Mustang vs Cutlass

Hello, I was just wanting to get everyone's opinion on this one. Who would win in a drag race: a 2000 Mustang (v6 240hp 3.8L with dual exhaust) or a 1971 cutless supreme with a 350 engine (c8 5.7L with no ad-ons). The only reason why I have been told that the Mustang would win was because of the cutless's weight disadvantage. Thanks.

Cutlass Supreme in the end.........throw in a Mustang V8....and the outcome would be very different

I agree, much MUCH more torque in that 350, and more hp

heavy dosent matter if the power to weight is in the favor of the bigger car

I would have to go with the mustang. The cutlass is old, tired and heavy. I suppose top speed might go to the cutlass, but it would be my opinion the mustang would take it in the 1/4. By the way the 99-02 mustang v6 come with 190 hp. I doubt it got 50 hp from duel exhaust.

if it has a good dual exaust with good crossoverpipe (good torque, slightly less hp) Then maby...then again, the older 5.7's in those cars only makes what, 230hp? its got torque though, 320 or so which would kill you. But with the extra weight, its hard to say. Stage it up and find out.

I bet it does not even make 230 hp. I read some where that the 1981 corvette only make like 197 hp with the same engine.

thats true, that year the 5.7 was a dog, too much put into smog and saving gas by taking away power.

I'm thinking the mustang would win, but the 5.7 still has it beat alot on torque.

... you're comparing a 81 350 to a 71 350..

Cant compare the two. Why? In 71 they had no Smog restrictions.

And a 350 in 71 made about 320 hp* (stock mind you). Back then they liked to waste gas.


Cutlass Supreme... weighs only about 3600lbs give or take a few ounces

new mustang is about 600lbs lighter. So with minus 600lbs but less power all over.... I say if the Cutlass has a Posi which lots of cars did come with back then... I'd put my money on the cutlass.

And on the note of the Cutlass being old and tired. Who said the engine is tired? What if its a new engine? or at least fresh. It would still give the Mustang a run for its money.


* = Depending on Engine performance packages.

WOA, ,didnt read year...yep, cutlass the whole way.

whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute! don't knock the cutlass. this is a 1971 model were talking about here, before all of that emmissions crap, more than likely carbed too. if this guy has done anything at all to his cutlass, it should beat the stang. V6 stangs will only run a mid 15 at best. I'm not saying the cutlass is blindingly fast or anything, but it should run a mid 15 or better easily. oh.... and 240 hp in a V6 stang? I don't think so (unless its heavily modded)

just looked it up, there were two 350's offered for the cutlass in 1971. one put out 240 horse and one put out 260. by the way, its not the same 350 setup used by GM in the 80's for whoever said that.

innnterrresttinnnnngggggg....

know what we all should get?

Plymouth Acclaims!


Yes.:cwn27:

whoops, missed rednecks earlier post, he already covered this, sorry.... lol

That mustang shouldnt run 15's...maby HIGH 15's...maby...

your probably right, I gave it the benefit of the doubt considering it's V6 counterpart - the '98 & up V6 camaros can run mid 15's

According to Car and Driver magazine the 99- new mustang v6 runs 15.5-15.6 in the 1/4. Thats with 190 hp

I knew I heard that somewhere, thx for the info

I think its the 95-96+ F-bodys. And are we talking an old STOCK motor in the olds? Cause if we are, I doubt it has a chance, and everybody quoting how they made so much power, its called GROSS hp and tq. What was it, like late 70's they (SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers)started measuring in SAE horsepower and torque.

It would be something like this: 400hp and 430 lbs. tq GROSS
310bhp and 390 lbs. tq SAE

Stock oldies were not as fast as people think, go check out an old Road&Track, Car&Driver, or MotorTrend.

