[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by z28guy30

The 1970 Chevy Chevelle with the LS6 454BB ran low to mid 13's.

The fastest LS6 1/4 mile time recorded by an auto magazine (back in the day) was in the November 1969 issue of Car Craft. Car Craft rocketed their stock ’70 Chevelle SS LS6 through the 1/4 mile in 13.12 seconds at 107.01 mph! http://oldcarmemories.com/1970-chevr...-454-the-apex/

The 1970 Cuda also ran 13's down the 1/4 mile with the 426 Hemi. Note that it took nearly 7 seconds from 0-60 due to traction issues, but when it hooks up it is gone. https://myclassicgarage.com/marketpl...outh-barracuda

Note that I didn't include cars that could be special ordered such as the original ZL1 Camaro (Only 69 built) and the Yenko which were absolute beast!

Yeh...traction issues...it was an ET killer for those cars regarding 0-60, but that dosn't mean they were slow.

[z28guy30]

Originally Posted by oldman

yeah I listed the 454 and 396 but really the fast ones in my neck of the woods were in Nova's with a decent set of dual exhaust. I mean I knew a couple of old rich guys with LS6s but it was more like I know a guy who's dad has one... not the watchout they patrol the town.... My 440 was well know... there was always faster.

It would definitely be nice to take a trip back in time and experience the muscle car era, but I wasn't born until 1978. Eventhough...It didn't stop me from obsessing over those cars. And yes the 440 six pack was a beast!

One more video. It may come as a surprise to some but the original LT1 Camaro was not built in 1993.

[oldman]

note they are leaving the line easy....

The 440 6 was nice but it really was a bear to tune and keep running, when the torker came out I put a holley 850 on it, went to torker II and then the MP performance M1, also tried the performer RPM. I kind of like the torquer II... LOL

[z28guy30]

Originally Posted by oldman

note they are leaving the line easy....

Yes they are...I am assuming they are riding on modern tread. Especially the z28...never even heard a squeal from it. lol

[oldman]

the pure stock drags are so very interesting. Remember they are allowed 2.5 mandrel X pipe and a cheater cam with 16 inches of vac at 1200 RPM (not hard to do even with GM auto cams). The ramp profile is so steep maybe inverse flank that a 340 build up commented that he could only get a few 100 miles on the cam before it wore out. The exhaust is a HUGE benefit for the Camaro as upto 69 they had a single muffler. Still impressive in every way.

[Marty McFlew]

Nothing like listening to those oldies running high lift cams with the really low but rough idle, then when you goose the throttle it barks loudly with power on demand.

[oldman]

LT1 was a high lift cam compared to the 60s and 70s, now duration, especially GM hydr. with the small base circle (slow ramp) they were some LONG LONG duration cams 300 degrees or more and that is where the rough idle comes in. Mopar with large base circles had comparatively less duration (just as much effective), 284 for hemi, 270s for the 340, 440.

This is one reason the pure stock drags favor GM, their small base circles needed longer duration, modern cams, especially what is essentially a 1/4 mile cheater cam can get a whole lot more effective lift out of a 300 duration GM cam then it can from a 27X mopar cam both considered stock per the rules, meaning GM gets a free 30 to 40 HP over what a true stock hyd. cam would do. Mopar say 10 to 15..

If the rule was 1% of effective duration .050 you would see more AMC and Mopars up there and a whole lot of GM 455 fall off. A stage 1 455 GS is: 207 degrees intake, and the exhaust at 224 degrees. Lift was .400" and .435" respectively. Note the low lift for the special "high lift" cam... This is listed as a 300 degree plus cam.

Mopar 340 268/276 listed but 210/220 @50 429/444 lift so you can see the way way way smaller 340 cam really has about the same effective duration. Pure stock lets the grinders use listed (.006) and this gives GM big blocks a HUGE advantage, well not the LS6 / L88 cause they are mechanical.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by z28guy30

Yes they are...I am assuming they are riding on modern tread. Especially the z28...never even heard a squeal from it. lol

Probably was modern tread, but still doesn't mean no tire spin. Most modern tires no longer squeal like the old tires did. Stomp on your Camaro and spin the tires and good chance you will hear no squeal.

