The fastest muscle car?

In reply to spacecadet (Forum Supporter) :

Oh c'mon man, it's just for research. New crap is easy. Efi, suspension geometry, chassis development. 
 

It's fun to do so much with so little. Not the opposite. 

If I can ask, I'm curious why you specified this:

Keeping in mind- all stock. NO MODS

At least as it pertains to 60's cars, the suspension design is so poor, I don't see how any of them would be all that fast. It took serious prep to get a Mustang/Camaro/Vette to handle well on the track. Decent at the quarter mile, but no fun if the road has actual turns.  

i could see late model cars as being better all-rounders while staying stock, but as others point out here, calling them "muscle cars" feels a little inauthentic (to me) like it's a marketing term.  That said, whatever you call them they sure are capable!

In reply to jerrysarcastic (Forum Supporter) :

See that's the appeal. Anyone can mod a car to be something it wasn't. But stock? That's all you got. The manufacturer made it that way and it didn't get any better unless you modified it or bought a different car. 
 

so what was the King of the heap for muscle cars? 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

The fastest muscle car....  easy Chevy SS.

Corvettes and Pony cars are not muscle cars.

 

low 13s at 108 to 109.  

By that definition, what about the Charger Hellcat RedEye with just shy of 2x the power?

King of the heap for ACTUAL muscle cars would be the 1970 Buick GSX 455 Stage 1

It had the most torque of any car from the true muscle car era at 510 lb/ft and was the only car that could outrun a 426 Hemi Cuda.

If you're looking at stock 65-73 era cars as an all around car for road track, Auto-X, and drag strip use with Corvettes not included probably a 70-71 Pontiac Trans Am with the optional engines. The front suspension design was better than most other manufacturers at the time and they were available with Ram Air IV and 455 HO engines while being lighter than most of the other cars (during those years) as well as later Firebirds. Camaro was very similar with 396 BBC although a bit less power and didn't have the aero advantage (for road course) of all the air dams, spoilers etc. the TA's came with. Keep in mind, tests done when the cars were new were done using stock, narrow, (by todays standards) bias tires in relatively hard compounds. So drag strip numbers would be much different using modern rubber. There's probably other cars quicker in a straight line than those TA's but over the three events I'd guess the TA would come out on top.

The 65- 69 cars in general lacked suspension of the later cars so they'd lose. The 70-72  chevelles, skylarks, Wildcats etc. are bigger so Auto-X is harder for them to do well. However the GM A bodies with optional engines would do very well at the drags and so would the Chrysler products with optional engines.

I love my Trans-Ams but they're a pony car and OP specified muscle cars.

ShawnG said:

I love my Trans-Ams but they're a pony car and OP specified muscle cars.

Completely agree ^^^ but somehow he seemed like he was considering all the cars of the era other than Corvettes because he didn't really understand what many of us consider "muscle cars". That's why I asked if he considered Pony cars on the first page. . And I also would say the GSX was top of what I consider muscle cars. My 70 Wildcat has the same engine with slightly different heads.

There are multiple lists out there of the fastest muscle cars from the classic era.  Maybe the one most often referred to was put together by the old Muscle Car Review magazine; they compiled a list that was taken from period tests.  A copy of it can be seen at http://classicmusclecars.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.php (note that the list includes Corvettes, pony cars and a 427 Cobra.  Also, some of those period tests were timed by hand with a stopwatch so their accuracy may be suspect.)

One problem with comparing quarter mile times is it will depend when the car was tested...those cars from the period tests in the list above were limited by the tire technology of the time.  If you take for example a 1970 hemi Super Bee and run it with modern tires today, it's going to have a mush better ET than what could have been attained when it was new back in 1970.  Another thing is sometimes you'll find cars where the engines and chassis setups have been tuned and blueprinted so they are still within stock specs, but they've been optimized and will run much faster than when they're compared to when the car was new and had just came off the assembly line.

Also, you'll find quarter mile times for cars like a 1963 Super Duty Catalina or a 1968 Hemi Dart that are very good, but those weren't really production cars - they were super stocks or factory experimentals that were built in very limited numbers, and weren't meant for street use (for instance, some of those SD Catalinas had aluminum exhaust manifolds that could actually melt if the engine was run for more than a few minutes.)

I believe the highest (claimed) HP of a Muscle Car was the 1962 Dodge Dart 413 MaxWedge.

ShawnG said:

King of the heap for ACTUAL muscle cars would be the 1970 Buick GSX 455 Stage 1

It had the most torque of any car from the true muscle car era at 510 lb/ft and was the only car that could outrun a 426 Hemi Cuda.

 

Buick fast with class,it had the best interior of any of the muscle cars. Then like 15 years later buick would do it all again this time with v6 turbo power.

IIRC, the original formula for a muscle car was to take the mid-sized body and put the engine out of the full-size in it.  By that definition an M5 is a German muscle car. :)

ShawnG said:

King of the heap for ACTUAL muscle cars would be the 1970 Buick GSX 455 Stage 1

It had the most torque of any car from the true muscle car era at 510 lb/ft and was the only car that could outrun a 426 Hemi Cuda.

 

I was going to mention this. There was a notorious test back in the '80s where they pitted a bunch of bone-stock musclecars against each other at the drag strip. The Buick Skylark GS Stage I beat out  a Hemi 'Cuda and the Mopar guys had a meltdown over that loss. Stage I vs. Hemi shootouts were a big thing for a while.

None of them could even keep up with any of the new breed hot hatches. Straight line? Sure they were decent. Their brakes, suspension and handling are completely atrocious. Why do you think CAM guys spend so much money to fix it all?

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Appleseed said:

Vajingo said:

In reply to spacecadet (Forum Supporter) :

Can we just do the first generation of "muscle"? The new stuff is... too calculated. 

First we need to define muscle car. We could call the 1949 Oldcmobile 88 a muscle car because the company's most powerful V-8 was put into a midsize sedan.

I venture the 69 Daytona or 70 Superbird. They approached 200mph in stock form. You aren't confusing fast with quick, are you?

 

I know a man that owned two at one point.  While quite fast, I think 200 was way out of reach in stock form.  

WAY out of reach in stock form.  Even with the highest gears they had (3.23) just math it out.  Won't even come close.  Also, that aero package is just for homologation.  Park that one in the picture next to a real 200 mph wing car like Bobby Isaac's #71 K&K Insurance special and you'll see some significant differences.  A stock '69 Charger Daytona, '70 Superbird is a 130 ish mph tops automobile and I don't care if your uncle Bill did wrap his 150 mph speedometer back around to 0.  That stuff is just folklore.  
 

cool car though and yes, I've always wanted one.  
 

edit: and for what it's worth, the Pettys said the 'fuselage design' '71 to '74 was actually better aerodynamically.  They ran one all the way up through the '77 season.  

I stand corrected, I didn’t know Darts came with big blocks. SURELY that was a fast combo!

ShawnG said:

King of the heap for ACTUAL muscle cars would be the 1970 Buick GSX 455 Stage 1

It had the most torque of any car from the true muscle car era at 510 lb/ft and was the only car that could outrun a 426 Hemi Cuda.

 

Beat me to it.

Way back in my high school years I subscribed to a magazine called "Classic Sixties" which later became Muscle Car Review. They compiled a list of all the quarter mile times recorded by magazines of the era and pronounced the Buick GS the quickest (not counting the odd 427 Cobra which isn't really in the category). Anyway, a Hemi Mopar owner named Roy Badie took issue with the claim and sort of shot his mouth off in the letters column. And he got called out on it. That I can remember Roy's name to this day is telling. This is the link to the subsequent story, I believe. GS vs Hemi

Poor Roy had to eat crow, and I remember the letters column for the next several issues was alive with responses from both sides.

