Supercars Annual '71

[Fleet 500]

After finding and buying the "Supercars Annual '69" magazine from eBay, I was hoping another year would show up. And one did! This time the '71 edition.

Some cars lost power for '71 due to the lower compression ratio and even more strict emissions equipment but some did quite well.

First, a photo of the cover. The second image is of the fastest test car, a Phase III SS-454 Camaro. With the 4-speed manual transmission and deep 4.88 gears, it runs 0-60 mph in 4.2 seconds and an impressive 11.60 @ 117 mph 1/4 mile. This car had available overdrive with reduced the 4.88 gears to 3.42.

I'll make some scans later, but here are some specs for now. I also have a Supercars Annual '72 and as mentioned above, some cars really dropped in performance.

For example, the 454 Chevelle...

----------------------------- '71 Chevelle SS454----- '72 Chevelle SS454
Engine/hp-------------------- 454/425 (gross)-------- 454/270 (net)
Torque----------------------- 475 (gross)------------ N.A.
Transmission------------------ Automatic------------- Automatic
Axle ratio--------------------- 4.10:1---------------- 3.31:1
Weight----------------------- 3,680 lbs-------------- 3,680 lbs

0-60 mph--------------------- 6.8 secs-------------- 8.0 secs
1/4 mile----------------------- 13.65 @ 102 mph----- 15.70 @ 93
Fuel mileage------------------- 7-13 mpg------------- 9-14 mpg

How the mighty have fallen! Of course the '71 has much lower gearing, but still, look at the huge difference in the 1/4 mile.

Some of the Fords ran very impressive times.

Like these:

----------------------- Mustang 351--- Mustang 429--- Torino 429
Horsepower------------ 330------------ 370------------ 375
Torque----------------- 370------------ 450----------- 450
Transmission------------ Manual--------- Auto--------- Manual
Axle ratio--------------- 3.91:1--------- 4.11:1-------- 4.30:1
Weight----------------- 3,300 lbs------- 3,440--------- 3,745

0-60 mph--------------- 5.4 secs------- 5.4----------- 5.8
1/4 mile---------------- 13.5 @ 103---- 13.4 @ 105---- 13.3 @ 106
Fuel mileage------------ 6-11 mpg------ 5-10---------- 5-10

All three would almost certainly run high-12s with some sticky, wider tires. A very good showing for Ford.

Not to leave out Mopar, a '71 Plymouth Road Runner with 426-Hemi engine, 4.10 gears, automatic transmission and weighing 3,795 lbs ran 13.5 @ 106.5 mph 1/4 mile.

If a Supercars Annual '70 shows up, I will certainly bid on it!

[f6fhellcat13]

Cool stuff, Fleet. Do you have any other pictures of that weird 'Vette on the cover?
The Chevelle's times didn't suffer that much from the emissions equipment, reminding me just how overinflated gross power and torque were!
What sort of rpm would the Phase III Camaro or the 4.30-equipped Torino be pulling on the highway?

[Fleet 500]

Yes, I do find the test data very interesting, hellcat.

There are a few more photos of the 'Vette. I'll post those soon. There is a test 'Vette test results, a 350-cu-in Corvette rated at 330 hp. With 4-speed manual, 4.56 gears and weighing 3,475 lbs, it runs 0-60 mph 5.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile is 14.04 @ 102.5 mph. 7-10 mpg.

The '71 454 Chevelle had a 425 hp rating and the '70 LS6 454 had a 450 hp rating. The '71 has only a 9.0:1 compression ratio and the '70 had a much higher 11.25:1 compression ratio. I have road test of 1970 454 Chevelles but with higher gears (3.31 and 3.73) and those ran 1/4 mile from 13.5-13.8 seconds.

[Fleet 500]

Cool stuff, Fleet. Do you have any other pictures of that weird 'Vette on the cover?

That 'Vette was known as the "Maco Shark." I remember reading about it in the mid-'70s. Here are some more photos of it...

[f6fhellcat13]

Thanks, Fleet. Good luck finding Supercars '70!

