Gas monkey Discovery channel show

"The man in the iron mask" (Themanintheironmask) 12/11/2013 at 16:31 • Filed to: None

0

13

Is this for real or its part of the show?
if it was staged, it was very stupid.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > The man in the iron mask 12/11/2013 at 16:32

1

I believe that part was real.

Cherry_man1 > The man in the iron mask 12/11/2013 at 16:33

0

Sadly that wreck wasn't

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > The man in the iron mask 12/11/2013 at 16:36

3

They were doing the final test drive on the car, to finalize it... and someone hit the car at an intersection.

They have had bad luck with Mustangs... a more recent 68 Shelby GT350 had the engine grenade itself during break-in, and needed more work than first thought, due to previous accident damage under the bodywork.

Their Bandit Trans Am, though, had engine grenade-on-breakin problems too... I think they need a new engine re-builder.

The man in the iron mask > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 12/11/2013 at 16:40

0

What do you mean by engine grenade? english is my 2nd language.

PS9 > The man in the iron mask 12/11/2013 at 16:43

1

Grenades detonate. I think he's saying some mechanical issue broke it beyond repair.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 12/11/2013 at 16:43

0

No kidding.

After the first rebuild went kaput, why would they have gone back to the same people?

I've never rebuilt an engine, so perhaps I'm wrong here, but the nut on that rod that was loose should never have happened. Do parts actually fail that frequently when rebuilding and then breaking-in engines? Or was that one caused by the short time-table they had during this build?

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > The man in the iron mask 12/11/2013 at 16:46

1

a grenade is an explosive weapon, and generally used to something that blows up after a short time.

Their engines didn't literally blow up, explosively, but on the Shebly Mustang coupe, and then on the 77 Pontiac Trans Am, they had to have the engines re-built because they were in bad shape.

On both occasions, the engines came back from another local company that they commissioned to perform the engine rebuild work and internal parts, and were re-installed in their respective cars.

Shortly after being started, and the engine was being 'broken in' to have the metal parts heated and stabilized at the points where metal parts touch each other, they didn't stabilize, the metal parts ground against each other and produced a large amount of small metal flakes, that get into the engine's oiling system. The badly damaged new parts require the engine to be re-built again, or just scrapped, in favor of a replacement.

Having two cars, one after the other, have similar break-in problems after being re-built, might be a sign that they aren't being re-built properly, and is a lot of money spent on repeat work.

The man in the iron mask > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 12/11/2013 at 16:50

0

Thanks

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 12/11/2013 at 16:55

1

I understand that they wanted a quick turn around, but that usually means more money, not a badly rushed, incomplete job.

My father always taught me, you can do it right, or do it twice...

and usually twice takes longer than just doing it right once. Having to have it repeated didn't help their time table at all.

Maybe the engine shop offers some sort of price break if the engine fails right away, that they took it back to the same place.

But the Mustang engine had the same problem... so I would have already been somewhat suspect... GasMonkey guys kind of blamed themselves slightly for the Mustang, because they didn't use the engine shop's recommended break-in oil that was really expensive.... so maybe just using normal engine oil had something to do with it...

but two engines in two cars failing on their first run... I would be seriously suspect of the engine shop's quality of workmanship... especially a loose connecting rod main cap... that is absolutely sloppy... it was either poor quality con-rod bolts, or a badly rushed job that wasn't torqued properly... and both freshly re-built engines damaged their cams and lifters, also.

Sh__ happens, I get it, but I would be asking serious questions of the engine builders, if I were in Richard or Aaron's places, or had two builds fail on me.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 12/11/2013 at 17:03

0

At that point, I'd say just toss a crate motor in there. I'm sure there's some Dallas area speedshop that has crate motors sitting around waiting for a car to go into. Car's original engine grenades and you're on a timetable? Get a ready-to-go crate motor. It should be more powerful and more reliable to start with. Got time? Then tear the motor down and go over it thoroughly.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Paul, Man of Mustangs 12/11/2013 at 17:11

0

I am kind of surprised that they did re-build the Pontiac motor the second time, rather than dropping an LS engine in it, to go along with the newer overdrive slush box that they put in it.

The only thing I can think of is that they didn't have the time to convert the wiring/ECU, and the shaker cowl-facing scoop, and all the finishing touches to convert from a Pontiac engine to a more modern LS.

Dropping the engine in and re-connecting everything in place has to be quicker than trouble-shooting an engine swap with lots of ancillary changes.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 12/11/2013 at 17:15

0

Perhaps, but the ubiquitousity(?) of the Chevy 350 should mean that a carbed crate motor should just drop right in to whatever used it. Might need some radiator hoses different, but otherwise, it should be almost externally identical.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Paul, Man of Mustangs 12/11/2013 at 22:21

0

Pontiac guys would know... and the guy buying the car threw over 100 large at GasMonkey when all was said and done, 70K up front, for a Bandit Trans Am.

No big money roller ever would want to say:

"but it only has a 350 Chevy in it..."

That would be a reputation killer, I would think, for the owner, and for GasMonkey garage as the builder.

I am not sure if anyone would even tolerate a 383 chevy in a Pontiac, especially an iconic Bandit TA.

I am sure a lot of people would think that anything other than a 6.6/400cid W72 engine in a late 2nd-gen TA would be a sacrilege, even if it were more powerful.

An LS engine perhaps might be tolerated, because some Pontiacs had them as factory engines, and it was a generation shift from the earlier small-block Chevys.