Is Muscle dead?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

You obviously have not even been in a REAL Muscil car then!!!
Shame on you for having to say a lot about what you know nothing about!
Your YouTube education is just that dumb, dumb, and cheap.
Back in the day-
The thing to do was tape a *20-dollar bill to the dash and bet the people in the back seat they could not get it under acceleration!
I remember a friend of mine, Dodge 440, my teeth and cheeks would slide back behind my face!'
It was SCARY VIOLENT and I mean VIOLENT
Go get in a real car someday and come back and tell us how it was not a "thing" or not fast! LOL

Just more silly stuff posted by you
* 20 bucks in the early 70s was a LOT of money

just ... no. dont embarass yourself. seconds are still seconds, MPH is still MPH. your youth is taking advantage of you.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

The only difference CP is-
I was there.!
You were not.....
So you can not witness or attest to anything but internet trollup.
I know you want to be an expert on everything.
Better stick to whatever you might know.


Aschen
Go try it and come back with your results.
I saw many people try to claw and climb up out of the back seat.......
Math be right, but I have no clue if it applies to every nuance there is.
I do know what I know, as I knows what I saws

yeah, and we know it didnt happen.

the cars were not that fast. simple as that.

[cockerpunk]

FYI the V6 honda accord does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. 14.4 at 99mph

which is *faster* than the above reviewed mustang gt500KR

[masraum]

the reality was muscle was never really a thing.

i mean go back and read/watch some old car reviews. most muscle cars were slow AF. 14-16 second quarter miles, etc etc. SAE gross power, simply made up power figures ... like lots of shens going on there. but the performance was never really there. no one could jump an apple with their front tires, no one couldnt touch the dash ... etc etc. none of this was real.

It's all relative, right. Back in 1970, the "muscle" cars were fast as sheiße compared to the pedestrian cars. I'm sure that to someone driving a 1970 chevelle with a 155hp, 250ci straight 6 and a 2 speed powerglide automatic, the 450hp, 454ci car running either a TH-400 or a Muncie M22 seemed REALLY DAMN FAST. A '70 Chevelle LS6 was a bit faster than 14, but not a ton. Of course, that was on stock, street tires. Better tires would have changed that a bit.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/1601-flashback-road-test-of-a-1970-chevrolet-chevelle-ls6

The best quarter-mile time was accomplished at Irwindale Raceway by John Dianna, who has a definite knack for this sort of thing. His low time of 13.44 seconds was followed by two other runs of 13.48 and 13.52, showing a consistent pattern. Shift points proved best at 6100-6200 rpm, and the maximum engine speed for coming off the line was 900 rpm. After some shock changes, the initial engine speed still couldn’t be higher than 900, which is idle speed. There is so much bottom end on this car that it is impossible to use all of it effectively with street tires. These happened to be F70-14 Firestone Wide Ovals, with best pressure settings at 30 psi on the left rear and 28 psi on the right. Any throttle stabbing off the line would cause the tires to go up in smoke, and the car generally wanted to get sideways as a result. A decent set of drag slicks would naturally get more bite to the ground, but the immense amount of torque going through the drive line would just as naturally start breaking parts. Better to cool it and not have to walk home. If this were our car, we’d invest in a big 9 3/4-inch ring gear carrier and housing, with a good traction bar setup. Traction bars are a good recommendation for stock rear steups. The 10.5-inch-diameter, bent-finger, single-disc clutch didn’t even hint at giving up, even after thirty runs. We did get rid of some of the disc facing, increasing free-board length, but that’s merely an adjustment job. The pilot bearing got a little noisy after many back-to-back runs, and while an owner of such a car as this has the gearbox out to install a formidable scattershield, it will pay him to replace the throwout if the car has already logged a few thousand miles. The installation of a blast shield is mandatory for this car.

Our better quarter-mile times were made when the air-filter element was removed and the engine was fairly warm, just a shade under the 195° mark. The warm motor killed a bit of the bottom end, making it easier to get the car moving. After a full cool-down, low-end torque was so tremendous that there was no way the car would leave smoothly. It either bogged or it cranked the rear wheels into the outer limits. Torque isn’t a passing phase in this 454. No matter what the shift point, the rear tires always spun off a bit of elapsed time with each upshift.

