1969 could well be considered the apex of the muscle car era. The ’64 GTO created the genre and 1968 Plymouth Roadrunner redefined it by stripping it down to the essentials. And by 1969, Ford finally had a competitive street engine in the 428 Cobra Jet. Car and Driver set out to compare six stripped-down “Econo-Racers”, and the results make for a (rapid) time travel back to 1969. Just don’t be too disappointed to find out that one of them was disqualified for being no where near stock; you can probably guess which one was judged to be an outrageous “ringer”.
The first wave of the mid-sized muscle cars (or whatever moniker you prefer) were high-trim as well as high-performance versions. That formula changed with the massively successful Roadrunner, and everyone else quickly jumped in too. There was something about the no-nonsense stripped down look combined with the serious performance equipment that was just more compelling — as well as cheaper. That didn’t apply to all of them; the Pontiac GTO Judge was actually more expensive, but it sported the look anyway.
C/D requested cars that would be as basic and comparable as possible including the standard base engines but with the optional functional hood scoops. The one major deviation was on the two otherwise very similar Mopars: the RR was ordered with the 426 Hemi; the Super Bee with the standard 383. There were a few other options requested: automatic transmissions, rear axle ratios of as close to 3.50 as possible with limited slip, disc brakes, power steering, radio and a tachometer.
As is so commonly the case in these comparisons, some of the cars didn’t arrive as per the requests: The two Mopars did, but the rest came with optional bucket seats, consoles, and various other doo-dads. C/D was annoyed; GM and Ford said the six-week window was too short to meet the requests, yet Chrysler had no problem.
#1: Plymouth Hemi Road Runner:
Not exactly a surprising outcome, as Chrysler’s Hemi-powered B-Body cars had been enjoying top-dog status ever since they arrived in 1966. It wasn’t just its brute acceleration either, although with a 1/4 mile result of 13.54 seconds @105 mph, this one more than lived up to its name. It’s one of the faster times I’ve seen for a genuine stock Hemi B-Body. The ’66 Hemi Belvedere review we posted a while back weighed the same and had a slightly lower numerical 3.23 rear axle. It was a fair bit slower, with a rather pokey 0-60 time of 7.1 compared to the ’69’s 5.1, and was a full second slower in the 1/4 mile (14.5 @ 95 mph). The one big difference was that the ’69 had significantly wider F70-15 tires compared to the skinny 7.77-14s on the ’66.
C/D made the point that the RR wasn’t first just because of the Hemi, although it certainly added to the equation. The RR also stopped in the shortest distance and came in second in handling. But it was more than mere metrics that made the RR stand out; it was “the most exciting” and came a cross as “a tamed race car…the Hemi Road Runner has more pure mechanical presence than any other American automobile”.
The hemi created very visceral sounds and sensations: “open everything on the two 4-bbl. Carters…the exhaust explodes like Krakatoa and the wailing howl of surprised air being sucked into the intake turns heads for blocks. Baby, you know you’re in the presence.”
The suspension was “incredibly stiff, guaranteed to produce extreme discomfort for anyone but the enthusiast.” The RR handled well, but not as well as the Chevelle, and had a strong understeer tendency that required a heavy foot on the throttle to counteract.
The taxi-cab worthy instrument panel without even an oil pressure gauge to keep tabs on the health of the expensive ($813) Hemi was considered “a true felony“, and the optional tach was poorly placed.
The Hemi RR wasn’t exactly all that “Econo” either, given the stiff price for the Hemi. It would have been the most expensive car of the test if all had been similarly equipped.
#2: Dodge Super Bee
The decision as to which car came in second was a bit difficult, as the Ford Cobra was a strong contender. The Super Bee was only fourth in acceleration and third in both braking and handling, so it had to be in other qualities that pushed it ahead of the Cobra. Those were its “exceptionally well-coordinated feel of the Dodge combined with really outstanding instrumentation (shared with the Dodge Charger) that made the difference.”
The Dodge was the lightest of the group (3765 lbs. curb weight), which probably helped explain in part its somewhat surprisingly quick 14.04 second 1/4 mile time @99.55 mph, given the 335 hp 383 V8. A bit oc checking showed that the engine had a dual point distributor and a large diameter exhaust system. But a check of the AMA specs showed that those were standard, but a further check showed that the Super Bees coming off the assembly lines had single point distributors and a smaller exhaust system.
