ModernMuscleCars.net - Modern Muscle Cars Archive - MuscleCar 1/4 mile times from vintage road tests

Pages: 1

MuscleCar 1/4 mile times from vintage road tests
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: SVOno5oh

Well before the board self destructed, I made a post asking if anyone would be interested. A friend of mine compiled and listed all of these on another board a few years back. These are his words and they come straight from his collection of old car magazines, mostly Car Life.

Before we get to the times and writing, I want to point out these are 100% pure stock showroom fresh cars from back in the day. These cars respond to simple mods better then LS1s in most cases. A little timing bump, change the jets, change springs in the distributor, index the plugs and viola. Add some stuff like headers, decent mufflers and whamo, you can easily pick up some huge ET.

Here is installment #1.

Tonight is Chevrolet night, but I'll soon post some numbers from themusclecars that wear the blue oval. Stay tuned. Oh, could someone please crosspost or just post this message for our buds inthe F-body and Corvette newsgroups. I'm sure they'd love to read thesenumbers. ----------------------------------------------------------------

1967 Camaro SS - 350 ci (295 hp) 4-speed with 3.55 gears.Test weight - 3380 lbsRight off the street with "bum" plugs. 15.05 @ 91 mphPut a "curve in the ignition" and new plugs - 14.85 @ 95 mph-----------------------------

'69 Camaro Z-28 - 302 ci (290 hp) 4 speed Test weight N/AShifting at 6,000 rpm with 4.56s"Completely stock, street-legal form, but with Bill Thomas headers." 14.34 @101.35 mph29 1/2" inch tall Caslers 14.20 @ 100.89 mphHeaders uncapped 13.79 @ 103.68 mph24 degrees of advance coming in at 2,200 rpm, disconnected vacuum advance, newplugs, larger jets in the carb 13.64 @ 104.28 mphTraction bars and M&Hs 13.43 @ 105.774.88s and Hurst competition linkage 13.11 @ 106.76Interesting note: "But there - the Z-28 - is residence for probably thebiggest sleeper ("sleeper"?) to ever hit a new-car showroom.---------------------------------------------------------

1971 Camaro SS 396 (300 hp) 4-speed with 3.42 gearsTest weight N/ATire pressures played with 14.87 @ 96.309 mphRemoved air-filter element, advanced timing to 12 degrees. No changes in ET ormph.Interesting notes:"Most runs were in the very low 15s"The '71s were down on compression, thus horsepower in order to pass tighteningemission standards. The '70s had 10.25:1 cr and were rated at 350 hp.

------------------------------------------------------------1967 Corvette 427 tri power (435 hp) 4-speed with 3.55s Curb weight 3340 lbsWith carb work, removing all the accessory drive belts, "air the tires to 36psi".13.80 @ 108

1968 Corvette L-88 (with stock factory ZL-1 aluminum heads) 427 ci (430 hp)3-speed automatic with 3.36 gears.Test weight 3420 lbs13.56 @ 111 mphInteresting notes: "A Charger 500 Hemi we tested recently tested edged the L-88 in thequarter-mile times, but the Hemis are tough too." "Low-speed operation and idling are poor phases of this car's operation. Atstop lights, with the trans left in gear, the engine pulls down low on speed,and will sometimes quit running. ...the only effective control is to put onefoot on the throttle, and one foot on the brake, or to put the lever up toneutral." -----------------------------------------------------------------

1966 Chevelle SS 396 (360 hp) 4-speed with 3.73 gearsTest weight 3,850 lbsWith the vacuum secondarys modified (temperature in the low 60s, but with a 30mph head wind) 16.30 @ 86 mph"Tires burned through puddles of bleach for super cleaning and some liquidtraction compound painted on." 15.70 @ 92 mphInteresting note (on the same day): There was a '65 Chevelle SS with 375 hpNASCAR holley, slicks, and who knows what else, that wasn't going more than asecond quicker."

