[Jerry H.]

In the past couple of issues Robert Genat has been doing a write up on the rebuild of a 66 421 in Musclecar Review. In May's issue he got around to the heads. On page 46 he made a HUGE mistake. He stated that the '092' heads were the only heads the came on the GTO in 66. Of course we all know that the '092' head was the standard 389 and 421 non HO head and that the GTO head was the '093' casting.

In the grand scheme it may not be a big deal as these heads are very similar, but when first timers or no Pontiac folks read this and take it for gospel it creates a problem. And before long we have a big argument and cars showing up at national meets with '092' heads thinking they are correct and getting very upset when they find out otherwise.

I sent them an email as soon as I read the article asking that they issue a correction, and I hope that any of you that are subscribers will do the same.

[Pontirag]

I agree!

No dual quads on 65 389's from the factory

or early 67's with late 66 tripowers either

[The Boss]

There will be a correction that will be 1 column width and two lines long in some future issue, buried in the back with the classifieds. This is how things get ****ed up and it takes years to correct it.

Why do you think everyone refers to 13's as RA III heads?

[goatwgn]

I think they were also "surprised" their 421 had 4 bolt center main caps. Every 421 I have ever seen had those. If anybody knows different they can chime in here, but I beleive all of them had it.

[geeteeohguy]

Here's my take for the past 30 years or so on all of these car mags: (and car shows, too)--most of the journalists who write the articles know less than we do about this stuff. Not all, but most. I stopped taking the printed word as gospel 30 years ago when I realized that the articles I was reading were badly mistaken in one or many areas. Mistakes are easy to make, and nobody is perfect. Me, I say 'trust, but verify'. Too easy to make an expensive mistake by taking the written word as gospel. What about those Buick air cleaner engine size call-outs? Everybody under the age of 35 thinks that they are correct!!!

[goatwgn]

Originally Posted by geeteeohguy

Here's my take for the past 30 years or so on all of these car mags: (and car shows, too)--most of the journalists who write the articles know less than we do about this stuff. Not all, but most. I stopped taking the printed word as gospel 30 years ago when I realized that the articles I was reading were badly mistaken in one or many areas. Mistakes are easy to make, and nobody is perfect. Me, I say 'trust, but verify'. Too easy to make an expensive mistake by taking the written word as gospel. What about those Buick air cleaner engine size call-outs? Everybody under the age of 35 thinks that they are correct!!!

Lol! Only factory engine displacement air cleaner decals I have ever seen are the early to mid '60s 421 HO, the 1971-72 455 HO, and of course the callouts on the hood shakers on the second generation Trans Ams. A lot of younger people don't think of engine dispalcement in cubic inches anymore anyways, so the numbers dont mean anything to them. I need to find a 7.5 litre emblem for my .030 455 lol. Hey, at least people arent covering up there classic iron V8s with the late model stupid looking plastic engine covers yet.

[SD421]

Since I just rebuilt my 1966 421 motor I too was "amused" at the info about the 092 heads. With this head the stock compression would be 10.5:1 compression not 10.75:1. It would have been nice for them to have also given the arp# for the screw in studs. I was suprised that they are reusing the stock rods. Im very curious what pistons they are going to use as well as the compression ratio they are going to run.

[Jerry H.]

UPDATE!! I received an email yesterday from Drew Hardin, editor of Musclecar Review, stating that he appreciated my concern and he had forwarded my email to Robert Genaut, the author of the article. About 30 minutes later I received an email from Mr. Genaut. He apologized, stated that indeed he was wrong on both counts about the 092 heads and about the metallic blue engine paint not starting until 67 instead of 66.

After exchanging a couple of emails, I get another email from Drew Hardin, promising me that a correction will be printed in the October issue. Hopefully it's not to late!

[Old Blue 66]

Originally Posted by Jerry H.

UPDATE!! I received an email yesterday from Drew Hardin, editor of Musclecar Review, stating that he appreciated my concern and he had forwarded my email to Robert Genaut, the author of the article. About 30 minutes later I received an email from Mr. Genaut. He apologized, stated that indeed he was wrong on both counts about the 092 heads and about the metallic blue engine paint not starting until 67 instead of 66.

After exchanging a couple of emails, I get another email from Drew Hardin, promising me that a correction will be printed in the October issue. Hopefully it's not to late!

Nice work Jerrry.