|
By DANIEL TINDER - 8 Years Ago
|
FYI: While researching info on the Nash-Healy sportscar, I came across this Wikipedia quote:
"The fuel-injected 327 Rambler Rebel is credited for being the the first factory-produced muscle car,...as quicker than all other american sedans in 1957".
So much for internet accuracy. I would like to see the Rebel try to catch a '57 Ford business coupe with OD and a 312 'F' engine!!
|
|
By Oldmics - 8 Years Ago
|
Everything posted on the internet is true !
Why would anyone possibly question the word of a website that uses information supplied by the general public and regurgitated as facts as gospel.
Yeah,I dont see that Nash catching an "F" code ever ! (I consider all Ramblers as Nash)
Oldmics
|
|
By MoonShadow - 8 Years Ago
|
They are claiming the first ever "intermediate" sized muscle car. I don't think any of the big 3 offered an intermediate in 1957.
|
|
By Lou - 8 Years Ago
|
There were factory and Dealer installed performance set ups long before 1957. like the 39 Buick century twin carb, and the 39 scruby Police option. The first car built for performance I would have to vote for the 1949 Olds 88, a scruby body with a Olds frontend and a Olds V8. Next would be the 1953 Huston twin carb. (not sure what they called the model). Then in 1955 came the Chrysler 300, and in 1956 the power pack scruby and the 360 HP 2X4 Fords, 57 brought the supercharged Fords and Stude Hawk plus the Fuel injected scruby and Pontiacs, along with the Olds J2 3x2.
I've seen a lot of Rambler Rebels but I've never seen a factory fuel injected one.
|
|
By Lou - 8 Years Ago
|
|
Spell correct doesn't like C-h-e-v-y changes it to scruby....lol
|
|
By MoonShadow - 8 Years Ago
|
We ran a Hudson super Hornet 308 cube flathead 6 in a stock car in the late 50's. One fast motor! Factory with 2 two barrels.
|
|
By ian57tbird - 8 Years Ago
|
A bit of a dark horse.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
By Lou - 8 Years Ago
|
|
In February of 1961 I bought a 55 Ford Victoria, 272 stick shift, with 3.78 rear gears, I had Oldsmobiles for lunch, and 265 and 283 scrubrolets for snacks, then i picked on a 53 or 54 Hudson hornet, I was looking at the Hudson's tail lights before I was out of first gear..
|
|
By MoonShadow - 8 Years Ago
|
Giving up cubic inches plus dual carbs plus inline torque its no wonder. Those old Hudson's were fast. We ran ours in a tube chassis, model A bodied sportsman dirt car.
|
|
By PWH42 - 8 Years Ago
|
Lou,you've never seen a fuel injected 57 Rebel because they only built around 4000 of them and within just a few months of putting them on the market,they recalled all of them and replaced the troublesome Bendix FI setup with a carburetor.
That said.for the doubters concerning these cars,all of the car magazines of the time tested these cars with the FI.The only factory stock car you could buy at that time that was faster 0-60 and quarter mile was the 283 horse Vette,and it was only marginally quicker than the Rebel.
|
|
By Lou - 8 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks for the information about the Rebel, just goes to show you you'll never to old to learn even at 74.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Guys, I remember reading either road & track or one of the other road test magazines and their claim was that the 57 supercharged Thunderbird was the fastest production American car that year. Remember that Holme & Moody told on Ford on their HP rating with the supercharged Fords and they were 370 to 380 stock, NOT the 300 stated by Ford. Nascar Horse Power was way more according to Banjo Matthews famous Nascar driver. He told me Bill France made them stop at 350 HP naturally aspirated and when the super charger was added then you could add another 100 to 150 HP and there you can do the math.