Even now days they state most muscle cars didn't break 0-60 in less than 7.5 and the 1/4 in less than 15. A few were faster, but the majority were atleast that slow. Is that old Cutlass even considered a Muscle Car?

first of all, I know the difference between gross hp and net hp, second, you are totally wrong about old muscle cars. they simply did not have the tire technology back then to support the hp and torque. by the way, I'm not really considering the cutlass a muscle car either. I know exactly what you mean though about how they changed the ratings from gross (at the crank) to net (at the wheels). they did this in '72. my dad owns a '72 vette w/ a 454. its only rated at 275 hp. the same (well almost the same) 454 in '71 was rated at 425hp (it did have higher compression though, but anyways.....) if rated net hp, it would be more like 320 or something along those lines... anyways, I'm going off on a rant here, but in short, don't underestimate old muscle cars w/ todays tire tech. ....they'll leave you in the dust.:D

Nope. SAE vs Gross is not @the wheels vs crank. SAE still measures at the crank. Why do you think when they dyno a stock Supra TT at the wheels it only puts out like 280+/- yet the stock rating is 320 HP SAE. I don't know the exact difference (SAE vs. Gross) but im too lazy to look it up right now.

because toyota lied...lol. it does happen though. perfect example.- ford a couple of years ago claimed their '00 model cobra put out 320 hp. well.... they lied, even the fast fords & mustangs magazine (an obviously biased source) admitted their dissapointment with ford on this issue. dynos showed less than 300 hp on those cobras resulting in a mass recall.

I have no clue about SAE either though, I'm also too lazy to look it up, so in the words of those much wiser than I.... who gives a fuck?

I dont :flipa:

Originally posted by 1320B4U


Stock oldies were not as fast as people think, go check out an old Road&Track, Car&Driver, or MotorTrend.

Even now days they state most muscle cars didn't break 0-60 in less than 7.5 and the 1/4 in less than 15. A few were faster, but the majority were atleast that slow. Is that old Cutlass even considered a Muscle Car?



Not fast??? how can you say that? 1969 Chevy Nova SS 396 ran a 13.8 STOCK. ON STREET tires. Oh wait im sorry... only stationwagons and heavy duty pickups are that slow now... every car runs 9s... time to put down the copy of fast and the furious mr. man.


Look up the Chevelles with the big blocks, the Mustangs with 428s, the Cobras even. They all ran something LESS than 14.

http://members.tripod.com/mork_04/50.htm < case in Point.

See any MUSCLE cars running 15s? I dont think so.

Only reason im not gonna flame you is cause you have a Talon TSI AWD. Thems are kewl.

Dude, Im saying most (but not all, especially the big blocks) stock muscle cars were not as fast as most people nowdays think they were. Im only nineteen, I've been reading car mags since I was ten. But out of all the reviews I have seen, only a few would be considered fast on todays scale of sub 14sec 1/4 and mid 5's sec or less times to 60mph.
I was saying stock, not long tube headers, full exhausts, high rise manifolds?, and holly double pumpers. My car would be lucky to crack 15 stock, but add a bigger turbo, full exhaust, bigger injectors/fuel pump, and other goodies, and i can break into the 12's or better too.
My uncle has a built up .030(?) over 390 '68 Galaxy; it's nice, but not my cup of tea. I like Fast and the Furious because its about the only import movie around, despite all its inadequacies. But I'm not a Ricer.

Originally posted by MadZ
because toyota lied...lol. it does happen though. perfect example.- ford a couple of years ago claimed their '00 model cobra put out 320 hp. well.... they lied, even the fast fords & mustangs magazine (an obviously biased source) admitted their dissapointment with ford on this issue. dynos showed less than 300 hp on those cobras resulting in a mass recall.

The car recalled was the 99 cobra. The only cobra made for 2000 was the limited production cobra R. They to busy fixing the recalls to make a regular production cobra. But, all the recall were fixed by straighting out a kink in headers, recalibrating the computer, and a little honing on the intake. This brought the cars back to their advertised power.

Originally posted by 1320B4U
.
I was saying stock, not long tube headers, full exhausts, high rise manifolds?, and holly double pumpers. .


all of the cars on that list ARE stock. and lots of them have SMALL blocks. And as you propably saw, none did anything over 14 seconds.

Give us come credit man. We may be old, but sure arent done by no means.

