Old cars that kick new car and FI a$$

[Tom351]

I think we have established that anything with a V-8 can be bada$$ it is just a matter of personal preference.


------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback

[Jaydee]

I was fortunate enough to have grown up during the muscle car era, owned a few (69 GTX 440/4 speed, 67 Chevelle 396/350) and trust me these cars could run hard. The way to make them run is no different than the ways we use to make our stangs run hard now - add the right parts, give it some traction and take the time to tune and refine your combo so that you can use all of the power that you are making. Owning both an 87 5.0 and an original 1965 289/271 K code, I get to live on both sides of the fence. In any race between these cars the 5.0 would beat the snot out of the old HiPo any day of the week, it handles and stops much better, gets better gas mileage, and is a lot more comfortable as a day in, day out driver. It was also very easy to get this car into the 13's with just simple bolt on's. The HiPo car however provides a driving experience that 5.0 could never, ever match. The unique sound, smell and feel of the old solid lifter engine at idle and under acceleration, the feel of the quick ratio manual steering, the 60's style driving position etc. - this car provides an awesome interactive driving experience and demands a high level of your concentration every time you drive it - hard to describe unless you have had the chance to put down some miles in one. I love both cars and both have their strong points, but when it comes down to pure performance, technology rules. The late model EFI cars possess incredible potential and as can be seen by the sheer number of 11 and 12 second cars on the streets, can easily be modified to do things that the old cars can only dream about.

------------------
1965 K code coupe - numbers matching - restoration ongoing. 1987 LX notch, stock heads and intake, typical bolt on's 13.89@100.25

[Unit 5302]

I completely agree with Jaydee. Old cars can be really cool, and a blast to drive. I'm not disputing that, or the fact that with the right parts the carbed BB's are the quickest cars on the dragstrip.

This post however started with the notion that old carbed cars were superior to the EFI cars in the performance department, I'm assuming in stock or near stock form. My name was dragged into the topic and I felt significantly misinterpreted. I like the old cars the Mach 1's, my uncles awesome Boss 302, which he is going to sell, but I would never trade EFI for a carb.

Rev, yes EFI equipped can be tuned for more performance, right in your garage with tricks such as adjusting the TPS. Also, the computer "learns" your driving habits, so if you reset it and run the crap out of it, it will tune to be a little more agressive. Open loop cycles are not tuned for emissions and driveability, they are tuned for performance and little rich to avoid burning the car down, but if you want to tempt fate, you could always add and AFPR and fine tune your car for performance.

[MercDude]

Has anyone thought about the numbers everyone throws around? Think for a sec...
Where do you get the numbers for new production car stats? MotorTrend? Car and Driver? Or any other 'off the shelf' magazine? These magazines are in the buisiness to MAKE MONEY. They have perfect setups for every test they might possibly want to run. Professional drivers that have honed their quick-shifts to an artform. In addition, do you actually think that the factory (whichever it may be) graciously "donates" these cars for tests, knowing that they will be run against other cars of diffrent makes -and that the results will profoundly affect sales- without a little tweaking? Perhaps a superchip for a quicker 0-60 time or upgraded shocks for faster slalom times? The automakers view this as a invaluable part of their products' advertisement and image... because everyone treats the numbers as scientific law. My point? It has been proven, time and again, that this happens... and that the stats are one thing, real life another. Before you next praise the new generation of motorsport technology keep in mind that although stats sported by the latest motor mag might be faster than a btchin' 65 falcon or someone else's hot rod 68 chevelle... these stats are not necessarily the truth. The truth is what your eyes and experience tell you.


------------------
'63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust,
'65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

[97snakedriver]

MercDude- Actually its the other way round. Back in the day car makers would give car mags a particular car to test. And low and behold they started giving them ringers. Now the car rags usually acquire their test cars in a more random fashion.

However new or old I don't go by magizine performance numbers. I don't consider myself a great driver, but stock I managed to beat the published numbers for my car in C&D, R&T, ect by a several tenths, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile without powershifting.

[Jaydee]

MercDude - I take it that you don't really believe what you read when your looking at the times posted in various mags for the new stangs, camaros etc. Well your probably right. Its an old trick by the auto manufacturers to "enhance" the performance of the cars they release to the magazines for testing. In the old days, "stock" cars were given to magazines with increased cubic inches, bumped compression and blue printed motors were common occurances in the game. Pontiac slipping in warmed over 421's into otherwise stock GTO's back in 1964 for the infamous Car and Driver Pontiac GTO Vs Ferrari GTO comparison test is probabbly the most famous case of this. It is not beyond the imagination that some of this slight of hand would still occur today. The ultimate truth in performance however can be found at your local drag strip. I frequent both E-Town in N.J and Lebanon Valley in N.Y. and routinely see stock LS1 camaro's run consistiant low to mid 13's and high 12's with minor bolt on's as well as 5.0's and mod motor cars running anywhere from 10's to 14's depending on their level of mods. I became a believer when my 87 5.0 ran 14.4's bone stock with 2.73 gears while spinning the tires badly and 13.8's with simple bolt on's, 3.55's and a slipping clutch. Believe me, I love the old iron, I grew up with it, owned it (still do), modified it and beat the **** out of it and I plan to have my old HiPo until they stick me in the ground. But I firmly believe that there has never been an easier breed of car to modify to run hard than a late model stang or LS1. It is not hard to create a throughly streetable car capable of running in the 11 or 12 second zone that will still get you home at 20+ mpg with the a/c on.

