Team Camaro Tech banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,101 Posts
welcome to the best site on the net!

Well, according to Car Life mag in may of '69, a first Gen L78 (396/375 horse engine) with a 4 speed and 3.73 rear ran to 60mph in 6.8 seconds and did the quarter in 14.7 at 99mph. Muscle Car Review for that year ran a similar car (same options) in completely stock condition and netted a 14.23 @ 98mph. They spoke of a misfire condition keeping them from better times.

If the L48 (350 cubic inch) engine is your flavor. Hot Rod Magazine, ran one back in the day with a 3.55 gear and a 4 speed and got 14.85 @ 96mph.

Hope this helps a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I think that might be possible since the mph is calculated at the finish line. If a car pulls hard early it will have a quicker time and possibly a slower mph. I ran a Nova a few years ago that the best time was 11.97 @119.50 and others running the same times were 3-5 mph slower. My car was a dog at 60' 1.96-2.00 but was running strong at the lights. It surprised a lot of guys who would pull me strong at half track and get passed at the lights. The car was a turbocharged 350 '72 Nova with 3.42 gears. The license plate was SURPRIZ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
et's and trap speed can vary considerably depending on how the car is set. The scenerio for those two cars is very possible. That 396 torque on 60's bias tires dont make for great 60' times but would have been a monster there after whereas the 350 would have made a more straight forward pass.

------------------
I didn't build it, I didn't break it so lighten up, I'm just trying to fix it

[This message has been edited by Midnightblue69 (edited 06-29-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I agree with MidnightBlue. Times and speeds vary based on everything including 60 ft times and shift points. I ran a 13.0 @106 with a 1.9 second 60 ft time. My next run was a 13.7 at 106 with a 2.5 60 ft time. The only thing I can figure that changed on the second run was that I let it wind higher and raised the shift point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
I have one word for ya TRACTION!! I currently run 14.2's at 103mph because I spin through the 60 ft. I watch other guys that get traction run 13.5's and faster with the same MPH (wich drives me nuts!) That is the difernce that hookin up can do for u! It's all in the 60 ft!!

------------------
69 Camaro RS, 355ci, 72 gm casting heads,mild cam, Preformer rpm intake, edelbrock 600 carb, 350 turbo w/ shift kit 2500 stall, 10 bolt 2.73 any more questions ask
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Many factors enter the MPH scenario including cam timing, traction and even the total frontal area of a vehicle. Mostly, though, it's traction.
Many times you'll see a top fuel car shake the tires, shut it down and go through the traps at something like 9.20 @ 97 MPH. The corelation between ET and MPH is not linear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,101 Posts
The numbers I posted were those from the magazines. Both were on stock bias ply tires as well.

If you want some more numbers.... Cars magazine August 1969... a ZL1 with stock E70-15 bias ply tires ran a not so spectacular 13.16 et, but at 110+ mph. Obviously a traction problem. They then bolted on some skinny slicks and the car netted a 12.14 @ 117.

The same mag tested a L72 Camaro (with headers, street tires and traction bars) and pulled a 12.10 @ 110. One second faster ET than the first ZL1 test, but same mph.

Just for fun, Car & Driver did a comparison between Z28 & Mustang (Tunnel Port) in 1968. The cross-ram Z beat the Mustang in the 1/4. The Mustang was running slicks, and the Z was not. Z made it to 60mph in 5.3 seconds according to the article. It was equipped with 4.11 gears. It ran the 1/4 in 13.77 @ 107mph.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top