Your thoughts ?
Interesting compilation.
It's been my experience that the drag magazines (Hot Rod, PHR, Car Craft, etc.) were better at squeezing each possible 100th/second out of a car in the quarter mile. The Motor Trend type mags were good, but typically R&T was the slowest. They didn't hammer cars off the launch like the drag magazine would.
Also, PHR and Hot Rod would usually play with the cars a bit at the strip, lower tire pressure, put ice on the intake manifold, loosen the front sway bar, etc. Some would bolt on a set of slicks, just to see the difference. Thus, some of their test numbers need to be put in that perspective.
With the narrow bias-ply tires of the day, traction was always a problem. So, a sticky drag surface would yield better ETs than the back stretch at Riverside Raceway, where MT usually tested acceleration.
And, let's not forget the regular issue of cheater cars, from the factory. I don't think there was ever a Pontiac test car that wasn't tweaked-up a bit. Like putting a 421 into the '64 GTO, but still calling it a 389. That, and other true stories, were told to me directly by the man who was there...the mastermind of Pontiac performance: Jim Wangers.
As Van mentioned, most of those test cars were 'ringers'. Most notable were those 1971 Boss 351s....far from stock.
Btw Van, Jim Wangers told me the same thing.
12.3 out of stock boss 9?unlikely..... ;)
Quote from: 557 on February 04, 2023, 06:52:56 PM
12.3 out of stock boss 9?unlikely..... ;)
Right, that one is unlikely.
Was a 69 GT500 really 3,850 lbs?
Is it just me that finds it hard to believe a 62 AC Cobra with a 260 in it was only 3 tenths of a second slower in the 1/4 mile than a 66 427 Cobra ?? Yes, the 62 was lighter, but the math does not seem to make sense.
Meant to say hard to believe a 62 AC Cobra with a 260 was 3/10ths of a second faster than a 66 427 Cobra. What say you Cobra guys ??
Also it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison if they don't include final drive ratios..... ;)
Quote from: jk66gt350 on February 04, 2023, 10:46:35 PM
Is it just me that finds it hard to believe a 62 AC Cobra with a 260 in it was only 3 tenths of a second slower in the 1/4 mile than a 66 427 Cobra ?? Yes, the 62 was lighter, but the math does not seem to make sense.
Traction issues. The 427 just sits and spins the tires like it has a line lock on.
It isn't just the Cobra's, the BB Mustangs do the same thing but do not have the benefit of better weight distribution.
The BB Cobra being 40/60 and the BB Mustang being 60/40.
The bigger rear end ratios help with that. That's why something like a 4.30 has better 1/4 mi times but kills the top speed.
In todays world, five and six speed transmissions fix much of that problem but the top overdrive gearing is easier to break then something like a Ford close ratio 4 speed is.
"Back when I was a 'boy' ", you needed to use 4.88's behind a 2.20 first gear transmission to even get into the 12's.
Don't forget too that the SB Cobras were t10's with a 2.20 first gear, so not much first gear bite for drag racing.
The racer's rule of thumb on getting good 1/4 times is that the product of first gear and the rear end ratio needs to be in about the 11 to 14 range. So with something like a reasonable rear ratio for cruising like a 3.25, you need something around a 3.38 first gear.
This factor alone explains much of the 1/4 mile times tested back then.
I saw many a Cobra race between a 427 and a 289 and it would come down to the drivers talent to as which was faster. They would pull neck and neck.
By the same token most Cobras wouldn't race a BB Mustang least they be embarrassed by the results.
Today's computer controlled transmissions will let anyone run down to the 10's. Just point it and shoot it. Apples and oranges. Not the same thing.
Some in fact are 10 speed transmissions. That helps traction control immensely.
Yes I believe the 260/427 times. I witnessed it.
Quote from: 1109RWHP on February 04, 2023, 08:41:57 PM
Was a 69 GT500 really 3,850 lbs?
Yes! My '70 GT-500 was 3,960 pounds. No driver.
Doug, I usually agree with you, and I do respect your experience. However in my experience of testing various real Cobras (a 260 in CSX2000, plus several 289 and 427s) I can attest that the 427s were quicker, unless (as you correctly point out) there was a vast difference in gearbox and rearend ratios.
While the BB Cobras do light up their tires through about 70 mph, the car's weight is so low that it doesn't sit there and go up in smoke like a heavier car with a lot of power. With practice, I was able to master the wheel-spin versus forward-progress skill to get the best times.
Yes, a full-race 289 would give a stock 427 fits, but I'm referring to both cars in street-stock trim. Every stock Cobra 427 I've tested ran between 12.8 and 13.4 sec. That's at least a half-second quicker and than every stock SB Cobra I've tested.