[Fleet 500]

Thanks, Fleet. Good luck finding Supercars '70!
Yes, the '70 issue would be interesting. With test data of cars like the LS6 454 Chevelle, Buick GS 455 Stage 1 and the (first year for) Plymouth Hemi-'cuda.

Here are scans of the Fords I mentioned...
'71 Ford Mustang 351, Ford Mustang 429 and Ford Torino 429 Cobra-Jet.

[kylawills]

Nice info Fleet. Thanks.:)

[dog ear]

Great Buy, Fleet 500! I look forward to wrapping with you on this thread and others. Check out your other thread 40-60 mph: '67 Ferrari VS '64 Cadillac and my latest Post #42 in dealing with road tests.

After looking over your scans, I can't help but notice that the published test weights do not reflect real world weights for many of the cars, especially, the Fords. I will deal with this more thoroughly in a later post, but this is in no reflection on you.

Let’s take the Mustang first. I have many tests of Mustangs straight through from 1964 -to the present time. As you may know total test weight including driver on the V8 1965-66 Stangs tended to average around 3150-3250 lbs. I will post a bunch if you like.

With the new body style in 1967, the average weight went up from 90-110 pounds according to Ford, at the time of introduction. That would put the small blocks up to a minimum of at least 3240 lbs.

Small Block 289s weighted around 475 lbs. not including flywheel assemblies. Big block Ford FEs weighted approximately 780 lbs., with the cast iron intake manifold. 780 - 475 = 305 lbs., right? So the big blocks had to weight that much more than a small block. Yet, Ford literature and various mags have held that the big 390 put out an extra 250 lbs. over the front wheels. Ok, fine. Add 250 to 3240 and we get 3490, right? So that means that a 1967 small block would weigh at least 3240 and the big block 3490. But, there is more than meets the eye to this story.

Big blocks also carried more fluids than small blocks did in their water systems. Add more weight. Big block automatic transmissions (C6) weighted at least 60 lbs. more than the puny (C4) and the (FMX) still outweighed the (C4) by 45 lbs. More weight...

Then came 1969 and a newer, longer, wider, and heavier body style than the 1967-68s. Add another 130-150 lbs. Once again, I will post scans to back up what I am saying.

So now a small block should weight about 3370 and a big block roughly 3640. All with manual transmissions of course. These weights apply to each body style by the way. Coupes or Notchbacks as they were officially named in 1969 are lightest. Fastbacks or Sportsroofs are next with the convertible being the heaviest. Sportsroofs were actually about 30 lbs. heavier than the Notchbacks. So then a small block should weight about 3410 with a 302, since 289s were phased out in 1968, except in Canada where a few were actually installed in very, very early model year vehicles including Mustangs.

Boss 302s weighted approximately 500 lbs. So a Boss 302 would be about 3435 lbs.
Boss 429s weighted about the same as the 428 CJ, perhaps a shade less even though they had aluminum intakes and heads. Regular 429 engines weighted about 830-850 lbs. or at least 60 lbs. more than the 390-428 FE due to stouter block reinforcements. Now, a Sportsroof big block should weigh at least 3670 lbs.

1971 Mustangs were larger in every dimension and the weight went up more another 150 - 175 lbs. So now a Sportsroof small block should weigh in at a minimum of at least 3560 lbs.

Big blocks being heavier should be around 3820 lbs. Wow! Intermediate sized pony cars!

Add an automatic and a few options and you are over 3900 lbs. It was obvious to everyone in 1971 that Mustang weights went up over 600 lbs. since the 1965 pony car was introduced in the spring of 1964.

Summary curb weight (no driver)

1965 - 3150 lbs.

1967-68 - 3240 (small block)
3490 (big block)

1969-70 - 3410 (small block)
3670 (big block)

1971-73 - 3560 (small block)
3820 (big block)

You can see that adding a driver bring the weights up at least another, say, 145 lbs., for an average person. Go figure!

