There is little to be gained comparing hp ratings from the sixties with that today. When many bemoan the loss of hp to smog controls, much of it was done by manufacturers to re rate their motors for insurance purposes. Manufactireers played games with gross vs net horsepower for years and only those with actual knowledge or the wherewithal never knew the real difference. It sometimes makes you wonder which were actually muscle cars and which were muscle cars by name only.
Today, when a Subaru WRX with a 4 cylinder would smoke some of these cars on a highway, then take you to a ski lodge in winter weather with a quick tire change, it makes wonder the real advantage of yesterday’s must cars other then a name, glitz and big hp ratings. Some of them were death traps on wheels as soon as rain or snow hit the roads. Some just as bad when any corner worse then an on ramp came into play. http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
One nearly forgotten muscle car from the 1950s was the 1957 Rambler Rebel. It was a limited edition model and I believe only 1500 were actually produced. It came in only one color–gray with a gold stripe. American Motors installed a 327 cubic inch V-8 in these cars that may have been fuel injected. It wasn’t sport looking as the only body style of the Rambler was a 4 door sedan and station wagon. The Rebel was the 4 door sedan. It was reported to be the fastest production car made in the U.S. at the time. Unfortunately, the handling didn’t keep up with the power.
The older cars definitely have the new ones beat in terms of originality and overall character. If you may notice, some of the newer ones use styling cues from the old ones. I can see this in the Charger, Camaro, Mustang, etc.
As for power, handling, fuel economy, safety, and reliability, the new ones are in a different category all together. Fuel injection has worked wonders and we are now moving into direct injection so who knows what that will bring. Rust proofing also seems to have come a long way on newer cars. Even the cheap ones like Kia don’t rust out and seem to last forever nowadays.
The sound of the old cars is also pretty nice. I have heard some mean sounding new ones but that seemed to be part of the deal with those older muscle cars too.
Another thing about modern cars is that most will take mile after mile of use without many issues if properly maintained. Sure, they are harder to repair but certainly need it less often.
For me personally…the best year was 1965 because I owned a 1965 Pontiac 2+2 (Catalina with muscle). It was equipped with a 421 HO tri-power engine that was a beast. I once raced a friend with a '67 GTO (local track) and watched him in my rear view mirror the whole time. A better qualified driver in the GTO may have beaten me but that will never be determined. I ran the 2+2 on the dynometer at a local Vo-Tech school and the engine was cranking out over 400hp and and about 500ft-lb of torque. That was considerably more than the specs in the book. I sold the car to my brother-in-law shortly after I was married. My wife hated the fact that it had a big V8 and I used the money to buy a '73 Vega GT wagon. That was the end of the muscle car era for me…almost.
The late sixties early seventies were the golden age as far as older cars go. With the '70 Olds 442, you get a 370 hp 455 W30 that had what was at the time, except for the Corvette tri-power, one of the most radical camshafts Detroit put into a car. (If you’ve ever ridden in one, you’ll know that 370 hp is way underrated.)
The original 442, the '64, was only offered with a warmed over 330, but came with something the other muscle cars didn’t get for a few years, and that was an upgraded suspension with stiffer springs and shocks, and front and rear sway bars, something else you didn’t get from the factory with the Chevelle or GTO. You also got a quicker ratio steering box. So Olds was, again, ahead of the others when you considered the overall package. But, then again, I may be biased.
I saw a show on velocity recently, and they paired up a 1970 Charger RT against a new Hemi Charger. The new car spanked the '70 in the quarter mile, and gets MUCH better mileage and handle a LOT better.
One problem back in the day as far as suspension and brakes go is that things such as disc brakes and sway bars were options. Many people had no desire to spend 6 dollars extra for a sway bar…
@DrRocket, did that show on Velocity by chance revolve around those Desert Valley salvage guys?
If so, that Charger did not have the original engine and was pretty much a junker from the get-go.
The next few years may be the best for some time to come. The muscle car era really began in 1934 with the Ford flathead V8 although you could make a case for some of the supercars of the 20’s like the Duesenberg. It had a straight 8 with dual overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder.
The cars got better and faster over the years until 1971. There are some 71 cars built before Dec 31, 1970 that still had the high compression engines and paper thin bumpers, but after Jan 1, 1971, compression ratios dropped from 10.x:1 to 8:1 and the heavier bumpers became mandatory. The bumper requirements and emissions restrictions only got worst over the next 4 years.
There have been watershed years in the pursuit of performance, 1949, 1955, 1964 where there was a quantum leap in performance, or at least a perceived quantum leap in performance.
The new CAFE requirements will probably put another damper on high performance. The way the new requirements are written, small high performance cars are already being removed from the market place. The next milestone, 2016 I believe will probably put an end to the rest of them.
Unless car manufacturers come up with another big jump in engine performance with an increase in fuel economy, such as computer controlled valve timing and duration, smaller economy tuned engines may be the only options in the near future.
BTW, fastest American production car so far, 1970 Corvette 454 LS6, 193 mph. I think the computers used in certain cars today are the only thing limiting them from going over 190 mph, but I could be wrong.
I think a lot of cars are “limited” today. According to Toyota’s tech documentation, my own car is limited to 127, although with me in it it’s limited to just over 80…and not by the ECU! 127mph in a 2005 Scion tC would be insane unless it were specially prepped and on a track.
According to Top Gear and the other car mags, the Veyron is limited to 258 mph out of concern for the tires. As bespoke as they are, the forces on them at that speed are extraordinary. The world record one that hit 268mph a few years back was unlimited.
Engineering the tires for the Veyron was a massive undertaking. Making a thousand horsepower engine was not such a big deal (hard, but doable) , but getting it to the road safely was. I believe the Veyron is the car that came with a special key that enabled its maximum power output. Use that key and you were certifying that you understood the consequences of driving over 200 mph and knew a tire failure would likely kill you. I don’t much care about the Veyron, except I do like its looks, except for the horseshoe grille, which is almost impossible to fit into the front of a low, wedgy car. They made a pretty good effort, and overall I find the lines very original. It has a certain smooth sophistication most supercars lack. It got criticized for that quite a bit by writers who thought it should look more like a race car, lower, meaner, more mechanical. The only thing I really dislike are the almost universal two-tone paint jobs.
The horseshoe grill goes back to the early years of the last century. Many European cars, like Bugatti, Rolls, and Bentley, keep the basic grill shapes they had in the early years as their signature. If you look at the old Bugatti cars with the full fenders the horseshoe makes sense.
I like the looks of the Veyron, and like the two tone paint job. Two tone paint jobs were common in the '50s and '60s, but the only ones I’ve noticed lately are on the Veyron and the new Rolls Royce Wraith. But the truth is that I only see these things in magazines anyway. I’d love to sit in one to see how comfortable it is, but I’d probably be underwhelmed. Some years back a friend loaned me a Mercedes in Florida when I visited on vacation, and to be honest I wasn’t impressed. I liked my Camry better. It was more comfortable and ran better.
According to the internet, it was stolen from Ferarri and means Gran Turismo Omologato, which (again according to the internet) in Italian means “race ready”.
Just my 2 cents and I agree that modern cars are superior, but I never could understand the perception that an older muscle car was Death On Wheels. I’ve owned (and driven many others) a number of older muscle cars and never had a problem with handling and braking; although granted, a lot of hard braking with drums can cause some fade. I just never put myself into that situation though.
The brakes on the '59 Corvette I had would slam the occupants through the windshield and as to handling; that car would glue itself to the roadways. The handling (although not the ride comfort) was superior to any modern era car I’ve owned.
My sister owned a '64 GTO (389, auto) and I even drove that car on a cross-country trip which involved a lot of hilly, winding roads. There were no braking or control issues with that car although it could be pointed out that the brake linings were like new, the suspension A-one; and the tires were excellent.
Back during the day, I was with a friend in a '69 Firebird (a brutally fast car) and he got in a street race one night with a Cyclone GT 428/Dual 4 barrels; goaded on by the Cyclone driver. He blew that Mercury into the ditch and based on how quick the Cyclone slammed to a halt with a pxxxxx-off driver after he got waxed I’d say the brakes were spot-on. The driver of that Cyclone was an off-duty state trooper; go figure.
The excuses started; “my carb linkage is messing up…”, “my foot slipped on the clutch pedal…”, “there’s no way that 'Bird is faster than my Mercury…”.
There are only a handful of racetracks where you can even attempt to get the Veyron to it’s top speed, The two-tone paint doesn’t bother me depending on the combination,sort of a homage to the original Bugatti’s that were more likely two tone (with the exception of the racers)
@asemaster–GTO stands for Gran Turismo Omologato which is a certified for racing in the grand touring class. John De Lorean borrowed the name from the Ferrari GTO.
