The extent of my limited DE experience does not negate the fact that 60s muscle cars are holding their own, and often beating light and nimble cars in the videos. This is called "Tu Quoque fallacy". For example, a scientist does not need to lift weights himself to demonstrate that lifting weights builds muscle mass.

The fact that the smaller car is turning in better lap times than you means little. We have long since agreed that driver skill is a big factor in performance. Personal anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. You saw a 85HP car getting waved by a V8. Getting waved means DE, right? Maybe they were being polite or did not want him behind them in the curves. I've now seen tons of examples of Detroit muscle cars outpacing light and no nimble on the track. So, I agree that you can push whatever point you want to make.

And my point, once again, is when someone says, "American cars are garbage on the track, and always lose to Euro handling", or statements like "handling is everything", they are ignorant parrots who have read too many car blogs. Power absolutely matters. Don't believe me? Go re-watch the numerous videos of heavy bloated muscle winning races b/c they pass like a rocketship in the straights, and manage to stay ahead in the curves. It's not rocket science, but you do need to fight decades of brainwashing, which is not easy.

I too find it curious that Vettes are placed in the same category as other (old) American muscle cars.
Let's review:
Corvette - Independent rear suspension.
Firebird, Mustang, GTO, etc etc - Rigid rear axle, leaf springs. IF it's stock.

There is no comparison between the two in cornering ability, so let's take the Vette's out of the equation, or at least put them in the high powered sports car category.

Fair point. All my points still apply to the "can only drive in a straight line" Firebirds and Mustangs that were kicking ass and taking names on the track.

I think if you are to take cars of the same era, generally speaking, on shorter courses the handling cars will perform better. If you get to a Lemans, or Road America, a muscle cars HP might have the advantage.

The first step is browsing. Tread carefully....

1967 Pontiac Firebird for Sale | ClassicCars.com | CC-761379
1967 Pontiac Firebird for sale #1684829 | Hemmings Motor News
1967 Pontiac Firebird for Sale | ClassicCars.com | CC-765056
https://www.carsforsale.com/vehicle/details/14289589

A good buddy has a last gen boss 302 (still fixed rear axle). He kicks ass and takes names at the track (hpde). He is also a great driver. Ge gets 1:21's on street tires. Great car.

Another guy has a four door street legal civic sti with slicks and race suspension, but maybe 200hp, and gets about the same lap times. About 1:21's

Another good buddy has a spec miata that beats both of the above by about three seconds a lap. And that is on a track. Maybe 160 hp. 1:17's. Put the national spec miata champion in that car and i bet you get one to two more seconds a lap.

Thing is, there is no way a muscle car, particularly vintage, can ever reach the handling potential of the 911 of the same era. It's a simple geometry thing. The 911 had a much better suspension design.

They are both fast. 911 has the advantage in the twisties, the muscle cars on the straights.

sugarwood,

Stop with the craziness. Older stock Detroit muscle cars handled like crap and were only good for straight line stuff. Light weight and handling are far more important than horsepower. Those are the facts.

When those muscle cars were raced, where do you think the vast majority of money was spent? Making more horsepower or making the car handle better?

/thread

Straw man. I never claimed muscle can handle similarly. I'm saying it didn't need to, and the huge HP advantage of Detroit muscle seriously compensates for the poor handling.

See the videos. Seeing Detroit muscle sometimes beat light and nimble on the track was a revelation for me also. A good example of not believing everything you hear.

Of interest, i think some of the "best" performance cars for the money are coming from the usa. And with the new camero and mustang, the americans are learning to combine independant suspension with the joys of big hp, all while keeping costs down and manuals as options.

The reason for the delay in leaving the fixed rear axle behind is similar to why a 911 still has a rear engine... The bread and butter enthusiasts for these cars wanted them. Many people grew ulcers when the stang, challanger, and camero went To fully independant rear suspension.

I think I am part of the crowd that is a bit sad that the fixed rear axle is gone. Sure, just like a rear engine it has downsides (and upsides), but over the years ford et al did a great job engineering around it, just like porsche and modern 911's. It is a flaw, but it is a flaw that gives character.

Ask someone who track races a muscle car what they think about the fixed rear axle. I did. The experienced folks are well informed red blooded american muscle car guys, but they know the limit of their cars, just like 911 guys know the limits of ours. On the track it is a compromise (much less in the modern cars). The first thing they do is mods to try to further offset the downsides of it. Hp can make up for it, but the fastest cars have hp and handling. How much of a compramise were the old cars? Enough that old mustangs were paired with minis that had a fraction of the power and displacement of a mustang of the era. Both were getting similar lap times. Yeah you can beat up on a low hp handling car with enough hp and straightaways, but get passed by a kid in a well driven spec e30 and your high hp ego will get turned on end.

Thus, the market forced ford/chevy/etc to drop the fixed rear axle and go independant rear suspension. Why? Lap times started to become marketing king to the enthusiest, and the american cars were no longer winning the 0-60 battles. Plus, companies like ford are now increasingly marketing to europeans. Thus the focus on ring times. And yeah... The viper acr is a beast on the track. And no it is not a traditional muscle car. Look at all the lap records they racked up in that as part of the release promotion. Proper fast car. Power, brakes, aero grip, mechanical grip. No fixed rear axle.

All american cars are not big fat understeering pigs. Now, true story here, my dad got the 2002tii i now own new in 73. No one knew what it was. He would zoom by a muscle car of they day on the highway. They would inevitably come roaring back in anger. So what would he do? He just matched speed. The tii, all 130hp of it, could cruise at 100mph for days. The big v8's, It never took them long to start smoking and pull over from overheating. They were geared for drag racing and could not sustain high speeds for any length of time. Drag race one at your own perl however. Were they an inferior car? No. Different strengths and design goals.

A top formula dragster will never beat a gocart on a road track, just like the gocart never having a hope on the drag strip. Different design intentions.

You just don't know what you are talking about. Anyone that has spent a lot of time at the race track driving and watching knows the truth.

Sugarwood, if you are really interested in learning, as your initial question suggests (rather than creating an on line battle, here are two things to consider:

Q1 - asked) What is the good of handling in the corners if you always get passed on the straights?

Q2 - not asked) How can older muscle cars out pace better handling cars?

A1 - If you always get passed on the straight, AND lose the race, then the only good is for either:
-- Entertianment. Its fun racing and harassing the bigger cars
or
--You are racing for points at this track, so that you will be in it for winning the series, meanwhile you are biding your time until you get to the next tighter track where you will likely win (The muscle car driver is in it for the same reasons at the tighter tracks

A2 - Muscle cars can hold their own against better handling cars by significantly re engineering the suspension, unlike the other cars that just upgrade components. For more on this, read The Unfair advantage

It chronicles the early days of muscle cars on the road circuits, and how much engineering was involved to make them competitive, and how the rules makers kept tightening the rules to keep all cars stock while teams were basically building tube steel race cars inside the bodies of stock cars.

Aside form anything anyone says on this thread, that book will be the most enlightening and educational thing you will read from an unbiased standpoint.

P.S.
I still think the Chris Harris video above would also be a good view considering the mustang was more primitive compared to the camaro at that point. It is also a good unbiased viewpoint.

Form history, here is a typical race weekend in trans am.
It was two races at the same time.
They ran two classes, over 2.0 and under 2.0

The 911s listed were 2.0 or less and ran skinny tires but often ran up front with the big boys.

At the top of the charts, the well engineered cars with top drivers won overall,
but the little 2.0s that won their class often beat many of the big boys as well. Eventually into the 70s they ran a 2.5 litre

In the first year in 1966, an alpha romeo won overall. It had a 1600c engine
By 1967 the pony car manufacturers got serious about abandoning their street suspension designs and re-engineering them. These were not just bolt on parts.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1456696379.jpg

Funny, my dad was talking about trans am. Great racing. I must say, my favorite racing is between two cars that accomplish the same goal of fast lap times, but with wery different ways of doing it. Sometimes the best battles are between mid pack higher classed cars, and the top of the low classed cars. Race craft gets really interesting in these cases. Part of why I love multi class endurance racing.

now you've gone & made scott angry. you won't like scott when he's angry...

When he said he was an objective foreigner and had no dog in the Ford vs. Chevy race, that got my attention. What did you want to debate? The vid didn't seem very controversial. Obviously, there was loads of subjectivity in the video, and they didn't even post the lap times. Like most auto journalists, he said the same thing: they are a great value, but always hedged any compliment. He never outright said, "This car simply kicks ass". It was always, "This car is a great value". It's like telling a woman she looks great for her age, rather than telling her she simply looks great, period. I would love to know lap times compared to superior handling modern Euro cars like M3, 911, etc. It seems to me the Camaro is the superior car. It was 2 seconds faster yet more "refined". I am curious how the live axle issue is relevant on a track, where there aren't pot holes. Harries did seem to say it was a moot point.

I think that you answered your own question.

The Cameros was 2 seconds faster yet more refined.
Meanwhile the mustang has a live axle and has slower lap times

The reason that I think that video is so relevant is because the Camero in that video has more of what a smaller european car has always had, better suspension while the Mustang has what the muscle cars have always had, strong axles that can put up with a lot of torque for drag racing, but not very refined for road courses.

The Mustang had more power but was slower.

I think Zora Arkus-Duntov would finally be pleased with GM for that.

2012 Camaro ZL1 weighs 4120 lbs.
2012 Mustang GT500 weighs 3820 lbs.

As or the contentious comments about muscle cars versus better handling cars, whir the trans am series back then allowed for extensive modification initially, the unassuming buyer of a car fresh off the showroom floor would have different experiences back in the day.

A buyer of a 911 or an Alpha Romeo could take it straight to the road coaurs and have a lot of fun with zero modifications.

A buyer of a muscle car would not have any fun at all, and might be outright frightened by an early muscle car experience on a road course.

This is where that old worn out saying came from.

As both the newer Mustang and Camero show in the Chris Harris video, that is no longer the case. The playing field these days is a lot closer than it was in the past.

I think that is a point worth reiterating. A few of you said it before, but old stereotypes die hard. Maybe stock muscle cars handled like crap 50 years ago, but clearly they can be upgraded to be very competitive on the track, just like people upgrade their Euro cars. Yet, few people ever acknowledge that while saying they "can only go in straight lines, and suck ass on a track because they handle like trucks..."

And the modern American muscle cars sometimes out perform Euro cars, both around the curves, in a straight line, and around Nurburgring. Watch The 2014 Camaro Z/28 Lap The 'Ring Faster Than A 911 Carrera S The truly interesting part about human nature is that you can SHOW someone a video of a Camaro Z28 beating Porsche at its own game, yet the person will still not believe what you are saying. It's fascinating, the complete denial in the comments ("It's simply not true! Camaro bad, Porsche good.") I'm sure people found all sorts of conspiracy theories about the Z28 beating the 911, the 911 Carrera S, and the Lamborghini Murcielago (while doing its run in the rain!)