CobraConti said:
Comparing apples to oranges. Those cars are all basically 50 years old. I need not even talk about the technological advances. The Honda's cup holders are probably more technologically advanced than all those cars put together. Hp was also measured different. Thats like comparing a F86 to a F15
No, but that's the point. A minivan is faster than most of these old cars that a remembered for their performance. Of course, the technology is the main reason why. But what's interesting is how our memories of these old cars are far more flattering than need be.
Dream Car Garage (on Speedvison) took several 60's era cars....bone stock, great condition....and dragged em. They all ran high 13s/very low 14s. All the big names 70 Chevelle SS 454, Hemi Cuda, Hurst 442, etc. Very respectable. The Hemi woulda ran mid low 13s but the tranny was slipping and the rear gear was too high (the driver commented on all the passes). The fastest was a Boss 429 Mustang. All these were on 60's era 14/15" tires. Alot of people think those old cars aren't fast which is wrong. BTW a 15 second slip is not fast.
That's another thing that annoys me. People talk about the great muscle cars of the past, and then they compare performance numbers to these limited production models at the end of the muscle car era.
Most people didn't have those cars, nor have they even ridden in them. There are a few exceptionally fast, high production models, but you didn't list any here.
Let's take the 1970 Chevelle SS 454. Out of the 634,000 Chevy's produced that year, only 8,733 were '70 SS 454s. But clearly, of the cars you just mentioned, this was the most common.
They only built 781 Plymouth 426 Hemi Cudas.
They made 906 '69 Hurst Olds 442.
And only 859 1969 Boss 429 Mustangs were produced.
So comparing those cars isn't representative of the era.
