"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[harddrivin1le]

Here is an article from MuscleCars magazine (Jan., 1990).
The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time.

(1976-'81 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport)
"... With a hurricane-like tailwind, a 16.8-second 1/4 mile was within the realm of possibility..."

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

[harddrivin1le]

You could have still bought the Firebird 455-SD, couldn't you?

You could have, although the actual production examples (not to be confused with the "prototype" example that was fitted with the 041 cam, various other enhancements and tested by some of the mags months beforehand) were slower than new V6 Accords...

290 Net HP and a 3,850 pound curb weight is hardly the formula for a fast car.

[Ferrer]

You could have, although the actual production examples (not to be confused with the "prototype" example that was fitted with the 041 cam, various other enhancements and tested by some of the mags months beforehand) were slower than new V6 Accords...

290 Net HP and a 3,850 pound curb weight is hardly the formula for a fast car.

I think you need to see the TG vid where they drag race a DB5, an E-Type and a 2.4 Accord.

Modern cars are faster but I guess that for the 70's those Pontiacs weren't that bad.

[harddrivin1le]

I think you need to see the TG vid where they drag race a DB5, an E-Type and a 2.4 Accord.

Modern cars are faster but I guess that for the 70's those Pontiacs weren't that bad.

Can you provide the link for that video? That must be entertaining to watch...(I don't "need" to see it since I'm very familiar with the reasons that modern engines make so much more power/unit of displacement.)

The SD455 was decent - for its time (like you said). The actual production cars ran in the ~ 14.5 sec @ 98 MPH range, which was quite good by '73 - '74 model year American emissions standard compliant cars. (The SD455 was offered only in those two years).

It's quite bad for a 7.4 liter engine by modern standards.

The original intent was to offer it with the "041" cam grind (used in the pre-emissions era Ram Air IV engines). That combination wouldn't pass emissions so PMD's engineers specified a much tamer grind ("323" cam) that took the "snap" right out of it. Actual compression was around 7.6:1, which was nearly a full point lower than what was "advertised."

"Car and Driver" and "Hot Rod" tested an early prototype that was in fact fitted with the 041 cam (and a functional scoop and probably blueprinted heads and various other "tweaks"). The results for that car are the most widely published, although they aren't representative of RPO cars. (I exchanged some e-mails with Tom Demauro - an editor from "Pontiac Enthusiast" magazine on this topic.)

The engine had very good heads (again, by the standards of the day) and a VERY stout bottom end. A good hydraulic roller street cam and milled heads (for a true 9.5:1 CR with today's 93 octane unleaded) can yield something in the neighborhood of 350 SAE NET HP.

[roosterjuicer]

yeah...after 72 muscle cars pretty much died and werent really revived again untill the late 80's.

of course now we are basically in a new muscle car era with sweet cars like the new camaro/callenger/mustang/300c, ect...

[ringle]

of course now we are basically in a new muscle car era with sweet cars

The new muscle car era consists of BMW, MB, Audi, Ferrari, & Lambo's etc. All offering mega HP cars much greater than most NA cars, except for the Vette.

[harddrivin1le]

The new muscle car era consists of BMW, MB, Audi, Ferrari, & Lambo's etc. All offering mega HP cars much greater than most NA cars, except for the Vette.

That's a myopic point of view.

The 6.1 liter Hemi makes 425 SAE Net HP and can out a 4,200 pound Chrysler/Dodge through the traps at 111 MPH.

The Shelby GT500 Cobra makes 500 SAE NET HP...

The Viper makes 600 SAE NET HP...

The upcoming Caddy CTS-V will make 550 SAE NET HP...

And so on...

[Ferrer]

Can you provide the link for that video? That must be entertaining to watch...(I don't "need" to see it since I'm very familiar with the reasons that modern engines make so much more power/unit of displacement.)

There you go.

YouTube - Top Gear E-Type and DB5

Around 2:55 the race starts. Watch the 190 horspeowers Accord roar of the line...

[harddrivin1le]

There you go.

YouTube - Top Gear E-Type and DB5

Around 2:55 the race starts. Watch the 190 horspeowers Accord roar of the line...

That's funny, although not at all unexpected.

Thanks for the link...

