
|
Originally Posted by Joeychgo
I pick these:
1969 Mustang Boss 302 1969 Chevelle SS 396 aka "Black Belt" 1972 Baracuda 383 1966 GTO 1966 Corvette |
|
Originally Posted by BlackIceLSC
I would have to go with the following, in no particular order:
1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda convertible 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner 440-6pack(or Hemi!!!) 1970 Plymouth 'Cuda 440-6pack(or Hemi!!!) 1968 1/2 Mustang GT (428 CJ) 1967 Shelby GT-500(w/early 427) 1964 Ford Thunderbolt 1968 Hemi Dart 1969 Corvette 427/435 tri-power roadster 1967 Dodge Coronet Convt w/Hemi 1968 Chevy Camaro RS/SS 396 Convert.(drove one once-liked it) and all time "dream machine" 1969 Mustang Boss 429(a raven Black one!!!) |
Nice choices
|
Originally Posted by Jibit
My all time favorite is the 1970 Olds 442 Convertible with the Hurst package.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jibit
My all time favorite is the 1970 Olds 442 Convertible with the Hurst package.
|
I'd even suffer in one of the 8 '69 T/A 'verts, 4-spd preferred.
|
Originally Posted by Spidar6996
1969 Yenko 427 Camaro
1966 GTO 1971 Cuda 1965 Vett 396 1968 Pontiac GTO "Judge" |
|
I was referring to the Hurst dual-gate, I guess I was a little misleading when I said Hurst package. I like that year because I like the front end with the headlight together and it still had the 455 in it. If I'm not mistaken, the HP started to decrease in the 442 after '70. Or maybe they were just rated less by Oldsmobile. I've heard tales that the manufacturers claimed less HP back then so that insurance wasn't as expensive. |
including certain GTO's and Tempest, Mustangs, 63' vettes and all that jaz...
|
Originally Posted by hintsclue
Only one I can think of--1969 ZL1 COPO Camaro
![]() |
|
Originally Posted by codewize
...63' vettes...
|
|
Originally Posted by squirell
That's the real deal.
Family owned since 1975 with only 38,000 orig miles. 95% of the paint and interior are orig. |
<<drool>> congratulations man, that is a beautiful vehicle in amazing condition.
|
Originally Posted by Jibit
What about the Oldsmobile 442? That's classy, that's power! BTW, I think you need to revise your signature, it still has the Buik on it!
|
|
Originally Posted by MarkedMan
Did you mean Buick.
|
|
Originally Posted by Katshot
I just wanted to make MarkedMan feel better by pointing out that Buick did, in fact sell at least one fast car. And I'll agree with you on the CTS-V. Hot car!
|
|
Originally Posted by Katshot
Sure they were fast but not even CLOSE to a modern day GNX, or even a Grand National. Matter of fact, I'll bet a stock Regal GS with a oulley kit would smoke one. The old saying "there's no replacement for displacement" just doesn't work anymore. The replacement is "technology" my freinds.
|
P.S one of my favorite cars is the 69 ZL1 camaro.. no one ever talks about it.
|
Originally Posted by Imperial pilot x
umm. no. If technology reffering to forced induction surely a forced induction car could beat a naturally aspirated car depending on the specs.. a stock Regal T type is like 270 hp 14s all day.. Sure buicks first attempts at the gran sport were not that great with the old "Nail head" ( small ass valves ) but once they got that stage 1 455 in 69 and 70 these cars can really move. Yeah if you beefed up the turbo on a 3.8 G body they haul ass.. But their just avg high 13 to 14 second cars.. no different from the predecessor.. I like those cars alot and easilly run fast. but arguing a car with a turbocharger vs N/A is stupid. technology might bring us better turbos and means of forced induction, better head design or cam grinds etc. But my friend as long as youre in the world of a reciprocating internal combustion engine SIZE MATTERS. Period. The final part of my argument is a top fuel dragster. Look one up. Look at the horsepower rating. Look at the size of the engine. Look at the fact they use forced induction. Look how fast they go. Then ask is their anything with smaller displacement going faster or making more power than one of these ? with using "technology" ? A honda cant beat a built big block by doing a simple chip upgrade to inhance its fuel/air ratio or timing.
