The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2006, 08:57 AM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Muscle Car Shootout: Would today's fastest cars shut down the '60s-'70s muscle cars?

Imagine an afternoon of quarter-mile races between the baddest U.S. muscle cars of the 1960s - 1970s ('66 427 Cobra, 1969 Roadrunner, 1970 Hemi Cuda, 1970 Chevelle SS454) versus today's fastest and most furious. Which would win?

Have technological refinements rendered the American muscle cars of the 1960s and 1970s underperforming leviathans? In answering, let's NOT compare exotic Euro muscle cars, such as the F1, Lambourghini, Ferrari, etc.

> Would using modern tires much help the old muscle cars?


I submit this chart, for your inspection. Not sure if it's authoritative.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:03 AM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,178
Well, now you have to define what a modern muscle car is. Two doors? Four? V-8 or turbocharged 4-cylinder? There's lots to choose from.

One thing is certain, though. Old cars benefit greatly from radials over the old bias-ply tires.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:09 AM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22,510
Muscle cars weren't all that fast all things considered. Their engines sounded badass but it was mostly show and much less go. There are lots of modern cars that can beat any on your list by a very good margin.

The Corvette Z06 for example blows the doors off the #1 car on your list coming in at 11.5 seconds in the quarter mile versus 12.20 for the 1966 Cobra.

As you move down your chart past the first few places, the badass cars of the past put in yawn inducing performances by today's standards. For example, BMW M3's can beat most of the cars on the list as well and I wouldn't call them exotics.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:16 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
Not even close. You don't even need to look at muscle cars today to find cars that are faster than anything that came out of Detroit in the 1960's-70's. The new Mustang GT-500 has 500 HP. The Corvette Z06 has 500 HP. Dodge/Chrysler is building half a dozen vehicles with 425 HP. BMW, Mercedes, and Audi's flagship sports sedans are all well over 400 HP, and a couple are over 500 HP.

And this is SAE horsepower, measured at the wheels. The HP ratings in the 60's were net HP at the flywheel, without drivetrain and accessory losses.

What those big engines had going for them back then was torque. Gobs of it. But the cars weren't very good at using it. They had crappy tires and suspensions, and were traction limited. Today's cars have modern tires, traction control, and in some cases All-Wheel-Drive. Take the Subaru WRX STi. This is a compact sedan with four seats and a real trunk, which does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds with 300 HP. I don't believe there was a muscle car around in the 60's that could touch it off the line, simply because the Subaru has AWD.

Hell, even average sports sedans like the Infiniti G35 and the Lexus sports sedans are pushing 300 HP or more and flirting with 5 second 0-60 times. If you go back and read the road tests of some of those old muscle cars, you'll find that the 5 second barrier was a very tough nut to crack because of their traction problems.

The fastest cars ever built are being built right now. This is the new muscle car era, 21st century style.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:21 AM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22,510
The newer Ford Mustang Cobra also destroys all of the old muscle cars with a 12.9 quarter mile time. Handling on virtually any new car built for performance is superior to the old muscle cars as well. The only place where the muscle cars still excel is engine noise.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:48 AM
slaphead slaphead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Aside from the quarter-mile times, there's just a ton more useable performance nowadays. Plenty of cars will comfortably and safely cruise at the kind of speeds which the old supercars struggled to reach. A mercedes 300E taxi will do 120mph without any particular effort and let you natter with the driver at normal speaking volume. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case with the old 70's big-blocks.

