MM vs. Shelby GT500 roadtest

[Redster]

I was reading the Feb. 1967 roadtest of a GT500 equipped with an automatic in a reprint of Road & Track magazine. 1/4 mile time 15.5 seconds, 95 MPH.
Heck, lots of stock MM's did that good at Indy.
There isn't much of an explanation other that they seemed disappointed with the speed. There were two people in the car plus test gear. Also they averaged 9.8 mpg during the test. The car showed a test weight of 3900 lbs. with 335 hp and 420 lbs. torque at 3200 rpm.
Is an MM competitive with a GT500?

[MERCMAN]

were the HP and torque at the crank or wheels?

[Bradley G]

doesn't sound like much of a launch for the weight of the car.Sounds like bad traction

[Bigdogjim]

If I am not mistaken a '70 Maruader X-100 with the 429-4V would pull 16.1 in the quarter?

New computer and fuel injection has made a differance:):):)

[Redster]

were the HP and torque at the crank or wheels?

I think that back in the sixties it was hp at the crank or "advertised" hp.

[Joe Walsh]

doesn't sound like much of a launch for the weight of the car.Sounds like bad traction

Yeah, they were trying to launch with those BIAS PLY Goodyear 'wide ovals'. Thank goodness for the advances in tire technology!!

[Bradley G]

with a torque to weight ratio like that it should be a bugger out of the hole!!I herd some of those Hot mustangs couldn't keep tires on em:burnout:
Yeah they were trying to lauch with those BIAS PLY Goodyear 'wide ovals'. Thank goodness for the advances in tire technology!!

[MERCMAN]

I think that back in the sixties it was hp at the crank or "advertised" hp.


The reason I asked,, on speed channel last week they put a 'cuda with a 440 six pack on a dynojet and it only pulled 300 HP.. Made me feel good about my numbers with the MM.

[Redster]

with a torque to weight ratio like that it should be a bugger out of the hole!!I herd some of those Hot mustangs couldn't keep tires on em:burnout:

The same book has a May 1965 test of a GT350. 1/4 14.7, 90 mph. 306 hp, 329 lbs. torque at 4200 rpm. Test weight 3140.

Lots of MM's did better than 90 MPH at Indy.

[Bradley G]

The same book has a May 1965 test of a GT350. 1/4 14.7, 90 mph. 306 hp, 329 lbs. torque at 4200 rpm. Test weight 3140.

Lots of MM's did better than 90 MPH at Indy.Yeah like Yours an Mine:rock:

[TripleTransAm]

I was reading the Feb. 1967 roadtest of a GT500 equipped with an automatic in a reprint of Road & Track magazine. 1/4 mile time 15.5 seconds, 95 MPH.


That's an odd combination of ET/speed... shows there was probably a lot of wheelspin off the line. I wouldn't have imagined the 428 2x4Bbl being a high RPM kind of motor, which would be the other combination that might yield a high MPH versus ET, so I think it was wheelspin.

3900 lbs... egads, but that was a porky pony. Look at the difference in weight between this Mr.Ed and the earlier more-svelte smallblock Trigger!

Tough to compare hp figures between then and now... there was no standard testing methods back then, and either the manufacturers did what they had to do to get the numbers they wanted, or they simply stopped counting wherever they wanted the engine to be under-rated. I read an article a few years back about dyno testing a "brand new" 1970 Chevy LS6 in a car magazine of the early 70s.... the engine pulled a little shy of the advertised 450 hp, so they kept tweaking until it delivered. And this was considered acceptable.

The figures were at the crank, same as today, but accuracy or realism took a back seat to marketing. And there's no real way to correlate the 60s ratings with today's standardized results: you could have a Chevy small block rated at 300 hp that would have delivered 185 hp in today's numbers, and also a Pontiac 455 HO that delivered 335 hp in gross ratings with a still-healthy 305 hp in SAE numbers! No common pattern at all...

[stevengerard]

we all remember these cars as faster than they really were. The real fast ones were "prepped" for the road tests.

[Joe Walsh]

we all remember these cars as faster than they really were. The real fast ones were "prepped" for the road tests.

SO TRUE...Car & Lier..oops...Driver's all time best 1/4 mile ET was a Pontiac Catalina!!! Number 2 best was a 427 Cobra. Tell me that Pontiac didn't slip in a fully blueprinted and prepped Catalina for the test.

