Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I have a good friend who has a nearly perfect '70 Boss 429 and he also has or had a lot of oddball factory race engine stuff for it. He had some intakes that were never fully machined.

I worked on muscle cars all the time back in the '60's and '70's. Did all kinds of work and whatever was in vogue as far as add ons.

My good friend bought a new Road Runner in about '68. 383 4 speed. all black. I did a few things to it. Headers. mufflers....messed with the carb and some other stuff. Raced it one day at Island Dragway.....I drove. Was missing above 5000 with oepn headers. I short shifted the pistol grip shifter that would nearly hit the dash! Wound up winning the G/S class that day and beat an AMC Scrambler in the final on a holes hot......13.87 at 100+. It was one of the most fun days I can recall driving that big tank and trying to keep it out of the misfire zone........Open headers often let you really hear the missing...usually a new set of spark plugs was the cure or maybe some points....MSD's were not out yet and trick ignitions were mostly factory CD stuff or Accel......I loved those days as I always had a car to work on and see what it could do on the streets.....

My '67 GTO easily whipped my friends bloated '71 or so GTO every time......

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I'll check my rule book, still have it, at the shop, for 1970.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

C/SM was for 1967 and newer vehicles.......My good friend converted a '66 Nova bracket car to a '67 so he could run the class. He changed the front fenders as they are different. Another friend bought it in 1980 and still owns it today.....

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bub,
The old rule books used to say the Super Modified classes were for 67 and newer cars. There were some real minor differences between the 66 and 67 Chevy II, such as the steering column and some dash pieces, some hidden, some not. I saw a couple of people tossed for having a 66. A lot of people did it, some were caught, some were not. There is no real meaningful difference, competition wise, between the 66 and 67 Chevy II. There were just a lot more 66's than there were 67's. The "cheating" joke about running a 66 Chevy II as a 67 was just something that went around when Modified was still around. I figured you'd heard it before. The guys I was working with back then ran a 67 Camaro as a 68.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Under-performing on the street: 409/425 chevy's, Street Hemi's, any of the Shelby Mustangs built after '68 and almost any multi-carb motor...tune them for the strip and they were the hot cars to have.

Most disappointing street or strip combination's were the boss 429 and the ZL1....iron head 427's regularly out performed them on the strip.

JimR

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1970 Rule book, Modified Elimator, Modified Production, reserved for American built cars with American production engines, incorporating a wheelbase of 90 inches or more. No year limit, has a little blurb about pre-1960 unblown 4-cylinder can compete in flathead classes. This was designated Modified Production, I ran C/MP with a 327. What I think you are referring to is a Superstock class? that came after they canned Modified...
And yes, I am familar with the narrower dash and the colapsable steering column differences on the 66/67 Chevy II

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jim R,
Your right on the Shelby. The 1968 GT-350, came through with a
302-4V/250HP. Totally useless. They should have utilized the
289/306HP for one more year.
And those 1969 Ford Torino GT's with the 390/320HP didn't scare anybody either.
Problem with the early Boss 429's, monster connecting rods,
hydraulic cam and weak valve springs. Don't think that engine saw the north side of 5000 RPM's.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

409/425s were turds from the factory because Chevy built them with 2 head gaskets on them to drop the compression. Removing one really brought them to life. That wasnt very well known at the time though or even now..

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bub, the rule book I saw later showed 1967 and later cars, it was probably around 1979. I'm not sure about the 1970 rulebook, I don't have a copy, I was about 7 at the time. In the late seventies and up until Modified was killed off, I remember the rule as being 67 and later, I'm not sure why they did that. Like I said, it was a joke among the Modified racers, the Chevy II guys in particular, near the end of the class, they knew 66's were masquerading as 67's.

The guys I worked with bailed on Modified when it was merged into Super Stock, so that's not the era I was talking about. Again, they raced a 67 Camaro as a 68 (changed the doors, tail lights, and back up lights), so the rule was no real concern to us. I just remember guys who did race the Chevy II's joking among themselves about "cheating", and I remember a couple of cars being tossed as 66's.

