It was 1964

[jhs914]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
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.

That's because GM chassis design, well...sucked. Flexy frames, horrible camber curves, dinky brakes, all standard!

My '66 GTO had drum brakes. Use them hard once and they went away until they cooled back down. The '67 GTO's came with front discs but the tri-power was no longer offered. Granted that the handling of the muscle cars was atrocious but that included all makes, not just GM. Big cast iron engines up front and a lot of understeer came standard with them all. If you wanted good handling you had to go with a small block Corvette, Z28 Camaro, or Boss 302 Mustang.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by Imp4
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.


My wife's aging Avalon with the 268 HP port injected version of that engine is also pretty quick, but I have a really hard time keeping the fronts from spinning when leaving a light. I think most sources showed it at a 6.2s 0-60.
I remember years ago when some teens in a pitiful little tuner challenged me at a light when I was driving her car, revving their little engine and creeping forward again and again...I mean, I didn't even have to try hard to absolutely wax them. The folly of youth!

Originally Posted by jhs914
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
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.

That's because GM chassis design, well...sucked. Flexy frames, horrible camber curves, dinky brakes, all standard!

My '66 GTO had drum brakes. Use them hard once and they went away until they cooled back down. The '67 GTO's came with front discs but the tri-power was no longer offered. Granted that the handling of the muscle cars was atrocious but that included all makes, not just GM. Big cast iron engines up front and a lot of understeer came standard with them all. If you wanted good handling you had to go with a small block Corvette, Z28 Camaro, or Boss 302 Mustang.

Oh god, drum brakes...they were scary. I'm pretty sure my mom's '66 Comet only had drums and she had to be really careful in that thing

My dad liked giant cruiser cars with big engines and had a huge Merc for years...he was still frustrated decades later about a coworker buying a Boss 302 and humiliating him on the highway.
"I had a 390 and he only had a 302, and he would WALK AWAY from me on the Dan Ryan!!! It doesn't make sense!!!"
Even as a kid, it made sense to me...

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
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!


Yes, torque monsters for sure. Today's engines & tranny combos do not have that torque. But today's engines do spin higher getting the HP rating at max RPM higher, better to advertise and sell today's cars.

 

[pkunk]

I had a '65 383ci Plymouth that smoked any GTO. Traction by Atlas bucrons. They smoked but not for long before they really hooked up.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by CourierDriver
1964 Pontiac GTO

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


HUH??

I had no idea they were that slow... High 14's?


I didn't either. Nostalgia wise, the 60s muscle cars were awesome, but they don't compare to today's cars performance wise...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
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.

That's because GM chassis design, well...sucked. Flexy frames, horrible camber curves, dinky brakes, all standard!


It wasn't just GM, all the cars back then had all of these bad things....they just didn't have the technology back then that we have today...

 

[OVERKILL]

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...


The trap speed tells the story. There's a pretty big difference between NET and GROSS HP.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by SeaJay
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
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!


Yes, torque monsters for sure. Today's engines & tranny combos do not have that torque. But today's engines do spin higher getting the HP rating at max RPM higher, better to advertise and sell today's cars.


Some of them do; basically any of the larger displacement V8's. But yeah, the little high-winding 4 and 6 cylinder mills, while making lots of power up top, are pretty soft down low.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi

My dad liked giant cruiser cars with big engines and had a huge Merc for years...he was still frustrated decades later about a coworker buying a Boss 302 and humiliating him on the highway.
"I had a 390 and he only had a 302, and he would WALK AWAY from me on the Dan Ryan!!! It doesn't make sense!!!"
Even as a kid, it made sense to me...


Love the BOSS 302, there's one locally that I used to see frequently, but haven't in a few years.

My grandfather had a late 60's Thunderbird that was an ex OPP highway pursuit car. Was ordered with an "over-the-counter" installed 427 SOHC, don't know if it was the dual or single quad configuration (dual was 657HP, single was 616HP). Apparently, it was quite the menace.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
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.

That's because GM chassis design, well...sucked. Flexy frames, horrible camber curves, dinky brakes, all standard!


It wasn't just GM, all the cars back then had all of these bad things....they just didn't have the technology back then that we have today...


To make a GM car handle you have to re-engineer the chassis geometry.

To make a Chrysler handle, you need the right combination of (factory) parts.

Stock chassis geometry, and a list of factory parts that even includes the wheel bearing grease. The only trick part in that car is an elderly Direct Connection aluminum transmission housing.

Note: when built, that 2800lb, 100hp Valiant had larger brakes than a 3600lb, 340hp GTO!

 

[JeffKeryk]

Yes, the cars are much better now. Transmissions especially. Radial tires. You want torque? Try an EV; nothin' like it.
I miss my Goat. But we have the 65 4-4-2 with the 2 speed Junk-Away.... Yes, 4 wheel drum brakes in a heavy car. Swimming steering. 14" skinny tires. Oops.
All good.