travisbeamon

Just had a thought and was curious. Would a 350 Rocket have to be extremely beefed up in order to compete with a newer V8 Charger, Cobra Mustang or SS Camaro? I have limited knowledge on engines (I'm a body man) and just wondered how much work would need to be done to get a 350 to that level. I believe the Hemi is 390 HP, 426 HP in Camaro SS, and 430 in the Cobra Mustang GT.

Tony72Cutlass'S'

maybe 400 horses at the flywheel....

Going downhill...

with a good tailwind...

Talk to coppercutlass, he's got a 350 that could probably make the "new kids" cry all the way home to mommy.

RAMBOW

You pretty much answered your own question.

HP+weight vs HP+Weight = one car will be faster.

And no matter how much you build up a Rocket 350, one could also equally build up those modern engines too.

But in the end it really doesn't matter which is faster. There are a bunch of cars available on the showroom floor (or even used car lots) today that are faster, better handling, more compfortable than our classics.

On any given drive in to work, I see a couple dozen examples of all those new cars that could eat mine for breakfast- But the only one that would cause me to take notice (and a lot of other people) is if it were a real classic muscle car driving down the freeway instead.

Anybody can go into a dealership and buy one of those new cars and drive it.
NOT everybody can build & maintain a classic car & drive it.

firefrost gold

In the book how to make your muscle car handle Mark form scandc talks about
how the new cars out weigh the older cars with the right parts to correct some of Gm's miss's the a body's can run with the newer car .

ctsplicer

I don't know.I've got a bone stock 06 roush mustang,and have had it up over 160 and still had more pedal.Scarey actually.

MDchanic

Not much more to say, actually.

Forty years of technology counts for something.

When our cars were new, cars from the '20s and '30s were forty years old.
Think about it.

- Eric

tru-blue 442

I have to agree with rambow...
Technology has a fine argument as far as how engines are engineered
Although the tech has no match to the style
of the BEAUTIFUL autos of the 40's 50's 60's
and up to about 77 in my opionion.
Ours weigh to much with all the iron and chrome.
But much safer in my opion as well.
They can keep all that plastic stuff. I'll use them as needed.

L69

X2. Todays cars are fine machines. I enjoy my Olds because of the nostalgia and the beauty that once was.

ctsplicer

MDchanic,don't get me wrong.I love my cars from the 60's,but this mustang outperforms all of them.In the past I've owned a hemi charger ,and a 67 GTO as well.I've never driven anything this quick,and with the traction control it will slam you into the seat back.

L69

Agreed. I just drove my buddies Challenger SRT8 and it was a scary car. I love my muscle cars but they are a different kinda of fast. They actually feel faster than they are going. Something about the sound and the poor handing still boogles my mind as to how fun it is. But todays cars def handle better and are a cleaner fast.

Intragration

This is sort of the age old question. Going fast costs money, how fast do you want to go? If you want to build a SBO to outrun the cars you mentioned, it's entirely possible. How much will this cost, and how happy you will be with the compromises? And once you've built this, and the guy you wanted to outrun puts on a turbo or nitrous, then what? I pick a general performance goal, reach for it, and then forget about it. Build your car the way you'll enjoy it and when you lose to the guy with the faster car, you still get to drive home in a car you like.

MDchanic

Ummmm... I think that was what I said .

- Eric

ctsplicer

Yeah,I get confused too,long day

bccan

With similar weight & power the heavier hitters of modern muscle run pretty similarly to a decently sorted 400 hp musclecar in a drag race. Except that they do it w/ better engine manners, mileage, less drama, better cooling, sit in staging lanes running w/ AC on for a half hour, etc. Either vintage responds to intake & exhaust mods but modern stuff can use tunable engine mgt, plug & play forced induction, etc.

What I see is the stock ones running mid/low 14's w/ traction issues & mph strong, higher end (Shelby,Z06) runningl low 13's, hi 12's w/ drag radials, and then you see some modded stuff faster than that, not all that different in numbers to old stuff that is warmed over. With a pro driver @ his daily workplace test track the Shelbys, Z06, etc run blistering fast, like high 11's but add a second or 2 for the ham handed amateur @ track rental or on the street.

I watched a late Shelby drop the driveshaft on first launch, poor bastard never got a run in but in general one can beat these new cars all day, most any way & they will drive home from the track in perfect comfort, lightly sipping the petrol. I would love to have the means to have a nice assortment of late & early muscle - enjoy the practicality & performance of the new stuff or the passion of the old stuff despite the shortcomings that count as character depending on what mood I was in when going out somewhere!

'69CutlassVert'

I guess you could go Hemi vs Hemi if you hang out on Craigslist long enough maybe you could run across a W-43 (yeah, not gonna happen). They reportedly turned 300hp@3000, 600HP@6000, and 700hp@6800...... blahblahblah......not sure what it turned out at the 8500 redline but I bet it prolly slammed one back in the bucket as well. On the other hand my little vert turns more heads than ETs. I kinda enjoy droppin the top and watch the new, purchased horses in pony cars pass by, but when a guy or gal says....."man look at that, I had one of those back in...." Cant buy that kinda power.

Tony72Cutlass'S'

Amen to that, couldn't have said it better.

brown7373

The new cars of today are faster than the new cars of the 60s and 70s, just like the cars of the 60s and 70 (in the day) were faster than the cars of the 30s,40s and 50s. Guys then couild have done some modifications to make them faster, but what made the 60-70s cars popular is you could buy tire shreading power from the factory, and in most cases have a waranty.

Besides engine improvements, the transmissions of todays cars are light years ahead of the 60s-70s. But which car do I want to be seen in, or cruise in, or take a vacation in? I'll take one of my old ones, any day!

brown7373

I have both a Olds 350 and a 2007 Charger R/T Hemi. Sorry, it is no contest. It will take a hell of a lot of modifications to make my Cutlass 350 come even close...but I still like driving the Cutlass more.

Bamfer

Just a thought, How much does the new car cost ? 30-40K or more. I think with that kind of investment in the older car you could maybe get you the best of both worlds.
To bad I don't have 30K laying around.

Tony72Cutlass'S'

I bought my olds for 1000 dollars.

3 years later and 6000 dollars less in the bank, it drives everyday, gets me around, and ive driven it 1300 miles since august.

ah64pilot

I think this all boils down to perspective. I have driven all of the modern cars (SS Camaro, Hemi Challenger, Z06, and GT Mustang) and none of them felt blistering fast to me. The closest was the Z06 but it still missed the mark. The worst was the Challenger, I kept waiting for the engine to kick in but as it turned out that was all it had in it. With the exception of the Z06, those cars are all heavy as hell. Their suspension compensates but you can still feel the weight of the car during cornering and acceleration.

At the track you can really see the difference of the modern cars. The purported 400+ HP engines are stout, yes...but now the cars need it. A bone stock SS Camaro weighs in at 3950lbs with a 1/2 tank of gas and no driver. So that 400 HP is carrying 4-500 more lbs. than the classic mild 455 has to.

Yes, you have the benefit of gas mileage but the high initial cost of ownership negates any savings you would see. In the long run, by owning a classic for cruise nights and driving a Hyundai during the week you limit your initial cost and have the potential for earning equity with your classic. I have yet to see one 2 year old Camaro, Stang, or Challenger that hasn't depreciated by $10-15K.

In the end, this all comes down to preference. I speak only for myself when I say that although I don't drive it every day, I like the fact that the $40K Camaro's, Mustangs, and Challengers are scared to get next to me in traffic...and hate me at the track.

captjim

Not sure where you get this. An A-body with a BBO is going to weigh 4,000 pounds. A stripped G-body can get down to 3500 or so, but not a fully equipped car.

The newer cars don"t "feel" faster, but they are. As others mentioned, it is 40 years later.

ah64pilot

I got it from taking my friends 2011 Camaro SS down the 1/4 mile and pulling it onto the scales. After shutting it off and stepping out of it, it weighed 3950. It had only a 1/2 tank of gas.

Conversely, I did the same to my '72 Supreme before swapping the engine out and it weighed 3750 w/ me in it, a full tank of gas, and an iron headed big block. I weigh 240.

Anyone that spends time at a track can see the times the newer cars are running and despite what the magazines say, in the hands of 98% of owners they run just the same as our old cars back in the day.

The point is, that although HP numbers have grown, so have the cars.

Tony72Cutlass'S'

What kind of 1/4 mile are these cars running?

And lets say, what would a run-of-the-mill 350 4bbl cutlass run?

I'd really like to take my car to the track, just in Montreal you need a membership and it can get expensive for osmeone just starting out.

brown7373

I agree with Bamfer.
"Just a thought, How much does the new car cost ? 30-40K or more. I think with that kind of investment in the older car you could maybe get you the best of both worlds.
To bad I don't have 30K laying around."

I have long considered driving old cars on an everyday basis. I currently own 5 vehicles. A 1970 Bonnevile Convertible (455), a 1972 Chevy Cheyenne Pickup Truck, (350), a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (350), a 1989 3/4 ton Chevy Suburban (454) and a 2007 Dodge Charger R/T (5.7 Hemi). Of thiose 5 vehicles, the "economy model" is the Hemi Charger, which gts 17-18 normal and low 20s on the road, and maybe up to 25 or so on long highway cruises in cool weather w/o the A/C. My wife drives the pickup every day, and it gets 11-12. The Suburban gets 10 on a good day, the Bonneville and the Cutlass get 13-14 and maybe up to 16 on the road.

I could drive the Cutlass every day, from a reliability point, as I could with the pickup or the Bonneville, when it is done. But as it has been discussed numerous times on this site, the mpg on our older cars is not as good as almost anything newer. I don't really care about mpg in my old cars, but it might become an issue if used exclusively.

cutlassjoe

X2 on that. I have a 2007 Charger R/T with the 5.7 Hemi. The car is wicked fast for a big four door and handles pretty darn good. Much quicker than my 442. BUTT...it is not as much fun to drive. You are more or less just sitting there. With the older cars you actually have to drive them. I still say there is nothing better than lettin' her hang out on some back roads. The sound of the exhaust and the secondaries opening up

cutlassjoe

I agree on the gas mileage. For luaghs and giggles I was coming back from Lansing, MI. I got behind a semi and set the cruise on the charger at about 63 mph. My mileage was reading at 29.9. After I while I pulled out and went back up to about 75 mph and the mileage dropped to about 23.5.

ah64pilot

The Camaro SS stock is running anywhere from 13.30's to 14.00's depending on the driver. I have seen 12.60's time slips with professional drivers in optimal conditions, but that is not realistic. With a set of slicks the average Joe is squeaking out 12.90's.

The cars with headers, cold air intake, tuning, and slicks are running low 12's / high 11's. Considering you pay $40K for the car and THEN do all that work, it's not a cheap route to go.

I don't know what a run of the mill 350 4bbl Cutlass would run, I've never owned one long enough to get it to the track...somehow 455's always find their way into the engine compartment. I've got pictures of my high school car in my profile, it's the bamboo car. It was a complete car, less A/C compressor with a 455.

Motor specs as follows:
455 .030 over
TRW Forged pistons
Stock deck height
.040 head gasket
Stock E heads
JM 20-22 cam (.496 / .512 lift, 226 / 230 @ .050 duration, 110 LS)
Stock cast iron intake
Demon 750 carb

3.42 gear (the exact rear end that's in the silver car now)
TH400 w/ Transgo shift kit (the exact trans that's in the silver car now)

Best E.T. 13.001 @ 105 mph on BFG 295/50R15 Radial T/A's (the exact tires that are on the silver car now)

chadman

I enjoy driving my '65 to the track. Then lining up next to a new SS camaro, Mustang or Z06 and handing them their *** and driving back home. Sure the new cars get better mileage, handle better and are faster stock to stock but I'll take my hopped up, gas guzzling 442 any day!

brown7373

I had a very early 2005 Chrysler 300C before the Charger and it actually got about 10% better fuel mileage. A perfect illustration of what going from 5% ethaniol to 10% did, and what is about to happen if they go to 15%. Not to mention the damage to our old engines.

coppercutlass

fwiw. I beat the tar out of my friends brother with his 300c srt8 this was with my old combo ad on the street . My car is fairly stripped down . I have beaten my share of new gto's and trans am's camaros etc. at the track as well. It all came down to driving. most of those cars can easily take on what i had but when you are messing around the street getting a good launch from a stop light is a big advantage. That 300c ran 12's at the track i was running 13.8's stop light to stop light i had a big advantage because i would just take off but on the big end that 300c would demolish me.

ah64pilot

That's just the nature of these torquey Olds motors lol! We make our time down low, the LS engines make it up high. On my youtube channel there is a video of me racing and beating a Z06. I only beat him by .1 but his trap speed was incredible. He was coming hard, really hard! Anything more than that 1/4 mile and I would've been eaten alive.

