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

Cobra Jet wrote:

> So if you didn't like my little barb, tough ****ing
> ****.

It's not I didn't like it, it's that it wasn't very creative. But
maybe that's just me. The Big Guy just stopped by and told me, he and
the rest of the brass have been watching this thread and my weak
attempts at humor and as he put it, "We don't have all eternity to
wait for you to write something funny." When I said, actually, you do,
that was it. The clouds opened under my feet and down I fell, down,
down, down and wham! here I am sitting in this same lousy swivel chair
at this same lousy desk as I'm going to be sitting at every day for
the rest of this same lousy life. Rats.

> *I've* been working on my 460.

Righty tighty, lefty loosey (in case you've forgotten).

180 Out

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> CobraJet wrote:
>
> > So if you didn't like my little barb, tough ****ing
> > ****.
>
> It's not I didn't like it, it's that it wasn't very creative. But
> maybe that's just me. The Big Guy just stopped by and told me, he and
> the rest of the brass have been watching this thread and my weak
> attempts at humor and as he put it, "We don't have all eternity to
> wait for you to write something funny." When I said, actually, you do,
> that was it. The clouds opened under my feet and down I fell, down,
> down, down and wham! here I am sitting in this same lousy swivel chair
> at this same lousy desk as I'm going to be sitting at every day for
> the rest of this same lousy life. Rats.

Now it all comes out. You're frustrated with a dead-end job, wishing
in fact that you were dead and in the Hereafter (which doesn't exist),
and now you've sworn allegiance to Big Block Chevys. You know, there
really *is* no reason you can't kill yourself. Do it now. Get pics.

>
> > *I've* been working on my 460.
>
> Righty tighty, lefty loosey (in case you've forgotten).

Unless you own a Muscle Mopar.

>
> 180 Out
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

Sigh, Welcome to my kill file.

--
Mark C. Jack of all trades, master of none. (well, maybe a couple)

I r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> In the first free elections held since the conquest of AHPBBFM by the
> Coalition of the Willing to Swallow Anything, I was recently elected to
> serve that group as its very own White Tornado II, purveyor of
> unwelcome truths. No Sunnis are known to have voted, and the Kurds are
> muttering about secession, but I won fair and square -- unanimously,
> even -- and I intend to serve my full term.
>
> 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.
>
> '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
>
> '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
>
> '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)
>
> '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
>
> '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.)
>
> '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.)
>
> 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
>

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.

In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally original
1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66 427
Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register a best
of "13.39 at 104 mph and change". The numbers of which are not too
different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a 4-speed,
weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test. The
tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were mounted on
8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2 with a 105
mph trap.

> 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. 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.

"Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
faster than their peers, you know something is up.

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

Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> 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.
>
> In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally original
> 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66 427
> Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register a best
> of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".

A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.

> The numbers of which are not too
> different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
> prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
> time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a 4-speed,
> weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test. The
> tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were mounted on
> 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2 with a 105
> mph trap.

The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie stickshift car
from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.

>
> > 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. 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.
>
> "Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
> faster than their peers, you know something is up.

It's called competition. These aren't poorly-tuned trailer queens.
****es you off, doesn't it? It's obvious.

>
> > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before my
> > time anyway.
>
> Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.

So what? This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential
of factory style Muscle Cars. Much better than the old tests, or Smith
beating on an obviously subpar example. The playing field is scienced
out and levelled. Deal with it however you can; see a shrink, smoke
some crack, drink to excess, or beat up Girl Scouts and take their
cookies. Wake up, you new-tech-worshipping basket case.

Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were all
Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both undergeared
at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in intermediates. The big
Merc was the only one geared right with a stick. The Mach I,
considering that stock converters are required for automatics, would
probably be even faster with a manual.

So, despite some impressive times, there is still room for
improvement. Pop a pro driver behind the wheel...

My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and a
mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch wheels).
Bummer, huh?

>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

On 18 Feb 2005 08:16:11 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
>> In the first free elections held since the conquest of AHPBBFM by the
>> Coalition of the Willing to Swallow Anything, I was recently elected
>to
>> serve that group as its very own White Tornado II, purveyor of
>> unwelcome truths. No Sunnis are known to have voted, and the Kurds
>are
>> muttering about secession, but I won fair and square -- unanimously,
>> even -- and I intend to serve my full term.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Too many details have been overlooked and obmitted for someone who
>wants us to believe that he knows what he is actually talking about.
>
>Besides, how about a simple blanket comment, like, "I'm -truly- going
>to
>argue this ad nauseam", or, "I'm trying to prove beyond the shadow of a
>
>doubt that I'm an insufferable, stat-crazed know-it-all who STILL
>MISSES
>THE DAMNED POINT with my snotty value judgments that I'm attempting to
>pass on as gospel"? And some free advice thrown in - quit taking
>yourself so damned seriously. Life is too short. My God, how much
>time are you actually going to spend on this endeavor? Why don't you
>RELAX and try to ENJOY yourself, and get out of your lawyer shoes at
>12:30 am? I smell a litigator or CDA. Anyone else?
>
>Patrick
>'93 Cobra

