12th Dec 2010, 12:29
Well, owning a V8 powered car is more than just about using the full potential for me. I like the performance feel of a V8 car. However, if I were to buy a Corvette with 405 HP (or more in the base model today), I would not be inclined to make any alterations to it for added HP. The stock power is just right in most V8 cars.
13th Dec 2010, 09:58
My interstates are 70 mph, so it's fun having the sports car perform with this limit rapidly vs be a slug.
As far as the 0-60 times in the 60s, we had very poor street tire technology at the time. Bias ply or nylon is hard to hook up. The hp ratings were a joke, and underated at the time to keep the insurance companies at bay.
I have great hook up on my 70 Chevelle, with realistically over 500 hp as a starting point, plus more upgrades with modern tires 2 sizes on Weld Pro Star Racing wheels, filling every inch of the rear wheel wells with traction bars. I can unbolt and put the original rallies and tires on if it's an issue. I save all the original parts, and can reverse upgrades easily. Don't discount the 60s and early 70s muscle cars.
14th Dec 2010, 20:05
If you are showing a classic as a STOCK, it has to be just that... STOCK as of whatever year it was made. Judges at a classic car show will disqualify you in a heartbeat if you drive in an alleged classic stock entry with racing slicks, or even modern high-performance tires. Yes, you can modify an older muscle car and get modern 0-60 times out of it. If you modify it, it isn't stock. Then it competes in the "modified" category.
15th Dec 2010, 11:13
Not true. I have been in many shows where 3 mods even under 5 light mods kept me in the stock category. In addition, other car shows charities etc I have won People's Choice, Ladies Choice and Merchant Choice trophies, stock class entry.
15th Dec 2010, 14:40
So what's wrong with cruise nights in a great American muscle car that's not perfectly stock It's appreciated and fun to drive. I may not have the correct gold anodizing or possess the exact chalk marks or molded battery clamps when built, but so what. Every conceivable part to my car can be delivered next day by catalog. Having the best of old and new with subtle changes is great. All changes I have are reversible. A 60s Mustang Camaro or the like vs an orphan or 4 door is best. Watch Barrett Jackson; it's no foul when you disclose your modern upgrades. I have internal engine changes that still appear stock!
15th Dec 2010, 16:15
This is really beside the point. This isn't about showing an all-original car, this is about the claim that a 4.0 L Mustang is faster than a 440 Challenger or other muscle car. By restricting the tires, it limits the ability of the car to get traction. If you really wanted a fair comparison of 0-60 times, then at least allow similar tires. While the judges at a car show may not allow radials to appear on an original muscle car, it would be wholly unreasonable to claim that a modern car is faster simply because you were unable to buy modern tires for a car. They don't even have to be drag slicks, just a good, stock radial. If the 440 Challenger, or other muscle car, were a daily driver, nobody would put 185-R14-78 bias plies on it! Putting modern tires on an old car is hardly "modifying" it. Bottom line, when the 440 Challenger gets traction, the 4.0 L Mustang is toast.
15th Dec 2010, 20:02
You can throw a set of updated radials on your old muscle car and it will make a huge difference in the way it hooks up and handles. This would not disqualify you in most shows for showing as stock.
20th Dec 2010, 13:28
Even with excellent tires, our 440 Challenger would not exceed 6.5 seconds 0-60. I think there is some misconception about the older muscle cars. With a totally stock engine, they were on a par with perhaps a V-6 Fusion or Malibu of today. Not too long ago I drove a 1969 Chevelle SS 396 (NOT 454) and it took longer to 60 than a modern V-6 Camry. These cars simply were not as sophisticated and efficient as the newer cars with far smaller engines. Even with grippy tires, they just aren't as fast in stock form. And yes, most owners ruin the authenticity of their classics by dropping all sorts of updated hardware under the hood. I prefer to keep the older cars all original.
20th Dec 2010, 13:46
Sorry, but the facts are the facts. There were many totally stock muscle cars that were very fast. Many were in the 5.3 to 5.8 second range. They were tested by magazines like Car and Driver way back when they were new. They were the ones to post the findings, not me. Since the average sedan was no match back then, I can only imagine they weren't padding their numbers to make the cars appear faster than they were.
When you have upwards of 500 lb. ft. or torque, the car is going to move fast no matter how big it is! What year was your Challenger? Anything past 1970 was heavily choked for power, as that is the first year of the stricter regulations. It is also a very large and heavy car, and not a Mustang or Camaro. You needed a lot of HP to move that car... as in the Hemi!
20th Dec 2010, 17:35
I think one thing has been forgotten when it comes to muscle car and modern car performance. The older cars were HEAVY... far heavier than their modern counterparts. This plays an important part in performance comparisons.
21st Dec 2010, 06:33
"20th Dec 2010, 13:28
Even with excellent tires, our 440 Challenger would not exceed 6.5 seconds 0-60."
You mean that you've actually tried it, or are you just stating that you don't believe it would? There's a big difference. With good hook-up, and manual shifting to maximize the horsepower and torque curves, there's no reason why you would not blow a V-6 Mustang, or even a V-8 Mustang, out of the water.
I know that these muscle cars have become cream puffs and trailer queens in people's pursuit of car show perfection, but the reason a car like the 440 Challenger was made was to be a dominant street racer and blast down the quarter mile in a cloud of tire smoke. Maybe you have never seen that side of the car if your dad has been focused on restoration perfection. I understand that nobody would want to thrash a show-quality 440 Challenger, but I wish you could see how these cars were meant to be driven before they became objets-de-art, and started being treated like fragile glass. I think you'd soon see how ridiculous it is to compare a 440 Challenger to a V-6 Fusion. It would make your jaw drop to crank the 440 up to around 4,000 rpm's between shifts, and you'd forget all about how "fast" a V-6 Mustang is. Your family has an awesome car, and I respect that a lot, but it makes me sad that you don't really appreciate what that Challenger is all about.
12th Dec 2010, 12:20
Did you forget about the '60's Cobra's?... 0-60 in 4.2 seconds for the 427 cars. Also, there were cars here and there that would break the 6 second barrier. The 1970 442 for example did it in 5.8 seconds, as did the GSX 455. The Mach 1 Mustangs in the late 60's did 0-60 in around 5.7 seconds when equipped with the 428. The Boss 351 of 1971 did it in 5.8 seconds. The '69 Camaro ZL1 was 5.4 seconds to 60. The 1969 Corvette 427 did 60 in 5.3 seconds. And the list goes on and on...