CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Originality => Topic started by: David K on April 26, 2022, 04:03:52 AM
-
Many of you know this car because of the number of magazines it has been featured in. The 68 Pete Estes Z28 convertible. Back in the late 1990’s, the current owner was supposed to be at the International Camaro Club annual show in the Poconos. He had a trailer issue but finally made it on Sunday around 4pm. I think his name was Milt Robson. Nice guy, and let anyone left there gawk, ask questions, take photos, etc. Anyway, as I burned up my last roll of film, someone asked him to put the top down. He didn’t know how, so I showed him how to drop it and fold the back window so it doesn’t crease. Anyway, apparently this car has traded hands quite a few times, but I found some erroneous info in every article I read. Every article states a cross ram setup, but it didn’t have one back then. Loaded-yes. Pretty-yes. Coolest Z ever? No question about it. And you have to lose the triple groove pulley—(Got one on my 68 250 cubed engine). A slightly blurred line here? Yes. Attached are pictures of the car, hood, but clearly a single carb with the wacky ducted hood with the cross ram air cleaner on top. It is what it is, but when I found my pictures I wanted to share.
-
Hood
-
Rear window defrost
-
Back seat
-
Wow white deluxe with power windows... that is a killer color combo and white interiors are rare.
-
Dealer paperwork. Sold 12/17/68 for $3124.35
-
So, when was the crossram (dual carbs) added, late 69 model year, I guess? When the cowl induction hood became available.
Did Mr. Estes pick the options or did someone else choose what they thought he needed? :)
Thanks for sharing.
-
GM Chief's 1968 Camaro Z/28 Convertible
This is the only 1968 Camaro Z/28 convertible ever built.
In the 1960s, General Motors executives had some big perks Each of the GM divisions was run by a general manager who had lots of power. These men were able to drive cars—often special models—kept in the Executive Garage.
Pete Estes was general manager of Chevy. He liked convertibles. In 1968, Chevy performance guru Vince Piggins had a Camaro Z/28 convertible put together for Estes. Today, this car is owned by auctioneer Dana Mecum.
Piggins was trying to win approval on special performance parts he wanted to use in the SCCA’s Trans-Am racing series. He built a Camaro ragtop, added the special parts and put it in the Executive Garage knowing Estes would try it out and OK the parts as production options, making them legal for racing.
The Camaro convertible was ordered through the Fleet Special Order Department and assembled at GM’s Norwood, Ohio, plant on July 15, 1968. It was the only ’68 Z/28 convertible built. The car was loaded with extras. It did not originally carry the performance options. They were added when the car was taken from the Executive Garage and sent to the GM Tech Center. Then, it was taken back to the Executive Garage and made available for Estes to use.
The car was finished in dark Fathom Green and had a folding rear seat, auxiliary console-mounted instrumentation, auxiliary lighting, power windows, a remote outside rearview mirror, custom seat belts, a blue light AM/FM stereo system, a rear window defroster, a Comfortilt steering wheel and posi-traction. The racing parts included 4-wheel disc brakes, a performance suspension package with Koni shocks, a cowl plenum fiberglass hood (a prototype of the ’69 Camaro fiberglass hood), a cross-ram intake and tube headers.
Estes liked the Z/28 convertible and drove it frequently, but it belonged to GM. Towards the end of 1968, it was taken back to the GM Tech Center and the racing parts were removed. On Dec. 17, 1968 Bill Markley Chevrolet—located near the GM Building in Detroit—sold the ragtop to T.H. Standen, a GM worker. Two years later, Standen sold the car to Vern Nye, another GM employee.
Vern Nye held onto the car for nearly 20 years. Next, Dana Mecum bought the car for the first time. It then went through a series of owners and had different work done to it. Around 2004, the car wound up back with Dana Mecum.
-
Thanks for the history. I knew some of that, but nothing about the "racing parts". Interesting!
I thought it was British Green?
Much appreciated!
-
Must be the only convertible with a factory UPC U03 tri-volume/low note horn? Wasn't that normally a coupe only option?
-
Piggins was trying to win approval on special performance parts he wanted to use in the SCCA’s Trans-Am racing series. He built a Camaro ragtop, added the special parts and put it in the Executive Garage knowing Estes would try it out and OK the parts as production options, making them legal for racing.
