Muscle Cars Were Slow

The biggest reason older cars with high power engines were slower is due to the crappy tires back then. Bias ply skinny tires aren’t exactly conducive to traction and acceleration. As an example, if you take a 427 AC Cobra with something like Toyo Proxy R888s on it, you can run low 10s in the 1/4 and not many modern cars will touch it. Pretty much anything with a big powerful engine and deep axle gearing with tires that actually HOOK UP will be quick.

back in 1979 my sister bought a used 1977 Chrysler Newport, all the electrics, an ex cop car. 440 motor, auto. It had cracked heads. After my brother and I replaced the heads, we took the car out on I465, and hit 120 mph with no sweat. It got 17 mpg on the road. But had a very stiff ride.

They may have been slow muscle cars, but they sure had the looks and character that made them so envied. And each car model so distinct from its brothers.

I’m wondering how many of these older vehicles use new tires to perform. Technology for tires has gone a long way. Tires make an immense difference right now. Only a few tweaks, like maybe a tuning and some new tires to an older car and I think the numbers will shoot up. Best still, place some of the older tires on new vehicles.

I’m going to say this was a nice report that captured the times of the quarter-mile as they were reported in the past. However, it would be difficult to look at those old cars and say that they are sluggish, especially 35 years after the event.

Ford Falcon big block!!

As an original owner of several muscle cars back in the day and having raced most of the rest Eric, I’d say your article is right on the money. There was a book published in the 80s (can’t find my copy right now since I moved) titled HOW FAST WERE THEY? and in that book all the times the various cars ran were listed along with the equipment on each car including the tires. Not all the cars were tested with stock tires. Some were even tested with slicks. All of the manufacturers supplied “ringers” to be tested with the exception of American Motors Corporation. AMC didn’t care all that much about performance. It cared about fuel economy, safety and sound engineering.

They were tiny compared to the Big Three. Yet they built better (though often uglier) cars. Their factories were small and outdated even then. So their cars didn’t get factory floor installed power options. Their power options were installed by the factory trained dealer mechanics. AMC considered their dealerships extensions of the factory floor. If you ordered a Service Package for your Rebel Machine, it was installed by the dealer before you got it. It pumped out 472 horses and did the quarter in 12.73 seconds. They said they’d cancel your warranty if you did that but they never did.

If you’d ever visited an AMC factory you’d see exactly why they had to use their dealerships as extensions of the factory assembly lines. They were extremely tight for space. Tighter than any other manufacturer and they were penalized in the market place for that in many ways. Even here by you Eric.

The Rebel Machines they built in 1970 had brakes superior to most braking systems today. 4 piston, double reservoir. It was the only muscle car ever you could order 4 wheel disc brakes on. The Machines came with standard with options other muscle cars didn’t even offer. No Machine was offered with drum brakes but they did come with beefy sway bars and very heavy springs. They all handled like sport cars and were the only muscle cars to do so. They could do the jumps without breaking. All that happened were dents in the bottom of the headers from the landing. You had better have been wearing your seat belt.

Compared to modern cars, the Machine is no slouch. As for highway travel, I crossed the continent in mine several times. It had a 390, 850 Holley, 3:54 Twin Grip rear end, Machine intake, clutch fan, dual point ignition, Thorley Group 19 headers and did 13.5 at 107 in the quarter on street tires – Big Daddies. It would do 90 mph all day on the Trans Canada without breathing hard and still getting pretty good gas mileage. In 1971, I drove from Toronto to the gates of Jasper National Park in 48 hours. I drove from Calgary to Toronto in 36 hours. Thought nothing of it.

The Chryslers were tin cans by comparison and most had drum brakes and handled like the landing barges they were. Fords were boats and GMs were better but when they needed repair, you’d better have deep pockets. To change a GM heater in a core required the removal of the entire front clip. In a Machine you drained the anti-freeze, took out a few bolts and removed the core. At every corner, AMC was better engineered and still stands up today.

Besides having access to nearly 500 hp with the Service Package on pump gas (Sunoco 260) Machines were (still are) supremely comfortable to drive. So good the rumour was their bucket seats were designed by a back doctor. I don’t know about that but I do know what a former owner looks like after years of being parted from his Machine to finally sit in one again. You don’t see that in today’s cars. I can’t even sit in a Toyota without serious back pain.

Using a Mustang as an example of a Muscle Car is misleading and wrong. Mustangs, Cougars, Camaros, Firebirds, Challengers, ‘Cudas, Rambler SC/Ramblers, Javelins and AMXs were never considered muscle cars. They were pony cars. Different weight class. Vettes were sports cars with big engines that fit no class.

The Intermediate sized cars were the real Muscle Cars and they included the Chevelles, Roadrunners, Coronets, Super B’s, GTOs, Fairlanes, Torinos, Eliminators and so on. The Superbirds weren’t Muscle Cars, they were all out race cars detuned for the street. Everyone knew that.

And yes the horsepower ratings changed in 1971 and the gas quality went south soon after; all thanks to the insurance industry and it’s war on muscle cars. That combined stopped engine technology in its tracks quickly. It took until the Buick Grand Nationals for the muscle car concept to stumble back to respectability.

To argue that old muscle cars were in any way superior to modern engineering is fantasy. That would be denying the advances made in small engine modern technology. But just imagine those advances made to the strongest domestic engine block of all time: the AMC 390/401.

However, today’s muscle cars are still pony cars, not muscle cars. Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers are all pony cars. The cars produced by Toyota, Nissan, Kia and the like are not muscle cars. Different class of car. The Vipers, Ferraris, Lambos and Vettes are in a wholly different class too.

The modern Charger is one of the few but it has four doors. A muscle car wannabe. Same for Impala. Ford has no entry I can think of. No foreign makes either.

But then we get to the Tesla and others of that ilk. Fast, powerful and beyond anyone souping them up in their backyard. The fun is gone.

Buy and old muscle car and build it yourself and learn. Have fun and don’t worry about traction control. That’s what we have line locks for and posi-trac rear ends. After that you develop skill.

Modern sports cars are becoming more like riding in a bus all the time.

As good as a Hemi or a 455 or a 454 may be, ounce for ounce, the block itself in an AMC is superior. It’s harder by far due to the high nickel content. It’s why AMCs are still competitive today. They go longer between rebuilds and are light years ahead of modern engines in that respect.

As well, AMC engines may be one of the easiest group of engines to work on and extract power from. Nothing modern compares to them. So as well as horsepower, AMC has staying power in the complete absence of any corporate support or tooling (which currently resides at the bottom of Lake Michigan). Does that sound like illegal dumping?

So when you talk about how fast and powerful those old muscle cars were, there are many more factors involved than just horsepower.

Can any of us imagine trying to restore a modern “muscle car” 50 years from now? Would anyone bother? Will anything be left? The computer systems in today’s car alone make the notion pretty well unthinkable. Today’s cars are disposable rather than iconic.

Will any one modern car hold the number of land speed records amassed by the Craig Breedlove AMX? I don’t think so.

The author of this article conveniently forgot to mention that the tires on performance cars today are infinitely superior to the tires used in the 1960s, both in tread width and in the rubber compounds used. So comparing the acceleration times for the muscle cars of the 1960s to today’s cars is like comparing apples to pineapples. A good example: a friend of mine raced a 1963 Ford Galaxy with the 425 horsepower 427 cubic inch engine in it in “A” Stock class at the drag strip in 1963. It typically turned 13.3 seconds at 113 mph on the 7-inch tread width tires used back then. The miles per hour is a much better indication of the engine’s horsepower than the elapsed time. That same car with the wider tires and better rubber compounds used today would be without a doubt, turning in the high 11-second bracket at the drag strip, about 1.4 seconds quicker than it did in 1963. When you factor that fact in, those cars were not really as slow as the author is stating, compared to the cars of today. If we’re going to make a reasonable comparison, let’s be realistic and fair. If you put 1960s tires on the performance cars of today, they would be significantly slower on zero to 60 and quarter mile acceleration because of the harder rubber and the narrow tread widths used back then.

To all you folks out there that think the old 60’s and 70’s cars were slow, go to Hemmings Muscle Machines. They have drag races every year and are in the 11-13 second ranges with stock machines. My 1970 Dodge Challenger that kept dead even with a 70 Chevelle 454-450 Hp is in the records at about 12.75 sec so that is where a 383 modified Challenger is.

Hey Eric –
I noticed my latest post I think I wrote on 12/5 didn’t make it into either 1 or 2 and I am sure your busy. I’m not a blogger. In fact I have never written on any other page. I know my post was rather long and some of it was a repeat of what I had stated in the past,,,,,but I must admit its so much fun to look back. Anyway I like to think that I helped keep it alive at times and its certainly been my favorite subject. and site. I’m not sure how to email you direct so maybe youll entercept this here. I will also be sure to make a donation. I had a thought though. Probably not feasible but it would be cool to have a spot to post some pics of some of our rides. Just a thought. Brent

In the motorcycle world the Harley riders have a saying: “If I have to explain it to you then you probably won’t understand anyway”. I think the muscle car guys probably can relate to that statement.

Well I haven’t been back here since ’12, and glad the thread is still somewhat going. I was thinking of an analogy the other day regarding this post. Many who argue Eric’s point on this post most likely had some of those beasts back in the day. Now my dad was a big drag racer in 65′ before going off to Nam.” Times have really changed. He bought a brand new 65 mustang 289 HO (271 hp), but he as well as all his buddies went straight home from the dealership and ripped out the AC as to not affect HP, and loaded it up with all the mods they could get. They lived on the weekends at the drag strip.

Now for me, I can tell you it was great being a street racer in the 80’s (but I always had that question listening to their stories – was my car as fast?). I had a 76 HIGHLY modified mustang cobra II. It had true BOSS heads and we were always making it faster, and I was ALWAYS asking if it would have run with the boys in the 60’s. That’s why this thread hit such a chord with me. In the end in his opinion it finally got there. What was kind of nice about the 80’s was the factory stock sport cars of that era (5.0 mustangs, IROCS, Z28s, trans ams), were always a for sure win so I spent a lot of time “hunting.” After graduating from college as my career went along I bought my first brand new car. It was a 2000 Ram Air Trans Am that ended up at 345hp (big controversary at Pontiac. I immediately took it to show a friend (who was a car nut), who seemed excited and said pop the hood and follow me. Immediately we had to run up to his third floor apt., were he started rummaging through all his car magazines. I said man I wanted to show you my new car. He proceeded to show me an article on the TA posting speeds higher than that of the vette. As it turned out Pontiac was running short on the TA engine – so some got the vette engine from GM at that time), and some jobs were lost over it as a result. As it turned out mine ended up with the vette engine. I thought what a surprise. I then picked up my father and out we went on hwy AA, where I told him to hit it like he would have at the drags in the 60’s. In the end he had a big smile on his face and stated that nothing back then would have come close to beating that car in the quarter.

Now established in my career, I have a 69 440 highly modified charger, a highly modified 72 340 dart, an 84 4×4 with a 383 11:1 stroker engine, and most recent an 87 K5 blazer all in show quality. I can also tell you that my company vehicle is a brand new Toyota minivan with a 6 cylinder (yep). I have not put any of them head to head against the minivan but if pink slips were involved I would be nervous. That stock minivan is a rocket.

Now for my analogy to Eric’s point. I also had another hobby. Remember I am a teenager of the 80’s. I bought 67 standup arcade machines made between 80′ and 84.’ I bought them from an old man who took them out of service almost right after that, and there they sat until 2007 collecting raccoon shit. I was so excited to rebuild them which I did. Before I left with the last trailer loaded, the old man said the following to me, “don’t get to excited. I have found whenever you try to recreate your youth it will always let you down. Things will always be remembered faster, shinier, brighter, and a lot more fun than they will be today.” I rebuilt the first pac man machine which had a counter showing that $20 thousand dollars in quarters went through it at one time. I found out after playing it for 15 minutes he was right.

