Muscle cars were slow...

[1974dodgecharger]

very well written article about the old muscle cars....

http://ericpetersautos.com/2011/10/11/muscle-cars-were-slow/

part 2 couple years later....


http://blog.motorists.org/muscle-cars-were-slow-ii/

[Baldwinvette77]

I still want one of everything he lists 

[XH29N0G]

Old cars on old tires also give a greater sensation of speed.

[Ghoste]

Interesting that this "expert" states most musclecars only ran 15 in the 1/4 and then lists a group of cars all of which he was able to find 13.9 to 14.2 times for.  The exception being the 69 Z28 which didn't have enough torque to peel the skin off a grape and likely didn't even come on the cam until 3000 or so rpm.  It was meant for a  very different form of motorsport.
Then he picks on the 383 Super Bee which is maybe more comparable to an entry level Mustang than 2012 GT he wants to use.  And we all know the GTX was not the Plymouth version of the Super Bee so if he included it in that sentence because he thinks they are.
Yes, we all know that after 40+ years of technology advances the modern cars are making tremendous power and handle like karts but the gist of his article is just to fill a blog and garner response.
"His musclecar" is a 1976 Trans Am so that should tell us all right there where his personal body of experience comes from.

Muscelcars were not slow and they still aren't, what he should be talking about is that modern musclecars have gotten even faster.

[JB400]

At least the cars of yesterday looked good, no matter how fast they were going.

[myk]

At least the cars of yesterday looked good, no matter how fast they were going.

And that's something newer cars will never be able to touch: Classic, timeless styling that we're never going to see again on dealership sales floors.  As for the speed, an old car can be made faster, but a newer car can't be given the soul and the character of an older car.

As for new versus old, I hear this all the time when I'm behind the wheel of the Charger and cars like my '99 Trans-Am.  My response is always this: newer muscle cars have anywhere from 11 to 40 years of advancing technology behind them, so DUH!  They'd obviously be faster!  

[Ghoste]

Exactly Myk.  This guy is stating the equivalent of jalapeno peppers are bland because habaneros are hotter and he's making the statement in a world where nearly everyone is eating green Bell peppers.

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

I remember when a 12 second pass was historic for street cars. Now you can buy dozens of cars which run 12s, or even in the low 11s, right off the showroom floor.

Kinda makes those old cars which ran 14s or high 13s seem slow 

[el dub]

I think he clarified it with his second sentence: At least, compared with what's considered quick today. There's a reason they were called muscle cars.

[Ghoste]

Dozens?  Really?  Lots of them yes, but dozens?

[polywideblock]

compared to  other cars made at the same time they weren't slow they were awesome     

comparing them to todays "hi tech wiz bang" cars is like comparing a model T to a 55 chev there is no common ground on which  to compare them , like  comparing  peaches and lemons   

[Mopar Nut]

Newer cars might be faster, but they will never look as good doing it!

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

Dozens?  Really?  Lots of them yes, but dozens?

Yes, Dozens

[myk]

Well I don't know if these supercars apply, but they're out there:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

Well I don't know if these supercars apply, but they're out there:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration

Thanks. Nearly 4 dozen on that list 

[Ghoste]

Well you're sure right, all of those Lamborghinis and Ferrari's and Porsches and McLarens are all new cars and they all accelerate quicker than the old musclecars.   
I'd argue that its a ridiculous comparison but I had only questioned that there were dozens of new cars quicker not whether there were dozens of new cars comparable to musclecars in category. 

[myk]

Well you're sure right, all of those Lamborghinis and Ferrari's and Porsches and McLarens are all new cars and they all accelerate quicker than the old musclecars.   
I'd argue that its a ridiculous comparison but I had only questioned that there were dozens of new cars quicker not whether there were dozens of new cars comparable to musclecars in category. 

The writer of that piece needs to go back to covering dog and pony shows.  He clearly knows nothing about logical thinking and seems to think that apples and oranges are the same...

[1974dodgecharger]

well lets be honest with ourselves here....our cars are slowed compared to modern cars....in stock form.  It took me 8k to build up my 383 and blue printed and it takes my car to 12.8, but, but the kicker is I have manual everything no drag no nothing.  Im sure have more torque than the average modern V8 though.....that's for damn sure.

other than that they are beautiful for damn sure....I said it many times I pull up next to a Nissan GTR, new challenger, new chargers, no matter what modern cars  don't get more attention than our cars even by the kids.  Even If my car is not as fast as modern cars in top speed at least the younger kids can think it is based on it looks 

[myk]

Where's the companion article that talks about how much faster 60's cars are compared to cars built in the 30's or 40's? 

[Cncguy]

It still comes down too. How fast do you want to go? How much do you want to spend?

