"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[harddrivin1le]

Unless you can show proof...

I don't need "proof" because I have the power of objective reasoning, the tools of mathematics and physics and the good sense to question (rather than embrace) single data-points that fall well outside of the established norm.

A preponderance of evidence tells us that PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 440 "magnums" (4 barrel) produced roughly 310 NET ("as installed") HP.

A very well driven Dart fitted with that engine would have trapped @ 105 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did. Headers, a super-tune and slicks could be expected to add 3-4 MPH to that (e.g. 108.8 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did).

Roughly 390 NET HP would be required to put that Dart through the traps @ 112 MPH.

"Coincidentally," that Ringer 440 Roadrunner in the articles I keep posting (and you never read) made ~ 390 NET HP - with fully blueprinted and ported heads, a much hotter cam, "prototype" forged pistons that never saw production, a true 11:1 + CR and heaven-only-knows what else.

Any reasonable person with a comprehensive understanding of this issue would conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that the Dart in question was fitted with a RINGER engine that was internally similar or identical to that Road Runner's.

The 440 Dart Ronnie Sox was running was putting out 450 hp (not really a huge amount) but was still running 11.98 1/4 miles.

Ronnie Sox's 440 Dart was a lightweight (stripped and acid dipped) SUPER STOCKER (radical cam, worked valve-train, fully blueprinted heads, 12:1+ ACTUAL CR, custom intake, open long tube racing headers, huge gears, fat drag slicks, etc.) example that weighed less than 3,400 pounds with him in it. You said it made 450 HP, so we'll use that figure and some basic algebra to calculate approx. trap speed:

(450/3,400)^1/3 * 234 = 119 MPH

A Super Stocker trapping @ 119 MPH could MOST CERTAINLY dip into the elevens, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with how the PRODUCTION LIKE STOCK PRODUCTION CARS (which made roughly 150 fewer HP) went. Those went like this:
Dodge Dart and Plymouth Duster - Google Book Search

[Fleet 500]

I don't need "proof" because I have the power of objective reasoning, the tools of mathematics and physics and the good sense to question (rather than embrace) single data-points that fall well outside of the established norm.

A preponderance of evidence tells us that PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 440 "magnums" (4 barrel) produced roughly 310 NET ("as installed") HP.

A very well driven Dart fitted with that engine would have trapped @ 105 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did. Headers, a super-tune and slicks could be expected to add 3-4 MPH to that (e.g. 108.8 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did).

Roughly 390 NET HP would be required to put that Dart through the traps @ 112 MPH.

"Coincidentally," that Ringer 440 Roadrunner in the articles I keep posting (and you never read) made ~ 390 NET HP - with fully blueprinted and ported heads, a much hotter cam, "prototype" forged pistons that never saw production, a true 11:1 + CR and heaven-only-knows what else.

Any reasonable person with a comprehensive understanding of this issue would conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that the Dart in question was fitted with a RINGER engine that was internally similar or identical to that Road Runner's.




Ronnie Sox's 440 Dart was a lightweight (stripped and acid dipped) SUPER STOCKER (radical cam, worked valve-train, fully blueprinted heads, 12:1+ ACTUAL CR, custom intake, open long tube racing headers, huge gears, fat drag slicks, etc.) example that weighed less than 3,400 pounds with him in it. You said it made 450 HP, so we'll use that figure and some basic algebra to calculate approx. trap speed:

(450/3,400)^1/3 * 234 = 119 MPH

A Super Stocker trapping @ 119 MPH could MOST CERTAINLY dip into the elevens, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with how the PRODUCTION LIKE STOCK PRODUCTION CARS (which made roughly 150 fewer HP) went. Those went like this:
Dodge Dart and Plymouth Duster - Google Book Search

The problem here is that you can't accept the fact that some '60s muscle cars could run in the 12s with just a few mods.

The other problem is that you will never accept it so it would be a waste of time to keep trying.

[nota]

A preponderance of evidence tells us that PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 440 "magnums" (4 barrel) produced roughly 310 NET ("as installed") HP.

A very well driven Dart fitted with that engine would have trapped @ 105 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did. Headers, a super-tune and slicks could be expected to add 3-4 MPH to that (e.g. 108.8 MPH - just like the "Car Craft" example did).