Technically it was “stock”, but not quite representative of what was actually being sold.
The softer torsion bars and springs on the 383-equipped cars resulted in more body roll, more than any others in the test. Even then, the Super Bee was deemed to handle well. Even though the Super Bee was a bit less super than the Hemi RR, it still felt like a civilized racer. It was a quality that endeared these Mopar B-Bodies to their loyal fans.
#3: Ford Cobra
The Fairlane/Torino based Cobra was Ford’s new entry in the muscle car wars, and finally they had something truly competitive in price and performance. The 428 Cobra Jet engine, which sported the deep-breathing 427 heads and other goodies, made it a strong performer, with a quick 14.04 @100.61 1/4 mile time and trap speed. The rather pricey ($433) fresh air package was obviously effective, as when the scoop was closed, it lost 0.2 seconds and 1.4 mph in the 1/4 mile.
The four-pod instrument panel failed to elicit any love, as did the power steering, which was summed up as “numb“. The brakes were good, and the handling reflected the typical Ford pattern of strong understeer. The ride was comfortable and quiet, only exceeded by the Chevelle. Build and material quality were a positive. C/D summed it up by saying that from its gnarly looks, the Cobra is clearly trying to come across as a racer, but driving it, it feels more like a family sedan with a big engine.
#4 Mercury Cyclone CJ
Since the only real differences between the Cyclone and the Cobra were stylistic, it’s not exactly surprising that the Cyclone slotted in just behind the Cobra, due to significantly worse braking performance. But it was a hair quicker than the Cobra, due to its higher numerical 3.91 rear axle ratio. That resulted in a 13.94 @100.89 mph 1/4 mile time, but the increased engine noise at cruising streets was not deemed worth the slight improvement. And its instrument panel was deemed superior.
#5 Chevelle SS396
The Chevelle was on the other side of the spectrum from the Hemi RR in terms of its civility. It was very smooth, quiet and refined; anything but a race car in feel or demeanor. How much that hurt it in the rankings is hard to say, but clearly C/D was more excited by the rough and tumble Mopars.
Chevrolet didn’t actually offer a single RR-like package, but since the SS396 option was available on the low-priced Chevelle 300 coupe, its starting price ($3409) was the lowest. A genuine Econo-Racer. But with the standard 325 hp version of the 396, its acceleration was not quite up to the lofty standards set by the others. It took 5.8 seconds from 0-60, and the 1/4 mile was acquitted in 14.41 @97.31. But…the 325 hp 396 had no performance pretensions (or actual components) unlike all the others in this test. This was an engine that was much more at home in a Caprice than on the drag strip. Comparing it with the 426 Hemi and 428 CJ is more than a bit unfair, given that both a slightly warmer 350 hp version and a decidedly warm 375 hp version were both available. The latter would have made a much more interesting point of comparison, but nevertheless, the Chevelle’s acceleration numbers are still quite decent. A 14.4 second quarter mile was nothing to sneeze or laugh at.
The Chevelle’s poor brakes didn’t help matters. But what did was its handling, deemed the best overall, thanks to its HD suspension package that now included a rear sway bar, as pioneered by the Olds 442 a couple of years earlier. The handling was enhanced further by the best power steering of the bunch.
The Chevelle that arrived was a Malibu version, complete with bucket seats and console, so once again C/D’s Econo-Racer expectations were dashed. The result was that the Chevelle was neither econo nor racer, but for an extra $252, the optional 375 hp 396 would turn it into the real thing.
Not Rated: Pontiac The Judge
Pontiac’s obsessive need to sneak in cars into magazine reviews that were anything but stock had been going on for some years, and the Judge was no different. It didn’t take long to notice that the vacuum lines and such looked non-stock, and a bit of further digging revealed the engine to have ID numbers for a 1968 manual transmission unit, which differed from what should have been there in a number of not unimportant ways, including its camshaft. Pontiac admitted “it’s kind of a prototype”. A smog check showed that it was also madly out of compliance. And there were 7″ wide wheels, not available as options. And…
C/D, which had been duped a number of time before by Pontiac, ruled The Judge to be guilty, and banished from the test.
The choice was pretty clear: the Hemi RR was an Econo-RACER; the Chevelle an ECONO-Racer, and the Cobra and Cyclone were somewhere in between. And The Judge was nowhere, thanks to Pontiac’s subterfuge.
“Duped” seems like the wrong word: C/D had played along with Pontiac on a number of previous occasions, but I guess this time they decided it wouldn’t be a good stunt. I got the feeling that if the test car had bent the rules in just one or two areas (if it had only had the wider wheels, for instance), they might have let it slide, but it just required too much suspension of disbelief.
Indeed, and as proof, one need only look to the Super Bee with it’s slightly larger exhaust and dual-point distributor. If Pontiac had limited the changes of their entry to such minor alternations, it would have been allowed to stay.
But the Pontiac people (specifically, Jim Wangers) just couldn’t resist going full gonzo tuning to ensure a superior magazine review (they typically gave them the Royal Bobcat treatment) and, for once, C&D called them on it.
Great piece, Paul. I love these comparison tests, and still read them today (mostly Motor Trend, as that’s the one that regularly e-mails me, even though the paper magazine never comes to the house anymore).
One minor nit though… in the title, you show the Chevelle as “369”, instead of 396.
It’s a shame that Chevy didn’t send the higher powered version of that engine to the test.
I mentioned this before, but when I was a little kid, I got to see these Chevelle SS/396 cars being assembled at the Broening Highway Assembly plant here in Baltimore. I’ll have this memory forever. It just wasn’t as magical 4 years later when, on a similar tour, the cars being assembled were the Laguna S3(s)…
Oops; fixed now.
1969 I was a sophomore in high school thinking about buying my first car. Calling these “econo racers” is a stretch for kid making $1.35 in a stone yard. I ended up with a $100 Ford, which was econo but not a racer.
Credible comparison tests like this, one of the best ways for AMC to get noticed. Free advertising. Even if the AMX/Javelin finished lower middle of the pack, or last. Better than being shutout of the competition.
?? What AMX/Javelin?
AMX or Javelin.
But there’s no AMX or Javelin in this test. Or am I missing something?
Right. I’m suggesting AMC would have best served themselves if they found a way to ensure they’d get a call to supply C&D a car, next time these comparison tests are held.
AMC doing whatever necessary, to getting themselves into these tests, is what I’m saying. No AMC presence here, losing an easy marketing opportunity for themselves.
Umm, ok. The reality is that the magazines determined what cars would be tested. I’m sure AMC’s PR department was always quite eager to supply cars to magazines just like the others.
If AMC’s PR people needed to wine and dine C&D staff, to get into C&D’s mindset they’d always get a call for a car. Easiest form of marketing for AMC.
The AMX or Javelin would have been competitive here. Valid contenders. Blown opportunity for AMC. AMC really needed to take advantage of these opportunities.
The problem is that AMC didn’t have a proper intermediate musclecar for 1969. Their entry for that year was the compact SC/Rambler.
It wouldn’t be until the Rebel ‘Machine’ for 1970, and then only for that one year.
AMX/Javelin not an intermediate, it was a pony car to run with Mustangs and Camaros.
The AMX/Javelin was not a mid-sized coupe, and AMC had not equipped the Rebel as an “Econo-racer.” Therefore, they had nothing in the cupboard when Car & Driver sent out their request.
I guess the Rebel Machine sort of fit the bill, but AMC did not offer it until the end of ’69 and you almost never saw one on the street.
Excellent points, and all true. I was looking from the muscle car entry perspective, equipped with the 390. And the lighter weight Javelin (or AMX), may have stood out here. Any positive press they could get.
Oh my, I can’t believe that there are automotive enthusiasts that don’t know that the AMX and the Javelin were not the same size. The AMX may have been too small for this comparison but the Javelin was in the mix with a 109″” wheelbase, 189.2″ length and 2836 lb weight. AMC always got the wrong end of the stick when it came down to reviews from R&T, Motor Trend, C&D and most of the other publications.
Even when they advertised in those magazines they still could not get a fair deal/review. My older brother subscribed to a couple (R&T-Motor Trend) which I would read always looking for any info about AMC. It might explain why I never did subscribe to any of them. AMC always fell through the cracks, or had negative reviews. Paying for reviews, or to just to get into an Automotive magazine should not be the reason why they were excluded. With AMC having 5-6 % of the market, 1 in 25 articles should have been about them, it was more like 1-100.