|
|
By Ol Ford Guy - 8 Years Ago
|
|
I think the earliest fast cars for their time, that I remember, were Olds 88's, which started coming with 4 barrel carbs in 1952. Hudson Hornets with Twin H power dominated NASCAR in the early 50's. 1955 brought the Chrysler 300, and power packs for Fords and scruby's, usually 4 barrel carbs and dual exhaust. Dodge introduced D500's in 1956, along with dual quads for 56 Fords, Pontiacs and Corvette engines for passenger cars. In 1957 things really got interesting with Olds J2's, fuel injection for scruby's and Pontiacs Tri Power. The Fords were NASCAR Champions in 56 and the Supercharged 57's won it in 57. Studebaker had some interesting supercharged R options in Hawks and Larks.. Things really got wild in around 62 with Max Wedge 426 Mopars, 421 Pontiacs , 409 scruby's, 406 Fords and then they started putting big blocks in mid size cars. I think the early factory hot rods brought on a great era.
|
|
By DryLakesRacer - 8 Years Ago
|
|
I believe NASCAR outlawed all the multiple carb, FI, and super chargers part way into the 57 season. Some research I found once said near the begining of April. They said the cars were going too fast and restricted every entrant to a single four barrel. Could imagine if the track at Daytona and Talledega had been running at that time.
|
|
By Daniel Jessup - 8 Years Ago
|
It was really an era when the brakes and tires were so far behind the horsepower. The only "upgrade" I have ever seen or read about was the dual shocks on the front end. What else did these miracle workers do to their cars?
I bought a copy of Charlie's book on y block racing history and thought it was very well done. Will we ever see a day when someone gathers, edits, and publishes information on what these early race car drivers and mechanics really did to their cars for race prep or will all of those secrets go with them to the grave?
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 8 Years Ago
|
|
Dan, what's the title of that book? I'd love to pick up a copy.
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 8 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks Charlie.
|
|
By Ol Ford Guy - 8 Years Ago
|
|
When Ford introduced their first real High Performance package in 1960, they did it right. The HiPo 360 HP 352" came with solid lifters, high flowing cast iron headers, HD brakes, bigger 15" wheels and HD stiffer suspension.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Like I said, the 1957 factory super charged fords were some of the first to approach 400hp ( Holme & Moody ) Check out a small wright up Titled The fastest 1957 debate rolls on- Auto Roundup and it talks a little more about the insight on the rebel, corvette and T-bird. I owned a 292 for some odd reason that outran the 360 hp solid lifter 352 ford and it also out performed the 1961 375 hp 390 as well and it was stock which just ran exceptionally well and I never knew why. The fords had a lot more hp than what was displayed on their hoods in 1956 and 57 in Nascar Racing and there were some sponsored super charged T-birds in late 1956 as well. I used to talk to these guys that run these engines such as Banjo Matthews, Tom Ingram and a few others that are now gone but their info really help me really appreciate y-blocks and the real power they put out for their time.
|
|
By Lou - 8 Years Ago
|
|
What about the 1957 Golden Hawks? There was a Studebaker dealer in this town who sold a lot of supercharged Hawks and those Hawks kicked everybody's butt.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
The 1957 Golden Hawk with the super charged 289 produced 275 bhp. This is about 100 hp less than the super charged fords in 1957. About 10 hp less than the 283 injected scruby. Remember Ford wasn't telling the truth about their hp ratings assuming it was for insurance ratings so people could afford to buy their cars. Stock fords with the SC were dyno'd in the 370 to 382 hp range and Frank Rice's 57 super charged custom 300 proved this out as did Holme & Moody's Race Shop.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Some of this info is out of Motor Trend April 1957 and it shows the Rambler Rebel 327 Bendix eletronic fuel injection rated at 288 bhp which is a little above the Golden Hawk but not by much.
|
|
By Small block - 8 Years Ago
|
A muscle car is defined as a high performance big engine in a intermediate car A Chrysler 300 was not a intermediate!
The olds and Hudson hornet would have fit the bill though so I would say the 1949 Olds was the first Muscle car!
|
|
By Small block - 8 Years Ago
|
A muscle car is defined as a high performance big engine in a intermediate car A Chrysler 300 was not a intermediate! The olds and Hudson hornet would have fit the bill though so I would say the 1949 Olds was the first Muscle car!
