Originally Posted by Xpditor

Oh, I love most of them. But.... it depends.

Would I take a stock but well preserved stock GTO or 4-4-2 or Chevelle SS-350 over a new TL-S???

I don't think so. All things considered.

But, I would love to have one of them alongside my TL-S.

Originally Posted by teranfon

In some instances I agree with you. Hell, my six speed Accord is quicker in factory trim than some of the "muscle" cars you listed (some of us old boys may argure the definition of "muscle" cars). It's also more comfortable, stops better, and it's handling is certainly worlds better than much of the older stuff. Some may argue however, and rightly so, that a set of today's tires and a precise tune on some of the older super or muscle cars better demonstrates their true potential. And I think this is where a lot of the differentiation lies: The older muscle and super cars were often modified cheaply and were easily capable of performance equaling many of today's performance cars. I think SouthernBoy used to routinely run twelves with a '66 396 Chevelle with only a decent tune.

I've been fortunate to own a number of performance cars from the late sixties/early seventies from r-code Fords, Shelby Mustangs, and big block Corvettes. Their suspensions were crude, brakes scary, and handling best described as theoretical. And as great as my Accord is and as much as it makes me smile when I drive it, the older stuff always makes me laugh like an idiot when I stomp the gas and leave two beautiful strips of rubber down the road. Hell, even a car as recent as my Grand National still makes me giggle when the world gets yanked backwards.

Technology has made the modern car in many ways tremendously better than the performance cars of yesteryear, but I still love the battle cry of the old warriors and the era of undiluted performance they once represented.

Terry

Originally Posted by CLpower

they ran VERY VERY SHITTY tires, in many cases new tires would drop more then 1 second off these cars 1/4 mile times. These cars in stock form would light up first and second without even trying.


Your TL doesn't have traction problems.




But yes, in many cases the average car from today is as fast as the muscle cars of old.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Hey there Terry. How's it going for you?

In all fairness, to get my Chevelle into the 12's took more than a decent tune up. It took a set of Hooker headers, Walker straight through mufflers, an R3310 Holley 780 CFM dual feed, LS6 valve springs, and the little tuneup tricks. In stock condition with tires and the tuneup tricks, it was a 13.3 machine.

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

Lets put a set of E70-14 bais plys on a TL and see how she does

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

No such thing. And here's one for you all. The GTO did not come out until 1966, not 1964 as many believe. In 1964, there was a GTO option package for the Pontiac Tempest LeMans. It wasn't until 1966 that Pontiac made the GTO its own model in the lineup.

Originally Posted by CGTSX2004

You are missing the point. The discussion here is simply to show that automotive technology has improved so much in the past several decades that even the average family sedan is capable of competing with the highly revered muscle cards of the pre-oil crisis era.

The TL is a well known vehicle around here and simply makes a good example and point of comparison. You could have easily substituted the TL with a WRX or the Lexus IS350, or any of a number of other cars and gotten the same results.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Have to tell you that only one of those cars on your list was a 60's supercar and that was the Road Runner. So many were left out. Another example of a "specialty" hi-performance car was the 1966 L72 427/425 Corvette. Car and Driver did a road test in their November 1965 issue (I have an original copy of the magazine) and managed a 12.8 second quarter at 112 MPH on street tires with a 3.36 rear.

Once again don't believe everything you see in some of these magazines. I have seen a stock L74 (450HP) '66 Corvette hit the very low 11's at a local track.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

In other comparison tests in Car & Driver, for example, the better handling, lighter BMW 3 series has slightly edged out a TL in handling, but the TL cleaned their clocks in interior quality and detail.

So, your statement that the Acura can't compare to the "benchmark" BMW is not accurate. It is compared regularly and often beats BMW at their own game and does it for about $5-10 grand cheaper.

PS: What kind of TL do you own, Costco?

Originally Posted by SiGGy

This thread seems kinda to me.

I'm glad your 3 year old car can out handle something 40 years old... lol. Especially throw away muscle cars of those times.

Why didn't you use a last gen camaro as an example... Handles better and is faster that all of the times/cars you listed. Seems like a better comparison.

With that said...

The Acura TL is kinda slow in todays standards... there's lots of 255+hp car sedans today.

And some of those 1/4 mile times you posted are a bit off. I think you'll find better times if you look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Don't you believe it. A "Camaro Z28" (67-69) would easily clean a TL's clock on a quarter mile or a road course.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

I think your memory could use some tuning up.

You're making a lot of empirical statements that should rightly be stated as your opinion.

So there's no such thing as this? Chevelle SS-350

And as for a Camaro Z28 taking a TL or TL-S in a straight line or a road course?

