Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was shocked to learn that mommy's grocery getter today gets into the 14's with the baby's car seat in the back. Those 60's cars seemed so fast at the time.
yeah technology sure changed things. "Back in the day" our muscle cars all felt quite fast, and now i have a stock s2000 that runs with most of those with half the cylinders and probably half the weight lol.
while i tip my hat to what the kids these days are getting out of the imports, I still think that the old muscle had a certain feel you can't replicate. Lope at idle, that split second hesitation before the secondaries kicked in (if vacuum), heck I used to run my friend's v8 pinto on the street that was a 12.10 car and had a blast with it. Now i watch videos of my daughter's bud's 10 second honda running over 130 at the end if the 1/4..... ohhhhhh the fun I could have had with one of those little toys
I am glad somebody got this thread going again. Brought back memories of the sixties.
As someone who owned a Big Block car back then and now a small block performance car I am really impressed with today's technology.
My 64 Galaxie 427 had that big block grunt and lopey idle and at E-town RWP ran in the low 14's. It was 100% stock and felt real fast.
Today I have a stock 5.0 2012 Mustang and it feels a lot quicker than the 64 Galaxie and although it will never see the drag strip I am told it can easily run in the 12's.
It also can corner as good as an M-3 and stop even better plus it get's 25 MPG on a trip ( I verified that)
Not looking to get into a "which is better today" argument just posting my feelings on yesterday's performance compared to today's.
I did a whole lot of street racing in the 60's and real production muscle cars of the era, GTO's Fairlane GT, 442, Camaros and Mustangs that were not cooked up race cars sold in quantities sufficient to get past racing rules, were all running in the 14's. The Mopar products which were right on the edge of that rule cheating thing, what with fiberglass body panels and no window hardware, etc. got into the 13's.
The only Mopars I can recall which had fiberglass body panels and no window hardware were the '68 Hemi-Dart and Barracuda, which ran 10s, not 13s.
Quote:
I was shocked to learn that mommy's grocery getter today gets into the 14's with the baby's car seat in the back. Those 60's cars seemed so fast at the time.
Some people don't realize that many people did minor to moderate modifications to their cars back then ('60s), so that "14-second" car became a low-13 second or faster car. For example, some basic mods would put a 340 Mopar in the low-13s. Motor Trend tested a '70 429 Mustang wtih 4.56:1 gears and 7" drag slicks (considered to be "wide" tires back then) and ran a 12.3 sec @ 112 mph 1/4 mile.
And a recent muscle car magazine had an article about a '69 Dodge Super Bee with 440-6 Pack. With some mods (engine bored out to 496-cu-in, aftermarket alloy cylinder heads, high-performance cam) it runs 11.84 secs @ 114 mph on street tires (with an automatic transmission, btw).
The only Mopars I can recall which had fiberglass body panels and no window hardware were the '68 Hemi-Dart and Barracuda, which ran 10s, not 13s.
Some people don't realize that many people did minor to moderate modifications to their cars back then ('60s), so that "14-second" car became a low-13 second or faster car. For example, some basic mods would put a 340 Mopar in the low-13s. Motor Trend tested a '70 429 Mustang wtih 4.56:1 gears and 7" drag slicks (considered to be "wide" tires back then) and ran a 12.3 sec @ 112 mph 1/4 mile.
And a recent muscle car magazine had an article about a '69 Dodge Super Bee with 440-6 Pack. With some mods (engine bored out to 496-cu-in, aftermarket alloy cylinder heads, high-performance cam) it runs 11.84 secs @ 114 mph on street tires (with an automatic transmission, btw).
Nonsense. I spent my life at drag strips and street racing. No stock vehicle, with or without plexiglass windows and a fiberglass trunk lid ran 10's That is pure BS. There was established a pro stock class of vehicles that looked like stock cars but were permitted ednless mods and some of them may have run into the 10's after the class got going. But htose were not cars one could buy. They were fully prepped race cars.
And, my 390 Fairlane with headers and wide rear tires ran against every manner of street modified GTO's Camaros and Mustangs and none of them were running into the 13's. Sometimes I won sometimes I lost. A well prepped dealer backed GTO or Mustang might have gotten into the 13's at the Winternationals, but those cars were cc'd and blue printed and every knob and lever and wire and spring not needed for the trip down the quarter mile was off of them. They weighed 400 pounds or more less than a street legal vehicle becuse the rules did not say you had to have window rollers and tracks or door handles or a heater, headliner, courtesy lights or whatnot. True stock muscle cars of the era ran in the 14's.
And, Motor Trend was to car enthusiasts what the National Enquirer is to movie fans. Loaded with exciting stuff, some of it true. And, even in 1970, the fastest times were automatic transmission Mopar cars. I watched hundreds of elimination races.
Last edited by Wilson513; 11-16-2011 at 03:52 PM..
The only Mopars I can recall which had fiberglass body panels and no window hardware were the '68 Hemi-Dart and Barracuda, which ran 10s, not 13s.
Some people don't realize that many people did minor to moderate modifications to their cars back then ('60s), so that "14-second" car became a low-13 second or faster car. For example, some basic mods would put a 340 Mopar in the low-13s. Motor Trend tested a '70 429 Mustang wtih 4.56:1 gears and 7" drag slicks (considered to be "wide" tires back then) and ran a 12.3 sec @ 112 mph 1/4 mile.
And a recent muscle car magazine had an article about a '69 Dodge Super Bee with 440-6 Pack. With some mods (engine bored out to 496-cu-in, aftermarket alloy cylinder heads, high-performance cam) it runs 11.84 secs @ 114 mph on street tires (with an automatic transmission, btw).