Although it's probably in the steering and stopping departments that things have changed the most. The subaru mentioned above would destroy any 70's era car on a road with bends in it, as would almost any modern car with sporty pretensions.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2006, 11:15 AM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
As an aside, if you permit hot-rodded performance variants, you MIGHT still have a fight.
There's a lot more room to hot-rod a 426 (7.1 Liter) Hemi making an advertised 425 HP than there is to hot-rod a Nissan 350Z's 3.5L powerplant making an advertised 300 HP.
I doubt that's what the OP really meant to ask, but I figured I'd toss it out there.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-19-2006, 12:01 PM
control-z control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
A lot of "average" daily driver cars these days like a V6 Honda Accord, Nissan Altima 3.5, or V6 Toyota Camary could match or beat most of the old muscle cars in 0-60 times. Most modern cars are lighter, have better horsepower/weight ratios, have computers optimizing fuel/air mixture and ignition, have fuel injection, are safer, handle better, and get better gas mileage.

Some examples:

2006 V6 Honda Accord
240 horsepower
0-60 in 5.9 seconds.

1968 Plymouth Barracuda, 383 V8
300 horsepower
0-60 in 7.5 seconds

1970 Chevy Chevelle SS LS6 454 V8
450 horsepower
0-60 in 6.1 seconds
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:03 PM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z
A lot of "average" daily driver cars these days like a V6 Honda Accord, Nissan Altima 3.5, or V6 Toyota Camary could match or beat most of the old muscle cars in 0-60 times. Most modern cars are lighter, have better horsepower/weight ratios, have computers optimizing fuel/air mixture and ignition, have fuel injection, are safer, handle better, and get better gas mileage.

Some examples:

2006 V6 Honda Accord
240 horsepower
0-60 in 5.9 seconds.

1968 Plymouth Barracuda, 383 V8
300 horsepower
0-60 in 7.5 seconds

1970 Chevy Chevelle SS LS6 454 V8
450 horsepower
0-60 in 6.1 seconds


What??? You're telling me a lowly Honda Accord can smoke one of Detroit's great muscle cars?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:05 PM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Dude, it ain't lowly now that it has 240 HP!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:15 PM
Jayrot Jayrot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Who would win if Babe Ruth were driving the Chevelle and Barry Bonds were driving the Accord?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:21 PM
Necros Necros is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Golden, CO USA
Posts: 2,403
Yeah, a new Accord can smoke most old muscle cars. Not only that, but it will sip gas, turn better, stop better and be considerably safer.

I understand nostalgia; wanted something now that you lusted after in your youth isn't strange. I totally understand aging Baby Boomers wanting to pick up a '67 Mustang.

What I don't get is this odd insistence that this old technology is somehow better than newer technology. Cars are composed of, at a high level, two things: Technology and art. You can definitely make the argument that the art of cars from those days was at a higher level than car design now. What you can't do is make the argument that the technology of that day was superior to today's tech. I mean, I don't see anyone making arguments that the Altair is a better computer than any random Dell desktop today. Why is it this way with cars?

Stay with the ideal that cars of that period were beautiful, and they remind you of your youth. Don't try to make them into something they weren't.

(FTR, my car, a lightly modded 1994, comes in somewhere between #1 and #2 on that list, going strictly by 1/4 mile times )
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-19-2006, 06:29 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Slant
As an aside, if you permit hot-rodded performance variants, you MIGHT still have a fight.
There's a lot more room to hot-rod a 426 (7.1 Liter) Hemi making an advertised 425 HP than there is to hot-rod a Nissan 350Z's 3.5L powerplant making an advertised 300 HP.
I doubt that's what the OP really meant to ask, but I figured I'd toss it out there.
Nah. Today, you can slap a turbocharger on a lot of these new engines and pump the horsepower up tremendously. There are lots of Subarus running around with 500+ horsepower. Here's a Stage III WRX STi that you can bolt on to a stock STi for $3500, that produces in excess of 600 HP, and which can run a 1/4 mile in 12.1 seconds on pump gas. My old '67 Camaro had a 425+ HP small block, and it cost a hell of a lot more than that to get that kind of power out of it. And I still had to deal with detonation problems, even on premium gas with octane boost and water injection, and the chassis of the car had a hell of a time managing the power.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-19-2006, 07:34 PM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
Nah. Today, you can slap a turbocharger on a lot of these new engines and pump the horsepower up tremendously. There are lots of Subarus running around with 500+ horsepower. Here's a Stage III WRX STi that you can bolt on to a stock STi for $3500, that produces in excess of 600 HP, and which can run a 1/4 mile in 12.1 seconds on pump gas. My old '67 Camaro had a 425+ HP small block, and it cost a hell of a lot more than that to get that kind of power out of it. And I still had to deal with detonation problems, even on premium gas with octane boost and water injection, and the chassis of the car had a hell of a time managing the power.