Well, it depends on which Z28 we're talking about. I was speaking or the 60-70 vintage. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree until we can get our hands on a couple of those and check it out.

That would be fun.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

We can talk about this and that and argue the merits of a mid 60's supercar against those of a 2008 TL-S, but please trust me on a few things here. Much has been said about the tires those machines were shipped with and you all are right. My 1966 SS L34 396/360 Chevelle came with Uniroyal 7.75x14 tires which had a tread width of 5 1/2". Not to mention they were poor in the traction department and were generally replaced in short order. Later versions of these cars saw the newer bias-ply tires with different sizing labels and wider footprints. Still traction was a serious concern.

After I ordered my Chevelle in late March of '66, I read three magazine road tests of the car. I can go down into my basement now and lay my hands on two of them right now if I wish. The Hi-Performance Cars issue might be harder to locate. Anyway, the Car and Driver road test and the Hot Rod road test didn't show the 396 Chevelle in the best light - I soon started thinking I had made a mistake and should have gone with the '66 GTO.

Ok, so I just now went down to my basement and in less than 3 minutes, located the two issues I mentioned above. They are the February 1966 Hot Rod issue with the "Super Street Chevelle" article and the March 1966 Car and Driver issue with the "Six Supercars" article (notice the term "supercars"). The Hot Rod article shows a Chevelle that looks a good deal like mine with the black vinyl top and the factory instrumention (knee knocker tach) and simulated wood steering wheel). Hot Rod managed a 15.70 at 92 MPH and Car and Driver got a 14.66 at 99.88 MPH. Incidently, the GTO tested by Car and Driver in the same article got a 14.05 at 105.14 MPH. These times are on factory delivered street tires, but you can see how I was disappointed after having placed my order.

And then on April 29th (Friday), I took delivery. After sufficient time and miles for breakin, I started seeing what it would do. It was clear that the car was quick and loaded with usable torque (360 HP, 420 lb/ft torque). However, anyone who has had a Holley carburetor of the era should know the simple "street/track" tricks to get more out of the thing. The small screw in the secondary throttle arm, the clipped coil(s) of spring from the dashpot secondary diaphram, the tiny washers for the dashpot top, the lighter advance weights for the DelcoRemy distributor to allow for full advance much earlier, the bumped initial timing. These little tricks cost nothing and yield an easy 1/4 to 1/2 second in the quarter mile. Couple this with decent tires and good driving techinque and you get times in the low 13's - like I did. My Chevelle had the M21 close ratio box with 3.73's out back. Ten inch Mickey Thompson's got the launch going, aided by Monroe LoadLeveler rear shocks. How does 13.3's sound to you for my efforts?

As for braking, I would bet my Chevelle could come reasonably close the the TL and this is why. When I ordered the car, I opted for the sintered metallic linings. These are not your ordinary brake shoe linings, rather they are quite special. Good for over 100,000 miles and stop like crazy.

The bottom line in all of this is the supercars of the mid 60's WERE very quick. And they were very well made. The car companies making these babies knew they weren't about to be bought by grandmothers for weekly trips to the hair dresser. Quarter mile and street contests were the order of the day so they had better hold up and do the job otherwise sales would suffer. GM ruled the roost with the most winners and buyers. Please don't believe everything you read in magazines today. My guess is many of the writers of those articles weren't there.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

I'm getting a little frustrated here. Everyone wants to talk about what the muscle/super cars could do IF 1) you modified the fuel delivery system, 2) put slicks on it 3) changed the gear ratio 4) modified the exhaust system etc.....

And you then want to compare it with a still stock TL-S??

If you're going to mod one, no matter how much over stock, then you have to mod the TL-S and, once you do that, any sense of comparison is out the window.

Let me say again for about the 4th time: I think it is so flattering to the TL to even be having this conversation because the TL is a 6 cylinder, 195 ci, family 4-dr sedan and we are comparing it with the dream performance cars of (many of) our youth. Stock for stock.

Southern Boy, the numbers you found in your basement are pretty similar to what I have reported above.

I have not contended that TLs are faster than all muscle/super cars. Only that, stock for stock, they are faster than many and almost as fast as the rest in straight line acceleration. Throw some curves in, and my money is on the TL every time.

Do you think the older Camaro Z28 would take a newer BMW 530i in a road course? The TL can, according to Road & Track who tested them both at the same time on the same track.

