Hot take: Modern cars are BORING

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Didn't some of the sedans from the 60s have 300-400+ hp?


SAE GROSS, which is significantly less when converted to NET, often in the order of 30%.

Ford produced the 427 SOHC which was available "over the parts counter" and produced 657HP (GROSS) in dual-quad config. NET, with accessories, it probably produced around 450-500HP, making it comparable to the present day Chrysler 392.

The 427 SOHC was probably THE most powerful stock engine offered in that era, though I know Chrysler had a few wild HEMI's but IIRC, none of them were street mills.

If you look up some old 1/4 mile times, take a look at the trap speeds. That'll give you a better indication of what they were really producing for power. E/T isn't much help because the tires were junk and hooking up was next to impossible.


That sounds like a beast of an engine! What cars did Ford use them in?

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm

That sounds like a beast of an engine! What cars did Ford use them in?


Ford never installed one in a street car(officially, anyway); the 427 SOHC was intended to be homologated for use in Grand National racing to compete with Chrysler's 426 Hemi. Chrysler protested and NASCAR banned the motor. It did however see a lot of use in drag racing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Didn't some of the sedans from the 60s have 300-400+ hp?


SAE GROSS, which is significantly less when converted to NET, often in the order of 30%.

Ford produced the 427 SOHC which was available "over the parts counter" and produced 657HP (GROSS) in dual-quad config. NET, with accessories, it probably produced around 450-500HP, making it comparable to the present day Chrysler 392.

The 427 SOHC was probably THE most powerful stock engine offered in that era, though I know Chrysler had a few wild HEMI's but IIRC, none of them were street mills.

If you look up some old 1/4 mile times, take a look at the trap speeds. That'll give you a better indication of what they were really producing for power. E/T isn't much help because the tires were junk and hooking up was next to impossible.


That sounds like a beast of an engine! What cars did Ford use them in?


As MCompact touched-on, it was never factory-installed. It was available over the parts counter and there were a few that were "dealer installed" into rigs. My grandfather had a Thunderbird with one in it and apparently it was an absolute rocket.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Putting 500 bhp in a fleet sedan merely makes for a fast version of a fleet sedan. It does not make of it a really entertaining car.
FYI, in case of the Charger, it's not just an engine... suspension, brakes, exhaust, trans programming are all different, which does add to the entertainment factor.

All standard sedan into supercar stuff going back to the original fast fleet sedan GTO and nothing that a fleet special sedan owner couldn't do in his own garage at much lower cost.
The result is something that still drives like an overweight machine as quickly as it might do so.

Bull.

If you can buy a brand new Challenger SXT and make it perform and appear in all aspects as well and as reliably as a Hellcat for under $65k I'll give you my 911.

PS... It's $20k for the engine.


Oh please.
Some of you guys are so easily seduced by the test numbers from the buff books and actually believe what the advertisers feed their writers about all of the costly mods and development.
$20K engine?
LOL!
I'd be surprised if FCA had more than $5K in it.
A very fast car in a straight line no doubt. Nissan offers a similar beast although theirs is a little pricier.
Neither would be anyone's first choice on a rural two lane with corners to play around in.