You just got smoked by a station wagon.....

My wife's best friend Janna met us with a friend of hers. Her friend was driving a new white Lincoln suv...crossover...thing.. It looked like a chrome-plated Ford Edge.. ANYWAY I was in the Roady, had my wife up front, three kids in the middle row, and two in the 3rd row.

Janna and her friend were following us in the Lincoln, heading out hwy 620 around Lake Travis, and after driving a bit, they pulled up next to me at a red light. Janna, in the passenger seat of the Lincoln, motioned me to roll my window down. I did, and she says "do you always drive so slow??" She was smiling, and I knew she was kidding, but in truth I do tend to drive like a grandpa most of the time.

BUT....when the light changed I buried my right foot. The Roady reared up and roared forward. I could see the Lincoln next to me in my peripheral vision....well until the Roady shifted, at which point we were GONE. Hahahaha. The kids were laughing and shouting. We came up on the next light, and they pulled up next to me. The kids are in the back clapping and laughing and I leaned out and said "Hey you just got smoked by a station wagon!" ....and Misty just sat next to me shaking her head....

Fun stuff. And yes, I know it was just a V6 Lincoln SUV, but MAN that was a lot of fun! And I guess it's good to "blow the carbon out" now and then....

- Mike

lol Hooray for torque!

Imagine how fun gears would be, grandpa!

Now you need to get a couple of little Lincoln logo stickers with a black "X" over them for your front doors.
I drive like a grandpa too, mostly because I am one.

3.73:1 's are calling!!!

BigBlackBeaSSt wrote:

3.73:1 's are calling!!!

Oh yeah I REALLY want to do that mod next! Anyone got a good rear axle to sell....that's not priced like it's gold plated???

Use the one you already have, just swap in new gears and flash the tune to your PCM.

I have no idea how to do either, but it's as simple as that!

Bewber wrote:

Use the one you already have, just swap in new gears and flash the tune to your PCM.

I have no idea how to do either, but it's as simple as that!

Yep I've not done any rear-gear replacements or flash-tuning of my PCM.

Might as well put in a good posi then too!

Can't forget the possibility of needing a new drive shaft and replacing random pieces in the rear.

Stemmler wrote:

Can't forget the possibility of needing a new drive shaft and replacing random pieces in the rear.

Which is why it'll be left alone for now. Have to recover from all the suspension work before I dive into a new Roady project!

Finish the Cutlass please then back to the Roady.
Jim

Flasheroo wrote:

Finish the Cutlass please then back to the Roady.
Jim

Just picked up more paint for the alternator, mount, and other parts. 307 is not out yet, but planning to clean, detail and paint the engine compartment while the motor is out.

Getting there!

Yep....The torque gods are smiling down at ya right now.

Nice, Mike. What's even better is when I beat ricers with the 350 TBI in my OCC... oh, the looks on their faces when their carbon fiber hooded, 2 foot tall spoilered, coffee can exhausted, clown shoe rims wearing, all bass stereo systemed, mechanically stock economy cars get passed by the Old 'smobile...

FYI.....new Siverados are easy prey also. Just ask the painter who had to go pick up his doors after 3 TONFUN blew them off tonight on the way home!

3TONFUN wrote:

FYI.....new Siverados are easy prey also. Just ask the painter who had to go pick up his doors after 3 TONFUN blew them off tonight on the way home!

was a v6,...

Lynol wrote:

Nice, Mike. What's even better is when I beat ricers with the 350 TBI in my OCC... oh, the looks on their faces when their carbon fiber hooded, 2 foot tall spoilered, coffee can exhausted, clown shoe rims wearing, all bass stereo systemed, mechanically stock economy cars get passed by the Old 'smobile...

They get so pissed.

Good stuff. My caprice is A honda killer. love the look I get after they catch up at the end

I raced my daugher down the street and won.....barely. She was running 16s on her whip with a flower basket up front and pink rims, Got her by a door.....LOVE my 5.0!!!

Sprocket wrote:

I raced my daugher down the street and won.....barely. She was running 16s on her whip with a flower basket up front and pink rims, Got her by a door.....LOVE my 5.0!!!

LOL..... But Sprocket has a point.