How many of you doubters still have those cars you refer to even in moderate stock form? Even if you do, go test drive a new Camaro SS boasting a true 455 hp, When in your day that 70 454 chevelle boasted a 375 hp rating this really is equal to 300hp by todays standards. If your still not a believer simply go try to find a Pac Man Machine and waste 25 cents. EVERYONE loved that game back in the day.

Don’t get me wrong – kids today still come running up to them and when I show them how to play it, I always get the same response: “looks cool but is that all it does.”

Interesting article. I’m a little old school. Grew up riding in the backseat and as I reached my teenage years moved up to riding in the front seat of some of those behemoth machines of the 60’s and 70’s. Mom’s 62′ Oldsmobile 98, later a 64′ Buick Wildcat, Grandma’s 62′ Ford Galaxie 500, Dad’s 68′ Ford Mustang, than his 70′ Buick Skylark (which cruised really nice at 110 mph as a friend and I tested out in 76′ – 77′) and later his 75′ Chevrolet Monte Carlo. I loved all those cars. The memories of road trips, running to the grocery store, dropped off at school or a friends house. For my high school graduation in 1979 my Grandfather gave me his 68′ Plymouth Barracuda of which he purchased new. Came with the factory 318. Fastest car I ever drove! It would literally push you back in the bucket seat when I stomped on it! Which was on more than one occasion. That was the Barracuda’s demise giving it to his 18 yr. old grandson. No – I didn’t wreck it but I did run that motor into the ground. It was fast! I still believe those era cars of the 60’s and 70’s were/are as fast as any of todays American made cars. (what’s left of made in America) When comparing the ratio of weight, the passenger room and luggage space of the ‘slow muscle cars’ , todays ‘muscle cars’ don’t even come close. Running in 14’s – 15’s – 16’s for cars that doubled as a sporty cruiser and family sedan off the assembly line speaks volumes. Grant it today vehicles with computer technology and handling capabilities are very impressive and exceed the ol’ machines that had a tendency to roll into curves or cornering. As long as it’s straight (the road) we won’t be late!) That got us in trouble more than once! Not to mention those ‘slow muscle cars’ did it while carrying an actual front and rear bumper and a hood that didn’t disappear into a wedge. Like I said “I’m a little old school”. Just my humble opinion….. Thanks for the read.

Here’s something that y’all may be interested in. After 40+ years of fixing airplanes with some 70 computers in them, clearly, I don’t have a fear of computers or technology. But just for a change, I’d prefer to drive a car, NOT a computer. I know enough about electronics, computers and technology to say that it doesn’t work, not really. It will let you down when you most want it or need it. It takes away control from the driver who paid good money to own his car. It forces the owner to stay married to a dealer which I suspect is the real reason they computerised cars. With technology you’re driving some corporate design board’s vision of how you should drive, how you should behave, what you should want and how much you’re allowed to do with the metal you’ve just bought. Also, I prefer that Big Brother not have the ability to watch me or shut me down, all of which is quite possible (probable?) with computerised cars. And here’s another bitty. In 1972, I was able to buy a brand new car for two month’s wages. Today a middle -of-the-road ecobox costs 6-7 months wages, My wages didn’t triple in 40 years, did yours? In fact, ten years ago I had a 20% wage cut just to keep my job. And by the way, the cars for which I stayed in school (Tiger, Cobra, XKE, 365GTB, Miura, 250SL etc.) have been legislated out of existence. Anybody got a ’67 descent Valiant with a leaning tower of power under the hood, preferably no radio, for sale?

Wow this is a gread read. Have to through my 2 cents worth in. I grew up, and wrenched on many of the old muscle cars starting with some fifties and all through the sixties, and there is nothing like it today. Pop the hood on an oldy and behold! a piece of art. On the new ones it’s like what part is the engine?? Everything today is merely a computer enhanced (modernized) version of what we had back then but with efficiency, and I liked the comment about how many decades it took to get performance back in the hands of the driver. It was only a matter of time until “efficiency” took hold as computer generated designs dictated the builds based on calculations longer than my drive to work just to overcome gravity and friction (less the personality) that was done back then with cubic inches. I could only imagine if you were to take those same computer generated performance suggestions and put them into the old rods and what would you get? Many performance models now days will be equipped with a turbo charger, supercharger or some technologically advanced intake system + seriously tuned exhaust. I’m happy to one degree that technology has taken us to where we are but sad that most will not know the invigorating feeling of taking an old ground pounder through it’s paces. If it weren’t for those precious years of trying to push these limits we’d probably all be driving golf carts today. Can’t wait to put my 67 back together…………….

Good writeup, but for me it doesn’t really surprise me at all seeing as how these modern top-line cars have (like you said) much more power than the old ones, that’s why I prefer to use a class structure like what the Road racing orgs use, and when you do that, they’re still pretty competent, because in my opinion, a 14 second quarter miler still isn’t a slow car by todays standards. Not to mention that basic blueprinting appears to have a very positive result in the power output of the old engines.

Also some personal experience I would like to share, I was recently tinkering around with a 1970 ford galaxie, 351w 2 barrel, 2 inch dual exhaust, FMX 3 speed auto, 2.75 rear gears, needless to say it was a dog, so I got a cast iron 4 barrel intake out of a e150 van, a 600 cfm Holley 4 barrel (pretty much made the ’69 4 barrel version), factory fox body mustang headers ( no difference that I could feel)and a 9 inch rear diff with 3.25s, and I can say with confidence that it’s a low 16 high 15 second car, not bad for a 4000 pound car with a stock small block if you ask me.

It really seems to me that it probably a perspective issue, if you’re used to driving say, a 1000 horsepower car, a 400 horsepower is gonna feel agonizingly slow, but it doesn’t mean it is.

Not gonna lie, when I clicked on this I thought you were gonna say the old ones were only 16 second cars at best like others like to do. Just my .02. Again, good write-up.

This is so true. Those old muscle cars really were beautiful (most of them anyway) and had such style, but… they just aren’t that fast compared to what we have these days. I mean, Travel back to 1970 with a 2014 Shelby GT500 and take a few muscle car guys for a ride. Their f***ing head will explode.

Just yesterday (and what prompted me to find this article) I ended up getting into a race with a 1969 Torino with a 428 Cobra Jet. The hype of these kind of cars kind of had me nervous before we started to get on it. I figured I was about to get smoked. I mean, that’s a huge motor! 7 liters!

I looked at the driver, he looked back and smiled a bit and we brought it down to 25 MPH… I downshifted to 2nd, I honked 3 times and we both gunned it! Took it up to about 70 MPH where the front tip of his hood was easy half a car length behind my rear bumper.

What do I drive? Nothing special at ALL! Just 15 year old 1999 Mustang GT with a cold air intake, longtube headers, catted X-pipe, Borlas and a 91 octane tune. Very mild car by today’s standards, maybe 290 HP at the flywheel. We raced twice, same result. Needless to say I was a little surprised. 7.0 versus 4.6 and the 4.6 takes it. Indeed, these old muscle cars are out of their league with modern muscle.

Muscle cars were fast…..relatively speaking.

In the day, despite heavily-doctored car magazine articles, a Porsche would only dip below a 10 second 0-60 time with a trained driver who did not care if the clutch immediately burned out. Other European performance cars were similarly pathetic.

Most family cars were lucky to do 0-60 under 14 seconds. So, 9 seconds 0-60 was quick. 8 was fast. Any faster took a big block in an intermediate or smaller chassis.

It was all advertising and hype. Ford took a Falcon and re-badged it as the youthful Mustang “pony” car, and no-one noticed that it was a “tortoise” car….unless they started racing it.

Fortunately, most did not.

So yes, your article is correct.

But I will add one other perspective. We still have two major limitations today, even with better brakes, tires and engines.

One is the driver. A car is only fast with a driver that knows how to drive, and be it autocross, hill-climb, or whatever, you will witness “fast” supercars losing to everyday family sedans driven by good drivers. Even the straight quarter mile takes some talent to get the car down the track. Anyone who doubts that a slow car with a good driver will beat a fast one with Joe Average should watch Sabine Schmitz racing….with a Ford diesel transit van. She does well. http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/sabine-in-a-van

The other limiting factor is the laws of physics. Cars today are better performers….but only to a point. The big kill-joy is stopping. Despite all the upgraded performance, we still cannot manage to stop well. There is an exponential increase in stopping time and distance past 65 miles and hour.
It does not matter how expensive the supercar may be, once you are in those triple-digit speeds, you can’t stop. Thus, we still need parachutes on the drag strip, and people still kill themselves on public roads with excessive speed.

Just check how far you need to stop a supercar at high speed compared to 60 miles and hour. It is scary.

So, lets all drive cautiously….even with faster cars. (The real muscle car era is now).

Here’s the deal – were 60’s muscle cars really that fast? If you lived in the 60’s you would have thought so – they were faster than anything available prior to then. And beginning in the 70’s with increased insurance regulations (primarily due to these same hot rods) and crude government-mandated emissions/pollution controls, the factory HP numbers started a rapid decline, not to be brought back somewhat until the early 90’s with the advent of the Mustang LX 5.0 and the Grand National, the latter being a truly impressive car. So for a very long period the 60’s muscle cars reigned supreme – it has taken a very long time and a lot (and I mean, A LOT) of technology to dethrone them. For this reason alone, I doff my chapeau to them, one and all, regardless of make – they all made automotive history. Everyone forgets how long the dinosaurs ruled the Earth (far longer than we’ve been here) – if we do half as well as they we’ll be doing alright.

One other thing to keep in mind – you buy a modern car and it’s fast; you want to make it faster, it’s not so easy. You buy an old muscle car, and it’s not as fast as you’d like – the sky’s literally the limit as to what you can do to it (plus the size of your wallet) and if you’re so inclined, 99.9% of it you can yourself and the satisfaction that comes with it is priceless. There’s really something to be said for low-tech.

Fearing this attachment, Wichita leaves with Little Rock for Pacific Playland, convincing themselves that they comes returning to trusting only
themselves. It can be handy particularly if you’re in a situation where all you are able use will be the manual type.
A memory stick simply becomes another harddrive as soon as you insert it into the PC
or Mac.

This is interesting reading. I wasted an hour or so.
A lot of you miss a basic fact ! The old muscle cars had no computers,no fuel injection,plus the tires.
I just sold a 2005 Dodge Magnum RT AWD with 93000 miles. these hemis are 360 cu.
Stock. It would do 0-60 in 6 sec. 1/4 mi. was 14.3. on 87oct. fuel.
Add a programmer I could DIAL in programs for shift points,launch speeds,shift point rpm’s,top speeds,etc. Premium fuel was required !
But, By reprogramming the computer ” 5 min” I could drop those times to 5.5 and 13.6!!!!!!! AND the top speed was 150-160 mph (Check it out on youtube. THIS MAGNUM WEIGHED 4600 LBS !!!
And the best part was you could set the Nav. to the drag strip and drive there with the whole family in the car with the A/C on and get 23MPG Get your class and run those numbers then cruise home.
Its all in the computers. The fuel air Mix is kept perfect. The auto shift points are perfect! and it will run at 100mph or idle all day with no problems!
It is a set it and forget it deal with the tuner..Which is by the way only 200$
all of my factory muscle cars were in constant need of tweaking to maintain their max. performance!
Sure ,I would love to have my 64 Max wedge back . But not sure which car my money would be on!

Same old argument over and over.

Say what you will but I will stick with my 72 Charger SE with its 440 cranking out over 500 hp rather than drive around in a beer can that sounds like a constipated sewing machine.

