Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Back in the late 70s I had a girlfriend who bought a 68 383 R Runner from her aunt for $500. I used it to tow my car to the track sometimes, it was very quick I thought and had a 3.55 rear. The motor was untouched with old plugs, wires, exhaust, stock vacuum dist, AVS and air cleaner. I finally got it down the track one day for fun and it ran 14.20s with zero effort. Paul.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

My new 1965 Plymouth 426 Street wedge was a turd against the GTO's in 1965. It was just an over grown 383.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I had one of those 454 SS trucks in my shop not long ago, the owner had taken very good care of it through the years, and I was even surprised how big a turd it was. I say surprised because I knew real well how big a turd the 454 throttle body engine was, but I thought it might be OK in a 1/2 ton pickup, and the darn things even had a 3:73 gear with a regular 400 tranny too. Sick!
I thought those 340 six-packs ran pretty good, but I never got to drive one. Were they much better than a single four 340?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

not saying they didn't have potential, but stock they were not a great performer

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Ron,
Yes, the Road Runner was little over-rated.
Saw many of them run 14.90's, in stock trim.
Geococcyx correct term.
Plymouth did market them well.
Plymouth actually wanted to call them 'The La Mancha'.
Wonder how many would have been sold with that name?
Oh, the 340's ate them alive, including the rubber floor-mat.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Definitely among the best bang for the buck of all time. Less than 2900 lbs and less than $2900. And it was a Chevy small block in the 60's.
A surprising darkhorse were the mid 60's 289 4bbl Mustangs. Addition of a 4½ to 5 lbs/in ² boost Paxton supercharger made an unbelieveable totally streetable performance boost for under $600. Unfortunately, the rear suspension and rear ends were a real weak link after the conversion. Alot of fun to drive on the street though.
I have to agree that the 426/365hp was a BIG letdown from the stage wedges that had a good reputation and were abundant at that time. A mild hydraulic cam, small carb and 383 heads really made the "street wedge" a big disappointment . A less popular but much more expensive later under performer were the Boss 429 Mustangs. No fun to work on, parts were expensive and hard to get, not much support from the performance industry. I would guess that was partly a result of the low volume of those vehicles and the popularity and success of the 428 CJ's.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jeff, as a general statement, I agree with you. However, I was fortunate enough to have a very fast '67 390, 4-speed. Bone stock, just as it was delivered, it ran 13.8s@103 mph. The other 390 Mustangs were running very high 14s@95 mph! The only cars that I couldn't beat were 396/375 Camaros and Chevelles. To this day I have no idea why it was so much faster than the average 390, but I sure surprised a lot of people with it and I had a lot of fun.
Bill Seabrooks - superfan1
Bridgeport, CT

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Those 1966 Dodge Chargers with the 383/325HP were no fun,
Over 3700lbs. of steel.
Just what could you use that car for?
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Like some of you I'm old enough to remember the true muscle years.
I drove a friends '69 Boss 429 Mustang: Very over rated performance but impressive with the hood open.
I owned a '69 383, 4-speed, 3.23, Road Runner: 13.80s with street tires, headers, tweaked AVS and recurved distributor. Not bad.
When the '71 Dusters & Demons came out with the Thermo Quad and 3.91 gears they kicked some butt right out of the box.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1970 1/2 Z28 w/ 350 LT1, 360 hp