1970 Chevelle SS LS6 454 ci (450 hp) Muncie M-22 4-speed with 4.11 gearsShifting a 6,100 - 6,200 rpms"Shock changes", tire pressures played with, air-filter element removed, andrunning the engine warmer at 195 degrees (to kill some bottom end) 13.44 @108.17 mph, a 13.48 and a 13.52. Interesting note: The best test mileage was 10.006 mpg. The worst was 7.30mpg.-------------------------------------------------------------

1969? (I think) Nova SS 396 L-78 (375 hp) 3 speed automatic with 3.55sTest weight - 3570 lbsThe best run a 13.87 @ 105.14 mph couldn't be beat or duplicated. The veryworst ET was a 14.47. Average was a 14.228. Casler-capped Goodyear tires were too tall to improve ETs with the "rather highgear."

1968 El Camino SS 396 (350 hp) 3-speed automatic with 3.31 gears.Test weight 3,930 lbs"Purely stock condition (air shocks and tire pressures played with and the morefactory advance than specified - 39 degrees total): First run 14.93 @ 95.33mph. On the second run "we didn't do as well. The third run was a 14.82. Removing the chrome-plated air filter top, but leaving the bottom plate. 14.70@ 96.98 mph.Removed power steering, and smog-pump drive belts and loosened the alternatordrive belt slightly 14.57, then a 14.49 @ 98.79 mph.Interesting notes: 4.88 gears were optional. "After all, we had 3,500 miles (yes, they wrote 3,500 miles) showing and we hadnever received thorough maintenance other than oil changing and other routineitems."

That's tonights installement. There are 6 more, and one of them (Ford is in 3 parts)

Posted by: SVOno5oh

[quote:e5ad85e948="EvilLS1"]I can't figure out why all these magazine editors don't include the 60' times in their road tests!? That and the trap speed is what tells ya the most about the cars true capabilities. The 60' times were probably too embarrassing to publish. I guess magazine test pilots have always sucked at getting respectible ETs from powerful cars.[/quote:e5ad85e948]

Well here is how I look at it. Let's say you have a car for one track day (make it your first, and that is all). You're not going to get the best times. What were your times the 1st day with the T/A? My first times with my '97 Cobra were dismal 14.2s. With no mods and just some practice I got less dismal 13.8s. It takes a while to learn to get everything a car has to offer. Magazine editors aren't crappy drivers, they just don't get the time. Now imagine one day at the track with 4 cars to run and compare.... It only gets worse. Hell the guy driving for Motor Trend, Mac DeMere, is one of the best in the business. He is just a driver and writer on the side. He has driven every type of race car this planet has to offer and done well at it. He won the Winston West championship one year. Think stock cars, road courses and CA and you get the idea.

So I don't really think any magazine test driver really gets the time behind the wheel needed to know the cars well enough to get the best times.

To top it all off, what could be worse then trying to hook up a big block car on 5 or 6" wide bias ply tires? FWIW, some of the driver's for these tests weren't slouches. In further episodes, guest drivers include Gas Rhonda and other big names from back in the day.

One of the points one should glean from all of this is that if you had a 14.0 car back then, you were fast. No joke. Heck Jim Wangers won an NHRA title while working at Pontiac in a GTO that could barely break 14.0. That was in '65 I think. That was the fastest stock NHRA car back in those days. Drag racing has come a long way and so have cars, that's the point of it all.

Heck, you can whip a '53 Corvette in a brand new Dodge Caravan in the 1/4 mile. Sad? Still true.

The mighty small blcok powered '57 Chevy is no match for an Integra GS-R or Type R. Sad? Still true.

The '65 Mustang with a base 289 will get dusted by the same two Integras.

When it comes down to insane accleration, don't even bother comparing the Vette Z06 and Viper to the cars of yesteryear. The only things built then that can run those numbers were cars like the Hemi Dart, Thunderbolt and Yenko Camaros with ZL-1s.

Posted by: SVOno5oh

I agree. You know the multithousand dollar telemetry equipment they use can do it or the track they are testing at can print it out. 0-60 mph is really sort of useless, but that is what the average moron off the street really wants to know. I like looking at 0-100 or trap speed much more.

Posted by: Tang

0-100-0 is where its at

Posted by: Penske

No, 0-100-around a 170 degree decreasing radius off-camber turn-100-0 is where it's at. Lateral Gs are more fun.

