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.
The engine wasn't weak; the tires were!
Even at part throttle, the huge low-end torque of the 440 engine would make the rear tires would break lose on that Dart. With some of those '60s muscle cars, a full second could be lost just on wheelspin getting up to 60 mph from a dead stop.
With a set of wider tires with a good grip, the 0-60 mph times would be considerably better. How do I know? Because a Yenko 427 Nova, with aftermarket tires, was said to be able to run 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds. And a '62 426 Max Wedge Mopar could do it in 4.2 seconds.
Trust me, its not fun wrestling with torque steer and wheel spin of a FWD turbo Eclipse either. Its not uncommon to get wheelspin in 3rd gear. I know the feeling of the "no traction" issue.
The engine wasn't weak; the tires were!
Even at part throttle, the huge low-end torque of the 440 engine would make the rear tires would break lose on that Dart. With some of those '60s muscle cars, a full second could be lost just on wheelspin getting up to 60 mph from a dead stop.
With a set of wider tires with a good grip, the 0-60 mph times would be considerably better. How do I know? Because a Yenko 427 Nova, with aftermarket tires, was said to be able to run 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds. And a '62 426 Max Wedge Mopar could do it in 4.2 seconds.
60's tires were really bad for traction. And on street roads - forget it. That infamous SCREECH burning rubber is not a sign of speed, it's a sign of not being able to get up to speed. I'm not sure how 0-60 is tested now but a set of slicks or even drag radials on a preped tracked (layed down with the sticky stuff) will do wonders for 1/4 mile time and 0-60 times. I wouldn't be suprised if the magazines (car and driver, etc) test 0-60 times this way nowadays, makes their advertisers much happier. It's definetly not in a real world environment. That and having professional drivers on a standard transmission know how to "speed shift", etc....I never trust magazine 0-60 times. 1960's time - too much of a disadvantge with the tire technology of that period. 2000's times - too easy for the magazines to cheat.
Trust me, its not fun wrestling with torque steer and wheel spin of a FWD turbo Eclipse either. Its not uncommon to get wheelspin in 3rd gear. I know the feeling of the "no traction" issue.
I know a guy who drove his '72 Plymouth Duster 340 down a 1/8th mile drag strip (they have a 1/8 mile so the trap speeds are kept down, then they calculate the 1/4 mile time).
His car actually broke traction two times. The second time was just before the end of the 1/8 mile and he went through the traps almost sideways!
Another car guy had the same problem with his '70 Dodge Charger R/T 440.
Many of the big-block '60s muscle cars would make their maximum torque (anywhere from 440 to 510 lbs/ft) at 3,000 to 3,500 rpm. That's why they had trouble coming off the line. Especially if they powerbrake to 2,000 rpm... within seconds, they are at the peak of the torque output and it's very hard to come off the line without wheelspin. It is fun to try not to, though!
I always liked the comment made for a 1960 Chrysler 300-F (with the optional 400-hp/465 lbs/ft torque engine and 4-speed manual transmision):
"Here is a car so powerful (and front-end heavy) it can break away in 4th gear when the throttle is pushed down over 3500 rpm."
(Motor Life, June, 1960)
60's tires were really bad for traction. And on street roads - forget it. That infamous SCREECH burning rubber is not a sign of speed, it's a sign of not being able to get up to speed. I'm not sure how 0-60 is tested now but a set of slicks or even drag radials on a preped tracked (layed down with the sticky stuff) will do wonders for 1/4 mile time and 0-60 times. I wouldn't be suprised if the magazines (car and driver, etc) test 0-60 times this way nowadays, makes their advertisers much happier. It's definetly not in a real world environment. That and having professional drivers on a standard transmission know how to "speed shift", etc....I never trust magazine 0-60 times. 1960's time - too much of a disadvantge with the tire technology of that period. 2000's times - too easy for the magazines to cheat.
Car Life Magazine was known to have accurate acceleration times. Usually, the cars they tested were dead stock and when they were not, they would let the reader know.
Motor Trend and Road Test reports were also pretty accurate. Car & Driver was well known for sometimes using modified cars, like those Pontiacs with the "Royal Bobcat" treatment.
Very true your point about '60s tire technology. But those magazine tests were still of some use because you could compare the cars' times in general with one another.
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.
I know the feeling of the "no traction" issue. 
