50 fastest musclecars

For those among us who want to know what cars pulled what times in stock forms, heres the 50 fastest. However, i personally dont believe that the viper is a muscle car.

50 FASTEST MUSCLECARS
# YEAR/MODEL ET/MPH ENGINE HP TRANS GEAR SOURCE
1 1997 Viper GTS 12.05@116 V10 450 six-speed 3.07 MM 8/97
2 1966 427 Cobra 12.20@118 427 8V 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/65
3 1990 ZR1 Corvette 12.8@113.8 LT5 350 375 six-speed 3.45 MT 4/90
4 1966 Corvette 427 12.8@112 L72 427 425 four-speed 3.36 CD 11/65
5 1969 Road Runner 12.91@111.8 440 Six BBL 390 four-speed 4.10 SS 6/69
6 1997 Hurst/Firebird 12.99@103.11 350 350 automatic 3.42 MCR 4/5 97
7 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10@107.12 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/69
8 1992 Viper RT/10 13.1@108 488 V10 400 six-speed 3.07 CD 7/92
9 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12@107.01 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.55 CC 11/69
10 1969 Camaro 13.16@110.21 427 ZL1 430 four-speed 4.10 HC 6/69
11 1997 Corvette 13.20@109.3 350 LS-1 345 six-speed 3.42 MT 5/97
12 1997 SLP Camaro SS 13.20@108.8 350 LT4 330 six-speed 3.42 MT 2/97
13 1990 Pontiac Firehawk 13.20@107 350 350 six-speed 3.54 CD 6/91
14 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.70 HC 5/68
15 1970 Road Runner 13.34@107.5 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 SS 12/69
16 1970 Buick GS Stage I 13.38@105.5 455 Stage I 360 automatic 3.64 MT 1/70
17 1996 Camaro Z28 SS 13.46@106.48 350 LT-1 310 six-speed 3.42 MCR F/M 96
18 1969 Charger 500 13.48@109 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 4.10 HR 2/69
19 1973 Trans Am 13.54@104.29 455 SD 310 automatic 3.42 HR 6/73
20 1969 Corvette 13.56@111.1 427 L88 430 automatic 3.36 HR 4/69
21 1969 Super Bee 13.56@105.6 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 4.10 HR 8/69
22 1969 Boss 429 Mustang 13.60@106 Boss 429 375 four-speed 3.91 HC 9/69
23 1970 Challenger R/T 13.62@104.3 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 3.23 CC 11/69
24 1970 Torino Cobra 13.63@105.9 429 SCJ 370 automatic 3.91 SS 3/70
25 1968 Biscayne 13.65@105 427 L72 425 four-speed 4.56 SS 4/68
26 1995 Mustang Cobra R 13.67@102.82 351 300 five-speed 3.27 MCR A/S 95
27 1964 Polara 500 13.70@107.37 426 4V 365 four-speed 3.23 HC 2/64
28 1996 Corvette GS 13.7@105.1 350 LT-4 330 six-speed 3.45 RT 2/96
29 1969 GTX 13.70@102.8 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 MT 1/69
30 1987 Buick GNX 13.70@102 231 Turbo V6 300 automatic 3.42 HR 4/87
31 1969 Dart 440 13.71@105 440 4V 375 automatic 3.55 CC 5/69
32 1971 Road Runner 13.71@101.2 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 CC 1/71
33 1971 Cuda 13.72@106 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 SS 4/71
34 1971 Corvette 13.72@102.04 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.36 CL 8/71
35 1971 Super Bee 13.73@104 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 MT 12/70
36 1968 Hurst/Olds 13.77@103.91 455 W-30 390 automatic 3.91 SS 8/68
37 1968 Firebird 13.79@106 400 HO 335 four-speed N/A HR 3/68
38 1967 Corvette 13.80@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.55 HR 5/67
39 1971 Boss 351 Mustang 13.80@104 Boss 351 330 four-speed 3.91 MT 1/71
40 1966 Satellite 13.81@104 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CD 4/66
41 1969 Coronet R/T 13.83@102.27 440 4V 375 four-speed 4.10 SS 4/69
42 1968 Cyclone GT 13.86@101.69 428 CJ 335 automatic 4.11 MT 8/68
43 1969 Nova SS 396 13.87@105.1 396 4V 375 automatic 3.55 HR 7/69
44 1969 Shelby GT-500 13.87@104.52 428 CJ 335 four-speed 3.91 SS 9/69
45 1970 Olds 4-4-2 W-30 13.88@95.84 455 W-30 370 automatic 3.42 CC 11/69
46 1962 Corvette 13.89@105.14 327 FI 360 four-speed 4.10 HR 1/62
47 1969 Barracuda 13.89@103.21 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 SS 8/69
48 1969 Mustang Mach I 13.90@103.32 428 CJ 335 automatic 3.50 CL 3/69
49 1967 GTO 13.90@102.8 400 RA 360 automatic 4.33 CL 10/67
50 1970 Trans Am 13.90@102 400 RA 345 four-speed 3.91 HR 2/70
Legend: CC=Car Craft, CD=Car and Driver, CL=Car Life, HC=Hi Performance Cars, HR=Hot Rod, MCR=You have to ask?, MM=Mopar Muscle, MT=Motor Trend, SS=Super Stock