That rule probably was not in effect when you ran your Chevy II, or I may remember it wrong. Maybe Travis, Dave, or Terry will correct me.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The one we bought not only had two head gaskets, but was missing the inner valve springs. It had the rear cam bearing in wrong from the factory, and had been replaced, so it sat in a dealership for 10 years or so, and then in a dealership mechanic's basement for 5-6 more.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1980 Corvette with the 180HP low compression California 305. Mid 17's out of the box, even with the 4 BBL. Can't imagine forking out the $$$ for one of those. Good thing that was the only year GM did that.

Ditto on the 454SS truck. My friend's '72 Surburban with a slightly (and I mean slightly) modded 427 annihilated one. Wasn't even funny.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Wait, forgot one. Any of the Iron Duke Camaro's. Poor Camaro........

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

By the time the last 401 Javelin's came down the assembly line they were just about the fastest pony car out there! 401-4-speed and standard 3.54.

Realistically, there was a lot of "muscle cars" from the 1960's to early 70's that in bone stock trim typically ran in the 15.20 - 15.40 ET range. That's your typical no recurve, no jetting, stock tire, plain vanilla cars with less than stellar driving skills. It was typically the light weight or high HP cars that made it to the low 14's and high 13's; and then it may have took a better than average driver.

2x on the 455 4-speed 1976 Trans-Ams! A friend of mine bought one in 1980 because he always wanted one. After about 6 months he couldn't handle the low performance and he sold it.
And yes, those SS454 trucks were an embarrassment!

I've owned a bunch of Mopars and had some that really performed well. But one of my favorites on the budget level was a '70 Swinger 340 w/ 4-speed and 3.55's. It was bone stock with rubber carpet. I could have it in 4th gear at 25-30 mph and it would smoothly accelerate; no clutching it, no babying it, just pull all the way past 100.

I've had a couple 383 Formula S Barracuda's (1968) with 4-speeds, fair but nothing to brag about.

By the time I got done really tunning the '70 440-6 'Cuda and the '66 Hemi Satellite (both w/ 4-speeds), they ran exceptionally well from idle to WOT. But before I messed with them they were both finicky pigs in the drive ability department.

WJ - the turbo 301 T/A's can be made fast (anything with a turbo can), but are still bottom of the barrel in T/A pricing.

I also had a '75 Cosworth. That 4-speed Vega still impresses me and would love to build one for T/S and it would kick but big time!

And least we forget the AMC's, the 390 SC/Rambler was 14.20 out the door and not much to get it to 13.80's. And the SC/Hornet was a killer as well.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jeff,
I had quite a few 340 Dodge Darts, Dusters, Cuda's and 340 Swingers.
You could get those A-Body cars fairly cheap. They ran well, and were really low maintenance.
Of course, I liked the rubber-floor mats too. Saved money on carpet-cleaner.
I love the smell of 'Carbona' in the morning.
Forgot one more 'slug', 1969 Impala Coupe with a 427/335HP.
though a handful were successful in J/SA when set up for the track, but on the road,
4000lbs.of mis-aligned steel.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I believe the 67 or newer rule was for Super Modified when Car Craft got NHRA to develope the class. When Modified Production first became a class back in the stone age any year was allowed and in the beginning they had to run on 7 inch tires.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Any of the mid/late eighties Camaros/Monte Carlos w/ the 305ci were dogs in street trim. They were marketed as 'fast', had the price tag to match, but not the performance.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Thanks Terry, I stand corrected. We ran both, Super Modified, and Modified Production. We ran C in both classes, so I guess I got the rules confused.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I think Modified Production became an NHRA class in 1964.
Hot Rod Magazine (April 1964) gives out the specs.
X-Techman,,,,Yes, back in the 'Stone Age'
When Eric Clapton was in "The Yardbirds'
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Paul is correct on the year M/P began. All of the limited production FX cars from 1963 that had alum. front ends were put into Modified production in 1964 and had to run 7 inch cheater slicks. I remember Malcom Durhams 63 Z-11 Impala setting the A/MP record at some point. The 63 421 SD Tempests (coupes and wagons) ran A/MP also.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I have to agree about the '69 Boss 429 Mustang being a dog on the street. A brand new one in full street trim with zero modifications showed up at the track the first year I was a techman. The driver was so disappointed after his second run he drove it out the front gate never to return.