So, now you can see why I say that the weights are not accurate. That 351 Boss Mustang should weigh in at least 3560 lbs. without a driver. Factor the driver into the equation and you get at least 3700 lbs. Right? Heavy, man heavy!

That Torino Cobra should be heavier also. I figure 3900-4000 lbs. without driver.

If someone were to factor in gross or net hp figures using Hales formula wth these inaccurate weights, the hp would naturally be way down. This only bolsters our arguments that many musclecars had decent net hp to weight ratios in the original musclecar wars of the 60s and 70s. Agreed?

[Fleet 500]

Nice info Fleet. Thanks.:)
Thanks, kylawills. I do find it very interesting.

[Fleet 500]

dog ear, regarding weights, I have had all my cars weighed and I've found that the figure I get is usually more than the weight listed in magazines. A few examples:

1966 Plymouth Fury VIP (383-4 bbl)
Car Life curb weight: 4,327; my car's actual weight: 4,330 lbs

1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Actual weight: 5,060 lbs (No magazine tests; usually listed in "new car issues" at about 4,900 lbs.

1966 Dodge Dart GT V-8
Motor Trend test: 3,060 lbs; my car's actual weight: 3,180 lbs

1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine
Shipping weight in brochure: 5,889 lbs; my car's actual weight: 6,040 lbs with bicycle and floor jack in trunk. Without those items, about 5,980 lbs.

As you said, a big-block engine in a car like a Mustang or Camaro can add several hundred pounds to the vehicle weight.

Your last paragraph, yes I definitely agree. Some of the old muscle cars had 1/4 mile trap speeds of 100-105 mph (and even higher) even with low 3-series gearing and 4,000+ lb curb weight. And some engines really weren't radical... for instance, the Mopar 440 did not have a wild cam, the compression ratio was only 10.1:1 and the carburetor was not all that big in cfm.

[dog ear]

Here are my scans regarding weights for the 65-73 Mustangs. I also will post some quick road test figures, as well of all of the engines that were available for all models during those years. I have taken these figures from the Illustrated High-Performance Mustang Buyers Guide printed in 1983, and authored by Peter C. Sessler.

In my opinion, this was a very good book on Mustangs; well laid out and very informative. I am aware that there were more reasons prints, most likely with updated info on Mustangs after 1973, leading up to the present time, but this particular book is for the first gen Stangs.

[dog ear]

...and here is the last scan for the 65-73 Mustang engines.

[Fleet 500]

As the Mustang fans already know, they did put on a lot of weight (some would say "fat") in the early-'70s compared to the '64-'66.

[Fleet 500]

Here are another 3 scans...

455 Firebird Trans-Am. Very low compression ratio (8.4:1)... even my '76 emission-equipped Cadillac Limousine has higher compression (8.5) as did my former Dodge Dart GT V-8 (8.8). Still runs well into the 13s, though.

A 'Vette with "only" a 350 but with deep gears (4.56). Almost went into the 13s but the trap speed easily topped 100 mph.

And a 440-6 bbl Dodge Challenger. Still had high-compression (10.3:1); the last year for that, though. As expected it runs deep into the 13s. There really was a good choice of 13-second cars in the 1969-'71 period... if you knew how to order it (engine and axle ratio).

[dog ear]

Very nice Fleet!

I drove in each one of those cars (as a passenger) when they were new. Very exciting! A few years later, I actually drove them myself. I would be hard pressed to pick just one to drive today.

IMHO, the 'best' road car of the three is the T/A. 'Vettes had a better sitting position but rode more harshly. They certainly handled better than the T/A, but, then again they should have considering that they were in fact, a sports car. Thing was; the T/A was very good in that department also. I think that the T/A was the more comfortable cruiser.

Six Pack Challengers were not as svelte athletes like the GM duo but who cares? They made you aware that you were driving a musclecar. You felt the whole car quiver and rumble - very macho and vibrant.

