Tonight I was driving down amherst st, and I pulled up next to this 70' something olds 442 at the red light. It looked kinda like a POS because it was painted in either red primer, or really old and faded paint. The rear end was kinda jacked up so you could see the mufflers and pumpkin too, but it all looked origional. When the light turned green, he took off smoking the tires. I rolled the throttle to WOT in order to avoid the one-wheel-peel. He was still pulling away from me. I hit second and leveled with him at about 50mph. It was neck in neck untill the top of second where I started to walk him but let off. Neither of us said anything because bolth our windows were up.

I followed for a while, and he kept accellerating on and off the gas, and chirping the tires shifting gears. Also, his tailpipes were pouring out black smoke when he got on the gas like he was running rich. Must have been running real shitty, or he wasnt WOT because there is no way my LO3 should hold with a authentic muscle car like that!

Heres a pic of the car's bodystyle I found on google. No idea what motor those things have.

 

My friend use to have a 442 just like that and it had a 350 rocket in it and those motors was so underrated or who ever he bought that car from built that motor because that car had a posi with 50's on the back and it would roast them at will...that guy probably had a 350 rocket with 400,000 hard miles on it, lol!

 

I thought those 442s had olds 440s in them. Couldn't tell you for sure though.

 

I know the early years like 65, 66 came with a 400

 

Wow.

Here are some 442 basics. enjoy.

 

Wow, indeed.

 

Don't think

 

Sadly, the stock "muscle cars" were all bark and little bite. Take into account the 2002 Firebird Formula/Trans Am were the fastest ever made. I had a 76 with a 400 and it was a hog. Have an 1987, they were nuetred with all the smog crap. The 2002 is fast and nimble.

 

They had emissions too. Real "muscle" cars would certainly spank the newer F-bodies with the torque numbers. Hell, the Buick GSX had over 500ftlbs. Don't knock the ol'Muscle man. That's heritage.

 

Huh? Says who?

 

Not sure but I think 442 means (4) barrell(4)speed(2)dual exhaust. A friend had a mid 80s with 307 factory

 

Fly88 read the specs and est. I cruel fact, and am not knocking muscle cars.

 

If you say so man. I never said you were knocking muscle cars, I'm disputing the claim that the '02's were the fastest ever made.

 

I'm biased, but I'm thinking there's about 1550 1989 Indianapolis 500 Pace Cars that would like a fighting chance at that title.

 

Not to mention the SLP Firehawks. I'm not sure why an 02 was quoted since it's damn near the same set up as the '01's. Eh, whatever.

 

I dont think he meant 02 in particular.

He meant that even with modern emissions and fuel mileage regulations, modern muscle is faster than classic muscle.

Whether true or not is debatable as we've seen... but I think he has a good point. We obsess over "classic" muscle cars all day long but the new stuff is just as fast or faster...

 

Maybe the car in general, but not the motors man. back in the days (pre 73' oil embargo) they made some nasty motors. i'm not sure if it was 71' or 72' but you could, if you had the money order a firebird from the factory that came with 500hp. cars back then Accelerated quickly, but since they're about as aerodynamic as a brick, they're top speed wasn't great. plus, they're nostalgic. i would take a 67-73 camaro over a 4th gen anyday. almost all the power ratings for those cars were underrated severely for insurance purposes as well. damn gasoline ruining the environment.

 

it was probably a 350 roket car. back in high school my buddy who i grew up with up the block (also owned 2 3rdgens) owned a couple different cutlasses one i think was a 69 and one was either a 70 or 71. both of witch had 350 roket motors. i spanked both of them numerous times in my near stock t/a with a k+n and a chip.

 

A big part of the magic of the cars of the muscle era was leaded fuel, and the impressive heads offered from factory in 69. Now the big weight and crappy fuel cant do much unless modified.

 

Muscle cars back then actually didnt weigh that much. there was an article talking about that specifically, it was rather interesting. those cars are pretty much on par with todays cars, if not lighter because they were so simple. there was no GPS or Airbags or anything like that adding massive weight. but hey, those cars are also 40 years old

 

i mighta read a similar article. they certainly make interesting points. I remember reading somthing about a 65' impala being lighter than modern SUVs or somthing of the sort. It really made me sit back and think..

 

I beat a cutlass surpreme in my RS stock....... older cutlass supreme maybe late 70's idk. walked right past it... it was a restored one too!

 

i can hop in a stock m6 LS1 car and rip off mid-low 13's all day long with the stock tires. there really wasnt many older cars that could do that. but, there was some, obviously.

anyways, about the olds.... i have a rebuilt '72 olds 350 in my cutlass. stock type rebuild with an edelbrock performer intake/cam package. it went 9.0's @ 76 mph with one wheel peel on street tires. when i bought my '93 z28, it was running 9.20's @ 78 mph. lol.... slower than the old cutlass.

 

I have driven some impressive muscle cars. When I was in high school the student parking lot looked like a classic car show.(83) The 70's cars were 10 yr old POS. That is the way we thought. The was one 82 camaro and noone liked it. None of those cars could keep up with my LS1 with minor mods. Not even my 71 Camaro with the 400 swap.

 

I had a bone stock 67 442 (too bad me idiot sold it). Had the original 400 Olds engine rated at 350bhp and th400.
fom 0 to 100km/h (60mph) this car was definitly faster than my 91 Z28 350. even with the never rebuilt original engine...

you must have come across a fake 70 442 or a 71/72 442...the 70 442 was the meanest ever built with a 455 engine and 365bhp...

to the weight: my 67 442 was only 100kg (200 pound ?) heavier than my camaro...and that for beeing significantly bigger...

never underestimate a real top of the line muscle car like a 442, GS, GTO, Chevelle 454 and stuff...I dont speak about the base models that have the same body and look almost the same...

 

the acceleration times and whatnot for the "real" classic muscle cars are sort of, well, incomparable. for example, the tires they used back then were not only thin, but the rubber compound was really hard and didn't stick well. so if any of you happen to be comparing stock times from a table, its sort of like comparing apples to oranges. there were other things that affected it as well such as tranny, suspension, chassis, geometry and so-on but. I guess i'm sort of backing up Benny's argument about not underestimating old muscle cars.