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.