Two Dodges don't make a right.

[2010 SSRS]

the parking spot police are happy with this picture, lol

[gajagfan]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I love digging into my reference

2012 Camaro ZL1 12.0 sec @ 119 mph (SuperChevy.com http://www.superchevy.com/features/c...12_zl1_camaro/)

1969 Camaro COPO, ZL-1 (427) 12.76 sec @ 107 mph (Muscle Car Review, 1987, presumably on drag tires. Classic Auto Restorer reviewed one in August 1994 [Vol 6, #2] that ran 13.16 sec @ 110 mph)
1970 Buick GS455 Stage 1 13.38 sec @ 105.5 mph (Motor Trend, 1970)
1963 Doge Ramcharger 426 12.00 sec @ 117 mph (Muscle Car Review, 1987)
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T (426) 13.62 sec @ 104 mph (Car Craft, 1969)
1964 Fairlane Thunderbolt 427 11.76 sec @ 122.78 ph (Butch Leal, 1964 NHRA Nationals)
1970 Mercury Cyclone (428CJ) 13.94 sec @ 100.89 mph (Car and Driver, 1969)
1968 Hurst/Olds 442 (Olds 455) 12.97 sec @ 108.167 mph (Car Craft, date not cited)
1963 Plymouth 426 Wedge 12.69 sec @ 111.97 mph (Hot Rod, January 1963)
1966 Plymouth satellite 'Street Hemi' (426) 13.8 sec @ 104 mph (Car and Driver, April 1966)
1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda (426) 13.70 sec @ 101.2 mph (Motor Trend September 1969)
1971 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (455) 13.90 sec @ 104.6 mph (Car and Driver, 1972)

Unless those V6 models are dipping into the upper 13s (and lower 13s too), stock, then they aren't faster than many muscle cars from back in the day. And for some of the cream of the crop, well, a '63 Dodge in street trim could do a sub-13 second 1/4 mile...if you knew which boxes to check off

When we think of 'muscle cars' today, we forget that if you bought the right one, you were going very, very fast. What's really cool is that today, my 2012 1SS with a 376 is 426 bhp, while the very exotic aluminum block 427 in the '69 COPO made 430 bhp. The depressing thing is I carry over 9lbs per bhp, while the '69 has just over 7 lbs per bhp. Something tells me that COPO wasn't hooking when they tested it in 1994.

I am so glad you posted this research. There is no way I would claim that our 1969 BBC Camaro is any where near the car that our 2013 1LE is, but to say that is would not be considered fast next to the V6 version is a bit of s stretch. Thanks again for taking the time.

[Swarm]

all v6 sadly

[ZL1 Spoked]

Originally Posted by omgitsmikeyC

Three muscle cars, and not one a V-8. Yet every single one is faster than the V-8 cars they pay tribute to.... And that charger has an autobot sticker on it's fender near the marker light.

I don't think a v6 is any type of muscle car though.

[aggieguy13]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I love digging into my reference

2012 Camaro ZL1 12.0 sec @ 119 mph (SuperChevy.com http://www.superchevy.com/features/c...12_zl1_camaro/)

1969 Camaro COPO, ZL-1 (427) 12.76 sec @ 107 mph (Muscle Car Review, 1987, presumably on drag tires. Classic Auto Restorer reviewed one in August 1994 [Vol 6, #2] that ran 13.16 sec @ 110 mph)
1970 Buick GS455 Stage 1 13.38 sec @ 105.5 mph (Motor Trend, 1970)
1963 Doge Ramcharger 426 12.00 sec @ 117 mph (Muscle Car Review, 1987)
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T (426) 13.62 sec @ 104 mph (Car Craft, 1969)
1964 Fairlane Thunderbolt 427 11.76 sec @ 122.78 ph (Butch Leal, 1964 NHRA Nationals)
1970 Mercury Cyclone (428CJ) 13.94 sec @ 100.89 mph (Car and Driver, 1969)
1968 Hurst/Olds 442 (Olds 455) 12.97 sec @ 108.167 mph (Car Craft, date not cited)
1963 Plymouth 426 Wedge 12.69 sec @ 111.97 mph (Hot Rod, January 1963)
1966 Plymouth satellite 'Street Hemi' (426) 13.8 sec @ 104 mph (Car and Driver, April 1966)
1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda (426) 13.70 sec @ 101.2 mph (Motor Trend September 1969)
1971 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (455) 13.90 sec @ 104.6 mph (Car and Driver, 1972)

Unless those V6 models are dipping into the upper 13s (and lower 13s too), stock, then they aren't faster than many muscle cars from back in the day. And for some of the cream of the crop, well, a '63 Dodge in street trim could do a sub-13 second 1/4 mile...if you knew which boxes to check off

When we think of 'muscle cars' today, we forget that if you bought the right one, you were going very, very fast. What's really cool is that today, my 2012 1SS with a 376 is 426 bhp, while the very exotic aluminum block 427 in the '69 COPO made 430 bhp. The depressing thing is I carry over 9lbs per bhp, while the '69 has just over 7 lbs per bhp. Something tells me that COPO wasn't hooking when they tested it in 1994.

i feel like he meant it a different way/backwards when he said that.
cuz theres no way in hell someones actually stupid enough to think same car with 25% less. will be faster. sounds like a honda owner.

[FRSTR90]

FWIW, last year at the Pure Stock Drags 2 '69 COPO ZL1 Spec'd Camaros ran 11.63 @ 119.84 and the other 11.69 @ 119.14. Keep in mind, these guys are running stock iron exhaust manifolds and tires must be OEM in size. Also, another side note is that the 430HP rating was giving to the first design L88. Not to mention it was measured about around 4500RPMs. The second design L88 ran a hotter cam and open chamber heads. The ZL1 was an all aluminum version of the 2nd design L88.

The most commonly accepted HP figure for the original L88 is anywhere between 560-580 HP. Some even claim the ZL1 was approaching 600HP. Keep in mind, those figures are with headers, not exhaust manifolds. For those cars to be running those times is still pretty impressive.

Also, why the hate on the V6? They are still a great car!

[aggieguy13]

not hating. my first car was an 01 V6 maro. just after having SS you realize what a better choice it is.

[FRSTR90]

Originally Posted by aggieguy13

not hating. my first car was an 01 V6 maro. just after having SS you realize what a better choice it is.

I wasn't calling you out in particular. There were just several people that posted negative comments about the V6. I test drove a 2011 V6 A6 that belonged to a buddy of mine, and I was quite impressed with the pep that thing had. Some V6 owners get offended when V8 owners talk their car down because of their engine. Just wanted to say something to keep the bashing to a minimum.

[aggieguy13]

My parents bought my '01 V6 for me.

didnt make enough noise for me. not quite enough power. but like you said is a Peppy car.

had 172k miles when i wrecked it. then bought myself a 02' SLP mod 35th aniversary. ( vroom vroom)

now i have my new baby '13 SS/RS 1LE. Only regret is no HUD

[snymat68]

Originally Posted by aggieguy13

not hating. my first car was an 01 V6 maro. just after having SS you realize what a better choice it is.

I'm happy with the V6 for now, but I definitely see myself in a V8 one day (hopefully 1LE). I'm only 26 and drove nothing but old Subaru's and my '72 VW Beetle until I got my Camaro 4 months ago, right before I got married. Loving every minute of it (the marriage thing isn't bad either ). The Camaro is leaps and bounds above what I used to drive, so how can I complain?

[Jonzmaro]

This is more like it:

1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS-350 15.4 Motor Trend

I have driven the 67, in stock form, as well as a 71-72 Z/28 (LT1) (both 4-speeds) and I am 110% sure that my M6 - 2013 LFX would beat both......handily in a 1/4 mile. I also owned a 71 Challenger, 72 Camaro, 73 Camaro, 78 Trans Am, 91-93 5.0 Fox-Body Mustangs (all standard transmissions), and in stock form..........ALL would be seeing the tail lights of the LFX in a drag.

Not a V6 fanatic by no means, but I think this car certainly qualifies as a "muscle car", and certainly when compared to the "vintage" cars we are referring to. The tough pill, is that a Honda Accord V6, and a Camry......also trounce many of the old muscle. V6's are just no longer the weak alternative they used to be,....not by a long shot. The LFX is really a marvel of an engine, by all standards. The LS motors are great as well, but I think are in need of some refinement if they wish to stay competitive. I also owned a 2011 5.0 GT.......in my opinion, that motor was in the "marvel" category as well. (esp considering the displacement) The M6 tranny.......ugh.....a total nightmare. That's why it is gone.

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Jonzmaro

This is more like it:

1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS-350 15.4 Motor Trend

I have driven the 67, in stock form, as well as a 71-72 Z/28 (LT1) (both 4-speeds) and I am 110% sure that my M6 - 2013 LFX would beat both......handily in a 1/4 mile. I also owned a 71 Challenger, 72 Camaro, 73 Camaro, 78 Trans Am, 91-93 5.0 Fox-Body Mustangs (all standard transmissions), and in stock form..........ALL would be seeing the tail lights of the LFX in a drag.

Not a V6 fanatic by no means, but I think this car certainly qualifies as a "muscle car", and certainly when compared to the "vintage" cars we are referring to. The tough pill, is that a Honda Accord V6, and a Camry......also trounce many of the old muscle. V6's are just no longer the weak alternative they used to be,....not by a long shot. The LFX is really a marvel of an engine, by all standards. The LS motors are great as well, but I think are in need of some refinement if they wish to stay competitive. I also owned a 2011 5.0 GT.......in my opinion, that motor was in the "marvel" category as well. (esp considering the displacement) The M6 tranny.......ugh.....a total nightmare. That's why it is gone.

Car and Driver returned an even worse et in November 1966, for the 1967 Camaro 350:

16.1 sec @ 86.5 mph.

The car was what used to be called a 'stone': Muscle cars that weren't really fast, and got beaten routinely by stripped down Roadrunners and Biscaynes, and the other 'real' fast cars like Ramchargers, etc. Cars like Superbirds, AAR 'Cudas, GT500s...they weren't supposed to be drag race champs but they are the most memorable ones so maybe they have become a 'standard'.

Bear in mind, the stock '67 Camaro SS350 was nobody's idea of a champion drag racing car. It was a cool car with a V8 that had the looks and the sounds, and 16 sec 1/4s would certainly beat 50% of the shallow end of the muscle car gene pool some of the time, especially in a manual trans of the day, and doubly so with a starry-eyed boy racer at the wheel. The Z/28 was never intended to be a drag king. In fact, most of the muslce cars people generally have any experience with are from that shallow end of the gene pool. Just like today, except today we forget there was a deep end of the pool at all. And we also forget that the tires of 1970 were bias-ply, skinny banana skins and that the tires on a sedan today are as good or better than road-racing tires of 1970. Ever drive a Fiberglass-belt tired car? They develop flat spots over night that smooth out as the tire warms up in use!

None of your examples of cars that you have owned, unfortunately, were in the top 50% of the performance spectrum for the genre. And they were manuals too, not the classic choice for a drag race.

Today people scoff at the old muscle. Many of them might point out a V6 Camry, new today would beat a muslce car. Which begs the question: a new Camry V6 does a 13.38 second quarter mile? Best I see from a 2012 (can't find 2013 stats) is a 14.1 second et, stock. Quick, but not shockingly quick.

That makes the 2012 Camry V6 on par with ets that would qualify a car as a fairly good et car in 1970. But it is the shallow end of the gene pool. The real bitter pill here is that new V6 sedans still can't touch the cream of the crop from 1963, as far as ets go. Not when they can't beat the high-average cars on slippery tires like a '70 GS455 Stage 1 in a drag race.

With over 300 bhp, the new Camaro V6 gets up and goes, no question. But look out for those old ugly boxy Chryslers. 426 Wedge or Hemi, it won't matter.

[Jonzmaro]

Chris,

Awesome post, some great info., and I agree 100%. I do not consider any of the cars I owned to be creme of the MC crop, but as you know, all are coveted today, and would easily be dumped into the genre for nostalgia-sake alone.

They all looked tough, sounded tough, and if I was driving....I could scare any passenger!...lol

In that regard, despite the v6, I could say the same for the 13' Camaro. (doesn't quite sound as tough as my old solid lifter 8's, but not too bad at partial throttle).

My overall point was: I do believe that what could technically qualify a car as being "muscular", could be of course how it looks, and perhaps if it performs within a certain range so to speak. I, personally have always set a low-14 second car as being very respectable for the street. That range has always been quick, and compared to many muscle-cars of the past, VERY quick. In the looks department, well.....let's see, NASCAR races the Malibu, Camry, Fusion body styles......no representation from any of the pony cars. So I guess, technically the "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" is long gone. I think the "pony car" argument holds quite well to the Camaro, Challenger, Stang,....soon to be Cuda. But, I also think the "there is no such thing as a v6 muscle car" argument is waning at best. Chevy is about to introduce a turbo-4 Camaro........what will will say then? I have been along time v8 chest pounder, so I know the drill, but 323hp (the Hyndai V6 is somewhere in the 330+ range)....is nothing to sneeze at. If we time traveled back to 1963-73 with any of these cars......folks would be in awe.

Remember the Buick GN? 110% muscle in my book......as is the Camaro.
PS Prior to buying the 13, I was inches/seconds away (pocket full of cash) on buying a restored, numbers matching, 72 Z/28 - 4 speed. Again, not a top-tier dragger.....but damn cool, sounded heavenly. I was ASTOUNDED at what a pig it was!!!!! I truly think the wife's SUV we drove to the seller would have given it a run......I do have days I regret not getting it anyway, but with only a two-car garage, and a commute, I made the right choice. It would have just sat......when I retire, I will re-visit the idea.