Posted by: Tang

That would be more fun

Posted by: Weazel

Awesome list. I was thinking the same thing as you guys, those MPH were ridiculously high for the ETs. I'm sure those cars were capable of 1/2 second quicker with some good launches. I mean 13.6 at 110 mph for the 68 Vette L-88 :WTF: That thing's got some topend I would imagine. I'm sure the three speed didn't help that cause either.
Cool list

Posted by: SVOno5oh

I got more...

Posted by: electec_1

The 1/4 mile times are inaccurate because they are using STOCK BI-PLY tires. Ever seen a 60s tire? Hard to hook up traction with a tire about 6 inches wide. They were terrible. Take a stock car and slap on a set of M80s, and you arnt still burning out when you get to 60.

Hell the original shelby cobra could still loose traction at 100!!!

btw the horsepower numbers are off quite a bit on most of the cars. 60 muscle is like 90s rockford amplifiers, UNDER rated like crazy.

Posted by: John

the 1/4 mile times are 100 percent accurate. they were testing STOCK cars. that means that the tires those cars came with are whatthe car is tested on. if it came with bias ply tires then thats what they were running on. a test is a test on an entire car, not just tires. but the tires are part of the car so they are factored in for better or for worse. making the statement that they are inaccurate based on a DIFFERENT control set for you experiment is not only inaccurate, it is completely incorrect.

"slapping on a set of M80s" would alter the car from its STOCK condition, thereby making the claim that the car is STOCK, inaccurate.

we all know that the bias plys do not have adequate traction levels to use the level of power available to those cars. thats why we see them running so fast now. tire technology advanced. that technology was not available then so they ran on what they had. at that time, those times were what the technology was allowing them to run.

as for your horsepwoer claims. where is your proof? while it is common knowledge that manufacturers over and under estimate power levels on cars, you statement has seemed to include all the cars in the above post. so, when you get a chance, let us know what the real numbers are, ok?

and holy shit, i'm defending Anthony! i must really not be feeling well today!

Posted by: electec_1

First of all, I dont have any website to go to to show inaccurate hp ratings, but take a look at the 1/4 times of the cars, and the HP ratings. With REAL tires on em, they just dont add up. Somewhere out there is a generic formula of wieght/hp (of course not including all important drivetrain) and it just doesnt make since that you could slap on a set of wider tires and get the times they were getting. And I dont think the numbers are even close either. Look at this one in particular:

1966 Chevelle SS 396 (360 hp) 4-speed with 3.73 gearsTest weight 3,850 lbsWith the vacuum secondarys modified (temperature in the low 60s, but with a 30mph head wind) 16.30 @ 86 mph

Are you going to tell me with a straight face you think a 66 chevelle with a 396 is going to get beat by my STOCK 1988 Ford Thunderbird 5.0?????

Serisously now, people are talking trash with the ls1s and 4.6 DOHC, but dont expect to come up to a 454 camaro or 427 mustang and get anywhere. I dont think its really fair to put todays ignition and induction technological breakthrus in the same catergory as tires. Plain and simple, yes it is fair to compare a 60s big block with a small block with 30 years technology on it, but its not really fair to compare them with one car wearing tires that would slip and slide all the way down the track. Horsepower and drivetrains are one thing, but tires? come on! Bi ply SUCK! You should see the pics of my dads 69 mach one, with the stocks on it. I used to own a 92 eclipse that had wider tires!

Posted by: John

[quote:648a0fff33="electec_1"]First of all, I dont have any website to go to to show inaccurate hp ratings, but take a look at the 1/4 times of the cars, and the HP ratings. With REAL tires on em, they just dont add up. Somewhere out there is a generic formula of wieght/hp (of course not including all important drivetrain) and it just doesnt make since that you could slap on a set of wider tires and get the times they were getting. And I dont think the numbers are even close either. Look at this one in particular:

1966 Chevelle SS 396 (360 hp) 4-speed with 3.73 gearsTest weight 3,850 lbsWith the vacuum secondarys modified (temperature in the low 60s, but with a 30mph head wind) 16.30 @ 86 mph

Are you going to tell me with a straight face you think a 66 chevelle with a 396 is going to get beat by my STOCK 1988 Ford Thunderbird 5.0?????