Originally posted by 1320B4U
Dude, Im saying most (but not all, especially the big blocks) stock muscle cars were not as fast as most people nowdays think they were. Im only nineteen, I've been reading car mags since I was ten. But out of all the reviews I have seen, only a few would be considered fast on todays scale of sub 14sec 1/4 and mid 5's sec or less times to 60mph.
I was saying stock, not long tube headers, full exhausts, high rise manifolds?, and holly double pumpers. My car would be lucky to crack 15 stock, but add a bigger turbo, full exhaust, bigger injectors/fuel pump, and other goodies, and i can break into the 12's or better too.
My uncle has a built up .030(?) over 390 '68 Galaxy; it's nice, but not my cup of tea. I like Fast and the Furious because its about the only import movie around, despite all its inadequacies. But I'm not a Ricer.

First, these cars are stock, second most -arnt- big blocks. 302, 350, 351 to name a few are -small block- v-8's Its like a s200, or a type R...both are 14 sec cars stock. Most of the time youll see 15 sec mustangs or cameros because they are old, with old engines *150,000 miles plus with no rebuild* and poor maintence. If a 67 mustang with a 289 rolls up stock, that was back in the day just a normal car, nothing really fancy. Now if a Shelby GT 500 or BOSS 429 rolled up thats like a type R. Difference is, the cars on this list will clown on the R. :bandit:

I'd put my $$ on the Cutlass without question. you also need to remember, that 30-35 years ago, GM would dumb down the advertised HP by 10-20+ HP on most V8s.

For example, in 1966, the Corvette 427 4bbl was rated at 390 HP. when put on the dyno, it pulled approx. 410 HP. In 1968, the Chevelle's solid-lifter 396 was advertised at 375 HP, but when dynoed it put out between 420 and 425 HP. in 1970, the Chevelle LS-6 454 was advertised at 450 HP, when in actuality it put out close to 500. the lower ratings were published to give GM less of a racing image due to it's ban on factory sponsored racing, as well as for insurance reasons and inter model rivalry. (a Corvette with a 350 would have a higher advertised rating than a Chevelle, Camaro, or Nova with that same motor.) a case in point was Pontiac and their Ram Air III vs their Ram Air IV and between Firebird and GTO models.

It is true that most muscle cars would run high 13 to low 14 sec 1/4 miles on skinny bias-plies. bolting on a set of modern tires can push a low 14 sec car into the 13.7-13.8 range. adjusting the timing and tuning the carb (factory timing was conservative) will unlock another few tenths and more than just a few ponies. and bolting on a set of headers will make it a solid mid 13 second car at least. So, as you now see, Musclecars are actually faster than most people percieve them to be.
Regardless, i'd say that the Cutlass would spank the Mustang.

"Difference is, the cars on this list will clown on the R."
-TerminalVelocity

Yeah, strictly in a straight line. Everything else it would be the other way around.


As for stock muscle cars running sub-14's stock, I'm sure some were faster, but I'll believe the instumented tests I see in the car mags.
Word of mouth vs. Instrumented Testing

Originally posted by fastrThanU
I'd put my $$ on the Cutlass without question. you also need to remember, that 30-35 years ago, GM would dumb down the advertised HP by 10-20+ HP on most V8s.

For example, in 1966, the Corvette 427 4bbl was rated at 390 HP. when put on the dyno, it pulled approx. 410 HP. In 1968, the Chevelle's solid-lifter 396 was advertised at 375 HP, but when dynoed it put out between 420 and 425 HP. in 1970, the Chevelle LS-6 454 was advertised at 450 HP, when in actuality it put out close to 500. the lower ratings were published to give GM less of a racing image due to it's ban on factory sponsored racing, as well as for insurance reasons and inter model rivalry. (a Corvette with a 350 would have a higher advertised rating than a Chevelle, Camaro, or Nova with that same motor.) a case in point was Pontiac and their Ram Air III vs their Ram Air IV and between Firebird and GTO models.

It is true that most muscle cars would run high 13 to low 14 sec 1/4 miles on skinny bias-plies. bolting on a set of modern tires can push a low 14 sec car into the 13.7-13.8 range. adjusting the timing and tuning the carb (factory timing was conservative) will unlock another few tenths and more than just a few ponies. and bolting on a set of headers will make it a solid mid 13 second car at least. So, as you now see, Musclecars are actually faster than most people percieve them to be.
Regardless, i'd say that the Cutlass would spank the Mustang.


spoken like a true chevy fan, All hp is always underated from factory.