This post reminds me of the T shirts that you see at all the vintage races.
"The older I get the faster I was"
yeah technology sure changed things. "Back in the day" our muscle cars all felt quite fast, and now i have a stock s2000 that runs with most of those with half the cylinders and probably half the weight lol.
while i tip my hat to what the kids these days are getting out of the imports, I still think that the old muscle had a certain feel you can't replicate. Lope at idle, that split second hesitation before the secondaries kicked in (if vacuum), heck I used to run my friend's v8 pinto on the street that was a 12.10 car and had a blast with it. Now i watch videos of my daughter's bud's 10 second honda running over 130 at the end if the 1/4..... ohhhhhh the fun I could have had with one of those little toys
I revisited the era a decade or so ago and found myself a 68 427 Vette. Close ratio Muncie and a 4:11 rear end. The body and convertible top were a little rough, but after having the 427 rebuilt by an expert on the subject, a modern clutch, it brought back the old feel. The side pipes on it were almost straight pipes and the sound at idle would rattle the neighbors windows so much they feared breakage. I had to fetch aircraft fuel in cans but being 2 miles from a general aviation airport with a friendly FBO it was not a big problem.
But, even that beast was nothing compared to the hot rods of today. Sad, sort of.
Nonsense. I spent my life at drag strips and street racing. No stock vehicle, with or without plexiglass windows and a fiberglass trunk lid ran 10's That is pure BS. There was established a pro stock class of vehicles that looked like stock cars but were permitted ednless mods and some of them may have run into the 10's after the class got going. But htose were not cars one could buy. They were fully prepped race cars.
I see you are not familiar with those Mopars. Look it up. They were production cars, not race cars. They did have the race Hemi engine, but they were available to the public, therefore, a production car. And they ran 10.40s in the 1/4 mile as built. About 70-80 of each model were built.
Quote:
And, my 390 Fairlane with headers and wide rear tires ran against every manner of street modified GTO's Camaros and Mustangs and none of them were running into the 13's. Sometimes I won sometimes I lost. A well prepped dealer backed GTO or Mustang might have gotten into the 13's at the Winternationals, but those cars were cc'd and blue printed and every knob and lever and wire and spring not needed for the trip down the quarter mile was off of them. They weighed 400 pounds or more less than a street legal vehicle becuse the rules did not say you had to have window rollers and tracks or door handles or a heater, headliner, courtesy lights or whatnot. True stock muscle cars of the era ran in the 14's.
There were quite a few cars which could run 13s right off the showroom floor... any number of Hemi- and 440-6 bbl Mopars, 427 Corvette, 454 Chevelle, 455 Buick GS, Olds 4-4-2, Pontaic GTO, 440 GTO, 428 Mustang, 427 Fairlane, etc.
Quote:
And, Motor Trend was to car enthusiasts what the National Enquirer is to movie fans. Loaded with exciting stuff, some of it true. And, even in 1970, the fastest times were automatic transmission Mopar cars. I watched hundreds of elimination races.
Motor Trend, along with Road Test and Car Life, usually were accurate regarding the condition of the test car (no mods, unless they pointed it out) and 1/4 mile times. '60s (and early '70s) cars with both automatics and manuals were capable of running 1/4 mile in the 13s. But, yes, automatics did do very well compared to manuals regarding drag racing.
I revisited the era a decade or so ago and found myself a 68 427 Vette. Close ratio Muncie and a 4:11 rear end. The body and convertible top were a little rough, but after having the 427 rebuilt by an expert on the subject, a modern clutch, it brought back the old feel. The side pipes on it were almost straight pipes and the sound at idle would rattle the neighbors windows so much they feared breakage. I had to fetch aircraft fuel in cans but being 2 miles from a general aviation airport with a friendly FBO it was not a big problem.
But, even that beast was nothing compared to the hot rods of today. Sad, sort of.
The tires of the era, with their limited traction, could easily cost 1/2 to one second in the 1/4 mile elapsed time.
There were 11- and 12-second cars available back in the '60s and early-'70s, such as the ones I listed a few posts above.
I see you are not familiar with those Mopars. Look it up. They were production cars, not race cars. They did have the race Hemi engine, but they were available to the public, therefore, a production car. And they ran 10.40s in the 1/4 mile as built. About 70-80 of each model were built.
There were quite a few cars which could run 13s right off the showroom floor... any number of Hemi- and 440-6 bbl Mopars, 427 Corvette, 454 Chevelle, 455 Buick GS, Olds 4-4-2, Pontaic GTO, 440 GTO, 428 Mustang, 427 Fairlane, etc.
Motor Trend, along with Road Test and Car Life, usually were accurate regarding the condition of the test car (no mods, unless they pointed it out) and 1/4 mile times. '60s (and early '70s) cars with both automatics and manuals were capable of running 1/4 mile in the 13s. But, yes, automatics did do very well compared to manuals regarding drag racing.
You must have been in utero when all this was happening and read about it in a book, right?
a lot of this in mags is all relative. In the 80's, 4 bangers hitting 60 in less then 9 seconds were zippy and "pocket rockets" maybe touched 7's. Then the turbo Mitsu/Chrysler triplets hit the 6's and were the rage.
Now, something taking 8-9 seconds to 60 sounds sluggish, 6's is expected, and you need to be in the 4-5 sec range to have some performance.
I try to keep it all in context when comparing cars i drove/owned in the 70's to what i own now--- in reality they cant compare. I more use mags and their test results to compare vehicles in the same model years/generation. Cuz many of us on this thread have some experience with cars from the past few decades and I think we'll all agree cars that perform now feel nothing like cars from the past... even if times are similar.
my .02
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