[Bradley G]

SO TRUE...Car & Lier..oops...Driver's all time best 1/4 mile ET was a Pontiac Catalina!!! Number 2 best was a 427 Cobra. Tell me that Pontiac didn't slip in a fully blueprinted and prepped Catalina for the test.Did they really do that??:dunno:

[O's Fan Rich]

Heck, even the small block Mustangs were/are traction limited.
A few bolt on and a little help with traction and they got alot faster, and a big block was just loads of fun!
But, who would want one of them old pieces of crap now, anyway!
Freakin' Ruststangs.... money eatin' time wastin' pissin' off the wife wate of good sheetmetal. :cuke:

[TripleTransAm]

Did they really do that??:dunno:

They were given a '65 (?) Pontiac 2+2, a gussied up Catalina with sporty intentions. I don't recall the transmission, but it was equipped with the top tripower 421 of the year... which I've always heard to have been a honey of an engine to begin with.

Now, this was no *light* car to begin with, and aerodynamically the car was a barn... a very pretty barn (in my opinion, of course) but a barn nonetheless. Factor in the less-than-grippy tire technology at the time.

They supposedly pulled a ridiculously low 0-60 time. Something along the lines of 3.9 seconds or 4.9 seconds, I can't remember.

So, either it was a done-to-the-tits ringer that was slipped into the Pontiac press pool, their stopwatches were having a bad day (most testing was done with 2 people in the car and handheld stopwatches), or there was a case of alien abduction and the aliens missed their return targeted time by a few seconds (you know, didn't carry a 'one' in their math calculations when estimating what time to return the abductees, etc.).

Personally, I opt for the third possibility... I imagine the 421 3x2Bbl to be louder in induction roar versus the similar setup on the 389 3x2Bbl (which I've heard under load) so I can believe locally hovering aliens being intrigued enough by the sound of a 421 at full tilt acceleration and wanting to have a closer look.


The magazine did address this sometime in the 80s or 90s, and they too didn't take the results too seriously, keeping their comments tongue in cheek. The physics of such a heavy brick doing 0-60 in under 4 seconds on old technology mechanicals remains overwhelming...

[cyclone03]

Freakin' Ruststangs.... money eatin' time wastin' pissin' off the wife wate of good sheetmetal. :cuke:


I wish I had one...

[Joe Walsh]

They were given a '65 (?) Pontiac 2+2, a gussied up Catalina with sporty intentions. I don't recall the transmission, but it was equipped with the top tripower 421 of the year... which I've always heard to have been a honey of an engine to begin with.

Now, this was no *light* car to begin with, and aerodynamically the car was a barn... a very pretty barn (in my opinion, of course) but a barn nonetheless. Factor in the less-than-grippy tire technology at the time.

They supposedly pulled a ridiculously low 0-60 time. Something along the lines of 3.9 seconds or 4.9 seconds, I can't remember.

So, either it was a done-to-the-tits ringer that was slipped into the Pontiac press pool, their stopwatches were having a bad day (most testing was done with 2 people in the car and handheld stopwatches), or there was a case of alien abduction and the aliens missed their return targeted time by a few seconds (you know, didn't carry a 'one' in their math calculations when estimating what time to return the abductees, etc.).

Personally, I opt for the third possibility... I imagine the 421 3x2Bbl to be louder in induction roar versus the similar setup on the 389 3x2Bbl (which I've heard under load) so I can believe locally hovering aliens being intrigued enough by the sound of a 421 at full tilt acceleration and wanting to have a closer look.


The magazine did address this sometime in the 80s or 90s, and they too didn't take the results too seriously, keeping their comments tongue in cheek. The physics of such a heavy brick doing 0-60 in under 4 seconds on old technology mechanicals remains overwhelming...


Yeah you are right..it was a SUB 4 second 0-60 time. Maybe that was the same car from the 'Urban Legend' myth...you know the car with the JATO strapped to the roof!

[TripleTransAm]

Yeah you are right..it was a SUB 4 second 0-60 time. Maybe that was the same car from the 'Urban Legend' myth...you know the car with the JATO strapped to the roof!


No, that was a Chevy Impala of early 70s or very late 60s vintage, because when I first heard the old legend, I pictured the appropriate taillights in my head while imagining the whole scenario. My family was big on Impalas in the 60s and 70s.

Our Pontiacs were different in the 50s 60s and very early 70s. They were nothing more than Chevy frames with Pontiac-specific nose and tail treatments. In some cases, some of the sheetmetal was interchangeable as well. That meant we were deprived (in some cases, thankfully) of those lumbering land yachts / mastodons that were the US-spec Bonnevilles of the late 60s and very early 70s. Our "big" Pontiac was the size of an Impala, but with the applicable nose/tails, including the Chevy engine (yes, you could get a 427 L72 Pontiac Parisienne in the 60s!). My favorite MPEG is an in-car video of a 1963-1966 Pontiac Parisienne rowing through the 4 gears at WOT on a deserted country road... the sound is just awesome, but I don't know if it's from a W-motor (348, 409, etc.) or the later family (396, 427, etc.).

[O's Fan Rich]

I wish I had one...
Wish mine was done......