When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was wondering if anyone knows the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of a 300-350hp 72 vette, around stock weight. the only times I have seen are from old car and driver tests that are comparable to a honda accord.
I was wondering if anyone knows the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of a 300-350hp 72 vette, around stock weight. the only times I have seen are from old car and driver tests that are comparable to a honda accord.
a v6 accord probably spanks the base engine vette.... which is 200 hp in 72. If you are talking about the LT1 (255 hp)might be a different story.
I'm assuming you have a 72 L48 thats moddified. If its the stock HP, then your looking upwards of 8seconds. If its got 300, i'd say 6.5-70, and if you got 350, i'd say somewhere around 6 seconds. Thats alot of guessing though. Our old vettes suffer from outdated transmissions. The new accord V6 with 240 HP can hit 60 in under 6 seconds....... Same thing for my 4cyl Honda S2000, again, 240 HP, and 60 in under 5.8.... Power is power though... if its got 300-350 HP it should pull AFTER 60, the reason why older muscle cars topped out so much higher in the 1/4 than a Civic or Accord that can run it in the same time. The times at the top also are subjective to the type of transmission you have. Its hard to tell. Go strap a GTEC PRO and find out for yourself :steering:
Wow.... i can't believe those results... 7.7seconds?? Did they measure seconds differently back then?? :mad Oh well.... i guess i should quit looking at the vette as the baddest car in my garage...... thumbs up to the honda..... lol :jester
Yep, the transmissions are a huge weak point. That and the new roller cams they use these days are what really make the difference in engine performance. The tires sucked major egg too. Bias ply 70r-15's?? Give me a break.
Also catch the note at the bottom that the old R&T road tests were notoriously slow. I would also suspect they had a tall gear in that car. Put in the optional 3.55's and some decent tires and you would have seen a huge difference.
:iagree:
I think that if you were to compare a base 350HP vette from 68, swap out the engine for a brand new 350hp zz4, the results would be more than noticeble. It may be an old engine, but the new heads, cams, roller rockers, carb, etc should make a substantial difference.
The transmissions sucked because the tires sucked. Using lower gears would've been useless because there wasn't any traction. Muncies have horrible ratios given modern tires, but made sense back then.
:iagree:
I think that if you were to compare a base 350HP vette from 68, swap out the engine for a brand new 350hp zz4, the results would be more than noticeble. It may be an old engine, but the new heads, cams, roller rockers, carb, etc should make a substantial difference.
Brandon :flag
And didn't the HP ratings change in the 70s? Meaning the 60s 350hp would be less than the newer 350hp. Not sure exactly when that change occurred.