Supercars Annual '69

[dog ear]

Another '65 Vette 396-425 HP L-78 from Popular Hot Rodding, circa 1965.
For comparsion, last page shows another spec sheet from August, '65 Road & Track.

For further comparsion, I have include a spec sheet for the '67 L-71 427-435 HP 3x2 set-up sourced from the April, '67 Motor Trend issue. Enjoy!

[dog ear]

Here is the complete September, 1993 Motor Trend retrospective article on the original October 1969 ZL-1 Vette test, which also was based upon their earlier May, 1969 cover of the winter 69 (fall 68) press review of said car.
Included is a pic of the red car.

[dog ear]

Fleet 500! Do you happen to have the July, 1966 Hot Rod issue?

I am interested in the 66 Fairlane 427 intro of that particular model. Do you have any coverage on it at all? Please post if you do. Thanks!

[Fleet 500]

Fleet 500! Do you happen to have the July, 1966 Hot Rod issue?

I am interested in the 66 Fairlane 427 intro of that particular model. Do you have any coverage on it at all? Please post if you do. Thanks!

I do have a few Hot Rods from 1965-1966. I look up what I have.

I do have a Super Stock (June, 1967) issue which has a road test of a '67 427 Fairlane.

[Fleet 500]

Here is the complete September, 1993 Motor Trend retrospective article on the original October 1969 ZL-1 Vette test, which also was based upon their earlier May, 1969 cover of the winter 69 (fall 68) press review of said car.
Included is a pic of the red car.

Wow, an estimated 550 horsepower! That ZL-1 was wicked! I can see why the stock tires were completely inadequate when trying to get the best 1/4 mile time.

[Fleet 500]

Another '65 Vette 396-425 HP L-78 from Popular Hot Rodding, circa 1965.
For comparsion, last page shows another spec sheet from August, '65 Road & Track.

For further comparsion, I have include a spec sheet for the '67 L-71 427-435 HP 3x2 set-up sourced from the April, '67 Motor Trend issue. Enjoy!

Those 396/425 'Vettes were strong runners. A good engine. And the 427 was even better!

[dog ear]

I do have a few Hot Rods from 1965-1966. I look up what I have.

I do have a Super Stock (June, 1967) issue which has a road test of a '67 427 Fairlane.

I am certainly interested in this June, 67 SS&DI test.

[dog ear]

As far as Vette tests go, I have a very good database covering many of the road tests
that were conducted from inception (1953) to the late 80s / early 90s. It is interesting to compare all of the big block times to another. You begin to see that there is very little difference between them on the street with street tires in stock condition.

Part of this problem was the fact that the Vette never used very wide tires until the mid to late 70s. Excess HP just went up in smoke.

[Kitdy]

The current R&T has a retrospective on CSX2000, aka Shelby Cobra #1; a 260 and a cleaner body.

Real nice car, and legit fast; even for today. In 1962, they ran to 60 mph in 4.2, and the quarter in 13.8 @ 112 mph.

[Fleet 500]

I am certainly interested in this June, 67 SS&DI test.

I will post it later today.

[Fleet 500]

As far as Vette tests go, I have a very good database covering many of the road tests
that were conducted from inception (1953) to the late 80s / early 90s. It is interesting to compare all of the big block times to another. You begin to see that there is very little difference between them on the street with street tires in stock condition.

Part of this problem was the fact that the Vette never used very wide tires until the mid to late 70s. Excess HP just went up in smoke.

Yes, the tires back then certainly were a problem when trying to get good 1/4 mile times.

[dog ear]

The current R&T has a retrospective on CSX2000, aka Shelby Cobra #1; a 260 and a cleaner body.

Real nice car, and legit fast; even for today. In 1962, they ran to 60 mph in 4.2, and the quarter in 13.8 @ 112 mph.

Yes, the original 260 & 289 Cobras were clean, simple, nimble and fast. Shelby Cobra 260 #1 was a ringer. I have the original test. It could not have gone 13.8 @ 112 mph with that engine / transmission / gear / tire combination in which it was supposedly tested. Top speed was out to lunch also. There are several reasons for this.

1/4 mile and top speed would have required two different sets of gearing and tires, as well as a very, very healthy boost in horsepower, barely achievable with the little 260 of the day. Later 289s with far more horses had trouble at those speeds accredited to that early model Cobra 260.