It cost me $25K to rebuild from the ground up but I’m a big guy and I can drive it comfortably and haven’t been beat on the street yet. I can’t even drive my sons Honda. Knees against the dash, head hitting the roof.

How fast would those beer cans be with the torque and power of my 440? How slow would the Charger be with the leaf blower out of the rice burners be?

I think that everyone forgets that it’s horsepower to weight ratio that has increased so drastically over the years. The classics are great, but they were extremely heavy. This is why newer cars can have smaller engines and still go faster than the big engine classics. Super cars are examples of this fact.

I do not dispute that many of today’s sports cars are faster than ones 40 years ago cars, 40+ years of engineering, fuel injection, better transmissions and tire composition should improve speed right? That being said, the author of this blog is a major troll. Here is a list of the Top 20 fastest Muscle Cars of the ’64-74’ era with quarter mile time, trap speed and source.

1] 1966 427 cobra 12.20/118mph 4278v – 4spd/3.54 gears – source car/driver magazine 11/65

2] 1966 427 corvette 12.80/112mph 427 4v – 4spd/3.36 gears – source car/driver magazine 11/65

3] 1970 buick GS stage I 13.38/105.5mph 455 4v – auto/3.64 gears – source motor trend mag 1/70

4] 1968 427 corvette 13.41/109.5mph 427 6v ** – 4spd/3.55 gears – source car life magazine 6/68

5] 1968 hemi charger 13.50/105mph 426 8v – auto/3.23 gears – source car/driver mag 11/67

6] 1969 hemi road runner 13.54/105.1mph 426 8v – auto/3.55 gears – source car/driver mag 1/69

7] 1969 hemi charger 500 13.68/104.8mph 426 8v – 4spd/3.55 gears – source car life mag 4/69

8] 1971 hemi super bee 13.73/104mph 426 8v – auto/4.10 gears – source motor trend mag 12/70

9] 1970 hemi cuda 13.70/101.2mph 426 8v – auto/4.10 gears – source motor trend mag 9/69

10] 1965 catalina 2+2 13.80/106mph 421 6v – 4spd/3.42 gears – source car and driver mag 3/65

11] 1969 super bee six pack 13.80/104.2mph 440 6v auto/4.10gears – source car life mag 7/69

12] 1971 boss 351 mustang 13.80/104mph 3514v -4spd/3.91 gears – source motor trend mag 1/71

13] royal bobcat GTO 13.80/104mph 428 4v – auto/3.55 gears – source car/driver mag 2/68

14] 1966 hemi satellite 13.80/104mph 426 8v – 4spd/3.55 gears – source car/driver mag 4/66

15] 1970 SS 454 chevelle 13.80/103.8 454 4v – auto/3.70gears – source car/driver mag 2/70

16] 1969 cyclone CJ 13.86/ 101.7mph 428 4v – auto/4.11 gears – source motor trend mag 1/69

17] 1962 catalina 13.90/107mph 421 4v – 4spd/4.30gears – source motor trend mag 5/62

18] mach I mustang CJ 13.90/103.3mph 428 4v – auto/3.50gears – source – car life mag 3/69

19] 1970 torino cobra 13.99/101.1mph 429 4v – 4spd/3.91 gears – source motor trend mag 2/70

20] 1970 hemi challenger 14.00/104mph 426 8v – auto/3.23 gears – source road/track mag 6/70

I agree. Cars today are much faster. They SHOULD BE. It took almost 40 years to do it. And the cost to performance ratio is not even close to what you could buy then.

Put bias ply, pizza cutter tires on a new car and see what your times are. Again, you’re right. They’re faster. . .but kind of soulless too. It’s the WHOLE package that makes muscle cars still appealing today. They were pinpoint focused on who they were selling to ,and never tried to be all things to all people. As a result they became amazing statements of time.

I have a 69 GTO RAM AIR III. The difference is the whole package. It feels like YOU’RE gonna die when you get on it. It’s raw, it apologizes for nothing, sounds awesome and all you can do to keep it under control. Maybe that’s why it seems so fast. You put good tires and shocks on it and and a really good tune and it will run high 12s low 13s all day long. AND IT’S almost 45 years old.

My girlfriend has a new GT500. At 662HP Stock, It will walk all over my car. And actually gives me a similar feeling when driving it. It’s over the top. But it’s a 60k+ car! and took 7 months to get. And why does it look so good, because it takes styling cues from designs almost 50 years old.

Anyway, I enjoyed the article. But you’re comparing Apples to Oranges.

Hi! Eric,
I have listened to this bone head, BS Muscle Car Mythology for years… It is tiresome. I usually walk away from those spouting this crap, relegating them, too put it bluntly, to low IQ numskull status. They don’t even know the correct terminology, and are completely bereft of any historical automotive performance knowledge, let alone what it takes to move a vehicle.
‘Overdrive’ as a performance feature/enhancer(?), only in song and the movies. 10 second, 20 MPG 71′ GM ‘B’ bodies, just maybe with a modern 6-speed at a steady, flat, sea level 35-45 MPH, but your trying to drive a barn door through the air at anything above that.

The CTS-V is one hell of a car, one that I have had the opportunity to drive several times, including track time when Cadillac brought their cars to PIR several years back. Would love to have the Wagon, but I will have to wait until they come down to a price level I can afford. Enjoy that modern American performance classic, Eric. Dam! Hard too eat lunch and type… Back to work.

Note: Regarding 67′ GTO.. Make that a 66′. Need to check/edit before posting…bad habit as the result of really needing to be doing something else, other then reading and commenting on car blogs, even this fine blog. Now where is that blast media?

And yet, I always smile when my 66 GTO eats an modern LS7 vette at the stoplight!

I saw the title and had to comment. First of all you’re right in as delivered form, the older cars were slow, buy hot rodder standards. For the average person the were more than enough and still are. But for the typical hot rodder it was merely a starting point. With the factory hi PO parts backing you could turn any musclecar into a beast. And that concept still holds true today. Modern technology old school style. A typical big block can be stroked, big brakes added and six speeded. The new cars are just like the old, for some it’s enough. But for us hotrodders it’s never enough. Great thread by the way. Just think in 20 years somebody is gonna write about his buddies stone stock 9flat second SRT challenger, only because he didn’t know what a procharger looked or sounded like. Long live the hotrodder

And the march of modern performance moves on.

Glory Days…> http://magazine.windingroad.com/issue/86/

795 HP/552 Ft.pds./202+ MPH and 78MPG, and a 7:14 at the Green Mile…> http://rumors.automobilemag.com/porsche-918-spyder-scores-714-nurburgring-time-brochure-leaks-online-171069.html

Granted, cars have improved.

But the Ford Thunderbolt would roast anything from today in a drag, the original 427 GT40 would scare ricers into hibernation, and the full-size American cars of the sixties were some of the best cruisers ever made. (I particularly loved the Ford Ltds).

Brakes, steering and tires are better. But the old cars were handmade works of art, and with modern tires, many would take on anything made today.

what year was the 455 made(s)? Did they all have forged cranks? Were they externally balanced? Didnt they have a olds W-442 or some legendary olds low produced muscle car. I saw one at a show but cant rememeber the name of it. I have heard of a 455 Rocket? What was special about that motor if it even existed?

eric – your right about that 455. That was one mean engine. I dont know if you have explored it or not, but the 455 the 70’s jet boat king. I cant remember all of the manufacturer names but I do remember the one we had. It was called a taihiti (spelling wrong). They seemed to be the big block of choice in that low profile speed demon hooked to a berkly pump. I remember what that thing sounded wide open. It had its own sound. Didnt sound like a mopar and didnt sound like a chevy. If you have never studied jet boats you ought to look. Im sure youll find your precious 455 as king of the hill in that application.

one more comment about the supposed (sick) mustang cobra II. I could easily beat mustang 5.0s (86,87,88, and the 91 GTs and LXs in stock form). I can remember a duster 340 car that used to give me fits. The camero 305 cars and the irocs and z28s were fun to look at in the rear view mirror. I remember a mercury that was comparible as well as a maverick with a 302. I remember the mach mustangs with the clevland all being modified i could beat or hold my own. But I also remember launching against a built chevelle big block. I jumped a half a car lenght out in front of him in my ol stang right off the bat. When he hit second he slid sideways almost into may car although I never got out of it. Boy did he give me an education that night. I think I shut the cobra down about half way through the quarter. There was no point. Where the mopars where in the 80s is a real question mark in my book as a gear head drag guy with the cobra. My little car got me a reputation and people started actually searching me out. I won a bunch especially with new stock cars at the time. I remember the hurst olds with the lightning rods (remember them). They were very cool but dogs. I dont know where the mopars other than the duster where. Never saw them less raced them in the 80s. raced older stangs, chevells, mercurys, mavericks, cameros, even a gto, but back then I dont think i knew what a GTX was. They were probably in the junk yard at the time waiting for the muscle car fad that would soon come knocking on the door and as we all know it did. I guess either I thought my mustang was fast (and I do think it was) or me being into drag racing during the mid 80s gave me an edge. Probably the later. It was fun. I almost got a guy wth a grand national to race but he pampered that car because at the time he thought it would be really worth something. Maybe they are. All i knew at the time was it was a six with a turbo. sounded like an easy victory to me but as i have read this thread. that must have been some animal.

Man! I think the point has been proven over and over. I’m curious and I got to thinking about this the other day. I’m a mopar 69 charger enthusiest but I was driving down the road the other day and wondered how many would agree with this statement, although it is off the subject. Does any one else agree that the chevy 350 was probably the “best” engine really ever built to date. I know im not qualifying this in any way and I’m sorry. Man – in comparision to anything else of old as far as build potential to $$$.. – not only is it a cheaper bad boy but plentiful and was a heck of a block in some of the latter 5.7 hp stuff. Just a thought. Thought I would introduce it.

One note that really makes me upset about the old (and I much more enjoy than the new – no matter how fast the new are). My posts of earlier get a little sentimental about the old stuff. In my mind even though Eric is completely and totally right – my brain still wants to believe the old was the ultimate (lol). But back to my point, the one that upsets me. Its very hard to seal up the old engines. Look at the old pictures of supermarket parking lots. Oil everywhere. I drive my old charger somewhat and built it using the very best gaskets you can buy but getting some of these engines even with the intentions, money and know how to seal without the oil is hair pulling! Any truck driver out there? Im not but I remember the ol detroit 318 deisel. I think it might have even been built to loose oil. One of these days I hope to completly seal my 440. By this I mean I dont want a drop on pavement no matter how long it sits. I dont want even the power steering hoses to look wet. I know it can be done if I rarely drive the car but thats not why I bought this car. Its as nice as some trailer queens but I like to drive mine to the shows. I hear the old chevy big blocks were even worse, not sure about the fords but Im curious. Im pretty close but no cigar as of yet.

The car I had in high school (80s) was one mean machine. You might laugh but it was the overdone pinto – meaning the mustang cobra II. Before I sold it in 91 it was close to perfect – however it had a fireball cam, headers, manual 650 double pumper aluminum intake and it was a 4 speed. If you go and look at the specs of the day, it was referred to as a dog. However the weight of this machine less than a ton. I’m telling you – I beat every 5.0 new in the day along with irocs and z28s and believe it or not – some of the classics. Thats experience I cannot ignore. Now this was the 80’s not what Eric is talking about today. I have recently found this car and have a chance a buying it. I plan on a full restoration and the thought of it keeps me up at night (30 yrs later). I remember I could launch this car and pull the right front wheel. I remember doing it once and breaking three of my back driver leafs. Why am I reading such bad stats on the internet about this car? Its a sincere question to you that in no way diminishes how much I totally agree with you on this topic. Could it be my performance was that of some simple mods that woke this car up similair to the smokey and bandit machine. Another mind blowing note about this car was what went on in that small back seat…..oh sorry this isnt the forum for that lol.