I provide this webpage simply for amusement. It contains those 'all important' trap speeds

Go hard, go Hemi, or go home! (An E49 Charger runs amok in the USA)... May 2000

This particular car is well known in both NZ and Oz and by all accounts was not a prime example of the model, or in optimum mechanical condition. In other publications it was described as being 'a bit tired' etc which prompted the Kiwi seller to dispose of the car, as he also owned another superior example. In May 2000 being 28 y/o it was reputedly still with its original un-rebuilt 28 y/o motor & mechanicals

This example is also not optimised for drag racing as it runs the tallest 'Bathurst' diff ratio of 3.5 although lower ratios were available including a 4.10. Nor were these cars ever designed for this type of racing, as they also possessed the ability to alter course as in change direction, this concept being an essential requirement for credible high-performance road cars and of course those aimed at circuit racing

Nevertheless it is ironic that a 6-cylinder car never intended for 'drag dooty' can be so competitive against similar A-body and other US cars actually specialised solely for drags, and with vastly larger Big Block motors and fancy reputations. A few 10ths difference, at best

There was a variety of period road tests which were timed using cars to the manufacturer's original specification and carried out within the locally-acceptable regimen of 'two occupants / half a tank / no power-shifting' (and in addition artificially limited to using a mere 5,500 rpm). They typically cited a 'best' quarter-mile performance of 14.1 seconds when equipped with the tall Bathurst 3.5 diff, with greater potential obviously possible if tests were enacted under those far more 'liberal' US-type testing methods and standards

With a more appropriately specified diff ratio and no limitation on revs - not to mention an elimination of the notorious American test tweaks and abusive driving techniques, and one less passenger - is there any valid doubt that these little Hemi 6-Packs would prove every bit as quick, in a straight line at least - to those lardy and otherwise ill-handling V8 Hemis

[Kitdy]

Once again harddrivin, the trap speed quarter mile time calculation is an estimation, a line of best fit with some aberrant data points. It is not perfect, and some of the actual data points are well off the line. I'm not saying these cars were stock, but I think you have a pretty good argument showing that they are ringers.

[Fleet 500]

Once again harddrivin, the trap speed quarter mile time calculation is an estimation, a line of best fit with some aberrant data points. It is not perfect, and some of the actual data points are well off the line. I'm not saying these cars were stock, but I think you have a pretty good argument showing that they are ringers.

That is true. A certain mph with a certain time (e.t.) is not set in stone. It can and does vary.

For instance, here are some results for a muscle cars in Musclecar Review, Nov., 2001:

Car/engine---------------------- Axle ratio-- Trans---- 1/4 mile

'69 COPO Camaro 427/425-------- 4.56:1----- Auto---- [email protected]
'66 Corvette 427/425------------- 3.70:1----- Manual-- [email protected]
'68 Road Runner 426/425---------- 4.56:1----- Auto---- [email protected]

Notice that the Road Runner's trap speed is not much higher than the trap speed of a stock '68 Hemi Road Runner with 4.10 gears (which ran about 105 mph). Usually, a 12.8 1/4 mile means a trap speed of around 110-111 mph, but "formulas" aren't perfect!

Going back to tires, a test of a 428 Mustang in "Cars" magazine (Sept., 1969) said this:

"The 428 Mustang we tested last year could turn 13.88 with no traction street tires and the e.t. immediately dropped to 13.30s with slicks." That is more than a 1/2 second improvement!

[Fleet 500]

For those who appreciate '60s (and early '70s) muscle cars, here is a good video of a 1969 Dodge Hemi Super Bee. Note how long the tires scream at 25 seconds into the video, and that the tires don't just chirp, but start spinning again when shifting into the next gears. My kind of car.
YouTube - 1969 Dodge Hemi Super Bee on "Muscle Car Flashback"

[Matra et Alpine]

"When it hits a bump does the two-step"
"This car was not meant for comfort"

Nice to see such a low-mileage car still getting "used" -- even if only too little

PS: Sorry, F, another eduaction line added ... once you get a wheel spinning it takes very little to keep it spinning. The laws of physics take over ! However, once you get back to "normal" traction and then get it spinning at gear changes does indicate torque ... and bad driving

[Fleet 500]

"When it hits a bump does the two-step"

I liked that phrase, too.