I read an article a long time ago whereby the author said that driving late 60s / early 70s Dodge and Plymouth musclecars made you feel kind of small. As you hung unto the wheel and looked over the dashes of these beasts, and dared to tramp them to the floor, you kind of had to hang on for dear life and brace yourself.

He mentioned the pop art ads of the time where you saw a wild-assed Road Runner or ‘Cuda menacingly raised up on its haunches with front wheels dangling in the air. Behind the wheel clung a spooky-looking fellow with clinched fingers tightly wrapped around the skinny steering wheel, as the car leaped out of the hole.

Picture a pair of ‘Bid Daddy’ Ed Roth’s ‘flying eyeballs’ zinging out of your sockets, and flesh peeling back from your forehead, and you will get what that long forgotten author was trying to express.

Top performing Mopars conveyed that feeling of raw psychodrama where you felt every nuance rippling through your veins. They exuded a presence of adrenaline-pumping mechanical bliss that was muted in other cars of the same caliber. For those reasons I would be tempted to relive my youth for another day in the sun.

[Fleet 500]

Dog ear, being a Mopar fan (though I do like the '60s/'70s GM and Ford muscle cars, too, I would take that 440-6 Pack Challenger. I always did like the Mopar 440 engine; they made lots of useable torque. They are not quiet but in a car of this type, that's good!

[dog ear]

My favorite cars from Dodge are the 2 nd gen (68-70) Charger and the (70-74)Challenger. I prefer the 68-69 Chargers over any other and in particular, the 69. Of Challengers, I like the 1970 best.

3rd gen (71-74) Chargers are nice also, and in my opinion, far better looking than the original 66-67 versions. 1975 and up Chargers were the same as the Cordoba, another nice automobile, but a different breed. I drove in all of them at one time or another.

Here is a piture of myself behind my favorite year 1969 Charger, somewhere in the mid-seventies. LOL

[Kitdy]

dog, your hair ain't long enough there!

I prefer the unsplit '68 grill.

I think that the '68 Hemi Charger is the ultimate muscle car; it is one of my favourite designs of any car. I'll take mine in black please.

[dog ear]

dog, your hair ain't long enough there!

I prefer the unsplit '68 grill.

I think that the '68 Hemi Charger is the ultimate muscle car; it is one of my favourite designs of any car. I'll take mine in black please.

I was trying to be presentable in order to 'talk down' the $3500.00 price quote for that 69 Charger SE 318-2V from the friendly owner but he wouldn't budge.

I owned my 1969 Mustang Sportsroof 390 auto at the time, but, I had a 440 waiting patiently by without a home, and I knew it would be mighty fine in that '69 I had my ass parked against. I bet the guy still owns it. Or more than likely, he gave it to his son, Chris. Damn!

[Kitdy]

What is/was your profession dog ear, then and now? You seem to have driven/owned quite a lot of cool Detroit iron.

[dog ear]

I was an original bad boy for many years, Kitdy. After going to college I settled down. Now I'm a pensioner living out my golden years in tranquility.

At one time, I was a residential painter in Toronto, and worked for the best people. In the Mid-seventies it was for National Painters, Phillips Restoration, among others. Later, I got my kicks on sky-raise buildings washing windows. Some of them were the First Canadian Place, T-D Towers, Eaton Center, Bank of Commerce, etc. Piece work was my thing; more cash to be made.

Throughout that tumultuous time-frame, I worked on the side in the banking business. Unsecured loans and entrepreneurial investments were my specialty. Nothing big-time, mind you. In those days, money was to be made catering to your fellow clients, who could not otherwise secure loans, and such, in the normal manner. Now you just walk on into your local Money-Mart, and do the same thing.

I was interested in cars since I was a kid in diapers. Used to be able to recognise and name most every car on the road 300 yards away. Now I require glasses at fifty feet. Even at that distance my guess will be dubious.

