Fabulous artwork! You are very talented!

The car, itself, is far too retro for me, though...

 

Your telling me that todays econoboxes and sedans can embarass mucle cars

picture this lets take a 69 GTO with the mid grade engine in it.Then we'll take a Civic Si.But instead of making them both bone stock we let them have slicks.then Let them race at the strip

And then we will bet money who wins



Seriosly though a new altima may beat a stock chevelle 396 but the damn things got bicyle tires on it.theres no way you can get the power and torque to the ground........

 

Would you need to add slicks??

 

links don't work

 

i know the links dont work, i pulled the pix to redo them, but i'll have them back up soon.

 

The base Altima has roughly the same tire ratio as the 396 Chevelle had (70 series), but more important the Altima has the disadvantage of being FWD. In a drag race, the Altima's weight would shift to the rear & it would loose all types of traction, while the RWD Chevelle SS396 would have it's weight shift to it's rear and would gain traction the Altima could never dream of. In the end, the SS396 would be beaten despite having the advantage of gearing & weight distribution that would more than compensate for any percieved tire disadvantage.


I don't feel the mid-range GTO appealed to the same group in 1970 as the Si does to today's crowd. Today's Si crowd (young & on a budget) would have likely bought a Camaro RS 350 or a Mustang GT or at most a Chevelle 350 back then, in which case, the Si would at the very least keep up with them.

I think the 1970 GTO buyer would likely buy a Mustang GT today. In 1970 there were at least 2 cars that were faster than GTO, so it's buyers weren't after the fastest muscle car, just the most comfortable (much like today's Mustang when compared to the Camaro).

Mustang GTs generally run 0-60 in 5.5-5.9 seconds, the quarter in 15 flat around 94, and a top end just over 140. Meanwhile, the Mach1 (which I feel is closer to 1970 GTO ram air III in price and purpose) does 0-60 in the low 5 second range, the quarter around 14 flat at 101 mph, and tops out at a governed 155.

Here's said GTO's performance from 3 sources:

1969 GTO Ram Air III engine: 0-60 in 5.9, 1/4 mile in 14.7@98mph, Top speed 125 mph
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicl...to/69GTO.frame

1969 GTO Ram Air III engine: 0-60 in 6.0, 1/4 mile in 14.7@98
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...-history.shtml

1969 GTO Ram Air III engine: 0-60 in 7.4, 1/4 mile in 14.1 @98mph
http://www.cccvette.com/1969musclecars.htm

Allowing for advances in tires, there is a correction of .3 to .5 seconds to both 60 mph & the quarter mile. But don't forget, these cars were geared to the teeth, so in all fairness, you can also say that the disadvantage in tires is more than made up in gearing. Running Z28 or Mustang GT gears on a 1970 GTO would probally add at about a full second to GTO's times.

All LT1 and LS1 F-bodies, all post 1999 GT Mustangs, and all supercharged Lightning pickup trucks are alot quicker. Even the Plymouth Prowler, which some people here have called slow, is quicker than the 1970 GTO Ram Air III.

http://www.pir.com/bhooper/gtp/comparecars.htm

Not trying to say every sedan will beat every muscle car. But today's FWD sedans are approaching and in some instances matching the acceleration of the performance cars of the day. Meanwhile, the performance cars today are low cost packages, not ultra high priced engines that sometimes doubled a car's price, and only a very few bought.

 

I disagree. Sat in the back of a Mustang lately? They have woeful rear headroom and legroom. A typical 1970 GTO buyer would likely spring for a 2004 GTO instead. I speak with some background... my first car was a 1970 Chevelle.

 

Some of you guys are hopelessly out of touch.. I can't believe so few people are talking about STYLE. It's not always about having the fastest car, it's also about having a great looking car. Comparing a Chevelle to an Altima? Please moderate your cocaine consumption. Fast car = competitive mode, trying to impress others. Stylish car = sense of good taste, satisfying yourself without caring what others think. Stock for stock, 99% of us on here would take the slower Chevelle and run the faster Altima in a demolition derby if we had the chance, so .. how's about getting back in touch with reality?

GT

 

The only comparison I'm making is strictly performance, not style, taste, or anything beyond acceleration and top speed. It was in response to a post about the good old days of performance (plus the closest I've ever come to consuming cocaine is sniffing catnip ). Calm down. I'm not that far gone yet!

Bigdarknfast, you are 100% correct regarding the new GTO. I think once the dust settles, the same type of people who bought a GTO in 1970, will buy the new GTO, but that's still about 8 or 9 months away. I used Mustang Mach1 as an example, because it comes the closest (shows you haw far I had to reach) to having a performance car that appeals to enthusiast that seem to value comfort above performance (or else we'd have a 2003 Camaro).

GTOs in 1970 weren't cheap. Plymouth Road Runners & Chevelle SSs were both cheaper, and the RRs were far faster. On top of that, getting a "decent" GTO engine cost quite alot.

A typical 1969 Judge with the Ram Air III engine cost over $4000! That may not seem like much today till you look up a base Corvette back then, and realize it ALSO cost about $4,000!

By 1960s standards, the new GTO should cost about $45,000, but actually is $32,000, and the Mach1 is going for about $30K.

That sort of puts things in better perspective regarding the Muscle car days.

 

While I have my book out, since I haven't posted any trivia in awhile:

Muscle car sales (top 3) in 1969:
Chevelle SS: 86,307
Plymouth Road Runner: 82,109
GTO: 72,287

*Only about 8480 had Ram Air III (only about 760 had Ram Air IVs)
*Only 6725 Judges were made (so much for the Judge being a big selling model!)
*61,576 has a regular 400ci 4 barrel (24,447 with a manual, 37,129 w/an Auto)
*1,461 had a 400 with a 2 barrel carb!

So the odds of beating the daylights out of a 1969 GTO with nothing more potent than a Nissan Altima statistically speaking is relatively good.

 

WOW, you folks have takin my original post which was just to show my concepts, and ran off with it in a whole direction i didnt expect to see it go. All I was saying by reliving the good old days of muscle cars was by the way they looked and inspired the passion that we have for those cars today, I wasnt really trying to argue that the cars of then were any better performance wise than the cars of today, if they were better then then there would be no reason to keep trying to make the cars better today, it is kinda sad that some of the front wheel drive four door cars can out run the old muscle cars, but thats the point isnt, to make cars today, all cars, as good as they can be and better than they ever were.

 

Yeah the chevelle has an advantage with the wieght over the rear but it has an extreme disadvange with the amount of TORQUE being applied to those tires (the 396 is rated at 410-420lbft).thats a lot of power even though the wieght shifts.What does the altima have in torque, i wouldnt imagine more than 220 at most.

Also the gearing of the 396 wouldnt be of an advantage because with 4:10s it could light them up through all 4 gears


so just give them a good set of rubber and there's no doubt in my mind that the Chevelle would win

 

Also, modern tires themselves are made of considerably better rubber. An old tire and a new tire of the same size on the same car would be quite different.

 

Muscle cars are cool to drive occasionally but I'd rather have a late model sports car. THey preform just as well, if not better and are much more comfortable and practical. Anyways, nice drawing.