One thing to keep in mind with the power rating of the Rambler the hp of the engine was 288 as installed in the Ambassador
When it was installed in the Rebel it had compression increase from 8.5 to 9.5 and the cam was changed from juice lifters to solid
It don't take much speculation to say that the power had to be up from the Ambassador engine but the rating stayed the same!
|
|
By Small block - 8 Years Ago
|
|
Comparing a Race prepped engine to a street factory engine is not a vary fair comparison Why not compare a race engine to a race engine or a Factory stock engine to a factory stock engine1 Not a race engine to a stocker!
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
That's what I did. For example a stock 312 on a Tbird (small 3200 to 3300 Lbs light weight for ford) intermediate custom 300 some what larger and the larger Fairlane weighing more of course. Stock dynoed 370 to 380 as opposed to the 300 rating used by ford. This has already been verified on Frank Rice's engine etcs. The race engines on the other hand were producing 450 to 500 with super chargers according to race car legends Banjo Matthews and others. All the cars mentioned are muscle cars in my opinion.
|
|
By Small block - 8 Years Ago
|
speedpro56 (7/4/2016)
That's what I did. For example a stock 312 on a Tbird (small 3200 to 3300 Lbs light weight for ford) intermediate custom 300 some what larger and the larger Fairlane weighing more of course. Stock dynoed 370 to 380 as opposed to the 300 rating used by ford. This has already been verified on Frank Rice's engine etcs. The race engines on the other hand were producing 450 to 500 with super chargers according to race car legends Banjo Matthews and others. All the cars mentioned are muscle cars in my opinion.
370 hp for a factory engine is blown right out of perspective The engine was rated at 300 hp and were known to make as much as 340!
My uncle had a 1957 T bird with a super charged 312 and I used to own a 1966 289 with Paxton super charger hp the mustang would eat the T bird a live and it was 325 hp!
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Frank Rice's 1957 ford custom 300 is a stock 312 with a Paxton dynoed at 370 hp and runs in the thirteens in the 1/4 mi. Others on this form know this as fact because they and myself watched him do it and we have raced together as well. The cars were equipped with 3 speed T-85 transmissions 3.70 rears for 57 and 3.92s for 56. It takes a lot of power to put one of these cars in the 13s.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Keep in mind if the super charger is not set up correctly then the outcome will not be optimum. I not arguing just expressing what I've seen, been told by Nascar racers, and what I've read and heard from others.
|
|
By slumlord444 - 8 Years Ago
|
|
In 1966 I was running the original stock 312 in my '57 T-Bird. I had added the factory dual quads, 3 speed all syncro trans with Hurst shifter. 3.89 open rear end with home made traction masters. A friend had a '65 Mustang convertible, 289, 271 horse HiPo, 3.89 rear end and 4 speed. On an 1/8 mile drag strip with me running open exhaust and 6" cheater slicks I would beat him by a car length. He had street tires and closed exhaust. Same track with street tires and closed exhaust on my T-Bird he would beat me by a fender. Rat racing on the highway on the way back home after the races it was pretty much neck and neck. My T-Bird weighed 3600 pounds. My '57 Ford 2 door Custom 300 also weighed in about the same 3600 pounds. Not sure exactly what the Mustang convertible weighed but I am sure it was less than the T-Bird. Your performance may vary but that was my experience back in the day.
|
|
By pegleg - 8 Years Ago
|
Guys, we can debate "mid-size" until the cows come home. I Think if you check shipping weights and wheelbase sizes you will find the 300 series Fords and the Rambler Rebels were actually fairly close.
As to Hp figures, my 57 F code made 372 HP on the dyno while running out of fuel! The factory fuel pump could not keep up with the carb. Later I discovered that the supposed 6 valve F code pump was a standard pump with the boost fitting added. In other words I got ripped off.
This motor has stock sized valves and camshaft timing. The cam is a replica of the optional F code cam, not the "D" cam as usually installed by the factory. It is legal and was used in all the race cars and most street cars. Supposedly added 15 hp to a D code (270 to 285). NHRA, and IHRA both factored the motor with the Standard Cam to 340 hp, they still won their classes, So the outlawed them.
As Gary mentioned my can has run in the mid 13's on 205-75 radial tires, with mufflers and at a scaled weight of 3800 + lb.s with it's overweight driver. It has also run 105.7 mph in the quarter which would equal a high 12 second quarter with slicks and a decent rear suspension. This speed was used by one of the Owners of the race to calculate the REAR WHEEL Hp of the car at 342!