I'd say that the muscle thing is still a thing, it's just a different thing than it was. I think there are or have been in recent history muscle cars (camaro, mustang, charger/challenger). Some of the current crop of EVs cater to some extent to the muscle crowd (I'm sure there are some old boomers that enjoy punching it in a Tesla or whatever.

To be a muscle car these days, you need 600+hp, a 0-60 <4secs, and a smokin fast ¼ mile.

Power production and tires and suspension has changed just a little bit since 1965-1970.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/5-quickest-muscle-cars-over-the-quarter-mile-during-the-1970-model-year-242821.html

With its 370-hp Ram Air IV, the 1970 GTO ran the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at 104.5 mph (168.1 kph) during a test published by Super Stock & Drag Illustrated in the magazine's June 1970 issue.

With this powerful engine under the hood, the 1970 Gran Sport and its new, more flamboyant-looking GSX sibling could run the quarter mile in
13.38 seconds at 105.5 mph (169.8 kph), according to Motortrend.

Nevertheless, when equipped with the range-topping HEMI, which transformed it from a budget-friendly muscle car into a quite expensive one, the 1970 Road Runner was able to run the quarter mile in 13.34 seconds at 107.5 mph (173 kph), according to the December 1969 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated magazine.

In its November 1969 issue, Car Craft magazine revealed that an LS6-equipped Chevelle SS managed to 13.12-second quarter-mile run at 107 mph (172.2 kph).

According to a test published by Car Craft magazine in its November 1969 issue, the HEMI 'Cuda could run the quarter mile in 13.10 seconds at 107.1 mph (172.36 kph), which made it the quarter mile king among 1970 muscle cars.

[cockerpunk]

the honda odyssey mini van wiht a v6 engine does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and 15.1 at 94mph in the quarter.

so, only the top level trim 1968 mustang gt500 is faster than a modern mini-van. any mustang with a smaller engine was slower.

[speeder]

Mid-century American V-8 performance cars had some amazing torque figures but the track figures were not impressive by modern standards for a variety of reasons already stated. Technology only moves in one direction, over any period of time. Some of the cars were very fast, just not by the standard of fast modern cars, which have insane performance.

That said, has anyone spent significant seat time in an extremely powerful car that only does one thing well? It gets old in about an hour, unless you’re an imbecile.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

the honda odyssey mini van wiht a v6 engine does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and 15.1 at 94mph in the quarter.

so, only the top level trim 1968 mustang gt500 is faster than a modern mini-van. any mustang with a smaller engine was slower.

Apples <> orangutans

Your comparison is silly just as it would be to compare a sopwith camel to a lockheed martin lightning II or Hervé Villechaize to Andre the giant.

1968 Mustang GT500 vs 1968 mustang w/200ci 6-cyl and slushbox. That's a valid comparison.

2023 Dodge Demon 170 vs 2023 Honda Odyssey. That's a valid comparison.

https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/odyssey-2023

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.5 sec
100 mph: 16.6 sec
110 mph: 20.5 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.5 sec
1/4 mile: 15.1 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 111 mph

https://www.hotrod.com/news/2023-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-170-first-look-review

The 2023 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon 170—the last of Dodge's Last Call combustion muscle cars—is a 1,025-hp street-legal drag racer that rolls out of the factory with the claimed ability to rip off a 1.66-second 0-60 time and an 8.91-second quarter mile at 151.2 mph on a prepped dragstrip.

We should mention that you're not likely to see the Demon's acceleration performance verified by theMotorTrendtest team in the future. Dodge's times were achieved on a dragstrip prepped with VHT, a sticky, tarlike coating that improves grip. On an unprepared surface like we use, the 0-60 time will likely be in the low two-second range, and the quarter-mile result will be firmly in the nines. Kuniskis also stresses that Dodge's 0-60 and quarter-mile claims can only be matched under the best possible circumstances. You'll need a meticulously prepped track, perfect air, and a driver that has mastered the art of launching the Demon.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by masraum

Apples <> orangutans

Your comparison is silly just as it would be to compare a sopwith camel to a lockheed martin lightning II or Hervé Villechaize to Andre the giant.

