Torque or Power ?

[ink]

I love the Chargers they do have a look that is quite awesome, but I like the E Bodies better, I think they are tougher looking especially the 71 Cuda with that insanly awesome grill, by far my fav car of all time, Bullit was a great movie:-) how about the 69 Hurst  Baracuda that came out of the factory as a 9~10 second car....that was insane......you know a origional 71 Hemi Cuda ragtop with the pistol grip sold at the Barret Jackson auction sold for 2.2 mil ?holy cow thats crazy, I have a friend that sold his numbers matching 440 Superbird, for a 71 Hemi cuda that  wasnt even origional, I think it was a 318 car...haha,I took out a new Challenger for test drive,I was very impressed they are sick,and I think they are the best "retro's" done.funny the guy at the dealership tried tellin me the Challengers where first made for the quater mile..I laughed in his face,asked him if he ever heard of the T/A Challenger and AAR Cuda,which were the First to be made,for road tracks lol  those are sweet rides.big money

[Shuffler]

mid to low 12's should be around 110 to 120mph. generally with those et's and mph readings, you're making good power all the way through.

 i'd take an old challenger over the new one, just because. i'd take a 2011 or 2012 mustang over an old one, because the mustangs are the best looking of the retro cars(and they're the first retro hot rods). i think the camaro looks good too, but if i was buying for an american muscle car.....the camaro's outta the running, as it's not an american car.

Retro mustang looked good till they ruined the back end.

Camaro is made in Canada.

[CAP1]

Retro mustang looked good till they ruined the back end.

Camaro is made in Canada.

i know......butr the camaro is not a true chevy.

 don't take me wrong...i still like the looks of it. the only thing i've never liked about them, is the tail lights.....they look like modified corvette tail lights to me.

[Big Rat]

Actually if a car is trapping in the 120's it's deep in the 11's with ease (many in the high 10's), if the car hooks at all and doesn't weigh 4000lbs.  SRT8 Challengers are in stock form mostly a high 13 car due mostly to being grossly over weight, over 4000lbs (remember 300 chassis). New Camaros have the same weight issues (not as bad though, basically a 2 door G8).  Ford has finally got he picture, of trying to drop a little weight on the mustangs, still around 3500lbs though, about the same as my Grand prix GXP (LS4).

Ink,

You should have hung onto that car, sounds like you let it go just before the market skyrocketed.  Which is the reason I never plan on selling my 69 vert, besides I have to much blood, sweat, money, and tears restoring it.  



Now as far as the original post about torque vs horsepower.  Big torque curves are what make street cars easy to drive, something that can make good torque from just off idle to high in the rpm band.  If you compare the FRC to the 69 is a good example.  FRC while not a chore to drive is not easy, big cam, aluminum flywheel, etc., have to feather the clutch from a stop.  The 69 on the other hand, will idle itself around with almost no feathering, my wife enjoys driving this car becouse it's easy.  Why is it easy, about 400ft/lbs of rwtq 2500-4500rpm .  Torque curve on the dyno looks like a table.

early dyno sheet, final one didn't test at as low an rpm.



 
BigRat

[CAP1]

Actually if a car is trapping in the 120's it's deep in the 11's with ease (many in the high 10's), if the car hooks at all and doesn't weigh 4000lbs.  SRT8 Challengers are in stock form mostly a high 13 car due mostly to being grossly over weight, over 4000lbs (remember 300 chassis). New Camaros have the same weight issues (not as bad though, basically a 2 door G8).  Ford has finally got he picture, of trying to drop a little weight on the mustangs, still around 3500lbs though, about the same as my Grand prix GXP (LS4).

Ink,

You should have hung onto that car, sounds like you let it go just before the market skyrocketed.  Which is the reason I never plan on selling my 69 vert, besides I have to much blood, sweat, money, and tears restoring it.  

(Image removed from quote.)

Now as far as the original post about torque vs horsepower.  Big torque curves are what make street cars easy to drive, something that can make good torque from just off idle to high in the rpm band.  If you compare the FRC to the 69 is a good example.  FRC while not a chore to drive is not easy, big cam, aluminum flywheel, etc., have to feather the clutch from a stop.  The 69 on the other hand, will idle itself around with almost no feathering, my wife enjoys driving this car becouse it's easy.  Why is it easy, about 400ft/lbs of rwtq 2500-4500rpm .  Torque curve on the dyno looks like a table.

early dyno sheet, final one didn't test at as low an rpm.

(Image removed from quote.)

 
BigRat

my 89 gt was running 12.2's all day long at 117mph. 5 liter, gt40 intakes, big bellybutton maf, 30# injectors, x303 cam, 3.37 gears....but i gave up nothing to make her fast. i would come down the return road with the a/c blasting.  

BTW./....that is the last year that vettes looked good till the newer generations.

as for the mustangs? to the best of my knowledge, they weigh in around 3800 pounds or so.