When it came to street racing (yes I did a lot of it before becoming a techman) the baddest of the musclecars was the 66 Chevy II with a 327/350. The car magazines never showed good times out of them but many a street racer found out what the backend of a Chevy II pulling away looked like. Light weight body, a 4-speed and a stout factory small block made them almost unbeatable on the street. Did I happen to mention light weight?

Modified Production classes did not have a year limit. The 1967 year limit was for the Super Modified classes. Besides the front end on a 66 Chevy II having to be changed, other items not mentioned here were single to dual brake master cylinder, door locking mechanism (in 66 you pushed the interior handle down while 67 had a seperate knob that twisted), and most of the exterior trim.

The 60's musclecar era was a great time to be had by all who lived through it. Today some of the younger "experts" who write about those days can only go by articles that the car magazines published. Drag tests back then are now being questioned today as it comes out that some GTO's were powered by 421's, a few 396 Chevelles had 427's slipped into them, and some new 390 Mustangs were powered by 428's for the press to wring out. Wrong as it may have been back then, the real drag tests of those early musclecars were on the street from stoplight to stoplight.

Travis

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions. This thread also brings back memories of a few guys I knew who did not survive their street racing days. Rest in peace fellows.)

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Being a Mopar fan, I've owned some dogs. 65 Plymouth Satelite 383, 69 Plymouth 440 GTX. Switched over to A body 340 Darts and the wow factor was back. My 69 327 Camaro was also a dog as well as my 76 455 Trans Am.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I can remember back in the day, I never saw a slow 340 car. The first car I ever rode in that made me wake up and take notice was a 64' 289/ 4spd Fairlane. I was in 8th grade in the middle 60s and watching the driver grab a gear blew me away.
As far as the 66-67 Chevy IIs go, there were 6 of us that had them in the early 70s, with 2 of them real L-79 350 hp 327 cars. They had those mono leafs that shook your teeth out every time you grabbed a gear, until you went out and bought some traction bars. Then you could grab second gear and the keys would pop out of the ignition!
Mine was a 275 hp/ Glide SS car that I eventually swapped to a Super T-10 with 4:88s and a real healthy 331 and it wasn't even fair how it mopped up on the street. Getting in the 12s was no problem and it ran 11s with a little work and some 9inch M&Hs.
Jim Parsons and Terry Harmon had their SS/O 66 Chevy II in the NW at that time and I idolized that car and tried to pattern my car after them. I think Jim still has his car to this day,,I wish I still had mine. My 2 cents,,,Danny Durham

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

A friend of mine bought a brand new 72 chevelle SS,350 auto do not remember h.p but it was lazy ,at the same time another friend had a yellow 69 340 4spd dart swinger with dog dish hub caps ,it was a factory jewell ,he cleaned up sunday nights and he pounded that car ,bone stock with good year polyglass bias tires,.,he wrapped it around a tree ,totalled it.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Had a 69Dart 340 4-speed .did my fair share of street racing
and not to many cars beat it. Made alot of guy very unhappy.
only paid 2650 new at the dealership. Those were the days.

