1.3L

Having grown up during the so-called "muscle car" era, I've been a bit curious how modern cars compare to those performance cars. Interesting reading at:

http://userweb.suscom.net/~jasonroge...lecarstats.htm

1.3L

foxman

linky no worky

The page cannot be displayed

Here is an alternative with some muscle cars as well

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html

Omicron

A very interesting read for me. Especially so when I consider that my (relatively) stock RX-8 would blow most of those cars into the weeds that I sometimes lust after. Hmmmm. Thanks for the link - good stuff!

1.3L

Seems to work everytime for me

1.3L

Umbra

Most of them were big inefficient cars, you needed mega-horse power and torque because they were so awfully inefficient. Doesn't really suprise me that much that most of them have to be in the 400's for horse power to keep up with a stock 8.

rodrigo67

Wow, my brother had an 87 mustang Gt and that was the **** back then. Kinda hard to believe we are complaining about power on our cars...

NAVILESRX8

iTrader: (1)

I'm really surprised how slow those fox bodied 302 mustangs were stock. It wouldn't take much to get them into the 13-14's though. 3.55 gears, some headers and exhaust, maybe a cam.....simple to get power out of them.

army_rx8

interesting stats on those muscle cars. I like the 68 camaro ss...or the zl-1. nice times..looked good. too bad it's kinda hard to find on..wouldn't mind fixing that up as a project car :D

Glyphon

anybody notice this...?

2002 Subaru Impreza WRX 5.7 14.4
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 5.1 13.8
...
2003 Subaru WRX 6.0, n/a
2004 Subaru WRX Sti 4.9, 13.2

sooo...the 03 wrx was slower than the 02? and whats up with the different sti time?

Sigma

It's just compiled from various publications. There is no "set" 0-60 number. Everyone's going to be different.

Mazda6s MTX numbers, for example (just because I know them), range anywhere from 6.7s 0-60 to 7.9s. A huge difference. Quarter-mile times range from 14.8 to 15.8. Again, a huge difference.

1.3L

Very true and a good point. Many factors can influence the numbers including the weather (especially temperature), altitude, driver technique and, of course, the car itself. In the "old" days, there could be a significant difference in performance between cars that were otherwise "identical." Manufacturing tolerances weren't quite as good back then as they are today. I remember a school chum who bought a brand new Chevrolet (Chevelle, I think) that had a 283 cu. in. V-8 in it along with a manual 4-speed. It soon became apparent that he got one that was near perfect in terms of parts fit (in the engine), etc. That little sucker could hold it's own with much more powerful (on paper) engines and beat the snot out of comparable cars. And not only that, it lasted much longer than usual. Guess it wasn't a "Monday" or "Friday" car :D

1.3L

PaulieWalnuts

I wonder how accurate those older stats are. Most of those cars could smoke those old Polyglass tires half way down the quarter. I had a lightly modded Dart 340 and it was scary fast.

VikingDJ

A guy I talked to who also owns an STI said on his first run, he launched just as as would if he were on street waiting for light to turn green. (He's afraid of damage by hard launching). He pulled a 13.92 with just a plain old everyday launch even my Mom does. That is basically normal driving. If you did that in an rx8 you would be pulling low 15s. My only guess is that there was no real launch on that time slip. If you wanna get a 14.5 out of RX8, you need to beat **** out of clutch and launch it hard. If you wanna get a 13.2. out of STI, same rule applies.

Fanman

Also remember back in the day the tire technology was a joke. most of the past musclecars were very traction limited. Tires were like 185's ! I have seen articles where they put modern, wide 17" radials on some of these cars and they were cutting their 1/4 mile times down into the 12's & 13's.