Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Strittan · 06-08-2010, 11:55 AM

I have to say, as a swedish kid, it's great to browse this forum. I'm learning something each time I go here.

Let me ask the opposite. What would you guys say were the BEST performing car for the money back in the day? 396 Nova?

Rich Biebel · 06-08-2010, 12:31 PM

Best Muscle car...Z/28 Camaro....or any Hi Perf. Small Block Corvette.....Most Big Blocks were nose heavy, spun the tires easily and handled poorly. I preferred any fast-high revving small block.......

Alan Roehrich · 06-08-2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strittan

I have to say, as a swedish kid, it's great to browse this forum. I'm learning something each time I go here.

Let me ask the opposite. What would you guys say were the BEST performing car for the money back in the day? 396 Nova?

For the money? Probably the 66 Chevy II 327/350HP 4 speed. Especially given the tire technology of the time.

Lew Silverman · 06-08-2010, 01:11 PM

2X on the 327/350 HP Chevy II - The best bang for the buck back in the day!

FINESPLINE · 06-08-2010, 01:32 PM

Bill ( Grumpy ) Jenkins thought those Chevy II 's with the 327/350 combination ran good too!

FINESPLINE · 06-08-2010, 01:45 PM

As far as the factory slugs went , the street Hemi cars were no fun to own. If you were not mechanically inclined it was not much of a street cruiser. A plug eating, oil burning detuned race motor. BUT, Love it and a lot of TLC and some mods , it was a bear. The 6 pack wedge motors were usually faster on the street at a lot less cost.

W J · 06-08-2010, 01:54 PM

A friend bought a brand new 1964 Corvette Midnight Blue/blk int. fastback coupe w/327 365hp (single Holley w/solid lifters & good cam), close ratio Muncie 4 sp, w/4.10 posi rear....pretty sure the car cost less than $6k. The Vette w/that powertrain combo was a screamer-- there wasn't much of anything Detroit built and street-legal that could touch it in '64-5 ....that's my pick for over-performer.....As far as poor performing muscle, I'd have to pick any of the cross-fire fuel injection Corvette models, along with the crossfire injected Camaros.Think they were 1982-1984 vintage and both were very disappointing.... WJ

Paul Ceasrine · 06-08-2010, 02:03 PM

The bad thing about the 69' Boss 429, if anything went wrong with the internals, you were screwed, it was a fortune to repair.
I'll throw in a 1970 Pontiac GTO 400/350HP.
I had one. A 3700lb. pig with an 'Endura' bumper.
Somewhat pretty, but it went 'nowhere fast'
PC

bigshow2966 · 06-08-2010, 02:36 PM

In the hands of the general public most anything with multiple carbs was usually a slug.

Buddy of mine used to have an L-88 Vette that I could roast at any time with a 340 Dart.

Jeff Lee · 06-08-2010, 02:38 PM

Hmmm...how about the '67 Mustang 390? What a pig. Now, with NHRA allowed superseded parts (block, heads, ,oil pan, intake, carb), it's super fast!
And when I see a '69 Mach 1 cross the auction blocks with (big bold advertising!) a 390 under the hood for big bucks, I want to yell...sucker!

And I would gladly race a stock '68-'69 340 Dart with a 4-speed and 3.91's against a stock '66 Chevy II 327/350 with 3.73's. I think it would all depend on who was driving.

06-08-2010, 11:55 AM	#1
Strittan Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 61 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? I have to say, as a swedish kid, it's great to browse this forum. I'm learning something each time I go here. Let me ask the opposite. What would you guys say were the BEST performing car for the money back in the day? 396 Nova?

06-08-2010, 12:31 PM	#2
Rich Biebel VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Northern New Jersey suburbs Posts: 2,320 Likes: 25 Liked 555 Times in 216 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? Best Muscle car...Z/28 Camaro....or any Hi Perf. Small Block Corvette.....Most Big Blocks were nose heavy, spun the tires easily and handled poorly. I preferred any fast-high revving small block....... __________________ Rich Biebel S/C 1479 Stock 147R

06-08-2010, 01:11 PM	#4
Lew Silverman VIP Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Newport News, VA Posts: 1,435 Likes: 371 Liked 129 Times in 59 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? 2X on the 327/350 HP Chevy II - The best bang for the buck back in the day! __________________ Lew Silverman #2070 "The Wagon Master" N/SA

06-08-2010, 01:32 PM	#5
FINESPLINE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Island of high taxes, N.Y. Posts: 541 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? Bill ( Grumpy ) Jenkins thought those Chevy II 's with the 327/350 combination ran good too!

06-08-2010, 01:45 PM	#6
FINESPLINE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Island of high taxes, N.Y. Posts: 541 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? As far as the factory slugs went , the street Hemi cars were no fun to own. If you were not mechanically inclined it was not much of a street cruiser. A plug eating, oil burning detuned race motor. BUT, Love it and a lot of TLC and some mods , it was a bear. The 6 pack wedge motors were usually faster on the street at a lot less cost.

06-08-2010, 01:54 PM	#7
W J Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Paxton, Massachusetts Posts: 638 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? A friend bought a brand new 1964 Corvette Midnight Blue/blk int. fastback coupe w/327 365hp (single Holley w/solid lifters & good cam), close ratio Muncie 4 sp, w/4.10 posi rear....pretty sure the car cost less than $6k. The Vette w/that powertrain combo was a screamer-- there wasn't much of anything Detroit built and street-legal that could touch it in '64-5 ....that's my pick for over-performer.....As far as poor performing muscle, I'd have to pick any of the cross-fire fuel injection Corvette models, along with the crossfire injected Camaros.Think they were 1982-1984 vintage and both were very disappointing.... WJ Last edited by W J; 06-08-2010 at 03:33 PM. Reason: add content....

06-08-2010, 02:03 PM	#8
Paul Ceasrine VIP Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,546 Likes: 0 Liked 10 Times in 10 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? The bad thing about the 69' Boss 429, if anything went wrong with the internals, you were screwed, it was a fortune to repair. I'll throw in a 1970 Pontiac GTO 400/350HP. I had one. A 3700lb. pig with an 'Endura' bumper. Somewhat pretty, but it went 'nowhere fast' PC

06-08-2010, 02:36 PM	#9
bigshow2966 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: chicago Posts: 656 Likes: 679 Liked 181 Times in 56 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? In the hands of the general public most anything with multiple carbs was usually a slug. Buddy of mine used to have an L-88 Vette that I could roast at any time with a 340 Dart.

06-08-2010, 02:38 PM	#10
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced? Hmmm...how about the '67 Mustang 390? What a pig. Now, with NHRA allowed superseded parts (block, heads, ,oil pan, intake, carb), it's super fast! And when I see a '69 Mach 1 cross the auction blocks with (big bold advertising!) a 390 under the hood for big bucks, I want to yell...sucker! And I would gladly race a stock '68-'69 340 Dart with a 4-speed and 3.91's against a stock '66 Chevy II 327/350 with 3.73's. I think it would all depend on who was driving. __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX Last edited by Jeff Lee; 06-08-2010 at 02:41 PM.