how do the old muscle cars compare?
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 556
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
ORIGINAL: silvermaster92
lets just say,your car is slower.thats a nice and simple way to put it.
ORIGINAL: imyy4u
All -
I'm curious as to how our 05-07 mustang gt's compare to a 67 camaro ss 396 v-8, or a 70 super jet mustang, etc. I really want to hear stories of how it feels driving one of those vs. how it feels driving our cars. Acceleration comparisons, traction comparisons, track times, which feels faster, which is faster, top speeds, turning, etc. I want to know what it feels like in my 06 mustang gt vs. driving a top-end camaro or mustang of the late 1960's/early 1970's.
All -
I'm curious as to how our 05-07 mustang gt's compare to a 67 camaro ss 396 v-8, or a 70 super jet mustang, etc. I really want to hear stories of how it feels driving one of those vs. how it feels driving our cars. Acceleration comparisons, traction comparisons, track times, which feels faster, which is faster, top speeds, turning, etc. I want to know what it feels like in my 06 mustang gt vs. driving a top-end camaro or mustang of the late 1960's/early 1970's.
Not nessecarily. Sure, some classic musclecars were quicker, but if you take a closer, the new GT is faster than most of them. Just a few examples; the SS 396 Chevelles were high 14 second cars in 325 & 350 hp trip. The L78 396 was a high 13 second low 14 second car. Stock 13 second musclecars were really upper echelon cars, i.e. your 440-6bbl's. LS6's, hemi's, etc. Take it from a guy that's owned many classic and restored Chevelle's, Mopars, etc.
As for the driving experience. My last classic was a 69 440-6bbl Road Runner with a 727 auto and 4:10 rear. Amazing torque! However, the motor was pretty much done at 4,800 rpm, and power trailed off - just like many old muscle cars. So in that regard, it's a completely different experience, not better - just different.
What I REALLY love about the S197 is it truly captures the best of both worlds. It melds nostalgia with all of the modern engineering triumphs that make the driving experience so much more enjoyable compared to tooling around in a 35 y/o rocket with horrible braking and suspension componants. I love classics, but I have learned that it's better to admire them from afar.
As an aside, I recently read an old Motor Trend test of a 67 Shelby GT500. Even with the big 428 they only managed a low 14. People will make all kinds of excuses about tires, tuning, etc, but the proof is in the numbers.
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 685
From: Chicago (South Loop)
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
another excellent post, lieu....again this is what i was looking for. input like this is priceless, and something you can't gain from researching the internet or just looking at numbers or drag videos.
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 204
From: Hickory,NC
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
When I was about 19 yrs old, I had an '81 GT and a '70 Mach 1. I use to let my Mom drive the GT to work, which was only about 1 mile away. One day I drove the GT so I could drop it off to have some work done on it, so my Mom drove the Mach 1. When I got home she handed me the keys and said she would never drive it again. The road we lived on was a very busy one traffic - wise, so when she stepped on the gas to get out into traffic like she was use to doing in the GT, the Mach 1 did a 180 in the middle of the road with her ! Fortunately she and the car were OK.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,313
From:
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
The new stang is nice but still is severely short on displacement to really capture the musclecar feel. It is a whole different ball game driving a car with 500+ ft lbs at like 3000 rpm. You can drop the clutch hard without even reving much and leave rubber on the ground. But usually, modestly cammed motors are done by 5-6K rpms.
Dad has a 67 goat which is pushing like 475 at the crank and is still a monster compared to the mustang. I have a mopar running a 451ci big block with an auto. It weighs 4000 lbs and has 2.71 gears. It runs high 13's but still will pull harder than the stang at some points.
The big difference again is torque, step into the throttle in first gear in the stang at 2K rpm and it is a slow gentle crawl until the engine starts making power.
Step into the goats throttle at 2K rpm and the whole car tries to go sideways. The instant throttle response with no electronics are a help to.
BUT, and here is the big BUT. For a daily driver, the stang is outstanding and very quick. And I still say it has a very nice engine power band that is more suited to its nature. very M3 like but with more torque.
And as far as comfort, handling, braking, etc. The stang has the older cars beat. Not that they are terrible when you build them right. I have konis and big brakes with modern rubber on the mopar.
Old articles and times from the 60's are useless and are vastly understated. Try launching a 450-500 ft-lb engined car on 1960's technology bias ply tires that are on 6" wide rims. Lots of fun, but you dont get anywhere fast.
Dad has a 67 goat which is pushing like 475 at the crank and is still a monster compared to the mustang. I have a mopar running a 451ci big block with an auto. It weighs 4000 lbs and has 2.71 gears. It runs high 13's but still will pull harder than the stang at some points.
