Just got my new Motortrend Mag, Old Vs New Muscle cars.
Wow, the old 60’s stuff was blown away completely.
All the 60’s SS396, 440, and 428CJ could muster is mid to low 14’s Quarter mile times
Against the New 6.2 Camaro and 392 Charger and SC 5.3 Stang, that ran high 12’s
(Guess are C4’s are not as slow as I thought compared to the 60’s Musclecars).
I was surprised how fast the that 6.2 vette motor is even in the Camaro witch had the least HP but ran with the other 2.
I was at a stop light in my other car when here pulls up this Tahoe 2010, when the light turned green he took off and I could swear I heard the vette motor in the C6.
Next light I asked him what he had in it , he said 6.2, sure enough I looked it up on the internet, for 2009 they put the 6.2 (396hp) 6 speed auto ( with manual shift mode) with 3.75 gears.
This is the same engine in the 2009 Escalade that smoked the Mini Cooper S in motortrend drag test it ran 6.2 to 60 and high to mid 14s, but in the Chevy Tohoe ( that weighs less) and has 3.75 gears in stead of 3.43’s, making this the fastes full sized SUV GM makes.
Man there putting vette motors in everthing , Caddy and SUV’s.
These are for sure the best performance times, the new muscle just smokes the old stuff,
My stock C4 wouldnt stand a chance against the new cars, but again im not making payments and I still have fun driving it so ill keep it for now.

 

If you put the same size tire on any of the old cars you mentioned, your average stock C4 would be put to sleep.

The old cars had lots of power and torque and came with much smaller wheels and tires and crappier compounds.

 

The new cars have a lot more horsepower, thanks to technology, but it sounds like the article missed a few of the really spectacular 'old cars'. The 396 didn't have a chance compared to the LS6 454 they stuffed in some of the GM products. The LS6 Chevelle could easily go into the 13's and that's stock. Add a good tune and tires and I'm sure you'd get into the 12's.

Wonder also, if they mentioned the Ford 351 Cleveland. It didn't take much to make a whole lot of big block stomping horsepower out of one of these! Another mention is the 440, but not the 426 Hemi, same story as the 396/454. No mention of the rare but lethal COPO cars from GM, nor the Hurst Hemi Darts, SD455 Pontiac Trans Ams or the Ram Air V GTO's. I'm sure there's others worth mentioning too. A good buddy of mine had a 69' Corvette Stingray with the aluminum 427, no ac, no power steering and a very basic interior. I can't imagine that car, not hitting 12's (or better) in the 1/4 mile.

Finally, the tire technology back then truly sucked and was a big limiting factor in what power the car could put to the ground. Many of these cars, with updated tire technology are going a good deal faster than what they did back then.

Still, no doubt about it, the new cars are very, very fast and they are very, very expensive. I was in Huntington Beach last weekend and it was a rolling car show on the PCH or Pacific Coast Highway all weekend. New Corvette ZR1's, Shelby Super Snakes, Roush 427R Trakpak and a Porsche 911 GT3 RS. But also saw a wicked, nasty 65' Chevelle Resto-Mod, in deep gloss black, no chrome and it had something brutal under the hood, that's for sure!

 

Skinny tires that dont grip lousy exhaust sustem and conservative ign curve.
Change those on any musclecar and youd be suprised.
Some of the BBC could pick up HUGE amounts of power jsut with a decent exh and curve.

 

/thread

Go to a local drag strip on a friday night and take a look at what the old muscle cars are doing in stock (or close) form with better tires.

 

If you are saying I am wrong, I 'd like to know what BB's are running by you.

A big block with any traction will beat a stock C4.

I hope I misunderstood your statement, because I have never seen a stock C4 do well at a track when against anything other than a girl in a a rental car..

I do frequent the tracks around here, and see some guys from this forum run.

I think the op is comparing old times on old tires and gas.

 

I think you must have misunderstood. I was agreeing that new tires on the old cars = fast. There are some incredibly fast 60s and 70s cars out there with stock (or close) drivetrains.

 

Really? My 93 runs 13.50 flat at 103.3 in bad air and with my crappy driving. 2.17 sixty foot time.

In good air I have hit the 108-109 range in trap speeds good enough for high 12's if I can get my sixty down. Not to shabby for an LT1.

FYI, only mods are open air lid with K&N, resonator replaced with x-pipe and muffler eliminators. On Kumho Escta SPT's at 23psi. Yes, those are street tires.

The average muscle car from back in the day even with good tires might keep up. It would take a above average muscle car to run faster on good rubber. Keep in mind those HP ratings for muscle cars up until 71 were SAE gross not the net we use today. My LT1 makes 300net HP which is about as much as the 70 LT1 made only it was rated at 370gross hp. The modern LT1 makes more power than the 70 LT1 and the 70 LT1 was a very potent engine for the time. Don't argue with me on that last part, it got the text right in front of me, Dave McLellan said so. Corvette From the Inside Pg. 71.

426's, 440, 455, 454's,428s, 427's, 429s, etc...etc...are NOT average muscle cars. Most (stock) muscle cars have small blocks and most are not the above average types.

We typically think of those above average muscle cars because of the rightfully legendary status of them however they are not a dime a dozen typically fewer production numbers and high in price even back in the day. I haven't seen a stock Hemi Cuda at the track anytime recent. Only modified stuff that is no where near stock and not anything rare.

 

One of my all time favorites was the `69 DZ302 Z/28. Don`t know why they did not keep making them. I could not afford one then & had to "settle" for a 69 Roadrunner with a 383

 

93Rubie
Cool you must have a special car or maybe not stock. Either way Big blocks were mentioned in the original post and if you put the above mentioned pieces on the BB cars to give them an equal chance 13.5 is not going to do it. IMO

Maybe you can post a video of you running a 13.5 and a BB muscle car chasing you in the rear view.

