[oldman]

I had a Challenger before the, and a 4th gen Camaro before that. Anyway the topic of how bad action the 60 and 70 muscle cars always comes up. Here is the long used list:
https://www.streetmusclemag.com/news...t-muscle-cars/

I would like to address a few and need help on the 455 GS Stage 1.

first the Shelby Cobra, it is
a) not a muscle car
b) the special blue dot probably were race tires not issued when the customer purchased the car, they were bigger at 8.15 than the "production" Cobra also. Note that production was so low and any initial customer for these cars were actually driving and purchasing prototypes. The car tested was returned by Sammy Davis Jr as undrivable, it was sold to a rich guy in CA, at which point the car killed him.
c) outside of a mechanic on-site the car probably could not even work must less perform.
d) I'm actually OK with on the list as a tribute to American Graffiti and the two Japanese guys..

The next car I have an issue with is the 440 six pack 12.91. I have that issue of the test, bone stock off the truck (sure it was already prepped by Mopar techs). I was drag prep by the SuperStock staff, every tricked used, take out al weight, cool water in the radiator between runs, prep track, pro driver, pre non-stock distributor, fresh plugs, no air filer (base plate left on), loosen and remove belts, 66 PSI in the front tires. Mopar tech on site to tune the carbs. But essentially "stock". It just was NOT show room stock. Say .25 is the minimum that a prepped but drive off the lot car would do.

The next car and now I need some help is the Stage 1 455, even Buick guys question how stock this 455 was. It is .5 to 3/4 second faster than any other 455 road test ( Motor Trend 13.38@105.5) . It was a know factory marketing car. There was a 455 stage 1 site (think it was V8buick.com) that was highly critical of how "stock" this 455 was. Others have noted that the rear gear ratio was NOT available on the auto. This is probably my favorite Muscle Car, but it should be listed with a realistic time. It was tested by Hot Rod it was 14.4 @ 96 MPH. Lets here it from guys that “know”.

Oh and I forgot the Oldham (Muscle Car Confidential). Wrote a fake road test of the stage 1, but his seat of the pants said it was a low 14 second / very high 13s car. Seems about right, he drove many of them.

Last is my favorite engine, really hate that it is over-hyped. The list ends at 13.99 and there was never a 340 stock that did that time. I literally have EVERY road test from the time and the average is about 14.7 at 96 MPH. Ronni Sox in a long term build target at a pro stock build “claimed” his 1968 340 Dart with prep did a 13.99. Believable because it is Ronni Sox, and this is not a show room stock 340. The fastest of fast was a 1968 Dart 4 speed (biggest cam), lightest car. 6/69 Super Stock bone stock got 14.6 out of it, with full drag prep of stock stuff (see 440 list above), they got 14.21 and 100 MPH. One of the few 340 ever tested to break 100 MPH in the ¼ “stock”. The engine has been strapped to a dyno and with stock manifolds it makes about 260 engine HP. Rated up to 320 HP in super stock depending on carb, this is a blue printed engine with open headers, no alternator, no air cleaner… The small AVS car from memory was 305 HP? Super stock gets confusion as cheater cams can be used with stock duration but ramp profiles that would wear out in a week of street driving. Same goes for modern Stock Car Drags. The last buid-up article of a low 13 second 340, the owner said the cam can only go a few hundred miles…

OK lets hear it on the Buick…


found a link to actual 455 article, says no A/C so I would guess the 3.64 ratio is correct even with an auto.
http://www.buickhorsepower.com/?opti...d=34&Itemid=40

[oldman]

Current issue of Muscle Machines other road test for 455s,
Note they do NOT list the 13.3 M/T test.... I guess they know it is bogus
14.4 at 96 MPH Hot rod Nov 69, note that a/c cars should NOT have a 3.64 gear, the article says two people in car
14.26 at 101 March 70 R/T this is a 4 speed test weight 3835
13.95@101 MPH sept 70 R/T auto test weight 4000 lbs (assume 2 people in car)

fastest W30 was 13.98
fastest Poncho 14.76, I understand this as the vast majority of Ponchos tested were ringers.