That version has been repeated so often it is accepted as fact.
The chronology of the concept, design, development and availability of the cross-ram intake and Corvette 4-wheel disc brakes is available in an excellent book written by Wayne Guinn “Camaro Untold Secrets” written many years ago.
Development work on 4 wheel discs began very early in 1968 as evidenced by several Chevrolet engineering drawings dated January 1968. It was released as an off-road part March 1968.
Development work on the cross-ram intake began late in 1967. Documents discussing a dyno comparison between the stock 1 x 4 system and a fabricated 2 x 4 system are dated August 8, 1967. The earliest production-type manifolds had casting dates of October 21, 1967. The cross-ram was released at the same time as the 4-wheel disc brake option; the instruction sheet is dated March 20, 1968.
Both of these new systems were featured in the May 1968 Hot Rod magazine in an article titled "Just For Fun: 68 1/2 Chevys". Car & Driver tested a cross-ram/JL8 '68 Z/28 in the July '68 issue. Magazine lead times were about 3 months so these events took place around March 1968.
There is no way this car, built 4 months AFTER the release of 4 wheel discs and the cross-ram had anything to do with them. It was retrofitted with a cross-ram and 4 wheel discs for display at race tracks hosting T/A races later in ’68. That equipment was not on the car when it was sold December 17, 1968.
Body tag indicates the car was built British Green, white convertible top, white custom interior. Should have a white top boot.
-
I was an intern at GM at the Warren Tech Center back in 1991. The Tech Center News published the following about the Estes '68 Z/28. Note the comments about the cross-ram being removed before it was sold to the public. Enjoy the read.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t478/jwlittooy/FullSizeRender(8).jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://photobucket.com/u/jwlittooy/p/64e9406e-54b5-4110-9332-cff1f21f169d)
-
Hans, William, Thanks
Must be the only convertible with a factory UPC U03 tri-volume/low note horn? Wasn't that normally a coupe only option?
What gives you that impression? The White Book doesn't specify, which it usually does with certain options.
-
Hans, William, Thanks
Must be the only convertible with a factory UPC U03 tri-volume/low note horn? Wasn't that normally a coupe only option?
What gives you that impression? The White Book doesn't specify, which it usually does with certain options.
The RPO Spreadsheet has a note for UPC U03, in the right side "Requires" column, that indicates "Coupe" as a requirement, and in the "N/A With" column it lists 12x67 convertible body. I know for where they mounted the third horn for 67 in the left fender, the convertible ballast was in the way and thus the reason. Not sure why the case in 68, since they moved the third horn location out of the left fender, per the AIM. And of course the U03 option wasn't available in 69.
Also I recalled Ed's post #4 in this old thread.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=16151.msg145662#msg145662
-
Hans, William, Thanks
Must be the only convertible with a factory UPC U03 tri-volume/low note horn? Wasn't that normally a coupe only option?
What gives you that impression? The White Book doesn't specify, which it usually does with certain options.
The RPO Spreadsheet has a note for UPC U03, in the right side "Requires" column, that indicates "Coupe" as a requirement, and in the "N/A With" column it lists 12x67 convertible body. I know for where they mounted the third horn for 67 in the left fender, the convertible ballast was in the way and thus the reason. Not sure why the case in 68, since they moved the third horn location out of the left fender, per the AIM. And of course the U03 option wasn't available in 69.
Also I recalled Ed's post #4 in this old thread.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=16151.msg145662#msg145662
Ah, I see. The White Book for 67 does say "coupe only". But not for 68.
-
Piggins was trying to win approval on special performance parts he wanted to use in the SCCA’s Trans-Am racing series. He built a Camaro ragtop, added the special parts and put it in the Executive Garage knowing Estes would try it out and OK the parts as production options, making them legal for racing.
That version has been repeated so often it is accepted as fact.
The chronology of the concept, design, development and availability of the cross-ram intake and Corvette 4-wheel disc brakes is available in an excellent book written by Wayne Guinn “Camaro Untold Secrets” written many years ago.
Development work on 4 wheel discs began very early in 1968 as evidenced by several Chevrolet engineering drawings dated January 1968. It was released as an off-road part March 1968.