Brent

Eric,

Don’t waste your considerable talents/energy on the specious blatherings of someone who is unreachable by normal, rational, cognitive means.

The subject cerebral cortex, doesn’t go all the way to the top. Probably a congenital condition… unfortunate, but it happens…too often.

Mucho regard..Tre

Clearly we know what side your on, Un rebuilt 42 year old high performance engine? Guess that rules out any of them. Besides carbs, points in high performance engines needed regular adjustment, the technology then just was not that good. Its clear that you wish to stack the deck against old American Muscle. New cars that would be eliminated under your standards GTR – Shelby – any non standard production car on the market today. The fact is that the muscle car era of the 60s just offered buyers more options, and by buyer choice some of those options were low. How many engine choices do you get in the new stuff? Its like saying well in 1969, you could get a 6 cyl. 302 2v or 4v, 351w, 351c, , 390, 428 cj, 428 scj, 429, etc. But to you, just remove anything over 400 CI, because they dont meet your requirements of what you consider a muscle car. So yes if you eliminate all the factory muscle cars that came with the big engines, or high performance options, then muscle cars were slow. This is pointless, You wrote the article, and it is clear that you will just eliminate at will whatever you want to make it true. Clearly you favor imports anyway, so its about what I could expect. I am sure in your head, somehow you are right, but for someone who seems to support anarchists, you sure do put a lot of rules and restrictions into what you consider a muscle car. We will have to agree to disagree, this conversation has become pointless.

Check out “Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race”, mild modifications – not allowed any for engine parts other than tuning. Those cars are not slow.

Out of sequence…>
Regarding; BrentP on September 5, 2012 at 10:18 pm

“I wasn’t referring to you or anyone else in particular.”

I know you weren’t, Brent, just wanted to give you another perspective.

Most ‘old’ guys, already have the cars. The first generation(and younger) that missed the generation of Muscle cars, are the ones typically buying the old iron.

The youngest generations, either don’t care, or want a Nissan 240 or Supra, or STI, etc,. I see ads all the time for cars that are for sale that a dad bought for a ‘Father, Son’ project and the son just isn’t interested in that old Camaro.

My oldest son, now nearing fifty, liked the old stuff, because that is what was kool and is what dad had when he was growing up, but he too, also has his old Muscle toys. He also grew up in the seventies, when, with a few exceptions, there weren’t any fun cars to be had. The old Muscle cars were the last great cars for him. My youngest son is into old Miyata’s and Sekai’s, and Campagnola… and so it goes.

Regards …Tre

Here is the ¼ mile times for the old muscle cars you illustrate in this article.
1970 Plymouth Cuda 426 Hemi 13.10 @ 107.12
1969 GTO Judge 13.2 @ 104
1969 Yenko Camaro 13.5 @ 102
1973 Pontiac Tans Am 455 Super Duty – ¼ mile 13.54 @ 104.29
These were all factory cars with crappy polyglass tires. One Thing you could really figure out on just how much traction effected performance was when you see 2 cars that have the same engine trans and gear, and the heavier car has the better quarter mile. Those cars never did get traction, that is the number one complaint.

I will say this was a very good article that did capture the quarter mile times as they were recorded in the past. Many low 13 cars are missing, and the 12 cars (as rare as they were) are ommited completely. But up untill around 2003, it would be hard to look at those old cars and claim them to be slow especially 35 years after the fact.

And just to show how far technology has come and what real horsepower and torque can do, how about a new car that weighs almost 3,600 pounds, does 0 to 60 in 2.7 seconds, and does the quarter mile in 10.9 seconds at 127 mph? What does it take to do this? It has 530 horsepower. And has 516 ft lbs of torque at only 2100 rpm. What is it? Some really large big block V8? No – a 231 cubic inch 6 cylinder with turbochargers. A Porsche 911 Turbo S.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1206_nissan_gt_r_black_edition_vs_porsche_911_turbo_s_comparison/viewall.html

It breaks into the 10 second range in the quarter mile, and is a drivable car with all creature comforts. Unreal. And we thought the 1970 Buick 455 stage one had a lot of torque – 510 ft pounds at 2,800 rpm. But that was gross torque, not like the Porsche’s net torque. And this new car did not need a big engine to make that torque at even a lower RPM than the old V8 did. Turbos, 7 speed transmission, gearing perfectly matched to all engine speeds and all wheel drive traction does not need 700 hp to do tens. The highly modified F.A.S.T. cars would have trouble keeping up with it. Simply amazing. So we can say “Old Porsches Were Slow”. But that does not take away from the greatness of the 210 horsepower 1973 Porsche Carerra. It’s a part of that segment of car culture history that will always be important.

Well I must admit – I have been drawn to this blog daily. I dont remember what actually brought me here. I would tell Eric that I do not agree with the title of this blog but I understand how the title would have a certain tease factor (thats probably what he was after). I agree with any and all of his comments. I have thought he was right on with all; however to say muscle cars were slow is not exactly a correct statement. They definatley were not slow in their day – we all know that. But I also think its a fair statement to say that even in todays period they are still not slow. The mere lenghtly page of this thread is proof of that. Would I chance my 69 440 chargers pink slip to that of a Rav4. Its built and Im fairly sure I would end up at the finish line first…………..maybe (lol). The point he has drawn is clear as a bell – and to one up of Capt, I think if Eric went out and found the raw production data of the cars in question – it really wouldn’t change much. For example – I have seen the 1/4 mile numbers back then on a comparision in stock form of a roadrunner with a 440 six pack tuned vs. that of the exact car with the 426 hemi. Both of these cars were tuned by people like the legendary Dick Landy before several runs and still we times like early 13’s max. Remember when Keith Black reproduced the 426 hemi. To fully understand and develope that motor all of those years later, he needed Mr. Landy to help him understand the elephant engine and its potential during the research phase of pre-production. Once again its like comparing vacuum tube technology to that of the printed circuit board. There is more technology in your average smart phone than there was on the total apallo space system. Why would cars from that era be any different….Im mean really.

If you read magazines like Super Chevy, High Performance Pontiac, Mopar, Corvette Fever, Muscle Car Review, etc., they all have, over the years, done many objective tests on those old engines, on the dyno, and rear wheel horsepower tests of documented originals. Engine builders and high end restoration shops dealing with concours quality jobs also have found out a great deal and busted many myths, such as:

“The engines were underrated.”
Unless you think measuring an engine’s output by totally ‘cheating’ is legit, that is gross horsepower, then a few maybe were. But then maybe then we should convert the new engines to gross as well. Take a new 3.5 or 3.7 V6, domestic or foreign, does not matter, put it on a dyno, no alternator, no water pump, perfectly shaped headers that would never fit under the hood of a car, no mufflers, no emission controls. Then tune the engine for maximum power and perfect air fuel mixture for that setup. What will those little engines make? 400 horsepower? And forget the V8s, way more. Rear wheel horsepower tests were done for most of the top 1960s and early 1970s engines. Most made 270 to 300 rear wheel horsepower, even with manual transmissions. The 426 hemi – 315 at the wheels. 454 LS6? 282 hp at the wheels with automatic, so with a manual probably about 300. All would be less than 400 net.

“The horsepower ratings were advertised at a lower RPM, and they made more at higher RPMs”
Tests have shown that few of the engines continued to make power over 4500 rpms in factory stock form. Only the solid lifter engines did – but even they tended to top out at 5000 to maybe 5500 rpm. The hemi tested made 315 rwhp at 5000 rpm, and the same amount up to 5500. Then it dropped off.

“The compression ratios were so high that they needed higher octane fuel than is available today.”
Well, yes and no. Engine builders have found that none of the pre 1971 high compression engine actually had the advertised ratios. When taking apart the engines and taking measurements, they were all a point or a point and a half lower than advertised. For example, the ZL1 and L88, advertised at 12 to 1, I think, actually calculated to 10.8 to 1. Those advertised at 10.5 to one were more like 9 to 1 or 9.25 to one. Then why did they knock and ping with lower octane fuel? Poor combustion chamber design when compared to today’s engines. And today’s fuel, like sunoco ultra 94 octane, is not as bad as you think. The measured octane differently then as well, so the numbers appear higher then if using the method they use today, so the 102 octane then is more like 96 octane today.

“1 hp per cubic inch…”
Well, not a single American engine had 1 net horsepower per cubing inch before the 1980s. Some foreign engines had way more, like late 1960s 4 liter (244 cu. in.) ferarri V12s with 352 HP DIN, which is like net hp. I can’t remember which is the first US engine to have more than 1 net hp per cubic inch, was a turbo 4 or turbo V6, like 1984 SVO mustang, or 1986 Buick Grand National. Normally aspirated? Not sure, probably late 1980s Olds Quad 4, don’t remember.

That being said, those old 1960s performance cars are some of my favorite cars. So are 1950s finned cars. And classic 1920s and 1930s cars. None of this diminishes the historical value of these cars or their design artistry. After all, a 1914 Stutz Bearcat is not worth a million because it is so much better than what came after it. You could not even do a 0 to 60 in that…

Just read your whole post, Jake,

Regarding: “back in the day, musclecars were cheap” New? Hardly! Clapped out used in the mid to late seventies, certainly.

“everyone loved them” Not everyone, the general public had a dim view of these cars.

“real men who had the mechanical know how could make them go even faster” True, but most brought them to their local tuner/builder with a chassis dyno.

“I’d rather pocket that $40, $50, $60 or even $70 grand, and spend a third of that on my musclecars” Proving once again, Jake, that you have no real knowledge of the hobby. You couldn’t buy one of those early Muscle cars for the money you have stated, and an untouched, $23,000 V-6 Camaro could hold its own against most of the totally stock, as delivered, cars you have mentioned in this thread.

And before I step out of this charade, I have been building cars, engines, transmissions, rear ends, chassis, bodies since I was fourteen(1960).

My shop shelves are still full of aftermarket and factory parts from the day, though, I don’t mess with 1/4 mile stuff anymore, actually not since the early nineties when I sold my Altered to my son. My interests since the early seventies has been road course racing, sailing, and building sleepers and phantoms.

Jake, just yesterday shipped one of my new sets of rare TRW ‘#L2211AF-30’ forged pistons to a friend and still have a couple of new OEM large journal 3″ Sm. Blk cranks covered in cosmoline and wrapped in oil paper/boxed, standing on end on the shelves, with the rods to go with them. I know, you haven’t a clue as to what they would be used for, but there is a recent clue in this thread.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say, I don’t push paper, but I am spending way too much time on Eric’s fun little blog.

You hang around Jake, you help Eric out with page views for his blog.

Regards …Tre

Hemi Cudas can bring big money, as much as a Million dollars. L88’s run up to the half millions. ZL-1’s …More$$$

All of these cars bring stratospheric prices these days, I have lost track of the current pricing. Could be much higher with some exotics and classics going over 12 million recently.

Some of the cars Jake lists were basically factory ‘works’ racers, the rest, slightly detuned works racers. Sold to the public to meet minimums required by class racing.

lol, i just saw your list of cars at the top… pathetic, you are comparing the modern top dogs against mid range muscle cars…

the 427 l88 corvette… where is that data?

the 427 camaro? no where to be found?

the 454 ls6 chevelle? please, thats a given

426 hemis? I’m a chevy guy, but come on, play fair eric!

seriously, this article is rubbish.

the cars i just listed will hang with your “modern top dogs”

AND THEY DID IT WITH BIAS PLY CHEAP TIRES

XD checkmate.

