50 Fastest Muscle Cars...

mike withers · 05-13-2012, 11:49 PM

I saw no mention of any AMC cars. I can tell you that none of the cars listed ever beat my 1969 SC/rambler on the street. I would note that I never raced a 427 cobra and do not doubt that that combo would be hard to beat on the street or strip.
I did more than a little street racing in that era and while many cars had obvioiusly more HP and torque they couldn't put to the ground unless they had slicks. I raced every thing from Z28 camaros, to 440 6packs and none prevailed over the light weight rambler on the street. One of the most surprised was the owner of a 1970 450 hp 454 Chevelle he could not understand how I could possibly beat him on the street. It took three passes to convince him it was not a fluke. He was earlier bragging about owning the most powerfull production car available. While i agreed with that description I questioned if it was the fastest car on the street.I would note the AMC car's stock suspention included an upper torque link and I did add set of slapper bars. I could leave at 5000rpm's(peak torque with stock cam) and almost never smoked the tires.

The only car to beat me on the street with street tires was another Rambler a 1970 AMX my friend Jimmy Straight owned and it just depended on who left first as to who won. One evening we burned a quarter of a tank of 260 sunoco proving this point.

gonzo1066 · 05-14-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike withers

I saw no mention of any AMC cars. I can tell you that none of the cars listed ever beat my 1969 SC/rambler on the street. I would note that I never raced a 427 cobra and do not doubt that that combo would be hard to beat on the street or strip.
I did more than a little street racing in that era and while many cars had obvioiusly more HP and torque they couldn't put to the ground unless they had slicks. I raced every thing from Z28 camaros, to 440 6packs and none prevailed over the light weight rambler on the street. One of the most surprised was the owner of a 1970 450 hp 454 Chevelle he could not understand how I could possibly beat him on the street. It took three passes to convince him it was not a fluke. He was earlier bragging about owning the most powerfull production car available. While i agreed with that description I questioned if it was the fastest car on the street.I would note the AMC car's stock suspention included an upper torque link and I did add set of slapper bars. I could leave at 5000rpm's(peak torque with stock cam) and almost never smoked the tires.

The only car to beat me on the street with street tires was another Rambler a 1970 AMX my friend Jimmy Straight owned and it just depended on who left first as to who won. One evening we burned a quarter of a tank of 260 sunoco proving this point.

The 70 Chevelle was the HIGHEST RATED horsepower in a street car at the time.. HMMM Did the factorys do a better job (in 1970) on the power ratings than they do now??

bill dedman · 05-14-2012, 01:44 AM

Before 1972, the factories rated their car's engines at "gross horsepower."
After that, the system was changed to a "net horsepower" rating-system, and factory ratings on engines dropped like a rock.

My 318 two-barrel 1972 Mopar was rated at 150 horsepower, with the net rating in place for the first year. The prior year, it had been rated at 230 horsepower, via rthe gross system.

As far as I can tell, there were NO mechanical changes to the engine; just to the rating.

I am a math idiot, but my calculator tells me that 230 is 153-percent of 150.
Figured a different way, it says that 150 is only 65.2 percent of 230.

Either way, it's a bunch of horsepower difference...

The main difference in a net and a gross rating as I understand it, is that the net rating is supposedly with all the accessories hooked up, and using whatever power they sap from the engine, and that includes the stock exhaust system.

That means that, in this case, the accessories (including the exhaust system) on that 318, were absorbing EIGHTY horsepower... a rather large amount.

Does anyone else have a problem with that contention???

I call B.S... What do you think?

C and W Racing · 05-14-2012, 10:07 AM

Bill, it included more than accessory's and exhaust. It includeds trans, converter, drive shaft, u-joints and rear end as well. No different than putting your engine on a dyno and then putting it in the car and putting it in a chassis dyno. Going to be a big differance and we don't have accessory's or factory exhaust.
Chuck

bill dedman · 05-14-2012, 10:40 AM

Chuck,

While what you say is true, that figure seemed like an awful lot to lose, to me. The difference between flywheel dyno horsepower and a chassis dyno rear wheel horsepower is generally accepted to be somewhere around fifteen percent of the larger number, I believe. Of course, that's just a ballpark figure, but the factory said a drop of 53- percent in this case.

