JohnHancock
Well-Known Member
Sadly yes. Jennifer loved to take it to the grocery store just to mess with the bag boys head!
I'm rather amazed at how few clear detailed pictures of big block powered t-bucket cars have been posted in this thread so far!
I expected far more, and many more ideas as to what body, suspension and engine combos could and would be represented.
when I was younger, the vast majority of the t-bucket cars had ,
at least 383 cubic inches but having at least 427 -500 cubic inches had status,
chevy, buick, pontiac, caddy, mopar and ford, BIG BLOCK engines,
and 392 hemis and 426 hemi and 440 wedge engines,were in particular demand.
dual quads or stack injection or a supercharger added credibility,
lots of chrome was not required, but a good working suspension,
the ability to pull the front wheels at least a few inches off the ground,
for several yards on a hard launch and big tires was almost mandatory,
those larger cubic inch engines seemed to have a class appeal, and seemed to be popular choices.
yeah there were plenty of SBC t-buckets ,
but that was looked on, as a status symbol,
about as favorably as bringing your sister to the graduation prom.
I still Love It Grumpy.yeah theres zero doubt that black t-bucket lacks the required ground clearance to be functional,
the first raised manhole cover or speed bump it drove over would cause major damage
I still Love It Grumpy.
yeah I kind of like that low slung look, but Id be practical enough if I owned it to have a minimum of 4" clearance under the car,
measured with a heavy buddy and myself seated in the car with a full tank of fuel.
I'd want to slide a 4x4 beam under the car and still see additional clearance,
(remember a 4x4 beam measures closer to 3.5" x 3.5"
as many of us in this hobby get older ,and hopefully smarter we realize there are advantages,
inherent in the t-bucket concept, its light weight too power ratio,
and easy access too drive train and suspension components make it,
almost the ideal automotive performance toy for many owners.