Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

In '64 a friend (OS Brannon) ordered a strippo Belvedere II 2 dr. HT with a 330 HP 383 and a 3 speed column shift (so his parents didn't think it was a Hi-Perf car)
It ran B./S and was quick. 13.8's with very little done A tall pinion snubber, clamp the front half of the leaf springs, headers & slicks. Drove it to work every day and his parents never did know he raced it.
I remember the 365 HP 426's ran A/S and were not fast.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I'm still sticking to my guns on those '82-84 Corvettes and Camaros w/the cross-fire injection systems being amongst the worst of the under-performers....Heck, they would hardly even run smoothly, never mind run fast.....Maybe they're out there, and surely I'm not meaning to insult anyone who owns, or ever owned one of these cars, but I know of NONE that were thought of as anywhere near fast, or made into drag cars w/that cross-fire injection setup..... Just another opinion....WJ

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bobby Z,
Lots of things not right with the 426-S Street-Wedge.
10.0-1 compression
Small-port heads with 1.60 exhaust valves (same heads as the 361/265HP 2-barrel)
Weak single-coil valve springs
Mild hydraulic camshaft (.431/.431 lift)
Poor flowing exhaust manifolds
Restrictive cast iron intake
575 cfm AFB (too small) with 1 7/16" primaries x 1 9/16" secondaries (same size as the
little 273/235HP Commando)
What could have been?
They just flat out got creamed in C/Stock in 68', and D/Stock in 69'
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I don't recall the Boss 429s doing well in NASCAR,,they had the Torino Cobras on the Ford side(remember Richard Petty was stolen away for one year from Plymouth and drove a Cobra) and on the Mercury side there were the Cyclones( David Pearson and Buddy Baker? I could be wrong) that were the dominant body styles from Dearborn on the NASCAR tracks. If there were any Boss 429s out there I've forgotten about them.
I think Sam Auxier ran one in a class called Ultra/Stock (a forerunner to Pro Stock),in another association. I'm sure someone more NASCAR savvy than me will come on here and set us straight. Danny Durham

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The Boss 429 engines were in the Torino Talledega and Cyclone Spoiler II bodies in Nascar in 1969. Ford built the Talledega and Spoiler II long nosed bodies to make them legal and the Boss 429 Mustangs to make the engines legal in Nascar. The engines and bodies each had to have a minimum of 500 units.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Danny,
In 1969 Ford and Mercury won 30 out of 54 races held. Most of those were with the Boss429 although the first few were still with the tunnel port 427.
thanks, Roland

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

As a modern stocker, I'll bet the NHRA acceptable rods are something much better and much lighter than OEM. That alone has to wake that engine up. Same with modern piston and rings. And probably a better crank forging. I'm just assuming that's all in the tech bulletin as I didn't bother to look.
426 Hemis never used to run in the 9's in Stock either...

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

My old girl friend traded in her red 68 SS 396 Chevelle for a brand new black 73 SS 350 Chevelle. What a mistake that was, but we had better times inside the 73 than the 68 if you know what I mean. Loved those swivel bucket seats. lol

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I had a chance to buy a Boss 429 Mustang for $4500 in 1976.I thought that was a lot of money for a Ford and had read a road test refering to it as a "smoking stone". Not super strong out of the box. If I had bought it I think I would be happy with its performance as an investment now.

I had a 1964 Plymouth Savoy with a 426/365 4sd. It did have a cable drive tach. sold it about 25 years ago. Would smoke the tires but didn't seem to be very fast. Best looking Mopar built in my opinion. Should have kept it.

My brothers 1970 440/6 Road Runner with a purple shaft, headers and 3.91 gears/ slicks ran 12.70s. Before he sold it he put in 3.54s and put a stock exhaust on. Slowed down to 13.80s.

409 Chevys had some problems with cams going flat. Of the 3 dual quad 409s I pulled apart one had a roller cam and the other two had several wiped out lobes.

375/396-425/427 Chevys would rev well into valve float. Many broke/dropped valves. My 375hp Nova has a warranty CE code engine but has L-88 valve springs now to prevent that from happening again.

The AMC Scrambler came with a dead stock station wagon engine. My stock one ran a 14.14 at 99 mph at 1500 feet. Polyglass tires no mods. Under $3000 list price. Basic cam swap, headers. intake and carb and one would run 12s. Mcink might have a photo?

A car not mentioned yet is the W-31 Olds Cutlass. With 3.42 gears, street tires, open headers my 1969 ran 13.60s. 4.66 gears and slicks 12.67, 106.98. Not bad for a 350 olds with a cast iron intake and a quadrajet.

The 340 Darts were a good performing car without any mods.


It was rare a muscle car would get into the 13s as shipped. A set of headers and a good tune would help the performace of these cars a bunch.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Just me but no one said anything about the 69/70 BOSS 302.....Motor Trend 14.90's my "BONE STOCK" 1998 Mustang GT ran 14.60's @ Trails of all places & got 24 MPG

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...

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1967 Shelby; look at all the parts that had to given to the the 428 to make it competive.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Danny, If you wanted to know what it was like ---read the book by Joe Oldham----------Muscle Car Confidential, Confessions of a muscle car test driver. Great book about test drives and magazine articles.----John

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jeff,
I know a little about the big-blocks.
I had an original 1969 M-Code 440 Cuda w/3.55 gears.
You had to walk-it-out off the line, until I changed the rear..
Drum brakes, manual steering, drove like a truck.
Winding roads was not its specialty, but in a straight-line:).
Thought maybe the E-Body would hook up better, with a little more mass-weight. Never had an E-Body Mopar, only A-Body cars.
From what I hear, the engine compartments are a little bigger:D
Sounds like you knew had to tweek the ignition.
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I had a '68 Formula S (actually had two) that had a transplant 440 with the manual steering and brakes like your M code car. This was a 4-speed though. It had factory exhaust, an Offy intake w/ a Holley 800 DP and a .484" Purple Shaft (dang, remember when Purple Shaft cams were the hot thing? .474" Hemi grind, .484", .509" hydraulics then the .528", .557" and the ultimate was the .590" flat tappets). The Barracuda had a 4-speed and a Vertical-gate shifter with a metallic puck disck and there were 3.23's in the 8 3/4.
You couldn't slip the clutch off the line like you would in normal street driving. You almost had to pop the clutch at above idle and let it roll out. But if you tried to engage it slowly, the back of the car would shake so badly it sounded like you were going to pop the back window out!
Never took that car to the track but I have no doubt today that it would have gone 110 or so. Oh, and it was painted with fogged in accents like a SS/A 'Cuda of the time. Yea, kinda dorky...

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Jeff,
Yes, Purple-Shaft through .DIRECT><CONNECTION.
Everyone had to have them.
Actually a pretty decent street/strip camshaft, even with
stock valve springs. That cam or the Street Hemi grind cam should have been a standard camshaft for the 383 Road Runners and 440 Six-Pack engines.
A 4-speed and 440 in the A-Body, the rumble from the back-end must have sounded like a John Bonham drum solo.
Thats why Mopar didn't put 4-speeds in the 69' M-Code cars.
Paul

.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I got the "Purple Shaft" right up the ole wazoo when I joined the Army back in 1966.......lol.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

X-Tech Man,
If memory serves correct, that would be under LBJ.
And a made-up story by McNamara
'winning over the hearts and minds of the enemy'
Hopefully that was a 3/4 cam, and not a full-race.
Remember those, 3/4 cams.
Loved it when guys came into my fathers shop and said they wanted
to put in a 3/4 cam, my father would laugh, and ask them just where do you want me to cut the cam.
Paul:)