> > > 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".
> > > A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.
> > 13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell
something
> too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
> > considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
> > Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids, shift
> > kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver. Hell,
> Stevie doesn't leave with a 40-lb flywheel turning 5000 rpm and
> shifting a 2950-lb car at 7800. Stevie admits to leaving his car in
> Drive to shift by itself. Night and Day.
Pure stock 289s don't turn 7,800 rpm. Pure stock cars don't leave the line at 5,000 and hook. We're talking factory stock; you're talking modified. Night and day. Your Mustang is irrelevant to this discussion.
> even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in the
> > 13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam, and
> > better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further. My
> > brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
> > because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
> > both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low > > 14-second car.
> > Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289
Mustang?
> For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at it.
> This car has been discussed in detail in this newsgroup. If your
> memory fails you, there's always Google.
You can sit here and play NG ping pong, but you don't have time to repost the details of this miraculous pure-stock Mustang that ran low
13's. THEN doesn't even post the trap speed as asked. You're clearly avoiding the questions...nice... how convenient.
> > > 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.
> > > The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie
stickshift
> > car from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
> > > headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.
> > And its trap speeds were?
> Like I took notice of them knowing that I'd have to inform you 20
> years later. Nitwit.
Oh, so now you don't even have the time slips. No time slips = no proof. Plus, the car wasn't factory stock, so it's irrelevent to this discussion.
> Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with
headers,
> slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.
> Evan's car was a unibody Fairlane, some 600 pounds lighter than the
> full-frame Galaxie. You really don't know much about this stuff, do
> you? And I'll bet you didn't figure that the Medium Riser heads and
> increased overlap cam on the '66 is worth 50-60 horsepower more than
> the 63's Low Riser setup.
Yeah, we're comparing it to the Galaxie you don't have time slips for, and wasn't factory stock. Again, your car is irrelevant to this discussion.
> "Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
> > REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't even
> > have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
> > _flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.
> > And before you get all pissy with me, ask the SEEverist what his old
> > 455 laid down.
> I don't have to get pissy. NHRA factored the CJ at 400 horsepower > from the get go.
400 gross advertised hp. Who cares? Its SAE net number would equal about the same number as the older quad-cam Cobras, about 305-320.
The Pure Stock rules would allow oversized valves,
> zero deck height, internal block massaging, adjustable rockers,
> non-stock cams with optimized cam phasing, twelve inch increase in
> displacement, loose piston clearance, lowered oil pump pressure, a
> switch to a wide ratio gearbox (works much better with broad torque
> engines), blueprinted automatic, and a host of other mods I can
> eventually think of.
> The fact is, it passed tech for the race like everyone else and > turned 12's.
Yes, according to their rules it ran 12's pure stock. But factory cars didn't come with oversized valves, zero deck height, internal block messaging, 12 inches of additional displacement and/or a blueprinting engine. And what is being discussed here is whether pure stock factory cars ran 12s, so THESE "pure stock" cars are irrelevant. Now the "pure stock" cars that ARE relevant to this discussion are the ones that are either [relatively] untouched originals, OR cars that have been restored back to as close to original specs as possible.
Are we clear?
> > > > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before
> > > > > my time anyway.
> > > > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.
> > > So what?
> > Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing the
> > whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it! Hey
> > CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread
talking
> about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag out
> > scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.
> As I mentioned elsewhere, old tests are for bench racers. This
> series is the here and now.
And it's a great series. I love it! But don't kid yourself into believing a '64 427 belted out anywhere near 516 horsepower when it left the factory.
> > This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
> > factory style Muscle Cars.
> > Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
> > Appearing, Stock Tired.
> Now you're getting into stroker cranks and way more room for
> refinement.
"Refinement" Would that be the same as "more efficient"? You're not trying to say you like your engines more efficient, are you? > > Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
> subpar example.
> > You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
> > factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial. I'd
> > say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.
> What's sad is you've forgotten how many of these cars I grew up
> with, and how many I raced. And back in the day, nothing stayed stock
> for more than few days.
You were a teenager in the 70s. The stuff you experienced were modded-up hand-me-downs. In other words, you didn't buy a '63 427 Galaxie off the showroom floor. And, apparently, you've never raced one on a drag strip before either or you'd have timeslips.
> > Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
> > > all Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
> > > undergeared at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in
> > > intermediates. The big Merc was the only one geared right with a stick.
> > > The Mach I, considering that stock converters are required for
> > > automatics, would probably be even faster with a manual.
> > All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires, and
> > they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.
> That's because you don't know Jack Shit about these engines. All the
> canted-valve Fords were designed for high-rpm use, and the street
> versions were severely undercammed.
First, maybe that's why they didn't run 12's in factory trim, huh? Second, adding tons of gear to a torquey RWD car that's running stock tires isn't a prescription for quicker e.t.s, it's a prescription for a fogbank.
I own and raced a 3.50-geared Cyclone Spoiler 4-speed. It was
undergeared for
the quarter. My friend had a 4V Cleve Torino stick car. He changed to 3.89's
> and still was undergeared. See, Patrick. First hand > experience. You never
> had it and you never will.
Experience doesn't come from driving your car with one hand and jacking off with the other. Experience doesn't come from racing a buddy, who SAYS his car runs 12s, and holding your own against his car through a gear or two on the street. Experience, in this discussion comes from a drag strip timeslip you can quote from. In that regard, CJ, apparently, you never had it and you never will.
> > My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and
> > > a mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch
wheels).
> > Bummer, huh?
> > Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the
[unlisted]
> mods you did to it?
> I'm being sarcistic, nitwit. The car had over 100k on the stock
> bottom end, lots of blowby, cut front springs with no weight
transfer,
no traction device, leather interior, power windows, all the A/C parts
> except the actual compressor, and 300 pounds of ballast in the trunk to
> keep the rear from skating under accel.
You missed it. The points were your car wasn't stock, and you didn't give the specs/details of how this now nearly 4,000 pound Cougar ran 12s, and, again, you didn't give us any timeslip information.
"Timeslip" you know... the little card that lists 60-foot and 1/4 mile times and trap speed? That's good info to have when you're claiming 12s!
> Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t. and
> > trap speed?
> Why bother? You'd just make up some more shit to dodge the facts.
> Did I mention my Fairlane Cobra stick car was faster? Did I mention my
> 455 4-4-2 was in the 12's? Did I mention my '70 Road Runner had
> 12-second time slips? Did I mention I still own all these cars? Did I
> mention that I have a better grasp of in-depth musclecar dynamics and
> combustion physics than you and 180 could ever accumulate in a
lifetime
of heated collaboration?
Why bother?! You haven't given us any facts than to SAY your cars have run 12s. It's all lip service. Hey, did I ever tell you every car I've ever owned ran 12s, and they all did it in pure-stock factory stock trim? Yep, no shit! My old '69 Super Bee, 12s. My '67 Impala, 12s. My '68 Comet, 12's. My '68 Dodge pickup,
12's. My '76 Dodge pickup, 12s. My old LX, 12s. My Cobra, 12s. My wife's Accord, 12s. Even my daughter's '83 LTD, 12s. Huh, do I have timeslips...? Oh, I don't have anytime slips. Nor, am I going to give you any details on my vehicles.
Pretty persuasive arguement, huh?
And what do you have? An outdated Mustang and a monkey on your back.
> Oh yeah, and the naivete to think nobody can see you're a hypocrite
> with an agenda steeped in ignorance.
Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to tell us how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling (10-12 different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st generation muscle cars ('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock factory trim.
And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they ran in factory trim."
That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck! Patrick '93 Cobra