HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2010, 07:05 AM   #91
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Talking Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Zlatkin View Post
In '64 a friend (OS Brannon) ordered a strippo Belvedere II 2 dr. HT with a 330 HP 383 and a 3 speed column shift (so his parents didn't think it was a Hi-Perf car)
It ran B./S and was quick. 13.8's with very little done A tall pinion snubber, clamp the front half of the leaf springs, headers & slicks. Drove it to work every day and his parents never did know he raced it.
I remember the 365 HP 426's ran A/S and were not fast.
13.80's must have been in the 1/8th mile......lol. He should have bought an automatic to hide the Hi Performance factor from his parents......Thats what I did. Much better than a 3 speed stick.

Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 06-11-2010 at 07:12 AM.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 07:07 AM   #92
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Cool Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg fulk View Post
Just me but no one said anything about the 69/70 BOSS 302.....Motor Trend 14.90's my "BONE STOCK" 1998 Mustang GT ran 14.60's @ Trails of all places & got 24 MPG
Dont forget that the early tire technology made a big difference in later years. They were a major reason the muscle cars had slow times in stock condition not to mention the non driving magazine guys trying to drive them....lol.

Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 06-11-2010 at 07:10 AM.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 07:31 AM   #93
danny waters sr
VIP Member
 
danny waters sr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: lagrange,nc
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN View Post
Dont forget that the early tire technology made a big difference in later years. They were a major reason the muscle cars had slow times in stock condition not to mention the non driving magazine guys trying to drive them....lol.
That would have been a cool job to have . Just think of all the muscle cars i could have driven,that i did not get to own. Love to have my old cars back in this day now. 67 440 GTX, 70 440 cuda , 70 SS chevelle 454 , 67 camaro 396 4- speed ,68 mustang GT 390 4-speed , and plenty more ........ this could be another topic.
__________________
Danny Waters, Sr / 73 Duster "340"
danny waters sr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 09:10 AM   #94
Paul Ceasrine
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

In regards to the Mopar 65' 426-S Street-Wedge.
I'm wondering how it came up with 365HP, or was it just massaging the truth.
The 1966 440 was rated at 350HP, with identical equipment,
(compression ratio, cylinder heads, carburetor and camshaft)
Actually the 440 camshaft had (.012) more lift on exhaust.
Seems to me the 426-S Street Wedge should have been rated
much lower. Not that it would have mattered.

The Boss 302. I don't think anybody saw them doing much at the track either. What did they run,,, H/Stock or SS/J.?
PC
Paul Ceasrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 09:14 AM   #95
lstanford
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 312
Likes: 1
Liked 134 Times in 32 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

1971 Mustang with the 429 Super Cobra Jet 375 HP. solid lifter engine. What a dog from the factory. Worked on it for a year and still got killed regularly on the street. Best bang for the buck was my 1963 Dodge Polara with 383 and 330 HP with 4 speed and Hurst shifter. Swapped in 4:30 gears and Denman tires, recurved distributor, fatter metering rods in AFB and went 13.70's. That was flying in the fall of 1962. Surprised a lot of max-wedge cars at Detroit Dragway.
lstanford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 09:46 AM   #96
Paul Ceasrine
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

I don't know on this one.
1969 AMX 390/315HP
You could either get a good one or a bad one.
Monday and Tuesday built cars were better at American Motors.
My friend had one, and it was generally quick, until he tried to street race a 70 Nova SS396/375HP. The race was over after 15 feet.

JJ,
1964 Modified Production was added to NHRA, for the previous year F/X cars.
AA/S was also added, (7.00 - 8.69 wt/hp) It was purposely set for the previous year 1963 S/S cars and 1964 427 Galaxies.
PC
Paul Ceasrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 11:47 AM   #97
Jeff Lee
VIP Member
 
Jeff Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anthem, Arizona
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ceasrine View Post
I don't know on this one.
1969 AMX 390/315HP
You could either get a good one or a bad one.
Monday and Tuesday built cars were better at American Motors.
My friend had one, and it was generally quick, until he tried to street race a 70 Nova SS396/375HP. The race was over after 15 feet.

