Whether you're a Mopar, Chevy, or Ford guy, can we all agree

And yet they all weigh 2 tons with stupid microwindows, and will break down every 2k miles.

>>16389777
CHECKED

and yes I agree. American muscle is where it's at.

>>16389777
you can still get 1000hp from a supra by buying it and adding a WOT slap.

>>16389812
Hammond pls go

>>16389788
Dots

>>16389818
That's also a 20 year old car, and overpriced and rated

too bad horsepower doesnt make good cars

its like the 60s where its just a bunch of garbage made for benchracers

>>16389788
Just you wait until enough of them get wrecked that there comes standard drop in swaps. Ecoboost Fiero? Yes please. Hellcat foxbody? Valhalla here I come.

>>16389837
sounds retarded since you can already build better engines for less money

>>16389837
>Ecoboost Fiero
I think you mean Ecotec.
>Hellcat Foxbody
How about GT350 or GT500 Foxbody? Hell, I think an LT4 Foxbody will happen before a Hellcat one - although I'm looking forward to the first Dart A-body with a 3rd gen 392 or 426.

>>16389850
>you can already build better engines for less money
Sure, you tell me where I can a supercharged all-aluminium small block with 650hp and a warranty for 16K USD.

>>16389777
>muscle cars weigh about 1000 pounds+ more than their ancestors
>chrysler getting 450hp out of a 392
Not really. Getting 430 hp out of a pump gas NA 5.0 is pretty impressive by any standard, but for the most part this is all pretty underwhelming. Theyre also ugly with no character

>>16389887
>>chrysler getting 485hp out of a 392
Ftfy. Also, that's net hp, not gross, which means a world of difference compared to the older ''400''hp big blocks.

>>16389905
You can get as much horsepower as you want out of old big blocks, they spun tires with the measly 240-280 net they had back in the day, any more and they would have been literally undriveable.

>>16389905
392 scat pack rwhp dyno: 430
302 mustang gt: 403

They have a lot of improvement is what im saying. EPA regulations are strangling automobile manufacturers, and this generation of vehicles are unimpressive for the majority. I can get 550bhp out of a junkyard 351 for a couple of grand and drive it just fine on the road and get pretty much same mpg as any new full size truck

>>16389885
>muh warranty

what

>>16389950
lolno

>>16389959
>lolno
yep

>>16389950
>they spun tires with the measly 240-280 net they had back in the day
That's because tires back then were utter shit.

>>16389959
>>muh warranty
>implying warranty isn't a valid point in your engine swaps
>implying warranties don't have an economical value that can be substracted for that 16K price
I bet you didn't even look up a warranty-free 650hp crate engine - because you probably can't find one, nevermind a blown aluminium small block, nevermind one that gets the MPG an LT4 does.

>>16389954
And you can get even more power out of the modern motors. I'd love to see that 351 out-flow a ported Apache, for example.

>>16389965
they were 14 second cars at best for the most part

far from undrivable

I drove a 427/390hp and it was a disappointment

>>16389970
>That's because tires back then were utter shit.

no they werent this meme needs to die

Polyglas tires are good for sub 10 second passes

>LT4

all of its mpgs are from having 2 overdrives not the engine you retard

why would you buy an engine and not build it thought this was an enthusiast board

File: 2252786180_51e507429f_b.jpg (1MB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x691px

>>16389970
>That's because tires back then were utter shit.
exactly, that's why it was never feasible to have a 600 hp engine in your grocery getter.

Now that tire technology has improved you can grab a junkyard motor and build it how you want it, money is the obstacle.

>>16389982
>they were 14 second cars at best for the most part
That's not they point, they were all RWD with a light ass. They had to be daily driven, in the snow and rain on bias ply tires. To engineer them with max hp would mean suicide for an average driver.
Shit even NYC cabs used 7 liter engines.

>no they werent this meme needs to die
Yes they were, to say tire technology hasn't improved in the last 50 years is retarded.

>>16389970
>ported boss coyote heads 330cfm unspecified lift
>airflow research small block ford heads 318cfm at .600 lift
Im not saying they arent better but its not drastic. Old engines will handle boost just as well when you match the forged internals of the new engines also

>>16389995
>bias ply

no

Polyglas came out in the late 60s you ignorant cunt

most switched to that

they werent hard to drive even before that

>Yes they were, to say tire technology hasn't improved in the last 50 years is retarded.

you are retarded since I didnt say that

fact is people run just fine on period tires

muscle cars were just slow

>>16389777
American car manufacturers truly are at the top of their game right now. No one comes close in terms of value.

>>16390004
>Polyglas came out in the late 60s you ignorant cunt
It's a bias tire you dumb fag
Radial>bias, there is nothing to be argued.