[JR]

I'm on his side. Compared to modern cars, our cars stock are slow. You don't have to compare them to new exotics or new muscle cars either. Today's average crossover utility vehicle or front wheel drive family sedan will out accelerate most stock muscle cars of the day, and outbrake/out handle them as well.

Dream car garage covered this pretty well comparing a Daytona to a modern minivan (loaded down with girls to balance the weight difference).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=rLO8VOuZEoigNrulgKgI&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D9nAx2jtr3K8&ved=0CB8QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGKlPgjEV3ebngvaZ6Vj7P2yUbFrw

But that said, the old cars were fast compared to the average sedan of their day. Back in 1970 the best selling cars in America were the Beetle and the Impala. We all know how slow the bug was, and I'd say most of those impalas were 2bbl small blocks, or straight 6's. Someone who grew up with them who jumped in a 383 Super Bee would feel like they were strapped in a rocket ship. Combine that with the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia and no wonder people think they were so fast.

BUT, that said, I love em' and still enjoy driving the hell out of em'.

[Ghoste]

Driving average crossover utility vehicles and fwd family sedans on a daily basis I have to disagree with that. 

[JR]

Driving average crossover utility vehicles and fwd family sedans on a daily basis I have to disagree with that.  

Here are some random numbers a quick search pulled up.

2012 Toyota Camry SE (V6) 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter Mile 14.1
2009 Toyota RAV4 Sport AWD (V6) 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter Mile 14.6
2013 Accord V-6 Coupe FWD. 6M 0-60 mph 5.6 sec Quarter Mile 14.0 sec @ 103 mph

Those are three of the blandest vehicles on the road and we haven't even gotten to the modern day performance vehicles yet.

Again, I love our cars, but I'm not kidding myself to think they're still "fast". They're fun, beautiful, have ridiculous amounts of torque, but I couldn't consider them fast by modern standards.

[Ghoste]

I think I'd still need to see it.

[Cncguy]

I found this interesting dollartimes.com if you would like to see what your car would cost at today's inflation rates.

[Ponch ®]

It almost doesn't matter.

Can't count the times that I've been stopped at a red light and some kid in a souped up late model 5.0 or M-series pulls up next to me and does the whole "wanna race?" thing. Meanwhile, I'm running a tired old 383. All I gotta do is say something like "you got nothing for me" or "what car are YOU gonna race me with?". 9/10 times they'll be like "Oh shit..." and not even try.

Why? Because the car looks fast and mean. It's got gravitas.

[JR]

I think I'd still need to see it.

'10 Camry V6 running a 14.1@104 quarter mile.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KVT1DXZ1KKA

Rav4 V6 running a 14sec quarter mile. I can't tell if its 14.3 or 14.8 @98mph as I'm watching on my phone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QE5qnm_WE

These are admittedly V6 versions instead of the standard 4cyl versions more economy minded  people may go for, but the point stands these are ordinary cars. Which today are just as fast as our old muscle cars.  

I guess you could define your meaning of fast for clarification here. If you define "fast" as "it looks totally bitchin, sounds awesome, and throws me back in my seat and feels like I'm going 1,000mph" while you race from a stoplight, then sure, they're fast. (Until the 5.0 or M driver decides to call your bluff, anyway.)

If you define fast by any measurable quantity, 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, lap times, Lateral G's or braking performance, stock musclecars are slow (or best case, on the lower end of average) by modern standards.

[John_Kunkel]

I remember reading magazine road tests back in the day and seeing ET's that made me think "where the hell do they find these ham-fisted drivers?" The identical same cars at my local track were running considerably quicker in stock form on factory tires.

One nice thing about their modern equivalent is the quick/easy starting and smooth idle.

[1974dodgecharger]

hehehhehe...damn we stockers are slow.....

I think I'd still need to see it.

'10 Camry V6 running a 14.1@104 quarter mile.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KVT1DXZ1KKA

Rav4 V6 running a 14sec quarter mile. I can't tell if its 14.3 or 14.8 @98mph as I'm watching on my phone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QE5qnm_WE

These are admittedly V6 versions instead of the standard 4cyl versions more economy minded  people may go for, but the point stands these are ordinary cars. Which today are just as fast as our old muscle cars.  

I guess you could define your meaning of fast for clarification here. If you define "fast" as "it looks totally bitchin, sounds awesome, and throws me back in my seat and feels like I'm going 1,000mph" while you race from a stoplight, then sure, they're fast. (Until the 5.0 or M driver decides to calls your bluff, anyway.)

If you define fast by any measurable quantity, 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, lap times, Lateral G's or braking performance, musclecars are slow (or best case, on the lower end of average) by modern standards.

[Cooter]

The thing forgotten however is they had sub 10 second cars back then. One could walk into dealer and stuff a 550 HP wedge/Hemi in a 2800 lb car eith no frills. Bolt on headers and slicks and you hadda quick car. Cheap relatively speaking too. Didn't hafta spring for that package that would a shoved that $3500 car into new Caddy range either.

[G-man]

I agree with everything stated.

I had a stock 383ci Charger, slow. I had a stock 87 Trans Am GTA, Slow. Hell I had a "400" horsepowered mustang with a stall converter that was all volume and still felt slow. Dunno, maybe what I call fast is a 600HP lamborghini, a car when you put your foot on it, really sticks you in the seat, and if everyone was honest with themselves, muscle cars do not do that (in stock form).

However, for a little more $$$ than stock and still cheaper than a lambo (or most things new with performance).... THAT THING IS A BEAST

[Brass]

So the high-end versions of modern commuter cars are finally starting to catch up to the acceleration performance of stock muscle cars from 45+ years ago.  Is that supposed to be impressive?

[JR]

So the high-end versions of modern commuter cars are finally starting to catch up to the acceleration performance of stock muscle cars from 45+ years ago.  Is that supposed to be impressive?

No. The vehicles I've posted videos of were of an Oddessey, a Camry, and a Rav4. None of those are what most people would consider high end vehicles.

Anyway, they all three have SUPERIOR performance over most stock musclecars. They accelerate equal to or much faster than most of the classics, they handle MUCH better, they stop almost twice as fast, they're more comfortable, each of those three get over 20mpg highway, and they'll all go over 200k with minimal maintence. (Again, I haven't even brought up performance cars yet).

There's more to performance than just stabbing the gas pedal in a straight line for a quarter mile, but even if that's all you're into, modern vehicles are so much faster that,in comparison, the performance of an average, stock muscle car could be considered "slow" today.

Again, in their defense, I love our muscle cars, but as a matter of simple honestly, I'll tell you straight up, the stock ones are slow. Mine is absolutely included.

Mine shares a garage with a 15 year old M3 (that sees track use fairly regularly) worth 10k on a good day, that would absolutely destroy it in any sort of speed contest.

Its simply the reality.

If I want to actually go fast, I take the late model vehicle, if I want to have fun cruising the streets, I take the Charger (or any classic muscle car).

[JB400]

Put all the band aids that are on a new car and put them on our cars, and see how they rank.

[Brass]

So the high-end versions of modern commuter cars are finally starting to catch up to the acceleration performance of stock muscle cars from 45+ years ago.  Is that supposed to be impressive?

No. The vehicles I've posted videos of were of an Oddessey, a Camry, and a Rav4. None of those are what most people would consider high end vehicles.

Anyway, they all three have SUPERIOR performance over most stock musclecars. They accelerate equal to or much faster than most of the classics, they handle MUCH better, they stop almost twice as fast, they're more comfortable, each of those three get over 20mpg highway, and they'll all go over 200k with minimal maintence. (Again, I haven't even brought up performance cars yet).

There's more to performance than just stabbing the gas pedal in a straight line for a quarter mile, but even if that's all you're into, modern vehicles are so much faster that,in comparison, the performance of an average, stock muscle car could be considered "slow" today.

Again, in their defense, I love our muscle cars, but as a matter of simple honestly, I'll tell you straight up, the stock ones are slow. Mine is absolutely included.

Mine shares a garage with a 15 year old M3 (that sees track use fairly regularly) worth 10k on a good day, that would absolutely destroy it in any sort of speed contest.

Its simply the reality.

If I want to actually go fast, I take the late model vehicle, if I want to have fun cruising the streets, I take the Charger (or any classic muscle car).

By "high end" I was referring to the 6 cylinder versions you pointed out v the base models with 4 cylinders.  (Also, M3's are no slouches.)   I'm not arguing facts, I just remain unmoved.  My own regular driver will out brake and handle my unmodified Charger (for now).  No surprise there - it better be able to do that after all this time and advancement.  My point is - so what...?  

Its odd to me how people are jumping to compare apples to oranges and talk about how slow stock muscle cars are now.  When ironically, the fact that this is even a topic of discussion speaks to the legacy they've commanded all this time.  If in 30 years there is the same appreciation and following for the gray, amorphous commuter cars of today, then I'll be impressed.

[G-man]

End of the day, modern technology is modern technology.

I mean, look at it from another perspective.

Mopar runs the all mighty HEMI at 7 liters of engine. I get a European engine from a ferrari or something else, and I make more horsepower with a 3 Liter engine.