JJ,
1964 Modified Production was added to NHRA, for the previous year F/X cars.
AA/S was also added, (7.00 - 8.69 wt/hp) It was purposely set for the previous year 1963 S/S cars and 1964 427 Galaxies.
PC
Generally speaking, a '68-'69 AMX with a 4-speed and 3.54's was a mid to high 14 second car in bone stock condition. Throw a BW auto trans and 3.15 gears and your looking at high 14's low 15's.
I once had a '69 AMX with a bone stock 343 (280 HP) 4-speed and 3.54's. It wouldn't hook on the old Radial T/A's but ran 15.20's. More impressive was the 96 MPH. I thought that was impressive for a mid-sized small block with log exhaust manifolds and a Carter AVS (totally stock engine).
I've also raced bone stock '70 AMX's w/ 390, 4-speed and 3.54's and have gone in the 14.20 range @ around 98 MPH. No reason a '68-'69 AMX should be but a few ticks slower with a 390. I just have never personally raced one.
I had a '70 'Cuda w/ shaker, 440-6, 4-speed and 3.54's. Drum brake and manual steering 'Cuda. It was a rebuilt engine and a .474" purple shaft cam and headers through the factory mufflers. Wouldn't hook, ran 14.40's but at 104-105 MPH. I sure wish I would have put some 4.10's in that Dana and a set of slicks on it and dropped the exhaust! No doubt it would have been in the very low 12's, maybe even in the 11's.
__________________
Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX
Jeff Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 12:17 PM   #98
Paul Ceasrine
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Jeff,
I'm a little surprised with the results of the 440 6-Barrel Cuda.
Honest results, my mother had a 1970 340 Duster, 3.23 Sure-Grip, 4-speed w/bench seat and E70 x 14" Goodyears (RWL).
My father raced it once in 1971, G/S, completely stock ran
14.38 @ 99mph. Won class,
Man, that was a good little car. Cost $3000 in May 1970.
Kept it for 4 years, never had a problem.
PC
Paul Ceasrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 01:49 PM   #99
FlyingW
Member
 
FlyingW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Frostproof, Fl.
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Jimmy Waibel seems to think that the AMX 78-80 might have been the most under performing!!!
FlyingW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 02:07 PM   #100
Jeff Lee
VIP Member
 
Jeff Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anthem, Arizona
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ceasrine View Post
Jeff,
I'm a little surprised with the results of the 440 6-Barrel Cuda.
Honest results, my mother had a 1970 340 Duster, 3.23 Sure-Grip, 4-speed w/bench seat and E70 x 14" Goodyears (RWL).
My father raced it once in 1971, G/S, completely stock ran
14.38 @ 99mph. Won class,
Man, that was a good little car. Cost $3000 in May 1970.
Kept it for 4 years, never had a problem.
PC
I always look at the MPH, ET is a product of making it all work right. That car wouldn't hook until about a half way through 1st (as most big block cars).
I had a friend with a '69 340 Dart with a 4-speed and 3.91's. He had it down to 13.90's with jetting and curve through the factory exhaust and bias ply stock type tires. This was around 1980 I think. He's the guy that had that 340 '64 Valliant I mentioned earlier.
My first real hot rod was a '71 Challenger 340. This was back in the day of poor gas (up to that point in time) & I built a low compression small valve ('72 style) 340. It went 102 MPH and the best ever was 14.00 in complete street trim. Doesn't sound like much but on the street it was a killer all the way to 7,000 RPM. Took out many a big-block muscle car on the street. I really only lost a couple of races. And I won a lot because the guy next to me was pinging his guts out on his 10.5:1 or higher pump gas engine. I ran 87 octane and 40-42 degrees advance with my Accell dual point. I had 4.10 gears and could never afford a B&M convertor which it desperately needed.
If only I knew then what I know now...
__________________
Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX
Jeff Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM.


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.