so most people associate muscle cars with 0-60 times, quarter miles and street repavers (that black rubber looks oh so good on there)... but which one handled the best?
i know most will be partial to mopars.. but try to be fair...
lastly... 1969 charger vs 1971 chevelle, which one sets the pace?
oh by the way... i ment this to be about stock... not a mr angry or xv charger against that chevelle that pulled 1.2 Gs or whatever it was
I believe the T/A and AAR cudas were close to the top of the list as far as handeling... not 100% sure on the best.
I believe the 1969 Charger led the 1971 Chevelle. The Charger is a uni-body car while the chevelle has a full frame, but the chevelle did not have a great suspension set up from the factory. The factory 4-link / coil spring rear gave alot of wheel hop problems.
I do know I can compare a 66 Chevelle and a 1968 Charger.
Keep in mind these were at the time impressions (3 years ago)
My brother's 1966 Chevelle:
Pros = More Power (270hp), Better gear set (3.08), Cheaper
Cons = Extremely light steering, no factory sway bars, poor cornering, scary braking (manual drums)
My 1968 Dodge Charger:
Pros = Better handeling, Better steering response, Better braking (manual drums), factory front sway bar, better handeling
Cons = Less Power (230hp), piss poor gear set (2.76), more costly, heavier
We later added front and rear sway bars to the chevelle wich made a massive improvement but my Charger honestly did still handle better... go figure. The Charger even with less hp, more weight, and less gear would still pull away from the chevelle... both engines were stock - a 350 in the chevelle and a 318 in the charger - both were automatic cars as well.
I know the 1971 Chevelle is heavier than a 66 but the 68 and 69 chargers should be around the same weight.
Keep in mind the small block cars will usually handle better than the big block cars.
Hope this helps a little :2thumbs:
Best handling? The 69 Z-28 handles pretty good. 71 Chevelle v 69 Charger? The Charger of course. One of the things I like about the Charger compared to other muscle cars is that there was only one body choice...the Chevelle cam in a four door, station wagon, convertible and of course El Camino!
I think tires would play a big roll in this case.
I think the 65 Shelby was the best handling.
Quote from: trev0006 on October 11, 2007, 10:07:09 PM
I think tires would play a big roll in this case.
my bros chevelle and my charger both had 15" wheels - brother had 235/60/15 & 255/60/15... my charger had 235/60/15 & 255/60/15... so the exact same set up
I can make a fairly good comparison here once I get the Charger insured and registered. My 70 SS454 Chevelle handles quite well on stock suspension with 15" tires on it. I have stock suspension, and the same wheel/tires sizes on the Charger that the Chevelle has.
IMHO the comparison has to be done with the old bias-ply tires to be anything like fair.
Modern tires utilize different suspension spring/shock/bushing rates. Even different geometry needs come into play. If you pick a winner with modern radials, then you're also partly picking which car's original 1960s setup happened to be closer to what modern tires utilize.
And then there's the issue of body stiffness, which was only built to be as stiff as the tires of the time would demand . . .
Whichever muscle car is the smallest and heaviest I would think. Can I guess the Australian Charger?
I know the Challengers and Cudas didn't do as well in the AAR series as the Mustangs and Camaros, and maybe the AMC stuff too.
Has to be the 65 Shelby, there's a reason these are seen more on a circuit than the drag strip
(http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/autoblog/hirezpics/1965ShelbyGT-350s.jpg)
The 65 Shelby was a fairly worked over car though (and would I be saying that if it were a Mopar?). If the discussion is limited to musclecars and pony cars (and excludes Corvettes) I would have to say that most ponycars will outhandle the intermediates (which are the cars I consider "musclecars"). Of the ponycars, I would put my money on any of the TA cars (AAR, Z28, Boss etc.) but if we only look at intermediates, my experience makes me prefer the Mopars in general. But, most of my driving experience is in those cars too so it could just be that I know (or think I know) what to expect in them.
It would seem that the 66 Cobras would "corner" the market so to speak on handling....the small block one.
'65-'66 Formula S Barracuda's handled pretty good, fun to drive with a 4-speed. :2thumbs:
Quote from: Joshua on October 12, 2007, 01:58:27 PM
'65-'66 Formula S Barracuda's handled pretty good, fun to drive with a 4-speed. :2thumbs:
my 66 barracuda formula S handles bloody awful :lol:
best handling musclecars I've been in have all been various years of camaros
Quote from: Blakcharger440 on October 12, 2007, 07:27:43 AM
It would seem that the 66 Cobras would "corner" the market so to speak on handling....the small block one.
not a muscle car... sports car :cheers:
I had a 69 Charger and a 71 Z-28 back in the day. The Z handled better, much less sway when turning but the Charger was better built car.