The big difference again is torque, step into the throttle in first gear in the stang at 2K rpm and it is a slow gentle crawl until the engine starts making power.
Step into the goats throttle at 2K rpm and the whole car tries to go sideways. The instant throttle response with no electronics are a help to.
BUT, and here is the big BUT. For a daily driver, the stang is outstanding and very quick. And I still say it has a very nice engine power band that is more suited to its nature. very M3 like but with more torque.
And as far as comfort, handling, braking, etc. The stang has the older cars beat. Not that they are terrible when you build them right. I have konis and big brakes with modern rubber on the mopar.
Old articles and times from the 60's are useless and are vastly understated. Try launching a 450-500 ft-lb engined car on 1960's technology bias ply tires that are on 6" wide rims. Lots of fun, but you dont get anywhere fast.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 886
From: North East Texas on the Red River
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
In a drag race a 5 speed GT of today would outrun most all of the COMMON muscle cars of the sixties. Many of the young guys might think that every Big Block Chevelle was a 425HP 396 or that every big block Galaxie was a 425HP 427. That was NOT the case.
Most Road Runners were 325HP 383's. Most Galaxies were 352 or 390's. Most Chevelles were 327's. Our cars will outrun all those COMMON cars. Where those cars had us Beat, however, was that they had their torque peaks at much lower RPM making them FEEL much faster. Saving for the drum brakes, skinny tires and other things that have been so drastically improved, the mid range torque made them more fun to drive.
For that matter, my 85 5.0, 5 speed GT was more fun to drive. It had low end torque, 10% less weight and great handling. My 64 Galaxie 500XL with a 390 and a four speed was also more fun to drive, again because of low end torque. Also, my 66 289, 2BBL, 3 speed Mustang 2+2 had WAAaay more low end torque.
My $0.02,
Most Road Runners were 325HP 383's. Most Galaxies were 352 or 390's. Most Chevelles were 327's. Our cars will outrun all those COMMON cars. Where those cars had us Beat, however, was that they had their torque peaks at much lower RPM making them FEEL much faster. Saving for the drum brakes, skinny tires and other things that have been so drastically improved, the mid range torque made them more fun to drive.
For that matter, my 85 5.0, 5 speed GT was more fun to drive. It had low end torque, 10% less weight and great handling. My 64 Galaxie 500XL with a 390 and a four speed was also more fun to drive, again because of low end torque. Also, my 66 289, 2BBL, 3 speed Mustang 2+2 had WAAaay more low end torque.
My $0.02,
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 556
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
ORIGINAL: MBDiagMan
In a drag race a 5 speed GT of today would outrun most all of the COMMON muscle cars of the sixties. Many of the young guys might think that every Big Block Chevelle was a 425HP 396 or that every big block Galaxie was a 425HP 427. That was NOT the case.
Most Road Runners were 325HP 383's. Most Galaxies were 352 or 390's. Most Chevelles were 327's. Our cars will outrun all those COMMON cars. Where those cars had us Beat, however, was that they had their torque peaks at much lower RPM making them FEEL much faster. Saving for the drum brakes, skinny tires and other things that have been so drastically improved, the mid range torque made them more fun to drive.
For that matter, my 85 5.0, 5 speed GT was more fun to drive. It had low end torque, 10% less weight and great handling. My 64 Galaxie 500XL with a 390 and a four speed was also more fun to drive, again because of low end torque. Also, my 66 289, 2BBL, 3 speed Mustang 2+2 had WAAaay more low end torque.
My $0.02,
In a drag race a 5 speed GT of today would outrun most all of the COMMON muscle cars of the sixties. Many of the young guys might think that every Big Block Chevelle was a 425HP 396 or that every big block Galaxie was a 425HP 427. That was NOT the case.
Most Road Runners were 325HP 383's. Most Galaxies were 352 or 390's. Most Chevelles were 327's. Our cars will outrun all those COMMON cars. Where those cars had us Beat, however, was that they had their torque peaks at much lower RPM making them FEEL much faster. Saving for the drum brakes, skinny tires and other things that have been so drastically improved, the mid range torque made them more fun to drive.
For that matter, my 85 5.0, 5 speed GT was more fun to drive. It had low end torque, 10% less weight and great handling. My 64 Galaxie 500XL with a 390 and a four speed was also more fun to drive, again because of low end torque. Also, my 66 289, 2BBL, 3 speed Mustang 2+2 had WAAaay more low end torque.
My $0.02,
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,095
From: CO
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
not really on topic, but check out my friends bad *** 68 camaro with a lq9. they havent made a video of it running on the strip or anything yet because it just sits there and spins lol. him and his dad are putting in a locker, redoing the suspension, and taking it to the track on dr's in a few weeks though, i will post a vid here when they do. should run 11's all day 
. that car is so bad ***.