P.S one of my favorite cars is the 69 ZL1 camaro.. no one ever talks about it. |
.....but what do I know.....LOL
|
Originally Posted by 1wykdmk8
.....but what do I know.....LOLOooooo....... Copo Camaro...... ![]() |
|
Originally Posted by JoshMcMadMac
Nice pictures, Squirell! Is that a real 1970 Chevelle LS6? Those are pretty rare, and definately one of the greatest factory hotrods in my book!
|
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
Wow, haven't posted / looked at this thread for a while, need to visit more often.
Actually, the most common engine option in '70 Chevelle SSs was the LS6, they out-numbered the LS5 454 and both 396s that were offered. When compared to Stage-1 Buicks or W30 Olds of the same year ('70), LS6s were pretty common, hardly "rare". Not to dis the LS6s, they are still bad-azz cars, just not as rare as most people think. ![]() |
|
Originally Posted by squirell
Hate to burst your bubble Johnny, you are way off :
1970 Chevelle SS L-34 396 51,437 made L-78 396 2144 made L-89 396 18 made (aluminum heads) LS-5 454 4298 made LS-6 454 4475 made Only 7 percent were ls-6 cars Of that less than 10 percent of LS-6 cars were automatics. That makes mine pretty rare. |
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
How about ranking the best engines, in the following displacement classes:
7.5L (~455ci): My vote would have to be the Chevy LS6 454, tough to deny the highest factory HP rating of the day. However, Buick Stage-1s would be hard to argue against. 7.0L (~427ci): HEMI, no question. 6.6L (~400ci): Pontiac RA-IV were about as wicked as they came. L89 396s and the early, '66-'67 W30 Olds were close 2nds. 5.7L (~350ci): Olds W31, show me any another small block that runs 13s in a 3400 lb car. LT1s in Novas don't count. 5.0L (~305ci): I'd say it's a tossup between the '67-'69 Z28s and Boss 302 motors. |
|
Originally Posted by 67Continental
most of these displacement classes are exclusively GM, or at least, dominated by GM. Why not give ranges instead of exact displacement numbers? I guess dodge wins best 5.2l
![]() |
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
My bad, I don't remember the article I read in MCR listing the L34. Either that or their mentioning that the 325HP 396 was dropped as the standard SS motor for '70 confused my memory of the details. Anyway, the thing I did remember was that the LS-6 was not the most rare optional motor like most people think (the article was about an L89 '70 SS). Thanks for clarifying.
Actually, now that I re-read my statement: "Actually, the most common engine option in '70 Chevelle SSs was the LS6, they out-numbered the LS5 454 and both 396s that were offered.", if the L34 was "standard" in the SS, then I really didn't mis-state anything. Just to confirm, the L34 was rated 350HP, L78 and L89 were both 375HP, the LS5 was 380HP (?) and the LS6 was 450HP, right? |
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
Because there was no Hurst/Olds built in '70 or '71. The H/O returned in '72 and paced the Indy 500 (the '70 442 Indy pace car was not a H/O). There were even H/O Vista Cruiser wagons built for track duty that year (now THAT's my idea of a SUV !!).
|
) had one that ran mid 12s with only cam, headers,and dual quads, drove to track days with the A/C on. here hemi, hemi
(1971 Mercury Montego)




|
The ONE muscle car that started it ALL!! THE 1964 GTO 289 3 2'S
|
|
BBBEEAAuuuttiiful Goat Man!!! Thats $hit is HOT!!!!
I always Loved this bodystyle. Stright to the point looks. No guessing that your gonna get your a$$ fed to you. But the first Muscle car really was the Chrysler 300C. |
My uncle had a 55 300 331 hemi 280-300hp!
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser