HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-08-2010, 01:36 PM   #1
Andys dad
VIP Member
 
Andys dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arcadia, Ca
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 48
Liked 175 Times in 78 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

The '66 327/350 was hands down the fastest ever - only weighed 2800 pounds

Back in the day of real street racing it was king no matter who had it

My brother had one (got stolen 3 times and the insurance company said don't buy another one)

With a 3.73 gear it felt like the engine was going to pull the steering wheel out the front of the car along with the engine

I know this is not what this thread is about but with first hand experience I had to say - I would still like one
__________________
time is our most precious resource, you can always make more money but you can never make more time
spend your time wisely with the ones you love - Ron Durham
Andys dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 04:10 PM   #2
Jim B
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew Silverman View Post
2X on the 327/350 HP Chevy II - The best bang for the buck back in the day!
Definitely among the best bang for the buck of all time. Less than 2900 lbs and less than $2900. And it was a Chevy small block in the 60's.
A surprising darkhorse were the mid 60's 289 4bbl Mustangs. Addition of a 4½ to 5 lbs/in ² boost Paxton supercharger made an unbelieveable totally streetable performance boost for under $600. Unfortunately, the rear suspension and rear ends were a real weak link after the conversion. Alot of fun to drive on the street though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN View Post
My new 1965 Plymouth 426 Street wedge was a turd against the GTO's in 1965. It was just an over grown 383.
I have to agree that the 426/365hp was a BIG letdown from the stage wedges that had a good reputation and were abundant at that time. A mild hydraulic cam, small carb and 383 heads really made the "street wedge" a big disappointment . A less popular but much more expensive later under performer were the Boss 429 Mustangs. No fun to work on, parts were expensive and hard to get, not much support from the performance industry. I would guess that was partly a result of the low volume of those vehicles and the popularity and success of the 428 CJ's.

Last edited by Jim B; 06-08-2010 at 04:35 PM.
Jim B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 06:52 PM   #3
Bub Whitaker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton, MD
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich View Post
For the money? Probably the 66 Chevy II 327/350HP 4 speed. Especially given the tire technology of the time.
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was
__________________
Bub Whitaker
Bub Whitaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 06:56 PM   #4
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Thumbs up Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker View Post
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was
I remember your Chev 2 running at 75&80 and it was one bad hot rod.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 06:59 PM   #5
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 1,605
Liked 1,915 Times in 430 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker View Post
Alan, Yes, $3100.00 new in 66, came with 3:73 gears and M21 Muncie. Bought one used in 68 for $2400.00 with 20,000 miles on it, but all I could muster out of it was low 14's.. Fun Car. Then I ruined it and turned it into a C/MP race car... wish I had it back like it was

Hehe, ya cheater. Modified was 67 and up, you weren't supposed to run a 66 in Modified. At least, that's what we were told, and back then, they enforced the model year thing.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 08:03 PM   #6
Alex Denysenko
Senior Member
 
Alex Denysenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Michigan City IN
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Boss 429 was not that much of a pig at all. Check most any magazine road test from the day. High to mid 13's. Just very expensive for the perfomance.

Now a 426 street wedge Mopar in anything was a flat dog. C or B body.
I don't think they made 265 HP much less 365.
A decently tuned 413 Chrysler 300 with a 413 would out run a 4 speed B body with a street wedge.
Most any 66-68 390 GT Ford or Merc was a dog also. We routinely could murder them with the 289 Hipo in my Mustang.
__________________
Alex Denysenko NHRA 3038 SS, 3305 STK - IHRA 6 SS, 330A STK
Moneymaker Racing LaPorte Indiana 219-861-1214
www.moneymakerracing.net
Alex Denysenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 08:19 PM   #7
Rich Biebel
VIP Member
 
Rich Biebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey suburbs
Posts: 2,320
Likes: 25
Liked 557 Times in 217 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

I have a good friend who has a nearly perfect '70 Boss 429 and he also has or had a lot of oddball factory race engine stuff for it. He had some intakes that were never fully machined.

I worked on muscle cars all the time back in the '60's and '70's. Did all kinds of work and whatever was in vogue as far as add ons.

My good friend bought a new Road Runner in about '68. 383 4 speed. all black. I did a few things to it. Headers. mufflers....messed with the carb and some other stuff. Raced it one day at Island Dragway.....I drove. Was missing above 5000 with oepn headers. I short shifted the pistol grip shifter that would nearly hit the dash! Wound up winning the G/S class that day and beat an AMC Scrambler in the final on a holes hot......13.87 at 100+. It was one of the most fun days I can recall driving that big tank and trying to keep it out of the misfire zone........Open headers often let you really hear the missing...usually a new set of spark plugs was the cure or maybe some points....MSD's were not out yet and trick ignitions were mostly factory CD stuff or Accel......I loved those days as I always had a car to work on and see what it could do on the streets.....

My '67 GTO easily whipped my friends bloated '71 or so GTO every time......
__________________
Rich Biebel
S/C 1479
Stock 147R
Rich Biebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 08:19 PM   #8
Bub Whitaker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton, MD
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich View Post
Hehe, ya cheater. Modified was 67 and up, you weren't supposed to run a 66 in Modified. At least, that's what we were told, and back then, they enforced the model year thing.
I'll check my rule book, still have it, at the shop, for 1970.
__________________
Bub Whitaker
Bub Whitaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 08:44 PM   #9
Rich Biebel
VIP Member
 
Rich Biebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey suburbs
Posts: 2,320
Likes: 25
Liked 557 Times in 217 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

C/SM was for 1967 and newer vehicles.......My good friend converted a '66 Nova bracket car to a '67 so he could run the class. He changed the front fenders as they are different. Another friend bought it in 1980 and still owns it today.....
__________________
Rich Biebel
S/C 1479
Stock 147R

Last edited by Rich Biebel; 06-09-2010 at 05:57 AM.
Rich Biebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 09:34 PM   #10
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 1,605
Liked 1,915 Times in 430 Posts
Default Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub Whitaker View Post
I'll check my rule book, still have it, at the shop, for 1970.

Bub,
The old rule books used to say the Super Modified classes were for 67 and newer cars. There were some real minor differences between the 66 and 67 Chevy II, such as the steering column and some dash pieces, some hidden, some not. I saw a couple of people tossed for having a 66. A lot of people did it, some were caught, some were not. There is no real meaningful difference, competition wise, between the 66 and 67 Chevy II. There were just a lot more 66's than there were 67's. The "cheating" joke about running a 66 Chevy II as a 67 was just something that went around when Modified was still around. I figured you'd heard it before. The guys I was working with back then ran a 67 Camaro as a 68.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.