Superior Performance: Modern "Muscle" or Classic Muscle?

PittSpeed Automotive
1

I’m having a debate with a friend of mine. My stance is that modern performance cars, modern “muscle” if you will, are superior to the muscle cars of the late 60s and early 70s in almost every aspect from a performance standpoint. My buddy disagrees.

First, let’s define both:

Modern “muscle”- current and recent late model performance cars, including American iron like the 03/04 Cobra, Viper, Z06, and LS1 Fbody, along with Japanese “muscle” like the STI, EVO, and Supra.

Classic muscle- performance cars from the golden age of muscle in the late 60s and early 70s, including the Mopar Hemi cars, classic pony cars like the Camaro and Mustang, and midsizes like the GTO, Chevelle, and Charger.

This poll is for performance only, not image or preference.

So which is superior, modern or classic? Use any performance criteria you choose, be it factory stock statistics or potential for increased performance.

2

From strictly a performance standpoint I don’t see how it’s even a comparison. What are his arguments for classic?

3

He pulled out some bogus list of the “50 fastest muscle cars” from the golden days…and in his own words:

Teh awesome LS1 Camaros and Firebirds you speak of (1998+) high 13 second machines, stock. I don’t see them smoking this list.

Your 03 - 04 Cobra is a low 13 second machine, high 12 second machine, stock. It wouldn’t be on the top of this list.

If a Viper and Z06 are thrown in, sure, they could probably top the list.

But you said…

4

LS1s with good drivers have 12s stock,
terminators hit mid 12s with good drivers.
those arent common but can be done

those old cars ran those stock times on those skinny biply tires

personally FTW old body new technology

but new dominates, you get more power with less cubes on less CR and more drivablity

today you can run a cam with 230 to 240 duration lifts around 600 and tight LSA and have great vaccum still and get good driveablity and mpg

5

its not even a valid comparison. figure “modern muscle” has 25-30 yrs more technology built into it so of course its gonna out perform “classic muscle”

got to give “classic” one thing though I heard very and I mean very few “modern” cars have the beautiful big cubic inch 4 barrel carb sound. Ah music for the soul.

6
7

Hello all,

Not that it matters much, and because I have time to burn on a Sunday, I figured I’d register and make clear the debate.

I’m the “friend,” so to speak.

The debate is based off of the following statement…

Like I’ve said before, new muscle dominates old muscle, period

Obviously, the statement is very broad. It covers mulitple criterion. One could compare simply the stock for stock ET’s and performance figures of new and old cars. One could rate based upon how easily it is to modify the given cars and get an end result. One could state that adding a chip to their XX newer car results in a given horsepower that might have been more difficult to obtain than in a classic muscle car. Another might cite fuel economy or interior comfort, noise, pollution… it’s endless.

I am appealing to the broadness of the statement in general. On the street, or at a grudge night at the strip, noone sets down and calculates the amount of money they have invested in their cars. Noone questions the age of the car. In reality, you show up, you stage up, and you go.

This being the case, to simply say “new muscle dominates old muscle” is untrue. If a guy in a 1970 Super Bee beats a guy in a 2001 Camaro, is the statement “New muscle dominates old muscle. Period” still true? Not to my way of thinking. At the end of the track, the guy who won, and the car he was in, dominated.

The argument at hand is that the statement made is simply false. It’s a given oppinion. The word “dominates” is relatively misleading. But this is coming from a performance board, with those interested typically being drag racers or street racers who add their drag or street racing stories. So, the implication, then, is street or drag racing. And… the statement was made following a street race story.

I honestly can’t think of how a person could realistically think that new dominates old in such a simple category. It simply does not.

If we were to engage in a stock for stock comparison… sure, possibly. But exceptions always exist, and the point made above…

those old cars ran those stock times on those skinny biply tires

is a point that I also made, not in the exact words.

To my way of thinking, neither “dominates.” It’s just the wrong word, frankly. New cars have thier advantages (new technology, etc), but old cars also have their advantages (basic mechanics, lots of cubic inches).

Just my input. I couldn’t vote either way, frankly. I have both and like both.

Have a nice day

8

its a bad comparison, the only new car that can fit fit the old muscle car defininition is the new GTO. RWD intermediate. zo6, camaro, evo those are all sports type cars that are fast. Classic muscle cars were two door passenger cars equipped with big engines to go fast in a straight line. thats all. no really suspension packages that were worth a damn. today’s cars are computer engineered, built to hug the road, tires are much better. its not even fair to compare and yet in straight line races the classic muscle can still hold its own fairly well.

9

new>old as far as speed and drivablity

I would much rather have an old muscle car over a new car, no matter which one is faster though.

10

torque>hp