Late model muscle car's

stefan callender · 06-28-2009, 08:35 PM

I own a bone stock 02 Z06 corvette 405hp, I borrowed Frank Genevesi's helmet and took it down the track at one of Dave Ley's S/SS race at Atco. I neglected to turn off the traction control, it spun the tire, cut out cylinders and still went 13.339 @ 110. 2.293 60' 5.966 330' 8.851 1/8 . Drove back home to Long Island at 75mph getting 22mpg/highway. Tell me that a 60's muscle car could do that.

Alan Roehrich · 06-28-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan callender

I own a bone stock 02 Z06 corvette 405hp, I borrowed Frank Genevesi's helmet and took it down the track at one of Dave Ley's S/SS race at Atco. I neglected to turn off the traction control, it spun the tire, cut out cylinders and still went 13.339 @ 110. 2.293 60' 5.966 330' 8.851 1/8 . Drove back home to Long Island at 75mph getting 22mpg/highway. Tell me that a 60's muscle car could do that.

The performance of the new cars can be impressive.

However, show me a 60's muscle car that cost 1/2 as much as a house, took 5-6 years to pay for, with payments as high as a mortgage payment, and required service at a dealer that charged $75 per hour and had $100K worth of tools and equipment.

Daniel Ashlock · 06-28-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

The performance of the new cars can be impressive.

However, show me a 60's muscle car that cost 1/2 as much as a house, took 5-6 years to pay for, with payments as high as a mortgage payment, and required service at a dealer that charged $75 per hour and had $100K worth of tools and equipment.

that much is true.. you can hardly ever have your cake & eat it to... but i still consider my 86 Buick Grand National a modern car ( even though its 23 years old) & its bone stock performance numbers were on par or better than most of the current performance muscle... too bad nobody paid more attention to that sleepy old folks car company when the big wigs kinda let them have do whatever & then shut them down after they saw the animal they created .. & hardly no marketing on them either.. maybe its just as well too.. helps add to the value

.. but who in the 80's was gonna pay more for some v6 with that new fangled fuel injection when they could get a v8 with a carb for less $ HA! anyways...

X-TECH MAN · 06-29-2009, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan roehrich

the performance of the new cars can be impressive.

However, show me a 60's muscle car that cost 1/2 as much as a house, took 5-6 years to pay for, with payments as high as a mortgage payment, and required service at a dealer that charged $75 per hour and had $100k worth of tools and equipment.

amen !!!!!!!!!

Evan Smith · 06-29-2009, 06:07 AM

Wow, are you guys missing it. Alan, you can't buy anything at 1970s prices anymore! A big-block muscle car of the '60s was $3,500-5,000 depending on what you got. It would run 14s, 13s or 12s with some work. The new Camaro V-6 will run low 14s. With old cars you got poor mpg, constantly tuning (plugs, wires, carb adjustment, points, etc.) and not much comfort compared to today's cars. And a house back then was $25,000-40,000. Today's cars cost $25,000-50,000 and a house is four-10 times that. Plus, today's cars last twice as long as cars of the '60s and '70s did. You can get 150,000-200,000 miles with a little care. You were lucky if you got 110,000-mile from older cars. So, one could argue that you get twice the product for same (albeit time-inflated) price. Could you imagine at $3 per gallon if your hot rod got 6-9 mpg? No one would own one. Chalk one up for EFI. Now you can have a fun car and get 20-plus mpg. Boy, technology really sucks.

Modern EFI is a breeze, it's all nuts and bolts. So what if you control fuel and spark with a computer or re-flash tool? I can't speak for the GM cars, but the Fords are relatively easy. The last carb car I had was a '84 Monte SS and there were more vacuum lines than actual engine parts. It sucked to work on!

How could anyone possibly complain about the performance of modern-era muscle cars? My Wife's 2007 Mustang GT (automatic) went 13.28 at 105 in good air with only a re-flash of the computer. It cost under $30,000. Alan, what house are you buying for $60,000? That would mop up just about any muscle car of the '60s. Now, I love '60s and '70s muscle cars and agree that you can't compare the style and character to new cars, but as far as performance and comfort goes there is no contest. You will not get the same civilian reaction cruising a '70 Road Runner or '69 Camaro or Mustang as you will a new car, you can thank the 5-mph bumpers for that. The styling on the older cars was just plain awesome.

I recently put a blower kit on the GT and with street slicks went mid-11s at 116 mph. That's with stock gears, exhaust, converter and it still gets 24 mpg on the highway.

Jeff, BTW, the new Shelby will run mid-11s/120-plus in good air with sticky tires. I drag tested one and it will be out in the next issue of MM&FF.

Evan

X-TECH MAN · 06-29-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

amen !!!!!!!!!

I would STILL rather BUY a 1966-67 Corvette coupe to drive daily with a 327/350 HP engine than have a new car given to me ! Id take the new car and sell it as fast as I could and use it for a real car.. My 73 Corvette with L-82 350 and 400 turbo w/ 3.55 gears, and P275-60 X 15 28 inch tall rear tires used to get 22-23 MPG without a computer, EFI, OR an overdrive transmission and it was air conditioned with PS, PB, PW. All 3550 lbs (with out driver) of it. I could at least change the spark plugs on it with no problem and there was not a metric bolt or nut on it. I have to admit that John Lingenfelter did my Q-Jet back in the day and I installed a Pro-tronics magnetic pick up to eliminate the points and condencer so that probably helped. The carb came off of my SS/IA Camaro and never changed the jets or metering rods.

X-TECH MAN · 06-29-2009, 02:03 PM

P.S. If I had the advantage of a 200-R4 or a 700-R4 installed in my 73 Corvette I probably could have picked up 3 to 4 more MPG. Thats as good as my 91 gets with all of the bells and whistles and metric crap on it.. All it takes is a little work to have a nice fuel efficent ride instead of monthly payments. No its probably not going to happen with a 454 Chev, 455 Pont. , 426 Hemi, 460/428 Ford.

Jeff Lee · 06-29-2009, 05:56 PM

I worked at "Tune-Up Master's" in 1979. V-8 Monza? Simple. Get a really long bar, wedge it between the exhaust manifold and gearbox and stretch the motor mount and place a block in place to hold it while you change the driver side plugs. Piece of cake.

The last guy I knew that had a '68 327/350 'Vette sold it. Why? It was so dang hot in the interior you couldn't stand driving it if you went over 45 minutes.

Evan - thanks for the tip. That's bone stock with ET Streets? 3.55 gears? What kind of launch / shift RPM? I'm assuming this was all pretty "non-abusive" testing?
I'd bet the 605 HP option is over kill in your opinion?

X-TECH MAN · 06-29-2009, 06:38 PM

68 vette's were some of the worst ever produced.....thats no secret. 69's were much improved. The one that cooked me the most was a big block 427/435 HP roadster. 4 1/2 MPG with 4:88 rear but ran 10.90's in street trim except for 8 inch slicks. Never had the heads off the engine.

Philip Saran · 06-29-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

The performance of the new cars can be impressive.

However, show me a 60's muscle car that cost 1/2 as much as a house, took 5-6 years to pay for, with payments as high as a mortgage payment, and required service at a dealer that charged $75 per hour and had $100K worth of tools and equipment.

Alan, I don't know what houses cost in your part of the country, but in my neighborhood
they run $700-850K. I guess I could buy a nice Vet, Challenger & Mustang and stay
under that amount of money. Oh and out here in LA LA land the dealers at up to around
$90-110 per labor hour.

Yes when my wife retires in another couple of years we are selling out and moving out
of state!

06-28-2009, 08:35 PM	#1
stefan callender Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: zoo york Posts: 572 Likes: 3 Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Re: Late model muscle car's I own a bone stock 02 Z06 corvette 405hp, I borrowed Frank Genevesi's helmet and took it down the track at one of Dave Ley's S/SS race at Atco. I neglected to turn off the traction control, it spun the tire, cut out cylinders and still went 13.339 @ 110. 2.293 60' 5.966 330' 8.851 1/8 . Drove back home to Long Island at 75mph getting 22mpg/highway. Tell me that a 60's muscle car could do that.

