>300hp V12 >1,940lbs >0-60 in 5.4 seconds >1/4 mile

>>16347216
Damn dude it did the quarter under 60 mph? Noice

dang

how could it not be with that 1/4 mile in 1962

>>16347216
it would still kill your shitbox miata

>>16347227
>>16347234

>13.1 seconds

Muh bad

>>16347216
>1962

same way the z32 tt was a "super car" in its day

>1962

>5.4 seconds

fucker that was fast 55 years ago

>>16347252
thats still faster than literally any other stock vehicle in 1962

>>16347216
>weighs less than a Miata
>can warp time (1/4 mile at 60mph takes 15 seconds)

I want one.

>>16347264

Slower than most muscle cars of the time. inb4 140hp from 8 smogged liters.

>>16347264
Pontiac Tempest Super Duty was faster (1963 MY but built in 62), 12.42 1/4

>>16347274
there were no muscle cars in 1962

and this car is still faster than all of them lmao

t b h id totally buy that today if it remade with those same exact stats

>>16347278
I dont think you could call that a stock car

its a factory modified car

The thing is that this was a racecar. Even though it was the fastest thing you could buy you would think it would be faster.

A car that weighed a ton with 300hp today would blow it away in those times.

>>16347302
Just as stock as the 250 GTO if not moreso. Every 250 GTO is a bit different, it's not like they were rolling off an assembly line.

>>16347216
>GT

It's not that hard

you fucktards 13.1 was a missile back in 1962

>>16347274
http://www.motortrend.com/news/camaro-challenger-shelby-old-vs-new-cars/
1969 Camaro SS396 0-60: 6.8 sec*
1/4: 14.8 sec @ 98.7 mph*

1970 Challenger 440 0-60: 5.9 sec
1/4: 14.8 sec @ 100.0 mph*

Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60: 6.0 sec*
1/4: 14.0 sec @ 102.0 mph*

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/camry/2015/2015-toyota-camry-xse-v6-first-test/
>The 2015 Toyota Camry XSE V-6 hit 60 mph in 6.1 seconds, slower than a pre-refresh 2012 Toyota Camry SE V-6 at 5.8 seconds
>QUARTER MILE 14.5 sec @ 98.0 mph

Take off the nostalgia goggles.

>259-hp 2015 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ Turbo (the Malibu is new for 2016), both of which finished the 0-60-mph sprint in 6.3 seconds.

Also, can we just end GM already? They throw a turbo on and it's still slower than a soulless Toyota appliance.

>>16347324

Gassers were going a lot faster on the 1/4 with shitty tires. I bet a Corvette of that era would be able to hold on to the 250 on a track.

>>16347341
a Corvette of the time was a 15 second car at best

File: Ferrari 250 GTO Auction.jpg (213KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1200x800px

>>16347337
>>16347316
>>16347278
>>16347274
>>16347274
Until a muscle car that is still road legal can win 3 consecutive GT championships in a row (in it's respective time period) we'll consider the odds even

>"The big difference lay in the suspension. The 250 GTO's basic rear suspension with the transverse leaf spring located by a Watts Linkage was very well developed. The point has been made that even amateur drivers could drift a 250 GTO through a corner, it's handling was completely predictable and it almost never bit back.The (Shebly/AC) Cobra had transverse leaf spring rindependent suspension front and rear that had been designed some ten years previously for cars with much lower power output. It was less easy to control, needed plenty of opposite lock once the basic understeer was killed, and cornering fast was done only with great circumspection. A mistake could cause major problems."

>Anthony Pritchard 2010, pg 171, "Ferrari 250 GTO: The History of a Legend"

as it sits on my desk

>>16347344

>implying people kept cars stock back them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3LxQJ6xvyA

>>16347337

wow 50 years later and it's as fast as a modern car. That's still pretty good.

>>16347337
0-60 in 6 seconds was pretty damn fast in the 60s, V6 camrys are pretty quick too

>>16347353
and here comes the retarded

>b-but if you modify it

next thing you know youll be posting about muh price

you can modify a Ferrari too

why even post a movie set in the 70s to defend the early 60s

even back then several modified V8 cars were barely faster than 15s and 14s anyway

>>16347359
There was a time on /o/ when the V6 Camry was the benchmark for slow. Under was not slow, over was slow.

That's back when anonymous had the 400/600 hp 12 second Supra.

>>16347216
imagine if they had used a honda b18c engine instead

the thing would be like 400lbs lighter and actually make power

>>16347381
Yeah but it would also be a shitty honda

File: IMG_5787.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

>>16347216
Breathtaking car in person though. Recently saw 2 in one day.

File: 1370122347180.jpg (329KB, 1440x912px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1440x912px

>>16347337
And yet...

>>16347573
why does everybody cherry pick

it ran a 10.8 on slicks headers a non factory automatic and 4.88 gears

its another factory modified car

>>16347573
>one of two made
>slicks
lmao try again

double trigger time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAx2jtr3K8

>>16347337
>it took 7 years for Americans to not even catch up in a straight line
>laughingitalians.jpg
Alas, there's no comparable GT racer in the 70s from Ferrari to BTFO americans. Thankfully the regular cars did just fine in that regard already.

>>16347592
>>16347583
You could literally order it with slicks. Everything on it is factory. The ZL-1 could be specced exactly as shown, minus the open headers.

The other car, set up for road racing, ran 12.1.


The ZL-1 was designed to be a homologation special just like the GTO.

>>16347601
two were sold, only one has documentation
its a literal factory built race car special and is not in anyway relevant... ferrari also sold "to order" race cars to privateers if you want to look at those??? no???

File: d2e6668.jpg (77KB, 640x934px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x934px

Becauase old tyres

>>16347610
Even with just a normal corvette, the potential is still there, and for much cheaper than buying a ferrari

>>16347337
Those times are with factory ~6" wide bias ply tires. The '69 ZL-1 Camaro ran 10's with slicks.

wait until OP discovers what the quarter-mile times for most average family cars was back then.

>>16347643
weird how F.A.S.T runs 10s and 9s on those old tires the cars are just shit stock

a ZL1 was a 13 second car even with headers