OK, thanks Dennis.

Your photo inspired me to swap out my rear leaf springs. I plan to contact Eaton Spring for some rear leaf springs for a winter project on my '74. My car was made in the Detroit area, might as well get some new springs from the same area!

Dan

Link below to page from 1974 Pontiac Full line "prestige" brochure, has some pics hadn't seen before of 74 Ventura/GTO. Shows plaid seats, Sprint picture and hatch rear cargo area.

http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php...ne-Prestige-17

Didn't know that the Pontiac 350 4bbl was considered "new", also.
All rear gears were 3.08:1
Custom trim got the nicer steering wheel and carpeting, base was vinyl floor covering!

1974 color chart

http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php...ne-Prestige-28

The 350 was usually only available in a 2 bbl the last few years before, plus only the 74 GTO used a smaller chamber head for more compression (and more power).

Possibly what they meant by the 'New'?

:confused:

John, It's funny that the '73/'74 350 #46-2H/6H small valve heads have 96.17 cc's, but the '75 and later 5C-4/6X-4's have 93.74 cc's and the larger 2.11" intakes (from your website)...a better head with more performance potential than the '74 GTO 350. PMD could have tried a little harder to make a better running 350, more like a lower compression 350HO.

Dennis

I think they were starting to get the 'Excitement' again?

:)

I had a guy who bought a 74 GTO and and he wanted more power.
I sold him some 48 heads to put on.
(probably in 1976, he gave me the old heads, but I probably junked them out)

He said it was a big improvement.

:D

It was a step in the right direction and there was pressure from above to drop the GTO altogether, so we should be happy we got anything at all. The '74 GTO sure seems competitive in NHRA stock and super stock classes. I really would like to make a Pure Stock max engine for my car with 4.10 gears and a good 4-spd (BW-ST10 2.66 close box). This would allow 9.1:1 compression max and something smaller than a 2800 Summit cam. At 3600 lbs. with driver, it could run mid-13's at 102 mph. It would need to make a true 300 rwhp though, which would be a challenge..sounds like fun!

Dennis

It could be done. Mark and I had a plan for mine if I kept it. I had a 3.90 and that made a ton of difference in my stock combo plus Mark designed a cam for me at the last minute that worked. I ran a best of 14.76 @ 93.3 with stock trans gears. Did a 2.07 60 ft on that run and multiple 2.10 60's that day. With a nice blueprinted motor 13's are very possible.

Jody

Jody - Did you race it with the Saginaw 4-speed trans and factory shifter? I can't imagine that being fun. That was a really nice car regardless. I can't recall if you did anything to the motor beyond a stock rebuild.

Dennis

Yes, stock Saginaw 4 speed. No power shifting as I was warned the case may not like that. The motor had a stock rebuild before I got it. Not a performance rebuild. When I got the car with a screwed up distributor, stock set up in the carb, 3.08 gear I ran a base line 16.78. Fixing the distributor and getting some fuel to the motor I was in the 15.30's with a 3.55 gear, 2.35 60fts. Went to a 3.90 and a cam change and went 14.90's on radials with a 2.2 60 ft. at the PSMCDR before my water pump let go. Then but some Polyglas tires on it at a tnt and ran my best numbers. All on 87 pump gas :)

Jody

Here is my best time slip.

Jody - That is a nice pass. I first saw the 14.19 at 101 mph and thought that's an incredible run and you were sand-bagging on us, but then saw there was a left lane car on the time slip. I'd love to get my car down in that range with the current 3.42's, but it won't happen with the current motor, trans and shifter...maybe low 15's/high 14's if I could shift it properly.

Could you post a picture of the car with the Goodyear's?

Dennis

Jody - Also, what was your race weight in the '74 GTO and the calculated rwhp?

Thanks, Dennis

I can not remember the race weight....as I remember the scales they said were off at Stanton but I did weigh it at Martin too so I will have to check. For some reason I was thinking 3,750. Here are the comments Mark W. made after I ran:

254.47 hp uncorrected for altitude. In a car rated at 200 hp. Not bad I would say for what still amounts to a modest engine build. No wonder the NHRA has it factored at 277 hp. And we felt 300-310 would be a real number for a full on PS motor. With your results I feel confident that another 40 to 50 is in it and that is not an over the top Vince motor, just a nice Dan motor.

There are 13’s for certain in a full PS car. No ps, no radio, 4.10 gears and a good motor and the car would be pretty darn quick. Pontiac had a really nice motor on their hands and they never promoted the 350 at all. It is way better than any typical Camaro/Nova 350 short of an LT1 and honestly, a 350 HO would give an LT1 all it could handle done properly.

Congrats. You are powershifts away from a 14.40 or even the 14.30 I estimated!

Mark


I was half right...I ran the GTO that fall at T&T and took the rear tires (Goodyears) and put them on to see the difference over running Radial T/A's. I have a picture that I took after when I put on Firestones.

Thanks Jody for the information and digging back in the mental archives. I think that your weight is pretty close to the 3500 lb. shipping weight I calculated from the AMA documents. I was guessing around 3650 lbs with me on board with the power steering, power disc brakes, radio, and bucket seats adding to the girth. I think with Eagle rods, Diamond pistons (9.1:1) and a 2800 cam all carefully rebuilt, 300 rwhp is a reality. My engine has too big of a cam in it currently (CC XE252HFT - 212/218 @ .430") and only 7.9:1 compression after the .030 over rebuild the PO did. I'll probably build a different 350 for it if I go this route. I wouldn't lighten the car up at all...not worth the extra tenth for all the work involved.

Dennis

ps: Love the pictures!