I think you all have learned something here. you cannot deny the facts about tires, and your article is completely biased in the fact that you chose the medium range musclecar. lets do apples to apples here.

aaaaand lets not forget the price range as well.

sure, you can get a fast car nowadays, i never denied that fact, I just do not prefer them, because the horsepower to $$$$ ratio, is in off the charts.

back in the day, musclecars were cheap, and everyone loved them. real men who had the mechanical know how could make them go even faster.

nowadays, your “modern top guns” are left to the few little rich punks and soggy old men, that have a fat wallet and no mechanical common sense. My apologize for assuming anything.

I’d rather pocket that $40, $50, $60 or even $70 grand, and spend a third of that on my musclecars, and you know what? your top guns wouldnt even be able to touch it 🙂

so all in all: many will come to the conclusion, that you two (tre and eric) and just a couple of paper pushers who spread rumors about stuff that they don’t even know.

-Cap’n out.

Amazing – I think we need to move on. Obviously he is just having fun at our expense. The argument is moot. And yes I have raced and LOVE to see the cars of new be stompted by the classics which happens 99% of the time at the drags who qualify even under many stock classes. However the only shot these older legends have in doing so is the addition of modern technology or tuning/ tweaking. I would go a little futher however and say that you can take your big block chevelle (if you had one) with headers and a STREET carburator with an orginional 411 rear and even mild electronic ignition. The person in this Chevelle will get an education against the new mustang 500 and by the way I only use the mustang because I hate fords! NO WAY NO HOW. Look at the information and technology from the inception of an idea of a car through the manufacture of the car and compare the two eras by talking with your age group who were there building them. Many times they interchanged and used whatever they had to keep the assembly line rolling. CMON

Now Jake, there you go again. You don’t help your credibility when you say stuff like this ” at least 50k of those miles @ 6500+ rpms.”

The real rev king of the of SB Chevies was the Hot Rod 301″ …

eric, your argument is weak… again with information that has no factual origin. You’ve out done yourself this time, this is a new low even for you… trying to tell me what my car will run, based on some internet “facts”….

well I’m offering you the opportunity to see it in person. here is the link, check us out on sept. 13th

http://www.purestockdrags.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

come see my firebird and chevelle.

I’ll even let you inspect my cars with a fine tooth comb to see if they’re the real mccoy 🙂

is that factual enough for you?
enough with this namby pamby internet bs. lets hash this out on the track, shall we?

bring that T/A, if it passes insp. line em up, I know even a soft palmed guy like you could have a good time.

Imagine… after you venture on far beyond your cubicle, into the real world, I guarantee you will be embarrassed with this piece of rubbish that you call an article.

oh and btw, you left off the 70 chevelle ls6 454 on your wiki facts at the top

-Cap’n out

D3 | SEMA 2011 Special Project Vehicle

D3 in conjunction with General Motors launches the Special Edition 2012 CTS-V Coupe

Key Points:

800HP/TQ While Using Alternative Fuels
5:1 power to weight ratio
Track Prepared CTS-V Coupe Available Through Dealership
Limited Serial Number Builds

Signal Hill CA, August 23th 2011, The D3 Group in conjunction with GM has begun the building of a special edition 2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe. This is a purpose built vehicle designed to bridge the gap between Cadillac’s racing efforts and the cars consumers can purchase off the showroom floor. Currently referred to as PROJECT WHITE, the official name and debut of the car will be unveiled at SEMA 2011.

PROJECT WHITE will present to the public a new and alternative way to look at the Cadillac CTS-V automobile. With the push for global decrease in the use of fossil fuels, yet the focus to create something that would still appeal to performance minded customers, D3 must look at alternative options. The focus of this special vehicle is to use Alternative Fuels in a competitive setting without compromising overall vehicle performance. The vehicle utilizes all of the latest performance advancements from D3 in terms of thermal efficiency, suspension/chassis, aero, and powertrain while still making well in excess of 800HP & 800FT Lbs. Vehicles will come equipped with DOT R Compound Toyo R888 tires and said to be targeting 1G on the skidpad. Extensive upgrades have been done to the vehicle to offset the overall weight of the vehicle. Painstaking details such as exclusive light weight Recaro seats have been added to reduce the overall weight while focusing on overall vehicle performance and handling. The target goal is 5:1 power to weight ratio.

Along with the staggering performance numbers this vehicle will produce. D3 has also taken the time to make sure they implement all their latest in aerodynamics and ground effects. With the attention to high speed handling and design, great detail was taken on designing active aero for the underside of the car. Integrated ducts and air channels ensure the vehicle stays securely planted to the ground at speeds over 200MPH while providing copious amounts of air flow to numerous heat exchangers under the vehicle. The vehicle has been outfitted with active and functional chin splitter, side skirt extensions, functional rear diffuser, and a carbon fiber underbody tray with integrated air ducts.

http://www.d3cadillac.com/news/latest-news/legionnaire

Oop’s! Excuse me Eric…’Eric’ I have a friend named Eric who goes by Ric.

Hi! Ric,

You don’t have to ‘imagine’, you can have one with the help of ‘D3’.

Yes, the CTS-V is quite the car. It is pretty amazing car for a Cadillac. And I’m hoping they do something similar with the ‘ATS’.

Maybe we could get some rational conversation out of Jake if he were to get behind the wheel of a CTS-V.

I was invited by Cadillac to a big tent event they had in Vegas for Cadillac fans, and got to get in a couple of laps in a CTS-V wagon(My choice). As a result of that I was given a couple lap ride in a ‘D3’ modified CTS-V coupe, and then was allowed a few laps behind the wheel. Those are the kind of automotive experiences you don’t forget. On display was a D3 CTS-V ‘Le Monstre’ coupe, that puts out 1,000+HP and 1,000 pds. of torque, and is street drivable.

Previous to that I had a test drive of a coupe on the highway and surface streets, including the locally famous ‘Skyline Drive’ in Portland Or. But, I sure wouldn’t mind having one for a week.

Years back, Cadillac did deliver a new Allante to my door and let me have it for several days. I tried to talk them out of it as I really wasn’t in the market, but they insisted and it showed up anyway.

Took it for a nice weekend on the Oregon coast…Wife really grew fond of it, but I reminded her that she really did need the back seat of her Turbo Coupe.

My first car was a 48′ Cadillac ’62’ series Convertible with a flathead V-8, and quite a few followed that first one. No Cadillacs currently, but I have a 27′ Tee, with a 39′ Cadillac flatty in it.

Cadillac’s and I go way back, Eric.

Thanks for the note

A little personal Muscle car history from the day.

I was at the Puyallup drag strip when Van Cleve Ford and a couple of Ford reps showed up with the new ‘Boss 429’. Everybody crowded around this new contender for the crown of top dog. As it turned out, I drew it for its first run that night.

I expected to see nothing but its tail lights, but it wasn’t to be. I left that Stang, breathing hard and short of the lights when my 68′ Charger tripped the lights with a low 13″ quarter mile.

The Boss 429 with suspected 500+ HP was a dog, not even breaking into the high thirteens that night. A few events later, with gears and tires it managed some high thirteens, but still wasn’t living up to expectations and Van Cleve finally quit running it for a while.

My brother and cousin(Ford Guys) decided to go up to Eatonville to see if it was for sale and talked me into going. While there I got into a conversation with their tuner/mech. and he mentioned that it just pooped out after 4,000 RPM. I mentioned that I had a similar problem on a 428″ Ford that I had built, and after much head scratching and chasing dead ends, I deduced that it had to lie in the new cam as everything else was nearly the same except for the cam and springs. Sure enough it was the springs. To tight so full lift wasn’t achieved. He said he doubted that Ford would make that mistake.

A few weeks later the Boss showed up again and ran a low thirteen on its first run. I walked over and asked him why it was performing better. He remarked that the springs were the wrong ones and were to tight. I had a secret little laugh.

Later that night I bested the Boss again, but it was right on my heels.

PS! When running High lift cams, always check your spring height and valve piston clearance. The Springs you select for your cam may not match up with your spring seat heights and lift. A spring seat cutter is a handy thing to have for a serious builder.

Note; 68′ Charger/440″/Auto/Six-Pac_Cam/headers/4.10/drag slicks.

New, anybody can buy, COPO Camaro runs 8.88 out of the box with a 327″ engine/blown. Also available with a 427″ NA.

On pure numbers and performance it is hard to beat modern technology, might not be as much fun for some, but there is no denying the results.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/13/watch-a-copo-camaro-in-the-8s-out-of-the-box/

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/chevrolet/2012-chevrolet-copo-camaro-ar126000.html

Sigh! Indeed, and unfortunate, Eric. He thinks he can get away with it/BS, because in his world, nobody challenges him.

Speaking of ‘LS’ motors, if I took him for one lap around ‘PIR’ or ‘Thunder Hill’ or any track in my Seven ‘type’, powered by a bone stock LS-3 with the new factory 50Hp cam for a total of 480 factory ponies and 475 ft. pds. of torque from only 376″ cu. inches, he would be puking all the way home in his beater Chevelle with its clapped out 396″. My apologize for assuming anything.

I could drive this car(Seven ‘Type’) to pick up my grand daughter at school or go on a road trip getting pretty good mileage, while capable of 0-60 MPH in 2.8 secs. It is basically a track/hill climb car, but I did license it.

We have seen tanks, repeated, over 30 MPG in my bothers LS-3 powered 2008 Corvette on long trips to SoCal from the NW. And he consistently runs his bracket at the bottom of the twelves with his air conditioning on.

The only thing I miss about the old engines is the exposed engine and dress’up. Love the look of deuces lined up and finned valve covers.

Regards ….Tre

PS! You can buy an LS-3/480Hp crate motor for only $6,600 with LOL! 2 year warranty*.

So V-8’s are not dead, they just get better and better.

*Subject to warranty restrictions.

http://paceperformance.com/i-6255558-19258768-gmpp-ls3-376cid-480-hp-crate-engine.html

http://www.portlandraceway.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=45

http://thunderhill.com/staticpages/index.php?page=TrackMap

Not only were they slow compared to today’s hottie’s and appliances, they wouldn’t stop or turn.

I owned a bunch of those cars new, and later, used, and have several now. Without gears, tires, a good tune, and a good technique, these old behemoths were just fire and smoke and scary at anything over 120MPH. Many were scary well before that.

I recently picked up a 64′ Galaxy 427″ ‘Light Weight’ factory racer for a friend and drove down to the local truck stop to ship North. The short five mile trip reminded me what tanks these were.

You have to plan your stops, and hope nothing gets in your way that you didn’t plan for. The roll-on acceleration of this pristine piece of automotive history was robust, but hardly earth shaking.

My 2000′ Cobra ‘R’ and 2004 ‘SVT’ Cobra are both faster then the race Galaxy, run cleaner, handle, stop, and one has air, cruise, and a great stereo. And both are a bit slower then a new Camaro ‘SS’ or Mustang ‘GT’. That’s progress.

My fear is that progress for performance vehicles will be denied, especially for ‘IC’ powered cars. I think the future of performance cars, if there is one, is EV cars. My Dad predicted this in the mid-fifties.

What’s missing in the new cars is that raw, visceral feel the old Muscle cars gave you. They are so tame you never feel threatened by the situation, and that is a problem for anyone who thinks that the new cars will deny physics..they won’t, and the bite can be severe.

