Thread: 50 fastest musclecars

Tweet

Originally posted by Swifster
What?

If these cars from the '60's were legends then , no one would have sold them. They were no more than nice cars. Just like the new cars.

Again, show me the difference between;

1969 Camaro SS 14.23@97.28 396 375 HP 4-Spd 3.73
2002 Camaro SS 13.50@108 346 LS1 325 HP 6-Spd 3.42

1969 Ford Mustang Boss 13.34@107 429 375 HP 4-Spd 3.91
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra 13.30@108 280 390 HP 6-Spd 3.55

1967 Pontiac GTO 13.90@102 400RA 360 HP Auto 4.33
2005 Pontiac GTO 13.10@??? 364 LS2 400 HP Auto 3.46

I won't even bother with the new Corvettes (including the new Z07, the Z06, or ZR1) and how much they'd run circles around the C2 and the C3 cars of the time. Are the new Corvette's lesser cars than the older ones.

Sorry Matt, stop drinking the old guys Kool Aid. The old guys talk about the good old days. Matt wake up. As far as performance cars go, these are the good old days!

I have always belived that no new car is a muscle car, not any less of a car, they ARE a high performance automobiels. Why I stand behind what I do is because the original 1960's true muscle car came out, just about the same car you bought at the showroom was raced for Nascar, these days, Nascar cars look nothing like the production cars, there templated the same to nascar rules. true muscle cars wearn't a legend when they were new, they are now, mainly the 1's that had good success for racing like the thunderbolts, Charger 500's, Charger Daytona's and the Plymouth Superbee. I'm not downing newer cars, I just don't belive there muscle cars,.

And, I'm kinda goin along with what stucool said because, really, when the muscle car became popular, they were following the " no replacement for displacement " rule and, I think that is what a muscle car is as, newer cars go faster but, as stu said, the technology has changed and that old tried and true method of making a go fast car is now old technology and new technology is proven more effective.

What you are both missing is that your arguements can be made about past cars. '32 Fords were the muscle car of their day. What's the difference between a '32 Ford and '67 GTO? Oh, about 35 years of technology. Don't you think compared to '32 Ford that the GTO is a down and out luxury car? Why do you think most '32 Fords run small block Chevys?

Newer cars meet the performance requirements that '60's cars set the standard for. If you put slicks on both cars, they'd both be faster. Put modern electronics on a '60's muscle car and they'd undoubtedly be faster. But would they pass the emission and mileage requirements even with newer technology? Nope. Could they do it on anywhere from 87 to 93 octane gasoline? Nope.

Newer cars are handicaped by safty requirements (and the added weight from them), emissions requirements, and mileage requirements (let's see that '67 GTO get 26 MPG like the new one does). And this doesn't even touch what newer cars could do with gasoline available in the '60's.

Many guys are putting newer engines like the LS1 in older cars. Why? More power, and more reliable. They are using modern materials (like urethane bushings and aluminum drive shafts), and overdrive transmissions like the T-56.

Matt, your arguments make no sense. What does NASCAR really have to do with muscle cars? In the late '60's, three cars were competitive in NASCAR; Ford Fairlanes, Plymouth Belveders, and Dodge Chargers. Notice there are no GM products mentioned. No GM product won a Daytona 500 or a championship from 1963 to 1972. This did not stop the sales of Mustangs , Camaros or Firebirds (none of which ran in NASCAR), Chevelles, GTO's, 442's or GS's. It also didn't stop the sales of Novas, Dusters, Darts, or Cougars.

The technology being proven more efficient proves the point. As for No Replacement for Displacement argument, that is rubbish as well. Ford ran Paxton superchargers in the late '50's and had them on 312 engines. Studebaker used Paxton superchargers on their '63 and '64 cars with 289 and 304 engines. Shelby sent more than one GT350 out the door with a Paxton on their 289 engines. Z-28's ran with 302's. Mustang has the Boss 302. Mopars had 273's and 340's. New cars run with displacement of 280, 325, 334, 345, 346, 364, and soon to be 370 CI. The new Corvette has the largest displacement small block it's ever had. The first turbocharged cars for sale in the US was the 164 CID Corvair and 215 V-8 in the Olds F-85.

Again, don't drink the old geezer Kool Aid. Most are just intimidated by the technology.

Tom,

Comparing the 32 Ford, if it was the muscle car of the day which I doubt, only makes my earlier point better. Performance of those 30s era cars might have been 22 second quarter miles, 60s and 70's muscle cars ran 12s, 13, and 14s. 2000 era muscle cars are still running 12s, 13, and 14s. I agree, they are doing it while meeting emission standards and improved fuel mileage requirements, but they are not significantly faster, if at all. If you want to compare modern cars should we also include the pocket rockets like the Suburu WRX and the Mitsubishi Lancer? They are running low 13s off the showroom floor and they are doing it with 4 cylinders, 4 doors and all wheel drive.

