[ecko04]

So about that 355 HP in the v6...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Raptor Jesus]

Originally Posted by rontammy0

Yep....most of these v6 guys posting would have their asses waxed at the track by those rides. They couldn't handle driving them with that 8 inch left to right play in the steering wheel haha.

And because you have a modded and tuned SS that only makes 370whp this somehow makes you a superior driver? What's your 1/4 mile time in your ride?

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by karmatourer

Google it since you don't know off the top of your head like most of us.

0-60 in 6.9 seconds is good......for a minivan. Of course you'll need to be addressed as 'they' and not him/he and you'll probably need to buy a man bun.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

ODYSSEY 0-60 6.7 seconds

1967 Camaro SS/RS
0-60mph: 8.0 seconds

1968 Ford Mustang GT 390
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds

1967 Corvette Convertible
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds

1970 Mustang Mach 1
0-60mph: 8.2 seconds

Now your comeback?

Sure, see the post above.

[PDXSSCE]

Originally Posted by ecko04

So about that 355 HP in the v6...

It was established that its underrated.

[Umbriel]

Here's a race between a 454 Chevelle and a 4 cylinder Camaro.

[ecko04]

Originally Posted by PDXSSCE

It was established that its underrated.

Just here for the lulz or until a mod steps in and shuts this shit show down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

ODYSSEY 0-60 6.7 seconds

1967 Camaro SS/RS
0-60mph: 8.0 seconds

1968 Ford Mustang GT 390
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds

1967 Corvette Convertible
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds

1970 Mustang Mach 1
0-60mph: 8.2 seconds

Now your comeback?

Don't be fooled....these #s include stock tunes, and still burning rubber all through first gear on bias ply tires. Its like me trying to race and a 4 wheel drive honda civic in the rain. Bottom line is I'm just not going anywhere until I get traction.

[PDXSSCE]

Originally Posted by Umbriel

Here's a race between a 454 Chevelle and a 4 cylinder Camaro.

Originally Posted by ecko04

Just here for the lulz or until a mod steps in and shuts this shit show down.

I get a kick out of individuals who feel being 'old school' enhances their argument, when in fact it sheds light on the reason they're out of touch.

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by Umbriel

Here's a race between a 454 Chevelle and a 4 cylinder Camaro.

The 72' Chevelle is not exactly a Muscle car. By 72' Hp was down to 240 and about 345lbs Tq, compression was lowered to about 8:1.



This is probably a better interpretation of a real world Chevelle muscle car.

[Hops]

Wow, people really do value different performance aspects of a car. Didn't realize until i went through this thread, that for many here 'track' means 'drag strip'. I'm used to 'track' meaning 'road course'.

[Umbriel]

Originally Posted by Deputy Dog

The 72' Chevelle is not exactly a Muscle car. By 72' Hp was down to 240 and about 345lbs Tq, compression was lowered to about 8:1.

72 was when they stopped using the inflated gross horsepower numbers and used real world numbers, that is the biggest reason the numbers are down.

[Umbriel]

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-vid.../13/horsepower

[PDXSSCE]

Originally Posted by Deputy Dog

The 72' Chevelle is not exactly a Muscle car. By 72' Hp was down to 240 and about 345lbs Tq, compression was lowered to about 8:1.

This is probably a better interpretation of a real world Chevelle muscle car.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but in 1970 Chevy reported gross horsepower. In 1971, they reported both gross and net horsepower and in 1972 only net horsepower was reported. Is it possible you're referring to the same engine, but with a different reporting standard?

Muscle Car Horsepower – How Exaggerated Was It?