Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 331 to 341 of 341

Thread: "The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    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.)
    Those three cars listed above ran 13s in completely stock condition. And, sometimes, even when hampered with a balky manual transmission (many car mags preferred Mopar's 3-speed automatic Torqueflite to the Mopar 4-speed manual transmission). A car running in the 13s is fast then and now. And can actually be dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced driver.

    The GTX you are referring to was a convertible... a several hundred pound handicap right there. A hardtop or coupe would have been a little faster. In any case, that GTX ran a best 1/4 mile of 13.97 @ 103.50 with only the driver aboard, 3.23 gears and factory '60s tires. Very good for an unmodified street car with an engine detuned for street use.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    Those three cars listed above ran 13s in completely stock condition. And, sometimes, even when hampered with a balky manual transmission (many car mags preferred Mopar's 3-speed automatic Torqueflite to the Mopar 4-speed manual transmission). A car running in the 13s is fast then and now. And can actually be dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced driver.

    The GTX you are referring to was a convertible... a several hundred pound handicap right there. A hardtop or coupe would have been a little faster. In any case, that GTX ran a best 1/4 mile of 13.97 @ 103.50 with only the driver aboard, 3.23 gears and factory '60s tires. Very good for an unmodified street car with an engine detuned for street use.
    blah, blah blah...

    This 428 Cobra Jet is fitted with BIAS PLY tires in the original size. Where is all the spinning you keep talking about?
    The driver blames its poor performance on a LACK OF HORSEPOWER!

    MUSCLE CAR 1/4 mile shootout Dodge Ford Chevy AMC Pontiac - AOL Video


    And why is the 428 CJ fitted with "modern radials" SLOWER than the bias-ply shod example below?

    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.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 03-13-2008 at 02:54 PM.

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    All of these cars were fitted with "modern radials" and many were modified, yet none of the results are any better than the faster vintage tests results (achieved on bias ply tires) and most are SLOWER!

    Why is that? BECAUSE THE FASTER PRESS CARS FROM THAT ERA WERE GENERALLY SPECIALLY BUILT FACTORY RINGERS AND THEREFORE RAN FASTER ON BIAS PLY TIRES THAN ACTUAL CUSTOMER CARS RUN ON "MODERN RADIALS."


    DOCUMENTED PRODUCTION LINE STOCK Hemi Cuda on "modern radials:" 13.75 @ 101.24 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics

    - Popular Mechanics


    428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials" (and fitted with HEADERS and modern exhaust): 13.99 @ 101.83 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics


    Another 428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials" (and fitted with an aftermarket cam and a modern exhaust system): 13.9 @ 103 MPH

    http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1204584988


    A STOCK 428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials": 2 runs: 14.1 @ 98.86 MPH and 14.1 @ 97.81 MPH

    Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Drag Strip Performance


    427 Yenko Camaro on "modern radials" (also fitted with HEADERS and modern exhaust): 13.7 @ 107 MPH

    1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car


    STOCK 1970 W30 Olds 442 on "modern radials": 14.8 @ 97.7 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1204584988

    That pig was fitted with an AFTERMARKET CAM, modern exhaust system and "MODERN RADIALS," yet it still barely broke into the 13s.

    That is POOR PERFORMANCE for an essentially unregulated (fuel economy and emissions) 7.0 liter V8 in a 3,500 pound car!!!!

    This MODERN Mustang (also fitted with "modern radials," but bone stock) is essentially identical to the old one in weight and is faster by every measure (e.g. 0 - 60 in 5.1; 1/4 mile in 13.5 @ 103.6 MPH). Thing is, it's just a little 281 cid engine (vs. a 428 cid monster than clearly makes LESS power):

    2006 Dodge Charger R/T vs. 2005 Mustang GT - Engine, Chassis, Dimensions, Price, Warranty & Performance - Muscle Cars Comparison - Motor Trend

    It makes 300 SAE NET HP; the MODIFIED 428 Bloatbre Jet clearly made a little LESS!


    The few "magazine cars" that ran as fast (or faster) than that MODIFIED Cobra Jet in the sixties were obviously MODIFIED - either by the magazine itself and/or by the manufacturer (e.g. RINGER! - COMMON back in the day.) Assuming the cars were fitted with LIMITED SLIP DIFFERENTIALS, reports of excessive tire spin were mostly attributable to the fact that the press cars were significantly more powerful than the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 03-13-2008 at 03:24 PM.