Perhaps we should simply agree that there are "Classic Muscle Cars" and "Modern Muscle Cars". Is the horsepower race back on? I agree it is. One question is, in times of $2.00 a gallon gas how long will it last before it succumbs as the previous one did.
Now if you go ahead and incorporate the modern cars into the top 50 list, I think you will still find that half or more on the list are 35-40 years old. Hardly a reason to declare the "King is Dead".

I will admit I don't know a lot about the new technology, and really should learn more. More and more of it is finding it's way into older cars, just like small block Chevys, early hemis and nailhead Buicks did years ago and maybe the same argument went on back then.

Now I think I'll go see if I can find a ride in an LS1 Camaro or 05 Mustang...

Pat

Pat, I agree that in this world market that the Suburu WRX STi and the Mitsu Lancer Evo should be included, but on this board I wasn't going to go there. If Vipers, Ford GT's and Cobras are included, why not the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren?

I like older cars. I have a Studebaker just like you do. Of course the difference is I'm putting a 6.0L V-8 out of a Yukon Denali in mine. I have no problem with older cars. If I could afford one, I'd like a '68 Charger R/T or a '68 Road Runner.

To me, the only difference between modern muscle and 'classic' muscle is the styling and the choices. You can no longer buy Buick, Oldsmobile or Plymouth performance models in the classic sense. Most newer cars look very similar. Older cars had style. You can tell the difference between different cars that you can't do at a glance now. With one exception; the 2005 Ford Mustang.

Originally posted by Swifster

Matt, your arguments make no sense. What does NASCAR really have to do with muscle cars? In the late '60's, three cars were competitive in NASCAR; Ford Fairlanes, Plymouth Belveders, and Dodge Chargers. Notice there are no GM products mentioned. No GM product won a Daytona 500 or a championship from 1963 to 1972. This did not stop the sales of Mustangs , Camaros or Firebirds (none of which ran in NASCAR), Chevelles, GTO's, 442's or GS's. It also didn't stop the sales of Novas, Dusters, Darts, or Cougars.

.

I admit, that part of my post made no sense, I should have also said drag racing, that played a big part in the popularity of the muscle car because many people bought them to drag race or street race. I guess, there could be 2 classes of muscle cars, the old and the new but, they should not be compared togther because it's like apples and oranges. I'm not drinkin old geezers kool aid, ither, I bought my '67 Falcon because I don't care for the new technology.

Originally posted by Matt167
I admit, that part of my post made no sense, I should have also said drag racing, that played a big part in the popularity of the muscle car because many people bought them to drag race or street race. I guess, there could be 2 classes of muscle cars, the old and the new but, they should not be compared togther because it's like apples and oranges. I'm not drinkin old geezers kool aid, ither, I bought my '67 Falcon because I don't care for the new technology.

You don't care for it or you don't understand it? If you take the time to understand it, it's actually easier. Heck, the computer is self diagnosing.

Why is this apples to oranges? GM and Chrysler both has fuel injection systems going back to 1957. The only difference between now and then is that the newer systems are more precise and tunable.

As for drag racing, go to any large city and you'll find the newer cars being street raced and track raced. The difference now is that you stand just as much a chance seeing the newer cars road raced as much as drag racing (see SCCA World Challenge on Speed).

I bought my Studebaker because I wanted something different. Something no one else will have at a car show or a cruise night. It'll have modern technology in the drive train and suspension.

Hmmm, let's see a '67 Falcon with a fuel injected, supercharged 392 small block crate motor from Ford Racing. Put a T-56 6-Speed with a set of Wheel Vintique Magnum 500's (17" or 18") could be a lot of fun. 500 HP and 20 MPG's

Originally posted by Swifster
___________________________________________________

Hmmm, let's see a '67 Falcon with a fuel injected, supercharged 392 small block crate motor from Ford Racing. Put a T-56 6-Speed with a set of Wheel Vintique Magnum 500's (17" or 18") could be a lot of fun. 500 HP and 20 MPG's
____________________________________________________

Or even simpler, find a wrecked Mustang GT and take the whole V-8, 5 spd and wiring harness and computer and transfer the works to the Falcon. Still well above 24 MPG on the highway.

Originally posted by Swifster
You don't care for it or you don't understand it? If you take the time to understand it, it's actually easier. Heck, the computer is self diagnosing.

Why is this apples to oranges? GM and Chrysler both has fuel injection systems going back to 1957. The only difference between now and then is that the newer systems are more precise and tunable.

As for drag racing, go to any large city and you'll find the newer cars being street raced and track raced. The difference now is that you stand just as much a chance seeing the newer cars road raced as much as drag racing (see SCCA World Challenge on Speed).

I bought my Studebaker because I wanted something different. Something no one else will have at a car show or a cruise night. It'll have modern technology in the drive train and suspension.

