It was 1964

Status
Not open for further replies.
CourierDriver

CourierDriver

Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
6,222
Location
Tn.
1964 Pontiac GTO specs
Specifications. Wheelbase, inches: 115.0. Weight, lbs: 3470. Number built: 32,450. Base price: $2,852.
Top Available Engine. Displacement, cid: 389. Fuel system: 3 x 2bbl. Compression ratio: 10.75:1. Horsepower @ rpm: 348 @ 4900. ...
Representative Performance. 0-60 mph, sec: 6.6. 1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.8 @ 95.



I was 18 years old, always wanted one, but it never happened,,,enjoy...................miss the real cars of the 60's.and the sounds of the V-8s,,,
 
I wonder how much those GTO acceleration numbers were limited by traction...when Motor Trend gave the Forester their 2014 SUV of the year award, they pegged the XT at 6.2s 0-60 and 14.8s at 96mph for the quarter mile with 250HP/260lb-ft in a heavier vehicle.
Of course, the reported HP in '64 was gross instead of net, but I still think the tires of the time were making it tougher to make full use of the engine's power...
 
Wish I was around for the 'musclecar years'....lots of fun being a car guy in that period!
 
Beautiful car!
thumbsup2.gif
 
It wasn't a 1964, but I had a new 1966 GTO, tri-power, 4 speed, limited slip 3.55 rear end. and no A/C. Rated at 360 HP. The only thing faster in our little town was a 327/350 HP Corvette and Pylmouth 426 Hemi Satellite. Those 0-60 and 1/4 mile times seem anemic today and can be beat by a V6 Accord but, as a previous poster indicated, the times listed back then were traction limited. The standard tire was a skinny little 14" bias ply that would look small on a Camry today. Take off the restrictive cast iron exhaust manifold, replace with a set of tubular headers, bolt on a set of drag slicks and you would get 1/4 mile track times deep into the 13's or high 12's depending on the DA and track prep.
 
A beautiful car.

The price was the equivalent of $23K today. A well optioned model, with things we consider standard like AT, air, PS PB etc is closer to $36K today.

An Accord 2.0L, a Toyota Avalon, a Ford Expedition, most luxury makes, and even a Toyota Sienna, plus practically every modern car with a 6 cyl. have equivalent performance numbers. How times have changed.
 
Notice the twin angled exhaust tips on the car in this video. That is factory correct. My '66 had the same tips.

Also notice the throttle linkage on the three deuce carburetors. It is strictly a mechanical linkage, no vacuum actuation. You could adjust when the two outer carbs would kick in by moving the adjusting nut on the linkage rod. Too soon and the car would bog down from too much gas. The setup for the strip could be more aggressive than for the street because of the high rpm launch.

You can see the restrictive factory cast iron exhaust manifolds also. Those were usually ditched right away and replaced with a good set of Hooker tubular headers.
 
Originally Posted by jhs914
It wasn't a 1964, but I had a new 1966 GTO, tri-power, 4 speed, limited slip 3.55 rear end. and no A/C. Rated at 360 HP. The only thing faster in our little town was a 327/350 HP Corvette and Pylmouth 426 Hemi Satellite. Those 0-60 and 1/4 mile times seem anemic today and can be beat by a V6 Accord but, as a previous poster indicated, the times listed back then were traction limited. The standard tire was a skinny little 14" bias ply that would look small on a Camry today. Take off the restrictive cast iron exhaust manifold, replace with a set of tubular headers, bolt on a set of drag slicks and you would get 1/4 mile track times deep into the 13's or high 12's depending on the DA and track prep.

That makes a lot of sense to me!
I would imagine that the limited number of speeds in the older muscle cars also affects the drag times, but I am also pretty confident that the CVT in my XT (only tranny option!) was introduced to improve gas mileage and not to lower the 0-60 time!
 
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
I wonder how much those GTO acceleration numbers were limited by traction...when Motor Trend gave the Forester their 2014 SUV of the year award, they pegged the XT at 6.2s 0-60 and 14.8s at 96mph for the quarter mile with 250HP/260lb-ft in a heavier vehicle.
Of course, the reported HP in '64 was gross instead of net, but I still think the tires of the time were making it tougher to make full use of the engine's power...

probably g78x14 small by todays standards
 
Originally Posted by oldhp
Beautiful GTO. There is a certain sound and feel of a old school muscle car.

thumbsup2.gif
 
Quote
There is a certain sound and feel of a old school muscle car.

Smell too. I often smell old carbureted cars long before I see them on the highway. Unburned hydrocarbons and no catalyst. It's funny, but the old-school muscle cars I see today are usually going well under the speed limit or are parked at the soft-serve ice cream spot.
 
Last edited:
The tires were 7.75X14 bias ply. Easy to spin.
I had a '66. Dang to have that car again; those 389s were torque monsters.

The 64 thru 67 Goats were flat-out beautiful. And they flew!
 
Originally Posted by CourierDriver
1964 Pontiac GTO

1/4 mile, sec. @ mph = 14.8 @ 95


HUH??
confused2.gif
I had no idea they were that slow... High 14's?
 
Originally Posted by NO2

An Accord 2.0L, a Toyota Avalon, a Ford Expedition, most luxury makes, and even a Toyota Sienna, plus practically every modern car with a 6 cyl. have equivalent performance numbers. How times have changed.

Amazingly, a 2019 Avalon with 301 hp will do 0-60 on 6.0 seconds per Motortrend.
 
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 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 returns similar fuel economy but runs the 1/4 mile in a tick under 13 seconds. Even my wife's X1 runs the quarter in 14.6.

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.
 
MCompact, When I had my 1969 Dodge Charger SE, built 440, 4 speed, Triple Black, Super Stock rear springs(had a nice rake) Cragars w/MT L60 x 15 rears. I went to a cruise in and backed in next to a black 2012 Dodge Challenger R/T. The owner came up after a while and jokingly said he wished I would've park somewhere else. Nobody was looking at the Challenger.
But.......The Challenger R/T cruised home with AC blasting, power steering, power disc brakes, power windows and a nice stereo. My beast had flowmaster's for sound and vent windows that turned backwards for plenty of 70MPH AC. It still was a blast to drive!!!
Old School Muscle Rules!!!
 
Originally Posted by oldhp
MCompact, When I had my 1969 Dodge Charger SE, built 440, 4 speed, Triple Black, Super Stock rear springs(had a nice rake) Cragars w/MT L60 x 15 rears. I went to a cruise in and backed in next to a black 2012 Dodge Challenger R/T. The owner came up after a while and jokingly said he wished I would've park somewhere else. Nobody was looking at the Challenger.
But.......The Challenger R/T cruised home with AC blasting, power steering, power disc brakes, power windows and a nice stereo. My beast had flowmaster's for sound and vent windows that turned backwards for plenty of 70MPH AC. It still was a blast to drive!!!
Old School Muscle Rules!!!

Yes, Old School Muscle Rules, look at the crowds they command at a car show...they live on..
 
Originally Posted by Pelican
I remember them well, great cars in a straight line, but give them a few curves and suddenly not so much, still, I miss them.
smile.gif


That's because GM chassis design, well...sucked. Flexy frames, horrible camber curves, dinky brakes, all standard!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top