[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.
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.
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.
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/scenes/112_0306_spdtest/photo_02.html
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).
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).
1969 Yenko Camero
427 V8
425hp
0 - 60 in 3.8 seconds
¼-mile in 11.94 seconds @ 115 mph
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).
The Yenko was no more stock than a 2006 Toyota Camry with a Sidewinder missile strapped to its side.
I suggest you re-read what I was replying to. 
Are we allowed to compare those to hot-rodded modern cars?
Hennessey Twin Turbo Viper:
0-60 mph: 3.2 sec.
0-150 mph: 10.0 sec.
1/4 mile: 10.5 sec. @ 153 mph
Standing Mile: 217.9 mph
60-0 mph Braking: 103.6 ft.
100-0 mph Braking: 288 ft.
Chassis Dyno: 977 Rear Wheel HP
Lingenfelter C6 Corvette
725 HP
1/4 Mile: 11.6 sec @ 136 MPH
That is just the most beautiful thing I have ever seen! I mean, I thought I was a Volvo man for life, but gee…
Ask Mr. Slant, he brought up the idea.
As your undead attorney in this matter, assuming you live in Ankh Morpork and have paid me in advance, I invite you to review the following original post.
" 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/muscle...rs-50fast.shtml"
I find not a single reference to aftermarket modifications in this post. Seeing as the topic was “today’s fastest cars”, I would submit that hot-rodded cars, present and past, are both permitted within the discussion.
The Bugatti, though, probably breaks the prohibition against Euro-Exotica.
I would submit that the OP probably would be pleased by setting a price cap right around $65,000. That bars anything fancy and Italian, and won’t let anything more expensive than a Corvette in. I consider the Corvette to be the most expensive incarnation of one of the “original” muscle cars, and thus a fair marker.
By the way, I just gotta’ say, KUDOS to Ford for FINALLY putting a decently-tuned V8 in the Mustang, as shown on the chart about 20 posts up.
I agree. I didn’t want to get into the Euro supercars nor the uber-customized. It’s not fair to compare a 60s-era Corvette running a dual quad carb and nitrous oxide against a stock, um, Honda Accord. 
Or this:
Autobanh Supra
1359 HP
1/4 mile: 8 seconds
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Toyota-Supra-Turbo-1-359HP-220MPH-SuperCar-1-of-1-Rare-Hardtop-Celeb-Car_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6447QQihZ002QQitemZ4652973085QQrdZ1
Look here for some info on just what it takes to develop 1000 HP.
I am having a real hard time with a 3 LIter stock block motor with one turbo developing 35% more power than an 8 Liter 4 turbo Bugatti.
from www.mkiv.com regarding the block:
“1. i thought the supra was a high performance engine. why doesn’t it have four bolt mains like a camaro?
first reason is that the main journals in the 2jz engine are absolutely massive. they are some of the biggest mains you’ll ever see in an automotive engine, so block flex is not an issue as it is with domestic blocks. second reason is that the 2jz crankshaft is already a precision balanced component with twelve counterweights. as such, it does not require extra restraint or externally balancers. third reason is that with the inline configuration of this engine there are seven main journals taking the load, not just five as there are with domestic v-8 engines. in summary, the box stock lower end of the 2jz engine is nearly indestructible and is capable of delivering well over 900 horsepower reliably to the rest of the powertrain. it was “designed” as a high performance engine, not modified to be one.”
I don’t know much about the turbos on the Bugatti, but the Supras putting down over 1000HP are doing it with huge aftermarket turbos that don’t spool until they hit 5-6K RPMs.
There are always a couple of 800-900HP Supras on Ebay, with dyno sheets, and often 1 or 2 putting down 1000.
My issue isn’t with the crank, it is with getting the required amount of air in and out of the engine, and enough fuel in.
According to the link I posted it takes about 45,000 liters of air per minute to develop 1,000 HP. An engine with 35% more power would require over 60,000 Liters of air per minute.
Looking at the pictures in the link, it does not look like you could put 60,000 Liters of air through the intake of the turbo, much less through the intake valves.
Then you have to get the fuel into the cylinders. You would need about 1.8 gallons of gasoline per minute for 1359 HP.
I know a guy that held a world’s record at Bonneville with a straight 6 Nissan Z. It was also three liters displacement. I have seen the engine room on his car, and his turbo was larger, and he needed two sets of injectors to get enough fuel into the engine.
I can’t help but feel these guys are measuring 1359 of these , not 1,000 of these guys .