Guys are running low 13's to low 14's stock with the 5.7 Hemi. The new Penstar, high 14's. They are claiming 32-34 US mpg with the 5.7/6spd manual combo. We get from low 20's to low 30's with the 3.5, depending on the time of year and how it is driven. I plan on having my wife take it down the 1/8 next year, mine won't be ready. I would need 5 grand in suspension mods on my Cutlass to match the handling.

 

When they track tested the cars in the 70's the tires were not very good compared with todays tires. Tire advancement is huge and makes the muscle car a lot more fun to drive.The old cars will never handle as good as the new cars but they can be made better

I think you can make a Olds small block run with the non limited number Chalanger, Mustang,Camaro in stock form.What makes old cars fun is that you work on them and put your blood sweat tears in them. Its for those that have a picture in there head, its like art instead off a paint canvass we have our cars as a canvass and that is were the fun is.

Good luck with you builds fellow artists

 

Olds were great, reliable cars for their time. They are unique, especially Olds powered. I like to be different.

 

That argument has already been made, but it is not valid. The same (or similar) upgrades will also make the new car faster. A non-W-30 Cutlass with a 455 ran low 14s, same as the run-of-the-mill new cars. 350 powered Cutlasses ran mid 15s.

 

If you track tested a late 60's early 70's with new tire tech the numbers would be better then they were back in the day.The new cars are better this is true.

I think you can make the old muscle car run as quick as a stock off the show room floor non limited number Camaro,chalanger,Mustang.

I would hope that when I'm done with my build that I'm just as fast as the above cars.No it will not be in the same league as these new cars but I do hope I will be faster in quarter.

I have always built cars for the fun and chalange,to me it is art.

The 350 olds would need to upgraded to run with the new cars,I was not talking about a stock 350 running with the new cars but a quality built drive line, not stock V stock.

 

But we ARE talking stock vs stock. Of course you can make a 350 faster than the new cars. My 355 powered Skylark should run a very high 12. But it is highly modified. And again, MANY of the upgrades we now do is NEW technology, not 40 year old tech, so that really isn't fair. Improved tire technology is part of that. IMO, it isn't fait to use modern technology on old engines then say they are as fast as new cars. Again, stuff like split cams and head work that we consider basic was highly guarded race tech in the 70s.

 

I thought the topic was can a 350 olds run with a new stock hemi

 

This is what I based my posts off of.

I think a well built 350 with 3:73/4:11 and a good 2004r would do the job. We had a Junck yard dog 350 std bore run 13.04 with 9 to 1 comp, stock w31 heads, SD intake, 5500rpm shift point,411 gears 3500lb with out driver.
I think a well built 350 with heads that have been ported,polished and filled.A set of realy good headers like ARH. quality light pistons 9.5.1 comp,chevy rods and stroked 330 steel crank.roller rockers,roller cam port matched ebrock rpm with a well built QJ on top.Goal would be low 12's in street trim.

 

You are correct about the OP, the conversation kinda "morphed".

I'm not seeing low 12s in a 9.5 to 1 355 in a 3800 lb car. I have never seen a posted build with those specs that ran that fast. Very high 12s, maybe.

 

Our junk yard dog ran 13.04 in the 80's in good air. I could be wrong but I think a stroked 350 that can spin to 6500 rpm would run low 12's

 

You may ne correct but I have not seen a pump gas 350 run low 12s in a full trim street car. I think the cam, compression, gears, and converter needed to make that rpm would be borderline streetable, if at all.

 

 

So maybe off the topic but I see 1/4 mile calculators using hp and weight. Where does torque come into play?

 

Torque is an instantaneous measure of force.

Horsepower is a measure of power, which is to say force over a period of time.

- Eric

 

I understand that but if you had a 350 engine with 350hp/350tq and and a 455 with 350hp/500tq those calculators would show the same 1/4 mile times given the same weight. Realistically couldnt you assume that the 455 would run a faster time? Or is this where different gearing and RPMs comes into play?