Development work on the cross-ram intake began late in 1967. Documents discussing a dyno comparison between the stock 1 x 4 system and a fabricated 2 x 4 system are dated August 8, 1967. The earliest production-type manifolds had casting dates of October 21, 1967. The cross-ram was released at the same time as the 4-wheel disc brake option; the instruction sheet is dated March 20, 1968.
Both of these new systems were featured in the May 1968 Hot Rod magazine in an article titled "Just For Fun: 68 1/2 Chevys". Car & Driver tested a cross-ram/JL8 '68 Z/28 in the July '68 issue. Magazine lead times were about 3 months so these events took place around March 1968.
There is no way this car, built 4 months AFTER the release of 4 wheel discs and the cross-ram had anything to do with them. It was retrofitted with a cross-ram and 4 wheel discs for display at race tracks hosting T/A races later in ’68. That equipment was not on the car when it was sold December 17, 1968.
Body tag indicates the car was built British Green, white convertible top, white custom interior. Should have a white top boot.
Funny, I assumed the build date in the article was wrong. Surprising to build that car so close to 69 production.
-
So interesting to learn new stuff about this car, and I’m glad to see people add in. The dealer sheet to owner #1 is cool. However, it states Z28 on the RPO list so I’m a little confused. So I wonder, if this car wasn’t equipped with Z28 parts from the assembly line, what did it have? We’ll never know, but I’m guessing an SS 350 with the same steering/ brakes/rear a Z would have. It’s already equipped with the bones.
-
It was built as a Z/28. The cross-ram and 4-wheel disc brakes were added and removed.
-
And Mecum still owns it......
-
So interesting to learn new stuff about this car, and I’m glad to see people add in. The dealer sheet to owner #1 is cool. However, it states Z28 on the RPO list so I’m a little confused. So I wonder, if this car wasn’t equipped with Z28 parts from the assembly line, what did it have? We’ll never know, but I’m guessing an SS 350 with the same steering/ brakes/rear a Z would have. It’s already equipped with the bones.
Definitely built as a Z28. See post 6 by William for verification.
-
I trying to understand what consisted of “Special parts” and “it didn’t originally come with performance options” that were added and then removed. There’s a lot of misinformation that’s been passed along for years.
-
For the '68 model year, 4-wheel disc brakes were over the counter only, no production cars built with it. As of January '69, RPO JL8 [4-wheel discs] became available to order.
The cross-ram intake was never a production option.
-
So the AIM is wrong? Headers—tossed in the trunk with the cross ram. But JL8 is shown to be available.
-
1968 Model Year: (*or others as applicable) Topic Never Built #2 1968 Z28 Convrt
Exhaust Headers avail as RPO or service
RPO Z283 & Z284 would include in trunk
Some Books use term such as "Factory Installed" which is defined as '*placed and located in trunk at the factory' vice Installed onto engine assembly.
Cross-Ram Manifold (2X4) intake: "Such a system would be offered to the public, but only as a service part, not as a factory *installed option."
Just because a RPO option is "Illustrated" in the AIM does not necessary indicate actual availability. (# I think Kurt recently posted documentation from Chev that clearly indicated RPO JL8 was deferred to the Model year 1969 for availability.)
Just a bunch of thoughts above. Others will certainly correct my details.
The Subject Car is an amazing part of F body history for sure
-
True. I am still on the hunt for the elusive and complete AIM…all pages, all RPO pages shown.
-
So the AIM is wrong? Headers—tossed in the trunk with the cross ram. But JL8 is shown to be available.
Headers in the trunk (if ordered) for 67-8 Z/28 only, as they were a factory RPO, but not installed. Was cancelled for 69. Same goes for cowl plenum intake, Z/28 only RPO, tossed in the trunk, cancelled in 69.
As mentioned, Cross Ram never was a factory option. "Over the counter" only.
-
True. I am still on the hunt for the elusive and complete AIM…all pages, all RPO pages shown.
Is there such a thing? ???
-
Headers and plenum air intake cancelled January 19, 1968.
-
Thanks William! So those options (RPO's) only lasted for aprox one calendar year (12 months)...?
-
Looks that way.
Maybe offered to legitimize the equipment in the eyes of the FIA/SCCA. Headers were very expensive [$421] and there were much cheaper alternatives.
