1. Budget 302 story:  Well done and just what most readers of "Junkyard Craft" want to read (Freiburger, many CCers still want "Junkyard Craft")  

BUT, as cheap as some good SBF heads are, it makes ZERO sense to invest FIVE HUNDRED or so dollars in tiny, unported JY castings. Too bad the story didn't make that "real world" point.  And why the crappy Chinese intake manifold?  A decent Edelbrock or other made-in-U.S.A intake wouldn't have busted the budget (and probably would have made more power)!

2. 540 Chevelle feature by JEFF "Camaro Craft" Smith:  An expensive, "sano" car that would get SMOKED by Stromburger's stock block twin-turbo isn't exactly the "Second Coming," yet Smith GUSHES it's so "hard core" that it ought to star in a remake of "Two-Lane Blacktop."  

WHAT!  

Sure, anyone who writes in a car rag for almost three decades is going to occassionally say some inane stuff in the quest to be creative and fresh. But Smith's "Two-lane" musing is heart-stoppingly idiotic!

If some mope undertook the folly of trying to remake and update the classic "Two-Lane Blacktop,"  the primered, gasser-style '55 Chevrolet (if replaced) would need to have more patina, univeral appeal, and modern street-racer relevance than some smoothed-out, collector-car Chevelle!  Maybe a primered Fox-body Mustang with a ragged-sounding "460" . . . or if it has to be Chevy (yawn), a street-ratty BBC-powered Nova or Camaro.  

Of Course the "GTO" character (played brilliantly in the original film by Warren Oates) could drive any number of flashy, factory-built, no-effort muscle or tuner cars  (perhaps even an . . . import . . . even a boring nuevo GTO from the "Land of OZ" would work.)

But NO CHEVELLES need apply!  

3.   Why is the lettering reversed on the twin-mill "showcar-n-showchick" flashback photo on the last page?  

Not once was hard core mentioned in the Chevelle article.  The only time hard core was mentioned was in reference to Stromburger's Firebird...and people like him.

And big buck hardly describes a car with a MAACO paint job...

Let it go already...  

I'm sorry my post wasn't more clear.  Let me connect the dots.

1.  "Hard core" was a concept from Glad's EXCELLENT November 2007 editorial about the various classes of CC readers. (It was also, as you observe, used in reference to Stromburger -- which, btw, is a fantastic surname for a hard-core rodder because of the similarity to the name of the storied STROMBERGcarburetor)

2. The "Driver" and the "Mechanic" characters in "Two-Lane Blacktop" were (in their day, if not STILL today) the poster children for "hard core."  (Need I make any argument here?  A primered gasser on the street at the zenith of the original muscle car era . . . with sliding Lexan windows, a pinned-on fiberglass trunk lid . . . fiberglass tilt front end . . . tunnel-rammed Rat . . . slicks . . . what sounds like an M-22 "rock crusher" Muncie four speed . . . racing for $300 in 1970-71 (back when "three yards" actually was worth something . . . .)

3. BY OBVIOUS, IRREFUTABLE IMPLICATION, if Mr. Chevelle and his Macco-sprayed whip were the modern-day analogs to "Two-Lane's" '55 and its long-haired crew (which they would have to be if they were worthy of being cast in these iconic roles in some unneeded remake), then JEFF "CHEVELLE" SMITH WAS SAYING THEY ARE TOTALLY "HARD CORE."  (That's just simple logic)  

Not only that -- he was asserting that Mr. Chevelle and his "smoothster" ride are as "HARD CORE" as the original "Two-Lane" legends!

(By about the same sort of implication, we could cast Chris Rock in the "Two-Lane" remake as the legendary "Big Willie Robinson" and have him "roll" in a pimpin', Technicolor '64 Impala low-rider instead of a Hemi-powered MOPAR wing car . . . . It'd make about as much sense as what Smith suggested)

4. EVEN WITH A MACCO paint job (ignoring completely the other aesthetic aspects of the Chevelle), the car doesn't fit within the vibe of the "Two-Lane" '55 OR the "Two-Lane" GTO.  

a. The '55 wouldn't have a chance of passing NASA's "50/50"
appearance rule (i.e. paint and body work look undamaged and showroom "sano" from fifty feet at fifty M.P.H.)  because of the PRIMER, radiused rear quarters, and ill-fitting 'glass parts (among other "show" defects).

b. The GTO was a new and clean Detroit stocker of the time.  

c. THE CHEVELLE DOES NOT FIT INTO EITHER CATEGORY.  It simply looks like another well-detailed cookie-cutter resto-mod built out of a parts catalog.  Go to Barrett-Jackson or any Super Chevy Show and take your pick.

