• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Check out this 1971 Barracuda I saw

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jumpem said:
A WRX is 4.7 seconds to 60. The Hemi Cuda is 5.8. 🙂

My STi was surely quicker than my uncle's 440 Charger.
Click to expand...

1/4 mile. Don't know whether your #'s are correct or not, but the Cuda will be coming back by the WRX shortly after 60, and not looking back.

And that's on the old rubber.
 
Pacfanweb said:
1/4 mile. Don't know whether your #'s are correct or not, but the Cuda will be coming back by the WRX shortly after 60, and not looking back.

And that's on the old rubber.
Click to expand...

They are actually about even. Both about 13.5 seconds. Though, I have no interest in speeds past 65mph.
 
iamwiz82 said:
Interesting read: http://ericpetersautos.com/2011/10/11/muscle-cars-were-slow/
Click to expand...

This is my favorite part
I speak from direct personal knowledge, incidentally. I own one of those old TAs – and have owned several others. A couple of same-era Camaros, too. Did you know that the strongest of the bunch – the “T/A 6.6″ Trans-Am of ’77-’79 – was only packing 220 hp? That’s 200-plus less horsepower than the current Mustang GT – and 85 hp less than the current Mustang V-6.
Click to expand...

What a laugh. Is this guy serious? Did he sleep through the oil crises and car companies scrambling to get better mileage?
 
ketchup79 said:
This is my favorite part


What a laugh. Is this guy serious? Did he sleep through the oil crises and car companies scrambling to get better mileage?
Click to expand...

The dude seems to have no clue what the difference between 'muscle era' and 'smogger era' is. Also that bias-ply tires ate my balls.

But the sentiment is still kinda true. Hopefully someone has pointed out the whole 'pre-1972 cars used silly gross horsepower ratings' thing.

Assuming the popularly-believed 'underrated engine' rumors to be true (let's face it; who was testing this in 1970?)- the strongest engines made what? 500 [gross] horsepower, if we're being generous? I believe the highest actual factory ratings were more low to mid 400's (426, L-something BBC's).

So take the generous 500hp...multiply by about 80% (also generous)...that leaves your fastest muscle car at 400hp at the crank. Realistically, probably more like 350, tops. Feed it through a 3spd auto and you're under 300 at the wheels.

And all the most powerful cars ('true' muscle cars) had curb weights around what? 3500-3700lbs, at best? Closer to 3000 for Mustangs and Camaros, but they had weaker engines.

edit: for comparison, the 660hp Mustang currently offered would've been rated somewhere around 900 in 1970. :hmm:
 
Last edited:
phucheneh said:
the strongest engines made what? 500 [gross] horsepower, if we're being generous? I believe the highest actual factory ratings were more low to mid 400's (426, L-something BBC's).
Click to expand...

The Chevrolet L88 would dyno over 560 hp with a set of headers in independent testing, but the L88 was essentially a race engine (the cars didn't come with a choke or with a heater and there wasn't even a radiator shroud) so that's probably not a good indicator.

Stock ZL1 engines (factory rated at 430 hp gross) dyno around 375 hp (net), so there was definitely some factory under-rating going on for these race engines given that there's no way an engine rated at 430 hp gross was actually putting out 375 hp net.

It's pretty safe to say that the strongest of the muscle cars from the '60s and very early '70s were only putting out 250 to 350 hp in today's ratings, at least, the strongest "common" engines were.

The rare "factory racer" engines like the L-88, ZL-1, and Ford's 428 Cobra Jet/Super Cobra Jet probably had more power accessible with relatively minor tweaks (generally jetting and timing adjustments with a set of free-flow headers), but those engines were intentionally restricted to make them less appealing for people who weren't "in the know" enough to be buying the cars for dragstrip use.

Still, I'd all but kill for a nice clean '68 Mustang 390 GT Notchback...

ZV
 
ketchup79 said:
This is my favorite part


What a laugh. Is this guy serious? Did he sleep through the oil crises and car companies scrambling to get better mileage?
Click to expand...