Maybe. I think we should arrange a test.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

Perhaps it was an overlook on SB's part, but the engine that comes to mind to me, at least, for the Chevelle SS is either the 396 or the 454. Simply because those are bad ass.... but that's just me.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

Flattering? I think its flat out embarrassing in any case when you have to reach back in time to make a case for a modern car. Under those circumstances, a track race between a 2008 TL-S and a 2048 Civic Si, my money's on the Si, and you can't mod the TL with polyuremethylene tires or drop in a camless electrohydraulically-actuated nuclear powerplant whatever the hell they have in the future.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

Again.... you're not getting the POINT of this thread.

It is SPECIFICALLY to reach back in time and make a comparison with iconic muscle cars of a by-gone era.

There are other threads comparing the TL/S with modern cars. It stands out pretty well in class without me having to make a case for it. (Even with its tired 5 year old design).

What do you suggest it be compared with? A Ferrari Enzo? A Z06? That would be a foregone conclusion.

Everything is relative.

Although I respect your views and you present them well, I could give them more weight if you had ever owned or spent time in a 3G TL.

Since you are a Camaro owner, I can understand your defense of the genre.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Don't you believe it. A "Camaro Z28" (67-69) would easily clean a TL's clock on a quarter mile or a road course.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

At least no one objected to my 4-4-2 and Model T comparison... heh

Originally Posted by teranfon

Not too bad. Very busy, but I suppose that's a good thing. How about you?

Do you want me to post the photo of your '66 in this thread? It's very small, but I absolutely think its a great period photograph.

Terry

Originally Posted by SiGGy

This thread seems kinda to me.

I'm glad your 3 year old car can out handle something 40 years old... lol. Especially throw away muscle cars of those times.

Why didn't you use a last gen camaro as an example... Handles better and is faster that all of the times/cars you listed. Seems like a better comparison.

With that said...

The Acura TL is kinda slow in todays standards... there's lots of 255+hp car sedans today.

And some of those 1/4 mile times you posted are a bit off. I think you'll find better times if you look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

Let's put a 435 HP 427 in the TL and see how it works on the front wheels.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Yes, that would be great.. thank you.

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

My dad had a FWD 1970 Olds Toronado w/ a 455 big block in it that hooked up pretty well... @ almost 5000lbs w/ 375hp it was an interesting ride... I wonder what a fwd toronado would do with decent tires...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Toronado

Since it was an early US fwd car with a unibody and bigblock, it was a bitch to change the starter

Originally Posted by Xpditor

Well, without getting bogged down in legacy semantics (we haven't talked about "pony cars" yet), I think folks understand what is meant today when the term "muscle cars" is used.

From Wikipedia: A muscle car is an automobile with a high horse power engine, modest weight, capable of producing high levels of acceleration. The term principally refers to American, Australian and South African models and generally describes a 2-door rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large, powerful V8 engine and special trim, intended for maximum torque on the street or in drag racing competition. It is distinguished from sports cars, which were customarily considered smaller, two-seat cars, or GTs, two-seat or 2+2 cars intended for high-speed touring and possibly road racing. High-performance full-size or compact cars are arguably excluded from this category, as are the breed of compact sports coupes inspired by the Ford Mustang. Other factors used in defining classic muscle cars are their age and country of origin. A classic muscle car is usually made in the U.S. or Australia between 1964 and 1975. The term "muscle car" did not enter common usage until after production of the cars had essentially ended. It is generally accepted that popular, widespread usage of the term took hold by the early to mid-1980s. During their heyday, print media usually referred to this class of vehicle as "supercars".

The website I linked to is not a magazine. It is a car club who has compiled a collection of times printed by all the independent car mags contemporaneous with those cars. They merely collect and report them... often citing and linking to the tests if they are available online.

So.... on the one hand we have printed reports, contemporaneous, of "expert" testing. On the other hand, we have 40 year old memories of "what I saw at the track one day". You would have us ignore the former and accept, unquestioning the latter? Have I got that right?

I knew this thread would bring you out of the woodwork!

Originally Posted by Xpditor

I think your memory could use some tuning up.

You're making a lot of empirical statements that should rightly be stated as your opinion.

So there's no such thing as this? Chevelle SS-350

And as for a Camaro Z28 taking a TL or TL-S in a straight line or a road course?

Well, it depends on which Z28 we're talking about. I was speaking or the 60-70 vintage. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree until we can get our hands on a couple of those and check it out.

That would be fun.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

I'm getting a little frustrated here. Everyone wants to talk about what the muscle/super cars could do IF 1) you modified the fuel delivery system, 2) put slicks on it 3) changed the gear ratio 4) modified the exhaust system etc.....

And you then want to compare it with a still stock TL-S??

If you're going to mod one, no matter how much over stock, then you have to mod the TL-S and, once you do that, any sense of comparison is out the window.