That just seemed like an awful lot of hp to lose to "accessories" and other parasitic devices... I can't imagine what their motivation might be to fabricate an unrealistically-low figure like that though (NHRA never bought it,) so perhaps it's correct.

Just sayin'...

Jim B · 05-14-2012, 11:13 AM

The biggest single reason for the sudden low horsepower ratings in the early 70's was that was when the auto insurance industry began factoring horsepower ratings into the insurance premium risk calculations. Some of the lower hp ratings were due to the horsepower/torque numbers being obtained at a lower rpm than early ratings as well as the "was gross now it's net" smokescreen to avoid lost showroom sales due to the "higher horsepower = higher insurance premium" factor. Add to that was Washington frowning on high horsepower offerings from the manufacturers. There was even early discussions in Washington on a potential "horsepower" tax on the car manufacturers. (similar to the "gas guzzler" tax imposed on auto makers for a high CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rating that did become a reality. The auto companies were just proactively dodging a bullet.

Dan Bennett · 05-15-2012, 11:08 AM

Don't forget that GM and Ford lowered compression ratios in 1971 to woeful levels. Chrysler hung on for a couple of years but finally followed suit. Also included were non high performance distributors with the advance locked out, retarded timing, economy cams, and smaller jets. The cars in the late 70s and mostly through the 80s were so lame it was no surprise we all looked to the past for exciting cars.

As for street racing, Mike Withers is right on the money. I was fortunate enough to own a lot of the big reputation cars over the years and can vouch that big horsepower ratings didn't necessarily equate with dominance.

That's why I included the Stage 1 Buick in my earlier list. I sold a LS6 to buy one and trust me, it would have given the Chevelle everything (and more) it could handle on street tires and asphalt traction. A 375hp Nova FELT faster than any of them (but wasn't) mainly because of the cheap construction and lack of sound deadening.

in 1970 to 73, my 340 Duster (no options, 4 speed) surprised most of the much heavier 454s,440s, and other big reputation cars I raced. In fact, that's the reason I looked so long for a good 396/375 Nova; there was one at my local track I never could beat.

No matter how much it hurts to admit it, all of them were eclipsed by a 87 Grand National and a 91 Syclone with simple mods that didn't even get my hands dirty.

Both of those can't keep up with the new stuff. As much as I loved the cars of the 60s and 70s, I will readily admit that a ride in a 09 Z06 was by far the most impressive I've ever had for a showroom stocker.

And the manufacturers have recently gone beyond that! Today will be looked at as the golden years of high performance for a long, long, time.

05-13-2012, 11:49 PM	#1
mike withers Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 67 Likes: 4 Liked 3 Times in 1 Post	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... I saw no mention of any AMC cars. I can tell you that none of the cars listed ever beat my 1969 SC/rambler on the street. I would note that I never raced a 427 cobra and do not doubt that that combo would be hard to beat on the street or strip. I did more than a little street racing in that era and while many cars had obvioiusly more HP and torque they couldn't put to the ground unless they had slicks. I raced every thing from Z28 camaros, to 440 6packs and none prevailed over the light weight rambler on the street. One of the most surprised was the owner of a 1970 450 hp 454 Chevelle he could not understand how I could possibly beat him on the street. It took three passes to convince him it was not a fluke. He was earlier bragging about owning the most powerfull production car available. While i agreed with that description I questioned if it was the fastest car on the street.I would note the AMC car's stock suspention included an upper torque link and I did add set of slapper bars. I could leave at 5000rpm's(peak torque with stock cam) and almost never smoked the tires. The only car to beat me on the street with street tires was another Rambler a 1970 AMX my friend Jimmy Straight owned and it just depended on who left first as to who won. One evening we burned a quarter of a tank of 260 sunoco proving this point. __________________ Mike Withers 1195 SS