There is something to say for all of these car, new and old. We have a wrecking ball approach to racing whereas the new muscle cars are more about finesse. The thing I miss most about my WS6 was the 90 mph cruise at a whopping 1500 RPM w/ a 6 speed. I wish I had more money, I'd just like to own them all

olds 307 and 403

Here is a good example. We have a 2010 Dodge Challenger SE. It has the little 3.5, which is a peppy little motor. That car, just being a SE will run circles around my 88 CSC in the corners. You floor it on the corners and it just asks for more. My tired, never ran what is should 403 is still faster but not by much. I have much more torque in the 403 but that 3.5 takes 6500 rpm many times, without a sweat. I pushed 5500 rpm one too many times on my 403, 10 psi less oil pressure.

70olds455

For a comparison I ran mid 16 seconds at the track in my completely stock 71 cutlass with a 350 rocket. I ran 14.00 my 95 camaro Z28 with stock 2.73 gears. It had old rear tires that needed to replaced so I could not get much traction off the line. With good tires it is an high 13 second car. So you would really need to beef up a 350 rocket engine to be on the same level as modern performance cars.

brown7373

I almost had a ticket todayin my 07 R/T. As I pulled up to the red light, the ricer behind me that I had just passed moved into the next lane. Now I know he had zero chance if he wanted to run, but when it turned green I pulled out about medium on the gas. I had lots of pedal left, and I was 60 in a 40 before I had a chance to see the Sheriff Deputy coming up behind us. No tire smoke or anything, just effortless sneaky acceleration that still surprises me even after 5 years of this car and 3 1/2 of a 300C. Now I know the R/T is not the fastest car on the road. But many of the newer cars, even 6s and some 4s are sneaky quick, right off the showroom floor.

That is not saying I prefer new cars, because I don't. But both have their good and bad points. Kind of like, "which of your kids do you like better"?

jpc647

Wow mid 16 seconds? That's disappointing.

The point was brought up that new cars cost 30-40k and they do what they do. I don't think old cars could be matched up to do what new cars do and have the luxuries. Sure I could spend 10k on a new driveline on my cutlass, and it'll whoop my everyday car, but I'll never get the handling out of the Cutlass. I can drop it down, put stiffer everything throughout, but then the ride will be terrible, and it still won't be enough. Now sure, I could go buy all the stuff right now and do it myself, but then it won't be a cutlass anymore. And it still wont get 28+ mpg with all that power. It'
ll never have the special auto temperature control, or the nice leather heated seats, etc. I've been looking into LS motors, but unless you want to spent 30k upgrading an old car(not restoring), one modification won't matter.

I think we have to appreciate the old cars for what they are, with all their shortcomings. If you can't, you can try upgrading it today, but tomorrow when the next monster comes out of Detroit you'll be a step behind again.

captjim

IMO, this whole conversation is silly. Of course newer cars are faster. The technology is advanced. OD trans allow for more gear, EFI results in better powertrain management. Yes, new cars cost $40,000, but 5 years later they sell for $28,000, so the difference is around $10,000 which is about the cost of a decent muscle car. Better mileage, better manners, more reliable, and faster. More fun to drive? Maybe not, at least on a cool Saturday night with your Honey beside you. Daily driver; different story. Name one mechanical thing that was better in 1970 than it is today. Refrigerators, cars, boats, toasters, lawnmowers, it doesn't matter.

I am 50 y/o and have been a mechanic my whole life. Cars used to break down all the time. Yes, they cost more to fix when they do but they are so much more reliable.

I have never driven a "new" Hemi. But forget that. Bang-for-the-buck, fastest cars are 5.0 Muskrats and 350 F-Body GM cars. Cheap, plentiful, great aftermarket support, and light. Grab either one, couple of bolt-ons and you are in the 12's. Not that easy for "us". Faster, yes. Better? More subjective. And this completely ignores handling, for which there is no comparison.

brown7373

Anyone looking for a fast car, as in at the track, of course the Charger isn't it. But it is a large, comfortable car for 4 normal sized people who can get in and out without pulling a muscle.

coppercutlass

Jim you are spot on. Technology is great. If you pick up this months car craft there is maverick with an ls 5.3 with a single turbo making 10 second range power. If I was not such a purist I would do that.

chadman

Have to strongly disagree on the one highlited above. They may have more features and gizmos but they sure as hell don't last like the old ones. I have a 1950 Coldspot in my garage right now that has never been repaired. Also have a giant GE freezer from the same era in the basement of my rental house that was left by the previous owner. Mytennants are still using it as I type. The new ones you're lucky to get 10yrs. out of.