One more thing to factor into the quickest cars list: A lot of muscle cars tested back then had one-legger (peg leg) rear ends, which obviously hurt times.
One example I've had time in, both in the day and more recently, is the '65 Malibu SS396 Z16, which was the first car to get the potent 396/375hp BB, 4-speed with 3.73 gears. My cousin had one new, and he gave me plenty of tire-smoking rides. I would've sworn it was quicker than any Mustang, GTO, Charger, etc. Until I track tested a fully restored real Z16 for Car Craft in the early 1990s. 100% correct engine and driveline specs. Even in the same color (Crocus Yellow with black vinyl top) as my cousin's.
I was excited with anticipation. But, that excitement turned to disappointment on my first run. Everything was perfect on the car, it felt powerful and drove great, but couldn't break out of the 15s. Run after run. 15.0s. Good mph in the high 90s, but what a disappointment otherwise.
A big part of the problem was that none of the Z16s came with Posi. Chevy had developed a Panhard rod rear suspension modification that was supposed to work as well as Posi to control wheel spin, but didn't. Why they didn't also include Posi is a mystery to me. With Posi (on stock type/ size bias ply tires) the car would've been in the low 14s with ease, and probably capable of high 13s with the best track conditions. Vintage tests of the Z16 showed very similar 15.0/97-99 mph runs.
But man, my cousin's Z16 felt like it was the quickest car ever, back in the day...from a kid's perspective. It sure could smoke that one rear tire for blocks!
BTW: The Z16 was the first muscle car to bring big bucks in price. In 1979-80, they were going for about what a BB Cobra was getting. They're still over $200k for a property restored one. Only 201 built. 200 hardtops and 1 convertible. The convertible hasn't ever surfaced and was probably ordered as a "brass hat" Chevrolet executive car.
There's more that you'd ever want to know about a '65 Malibu, but is a great example of why most muscle cars weren't as quick as we think they were.
Van,
Your assessment is spot on. Most Muscle Cars in stock form were 15 second cars. A few were in the high 13's, and 14s. Everyone 'thinks' a stock Muscle Car from the 1960s-early '70s was a 12 second car. Not true. Especially when all the magazines tested 'ringers' and or 'prepped' cars. Its the same today. Not one production car can touch the times quoted in the magazine tests.
I can attest to the fact that my 67 gt500 with 4spd.and stock 3.50 open rear will not "hook up"on a hard launch.....no matter what....
Was there ever a such thing as a "stock" 427 Cobra? What's stock? A S/C? A csx3100 with the dual four center oiler, the CSX 3200's with the 428, or the CSX 3300's with the 427 single four side oiler and skinny tires on the Sunbursts?
If any a car had to be explained what stock is, it was that one.
I never saw a magazine test in person, just track and street racing. What I saw in street racing was it was a chore for a 427 to pull away from a 289. What was stock there, probably nothing?
Ford top loaders had already found themselves in to R models and 289 Cobras, replacing the t10s which just loved to pop out of second gear even new.
BOTH of those cars physically HURT racing them. It was like being a passenger in an old wooden roller coaster. Besides having to twist yourself into the 289's.
I remember one test of a 427 where they decided to test it from a roll. I don't remember what mag it was now? Maybe that was you? 3.31's did not help the bite.
Speaking of cheating, what ever happened to those soft compound tires those test cars were shod with? I haven't heard about those in 50 years? It took me a while to find out what the S meant in the sidewalls.
I suspect that those 13 second times on the "Muscle cars" were the times with the air cleaners off? I remember 2 tenths differences with the air cleaners off. That would push a 14 second car into the 13's.
If I remember correctly that was something like an 80hp factor?
Doug, good point on "what's a stock Cobra?" SAI wasn't producing cars like a "real" car company that operated under highly controlled conditions. And yes, probably every owner tuned/improved their Cobra, especially those who raced them. These days, there aren't many a "stock" CSX3000s around.
No, that wasn't me who did the rolling start on the Cobra. But, I once thought it'd be a kick to put four space saver tires/wheels on a new Viper and do our usual acceleration, braking and handling tests with it. Couldn't get anyone to go along with me on that one. Can you imagine what a handful that would've been?
And Doug, yes...I'd neglected to say that "Hot Rod type magazines took off the air cleaner" usually during the second or third drag strip pass.
There were a handful of tuner tricks (enumerated in my earlier post) that they'd use to simulate what the car would be like to the buyer who wanted to take it to the strip and have an advantage on the street. But their bolting on a pair of slicks and then publishing those times is among the biggest culprit of phony numbers.