The Shelby Cobras probably need to be excluded from the category. Too much different from the rest of the domestic sedans/coupes, and all of the difference was a major handling benefit.
The biggest problem with the B-body Mopars was the size & weight. The actual build design & spring rates were darn good for the era.
deffenently not a V code challenger.
I personally think a Trans Am would be pretty high up on the list
Quote from: 69bronzeT5 on October 12, 2007, 08:14:42 PM
I personally think a Trans Am would be pretty high up on the list
:iagree:
I think we could include a Stingray in there
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/DES/D694~Chevy-Corvette-Stingray-Posters.jpg)
Mercedes 300 SL "Gullwing" is considered the first muscle car made and still with the best handling. Doesn't mean the more comfortable or powerfull, but is a fact the best handling one.
Sorry, but I don't consider ANY Mercedes a "Musclecar". I don't consider Stingrays or AC Cobras or any other two passenger sports car to be musclecars either. It's a question of definition for each person as an individual but when I think of a musclecar, I think of American two door, four passenger cars with higher output V-8's and marketed with a performance image (whether that image is through race wins like a Max Wedge car or perception like a striped up GTO).
I may be biased but for a regular car you could buy at the dealership the Pontiac Trans Am could out handle my charger all day long.
Quote from: Ghoste on October 14, 2007, 04:06:55 AM
Sorry, but I don't consider ANY Mercedes a "Musclecar".
I can agree with you somehow, but wasn't me who included the Gullwing on the musclecar category... I think I heard from discovery channel the Gullwing was considered a muscle car and the first one ever made.
Now beside if Gullwing is muscle or not, I bet any European "musclecar" if you think does exist, like maybe a 600 SEL ( 12V engine and sedan, so not sport category ) will be better handling than any USA car made anytime. Being owner of one ( same age of my Charger ) and have driven several I give the better handling as a fact even without drove yet.
and I'm agree we can not include Sportiers or Super cars on same list, like Vettes, Porsches, Ferraris etc... They are very diff characteristic on body etc...
However I would include some Masseratti on list to the evaluation
A lot of the 1970s muscle cars could handle better than the late '60s versions. When the gas crisis & insurance rates killed the huge horsepower wars, the OEMs decided that bigger sway bars & wider tires could make a sellable "performance car" out of their ponycar models w/o the drawbacks of the big blocks. See late '70s Trans Ams, the smaller Mustangs from the mid-70s well into the 80s, etc.
One more case where it's REALLY too bad that the Mopar E-bodies were killed after 1974. It turned out to be a pretty bad move in retrospect.
Quote from: Nacho-RT74 on October 13, 2007, 05:48:45 PM
Mercedes 300 SL "Gullwing" is considered the first muscle car made and still with the best handling. Doesn't mean the more comfortable or powerfull, but is a fact the best handling one.
NO WAY. NOT A MUSCLE CAR!!!! That is a sports car. Plain and simple. I would say the defanition of a muscle car would be an American made 2dr mid size car from 65-73. Corvettes are also sports cars. As for the best handling muscle car. The Trans am is probably the best. But Mopar cant be perfect. So GM has ONE on us. But I have been told that the 72-74 Rally Challengers with front and rear sway bars are pretty good. Never driven one though. So I cant be shore
Quote from: C_stripes on October 14, 2007, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: Nacho-RT74 on October 13, 2007, 05:48:45 PM
Mercedes 300 SL "Gullwing" is considered the first muscle car made and still with the best handling. Doesn't mean the more comfortable or powerfull, but is a fact the best handling one.
NO WAY. NOT A MUSCLE CAR!!!! That is a sports car. Plain and simple. I would say the defanition of a muscle car would be an American made 2dr mid size car from 65-73. Corvettes are also sports cars. As for the best handling muscle car. The Trans am is probably the best. But Mopar cant be perfect. So GM has ONE on us. But I have been told that the 72-74 Rally Challengers with front and rear sway bars are pretty good. Never driven one though. So I cant be shore
why not 74s ? :P ;D
changing the subject completely,when people tell me american cars are only good in a straight line,i say "no,its just you,you can t drive" :lol:
Trans Am, far and away. a friends brother had a 2nd gen t/a, 77 I think, but architecture was not changed too much since 70 and that thing handled like it was on rails. kept up with my buddies 87 GTA and that was certianly a decent handling car.