Also if I am not mistaken you have been called on that car not being stock before considering your times.

 

I figured, but you never know around here lately

 

I agree if you took a big block muscle and gave them similar mods to what I have and good tires. You probably will run faster in a BIG BLOCK. You have way more cubes I hope you are faster.

My point is that they might be in SOME cases faster they are not for the most part, WAY faster in general.

I have no video of this I never see lightly modded or stock big block muscle cars at the track. Mostly newer mustangs, camaros, etc...rare to see rare old school iron at the track most owners don't want any harm to come to them. Not that I blame them big $$$ in them.

I never claimed by car was stock, I listed all my mods, I said basically stock. Exhaust and air filtration improvements are VERY basic bolt ons that just about everybody does.

In good air, note trap speeds.





Recent time slip in not ideal air/conditions. Left lane.


In case you don't believe the last time slip, I have another here I ran later that night. Ran a 13.51 to the other guys 11.98. I don't run 11.98 but a solid 13.5, yes.

FYI, we have left out a large factor here. DRIVER. I cannot drive and I'll admit it. I could be faster than a BIG BLOCK with similar mods to my car if the driver cannot drive it. Or could be the other way around. It is that simple.

MY POINT IS MAKING STATEMENTS THAT A GIRL IN A RENTAL CAR IS FASTER THAN STOCK C4 IS TOTALLY WRONG. I am tired of stuff like that I request (respectfully) that it stop. I love my C4 and it is NOT slow compared to many old and modern cars for what it is, it holds it own very well.

Contact Mr. Mojo, he has ran low 13's high 12's in LT1 6 speed cars. With no to little modifications.

 

His wasnt stock either. He could drive them and get good times though.

 

Lots of LT1 cars out there running mid 13 totally stock. Low 13s in good air. Tires are part of it. Technology is also part. More to it than cubic inches.

 

...and you are saying that your 93 was not high in price when it was new?

Average new car price in 1993 - $12,750.00
1993 Corvette 40th coupe ~ $40,000+ depending on options.

And if you allow that same level of mods on just about any of the muscle cars mentioned by the OP... you will be seeing tail lights.

 

The the rental car statement is not a joke or a fake story, it happens here at the track. a stock 85' C4 can barely handle a 4 door rental car. Yes girls race here at the track in rentals too.

That's that's facts and the norm these days about the early C4.

Arguing about a true late 60's BB muscle car with tires from this decade and traction vs a 90'sLt1 is just silly for me to do.

If you race a car with a 74' BB 454 truck motor in it that's a different story.

I responded to the original post and the BB motors mentioned there.

You have 300+ hp and 330+ TQ, Match that against a true BB muscle car with traction. you're not in the same ball park with motors mentioned in the original post.

 

Yes, my 93 was expensive back in the day however it is NOT a straight line queen like the old school muscle cars. Olds 442 being an exception I understand they handled good for the day.

The OP mentioned the 440 and 428CJ, and I think the race would be close, I have factory manifold with a what is basically a catback. So if they have a manifold back system and some good induction setup with good modern street rubber. I think it would be close, given I weigh a lot less then those cars. I do not think it would be the shacking you think it would be. The 396SS would not stand a chance, now the 454 that is a different story. Now this is just opinion obviously...

A stock 85 might run 15 to 14.5 seconds so yes, the right rental might beat it. A late V6 Camry would probably beat a early C4, maybe, could be close. FYI, Pologreen, you said C4, did not specify early C4, BIG difference. 230HP verus 245hp verus 300hp. Makes for some confusion.

Also Mr. Mojo on his profile page lists his 95 at 13.07 (bone stock) he only ran a 12.995 with the same mods as I have on my car. Not a whole lot of difference, but impressive nonetheless.

My basic point is this. Modern cars in general are faster than the old school muscle cars. The standouts of that era are still quick stock. With supporting mods that aren't crazy and don't take away from the cars historic value they can be very fast, read a ZL1 Camaro or Yenko, 426's, etc....even by today's standards. I have heard the ZL1's with headers and slicks can run high 10's, low 11's.

However, do not underestimate the factory performance of the LT1 it may only be 350c.i. and 300net HP but as Jack Didley noted mid 13's and even low 13's are common, which even by today's standards is not slow,not exceptionally fast, but definitely not slow at all.

Nothing against the old muscle cars, in fact nothing but respect, they got the thump and the thunder, modern cars wish they had.

 

The newer cars also stop and steer. The problem is they are all cookie cutters. In one day I probably see four or five new challanger RTs, Camaro SS or Mustang GTs. And these guys enter these cars in car shows... You dont need to go to a car show to see these cars. All you want are on a dealers show room floor. So who really cares if they are faster then the older muscle cars. They just dont have the class or clout of the older cars and never will.. A C6 will out handle and perform any C1 or C2. But what would you rather own or see at a car show. A 61 Fuelie Corvette or a nice spanking new C6? Same with all the new stuff out there. Yea they do everything well but they are just new cars. Nothing really special about them.

 

My '62 vette (327/300) will out run a C4 L98. It will outrun a lot of cars. Some is due to the fact that there are no accessories to steal power, and some is due to the fact that people don't expect it to be that fast. Oh, and remember that factory got that up to 360HP with fuel injection.

As for the LT1, my friend was driving my stock '92 and beat a Ferrari 360 Modena. He also beat a 500HP BMW M5.

At the end of the day, you can have a faster car-but can you drive it?

 

I hope you know that 360 is gross HP not net hp. In net HP you have about 300. Not knocking you in any way just info. Net HP ratings in use since 1971.