"This car was not meant for comfort"

They had a stiff suspension... compared to regular, family-type Dodges.

Nice to see such a low-mileage car still getting "used" -- even if only too little

I agree. I'm all for low mileage cars, but I think they should be driven more than that. 4,000 miles for a 37-38 year old car means the engine isn't really being run as much as it should be. In fact, when I have been car shopping in the past and I see a 30- or 40-year old car with really low miles (like 20,000) for sale, I would be concerned about how some things on it are, like the cooling system, A/C and other items in which the seals can become dry and start leaking.

PS: Sorry, F, another eduaction line added ... once you get a wheel spinning it takes very little to keep it spinning. The laws of physics take over ! However, once you get back to "normal" traction and then get it spinning at gear changes does indicate torque ... and bad driving

I was trying to see on that video if the wheels stopped spinning in between gears. It looks like it does stop then start again at the last shift.

[Kitdy]

"The 428 Mustang we tested last year could turn 13.88 with no traction street tires and the e.t. immediately dropped to 13.30s with slicks." That is more than a 1/2 second improvement!

harddrivin says that the formulae based on trap time are more accurate as good tires make a smaller difference. I'm trying to go over it in my head.

[Fleet 500]

harddrivin says that the formulae based on trap time are more accurate as good tires make a smaller difference. I'm trying to go over it in my head.

Tires make less of a difference with trap speed than with the elapsed time (e.t.). Tires make a huge difference in e.t.'s... especially going from '60s bias ply to modern radials or slicks. As was posted, the 1/4 mile time can be cut by 1/2 second or more just by changing to better tires.

[harddrivin1le]

harddrivin says that the formulae based on trap time are more accurate as good tires make a smaller difference. I'm trying to go over it in my head.

I don't say it. Actual drag racing results and drag racers themselves say it. So does basic physics, not to mention common sense.

Here's an example. They bolted drag slicks (very different from "modern [street] radials) onto the 440 roadrunner and ET dropped by nearly 1/2 a second, although trap speed with the slicks was actually SLOWER!

440vs426d.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

440vs426e-1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


In most cases, traction is compromised at very low speeds over very low distances (e.g. the first 40 feet). Bad traction can therefore cost a lot of TIME. It doesn't cost much in speed, since the vast majority of the acceleration event (in distance) is covered at elevated speeds over relatively long distances (e.g. 1,320 feet - 40 feet = 1,280 feet = 97% of the total distance). The resulting trap speed is therefore largely independent of traction.

In physics:

Velocity = Acceleration * Time

For a fixed distance (e.g. 1,320 feet = 1/4 mile), a lower rate of average acceleration must correspond to a longer period of time. Similarly, a shorter period of time must therefore correspond to a higher rate of acceleration. The end product Velocity, which is Trap Speed) is largely the same (for any given weight to power ratio).

Once again harddrivin, the trap speed quarter mile time calculation is an estimation, a line of best fit with some aberrant data points. It is not perfect, and some of the actual data points are well off the line. I'm not saying these cars were stock, but I think you have a pretty good argument showing that they are ringers.

Hale's TRAP SPEED formula (as utilized intact by the Moroso Power Speed Calculator) is more than accurate enough to determine if 315 HP is capable of putting 3,600 pounds of car/driver through the traps @ 112 MPH.

It can't and it's not even close.

~ 390 HP is required to get 3,600 pounds through the traps @ 112 MPH. That's 24% more than what's indicated by Hale's formula, which greatly exceeds the formulas established window of accuracy (generally good to +/-3% or less).

380 HP might do it under absolutely perfect conditions and 400 HP might not do it under compromised conditions.

315 HP will NEVER do it.

[harddrivin1le]

For instance, here are some results for a muscle cars in Musclecar Review, Nov., 2001:

Car/engine---------------------- Axle ratio-- Trans---- 1/4 mile

'69 COPO Camaro 427/425-------- 4.56:1----- Auto---- [email protected]
'66 Corvette 427/425------------- 3.70:1----- Manual-- [email protected]
'68 Road Runner 426/425---------- 4.56:1----- Auto---- [email protected]

Those cars were neither that quick nor that fast when they were BRAND NEW and 100% PRODUCTION LINE STOCK - not even those that were tested on slicks.