I will give you a few tests to prove my point. Ole Shel’ was really playing the press that day and waxed poetic a little too much, but the press ate it up gloriously.

Standard Ford small block 260 and 289 Hi-Performance engines would not max out anywhere near 7000-7200 RPM in 1962-63. More like 6200-6500 RPM max with fresh valve springs.

Anything more required more cam, heavier valve-springs, and associated valve-gear. Keep in mind that Shelby had access to Ford derived race cams that were and are capable of reaching those speeds, and if that engine done so than it most assuredly had a ‘helper kit’ in the form of a camshaft change. It was well-known by Shelby employees and ‘insiders’ of the day that many small block test cars had been equipped with a roller camshaft for selected tests. Go figure!

Another point worth considering is tires. Simply put the stock 6.70-15s would not allow adequate rpm with a stock engine to reach 150-155 mph in a Cobra. Every published test after the original press release / launch was always slower. Refer to posts.

Sports Car Graphic was the worst culprit. Their published times were simply phenomenal. Later day Shelby Cobra 427s (with at least 125-150 more horsepower) had a hard time staying abreast of the 1962 SCG spec 260. LOL!

Most tests involving stock Cobra 289s returned 14.00 ETs around 100 mph using factory 3.77.1 gearing. With 3.54.1 gearing quarter mile times will most likely be slightly slower, although top speed should be a little higher.

There were big differences between the original 260 and later 289 engines. Post 1964 289s used bigger carbs, valves, and compression to name a few mods. These upgrades were not available for the original 62-63 Cobra. Thus, more reason not to take the 62 Cobra 260 times seriously. I would say the 260s would probably reach low to mid 14s stock, and perhaps a true 125 mph, which is still moving for an early 60s sports car.

First scan: May, 1962 Sports Car Graphic Cobra 260 Press Release
This packet was distributed to all of the mags for publication. Numerous times magazine testers were guilty of just publishing whatever the factory handed out as gospel for lack of having performed actual tests independently. Or, they just fudged the factory numbers a little in order to make it look like they had performed the test data themselves.

Second scan: August, 1962 Sports Car Graphic Cobra 260
This test was even crazier than their original. Imagine a 12.9 ¼ mile? LOL!

Third scan: 1962 Road & Track Cobra 260

Fourth scan: June, 1962 Car Life Cobra 260

Fifth scan: June, 1964 Road & Track Cobra 289
Notice that times are a lot slower even though Cobra has more rubber, more power…

Next series of scans is an article that might surprise you. See my next post.

[dog ear]

As promised here is an eye opener!

February, 1970 Car & Driver
Shelby Cobra takes on the competition
This test showed conclusively that you did not need a Shelby Cobra 427 to beat up on most musclecars. The ‘little’ Cobra 289 in an unmolested state of tune without any of the factory phase kits offered by Shelby and Ford would usually annihilate the competition, including the vaunted Hemi.
If you think differently than by all means post your data and let's bench-race. LOL!

See last page on next post.

[dog ear]

last page of February, 1970 C&D article

[dog ear]

Read this Roger Huntington article on the calculated NET HP figures for both small and big-block Chevies. Mr. Huntington was the first engineer / musclecar guru to document true net horsepower correlations between total vehicle weight and drag strip ET.

Granted, todays computerized figures are closer to the real-world as-installed condition than the original Huntington figures were but that's only 40 years difference in technology. Even so, all of todays calculations are based upon Huntington's studies. His work is even more amazing when you stop and consider that he was in fact a Quadriplegic.

Modern computerized updates Like Hales Formula and numerous others may be more realistic by about 5% - 10 % or so, but who cares? More important than the actual differences in the various formulas and their inherent weaknesses or accurracy is the value of using them in order to derive a basis for comparsion to various era vehicles based on the cube root relationship of total car weight including driver and the all important ET in quarter mile. Enough said!

In my original post #117, I mistakingly posted the wrong scans. Here is the correct article. Remember that todays net ratings are probably closer to 10 % less than Roger Huntingtons due to modern (strict) standards. Basically, todays engines are dyno'd at a 77 degrees reading rather than the older less restrictive 72-73 degrees.