Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

13.80's must have been in the 1/8th mile......lol. He should have bought an automatic to hide the Hi Performance factor from his parents......Thats what I did. Much better than a 3 speed stick.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Dont forget that the early tire technology made a big difference in later years. They were a major reason the muscle cars had slow times in stock condition not to mention the non driving magazine guys trying to drive them....lol.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

That would have been a cool job to have . Just think of all the muscle cars i could have driven,that i did not get to own. Love to have my old cars back in this day now. 67 440 GTX, 70 440 cuda , 70 SS chevelle 454 , 67 camaro 396 4- speed ,68 mustang GT 390 4-speed , and plenty more ........ this could be another topic.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

In regards to the Mopar 65' 426-S Street-Wedge.
I'm wondering how it came up with 365HP, or was it just massaging the truth.
The 1966 440 was rated at 350HP, with identical equipment,
(compression ratio, cylinder heads, carburetor and camshaft)
Actually the 440 camshaft had (.012) more lift on exhaust.
Seems to me the 426-S Street Wedge should have been rated
much lower. Not that it would have mattered.

The Boss 302. I don't think anybody saw them doing much at the track either. What did they run,,, H/Stock or SS/J.?
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1971 Mustang with the 429 Super Cobra Jet 375 HP. solid lifter engine. What a dog from the factory. Worked on it for a year and still got killed regularly on the street. Best bang for the buck was my 1963 Dodge Polara with 383 and 330 HP with 4 speed and Hurst shifter. Swapped in 4:30 gears and Denman tires, recurved distributor, fatter metering rods in AFB and went 13.70's. That was flying in the fall of 1962. Surprised a lot of max-wedge cars at Detroit Dragway.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I don't know on this one.
1969 AMX 390/315HP
You could either get a good one or a bad one.
Monday and Tuesday built cars were better at American Motors.
My friend had one, and it was generally quick, until he tried to street race a 70 Nova SS396/375HP. The race was over after 15 feet.

JJ,
1964 Modified Production was added to NHRA, for the previous year F/X cars.
AA/S was also added, (7.00 - 8.69 wt/hp) It was purposely set for the previous year 1963 S/S cars and 1964 427 Galaxies.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Generally speaking, a '68-'69 AMX with a 4-speed and 3.54's was a mid to high 14 second car in bone stock condition. Throw a BW auto trans and 3.15 gears and your looking at high 14's low 15's.
I once had a '69 AMX with a bone stock 343 (280 HP) 4-speed and 3.54's. It wouldn't hook on the old Radial T/A's but ran 15.20's. More impressive was the 96 MPH. I thought that was impressive for a mid-sized small block with log exhaust manifolds and a Carter AVS (totally stock engine).
I've also raced bone stock '70 AMX's w/ 390, 4-speed and 3.54's and have gone in the 14.20 range @ around 98 MPH. No reason a '68-'69 AMX should be but a few ticks slower with a 390. I just have never personally raced one.
I had a '70 'Cuda w/ shaker, 440-6, 4-speed and 3.54's. Drum brake and manual steering 'Cuda. It was a rebuilt engine and a .474" purple shaft cam and headers through the factory mufflers. Wouldn't hook, ran 14.40's but at 104-105 MPH. I sure wish I would have put some 4.10's in that Dana and a set of slicks on it and dropped the exhaust! No doubt it would have been in the very low 12's, maybe even in the 11's.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jeff,
I'm a little surprised with the results of the 440 6-Barrel Cuda.
Honest results, my mother had a 1970 340 Duster, 3.23 Sure-Grip, 4-speed w/bench seat and E70 x 14" Goodyears (RWL).
My father raced it once in 1971, G/S, completely stock ran
14.38 @ 99mph. Won class,
Man, that was a good little car. Cost $3000 in May 1970.
Kept it for 4 years, never had a problem.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jimmy Waibel seems to think that the AMX 78-80 might have been the most under performing!!!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I always look at the MPH, ET is a product of making it all work right. That car wouldn't hook until about a half way through 1st (as most big block cars).
I had a friend with a '69 340 Dart with a 4-speed and 3.91's. He had it down to 13.90's with jetting and curve through the factory exhaust and bias ply stock type tires. This was around 1980 I think. He's the guy that had that 340 '64 Valliant I mentioned earlier.
My first real hot rod was a '71 Challenger 340. This was back in the day of poor gas (up to that point in time) & I built a low compression small valve ('72 style) 340. It went 102 MPH and the best ever was 14.00 in complete street trim. Doesn't sound like much but on the street it was a killer all the way to 7,000 RPM. Took out many a big-block muscle car on the street. I really only lost a couple of races. And I won a lot because the guy next to me was pinging his guts out on his 10.5:1 or higher pump gas engine. I ran 87 octane and 40-42 degrees advance with my Accell dual point. I had 4.10 gears and could never afford a B&M convertor which it desperately needed.
If only I knew then what I know now...