manicrodder
$50 site donor 2022
Yes you did. Charlie had one in a 70 Nova. It would scare Corvettes.
68 Chevelle SS 396 vs 2017 Malbu 2.0 T
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
"Electronic ignition" is limited to a conversion that can fit under the cap to get rid of the points. No distributor replacements with tricky electronics and no external boxes. Rev limiters are allowed for engine safety. Compression bumps are worth, what, 4% per point? A 1.5 point bump would be 6% increase.
None of that explain the HP bumps they're getting. Like you say, the trap speeds are showing huge power. Just good engine building and a solid tune-up. This is through factory heads, factory manifolds (intake and exhaust), a factory grind camshaft, and factory carburation. Moving air in and out, the path to power, is strictly limited.
I'm just providing a counterpoint. Saying something like "375 HP gross is only like 300 net" doesn't always tell the whole story. That same combination of parts can produce 500+ HP. The counter to that is usually, well, you'll never hook up that much power unless you put a tire on it. 11.5x on a bias ply G70.
A Chevelle in 1969 had 6 available gear ratios: From 3.07, all the way to 4.88.
That's kind of the idea though with the racing. Finding a L78 396/375 Chevelle with an M22 4-speed, 4:56 gears, posi, no smog pump, no power steering, no power brakes, bucket seats with no console, G70 tires, and so on is largely impossible. Sometime during 1969, Chevrolet could have made that exact car though and that's a fun concept to explore and race, especially if you limit what you can do to what the factory did.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I noted in the rules that they used to allow ignition boxes at one point, which is interesting. I'm curious as to how many of the records might have happened before that change? But yes, some of those old combo's didn't require a lot to wake them up, I always note that the Tasca Super Boss 494 was incredibly capable with a couple upgrades (one being ignition) and that was proven when the car was "refreshed" but otherwise mostly stock, just a few minor tweaks that unlocked huge power.
Anyways, my point was I don't think we want to go too far into comparing a specific racing class of "stock" cars to what the same model might have trapped showroom stock, which is what these sorts of comparisons should be made against. There were some total freak of nature 5.0L cars that were stock too, but they definitely didn't represent the performance of the average. NASCAR engines make huge power despite the incredible restrictions placed on them, there's a lot that can be done that stays within the rules but will greatly increase power, as you said, "good engine building" and that's what it comes down to. It's an art, particularly when having to work within some strict limitations.
How times have changed. That 2.0 Malibu is tough; my 2000 Mustang GT runs about the same 1/4 mile time on paper.
Did they have to run stock ignition curves? They were slower than Christmas. What about pump gas? Sunoco 260 would be nice...
A '66 GTO torque monster came with 7.75x14 bias ply Uniroyal tires. Shreadable....
A '66 GTO torque monster came with 7.75x14 bias ply Uniroyal tires. Shreadable....
Let’s put it up against 1970 Buick GS 455 Stage 1.I'll put my 2017 Regal GS 2.0T against that Malibu anyday.
Last edited:
I think the ignition box was an allowance for Mopar guys who had converted to electronic ignition using the "orange box". I work with a couple guys who race or have raced pure stock. I'll hit them up on IM and ask.
Muscle cars especially old ones feel faster because the beautiful engine sounds along with vibration/rattles/harshness/noise emitted into you.
I haven't read all of the responses to this thread yet, but as an old guy who was a teenager in the 60's and had a 66 GTO in high school that I street raced against the muscle cars of that era, I can tell you if a SS396 Chevelle was only doing 7+ seconds 0-60 it was traction limited. The stock tires on my GTO and other cars of the era were laughably small and narrow bias plies. The stock tires on my GTO were 7.75" X 14". Tire technology was nowhere near what it is today. Most muscle cars of the day with simply a set of slicks and open headers and a performance differential would be 13 second cars in the 1/4 at the drag strip with a good driver. But I can also tell you that modern cars are WAY superior in ride, handling, mpg and braking than those old muscle cars, and the acceleration of modern day grocery getters would equal many of those old factory hot rods on the street.
Yep. I had a 66 GTO Tri-Power (3 two barrel carbs), 3.55 limited slip diff, 4 speed manual B-W T10. I could smoke the rear tires all the way through first gear on those old skinny tires.
How long did 2nd gear hold up to all that torque?
In HS my friends dad had a 409 Impala. Just like the song...4 speed,dual quad,positraction 409. We kids would take it out. Definatley more to it than sound and other noises! That car was a handfull with all 8 barrels open
It would lay down a pretty long "II" in second gear also.
We also have to take into consideration the power and torque curve of the 396 compared to the 2.0T.
The 396 might have a high HP number, but that Malibu 2.0T has much newer tech including the trans as well as a flat torque curve.
Definitely a cool comparison, safe bet the Chevelle pulls much harder though when it hooks up, it's just that it can't keep that "pull" going as long because of the older tech.
The 396 might have a high HP number, but that Malibu 2.0T has much newer tech including the trans as well as a flat torque curve.
Definitely a cool comparison, safe bet the Chevelle pulls much harder though when it hooks up, it's just that it can't keep that "pull" going as long because of the older tech.
It's all about traction from a dead start. I've beat up 2.0 'bu's with my wifes 3.6 AWD Equinox. No wheel spin in it with 310 hp.
Not to mention how long the right pedal is on the floor either. I'm old but I don't lift either until it becomes a runaway and 'bu jockeys give up quickly LOL
Not to mention how long the right pedal is on the floor either. I'm old but I don't lift either until it becomes a runaway and 'bu jockeys give up quickly LOL
The good old days. Rear axle torque steer, when you needed 3rd gear to straighten out.
I noticed that the big-dog 1970 454 matched the 5.7 60-foot and beat the Malibu by 5 tenths in the quarter. I would rather have the Chevelle as a toy, but that's not too shabby for a car that doesn't stand out in the Enterprise rental lot.
Check out the specs for the Chevette! I'm surprised at how favorably the Citation's numbers compare, considering the one I drove once.
Check out the specs for the Chevette! I'm surprised at how favorably the Citation's numbers compare, considering the one I drove once.
I have a 1991 magazine that is a compilation of road tests from the old Hi-Performance Cars magazine. The fastest 1/4 mile time was a 12.5 posted by Joe Oldham's 1969 Motion Performance big block Camaro- with 4.10 gears, uncapped headers and slicks. Aside from that car most of the others put up 1/4 mile ETs in the 13.5-14.5 second range. Those times are definitely on the slow side of average for performance cars these days. My 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 could run in the low 14 second range and trap 100 mph all day long- and that's with a 2.3 liter turbo that averaged 26+ mpg over the 8 years and 158,000 miles I had it. My M235i returned similar fuel economy but ran the 1/4 mile in 12.9 sec @ 109 mph. Even my wife's X1 can run the quarter in 14.6 sec @ 95 mph(a bit faster than my 1988 M6 when it was stock). That said, I love the musclecars from that era; if I had the money and garage space I'd have a Boss 302, an XR7-G, an AAR Cuda, a GSX, and a Ram Air IV Judge- but I still definitely believe that "the good old days" are NOW.