Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Based on cost, could it have been the 1969 Boss 429 Mustang.
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

And the later model mod-motor CJ Mustangs before they got blowers. Made less power on my chassis dyno than my stock '97 Chevy pickup.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Back in 69-70 , I remember a Boss 429 sitting outside DYNOTECH in Ridgewood , N.Y. Motor was never in car. After months going by I stopped and asked what ever happened to the mustang and they said the owner had broken the motor and the parts were extremely tough to get and the owner ran out of money / and or patience. They said he could have gone across the street to Meyer Chevy and bought a new car for what it cost to build a modified Boss 429. ----Never seen or heard one run !!!----John

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I have to say, as a swedish kid, it's great to browse this forum. I'm learning something each time I go here.

Let me ask the opposite. What would you guys say were the BEST performing car for the money back in the day? 396 Nova?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Best Muscle car...Z/28 Camaro....or any Hi Perf. Small Block Corvette.....Most Big Blocks were nose heavy, spun the tires easily and handled poorly. I preferred any fast-high revving small block.......

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

For the money? Probably the 66 Chevy II 327/350HP 4 speed. Especially given the tire technology of the time.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

2X on the 327/350 HP Chevy II - The best bang for the buck back in the day!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bill ( Grumpy ) Jenkins thought those Chevy II 's with the 327/350 combination ran good too!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The '66 327/350 was hands down the fastest ever - only weighed 2800 pounds

Back in the day of real street racing it was king no matter who had it

My brother had one (got stolen 3 times and the insurance company said don't buy another one)

With a 3.73 gear it felt like the engine was going to pull the steering wheel out the front of the car along with the engine

I know this is not what this thread is about but with first hand experience I had to say - I would still like one

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

As far as the factory slugs went , the street Hemi cars were no fun to own. If you were not mechanically inclined it was not much of a street cruiser. A plug eating, oil burning detuned race motor. BUT, Love it and a lot of TLC and some mods , it was a bear. The 6 pack wedge motors were usually faster on the street at a lot less cost.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

A friend bought a brand new 1964 Corvette Midnight Blue/blk int. fastback coupe w/327 365hp (single Holley w/solid lifters & good cam), close ratio Muncie 4 sp, w/4.10 posi rear....pretty sure the car cost less than $6k. The Vette w/that powertrain combo was a screamer-- there wasn't much of anything Detroit built and street-legal that could touch it in '64-5 ....that's my pick for over-performer.....As far as poor performing muscle, I'd have to pick any of the cross-fire fuel injection Corvette models, along with the crossfire injected Camaros.Think they were 1982-1984 vintage and both were very disappointing.... WJ

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The bad thing about the 69' Boss 429, if anything went wrong with the internals, you were screwed, it was a fortune to repair.
I'll throw in a 1970 Pontiac GTO 400/350HP.
I had one. A 3700lb. pig with an 'Endura' bumper.
Somewhat pretty, but it went 'nowhere fast'
PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

In the hands of the general public most anything with multiple carbs was usually a slug.

Buddy of mine used to have an L-88 Vette that I could roast at any time with a 340 Dart.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Hmmm...how about the '67 Mustang 390? What a pig. Now, with NHRA allowed superseded parts (block, heads, ,oil pan, intake, carb), it's super fast!
And when I see a '69 Mach 1 cross the auction blocks with (big bold advertising!) a 390 under the hood for big bucks, I want to yell...sucker!

And I would gladly race a stock '68-'69 340 Dart with a 4-speed and 3.91's against a stock '66 Chevy II 327/350 with 3.73's. I think it would all depend on who was driving.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

1976 Trans Am 455 4 speed; hurt my feelings it was soooo slowwwww

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

although not a car the ss454 pick ups were turds

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

383 Road Runners were not as quick as the road runner itself.

Ron Ortiz
U/SA thats why I have a 273

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I'd have to say the 1980-81 Turbo Trans Am was the most pathetic excuse for a performance car from the factory although the Boss 429 cars weren't very quick for what they were.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

ding ding ding we have a winner. turbo t/a's were super turds

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I could be mistaken, but think some of these cars were made to be pretty good 1/4 mi. performers and are worth some pretty serious $$ these days...??:cool: Anyone? WJ

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

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Turd category ... Javelin w/ 401 which I routinely beat in my stock '77 Monza spyder 305 smogger.

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.........

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

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

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

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Someone stuck a pre production 428 CJ in it when you were not looking.....lol. My buddy had one and it was a dog.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I remember your Chev 2 running at 75&80 and it was one bad hot rod.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

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:

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

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.

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.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

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