 

The 455 might be able to get moving faster, but would be at higher risk of breaking the tires loose and losing ground to a car that stayed planted.

- Eric

 

Horsepower is an abstract thing. You can't measure it, it is simply part of a mathematical formula based on torque and rpm. The more torque you make at a higher rpm, the more HP. There is so much more to a good ET that peak numbers. I once did a chassis dyno tune session. Made 15 more HP, slowed down a tenth. Went back to the original tune (same day) gat back my tenth. Why? probably lost a little TQ down low, making the car a tad slower getting going. Now, if I had changed the gear to go with the added HP, I probably would have run a better ET.

IMO, throttle response and torque are what make a car fun to drive. Yes, you can make a 350 Olds make 425 HP at 7,000, but it will not be very streetable. Most old cars have a "window" where they like to run. You are not going to get an old school N/A carbureted V8 to rev to 7 grand, idle decently, and have manners. You can with a new car, due to the computerized engine management systems.

 

Torque is the size of your shovel, rpm is how fast you're moving that thing, and horsepower is how much dirt you've moved within the designated time. To put it simply.

These two articles told me what I need to know. Especially the following page on the first article.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-p...tion/fpte4.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question622.htm

 

Best analogy I've heard for it.

- Eric

 

Got it. Thanks for the explanations guys.

 

+1

 

Don't know what it would take to get a 350 into the 12's,but a 455 build up will more than run with the new muscle if the new Mustang GT,Camaro SS or Mopars are STOCK.In the 1/4 mile that is. I think Pilot proved that.And the new cars are heavier than you might think.The thing is as nice as they are my 69 442 turns a lot more heads because of it's look and the way it sounds,I even had a traffic cop give me the thumbs up as I drove by...but did say keep it under a hundred.LOL

 

I can tell you that my 69 442w30 has upgraded suspension and the motor has been tweaked a little but back in 93 a ZR1 corvette came up beside me and revved his engine, Well after 2 gears and 3 cars links ahead I let off and he pulled me into the gas station and could not believe I had stock exhaust and a Rochester carb and beat the tar out of his 58 thousand dollar new vette. I know he would kick my butt on top end and in the curves but with the 4.33 and the 4spd I had him bad from light to light. 1969 W30 442 11.67 122 mph.

 

Buddy Ingersoll used to run back in the late 70s a 1972 cutlass with a 350 and he ran 11.20 and you can get a 350 Oldsmobile to run as good as the 455. Just have to have the right machine work and the right cam,carb and intake and you can get into the high 11's. Jim Waibel also ran under the National index with a 350 Oldsmobile. Also Buck Jednek in his Olds Omega was IHRA and NHRA world champion in J/SA. The new cars are clean mean and comfortable but I still love the old muscle cars.

 

There is no doubt that a well thought out BBO in an older A body can run mid to high 12s on pump gas and be reliable with good manners. But it did not do it stock. Many have done it. As for a "streetable 11 second 350? Not sold on that. Nick ran high 11s and IIRC it was pretty radical. And I don't think it is fair to bring the SS guys into any discussion, those guys push the limits in every respect.

 

69 W30 running 11.67@122 would run with a ZR1 in the quarter. My 400 with a little work and no traction,through the exhaust ran 13's,back in the 80's and I thought that was good!! And yeah a 350 olds has a nice bore/stroke combo,set up right they will run,as you said. I love hearing those old stories about surprising some guy in a high end sports car, I have a similar story about a guy,a blonde and a porsche and going light to light.

 

What about the guys who ran in the stocker classes in the late 60's who had limited amount of modifications allowed. Not the s/s just the J/s f/s guys. they where running 12's 13's if i remember right.

 

I agree with Jim, SS cars are nothing like street cars to run those ETs. Those high 11s I turned were done in my car that could have been driven on the street. It had a hyd lifter cam in it but.......it wouldn't have been legal, no pump gas and wouldn't have been a fun time !

11.60s with a W-30? And what kind of modifications?

