Jughead

1970 454 Road & Track

0-60 in 7.0sec! I hope I get something better than that out of my 454.

Eddie 70

Normal Drivning, mpg........ 9.0
Cruising range, mi............162

Corey_68

Those times were also on bias ply rubber aka concrete.

Summerfun

Those came with restictor plates, did they

81 Vette

9mpg seems about right for a 454BB even these days hahahaha

I Love the SBC!! Ill probably get 9.5mpg


summerfun, you still owe me like 2332435 PM's you old Canuck Bastage

FormerPacifist

Why is the speed at the end of a quarter mile 93mph when it only takes 14 seconds to hit 100?

Paul L

Search your favourites.

http://www.corvettearchive.com/

Summerfun

Corey_68

What gets me is a '68 Big Block CONVERTIBLE did 13.4 @109.5mph and weighs 455lbs less.

http://www.corvettearchive.com/image...ug89/page5.jpg

SBR

Good question, I would like to know the answer to that as well.

Simmo

Ive got a copy of a magazine that mentioned another 3.08 TH400 version that got 0-60 on 5.7 and 14.2@100 in quarter.

I bet my '70 LS5 M21, 3.7 rear was quicker and used more fuel.

mstanton

0-60 in 7.0 seems slow. Car and Driver tested the 71 454/365hp going 0-60 in 5.7. Same options as the 70 tested.

Z-man

That must be the year they had that Sumo wrestler doing the test driving. Look at the weight as tested: 4070!! That seems about 500 lbs too heavy...

I've always seen weights around 3300 without driver.
http://idavette.net/facts/70.htm

lostpatrolman

HEHE, either that or they decided to put some concrete bags in the rear for some traction..

Jughead

Maybe it's because Road & Track magazine seemed to have a bias against American made. American cars were never up-to-snuff. At least that's the impression I got reading these road tests back in the '60-70's. R&T always had the slower times of all the magazines.

ICEMAN59

I find those numbers hard to believe my mercedes E430 does 0-60 in 6.2 sec and runs a 14.63 quarter with a 4.3 liter V8 I don't know what it weighs but I know it's heavy.

PRNDL

This certainly highlights the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the testing equipment and methodologies. We compare "QUARTER MILE TIMES" and we compare "ZERO TO SIXTY" times as if they are actually comparable when there are huge differences between cars, drivers, tracks and even methodologies. In addition to all the variables that are clearly variable, even the same driver at the same track running the same car can get very different results in the 1/4 mile by staging differently.

So, to answer your question, 1/4 mile data is produced by racetrack equipment , mph is calculated by measuring the time between lights at the end of the track, so it is actually an AVERAGE mph over the last xxx feet (somebody? I forget how many feet). The 14 sec 0 - 100 mph is probably measured using a 5th wheel and electronic equipment. This explanation still doesn't account for the huge difference, ie 93 mph in 15 sec vs 100 mph in 14 secs, but it gets you thinking in the right direction.

Here is another one for you. Look at any current road test in Car and Driver or Road and Track. Check out the 0 - 60 time. Note that they also report a "street start" 5 - 60 mph time, which is always longer than 0 - 60... so why does it take less time to go 0 - 60 then it does to go from 5 - 60????? I think I have the answer to that one but have not confirmed it with the car mags yet. They won't answer my emails.

WA 2 FST

'69 L71, 14.3 @ 98mph, 0-100 in 14.8, 0-60 in 6.1.

Sounds about right to me... 427cubes/435hp (gross) which would = ~265-275rwhp if put on a chassis dyno.

And while we can bitch about the crappy tires they used, also remember that by today's standards these vehicles were strapped with horrible gearing. Even an M21... its got a 2.2x 1st gear. That is terrible for acceleration unless you have 4.11s in the back. Most came with 3.36 rear gears.

I think the lousy gearing counter-balances the lousy tires to an extent. The times above look completely legitimate as far as comparing ET vs. MPH.

SG4206

My friends blueprinted LS-5 , '71 4-sp with 4.56 gears, 9" MTs, runs 12.20s at 115 mph.
It is amazing how a good minimum spec. blueprint will wake up lazy engines.

WA 2 FST

I also think production tolerances were not nearly as tight back then either. Looking at another article on that site, they had 0-60 in 5.3, 13.8 @ 106.xx in the 1/4. Same L71, 435hp powerplant.

Back then they only had to run 2-3 engines and could take the _highest_ output that one produced and slap it on the sales brochure. Nowdays, its an average HP figure, and over a larger test sample.

It makes sense that an LS5 put together "right" would run superior #s to the factory engine.