I used to operate an old Clayton water brake engine dyno at one time. The boys and I used to wake up the neighbours for a half-mile around the institution we worked in. It was tedious work by the way. That old dyno was not computerized like they are today. Safety was not up to standards either. I stood at the panel no more than six feet away while I operated the hand brake and controls. Every input was manual. We used to phone the local airport for barometer, atmospheric, and humidity readings as soon as we finished a pull, in order to get the latest readings in preparation for measuring torque and horsepower. It was all a gas, pun intended.

We actually had two dyno machines. One was for measuring small engines; lawn mowers, and such. I never used it. What for? There was a diesel fuel injection tester / analyser but it was useless in the shop. If you needed injectors for anything you just went out and bought them. Same holds true today. Why waste time analysing them when you know they are junk?

Anyway, I spent most of my time blowing up cheap mundane small block Mopar engines. They truly were hopeless pieces of crap. Instead of being called ‘Mopar,’ they should have been called ‘No-Power,’ that’s how little use they were.

I was just kidding there, Fleet 500. LOL!

Finally, I was always a good story-teller. Good orator, and even better at writing. I enjoy playing with people's minds almost as much as I enjoy playing with myself. I am the master (baiter!) of my own game!

One last quip before I submit my mirthful past-life before you.

‘When your head gets as slick as mine, you'll start to shine!’
Terry King

Posted pic is for Fleet!

[dog ear]

Here is a 1971 Plymouth GTX test dated November, 1970, from Car & Driver. Sadder days were just around the cornor for the musclecar. Check it out!

[Fleet 500]

Yeah, you better be kidding about the small-block Mopar engine! ;)

Nice Barracuda (with 340) ad.

That '71 GTX (I have that test, too) did quite well. Not as good as the '68, '69 or '70, but not bad considering the lowered compression ratio and 4,000+ lb weight. As you said, sadder days were just a couple of years in the future.

[dog ear]

Fleet 500; This is the musclecar for you - a nice quiet little economy version, and it's not a Vega.

At the time of introduction, they seemed laughable, but, with some simple mods they were easily made into low 14s / high 13s musclecars. Just give the little lady a supertune, a set of headers, and some traction, and you're laughing.

December, 1970 Hot Rod
71 AMC Hornet S/C

[Fleet 500]

Yes, the low weight does help acceleration a lot. Even with the "little" (by '60s standards) engine.

That car is too small for me, though. The smallest I would want would be about the size of a Dodge Dart (195-197"). Even better, an intermediate.

[dog ear]

Ok, then how about a 1972 Pinto Pangra? Admittedly, it's a very low production 'tuner' car, but, it 'wailed' in 1972.

1972 Road & Track

[Fleet 500]

It does well for a 4-cylinder but I don't like Pintos (too small).
And only V-8s for me!

[dog ear]

I never liked the Pinto either but I would drive the Pangra if someone gave it to me. Apparently, they could have been ordered with up to 285 HP. In the early 80s I went for a ride in a non-Pangra (turbocharged) wagon that had a dyno verified 220 HP. Wow! It really moved.

[Fleet 500]

I never liked the Pinto either but I would drive the Pangra if someone gave it to me. Apparently, they could have been ordered with up to 285 HP. In the early 80s I went for a ride in a non-Pangra (turbocharged) wagon that had a dyno verified 220 HP. Wow! It really moved.
A one-time only drive would be okay for me, but I would like driving this '72 Plymouth Duster with a supercharged 340 many, many times!

A 13.92 sec @ 106 mph 1/4 mile. With that high trap speed, you just know traction was a big problem (and was mentioned in the text). It should run about 13.5 with decent traction.

[dog ear]

Ah, the 1972 GSS 340 Demon! Yes, Norm Kraus was on to a very good thing at the time, but nobody listened. Everyone kept thinking 'low-compression smogger!' and thus wrote the concept off before realizing that a s/c car was much more driveable than the older high-compression big-cammed engines this one was trying to replace.

I don't recall too many tests on the 340 s/c Demons, and none at all the Duster. In the fall of '75, I saw a s/c Paxton set-up on a '74 Ply Road Runner 360 and she really honked. I recall high-13s on G-60-15 Tiger Paws; pretty stout at the time for a basically stock 360, with headers, automatic and 3.23.1 posi. Big tires and extra weight helped the RR ET in the quarter.
Thanks for the road test Fleet.

