12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway)

Patrick, I'm still not entirely sure why you copied and pasted my rant
as your own...

wrote:
> CobraJet wrote:
>
>
>> He is, or at least was, a lawyer. And he has gone over the deep
>
> end.
>
>>However, you criticizing someone who lives and breathes road tests is
>>the old ebony kitchen utensil diatribe.
>
>
> Who's criticizing?! lol I'm just taking good-hearted jabs at him
> because the abuse he has taken is the same exact abuse I took, and some
> of the abuse is the same I took from him. How ironic is that?
>
> As for his current profession, I really don't care... and I don't think
> it's any of our damn business.
>
> And I don't see him as "gone over the deep end." Most of what he
> wrote, apparently, was true. What I found troubling was why his post
> wasn't simply "corrected", and why instead he was picked apart
> personally. The only thing I could figure is that the topic was
> politically incorrect for that NG, so the ol' smear campaign was
> deployed.
>
> (Note to 180: I'm not trying to sidetrack your thread here. We'll get
> back to the 12-second musclecar debate soon, I promise.)
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

wrote:
> Wound Up wrote:
>
>
>>NoOp Patrick wrote:
>
>
>>>Too many details have been overlooked and obmitted
>>>for someone who wants us to believe that he knows what
>>>he is actually talking about.
>>
>
>>Haven't I read this before? ?Oh yeah, I wrote this before. ?=)
>
>
> I hate when people plagerize and use it as their own. Show your sources
> you pathetic wannabe.
>
> 180 Out

Talking about irony... intentional in this case, but I will point it out
anyway. You just plagiarized Bill flaming you!

....ON 2/11/05 at PRECISELY 5:36am in the BB GROUP =)...



--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

wrote:

<snipped some funny stuff>

> As my first official act, I reported the following timeslips of
actual,
> reputedly bone stock muscle cars, running head to head in the
September
> 2004 Pure Stock Drags. I thought some in this ng might like this
post
> too. And besides, NoOp Patrick has dared me to post some race
results
> involving the old iron in this group, just to see what happens.
Readers
> of Mustang & Fords magazine have already seen these, because M&F
> reported this event in its March 2005 issue. Because it was M&F,
they
> reported only on the matchups involving Fords.

> The winner of each of these best 2 out of 3 showdowns appears in the
> first column.

Okay you lying piece of **** lawyer ;-), lets talk about these numbers.


> '70 SS 396 Chevelle vs. '71 Mach 1 429 SCJ
> 14.95 @ 92.83 vs. 14.952 @ 92.83
> 14.92 @ 92.61 vs. 15.010 @ 93.08

Both cars' trap speeds seem a bit low.

> '72 Gran Torino Sport (351C-4v) vs. '72 Buick GSX (350-4v)
> 14.78 @ 97.87 vs. 14.71 @ 92.44
> 14.72 @ 98.00 vs. 14.73 @ 92.36 (Torino wins with a .575 RT)
> 14.63 @ 98.96 vs. 14.72 @ 92.83

I'm surprised a '72 Torino with a 351C would be that fast. The Buick's
numbers seem to be right on the number.

> '69 455 ci Hurst/Olds vs. '70 Cyclone 429 CJ
> 14.38 @ 96.11 vs. 14.19 @ 98.14
> 14.27 @ 96.13 vs. 14.35 @ 98.31
> 14.53 @ 95.98 vs. 14.29 @ 97.50 (Merc redlights and loses the 2 of 3)

The numbers here are pretty close. The Olds is getting a pretty good
hook with the 14.27 with only a 96 mph trap. I'd guess and say a 2.0
60-foot.

> '69 440 Cuda vs. '71 Mach 1 429 CJ
> 13.72 @ 99.21 vs. 14.14 @ 98.56
> 13.74 @ 99.16 vs. 14.05 @ 99.54 (Cuda loses on redlight)
> 13.82 @ 98.91 vs. 14.02 @ 100.07

A 440 'Cuda should be able to get a high trap. A 102-103 is more in
line.

> '64 427/425 Mercury Marauder vs. '72 455 Buick GSX
> 13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.16
> 13.43 @ 106.96 vs. 13.48 @ 103.55 (Buick wins on .545 RT)
> 13.28 @ 107.50 vs. 13.49 @ 104.16
> (Check those traps. This Merc weighed 4,367 lbs! For that matter,
the
> Buick weighed 4,208.)

The GSX's numbers are believeable. Now the Merc...? Do me a favor,
DDI, do the math on 4,300 and a 107 mph trap. What HP number rings up?

> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)

Same thing with these two. What HP numbers ring up?

One thing I noticed skimming the rules, blueprinting is allowed, and
modern cams can be used. I'll read the rules more closly later.

Slightly different topic. It says stocker-type tires, right? 109 mph
and 12.69 is a pretty awesome hook! Do we have to argue anymore about
these cars being traction limited?

(NOTE: Disclaimer -- my e.t comments are without knowing the gear
ratios, transmissions, ect.)

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Oh, I'll pick up this mag this weekend.

> If you want to see the class rules, here they a
> http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/rules.html . Also, ere is an Excel
> spread sheet with all the Sept '04 results:
>
http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr/2004...pt_results.xls
> . If you start from the home page, http://www.geocities.com/psmcdr ,
> you can see the results from other years too.
>
> Out 180
> White Tornado 2
> AHOBBFM Troll Level 3
> Thundersnake 28

Wound Up wrote:

> Talking about irony... intentional in this case,
> but I will point it out anyway. =A0You just
> plagiarized Bill flaming you!

No, really? I didn't see the turnip truck you fell out of on your way
into town, but now I'm sure you landed on your head and got flattened
by the next three in line. Your cluelessness is actually kinda scary,
you know that?