Guys the wagons are not really very fast. Not to mention braking with an almost 5,000 lb car. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but a stock Impala SS advertised a 7.2 second 0-60 time back when they were new. They were a stand out in 94-96, but with modern technology there it is very difficult to keep up or slow down with a little above average car. If you look back to 1978 the Corvette touted a lowly 140 HP (less than my ecotec powered vue) and Pontiac was very proud of their Firebird that would do 78 mph in the quarter!! WOW!! So it is really all relative. I am sure I am not telling anyone anything they do not know.

With that all said they are much faster than they look, surprise many people and I really enjoy my wagon.

Still a wagon fan,
Tim

BigBlackBeaSSt wrote:

Sprocket wrote:

I raced my daugher down the street and won.....barely. She was running 16s on her whip with a flower basket up front and pink rims, Got her by a door.....LOVE my 5.0!!!

LOL..... But Sprocket has a point.

Guys the wagons are not really very fast. Not to mention braking with an almost 5,000 lb car. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but a stock Impala SS advertised a 7.2 second 0-60 time back when they were new. They were a stand out in 94-96, but with modern technology there it is very difficult to keep up or slow down with a little above average car. If you look back to 1978 the Corvette touted a lowly 140 HP (less than my ecotec powered vue) and Pontiac was very proud of their Firebird that would do 78 mph in the quarter!! WOW!! So it is really all relative. I am sure I am not telling anyone anything they do not know.

With that all said they are much faster than they look, surprise many people and I really enjoy my wagon.

Still a wagon fan,
Tim

Hey now my '79 Vette was factory rated at 225hp! Woo-Hoo L-82 Baby! Ha!

81X11 wrote:

Hey now my '79 Vette was factory rated at 225hp! Woo-Hoo L-82 Baby! Ha!

I have a soft spot for Vettes. My dad had a 1965 that I fell in love with. 63-67 will always be my favorite years with the late 60's early 70's following close. I believe they rated horsepower differently back then as well. Any one know the truth behind this? I know a lot of the 60's and early 70's muscle cars were way under rated to advantage them on the track. The manufactures played a lot of games.

[quote="BigBlackBeaSSt"]

81X11 wrote:

I have a soft spot for Vettes. My dad had a 1965 that I fell in love with. 63-67 will always be my favorite years with the late 60's early 70's following close. I believe they rated horsepower differently back then as well. Any one know the truth behind this? I know a lot of the 60's and early 70's muscle cars were way under rated to advantage them on the track. The manufactures played a lot of games.

I believe the L-48 was rated at 195hp and the L-82 at 225 in '79. With the 4-spd...and looking over those bat-mobile fenders from the driver's seat, it at least FELT fast, especially when the 4brl would open....whhhHAAAAAAAA!!!!!.

I do miss that black '79 a lot!

They changed to NET horsepower ratings (the current standard) in '72. Even that's a worthless measurement, it's all marketing.

They SHOULD move to wheel horsepower for measurement, because then it's actually a useful number to the consumer. My car makes X and puts X to the ground when I hit the gas. Not makes X and puts out Y.

It's all a game.

Them Impala SS stock will average about 210-215 HP are the rear wheels, based on what I have read. From what I understand a manual transmission does not lose much at all the the rear wheels. A hydraulic coupler (torque converter) loses a lot to heat and slippage. Not sure about when it it "locked up". Joel or Jason might be able to ad to my laymen's level of understanding. I am sure they both lose some due to turning the mass of the drive-shaft and mass and heat from the rear gears/axles.

So the wagon does feel like it has more torque.

Your imagination will add at least 10 to 20 horsepower to the numbers.Manufactures back then
would always use different types of measuring standards for insurance purposes and because
they believed the eventual owner was too stupid to understand the numbers anyway!
Tim,I agree the 63 thru 67 were the best looking by far especially the coupes.427/435 engine
with a close ratio m-21 4 speed and of course factory sidepipes.Also the track pack would be
a great option to have as well.Must have the stinger hood and be either the marina blue or
maybe bright red too.
Jim

Had some smart ass in a late model Toyota FJ s.u.v. floor his vehicle when I attempted to go around him (in the inside lane), after he took forever to realize it was safe for him to proceed. I thought," Oh hell no, it's on!". I floored the Roadie, and even though he had about a 2 car length lead on me from the get-go, I slowly reeled him in. Just as I reached his back bumper he really lays on the brakes ,wimp.
When first tested in popular magazines here in the states,the '94 SS Impala was doing 15.5s in the 1/4 mile. I think around 90-91 m.p.h. through the traps. My approx 4600lb almost all stock Roadmaster did a 15.54 @ 88.6 m.p.h. Not to bad for a 16 year old, stock(except for better sounding mufflers) grocery getter/ old mans car.