What's so great about big blocks running 14s when sub-300cu in motors
in stock, pollution controlled vehicles can do it faster today?
Musclecars from back when are best savoured for their classic lines
rather than their lackluster muscle.
-Rich

Considering that:
"At the 1964 Nationals, Don Garlits, in his Dodge powered "Wynns Jammer"
took the Top Fuel Eliminator win and set low e.t. of the event in a final
run effort of 7.67 @198.22 m.p.h.! Althought the car looks amazingly short
by today's standards, Garlits' car was state-of-the-art for 1964."

Put into perspective they were fast for the time.

--
Jafo
'02 GT Black
Not eggzackly stock.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> What's so great about big blocks running 14s when sub-300cu in motors
> in stock, pollution controlled vehicles can do it faster today?
> Musclecars from back when are best savoured for their classic lines
> rather than their lackluster muscle.
> -Rich

CobraJet wrote:

> > In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally
> > original 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel) '66
> > 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to register
a
> > best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".

> A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.

13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell something
too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids, shift
kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver. Hell,
even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in the
13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam, and
better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further. My
brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low
14-second car.

Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289 Mustang?
For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at it.


> > The numbers of which are not too
> > different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman & Moody)
> > prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at the
> > time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a
4-speed,
> > weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time of the test.
> > The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and were
mounted
> > on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4 at 14.2
with
> > a 105 mph trap.

> The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie stickshift
car
> from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater slicks,
> headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.

And its trap speeds were?

Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with headers,
slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.

> > > 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. 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.

> > "Breathed on" is right. When you see examples running considerly
> > faster than their peers, you know something is up.

> It's called competition. These aren't poorly-tuned trailer queens.
> ****es you off, doesn't it? It's obvious.

Please read the following very, very slowly. I don't want you to miss
this.

"Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't even
have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
_flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.

And before you get all ****y with me, ask the SEEverist what his old
455 laid down.

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

> > > my time anyway.

> > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.

> So what?

Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing the
whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it! Hey
CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread talking
about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag out
scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.

> This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
factory > style Muscle Cars.

Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
Appearing, Stock Tired.

"Pure stock", on the other hand, should be as close to PURE STOCK as
possible! Which means lots of 15, 14 and 13-second cars, and just a
smattering of 12-second cars.

> Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
subpar > example.

You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial. I'd
say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.

> The playing field is scienced out and leveled. Deal with it however
you > can; see a shrink, smoke some crack, drink to excess, or beat up
Girl
> Scouts and take their cookies.

No thanks. I have no need for your personal remedies.

> Wake up, you new-tech-worshipping basket case.

Hey 180Out, me and you are wearing the same label.

> Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
all
> Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
undergeared
> at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in intermediates. The
big
> Merc was the only one geared right with a stick. The Mach I,
> considering that stock converters are required for automatics, would
> probably be even faster with a manual.

All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires, and
they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.

> So, despite some impressive times, there is still room for
> improvement. Pop a pro driver behind the wheel...

A pro driver who's familiar with a car normally can knock a few tenths
off.

> My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake and
a
> mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch wheels).
> Bummer, huh?

Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the [unlisted]
mods you did to it?

Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t. and
trap speed?

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Jafo wrote:
> Considering that:
> "At the 1964 Nationals, Don Garlits, in his Dodge powered "Wynns
> Jammer" took the Top Fuel Eliminator win and set low e.t. of the
event
> in a final run effort of 7.67 @198.22 m.p.h.! Althought the car looks

> amazingly short by today's standards, Garlits' car was
state-of-the-art
> for 1964."

> Put into perspective they were fast for the time.

Jafo,

Yes they were. But time/technology marches on. Now if a nitro-powered
dragster ran those numbers everyone would think it broke something
going down the line.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Wound Up wrote:

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

Actually, it was Bill S' touched up and your rant together. I used
them only because the replys 180 was getting were SO similiar to the
ones I used to get. (I was teasing 180 with it.) And it looks like the
ones I'll soon be getting from CJ, again.

Confused? Stick around a while and it'll all become clearer...

Patrick
'93 Cobra