Car pics too cool not to share

Fill 'er up ! (My '21 Chevy).

IMG_1857.JPG
 
Since you're not looking for a "numbers car" for restoration, have you thought about building a new car? That's a popular car so they make a lot of parts for it now.

https://realdealsteel.com/c-1158230-bodies-1970-81-camaro-firebird.html This would be the high side price wise, but there is no rust or repair to deal with. Then you could come down to my part of the country and buy an SB2 engine from one of the many race teams. ;)

I've been eyeing those body shells over. I have another Trans Am that needs a lot of metal work. I'm thinking one of those bodies might be the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueC
@TJPurist Do you have any more pics of your truck? Pre '35 (or '36) Chevies are pretty rare with wood framing and whatnot.
 
Ever seen a car do the twist? Just get an X-frame Chevy :cool:

View attachment 306760
Didn't all the GM full-size cars of the era (about '58 through '64-ish, I believe) have the X-frame? I know my '60 Pontiacs all did. Love the pic, btw. Seeing one dancing to Chubby Checker is one thing, but a pair of 'em? That's something special! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueC
Didn't all the GM full-size cars of the era (about '58 through '64-ish, I believe) have the X-frame? I know my '60 Pontiacs all did. Love the pic, btw. Seeing one dancing to Chubby Checker is one thing, but a pair of 'em? That's something special! :)

Yep, all full-size GM cars '58-64 had some variation of an X-frame. Cadillac started in '57. It was the back bone of their "jet smooth ride" campaign and long and low designs. Front-to-back, they are strong. Corner-to-corner, not so much. I have a convertible '64 Impala and if I was to elevate one wheel, say park on a curb like some jeeps, I wouldn't be able to open my doors. :rolleyes: And that's with extra bracing from Chevy.

348, or 409? My buddy has a nice little Model A Tudor with a healthy 348 in it. Love the looks of the W-motor!

That one appears to be a 348, or at least it has a 348 oil pan. I have better pics of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squatch
Yep, all full-size GM cars '58-64 had some variation of an X-frame. Cadillac started in '57. It was the back bone of their "jet smooth ride" campaign and long and low designs. Front-to-back, they are strong. Corner-to-corner, not so much. I have a convertible '64 Impala and if I was to elevate one wheel, say park on a curb like some jeeps, I wouldn't be able to open my doors. :rolleyes: And that's with extra bracing from Chevy.



That one appears to be a 348, or at least it has a 348 oil pan. I have better pics of it.
I didn't realize there were any external differences between the 348 and 409. Please feel free to educate me on the subject, as I love learning about such things.
 
And a stout 409 and probably a spooled rear end with 4.56 gears and slicks. 🧐

You don't think they have a "Turbo-Thrift" I-6 with a carb spacer and flow masters?? :LOL:

I saw those cars at Thunder Valley 10-15 years ago (I don't know if that's my pic or one I saved) and at that time I think they were running some kind of super stock class that allowed modifications within factory offerings. Chevy stroked the 409 to 427 in '62-63, so that's probably what they were running.
 
I didn't realize there were any external differences between the 348 and 409. Please feel free to educate me on the subject, as I love learning about such things.

Very minor visual clues, and really they only apply to engines running factory parts as most 348-409 parts will interchange. All 348 oil pans have the dip stick on the driver side, 409 dip sticks are on the passenger side. The crank pulley is shaped different between the two, and there were no 3-duce setup offered on factory 409s. That's about it as far as I remember.

I'm looking for a good 409 block if you happen to know of one at a reasonable price. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squatch