I'd like you to explain so other members could know too. Or are you saying you can't explain it?Originally Posted by Fleet 500
I think you can figure it out yourself!
Fanatic
I'd like you to explain so other members could know too. Or are you saying you can't explain it?I think you can figure it out yourself!
"We went to Wnedy's. I had chicken nuggest." ~ Quiggs
Member
The ET/TRAP SPEED combination of the modern "muscle cars" (fitted with "today's tires") below are virtually identical to the better running muscle cars from the later 60s/very early 70s.
TRAP SPEED is largely unaffected by tires, per your admission here:
So why would cars from the 60s that trapped @ 101 MPH have been able to run a 13.1 (with "modern tires") when new performance cars that trap at 101 MPH can't?
Similarly, why would cars from the 60s that trapped @ 103.6 MPH have been able to run mid 12s (with "modern tires") when a new performance cars that trap @ 103.6 MPH can't?
2006 Dodge Charger R/T vs. 2005 Mustang GT - Engine, Chassis, Dimensions, Price, Warranty & Performance - Muscle Cars Comparison - Motor Trend
2006 Dodge Charger R/T: 14.1 @ 101 MPH
2006 Mustang GT: 13.5 MPH @ 103.6 MPH
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 11-18-2007 at 06:53 PM.
Fanatic
Simple... traction (at the start of a 1/4 mile) has more effect on the elapsed time than on the trap speed.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
Right. As you already showed in my quote, I said better tires helped the elapsed time.
You can't put a set number of what a car "should" run. Some will run faster, some slower.So why would cars from the 60s that trapped @ 101 MPH have been able to run a 13.1 (with "modern tires") when new performance cars that trap at 101 MPH can't?
Similarly, why would cars from the 60s that trapped @ 103.6 MPH have been able to run mid 12s (with "modern tires") when a new performance cars that trap @ 103.6 MPH can't?
2006 Dodge Charger R/T vs. 2005 Mustang GT - Engine, Chassis, Dimensions, Price, Warranty & Performance - Muscle Cars Comparison - Motor Trend
2006 Dodge Charger R/T: 14.1 @ 101 MPH
2006 Mustang GT: 13.5 MPH @ 103.6 MPH
But modern tires do cut the E.T. compared to '60s tires.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Member
Gee, how many Posts did I have to make before you could FINALLY comprehend that?
50?
I just showed you they don't, since the ET/TRAP speed ratios from both eras are COMPARABLE.
And if you bothered to research what new cars run you'd see those examples aren't an exception.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 11-18-2007 at 07:10 PM.
Fanatic
I already knew it, since the beginning of this thread.
Put a set of radial tires on a '60s car with '60s bias ply tires and you will see the ET improve.I just showed you they don't, since the ET/TRAP speed ratios from both eras are COMPARABLE.
And if you bothered to research what new cars run you'd see those examples aren't an exception
Back in the '60s, one magazine got a 427 Camaro from 14.0 seconds to 13.0 just by changing to wider tires.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Member
The TYPICAL '70 W30 ran 14.0 @ 100 MPH. (You seem to love those, so I thought I'd use it as an example.)
MODERN performance cars that trap @ 100 MPH typically run virtually identical ETs (14.0). They DO NOT run 13.0 to 13.5, as you have suggested they should, since they have "modern tires."
In MOST cases, the "musclecar" TRAP SPEED:ET ratios were virtually identical to those of newer cars.
Please re-read that at least 10 times in order to save me from having to type it 10 more times.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 11-18-2007 at 07:35 PM.
Fanatic
Wow... all those guy who own muscle cars who put on radials and report running better times would be surprised at that!
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
What is the actual peak power rpm and what is the source?
This info is from a Car Craft article... a 383 with mods which made 455.7 hp @ 5800 rpm.Here are actual dyno results for FOUR MODIFIED 440s and not one is making peak power at 5,600 rpm (or higher) and at least one (the only one with cam specs listed) has a very healthy cam:
Dyno results: horsepower, torque, quarter mile times and more...
You don't understand engines.
Stop pretending otherwise
Stop pretending you know everything about '60s muscle cars because you obviously don't!
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Member
All what guys?Wow... all those guy who own muscle cars who put on radials and report running better times would be surprised at that!
Where are they?
Are their cars PRODUCTION LINE STOCK or have they been modified beyond the ability of the OEM tires to cope with the added power?
