My neighbor's runs 14.9 factory, but like I said, they used big cubes to get the horsepower, so a 428 would be the engine to compare.

 

Any of the guys running in the F.A.S.T. (Factory Appearing Stock Tire) drag racing series would argue that isn't true. There are cars that look 100% stock running in the low 11's on factory spec bias ply Goodyear Polyglass tires. They've all tried running radials (not drag radials), and they don't hook anywhere near as well as the bias tires.

F.A.S.T info:

http://http://www.yearone.com/bristo...icle/fast.html

 

ok, i don't understand that cause just for fun my buddy and i put a set of bias tires on his mustang and all he did was spin the tires....they didn't hook worth crap then put his radials back on and he got traction.....i was with him so i know he wasn't romping on it with the bias ply and then takin it easy with the radials.....he was romping on it both time and the bias ply tires went up in smoke a lot quicker than his radials......he got much better traction with the radials

just my experience but that what i'v heard from lots of people for years

 

what did a 428 mustang run in 69?

I like the sound/looks/torque from the muscle cars as much as the next guy, but today's cars are better performers, hands down.

 

Mustang 428 CJ ’68 13.56
Hot Rod/March 1968

right from hotrod

 

I'm with you there. If they were so awesome at hooking up, we'd still be using them.

 

that's a pretty good time

the new wrx sti runs it in 13.2
the new evo runs it in 13.3
the new mustang runs it in 13.6 ( and that's the basic gt)

all of these cars get better mpg, handle better, stop better, more comfortable, etc...


I didn't realize the mustang was in the 13's from factory back then, what are some times from the other muscle cars back then ( ie. olds 442, gs, chevelle, camaro, etc...)? you learn something new everyday.

 

the camaro.....427 went 13.16
1966 427 cobra.....12.20
1966 427 vett........12.8
1969 440 road runner..12.91
1970 Hemi cuda......13.10
1970 chevell 454 13.12
1969 charger 500....13.48
1973 trans am.........13.54
1970 challenger R/T..13.62
1969 Nova SS..........13.87

here is the link where i got it all...

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

who really cared about MPG back then...today is a different story but we have the technology to get past that for the most part

NOW.....take these cars and just put a good set of radials on them....and there are a lot more in the 12's and a lot more in the low 13's


MUSCLE CARS RULE

 

I had the oppertunity to drive a 65 GT350 last summer......the car was restored to factory spec and i drove it like i stole it.....it's my buddies car and he made it to drive it....it's got the 289 and a 4 spd......now when i say this car handled i mean it handled like it was on rails.....i raced my buddies 99 SS camaro and he couldn't keep up on the twisties and even when we got out on the open road he couldn't pass me.....the only difference was a set or radials.....i raced from a dead stop with the GT 350 against his LS1 camaro thats makign around 400 HP now and we were side by side the entire time....my buddy at the finish line said he couldn't tell....it was to close.....so i would say that handles pretty good.....now some of the heavy cars like the chevell don't handle as well but there are cars today that handle better than other too.....i'd put that car up against anything RWD out there......AWD isn't fair cause of course they will have better handling