Once spoke with the Chevrolet Engineer that did much of the work on the JL8 option, Gib Hufstader. He said the SCCA believed Chevy had mislead them into thinking 4-wheel discs was a production option for '68 and were intent on not allowing it for the '69 season. They had to show a JL8 car in stock at a dealer to get them to back off. Wonder if the JL8 section of the '68 AIM was just there to make it look real.
JL8 is an interesting story. In competition, the '67 Penske T/A Camaros were experiencing severe brake fade. Some quick fixes didn't help. Engineering assumed the production disc/drum brakes were inadequate for racing and began a crash program to adapt Corvette disc brakes to the Camaro. Didn't fix the problem; still had a hard pedal and no brakes. The root cause turned out to be inadequate fluid capacity in the system. When the brakes heated up, there was no fluid remaining in the front reservoir in the master. The rear reservoir was larger, all they had to do was switch the lines at the master. Problem solved.
All that and much more in Paul Van Valkenburg's excellent book Chevrolet=Racing?
-
I've noticed the prices in the White Book. It's a wonder they sold any headers at all. In 68 for example, $400 (round numbers) for the basic Z/28 package, or $779 with headers, assembly required! Probably could've got Hooker or Hedman for less than $50 ? :) I guess the drawback was, one would have to wait a year or so as it probably took aftermarket a short while to develop a set of headers for the new Camaro....Then again, Maybe Nova headers would fit without modification.
JL8 is interesting indeed...Thanks again.
-
I remember riding my bike to my grandparent's house to cut the lawn and took a shortcut by going up the driveway of Owen Keown Chevrolet, which was on the corner of Lincoln and Washington Blvd. A salesman stopped me and said he would sell me a new 1969 Z28 Camaro for $2700 and said he would throw in a set of headers that were in the trunk for free! Even back then, insurance companies were making it difficult for young drivers to purchase a muscle car, although it would be years before I could even afford an economy car!
-
Is there a picture of a set of headers in the truck of a first gen which the spare tire in there also? Not that I have tryed to do it.
-
K W K,
Here is a Fun Shot "close" to trunk. I think others have posted this pic I am not sure of the source
-
I found a photo that someone posted of headers in the trunk of a 1968 Z28 Camaro:
https://www.camaros.net/threads/factory-headers-for-z-28.460477/
-
Thought I had read some place that they came in a burlap bag, inside the trunk?
-
K W K,
Here is a Fun Shot "close" to trunk. I think others have posted this pic I am not sure of the source
Yeah, that one is fun. I'm guessin' that's Piggins and another BRAINSTORM ! ;D...probably the one prior the Estes car. :)
Thanks!
-
Cool picture! Headers are shiny silver…obviously an early run Z with the 302 emblem. More pictures!
-
^ I think they are the Silver-Blue metallic versions: Bill Thomas/Douglas Muffler Mfr. units (As opposed to the Black GM/Kustom Headers KH37's in the other trunk photo.)^
-
I found a photo that someone posted of headers in the trunk of a 1968 Z28 Camaro:
https://www.camaros.net/threads/factory-headers-for-z-28.460477/
That's the idea, but doubt Chevrolet provided a moving blanket.
-
^ I think they are the Silver-Blue metallic versions: Bill Thomas/Douglas Muffler Mfr. units (As opposed to the Black GM/Kustom Headers KH37's in the other trunk photo.)^
Agree, they look like they'd be the slip fit type. Wish we could see the collectors. Great color.
-
Photos still up at HBC and still on "back order". https://www.heartbeatcitynos.com/27322/67-68-Camaro-NOS-302-Z-28-Factory-Headers/
-
At that price I would not expect a long list of customers.
-
The headers that the salesman at Keown Chevrolet showed me in the trunk of the 1969 Z28 were black.
-
^ I think they are the Silver-Blue metallic versions: Bill Thomas/Douglas Muffler Mfr. units (As opposed to the Black GM/Kustom Headers KH37's in the other trunk photo.)^
From what I've gathered, the silver headers were the first design from the 67's and sometime during the 68 model year, they transitioned over to the black Kustom headers. I have a book "Camaro Muscle Cars" 1966-1972, that has a "Road Test" of a 68Z from Road & Track magazine, June 1968. The car looks bone stock (original) including the "light monitoring system" (AKA vigilite), RPO U46. It clearly shows the silver headers as well. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the build date is (no VIN or cowl tag shown). Does have 302 emblems, but all of the 68Z's ordered with headers would be that way. As William pointed out, headers were discontinued in January and the transition to "Z/28" emblems was in March.