Member
LOOK AT THE CAM SPECS COMPARED TO THE STOCK 440/6 CAM YOU FOOL! That is a RADICAL cam (almost 0.600" lift!)
And open log tube headers will generally raise the peak power RPM.
POST THE COMPLETE REFERENCED "CAR CRAFT" ARTICLE SO THAT WE CAN SEE THE SPECIFICS (especially the VALVETRAIN hardware upgrades).
You're right, I don't.
But I clearly know far more about them then you do.
And I know VASTLY more than you do about the physics and engineering behind it all.
And once again:
In MOST cases, the "musclecar" TRAP SPEED:ET ratios were virtually identical to those of newer cars.
Your previous suggestion that "today's tires" would drop the original "musclecar" ETS by "1/2 to 1 second" is BASELESS, since the resulting ETs would be well below those of modern cars that are turning comparable TRAP SPEEDS (which vary little with tire/gear variables).
"CARS" magazine got a 13.1 @ 110 MPH out of a supposedly bone stock ZL1 Camaro back in 1969 - when the car was BRAND NEW and (supposedly) BONE STOCK.
This modern muscle car (some 800 pounds heavier than a '69 ZL1 Camaro) ran a 13.2 @ 109 MPH - on "today's tires."
SRT8300C.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Once again, the ET:TRAP SPEED ratio are amazingly comparable.
How can that be?
Because in MOST cases, the combination of a LIMITED SLIP differential and the relatively low output of those old engines was apparently enough to yield decent traction.
Now I'm sure you can produce a silly example of something like a Dana 427 Camaro running E70-14s that couldn't get traction, but that was an ANOMALY - NOT THE NORM.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 11-18-2007 at 08:03 PM.
Member
I already showed you an example of a "365 HP" Olds 455 with a CLAIMED peak HP RPM of 4,600 RPM.
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le...MOPARCSERE.JPG
But it's TRUE peak HP in its "as installed condition was 229 HP @ 3,600 RPM.
Do you honestly believe the story was any different at Cadillac - a sister GM division that specialized in building large displacement, doggie engines similar to that Olds?
GO DYNO YOUR CADILLAC AND SEE WHERE PEAK POWER IS! THEN POST THE CERTIFIED RESULTS ON THIS BOARD.
My best, edcuated guess is 180 RWHP (on a chassis dyno) @ 3,700 RPM. That assumes that your car is optimally tuned, but otherwise bone stock.
Last edited by harddrivin1le; 11-18-2007 at 08:12 PM.
Fanatic
I'm not talking about net horsepower. I already know that the net hp is at a lower rpm.
I was talking about gross hp.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Member
Define gross hp.
Fanatic
It should be compared to the engines you posted (the modified ones) which couldn't make their hp "over 5600 rpm."
Sure you do. You're the guy who thought a stock Hemi car couldn't go over 136 mph because you saw that figure in Car Life... not realizing that 136 mph was the observed and not absolute top speed.But I clearly know far more about them then you do.
That's true, but many times data on paper does not match real life results. For instance, two of the same cars, with equal power, gearing and weight will not necessarily run the same 1/4 mile times and speeds.And I know VASTLY more than you do about the physics and engineering behind it all.
Are you trying to say that if I had a '60s muscle car, on original '60s bias ply tires (like those polyglas tires) and I put on a set of modern tires, it would not help the E.T.?And once again:
In MOST cases, the "musclecar" TRAP SPEED:ET ratios were virtually identical to those of newer cars.
Your previous suggestion that "today's tires" would drop the original "musclecar" ETS by "1/2 to 1 second" is BASELESS, since the resulting ETs would be well below those of modern cars that are turning comparable TRAP SPEEDS (which vary little with tire/gear variables).
"CARS" magazine got a 13.1 @ 110 MPH out of a supposedly bone stock ZL1 Camaro back in 1969 - when the car was BRAND NEW and (supposedly) BONE STOCK.
This modern muscle car (some 800 pounds heavier than a '69 ZL1 Camaro) ran a 13.2 @ 109 MPH - on "today's tires."
SRT8300C.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Once again, the ET:TRAP SPEED ratio are amazingly comparable.
How can that be?
Because in MOST cases, the combination of a LIMITED SLIP differential and the relatively low output of those old engines was apparently enough to yield decent traction.
Now I'm sure you can produce a silly example of something like a Dana 427 Camaro running E70-14s that couldn't get traction, but that was an ANOMALY - NOT THE NORM.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