[ink]

Bigrat~ yup but I had to sell it though I LOVED IT, I wanted to be in it every moment of every day, the motor was still as strong as ever, the body was a bit beat, but I became addicted to it bad,I sold it for a grand  :-(  I still have dreams about it...literly I dream about it quite often, even though it's been almost 12 years since I sold it.    I miss that car..I feel guilty I miss and love it so much, we are not supposed to "love" that stuff, Love should be reserved for family and friends. Certainly not a car. I hate to admit it but I did love it    :-(

[Big Rat]

CAP,

That's good numbers back in those days, was a 5.0L guy for quite a while, till the mod motors, but that's a whole other rant from way back.  As I said a 12 second car 10 years ago was a very fast street car.  Also my trap speed comparisons tend to be with much lighter cars, 120 trap with a 3200-3300lb car is well in the 11's.  The FRC in stock form is actually less then 3200, 3170 I think it was quoted as, but the blower adds a bit of weight.  My buddy back from way back then had a 90 GT, that was one of the faster cars around back in the early 90's, it was 12.80's N/A or 11.80 with spray.  It was a total package car too, with upgraded suspension and brakes.  I remember that thing sticking with me through the corners with my 86 Z-51 vette, not bad at all for a unibody car.   

 
BigRat

[Big Rat]

Bigrat~ yup but I had to sell it though I LOVED IT, I wanted to be in it every moment of every day, the motor was still as strong as ever, the body was a bit beat, but I became addicted to it bad,I sold it for a grand  :-(  I still have dreams about it...literly I dream about it quite often, even though it's been almost 12 years since I sold it.    I miss that car..I feel guilty I miss and love it so much, we are not supposed to "love" that stuff, Love should be reserved for family and friends. Certainly not a car. I hate to admit it but I did love it    :-(

Ink,

If you really want another one, and it sounds like you do.  Keep working toward it, keep the dream out there.  Every once in a while an opportunity will present itself.  That 69 of mine I found for 12k, as a partially completed project.  Frame off was already done just had to finish the interior, engine compartment, windshield, and trim and paint.  The entire Chassis, suspension, and most of the engine stuff was done.  Managed to buy the car and finish it for less then 21k, including paying someone to shoot the paint.  Took 3 years and a lot of labor, but it was all worth it when finished.  You may run across a similiar project, buy it cheap and work on it as time and cash is available.  Make it a family project, that everyone can take pride in.  It's not wrong to love a car, you love it for what it brings to you when you drive it and look at it, "happiness".

 
BigRat   

[Saurdaukar]

NICE dyno sheet, Rat.

[Big Rat]

NICE dyno sheet, Rat.

Thank you, that's actually a very mild 468 BBC, runs fairly well in a 3300lb car w 4spd, should see the stairs my wife gets when she's driving it.  I just ride behind her sometimes to watch the show  The FRC is the far meaner one, dyno sheet below 4th gear run, believe it was a 6500rpm pull, 6250 is peak power.



I just realized I'm doing a lot of free advetising for my tuners , they are both great guys if your in the St.Louis area.  Steigemeier is primarily a Modular Ford Supercharged guy, but like the old school stuff too.  Turbo connection is primarily an GM LS motor guy.

 
BigRat

[Shuffler]

i know......butr the camaro is not a true chevy.

 don't take me wrong...i still like the looks of it. the only thing i've never liked about them, is the tail lights.....they look like modified corvette tail lights to me.

Built by Chevrolet (GM). Not sure what you mean by not a true chevy.

This is her car after AAC did the custom lighting install...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The new Camaro looks like it does because GM didn't want ot pay the kid that drew the original, which looks better.

I'm a Chevy guy, but the new Camaro is too wide, too heavy, and too expensive. It needs to go on a diet and lose 800 pounds. The Camaro is the size and weight of a loaded early seventies Chevelle. And that's a Chevelle with an all iron big block (700 pounds by itself) and a steel perimeter frame, compared to the Camaro having an all aluminum LS generation small block and a mostly sheetmetal floor pan.

Chevrolet needs to build one that weighs 3100 pounds and has a live rear axle, but doesn't have all the high dollar added options. If they left out all the crap, and just had power steering, power brakes, and A/C, they could have a stunningly quick Camaro that could be sold for about $25K list. The emissions would be lower, and the fuel economy higher. Even the V6 version would be pretty quick, and it would probably get 35MPG on the interstate, my 98 Firebird V6 does that.

It's funny, Ford and Chrysler both build drag race "specials" of the Mustang and the Challenger, but Chevrolet won't build one with the Camaro, and they have the "parts bin" to build the best of the three.

The Challenger is the best looking of the three "retro" muscle cars, but street version is just as much of a tank as the Camaro. The thing is, the "Drag Pack" Challenger is almost 900 pounds lighter than the street car.

[Skuzzy]

The 2013 Camaro is going to be sized to match the 1969 model.  It will be built on a modified version of the new Cadillac small chassis.  The Caddy chassis makes use of a lot of carbon fiber, but Chevy will remove that and replace it with steel and aluminum to save money.

[Shuffler]

The Z-28 is coming. Weight wise the camaro is in between the Mustang (which weighs less) and the Challenger (which weighs more).

You can remove the stock mufflers and replace with after market and save over 50 lbs on the Camaro.

It is amazing how much these new car weigh. It is also amazing how much HP they are generating and how they get it to the ground.

[CAP1]

Built by Chevrolet (GM). Not sure what you mean by not a true chevy.

This is her car after AAC did the custom lighting install...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c

it's a holden.