


stick to the subject- in this case, I can run rings around you easily.
Vintage cars have been an occupation and hobby of mine for 25 years
now.

The most powerful Pontiacs were made from 1962 to 1970.

Compression and engine size peaked in 1970.

The highest factory released HP rated engine was the 1963 SD421 at 410
HP.

Next highest was the 1969 428-4barrel- made 390 HP rated.

I frequented many Pontiac race meets, and have built about 60 of the
engines, for myself and others. They can easily make 650 HP with basic
bolts ons.

Nunzi Romano of NYC made 746 HP on the dyno with his 455.

There is a complete Pontiac aftermarket that has sprung up- they now
make new replacement blocks, heads, crankshafts.

So you're wrong there. Take a look for yourself, mr. know it all...

http://www.nunzi-pontiac-expert.com/

http://www.krepower.com/

http://www.jbp-pontiac.com/

http://www.spottsperformance.com/

On 16 Aug 2006 03:24:56 -0700, "The Punisher"
wrote:

The most powerful Pontiacs were made from 1962 to 1970.

Compression and engine size peaked in 1970. snip

Compression "peaked" in the early '60s at 10.5 to 1. By 1970, GM was
"decompressing" V8s in anticipation of the 8.5 limit in 1971.

The highest factory released HP rated engine was the 1963 SD421 at 410
HP. snip

'63 was a good year for Pontiac, so was '62 and '64. Anything past
'65 was garbage, as was most anything from GM. "Decontenting" had
begun in earnest.

I frequented many Pontiac race meets, and have built about 60 of the
engines, for myself and others.snip

Uh huh.

Nunzi Romano of NYC made 746 HP on the dyno with his 455. snip

'Eh, compare Nunzi! Che c'è di nuovo? È che questo asino Nudo
dell'asino è un bocciagalupe?

On 16 Aug 2006 03:02:58 -0700, "455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot
of the gods" wrote:

Rotos were a real slushbox- agreed. Lots of slippage and poor gas
mileage actually. A friend had a ' 62 Cataliina I did some work on and
drove it. base 389-2bbl snip

Not bad gas mileage on the road (no torque converter), but to cheapen
the "Roto/F85/Slim Jim," they simply elminated second gear, replacing
it with a "torque multiplier," a sort of half-assed torque converter
in place of the usual front coupling. Once into third gear, they
acted like a "real" HydraMatic, but off the line, you'd just sit there
and wind out until the first shift point.

keep in mind these engines were originally designed and built when gas
was a dime a gallon in the 1950's- any old timer will tell you- who
cared about gas mileage- gas was cheap snip

I did, even back then! That's why I liked my '55 Starfire...25 MPG on
the road, even back then.

455 Pontiac on premium Sunoco-chariot of the gods wrote:
you wish you could, too- otherwise why the Harley shirt in your pic
?

you're a closet conservative.

Conservatives drive Harleys???