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...1100006218.htm
. that car is so bad ***.http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...1100006218.htm
5th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,460
From: Cumming, GA
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
Keep in mind .... pre-1972 cars are rated GROSS HORSPOWER ... not NET HORSEPOWER. Thats why lots of cars lost 25-75HP in their engine ratings from 1971 to 1972 .... I would think a 2007 Mustang GT rated at 300HP would be the same as a car rated almost 400HP in the 60's ...
1st Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 146
From:
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
There really isn't much of a comparison except in one critical area - the fun to drive factor.
I had a slew of muscle cars in the '70s and ALL of them felt faster than the GT on the street. They simply generated massive amounts of torque and had (mostly) instant throttle response.
Most of mine got about 10 mpg in town. I think the best any of them got on the road was about 18 mpg (going 55 after the speed limit was lowered in '74). Most had truly horrid brakes, often without power assist. One '67 GTO I had literally required both feet for a hard stop. One wouldn't dare a panic stop because the car could end up anywhere.
Several had manual steering (about 5 or 6 turns lock to lock) - while not bad on the open road, they were bears in parking lots.
Several other posters have made the accurate point that most of muscle cars of that era were not really all that quick. Some, however, were quick strong. I remember riding in a stock '72 Buick GS Stage 1 one night. It was for sale and the owner put it out on a two lane for me. Jez, we were doing 120 before I knew it - a scary fast car (that I would have bought if I'd had the money). Although I didn't think it in the same category, I had a '70 Ram Air III Trans Am with a stick that I sold to a classic car dealer in '82 (generating the down payment for our first house). Years later, I ran into him and he regaled me with a story about how they took it out one night and dusted a W30 Olds saying, "Damn, that car was FAST!"
One thing nobody has mentioned is the difference in prices. Here's the first few of mine:
- '65 Buick Skylark GS, automatic, nice car (paid $500 in 12/71);
- '68 Pontiac GTO, automatic, higher miles (paid $1050 in 10/72); and
- '64 Pontiac GTO, tri-power, 4 speed (paid $500 in 3/73); and
- '66 Olds 442, 4 speed, needed paint (paid $316 in 4/74).
The '64 GTO was about the only muscle car I had back then that wouldn't run out of steam in the triple digit range - it just kept pulling strong. I think I used half a tank of gas going about 2 miles the night I graduated from high school doing burn-outs from every stop sign. That '68 GTO had a Hurst dual-gate shifter in it. It would chirp the tires if I pulled it down into first going about 30 and nailed the gas (I loved doing that!).
To keep things in perspective, in 1971 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour.
I had a slew of muscle cars in the '70s and ALL of them felt faster than the GT on the street. They simply generated massive amounts of torque and had (mostly) instant throttle response.
Most of mine got about 10 mpg in town. I think the best any of them got on the road was about 18 mpg (going 55 after the speed limit was lowered in '74). Most had truly horrid brakes, often without power assist. One '67 GTO I had literally required both feet for a hard stop. One wouldn't dare a panic stop because the car could end up anywhere.
Several had manual steering (about 5 or 6 turns lock to lock) - while not bad on the open road, they were bears in parking lots.
Several other posters have made the accurate point that most of muscle cars of that era were not really all that quick. Some, however, were quick strong. I remember riding in a stock '72 Buick GS Stage 1 one night. It was for sale and the owner put it out on a two lane for me. Jez, we were doing 120 before I knew it - a scary fast car (that I would have bought if I'd had the money). Although I didn't think it in the same category, I had a '70 Ram Air III Trans Am with a stick that I sold to a classic car dealer in '82 (generating the down payment for our first house). Years later, I ran into him and he regaled me with a story about how they took it out one night and dusted a W30 Olds saying, "Damn, that car was FAST!"
One thing nobody has mentioned is the difference in prices. Here's the first few of mine:
- '65 Buick Skylark GS, automatic, nice car (paid $500 in 12/71);
- '68 Pontiac GTO, automatic, higher miles (paid $1050 in 10/72); and
- '64 Pontiac GTO, tri-power, 4 speed (paid $500 in 3/73); and
- '66 Olds 442, 4 speed, needed paint (paid $316 in 4/74).
The '64 GTO was about the only muscle car I had back then that wouldn't run out of steam in the triple digit range - it just kept pulling strong. I think I used half a tank of gas going about 2 miles the night I graduated from high school doing burn-outs from every stop sign. That '68 GTO had a Hurst dual-gate shifter in it. It would chirp the tires if I pulled it down into first going about 30 and nailed the gas (I loved doing that!).
To keep things in perspective, in 1971 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour.