where timeslip GT500

Where can I find info on stock numbers for the classic cars like 69 shelby GT500 and the like. 0-60. 1/4 mile. etc.? Just curious.
Thanks,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
faust snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Jack Napier) wrote in message

Jack,
I could give you a BUNCH, but for some unknown reason it always gets ugly in here whenever I quote old magazine road test numbers. Tell you what... start a new thread and title it something like "Nude Janet Reno Pics" and ask me for the cars and numbers you want to see and I'll post 'em.
Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I'll bitch because I hurled my breakfast after reading the subject:)
PS: The only stock 60's car to run 12's right out of the box is a Vette. I'll look for my flame suit and helmet:) No starters, Geneva Convention rules, rusty camshafts ONLY!
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

That's pretty dramatic. Here's a re-post of something I posted on 3-3-04. It includes a few GT500's. Suffice to say they're pretty pathetic.
*************************************************************************
Here's a table I put together to compare some classic muscle cars with some late models. The oldies are from three of those Brooklands Portfolio books -- compilations of road tests from old magazines. The three books I own cover Cougars, Shelby Mustangs, and Barracudas. That's why the table is heavy with those models. The late models -- BMW M3, BMW 330i, Pontiac GTO, Subaru WRX STi, and Honda Accord -- are from web sites.
Now sure, the old road tests don't include the biggest and the baddest -- the hemis, the 440-6v's, Buick Stage I's, Chevelle LS6's, etc. But they include a '67 tri-power Vette, a '69 440 Cuda, and several 428 Mustangs. These ain't chopped liver.
The columns are like this:
1/4 mile--model--trans--c.i.d./hp--weight calculated rwhp/fwhp--magazine source
13.1 @105--'03 BMW M3 Cpe-6spd--198/333--3523 318/397--03/03 CD
13.2 @105--'04 WRX STi----6spd--155/300--3265 295/369--06/03 MT
13.6 @105--'04 Pontiac GTO6spd--346/350--3725 337/420--01/04 MT
13.8 @104--'67 Corvette---4spd--427/435--3340 293/366--08/67 MT
13.9 @101--'69 Cougar SCJ-auto--428/335--3880 311/390--xx/69 SC
14.0 @104--'69 440 'Cuda--auto--440/375--3740 328/410--06/69 CL
14.0 @102--'66 GT-350-S---4spd--289/390--3360 278/347--07/66 MT
14.3 @100--'70 AAR 'Cuda--4spd--340/290--3585 280/350--07/70 CD
14.3 @ 92--'67 GT-500-----4spd--428/355--3576 217/272--03/67 SG
14.4 @ 99--'70 'Cuda 383--auto--383/335--3555 269/337--06/70 RT
14.5 @101--'67 GT-500-----4spd--428/355--3360 270/337--08/67 MT
14.5 @ 98--'03 Accord Cpe-6spd--183/240--3265 240/300--xx/03 MT
14.6 @100--'68 GT-500KR---4spd--428/335--3445 269/337--12/91 CA
14.8 @ 96--'68 Charger RT-auto--440/375--4035 279/348--12/91 CA
14.8 @ 96--'69 BossCougar-4spd--302/290--3618 250/312--04/70 CL
14.9 @ 97--'69 Barracuda--4spd--340/275--3650 260/324--11/68 CL
14.9 @ 95--'65 GT-350-----4spd--289/306--3030 202/253--05/65 CD
15.0 @ 95--'67 GT-500-----auto--428/355--3825 259/320--02/67 CD
15.1 @ 94--'67 Cougar GT--auto--390/320--3920 254/318--07/67 CL 15.1 @ 94--'68 Cougar GTE-auto--427/390--3982 258/323--11/67 CL
15.3 @ 97--'03 BMW 330i 4-6spd--182/235--3370 240/300--06/03 CD
16.1 @ 87--'65 Barracuda--4spd--273/235--3170 162/202--01/65 MT
16.9 @ 87--'67 Camaro-----4spd--327/275--3240 166/208--03/67 RT
17.4 @ 84--'67 Mustang----4spd--289/225--2980 138/172--03/67 RT To calculate the rwhp (or fwhp or all-whp) I used the formula hp weight * (speed / 234)^3. Fwhp = rwhp/0.80.
The weight was problematic. Some of the weights are "as-tested," while some are "curb weight." As-tested would equal curb weight plus driver plus gas @ 7 lbs./gallon. The lower the weight, the lower the calculated hp. So if a weight number seems bogus to you, just add 250 lbs. and do the calc yourself, fwhp = (weight * (speed/234)^3)/0.80.
For that matter, dig up your own road tests and add them to the thread. I would have put more late models in, but I got bored. I know NoOp Patrick is into this stuff. Anyone else?
Here's the key for the magazine abbreviations:
CA = Classic American CD = Car & Driver CL = Car Life MT = Motor Trend SC = Supercars (an annual?) SG = Sports Car Graphic RT = Road & Track
180 Out TS 28
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Patrick) wrote

The big difference is tires. Put decent tires on some of these old cars and they could run. Can you imagine a car that could spin the tires in third and fourth gear? The old HP stuff could. I had a car that would slip the rear tires in fourth gear at a hundred MPH just by letting off the throttle abruptly.
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's hard to explain this to people with no frame of reference at all. There was simply no way you could leave on a big-inch motor at anything more than half throttle, if that. Even with bigger soft compound tires, I could leave 3 or 4 *hundred* feet of rubber in first.
The sad thing, and the reason things get ugly in here as Patrick said, is that people take these old numbers as gospel without realizing the huge drop in ET from headers and traction. Or, they don't know that some of the cars were tested with A/C and the (mandatory) 3.00 gears it came with, good for slowing anything down by more than a second. Once again, *smart* guys look at the Stock Eliminator times of the day to get a better perspective.
To the original poster: are you building something?
CobraJet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not building anything. the 69 GT500 is my favorite classic mustang and just wondered how those and similar packaged cars stacked up. according to prev post, if a 69 428SCJ only ran 13.9, was the HP number the only object? or possibly the focus was on performance in distance racing and not drag racing.
BTW, no one replied to my 9" question. A freind told me my old 9" rear complete with brake drums used would be worth about $200-$300. Sound fair?
(Patrick) wrote

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.