This was one thing I personally never understood. Most performance cars (the ones I call performance) run between 1.6-1.8 Horsepower per cubic inch. American muscle cars run less than 1 horsepower per cubic inch, usually between 0.7-0.8 horsepower per cubic inch.

I mean, honestly speaking, that is pathetic.

Friend of mine has an Audi A6 (6 cyl) diesel. He said my Muscle car (6.3 Liters) would totaly smash that car. Personally I never wanted to give him a run just to save embarrassment on myself. I know just by the feeling I get in his car it has way more than what mines got with almost 3 times the engine size.

This is why for me the ultimate is to build up a muscle car, so that it can perform to today's standard or better. With today's technology and engine builders, it would not even be hard to make a Mopar run 1.6 horsepower per cubic inch rather than its pathetic 0.7. Then it is making as much horsepower per cube as modern cars BUT because it has double the cubic inches, it means double the power.

Now we got a beast that does what a beast does, n that is own off the light. Best of both worlds.

One thing muscle cars do (even if slow) is instill fear in the other cars, it just has this mystique about it that it is the fastest thing on the road, modern cars do not do this. So we as muscle car owners just need to make the car do what the other people 'think' it does.

[JR]

The muscle cars were the highest end trim level of their respective models. The high end vehicle reference is sort of a moot point.

But just to cut to the basic question, excluding all the emotional attachment one way or another, and to cut to the basics.

"Are stock muscle cars fast?"

In their day, compared to ordinary sedans and average freeway cruising speeds, yes, you could call a vintage musclecar fast. It must have been mind blowing for most people to get out of an ordinary sedan and get into a muscle car and go from 0-60 in 7 to 8 seconds, and a quarter mile in 14-15 seconds.

Today however, we've grown up with that being the baseline of an average vehicle. I think most modern  pickup trucks will accelerate as fast as most stock muscle cars.

Then you look into how fast the average car guy is used to going for not much cash, either in some form of Mustang, an LS powered something or other, or turbocharged import, and ask him what he thinks about the performance numbers of stock musclecars, he'll call them slow.

Why wouldn't he?

[Mike DC]

This was one thing I personally never understood. Most performance cars (the ones I call performance) run between 1.6-1.8 Horsepower per cubic inch. American muscle cars run less than 1 horsepower per cubic inch, usually between 0.7-0.8 horsepower per cubic inch.

I mean, honestly speaking, that is pathetic.

This question cuts to the core of the whole topic.

Why is a good power-vs-displacement worth something?
Because small displacement is supposed to equal lighter weight & better mileage.  

But the problem is, it doesn't necessarily do that.  A little motor with a beefy block & twin turbos & intercooling can be practically V8 weight.  And lots of times the gas mileage is only dramatically better in govt testing, not real world conditions.  Strip away the big mileage & weight improvements and all you have left is "it's more advanced".  That can also be translated as "it's more complicated & expensive to accomplish the same thing."  

4 liters spinning at 8000 RPM, or 8 liters at 4000 RPM . . . same total air/fuel being burned.  Just two different ways of doing it.  Spinning something faster for the same result is not inherently better.  In fact it should be considered inherently worse without some specific justification.  Modern engines don't have the same good torque curves, they cost a shit-ton more to produce & maintain, etc.  

The modern euro/asian sports car guys are so busy ridiculing Detroit for making pushrod motors that they don't notice the pushrod motors have been getting as light & efficient in the real world as OHC/turbo stuff - and with cheaper costs & better behavior the whole time.  



Modern cars post better statistics than old classics.  But if the old classics are given enough updates to make the comparison far (overdrive gears, modern tires & alignments, some basic mods like exhaust headers & cams, etc), then the old cars produce at least decent numbers and usually MORE FUN CHARACTERISTICS while they do it.  Modern vehicles go really fast but they don't deliver as much of the thrill for it.

[Kern Dog]

"And that's something newer cars will never be able to touch: Classic, timeless styling that we're never going to see again on dealership sales floors."

Uhhh... I'd argue that THIS car has great styling.

[myk]

No offense to fans of the new Challenger, but in my own opinion the styling doesn't stand up to the original.  In its own right it's a great looking car but the originals have a charm that's unique to their generation.  Again that's just my own opinion, clearly sales of the new Challenger and Charger would indicate that I'm in the minority.  If I were given one would I kick it out of the garage?  Certainly not, and I'd be happy to 'DD one but if I had to choose just one, well...

[G-man]

I personally think the New challenger is 'tougher' looking than the old one. The new mustangs are more aggressive looking than the old ones as well. The new Camaro isn't bad either. The new charger though... don't know what happened there. In a way though I am glad they didn't because it means there is nothing else that looks like chargers. They are 1968-1970 and that is it. No remakes, no copies. It is thus unique.