Heres the origional page http://www.musclecargarage.com/50fastestmusclecars.html

I had #25. But mine ran a best of 13.03, 108 with slicks. And it had 4.10 gears. Never ran it at the strip on street tires. Not bad for 4080 pounds with me and a full tank.

If you don't consider the Viper a muscle car then I think you gotta toss out the Cobra too...

Pat

Agree... dump the top 2 and anything after 71. Not to take anything away from others but I think most people feel the term "Muscle Car" is reserved for the period of 65 through 71. When some one mentions Muscle car in a sentence I'm assuming them years. Am I wrong about this? Now if you just say fastest cars, then all apply.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by racerxjj67
Agree... dump the top 2 and anything after 71. Not to take anything away from others but I think most people feel the term "Muscle Car" is reserved for the period of 65 through 71. When some one mentions Muscle car in a sentence I'm assuming them years. Am I wrong about this? Now if you just say fastest cars, then all apply.

---

Oh, I think ya gotta start earlier than 65. If you start there you are leaving out the original GTO and 442, the Max Wedge Mopars, Thunderbolt Fords, 409 Chevys, and Super Duty Pontiacs. I think 62-63 was when it was really starting to get crazy.

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Streets
[B] 454 Vega's in '54... :LOL::LOL:

---

Musta been a time warp! :LOL: :LOL:

Guess we better include those 50s Nascar runners you mentioned too.

Pat

Forgot about the R 3 Supercharged or turbo charged ( can't remember wich ) powered Studebaker Lark, there were not many production cars and none were actully sold, supposadly, 1 guy had just bought a lark then just b4 studebaker closed, he bought the R3 motor for it but being it was a car that was made and the motor was installed by studebaker, it was a factory muscle car even though, no Lark R3's were actully sold. I might have somthing wrong but, I read about it somewhere a few years ago then, I saw the coverage of the factory mussle car shootout and the same R3 lark was runnin agenst a '69 Yenko Camero.

# YEAR/MODEL ET/MPH ENGINE HP TRANS GEAR SOURCE
1 1966 427 Cobra 12.20@118 427 8V 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/65
2 1966 Corvette 427 12.8@112 L72 427 425 four-speed 3.36 CD 11/65
3 1969 Road Runner 12.91@111.8 440 Six BBL 390 four-speed 4.10 SS 6/69
4 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10@107.12 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/69
5 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12@107.01 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.55 CC 11/69
6 1969 Camaro 13.16@110.21 427 ZL1 430 four-speed 4.10 HC 6/69
7 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.70 HC 5/68
8 1970 Road Runner 13.34@107.5 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 SS 12/69
9 1970 Buick GS Stage I 13.38@105.5 455 Stage I 360 automatic 3.64 MT 1/70
10 1969 Charger 500 13.48@109 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 4.10 HR 2/69
11 1969 Corvette 13.56@111.1 427 L88 430 automatic 3.36 HR 4/69
12 1969 Super Bee 13.56@105.6 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 4.10 HR 8/69
13 1969 Boss 429 Mustang 13.60@106 Boss 429 375 four-speed 3.91 HC 9/69
14 1970 Challenger R/T 13.62@104.3 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 3.23 CC 11/69
15 1970 Torino Cobra 13.63@105.9 429 SCJ 370 automatic 3.91 SS 3/70
16 1968 Biscayne 13.65@105 427 L72 425 four-speed 4.56 SS 4/68
17 1964 Polara 500 13.70@107.37 426 4V 365 four-speed 3.23 HC 2/64
18 1969 GTX 13.70@102.8 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 MT 1/69
19 1969 Dart 440 13.71@105 440 4V 375 automatic 3.55 CC 5/69
20 1971 Road Runner 13.71@101.2 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 CC 1/71
21 1971 Cuda 13.72@106 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 SS 4/71
22 1971 Corvette 13.72@102.04 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.36 CL 8/71
23 1971 Super Bee 13.73@104 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 MT 12/70
24 1968 Hurst/Olds 13.77@103.91 455 W-30 390 automatic 3.91 SS 8/68
25 1968 Firebird 13.79@106 400 HO 335 four-speed N/A HR 3/68
26 1967 Corvette 13.80@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.55 HR 5/67
27 1971 Boss 351 Mustang 13.80@104 Boss 351 330 four-speed 3.91 MT 1/71
28 1966 Satellite 13.81@104 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CD 4/66
29 1969 Coronet R/T 13.83@102.27 440 4V 375 four-speed 4.10 SS 4/69
30 1968 Cyclone GT 13.86@101.69 428 CJ 335 automatic 4.11 MT 8/68
31 1969 Nova SS 396 13.87@105.1 396 4V 375 automatic 3.55 HR 7/69
32 1969 Shelby GT-500 13.87@104.52 428 CJ 335 four-speed 3.91 SS 9/69
33 1970 Olds 4-4-2 W-30 13.88@95.84 455 W-30 370 automatic 3.42 CC 11/69
34 1962 Corvette 13.89@105.14 327 FI 360 four-speed 4.10 HR 1/62
35 1969 Barracuda 13.89@103.21 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 SS 8/69
36 1969 Mustang Mach I 13.90@103.32 428 CJ 335 automatic 3.50 CL 3/69
37 1967 GTO 13.90@102.8 400 RA 360 automatic 4.33 CL 10/67
38 1970 Trans Am 13.90@102 400 RA 345 four-speed 3.91 HR 2/70
Legend: CC=Car Craft, CD=Car and Driver, CL=Car Life, HC=Hi Performance Cars, HR=Hot Rod, MCR=You have to ask?, MM=Mopar Muscle, MT=Motor Trend, SS=Super Stock