>>16390033
bias tire =/= bias ply

you really dont know a single fuckign thing do you

>Radial>bias, there is nothing to be argued.

yet Polyglas hooks up better

File: Knipsel.jpg (49KB, 472x378px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 472x378px

>>16389982
>all of its mpgs are from having 2 overdrives not the engine you retard
No, it's from the VVT system, DoD, and direct injection. The overdrives help, but they're not completely responsible.

>>16389999
So a modern portjob on the excellent Boss heads is 330cfm, a modern design SBF head is 320 - and pic related, a modern port on a modern head can exceed 390cfm. That's a drastic difference in my opinion - there's a reason the old SBF is slowly falling behind the LS/LT and 3rd gen Hemi. Sure, an old block will hold up fine to boost with the proper internals, but on modern stock internals (with some added ring gap) you can get amazing hp - 1000hp out of a 5.3 truck LS isn't unheard of.

>>16390033
Polyglass tires are poop. However there are still classes today that run boas ply tires. However with drastic full race modifications the limit on these tires seems to be about 10.60s which is still faster than most modern muscle cars. Honestly what the scat pack challenger with 8 speed does in the 1/4 is about as fast as your really good street legal runs back in the mid 70s and early 80s. Flat 11s

>>16390044
lmao how retarded are you,
Radial>bias.

>yet Polyglas hooks up better
Yeah after they started making polyglas radials in 1975 lmao

Damn it must suck to be so fucking stupid

>>16390058
even the fattest muscle cars back then were a half-ton lighter than a modern Challenger

>>16390059
yet people are running 9s on 7 inch Polyglas tires and pure stock drag cars run 11s on them

yet people get better 60 feet times with Polyglass than Radial T/A

meanwhile you just shitpost like the ignorant child you are

>>16390071
Oh my bad, that's why every car on the road has Polyglas right?

>>16390081
oh my bad thats why every car on the road is a drag racer right?

lmao this child like logic

Polyglas is better for drag racing I know your brain is slow but thats what were talking about here in case you never realized or forgot

File: IMG_0286.jpg (57KB, 639x379px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 639x379px

>>16390045
Heads for larger engines will always flow more. Heres the one for the big block ford which is a little closer in size.

Also hotrod has been building 1000hp turbo ohv small blocks for years. Fuel economy on a vct engine is obviously going to be better and they run better on the street but you can only get so much power efficiency

File: 2015-Chevrolet-Corvette-Z06-Nissan-GT-R-Nismo-Willow-Springs.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

>>16389777

>>16390071
>running 9s on a 7 inch tire
Proof?

>>16390095
>oh my bad thats why every car on the road is a drag racer right?
That has nothing to do with anything.
Every car has radials. Radials>bias.
In fact i never even mentioned drag racing so i don't know why you're crying about it rn tbqhwy

File: 251321-1000-0.jpg?rev=2.jpg (76KB, 1000x495px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x495px

>>16390104
my bad its only a 7 inch wheel

they are G60s which is more like a 9.5 tire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UcYp3yHw_g

>>16390117
>I

sorry faggot you are irrelevant

the original discussion was how the tires couldnt hook up but you cant argue that they cant so you try to change the subject

kids these days have gotten REALLY fucking stupid

>>16390133
That makes a little more sense. 9.5 tire is usually the limit people race on

>>16390097
>Heres the one for the big block ford which is a little closer in size.
What kinda crack are you on? A 302/351W is 4.000'', a 6.4 Apache is 4.090'', and that BBF is frigging 4.500''. In my book, 4.090 is closer to 4 than it is to 4.5.

If you compensate for bore surface area (which should directly translate into valve area), scaling the 6.4 results in [email protected]'' for the 4.000'' bore 302/351W, and 472cfm @.600'' for the 4.500'' bore size of the BBF. Neither 302 nor BBF matches that flow.

It's not just VVT, it's also cilinder deactivation that gets you MPG, as does GM's direct injection.

File: 1482939215964.jpg (993KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 1600x1000px

>Camaro ZL1 and GT350R are stomping all over European cars at the track
Stop dreaming.

>>16390102
When are we going to get new memes?

>>16390156
when gm shills leave this board and gm fangirls kill themselves

>>16390133
>the original discussion was how the tires couldnt hook up but you cant argue that they cant so you try to change the subject
No actually the original arguement was that these cars were daily drivers, not drag cars, so their huge engines which made meagre horsepower can actually achieve much more with money.

kids these days can't even follow an argument lmao.