Well Im still hoping for a comment on the older v8’s in trucks of old vs. these hemi and new 5.7 small blocks. They run hotter than hell (scream at 700 RPMS) but have no torque or pulling power. Properly build an ol carbed 350 and race a hemi truck. the hemi will most likely beat you or you may even tie. However = hook a trailer with a load to the old carborated 350 and you will be at the top of the hill making lemonade waiting on the newer computerized small block. I know this is off of the subject but I find it amazing when comparing same cub inches of today vs. yesterday. TO get the hp today in these trucks its all about high rpms and no pulling torque. I loved my 07 hemi 1/2 ton but sold it because with trailer it was a screaming rpm headache to get it to pull. The 350 or even the 383 of yesteryear will out pull them any day of the week – no problem. Now I do know that the newer diesels have pretty much eliminated this issue but the price on these trucks is outragous. Probably not the right fourum but its cool comparing old to new. Some of the old was better than the new – you have to admit old muscle cars were cool – real chrome individual parts and a lot of them. These new cars sure are faster but you cant work on them and they are mostly plastic. But things change – how many of you can remember when you bought a lincoln with a 460 and big hood not so much as a power factor but as a safety factor in a head on collision? They were effective at that. No one talks about that anymore. Hell there is a chrysler that is exempt from demolition derby because of this (imperial?). THe new – All plastic with some airbags. How about the little map lights, individualized rear ashtrays (i dont smoke) and things like rear defrost by blower – or the big cars with the float factor with big blocks – craftmanship and real chrome everywhere. Now a days you wont find many 16 year olds wanting a license much less taking pride in a ride – maybe its because everything looks the same? How about the days when you filled out 3 pages of options you wanted on YOUR new ordered car. Forget it today. Speeds great and I sure do not argue with the moderator because he is dead on in comparision but in my opinion we have lost much more than we have gained overall. “wish a ford and a chevy would still last ten years like they should – merle haggard – are the good times really over for good?

Jake, you said:

“once you bought your musclecar new, you immediatley tuned and made it run like gangbusters. try tuning some modern garbage”

He was not talking about modifying and tuning the engine – he meant they were slow when compared to the new performance cars in totally stock condition as they left the factory. And the “new modern garbage” can be tuned to far more power than any of the old stuff. That includes both domestic and foreign cars. You must be completely ignorant of the unbelievable power today’s LS- series V8s can make. Or turbo 4 cylinders making 800 to 1000 horsepower, never mind the 600 you mentioned. These are all tuned by computer to make the perfect air-fuel ratios at all engine speeds and have sensors adjusting boost, and even sensors checking allowable cylinder wall warpage. And those all wheel drive cars, like WRXs and Lancer Evos are almost unbeatable in a street race becaus of perfect traction and balance. Those turbo 4s can make 600 hp to the wheels – not 600 hp on an engine dyno – and still have a drivable street car that gets acceptable gas mileage, and actually handle and have 200 mph top speeds, unlike the old muscle cars that run out of steam at 120 or 130. And the LS- series V8s or mustang 5.0s? Try 1500 to 2000 horsepower with turbos. Those are just the cold hard facts of technology, engineering, and physics. The old muscle cars are important historical parts of our culture, and were amazing for their time, but everything new is way better than the old stuff. Even old ferraris from the 1960s are no faster than a lot of V6 cars are today, except in top speed. Just like the most incredible 1930 Duesenberg could barely keep up with an ordinary V8 car of the late 1960s and early 1970s, a performance car of the 1960s could barely keep up with a new V6 car, in totally stock form.

“muscle cars are slow”

typical butthurt mazda owner would say that.

anyone who agrees with this article has never been behind the wheel of a 600+ horespower big block powered true american muscle car.

these wikipedia “stats” are a joke.

horsepower ratings were lower to comply with safety regulations at the time. once you bought your musclecar new, you immediatley tuned and made it run like gangbusters. try tuning some modern garbage… you’ll be takin it to autozone and asking some claude to bring out his little computer and tell you wut went wong.

not to mention tires. those wiki-facts you pulled down are rated using bias-ply 1960’s tires. if you put a set of modern tires under an old musclecar, you would have… well what everyone has today. musclecars that run 10’s all day long with factory available parts. visit your local race track, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

keep your jap scrap, and euro trash, you won’t find any seat warmers or plastic body panels on a real man’s car.

when i see you on the highway or race track, we’ll let the car do the talkin.

Another thing about these new horsepower ratings I would like to discuss. I just sold a 09 hemi 1/2 4×4 that boasts 345 hp. Im sure it has it. No problem. The problem is when you hook a trailer to it. NO torque – pulling 5 bare engine blocks down the road – come to a hill and it wants to get its 345. where does it get it – well at 6500rpms. These new high hp motors are fun to drive but they will not pull well in trucks. The new diesels have that market pretty much handled but thats a different story. I ended up selling the dodge and rebuilt an 86 silverado 4×4 that now looks like brand new. It has a 700r so my overdrive is covered. It was the last of the carberated engines so I can work on it. I set it up with aluminum heads – 10:5 comp ratio – put a holley vacuum sec dual fed carb (edlebrock really a carb? lolol….just joking)- forged pistons – forged crank – 75 4 bolt main block and ceramic coated headers. Here is the results – This truck chained to the back of the new dodge in opposite direction will pull it around the neighborhood with the driver of the new dodge crying. I know a little dramatic. I guess what I am saying is – in my opinion to get these BIG new HP numbers means high RPM’s and not a lot of torque and there is a big difference between the two. And Dennis trust me – I have a 69 charger like new with 3:23’s. Before I put the overdrive in it – If I tried to stay up with 270 traffic in the left lane – within an hour I would be broke down on the shoulder and over heated with mopeds passing me and that engine is built better than the one described above. Thank god for Gear Vendors – I can put the 69 in the left lane where it deserves to be. One thing I have learned because Im pretty patriotic and very nestalgic (“I wish a buck was still silver – it was back when the country was strong”). —Never retry to recreate your youth – you will be very dissappointed – things when young were more colorful-advanced-cool-and better than what they really ever were if you try to compare them to anything today. With that said I would go back in a milisec if I could lol.

With all that said – and I agree with EVERYTHING eric is saying, however it was interesting to see in St. Louis last year at the mopar nationals – the drag races. You would see all of the old and all of the new. We really expected to see the challenger 426 and the vipers and some of the pickups do well. WELLL – in the 1/4 mile against the stuff of old with new cam profiles and rebuilt auto trannies and new ignition, I can tell you this. The challenger, mustangs, and viper v10 – didnt even stand a chance at beating a 70 dart 340 car. It was funny. Now im sure that the newer cars were just warming up when the race was over but it was embarrassing for the newer cars. I realize these are not stock as they came from the factory – they were modified but some of them only lightly but had gearing in the 4:11 and up. I couldnt wait to see the new challenger just put them to shame. The new hemies were being beat by 2 and 3 car lengths. I wasnt expecting that. These were vintage racers – not blown alcohol cars. Cars with 454’s and power glides – funny stuff there.

My Camry hybrid runs almost at the same clip as my 1965 Plymouth Satellite 426 wedge did. From many runs at thr now closed Fremont drag strip the old Satellite ran anywhere from 15:20 to 15:80 when I did not blow up the street tires on launch. This was good enough to beat all the 64 & 65 GTO two speed autos that seemed to make up B stock. A 4 speed GTO was about an even match. I think this was really the normal street muscle type car you would run into. The Melrose Missels were not what you ran into on Saturday night on First St. In San Jose. Skip forward to 2012 and the Camry hybrid runs 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and runs the quarter around 15.2 or a little more while delivering 38mpg in town, not 10mpg. And like the girls in my life in those years, I would like to spend one night with my rude, crude Satellite.

Gotta say, most of the muscle cars by the ’70s were neutered. The real power was in the 1966-1969 period. No smog devices, no crappy unleaded gas, no low compression engines, those cars hauled ass. I would like to see some of their stock version times compared to today’s models.

Well Im going to put it to the test. 69 r/t charger with msd ignition, gv overdrive along with the 3:23s, aluminum radiator, 9:5:1 compression, holly vacuum sec dual fed 750, lunati cam, working origional ac (after many headaches and a converstion to 134 – wonder if 12 would have been better. My mechanics say the conversion hype was a sham – they all can be converted). On a 100 degree day with black interior it will keep you comfortable on max high but not cold. It blows at 50 degrees. I wonder if it was always that way and the ac thing was kind of a luxury highway option back in the day. around town – doesnt work as good. I also have aftermarket fan on condensor. O origionally tried flowmaster 40’s and then even 50’s – but were to loud for that car (megaphone effect). I finally went with a cheap turbo muffler that sounds great at idle and down the highway pretty quiet. Any thinking of taking to the grand canyon from MO. Could be fun. Could be a disaster. The biggest headace with old mopars is not the mechanics you have problems with. It is the wiring harnesses. Im still using the origional under the dash. The engine harnaess I made new. Do your self a favor if your going to restore one and buy all NEW wiring. Its expensive but well worth it. I think with the GV I will also get 15mpg. Could be awesome trip. Could be AAA disaster but thats what makes it an adventure right. Love the site

This is an amazing forum and a lot to take in. I guess you would call me handicapped because Ill never know how my 69 charger (as good of shap as I have it) smelled when it was new, drove when it was new, or how reliable it was when new. Its just something I have to depend on by stories or the cold hard facts as have been stated here. All I can say is that I was born too late. If you bought a 69 chevelle with a say 396 and wanted to drive it accross country was it as reliable as the cars are today. I mean get in a newer car or even a car with 60K miles on it and drive it accross country. The last thing youll likely think of is whether or not youll have car problems – probably the last thing youd contimplate. I also once had an older gentleman who was very instrumental in the development of the big block chrysler tell me that the 440 was much more effiecent, more reliable, more comfortable, and less likely to have a problem at 3500 rpm than it was at an idle. Pretty hard to wrap my mind around that one. He also stated that many people drove these cars with stock exhaust like earlier stated and had no idea the engine was in as much strain as they sound wrapped out now. The shame of it is that ill never know. Again – I understand the moderators point which he has stated several times. There is a big difference in a highly modified older engine and one that was a stock “muscle car” or old. Another theory I have heard on reliability now is that no matter how much we try to recreate, overhaul, and performance modify reliability is just a factor of old age now. Some might disagree however my dad says “old iron is old iron.” I am also very much aware that when you try to recreate your youth based on what was cool or wicked in the days of old – you will always end up disappointed. A good example of this is the Atari 2600 gamming system. Remember how much fun we had with those. Try playing one today and compare it to the games of new. I recently restored a full size pac man machine. Little kids come flying in around it – spend 2 minutes looking at it and then reply “is that all it does.” Times have changed and I think the same holds true for cars. No one – no one can appreciate the classics like I can. If I had one wish it would have been to have been born to experience the cars of yesteryear when they were new. BUT – to say that they are even in the same bracket as the newer overpriced, middle aged crisis hot rods of today. No comparison. Apples and Oranges. I think Im pushing close to 500hp with 3:23s in a 69r/t highly modified. Would I go pink slip to pink slip with a new V8 SUV. I dont think Im that Im that uneducated. The case is closed. Were they slow – no – where they as fast and as figured out as they are today – apples and oranges. I still just seem to think that the overdrive thing could be more. Maybe a collabrative effort on the part of the gov, auto makers, parts supplers,etc. to wear cars out quicker to sell more cars and use more gas. am I on to something?

I would really like a realistic comment on this. When I ask the old guys about why no overdrive now they scratch their head agree that overdrive existed on earlier cars and then say cheap gas I guess. It’s hard for this 41 yr old to understand. Even with 3:23s. And a modified 440, before the gear vendors it was very uncomfortable knowing I was pushing my engine that hard and embarrassing because I had fiats passing me. I even had a motor home pulling a small car pass me. Of course the gear vendors changed all that. I mean should a 69 charger be in the left lane instead of holding up traffic.. Now I run 80 at 2800. The ac seems to work better also. And what I found even more suprising this wasn’t a small time frame deal. No big block Chrysler overdrive ever produced ever. There was always the elusive wives tale about a 727 INTERCEPTOR that the hwy patrol used but I could never find anything more than just an overblown tale.