-
^^ Road & Track "Road Test" June 1968 Issue. (*Also same car in Car Life "Road Test" July 1968 issue)^^
Performance Package $400.25
Those were Smog headers;
Text from Article: "Our Test Car Also had, as its only item from the "dealer" list, a set of tuned headers (Installed by Bill Thomas Race Cars) as these are never installed at the factory anyway) which added another $200 anyway."
I believe the Author was referring to INSTALLED on the engine?
Could the Test car been supplied with Factory headers that were then modified to conform to Calif (SMOG) & installed and subsequently for test review.
-
Thanks Jim, been a long while since I read it! So I take it, they were probably sold "over the counter" then?
-
The Car & Driver article of the 1968 Z28 vs 1968 Tunnel Port Mustang was one of my favorites:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15142639/1968-tunnel-port-ford-mustang-vs-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-archived-comparison/
I didn't see any smog pump on the Z28 in the Car & Driver article and neither car had California license plates.
-
Wonder if the JL8 section of the '68 AIM was just there to make it look real.
No, JL8 almost made 68 production. I haven't seen anything about why it didn't.
This is dated May of 68.
-
I have wondered about that. If JL8 was truly ready in '68 and bureaucratically delayed, it would have been available at the '69 MY launch. But it wasn't an RPO until the January '69 release of dealer ordering info, seven months later.
My guess, some issue came up in testing that had to be solved. From what I have read, the Penske race cars had chronic rear axle tramp under hard braking with the production disc/drum system. Could be the JL8 system further aggravated it. Penske solved it by changing shock absorber valving.
JL8 also prompted the change from AD to YH wheels for additional caliper clearance on JL8 cars.
-
So is the offset different or is it the center drop off? As the backspacing on AD & YH are 4.250" from what I have in my notes and the DF is 4.0625"
-
They reduced the width of the center drop off.
-
I have wondered about that. If JL8 was truly ready in '68 and bureaucratically delayed, it would have been available at the '69 MY launch. But it wasn't an RPO until the January '69 release of dealer ordering info, seven months later.
And you'd think they would have the wheels released correctly for 69 launch, instead of a running change 4 months later...
-
Som very interesting information.
-
^^ Road & Track "Road Test" June 1968 Issue. (*Also same car in Car Life "Road Test" July 1968 issue)^^
^^ Road & Track "Road Test" June 1968 Issue. (*Also same car in Car Life "Road Test" July 1968 issue)^^
Performance Package $400.25
Those were Smog headers;
Text from Article: "Our Test Car Also had, as its only item from the "dealer" list, a set of tuned headers (Installed by Bill Thomas Race Cars) as these are never installed at the factory anyway) which added another $200 anyway."
I believe the Author was referring to INSTALLED on the engine?
Could the Test car been supplied with Factory headers that were then modified to conform to Calif (SMOG) & installed and subsequently for test review.
Those were Smog headers;
Text from Article: "Our Test Car Also had, as its only item from the "dealer" list, a set of tuned headers (Installed by Bill Thomas Race Cars) as these are never installed at the factory anyway) which added another $200 anyway."
I believe the Author was referring to INSTALLED on the engine?
Could the Test car been supplied with Factory headers that were then modified to conform to Calif (SMOG) & installed and subsequently for test review.
I take it, installed on the engine.
Jim, Chick, Kurt, William...or to whom it may concern. :) Regarding smog (A.I.R.) headers;
When headers in general (with or w/o smog), were furnished "in the trunk", did they come from the factory or did the dealer add them ?
Is it possible these smog headers were furnished in the trunk ?
Or as Jim suggested, they may've been modified (presumably by Bill Thomas) for special applications ?
Could they (smog headers) be purchased through a dealer, "over the counter"?
67, smog was only required in CA, but 68, ALL Z's had smog. I've always assumed the headers supplied in the trunk of a 68 were NOT smog equipped ? So I guess they were intended for off road use only...