>>16389905
>>16389950
>>16389995

>>16390164
>they spun tires with the measly 240-280 net they had back in the day
>That's because tires back then were utter shit.

man you are so desperate and wrong it hurts

even the power argument is the most retarded thing ever

>>16390150
Technically its the bore spacing that lets you use wider runners. Granted i dont know the specs on the apache, but the bore spacing on a coyote is as small as they could possibly get away with.

>>16389788

I'll give you two tons and micro windows on two of the three, but the break down rate is WAY better than that. All three of the muscle coupes and the Charger have good reliability up to 100k miles. The Dodge twins have good visibility comparatively as well.

They're not fucking Camry's. They're high performance sports cars with powerful V8 engines. 100k miles is fucking impressive for what they offer. It's better than most of their European competition can offer.

More importantly, these are sub-60k cars even in their top trims and they run circles around literally everything in their price bracket. Even the fat, can't turn Hellcat can run a circuit faster than any car in its price range.

Then you can take shit to the next level and look at the Snek and Corvette and what they're doing to the Supercar world. They're literally raping everything they go up against.

Merica stronk.

>>16390152
>2017 ends
>Turns out the QV was just the mid-level trim (think Audi S)
>Alfa releases the Giulia SS
>all-aluminium Hellcat
>Spanks the entire automotive world
>Weaboos butthurt, Murilards angry that they got beat by a 5 year old Euro luxury brand, Alfisti butthurt because ''muh purity''

>>16390156
When GM finally starts Ring testing again.

>>16390168
''Work safe'' means no porn. It isn't actually safe for work.

>>16390181
Given that the Apache is the biggest they dared to go (and overboring them is risky), I'd wager about the same.

On the other hand, bigger bores = bigger valves, and I'd consider those to be more of a bottleneck. Depends on the head I guess.

>>16390190
Well i tried to post legitimate proof for my opinion. I actually like the coyote but i dont agree with the OP that this is the best generation for muscle cars

>>16390170
>man you are so desperate and wrong it hurts
The irony lmao.
Tires back then were shit.
> muh polyglassssssss
Is nothing, there's no point to these tires when you have 900 pounds of engine on the front and 200 pounds on the rear wheels.
Furthermore, not everyone had them, most people didn't. Most people didn't give a shit about their cars back then. To think they would pay extra for a shitty little bias tire is so fucking retarded.
Literally as soon as radials were commercially viable the whole industry switched over and has remained that way.

>m..muh muh FAST!
These cars are not stock in any way, try again.

>>16390215
>These cars are not stock in any way, try again.

yup

faster than stock but using the same kind of tires they hook up fine

thanks for proving my point


just like that we are done here you lost

Americans relying on cost as if it's the only thing that matters

>huur this muurkan piece of shit is just as fast and costs less
Let's ignore the worse build quality less features the fact it's unreliable fat and overpowered.. but at least it's cheap
Well only if you live in North America...

It's hilarious how a poverty tier domestic car being cheaper than a high quality import somehow means the plastic fantastic is a good car
Lmao
Go eat mcdonalds instead of real food

>>16390215
and to even fuck you up further by 69 and 70 nearly every muscle car came with Polyglas

the switch to radial was purely for comfort and safety and not performance

>>16390228
I dont like to pay extra for shit i dont need. I wish there was a version of the new mustang gt that had no carpet, no ac, no cd player, no power windows, no cameras, no driver assists, etc and was 5k cheaper. Fuck i would even prefer if it came with no wheels and tires

>>16390226
>faster than stock but using the same kind of tires they hook up fine
Doesn't matter, not stock.

>the tires are the same!

Doesn't mean anything until you can prove the rear ends are stock.

Thanks for proving my point friendo.
Guess you'll have to try and beat me in the next thread.

>and to even fuck you up further by 69 and 70 nearly every muscle car came with Polyglas
Yes, and? they still spun as to my original point.

>>16390261
>Doesn't matter, not stock.
>Doesn't mean anything until you can prove the rear ends are stock.

>I-if Im wrong it doesnt count

yeap

were done its over

this was the easiest victory Ive ever had

>>16389777
>hp makes a good car
Why is this board so fucking autistic?

File: laughing8.jpg (47KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 460x276px

>>16390270
The only rule FAST has is that it has to look stock lmao.


>claims muscle cars barely do a 14 second 1.4
>n.no! these FAST cars are stock and they do 11s on these magical tires i've never driven on.

OH WAIT YOU'RE THAT FAG WITHOUT A CAR HOLY MOLEY LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bitch nigga about to start crying about how he doesn't have time for this lmao

>>16390295
oh its the same retarded musclefag that shows up all the time

you are legit the dumbest poster on /o/ cant even argue with you and I guess thats why

>>16390306
lmao post car, I'm dyin rn

Why do they let nocars post on this board?

>>16390314
Post yours first Mr muscle