Good point Jim. Same with Prince's, that was the best ET. A person most usually gets one shot a year (up here at least) for weather conditions to achieve those ETs. Maybe in the big cities you can get 110 octane out of the pump but out here in the sticks it's 91 and that's 30 miles away. Not a good street choice.

 

Not trying to defend my argument. Just saying the possibilities of stock 40 year old stuff.

 

How did FAST cars come into this?!? Frequently 500+ cubes, lightened by a thousand lbs, extrude honed fuel lines, faux mech fuel pumps, seats you can't even put your helmet down on for fear of breaking them, gutted dash components. Hidden small fuel bladders w/ elect fuel pumps & battery hidden inside stock fuel tank w/ a hollowed out battery carcass under the hood. Water filled spare tire. Dudeck (that I have seen, probably others) tuning their "carbed" & stock appearing ignition engines w/ a lap top. Only God & the competitors know what other tricks & techniques are employed in these cars. Not to forget the more competitive cars probably have close to $100,000 in them.

These cars have no basis in reality except as the ULTIMATE stock appearing sleeper machines. I love em but they have absolutely no bearing on a 350 sbo vs Hemi of any vintage in any kind of streetable or practical trim.

 

But it is NOT 40 year old stock stuff. It takes a LOT of newer technology and upgrades which compromise streetability to match the performance. That is the whole point, with the newer cars you get both.

 

You keep saying the same things as I do, only better!!
Guys use extreme examples like FAST and SS to try and support arguments for which there is none.

 

I worked for Muscle car review magazine in the 80s and 90s and we used my 72 442 350 turbo 350 complete stock car except ignition and tricked out rochester against a new G92 optioned TA in 93, the TA was PREPPED by Mclaren and my 442 beat it at the track. It ran 14.12 against my 14.02 We made at least ten runs then they sent the TA to New York for super tuning and I super tuned mine with Jacobs ignition and coil and MSD wires and plugs new tires and then we ran again. TA ran 13.89 I ran 13.98 later the TA ran 13.79 and I couldnt beat it. But we were close. The TA handle twice as good as my 442 in slalom.

 

My 69 W30 is stock appearing and it ran on the street every day and to shows and races, I never towed it anywhere. Full interior, exterior, no fiberglass anything and I could run low 12.15 with Street tires not street slicks, with 10.5 inch Goodyear 280 compound I ran 11.67 with 110 octane pumped at the Sunoco and without headers and I had a Lunati Hydraulic cam. Now my engine was tricked out inside but not a pro drag car, I drove it every day and It has been in Muscle car review magazine several times. The knowledge I attained from Jim Waibel, Terry Schafer and Buddy Ingersoll is how the car runs so fast. They were pioneers in racing olds.

 

We cant compare our old cars to the new ones but like Bernard said we had poly glass tires back then and stock shocks, no urethane bushings. so just small changes such as gas shocks, High performance radial tires, urethane bushings, our cars handle way better and with some slight modifications to the engine and drive train we can stay with the new cars in a quarter mile race, BUT we cant compare to the overall driveability of the new cars and the comfort. So CaptJIms right on that note. But when can anyone compare a 40 year old engine to the new HEMI. Thats like a W31350 compared to 1939 flat head?

 

You can't, but guys keep trying.

 

I think a Cutlass with a 350 could be built up to compete with a 2012/13 Mustang Gt, Camaro, Challenger etc not just with the power of the motor but on all levels including braking/cornering etc....problem is you would have to spend about $40k to do it. For example you could buy 70-72 Cutlass for about $10k, spend about $14k on the motor, $3k on an OD trans (auto) or manual 5 or 6 speed (including installation, converter or clutch etc), $5k on suspension and brakes, and another $8k on rear end, bigger wheels & tires, cooling, fuel, exhaust, AC & stereo.

To match the power, the motor would need to be around 475 hp, similar to something like this:

http://www.realoldspower.com/phpBB2/...c.php?p=523555

For cornering/braking & modern day comforts you would have to upgrade to: B-body spindles for improved geometry, fast ratio steering box, 4 wheel disc brakes with big rotors, 17 or 18 wheels for the bigger rotors, tubular upper and lower control arms up front, lots of fiberglass and aluminum "upgrades" to lighten the load, coil over set up or high end shocks, adjustable upper and lower control arms in the rears, & upgraded sway bars both front and rear (beefy but hollow like the Hotchkis ones).

