Muscle cars were slow...

[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.