Car pics too cool not to share

ColoJeep said:
This undersquare monster belongs in a tractor , not a roadster.
Click to expand...

Hey now, that's a "stroker". ;)

ColoJeep said:
230h.p. from 268 c.i.d at 3700 r.p.m
Click to expand...

(230 x 5252)/3700 = 326.5 ft-lbs. It's no hot rod by V8 standards, but it's not too shabby for the time, especially considering it's a flathead. I think the Hudson Hornet was pushing 180 hp in '53-54.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddvltj, Squatch and Wildman
BlueC said:
Hey now, that's a "stroker". ;)



(230 x 5252)/3700 = 326.5 ft-lbs. It's no hot rod by V8 standards, but it's not too shabby for the time, especially considering it's a flathead. I think the Hudson Hornet was pushing 180 hp in '53-54.
Click to expand...

Yea , the dying pinnacle of over weight , under breathing , over heating , flatheads. Overhead valve engines were always the way to go .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squatch, Wildman and BlueC
1973 AMC Javelin AMX Fastback Coupe

1709923795868.png
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: lowranger, reddvltj, ColoJeep and 1 other person
ColoJeep said:
Yea , the dying pinnacle of over weight , under breathing , over heating , flatheads. Overhead valve engines were always the way to go .
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on the subject, I do have to say that there's nothing quite as nostalgic as seeing a flattie still trucking along some 70 years later. And yeah, I understand that the technology is ancient, but given the choice between the ancient and the computer-reliant stuff they're putting out now, I'd almost prefer the old flatheads. At least you can work on them without having to be some kind of NASA scientist. But hey, I still think this whole "internet" thing is just a passing fad, so there's that. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashvilleTJ, reddvltj, Zorba and 3 others
Top Bottom
Back