Muscle Cars - Chevy vs Ford

[matsarol]

Hi,im new here,need a guide from all af you

[SharonAnne]

As much as I love the 65/66 and 69/70 Mustangs, I agree, they are NOT muscle cars. Now a 1966 428 Fairlane is a muscle car. I think the greatest Muscle Car was the 1969 SS454 Chevelle.

[MrPbody]

SharonAnne,

It's "me again". For '69, there were no 454s. 396 was the ONLY engine, in several power ratings. There were some "COPO" and Yenko cars with 427, but those were "dealer installed". First year for 454 was '70. It is generally accepted that the '70/'71 Chevelle SS454 with the LS-6 option (450 HP), is the "quickest" muscle car of the era (LS-7, 460 HP, was a "dealer installed" option). Only the '05/'06 GTO is even "close". Low 13s in "show room floor" condition. Add slicks, and the Hemi cars are pretty much "out of reach", easily low 12s, and in many cases 11s, stock except the tires.

The "Thunderbolt" '66 Fairlanes were 427s, not 428s. The first 428s in intermediates were in '68, and VERY rare. The 427 is a WHOLE LOT MORE engine than the 428, for racing purposes.

FWIW

Jim

[sub006]

American car quality has increased so much the last few years that Chevy and Ford are both at the top of the game. The Malibu and Fusion are world-class sedans.

There are V-6s today that will run with some of the '60s muscle cars. Mustang and Camaro V-8s have more power than I need.

Take your choice, but BUY AMERICAN.

[sub006]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Rumor has it that Ford's Chevy (I just had to say that! ) in American Graffiti was the EXACT same '55 Chevy used in Two Lane Blacktop.

Yes, it was the same car. IIRC the front bumper was removed, shiny black paint covered with flat black, chrome reverse rims replaced with American 200S daisy mags, etc.

As for power, I liked the tilted-up front-end gas station exchange in Two Lane Blacktop:

Attendant: "396?"

Wilson (?): "454."

Attendant: "No sh*t?!?"

Priceless.

[SharonAnne]

Hello again Jim!

I plead a typo on the 428 vs 427 Fairlane. The pitcher on my fast pitch team had a 1967 Fairlane GT with bucket seats, front discs, 289, 4 speed. It was one sweat ride. If I win a lottery I will have one done up for me.

Re; the 1969 chevelle, I plead 'brain fart'. I really did mean the 1970. I think that front end is awesome! Give it the cowl induction hood, 454 and a rock crusher and my-OH-my. What a car!!

[sub006]

It's a hard job our advisors have, keeping the car categories straight.

As I recall, Road & Track invented the term "muscle cars" (two words) in a 1965 article. They praised the power and somewhat improved handling of these mid-size sedans.

The GTO was the first recognized musclecar, in some measure thanks to the brilliant cross-marketing done by Jim Wangers. He did youth market tie-ins with rock songs, shoes, cologne and other products of interest to teen baby boomers. There were contests with cars as prizes. And of course he arranged "ringer" super-prepped cars through Royal Pontiac for magazine road tests.

Other earlier cars fit the powerful engine/small body formula. The 1936 Buick Century had their largest straight 8 in the light Special body. "Century" was supposed to stand for "100 mph", and the car came to be known as "the banker's hot rod".

Big-body performance cars like the hemi Chrysler 300s were fast, but didn't fit our definition.

When Studebaker merged with Packard, it became possible to buy a light, aerodynamic Stude Hawk with the big-for-its-time Packard V8. I think it was 374 cubic inches, big for the mid-fifties, and the cars were dragstrip contenders.

The relatively small '58-'59 T-Birds could be had with the 430 cubic inch Lincoln V8. These cars won at least one NASCAR championship, though I don't recall much strip impact.

The downsized 1962 Dodges and Plymouths gave incredible performance with their 413 wedge engines, but the availability of four-door sedan and wagon bodies disqualifies them from our musclecar definition no matter how many NHRA eliminations they dominated.

On the other hand, the GTO started out as an OPTION on the Pontiac Tempest, which came in four-doors and wagons. Hmmm. Maybe Mopar needed some "Ramcharger" and "Golden Commando" insiginias, paint stripes and cool wheels, and they would have had the first modern musclecars!

Since April 1964, many Mustang owners have considered their ponies to be sports cars. When a certain chicken farmer took out the back seat from a fastback, fiddled a bit with the suspension and threw headers on the hi-po 289, the result outran small-block Sting Rays for most SCCA Class B division championships.

The GTO was similarly a "halo car" that helped sell hundreds of thousands of more mundane Pontiacs.

[mustanger999]

Dude, hands down FORD MUSTANG. Totally get the GT500. Please Camaro is CRAP!!!