Example: This GTX (a Roadrunner with a few nicer trim pieces) trapped @ 13.43 @ 104.86 - on 9" wide slicks and with 4.56 gears - back when it was BRAND NEW and 100% production line stock (but fitted with the slicks and gears):

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1205441732


"Musclecar Review" is a current publication that caters to what amounts to a religion. The results they post are generally not representative of the how the cars ran when new - 35+ years ago. Rather, they are representative of how MODIFIED (e.g. "pure stock drags") examples run TODAY - with mods - admitted to or otherwise.

Why are you unable to comprehend that fact?

You religiously read that rag yet you were oblivious to what "stock" (NHRA's definition, as used by the guys running in the "pure stock drags") meant. So was that rag - until I wrote them and told them so. (And yes, they published the letter. Even their answer was clouded by ignorance. They had no understanding of what a "cheater cam" was, for example.)

[harddrivin1le]

Tires make a huge difference in e.t.'s... especially going from '60s bias ply to modern radials...As was posted, the 1/4 mile time can be cut by 1/2 second or more just by changing to better tires.

You've yet to PROVE that. That may be true if "better tires" means DRAG SLICKS, but "modern [performance street] radials" are a far cry from slicks. "Modern radials" have large void to land ratios, stiff sidewalls and compounds that are designed to last for 20,000 miles in most cases. They are HARD TO THE TOUCH. Slicks aren't and neither were the slicks from 35 years ago. They had SOFT rubber then, too!

I have posted DOZENS of examples where cars fitted with "modern radials" were no quicker (and in some cases, SLOWER) than the better vintage magazine times that were achieved on the original rubber.

I have also posted videos of DOCUMENTED STOCK "muscle cars" achieving excellent off-line traction on their original tires.

You have posted NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT to back your (baseless) claims.

[Fleet 500]

You've yet to PROVE that.

I have posted DOZENS of examples where cars fitted with "modern radials" were no quicker (and in some cases, SLOWER) than the better vintage magazine times that were achieved on the original rubber.

I have also posted videos of DOCUMENTED STOCK "muscle cars" achieving excellent off-line traction on their original tires.

You have posted NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT to back your (baseless) claims.

See post #320.
Cars magazine (Sept., 1969): "The 428 Mustang we tested last year could turn a 13.88 1/4 mile with no traction street tires and the e.t. immediately dropped to the 13.30s with slicks."

Now, remember that in the '60s, even slicks were not as refined and technology advanced as modern slicks (and even radials, in some cases).

This is from a 1985 Car Craft annual (discussing the early-'60s peformance cars... "Tires were perhaps the single biggest detriment to increasingly stringent e.t.'s; too much pressure on the throttle , and the tremendous power of these 400-inch mills would effortlessly reduce the rolling stock to smoking rubble."

And what about all those tests from Car Life, Motor Trend and Road Test I posted which mentioned lack of traction?

[harddrivin1le]

Now, remember that in the '60s, even slicks were not as refined and technology advanced as modern slicks (and even radials, in some cases).

Therein lays the flaw in your argument.

You ASSUME that "modern [street] radials" have better longitudinal traction than dedicated drag slicks from 1969, for example.

Yet, you know NOTHING about rubber durometers and can't explain in engineering terms why your assumption is valid.

THAT IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!

Rather, it is an erroneous conclusion drawn on a false assumption.


Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Drag Strip Performance

Eric Heitman 8F02R198887 65 degrees Fahrenheit [email protected]
Link Engine type: CJ
Transmission: C6 automatic
Rear: 3.91:1 traction-lok
Tires: BF Goodrich Radial T/A
Modifications: None (stock transmission, stock exhaust).


Eric Heitman 8F02R198887 65 degrees Fahrenheit [email protected]
Link Engine type: CJ
Transmission: C6 automatic
Rear: 3.91:1 traction-lok
Tires: BF Goodrich Radial T/A
Modifications: None (stock transmission, stock exhaust).

Lawry Larson 8F02R206801 Unknown [email protected]
Link Engine type: CJ
Transmission: 4-speed toploader
Rear: 3.91:1 traction-lok
Tires: F70-14 polyglass [bias ply]
Modifications: None described.