-
Garth, the number ordered from the factory as we all can assume was pitifully low and they were furnished in the trunk from anything I’ve ever uncovered. Jerry M has an original 68Z that he let me examine out of Reedman Chevrolet that was ordered with the headers. Dealer would not install due to smog system and Jerry said that was common for those along with the air cowl plenum not being installed by dealer. I cannot imagine a dealer cutting into the firewall for plenum install.
I had many conversations with Jere Stahl concerning headers used in 67 thru 69 and at no time was there any mention of smog headers. The smog set of headers would be safe to assume were modified as Jim suggested.
It’s also interesting to note the air cowl plenum did not fit properly with the stock smog system due to passenger side smog tubes interfering with bottom of its air cleaner. Jerry shows a setup of air cowl plenum and what appears stock smog setup but the passenger side smog tubes were changed to a later year nova set which gave the needed clearance. Kind of funny since they put in the indent for smog pump in the air cowl plenum but design wise it was not totally a fit.
-
I grabbed the paper copy of the R&T article and in the black and white photo it really does "look" like the header is severely discolored at the point the smog tube meets the header tube indicating welding. (i.e. Air tube riser added to header after paint/mfrg)
-
FWIW, Hooker offered a smog tube kit to be added to any header. Different manufacturers but the kits were available to be added by anyone. I don’t recall the part number but it was not a popular item for sale and was discontinued in the late 90’s when the LT1 was replaced by the LS engines. Going off memory as it’s been almost 15 years since I’ve been at Holley (Hooker tech rep).
-
Thanks for the replies, folks, I appreciate it. Hope you all had a wonderful Mothers Day! :)
Was basically just wondering if smog type headers could've been purchased or supplied by GM, ready to bolt on without modifications. Sounds like what they did offer, the buyer was basically on their own to make it work as desired. 67 is understandable, but 68 seems odd, being the new 50 state federal emissions requirements. I guess it was such common practice to remove smog systems back then, GM wasn't about to waste any more money than they had to.
-
Garth - My friend's 1968 Z28 had aftermarket headers with the smog fittings which were connected to the smog pump. - Mark
-
Thanks Mark, yeah, I've seen a few aftermarket as well...I was thinking a guy could go into the Chevy parts dept (dealer), back in the day, and get them too, but maybe not.
-
May 2004 Mecum ad for car:
-
Closeup:
-
1991 ad:
-
Thanks Mark, yeah, I've seen a few aftermarket as well...I was thinking a guy could go into the Chevy parts dept (dealer), back in the day, and get them too, but maybe not.
Yes, you could get headers at a Chevrolet parts department. But why, when you could get headers at a much better price through aftermarket sources? That's why they were ultimately dropped.
-
MO, was referring to headers with provisions for A.I.R., bolt on, no mods needed. Chick pretty well summed it up several posts ago, no such thing was offered from GM at the time. That's why headers were supplied in the trunk for the owner to install however they chose to do. The factory and dealers weren't gonna remove the smog system that met the new 50 state federal emission requirements...
-
I wonder why anyone would pay GM,s prices then. I remember buying Cyclone headers new for $70 in about 1970. Appliance headers were a new thing and I think they were less than that. Of course Hookers were more but still around a $100. Speed shops had them stacked on the floor at the counters in the box.
-
I've noticed the prices in the White Book. It's a wonder they sold any headers at all. In 68 for example, $400 (round numbers) for the basic Z/28 package, or $779 with headers, assembly required! Probably could've got Hooker or Hedman for less than $50 ? :) I guess the drawback was, one would have to wait a year or so as it probably took aftermarket a short while to develop a set of headers for the new Camaro....Then again, Maybe Nova headers would fit without modification.
Kelley, that was my best guess. Remember, the Camaro was a new model. Maybe headers weren't available from aftermarket, initially. The factory only offered headers (as an RPO) for about 1year...Jan 67-Jan 68 (aprox).
I recall paying $70 for Hedman, on sale, back in '78. :)
-
I was an intern at GM at the Warren Tech Center back in 1991. The Tech Center News published the following about the Estes '68 Z/28. Note the comments about the cross-ram being removed before it was sold to the public. Enjoy the read.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t478/jwlittooy/FullSizeRender(8).jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://photobucket.com/u/jwlittooy/p/64e9406e-54b5-4110-9332-cff1f21f169d)
that car was once owned my Al Maynard,,,long time drag racer