I hear you, but at least the old muscle cars *sounded* like muscle cars. A lot of the late Japanese imports sound like hell when the turbocharger kicks on and off--some kind of popping sound. That said, the new Mustangs sound great...

BTW, some posters have said the old muscle cars had another advantage: They produced tons of low-RPM torque. Not sure how valid that is.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-19-2006, 07:42 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrot
Who would win if Babe Ruth were driving the Chevelle and Barry Bonds were driving the Accord?
Trick question. Ruth'd be driving drunk.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-19-2006, 07:47 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!
BTW, some posters have said the old muscle cars had another advantage: They produced tons of low-RPM torque. Not sure how valid that is.
I am sure they did but the fact still remains they would lose in every category today. The quarter-mile is the race you asked about and the one muscle cars would fair best in because they are meant to go straight ahead very fast. They still get beaten and generally very badly by a wide variety of modern cars. It is even worse if you talk about a race where the suspension, steering, and braking are a part of it. There is much more to performance than just slapping the biggest motor you can find an an unsophisticated frame and tires and trying for a brute-force approach. Low-rpm torque is fine but the real goal is to get moving quickly and boiling the tires at the starting line may look cool but it costs time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:04 PM
mike1dog mike1dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
You're also forgetting a feature modern cars have that cars back then didn't have: traction control. Admittedly, a good driver could probably do better on a car without traction control in the quarter mile than one with traction control, but the average driver only has to stomp on the accelerator and get a better 1/4 mile time than the average driver could get on one of those old cars where the problem wasn't horsepower, but getting that horsepower to the ground with slippery, narrow bias ply tires.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-20-2006, 12:23 AM
Enola Straight Enola Straight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
A reliable way to contrast the old and new...or any two cars...is compare the power to weight ratio.

A Honda Accord has a better power P/W than a Mercury Marauder, and thus can win the race.

Furthermore, if you compare stock tires from a 60s era muscle car to a modern auto, you can see how much wider today's rubber is, thus more contact patch to transfer acceleration.

Also, today's cars are much more aerodynamic. Then, the coefficient of drag was in the .35-.40 range, today's cds are often below .30
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-20-2006, 06:50 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Miami, Florida USA
Posts: 6,747
I recently read a newspaper article about a Mustang collector whose '66 or '67 big-engine Mustang was turning just about the same times as the period advertising offered. in other words, despite being old, it was still healthy.

His wife's 2005 Nissan Murano SUV(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/1...murano.500.jpg) would beat it in the 1/4 mile by 1/2 second.

Just goes to show that cars are vastly more powerful & capable than they were in the 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:31 AM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1dog
You're also forgetting a feature modern cars have that cars back then didn't have: traction control. Admittedly, a good driver could probably do better on a car without traction control in the quarter mile than one with traction control, but the average driver only has to stomp on the accelerator and get a better 1/4 mile time than the average driver could get on one of those old cars where the problem wasn't horsepower, but getting that horsepower to the ground with slippery, narrow bias ply tires.

A couple of points:

1) The old muscle cars didn't typically use "narrow bias ply tires." At least, they typically weren't narrow. They were fat and often had the characteristics of slicks, didn't they? (Before my time) Anyway, I specified in the OP, I think, that we're comparing the old muscle cars outfitted with modern tires.