I'm not saying the Chevelle isn't nice or worthy of CC. It's both.  But it simply does not have the "chops" to be a modern day incarnation of either of the "Two-Lane Blacktop" icons.  And Smith's suggestion otherwise was simply another indication of his utter lack of objectivity when it comes to Chevelles.

I have no doubt that most of the Chevelle Club members believe otherwise.  They, however, are wrong.  

Mr. Chevelle here, I'm flattered that dr511scj_1 is so enthralled with my Malibu. Not that I give a turd what some disenfranchised Ford (F'd Over Rebuilt Dodge) fan has to say, but I did randomly view a number of his 453 posts, just to see whether this was his standard operating procedure. Remarkably, contrary to first impressions, dr511sjc_1, doesn't actually appear to be retarded (I'm sorry, "mentally challenged"). That being an unprofessional opinion, of course, I'm not a clinical psychologist. I guess it remains a possibility.

I can only go by what I know, so excuse me if my presumptions are incorrect, but I would think that a bit of your animosity towards the bow tie nation would be better spent by actually putting your money where your mouth is. Instead of bashing everyone elses efforts, maybe it's time to turn off the computer and head out into the garage. You know, the place where hot rods come from. BUILDING an example of what you think that all of us should be spending OUR time and OUR money on, would certainly seem like the logical thing to do. Best I can tell, you bring nothing to the table. None of the posts that I read gave me any indication that you have a car at all. If so, I'm curious as to what it may be. I'd really hate to spout off about something that I have no idea about, it might make me come across as some kind of penis.

You are welcome to your opinion, I would just like to know it's value.

*** Thanks Car Craft. I am thrilled with the article and very much enjoyed meeting Jeff and Doug. I think that I threw them in therapy when I tossed Doug the keys and said, "Put it where ever you want to, I'll be back in a minute". I was, after all, in the middle of trying to help Wes Migletz, get his '62 Vette up and running, as he had to return to Cal the next morning.  

Hey im a Ford guy too I still think its a bitchin car.  

When will you guys learn Buick's are best    

Thanks for the compliment Cougar guy. It just so happens that a '67 Cougar (bracket racer) beat me, in a squeaker (door to door at the stripe), in my final race in last weeks PINKS ALL OUT at LVMS. It was probably my lowest E.T. of the weekend, high 10.6 maybe (all others were 10.7's), but being from an arm drop, the numbers weren't posted.

After reading dr511scj_1's posts again, I realize that the majority of his hostility is directed towards the 2Lane Blacktop references. I guess that I took offense to my car being called a "whip" and believe it or not, "well detailed cookie cutter". The fact be known, I didn't bother to wash the car, not even after being asked to return at 9am Saturday morning. We didn't get home until after 2 in the morning from Friday nights Midnight Mayhem. How the word "whip" came to mind, I'll never know. There isn't a hint of modern anything, much less high tech. The interior is as stock as stock could be, including the AM radio. The seats were reupholstered in 1981, when I was 16 or 17. The treadle sewing machine statement is absolutely true. It had the only needle that would not break when pushing through the material. For nearly 6 months of my junior year of high school, I drove around with a pair of shortlegged folding lawn/beach chairs.

"Hardcore" is a subjective description. If being driven hard and put away wet, every day of the week, raced every other weekend (mid 10's with no roll bar, lap belts, C-clip axles, etc... prevents any sanctioned racing) and bumping off the 7600 rpm rev limiter at nearly every oppotunity, is hardcore, then, yes, me and my Chevelle are as hardcore as it gets. If this bothers you, then hide your women and kids, because we may be coming to a street near you.  

That was the black Cougar right? I never caught up with the guy mainly because it was too hot to walk through the pits. Besides, we had an easy up, three coolers of beer and plenty of friends to pass the time. It was fun.  

