<VV>Windage Tray (minimal Corvair)

[Terry Kalp]

My memories have to agree with Tony.  I was shopping for a ponycar in '69 so
I read a lot of road tests.   If you look at the magazine tests of stock 302
Z-28s most of them turned mid 15's  while the 340 Mopars in A & E bodies
were tuning mid 14's and the Hemi's, L-88's were turning high 13's . . . all
on the same Polyglass style tires.  If the 302's were making 400 hp the
Hemi's and 440 six packs had to be making 800 <G>.

Those running 302's on the street learned quickly that to be competitive
they had to run 4.56 gears, the optional cam, headers, slapper bars and
cheater slicks, and hope the race lasted more than a couple of blocks.  The
295 horse 350's were pretty doggy also.  In '70 1/2 Chevy fixed that with
the 350 hp 350 for the Camaro . . . then cut the compression in '71.  On the
stree torque rules and the 302's just didn't have enough.

In August of 1969 I ordered a new '70 E-body 'Cuda 340, 4-speed, 3.91
locking rear, Hemi suspension, no power, radio delete.  It held it's own on
the street very well for a stock car.

And that's all I am goning to say about that.

Terry Kalp

----- Original Message -----
From: <tonyu at roanokeinternet.com>
> >Phun Phact: the 1967 option code Z-28 (actually Z-280,1, 2,
> >& 3 ) 302 was  rated by the marketters at 290 hp (actual
> >was more like 440)
>
> If that were true, then why did my 3700 lb '66 Plymouth
> outrun every 302 Z Camaro I ever raced...?  ;)
> ..including a tweaked LT-1 "Mr Bigshot" 1970 Z that had
> this mean rep on the cruise strip here in town?
>
Snip
>
> However, those 340s were some stout engines and made fools
> of lots of people who failed to respect them.
>
> >because they  wanted the sans coulottes
> >to buy the 295 hp SS 350 (incidently with a very  weak
> >crank, why journal sizes increased for 1968). Back in the
>
snip>
>
> tony..
>