 

Those were not cars bought off the showroom floor and raced. Any of those cars are gone thru with a fine tooth comb. Jok had a Camaro 2003(?) that he ran in C/SA or D/SA depending on weight. It ran high 10s low11s. It of course had a LS motor in it. He sold it after about 6 months, he told me if he would have kept it, he was going to buy those stock rockers by the gross. Every 20-25 passes he had to change them. So those cars S/SS are very high maintainence and spendy to be competitive.

 

what bout this one.

http://home.comcast.net/~wmachines/WCAR/wmachines2.htm

 

I know those cars are gone over and pretty much rebuilt once they where given to or bought by the racers . But they had limitations as to what modifications could be done. Im not denying it new cars are faster and more reliable and more fuel efficent. Now the older cars could keep up but we would have to use some techology. More modern advanced cam designs, better tires, better ignition products, etc. etc. Now i did beat a ss camaro at the track io was ruing drag radials he was running street tires. he ran a 14.33 to my 13.96 Im sure if he had some of the modifications my near stock 350 had he would beat me.

 

Good luck will 11 to 1 Cr and iron heads on pump gas. Also, 411 gear, 3500 stall, 244 cam, borderline vacuum for brakes, borderline streetable, IMO. Again, almost any car, BB or not, that runs 11s is going to be pushing the limits as a street car and certainly will not be a driver.

 

Exactly. Again, I get irritated when guys use SS numbers to compare real-world performance. They run one ring, no filter, steep gears, rev the crap out of them, and are phenominal tuners. It isn't apples to apples.

 

yeah but it runs the numbers and is streetable somehwhat. Everyones definition of streetable is diffrent. But i know what you mean by streetable. Performance with near stock characteristics just like the modern cars. To me thats half the fun i dont want to get in a car and just drive it i wanna DRIVE it it's part of the whole man and machine thing. When you sit at the light and watch your rpms glance over your gauges maybe pop it in neutral . People used to say you know how to two foot it. not to many people know what that means anymore but thats part of what makes these old cars fun to drive not only is it fun but stimulating for the mind lol. I have to agree using the ss/s examples is not fair.

 

I don't know how you can call it "streetable" when you can'y buy gas for it. Again, along with the ET the newer cars are more comfortable, handle better, are safer, and you can jump in one and drive a thousand miles with no concern. I like the "feel" of a hot rod as much as anyone, but we were talking about daily drivers that are just as fast but comfortable and reliable.

 

Now this is off sublect but this how far technology has come. These guys are unning in the high 9's low 10's and have to completly appear stock. It's like super stock with major limitations.

http://www.fastraces.org/

 

We have quite a bit of stations that sell 110 around here and usually cheaper than at the track.

 

http://www.fastraces.org/members/fas...3!OpenDocument

This is pure stock. Running 13.3's on bias ply's Thats is comparable to most new high performance cars exc. shelby's srt's etc. then you would have to compare those to the motion and nickey chevy's . Granted he is .030 and had 11 to 1 compression. but still thats is very close to it's period performance. Back in the 60's you buy leaded high octane any where and cars where built that way. cars today are using technology to make hp and run on 93.

 

Everybody at ROP knows Dave, great guy. But once again, not a fair comparison. It is factory, but not stock, it is a limited run special edition car, like the Hemi Darts that ran high 11s. It has 11 to 1 cr. And while 13.3 is best ET, IIRC it usually runs 13.6-.7 It was bored .030, flat tops andd 4.56 gears with no OD. How streetable is that??

Again, you keep making arguments to defend an indefensable position. Newer cars are faster, safer, more reliable, handle better, and are more comfortable. Are hot rods more fun? Yeah, on Saturday night, but not to drive to work on a cold rainy morning.

 

F.A.S.T. Racing Hemi vs Buick stock appearing, through the mufflers running 130 mph.Lots of machining going on to run those numbers,but stock pieces I believe.Gotta love the stock class (PSMCD) that must even use close to stock rubber,no slicks and they run in the 11's (some of them)