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.
Last edited by dakota tom; 06-10-2010 at 10:24 PM.
|