my dad had a 91 fwd cutlass mini wagon with a 3300 that was an import killer. it was a sleeper with its metallic baby blue paint, woodgrain, and wire baskets.
I remember once (a couple years ago) some guy in his 99 or so eclipse (that he had just bought) rolled up next to my dads wagon. it was bright gloss yellow, with tribal graphics, about 200 race car stickers, purple tint, a massive body kit, a 2 ft rear spoiler and big rims. the guy looks over at my dad and stares him down. we both laugh and the guy guns his engine. my dad looked back over at him. the guy revs up his eclipse and dumps the clutch when the light turned green. my dad rolls into it til about 10 mph and floors it. we were doing about 30 when we crossed the intersection (5 lanes wide) and already had a length on the guy. my dad had about 20 car lengths on the guy by the time he let off a block or so later (sad thing was the guy was really trying).

The 87 Buick T-type I had was rated at 245hp at the time. GM had purposely underrated it because Corvette had complained about the fact that they were rated under the turbo cars. The Corvette brass did not like that. With a few mods and a much bigger turbo, I was able to squeeze 632 at the engine and 547 to the wheels. 0-60 times in race trim was a mere 3.7. The car was a lot of fun.

Just an FYI from my experience:
I had 3.73's and a Torsen installed several years ago. If I had it to do over again, I would go with the next available gear down (3.54, I believe) because there is a resonance problem with our driveshafts that can cause grief in the mid 70's MPH range. When I get on the freeway, I like to set the cruise somewhere between 75 & 79, to keep the cops at bay. This is exactly the speedpoint area where you can tell the driveshaft is vibrating. If you get well into the 80's, it goes away. If you can obtain a perfectly balanced driveshaft, it might not be an issue, but good luck with getting a perfectly balanced driveshaft. There is some magical history going on with the famed "3.73" gears. I don't know how it got started, but it seems to be etched in cement somewhere. There ARE other ratios, and like I said, if i had to do it over, I would go a tad lower (numerically) if you do your highway driving in the mid 70's like I do. It's worth it to alleviate possible problems (and the irritation) that can arise from sustained driving with a vibration, even a slight one.

My wagon seems to attract late 80s Camaros for some reason. Luckily they have all been close to stock.

Sadly I also had to show a near stock wagon that just because my cat back exhaust is stock doesn't mean the rest of the car is.

I had no issues with my stock drive shaft and 3.73s up to 105 at least. It was the 4.56s that made me get the aluminum one. I think it's just dumb luck if yours works with 3.73s.

Stemmler wrote:

My wagon seems to attract late 80s Camaros for some reason. Luckily they have all been close to stock.

Sadly I also had to show a near stock wagon that just because my cat back exhaust is stock doesn't mean the rest of the car is.

I had no issues with my stock drive shaft and 3.73s up to 105 at least. It was the 4.56s that made me get the aluminum one. I think it's just dumb luck if yours works with 3.73s.

Both my cars worked with 3.73:1 gears and stock shafts (other than a slight vibration at 90ish). The SSR shafts took out the vibrations in the impala

When are we going to see a video of you going up thru the gears Tim?
Jim

Hey now my '79 Vette was factory rated at 225hp! Woo-Hoo L-82 Baby! Ha![quote]

Also had a 79 vette and it definitively was faster off the line than my 96 RMW which has 3.08 gears.
Back in those days the catalytic converters were filled with small beads which were very restrictive. You could purchase a straight pipe at most auto parts stores and removing the cat [ there was only one] get a very noticeable increase in performance .

Also the vette had a lower weight and was geared for acceleration. I recall that the RPM was 1/2 of the speed .So at 80 mph it was 4000 RPM.

Was noisy at any speed , had a cheap looking interior, but fun.

[quote="etsfl"]Hey now my '79 Vette was factory rated at 225hp! Woo-Hoo L-82 Baby! Ha!

Quote :

Also had a 79 vette and it definitively was faster off the line than my 96 RMW which has 3.08 gears.
Back in those days the catalytic converters were filled with small beads which were very restrictive. You could purchase a straight pipe at most auto parts stores and removing the cat [ there was only one] get a very noticeable increase in performance .

Also the vette had a lower weight and was geared for acceleration. I recall that the RPM was 1/2 of the speed .So at 80 mph it was 4000 RPM.

