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

one80out · 2005-02-18T05:17:18+00:00

In the first free elections held since the conquest of AHPBBFM by theCoalition of the Willing to Swallow Anything, I was recently elected toserve that group as its very own White Tornado II, purveyor ofunwelcome truths. No Sunnis are known to have voted, and the Kurds aremuttering 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 September2004 Pure Stock Drags. I thought some in this ng might like this posttoo. And besides, NoOp Patrick has dared me to post some race resultsinvolving the old iron in this group, just to see what happens. Readersof Mustang & Fords magazine have already seen these, because M&Freported this event in its March 2005 issue. Because it was M&F, theyreported only on the matchups involving Fords.The winner of each of these best 2 out of 3 showdowns appears in thefirst column.'70 SS 396 Chevelle vs. '71 Mach 1 429 SCJ14.95 @ 92.83 vs. 14.952 @ 92.8314.92 @ 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 @ 92.4414.72 @ 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 CJ14.38 @ 96.11 vs. 14.19 @ 98.1414.27 @ 96.13 vs. 14.35 @ 98.3114.53 @ 95.98 vs. 14.29 @ 97.50 (Merc redlights and loses the 2 of 3)'69 440 Cuda vs. '71 Mach 1 429 CJ13.72 @ 99.21 vs. 14.14 @ 98.5613.74 @ 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 GSX13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.1613.43 @ 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, theBuick weighed 4,208.)'70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.1212.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39(This time it was a...

Feb 18, 2005 29 Replies

Rate this thread:

NoOption5L 21 years ago

In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally original

1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register a best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change". The numbers of which are not too different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody) prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a 4-speed, weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test. The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were mounted on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2 with a 105 mph trap.

"Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly faster than their peers, you know something is up.

Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.

Patrick '93 Cobra

Vote

RichA 21 years ago

What's so great about big blocks running 14s when sub-300cu in motors in stock, pollution controlled vehicles can do it faster today? Musclecars from back when are best savoured for their classic lines rather than their lackluster muscle.

-Rich

Vote

Jafo 21 years ago

Considering that: "At the 1964 Nationals, Don Garlits, in his Dodge powered "Wynns Jammer" took the Top Fuel Eliminator win and set low e.t. of the event in a final run effort of 7.67 @198.22 m.p.h.! Althought the car looks amazingly short by today's standards, Garlits' car was state-of-the-art for 1964."

Put into perspective they were fast for the time.

Vote

NoOption5L 21 years ago

state-of-the-art

Jafo,

Yes they were. But time/technology marches on. Now if a nitro-powered dragster ran those numbers everyone would think it broke something going down the line.

Patrick '93 Cobra

Vote

NoOption5L 21 years ago

Actually, it was Bill S' touched up and your rant together. I used them only because the replys 180 was getting were SO similiar to the ones I used to get. (I was teasing 180 with it.) And it looks like the ones I'll soon be getting from CJ, again.

Confused? Stick around a while and it'll all become clearer...

Patrick '93 Cobra

Vote

Wound Up 21 years ago

If, once again, you had done more than merely skim my post for cutesy retort material, and had a sense of humor to go along with all your meaningless bullshit and endless conjecture, I did acknowledge the fact it was obvious YOU would know.

You would also have realized, if you had a clue yourself, that I was just making sure the rest of the NG got YOUR (somewhat) clever joke. You also would have seen the little emoticon that was intended to indicate "good-natured sarcasm".

What was it that Mark Twain said regarding lies and statistics? I'm quite sure you'd know.

Vote

one80out 21 years ago

Ohhhh, now I get it. Too subtle for me, I guess.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the NG. 90% don't even read these old car threads anyway, and the 10% that do, they're probably better off if they don't get my little jokes.

180 Out

Vote

dwight 21 years ago

I read 'em. Don't understand 'em, but I read 'em.

dwight

Vote

Wound Up 21 years ago

No, I don't think so. I think you just shot from the hip.

I'd guess Kate, Mike, WF and a number of other regulars read them, too. And, it was just over the threshold of "worth pointing out" ; )

Vote

CobraJet 21 years ago

What don't you understand?

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required