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.
Once again, comparing actual data reveals a lot. I am referring to the popular claim that old (1960s, in general) American cars had terrible brakes and could not stop well.
It is true that some, maybe even quite a few, did not have great or even good brakes, but some also did.
Car & Driver test results: 80-0 mph "panic stop"
1968 Ferrari 275/GTB-4--------------- 270 feet/.79 g
1969 Dodge Super Bee 383------------ 250 feet/.83 g
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra 428---------- 248 feet/.86 g
1969 Plymouth Road Runner 426-Hemi-- 245 feet/.87 g
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454-------- 272 feet/.79 g
Fade Resistance:
1968 Ferrari 275/GTB-4---------------- Very good
1968 Dodge Charger R/T 426-Hemi------ Very good
1966 Chrysler 300---------------------- Excellent
The old drum brake cars stop just fine if the brakes were adjusted correctly. The problem with the cars back then weren't some much the brakes as it was the tires. A buddy of mine has a 68 440 Road Runner. Drum brakes at all four corners and 800 lbs of big block on the nose. He restored it and put the original crap type tires on it. After a couple of scary moments he decided the tires had to go. A simple switch to more modern BFG's solved all those issues. Never measured the stopping distance but I can tell you it stops better than my Tacoma truck which is rated at 131ft from 60.
Equip those cars with modern tires and everything works better.
One, panic stop at impending lockup is hard to do for a good driver, much less an average driver. More likely, you'll lock up teh tires and slide.
And two, fade resistance. What would be considered "excellent" then would be considered "unacceptable" now. Sorry, just like crashworthiness or fuel economy standards, what is considered good has changed over the years. You'd have to have a test that shows what they would be consdered NOW in order to make your point valid.
Drum brakes are usually better than discs in a panic stop because they are less likely to lock up and cause you to skid.
actually drum brakes are more likely to lock up in a panic stop because of the self energizing feature built into the system. disc brakes require more pedal pressure than drums do, and thus are harder to lock up.
Although brakes were not as good, much of the difference is tire advancements. Today's radial tires and advanced rubber compounds provide an exponential leap in performance.
Once again, comparing actual data reveals a lot. I am referring to the popular claim that old (1960s, in general) American cars had terrible brakes and could not stop well.
It is true that some, maybe even quite a few, did not have great or even good brakes, but some also did.
Car & Driver test results: 80-0 mph "panic stop"
1968 Ferrari 275/GTB-4--------------- 270 feet/.79 g
1969 Dodge Super Bee 383------------ 250 feet/.83 g
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra 428---------- 248 feet/.86 g
1969 Plymouth Road Runner 426-Hemi-- 245 feet/.87 g
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454-------- 272 feet/.79 g
Fade Resistance:
1968 Ferrari 275/GTB-4---------------- Very good
1968 Dodge Charger R/T 426-Hemi------ Very good
1966 Chrysler 300---------------------- Excellent
This doesn't prove much, here are the numbers from Motor Trend back in 2006 or so:
Chevrolet Corvette Z06----------203ft
Dodge Viper SRT-10--------------197ft
Ford GT-40----------------------199ft
Ferrari F430---------------------196ft
Lamborghini Gallardo-------------189ft
Porsche Turbo-------------------186ft
Your group averaged 257 feet. My group averaged 195. The difference is 62 feet (~a 25% difference or ~4 car lengths), which is MASSIVE. Yes, I picked "super" cars as they are the easier ones to find, but a car like the 2011 Shelby GT500 does it in 197, same as the 2010 Corvette Grand Sport. To me that shows the musclecars have evolved similar to the super cars.
As others said tires are really the biggest difference maker as it was very easy to overwhelm the grip abilities of older tires. Same thing can be seen today when people slap big brakes on their car and run street tires. I would imagine that the numbers would come down if the older cars were given modern tires.
The fade performance is probably the biggest joke as it is rated in relative terms and yesterdays great is todays crap.
You are also comparing performance cars, which is very different. How about some numbers for a generic 1960's sedan compared to a modern generic sedan. I think you will find the biggest difference there.
How much of the vehicle fleet on the road did those cited cars represent? There weren't that many of any of those specialty high end domestic cars ever built, were there?
How about posting the real-world braking performance for the cars that made up the fleet that folks drove? Like Ford Customs (not Galaxie's or 500XL's, but the common models), Fairlanes, Falcons, or Chevy Nova's and standard model Impala's or Corvairs? Or the common man's Plymouth/Dodge/Chrysler models? What about Rambler and Studebaker?
I'll bet that the braking performance on the cars that most folks bought and drove were significantly less than cherry picking the absolute best of the domestic cars which represent less than 1% of the cars on the road in that era. And how many Ferrari 275's were even built? yeah, lots of people drove those, didn't they? right.
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.
