CLASS RACER FORUM
Page 4 of 11 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=26279)

Tim H 06-08-2010 05:56 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Turd category ... Javelin w/ 401 which I routinely beat in my stock '77 Monza spyder 305 smogger.

hemicop 06-08-2010 06:10 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
For musclecar era cars, I'd have to agree on the Boss '9 but let's be fair---NONE of those cars were as fast as we "remember" them. Modern muscle? I'd have to say the SS454 trucks, Impala SS. or the 301-powered Trans-Am.
Remember though, back in the 60s/70s, stopping, gas mileage and drivibility wasn't a consideration then so even a "slug" modern day musclecar will outperform alot of our favorite old iron.........

Paul Ceasrine 06-08-2010 06:21 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
If you wanted to get your so-called 'Musclecar' to perform, you had to have a general bolt-on plan.
1) Edelbrock aluminum dual-plane intake
2) Holley 780cfm carb w/vacuum-secondaries
3) Appliance Headers (the cheapest ones)
4) Accel Distributor or at least the Super Coil
5) Hi-Performance Spark-Plug Wires
6) You needed a friend with a garage, to help you install gears
4.10's the street choice
You had to ask Grandma for the early Christmas present.
PC

Bub Whitaker 06-08-2010 06:52 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich (Post 191236)
For the money? Probably the 66 Chevy II 327/350HP 4 speed. Especially given the tire technology of the time.
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was

X-TECH MAN 06-08-2010 06:52 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfan1 (Post 191275)
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
Someone stuck a pre production 428 CJ in it when you were not looking.....lol. My buddy had one and it was a dog.

X-TECH MAN 06-08-2010 06:56 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker (Post 191297)
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was
I remember your Chev 2 running at 75&80 and it was one bad hot rod.

Alan Roehrich 06-08-2010 06:59 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker (Post 191297)
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was

Hehe, ya cheater. Modified was 67 and up, you weren't supposed to run a 66 in Modified. At least, that's what we were told, and back then, they enforced the model year thing. :cool:

Paul Precht 06-08-2010 08:01 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN (Post 191268)
My new 1965 Plymouth 426 Street wedge was a turd against the GTO's in 1965. It was just an over grown 383.
Even worse, it was an over grown 361/305. Same style mani, same carb, cam and heads, although the heads had different casting nos. I had a stock 426/365 64 Ply back in 73. When I added a TM7, 4779 Holley and 59 dollar headers it ran 12.90s,13.34 with a dual plane Edelbrock, so as bad as the heads and cam were they far from the biggest problem. With a borrowed 6 Pak some pocket porting and a stock 426 STG1 cam it ran a best of 12.28 with the stock 12" conv still in place.

Alex Denysenko 06-08-2010 08:03 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Boss 429 was not that much of a pig at all. Check most any magazine road test from the day. High to mid 13's. Just very expensive for the perfomance.

Now a 426 street wedge Mopar in anything was a flat dog. C or B body.
I don't think they made 265 HP much less 365.
A decently tuned 413 Chrysler 300 with a 413 would out run a 4 speed B body with a street wedge.
Most any 66-68 390 GT Ford or Merc was a dog also. We routinely could murder them with the 289 Hipo in my Mustang.

JrStk 06-08-2010 08:04 PM
Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ceasrine (Post 191206)
Based on cost, could it have been the 1969 Boss 429 Mustang.
PC
That was the first car that came to mind Paul. Though Motor Trend pulled a 12.3 out of one in 1970, you can gaurantee it wasn't stock.

I use to have quite the collection of old drag mags and out of boredom one year, I through this web page together.
http://roadtests.tripod.com/index.html


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 AM.
Page 4 of 11 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.