Muscle cars were the rage in 1966, with virtually every U.S. maker offering a “hot” mid size model to capture performance enthusiasts. Naturally, Car and Driver was keen to evaluate the offerings, and for the March 1966 issue, they arranged for Formula One driver Masten Gregory–also the winner of the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1965–to test drive the “Super Cars” and give his preferences. The results make for a fascinating read, showcasing how hard the manufacturers fought, cheated (or not) to win kudos for offering the meanest machines on the streets.
Modified or not, the “Super Cars” were clearly a blast to drive (though none of them stopped as well as they should have). Masten Gregory’s reviews of the cars gave a great perspective on the abilities of muscle cars circa 1966, and he seemed to gravitate to the more balanced machines. For prospective customers considering which car to get for everyday use, I think Gregory’s opinions were usefully balanced. Had I been shopping in this segment in 1966, I think I would have been drawn to the GTO, in no small part due to its excellent marketing. Having read this article though, I would have had to consider the 442, and who knows–maybe the Olds would have been my pick as well.
Best car magazine reprint/scan ever!
+1
67 Conti,
At my 1st glance at the top [b/w] photo of the 442, I thought t was your namesake — a mid-60’s Linc)
i wish someone would have looked under the Comet and checked if the engine had the cross bolt main caps. That would have most certainly pointed to a 427 bolted in rather than the stock 390
Well, the Hurst folks did check the displacement. But this 390 was obviously far from a stock one, as it would would rev right to 6500 rpm, which is some 1200-1300 rpm more than a stock one. It was clearly a race-prepped engine, designed to still meet the very limited criteria of the test. Did they check valve lift and timing? Valve size? For thta matter, it undoubtedly had one of the hi-po heads.
It’s kind of pathetic, actually. And what’s really pathetic, is that the heavily race-prepped Comet and Fairlane did so poorly in handling, despite all the mods.
I remember this road test, it was in one of the first issues of Car and Driver I read. Even then I understood that the reason the Comet was “faster” was because it had a lower gear ratio in the final drive. If someone back then had given me $4000 (and a drivers license) I think I would have gone for the 4-4-2 first, followed by the GTO and then the Chevelle. What I find amazing today is how relatively light these cars were; even the heaviest is barely 3700 pounds.
Buick’s 1966 brochures rate the 401 at 325 hp, not 340. So perhaps it was really tuned up some? As far as I know all 401 engines were rated at a maximum of 325 hp for normal retail sales. The 425 was rated at 340 hp with one 4 barrel carb, 360 with two.
For ’66, Buick offered the new Quadrajet as an option, and that raised the power “rating” to 340. Otherwise, the engine was the same.
Here’s an ad for it.
Ah. I think the valve timing must have been changed too, or the peak torque would not have moved up 400 RPMs. The 4 speed manual was not in the brochures either.
Not from my understanding…I’m guessing that those numbers were largely made up by the marketing department. There’s no way either of them even approached those power numbers.
For example, my ’65 Skylark’s 300-4v was rated at 250 horsepower compared to the 2 barrel’s 210. They had the same camshafts from the factory; the 4-barrel just had higher compression and an AFB. There is no way that that car makes anywhere near 250 horsepower, and I’d be shocked if it were 20 up on the 2-barrel, let alone 40.
I have had doubts about the gross horsepower ratings for some time. During the 50’s horsepower race, the advertised gross horsepower is said to have been exaggerated by some (all?).
When we get into the 70’s and compression is reduced, I think that the net ratings are real, and the gross ratings were more realistic if not actual.
Simply putting a bigger carburetor on the 401 would not have done much in my opinion, and I don’t see the peak torque moving to a higher RPM without some tuning changes.
The 64 Chevy 327 rated at 250 gross is shown (gm heritage) to have 210 net. The 283 @195 gross is 150 net.
Amazing. Two of the six cars experienced major engine failure during the tests.
I haven’t read a car magazine in quite a while, but I’m inclined to believe that doesn’t happen too often these days – and particularly not with cars that are specially prepped AND in the manufacturer’s press pool.
Almost undoubtedly the reason for the failures was the oil pan. One of Ford’s design choices for their V8’s was to place the distributor at the front and driving the oil pump from the distributor drive was common practice. This in turn places the sump at the front of the engine so that acceleration forces try to uncover the oil pickup. For whatever reason the FE oil pans seem to have been particularly prone to this though the small blocks would do it too, just not as often.
The Ford and Mercury were obviously race-prepped engines, given that they would rev to 6500 rpm. Apparently they didn’t like those high rpm very much.
Fun to read this well drafted C&D review which was done at the dawn of the muscle car era and it’s evident that GM and FOMOCO took some of the recommendations to heart which improved these machines’ successors. Also a knockout were reading those manufacturer list prices but I have to remember it’s all relative to the time. In 1966, I was within a few years of buying my 1st car acquired for all of $90, so these cars were all well beyond my financial grasp.
Interesting that the Chrysler reps had cold feet; they knew Detroit too well, evidently. No wonder Consumer Reports buys their test samples incognito from dealers, instead of inviting fraud by a letter to manufacturers. And that race-prepped Comet should’ve been excluded. Proverb: “Trust everyone in the game, but always cut the cards.”
Then as now, I wonder how many American hot-car buyers really care about roadholding. It would be interesting to correlate chassis-upgrade take rates versus engines back then.
Considering how wide (and sticky) most OEM tires are these days, I would imagine that just about any vehicle today – including vans and half-ton pickups – would best any of these beasts from 50 years ago in a roadholding contest. Or at least come close.
Funny, you really don’t see very many standalone suspension upgrade options for cars anymore, like Chevrolet’s bargain-priced F41 package. But then again, you don’t see many standalone options, period.
I wish I had the link to it now, but I remember seeing a video where they lined up a bunch of classic “super cars” (Like Jag XKE’s and the like) and whomped all of them with a Honda minivan. 50 years of engineering development will do that… Nothing today can match the style and presence of classics, but living with them day-to-day would be tough compared to more modern cars.
^^^^The Consumer Reports comparison came to mind only a couple paragraphs into the article; CR (say what you will about their auto evaluations) is also unbeholden to advertisers (i.e., the automakers), unlike the “buff books.”
CR buys the cars they review straight from a dealer. They resell as used when testing is done. Wonder if they were doing it that way in 1966? If so it would be fun to see what testing revealed about “straight off the showroom floor” with factory tire and wheels, no super prep, etc. performance. I am sure it was hugely different than what we saw here.
Interesting article. It’s amazing how much BS surrounds the old muscle cars today.
I spent lots of time with cars like this when they were at the bottom of their price curves and the only people who cared about them were gearheads like me. And in stock form, they weren’t really all that fast. I always laugh when I see a modern day article ranking the performance of the old muscle cars using test results from decades old magazine articles.
From the old articles I’ve seen, the cheating only got worse in the next few years. I suspect everyone was doing it by the end of the era.
Back in my drag racing days it wasn’t uncommon to see someone show up for the first time with a car they were sure would run deep into the 13s based on what they’d read somewhere, and end up in the mid 14s at best. Oddly enough, the brand that seemed to run closest to what the magazine hype said was Buick. They weren’t the fastest cars out there but they ran a lot harder than their reputation would have suggested.
Fun cars anyway, and I’m glad I knew them before the investment and collector types got involved.
Amazing what…ahem… tuning can do. Back in high school, 1982ish, had a friend with a ’68 390 GTA Mustang. Had a Mick Gray built (a local Tigard engine builder) 428 in it, that probably had more NASCAR 427 parts in it than 428. No matter where you were on campus, when it started, you heard it. Rode in it several times, and it made you a believer in religion before the 140mph speedo even cracked 100. My older brother had a ’69 SS396 Camaro, felt like a six cylinder Nova in comparison. Don’t let anybody tell you a FE Ford can’t run; they can make you wish you had a spare pair of shorts with you.
Hey now wait a minute there partner my first car,a six cyl nova
compared to my mothers 71 automatic pinto my chev
felt like a 427 corvette!
Remember this article if you ever feel the urge to say, “Cars today all look the same, not like back in the 60s when you could tell the difference between cars a mile away!”
I certainly can, the headlight position varies, unlike modern cars where they’re all slanted into a goofy grin. Plus they look a million times better than the one body style amorphous safety blobs seen today
I might be the only one here who’d like to have the ’51-2 Buick Ambo….
I doubt it. I haven’t even read the article yet. I was stopped by that Buick ambulance!