1950 Buick Sledanette

the MGA was my 5yrs to retirement project.....to take up time and be finished for the down sizing and new house situation.
 
an evil thought occurred to me, what if I use this car as my race car tow car?


oil pan doesn't fit
TkcQSLTh.jpg
time to get all the parts down to find what I've got and what I don't have
XspTZU8.jpg
I have enough head bolts for 3 motors... great!
yes, I paid big dollars for 8:1 compression pistons...
mYuJQSr.jpg
and aluminum headsedited
Tu13jdn.jpg
someone asked about exhaust.... I'm going to make it
D6mU4lI.jpg
highly recommend this book
GQA9X5A.jpg
and intake and valve covers
TKF3p4A.jpg

missing freeze plugs, I have to timing covers but neither are perfect (and I'm still leaning towards a scavenging system), the oil pan needs a massage but I may simply build a new one, need to drill for injectors then plumb it, I also need to talk to the machine shop... a friend was 'managing' the build.... but never told me what was and was not done - it appears the passages might have been opened up but I don't know....edited
 
that would be really cool for sure, it has the size and the weight for sure and i bet you could sleep in it pretty comfortably if you use an open trailer
 
that would be really cool for sure, it has the size and the weight for sure and i bet you could sleep in it pretty comfortably if you use an open trailer

it's funny, but cars built now are far heavier then this car.... I'll have to weigh it, but I'd bet that with the motor it weighs less then 3000 lbs. The 64 Buick wagon, for example, is around 3200 lbs.... which is exactly opposite of the perception people have.
 
no kidding I would never have figured it that way. I cant think why they would be less.....the sheet steel is better, theres a frame as opposed to unibody, i am guessing drum brakes all the way around. big ass comfortable seats.

do you suppose unibody cars actually weigh more due to the structure? or maybe the crumple zones?
 
no kidding I would never have figured it that way. I cant think why they would be less.....the sheet steel is better, theres a frame as opposed to unibody, i am guessing drum brakes all the way around. big ass comfortable seats.

do you suppose unibody cars actually weigh more due to the structure? or maybe the crumple zones?

ever seen the crash footage of the 59 4 door Impala and the 2010 Chevy rental car? You have to meet crash standards (door intrusion, offset hits, roll over).... all of those things add a lot of metal to the car's structure.... also, the old car's frame isn't that strong... one of the big problems with the Skylarks (and any A-body) is you put torque in the car and it will crack windshields... it's why I had a 8 point cage in my 70 skylark. it's also why I added rails to the 64 wagon...

but consider this....the difference in weight between a full size truck and a mini truck is less then 1000 lbs - because they all have have their crash bags, emissions, power windows and such.... the little bit of material between the two really isn't that much.
 
Top