Rules for re-classification. 1971 cutoff date. Thats it;) Also, looking for times from stock forms to make it a full 50 again. It would be nice to see an AMX/javilin on here:)

Ok, @ 39 comes the 68 AMX @ Performance:
(as tested by Car Life, April 1968, with 390 V-8 and 3-speed auto):

0-60 mph...................7.2 seconds
1/4 Mile...................14.59 seconds @ 96 mph

I think this would put it in the high 40s, so find better times and i'll add em:)

.....Yeah, nothing after '71 is a muscle car... Bill....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stu Cool
Oh, I think ya gotta start earlier than 65. If you start there you are leaving out the original GTO and 442, the Max Wedge Mopars, Thunderbolt Fords, 409 Chevys, and Super Duty Pontiacs. I think 62-63 was when it was really starting to get crazy.

Pat

---

Geez, I did forget the 409's and 64' GTO. Ok then, start it at 61' since that's when the 409 was introduced but that's where I draw the line:D

Hey tech, are those stock times? They seem kind of low considering the weight of the cars in question.

1964 Dodge 426 Hemi 426 n/a 425@6000 480@4600 n/a 11.40@125mph MCR no date
1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt 427 427 n/a 425@6000 480@3700 n/a 11.76@122.78mph B.Leal at 1964 NHRA Nats

Quote:

---

Originally posted by drg84
Hey tech, are those stock times? They seem kind of low considering the weight of the cars in question.

1964 Dodge 426 Hemi 426 n/a 425@6000 480@4600 n/a 11.40@125mph MCR no date
1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt 427 427 n/a 425@6000 480@3700 n/a 11.76@122.78mph B.Leal at 1964 NHRA Nats

---

Those were "Factory Race Cars" with lightened front ends and limited production motors. They did not even have window regulators in the doors, just straps that pulled the windows up and down. The fact that the Thunderbolt time is attributed to Butch Leal at the the Nationals indicates these were not run on street tires with closed exhaust either. They are impressive for sure, but not truly indicative of the cars the average Joe could buy and drive around on the street.

I remember when folks were driving their muscle cars every day. My Biscayne was the only car I had, my daily driver. Put snow tires on it in the winter in Omaha. Had to adjust the valves every couple weeks and change the plugs once a month at least. Drove it to the track with a toolbox and slicks in the trunk and changed them when we got there. Prayed you did not break anything so you would be able to drive home, and to work on Monday morning. I can remember my leg shaking from driving that heavy clutch in stop and go traffic. And that was the normal thing, lots of guys did it, not like now when they only come out on sunny week-end days. Think a lot of folks don't realize that those 60s and 70s muscle cars were basic transportation for a lot of folks. Working guys that spent every dime they had to be able to drive a car like that. I know I had two jobs. Anyway, enough of my rant. I am glad to have been there and experienced it. It was a time that probably wont be repeated.

