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

[440sixpack]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
So what made the tires in the 60s so different from today?

I'm no expert on this, but the usual description of them is "skinny, bias-ply, relatively hard rubber".

 

[440sixpack]

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

As pointed out, Ford and GM made millions of these, and millions or replacement parts. Now you take your old Mopars like mine, and it's neither cheap nor easy to find original parts for 'em. Especially body panels.

 

[GasX]

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.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO True....

I miss my 67 V8 mustang...

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"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.

Accord V6 runs mid 15s. Altima V6 auto runs low 15s/high 14s. Maxima 6-spd runs low 14s (as does the auto). And I'm not including the rare cases when some stock Maximas ran 13.9. Also the Intrepid 3.5 runs low 15s too. Note, I am including only the V6 models; obviosuly the 4-cyl models would be dog slow.

And a second is forever on a drag strip.

agreed

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

The show was wrong.

It was the car's owner who stated that on the show.

 

[Tom]

"It was the car's owner who stated that on the show."

Maybe he ran it with the a/c turned on. Just because one guy doesn't want to tear up his car isn't representative of what the car is capable of.


And I expected you'd respond to my comment about family cars just the way you did ! Your meager list hardly constitutes "most" family cars, does it ?

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"It was the car's owner who stated that on the show."

Maybe he ran it with the a/c turned on. Just because one guy doesn't want to tear up his car isn't representative of what the car is capable of.


And I expected you'd respond to my comment about family cars just the way you did ! Your meager list hardly constitutes "most" family cars, does it ?

I included the most popular mid-size sedans. I forgot to include cars such as the Grand Prix GTP and Buick Regal S/C both of which run low 15s/high 14s.

Which cars would you like me to list?

 

[alkemyst]

Tires were the big limiter then, they weren't even radials and the rubber was both narrower and harder.

Alot of the muscle cars were sold from the dealer in a certain 'road friendly' trim and you were supposed to make the parts counter your first stop

Things like special induction packages and heads or a cam were considered non-stock, but everyone ran them + things then weren't as marked up as they are now. Most of these cars also respond well to better gearing and adding an overdrive to make up for it (something they didn't have then which allows alot of today's cars to be quicker and get better mileage).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 440sixpack

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
So what made the tires in the 60s so different from today?

I'm no expert on this, but the usual description of them is "skinny, bias-ply, relatively hard rubber".

Yep. They also had high-profile sidewalls too. I remember when I was a kid in the '70s that 50 series radial tires were a VERY big deal. Now they're often standard equipment.

It's more than just the tires though. I may like the old cars but I like new cars better. Compared to today's new cars, the old cars were unreliable, unsafe, couldn't handle for sh!t, and not as fast or powerful as many would say. Sure, you can build the old muscle cars up to incredible power, but that's only because people have been wrenching on them for 30-40 years and because old cars (compared to new cars) are much easier to wrench on. But the vast majority of them certainly didn't come out fast and powerful from the factory.
And folks, 14's in the 1/4 is fast for any street car. That means a trap speed of about 100mph, faster than a good deal of the posters and lurkers here have ever even driven a car. Start talking about 10's, and we're talking about trap speeds of higher than 130mph, all in 1320 feet from a dead stop.

 

[Tom]

"I included the most popular mid-size sedans."

Toyota Camry w/ auto
Ford Taurus w/auto
Accord 4 cyl w/auto
Chevy Malibu

And your way optimistic on the ones you did include..

And your way optimistic.. Accord V-6 1/4 mile 16.3 seconds

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: 440sixpack

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

As pointed out, Ford and GM made millions of these, and millions or replacement parts. Now you take your old Mopars like mine, and it's neither cheap nor easy to find original parts for 'em. Especially body panels.

Yep, Mopars are different - they didn't make as many of them, so there's not so much demand for parts. Your consolation should be the fact that your car is way, way sexier than the GMs or Fords.

Now if you want a real nightmare, try restoring a Javelin or AMX.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I included the most popular mid-size sedans."

Toyota Camry w/ auto
Ford Taurus w/auto
Accord 4 cyl w/auto
Chevy Malibu

And your way optimistic on the ones you did include..

And your way optimistic.. Accord V-6 1/4 mile 16.3 seconds

I included only the V6s. And note, I never said ALL the family cars were faster, I said most. Maybe I should have said "some" instead. And there are Accords V6 in the 15s. I don't trust magazine times, I trust what people have ACTUALLY ran in ther cars.

But the fact remains, cars such as the Maxima V6, Altima V6, Grand Prix GTP, Regal GS, Accord V6 all are in the mid-15s and below.

However I'm not arguing which is better, because clearly none of these sedans can match the aura of the 60s-70s muscle cars.

 

[Tom]

"Maybe I should have said "some" instead. "

Then I would have no argument. I agree there are some great cars being made today, the ones you list I would consider todays current muscle cars, not so much representative of a typical family car.

 

[Workin']

Now if you want a real nightmare, try restoring a Javelin or AMX.

My dad's neighbor on one side has a pristine '69 Javelin. His neighbor on the other side has a pristine '72 Javelin. Weird. Of course this is in SE Wisconsin, home of AMC.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Maybe I should have said "some" instead. "

Then I would have no argument. I agree there are some great cars being made today, the ones you list I would consider todays current muscle cars, not so much representative of a typical family car.

Fair enough. Maybe I should have said they are more powerful versions of their vanilla counterpart?

What's interesting though, is that a lot of the older members of Maxima.org are all previous muscle car owners who couldn't keep their pride and joy for whatever reason.

