Jay Leno's Take on the 426 Street Hemi

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Yes, I remember seeing a few road tests of Ferraris in Car & Driver and Motor Trend. I'll look them up!

Danke schön.

Trusty Fleet to the rescue.

How many mags do you have and from what year onwards?

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Danke schön.

Trusty Fleet to the rescue.

How many mags do you have and from what year onwards?

How many mags? I lost count a long time ago!

I think the oldest is a Mechanix Illustrated or Popular Mechanics from 1939. (I have older mags, but not car-related ones. A few are called "True Western Stories from 1926.) Most are from the mid-'50s to the mid-'70s.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Do any of your old magazines have Muscle Car era contemporary Ferraris such as the 275, 330 and 365? I would be interested in seeing what they do the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile in.

why would that be interesting? To compare raw power with civilised engineering applied to cars that could hold the road and brake as well?

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Do any of your old magazines have Muscle Car era contemporary Ferraris such as the 275, 330 and 365? I would be interested in seeing what they do the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile in.

Here is one I found. From Car & Driver, Oct., 1967. A 1968 (?) Ferrari 275/GTB-4.
0-60 mph is 6.2 seconds and the 1/4 mile is 14.5 secs @ 100 mph.

Interesting that the maximum horsepower is at its redline (8,000 rpm).

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Here is one I found. From Car & Driver, Oct., 1967. A 1968 (?) Ferrari 275/GTB-4.
0-60 mph is 6.2 seconds and the 1/4 mile is 14.5 secs @ 100 mph.

Interesting that the maximum horsepower is at its redline (8,000 rpm).

yes and they only revved it till 7500....

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by henk4

why would that be interesting? To compare raw power with civilised engineering applied to cars that could hold the road and brake as well?

Don't be so sure about that...

----------------------------------- 80-0 mph panic stop

'68 Ferrari 275/GTB-4--------------- 270 feet (0.79 G)
'69 Dodge Coronet Super Bee 383---- 250 feet (0.85 G)
'69 Ford Cobra 428------------------ 248 feet (0.86 G)
'69 Plymouth Road Runner 426-Hemi-- 245 feet (0.87 G)
'70 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454-------- 272 feet (0.79 G)

(Muscle cars from Car & Driver, Jan., 1969 and Feb., 1970)

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Don't be so sure about that...

----------------------------------- 80-0 mph panic stop

'68 Ferrari 275/GTB-4--------------- 270 feet (0.79 G)
'69 Dodge Coronet Super Bee 383---- 250 feet (0.85 G)
'69 Ford Cobra 428------------------ 248 feet (0.86 G)
'69 Plymouth Road Runner 426-Hemi-- 245 feet (0.87 G)
'70 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454-------- 272 feet (0.79 G)

(Muscle cars from Car & Driver, Jan., 1969 and Feb., 1970)

OK, here we go again, is that measured after one try or after ten? (the lasting of the brakes during spirited driving is often more important than a one time panic stop).

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by henk4

OK, here we go again, is that measured after one try or after ten? (the lasting of the brakes during spirited driving is often more important than a one time panic stop).

Lol. Here we go again, indeed. Another case of not wanting to accept figures!

But if you want to mention fade resistance, some of the '60s American cars did quite well (and some didn't)...

Fade resistance:
'68 Ferrari 250/GTB-4-------------------- Very Good
'68 Dodge Charger R/T 426-Hemi---------- Very Good
'66 Chrysler 300------------------------- Excellent

(Charger tested in C/D, Nov., 1967; Chrysler tested in C/D, Nov., 1965.)

[Fleet 500]

Here is another Ferrari test (along with other sports cars).
This one is a '73 Dino in the April, 1974 issue of Motor Trend.
0-60 mph is 7.1 seconds and the 1/4 mile is 15.5 secs @ 90.4 mph.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Lol. Here we go again, indeed. Another case of not wanting to accept figures!

But if you want to mention fade resistance, some of the '60s American cars did quite well (and some didn't)...

Fade resistance:
'68 Ferrari 250/GTB-4-------------------- Very Good
'68 Dodge Charger R/T 426-Hemi---------- Very Good
'66 Chrysler 300------------------------- Excellent

(Charger tested in C/D, Nov., 1967; Chrysler tested in C/D, Nov., 1965.)

Very Good/Excellent are subjective criteria, often based on expectation, and I will not accept the existence of a Ferrari 250GTB-4.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Here is another Ferrari test (along with other sports cars).
This one is a '73 Dino in the April, 1974 issue of Motor Trend.
0-60 mph is 7.1 seconds and the 1/4 mile is 15.5 secs @ 90.4 mph.

a Dino is half a Ferrari as you surely know...

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by henk4

why would that be interesting? To compare raw power with civilised engineering applied to cars that could hold the road and brake as well?

I just wanted to see what would win in a drag race.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I just wanted to see what would win in a drag race.

simple, a dragster....

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I just wanted to see what would win in a drag race.

You'd want to try a Miura then...

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

No, I don't think today's cars "are way heavier on front-end push." This recent "Car and Driver" test of a bone stock 1970 Challenger T/A proves that wasn't the case. And the T/A used a lightweight 340; the hemi was 200 pounds heavier and therefore under-steered even worse.

Specialty File: XV Challenger - The Verdict - Car and Driver - November 2007

"The baddest apple is, by modern standards, the unbelievably sloppy manual steering; it requires nearly six turns lock-to-lock and constant sawing at the wheel to keep the old monster in its lane. Even if the car could corner well, the flat vinyl seats offer as much lateral support as a grandstand bench. The manual brakes need a substantial effort of the foot on the pedal and are pretty much impossible to modulate. Although the ride is commendably supple, the body quivers, the interior rattles, and the rear axle hops over bumps. In its day, the T/A Challenger wasn’t any better or worse than its contemporaries, but in today’s high-finesse mechanical age, it’s a dinosaur, better suited to cruise nights than spirited driving....

The stock [1970 Challenger] T/A, on the exact other hand, under-steered horrendously. Any turn of the wheel simply caused the front tires to plow. Mad provocations of the throttle, which in other rear-drive cars can sometimes flick the tail out, had no effect. It’s as if the goal of the Dodge engineers were to guarantee that this car couldn’t get loose, lest someone tap the gas midcorner and end up fishtailing onto someone else’s lawn. With the unmodified car, you’d simply go straight on in. It gripped about as hard as a jumbo SUV, at 0.68 g."

Old cars WILL eventually depreciate as the generation that aspired to own them dies off.

Interesting. I notice I have to give a lot more throttle to get any kind of throttle steer than on any of the vintage Stangs I've driven. Probably, they're driving other modern rear-drivers I haven't driven (my experience is limited to larger vehicles - two vans, a Ranger pickup, my Dad's two Ram pickups, and a Ford Bronco - all resolutely refused to respond with much oomph to throttle steer). I'd also agree that the big-blocks in smaller and midsize muscle cars were a constant strain on the handling; I've only driven small- and "mid"block models, so I suppose they're better balanced than a 426 Challenger. Almost everybody even back then complained that the big-blockers were way nose-heavy for the comparatively light chassis - this goes for Camaros, Chevelles, Mustangs, you name it.

I aspire to own these cars...but I've got another 60+ years of living to do. We shall see.