Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: 50 fastest musclecars
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 80

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Swifster's Avatar
    Swifster is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sterling Heights
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Studebaker Commander
    Posts
    440

    Wow! What a bunch of snobbery. No muscle cars cars after 1971? Says who? Why is a Camaro built before '71 included, but a faster model built in '02 not a muscle car? A '73 or '74 Firebird Tran Am with 455 SD isn't a muscle car?

    A Viper isn't a muscle car but a Cobra and Corvette are? Maybe some of those on this board might want to line the pockets of a few Viper owners by telling them this, and then challenging them to race.

    Were is the Studebaker Avanti with the R3? Because it was built in '63 and '64, it's not a muscle car? Or is it the fiberglass body?

    Why are two older Mustangs listed, but the newer 390 HP Mustang Cobra not when it could clearly clean the clock of the older cars?

    Do you really think the Mid '80's Grand Nationals are not Muscle Cars? How about the 300 HP GNX?

    I was always under the impression that a muscle car was power-to-weight. A big engine in a smaller car. Isn't that the premise of the original GTO (by the way, the '05 GTO has more horsepower and the fastest 1/4 time of any GTO built in the '60's or '70's). You may or may not like the styling of todays cars, but they ARE faster. How many of the CLASSIC muscle cars could run 11's or 12's without major engine work? Newer Camaro's, Firebird's, Mustang's, and Corvette's can do this with bolt-on modifications. The Viper and Ford GT do this off the showroom floor.

    And this doesn't even touch on trucks. Dodge built 50+ D100's in '64 with 426 (365HP) Max Wedge engines. While not fast enough to be in the Top 50 of 1/4 mile times, is it slow? Would you object to having one? Newer ones like the Lightninig and SRT/10 have 390 and 500 HP respectively. Would you challenge one of these trucks at a stop light in a stock 396 Chevelle SS?

    And last, newer cars are rated net horsepower, not gross. While many cars in the '60's were underrated with HP numbers, newer cars use the more accurate net figuires. How much HP net was a 375 HP Camaro? Most likely less than a 320 NET HP '02 Camaro SS.

    I think you guys need to quit with the '60's glory fantasy about how fast those cars were. Most cars given to the magazines were rigged for good PR. I noticed the infamous Catalina 2+2 that ran a 13.76 was left off that list. How much horsepower do you think it would have taken to push that barge? Do you really think a stock 421 tri-power could push that pig that fast?

    You may not like newer cars, but the fact is they ARE fast. And they are getting fast. Mother Mopar is bring out a 6.1L Hemi with 425 HP (and no supercharger). Ford's '07 Mustang Cobra will have over 400 HP and the new Z07 Corvette with the new LS7 will have close to 500HP. All I can say is if you don't consider these examples to be muscle cars, start coming up with your excuse why you had your doors blown off (and it may not be Ryan Newman behind the wheel).
    Last edited by Swifster; 12-11-2004 at 09:32 AM.
    ---Tom

    1964 Studebaker Commander
    1964 Studebaker Daytona

Reply To Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink