Fastest Muscle cars.....list
 

neat link

we sit at #2

http://www.speedfreaksspeedshop.com/en-us/dept_231.html

I like that we beat out a 70 426 hemi cuda, an SS454 70 chevelle and the 66 427 Vette. All old favorites. All much heavier too.

Tim

What I find interesting is that it took over 30 years for someone to break the Cobra 427 record!

Ernie

What a greet freeking list! ;)

Adjusted for inflation "PUN INTENDED", I would love to see the differences between the number 1 Viper and #2 Cobra , if we were to equip the Cobra with todays tire sizes and technology and the Viper with the tires that 66 Cobra ran with.

TURK
We are STILL number one.!!

Viper with the 1966 tires??? HA!! It would be lucky to run in the 13's.

Good point! Looks like you had quite a party with the help working on your car, by the way!

Ernie

Cool list! 30 years of technology and 0.15 seconds improvement...
And...just a little detail, shouldn't this be a list of the quickest (instead of fastest) muscle cars? The Cobra is still the fastest in the quarter mile on this list, just not the quickest (yeah, I know, quick wins drag races).

Where is the '03 SVT Cobra? Motor Trend recently compared this with a 'Vette ZO6, and in the 1/4 mi., actually edged the 'Vette by 1/100, something like 12.82 vs. 12.83. You also save $20K! Also, Mr.0077 picked up on the trap speed. Put some sticky tires on that Cobra, and kiss the Viper goodbye!:3DSMILE: (I'm sure the Viper being tested by a MOPAR magazine had nothing to do with it....:rolleyes: )

I have seen the 1997 Shelby 427 S/C Cobra listed in "Motor Trend" magazine at a 11.8 1/4 mile. I would say that would put the Cobra back to number one!

We'll never know "for sure". The magazines in the 60's used stop watches a lot of the time. The various methods employed were anything but "consistent" in how the tests were run. No doubt "favoritism" was also a factor. I take all the numbers in car mags of the mid 60's era with a grain of salt.

.....so you KNOW the Cobra really ran in the 11's and the "magazine" was just being kind to GM........ha ha

Ernie

You are right Ernie. The 60's magazines were cheeters. They would take off air cleaners and fan belts,get a ringer with better timing. Then they would say how fast they were. That's full of S***. Bone stock muscle cars couldn't even get into the 13's, I know, I spent alot of time at the saturday king of the hill drags. My old 750 Honda motorcycle was the fastest street vehicle there at 12.6 ET. With open headers and slicks a 440 cuda just barely beat me. There were faster race cars, only a few street cars ever saw a 13 second time slip.The new muscle cars are much faster in general.
Perry.:cool:

Nothing's ever apples and apples. Too many variables! Have you ever read the article in Hot Rod, tittled: "Caddy Hack"?

Hey High Plains, you mustve been racing in the snail league back then or werent firin on all "8". Although the majority of 60's muscle cars ran in the 13-14sec range stock, most would respond well to minor tweaks, some simple bolt on parts and with good traction would drop into the 12's and for alot less money than today.

HEY GUYS. You have not been watch the pure stock pure street on the tires the car came from the factory with. They have ZL1 cameros in the low 11's on 8" tires bias belted, no radials. A buick stage 1 won last year with 12.0's. The rules are very limited to what you can do to the car. The new trick is running the Mcloed soft-loc clutches in these cars. It's been on Hot Rod TV. Rick Lake

The pure stock cars are fully gone through blueprinted to the max.It's a tribute to their time and detail to get that much out of them. You couldn't afford to pay a shop to spend that much time on them. I was talking about the average muscle car that needed a new set plugs every 2,000 miles and a set of points every 5,000 miles or it wouldn't run.
Everyone is spoiled now with the new cars that don't need tune ups. Nothing has changed , a new 750 motorcycle will turn 10 flat out of the box and still is the fastest street vehicle at the saturday night drags. Yes I was in the snail racing leaque, don't you know that you NEVER let them see how fast you really are, you only go fast enough to beat them.
Perry.:D

I'm impressed with number 30. A little V6 with a great big turbo. That GNX isn't light either. It's hard to beat turbo technology.

Paul

Well, being one of the old Farts who had a Muscle car back then, i have an opionion on their speed and power. In '69, bought a new 440 engined Dodge Charger R/T. Moved up from an MGB for that one. I still think they were about the most handsome muscle car of all, although i liked the 65 GTO too. Many of my friends had Super Duty 421's, Judges, 442's, W 31 Olds, etc.

They had a lot of torque, i could spin my tires at will with the Torqueflight. Had loads of fun with it in Germany on the Autobahn, as long as i did not have to use the brakes to stop the car.

But i agree "off the floor" they were not really all that fast in the quarter mile. They felt fast, but that was because everything else was so relatively slow. My "fast" TR-4 was 10 sec in the 0-60 sprint, and it was plenty fast. It would go all of 101 mph on the interstate, too. Which was good, as my MGB would only do 98 mph, flat out in Nebraska.

The magazine test cars were usually cheaters, the Car and Driver GTO had a 421 motor in it. The Famous 4.2 seconds to sixty in the Big Poncho was not timed. The magazine said they had to way to actually measure such a speed/time, they just put a french curve on the start and quarter mile, and drew a line which put it at 4.2 seconds. Typical 0-60 times were low 7's.

But when your dad's car took 13 seconds, it felt plenty fast. They also got about 8-9 mpg, too.

By the way, the 426 Hemi was a $770 option on my Charger. The car cost me $3275, so the engine upgrade was about a quarter of the cost of the car. Like buying a Lingenfelter Corvette. Of course, making $330 a month as a 2nd Lt. kept me from spending about two months pay just for a Hemi.

God Bless, and thanks to our military for their heroism and valor.

Ah, but they were good times, indeed.

That is an EXCELLENT point about "pure stock" in a racing environment. The same basic rule applies in road racing also. So WHAT is a "pure stock" engine in that world??

Not allowed any machine work, PURE specs. So you find out where a HUGE supply of intake valves are, pull up a chair and start measuring!!! Your looking through the boxes of valves for the few that are "perfect". Same for all the internal engine parts. Not all pistons are "created equal". Each piece of wieghed, can you say "engine balanced"? Make no mistake, in the "big leagues" "pure stock" takes on a whole new meaning.

The "big dogs" have the "connections" that get them access to the "box's" of engine parts to search through. Without the connections, you haven't got a chance!

As Hal states, Speed is a relative term. Even by todays standards a "really" pure stock car off the showroom floor and hit the track with it, that can run 14's in the 1/4 is a FAST car!

I think it was Car and Driver in 65 that clocked a "stock" GTO to 100 mph in 11 seconds. Right,,,,,,and I got a bridge I'd like to sell you! LOL

Ernie

Hal
 

I have Car & Driver July 1980. The did a history of 0-60 times and published the winner at that time and the car to try and beat was none other than the 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 at 3.9 seconds. Next best was the 289 Cobra at 4.4.. The GTO tri-power followed at 4.6.
--I didn't write it and find it hard to believe.
But, it's in the book!!:confused:

Could be,,,,but by 1980 I would guess they were less than show room stock. Those were the days for Pontiac, those boys WERE kicking a$$ and taking names and they started a revolution.

My Dad bought a used Bonneville "back in the day" when us kids were running around in Stangs and Cudas and such. He soundly beat us all, much to our dismay!

Ernie

EX
 

The test was a re-print result from 1965 not a 1980's test which makes it harder to believe but nonetheless in Car & Driver.
Maybe Delorean slipped the guy with the clock....a Mickey%/