06-29-2009, 06:07 AM	#5
Evan Smith Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Tampa Posts: 400 Likes: 7 Liked 115 Times in 5 Posts	Re: Late model muscle car's Wow, are you guys missing it. Alan, you can't buy anything at 1970s prices anymore! A big-block muscle car of the '60s was $3,500-5,000 depending on what you got. It would run 14s, 13s or 12s with some work. The new Camaro V-6 will run low 14s. With old cars you got poor mpg, constantly tuning (plugs, wires, carb adjustment, points, etc.) and not much comfort compared to today's cars. And a house back then was $25,000-40,000. Today's cars cost $25,000-50,000 and a house is four-10 times that. Plus, today's cars last twice as long as cars of the '60s and '70s did. You can get 150,000-200,000 miles with a little care. You were lucky if you got 110,000-mile from older cars. So, one could argue that you get twice the product for same (albeit time-inflated) price. Could you imagine at $3 per gallon if your hot rod got 6-9 mpg? No one would own one. Chalk one up for EFI. Now you can have a fun car and get 20-plus mpg. Boy, technology really sucks. Modern EFI is a breeze, it's all nuts and bolts. So what if you control fuel and spark with a computer or re-flash tool? I can't speak for the GM cars, but the Fords are relatively easy. The last carb car I had was a '84 Monte SS and there were more vacuum lines than actual engine parts. It sucked to work on! How could anyone possibly complain about the performance of modern-era muscle cars? My Wife's 2007 Mustang GT (automatic) went 13.28 at 105 in good air with only a re-flash of the computer. It cost under $30,000. Alan, what house are you buying for $60,000? That would mop up just about any muscle car of the '60s. Now, I love '60s and '70s muscle cars and agree that you can't compare the style and character to new cars, but as far as performance and comfort goes there is no contest. You will not get the same civilian reaction cruising a '70 Road Runner or '69 Camaro or Mustang as you will a new car, you can thank the 5-mph bumpers for that. The styling on the older cars was just plain awesome. I recently put a blower kit on the GT and with street slicks went mid-11s at 116 mph. That's with stock gears, exhaust, converter and it still gets 24 mpg on the highway. Jeff, BTW, the new Shelby will run mid-11s/120-plus in good air with sticky tires. I drag tested one and it will be out in the next issue of MM&FF. Evan __________________ Evan Smith 1798 STK Last edited by Evan Smith; 06-29-2009 at 06:20 AM.

06-29-2009, 02:03 PM	#7
X-TECH MAN Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lake Placid, Florida Posts: 3,203 Likes: 1,047 Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts	Re: Late model muscle car's P.S. If I had the advantage of a 200-R4 or a 700-R4 installed in my 73 Corvette I probably could have picked up 3 to 4 more MPG. Thats as good as my 91 gets with all of the bells and whistles and metric crap on it.. All it takes is a little work to have a nice fuel efficent ride instead of monthly payments. No its probably not going to happen with a 454 Chev, 455 Pont. , 426 Hemi, 460/428 Ford. Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 06-29-2009 at 02:30 PM.

06-29-2009, 05:56 PM	#8
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Late model muscle car's I worked at "Tune-Up Master's" in 1979. V-8 Monza? Simple. Get a really long bar, wedge it between the exhaust manifold and gearbox and stretch the motor mount and place a block in place to hold it while you change the driver side plugs. Piece of cake. The last guy I knew that had a '68 327/350 'Vette sold it. Why? It was so dang hot in the interior you couldn't stand driving it if you went over 45 minutes. Evan - thanks for the tip. That's bone stock with ET Streets? 3.55 gears? What kind of launch / shift RPM? I'm assuming this was all pretty "non-abusive" testing? I'd bet the 605 HP option is over kill in your opinion? __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX

06-29-2009, 06:38 PM	#9
X-TECH MAN Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lake Placid, Florida Posts: 3,203 Likes: 1,047 Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts	Re: Late model muscle car's 68 vette's were some of the worst ever produced.....thats no secret. 69's were much improved. The one that cooked me the most was a big block 427/435 HP roadster. 4 1/2 MPG with 4:88 rear but ran 10.90's in street trim except for 8 inch slicks. Never had the heads off the engine.