Let me say again for about the 4th time: I think it is so flattering to the TL to even be having this conversation because the TL is a 6 cylinder, 195 ci, family 4-dr sedan and we are comparing it with the dream performance cars of (many of) our youth. Stock for stock.

Southern Boy, the numbers you found in your basement are pretty similar to what I have reported above.

I have not contended that TLs are faster than all muscle/super cars. Only that, stock for stock, they are faster than many and almost as fast as the rest in straight line acceleration. Throw some curves in, and my money is on the TL every time.

Do you think the older Camaro Z28 would take a newer BMW 530i in a road course? The TL can, according to Road & Track who tested them both at the same time on the same track.

Maybe. I think we should arrange a test.

Originally Posted by Xpditor

For Chevelle enthusiasts who wanted a high-performance mid-sized car but with a hot small-block V8, rather than the big-block found in the SS 396, the regular Chevelle and Malibu models were available with a 350-horsepower 327 cubic-inch V8 (option code L-79) in 1965 and 1966. That same engine was also offered for 1967-68, but down rated "on paper" to 325 horsepower (242 kW), the same as the standard 396 found in the SS 396.

For the 1969 model year, the SS396 series (138xx) was dropped and the Super Sport became a performance option. In 1969 the SS option could be orded on the 300 Deluxe 2-dr Sport Coupe (13437) and 2-dr sedan (13427) as well as the Malibu 2-dr Sport Coupe (13637), convertible (13667), and El Camino (13680). In 1970 the SS option was limited to the Malibu series (2-dr Sport Coupe, convertible, and El Camino). In both 1969 and 1970 the SS option included the 396/402 as the base engine keeping the option alive as a performance-oriented choice. This changed in 1971 when the SS option could be ordered with any optional V8 and became more of a dress-up option than a performance option.

Originally Posted by subinf

I wouldn't take one as a daily driver today (I did it in the mustang for 2 years and had enough) but otherwise I prefer older cars.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

I have to ask if you are certain about the '69 as you reported. My bother ordered one and I couldn't convince him to get the L78 375 or the 350 HP engine.. he got the 325 HP engine with, of all things, a 3.31 rear.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

Then here's another couple for you to ponder.

What would you think of an L79 Chevy II beating a 426 Hemi Plymouth Satellite? Well that's just what did happen at the Pomona Winternationals ('66 I believe). Grumpy Bill Jenkins beat Jerry Stahl for the A/S title and turned an 11.32 as I recall. That man was a master tuner.

Here's another one. In 1965, Chevy built 201 "special" Chevelles with a 396/375 HP engine. However, that car was not all that quick. The engine (Z16) was never build again in that state of tune. It had a hydraulic cam and was nothing like the '66 L78 which was actually the '65 1/2 425HP 396 Corvette engine, only with different exhaust manifolds. The L78 was a beast and would generally beat Hemis of the day.

Yep, I also like bouncing things off of you, too.. and other members of course. I'm a gearhead and I admire and respect anything that is good in the automotive world. For some years now, we have had cars which produce virtually no contaminant and still manage to put out very good power and performance. This is incredible to me.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

Perhaps it was an overlook on SB's part, but the engine that comes to mind to me, at least, for the Chevelle SS is either the 396 or the 454. Simply because those are bad ass.... but that's just me.

A 1969 Z/28 was rated @ 290 hp well below redline. Its redline was 7000 and it made upwards of peak 350 hp if you ignored the 290 hp @ xxxx rpm rating. Of course the TL-S would destroy it on the track, but in a straight line at least, doubt it. I know, I know.... actual HP for cars back then is actually quite less. I think it would be more fair if you equipped the '69 Z/28 with bigger, modern radial tires and full Hotchkis suspension. Now that would be very interesting.

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper169

Actually this brings up an interesting point, although I tend to disagree seeing as the majority make more HP than rated from the factory. Has anyone ever seen that show on Speed TV where they take performance engines from the 60-70s and dyno them? Some of them made way more HP than the factory rated them at.

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper169

Actually this brings up an interesting point, although I tend to disagree seeing as the majority make more HP than rated from the factory. Has anyone ever seen that show on Speed TV where they take performance engines from the 60-70s and dyno them? Some of them made way more HP than the factory rated them at.

Originally Posted by teranfon

SouthernBoy's actual '66 396/Muncie Chevelle. I apologize for the small size.

Terry

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper169

Actually this brings up an interesting point, although I tend to disagree seeing as the majority make more HP than rated from the factory. Has anyone ever seen that show on Speed TV where they take performance engines from the 60-70s and dyno them? Some of them made way more HP than the factory rated them at.