12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway)

In the first free elections held since the conquest of AHPBBFM by the Coalition of the Willing to Swallow Anything, I was recently elected to serve that group as its very own White Tornado II, purveyor of unwelcome truths. No Sunnis are known to have voted, and the Kurds are muttering about secession, but I won fair and square -- unanimously, even -- and I intend to serve my full term.

As my first official act, I reported the following timeslips of actual, reputedly bone stock muscle cars, running head to head in the September

2004 Pure Stock Drags. I thought some in this ng might like this post too. And besides, NoOp Patrick has dared me to post some race results involving the old iron in this group, just to see what happens. Readers of Mustang & Fords magazine have already seen these, because M&F reported this event in its March 2005 issue. Because it was M&F, they reported only on the matchups involving Fords.

The winner of each of these best 2 out of 3 showdowns appears in the first column.

'70 SS 396 Chevelle vs. '71 Mach 1 429 SCJ

14.95 @ 92.83 vs. 14.952 @ 92.83 14.92 @ 92.61 vs. 15.010 @ 93.08

'72 Gran Torino Sport (351C-4v) vs. '72 Buick GSX (350-4v)

14.78 @ 97.87 vs. 14.71 @ 92.44 14.72 @ 98.00 vs. 14.73 @ 92.36 (Torino wins with a .575 RT) 14.63 @ 98.96 vs. 14.72 @ 92.83

'69 455 ci Hurst/Olds vs. '70 Cyclone 429 CJ

14.38 @ 96.11 vs. 14.19 @ 98.14 14.27 @ 96.13 vs. 14.35 @ 98.31 14.53 @ 95.98 vs. 14.29 @ 97.50 (Merc redlights and loses the 2 of 3)

'69 440 Cuda vs. '71 Mach 1 429 CJ

13.72 @ 99.21 vs. 14.14 @ 98.56 13.74 @ 99.16 vs. 14.05 @ 99.54 (Cuda loses on redlight) 13.82 @ 98.91 vs. 14.02 @ 100.07

'64 427/425 Mercury Marauder vs. '72 455 Buick GSX

13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.16 13.43 @ 106.96 vs. 13.48 @ 103.55 (Buick wins on .545 RT) 13.28 @ 107.50 vs. 13.49 @ 104.16 (Check those traps. This Merc weighed 4,367 lbs! For that matter, the Buick weighed 4,208.)

'70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ

12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39 (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)

If you want to see the class rules, here they are:

formatting link
. Also, ere is an Excelspread sheet with all the Sept '04 results:
formatting link
If you start from the home page,
formatting link
,you can see the results from other years too. Out 180 White Tornado 2 AHOBBFM Troll Level 3 Thundersnake 28

Reply to
one80out
Loading thread data ...

actual,

September

results

Readers

Too many details have been overlooked and obmitted for someone who wants us to believe that he knows what he is actually talking about.

Besides, how about a simple blanket comment, like, "I'm -truly- going to argue this ad nauseam", or, "I'm trying to prove beyond the shadow of a

doubt that I'm an insufferable, stat-crazed know-it-all who STILL MISSES THE DAMNED POINT with my snotty value judgments that I'm attempting to pass on as gospel"? And some free advice thrown in - quit taking yourself so damned seriously. Life is too short. My God, how much time are you actually going to spend on this endeavor? Why don't you RELAX and try to ENJOY yourself, and get out of your lawyer shoes at

12:30 am? I smell a litigator or CDA. Anyone else?

Patrick '93 Cobra

Reply to
NoOption5L

I smell flame-bait...

Now, for something topical: 2005 Ford Mustang named Canadian Car of the Year

Ford Canada Hopes Car Focus to Revive Market Share Wed February 16, 2005 By Amran Abocar

TORONTO (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. of Canada, which has seen its market share fall steadily in recent years, is counting on a renewed focus on passenger cars to stop the decline, company executives said on Wednesday.

Ford Canada's new president, Joe Hinrichs, said the company's focus for the rest of this year is to build on a solid sales gain in January with a slate of new vehicles it hopes will resonate with customers after what he termed a "challenging" 2004.

In Canada last year, Ford endured the biggest decline in market share among major automakers, losing 1.3 percentage points to 13.9 percent, according to figures compiled by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants. That is down from about an 18 percent share just five years ago.

Its overall vehicle sales tumbled by 11.7 percent last year from 2003, even though Ford's F-Series pickup is the best-selling truck in Canada.

Total auto sales in Canada retreated 3.7 percent last year.

"We really want to have our products speak for themselves and get our fair share of the market, sustain our fair share of the market," Hinrichs said in an interview at the Canadian International Auto Show in Toronto, which runs Feb. 18-27.

"If you look at our truck leadership and our SUV leadership, now with our new cars and our good sales that we had in January, we think we have the product to stop that market share erosion."

The automaker, which launched seven cars in Canada last year, is introducing four more this year, including the Ford Fusion, a mid-sized sedan aimed at taking on a market segment dominated by Japanese and South Korean automakers.

There's also the 2005 Ford Mustang, which was named Canadian Car of the Year earlier on Wednesday, the luxury pickup truck Lincoln Mark LT and the Lincoln Zephyr, a high-end mid-sized sedan targeted at younger buyers.

Ford credited the popularity of the 2005 Mustang for its 2 percent rise in sales in January.

The company employs about 14,000 people in Canada and had revenues of C$18.1 billion ($14.6 billion) last year. It announced recently its Oakville, Ontario, assembly plant would be transformed into a flexible manufacturing facility capable of making several different models.

But Hinrichs, who assumed the top job at Ford Canada on Jan 1., declined to elaborate on the outlook for Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario, plant, which produces the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis sedans. The Canadian Auto Workers union has said it will press for a new product commitment at St. Thomas in contract talks with the automaker later this year.

"We're not talking about St. Thomas at this point in time," Hinrichs said. "We're committed to the Crown Vic and the Grand Marquis being produced there for the future. Right now we're not talking about anything further."

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @

formatting link

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III

He is, or at least was, a lawyer. And he has gone over the deep end. However, you criticizing someone who lives and breathes road tests is the old ebony kitchen utensil diatribe.

Reply to
CobraJet

Grover,

99% of my reply to 180Out (who, BTW, was recently renamed Dust Devil I) was taken directly from flak he received about another topic he posted in the big-block newsgroup. I've just been giggling about it, and had to jab DDI again about it, because I found the wording SO close to the same flak I took in this newsgroup when I used to post about musclecar 1/4 mile times.

Patrick '93 Cobra

Reply to
NoOption5L

Haven't I read this before? Oh yeah, I wrote this before. =)

Give the the big bowl of water so I can publicly wash my hands of this mess...

Reply to
Wound Up

Thank you for that wise and caring critique. I've just dictated letters to all the attorneys I have bested over the years, disclosing all the lies I used to ruin their clients' lives. Now with the blood flowing from my wrists, I type my last words. Adieu, mes freres, adieu. (Hey, I didn't know I could speak French. Cool!)

Out no. 180 TS no. 28 Dust Devil no. 1 Troll Level no. 0.5

Reply to
one80out

Who's criticizing?! lol I'm just taking good-hearted jabs at him because the abuse he has taken is the same exact abuse I took, and some of the abuse is the same I took from him. How ironic is that?

As for his current profession, I really don't care... and I don't think it's any of our damn business.

And I don't see him as "gone over the deep end." Most of what he wrote, apparently, was true. What I found troubling was why his post wasn't simply "corrected", and why instead he was picked apart personally. The only thing I could figure is that the topic was politically incorrect for that NG, so the ol' smear campaign was deployed.

(Note to 180: I'm not trying to sidetrack your thread here. We'll get back to the 12-second musclecar debate soon, I promise.)

Patrick '93 Cobra

Reply to
NoOption5L

I write to you from "the other side," and I just want to tell you that all you guys that gave Chad Woodhams such a hard time in that "Jesus Christ" thread are in A LOT of trouble. Turns out he and Evangelist 2 were right about everything. However, since up here we all have to drive Priuses, drink Lite beer, and wear condoms EVERY DAMN TIME, you might not want to make it in after all.

This is really funny, but it turns out the "other place" got set up about 40 years ago as an EXACT c>> CobraJet wrote:

Aside from the fact that I do not live and breath anymore, I don't know what you're talking about.

About as ironic as a NG that pretends to reject political correctness showing itself -- repeatedly -- to be more dogmatic and humorless about departures from the party line than any Jesus freak could ever dream of. About as ironic as a NG that lectures one of the few members who actually drives an on topic car with any frequency about the intangible virtues of the old iron. About as ironic as a guy the vast bulk of whose knowledge comes from reading magazine articles, as opposed to hands-on experience, dismissing another poster's magazine-based information. About as ironic as a guy who imagines he possesses a little wisdom thinking he could actually have a friendly and open discussion on the Usenet, without it descending from the word go into smears, innuendos, and name-calling. About as ironic as seeing the same guy who once spent about two weeks arguing with NoOp Patrick that his mind is closed to the possibility of 12 second '60's stock musclecars, being accused of having closed his mind to the goodness of '60's stock musclecars. About as ironic as . . . well you get the idea.

Catch ya later, it's choir practice time.

180 Out
Reply to
one80out

I hate when people plagerize and use it as their own. Show your sources you pathetic wannabe.

180 Out
Reply to
one80out

Reply to
Wound Up

Talking about irony... intentional in this case, but I will point it out anyway. You just plagiarized Bill flaming you!

...ON 2/11/05 at PRECISELY 5:36am in the BB GROUP =)...

Reply to
Wound Up

actual,

September

results

Readers

Okay you lying piece of shit lawyer ;-), lets talk about these numbers.

Both cars' trap speeds seem a bit low.

I'm surprised a '72 Torino with a 351C would be that fast. The Buick's numbers seem to be right on the number.

The numbers here are pretty close. The Olds is getting a pretty good hook with the 14.27 with only a 96 mph trap. I'd guess and say a 2.0

60-foot.

A 440 'Cuda should be able to get a high trap. A 102-103 is more in line.

The GSX's numbers are believeable. Now the Merc...? Do me a favor, DDI, do the math on 4,300 and a 107 mph trap. What HP number rings up?

Same thing with these two. What HP numbers ring up?

One thing I noticed skimming the rules, blueprinting is allowed, and modern cams can be used. I'll read the rules more closly later.

Slightly different topic. It says stocker-type tires, right? 109 mph and 12.69 is a pretty awesome hook! Do we have to argue anymore about these cars being traction limited?

(NOTE: Disclaimer -- my e.t comments are without knowing the gear ratios, transmissions, ect.)

Patrick '93 Cobra

Oh, I'll pick up this mag this weekend.

formatting link
. If you start from the home page,
formatting link
,> you can see the results from other years too.>

Reply to
NoOption5L

No, really? I didn't see the turnip truck you fell out of on your way into town, but now I'm sure you landed on your head and got flattened by the next three in line. Your cluelessness is actually kinda scary, you know that?

Out the 180th Thunder Snake the [4]28th Troll Level the 3rd, or the .5th, depending on who you ask White Tornado the 2nd Dust Devil the 1st

Reply to
one80out

According to the standard guesstimators, rwhp =3D weight * (speed /

234)^3, and fwhp =3D rwhp/0.80. So 4330 lbs at 107 mph =3D 413 rwhp, 516 fwhp. That's what I'm talkin' about. Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to think about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master cylinder.
442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a 506 hp 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for blueprinted and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these two engines.

But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before my time anyway.

180 Out
Reply to
one80out

No, from the beginning AHPBBFM intentionally espoused a narrow focus to keep it from becoming a circus like this group tends to be. It is not a democracy, and departures from the party line are not appreciated.

If driving your Cougar made you some kind of elitist asshole, then you should have been flogged to death for your disrespect for the group's rules.

Just goes to show you that printed material can vary in scope and accuracy. Get over it.

What, did you just arrive here yesterday? You stoked the fire pretty damn well on your own.

Well, you go into the group that you are theoretically supposed to contribute meaningful info to (once in a blue moon) with a chip on your shoulder about the current boom in Shelby prices, calling them rice and shit, and you think nobody's going to react? That IS Troll crap, Bill.

Usenet is full of BS. That's humanity. If you don't like the part line there, then stay out.

I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.

Reply to
CobraJet

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah, oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out
Reply to
one80out

The drums used on those cars are huge and, if power assisted, will put many discs to shame. I have this setup on my '63 wagon with metallic shoes. No need for disc.

The text, counselor, mentioned a dyno best of 471 at 5600 rpm, However, anybody familiar with 427-8V's know their real peak is closer to 7000 rpm. It has to be pulling up high to turn 108 with 4.57 gears. The Low Riser heads are what the Cobra Jets were derived from, and the intake and exhaust flow better that the later 428's. Oh yeah, let's not forget the solid lifter cam.

Reply to
CobraJet

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah, oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out
Reply to
one80out

Sigh, Welcome to my kill file.

Reply to
Mark C.

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.