2) A couple of other posters, Shaggy among them, mentioned the tendency of the old muscle cars to sit spinning their wheels, because they lacked traction control. But anyone with any racing experience knows better than sitting their at the green light, spinning his tires. Wouldn't the better way be to hit the gas, but not enough to "boil" the tires? Once you get traction, THEN punch it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:32 AM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy
I recently read a newspaper article about a Mustang collector whose '66 or '67 big-engine Mustang was turning just about the same times as the period advertising offered. in other words, despite being old, it was still healthy.

His wife's 2005 Nissan Murano SUV(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/1...murano.500.jpg) would beat it in the 1/4 mile by 1/2 second.

Just goes to show that cars are vastly more powerful & capable than they were in the 60s.


I don't think the Mustangs typically were on the frontline of the 60s-70s muscle cars. Second tier, perhaps?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:40 AM
LiveOnAPlane LiveOnAPlane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!
I don't think the Mustangs typically were on the frontline of the 60s-70s muscle cars. Second tier, perhaps?
Pretty much, yes. The early ones were definitely second-tier to the GTOs, SS396s, etc. Even the 1967 390 Mustang was not, usually, as fast as these cars. I know, I owned both a 1966 w a 289 V-8 and a 1967 with a 390 V-8. The 390 was strong, but not a match for a GTO with three deuces, for example.

The 1968 428 Cobra Jet was a different matter. It was a front-runner. The 1969 and 1970 CJs were also very quick for their time, turning quarter mile times around 13.8-13.9 according to the car tests. So I guess it all depends on where one draws the line.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-20-2006, 11:44 AM
The Great Sun Jester The Great Sun Jester is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrot
Who would win if Babe Ruth were driving the Chevelle and Barry Bonds were driving the Accord?
Are either of the cars on a treadmill? Because that might matter.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2006, 05:24 PM
WonJohnSoup WonJohnSoup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!
I hear you, but at least the old muscle cars *sounded* like muscle cars. A lot of the late Japanese imports sound like hell when the turbocharger kicks on and off--some kind of popping sound. That said, the new Mustangs sound great...

Most people wouldn't really consider most any of these new generation Japanese speedsters to be "muscle cars." Most of the import enthusiasts nowadays might even get a little offended being associated with the idea.

And that "pop" from turbo might be a blow-off valve the driver installed. I knew a guy who had one installed into his WRX, mostly to make people jump in the parking lots . Usually the girls would just go "your car sounds broken," everytime he shifted, haha. It sounds more like a "pssshhht!!!" though, so we might be talking about two different things.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-21-2006, 12:01 AM
Rick Rick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!
A couple of points:
2) A couple of other posters, Shaggy among them, mentioned the tendency of the old muscle cars to sit spinning their wheels, because they lacked traction control. But anyone with any racing experience knows better than sitting their at the green light, spinning his tires. Wouldn't the better way be to hit the gas, but not enough to "boil" the tires? Once you get traction, THEN punch it.
Dude, the traction controls on my car update and recalculate every 7 milliseconds. No way in hell you can out drive the computer.
Sorry, but it is true, HAL can out drive you.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-01-2006, 10:43 AM
mike1dog mike1dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
It seems kind of unfair to me to put modern tires on those old cars. Bias ply tires were what they came with from the factory after all. They were probably advanced tires then, but compared to even a cheap radial tire today, they didn't get much traction. If you think it's easy to launch a car that has four hundred horse power, most of its weight over its front wheels and an crude rear suspension, then you probably haven't tried it. Remember that most of these cars were simply a midsized car body crammed with the biggest motor they could stuff in there. Otherwise, they were'nt much different from the six cylinder version of the car. For example, the Plymouth Barracuda with a hemi came standard with drum brakes on the front, hardly what you'd consider high tech even then.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2006, 11:54 AM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Is there some kind of average figure for the percentage of HP lost from flywheel and drivetrain connections (as Sam Stone described)? For example, if we take a 1969 Corvette ZL-1, which is generally considered to have well in excess of 500 HP (though officially rated at 430 HP by Chevy) what would todays SAE rating have been? Is the 430 HP "official" rating actually close to what the SAE rating would have been?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2006, 12:25 PM
OneCentStamp OneCentStamp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 8,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrot
Who would win if Babe Ruth were driving the Chevelle and Barry Bonds were driving the Accord?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
Trick question. Ruth'd be driving drunk.
Trick question. Unless the Accord had a sunroof, Bonds' massive 'roid skull wouldn't even fit in the passenger compartment.