I think he has made the point very clear and very hard to disagree with. I mean really he has the facts. My question is this; I have a 69 440 charger with modern ignition, and about everything u cam buy from a race catalog. I’m 41 and have also owned new mustangs and cameros. He is right on. Back to my question though – I’ve added a gear vendor unit to 3;23 rear to get in the left lane. My dad swears back in the day when the speed limit was 75 everyone ran 80. Until I added the gv I was running 65 at 3700rpm and everyone was passing me. Did they really drive them that fast on the interstate? How could they be reliable if so? And why was there no overdrive back then? Gas cheap? Why. My dad also states that his 47 or 49 mercury he got when he was 13 did have some sort of overdrive. Why no overdrive. No wonder these engines were worn out at 60k. I know when u look back things seem to be faster and cooler than they really were. I’ve tried creating my youth several times. But a 440 with 3:23s driven brand new from Missouri to California even make it back then at 4300 rpm’s. Really?

Not really a smartly written article. Cars then had power and were not slow because of lack of power. The e/t times you list are actually skewed. The E/T times that most sources list are factory show room time complete with the street tires and no headers though some have carb adjustments. That being said the street tires did these cars no justice. The factory were not the best traction tires in fact the rubber compound given the days technology were no where near as sticky as todays rubber compounds therefore most cars the were spinning out almost all the way through first gear which killed E/Ts. The writer of this article should know that if he is a car enthusiast or if he has even ever driven an old muscle car. Another factor is transmissions of the day were either a 3 speed auto or 4 spd manual. Todays cars are 6 speed close ratios where very little power is lost between each shift like an old 3 spd auto. The 4 speed was a bit more efficient in laying power down but the top end suffered compared to a 6 speed. Adding slicks with a good bite would sometime knock a whole sec. of E/Ts of these oldies. C’mon Eric lets get the facts straight and keep it in context.

The performance stats on a 2007 Mustang GT are:

Zero to 60 mph: 5.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 25.6 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 103 mph.

Big deal. And mind you, these cars are much more expensive and harder to afford than the old muscle cars were for the average buyer. Thus talk about the greatness of a $50,000 GT is particularly absurd. In fact, though few were made, a 69 Camaro with the ZL1 aluminum block 427 (factory rated 600 hp) and with an automatic transmission ran a 12.2 quarter, the ‘Vette with slicks and a 4-speed 11.0. The 2011 Shelby GT 1/4 mile a whopping 12.4. Oooo….scary 🙁

Has anybody mentioned the fact that real power belongs to $15,000 sport bikes? A 9.5 1/4 mile run and more excitement than a million dollar 1,000HP Bugatti will give you. Also, they require more balls. But I digress….

As for the ways HP was rated back in the day, yeah it was at the fly wheel. BUT, then the HP was often underrated when finally made “official” by the various car makers. For example, the 426 Hemi was really closer to 600 hp than the official 425 hp. And if you don’t believe it, pull that pretty little panzy GT alongside one at the next stop light. And watch the tail lights of a ‘cuda, charger, road runner, or even super bee. (Incidentally, if it helps make you feel better, keep in mind that these cars typically weighed less than they looked–and felt via real metal and chrome).

Except a modern mustang in capable hands is faster than 13.2. The GT500 considerably so.

Updates, even tires, means the car isn’t bone stock anymore.

Mustang to Mustang comparos have been done in the car rags for decades.

Plus people often have very liberal interpretations of ‘stock’.

Can a carb and points engine make 400-500 hp? certainly. Good luck at putting up with that ancient monster every day. I got stuck in quite a traffic jam in the ’12 on sunday. I don’t think it would have been very pleasant in a ’69 w/428 SCJ and 4spd toploader and 4.30 rear end. Even my ’73 mav with 250I6 is a beast in traffic like that compared to the ’12. Zbar clutch… loads of fun even with 6… have it push the monster 428’s damn… And that is the big deal.

There’s a reason why these big block cars generally survived with low miles if they weren’t crashed. Few people could deal with driving them every day and many of the rest gave up after awhile.

As to Shelby’s personal Cobra… he made a second one for this guy:

Dude, I’ve seen a bare stock (not even headers) 73 455 Firebird beat a modern 13.2 second Mustang. I saw a old beat up 454 (albeit it with 2 four barrels) Nova blow its doors off. The problems with muscle car quarter mile times taken from that era, include 1) Poor tire traction (compared to today), moreover 2) those tires actual melted, since 3) first gear and maybe even second gear were useless in many cases. And especially when something akin to a 4.11 rear end was in the mix. I used to believe the garbage you’re writing. My buddies with modern Mustangs convinced me. That is, until I saw actual races. Additionally, you can find ETs of old muscle cars today but with new tires and you’ll get much better times. For example, I of a know Trans Am collector who got a high 13 second run out of a ’73 SD 455 Trans Am. Sure, a 455 sounds impressive. But by ’73, and rated at 310 HP, it was by no means representative of the fire breathing variety of just 3 years prior. The same fellow ran slightly higher times (I believe low 14 sec.) in a vintage/stock ’69 Trans Am (with the factory 303). However, first and most of second gear were spent smoking even the modern tires via its 4.11 rear end, much as would have been the case with the 302 powered ’69 Z28. The ’69 Vette with the LT1 427 and a 4.11 posi ran an 11 second flat quarter even back in the day. But, that was with open factory headers AND MOST IMPORTANTLY it ran with slicks. IN the same vein, Shelby’s personal Super Cobra (rated at 800 HP) ran a 3 sec 0-60. Anyway, enough said. Obviously, fuel injection and computers haven’t and can’t advance modern auto performance as much as many tend to think.

Today’s cars are much better. But then again most products are.

Sometimes better increases costs because customers can afford more and spend more. Sometimes better comes at no cost because of productivity improvements. Sometimes productivity increases so much better and lower cost go together. But that’s in a constant unit of measure. We don’t have that. We don’t even know the real change in our unit of measure because the way the rate of change is determined keeps changing.

Cars today all have power windows because power windows are cheaper than manual windows. Power windows are definately cheaper than offering manual and power windows. Many things in cars are like that. Productivity gains have made having the features cheaper than not having them. Go try to buy a new 286 computer. Can’t do it. The new stuff is better -and- cheaper because of the productivity gains. This is the natural progression of product. The bankers and government stifle this for their own benefit and the benefit of those close to them.

With automobiles how much went to the bankers inflating, how much goes into a better product, how much goes into government regulations and forced sales of equipment we will never be able to accurately calculate and that’s the way the system wants it.

Let us say that the automobile was left untouched by government mandates. Let’s say the market drove most safety items into existance and left the absurd ones at the wayside. Let’s say that like most products manufacturers tried to hold the same price point and that inflation did not exist. What would today’s better product cost? It’s a guess that’s for sure. I’m thinking one to two rank drops. That what got yesterday’s top of the line version would get the second to top of the line but would be vastly better car.

I think we are comparing apples to oranges on the 60 vs today cars.

Sure today’s cars are faster, quicker, etc. What do you expect?

Back in the 60’s most engineers were using slide rules and doing drafting on actual drawing boards. Cad / Cam programs were just beginning to take on a life of their own in the 80’s. The machinists of the day, didn’t have access to CNC machines and the like.

Today’s cars are largely built on the computer. There are much tighter tolerances today, especially building engines. Better material control, quality control, better metallurgy, the list goes on and on what car makers have today, they didn’t back in the 60’s. Better tire design, materials, better a lot of things concerning tires.

The cars were awesome for their day. Most anyone could easily work on their own car back then. Today, you can barely figure out how to empty an ash tray.

This is sort of like comparing WWII aircraft to today’s Stealth Fighters.

Too much has changed since 69, including the over regulating of cars by government. We were a much freer country back in those days. I long for the days of freedom .

This is for you ERIC! Your mighty 2010 Camaro SS GEtting its ass handed to him by a fricken OMNI! This is what happens to guys like you who dont know shit about cars!

OH and the times??
CAMARO SS@ 12.20
Omni? : embarrasses the shit out of the modern day musclecar

I bet you dont have the balls to post this!

I didnt take much to tune the omni bc you said nothing in the 80’s had speed either except the Grand National! Your such a turd! Am i educating your dinosaur ass of a brain yet? LOL!

ERIC YOUR A BIG FAT COWARDLY PUSSY! I will make sure i stick on your ass like a fly on shit whenever your articles come up! You cant sensor all the blogs! And im sure you dont have that much power! Guys like you dont deserve to drive these fine machines much less comment about them! YEAH EXPERT YOURE NOT!

I used to street race almost every night in my brand new 88 Mustang Lx which I ran a best of 14.0 bone stock .This was pretty fast for those days and I rarely lost.I raced just about everything and the only old muscle cars that where fast included the following.Big block Corvettes (especially 427’s),440 mopars (fast, didnt have to be a 6 pack either ,the 4 barrel cars where fast too),455 Buicks(stage 1’s even faster).That was about it,everything else was pretty slow .One car that really impressed me was a 70 Dart gt or gts 340 ,that car was fast.

So I am reading a mustang forum and started scanning a V6 thread. In it is a time slip for a 2011 V6 auto trans. 13.868 1/4 mile. That’s the six. The base car.

http://forums.themustangsource.com/f726/first-test-drive-2012-3-7-mustang-my-2-cents-505905/

Hey Fred. Apologies for losing all the comments you made the other evening. We had a server crash and everything from that day (including your comments) got wiped out mang.

Hi again Eric! (I came from LRC as well)..

It’s true. Plus many of those cars were heavy. I had a built 440 Charger that only ran 12.90 due to just being so heavy. And that was a bad car. Then cars jus began to suck, like all of them, period, and now the technology’s finally online to get fuel efficient performance. Now i’ve found my thrill in an e36 m3 and i remember the first time driving a late-model BMW after never driving one before, and it was like having driving being given back to me after all those years. M3’s and Acura NSX’s is when i started paying attention to cars again.

My fastest and wildest vehicle ever was my old rd400 tho, 12’s outta the box, i had it doing low 11’s. Ruined me for bikes when they stopped making 2-strokes. 2-strokes is for ridin’, 4-strokes is for pullin’ trailers an’ shit.. 😉

The entire comparison is bogus because the tires used for the original times were complete trash compared to modern tires. Find some of those old cars, put some good modern tires on them and you will be blown away. I had a 72 Cuda with modern tires, a 340 (not even a 383, 440, or 426 hemi) 4speed which was mostly stock and I regularly blew away modern cars. Of course this was in the 1980s and 1990s when the modern cars weren’t up to current cars but even so I’m sure that with soem minor tweaking that car could still hang with the current new cars. Now factor in that those cars were so easy to modify and getting a lot more power out of them was very easy.

I’m sure car salesman like to tell everyone that the new cars are far superior and they are in a lot of ways, just not performance, especially if you consider cost. Remember that a huge part of the muscle car fad was that they were affordable. What performance can you get for a $20k – $25 car now? Not much.

The really hot car for the 60s and early 70s and before and after was the Corvette. It hauled and few if any cars could run with it unless they were heavily breathed on.

My move to the muscle car was to special order a White Plymouth Grand Fury Convertable with a 440 Tri Pack and 4 on the floor. Red Leather and what other tricks you could put on it to make it classy, as I was going to use it as my road car for my sales job.
Got cold feet when the dealer called to say it was in and told them to keep the $100 bucks and sell it someone else. They were shocked. I just decided I would get too many tickets if I got it. Still got the tickets but, not at 120 MPH.

You are absolutely right about all of what you said, but it needs a bit of perspective. Think about how much faster the 1960s cars were than what came before. The 1950s cars, except for the fuel injected corvette, were so much slower that it’s not even funny. Most “performance” cars then, with optional larger V8s did 0-60 in 10 seconds and 17 second quarter miles. The 1955 Chrysler 300 barely had 200 net horsepower, judging from it’s acceleration. And don’t even bother with the 1930s and 1940s. Many did not even get to 60. And in the 1920s and 1930s, manufacturers with engines 500 cubic inches and bigger with only like 70 horsepower. Maybe another article about the pre-60s cars? Would be interesting.