I race with an organization called the Pure Stock Muscle car Race. Look it up at PSMCDR. The rules are very restrictive, no cheater slicks, stock everything on the motor. We are allowed a 2 1/2" exhaust system and electronic ignition, period. Never have seen one of the vaunted '57 Fuelies or tri-power Pontiac's. Or a Chrysler 300, or a Plymouth Fury there yet. May not ever with the value of those cars increasing every day.
I invite anybody in the midwest who's curious about this to the race in Sept to come to Stanton Michigan and watch. You'll get to see about every 60's or 70's musclecar ever made (yes AMC and Studebaker) run full out. And the are stock, cheaters will be told to leave.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
I'm not knocking Ramblers, I have always liked them a lot. Heck I have a wonderful dog I named Nash after the Nash Rambler. Back in 1966 I rode in one from Key West FL. to Asheville N.C. and was totally impressed on just how smooth it was. I've always respected the power of the 289 and 327 engines they had, if you didn't they could show you their tail lights very quickly. I was also impressed with the front seat backs laying all the back for resting, why the big three didn't do that I'll never know.
I was speaking about the hp all these cars were making including real hp that was not published. Weight does play into how well these cars ran, for instance the birds and Fords ranged in the 3600 to 3800 lbs. where as the 66 mustang shipping weight was around 2500 lbs. This will make a difference in speed of course. And yes I like mustangs too. Big difference with 1100+ lbs between them in weight. The Studebacker was another car ahead of it's time in design, the 1953 is still my favorite. All these cars are great and deserve our respect.
|
|
By willowbilly3 - 8 Years Ago
|
Holman and moody might have squeezed 400 from a 312 but I would like to see dyno proof that a stock HP one ever came close to 360 hp. That being said, I once had a conversation with a retired Highway Patrol officer and ask him what his favorite car was. He served from mid 50s to late 70s and had all the 440 mopars, 427 scrubys ect. He said his favorite was a 57 Ford 300 with a 2 fours 312 and over drive. He never had a 427 Ford though but did have a 64 solid lifter P code 390, which were rated a 360 hp IIRC. Also he never said the 57 was or wasn't the fastest car, just the one he liked best.
|
|
By willowbilly3 - 8 Years Ago
|
charliemccraney (7/4/2016)
A '66 Mustang weighs less than a '57 T-Bird, so it is logical that not as much power is needed with a '66 Mustang to equal or surpass the performance of the '57 T-Bird.
I have talked to race engine builders who pretty much do the same thing. Like for roundy round sportsman cars that can't do headwork, they flow 20 sets of heads, one set will usually outflow the others considerably and several sets are slugs, due in part to sloppy casting methods and core shift I suppose. I wonder how many engines they had to go through to get one that would make 350 and what the low end of the bunch did. But I also don't think you can take the Holman and Moody cream of the crop numbers and throw that blanket over all the production cars as a generalization of expectation..
|
|
By charliemccraney - 8 Years Ago
|
On Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Ford-Y-Block-Performance-Charles-Morris/dp/0989114929/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467465243&sr=1-5
Also
https://www.amazon.com/Ford-Y-Block-Engines-Rebuild-Workbench/dp/1613250614/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GTSGFQ8E72PPYT7FS0Q5
|
|
By charliemccraney - 8 Years Ago
|
A '66 Mustang weighs less than a '57 T-Bird, so it is logical that not as much power is needed with a '66 Mustang to equal or surpass the performance of the '57 T-Bird.
|
|
By Ted - 8 Years Ago
|
I’ll add some more fuel to this fire. An older Ford Engineer who was present during the ’57 Ford era passed on to me that Holman and Moody would dyno all the 300HP engines before tearing them down for blueprinting for Nascar. If they didn’t make at least 350HP in their delivered out the crate condition, they were simply returned back to Ford. After blueprinting, they made an honest 370+HP with all factory components.
This explains why the 283HP 283’s couldn’t even begin to keep up with the 300HP Fords. At this point, it’s pretty much common knowledge that the 300HP Fords were grossly underated.
|