Hammer

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The way that the performance cars from the 60`s to early 70`s were ordered by the dealerships could easily make the differance between a fast car, and a slug. Although I was a few years to young to buy a musclecar new, (born in 1957), I was able to buy a number of them as fairly late model used cars. Among them were 2 70 Mustangs with the 300HP 351 Cleveland 4 barrel engine (1 had the Ram Air Shaker hood scoop), a 66 Fairlane GT/A 390 auto, and a total of 5 R code 428 Cobra Jet Ram Air Mustangs and Fairlane Cobras. From the factory, none of the cars I just listed had a rear gear ratio lower than 3.50, most were 3.00 or 3.25, and the 351 & 390 cars didn`t even come with a limited slip (Traction Lock) diff. So in stock form, mediocre ET`s, and lots of wheelspin resulted. At that time, it seemed that very few non Cobra Jet or Boss cars had decent gear ratios, despite the fact that they were available. Among the cars that I took to the track, 1 of the 70 351C Mustangs ran 14.72@94 MPH bone stock, with a 3.25 open diff and FMX auto. I installed a set of $79. Cyclone headers,hooked into the factory exhaust system, and the OE Holley 600 from my 390 Fairlane, and it ran a best of 14.22@99 mph. I never ran my 66 Fairlane 390 in stock trim, but with just gears,headers, slicks, a mid 500" lift GK hyd cam, and a Holley 780, and a pair of stock 428CJ heads, it ran 12.6@110MPH thru the mufflers, with the stock torque convertor. The slowest of the 428CJ cars was the 69 Fairlane Cobra fastback, with a C6, PS & PDB& A/C, and 3.00 gears, which went 14.3@96MPH, all stock, at 4150lbs with me in the car. My 70 Mach1 428 4 speed with 4.30`s (added afterwards), and my 69 Mach 1 automatic with 3.50`s, would each run 13.4 -13.5`s thru the crappy exhaust and on 14" 60 series tires, with little more than timing & jetting fiddling. I was doing quite a bit of "for fun" street racing in the 70`s and early 80`s, and some of the stronger cars were the MoPar 340`s,& 440 six packs, 375HP 396 Novas, 427 & 454 Vettes, and other 428CJ Fords. Some of the Street Hemis ran strong, but like many of the solid lifter, hi performance cars at the time, keeping them well tuned was more than the average guy was willing to deal with.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

And I forgot...I lived through the disco years :o and had a '77 & '78 T/A with that fabulous 403 Olds engine. Yep...all show :cool: , no go! :o

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I hate getting off topic but with all the talk of the '66 Chevy II L79, it reminded me of a local car. A guy built a '64 Valiant. It was silver. It had a completely stock '69 340 under the hood with the exception of fender well headers. 4-speed. 4.56 gears. The car was built by a guy that was a fanatic on weight savings. Acid dipped body parts. Aluminum nuts and bolts holding it all together. No sound deadener. Homebuilt single reservoir master cylinder. It was a really nice looking, yet plain Jane car. Ran 11.80's or so. It didn't take much in engine mods to get it in the 10's and still a true street car.
Shows what weight (or lack of) can do for you.
Wonder whatever happened to Dean's old Valiant? :(

Hmmm....in SS/G I only need to weigh 3005 #'s, race ready...Hmmm
Here Cobra Jet :p

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I would say the 71 Merc Comet GT ,302 two bbl only as well as the Maverick Grabber. These cars looked fast ,but had no performing motors. I bought a 71 Comet Gt new and jetted the 2bbl and a set of cut-outs and ran 14.98 best. (also had a 25"x 7 cheater tire), with stock gear. It would burn the right rear tire( with the street tires) off though.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Don't knock the 2BBL too much :^) A friend of mine in Las Vegas had a stock '69 Nova with the 250/350 2BBL. That car completely outran my stock '78 Camaro 4BBL Z28! Shocking! Embarrassment city! Those "Jimmy Carter specials" were the biggest overpriced slugs around. The only GM V8 from that era that was worth anything was the L82, and it was overpriced too!

