!!CAUTION!! RHC Ahead!
In the late 1980's Richard Clark purchased the old Speakerworks Buick GN, and then in one of the first projects I ever did with him, he and I designed a car system with new 15x45° custom laid-up horns into Buick Grand National:
.
I remember the drivers were Altec, but I forget the p/n, maybe Ed can tell?
The 2" drivers were actually located in a wheelwell bump-out in order to get maximum throat length for lowest cutoff frequency. Still the pattern was poor (for a proper horn) but created much better imaging than any other car with tweeters and mids positioned anywhere around the dashboard or front doors. The soundstage did indeed extend past the dash/windshield...
The car had the two horns, two mids in the rear side panels, two woofers behind the gutted rear seats and close to 1KW of amp and was chock full of pro-sound gear (delays to align driver arrivals, eqs...)since that was the world we both came from. Just about the only car audio gear in it was the Alpine head unit (edit - and amps). It was almost pure stock looking inside other than the matching fabric horn grills. We removed the front panel from a Delco CD player and motorized it to fold back and reveal an Alpine head unit behind it and a ton of other new technology for the time...and started winning every single IASCA show we brought it to, and in the process redefined what sound quality in a car could be.......but this is going long.
Cheers!
Howie
That's quite an interesting page of history you've shared here! (It never even crossed my mind if I could shove my Altec Valencia's into the '72 Olds Cutlass I owned at the time) How ambitious; that must have been fun to do!
That would be the Regal GN. The one with the V6 than took on and beat the Vettes of the the day. The one that looked like your Grandpa should be driving it. Quite a project.
That might be a 288 or a 290 tweeter. Others with a keener eye might know. I have a version of the 288C but they don't look quite like yours.
Attachments
A couple of days ago, I've mentioned a DBT on interconnects. It was done during the High-End audio fair in Frankfurt in 1999. 112 listeners participated and filled out their score sheets.
Two Audionet cd players were used as sources, equipped with different interconnects from HMS, as preamplifier an audionet G2 was used to avoid possible ground loops and active monitor loudspeakers from Sehring.
The test designer selected 6 music samples, a maximum of 10 listeners participated in each set of trials and listened to these 6 samples in a row. Each sample was played for a minute and then the first 10 sec. repeated as a reminder.
The listeners were instructed at the beginning by the experimenter about the procedure and their task, always using the same standardized introduction.
Based on two pretests, where a two-alternative forced-choice scheme was used, in the final test, a tie answer was included. So the three possible answers in each run/music sample were "1 better than 2", "2 better than 1" and "no difference" to avoid protests from listeners who did not detect a difference.
The test designer (later using this test for his master thesis in 2001) incorporated a negative control as in trial 3 the same source/cable was played twice in a row. It was ensured that neither the experimenter nor the listeners were aware which effect was tested (the cables were used with an additional sleeve).
As an intended additional control, a second set of runs was introduced where the cd players were switched compared to the first run. Unfortunately, the author tried to test additional hypothesizes in this second by using a special treated CD in the player featuring the better/more expensive interconnect (the cd was treated with a special adhesive foil, black edding, and a specially shaped outer circumference).
The CDs were recorded with an Audio CD recorder.
So, two sets of trials were done, the original one named "A" and the altered configuration named "B".
Each set of trials lasted for roughly 20 minutes, 70 listeners participated in set "A" and 42 participated in set "B".
In each set, the run 3 was used as the negative control.
Obviously the experiment "B" was intended as an additional control but can't be used as such due to the additional variables incorporated.
I'll post the results from the experiments and the author's conclusions tomorrow (the data of the interconnects as well) and some additional explanations of the traditional analysis and a modern analysis method based on the results of the negative control runs.
Two Audionet cd players were used as sources, equipped with different interconnects from HMS, as preamplifier an audionet G2 was used to avoid possible ground loops and active monitor loudspeakers from Sehring.
The test designer selected 6 music samples, a maximum of 10 listeners participated in each set of trials and listened to these 6 samples in a row. Each sample was played for a minute and then the first 10 sec. repeated as a reminder.
The listeners were instructed at the beginning by the experimenter about the procedure and their task, always using the same standardized introduction.
Based on two pretests, where a two-alternative forced-choice scheme was used, in the final test, a tie answer was included. So the three possible answers in each run/music sample were "1 better than 2", "2 better than 1" and "no difference" to avoid protests from listeners who did not detect a difference.
The test designer (later using this test for his master thesis in 2001) incorporated a negative control as in trial 3 the same source/cable was played twice in a row. It was ensured that neither the experimenter nor the listeners were aware which effect was tested (the cables were used with an additional sleeve).
As an intended additional control, a second set of runs was introduced where the cd players were switched compared to the first run. Unfortunately, the author tried to test additional hypothesizes in this second by using a special treated CD in the player featuring the better/more expensive interconnect (the cd was treated with a special adhesive foil, black edding, and a specially shaped outer circumference).
The CDs were recorded with an Audio CD recorder.
So, two sets of trials were done, the original one named "A" and the altered configuration named "B".
Each set of trials lasted for roughly 20 minutes, 70 listeners participated in set "A" and 42 participated in set "B".
In each set, the run 3 was used as the negative control.
Obviously the experiment "B" was intended as an additional control but can't be used as such due to the additional variables incorporated.
