Hot Rod Forum banner

new muscle cars

10K views 76 replies 21 participants last post by  Crazy Mopar Guy 
#1 ·
I went to the HOTROD POWER TOUR well the start of it any way in Newton Iowa, the event was awesome thank you Hotrod...
But i was really disapointed in the New era muscle cars theY look great, sound alright but apparently are SLOOOWWW.
There was this BIG BROWN TURD car out there beating them, I dont know what the turd was but you've all seen them, the really big, ugly, you would think slow turd of a car, beating NEW SUPPOSED TO BE FAST Camaros and Mustangs and Chargers. It must have been embarrasing them because they started only racing other New Muscle and Ocasionaly a new versus old the new one always lost.

COME ON GUYS , GM, FORD, DODGE WHATS UP WITH THESE WEAK CARS?
 
#2 ·
jlwagner17 said:
I went to the HOTROD POWER TOUR well the start of it any way in Newton Iowa, the event was awesome thank you Hotrod...
But i was really disapointed in the New era muscle cars theY look great, sound alright but apparently are SLOOOWWW.
There was this BIG BROWN TURD car out there beating them, I dont know what the turd was but you've all seen them, the really big, ugly, you would think slow turd of a car, beating NEW SUPPOSED TO BE FAST Camaros and Mustangs and Chargers. It must have been embarrasing them because they started only racing other New Muscle and Ocasionaly a new versus old the new one always lost.

COME ON GUYS , GM, FORD, DODGE WHATS UP WITH THESE WEAK CARS?
I hope this is an attempt at being facetious. Most of the new V6 cars are high 13/ low 14 second cars. Their V8 brethren are quite a bit faster (the new Mustang GT has been clocked at 12.7 in the quarter mile. For a stock, daily-drivable car with all of the modern amenities and a two-ton curb weight to boot, that's pretty damn impressive.

If anything, you're seeing the results of an extremely inexperienced driver.
 
#3 ·
The muscle cars of the '60s could be bought with OVER 500 "real" horsepower! The ratings were lower for insurance reasons.

Todays cars are more sophisticated, which helps, but they are trying to make up for a lack of cubic inches... lack of compression... lack of radical cam timing... lack of huge ports... lack of huge intakes and carburetors... lack of high octane gas, and substitute them with more precise fuel metering, better tires, and lighter weight. The result is not quite up to the task.

My 409 '62 Chevy Biscayne would spin the early slicks all the way to 90MPH!
 
#4 ·
TucsonJay said:
The muscle cars of the '60s could be bought with OVER 500 "real" horsepower! The ratings were lower for insurance reasons.
They make station wagons with over 500hp now and that is rated with all accessories and full exhaust. The up coming Cadillac CTS-V Wagon does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds and it should easily be in the 13-14 second 1/4 mile range. It will even hold its own against some Porsches around the Nurburgring, not sure if it will be in the Porsche 911 Carrera S range like the sedan is, but I'm sure it would at least be around the Porsche Cayman S.
 
#5 ·
These races were for fun and the E.T. and speeds were not displayed so I dont know how fast they actually were I just saw them get beat pretty consitently.They were being beat by just about everything.

some of them might have been inexperianced drivers, I dont have a way to know that.
The car companys advertise them (i dont remember the numbers) to have so much more power and performance and I just didnt see it.
I just wasnt impressed, actually disappointed with there performance.

I dont mean to offend anyone just telling what I saw, and seeing what others think.
 
#8 ·
jlwagner17 said:
Why would they even put a V-6 in a Muscle car?
nobody wants a Camaro or a Mustang or Charger with a V-6, if you buy a Camaro you are attempting to buy something with power and performance.
They had straight 6s in the 60's, so I don't see the big deal. At least now they have 300hp and 30mpg from those V6s. So they are making more power than the lower end V8s did in the 60s and they are much more efficient, so using one as an every day driver is no big deal even when we have $3/gallon gas.
 