05-14-2012, 01:44 AM	#3
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... Before 1972, the factories rated their car's engines at "gross horsepower." After that, the system was changed to a "net horsepower" rating-system, and factory ratings on engines dropped like a rock. My 318 two-barrel 1972 Mopar was rated at 150 horsepower, with the net rating in place for the first year. The prior year, it had been rated at 230 horsepower, via rthe gross system. As far as I can tell, there were NO mechanical changes to the engine; just to the rating. I am a math idiot, but my calculator tells me that 230 is 153-percent of 150. Figured a different way, it says that 150 is only 65.2 percent of 230. Either way, it's a bunch of horsepower difference... The main difference in a net and a gross rating as I understand it, is that the net rating is supposedly with all the accessories hooked up, and using whatever power they sap from the engine, and that includes the stock exhaust system. That means that, in this case, the accessories (including the exhaust system) on that 318, were absorbing EIGHTY horsepower... a rather large amount. Does anyone else have a problem with that contention??? I call B.S... What do you think? __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 05-14-2012 at 01:49 AM.

05-14-2012, 10:07 AM	#4
C and W Racing Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 557 Likes: 6 Liked 13 Times in 3 Posts	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... Bill, it included more than accessory's and exhaust. It includeds trans, converter, drive shaft, u-joints and rear end as well. No different than putting your engine on a dyno and then putting it in the car and putting it in a chassis dyno. Going to be a big differance and we don't have accessory's or factory exhaust. Chuck

05-14-2012, 10:40 AM	#5
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... Chuck, While what you say is true, that figure seemed like an awful lot to lose, to me. The difference between flywheel dyno horsepower and a chassis dyno rear wheel horsepower is generally accepted to be somewhere around fifteen percent of the larger number, I believe. Of course, that's just a ballpark figure, but the factory said a drop of 53- percent in this case. That just seemed like an awful lot of hp to lose to "accessories" and other parasitic devices... I can't imagine what their motivation might be to fabricate an unrealistically-low figure like that though (NHRA never bought it,) so perhaps it's correct. Just sayin'... __________________ Bill

05-14-2012, 11:13 AM	#6
Jim B Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 100 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... The biggest single reason for the sudden low horsepower ratings in the early 70's was that was when the auto insurance industry began factoring horsepower ratings into the insurance premium risk calculations. Some of the lower hp ratings were due to the horsepower/torque numbers being obtained at a lower rpm than early ratings as well as the "was gross now it's net" smokescreen to avoid lost showroom sales due to the "higher horsepower = higher insurance premium" factor. Add to that was Washington frowning on high horsepower offerings from the manufacturers. There was even early discussions in Washington on a potential "horsepower" tax on the car manufacturers. (similar to the "gas guzzler" tax imposed on auto makers for a high CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rating that did become a reality. The auto companies were just proactively dodging a bullet. Last edited by Jim B; 05-14-2012 at 11:22 AM.

05-15-2012, 11:08 AM	#7
Dan Bennett Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 443 Likes: 861 Liked 602 Times in 138 Posts	Re: 50 Fastest Muscle Cars... Don't forget that GM and Ford lowered compression ratios in 1971 to woeful levels. Chrysler hung on for a couple of years but finally followed suit. Also included were non high performance distributors with the advance locked out, retarded timing, economy cams, and smaller jets. The cars in the late 70s and mostly through the 80s were so lame it was no surprise we all looked to the past for exciting cars. As for street racing, Mike Withers is right on the money. I was fortunate enough to own a lot of the big reputation cars over the years and can vouch that big horsepower ratings didn't necessarily equate with dominance. That's why I included the Stage 1 Buick in my earlier list. I sold a LS6 to buy one and trust me, it would have given the Chevelle everything (and more) it could handle on street tires and asphalt traction. A 375hp Nova FELT faster than any of them (but wasn't) mainly because of the cheap construction and lack of sound deadening. in 1970 to 73, my 340 Duster (no options, 4 speed) surprised most of the much heavier 454s,440s, and other big reputation cars I raced. In fact, that's the reason I looked so long for a good 396/375 Nova; there was one at my local track I never could beat. No matter how much it hurts to admit it, all of them were eclipsed by a 87 Grand National and a 91 Syclone with simple mods that didn't even get my hands dirty. Both of those can't keep up with the new stuff. As much as I loved the cars of the 60s and 70s, I will readily admit that a ride in a 09 Z06 was by far the most impressive I've ever had for a showroom stocker. And the manufacturers have recently gone beyond that! Today will be looked at as the golden years of high performance for a long, long, time.