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2006, 12:31 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuckoorex
Is there some kind of average figure for the percentage of HP lost from flywheel and drivetrain connections (as Sam Stone described)? For example, if we take a 1969 Corvette ZL-1, which is generally considered to have well in excess of 500 HP (though officially rated at 430 HP by Chevy) what would todays SAE rating have been? Is the 430 HP "official" rating actually close to what the SAE rating would have been?
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, at best, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines show a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating (often considered to be underrated) and a net rating of 375 hp.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2006, 12:39 PM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Yikes. Another muscle car fantasy gets bitchslapped by reality.

In related news, Dodge has officially greenlighted production for the new 2008 Challenger! I'm going to start saving up money now for a Plup Crazy Challenger...
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-03-2006, 01:09 PM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Dude, the traction controls on my car update and recalculate every 7 milliseconds. No way in hell you can out drive the computer.
Sorry, but it is true, HAL can out drive you.
Rick

Sad but true. I just visited Sab Diego where a guy took me for a ride in his Mazfa RX8. While not a super-fast car, the thing had that traction control and he could go through curves at speeds I flatly wouldn't have believed if I hadn't have been there. Not only did it not slide, it didn't even squeak. The traction control DOES make a weird "bumping" noise when it kicks in though.


Carmac
Quote:
I hear you, but at least the old muscle cars *sounded* like muscle cars. A lot of the late Japanese imports sound like hell when the turbocharger kicks on and off--some kind of popping sound. That said, the new Mustangs sound great...
A friend describes the sound of the old cars as a "testosterone rumble."

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-03-2006, 01:23 PM
Capa84 Capa84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonJohnSoup
Most people wouldn't really consider most any of these new generation Japanese speedsters to be "muscle cars." Most of the import enthusiasts nowadays might even get a little offended being associated with the idea.

And that "pop" from turbo might be a blow-off valve the driver installed. I knew a guy who had one installed into his WRX, mostly to make people jump in the parking lots . Usually the girls would just go "your car sounds broken," everytime he shifted, haha. It sounds more like a "pssshhht!!!" though, so we might be talking about two different things.

I'd consider the 90s Japanese sports cars at GT cars, not muscle cars. The RX7, 300Z, 3000GT, and Supra all fit in that mold. The Supra was a definitely a detuned GT car, which puts out 330HP stock, and with minor mods dynos at over 420 at the wheels(cost around $1800). The stock internals and manual transmission will easily hold 800HP with no modifications. Add the ability to corner at almost 1g(.98) stock, and the fact that it could outbreak a Viper RT10, Vette ZR1, and 911 Turbo and I would agree that it's not strictly a muscle car.


The blow off valve is to release pressure in the turbine...as you accelerate, the turbo spins up and at a certain point releases the air back into the engine. As you shift, pressure remains in the turbocharger itself. When the turbo tries to spin again, it now must spin the blades against the remaining built up pressure....the blow off valve just simply releases that pressure, so when the fan tries to spin up again, it does so more quickly. The air releasing from the valve makes the sound you hear....some of them "pop", some sound like flatulence, and some sound kind of like releasing air from a balloon with the neck pinched.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-03-2006, 02:24 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
Just for fun, I went back to the muscle car list in the OP, and looked at how some of today's cars would stack up.