Hmmm, let's see a '67 Falcon with a fuel injected, supercharged 392 small block crate motor from Ford Racing. Put a T-56 6-Speed with a set of Wheel Vintique Magnum 500's (17" or 18") could be a lot of fun. 500 HP and 20 MPG's

You have all very good points. I don't like computer controlled vehicles for a little of both reasons you stated. It kind of gives me like a self acomplishment when I diagnose and fix what broke, yanno like, timing the distributor just right or like on my '51 Chevy, when me and my dad put the points in it, poured a little gas in the carb and cranked it up at 9:00 at night and the 53 year old engine came to life, with only a set of points, then, the week after, when we put the new fuel pump in and actully drove the car around ( still starts first try, within 3-5 cranks ), that was an acomplishment, me and my dad are proud of. I guess I like a chalange rather than have somthing tell me what's broke.

I said there apples and oranges because although, there was FI in 1957, it was mechanical and far inferior to today's EFI and is only good for old school hotrods or, restorations like a '57 Corvette.

My '67 Falcon is a 4dr Futura and wouldn't be worth the work, it is just my daily driver well.. soon. It has a cruisomatic and a 200 6.

You guys are making these post way too interesting . For the last few days I have spent way to much time reading what each one of you has had to say. I have had a hard time leaving the computer,when I should have been in the shop working. Everywhere I look I have found Interesting topics. When I go to Church I drive a Camry, leather and a roof.I looks just about like every other car in the parking lot. I Don't care if that Camry is capable of having the refinements to make it run 11.O s Im not interested. Im 60 yrs old .That is not my muscle car.To someone else it might be and I think that is good for most of us.Im sure In 1960 ,the ones of us who are old enough to remember would have considered a 60 Impala 348-350 h.p. 4 speed ,456 posi or a 390 or 401 ford starliner with like equipment a muscle car although I dont think we called it that. From1962 on the Muscle Car war was on . Many lighter weight, often the cheapest body, bench seats,rubber mats with the baddest motor they had 406,409,413, 421,426, 427,428,429, 430, 454,455,460and I left out the 389, 390and 396. Although I loved corvettes I never would have put them in the muscle car class. I certainly would not have put a 427 Shelby Cobra in that class either. It was a car built just to outrun a corvette on a road corse. It was out of reach for the average guy at the time. This is just me , Your interpretation may be slightly Different or even vastly different,and in my mind thats O.K. Modern technology is great . I plan to use the parts I want and leave the rest to the younger Guys.Whoever pointed out that tires ,wheels and electronics were no where near as good back then,Thank You! Iwas hoping someone would do that.To some people 11 Os is 11.Os ,Not to me. All of You, Thank You for making this interesting and informative.

I like all cars. I like them carburated and fuel injected. I like them on bias bly tires and I like them with 17" radials. I like them with vinyl bench seats and leather bucket seats. I like them with four wheel drums and four wheel discs. I like them with flathead sixes and dual overhaed cam V-8's with superchargers and turbos.

I like them with Wonderbars and navigation systems. I like them wire wheels and with aluminum wheels. I like them with two speed crash boxes and with 6 speeds.

I have no problems with any car. What I don't like is automotive snobbery. Technology moves on and todays Mustangs and Corvettes are the current state of technology. I like 30's Packards and brass cars. I like '60's chrome and '50's fins. I just have problems excluding newer cars because for no other reason than the technology may not be understood.

I'm not disparaging older cars. I'm not saying anyone has to use EFI or computers. But many of us do, and when someone states that newer cars are not in the same class, what does it say when we use new technology in our 40 year old car? Will my Daytona be any less a street machine because I have a 6.0L with EFI and supercharger instead of a Gen I or Gen II small block Chevy? Or the original 259 V-8?

riverhorse59 where you started with the cu, in. tells the story. other than the exception of a few motors Modern technology can take a 302-350 cu.in. motor and run as fast as the 400 up cu. in 1960-1970 did. you can drive a new camaro to church with a 5.7 in it with all the accessorys, with overdrive and get 22 m.p.g. gas. on the way home after church you can stop by your local drag stripe, pay at the gate, get in line and run 13 sec. go home and eat lunch and never got out of the car unless you wonted to. you can increase your h.p. by 15 % and never get your hands dirty and still get 22 m.p.g. im not saying thats the way it should be but, thats the way it is.

LT1S10, If I could afford it I would proberly have all the conviences of modern technology put in an older car . To me they have more personality and have a look of their own. I have to use what I have to work with, even when I know I would enjoy my car with the motor you have more. If I want to enjoy this car any time soon I will use whats in my garage and quit thinking I have to have more.

Originally posted by riverhorse59
LT1S10, If I could afford it I would proberly have all the conviences of modern technology put in an older car . To me they have more personality and have a look of their own. I have to use what I have to work with, even when I know I would enjoy my car with the motor you have more. If I want to enjoy this car any time soon I will use whats in my garage and quit thinking I have to have more.

what did you do with the big bucks i paid you for that motor anyway? how do you sleep at night?

LT1S10, If you remember, You told me You knew what I had I the engine and the 6-speed. I never gave You a price, You made the offer. I excepted. Are you having 2nd. thoughts?

Do I detect buyers Remorse?