Pat

I don't know about 71 being the last year for the muscle car well maybe for GM but Chrysler carried it on till 74 with the hemi cuda and challenger

i just did a google seach and came up with this.


1969 Hurst SS/AMX
Engine: 390 ci, 340hp (rated) over 500 hp actual
Transmission: Wide Ratio super T-10
Rear Axle: 4.44:1
Color: Red/White/Blue
Features: Car #23 of only 53 built by Hurst
Ran a Best of 10.74@125 in the 1/4 mile


i'll look for more info to back it up.

update. i found a site that said they where 11 second cars off the show room floor. these where sold threw the dealer off the showroom floor. only around 5,000-6,000 amx's where made and any given year so 53 isn't that low of a # since only 5000+ amx's where made that year. there are a few people that own these cars on a amc forum i go to so i'll post the question there and get back with the true 1/4 time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by drg84
Ok, @ 39 comes the 68 AMX @ Performance:
(as tested by Car Life, April 1968, with 390 V-8 and 3-speed auto):

0-60 mph...................7.2 seconds
1/4 Mile...................14.59 seconds @ 96 mph

I think this would put it in the high 40s, so find better times and i'll add em:)

---

the only problem is the auto trans came with 3.15 gears.
the 4 speed go pack cars came with 3.54 gears.

the 70 amx came with better heads. they flowed around 50% better than the 68-9 heads.

i try to find 70 amx 390/4 speed 1/4 times. but i think there still in the 14's. i'd like to see a amc up there too. i'll check the sc machine# too.

ok this is what i got.

"My 69 SC/rambler ran a 13,73@105 bone stock other than a 625 competition AFB. the 105 was top speed with a stock cam-would not run past 5k rpm"


"As reported in Car Craft June, 69'- As delivered by Hurst,the engine was blueprinted and equipped with a Isky 550 flat tappet cam,12:4:1 pistons,Edelbrock r4b maniflod and single Holley R-3916 three barrel carb,Mallory distributor and specially ported heads(By Hurst). After curing lower end lubrication problems,the crew was able to get baselineHP figures.In twelve subsequet tests the power was gradually boosted by another 28HP.The final configuration included a Crane R274/393 roller tappet cam,Crane Modified heads,Edelbrock STR-11 "street tunnel ram" manifold,dual Holley 4210(615cfm 4-v carbs),Doug Thorley headers with collectors.
The engine was freshened up and dropped into the first prototype chassis for testing at nearby Miami Dragway. The car which had been prepared at the Hurst facilities in Warren,Mich. was equipped with a 4:44:1 rearend and a 2:65 low close ratio t-10 4 speed .The latter posed a slight traction handicap but even so,ten of the AMX's first runs were over 122 and eight runs were in the elevens.(Exact e.t. figures -as those for HP - are classified information).
The results of a a final series of test on the proto type mid eleven second @ 125MPH Hurst Super Stock/G.
The sticker price was $5994 for an SS/AMX. "

Anybody know any times on any YENKO cars?

The Yenko Camaro in the Pure Stock Muscle Car Shoot out was running mid 12's. That's through the mufflers on street tires. That was the one featured against the R-3 Supercharged Studebaker, which ran 12.80s by the way.

Pat

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).

Amen, Swifster. You brought up all very good points. Alot of us ol geezer's have not kept up with the present vehicles (meaning they haven't followed them in the magazines) to know what's out there. I am very aware. I've owned three Mustang GT's in the 80's and They were pretty quick on their own, not saying that they were the fastest. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Swifster
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).

---

The true muscle cars died in 1972 when smog laws caused comp ratios went down the tube, a few of the cars like the Pontiac 455 HD T/A ( you mentioned ) survived they are the true last muscle car and some people said the Buick GN's are but, are ither of them really? Most people ( Myself included ) belive that a true muscle car is the Factory tire screamers of the '60's, there were muscle cars b4 that as streets said but, it was b4 the big 3 made the term " Muscle Car " around '64 or so. The true muscle cars may not be as fast but, they are a legend. I admit newer cars are faster but they are in no way a muscle car. These cars, for there time were fast.

Here Viper Viper Viper :3dSMILE:

The "Big Three" didn't make the term Muscle Car. That was applied to the cars they made by the media in car magazines. Matt, your belief that the name was put on by detroit is dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt167
The true muscle cars died in 1972 when smog laws caused comp ratios went down the tube, a few of the cars like the Pontiac 455 HD T/A ( you mentioned ) survived they are the true last muscle car and some people said the Buick GN's are but, are ither of them really? Most people ( Myself included ) belive that a true muscle car is the Factory tire screamers of the '60's, there were muscle cars b4 that as streets said but, it was b4 the big 3 made the term " Muscle Car " around '64 or so. The true muscle cars may not be as fast but, they are a legend. I admit newer cars are faster but they are in no way a muscle car. These cars, for there time were fast.

