1 2
egnorant
egnorant Dork
6/7/13 6:32 a.m.

Looked again...might have been a Hemi Dart. Also found muscle car reference to a Land Rover in January 1964 Popular Mechanics.

Bruce

iceracer
iceracer UberDork
6/7/13 9:40 a.m.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: I always thought the drive shaft in those was neat. All in the name of a flatter floor.

Yep, the fact that it was "bent" was really neat and got a lot of comment.

DWNSHFT
DWNSHFT HalfDork
6/7/13 11:07 a.m.

So I read the story... My understanding is that, on a 2.5 mile banked oval, a car with 6.7 liters displacement went faster than a Ferrari with 3 liters of displacement. Um, where's the punchline?

David

stuart in mn
stuart in mn PowerDork
6/7/13 12:30 p.m.

The driveshaft was curved to control harmonic vibrations, but it also helped to provide clearance for the floorpan.

stuart in mn
stuart in mn PowerDork
6/7/13 12:34 p.m.
DWNSHFT wrote: Um, where's the punchline?

It was a cheap Pontiac passenger car (albeit with a special engine installed) while the Ferraris were thoroughbred racecars.

yamaha
yamaha UberDork
6/7/13 12:34 p.m.

In reply to DWNSHFT:

Aerodynamics my friend, aerodynamics.

I agree with the peanut gallery under that story......the Super Duty Pontiacs were honestly mean.

bravenrace
bravenrace UltimaDork
6/7/13 12:44 p.m.
stuart in mn wrote:
DWNSHFT wrote: Um, where's the punchline?
It was a cheap Pontiac passenger car (albeit with a special engine installed) while the Ferraris were thoroughbred racecars.

I see what you are saying, but it all depends on how you look at it. Looking at it another way, the Ferrari was actually sold in a street legal version, and IIRC the race versions weren't much different than the street versions. But that Tempest was a specially prepared race car with a much larger engine.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
jErUk40aQXlgRXOjBrKokeBgiX3yc7k12TZUvSFlAidM56M06YQ8dzMRXoqR5G5m