NeonLX

I am most decidedly NOT a fad dieter, but this works. The science behind it seems sound to me. My wife lost 40 pounds in three months, and one of my coworkers is down 70 pounds as a result of it. Last blood pressure check I had came out at 105/63. Also, your cravings disappear after a few days of it; gives you a sense of being free of the monkey on your back.

Let's drive over to the gym to work out. And then drive back. High fructose corn syrup. Carbs. Strange genetics of modern wheat. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/ I dumped 18 lbs in 3 weeks after giving up grain carbs. Gained lots of energy as well. My waist size is now what it was when I was a wrastler in high school.

I thought the coolest aspect of that Torino (besides its power, anyway) was the four-speed stick jutting out of the center of the floor, all by its lonesome. The car had no console and a bench seat.

I wish. This was back in the days shortly after they invented film. The car was a light metallic blue with a black interior. The exterior was very unassuming. I don't think it even wore any engine displacement emblems.

From my farming experience, I know that cylinder count isn't always better, and is in fact sometimes worse when considering more heavy duty applications like tractors used for tilling ground. Back in the 1960s-70s, some manufacturers began installing V8 diesel engines in tractors. In most cases, they were large displacement mills (the Cummins 555 and 903 CID V8s come to mind here). At the same time, other manufacturers stuck with large displacement, inline six diesels (Cummins had an 855 CID six, and I remember John Deere's 619 CID six as well). From my experience, the V8s put out their rated horsepower at a higher RPM than their six-cylinder counterparts (something like 2800 RPM vs. 2100 RPM), and they also lacked the lugging ability of the sixes (torque curve was peakier, maybe, or the torque rise wasn't there). I remember operating a big Versatile 4X4 tractor powered by the 903 V8 circa 1975; the thing would bog down a lot more easily than a Steiger tractor with the 855 Cummins six. I don't claim this is any kind of scientific analysis; it's just my experience from back in the day...

Heh. Remember the Olds 260 "Baby Rocket" V8? I was always amazed at the Ford 221 V8 that came out 1962-ish. That particular mill always seemed happier in 289 or 302 guise.

Came up on a '13 Malibu from behind yesterday. I hate to say it, but the rear end really doesn't work for me. My daughter said that the taillights looked like they were made for some other car.

Here in WI, it isn't very flat. We are at the edge of several glaciations from way back. Whatever the case, I have been through some really horrendous snow storms over the years & drove rear wheel drive cars through many of them. My '74 Gremlin X was particularly tricky, but I never got stuck or ran off the road. This thing had about 90% of its weight over the front wheels. Then I jacked the rear up even more to look "cool". I could burn rubber with hardly any effort.

I used to love the fact that when starting, all the cars in the late 1960s-70s movies sounded like a Chrylser cranking over (no mistaking the sound of those Mopar starters).

Saw something really funny yesterday. A late model Impala pulled up next to me at a stop light and I noticed right away that it had a cross-flag emblem on the front fender. I looked closer and saw that it had the "283" designation above the flags. It was the exact same emblem that you'd see on a 1965 Impala. Cute! 1966 Rambler Classic 770 wearing AMC styled wheels from the mid-1970s. The badge on the rear fender said "232".

That's me, in the post above. Trying to post from phone

I subscribed to Collectible Automobile magazine for years. They do a nice job with their photos and the info in the text. Now I just buy the issues containing vehicles I am really interested in. . I snagged the current issue yesterday off the magazine rack. It features full-sized Oldsmobiles from 1971-'76. Some nice pix accompanying the article, including a '72 98 Regency just like the car I had up into 1978. Also some really nice pix of a '56 DeSoto Fireflite.

Dude I went to college with bought a plain 1970 Torino coupe powered by a 429 CJ & 4-speed stick. Very tame-looking car that had a bench seat and the shifter simply jutted up out of the floor. Yeah, it wore dog dishes similar to the Plymouth in the pic above. He had pretty deep gears out back (I'm thinking 3.7X:1) and the car was quite a terror. We had lots of fun on Saturday nights with that thing. I remember scraping a few dimes and quarters together to get a couple more gallons into the tank, which emptied pretty quickly.

1975 Caddy Coupe deVille, beige with a brown vinyl roof. Sharp looking survivor. 1978 AMC Concord 2-door; fancier D/L model that looked nice in red. Wheelcover inserts matched body color. Gonna try to get a picture of it.

I'll take mine with a Fury V-800 under the hood, please.

Low bar, high bar, whatever...that Spirit was a lot quicker than I would have ever thought possible until I owned it. Everything seemed to come together just right with that car. Reminded me a lot of driving a Chevy II with a good running 327...the engine just didn't have to work hard to accelerate quickly.

Yeah. Exactly. Same holds with late model farm tractors--they are now putting out enormous amounts of power--on the order of 2-3 times what the big ones did back in my day--and their cabs feature all the comforts of home. They come with surround-sound stereos and excellent climate control systems. They even have GPS. But I could give a rip; I lost interest in new tractors after about 1972, for the same reason--tractors used to have an emotional aspect to them (no, really, they did!). Now, they are merely very capable, vastly expensive appliances. On edit: This tractor also dates from the Ike era, but it's still going strong. Two enormous cylinders. Maximum power is generated at about 900 RPM. Believe me, you can feel each power pulse.

I think cars are technically far superior to anything we have ever seen (capt. Obvious reporting for duty). I mean, my boring Malibu Maxx can scoot like some of the hotter cars from the 60s, yet I can see the high side of 30 MPG easily. And I've yet to do any tuning or adjusting to the powertrain. And it starts at 20 below. Every time.

I'm an incurable gearhead. I eat, sleep and breathe automobiles--including cars, trucks and tractors. I've apparently been that way since I was a toddler. I came about it naturally--my dad, brother, uncles, aunts and even my mom loved vehicles so I grew up in a gearhead environment. The point I'm going to try to make is that I really have very little interest in the new stuff. Yeah, I'm old--old enough to remember Eisenhower as President in fact. But new cars & pickups, even with all of their technology, "style" and engineering, just don't do much for me on an emotional level. Sure, I can appreciate the new Kia Optima, with its very catchy styling and engineering advances, but I don't even care enough to head over to the dealership and grab a brochure. I've collected automotive brochures since I was little and have a room in the basement devoted to this collection. Same with magazines such as Car & Driver and Road Test. But I stopped going out to the dealers to get brochures sometime in the 2000s, once they pulled the plug on Oldsmobile, Plymouth (and eventually Mercury). There just ain't much out there to interest me like a '65 Pontiac 2+2 did, or a Dodge Monaco, or a Rambler Marlin...etc. A bit more on track: I loved the '55 and '56 Chevy, but wasn't a big fan of the '57. I also liked the '61 Pontiac better than the '62. I'd dearly love a bubbletop '61 Ventura.

Which reminds me. Walking down the street this a.m. and heard the unmistakable exhaust note of a Rocket V8. Turned around to see a 1978 88 sedan. Not show car, but a decent daily driver. I love the sound of an Olds V8. Very distinctive.

Well, that makes me feel better about it.

...

I am jealous. Now that I think about it, the last time I had a V8 powered car was back in 1989.