[dog ear]

Here is '71 Pontiac GT-37 Temptest test. Option was same configuration for 72 models.
Test is from November, 1971 High Performance Cars magazine.

Low compression 400 Pontiac models were never as quick on streets of Toronto, even ones equipped with headers, and bigger tires. Hmmm!

Mid-14s would have been very good for high compression 400-350 HP GTO in 1970.
Maybe magazine writer was smoking too much 'hooch' when editorial dead-line came around, but, who can say, eh?

[dog ear]

Here is a real Olds ''ripper-tripper.'' Check it out!

'71 Olds Cutlass; 350-4V tested by Hot Rod, August, 1971.

With a set of headers and an aftermarket intake with an older (1968-1970)Rochester Quad bolted on, they were pretty quick for the day, and good on gas.

[Fleet 500]

Here is a real Olds ''ripper-tripper.'' Check it out!

'71 Olds Cutlass; 350-4V tested by Hot Rod, August, 1971.

With a set of headers and an aftermarket intake with an older (1968-1970)Rochester Quad bolted on, they were pretty quick for the day, and good on gas.
Those are pretty good times for a 350 and relatively mild 3.42:1 gears. As you said, easy to do mods and the engine would respond well to them.

[Fleet 500]

Here is '71 Pontiac GT-37 Temptest test. Option was same configuration for 72 models.
Test is from November, 1971 High Performance Cars magazine.

Low compression 400 Pontiac models were never as quick on streets of Toronto, even ones equipped with headers, and bigger tires. Hmmm!

Mid-14s would have been very good for high compression 400-350 HP GTO in 1970.
Maybe magazine writer was smoking too much 'hooch' when editorial dead-line came around, but, who can say, eh?
14.5 @ 96 mph? Again, a good time for a 350 (and with low-compression). There were still some good performers in 1971 and 1972. Even into 1973 in a few cases ('73 Firebird SD 455 and 454 Corvette).

Yes, the average '70 GTO was around mid-14s, except when it had lower gearing, then it was good for low-14s/high-13s.

[dog ear]

Hey, Fleet, here is a pre-production test of a 1971 Pontiac Ventura II with a 455 HO. Article was in the July, '71 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated magazine.

This was never released by Pontiac but imagine if it had been?

[Fleet 500]

Hey, Fleet, here is a pre-production test of a 1971 Pontiac Ventura II with a 455 HO. Article was in the July, '71 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated magazine.

This was never released by Pontiac but imagine if it had been?
That one looks familiar. I think I have it but I'm too tired to look through my magazines to verify. I'm almost sure I have it. I was very surprised to see a test of a 455 Ventura when I first saw it... sure is a lot different than a 307 Ventura!

[dog ear]

I best remember the 350-2V (Pontiac) Ventura in the '71-'74 period.

Many Canadians referred to them as Pontiac “big-blocks’’ in order to differentiate the Pontiac engine from that of Chevrolet. Others often termed the Pontiac engine an ‘American straight-90’ or American ‘blue-block.’ Some Canadians even believed that the small block Olds was in fact, a ‘big-block,’ and no amount of education would convince them otherwise.

Admittedly, I had never heard of a 307 (Chevy) Ventura in those years, until much, much later. I knew that all pre-‘72 Canadian made Pontiacs actually used the Chevrolet chassis, engines and transmissions, with the American built Pontiac bodies, and different names like Laurentian and Parisienne, instead of Catalina and Bonneville. In Canada, the Pontiac Acadian was the cloned Chevy II / Nova.

I drove a '74 GTO (350-4V) around '77 and it was a blast. In Canada at least, there was a ’75-’76 Ventura SJ with the Pontiac 350-4V, very similar in concept to the ‘74 GTO. I almost bought one back in 1982. Fun cars! Now if only they could have come with the 455.!