<Backing slowly out of the room>
Out the 180th
Thunder Snake the [4]28th
Troll Level the 3rd, or the .5th, depending on who you ask
White Tornado the 2nd
Dust Devil the 1st

NoOp wrote:

> 180 wrote:

>> '64 427/425 Mercury Marauder vs. '72 455 Buick GSX
>> 13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.16
>> 13.43 @ 106.96 vs. 13.48 @ 103.55
>> 13.28 @ 107.50 vs. 13.49 @ 104.16
>> (Check those traps. =A0This Merc weighed 4,367 lbs! For
>> that matter, the Buick weighed 4,208.)

> The GSX's numbers are believeable. =A0 Now the Merc...? =A0
> Do me a favor, DDI, do the math on 4,300 and a 107
> mph trap. =A0What HP number rings up?

According to the standard guesstimators, rwhp =3D weight * (speed /
234)^3, and fwhp =3D rwhp/0.80. So 4330 lbs at 107 mph =3D 413 rwhp, 516
fwhp. That's what I'm talkin' about. Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in
13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to think
about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master cylinder.

>> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
>> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
>> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
>> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)

> Same thing with these two. =A0What HP numbers ring up?

442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a 506 hp
1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for blueprinted
and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these two engines.

But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before my
time anyway.

180 Out

In article om>,
> wrote:

>
> About as ironic as a NG that pretends to reject political correctness
> showing itself -- repeatedly -- to be more dogmatic and humorless about
> departures from the party line than any Jesus freak could ever dream
> of.

No, from the beginning AHPBBFM intentionally espoused a narrow focus
to keep it from becoming a circus like this group tends to be. It is
not a democracy, and departures from the party line are not
appreciated.

> About as ironic as a NG that lectures one of the few members who
> actually drives an on topic car with any frequency about the intangible
> virtues of the old iron.

If driving your Cougar made you some kind of elitist asshole, then
you should have been flogged to death for your disrespect for the
group's rules.

> About as ironic as a guy the vast bulk of
> whose knowledge comes from reading magazine articles, as opposed to
> hands-on experience, dismissing another poster's magazine-based
> information.

Just goes to show you that printed material can vary in scope and
accuracy. Get over it.

> About as ironic as a guy who imagines he possesses a
> little wisdom thinking he could actually have a friendly and open
> discussion on the Usenet, without it descending from the word go into
> smears, innuendos, and name-calling.

What, did you just arrive here yesterday? You stoked the fire pretty
damn well on your own.

> About as ironic as seeing the
> same guy who once spent about two weeks arguing with NoOp Patrick that
> his mind is closed to the possibility of 12 second '60's stock
> musclecars, being accused of having closed his mind to the goodness of
> '60's stock musclecars.

Well, you go into the group that you are theoretically supposed to
contribute meaningful info to (once in a blue moon) with a chip on your
shoulder about the current boom in Shelby prices, calling them rice and
****, and you think nobody's going to react? That IS Troll crap, Bill.

> About as ironic as . . . well you get the
> idea.

Usenet is full of BS. That's humanity. If you don't like the part
line there, then stay out.

>
> Catch ya later, it's choir practice time.

I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.
>
> 180 Out
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

Cobra Jet wrote:

> I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you
got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose
your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah,
oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> NoOp wrote:
>
> > 180 wrote:
>
> >> '64 427/425 Mercury Marauder vs. '72 455 Buick GSX
> >> 13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.16
> >> 13.43 @ 106.96 vs. 13.48 @ 103.55
> >> 13.28 @ 107.50 vs. 13.49 @ 104.16
> >> (Check those traps. *This Merc weighed 4,367 lbs! For
> >> that matter, the Buick weighed 4,208.)
>
> > The GSX's numbers are believeable. * Now the Merc...? *
> > Do me a favor, DDI, do the math on 4,300 and a 107
> > mph trap. *What HP number rings up?
>
> According to the standard guesstimators, rwhp = weight * (speed /
> 234)^3, and fwhp = rwhp/0.80. So 4330 lbs at 107 mph = 413 rwhp, 516
> fwhp. That's what I'm talkin' about. Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in
> 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to think
> about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master cylinder.

The drums used on those cars are huge and, if power assisted, will
put many discs to shame. I have this setup on my '63 wagon with
metallic shoes. No need for disc.

>
> >> '70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ
> >> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12
> >> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39
> >> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)
>
> > Same thing with these two. *What HP numbers ring up?
>
> 442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a 506 hp
> 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for blueprinted
> and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these two engines.
>
> But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before my
> time anyway.

The text, counselor, mentioned a dyno best of 471 at 5600 rpm,
However, anybody familiar with 427-8V's know their real peak is closer
to 7000 rpm. It has to be pulling up high to turn 108 with 4.57 gears.
The Low Riser heads are what the Cobra Jets were derived from, and the
intake and exhaust flow better that the later 428's. Oh yeah, let's not
forget the solid lifter cam.

>
> 180 Out
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> Cobra Jet wrote:
>
> > I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.
>
> That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you
> got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose
> your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah,
> oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).
>
> 180 Out
>

Well, it's like this. After I put my two cents in about your
erroneous use of the word rice in reference to Shelbys, I pretty much
tuned out of the ensuing tea party you had with Bill S. and Wound Up. I
*did* note some name calling, but I'm the last person to be believable
playing referee. So if you didn't like my little barb, tough ****ing
****. *I've* been working on my 460, and I could give a rat's ass who's
"winning" some lame-ass argument.

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

Cobra Jet wrote:

> I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you
got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose
your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah,
oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out