Serisously now, people are talking trash with the ls1s and 4.6 DOHC, but dont expect to come up to a 454 camaro or 427 mustang and get anywhere. I dont think its really fair to put todays ignition and induction technological breakthrus in the same catergory as tires. Plain and simple, yes it is fair to compare a 60s big block with a small block with 30 years technology on it, but its not really fair to compare them with one car wearing tires that would slip and slide all the way down the track. Horsepower and drivetrains are one thing, but tires? come on! Bi ply SUCK! You should see the pics of my dads 69 mach one, with the stocks on it. I used to own a 92 eclipse that had wider tires![/quote:648a0fff33]

that was quite a rambling post and didn't make much sense but what I got from it, you believe that comparing engines from 30 years ago to engines now is not a valid comparison due to technological differences. correct?

yet further in your statement you say that comparing biased ply tires to tires from your Eclipse is a valid comparison? there is 30 years difference in tire technology there. how is that ok?

and your knowledge of tires is pretty lacking if you believe that the only difference between the bias-ply tires on your dad's Mach 1 and teh radials on your Eclipse was the width and the orientation of the cording in the tire.

oh yeah, and an FYI, racers are still using bias-ply tires. most of your drag racing slicks are bias-ply. some of the D.O.T. approved slicks are bias-ply but most have a radial construction.

it is possible to make a 7.5 inch wide bias ply hook as well as a 10 inch wide radial priovided the same technology in tire compounds, tread design and heat tempering is allowed to be used. the REAL reason tires switched from bias-ply to radial construction was strength and safety. not traction.

and yes, i do believe that a 360 horse Chevelle would only run 16's. why? because of its 30 year old tire technology. on top of that it was quite heavy at something like 3500 pounds. you also have to remember that that 360 horses is gross output, not net output. that 360 horses is without accessories and certainly without the drain of a drivetrain. that 360 horses gets whittled down to around 300 real quick. and thats not enough for 13's in a 3500 pound car on bias plys.

your problem is, you are only seeing some picture that a misinformed person painted for you. i say it that way because, if you knew the REAL facts, you would see the REAL picture and you wouldn'thave the ideas in your head about tires that you do.

Posted by: SVOno5oh

One of the biggest things you are forgetting is the change in the way horsepower was measured before and after 1972. '72 was the year the automakers went from using gross hp to net hp. Gross hp is much higher then net hp. Yes the Chevelle made 360 gross hp, which is probably about 250 net on its best day. From '71 to '72 Buick's 455 didn't change (the Dodge Hemi went away, so did Ford's CJ motors, but Pontiac and Buick kept their big blocks), but the horsepower rating dropped about 80 hp IIRC. I can find a link to show it though if I have to. Hopefully this will refresh your memories.

And yes a stock 5.0 HO car will run with the Chevelle SS's of yesteryear.

Furthermore bias ply tires aren't all that bad at the strip. Ever see pictures? The sidewalls wrinkle quite nicely and they hook pretty damn hard.

The problem with a lot of these cars was the gearing. They came equipped with numerically large gears, and the big V8s make tons of torque. Those old big block cars can shred new modern tires easily too. My good buddy races a 455 Buick. It runs 13.2 at 101. Try and figure that out. He uses up tires doing it like you wouldn't believe. The difference between fresh M&Hs and worn ones is about 0.7 seconds on that car.

Posted by: DODGE_MAIN

They never printed 60 foot times back then because they didn't record 60 foot times at drag strips back then. The cars were under rated back then for insurance purposes and NHRA stock factoring. For instance the "425 horse 426 HEMI" made in the neighborhood of 470-480 horse. Even the tame low compression (9:1) mild cammed base line crat HEMI of nowadays makes 465 horse!

The 1969 1/2 440 six pack super bee 12.85@111 mph on a set of M/H slicks is still the quickest "legit" muscle car test i have seen in the mags.

Back to the Forums