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.
Are either of the cars on a treadmill? Because that might matter.
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 :rolleyes: . 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.
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. 
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.
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?
Trick question. Unless the Accord had a sunroof, Bonds’ massive 'roid skull wouldn’t even fit in the passenger compartment.
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…
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
A friend describes the sound of the old cars as a “testosterone rumble.” 
Regards
Testy
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
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!
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.
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!!!
Now that’s entertainment…