Please forgive the rant, but as a Company they had been around since 1902 and lasted 85 years, I hope that I can do as well.
I know the AMX had a smaller wheelbase. As I suggested, the 390 V8 made the Javelin/AMX valid muscle cars, and competitive here. If smaller.
The Javelin was a ponycar/compact. As said, the Rebel was AMCs intermediate, had AMC put in the 390 in 1969 in any capacity I’d say it’s unfair exclusion would be valid,, but to say AMC was treated unfairly in not letting the Javelin in on this comparison, the same thing could be asked of why the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Dart GTS, and Nova SS weren’t included too?
Further in the theme of this test where the low buck specialty packages were tested the S/CRambler is a better fit than the Javelin, but it too isn’t an intermediate
C/D included the Javelin in their big comparison of the hot 1968 pony cars:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-car-and-driver-compares-the-1968-pony-cars/
I was never a fan of big blocks in intermediates (or pony cars). I always felt that it threw off the balance F/R in ways that did the car no overall favors. Obviously they were faster in a straight line – if you could get the F70 tires to hook up – but the moment you wanted to turn, that front end would just plow. And if it was raining or snowing, you’d have to baby that gas pedal lest you find yourself wrapped around a utility pole.
No thanks. Give me a 4-barrel small-block.
Keep in mind Detroit is as flat as a billiard table- that’s why, for so long, U.S. automakers cheaped out on brakes and suspensions. They didn’t have to go around curves, so they figured no one else had to, either.
Note that the two cars with the heaviest engines(big block chevy and 426 Hemi) scored highest in this test for handling. Balance isn’t everything, HD suspensions made a substantial difference on these cars and the Roadrunner didn’t even have a rear sway bar like the Chevelle.
The key factor is F/R weight ratio. All of them were between 55.7% (Super Bee) and 57.7% (C0bra) on the front axle. That’s actually pretty average, especially for coupes that had a lighter rear body half.
The Hemi suspension included an extra leaf in the rear suspension, which was stiff enough to limit the rear axle hop on braking that the B-bodies otherwise tended to suffer and provide better handling balance. The tradeoff was to make the ride very, very stiff, which is what the rear anti-roll bar of the Chevrolet handling suspension helped to avoid.
I was surprised that the Chevelle had a rear anti-sway bar. I knew the Olds 442 got one, and it was available on the GTO (don’t know about the Buick GS) but didn’t think it was possible on the Chevy.
I’m reasonably certain rear sway bars were not avaiable on any Mopar or Ford musclecar.
1969 seem to be the year Chevrolet got serious about suspensions, at least on the A and B bodies. 1969 was the first year for F41 option on the Chevelle, which included the rear sway bar. It was not included as standard equipment on the SS396 and was little known option. As a result only 722 Chevelles were equipped with F41 in 1969, which I guess includes this particular Chevelle. The F41 greatly improved the handling of the Chevelle, and I would expect most SS396s were not nearly as capable in the corners as this test car.
For 1970 forward, the Chevelle Super Sports had F41 as standard equipment. C/D’s test of a 1970 Chevelle SS454 proved it to be an excellent handler, out handling a Boss 302 Mustang around their road course.
Ford did not offer a rear sway bar on its intermediate cars until 1972, and in that case the only was to get it was with the competition suspension option (Ford’s equivalent of F41). With Ford’s tendency for its cars to understeer, it could have used it earlier. I believe Mopar started offering a rear sway bar on its B-bodies in around 1971 or 72 as well.
These “muscle cars” were the best, using cubic inches, that Detroit could crank out at the time. I was selling Oldsmobiles, and muscle cars certainly had my interest if not my wallet! 🙂
Comparing these cars, in particular the SS 396, to the now defunct Accord 2.0L turbo shows the amazing engineering progress that has been made with ICE powered vehicles. That 2.0L Accord would easily run 14.5, mid 90s but would also PA$$ gas stations while sipping regular.
The muscle cars of yore are more rose colored glasses “glamor” than reality compared to many of the current crop of ICE automobiles. DFO
Alternatively, imagine a ’69 Chevelle with a modern 6.2 liter LS3 engine. 400 net horsepower and weighs about the same as a 1969 350 small block. And likely better fuel economy as well.