#10 ·
I see em every week at the strip and I must say they are mostly overhyped.You have to remember the factory is doing again what they did in the 60's giving magazines ringers to test.You can bet that magazine test cars are gone over with a fine tooth comb before being released to the press.If most new stangs run 12.6 my bu must be an 11 second terror becuase I regularly outrun new iron by several car lenghts.(no it won't run an 11 YET)
 
#11 ·
barnym17 said:
I see em every week at the strip and I must say they are mostly overhyped.You have to remember the factory is doing again what they did in the 60's giving magazines ringers to test.You can bet that magazine test cars are gone over with a fine tooth comb before being released to the press.If most new stangs run 12.6 my bu must be an 11 second terror becuase I regularly outrun new iron by several car lenghts.(no it won't run an 11 YET)
412hp in a 3800lbs package is a little hard to overhype. A dohc 5.0L V8 with an 11:1 compression ratio and a 7k rpm redline is every bit as race-ready as a factory motor has been in decades. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between a 5 year old car and a brand new one.
 
#12 ·
If straight line 1/4 mile acceleration on street tires w/an inexperienced driver is how a car was measured against another sorted out car, sure- the new iron might have its *** handed to it. No different now than when the 454 BBC/Chevelle and L-88 'Vette was around. In the wrong hands and/or ill prepared, these "muscle cars" were laughable!

But the current crop of performance cars perform better than anything that has preceded them in large part. How many old school "muscle cars" can run the times that even a newer run-of-the-mill Mustang GT can run? Never mind any of the truly 'hot' offerings.

And, the new cars do this w/20 mpg capability, AC blasting and a 400-plus watt stereo system. Plus FAR better comfort, handling and safety.

I haven't broken it down to old dollars, but I'm willing to bet the new cars aren't any more expensive, either.
 
#14 ·
cobalt327 said:
But the current crop of performance cars perform better than anything that has preceded them in large part. How many old school "muscle cars" can run the times that even a newer run-of-the-mill Mustang GT can run? .
thats kinda the point I was trying to make, they are supposed to perform better than the older cars BUT they sure didnt apprear to.
Old 60's and 70's 80's cars were all beating the the NEW MUSCLE.
Granted some of them might have been tweaked a little but if the new are supposed to perform so much better you would think they might atleast keep up.
there was a 4000lb big brown turd beating them, I dont know if you want to blame on inexperience or what, but they were ALL getting beat by the turd and everything else out there.
 
#15 ·
If you believe that by attending ONE meet and watching a day's racing that you can extrapolate the entire performance "scene", I believe you're mistaken.

Brown turds aside (there are MANY bad-A cars that don't look the part, aka "sleepers") the new cars will kick **** out of the old school muscle. That's the point I'M making- modded, sorted out drag cars are not the same thing, and shouldn't be compared to the new, 'showroom stock' cars, IMO.

FWIW, I've owned several cars over the years that will SLAY anything Detroit has ever made- then or now. But that shouldn't (and doesn't) reflect poorly on today's stock muscle.

In the years ahead, you will look back and realize that NOW is the golden age of performance.
 
#16 ·
cobalt327 said:
If you believe that by attending ONE meet and watching a day's racing that you can extrapolate the entire performance "scene", I believe you're mistaken.

Brown turds aside (there are MANY bad-A cars that don't look the part, aka "sleepers") the new cars will kick **** out of the old school muscle. That's the point I'M making- modded, sorted out drag cars are not the same thing, and shouldn't be compared to the new, 'showroom stock' cars, IMO.

FWIW, I've owned several cars over the years that will SLAY anything Detroit has ever made- then or now. But that shouldn't (and doesn't) reflect poorly on today's stock muscle.

In the years ahead, you will look back and realize that NOW is the golden age of performance.
Thank you. I have a few years of experience to go it seems before I'm able to make a point without getting my feathers ruffled. This is exactly what I was trying to get across.
 
#17 ·
Not saying thay aren't fairly quick just that most are not 12 second players.Are their some sure,the new engines are great no one can deny that.But many are already factory optimized and significant improvements are hard to find without major work or a bottle.Wheras an ls-6 chevelle or many other 60's era cars with minor tweaking can pick up major improvements over as delivered.This time is as good as it will probably ever be again thats pretty surewith future regs coming down the road, either way enjoy your favorite muscle new or old.
 
