View Single Post
Old 06-08-2010, 04:10 PM   #26
Jim B
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew Silverman View Post
2X on the 327/350 HP Chevy II - The best bang for the buck back in the day!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN View Post
My new 1965 Plymouth 426 Street wedge was a turd against the GTO's in 1965. It was just an over grown 383.
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.

Last edited by Jim B; 06-08-2010 at 04:35 PM.
Jim B is offline   Reply With Quote