[Fleet 500]

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

[harddrivin1le]

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

I see that BOTH cars were equally SLOW - regardless of what they were "supposed" to be and going purely by objective, EMPIRICAL data.

Cars struggled with ever tightening emissions American emissions standards from '72 on up and technology didn't begin to get the upper hand on that until the mid 80s. Everything from that era was a pig as a result.

Your boat had no such restrictions, used a much larger engines, required premium leaded gas (to truly run properly) and it was still no faster than that pathetic, emissions-burdened Camaro.


This entire thread is stupid because EMISSIONS compliance and low octane gasoline were responsible for the poor performance of the cars on that list.

[Fleet 500]

I see that BOTH cars were equally SLOW - regardless of what they were "supposed" to be and going purely by objective, EMPIRICAL data..

Then what would you call a typical Rolls-Royce or the larger 6-cylinder Mercedes from that era... super slow? The Rolls did no better than mid-17s and the Mercedes was usually in the 18s.
Keep in mind that for the average Cadillac buyer back then, mid-16s 1/4 mile times were fine with them and provided them with probably more power than they would ever need. In fact, a stock late-'60s Cadillac was faster in the 1/4 mile than the majority of "family cars" with small V-8s, like the 318 Plymouth Fury, 327 Chevy Impala, 302 Ford Galaxie, etc.
The point is that when a stock Cadillac could beat what was supposed to be a "high-performance" car (the Camaro), it shows just had bad things got.

Cars struggled with ever tightening emissions American emissions standards from '72 on up and technology didn't begin to get the upper hand on that until the mid 80s. Everything from that era was a pig as a result.

I already know all that.

Your boat had no such restrictions, used a much larger engines, required premium leaded gas (to truly run properly) and it was still no faster than that pathetic, emissions-burdened Camaro.

Isn't it kind of obvious why? (Hint- 5,060 lbs.) And it was better (faster) than that Camaro (a 16.5 1/4 mile second beats a 16.8!).

This entire thread is stupid because EMISSIONS compliance and low octane gasoline were responsible for the poor performance of the cars on that list.

This thread didn't become "stupid" until you started posting in it.
Seriously, it is just an article confirming how far the muscle cars sank after 1972. What is stupid about that? What is stupid about posting history?

[harddrivin1le]

Isn't it kind of obvious why? (Hint- 5,060 lbs.) And it was better (faster) than that Camaro (a 16.5 1/4 mile second beats a 16.8!).

Your boat is 300 pounds heavier (and 39 years older) than the coupe example that ran a 16.5 in MOTOR TREND back in 1969.

I doubt you car will do any better than a 17.0.

You would have a hard time finding a 2008, 6 cylinder pick-up truck that isn't faster than that.

This modern Cadillac weighs 5,676 pounds and runs 14.9 @ 93 - 94 MPH - bone stock. It can do that because it makes 403 ACTUAL (SAE NET) HP as opposed to "375" BS HP that had no basis in reality.

2007 Cadillac Escalade AWD - Long-Term Road Test / Tested by C/D / High Performance / Hot Lists / Reviews / Car and Driver - Car And Driver

[Fleet 500]

Your boat is 300 pounds heavier (and 39 years older) than the coupe example that ran a 16.5 in MOTOR TREND back in 1969.

I doubt you car will do any better than a 17.0.

My car has dual exhaust added, which gives some more horsepower. And for the typical Cadillac owner in 1969, a 17.0 second 1/4 mile was fine with them. As long as it had enough power for passing other cars (which it does) and could accelerate up freeway onramps (which it can) they were satisified.

You would have a hard time finding a 2008, 6 cylinder pick-up truck that isn't faster than that.

But there is a big difference from driving a bumpy trunk than a sleek and smooth-riding Cadillac.

This modern Cadillac weighs 5,676 pounds and runs 14.9 @ 93 - 94 MPH - bone stock. It can do that because it makes 403 ACTUAL (SAE NET) HP as opposed to "375" BS HP that had no basis in reality.

Back in the 1960s, that "Cadillac" would be laughed off the road! That is not a Cadillac; it's essentially a truck.
THIS is a (real) Cadillac:

[henk4]

(I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

looking at the figures hdd produced I would say that my bone-stock 100 kw diesel car was already faster than your Caddy. let alone my "carefully blueprinted" car as it is now.....