What car is fastest 1965-1969 427 block with 400-435HP or C6's with a LS2 400HP?
 

Which car is fastest a 1965-1969 427 block with 400-435HP or a C6's with a LS2 400 HP engine?:steering:

C6. There is a lot more to a car than brute force.

2008 LS3 436 hp !!!!!!!!:thumbs:

Many of those older muscle cars were under-rated, powerwise..
The specs look better on paper then at the track, as the suspension, tires and other technologies offered little in getting the power to the ground compared to todays performance cars.

My father has four 1967 427/435 cars. And they will not run with the C6, I have a lot of time driving both. I have not had a 67 on the track but you can feel the difference. The C2 cars are really fast don't get me wrong, but they feel faster because they are a little radical and loud.

:iagree:

Look at the road tests of todays cars and a 435 '67. A new V6 Honda Accord will give one a good run for the money. I realize that is a little deceptive because of the tires back then - muscle cars back in the 60's weren't all that fast, but they were also handicapped by tires about as wide and sticky as the tires on Lance Armstrongs bicycles.

:rolleyes:

I am the first to line up and absolutely just love the 427 side pipe 1967...power yes BUT very basic formula... power = speed based on ability to get said power to the ground (the old 'only thing between you and the road is the four tire patches')... the C6 (stock to stock) has it spades over the 65-69 Vette which makes absolutely no diff to me...still love the the 67 but know the limitations

Thats why I was asking about the 2005-2007 C6's with the LS2 engine that has less HP and a smaller engine block than some of the 1965-1969 cars.:rolleyes:I watch alot of Mecum Muscle cars and more auctions on saturday nights and they are always talking up the 1965-1969 cars with the big block 427 and how fast they are.:cool:

There was actually an old Road&Track from 1986 that tested a big-block vs. an 86. The 86 was a far better performer. Fast-forward two decades, and it better ++++ :thumbs::flag:

Rating method
 

The old 427's were rated without water pumps, or fans, at the flywheel. So the stock HP was overrated.
But if you installed a different cam, headers, carbs ect they would easily make more HP than 435. So will a C6.
Adding a six speed transmission also drastically improves performance over an old 4 speed.
If the question was showroom stock vs showroom stock the C6 is faster, handles better, and stops better.
LJ :)

:iagree:

There was a show on Speed a few years ago that tested all the fast old muscle cars. Most were in the 14s with 2-3 hitting high 13s. These were stock cars with period correct tires, suspension, etc. Old muscle cars look and sound mean but performance wise they don't hold a candle to today's cars. Like mentioned, even a V6 Honda will give them trouble. Hey what do you expect from 40+ years of technological advancement? I'd still give just about anything for a '70 LS6 Chevelle SS. I don't care what car can beat it.

:iagree:

Having owned a 67 435 HP car back in the day An LS-2 will beat it hands down Those 435 cars were a handful, 775-15 nylon tires and a real bitch to keep tuned. There was a 435 convertable that ran in the old NHRA A/Sports class at the local track, if i remember right it ran 12.40 or there abouts,But it was a pure race car. I have a old copy of Cars mag at work with a 67 435 that Baldwin Motion was using for a test car. I will look tomorrow and see what it did back then. What i remember most about those cars is how they pulled on the top end they would flat haul Ass in the top two gears. and those chambered side pipes sounded so sweet. The 60"s was a great time for cars but you young guys have faster cars now.

I have every car magazine I ever bought (ok, except one) back to 1965. If anyone wants to know a specific car's times, let me know and I'll look it up.

Probably the '77 with a buck sixty five.

-- :iagree: -- I've had many of the 60's "Muscle Cars" and without major modifications the LS2 and of course LS3's are much faster.

I love the late 60's and early 70's muscle cars. They look and sound great. But:

I predict low 13's for the cars mentioned in the OP.

Today's cars will definitley kick ass.

Ever see someone show up at a dyno day in one of those big block car from the 60's? The end result is usually embarassment.

Hey Jim - hows about looking up any or all 3 years: 67, 68, or 69 427/435. I'm sure there will be some variations in times.