[mustanger999]

Plus I'm trying to decide whether I should go in for a Ford GT500 or wait for the new Camaro. [/quote]

BTW dont know what your budget is but roush stage 3 is the baddest stang out there.

[SharonAnne]

no matter how much 'muscle' a Mustang may have, it is NOT a 'muscle car'. It is THE 'pony car'.

[sub006]

Originally Posted by mustanger999

Dude, hands down FORD MUSTANG. Totally get the GT500. Please Camaro is CRAP!!!

I own several Chevys from 1963 through 2004. I'm slowly getting used to the weird styling of the Camaro. The Mustang and Challenger are much more attractive. Wonder where Chevy came up with the weird tail lights? They don't look anything like a '69, but remind me of a '73 Javelin!

But the word I have from the street is the Camaro's IRS makes it handle and drive way better than the other two. Even at opportunistic pricing the dealers can't seem to keep 'em in stock.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by sub006

But the word I have from the street is the Camaro's IRS makes it handle and drive way better than the other two. Even at opportunistic pricing the dealers can't seem to keep 'em in stock.

The Challanger has IRS as well. But I have heard the same thing. The Camaro is functionally superior.

[MrPbody]

No offense, but a Jag doesn't "qualify" as a muscle car. And why would you replace that wonderful Jag engine? Regardless of era, Jag engines are a work of art. It's true they're expensive and "specialized", but what exotic car isn't? You didn't mention which model of Jag you have. E-type? S? XJ? XK-8? 3.8? 4.2? 5.3?

I've seen Jags with small Chevys in them. I've seen a couple with small Fords in them. I never understood it... But my first dealership job was in a Jag dealer (Ramsay McQue Imported Cars, San Bernardino) and I learned to "deal" with the British car "quirks". (British theory of engineering: If it takes 2 bolts to hold something down, use 12! And make them all "fine thread"...) AWESOME performers in their own "right". Ramsay (the owner) had a '73 E-type roadster with the carbed V-12 and a 4-speed. My Judge could beat it for a 1/4 of a mile and about 10 feet. After that, the Jag just kept pulling away. Ramsay would have had a heart attack if he knew how the service department was pounding on his car... But it never faltered!

I think the closest thing I ever drove made in England to being a true muscle car was the Jensen "Interceptor", equipped with a Dodge 440 Magnum (as produced). It was quite heavy compared to American performance cars of the day, but from a "rolling start" it was VERY fast.

Let me know which Jag you have!

Jim

p.s. Do you know why the Brits drink warm beer? They all own Lucas refridgerators...

[sub006]

Originally Posted by Drivejaguar

Chevy Chevy Chevy, Fords are over engineered, but good cars so nothing against them, but I am a Chevy fan. You know I have heard some of there parts and engineering is similar to Jaguars and that is exciting Auto Repair Mesa, AZ Showed how you can put a Chevy motor in a jag. Muscle cars are a great subject to discuss, but I have a Beautiful Jaguar does that count. I was thinking about souping it up is it worth it.

My wife had '84 and '86 Series III XJ6 sedans for a total of 12 years. I got them from a talented acquaintance whose hobby was rebuilding almost-new salvaged luxury cars. Since they were post-'83, when newly-privatized Jaguar fired Lucas and went to Bosch electricals, they alway started, were quite reliable and sweet to drive. Weakest area was the Borg-Warner automatic trans which originally came in 1954 Hudsons, as I recall. New cars would go maybe 40,000 miles (just past warranty), rebuilts less than 20,000. Best strategy was to look for the lowest-mileage Jag in the junkyard and snag the trans for $400 vs. a $1500 and up rebuild, ask me how I know.

If you're interested in a transplant, the gold standard in the '80s and '90s was John's Cars in Dallas, Texas. He had swap kits for small and big-block Chevys into XJ6s. so complete they had the connectors and linkage to make the stock Jag gear selector, tach, electrical harness etc. mate with the Chevy stuff; plug in, no cobbling.

He also had smaller-scale improvements like "Quarterbreed", a Turbohydro trans swap to go behind the Jag six (see above), poly bushing kits to give the steering rack new-car feel forever, etc. Plus new Jag trim parts like defrost vents, $40 at the dealer, $20 from John.
Don't know if he's still in business what with tightening smog inspection rules, but if he is I'd recommend him to any 1960-1990 Jag owner.

[MrPbody]

Sub,

Most of the mid-'70s through mid-'80s Jags I worked on had TH400 in them. At least two "Ss" I rebuilt the trans in, at just over 150K miles. I have no idea what the exact year "spread" is, but Jag "pattern" TH400s are "out there". The internals are the same as a Chevy or BOP TH400. The case and converter are "special".

FWIW

Jim