50 Fastest Muscle Cars...

[Hemi Moose]

So just for conversation, which Muscle Cars would you pick for the "top 3" in your opinion...and yes I would like everyone to give theirs.

[Dan Bennett]

Originally Posted by Hemi Moose

So just for conversation, which Muscle Cars would you pick for the "top 3" in your opinion...and yes I would like everyone to give theirs.

This ought to be interesting.

One thing a lot of people have lost track of is how badly cast exhaust manifolds hurt these cars. We can remember a buddy running times back in the day but I bet most of those cars had headers installed. It was a no brainer upgrade.

If we're talking about PURE showroom stock, to me that means stock tires, exhaust, intake and weight. Change the jets if you want and jack with the timing and air pressure. OK, take off the air cleaner and remove the jack and spare. A 14 second car was pretty fast and there weren't that many 13 second cars.

As for ringers, I remember one comparison test where the Fomoco cars arrived at the testing site on the back of a Holman-Moody transporter.

I'll list my top three in no particular order:

69 440 Six Pack Roadrunner or Super Bee
70 LS6 Chevelle
70 Stage 1 Buick

427 Cobras were in a league of their own; besides, I don't consider them a musclecar. Same for Corvettes.

[Hemi Moose]

Originally Posted by Dan Bennett

This ought to be interesting.

One thing a lot of people have lost track of is how badly cast exhaust manifolds hurt these cars. We can remember a buddy running times back in the day but I bet most of those cars had headers installed. It was a no brainer upgrade.

If we're talking about PURE showroom stock, to me that means stock tires, exhaust, intake and weight. Change the jets if you want and jack with the timing and air pressure. OK, take off the air cleaner and remove the jack and spare. A 14 second car was pretty fast and there weren't that many 13 second cars.

As for ringers, I remember one comparison test where the Fomoco cars arrived at the testing site on the back of a Holman-Moody transporter.

I'll list my top three in no particular order:

69 440 Six Pack Roadrunner or Super Bee
70 LS6 Chevelle
70 Stage 1 Buick

427 Cobras were in a league of their own; besides, I don't consider them a musclecar. Same for Corvettes.

Yes that's what I'm talking about "showroom stock" or "day two" modifications, such as a minor tune-up, or cam up grade, headers mag wheels, etc...the regular stuff done back then when you bought one of these brand new.

[Bob Bender]

What about a 1969 Kingswood ???

[art leong]

I can name 3 cars in category 2 that should be on there but weren't.
1990 Dodge Daytona R/T
1990 Dodge Spirit R/T
2005 Dodge Neon SRT4 acr
Any of the 3 can run low 13's right off the showroom floor.

[bill dedman]

Well, the definition of "muscle car" varies from time-to-time and is really hard to pin down.

They used to say, "a big block, hi-po motor in an intermediate car, such as the 1966 GTO." But, the times have changed, and so have the cars. Is the car's performance a part of the equation? I'd say so. That 1966 389 GTO is nothing special by today's standards, when you can go buy a soccer-mom V6 Camry FWD grocery-getter that will easily outrun a bone-stock Tri-Power '66 GTO in the quarter-mile (14.2@100 mph for the Camry, according to Motor Trend Dec. 2011.) I don't recall pure stock GTO's on street tires with factory gearing running over 100, nor quicker than 14.2 (not even DeLoreaan's bogus 421 "road test" cars...

But, the GTO was fast, in 1966. The 375hp Big Block Camaros were even faster, the following year... but, is a Camaro a "muscle car?"

The daddies of them all were the 1968 Darts and Barracudas, fitted with the competition version of the 426 Hemi... but, they were not an assembly-line car.

I think it would take a TEAM of Philadelphia lawyers to devise a list of qualifications that would make a meaningful group of "the 50 fastest muscle cars" possible. There are just too many variables.... cars like the '66-67 medium-riser 427 Fairlanes and '64 T-Bolts... and the '64 Stage III Max-Wedge cars (to say nothing of the '64 Hemis,) and a whole host of other cars that were really fast, but arguably, not necessarily "muscle cars," depending on the contest rules. How about C.O.P.O. 427-powered Camaros???

