50 Fastest Muscle Cars...

[gonzo1066]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bill dedman]

"Today will be looked at as the golden years of high performance for a long, long, time."

X-2!!!

[Hemi Moose]

Originally Posted by Dan Bennett

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.

I'd have to admit that the Grand Nationals were some pretty quick street cars when they first came out, I seen them wipe many older muscle cars on the streets...but I never did see any of those turbo powered V6 Syclone & Typhoon trucks that were GM built, were they just as fast...were they faster then the big block Vettes or Yenko & Baldwin Motion cars.

[CycloneFE]

Originally Posted by Hemi Moose

I'd have to admit that the Grand Nationals were some pretty quick street cars when they first came out, I seen them wipe many older muscle cars on the streets...but I never did see any of those turbo powered Syclone & Typhoon trucks that were GM built, were they just as fast...were they faster then the big block Vettes or Yenko & Baldwin Motion cars.

I rememeber reading about the Syclones and Typhoons. Saw one at the local strip one night, not exciting to watch, but when the scoreboard came up, wow! When I had my Cyclone on the street I would shy away from the other Syclones. Just sayin.

[Dan Bennett]

Originally Posted by Hemi Moose

I'd have to admit that the Grand Nationals were some pretty quick street cars when they first came out, I seen them wipe many older muscle cars on the streets...but I never did see any of those turbo powered V6 Syclone & Typhoon trucks that were GM built, were they just as fast...were they faster then the big block Vettes or Yenko & Baldwin Motion cars.

The Syclone had a bigger engine (4.3 vs 3.8), much bigger tires, and AWD. I think it was quite a bit more scienced out from the factory so the usual mods didn't make the huge difference they did on the GN. Plus, there weren't all that many built so there wasn't the wide range of parts.

The biggest problem I had with the truck was too much traction. I'd get lots of finger pointing as I would stage completely off to one side, out of the groove. It didn't help much as it was almost impossible to turn the tires at all. About this time, I was starting my business so I didn't really put a whole lot of time into working on the car before I sold it.

The big equalizer for these turbo cars is that they were really, really hard to stage and cut a light with. If you held the rpm steady, the engine would be building boost and horsepower. Often times, the GN would roll the beams by sliding the front wheels out of the lights. A rear wheel cylinder change to get more braking was a popular mod.

As for competition with the old musclecars, I'll admit that neither of my cars were among the fastest of their kind so I might not be the one to compare to. The GN would easily run mid 12s and my wife drove it daily and averaged about 24 mph with no driveability issues at all. The Syclone ran low 12s. This was using very minor mods - a chip change, cold air intake, different thermostat, etc.

Comparing to the cars I mentioned in my earlier message, the LS6 ran very low 13s on sticky tires, the Stage 1 ran low 14s, and the 396 Nova ran 13.40s or 50s. All were bone showroom stock with all smog equipment but the Nova had headers. The Duster ran 14 flat bone stock but got into the 12s with headers, intake, carb, and cam.

I know this area is for nostalgia, so I apologize for the thread hijack. But come to think of it, these things are pushing 25 years old but it SURE doesn't seem possible.