Hot Rod or PHR would sometimes install a 4.55 (or similar) rear gear into a test car to see what it'd ultimately be able to do. And, because they published that number, probably with slicks too, THAT'S the number that people have in the memory that all such cars ran, back in the day.
That's the main reason why I'm not a concours guy. I've owned five or six very-high-scoring concours muscle cars over the decades, but I don't really enjoy driving them. I always come back to "Who kept their car stock, back in the day? Only the guy who'd just bought it that day, or the dweeb who somehow mistakenly bought a big block Mustang/Camaro/Challenger but drove like it was grandma's six cylinder.
Votes please: Who here had a muscle car, back in the days when we were all under 30, and kept it completely stock.
Show of hands...
Crickets?
Quote from: 1109RWHP on February 04, 2023, 08:41:57 PM
Was a 69 GT500 really 3,850 lbs?
actually after the 65-66s we affectionately call them all "baby bellugas"
unfortunately as we get older and reminisce about "the good old days" how the air was cleaner, how that apple pie was more applier ( applier kool word ! ) how "those muscle vehicles" ( don't want to offend anyone by saying cars ) where so faaaaasst.
to prove my thesis, I introduce this chart of a 1969 GT500 and possibly one of the fastest times ever recorded travrl8ng a quarter mile
this is a car weighing in at 3900 lbs and being dropped precisely from an airplane at 1320 feet.
it took precisely 16.9 seconds to travel the quarter mile....
^^^ I love that!
All of our Shelbys are quicker to traverse a 1/4 mile under their own V8 power than if they were dropped from an airplane!
Fun stat to confuse the young folk with.
Quote from: Side-Oilers on February 07, 2023, 03:22:39 PM
I love that!
tell us what is it that " you love " is it the cleaner air, more apllier, fast "choose your pronoun" insert here or fast beluga hits 16.9 in 1/4 ?
inquiring minds want to know......
Tony, I love that you figured that out and posted it. I've never seen a comparison like that before, as to 1/4 mile (vertical versus horizontal) ETs.
Makes me remember the old street racer taunt: "Your car couldn't run_______(fill-in the blank) if you pushed it out of an airplane."
PS: I just looked at your calculation again. Did you see that the distance of 1320 is listed as "M", for Meters. That'd certainly change the outcome. Please recalculate in Feet and repost.
Quote from: Side-Oilers on February 07, 2023, 10:04:55 PM
Tony, I love that you figured that out and posted it. I've never seen a comparison like that before, as to 1/4 mile (vertical versus horizontal) ETs.
Makes me remember the old street racer taunt: "Your car couldn't run_______(fill-in the blank) if you pushed it out of an airplane."
PS: I just looked at your calculation again. Did you see that the distance of 1320 is listed as "M", for Meters. That'd certainly change the outcome. Please recalculate in Feet and repost.
holy moly just turned this PIG into a 9 second +/- 191 MPH machine.....welcome to fantasy island....look de pig, de pig !
Some pigs look good with lipstick, or falling from a plane!
Quote from: 427heaven on February 08, 2023, 09:51:51 AM
Some pigs look good with lipstick, or falling from a plane!
y'all know me by now, you know im playing with ya
remember if you are not laughing, your crying
Tony I was hoping you might post a funny... of maybe a lipstick painted pig or a SHELBY flying out of a plane. Photoshopped or how ever thats done. Aint got no such SKILLZ.
Quote from: 427heaven on February 08, 2023, 02:10:18 PM
Tony I was hoping you might post a funny... of maybe a lipstick painted pig or a SHELBY flying out of a plane. Photoshopped or how ever thats done. Aint got no such SKILLZ.
Hello my dearest friend....during my life time I have attended numerous sensitivity, diversity and inclusion seminars. These very profound instructional programs have really made an impression on me.
I did think about what you mentioned above, but stopped and rationalized that "someone" on this forum, yes this very forum might be upset about "me" doing "that".
So I succumbed and decided to do the right thing not post a flying, lipsticked, plane flying PIG. Hopefully by not fulfilling your expectations I did not hurt your feelings, hoping that you will understand it's all in the name of sensitivity, diversity and inclusion.
look I found a pig flying a 69 shelby.....
by the way this reminds me of a redbull flutag event we attended a few years ago, witnessed a 69 Shelby with wings......
That list is so bad with those fast muscle cars every one knows you can't keep up with a poncho those 455 H.O.s those 455 S.D.s would outperform 99% of all those on that list and let's not talk about handling, all those on the list are BRICKs !
There ya go- ;D