I believe you’re correct about the rose-colored glasses, Dennis.
Those muscle cars were leaps and bounds ahead of the cars from 55 years prior just as today’s cars are ahead of them. More than likely the rose colored glasses will apply to today’s cars 55 years from now. Does that mean we should appreciate today’s cars any less because someone in the future will feel as you do today?
None of these facts make me like and appreciate those 69’s any less. And this blog is about the classics, not today’s stuff.
Exactly. And I’d argue the law of diminishing returns is more apparent when comparing 1969 cars to 2023 than 1969 to 1914. The advances in fuel efficiency, emissions and safety cannot be overlooked, but that a modern sedan has the same acceleration of a showroom muscle car isn’t that big of an accomplishment after 55 years, when you consider a humdrum 1969 low spec family sedan equivalent would handedly blow the doors off of the best performing car 1914 had to offer.
That massaging Pontiac notoriously did to create ringers wasn’t far out of reach for the backyard mechanic in those days either, these engines were potent and the cars were simple. All of these cars were capable of better (straight line) performance, and many owners opted to, just as they do today, but with much less specialized tech and prohibitive cost of entry for a young driver these cars were targeted to(until insurance rates spiked).
It’s fair to say these aren’t as fast as average modern cars like one could credibly claim in the late 70s-80s-90s, but it’s revisionist history to try to minimize their impact and credibility when they were new. Is straight line performance such a dirty word when all of today’s technology and advancement is wasted in the current most popular automotive subculture; drifting? Where literally any RWD car can pretty much do it with a brave enough driver?
I agree that todays technology soundly spanks the muscle cars. However that also kind of misses the point. In their day muscle cars were the peak of performance and in those days the average comparison was done at the stop light. C/D, Motor Trend etc may have been concerned about braking, handling, etc. On the street the standard was straight line acceleration.
The real comparison is todays muscle cars, Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers that are soundly spanking the old, the new and everything in between. This doesn’t even account for the new performance muscle cars, EV’s.
I don’t think Pontiac was the only cheater here. Having owned a ’68 Chevelle SS396 and having spent lots of time around cars like this back when they were just old cars that burned too much gas, there are 2 more that stand out.
The Super Bee performs about exactly what I’d expect from a stock 440 magnum, and the Chevelle is almost exactly where you’d be if you were to substitute a stock 390 bhp 427 for the 325 bhp 396. Both would have been easy swaps and almost impossible to detect on appearances alone. The Ford, the Merc and the Plymouth seem about right.
These old road tests are fun reads, but they aren’t reliable indicators of what these cars could really do.
I am glad I got to play with this type of car just before just before they became investments and commodities!
They did check casting numbers on the engines, so a 440 or 427 would have been likely been busted. Also, the 440 is a taller engine, and not hard to ID just visually.
But I wasn’t there…
Ah, the elusive 1968-70 factory 440-4v Road Runner/Super Bee, one of the most notorious legends in musclecar lore. After all these years, there has yet to surface an original, documented example.
And it’s not hard to understand why some believe something could exist. There was, of course, the 440-6v, some which could easily have been converted to a single 4bbl carb and manifold.
Then there’s the 440-4v Superbird. There were undoubtedly a few desperate dealers who converted them back to a regular Road Runner in an attempt to sell (the state of Maryland didn’t recognize the Superbird nosecone as a bumper, at all).
And there’s the fact that there ‘was’ a 440-4v option for the last 1971 Super Bee, as well as the 1972-74 Road Runner, which also garnered Road Runner/GTX decals.
Finally, there’s the performance dealers like Mr. Norm’s Grand Spaulding Dodge in Chicago, the same outfit that swapped-out the 383 from a 1968 Dart GTS for a 440-4v (something Chrysler began doing in 1969 from the factory). There’s no doubt in my mind they’d happily do the same for a Super Bee.
But a 440-4v in a 1968-70 Road Runner/Super Bee from the factory? Didn’t happen. For once, Chrysler stuck with the gameplan of reserving the 440-4v for the Charger, Coronet R/T, and GTX and didn’t deviate, no matter how easily they could have.
Yeah, I know the 440 wasn’t a factory option. Neither was a 427 in an SS Chevelle. But both these cars are suspiciously fast for what they claim to be, particularly the SS with the base 396.
Given all the other “fast ones” pulled by manufacturers and car mags in those days I wouldn’t rule out a little deception.
Anyway, makes for a fun read!
The SS396 does seem a tad more speedy than one would expect. But a 427? I’m thinking more like a 350hp L34 engine. Maybe even a 375hp L78 but that one would have been pushing it. Those have a reputation as being nearly as fast as a Street Hemi and the numbers in the test aren’t that good.
As to why the 383 in the Super Bee was so fast, maybe it’s just the transmission. The Mopar TorqueFlite had a reputation as being the one to have for a racer.
C/D had some questionable tactics back in the day, and has self admitted to completely fabricating test results. Although by this time, Patrick Bedard was part of the staff and supposedly cleaned up the accuracy and methodology of their testing. I think they liked the reputation of running the best times. I agree with (re)Tiredoldmechanic on the numbers being questionable. In particular the 325 hp 396 Chevelle seems mighty quick. Most other contemporary tests had these cars more at around the high 14 to 15 second quarter mile.
Yeah, C&D most definitely had the most aggressive testing. They were all about the ‘drive it like you’re mad at it’ technique and really wailed the hell out of the press cars to get the best times of any auto rag of the time. Torque-loading off the line, power shifting, you name it, C&D did it, and the test results showed.
It is funny how Ford had a tendency to go all-in with a descriptive word back then. In the 50’s and early 60’s, the Ford engines were described as “Thunderbird” V8s. By the late 60’s, it was all about the Cobra.
What is also funny is how forgotten those Torino GTs have become, or at least how seldom they are seen now. Chevelles and Mopars of that era are everywhere that old cars are found, but the Fords (despite selling quite well) are AWOL.
Technically the GT was a separate entity from the Torino Cobras, which came standard with the high spec CJ engines. GTs came standard with 302s, some had 351s, others had 390s so while a lot of GTs were built they weren’t really all muscle cars in the desired sought after sense. Torino Cobras were rarer.
It is interesting today, the great rivalry of the past was Ford vs.Chevy, but today you’d think it was Chevy vs. Mopar. Unless it has a pony on the grille. These Torinos and Cyclones were why Chrysler grafted the ridiculous nose cone and wing to their B body Nascars, and the Fords still were a force to be reckoned with, yet the Talledagas are a fraction of a collectable the winged warriors are.
If you want to get really technical, Ford did not call these cars Torino Cobra in 1969. Ford literature only called them “Cobra,” and I think that was their intention. Like the Plymouth Road Runner, it was supposed to have a separate name and include the performance engine and goodies out of the box. Today, many Fairlane/Torino enthusiasts call these cars “Fairlane Cobras” because they have the same body code as a Fairlane 500. I don’t agree with this as Ford never ever referred to them as Fairlanes. It is logical that the Cobra have more basic trim since it was supposed to be a more stripped out performance car. In any case, I long referred to them simply as the Ford Cobra, and I have noticed some publications are doing this as well now (Hemmings for instance). In 1970, they officially became Torino Cobras, but stuck with the same theme of being more basic than a GT and having hi-po engine and parts.
I do agree with you Matt that the Torino GT was not necessarily a muscle car. I would say it was similar in concept to a mid-60s Impala SS – more of a trim package than a performance package.
I’d consider a mid 60’s SS Impala just as much of a muscle car as an SS396 Chevelle. In the summer of ’72 I was looking for a newer car. Two cars that I test drove were a ’66 Impala SS with a 427 (390HP)and a ’69 SS396 Chevelle (325HP). Both cars bone stock and both equal in performance. Power to weight about the same.
Years later my ’66 Biscayne 427 (390HP) Wagon would run 15 seconds flat in the quarter mile. The only non stock item was headers. A slight cam and performer intake later put it in the 14.40 range through the exhaust, still with the Qjet and 3.55:1 gears. Race weight was 4750 lbs.
You misunderstood my point. The Impala SS could be equipped with everything from the mundane 283 (or even a six) to a 409/396/427. This is no different than a Torino GT being able to be quipped with a mundane 302 up to a 428. The Impala SS model was essentially a sporty trim package, much like the Ford Torino GT. Neither car had performance engines and/or equipment included as base equipment.