A 1979 Trans Am with the 400/4-speed and full smog crap still ran mid-14's with 3.42 gears on street tires of the day, and they were pretty heavy. You could easily tune them down to low 14's, high-13's by doing away with the crappy exhaust and changing the timing. The catalytic converters and mufflers of that era were awful....super restrictive. The exhaust manifolds weren't practically headers like cars have today, either.

And keep in mind, these engines were only 7.6:1 compression, too. Lots of the late-70's cars had very high gears in the rear, too. Many Trans Ams came with 2.41 gears. Try accelerating with those. Today's cars have effectively lower ratios with the extra gears their trannys have. First is lower than an old 4 speed or an automatic 3 speed, so a Mustang with say, a 3.73 gear in the rear can launch like a car with 4.11's or lower, but still have low rpm's on the highway due to overdrive.

Point is, little tweaks like these make a difference in overall performance. I'd love to see someone go back to a pristine Trans Am or Vette from the late 70's and put a 6 speed, modern rubber, good exhaust and tune it and see what they'd do. Might be surprising to some. They wouldn't be out-running today's Mustang GT's, but the difference might not be as much as you think.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me, at the last rod run I saw a resto-modded `70 `cuda droptop; N/A 528 Hemi making 720bhp, Dana 60 RE, Tremec 5-spd, 4.11 gear, X-FI system, w/ modern suspension and big 4-wheel disks. It had slips taped on the inside of the windscreen showing mid 10s in the 1/4. No doubt that's a mad, mad ride, and a real beauty to boot. The seller had a FS sign on it and I asked what he wanted. Yeah, it was 6 figures ($110k), and IMO worth every penny.
 
Not too shabby 0-60.

1970 Buick GSX Stage I
Specifications
Engine 455.7 cu in/7468cc OHV V-8, 1x4-bbl Rochester carburetor
Power and torque (SAE gross) 360 hp @ 4600 rpm, 510 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
Drivetrain 3-speed automatic, RWD
Brakes front: vented disc; rear: drum
Suspension front: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; rear: live axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar
Dimensions L: 200.7 in, W: 75.6 in, H: 53.1 in Weight 3810 lb
Performance 0-60 mph: 5.5 sec, quarter mile: 13.4 sec @ 105.5 mph, 60-0 mph: 139.1 (MT, January 1970)
Price when new $4479 base; $5150 as tested

http://www.motortrend.com/classic/roadtests/c12_0511_1970_muscle_cars_comparison/viewall.html

The Plymouth GTX wasn't bad either, and it chirped em in all 4 gears.
 
Last edited:
The GSX Stage1 is one of the cars that's widely accepted as underrated. Most say ~400 or more.

Torque monster, either way.
 
mike2fix said:
I can't believe someone actually even mentioned a WRX in a thread about a Hemi 'Cuda.
Click to expand...

Still sad that a turbo AWD car is quicker?

My original point still stands. The muscle cars of the sixties and early seventies, for the most part, are not as quick as people imagine.
 
mike2fix said:
I can't believe someone actually even mentioned a WRX in a thread about a Hemi 'Cuda.
Click to expand...

Yeah it sucks to get in discussions about volumetric efficiency when you are rooting for the underdog, and your 'competitor' had 18 years to develop a better way to extract power from a set amount of air/fuel mixture.

I love the style, smell and sound of classic cars, but I am not delusional enough to think they perform even nearly on par with modern engines. Not that running 12:1 A/F and lumpy idles are bad, it is just not economical. If you are rich enough to never ever have to think about fuel/energy economy and have time to post on this forum, then more power to you. That said, I really don't give a shit about your opinions either, because I am not in a fantasy world where resources are infinite.
 
Jumpem said:
Still sad that a turbo AWD car is barely quicker against what are most likely under reported numbers on paper compared to the numbers of a car being thrashed withing an inch of its life on paper 40 years later?

My original point still stands. The muscle cars of the sixties and early seventies, for the most part, are not as quick as people imagine.
Click to expand...

I think the point of the thread was to look at a classic car someone saw on the road? Why inject the the "look@me" stuff? If the barracuda is not quick, wouldn't that make the wrx also not quick in a relative sense? You point out the obvious in that turbo/awd gets the jump of the line, but after 65 doesn't matter so the barracuda isn't quick, is that right? If you lined up one of every car produced since 1971 and said go till you hit 65, what would be the cutoff from quick to not quick? Who would get left out? I feel dirty for forum racing.
 
styrafoam said:
I think the point of the thread was to look at a classic car someone saw on the road? Why inject the the "look@me" stuff? If the barracuda is not quick, wouldn't that make the wrx also not quick in a relative sense? You point out the obvious in that turbo/awd gets the jump of the line, but after 65 doesn't matter so the barracuda isn't quick, is that right? If you lined up one of every car produced since 1971 and said go till you hit 65, what would be the cutoff from quick to not quick? Who would get left out? I feel dirty for forum racing.
Click to expand...

I just don't see the desire for muscle cars. A quicker modern car is close in cost, quicker, safer, more reliable, and more comfortable.
 
Captain Howdy said:
Yeah it sucks to get in discussions about volumetric efficiency when you are rooting for the underdog, and your 'competitor' had 18 years to develop a better way to extract power from a set amount of air/fuel mixture.

I love the style, smell and sound of classic cars, but I am not delusional enough to think they perform even nearly on par with modern engines. Not that running 12:1 A/F and lumpy idles are bad, it is just not economical. If you are rich enough to never ever have to think about fuel/energy economy and have time to post on this forum, then more power to you. That said, I really don't give a shit about your opinions either, because I am not in a fantasy world where resources are infinite.
Click to expand...


These cars get driven maybe a few hundred miles a year. They have virtually zero impact on resources or the environment. They're pieces of history and art being preserved.
 
Jumpem said:
I just don't see the desire for muscle cars. A quicker modern car is close in cost, quicker, safer, more reliable, and more comfortable.
Click to expand...

Well I sure as hell don't want to daily drive a classic car or even own one. It's cool that other people do and we get to look at them though and race them in our modern cars.
 
Jumpem said:
Still sad that a turbo AWD car is quicker?

My original point still stands. The muscle cars of the sixties and early seventies, for the most part, are not as quick as people imagine.
Click to expand...

In 40 years no one will care about some tuna can rice mobile from Japan, and people will still be collecting and taking care of muscle cars from the sixties and seventies.
 
bigdog1218 said:
In 40 years no one will care about some tuna can rice mobile from Japan, and people will still be collecting and taking care of muscle cars from the sixties and seventies.
Click to expand...

I don't think an affordable 305hp 300ftlb AWD car that hits 60 in under 5 seconds is rice.
 
Jumpem said:
I don't think an affordable 305hp 300ftlb AWD car that hits 60 in under 5 seconds is rice.
Click to expand...

I think in this case rice is being used as an epithet regarding country of origin

ricepaddy3.jpg
 
Jumpem said:
The muscle cars of the sixties and early seventies, for the most part, are not as quick as people imagine.
Click to expand...

They're legends because it took so long for anything to come close in speed again. Yes, cars now are faster, but even into the early 1990s the only cars around that were faster than the big block muscle cars were very expensive quasi-exotic machines.

Yes, the ~5.5 second 0-60 time of a Boss 429 (and ~6.0 to 6.5 second 0-60 times of more "mundane" muscle cars) can't compare to what we'll see today from something like a WRX, but it's important to think about the circumstances under which the muscle cars disappeared. In less than five years a "fast" production car went from 5.5 seconds (1970 Boss 429 Mustang) to 10.5 seconds (1975 Mustang II V8) 0-60.

For just about 20 years, there simply weren't "everyman" cars that could even come close to the old Muscle cars.

That's why they became legends.

Jumpem said:
I just don't see the desire for muscle cars. A quicker modern car is close in cost, quicker, safer, more reliable, and more comfortable.
Click to expand...

I agree that in every objective criteria modern cars are "better." But there's more to life than objective criteria. 😉

ZV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top