[CorySS]

I have my 70 chevelle and now 2016 1ss Camaro

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by CorySS

I have my 70 chevelle and now 2016 1ss Camaro

How does your 70 SS Chevelle compare to your 16 SS Camaro speed wise?

[COmaro]

I owned several muscle cars, the fastest being a '70 Mach I with a genuine 428 Super Cobra Jet that was built. 4.30 Detroit Locker, close ratio 4-speed, shaker hood, oil cooler, the whole nine yards. It was a riot in a straight line, but don't try to go around a corner, especially in the rain.

I also have owned a mint '69 AMX 390 Go Pack, a '73 Grand Am with a 400, a '77 Trans Am T/A 6.6, an '83 Mustang 5.0 coupe, an '85 Capri 5.0, and several Japanese turbo AWD cars.

I rode in tons of other muscle cars. When a bias ply 60 was a good tire, it was all about the hookup 100 feet off the line, which was pretty much impossible in many cases. The cool thing was the thrust you got when the car finally did hook up.

Believe it or not, IMHO the best muscle cars were not the big blocks like my Mach I, they were the more common cars running the 340 Chrysler, the 390 AMC, the 351 Ford and the 350 Chevy. Boss 302/Z/28? I'd take one of those over a 454 Chevelle, a 428 Mach I or a 455 Olds any day. My AMX was a totally fun car, not as fast as the big blocks, but it actually handled a little bit. Not nearly as well as today's cars of course, but at least you weren't in fear for you life on every corner.

One of the best muscle cars I ever rode in was a friend's 340 'Cuda. That car sounded awesome, ran great, and looked better than any other car of its era, and it was not too nose heavy or uncontrollable like the 440s. It ate the 383's for lunch and beat a lot of 440's because it would get traction. The 340 was the best engine of the muscle car era, once you got it carb'ed correctly.

With all that said, a V6 Camaro off the showroom in 2017 would kill 95% of the muscle cars ever built as they rolled off the showroom. Bone stock, most of those cars needed tuning, headers, a manifold/carb, traction bars and slicks to come anywhere near the 13's.

[fastball]

IMHO tire technology is probably the single most effective advancement in technology over the last 40+ years for muscle cars.

If you just put a modern tire on any late 60s-early 70s muscle car without any other modern modifications the car instantly handles better and latches on to the pavement faster.

[BrianL]

My first muscle car was a 69 Mach 1 Mustang fastback with the 428 Cobra Jet engine. Lots of low end torque, so was a fun street car to have, & was the bad boy around my crowd. I remember that engine just barely fit between the shock towers. I had a bright idea to put some headers on it, & due to the tight fit, i had to lift the engine off the front mounts to do the job. And they were routed right in front of the plugs, so I burnt some wires occasionally & later found that I couldn't change some of the plugs without lifting & moving the headers off the heads. Fun times though! Surprised I didn't hurt myself with that one.

And it got about 8 MPG & had crap for brakes, wouldn't handle well in corners. Gas was about 60 cents then & that freaked us all out as it used to be 32. Sold it for about $1200 & keep thinking what it would have been worth now...

[Lafourche1]

Originally Posted by ParisTNDude

The mid to late 60s was every bit as exciting. In 1966, I bought my first new car, a Chevelle SS 396 with 375 HP. Awesome car, until the 1968 Charger R/T came out and I had to have one. With it's 440 cubic inch motor and 375 HP, it was definitely king of the road and it was more awesome than my Chevelle.

But, you're right...who ever would have thought you could have a car running low 12s in this day and age. In the 70s, as you say, I thought performance was dead. Now, my low 12 second Camaro can also get over 30 MPG if I try real hard. The Charger could get 13 if you stayed out of it.

Good times, for sure!

Remember that those were gross horsepower ratings. Also might remember that many of those cars had drum brakes on all 4 corners. A little rain and you might stop them before you crossed the state line.