never cared for old cars, and now I especially dont

 

when i see a clean looking musclecar i wish i had one.

 

2350 RPM with 3rd gear, converter locked, 3.0 rear. and you would need at least that much RPM with that motor.... has no power.

 

Same here.
I do love the old school muscle but having driven a couple of them in the past makes me quite happy with the modern era.

 

Good point...this is proven by just looking at how many modern era race cars revert back to those old transmissions (TH350s, TH400s, Powerglides, C4s etc, rebuilt of course) when it comes time to going REALLY fast.

 

That's why I'd like a pro-touring one, classic looks with modern performance

 

I don't mean to bash classics, I just noticed the majority are pretty slow. (minus the charger argument, but who thought the 4 door beast would be faster? lol)

However, I would take one ANYDAY over new cars and happily eat the gas mileage and top speed. There is just something about the 1st/2nd gen camaros and firebirds that cannot be beaten.

I love my 3rd gen to death, but I'm really tempted to find a nice 2nd gen to cruise around in.

 

... or a 409

 

with park bench style seats and a work truck type ride id never DD one unless it was upgraded with newer technology.


i still appreciate them alot though.

 

The 409 was only available until 1964.
But the song is cool

 

While these cars look slow on paper, I'm willing to wager there was a good bit of throttle feathering, babying and tire spin. On top of that they usually didn't measure the 60ft back in those days.

Looks at that old 427 'Vette though. That was rollin' on those bias plys.

 

I totally agree...some of those cars might just be a set of drag radials or DOT slicks away from 12s or even even high 11s.

 

They look, style, feel and character of original muscle cars will never be equalled. It's not about how fast they are, it's about how they make people feel and what they represent to this day. The modern versions do a better job of capturing it but they just aren't quite the same. Someday I want to have a restored 66-67 Catalina 421 to cruise in.

 

^I couldn't have said it better myself^ Except for the Catalina part, I evision a '68 Chrysler Newport convertible with a 440 TNT and a 2.21:1 rear for cruising.

Geez I must be getting too old for this forum because these were the kind of cars we dreamed about DD-ing.

 

I thought the top speed column was trap speed for a few min...

Almost started believing again that old muscle cars were really fast stock. Not hating, I def want an old muscle car some day, but its gonna have to be modded like pro touring style only with normal size rims.

 

One thing to be aware of is that back in the day, most magazines did track testing with two guys in the car and a bunch of heavy analog test equipment. Remember the fifth wheel?

 

Those times weren't exactly the best for the cars listed, but they're not far off what most owners would see... back then. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's, a well kept version was looking at similar times, even with updated tires. Not drag tires, but new and better rubber.

 

The Pure Stock muscle car drags that have been held might be a better indicator of what these cars perform like today.

 

Pretty much all the 60/70s styled Muscle/Pony cars have the edge in looks compared to todays car which obviously shows now that they are trying to bring back that old styling with the current Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger.


Most of the Muscle/Pony car times seem rather good IMO when you consider the lack of technology back then and the tires, those cars were busting ***** back then and being held back at the same time in a way.

Anyone able to find the same chart for say a late 70s and late 80s compare? You know just to see how things have changed heck even a 90s compare chart would be cool.

 

Idonno how into drag racing you are, but "pure stock" cars aren't actually stock.