Here's a list of new cars, and where they would fit in the muscle car list:
Code:
Car                 Muscle Car Rank  1/4 mile time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corvette Z06             #1            11.5s
Dodge Viper SRT10        #1            11.78s
Mercedes CL55 AMG        #2            12.38s
Audi RS6                 #2            12.63
Ford Mustang GT500       #2            12.7
Cadillac XLR-V		 #4            13.0
Subaru WRX Sti		 #4            13.0
Mitsubishi Lancer EvoRS  #4            13.1
Cadillac CTS-V           #4            13.1
Dodge Magnum SRT8        #4            13.1
Acura NSX		 #7            13.18
Dodge Ram SRT-10         #7            13.19
Chrysler 300C SRT8       #7            13.2
Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 #7            13.2
Pontiac GTO              #7            13.3
Chrysler Crossfire SRT6  #7            13.3
So there's a whole bunch of modern cars that would fit into the top-10 all time muscle cars. I didn't include any of the exotics, and I'm pretty sure there are a bunch missing - the list I was using was just a compendium of road test times from various car magazines, so lots of vehicles missed the list - like the Charger SRT8 for example. Note that the list includes a bleemin SUV and a giant station wagon.

Here's how cheaper, average cars would stack up on the list of muscle cars:

Code:
Car                 Muscle Car Rank  1/4 mile time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan 350Z             #29              13.77
Subaru Forester 2.5XT   #32              13.8
Dodge Neon SRT-4        #43              13.89
Mazdaspeed 6            #50              14.0
Note that a Subaru Forester, a small SUV, goes as fast as a 1967 Corvette 427.

Just slightly above these times you run into dozens of every day vehicles, like the Infiniti G35, Honda Accord, Pontiac Grand Prix GXP, Inifniti Q45, Subaru WRX, All of the GM 'SS' vehicles like the Impala SS, etc. They all run the 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds, and most of your typical muscle cars from the 60's were 14 to 15 second cars. The ones on the top 10 list were the rarest of the rare, limited production vehicles. For example, the '67 Camaro SS-350, a common muscle car of the time, ran the 1/4 mile in 15.4 seconds. A Nissan Altima will spank it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-03-2006, 04:03 PM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
I don't know much about cars. How does this one stack up?

1997 McLaren F1 Road Car

Top Speed 240 mph
0 - 60 mph 3.2 Seconds
0 - quarter mile 11.6 Seconds
0 - 100 mph 7.7 Seconds

http://www.supercars.net/garages/mini%20magic/6v2.html
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-03-2006, 04:53 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
If you want to start including exotics like the McLaren F1, here's your winner:

2006 Bugatti Veyron:

0-60 - 2.5s
0-100 mph: 5.5s
0-200 mph: 22s
Top Speed: 253 mph

1/4 mile time: 10.8s @ 140 mph

The Bugatti's 0-200 mph time is faster than the McLaren's time from 120-200 mph!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-03-2006, 08:19 PM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
If you want to start including exotics like the McLaren F1, here's your winner:

2006 Bugatti Veyron:

0-60 - 2.5s
0-100 mph: 5.5s
0-200 mph: 22s
Top Speed: 253 mph

1/4 mile time: 10.8s @ 140 mph

The Bugatti's 0-200 mph time is faster than the McLaren's time from 120-200 mph!
Well I did say I didn't know much about cars.

Since the Mclaren has the words 'road car' in its title, I popped it in.

And I would expect improvements over 9 years!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-03-2006, 08:31 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,531
The Bugatti is just stupid fast, that's all. It costs over a million bucks, and has 1001 horsepower. A triumph of engineering over good sense.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-03-2006, 08:44 PM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
I want one.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2006, 08:53 PM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuckoorex
I want one.
I want two, and I want to pilot them with remotes, and make them fight in an arena. Maybe with some of those cool accessories from one of the fighting robot shows!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-03-2006, 10:48 PM
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the dance floor.
Posts: 14,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Slant
I want two, and I want to pilot them with remotes, and make them fight in an arena. Maybe with some of those cool accessories from one of the fighting robot shows!!!!
Now that's entertainment...
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-04-2006, 09:20 AM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
[QUOTE=mike1dog]It seems kind of unfair to me to put modern tires on those old cars. Bias ply tires were what they came with from the factory after all. They were probably advanced tires then, but compared to even a cheap radial tire today, they didn't get much traction. If you think it's easy to launch a car that has four hundred horse power, most of its weight over its front wheels and an crude rear suspension, then you probably haven't tried it....QUOTE]