Was noisy at any speed , had a cheap looking interior, but fun.

When we lived in New Jersey we popped the plug on the cat and blew all the BB's out of it. Seemed to help a little. Once we came to Texas I installed early 70's style true duals on it, and that really woke it up. From the factory, the crossmember had two holes in it for the duala, but only one was used with the single-into-Y-pipe 79 design. Making to true duals was CAKE!

And yes I sure remember how low it was geared. In 4th at 65-70 it was in the 3's, but with the duals, I loved the sound, especially with the T-tops. I was always trying to find a 5th gear that wasn't there though!

As for the interior, yes it has a lot of plastic in it, the carpet along the console was glued to cardboard, and it was small inside for how large the car was, but I totally loved how RED it was in there, especially in contrast to the black. Also loved the big tach and speedo with L-82 printed on them and crossed flags, and the easy-to-read white on black gauges. The shifter also looked awesome in solid heavy chrome, and it FELT so SOLID and direct, especially in conjuction with the firm clutch. It just felt TOUGH!

I really do miss that car!

I did have fun with my brother n law.... he was very proud of his newish (2009 I think) Dodge duelly (sp) diesel with some kind of chip thing. He spooled the turbo up and made a lot of black smoke while I held the '95 back. I got him off the line every time...but could only pull 6 carlengths or so ahead before he started puffing back. Never passed me, but I chickened out at 110. lol. Getting old! Thats a mean truck too

brokecello wrote:

I did have fun with my brother n law.... he was very proud of his newish (2009 I think) Dodge duelly (sp) diesel with some kind of chip thing. He spooled the turbo up and made a lot of black smoke while I held the '95 back. I got him off the line every time...but could only pull 6 carlengths or so ahead before he started puffing back. Never passed me, but I chickened out at 110. lol. Getting old! Thats a mean truck too

Very cool Chris!! Those diesels put down some considerable HP.

Yeah, to be fair...I think it was a traction issue for him. It was nice to see him appreciate my hodgepodge wagon though.

brokecello wrote:

Yeah, to be fair...I think it was a traction issue for him. It was nice to see him appreciate my hodgepodge wagon though.

I understand how you feel.

Damn-it tim!
why did you have to blow my Illusions about my wagons? now i have to sell them!
anybody wanna buy TiKi and her slightly older cousin?

a1awind wrote:

Damn-it tim!
why did you have to blow my Illusions about my wagons? now i have to sell them!
anybody wanna buy TiKi and her slightly older cousin?

Crusher of illusions, that is me!!

Just the facts Tim just the facts .My kid brother chipped his first cummins Ram and
logic says something that big,just shouldnt be able to move that fast,but it sure does.
Jim

I will take this diesel.

That just puts a big-old smile on your face!
Jim

i can't remember what they said exactly, but IIRC that duramax in the impala was something like 850hp 2,000 lbs/ft

I just watched that the other day. I don't think it was quite 850 if my memory serves correctly, but it was certainly making some impressive numbers, especially on biodiesel.

the funny part is, (though im not sure about bio) running waste/straight veg oil (svo or wvo) is shown to give the same hp numbers but has a higher lubrication value...fewer oil changes, longer engine life. i think diesel bill has some good ideas...i'd switch my 92 to diesel if i could afford it.

a1awind wrote:

the funny part is, (though im not sure about bio) running waste/straight veg oil (svo or wvo) is shown to give the same hp numbers but has a higher lubrication value...fewer oil changes, longer engine life. i think diesel bill has some good ideas...i'd switch my 92 to diesel if i could afford it.

You certainly won't get that kind of performance from WVO/SVO. Burn times are way too slow. You can get an extra jump using B100 (real bio-diesel) by virtue of being able to advance the timing a bit but the reality is that Bio Diesel has about 4% less bang per gallon than #2. Any of the commercial mixes (B5 -B20) should see no increase or decrease in performance.

If that is a Dmax, I can pretty well guarantee he is using no more than B5 if anything. The standards for Bio Diesel just aren't there to risk putting it through any common rail, high pressure system in any concentration above about B10. At $2,000 for a set of injectors, I wouldn't.

Kool conversion though. Theres a guy over on the diesel page:

http://www.thedieselpageforums.com/tdpforum/showthread.php?t=33337&highlight=diesel+camaro

that did a 6.5 drag car. The guy really had some fabrication skills.

Bill