[rocket403]

I would like to see these same cars run with current tires and as close to stock as possible.
I have a MCR issue (Dec 1995) that has the Big Block Shootout, all the cars that were in this issue were bone stock and the numbers were consistent with older tests.
LS6 Chevelle 13.98
442 14.17
Trans Am 14.68

were the top 3 but they did have a Hemi Charger that had a clutch issue, MCR was confident that they could have pulled low 13's

I always felt that these numbers were slow and the reason was my 92 5.0L Stang was mid 14's in 92 and when I started putting together my 80 Cutlass I was able to get 15.2 in the 1/4 at 89mph that might not seam like much but that was with an 84 Olds 307 with 145hp I had added a RPM intake and mellings cam with headers and a 2004R trans and 3:73 posi with BFG's on the back.
Couple years later and my 403 in my Olds would have laid waste to all those big block numbers from the past.

[rocket403]

Fastest Olds 1968 Ram Rod 350 (674 built)

[oldman]

I recall that issue, I'll have to look at my collection. Do you have the MPH? That is more reflective of actual HP as you stated the rubber technology is what has really changed.

Here is more info on the 455 M/T test. it was a complete stripper, no PB, no front disk, do a/c with full tank of fuel is was 3835 as tested, which should include driver.
It did 14.26 AT 110.12 mph in street trim with stock tire pressure. The tester found a timeslip in the glove box from Orange County 13.60 at 103.92, "made in more competitive trim" this was a 4 speed car.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by rocket403

Fastest Olds 1968 Ram Rod 350 (674 built)

At least for small block rockets: confirmed by the Pure Stock Drags
13.4 at 104 mph
https://www.psmcdr.com/all-time-lists

Nice car BTW.

[rocket403]

LS6 ran 13.98 @ 100.27
442 14.17 @ 95.37
TA 14.68 @ 97.17
428 CJ Stang 14.88 @ 93.87
Buick GS 14.23 @ 95.26
Charger DNF

[oldman]

only one broke 100 MPH, yep no wonder the 340 which in some cases could just touch 100 MPH has become the stuff of legends. We can all se why the 105.5 MPH for the Buick is hard to believe for a "stock" stage 1.

[rocket403]

Hi-Performance Cars July 1968 issue ran a RamRod 350 4.66 gear 4sp car weight was 3550lbs with 2 people came off the line at 5500 rpm 13.05 @ 106
The same car ran 12.85 the week before with just a driver. The 350 Olds engine could rev to 6200 stock and with shimmed rockers could rev to 7k

The Olds won the winternationals E/Stock class with a 12.90 @107mph in 68

[oldman]

Originally Posted by rocket403

Hi-Performance Cars July 1968 issue ran a RamRod 350 4.66 gear 4sp car weight was 3550lbs with 2 people came off the line at 5500 rpm 13.05 @ 106
The same car ran 12.85 the week before with just a driver. The 350 Olds engine could rev to 6200 stock and with shimmed rockers could rev to 7k

The Olds won the winternationals E/Stock class with a 12.90 @107mph in 68

what conditions of the test, I may or may not have that issue.

Here's a vintage 1968 article on a 350 Olds Cutlass competing in NHRA's STOCK class. It ran TWELVES! (That was an upper 14 second car when it rolled off the showroom floor.) Look at the compression ratio! Engines like that are INCLUDED in the NHRA's "factoring!"

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1192922533

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1192922606

The article clearly pictures the exhaust manifolds as being "removed", but the actual reading seems to say the factory exhaust is removed after the head pipe. dunno.. but it would be hard to take a picture of the manifolds next to the air cleaner if they were not "removed"

Headers and slicks, no air cleaner top, tuned as in the E/stock is very strong for a small block in a heavy car. Any idea what the 340 Darts / Barracuda did probably under Sox and Martin.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/1968...lass-chesrown/

[oldman]

also found this talking about ram iv
Fleet 500
11-04-2007, 08:19 PM
Example # 1:
Pontiac GTO

Car Life, March 1969
1969 GTO 400 cubic inch V8 Ram Air IV, four speed

0 to 60 mph . . . . 6.2 sec.
Standing 1/4 mile . . . .14.45 sec. @ 97.8 mph

Per Hale's formula:
PEAK ENGINE HP ~ = (97.8 MPH /234)^3 * 3,900 LB RACE WEIGHT = 285 SAE NET HP.


Here is a whole slew of vintage Pontiac tests - many of which were performed on SLICKS and with lots of mods. NONE of the stock ones were fast by modern standards.Mike Noun's List of Pontiac Road Tests

Example # 2:

69 Trans Am 400 (RAIV) T-400, 3.90 posi 14.10 @ 100.78 mph

Options: PDB, P/S Wt : 3375 (approx) 3720 (test) Magazine : Hot Rod (3/69)

Peak Engine HP ~ = (100.78 MPH/234)^3 * 3,720 pounds = 297 SAE NET HP

Example # 3:

1970 GTO RAIV, 4 speed, 3.90:1 axle 14.5 @ 98 MPH CAR CRAFT
Car Craft? I thought the figures they post can't be believed?