#18 · (Edited)
barnym17 said:
But many are already factory optimized and significant improvements are hard to find without major work or a bottle.
It depends on what you call "major", I suppose. But w/nothing more than a chip and a tank of good gas, the boosted engines will make tons more power. The bottom end of a Mod motor Ford will handle 500 HP w/o issue, the Gen III GM engines are nothing short of killer for a pushrod engine.

If not for economy and smog regulations, these engines could be making a hundred-plus HP more than they already are. Give them the 105-plus octane that was available in the late 60's and you can add much more to that. Take away the A/C, the weight of the safety equipment, electric windows, etc, etc, etc, and they will run better, yet.

Wheras an ls-6 chevelle or many other 60's era cars with minor tweaking can pick up major improvements over as delivered.
True, very true- but the reason for this is because they were so piss-poor to begin with! They were the raw material for building a good car, not an end unto themselves.

As for the high visibility "muscle cars" (w/a few MOPAR exceptions), they were often bought by the non-car guys because of the visual flash that said, "I'm bad!". The REAL go fast guys would just as often use lighter weight models w/o all the accouterments of the SS-type cars, anyway.
Instead of the SS-type options, other boxes could be checked on a cheaper Chevelle that would get you the engine and drivetrain, suspension, etc, w/o the bling. But this is getting OT.


This time is as good as it will probably ever be again thats pretty surewith future regs coming down the road, either way enjoy your favorite muscle new or old.
X2!
 
#19 · (Edited)
cobalt327 said:
If you believe that by attending ONE meet and watching a day's racing that you can extrapolate the entire performance "scene", I believe you're mistake
no thats what the discussion is about, just telling what i saw and getting feedback from others, seeing if what I saw is consistant with what people are seeing other places.

I guess ruffling feathers just kind of comes with theses type discussions but I say again I dont mean to offend anyone.
 
#20 ·
There are no ruffled anything here.

IMHO, just like all "brown turds" aren't fast, all new cars aren't slow. One visit to one non sanctioned (AFAIK) event doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things is MY point.

If you want to know what the current crop of stock muscle cars runs like- properly prepped and correctly driven- go to a NHRA event and watch the Stock and/or Pure Stock class cars run. You'll see both old and new- depending on what has the best power to weight break or index. At least then, you'll be seeing authentic drag-prepped cars w/savvy drivers.

This is all straight line acceleration, obviously. You do NOT want to go into cornering, handling, braking, comfort, safety, economy and such- there's absolutely NO comparison between old and new- other than old gets slaughtered. Badly. With only a precious few exceptions.

I'm not going to play the "I lived through the whole scene" card on you. Suffice to say I have seen a few things through the years that lead me to say what I do, and I'll leave it at that.
 
#21 ·
2011 Mustang has the 305 hp Ecoboost V6 as a baseline option.. I'v never thought 6cyls as " muscle car " engines. but there is no doubt, that engine is a contender.. even being a base line engine, it will be the flag ship in the mustang lineup.. with a 2010 Mustang GT having 315 hp, performance on that has to be increased, otherwise there is no need for the V8 GT.... The K code 1965-1967 289 Mustang was 271 hp. curb weight on a new Mustang is ~1,500 lbs ~ heavier but 305 hp, is figured with all assessorys working, not Just the water pump like the K code.. 6cyls never got past 120 hp stock, and it takes some work to get them to 300 hp, and lots of it wasn't available when they were new
 
#24 ·
geezer69 said:
i read on one forum that ford is comin out with a mustang v8 with 6 turbo chargers. is there any truth to it.and if so, why the heck would it need 6 turbos?
I haven't heard a thing like that. It was a pretty big deal that ford might be replacing it's supercharged GT500 with a twin turbo variation of the new 5.0L (the regular 5.0L-powered GT runs within a few tenths of it's currently supercharged 5.4L brethren) but it'll probably get some variation of the 6.2L that they're using in the new Ford SVT Raptor.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top