Okay, Mr. Rowdy:

After your comments, I reread the article on your "whip" (a modern term no more offensive (or descriptive) than the terms "ride," "short," "rod," "gow job," or "machine" were in their respective days of popularity).  And it's a whole lot nicer than "hooptie" or "rat rod," isn't it?

I have nothing against your car. You've obviously worked very hard on it and have a right to be proud of it. And with current trends, in 10-20 years you'll be able to cash in at Barrett-Jackson for a tidy profit.

Of course, after seeing that photo of the totaled Chevelle earlier in the same issue of CC, I'd seriously rethink the lack of safety equipment in a 10-second car, if I were you.  In my time, I've seen scores of folded-up GM A-bodies in the breakers yard . . . .

BTW, street racing an admittedly unsafe car IS "hardcore" . . . as in "hardcore" reckless and shortsighted.  

But if no spectators, "civilians" or the property of others are at risk, then it's between you and "the Man" (a/k/a "5-OH," "Po-Po," "Smokey," "Fuzz," "Johnny Law," "Marshall Dillon"  [I'm sure the "heat" is now offended  . . . .])  Of course, if you pile it up in some ill-advised "midnite" street duel, please don't turn in any insurance claims . . . it just raises the premium rates for everyone else who insures an old muscle car or has health insurance.

And hopefully, your rev-limiter "bouncing" is also well away from populated areas.  That way, if the "mill" pukes, no innocents will get hurt from the shrapnel.   Street squirrels who see every straight strip of pavement (even school zones and residential streets) as a burnout box and every stoplight as a hole shot zone hurt the image of Car Crafting among the general public (and that makes things harder for the rest of us).

As you observed, my "beef" was with Jeff "Chevrolet" Smith's inappropriate and unjustified reference to "Two-Lane Blacktop."   You can't help it that Smith fouled up the story on your car with a bone-headed literary flourish.

BTW, You'll note that the "Two-Lane '55" had a roll bar and WAS legal for sanctioned strip action in its day.  

Enjoy your "fifteen minutes!"  It's more than millions of Car Crafters will ever get.  I'm sorry that you were personally offended by my comments directed solely toward Jeff "GMPP" Smith.  

After reviewing this discussion, I'll again clarify so that anyone interested will fully understand . . . .

1.  Rowdy's Chevelle is nice in the same vein as thousands of other mildly-modified "restomods" are.  It doesn't appear to break any new ground technologically or stylistically.  That's not a slam.  It looks like a solid street car that many CCers would love to cruise in.  And it's the sort of car that CC's advertising base is built on (The speed parts vendors sell a whole lot more bolt-on gear to ordinary little guys like Rowdy than to visionary artists like Chip Foose or Troy Trepanier . . . .)

2. Perhaps the photos make it look more detailed than it is, but Rowdy's Chevelle is relatively straight, relatively clean, and technologically conservative (big cubes, single carb . . . catalog bolt-ons . . . old-school (but not period correct) drag-style wheels, stock-appearing body).  

3. Obviously, in comparison to the sorts of pure junk that many CC readers love (e.g. '80s cars, boxy "compacts," and other "affordable" RWDs that haven't escalated in price as much as '60s muscle), Rowdy's Chevelle isn't a cheap car.(Have you priced a rust-free big block Chevelle lately?  PHR's Chevelle project is near the $30,000.00 mark, if memory serves--and it's down about 40 cubes to Rowdy's Chevelle).  

Also obvious -- given the apparent long time-span of Rowdy's ownership, the present cost to duplicate it would far exceed what he's probably spent on it.  Thus, it's not really a cheap car, despite its simplicity.  

4. Compared to the rough, raw, primered "Two-Lane '55," Rowdy's Chevelle is a veritable  show car (hence, the "smoothster" comment).  

5. "Whip" doesn't really mean anything other than "car."  

As a owner of "pure junk that many CC readers love" (see my name) I would like to know what is wrong with having an affordable car that you built yourself.  What exactly is wrong with bolt on performance.  I would like to see Chip Foose and Troy Trepanier build those cars on my budget.  They blow more money on an interior that I did my whole car.  I think alot of car craft readers are like me in that they read the magazine because alot the the articles talk about things that they can actually do in their garage on their budget.  I admire when people take a car, any car, and do things themselves to make it their own, even if it is only a few bolt ons.  

