how do the old muscle cars compare?
10-02-2006, 07:52 PM
#21
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 749
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
The 390 C.I. Ford that McQueen drove in Bullitt was tested at, I beleive, around 7 seconds for 0-60. Take away a second for wheelspin on those bias ply tires....so its a six second car.
I had driven in and driven many stock bigblock cars of the late sixties and early seventies. From the factory, with the crappy factory carbs, they would all get their asses handed to them by today's mustang GT's and GM LSx cars. Even with the displacement deficit, today's motors sing pretty nicely from the factory. The low end torque on the big blocks is nice but todays motors, GT included, give you a much better power band. (the GM LSx's in my opinion act much more like an old big block than the Mustang GT; the GT with it's small displacement just doesn't deliver the torque and the oomph that an LS6 or LS2 can deliver...
Now, the old cars were easy to dramatically improve with a carb, cam, intake, and headers....but it would still take a lot of work to put em on par with todays musclecars. And yes, the old horsepower ratings were meaningless since there was no measurement standard.
I had driven in and driven many stock bigblock cars of the late sixties and early seventies. From the factory, with the crappy factory carbs, they would all get their asses handed to them by today's mustang GT's and GM LSx cars. Even with the displacement deficit, today's motors sing pretty nicely from the factory. The low end torque on the big blocks is nice but todays motors, GT included, give you a much better power band. (the GM LSx's in my opinion act much more like an old big block than the Mustang GT; the GT with it's small displacement just doesn't deliver the torque and the oomph that an LS6 or LS2 can deliver...
Now, the old cars were easy to dramatically improve with a carb, cam, intake, and headers....but it would still take a lot of work to put em on par with todays musclecars. And yes, the old horsepower ratings were meaningless since there was no measurement standard.
10-02-2006, 07:52 PM
#22
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 211
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,
10-02-2006, 07:55 PM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ohio
Posts: 507
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
If you put skinny biased-ply tires on the mustang like the 60's muscle cars had, you would roast and toast the rear tires. The old big blocks had gobs of torque. Torque is what gives that stump pulling feeling. The old cars were good in a straight line. The modern cars are so much better in so many ways. I love the old muscle cars, but truly, the best overall performance cars are being built today: i.e., Viper , Z06, Ford GT, Charger SRT8, Evolution, WRX STI, GTO, just to name a few. Remember, horsepower ratings from the 60's were gross horsepower, not net horsepower, therefore, the horsepower ratings would be less in the 60's if they used today's standard.
10-02-2006, 08:05 PM
#24
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: yep
Posts: 16,186
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
something else to keep in mind...several guys have mentioned the stock quarter mile times of muscle cars being in the low 14s or high 13s, but if you look a little closer, youll see a much more important number...the trap speed. for instance, off the top of my head, a 69 440+6 roadrunner was listed as running 12.91, but it did so at 112mph...my car was running 12.60s with traps of only 103-106. these cars were running on AWFUL tires, compared to modern day skins...you might think that the stock tires on your GT are crappy for a hard launch, but try doing it with an E60x15 polyglass tire!
callahan beat me to my point..[8D]
callahan beat me to my point..[8D]
10-02-2006, 08:07 PM
#25
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles Ca
Posts: 2,127
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
My aunt had a '68 Dart GTS with a 383 big block, 727 auto, not sure the gears out back....but on the skinny 14 inch red-line tires it had, anything over a slight prod of the pedal and it was spin city. The cars of yore definitely had much more torque lower in the power band(hence why 5.0L Mustangs "feel" faster than the 4.6L generation of Mustangs-save the Terminator) and without being able to drive the majority of these(actually they were referred to as "super cars" back in the day) monsters because of their ability to just go straight and not turn or stop made them seem that much more awesome.....creating a sense of being uncontrollable because of their fantastic torque and hp, but it was really a combination of the raw power and the inability to harness it all in. I was only three when my aunt bought her GTS, back even at that tender age, I knew, just really knew that that car was something to behold...she's long gone and so is the Dart, but I remember(in the early 70's) my sister(who's 14 years older than me) taking us out to the movies and she got on it and WOW! Remember, this is before required seat belt wearing, air bags and crumple zones. Bias-ply tires(6.20-14 if memory serves), four wheel drum brakes and a 60/40 % F/R weight distribution made things very hairy.....faster than a new GT?(doubt it) More exciting?(of course) But the fun wears off really quickly(especially to the modern driver). As a whole the new GT is much faster than the common "super car", but the top dogs of the era would had the GT's lunch(but not as badly as one would think).
Very entertaining question....Bravo, my good man!
Very entertaining question....Bravo, my good man!