And some of the younger people who own Maximas dream of owning domestic muscle cars.

 

[PG]

I don't trust magazine times, I trust what people have ACTUALLY ran in ther cars.

Why not? Do you realize they ACTUALLY have professional drivers and professional equipment? I trust them more than some average guy who starts saying he did this or that with his car.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: PG

I don't trust magazine times, I trust what people have ACTUALLY ran in ther cars.

Why not? Do you realize they ACTUALLY have professional drivers and professional equipment? I trust them more than some average guy who starts saying he did this or that with his car.

I trust timeslips.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

I trust timeslips.

yep, TS is like having a valid ID basically

 

[ElFenix]

cars back in the 60s are also giving up a gear or two (or even 3) to today's car's. while shifting takes time, its not as noticeable in a 1/4 time as it is in a 0-60 time (where one shift instead of two makes a big difference)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yep. They also had high-profile sidewalls too. I remember when I was a kid in the '70s that 50 series radial tires were a VERY big deal. Now they're often standard equipment.

It's more than just the tires though. I may like the old cars but I like new cars better. Compared to today's new cars, the old cars were unreliable, unsafe, couldn't handle for sh!t, and not as fast or powerful as many would say. Sure, you can build the old muscle cars up to incredible power, but that's only because people have been wrenching on them for 30-40 years and because old cars (compared to new cars) are much easier to wrench on. But the vast majority of them certainly didn't come out fast and powerful from the factory.
And folks, 14's in the 1/4 is fast for any street car. That means a trap speed of about 100mph, faster than a good deal of the posters and lurkers here have ever even driven a car. Start talking about 10's, and we're talking about trap speeds of higher than 130mph, all in 1320 feet from a dead stop.

I agree with you Vic for the most part....unreliable stock though...a few changes and you got reliablity...the safety is debateable.....nothing compares to crumple zones and air bags though. Some of those muscle cars (i guess pony cars really) did handle well, over 1g skid pads can be easily done.

but the last point is TOTALLY TRUE...14's are fast....I am sick of hearing about everyone having a 10 second car...it's just not so. People add up the power gains there air intake, exhaust, etc make to a stock motor and think it's all additive. Truth is +10hp for the air cone and +15hp for the exhaust may yield + 17-20hp real life (if that since most after market parts aren't even tested on the stock motor for the numbers they give)....

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is for you and any one else who doubts a factory stock 10 sec time slip:

http://www.budgetperformance.com/articles/hemidart/

Trick? maybe, but it is stock.

 

[Tom]

That isn't even close to stock.. it's not even street legal.

btw, a guy down the street from me bought a brand new 1969 Dart 440 GTS which was an extremely rare true street car. I'm sure it wouldn't run in the 10s but it was ungodly fast.

my brother had a 1969 GTO Judge, my friend's brother in law had a 1969 GTX 440, the guy across the street had a 383 Roadrunner, my best friend had a 1969 Camaro SS350, another friend had a 69 Z/28, a guy in our neighborhood had a Hemi Superbird, guy around the corner had a split window vette, I had a 1957 Chevy with a 327.

Just to give you some flavor of what life was like in the neigborhood back in 1968-1972.

 

[KenGr]

Oh, yeah, the hemiDart. I remember it. The concept of a "stock production model" that even had reduced gauge sheet metal was a stretch even for the manufacturer friendly NHRA. I think this car was the last nail in the coffin for real professional stock drag racing. It became steadily harder for the average car owner to compete with the sponsored stock cars with balanced and blueprinted engines and other mods that were hard to uncover. "Stock" cars began to show up that met the requirements for total weight but, when front/rear balance was checked they were rear biased.

NHRA then came up with SuperStock and Pro Stock to give the cheaters a chance to race each other, eventually spawning funny cars.

Today technology makes it easier to build a fast car but I remember the few 10 second street legal cars I saw in the 60's and 70's. The one I remember best was built by a true wizard who had owned several national championship cars. It was a Chevy Vega powered by a Chev 427, normally aspirated. It was completely street driveable and legal and would approach 10 seconds flat. 10 second cars are not a small undertaking.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

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.

I think you also have to look at the performance of the average family car back then, compared to the muscle cars.
I'd love to see times for a 1970 Ford Fairlane 500 I-6.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
That isn't even close to stock.. it's not even street legal.

btw, a guy down the street from me bought a brand new 1969 Dart 440 GTS which was an extremely rare true street car. I'm sure it wouldn't run in the 10s but it was ungodly fast.

my brother had a 1969 GTO Judge, my friend's brother in law had a 1969 GTX 440, the guy across the street had a 383 Roadrunner, my best friend had a 1969 Camaro SS350, another friend had a 69 Z/28, a guy in our neighborhood had a Hemi Superbird, guy around the corner had a split window vette, I had a 1957 Chevy with a 327.

Just to give you some flavor of what life was like in the neigborhood back in 1968-1972.

It is completely stock. Under $5000 brand new to anyone who ordered the SuperStock package. BO23 or LO23 was what you checked off on the order sheet.

Street legal and stock are 2 different things. It was stated that there were no stock 10 sec cars. I just showed you one.

I know what things were like then and what it was like in the late 80s, as my friends drove musclecars. My friend had 2: 1970 Buick GS 455 convertible and a 1971 Dodge Challenger 440 6pack, 4 speed and SuperTrak Pak option. My other friend had 340 dart (original) that ran mid 12's. Another has a 1970 Super Bee. I could go one but you get the picture.

 

[BadNewsBears]

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.

You had a Muncie M21 . Mmmm The trans for my GTo whenever it goes.