Car would also need ice cold AC and a nice stereo if we're really going to compare it to a Mustang or Camaro. I think it could be done, including horse power, cornering, braking, and modern upgrades for comfortable daily driving....its just takes a ton of money to do it. May not be able to exactly match a 60 to zero braking contest but you could get most head to head tests pretty close.

I think the same could be done with a 455 but competing with the next level up cars (500+ hp new cars).

My 442 should be around 550hp when it's finally done and I think it will have most of the upgrades I mentioned above. I'm sure I'll probably have $45k in it's by the time it's back on the road. I would look forward to taking on a Mustang GT, Camaro etc. but it has the 455 not the 350. Here are the details:

http://www.pro-touring.com/showthrea...42-convertible

 

[QUOTE=71 OLDS;477370]I think a Cutlass with a 350 could be built up to compete with a 2012/13 Mustang Gt, Camaro, Challenger etc not just with the power of the motor but on all levels including braking/cornering etc....problem is you would have to spend about $40k to do it. For example you could buy 70-72 Cutlass for about $10k, spend about $14k on the motor, $3k on an OD trans (auto) or manual 5 or 6 speed (including installation, converter or clutch etc), $5k on suspension and brakes, and another $8k on rear end, bigger wheels & tires, cooling, fuel, exhaust, AC & stereo.

To match the power, the motor would need to be around 475 hp/QUOTE]

Your prices are way too high IMO. 14K better get you more than 475 HP.

 

I agree you could get more power for less money. Your set up proves that and there are several others. But to compare it apples to apples to a new Mustang or Camaro, I'm talking 475 hp with ice cold AC blowing, able to sit in traffic without overheating, going on long road trips, lots of vacuum for 4 wheels disk brakes (or maybe hydroboost or elec vacuum pump), and running on 92 or 93 octane. Also new Mustangs and Camaros are usually daily drivers that could have as much as 20k miles put on them each year. To have a 350 that could do all this and still get 475 hp it would need a more mild cam, stroker build up, lots of money spent on the heads etc. The ported aluminum heads on a stroker build up with the lightweight pistons & rods would put you well over 10k unless you were just buying the parts and doing most of the work yourself.

I've never seen or read about a car like this. Most people that have this kind of money to spend on a car would have another car for daily driving and of course for all the rain and/or snow days. That might not be the case for a guy that just bought a new Mustang GT. But I still think it would be pretty impressive to have a 350 car with 470 hp that was a "nice weather" daily driver with 5k miles of driving/year.

 

For reference here are the specs on a 2013 Mustang GT. This one is a convertible. Pretty impressive for the price IMHO:

Specifications >
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible

BASE PRICE: $36,095

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection


Displacement: 302 cu in, 4951 cc
Power: 420 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 390 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual, 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.1 in
Length: 188.5 in
Width: 73.9 in Height: 55.8 in
Curb weight (C/D est): 3750-3800 lb

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6-4.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.1-13.3 sec
Top speed (governor limited): 147 mph
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 15-18/25-26 mpg

 

I don't think you can get 470 HP out of a 350 and still have those manners and run on pump gas. The cam required to do it with those cubes is going to make the car idle rough with very little vacuum. It is also going to want gear and converter. Even a 380 would be tough. A DX stroker, 430 cubes, OK maybe, but now you really don't have a 350 anymore.

 

You could be right Jim. Hard to tell without a solid example to look at. The build I posted above at 510 hp was run on pump gas but no cam specs provided so it could be and probably is a large cam that even with a hydroboost set up (for pwr brakes) would be too rough of an idle for lots of street miles and AC etc. I know the w31 stroker build BTR Bill did had just over 400 hp with a mild 224/230 @ .050 hyd roller and that one had the stock aluminum intake & ported 6 heads (vs Ebrocks). I would guess the RPM and heavily ported Ebrock heads would increase the hp even with that mild cam but not sure if it could/would go up by 70....maybe 50? Even so a 450 hp/450 ft lbs Cutlass would be able to hold it's own pretty well against a Mustang. Either way it's going to cost well over $10k and my #s still come to $13k - $14k for everything. My guess is most Olds owners would not be willing to spend this kind of money on the motor much less the rest of the car. But that's what it would take IMHO to really compare it to a modern day Mustang GT or Camaro.

 

I snagged these pics off one of the pro-touring sites. It's not an Olds but is related to being a "daily driver" and specific to this time of year:

2010-10-13_15-19-51_198.jpg



If you are picking up your Christmas tree with your car, chances are that's all you got!! I love this pic!