[Fleet 500]

I never knew that... Canadians referring to a 350 engine as a big-block. It's definitely a small-block.

Mechanix Illustrated tested a '71 Pontiac Ventura with a 307 engine. 0-60 took a long 14 seconds! I'm sure you know about how that engine is laughed at by car guys. I never figured out why; I guess it was just the way it was designed or something. The hp and torque rating for the 307 (200 and 300 ft-lbs gross) was about the same as other small V-8s but it just couldn't accelerate well.

If I were a Chevy enthusiast and was looking for a Nova or Chevelle, I would definitely not even consider one with a 307 engine!

But the 350 engines were fine. And they responded well to mods.

[dog ear]

Problem with Chevy 307 is that it was a long stroke engine; very similar to the later 305. Both used small valve heads, low compression and a very mild cam with 2V carb. They respond to mods but most people shun them in favor of the 350. In retrospect, the 283 seemed to be a better choice if you went small...unless you had access to the 302 Z engine. Another ball game altogether...

[Fleet 500]

Problem with Chevy 307 is that it was a long stroke engine; very similar to the later 305. Both used small valve heads, low compression and a very mild cam with 2V carb. They respond to mods but most people shun them in favor of the 350. In retrospect, the 283 seemed to be a better choice if you went small...unless you had access to the 302 Z engine. Another ball game altogether...
Yes, I was going to say that. The 283 (and 327) is a much better choice than a 307.

Not that I plan to buy a Chevy anyway. 4 cars is enough.

[dog ear]

Street racing anyone?

Here are two articles dealing with the subject circa 1968-74.

You dig, Fleet?

[dog ear]

71 Dodge Charger Super Bee 440-4V Magnum
February, 1971 Hot Rod magazine

A friend of mine used to own the same car. Later he drove a 72 Charger Rallye with 400-4V Magnum.

[dog ear]

Oct, 1970 Road Test Magazine
71 Cougar 429 CJ test

I would say that this was a dead stock car. Road test never collected advertsing money from any manufacturer and their tests were usually pretty accurate.

[Fleet 500]

Street racing anyone?

Here are two articles dealing with the subject circa 1968-74.

You dig, Fleet?
Thanks for that, dog ear. I always did like reading about street racing. Reading about it is safer than doing it yourself. Less expensive, too.

That second article looks more like track racing than street racing.

[dog ear]

Thanks for that, dog ear. I always did like reading about street racing. Reading about it is safer than doing it yourself. Less expensive, too.

That second article looks more like track racing than street racing.

Both articles actually depict 'real' street-driven vehicles in that era. Street racers of that caliber often took their cars to the drag strip and 'grudge-raced' an opponent in order to officially see who was best. Crondeks usually tell the tale...they don't lie!

[dog ear]

Here is a retrospective road test (86-87 Musclecars) that was never published when the 71 Cougar was new. I believe that the un-published article was originally done by High Performance Cars, or Super Stock & Drag Illustrated.

[dog ear]

Here is the Chrysler engine that could have been circa 1971. Like the 1964 DOHC venture this A279 project proved to be another flop. BS indeed!

[Bigpig455]

How many years did they publish supoercars annual?

[dog ear]

How many years did they publish supoercars annual?

Supercars Annual was originally published by High Performance Cars Magazine. I do not recall seeing any issues earlier than 1968. My best guess is that Supercars Annual was published between 1968 and 1973.

Remember, the term 'supercars' was a relatively new buzzword originating sometime around 1966-67. So it makes sense that an annual magazine devoted to (super) musclecars would only make the scene accordingly sometime afterwards.

By 1973 supercars were not in prduction anymore due to emissions, insurance surcharges, low sales, and the fickle publics change in taste so the manufacturers regrouped and began marketing the so-called decal oriented editions like the Mustang II Cobra II, etc.

Of course, these special edition annuals focused on both the previous and then-current year automobiles from the American Big Three, and in later years, AMC as well.

Although other magazines published their respective annuals none were based purely on the American Supercar like High Performance Cars Magazine.