1968 Mustang GT500 vs 1968 mustang w/200ci 6-cyl and slushbox. That's a valid comparison.

2023 Dodge Demon 170 vs 2023 Honda Odyssey. That's a valid comparison.

https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/odyssey-2023


https://www.hotrod.com/news/2023-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-170-first-look-review

its not ridiculous.

go back and read my first post in the thread. the comparison is such for very specific reason.

and then afterburn decided to prove my point for me.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by speeder

Mid-century American V-8 performance cars had some amazing torque figures but the track figures were not impressive by modern standards for a variety of reasons already stated. Technology only moves in one direction, over any period of time. Some of the cars were very fast, just not by the standard of fast modern cars, which have insane performance.

That said, has anyone spent significant seat time in an extremely powerful car that only does one thing well? It gets old in about an hour, unless you’re an imbecile.

I like power. I like being able to accelerate like stink. I have even enjoyed a burnout or two in my day. But since I got a driver's license, I've wanted a good all around car. I bought R&T for the sports cars and Hot Rod for the muscle, but even then, what appealed to me the most were the articles about what we'd now call restomods or where they took old cars and swapped out the suspension, brakes, and wheels and tires for something to allow them to turn and stop in a more modern fashion. My first car was a '65 Chevy impala, 2dr, 350, 4spd, and I used to drive it like it was a sports car. I enjoyed taking corners.

I wanted to build a restomod style Chevelle 26 years ago, and then I read the Bruce Anderson 911 buyers guide in an issue of Excellence and it was all over. Why build a restomod chevelle when you can have a 911?

[aschen]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

Aschen
Go try it and come back with your results.
I saw many people try to claw and climb up out of the back seat.......
Math be right, but I have no clue if it applies to every nuance there is.
I do know what I know, as I knows what I saws

Its really straightforward high school physics that applies without question. Here is the thing though, I am not an internet troll and I don't doubt peoples reported experiences. What seems likely to me is the task requires enough coordination to have to think about it a bit, and the drama/thrill/sound of the moment makes it hard to focus and pull off with out some practice.

What is assured is the acceleration of a car on street tires is not enough to pin a person to their seat beyond typical human strength. Do some searches the answers and data are available

[gregpark]

Mid century American muscle became nothing more than art the day a Toyota Corolla could whip all their butts in the quarter mile

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

its not ridiculous.

go back and read my first post in the thread. the comparison is such for very specific reason.

I did read your first post and responded to it. You said that the old muscle cars weren't actually "muscle" ran the ¼ in 14-16 secs and said it was slow.

My response was that compared to the contemporary non-muscle cars, they had lots of muscle and were very fast. And with a little tuning (tires, shocks, etc...) could be quite a bit faster.

Yes, modern cars are often as fast or faster. So what, that doesn't mean that they weren't fast in their time. And some of them are still fast with some tweaks, even if not the kings of speed that they once were.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by masraum

I did read your first post and responded to it. You said that the old muscle cars weren't actually "muscle" ran the ¼ in 14-16 secs and said it was slow.

My response was that compared to the contemporary non-muscle cars, they had lots of muscle and were very fast. And with a little tuning (tires, shocks, etc...) could be quite a bit faster.

Yes, modern cars are often as fast or faster. So what, that doesn't mean that they weren't fast in their time. And some of them are still fast with some tweaks, even if not the kings of speed that they once were.

that isnt what i said.

but ok. i dont care, i made my point, and afterburn proved it better than i could.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Not sure if I can grab a $20 off the dash, but my neighbor’s 720S is physically borderline painful in both acceleration and braking. Even on city streets when it’s barely working. It’s awesome but also stupid, exponentially more capability than you could ever use on the street.

[Racerbvd]

Notice that in the wastelands of the future, there are no EVs and punks are used as hood ornaments.

[Jeff Higgins]

I separate the mid to late '60's to early '70's "muscle cars" into two distinctly different categories. The first includes all of the hopped-up wedge motors. These include small and big block GM, Ford, and MOPAR that were no more than utilitarian passenger car and light truck motors. All of these manufacturers offered upgraded versions with bigger cams, carbs, etc. It was a really cheap, and largely ineffective way to provide "performance". But they really didn't.

My other category is where they got serious about it. NASCAR and NHRA competition driven development. Mainly big blocks, with the notable exception of Ford with their Cleveland head small blocks. Here is where we see the all-time king, The Hemi, along with those chasing it, the canted valve "semi-hemi" big block Chev "Rat" motors and the Ford 428 and 429. All of these dispensed with the horribly inefficient wedge head design, going to a full hemi or semi-hemi canted valve arrangement, allowing for a true "cross flow" valve arrangement and much improved breathing.

These NASCAR and NHRA "homologation" motors were the real deal. The very top end were hand assembled by small groups of dedicated racers, like the famous Dodge Ramchargers. Their 426 Hemi was factory rated at 425 horsepower at 5,000 rpm. Which was entirely true. That's exactly what it did. Except, well, with its solid lifter cam, massive ports, forged lower end assemblies, and meticulous tuning, it is said that not a single Hemi left their shop that would not rev to 7,500 rpm while making in excess of 600 horsepower. And Ford and GM were certainly chasing them, never far behind.

Anyone saying that performance of that era is a myth is correct, insofar as cars in my first category. On the other hand, the cars in my second category were absolutely the real deal. While I never had the good fortune to own one (all of my cars were of the wedge motor persuasion), I did have opportunity to drive a '70 Road Runner belonging to the father of two brothers with whom I drag raced. It was a factory Hemi four speed car with a Dana rear end featuring 4.11 gears. We put my slicks on it (from my '69 383 four speed Super Bee, which ran high 11's at about 110 mph) after he asked me to make a few passes "to see what it would do".

His car had no trouble breaking the 11 second barrier. It ran high 10 second passes, up into the low 120 mph range. Until track officials made me stop... In those days, 11 seconds was the barrier under which cars needed a bunch of safety stuff, like a Lakewood bellhousing (on four speed cars), improved rear axles (Strange Engineering were actually specified), driveshaft hoop, roll bar, etc. His car, of course, being a dead stock street car, had none of that. So, we just put his street tires back on it, he ran it into the low 13's, and everyone was happy. But what a lesson as far as what suitable tires did for that car.

Not very much modified (restricted by NHRA rules), SS/A (manual) and SS/AA (automatic) cars were by that time running high 9 second passes up into the upper 130 mph range. These were Hemi Darts and Barracudas (early "A" bodied cars, not the later "E" bodied cars) along with the 428/429 Mustangs and 427 Cameros. Granted, all pretty limited production, but they were for sale to the general public, and were "street legal". The pointy end of the spear for sure, but they were manufactured, they did exist. And they really were pretty goddamned fast, even by today's standards.

[RANDY P]

Remember, after 50+ years of technology you better damn well hope you beat some musclecar. Also as mentioned tires have come a long long way. I'll be willing to bet some of the 60 GM stuff will easily crack 11's with modern rubber and a good driver.

You can talk all you want about modern exotics but back then musclecars were bread and butter affordable. Nowadays, if want to spend 6 figures BUYING something that might catch what some hillbilly built in a garage with a Summit catalog, go for it. It doesn't mean or prove a damn thing- except you had to buy it.


Muscle ain't dead, it just became extremely prohibitive (READ Barrett Jackson, collectors) to get the real stuff.

Muscle is just cooler than a ****ing EV- I don't care if it's 0-60 quicker. Sorry.

rjp

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by masraum

I did read your first post and responded to it. You said that the old muscle cars weren't actually "muscle" ran the ¼ in 14-16 secs and said it was slow.

My response was that compared to the contemporary non-muscle cars, they had lots of muscle and were very fast. And with a little tuning (tires, shocks, etc...) could be quite a bit faster.

Yes, modern cars are often as fast or faster. So what, that doesn't mean that they weren't fast in their time. And some of them are still fast with some tweaks, even if not the kings of speed that they once were.

It's as if he's never seen a 10 second early Chevy or something.

What the punk who was born last week also forgets a lot of those old cars still have old hardware and run way faster than 10s- Holley carbs and all. Same old vintage parts and prehistoric technology.

Point is: Old dog can learn new tricks.

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

FYI the V6 honda accord does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. 14.4 at 99mph

which is *faster* than the above reviewed mustang gt500KR

**SNORT**

[rcooled]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

Remember, after 50+ years of technology you better damn well hope you beat some musclecar.

You can talk all you want about modern exotics but back then musclecars were bread and butter affordable. Nowadays, if want to spend 6 figures BUYING something that might catch what some hillbilly built in a garage with a Summit catalog, go for it.

Too funny

Yes, it's all relative. Those cars were straight-line rockets compared to the more pedestrian fare available back then. It's like comparing a P-51 Mustang to an F-35 Lightening...one ruled the roost in it's day, but has been far surpassed by today's more modern tech.