Remember: this is a shootout between old and new muscle cars. Since we can't transport the new cars back into the future, we have to use stage the shootout today. I think it's entirely fair to put new tires on the old muscle cars. True, today's high performance tire technology didn't exist three decades ago, but I'm interested in what the cars themselves can do. YMMV, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-04-2006, 10:13 AM
Mr. Slant Mr.  Slant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Carnac,

Fair enough. After all, I suppose a '72 Roadrunner's tires would be a whee bit dry-rotted by now and unsafe for motorsport operation.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-04-2006, 12:08 PM
R. P. McMurphy R. P. McMurphy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
The Bugatti is just stupid fast, that's all. It costs over a million bucks, and has 1001 horsepower. A triumph of engineering over good sense.
It has a speed governor that kicks in at 238 mph. It seems that the tire manufacturer won't take any responsiblity for the tires above that speed so nobody knows how fast the stupid thing will really go.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-04-2006, 03:58 PM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,550
How about the Ultima ?

http://www.gear6.net/2006/06/ultima_gtr_brea.html

I think that you can also take some of those times with a pinch of salt, here is one site quoting the same cars as earlier, but notice for example that it has the Corvette ZO6 somewhat slower than other quotes.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/s.../photo_02.html
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-04-2006, 07:24 PM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartydog
It has a speed governor that kicks in at 238 mph. It seems that the tire manufacturer won't take any responsiblity for the tires above that speed so nobody knows how fast the stupid thing will really go.
I'll bet Csaba Csere from Car and Driver would be surprised to hear that. He hit the rev limiter at 253 in an article for the magazine a few months ago.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-04-2006, 10:17 PM
R. P. McMurphy R. P. McMurphy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF
I'll bet Csaba Csere from Car and Driver would be surprised to hear that. He hit the rev limiter at 253 in an article for the magazine a few months ago.
And you believe what you read in Car & Driver? At that speed he couldn't tell the difference between 253 and 235 (and neither could you).
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-04-2006, 10:39 PM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,178
Enjoy the article. While you're at it, note that 402.5 kilometers per hour (seen in the photograph on the second page) equates to just over 250 miles per hour. Also note that it is displayed externally, meaning that Csere did not actually have to witness the speed on the speedometer. Further note that he claims that the limiter was set to 253 miles per hour and he hit it for an extended period of time.

If you would like to continue to maintain that Car and Driver is dishonest I'm afraid that you'll need cites for that contention, while at the same time noting that the obtained data is to be differentiated from subjective opinion (which is something they take great pains to do).
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-05-2006, 03:32 PM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is offline
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 26,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Slant
As an aside, if you permit hot-rodded performance variants, you MIGHT still have a fight.
1969 Yenko Camero
427 V8
425hp
0 - 60 in 3.8 seconds
-mile in 11.94 seconds @ 115 mph
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-06-2006, 09:14 AM
Rocketeer Rocketeer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Enjoy the article. While you're at it, note that 402.5 kilometers per hour (seen in the photograph on the second page) equates to just over 250 miles per hour.
Sounds like you're both right. You're limited to roughly 230 mph until you stop the car, turn the key in a special lock on the floor, and get out to make sure that all your aerodynamic devices deployed properly, which puts you into top-speed mode (253 mph).
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:51 AM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher
1969 Yenko Camero
427 V8
425hp
0 - 60 in 3.8 seconds
-mile in 11.94 seconds @ 115 mph


The Yenko was no more stock than a 2006 Toyota Camry with a Sidewinder missile strapped to its side.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.