Here’s one that was forgotten in a field for decades…my friends next project.428 long gone. He’s debating between using the rebuild 390 he has lying around,
or really going for broke and building a 385 series with a pair of these
Frankly, I’m surprised his wife is letting him open up the purse string for them
http://jonkaaseracingengines.com/html/kaase_boss_nine_-_semi-hemisperical_big_block_ford_cylinder_head.html
Personally, I vote for the 390.
390 all day. Bore it out a bit to clean up the cylinders, A good set of aluminum heads(Twisted Flow), roller hyd cam, aluminum 4V manifold, 4.25 stroke crankshaft, decent compression, say 10 to 1, set of headers and if he really has the piggy bank, EFI.
Hemi B-Body required a ”heavy throttles foot to get the tail out” . The following video still shows us an obvious wash-out of the front on the circuit Mt-Tremblant . Jacques Duval avait des couilles .
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCk5KoCDF8&ab_channel=GilbertR
I realize it was/is hardly possible for the “buff magazines” to anonymously purchase the cars they test—as Consumer Reports did/does—but I wonder how these tests would have turned out if so. (Very interesting about the disqualified Pontiac.)
FWIW, Here are Chrysler’s comparisons (1967) of hp/torque for the street Hemi with its racing versions:
I grew up in this era. I had a 1967 RT Coronet with 440 Magnum in high school. I can tell you right now a 396/325 would not turn a mid to low 14 sec. Quarter mile without some serious tuning. A 383 Magnum was a much more powerful engine but was, based on car tests of the time, a solid mid to low 14 sec. Car with 3:55 gears and a good tune. FCOL, a 396/375 was at best a low 14 sec. Car right out of the box although they were capable of much more if tuned and set up properly. As usual, foul was called on Mopar and everyone turned a benevolent blind eye to the Chevy. Based on the times of the Dodge and the Chevelle the GTO should have been allowed to run.
The L78, 396/375 had a reputation on the street as being one of the faster big-block Chevys. The story goes that one could even beat a box-stock Street Hemi ‘if’ the Chevy could get the Mopar to race from a standing-start. The 396 in that scenario made more torque in the lower part of the rpm band and would stay ahead before the Hemi’s massive torque in the upper part of the rpm band could catch up.
But from a rolling start, it would be a different story.
The July 1968 issue of Consumer Reports tested a Charger R/T with a 375hp 440 Magnum. The car weighed 3794 lbs, had an automatic transmission, a 3.23 to 1 rear axle ratio and F70x14 tires. It did 0-60 in 7 seconds and the quarter mile in 15 seconds and 97 mph, slower than any car in this C&D comparison test.
I imagine traction was the main issue with the Charger and stock tuning the other. My stock 427 Biscayne wagon (with headers) could outrun a stock ’69 Charger RT 440 in the 1/8th mile. I would imagine a quarter mile would have been closer but the tracks in Alabama were 1/8th mile
Getting off the line was key and the wagon could launch. I also knew how to tune, especially the Q jet.
We’ve mentioned the difference between muscle today and muscle yesterday. Today highlighting that a 2.3 litre 4 banger puts out 350hp and could smoke some muscle from yesterday.
But, us fans of muscle need to somehow embrace an idylling 4 cylinder rather than an idylling v8. I just can’t. I also just can’t use my socket and wrench set from the 60’s and 70’s and I can’t see the engine of a 5.0 litre Mustang. Where are the spark plugs? 🙁
The 5.0(coyote) spark plugs are under the valve cover covers. Same spot as a 426 Hemi, they’re actually pretty easy, and no fear of the plug wires getting cooked on the exhaust.
I think that’s the reality among us fans of muscle cars, it’s not simply a matter of going fast, but going fast in the car you want. Wild deviations aren’t going to cut it. In reality that’s likely the case even for these magazine reviews, did this comparison motivate anyone’s choice in which one of these models to buy? Or did this comparison vindicate the choice the Chevy guy or the Ford guy or the mopar or nocar guy had already made?
“We’ve mentioned the difference between muscle today and muscle yesterday. Today highlighting that a 2.3 litre 4 banger puts out 350hp and could smoke some muscle from yesterday.”
…And it gets better from there. The acceleration times that V8 muscle of today can accomplish would be categorically stratospheric by yesterday’s standards.