[MrWesson22]

Going fast reliably in a "modern muscle car" is definately easier, but honestly, what would yall rather be in cruise night? A 69 boss 429 or a 99 mustang cobra? I'm willing to bet 3 out of 4 would say the boss. And, we all know that classic cars get the chicks! My first car was a 90 lx 5.0 vert, and I loved it, but it just didn't compare to the thrill and enjoyment I get from driving and working on my 69. As cool as fox body cars are, to me they're still cookie cutter cars. When was the last time you drove more than 20 miles anywhere and didn't see at least one 87-93 mustang? I like em, they're just nothing special, but a 69... it's another story. This is all just my humble opinion, of course. Give me old iron over new muscle anyday!

------------------
Neal

69 stang
351C/4sp

[MiracleMax]

I can Rev, it's called an Extender. So all of a sudden the 14.7 A/F ratio just went out the window for a comfy for power 13:1 . The only clear cut advantage a carb has over efi is the gain from latent cooling when the fuel evaporates into a gas. If you built Identical motors except for the fuel delivery device, The average torque number would be higher with the efi car due to better fuel distribution as it revved. Ergo, the car would accelerate better and in drag racing a fat torque curve is better than peak power. Now if we where racing at a superspeedway then yeah the carbed motor would catch-up and pass the efi motor. I suppose it depends on how you go about grabing the bull by the horns? For me I like small blocks and EFI. Although I would dearly love to have a 70' Mach 1 replete with 428 CJ, drag pack and shaker hood. Be nice to own and cruise every once and while. For regular street duty I'll take my beloved LX pony.

As far as the cookie cutter thing. Ponder this! In 30 years all those fox cars out there will be thrashed, bashed, cut and crunched up. Just like alot of old muscle cars. Which by then will be about as common as a dusenberg, 57 Bel Air, whatt have you (guess I'll be rattgling my cane at some young whippersanpper and his Formazaustivolvbmw or whatever things settle down to and talking about the good ol days when a 5.0 Fox car was the poopoo). My LX 5.0 will be a classic (and don't think it won't they already have resto parts!) worth a few pennies for the same reason all the old muscle is. "Yeah when I was growing up 5.0's where the stink. Man wished I'd had tha chance to own one". Then it's yeah I got one, and for the right price... Scratch that. They'll be burying me in my LX, I can't part with it. This thing has even out lived my first true luv

[MercDude]

The carb makes more HP and the EFI makes more torque... it's just the differences in induction system... but for backyard mechanics, carbs are easier to get running fast!

------------------
'63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust,
'65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

[Tom351]

I love to take out EFI stangs and f-body's, but my favorite kill is also my easiest. I love to emabarass those ricer punk dorks cruising w/ their cheezy girlfriend, acting like they have a Formula One car on the street.
Roasting those guys feel almost like a public service by putting them in their place. I race against stangs to see who is faster, I race against ricers to show them how stupid they are.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback

[MercDude]

No SH!T!! Wow... and i thought i was the only one!! LOL... those hondas are SO pathetic!

------------------
'63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust,
'65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

[Unit 5302]

I'll also disagree with the EFI makes more torque, carb makes more peak HP deal too.

That's primarily the affect of runner length. If EFI was on a motor and it was setup for maximum hp, it would beat a carb hands down.

It just mixes fuel/air much better than a carb. The EFI motor would of course lose a little driveablility due to torque loss, but it'd still have the smooth dyno chart, which means it'd make more HP on average than the carb.

[MiracleMax]

Naw, even if runner length was comparable the EFI motor will still out torque a carb motor. Just has to do with the better fuel distribution and atomization. The only clear cut advantage a carb has like I said earlier is the cooling effect the fuel has as it turns from a liquid to a vapor. All things being equal. I suppose myabe if on a racing setup somebody with a little technical savy might be able to overcome this situation by introducing a small bit of fuel upstream allowing it to vaporize then utilizing a standard injection setup for fuel metering. I doubt such a setup would work on anything less than a race car with a short runner system. As for tuning, I think EFI is just as simple, expecially with an SD car. Pull the plugs, examine them the adjust then pressure. On a MAF car with stock electronics, if the fuel system is worked out right. What kind of adjustments need to be made? The MAF measures the volume of air going into the engine and the computer meters it based on a few more inputs. No air bleeds, no jets, no power valves, no vaccum diaphrams, none of that stuff. Unless your in the habit of just bolting on a supercharger when you need some extra power that night and then taking it off, Who needs to adjust what. EFI's not sensitive to alt, temp, or humidity like a carb. Any combination of those three affects the amount of air the engine is able to injest so the fuel management system just adjust accordingly. No need to change the jets because yesterday you ran in death valley and now your doing a hill climb up Everest, but like I said it comes down to your prefernce. This topic could be as hotly debated as the big vs. small issue, old vs. new etc. Brand X vs. the best . I'm willing to bet somebody has twice the reasons ready to claim why carbs are superior

[Tom351]

I think that both have basically the same HP potential, efi is definately a more user friendly system, but when a carb is set up right, it is as good is EFI. The difference is in what it takes to get it set up right. They are just two different ways to do the same thing.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback

[MrWesson22]

EFI is better for daily driver or street/strip cars I think, but I still like carbs better. Besides, getting an EFI setup on a 351C is just so damned expensive (like over $1500).

------------------
Neal

69 stang
351C/4sp