All that changed with TPI, yay!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

My original thought was correct.
Based on cost and performance, the 1969 Boss 429 is the
most under performing musclecar.
Boss 429 engine, big-port aluminum heads and aluminum intake,
Holley carb (though under-sized at 735 cfm), and 3.91 gears as standard.
Pretty much a 14.10 machine. Not a good choise for C/Stock.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Now you're not comparing apples to apples. You need to look at the tech guide and explore more thoroughly. What is the allowable compression? Shows 10.5:1 but it may be much higher as I don't see very specific dome specs. A stocker cam is a long way from stock and specs are .492/.522. With the great clutches offered now, you can gear the snot out of those heads and still hook. I can't see the carb being a big problem. I'm sure the 415 factored HP (1970 Boss 429) is a problem but I would say NHRA would review and reduce since there has never been any active campaigning of one. At least in a few decades or so.
As you have seen in this thread, plenty of pigs are now plenty fast in Stock!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Geez...what's bad about a 14.98 with a 2bbl and probably a 2.87 rear gear?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

NOT!

1965 Dodge Cornet (CL)
426ci/365hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 7.9, 1/4 mile - 15.4 @ 89mph



1969 Mustang Boss 429 (HPC)
429ci/375hp, 4spd, 3.91, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.34 @ 107mph

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Easy there guys,
I'm just going by 1969 numbers.
Performance and cost.
I personally like the Boss 429.
Many different results on the Boss 429, by the magazine people.
Some of the first cars tested had 3.50 gears, and ran 14.40's, to much disappointment.
From the 69' model, early test results from Car-Life 7/69 were 14.09 @102.85 mph, with 3.91 gears.
Hi-Performance Car got the up-graded version of the Boss 429 in later 69' to run a 13.64, not a 13.34.
Still respectable.
Compression ratio closer to 11.20 - 1.
Remember, this car was set-up from the factory.
H.D. Suspension, staggered rear shocks, handling package (front-end lowered 1"), F-60 x 15" tires, 15" x 7" wheels, header-type exhaust manifolds w/free-flowing exhaust system, aluminum dual-plane high-rise intake, Holley carb (735cfm), high-lft solid-lifter camshaft (.492/.522), aluminum heads (did you ever see the size of the ports? a small family can live in their), monster-size valves, ram-air hood, 3.91 gears w/traction-lock rear, close ratio 4-speed, HD clutch package, engine oil-cooler, and trunk-mounted 85-Amp battery, and
hi-rated 65-Amp Alternator
* I don't think the 65' Coronet 426-S/365HP (Street-wedge) had any of those components.
But they did come with a mechanical-driven tachometer.
PC


PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Paul Ceasrine
But they did come with a tach-driven distributor...

Paul, Did you mean a distributor driven tach?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

somebody was building a Boss '9 for the F.A.S.T. series. I heard it was around 850 HP with cast exhaust manifolds! Of course it is a bigger CID but externally all stock.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

interesting what 40 years can do to an engine design. The engineering today surely can wake up the boss-9. Jon kaase is the man to see as he has many updates for that design on his website. Not sure if it would make a good stocker but might be a ringer in s/s. Just a thought !

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

IF you think that was slow should have driven a stock "corporate" 6.6L in 79. 16 sec is an awful long time.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bobby Z,
Yes, I guess I utilized reverse verbage.
I meant to say a mechanical-drive tachometer.
My friend bought a 64' Plymouth Belvedere with a 426-S
Street-Wedge,in 1974 for $350 and it came through with a mechanical drive tachometer.
An old Mopar tech. said they never came through with one, but I saw it
with my own eyes, and it worked.
By the way, for true 1964 performance, 'Doc' Burgess of 'Black Arrow' fame had a red 64' Belvedere 426-S in 1964. Ran A/SA, and ran dead-on 14.00's @101 with 3.91 gears, and virtually nothing else. Of course a true street-driven car.
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I think what's geting some of the Boss '9 fans so upset is that it actually did pretty well in NASCAR but not at the drags.
You guys gotta realize that these things were made for sustained running at high RPMs, not sprints like a drag race is. Also Ford, like other companies put more money into their NASCAR teams than drag racing so they could fool around with these motors more.
No one doubts a Boss's ability--Hell, I'd buy on of Kaase's tomorrow if I could, but dolloar-for-dollar it just wasn't the "silver bullet" (catch the sarcam?:D) that Ford hoped it would be.