10-02-2006, 08:24 PM
#28
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: yep
Posts: 16,186
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
true, but when the motor went together when i was 16, i couldnt afford good heads and such, and the engine came without the top end...so im running late model heads with 1.88/1.60 valves, with a good port job...i dont have the 2.02 or 2.10 heads...ive thought about going to a bigger set of heads, but im happy with the way that it runs for now..
but back on topic...as was already stated, the premium muscle cars would pound a stock GT, even on the polyglass skins...and the "normal" muscle cars, such as the 335hp RRs and such would give a GT a good run, especially with a decent set of tires.
but back on topic...as was already stated, the premium muscle cars would pound a stock GT, even on the polyglass skins...and the "normal" muscle cars, such as the 335hp RRs and such would give a GT a good run, especially with a decent set of tires.
10-02-2006, 09:17 PM
#29
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 700
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
I can't speak for muscle cars exactly, but my last car was a 1971 Corvette. The same week I sold that car, I bought my Mustang. The Vette did have some major modifications including a modern engine in it, fuel injection, computer etc. Everything else was 1971, though.
Compared to the Mustang, my C3 handled like a pickup truck, I'll be honest. It had manual brakes, too. Now, the car was much older than I am, and I had never driven a car without power brakes. You have to watch it, especially around other cars. The 60's and 70's must have been fun...lots of fast cars, but no one could stop!!!
Now, that said, my old 'vette only weighed in at 3,100 or 3,200 lbs (sorry, I can't remember the stat). With the added horsepower, (400 hp according to previous owner, but I never had it dynoed) it was faster in a straight line. It comes at a cost, though! I think got about 9 or 10 mpg in the city. :-) Remember, my car had computer controlled fuel injection, too. Stock for stock, though, I believe the current Mustang should have been able to beat my Corvette.
Older cars simply aren't as reliable. C3 Corvettes are known for leaking power steering, rusted brake calipers, etc. Even when the systems were new, they just weren't as well engineered. That's why I laugh when someone gives me a speech about this model is more reliable than the next. Just about any vehicle today is reliable, especially compared to 70's vehicles. I don't care what Consumer Reports might tell you.
It was better in a few regards. The Corevette felt faster. When I do 85 in the Mustang the sensation isn't nearly the same as when the Corvette was doing 65 mph. I liked the way the Corvette looked...better than the Mustang. I miss my T-tops, too. Ford needs to add a factory sunroof or bring t-tops back. Not everyone wants a convertible.
Now, I'm in my 20's, so I suppose I have higher standards for vehicles, but I will tell you that after driving a 35 year old car for a year, forget it. If you appreciate automotive history or have nostalgia for an older model, then it's for you. Compared to a modern car, though, it could be tedious to drive. My 2006 Mustang GT is really the better vehicle.
Compared to the Mustang, my C3 handled like a pickup truck, I'll be honest. It had manual brakes, too. Now, the car was much older than I am, and I had never driven a car without power brakes. You have to watch it, especially around other cars. The 60's and 70's must have been fun...lots of fast cars, but no one could stop!!!
Now, that said, my old 'vette only weighed in at 3,100 or 3,200 lbs (sorry, I can't remember the stat). With the added horsepower, (400 hp according to previous owner, but I never had it dynoed) it was faster in a straight line. It comes at a cost, though! I think got about 9 or 10 mpg in the city. :-) Remember, my car had computer controlled fuel injection, too. Stock for stock, though, I believe the current Mustang should have been able to beat my Corvette.
Older cars simply aren't as reliable. C3 Corvettes are known for leaking power steering, rusted brake calipers, etc. Even when the systems were new, they just weren't as well engineered. That's why I laugh when someone gives me a speech about this model is more reliable than the next. Just about any vehicle today is reliable, especially compared to 70's vehicles. I don't care what Consumer Reports might tell you.
It was better in a few regards. The Corevette felt faster. When I do 85 in the Mustang the sensation isn't nearly the same as when the Corvette was doing 65 mph. I liked the way the Corvette looked...better than the Mustang. I miss my T-tops, too. Ford needs to add a factory sunroof or bring t-tops back. Not everyone wants a convertible.
Now, I'm in my 20's, so I suppose I have higher standards for vehicles, but I will tell you that after driving a 35 year old car for a year, forget it. If you appreciate automotive history or have nostalgia for an older model, then it's for you. Compared to a modern car, though, it could be tedious to drive. My 2006 Mustang GT is really the better vehicle.
10-02-2006, 09:34 PM
#30
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 628
RE: how do the old muscle cars compare?
I was wondering the same thing the other night and got to fishing on google and came up with actual stock 1/4 mile times for the old school cars. I was shocked to find out that most of the old school cars were 14 second cars a few 13 second ones and if I remember right only 1 or 2 cars in the 12's. The reason I was shocked is I'm 56 and that's what I grew up with. Now grant you the torque on the old school cars were something else. The 426 hemi's had like 500 ft.lbs. of torque.