Question about American Muscle Cars from the 60s-70s

[mAdD INDIAN]

I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Anyway, they had a show on the 454 Chevelle SS, saying it was one of the fastest cars of its time and dominated the track (but they say this about pretty much every car they feature). Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. And it made 500+ lb/ft of torque.

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

I understand with mods and real tires they are blindly fast, but then so is any car.

 

[Vette73]

No, most cars Tires will do very little. But for cars like this, ZR1's, etc... Cars that have some much power they lose a second or more just spinning their tires. So little mods go a long way on cars that make monster torque.

Also the Chevelle was a heavy car. If you want real power to weight, get a Nova and stuff a 454 in it. Or even a monza.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Anyway, they had a show on the 454 Chevelle SS, saying it was one of the fastest cars of its time and dominated the track (but they say this about pretty much every car they feature). Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. And it made 500+ lb/ft of torque.

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

I understand with mods and real tires they are blindly fast, but then so is any car.

LOL.

Any car? I don't think so. I put real tires on my Crown Vic and its not blindlingly fast.

10's stock. No way. Only 2 cars ran 10's stock. 1968 Chrysler SuperStock Dart and Barracuda with the crossrammed Hemi could do this.

Most muscle cars ran low 15's high 14's bone stock. Remember though they were limited because of several factors, the least of which is horrendous traction due to very crappy tires. These cars were usually fairly heavy aswell.

A few of the high end muscle cars could turn in 13's or so. These would be your supercars like LS6 chevelle, GS Stage 1 455, just about any Hemi car, 440 6bbl, Ram Air IV 400, etc.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Anyway, they had a show on the 454 Chevelle SS, saying it was one of the fastest cars of its time and dominated the track (but they say this about pretty much every car they feature). Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. And it made 500+ lb/ft of torque.

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

I understand with mods and real tires they are blindly fast, but then so is any car.

LOL.

Any car? I don't think so. I put real tires on my Crown Vic and its not blindlingly fast.

10's stock. No way. Only 2 cars ran 10's stock. 1968 Chrysler SuperStock Dart and Barracuda with the crossrammed Hemi could do this.

Most muscle cars ran low 15's high 14's bone stock. Remember though they were limited because of several factors, the least of which is horrendous traction due to very crappy tires. These cars were usually fairly heavy aswell.

A few of the high end muscle cars could turn in 13's or so. These would be your supercars like LS6 chevelle, GS Stage 1 455, just about any Hemi car, 440 6bbl, Ram Air IV 400, etc.

Notice I added "mods" as well as "tires".

So then why the praise that most of these muscle cars that run low 15s/high 14s are "real cars" when most of the family cars of today can match and exceed that 1/4mi time.

Note, I'm not flaming or anything, I love muscle cars, but not because of their "percieved" speed.

 

[Workin']

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

Ignorance and/or "rose colored glasses". Most people who say the old muscle cars ran in the 10's wouldn't know a 10-second car if they saw one. L88 Corvettes and Shelby Cobras (not Mustangs) could run high 12's off the showroom floor. And those were about the fastest cars you could get back then. Now Z06 'vettes and Vipers run in the high 12's, soon to be joined by a whole bunch of 12 second cars like the Ford GT and V-12 BMW's and MB's.

Most "family cars" run in the 16's or slower.

I would consider a car that runs 14.99 or faster "fast". 13's is "really fast". 12's is "damn fast".

You need approximately 700 hp to run in the high 10's. And about 7000 hp to run in the 4's.

Now is "the golden age of performance". The late 60's, early 70's were great but there are lots of fast cars available brand new right now. And the new cars can actually turn and stop well, too.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Workin'

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

Ignorance and/or "rose colored glasses". Most people who say the old muscle cars ran in the 10's wouldn't know a 10-second car if they saw one. L88 Corvettes and Shelby Cobras (not Mustangs) could run high 12's off the showroom floor. And those were about the fastest cars you could get back then. Now Z06 'vettes and Vipers run in the high 12's, soon to be joined by a whole bunch of 12 second cars like the Ford GT and V-12 BMW's and MB's.

Most "family cars" run in the 16's or slower.

I would consider a car that runs 14.99 or faster "fast". 13's is "really fast". 12's is "damn fast".

You need approximately 700 hp to run in the high 10's. And about 7000 hp to run in the 4's.

Now is "the golden age of performance". The late 60's, early 70's were great but there are lots of fast cars available brand new right now. And the new cars can actually turn and stop well, too.

I agree and disagree at the same time.

It depends on what you prefer to do with your car. If you are into drag racing then great handling isn't a priority.

Some muscle cars actually handle quite well even compared to todays cars.

As for braking, be carefull. Most (not all) musclecars came with brakes that were way better than what normal passengers cars got.

The golden age of performance came and went with the musclecar era.

High performance with a computer powered car is different from the old days' snarling, roaring V8s. It has now lost its fun. Trust me, driving a high powered, big cammed V8 with headers in an all steel chassis that is shaking due to the V8 power is way more fun and cool than driving a 300 hp Accord.

 

[peterskm]

I have a 454 LS6 in my 1967 Firebird. It is fast. Though, I haven't taken it to the track to find out how fast.

 

[KenGr]

It sounds like some people are losing track of what "stock" is. I grew up in the 60's and at that time, stock cars were really stock. We did have "cheater" slicks (with a couple of tread grooves) that could be legally used for racing but they were really inferior to actual street tires today. Reducing weight meant taking the spare tire and jack out and hoping you still made weight specs. The magazines would test cars and get into the 13's but very few stock street cars would really do that. When you hear about 10 second muscle cars, they are far from stock.

 

[Budmantom]

10sec is FAST!!!

 

[Demon-Xanth]

What held many of the greatest cars back was the tire tech. Put a modern tire on those old cars and suddenly a 14 second car becomes a 13 second car. Many a hot rodder in the 60's would kill for a set of tires that are made now.

 

[Jennie]

"mods and tires"?

Type R stickers and racing slicks?

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Jennie
"mods and tires"?

Type R stickers and racing slicks?

No. Well yes on the tires part. But by mods I mean cams, higher-flow heads, ECU tuning, FI upgrades, etc..

So what made the tires in the 60s so different from today?

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Anyway, they had a show on the 454 Chevelle SS, saying it was one of the fastest cars of its time and dominated the track (but they say this about pretty much every car they feature). Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. And it made 500+ lb/ft of torque.

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

I understand with mods and real tires they are blindly fast, but then so is any car.

No regular production muscle car ever ran anywhere close to 10s in the quarter. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people today claiming they own/have friends who own a "10 second car" are either liars or fools, whether it's a W30 442 or an OMG M4D TYTE Civic.

One of the reasons muscle cars are remembered so fondly is because until very recently they really were among the fastest things on the road. Even though nowadays you can buy a Japanese station wagon that does 0-60 in under 6 right off the lot, 10 years ago a car that could do it in under 8 was considered pretty quick. 20 years ago the average "sporty" car in the US did 60 in 9-10 seconds, or worse.

So back in the early 80s, any high school kid with a couple thousand bucks could buy a GTO, 442, etc. and absolutely blow away any new car on the road, Corvettes included. That's really when all the nostalgia and wild claims began.

And although you can theoretically mod any car to go fast, those old American cars are incredibly easy to modify and work on compared to any new car. Parts are still fairly cheap and easy to get, at least for GM A- and F-bodies.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Anyway, they had a show on the 454 Chevelle SS, saying it was one of the fastest cars of its time and dominated the track (but they say this about pretty much every car they feature). Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. And it made 500+ lb/ft of torque.

Now my question is, how come everyone says these cars are fast and runs 10s stock?

I understand with mods and real tires they are blindly fast, but then so is any car.

No regular production muscle car ever ran anywhere close to 10s in the quarter. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people today claiming they own/have friends who own a "10 second car" are either liars or fools, whether it's a W30 442 or an OMG M4D TYTE Civic.

One of the reasons muscle cars are remembered so fondly is because until very recently they really were among the fastest things on the road. Even though nowadays you can buy a Japanese station wagon that does 0-60 in under 6 right off the lot, 10 years ago a car that could do it in under 8 was considered pretty quick. 20 years ago the average "sporty" car in the US did 60 in 9-10 seconds, or worse.

So back in the early 80s, any high school kid with a couple thousand bucks could buy a GTO, 442, etc. and absolutely blow away any new car on the road, Corvettes included. That's really when all the nostalgia and wild claims began.

And although you can theoretically mod any car to go fast, those old American cars are incredibly easy to modify and work on compared to any new car. Parts are still fairly cheap and easy to get, at least for GM A- and F-bodies.

Ah ok. That makes sense.

Also, how would parts still be cheap and common for cars made in hte 60s?

 

[Brutuskend]

I'm willing to bet a 427 AC Bristol Cobra could do 10's (or close to that) stock.

They just don't make'um like they used to.

 

[PG]

You young guys don't get it. Don't look at the 1/4 mile time but the speed at the end. This will tell you how the car can accelerate and how much power it really had. The better muscle cars from the 60's were all around or over 100 at the end which is about where a modern Camaro SS is today.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Also, how would parts still be cheap and common for cars made in hte 60s?

The Chevy 350 that is currently in the corvette is essenially the smae engin block tha was in a Camaro in 1967. Ford and Chevy have been building cars based on the same engines for 30+ years, pumping out missions of cars a year. There are 10s of millions of Chevy 350s, ford 302s and 351s, and other popular smallblock V8s out there. Becuase of the popularity of the cars, there are also companies that are still building new ones today. There are at least half a dozen companies producing high performance cylinder heads for ford and chevy smallblocks, for example.

 

[Workin']

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I'm willing to bet a 427 AC Bristol Cobra could do 10's (or close to that) stock.

They just don't make'um like they used to.

A 427 Cobra runs mid/high-12's.

The golden age of performance came and went with the musclecar era.

Get a clue. There has never been so many really fast cars available as there are today.

High performance with a computer powered car is different from the old days' snarling, roaring V8s. It has now lost its fun. Trust me, driving a high powered, big cammed V8 with headers in an all steel chassis that is shaking due to the V8 power is way more fun and cool than driving a 300 hp Accord.

Hmm, I had a '69 Corvette with the L46 350hp 350, "rock crusher" 4-speed, and 3.73 posi rear end. It was fun to drive. Felt just like a modern pick-up truck as far as handling. Wouldn't say it's more fun than the modded BMW E46 3-series I have now which is comparably fast (both are high 14's). And would absolutely lay waste to the old 'vette in ANY handling category.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Also, how would parts still be cheap and common for cars made in hte 60s?

The Chevy 350 that is currently in the corvette is essenially the smae engin block tha was in a Camaro in 1967. Ford and Chevy have been building cars based on the same engines for 30+ years, pumping out missions of cars a year. There are 10s of millions of Chevy 350s, ford 302s and 351s, and other popular smallblock V8s out there. Becuase of the popularity of the cars, there are also companies that are still building new ones today. There are at least half a dozen companies producing high performance cylinder heads for ford and chevy smallblocks, for example.

I know the Chevy 350 has been around forever, but I'm sure there's a big difference, between say the LS1 or LS6 and the 350 used back in the 60s.

But ya, I guess companies like Edelbrock and JEGs are still churning out those parts since there is a high demand for them.

 

[JC]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Also, how would parts still be cheap and common for cars made in hte 60s?

The Chevy 350 that is currently in the corvette is essenially the smae engin block tha was in a Camaro in 1967. Ford and Chevy have been building cars based on the same engines for 30+ years, pumping out missions of cars a year. There are 10s of millions of Chevy 350s, ford 302s and 351s, and other popular smallblock V8s out there. Becuase of the popularity of the cars, there are also companies that are still building new ones today. There are at least half a dozen companies producing high performance cylinder heads for ford and chevy smallblocks, for example.

Actually, the new small-blocks are nothing like the old ones, except maybe bore spacing

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I usually watch the show "American Muscle Car" on Speed, since, well, I have a thing for muscle cars.

Ah ok. That makes sense.

Also, how would parts still be cheap and common for cars made in hte 60s?

Supply and demand. Because of the energy crisis (which caused people to park their 8mpg big-block cars and drive Pintos and Datsun B210s to work instead) a lot more muscle cars survived with lower miles than would have otherwise (especially Cutlasses, for reasons nobody knows). Back in the late 80s - early 90s there was a huge rise in collector's value for those cars, creating a very nice market for anyone who could supply parts for them.

They make great restoration projects - no computers, little or no emissions crap to worry about, no exotic materials or bizarre manufacturing techniques. Just steel, rubber, plastic and glass arranged in nice big chunks, put together with nice big bolts and lots of room for wrenchin'. They do rust but not so much as, say, a 70s Fiat or Porsche.

In my original post I said parts were "fairly" cheap when I should've said "relatively" cheap. I'm sure parts for a '95 Skylark are both cheaper and easier to get than for a '70 GTO Judge. But compared to other older fast/interesting/fun/project cars (Porsches, BMWs, Vettes, etc.) they're still a good value.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I know someone who had a 10 second car, but it wasn't a street car

 

[LAUST]

I know someone with a 10 second car and it is a street car

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Workin'

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I'm willing to bet a 427 AC Bristol Cobra could do 10's (or close to that) stock.

They just don't make'um like they used to.

A 427 Cobra runs mid/high-12's.

The golden age of performance came and went with the musclecar era.

Get a clue. There has never been so many really fast cars available as there are today.

High performance with a computer powered car is different from the old days' snarling, roaring V8s. It has now lost its fun. Trust me, driving a high powered, big cammed V8 with headers in an all steel chassis that is shaking due to the V8 power is way more fun and cool than driving a 300 hp Accord.

Hmm, I had a '69 Corvette with the L46 350hp 350, "rock crusher" 4-speed, and 3.73 posi rear end. It was fun to drive. Felt just like a modern pick-up truck as far as handling. Wouldn't say it's more fun than the modded BMW E46 3-series I have now which is comparably fast (both are high 14's). And would absolutely lay waste to the old 'vette in ANY handling category.

I had a "rock crusher" in my 65 442. I liked the B/W super T10 I had in my AMC better! (The T10 came out of a Hurst S/C Rambler Scrambler) Though the T10 weighed more, it was MUCH stronger IMO.

 

[Tom]

"So then why the praise that most of these muscle cars that run low 15s/high 14s are "real cars" when most of the family cars of today can match and exceed that 1/4mi time."


Those numbers are way off in both respects. The typical muscle car ran mid to high 14s bone stock and 13s/low 14s with just cheater slicks.

"most of the family cars of today"

What are you talking about ? "Most" ? Most family cars of today couldn't break into the 15s.

And a second is forever on a drag strip.

"Anyway, they said stock, it ran low 15s, and iwth mods it ran low 14s. "

The show was wrong.