I'll post the results from the experiments and the author's conclusions tomorrow (the data of the interconnects as well) and some additional explanations of the traditional analysis and a modern analysis method based on the results of the negative control runs.
Last edited:
Yes, the GN was/is a fearsome beast. These days Richard Clark runs a Buick GN shop building race engines and transmissions for them. He regularly builds 1500-3000 HP ~4 liter 6-cyl turbocharged engines...crazy to think of 500 HP per cylinder!
Before starting AMI where I met him, he started Maryland Sound and was an Altec/JBL/McIntosh/Crown dealer, so we had a bunch of that stuff around the plant. He knew those drivers inside and out after building custom PA systems with them in the 1960s and 70s.
Cheers,
Howie
First I would need enough wall! I did look at them for surround speakers but concluded they wouldn't work that close. Might still try 🙂
Given it was a aV8 with 2 cylinders lopped off it is impressive how much power they got out of them. Of course there was the Syclone/Typhoon that started with the 4.3 block and I hear that a number of GNs were upgraded with those.
For sure, I got a ride in a 1000 HP+ Syclone up at RCs that scared the crap out of me...with all four tires grabbing, the ΔV/ΔT was enormous, it made my vision swim and I though I was going to pass out. I can see why RC decided to play with those toys after leaving audio...
Cheers!
Howie
I thought it was a V10 with two lopped off either end. 😉
Seriously though the coolest engine I've ever known was in a straight line mud racer where the water jackets were filled with concrete. Hey, who needs water when you're only running it for 15 seconds.
It started life as a derivative of the Al block 215 V8 better known to most as the rover 3.5 that has leaked oil in range rovers in all the classiest neighbourhoods! I won't say more as will bore the hell out of 90% of the posters on this thread 🙂
Then I'll bore them (**CAUTION - Nationalistic content ahead**)...that aluminum 215 CI V8 engine was originally produced by the Buick Div. of GM in the US for model year 1961, later licensed to Rover in 1967. I guess Buick got sick of the oil leak complaints! (JK) The HP race was on and the Al head warpage at high compression doomed the engine here in the US. Of course now that issue has been alleviated, partly by slightly lower compressions, but also by better alloys and more head bolts per cylinder.
Cheers!
Howie
One thing that always made me smile when I discovered that the 1966 ish Buick 300 is a good source for 215 hop up parts. In one year apparantly more Buick 300 engines were made than in the total run over 30 years in the UK!
That engine was not only a 1961 model year GM design, it was IIRC the first American factory turbo and first American aluminum block: the 1961 Oldsmobile Jetfire with its 215 CID turbo V8. Sans turbo, this is the Rover 3500. Designed with larger dimensions ( thicker walls) to account for the reduced strength of aluminum, the conversion to a cast iron V6 allowed a significant per-cylinder displacement increase in the initial iteration: the Buick-Olds-Pontiac 231 CID V6 of which millions were sold; we had two. That same block and displacement in the Regal GN ate contemporary ‘Vettes for snacks after a wee bit o’ forced induction, albeit described as a 3.8L Turbo by that time.
On the other side of the pond, some lunatic named Ken Costello was shoehorning the Rover version, the 3.5L Aluminum V8, into MGBs back in the early ‘70s. When the US market dictated a change in bumper heights after 1974, the factory incorporated the required engine bay accommodations and sold a small number of home-market MGB-GTs (Coupe) with that same engine. None were officially imported to the US, but rubber-bumper MGBs remain far easier to convert to a 3.5L V8 than pre-1974-1/2 MGBs. The later GM 60-degree V6 and small-block Ford (260, 289, 302), however, are better choices for power and for weight distribution, as GM’s first whack at an aluminum engine block wasn’t particularly optimal and even the Ford iron block V8 configuration comes in lighter than the Rover aluminum, all considered.
That should bore (Ha!) some folks. Corrections welcomed.
On the other side of the pond, some lunatic named Ken Costello was shoehorning the Rover version, the 3.5L Aluminum V8, into MGBs back in the early ‘70s. When the US market dictated a change in bumper heights after 1974, the factory incorporated the required engine bay accommodations and sold a small number of home-market MGB-GTs (Coupe) with that same engine. None were officially imported to the US, but rubber-bumper MGBs remain far easier to convert to a 3.5L V8 than pre-1974-1/2 MGBs. The later GM 60-degree V6 and small-block Ford (260, 289, 302), however, are better choices for power and for weight distribution, as GM’s first whack at an aluminum engine block wasn’t particularly optimal and even the Ford iron block V8 configuration comes in lighter than the Rover aluminum, all considered.
That should bore (Ha!) some folks. Corrections welcomed.
Oh man, I totally agree, I had a K-code 289 in a '66 Mustang Fastback GT and it was a screaming puppy...so much fun in a 2400 lb car! But don't get me started on how light-duty the chassis and suspension was...
Cheers!
Howie
Guys, what kind of Ford model does anyone know? https://finobzor.ru/uploads/posts/2017-06/org_wrbk524.png
Apparently, everyone did not play enough in childhood. Audio is also a continuation of the games.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d...75.1728866835.1592776708-614425370.1592776708
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d...75.1728866835.1592776708-614425370.1592776708
Last edited:
I have a friend across the way with a 1970 (?) MG that has been done up beautifully. Just helped him with some wiring the other day. He tells me it’s a 1600 cc engine but it sounds wonderful.