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    I wonder, will this debate end ever?
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    All of these cars were fitted with "modern radials" and many were modified, yet none of the results are any better than the faster vintage tests results (achieved on bias ply tires) and most are SLOWER!

    Why is that? BECAUSE THE FASTER PRESS CARS FROM THAT ERA WERE GENERALLY SPECIALLY BUILT FACTORY RINGERS AND THEREFORE RAN FASTER ON BIAS PLY TIRES THAN ACTUAL CUSTOMER CARS RUN ON "MODERN RADIALS."


    DOCUMENTED PRODUCTION LINE STOCK Hemi Cuda on "modern radials:" 13.75 @ 101.24 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics

    - Popular Mechanics


    428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials" (and fitted with HEADERS and modern exhaust): 13.99 @ 101.83 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics


    Another 428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials" (and fitted with an aftermarket cam and a modern exhaust system): 13.9 @ 103 MPH

    http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1204584988


    A STOCK 428 BLOATBRA JET on "modern radials": 2 runs: 14.1 @ 98.86 MPH and 14.1 @ 97.81 MPH

    Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Drag Strip Performance


    427 Yenko Camaro on "modern radials" (also fitted with HEADERS and modern exhaust): 13.7 @ 107 MPH

    1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car


    STOCK 1970 W30 Olds 442 on "modern radials": 14.8 @ 97.7 MPH

    Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics
    I'm talking about the lack of traction with '60s tires. Why do you keep posting endless tests with modern radial tires?
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    I wonder, will this debate end ever?
    Well, I thought I would mention his (harddrivin's) ridiculous claim (traction was not a problem with '60s muscle cars) to some car guys at the weekly car gathering. As expected, it got a good laugh (this from guys who lived through the 1960s muscle car era). One of them said that he (harddrivin) is "full of it."
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    blah, blah blah...
    Right, when you can't accept history, blah, blah, blah! Again, traction was a big problem with '60s muscle cars whether you want to accept that fact or not.

    This 428 Cobra Jet is fitted with BIAS PLY tires in the original size. Where is all the spinning you keep talking about?
    The driver blames its poor performance on a LACK OF HORSEPOWER!
    Come on... even my '69 Cad has a traction problem (with modern radials). I can't use full throttle from a standing start without getting a lot of wheelspin. On the occasions when I want to pull ahead of another car at a traffic light, I have to ease the throttle.

    url=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/muscle-car-14-mile-shootout-dodge-ford-chevy-amc-pontiac/3347381142]MUSCLE CAR 1/4 mile shootout Dodge Ford Chevy AMC Pontiac - AOL Video[/url]


    And why is the 428 CJ fitted with "modern radials" SLOWER than the bias-ply shod example below?
    It would have been best to compare those tires when the car was new. Many 40-year-old cars are not going to run like they did when new. I remember a shootout in which one of the cars was a '69 or '69 Pontiac GTO with 140,000 miles and an unrebuilt engine!
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    south beloit IL
    Posts
    875
    another thing to look at is the elevation of the tracks those cars ran at. elevation can play a HUGE part in track times
    My rides:
    1999 Mustang GT

    1974 Ford Country Squire (for sale!)

    1991 Jeep Cherokee

    1970 Shelby GT500

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Juggs View Post
    another thing to look at is the elevation of the tracks those cars ran at. elevation can play a HUGE part in track times
    Yeah, elevation would make a difference. And even the track- the type of road it is. And even from lane to lane. Of the two lanes, some tracks have one which is a little better than than other (stickier). Not meant to be that way, but it does happen.

    And here is an example of the ridiculous tires of some '60s cars. This is a 1962 Plymouth with a 413 Max Wedge engine. The owner wanted to put the correct tires on it. Look how skinny!!!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    south beloit IL
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    Yeah, elevation would make a difference. And even the track- the type of road it is. And even from lane to lane. Of the two lanes, some tracks have one which is a little better than than other (stickier). Not meant to be that way, but it does happen.
    also true
    My rides:
    1999 Mustang GT

    1974 Ford Country Squire (for sale!)

    1991 Jeep Cherokee

    1970 Shelby GT500

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 Worst Value Cars Ever
    By h00t_h00t in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 03:29 AM
  2. Commodore thrashes Falcon in October sales
    By adrenaline in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-07-2006, 11:34 PM
  3. top 10 worst concept cars ever!
    By Craiben in forum Classic cars
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 07:45 AM
  4. The 10 fastest current production cars.
    By 6'bore in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-26-2005, 03:20 PM
  5. V8 Supercar race 1 Albert Park
    By charged in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •