Not again -- 12 Second Muscle Cars!

From a November 2004 Car Craft "Musclecar of the Month" feature on the

455 ci '68 Hurst/Olds, the following excerpt was quoted from an August 1968 Car Craft story on that same model:

"[T]he H/O [that Hurst employee Jack Watson] brought down was 'as delivered' with the exception of the addition of a set of Hooker headers and a pair of Goodyear seven-inch slicks....

"Eagerly I jumped into the H/O for my first run and, after a couple of burnouts to heat up the tires, pulled into the staging beams....Even after annihilating the tires off the line, we came up with a respectable 13.39 and 107.39 mph. Several more 13.30 runs were produced in quick succession....

"We allowed the brakes to cool for an hour [now THAT'S old school], then Watson climbed into the H/O to see what he could do. After easing it out of the gate and keeping the spin at a minimum, Watson ran a

13.08 and 107.88 mph. When he returned to the line and learned of his times, he immediately staged up for one final 'banzai' attempt on the quarter-mile. The 3,680-pound Cutlass lunged out of the gate like gangbusters and 12.97 seconds later tripped the finish line beam, while recording a top speed of 108.17. Not bad, not bad at all considering that the track was still damp."

180 Out TS 28

Reply to
180 Out
Loading thread data ...

And the point is..?

Reply to
CobraJet

CobraJet wrote

Number one, I thought it was a bitchen story, a 3,700 curb weight, bone stock 'cept for headers Olds running a 12 second 108 mph quarter.

Number two, I thought I'd bait NoOp Patrick into another round of, "Yeah but it was probably a ringer and it wasn't showroom stock and as a 1 of 515 a '68 H/O Cutlass wasn't a regular production model anyway," and all that kind of stuff. Newsgroup nostalgia I guess, where it only takes about 18 months for something that was in reality some kind of tedious pointless piss contest to turn into "the good old days."

Now you go. What is your point in asking what is my point, eh?

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

Whats your point in asking him what his point about asking you what your point was? Seems kinda pointless to me? ;)

I thought the story was pretty good actually. Thanks!

Erik D. '94 white lightning

Reply to
Erik D.

Nothing. If you want to dance around the same old sombrero with Patrick, that's your business. He holds old muscle in disdain. I was just here because somebody over there said someone over here was impersonating someone now over there, and I had to see what the deal was. I be gone now.

CobraJet

Reply to
CobraJet

Do you guys miss me, or what? And do you both really want to do this again?

Patrick

Reply to
Patrick

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

Hey, tongue in cheek, as always. As far as another round of 12 second muscle cars, not much point to that. I'll bet, though, that you didn't know that the H/O Cutlass was another candidate for 12-second status. I sure didn't.

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

I didn't. And I didn't realize an H/O Cutlass is 4 mph faster and 8 tenths quicker on the big end than the mighty 428 Cobra Jet Mustang (a CJ 'Stang that was factory prepped and deliveried without any sound deadening for the magazine press). Bet you didn't know that either.

Bottom line here. The Hurst folks aren't simply going to bolt on headers and slicks without going over the car a bit. With the header change, the carb is going to be rejetted, the timing was probably altered, the rear suspension tweaked a bit, some weight was probably pulled out, valve springs shimmed, heads worked, heat riser pulled, all sorts of racer tricks. Because allowing the car to post the normal 100-102 trap speed low 14-second timeslip surely would not have caused any sort of rush to buy an H/O Cutlass.

180,

Do you have a subscription to Hemming's Muscle Machines yet? If you haven't, get one. It's very enlightening. Even they admit the old iron wasn't as fast as some remember. Note: I'm talking about the examples that left the factory floor and driven on the street by regular Joes/Ricks.

Patrick

Reply to
Patrick

Exactly! That's why Patrick had a subscription in the mail for Hemmings' Muscle Machines the day after he bought his first issue (the magazine's third issue) off the newstand. (And why he just resubscribed for another 2 years.) He hates old muscle like the '69 SS Chevelle, the '71 Sport Fury GT, '73 Pantara and the '66 F-85 442 they have on the cover of their November '04 issue. He says they're all yucky.

Now this statement is the same old song and dance.

Patrick

Reply to
Patrick

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

I guess I could pick up a newsstand copy and take a look. If it's all about resto and trailer queens, I'm not very interested. Disdainful, even. Tell me something I don't already know.

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

180 Out,

First, let me tell you a one-year subscription to Muscle Machines magazine is only 12 bucks. At this price, it's an absolute steal! (I'd gladly pay 2-3 times that price.)

Here's what you get:

- Awesome pictures

- Excellent staff writers/articles

- Perfect mix of classic and modern muscle

- They do a LOT of articles on the rare odd-ball combinations.

- They feature cool stories about the good ol' days.

- They feature cars that are driven.

- They feature cars that have some modifications.

- They have dragstrip articles.

- They feature the cars from the 70's.

- They feature interviews with the legends of yesteryear, and interviews with the guys who will be legends tomorrow.

- They have news about the cars of tomorrow.

It is the car magazine I've waited for for 30 years. Get a copy, and then get a subscription, 180. You will not be disappointed. It's the best car magazine on the rack.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

OK, I'm sold. I'll see if I can subscribe on the web right now.

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

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.