I also love how people classify all chevys as the same thing, even though everyone one I have seen has things that make them different.  Just because someone chose a chevy doesn't mean they are just copying someone else.  I guess some people can't get over their brand racism.    

By the way, what do you drive?  

Hello:
It was most intrestering to see you do the article on the Mopar 440 for under Seven Grand. I have been a Mopar guy all my life and I have built quite a few big blocks, both for my self and for others.  
 So I found it quite amusing to see that you left out the machine shop charges on your itemized list.
 Are you really that good a friends that they don't charge you?  Because they sure charge the rest of us and we have to include it in our billing to the customer.
 Six hours  with a hand grinder opening the bowls and no charges?
 0.030 overbore and 0.006 Deck and no charges?
 Rods checked and resized with pins fitted / pistons installed and bore fit no charges?
 Need I go on?  
 I know shops all charge diferent prices and it varies from region to region, but you got at least $1,500 in Machine shop billing on this engine .
 Come on guys if your going to do it do it right.
What would you tell the eager young guy that thinks you can build this engine for him for Seven Grand?
 
  "67dartgts"  

monte85:
As a owner of "pure junk that many CC readers love" (see my name) I would like to know what is wrong with having an affordable car that you built yourself.  What exactly is wrong with bolt on performance.  I would like to see Chip Foose and Troy Trepanier build those cars on my budget.  They blow more money on an interior that I did my whole car.  I think alot of car craft readers are like me in that they read the magazine because alot the the articles talk about things that they can actually do in their garage on their budget.  I admire when people take a car, any car, and do things themselves to make it their own, even if it is only a few bolt ons.  

I also love how people classify all chevys as the same thing, even though everyone one I have seen has things that make them different.  Just because someone chose a chevy doesn't mean they are just copying someone else.  I guess some people can't get over their brand racism.    



Of course there's nothing wrong with "pure junk!"   (Read my initial post in this thread).  

Stromberger's budget twin turbo is exactly the sort of low-buck vibe that scores of CC readers want more of.  (Read some of my posts over the past four years in the "We aren't rich but we're not stupid" thread)

The point of bringing up Foose and Trepanier was not to "dis" the huge majority of bolt-on/Catalog Car Crafters.  Bolt-ons are the backbone of CC's business model and such "Bolt-on" Car Crafters are the bulk of CC's readership.

BTW, creativity does not require huge amounts of money.  It takes time, hard work, skill and vision.   Loading up your car with a crate mill and the latest bolt-ons isn't really the same thing. (although it's big-time fun)

The initial point (that seems to keep getting lost among the reactionary Chevymongers) is that although the Chevelle was a well-turned, moderately expensive bolt-together "whip" (not all that unlike literally thousands I've seen in my years about the auto world), IT IS NOT REMOTELY A BONA FIDE "SEQUEL" TO THE LEGENDARY "TWO-LANE '55!"

As far as "brand racism" . . . how could I have praised Stromberger's SBC powered turbo car if this was a knee-jerk anti-Chevy thread?

Although certain expressions of "Chevy Crafting" tend to mindlessly proliferate on the streets, strips and show fields like mold after a flood, on occasion some are creative enough (such as Stromberger's homebuilt turbo) to rise up and demand recognition, regardless of brand loyalty.

While Rowdy's Chevelle didn't do "it" for me (the supercharged small block on methanol was substantially more interesting in the Chevelle mini-section), I'm certain that thousands of readers absolutely loved its simple, primitive, low-tech pathos and the interesting tale that went along with it.

BTW, I enjoyed the Max Wedge build, but I suspect the uber-expensive repop intake and exhaust manifolds aren't too "real world."  Still, that mill would look bitchin under the hood of most 1960s Mopars.  (Anyone up for a "Max Wedge" Imperial?  Or maybe one blended together with a low-buck turbo kit similar to the one on that black Plymouth in this month's Popular Hot Rodding magazine . . . .)  

You'll notice that he never says what he drives...never did when I confronted him about it in that annoying "not rich, not stupid" thread...

Makes ya wonder...don't it?  Considering two people in this thread alone have asked...  

Make that three people:What do you drive dr511scj_1?????????I drive a 12 second maverick,yes on the street.