I thought I had died and gone to heaven finding a blogger who was both an articulate libertarian and an old Poncho enthusiast! Whoo-hoo! Keep up the good work!

You’re absolutely right, of course, about the old iron being more show than go off the show floor. But it could be made to go if you were willing to work at it and it was so much fun to do the mods. Those cars got into your blood and would never leave. I’ve owned a number of GTOs and TransAms over the years and my favorite, which I still have, is my supercharged RAIV 69 GTO with a 4-speed 700R4. Admittedly, it’s a bit far from stock but you would never know it by looking at it. Even the dash and interior vinyl are all original. However, I also own a 2006 GTO and, in discussions of modern supercars, this car is often overlooked. I have one of these too and absolutely love it. Though it’s not much to look at by the standards of the the original musclecars, it will eat them all for lunch including some of the new ones as well without alerting the fuzz. With a manual six-speed and quick steering, it still requires more concentration than your typical modern point-and-shooter but it hearkens back more to the spirit of the original 64 TriPower GTO with more of a sleeper appearance.

Anyway, I’m still having fun with cars and there are still no clovers in my family…:-)

All the best!

Great Blog…Immediate CTRL+D ;-p

I tried to do politics and car stuff and couldn’t quite seem to pull it off on my own site, it never seemed to work very well for me…you have accomplished what I couldn’t very well. Congrats.

Sorry I’m late to this post but just had to add a bit of my history.
My first brand new car was a 1969 GTO special order with heavy duty rear axel, 3.90 rear end, Hurst 4 speed, hood tach, no Air Conditioning, no door protectors, no vinyl top, and no hub caps. It was not the JUDGE. It was a stripped down no frills machine.

I regularly ran 12.20 in the quarter mile at the NHRA drag strip in Roswell New Mexico (circa 1970) at about 4 to 5,000 feet elevation (forget exactly) but that supposedly added 1 full second to our time. I ran ET class and the only thing that ever beat me was a Chevy pickup truck that I had to spot about 4 seconds. I can still remember setting at the starting line waiting for my green light while that damn pickup got smaller and smaller in the distance. He beat me by the bumper guard on his front bumper; the 69 GTO didn’t have one.

You are correct about the hard work driving the monster. After a day at the races I would be completely worn out, and usually have a headache to boot.

Damn I loved that car. I think I got $800.00 for it when I traded it on my new family car. I had trouble with the hood Tachometer that went out twice.

Having earned a mechanic’s certificate at the local community college, and having passed the 8 ASE “Master Mechanic” exams twice, I agree with the observations about the old muscle cars. The newer cars really are faster, better and more efficient. I own a ’66 GTO with Tri-Power, a 5-speed transmission and some “juice” in the engine. The car weighs almost 4,000 lbs. and is typical of its genre–way too heavy and inefficient. BUT–

There is nothing like the tire-smoking, body-wrenching, fuel-sucking, hood-lifting, death-rattling, screaming, thundering, godawful TORQUE that just slams one back into the seat while the front end seems to go so high it is hard to see the road out the windshield, and it feels like you are gonna black out from the acceleration! It will slam that ponderous 4,000 lbs. down the road pretty quickly, and it is just remarkable that there were thousands of such engines built for the masses that would haul such uselessly heavy loads so incredibly fast!

Yes, they were horribly thirsty and inefficient, but there is no 4-cylinder nor V-6 built today that can compare with that memorable V-8 experience!

Wat Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

Pathetic.

My friend is an expert classic benz mechanic and one of his 1959 220S (2.2L inline 6cyl engine) still could do almost 100mph the last time we tried, NEVER having work done on its engine.

I had a 1966 Mercedes 200, 2L 4cyl gas engine and while I never tried its top speed it was rated at over 100mph out of the factory.

A friend had two diesels of the same car as mine (heckflosse) and he could squeeze over 100mph out of them (eventually) driving in Germany in the 70’s and these things had more than 500,000km previously being taxi cabs. I don’t know how he did that as they’re rated for less than 140km/h out of the factory but he is an automotive engineer…

These cars, mine at least, a 1967 (came out in 1959), has a 2.3l 6cyl engine with 120hp carburretted and 135hp with injection, has 4 wheel disc brakes (base models had discs up front), all independent suspension, unibody with crumple zones front and back, passenger safety cell, safety features unseen on cars of that era, and it’s still a daily driver, 80km per day in city traffic (though I’ve recently stopped driving it as I take the train now). These cars were champion rally cars.

I asked a friend who wants to spend 250K on a Corvette from the same year and he, a former stock car owner, engine builder and racer, couldn’t tell me what’s special about the Corvette compared to my car.

Not bad for a car that started production in 1959.

When people were arrogant jerks about German cars in those days they truly had a reason to be so.

Here’s a 1961

I am now faced with the prospect of rejuvenating my customer’s 25th anniversary Corvette. I build fucking fences! How lucky am I? It needs to have the gas tank dropped and drained, and a jump start, that’s it. It is inflicted with all the mid-seventies power-robbers, but it will still be one of the best projects I have been involved with. Sometimes, divorce is good. 😛

hi just joined, Eric who is my neighbor invited me in.. About old time muscle cars, being old I got to drive them when they were new. At that time they were all we had and were very impressive. I remember well my first ride in a 426 street hemi, a 375 fuelie vette and many of the other HP cars of the day, remember racing against the first cobras both small and big blocks, loved them all and still do. Among my favorite was my ’68 428 CJ Mustang FB, 4 speed that I owned from ’69 -’73. being a car guy and a street racer(shouldn’t say that and do not endorse doing it, but 40+ years ago thought different)I had a couple of different rear ends that I changed depending what was going on that day you would be suprised how fast you could change a 9″ especially if you had a lift availabe, 3 series, 4 and even 5 series for 1/8 mile blasts. It was quick, rarely lost , BUT it would be wiped today by my 2012 Mustang GT, and it only got 8-10 miles per gallon with 3.70 gears, while my 2012 gets better than 25. But I really like them. Today I have a 65 289/271 FB 4 speed and a ’67 390 FB 4 speed as well as a ’92 GT 5 speed HB, if I was going on a short cruise of say 50 miles or less one of the classics would be fun, any farther no way, there also is the safety issue, there was no safety in those early rockets, trust me I have been in fire and rescue all my adult life and the injurys years ago were quite different than they are today,, keep them rolling!

Interesting to peruse those muscle car stats you posted. They seemed to be relatively more slow 0-60, and not quite so relatively slow in the quarter mile. (Except for the Z28 which seemed equally slow in both.) Perhaps this is explainable by their relatively poor traction (compared to today,) from a standing start?

A couple of quick comments:

As I mentioned on one of the forum threads, even the muscle and pony cars equipped with any V-8 were not as common as people remember. The majority had straight sixes, as do most of the survivors (including those that I see just sitting). That’s one reason the V-8s get a premium when selling.

Reductions in rolling resistance are just one factor in modern vehicles not slowing as quickly when lifting the throttle. Another is that oxides of nitrogen emissions control has long required that the engine RPMs drop slowly instead of immediately when the driver takes his foot off the accelerator, so the deceleration is deliberately damped. This was particularly noticeable in the 1997 Ford Escort I once owned, which would actually jump up a few hundred RPM and THEN reduce RPMs when taking my foot off the throttle under most conditions.

Interesting comments. Here’s mine. I remember Tom at Tom’s Pit Stop in NJ testing his 1966 TVR 200 on Rt. 22. Hi-po Ford 289. He wanted to duplicate TVR factory times of 0 to 100 mph and then back to 0 in 10 seconds. That’s right…10 seconds. American muscle couldn’t compete with that. Might still have problems. Each to his own, but that Brit TVR was unbelievable. Still is forty years later. Regards.

There’s something else I forgot to mention: aerodynamics. Despite their mean, sleek appearance, 60s and 70s muscle cars weren’t aerodynamically friendly. There were attempts to make such cars more aerodynamic, such as the Superbird and the “Coke-bottle” shape of many muscle cars, but your average muscle car of that time, as compared to even the retro-styled modern muscle, has the wind resistance of a brick wall.

Take a feel of the hood edge of a ’65 Mustang and a 2011 Mustang and you’ll notice the difference.

Another consideration was that many of the parts on 60s and 70s cars of even non-muscle genres had many heavy parts, which sapped their get-up-and-go.

Case in point: the alternator on my ’68 Olds Delta 88 weighed about the same as the AC compressor on my ’02 WRX. And don’t get me started on what the Olds’ AC compressor weighed…except to say that I could have foregone the weight set and worked out lifting that.

Many restoration and performance parts for the 60s and 70s stuff are now much lighter. A lot of the car nuts I’ve known have, in their old iron, replaced copper/brass radiators with aluminum units, ditched cast iron intakes and headers for aluminum, added alloy wheels, and some have even added lightweight suspensions.

Today’s cars are made with less steel and iron and more aluminum, plastic, and carbon fiber, which makes a difference, and allows cars to be quick while being festooned with safety and anti-smog gear, too.

“Now, those first gen muscle cars had spirit – and balls, too. It took nerve – and skill – to really work one. That was a big part of the fun.”

–and then–

“(T)he tendency to regard the ’60s and ’70s stuff as the Most Brutal Cars Ever Made is no longer even remotely true, if the measure is 0-60 or 1/4 mile times…”

Apologies, Eric, for suggesting that you contradict yourself here. If we remove the 0-60 and quarter mile metrics, the combination of raw engine power and especially the underengineered chassis of the original muscle cars probably do in fact make them some of the most brutal automobiles ever sold to the general public. They are, as you say, difficult to drive well. Said another way, the matter of 0-60 times seems to rarely come up when discussing the charms of old Goats, 442s and so on. Guys wax poetic about cross ram inductions and high rears, but almost never about the practical performance applications of such fitments…because they’re only driving these admittedly valuable garage queens to the Sunday shows.

1969 GTO 400cid w/ Hurst close ratio 4 speed, and 3/4 cam, got about 4 mpg in town, and 5 mpg on the freeway. You could bury the needle back at the zero stop pin, if you had the time. I bought it cheap ($600), sold it cheap ($900), after a year. This in 1977 or thereabouts.

I used the money to buy my first motorcycle, which was not a half bad trade. Gasoline was getting up to 29.9 cents/gallon! 550K Honda 4cylinders got a lot better mileage, pretty fast off the line. College called…

Oh yeah, and the STYLE BABY!! 🙂

It’s all true. In my youth my best friend had a ’72 Camaro with a 327 4-bolt main out of a Corvette that would completely obscure the other side of the street when he lit them up, but he would have lost out to the ’97 BMW Z3 I drove this past weekend (courtesy of a generous customer). He had half-tubs and “pizza cutters” up front, which rendered it useless in a turn, but I will never forget that car. It was the first real fire-breather I ever drove, and now, at the ripe old age of 40, I look back on it with rose-colored glasses. I would still happily take any ’69-’71 426 Hemi engined car and deal with the deficiencies in exchange for that low-end grunt!

Oooh. That’s quite a can o’ worms to be opening up.

Still, you have a point.

Furthermore, just think how tense you were/are driving a muscle car, or even a sports car of that era, over 100mph. You just hope and pray nothing comes loose on you, or you’re toast. Pulling the century in a Honda sedan is easy, and doing it in ANY kind of sporty car today is downright soporific.

Makes you wonder what it was like for early car owners to be able to do 50mph back 100 years ago in those Stutz Bearcats and such.

Hello, Eric. Came to your site from Lew Rockwell. Don’t know what I like more – your car articles or politics. Both are good – keep ’em coming.

richard