This, of course, doesn't really answer the OP's question. I don't think you will get a reliable answer as those cars were never tested for all the tasks you inquire about.

bobzilla said:

None of them could even keep up with any of the new breed hot hatches. Straight line? Sure they were decent. Their brakes, suspension and handling are completely atrocious. Why do you think CAM guys spend so much money to fix it all?

Because it's worth it to not have to drive a hatch? 

I still miss my 70 Chevelle on occasion. Then I remember all the rust repair it needed. 

NickD said:

ShawnG said:

King of the heap for ACTUAL muscle cars would be the 1970 Buick GSX 455 Stage 1

It had the most torque of any car from the true muscle car era at 510 lb/ft and was the only car that could outrun a 426 Hemi Cuda.

 

I was going to mention this. There was a notorious test back in the '80s where they pitted a bunch of bone-stock musclecars against each other at the drag strip. The Buick Skylark GS Stage I beat out  a Hemi 'Cuda and the Mopar guys had a meltdown over that loss. Stage I vs. Hemi shootouts were a big thing for a while.

I remember when that came out.  Yes.  There was a meltdown.  Some people take this stuff very very seriously.  But I never doubted it.  The Buick 455 was one of those engines that punched over its weight.  Granted, that's a lot of cubes but they just weren't designed with all out performance in mind.  It just sort of happened.  
 

Since I've been accused of being a "Grey Poupon" kind of guy, I'll cast my vote for the Jensen Interceptor III.  Most had 440 Magnum power (375 gross) but a few got the "Six-Pack" option.  

Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:

bobzilla said:

None of them could even keep up with any of the new breed hot hatches. Straight line? Sure they were decent. Their brakes, suspension and handling are completely atrocious. Why do you think CAM guys spend so much money to fix it all?

Because it's worth it to not have to drive a hatch? 

I still miss my 70 Chevelle on occasion. Then I remember all the rust repair it needed. 

I mean, I've got my version of a muscle truck. I like my V8 noises and 3 pedals. I don't like the cramped cab, turning radius of a school bus and the inability to do anything well. lol 

I guess it depends on how you score the competitions?  Cumulative time?  3 hot laps?

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/

I reckon, though, my money's on the latest Caravan or Odyssey

bobzilla said:

None of them could even keep up with any of the new breed hot hatches. Straight line? Sure they were decent. Their brakes, suspension and handling are completely atrocious. Why do you think CAM guys spend so much money to fix it all?

Being a bit before my time I go back to the book Unfair Advantage and how far they had to develop out the cars to get them competitive for Trans Am, although in fairness those were mostly pony cars.

60s-70s "Muscle Cars" were meant to go fast in a straight line.  They were heavy, had huge motors and their cornering wasn't great.  Braking was terrible until disc brakes were standard equipment. Gas mileage, bad joke. Most were jacked up in the back for the biggest tires you could get into the fender wells.  Because of the gas crisis in the 70s, these cars were dumped for nothing.  Definitely not treasured and preserved.  That's why nice ones were so valued for awhile.  Their values will not continue to climb. Just like the Dusenbergs, the customers who desired them are getting older and selling collections, not accumulating.

Any of them can handle OK with modern suspension bushings, big sway bars and most important, better tires.  Modern tire technology is light years from the Muscle Car era.  I loved my '68 GTO.  Fast at the strip, handled well enough with bigger tires.  Did a few road rallies with it.  It was great fun to drift on dirt roads.  Autocross, no way.  '68 Charger with 440 handled like a pig.  70 Formula Firebird was fast and handled better.  '75 TA handled the best.  It came with "Radial Tires"!  I've owned a few of these in present times and can say they are disappointing, at best.  They sound great, but they don't do anything better than a modern car.  Us old guys like to claim the "good old days" were better, but they aren't.  Unfortunately neither are we:(