Then, there's the 350HP Chevy 327 small-block cars that were quick enough on the street, to dust a LOT of big block "muscle cars," in 1966. Are they "muscle cars"??? No big block... Hmmmmmmmmm......

It goes on and on... I guess, a pass time for people with a lot of time on their hands... LOL!

Fun to talk about, though...

[mike withers]

I saw no mention of any AMC cars. I can tell you that none of the cars listed ever beat my 1969 SC/rambler on the street. I would note that I never raced a 427 cobra and do not doubt that that combo would be hard to beat on the street or strip.
I did more than a little street racing in that era and while many cars had obvioiusly more HP and torque they couldn't put to the ground unless they had slicks. I raced every thing from Z28 camaros, to 440 6packs and none prevailed over the light weight rambler on the street. One of the most surprised was the owner of a 1970 450 hp 454 Chevelle he could not understand how I could possibly beat him on the street. It took three passes to convince him it was not a fluke. He was earlier bragging about owning the most powerfull production car available. While i agreed with that description I questioned if it was the fastest car on the street.I would note the AMC car's stock suspention included an upper torque link and I did add set of slapper bars. I could leave at 5000rpm's(peak torque with stock cam) and almost never smoked the tires.

The only car to beat me on the street with street tires was another Rambler a 1970 AMX my friend Jimmy Straight owned and it just depended on who left first as to who won. One evening we burned a quarter of a tank of 260 sunoco proving this point.

[gonzo1066]

Originally Posted by mike withers

I saw no mention of any AMC cars. I can tell you that none of the cars listed ever beat my 1969 SC/rambler on the street. I would note that I never raced a 427 cobra and do not doubt that that combo would be hard to beat on the street or strip.
I did more than a little street racing in that era and while many cars had obvioiusly more HP and torque they couldn't put to the ground unless they had slicks. I raced every thing from Z28 camaros, to 440 6packs and none prevailed over the light weight rambler on the street. One of the most surprised was the owner of a 1970 450 hp 454 Chevelle he could not understand how I could possibly beat him on the street. It took three passes to convince him it was not a fluke. He was earlier bragging about owning the most powerfull production car available. While i agreed with that description I questioned if it was the fastest car on the street.I would note the AMC car's stock suspention included an upper torque link and I did add set of slapper bars. I could leave at 5000rpm's(peak torque with stock cam) and almost never smoked the tires.

The only car to beat me on the street with street tires was another Rambler a 1970 AMX my friend Jimmy Straight owned and it just depended on who left first as to who won. One evening we burned a quarter of a tank of 260 sunoco proving this point.

The 70 Chevelle was the HIGHEST RATED horsepower in a street car at the time.. HMMM Did the factorys do a better job (in 1970) on the power ratings than they do now??

[bill dedman]

Before 1972, the factories rated their car's engines at "gross horsepower."
After that, the system was changed to a "net horsepower" rating-system, and factory ratings on engines dropped like a rock.

My 318 two-barrel 1972 Mopar was rated at 150 horsepower, with the net rating in place for the first year. The prior year, it had been rated at 230 horsepower, via rthe gross system.

As far as I can tell, there were NO mechanical changes to the engine; just to the rating.

I am a math idiot, but my calculator tells me that 230 is 153-percent of 150.
Figured a different way, it says that 150 is only 65.2 percent of 230.

Either way, it's a bunch of horsepower difference...

The main difference in a net and a gross rating as I understand it, is that the net rating is supposedly with all the accessories hooked up, and using whatever power they sap from the engine, and that includes the stock exhaust system.

That means that, in this case, the accessories (including the exhaust system) on that 318, were absorbing EIGHTY horsepower... a rather large amount.

Does anyone else have a problem with that contention???

I call B.S... What do you think?

[C and W Racing]

Bill, it included more than accessory's and exhaust. It includeds trans, converter, drive shaft, u-joints and rear end as well. No different than putting your engine on a dyno and then putting it in the car and putting it in a chassis dyno. Going to be a big differance and we don't have accessory's or factory exhaust.
Chuck