Originally posted by RedNeck383
innnterrresttinnnnngggggg....

know what we all should get?

Plymouth Acclaims!


Yes.:cwn27:

hey!
i drive a plymouth acclaim
lol
with the 2.5 4 in it

well just because i dont have a car nut car - doesnt mean i can be a car nut :)


my moneys on the cutlass all the way

Originally posted by 1320B4U
"Difference is, the cars on this list will clown on the R."
-TerminalVelocity

Yeah, strictly in a straight line. Everything else it would be the other way around.


As for stock muscle cars running sub-14's stock, I'm sure some were faster, but I'll believe the instumented tests I see in the car mags. Word of mouth vs. Instrumented Testing

ummm .. i dont think we were talking about road racing or AutoCross stuff, I do believe we were talking of a 1/4 mile jaunt down a track(i hope) or a street. haha dont change the subject to how a Integra can out handle a Camaro inbetween cones.

:huh: Instrumented tests? What do you think the list i gave you was? something i pulled out of thin air? Why cant you just face the fact that you've been proven that Slow-as-molassis Muslce cars arent Slow at all?

OK, can you shoot me a link to stock muscle car #'s, not somebodys made up homepage of fast cars with "their" numbers on it.

I found a Road & Track with a '67 Camaro w/350 and it was running a 8 flat to 60mph and a 15.4 in the 1/4.

Originally posted by 1320B4U
OK, can you shoot me a link to stock muscle car #'s, not somebodys made up homepage of fast cars with "their" numbers on it.

I found a Road & Track with a '67 Camaro w/350 and it was running a 8 flat to 60mph and a 15.4 in the 1/4.

I'd be happy to show you stock muscle car #'s. And not somebodys homepage with a list they borrowed from another well acclaimed site.

As for proof? What about Muscle Car magazine?

This is another list of the 50 fastest, doesnt have any of the Vipers or newer Vettes so its a true list of the 50 fastest. (haha even though theres only 48 on the list.)

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml I hope these stock times help.

and it gives something i didnt see before... the source of the Information and the Year.

Shall we end this while we still have teeth? :toothless

Thankyou. Thats all the proof I need. But (theres always a "but" with me it seems), in an earlier posting I did mention "Im saying most (but not all, especially the BIG BLOCKS)" would break 14's. As I noticed on the list, I seem to be correct about that, as there is a 351 Boss and a '62 fuel injected vette 327? Isn't a big block like 396 and bigger?

Originally posted by 1320B4U
Thankyou. Thats all the proof I need. But (theres always a "but" with me it seems), in an earlier posting I did mention "Im saying most (but not all, especially the BIG BLOCKS)" would break 14's. As I noticed on the list, I seem to be correct about that, as there is a 351 Boss and a '62 fuel injected vette 327? Isn't a big block like 396 and bigger?


well the 396 is the pretty much the smallest Big Block out there... Next to the 351 Cleveland, which is just a 351 (duh) but is physcially bigger like a Big Block. Meaning it makes more grunt... theoredicaly. Im not the biggest Ford fan, so im not that informed on the 351C I know enough to get me by at Car shows. "DUDE.. your engine is in backwards... the distributor is supposed to be against the firewall..pshh your no hotrodder! POSERRR!!" I do have to say, for tuning purposes Ford has Chevy and Mopar beat having hte Distributor infront would make soo much easier to adjust, not having to lean over a hot engine helps out! But if the distributor is in front.. does that mean the Cam comes out the back? (kidding :D )

But then again theres the 427 Small Block. Yeah displacement of a Big bitch.. but in a small package.. a 350 bored to all hell, stroked like it has no momma.. makes 500hp stock.. IF you can call that stock. hahaha.

the distributor is not always best in the front though.... go through a big enough water puddle and splash some on there and you'll be sittin on the side of the road for a while waiting to dry. most cars shouldn't have this problem though, but I have a friend w/ a box bronco running a 351 and he has had this problem several times off-roading.