---

What? :confused:

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!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by viking
Here Viper Viper Viper :3dSMILE:

---

ME LIKE EM...........

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oldf100fordman
ME LIKE EM...........

---

:3dSMILE: :3dSMILE: :3dSMILE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by viking
Here Viper Viper Viper :3dSMILE:

---

Some how I don't recall Shelby bragging about the big huffers as an option! :LOL:

Dodge Viper Twin Turbo system by West Coast Viper (and remember, if you can afford the Viper, you could probably afford the engine :3dSMILE:) And you can close the hood and not have your vision obscured.

Two ITS T03/T04 Dual-Ceramic Ball Bearing Turbos rated @ 550HP each

(Turbos are cooled by engine coolant – lubricated with engine oil)

Adjustable from 7-15 PSI - inlet temperature only 50 over ambient

Two HKS Sequential blow off valves (adjustable rate and tension)

Two Turbonetics wastegates w/multiple spring sets and boost adjust ports

Two mid pipe connectors (adapts to factory tubular headers)

Two custom side sill pipes with resonators and cat delete

SplitSec FTC-02 (fuel & timing computer w/laptop interface) & Harness’s

MSD Viper Boost Retard box w/ in car dial (adjust on the fly for bad gas, weather)

In tank 255lph upgraded feeder pump

Barry Grant King Sumo 2000HP Fuel pump

CPR billet Regulator w/return and 1:1 boost reference

10 (ten) CPR 42 pound high rate fuel-injectors

Two custom billet fuel rails

Two 02 eliminators (replaces factory 02 sensors in rear bank)

Custom front mount intercooler w/top balance tank (81” Charge Area)

Two K&N Conical Air filters with a mod plate for aid in airflow

Two Custom oil pans for Turbos w/oil plumbing lines and internal baffles

Two electric oil pumps for Turbos w/lines for oil return and wiring/relay package

Modified passenger side valve cover for oil return lines

Fuel tank pickup modifications and return line outlets

Full braided fuel system lines with A/N fittings throughout

Complete plumbing for vacuum / boost regulation w/manual boost controller

Complete stainless steel piping for fresh and pressurized air

Autometer boost gauge with column mount

Autometer fuel pressure gauge with cowling mount

Flowmaster dual chamber mufflers in factory position

All other braided lines, couplings, harness & relay sets, etc. included

FTC Tuning software (R4 controller)

GEN2 forged motor will make 700WHP on 91 octane fuel.

1 year unlimited mileage warranty.



Regular price: $29,995.00Sale price: $25,000.00

:HMMM: Ya sound like a viper salesman :LOL:

I'm really not much for bench racing but if ya start with the posted times (less than 2 tenths difference) then take in to count the induction systems of the two, the cobra should be the quickest, ie put a carb on the viper or a digital computer controlled injector system on the cobra and I'm sure the times would change.

My 427 cobra (shell valley car) will run low 11's on street tires or high 10's with slicks, of course the nash 5 speed, msd ignition, performer intake and demon carb help out, and the T bucket ran a best of 9.42 @ 140, so I (and a few others on this board) have no fear of stock GTS Vipers :toocool: :3dSMILE: :toocool:

There are also Vipers running in the 9's as well. I have a healthy respect for older cars, but not giving credit to newer cars can be detrimental to your won-loss record. With stock block Camaros and Mustangs running in the mid 8's, like any car, it's how much you put into it

As for stock, isn't it a kit car without a Shelby VIN tag (j/k). If that car was aluminum, it wouldn't have a huffer, it'd be on Barrett-Jackson.

:LOL:

While I agree that modern high performance cars are worthy of respect, I also consider that they have 40 years, Yes F O R T Y, nearly half a century, of technological development to benefit from and they are now catching up with what the "muscle cars" of the 60s and 70s were running. Give those antiques the benefit of modern tires, 5 and 6 speed trannies and modern components and they definitely still hold their own.

****************
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
****************

Put a set of slicks on these guys, old and new, and then put your money up.

I agree that we need to include the modern cars, and the young, or older, people who run and modify them. We are all hot rodders. But in my mind the newer cars just don't compare to the raw, living on the edge feeling that the original muscle cars had. They were and are a culture that embraced several generations. The newer cars have not achieved that. Maybe they will eventually.

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Swifster
What? :confused:

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.

Quote:

---

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.:)

Quote:

---

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 :LOL:

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.
:) :) :)

Quote:

---

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 :LOL:

---

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?