And why are you posting 1/4 mile times of Pontiacs? After reading about them (and other muscle car 1/4 mile times) for over 30 years, I know them already.
https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/foru...hp/t-33343-p-2...

Here is a blurb on the 455:
The NHRA refactored the 455 Buick Stage 1 engine from its rated 360 hp to 400 hp.
The NHRA also refactored the Ford and Chevy 302 engines from their rated 290 hp to 310 hp because their advertised ratings were obviously fudged to get the cars into lower stock classes at the drag strip.


You clearly have no understanding of "factoring." The '70 455 Buick Stage 1 can be "factored" at as little as 325 HP, for example:

http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/class...es/1970BUi.xls

Furthermore, the cars competing in NHRA "stock" classes are allowed to run engines that are BLUEPRINTED to NHRA technical specs!

NHRA Stock Car Engine Blueprint Guide (http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/index.html)

Those NHRA specs allow OVERBORES, 3 angle valve jobs, milled heads, decked blocks, thinner head gaskets, forged internals and a host of other "little tweaks." The COMBINATION of permitted mods under the NHRA "stock" rules can add more than 100 NET HP!!! The results that are produced with those MODIFIED engines are averaged into the "factoring" process.

Hence, NHRA's "refactored" HP figures in NO WAY represent actual "as new" engine output!!!

Here's a vintage 1968 article on a 350 Olds Cutlass competing in NHRA's STOCK class. It ran TWELVES! (That was an upper 14 second car when it rolled off the showroom floor.) Look at the compression ratio! Engines like that are INCLUDED in the NHRA's "factoring!"
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1192922533
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1192922606

[rocket403]

The Olds 350 in the 68 RamRod W31 was a different engine than the high output 350, this was carried over to the 69 and 70 Cutlass W31. This option was dropped after 70, 325hp at 5600 with big block valves, different cam 10.5:1 comp.
Supercars 70 1/2 had a time of 13.94 @ 100.05 for the 70 W31 and 13.7 @ 105 for the 70 442 W30 Ram Air cars.

Buick GS Stage 1 was 14.10 @ 102
340 Dart Swinger was 15.05 @93
390 AMX 14.10 @95
69 SS-427 Motion Camaro 11.98 @117.80
70 SS 350 Nova 15.6 @90
70 SS 454 Chevelle 13.5 @103
70 SS 454 Monte Carlo 14.96 @94

Small Block Olds W31 was able to run close to or into the 13s bone stock with some minor work they were big block slayers.

[Red Hot ZL1]

My first car was a '68 442. Top speed of 45mph. A 16 year old (me) tore the engine out and rebuilt it. It was then surprisingly fast. A very good friend had a '70 GS Stage 1. Both stock, tuned, and automatics, I never had any problems out running him.

My second car was a '70 340 Duster, 4 speed. I am not sure if I still have the time slips (Green Valley Raceway in Dallas) but I did get it down to the very low 13s. 3x2 carbs, Dana 60 rear, L60x15s.

My third car was (still own) a '67 442, cam, headers, carb, L60x15 road racing tires. Beast of a car and handles like a battleship. I ran this car in the 1/8th and it ran regular high 7s - low 8s.

As I grew up around '60s muscle cars, I am very familiar with Camaros (SS big and small blocks), Z24, and SS RS, Mustangs (GT (427), Mach 1, and Boss), SS Chevelles (big and small blocks), Novas, AMX (really impressive car), Road Runners, Super Bee, Darts, Dusters, and a Daytona Super Bee.

None of those cars compare to our cars of today (handling and reliability).

[rocket403]

The Cars of today are better handling and reliability that is true but I would take a 70 442 or a W31 or even a 70 Cutlass SX over any new Challenger, Mustang or Camaro. For me there is just something about sitting in a Old big block or small block Olds that just feels better than any of the newer cars.
The sound smell and visceral experience that comes with Real Muscle Car is beyond anything that a new car can give you.

When my kids are gone and I am no longer paying 10k a year for my kid to play hockey my plan is to go out and get one of those older cars, I'm down to my last year so couple years from now.