But...is a 2nd gen camaro or t/a a muscle car? have to define what that is before any discussion can be meaningful. not defining it for the ages because that will start a post war, but define it for the purposes of this thread. so before we go any further, Miller should set the defination for this discussion since he started the thread, give info like:
year
US or foreign?
Body platform
maybe somehing like 66-72 GM A bodies, Mopar B bodies, Ford midsize....etc..
well i just like watching you guys go because of all the choices i don't think of... i hate limiting you :2thumbs:,
but what i was really looking for as the intermediate bodys, chevelle, charger, gtx, GTO, olds 442 buick GS... i dunno whatever ford made.. gran torino?...
as for the charger vs chevelle... theres a little back story on that... but basically I've been having my friend get info on it, i know it has a crate motor 402 thats about 420 horsepower... however the kid knows nothing about the gears or anything to do with the supension.. let alone the tires.. lets just say his daddys been building his car.. its more of a pride thing i guess, he took my girl... ill take his street cred
i know i could never win in a drag race, no matter how bad of a driver he is my tired 318 with 2.76 gears couldn't win against a fresh 402 big block, but i thought take it to an autocross, where there will actually be some skill involved and i might stand a chance...
at least mine looks cooler
Quote from: Ghoste on October 14, 2007, 04:06:55 AM
Sorry, but I don't consider ANY Mercedes a "Musclecar". I don't consider Stingrays or AC Cobras or any other two passenger sports car to be musclecars either. It's a question of definition for each person as an individual but when I think of a musclecar, I think of American two door, four passenger cars with higher output V-8's and marketed with a performance image (whether that image is through race wins like a Max Wedge car or perception like a striped up GTO).
:iagree: with ghoste 100%! also, that so called aussie charger can f... ... straight 6 hemi? give me a break!
Quote from: greatwn73 on October 14, 2007, 08:18:52 AM
I may be biased but for a regular car you could buy at the dealership the Pontiac Trans Am could out handle my charger all day long.
:yesnod:
Hey man, how does your 76 T/A handle?? My mom had a silver 76 T/A back in there 80s. She said that thing handled like magic :icon_smile_wink:
Quote from: 69bronzeT5 on October 14, 2007, 10:17:04 PM
Hey man, how does your 76 T/A handle?? My mom had a silver 76 T/A back in there 80s. She said that thing handled like magic :icon_smile_wink:
Actually, mine is a '75. The car handles really well. The only thing that is scary about it is when you stomp on the throttle on wet pavement the car fishtails. If you don't know what you are doing you can lose it real quick.
.
Now, as far as the Musclecar classification goes. The 75 and later T/A's are not considered Musclecars, but rather sports cars
Cody, mine's a 74
Quote from: greatwn73 on October 15, 2007, 05:27:08 AM
Cody, mine's a 74
Yours wouldn't happen to be a SD 455 would it?
70-73 Z28s
'68-70 AMX's
Mustangs. Sad to say, but true.
No just a 400 but a one owner 25,000 mile never been outside overnight , no rain , no snow all original (I even have the tires) Trans Am. I'll drive it someday I just hate red.
Quote from: greatwn73 on October 15, 2007, 12:47:40 PM
No just a 400 but a one owner 25,000 mile never been outside overnight , no rain , no snow all original (I even have the tires) Trans Am. I'll drive it someday I just hate red.
Nice ride. :2thumbs:
OK, excluding 'pony cars', what's the best handling North American muscle car? :scratchchin: As I recall, the 442 was the 1st muscle car with a rear sway bar. I remember all the car magazines loved the way they handled. I never drove one, couldn't say. :shruggy:
Quote from: learical1 on October 15, 2007, 06:02:32 PM
OK, excluding 'pony cars', what's the best handling North American muscle car? :scratchchin: As I recall, the 442 was the 1st muscle car with a rear sway bar. I remember all the car magazines loved the way they handled. I never drove one, couldn't say. :shruggy:
I had a '66 442, plain jane, but 4 speed and 3.91's.....they handle OK, I guess....no better than a Charger really.....
What about the 302 Boss cars?
Quote from: Ghoste on October 18, 2007, 06:38:49 PM
What about the 302 Boss cars?
Absolutely one of the best!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've owned quite a few cars over the years, and I have to say the best handling cars I've owned were my 69' Camaro's. With very little tweeking, they handle like slot cars. The small blocks are much better "balanced" packages then the nose heavy big-block cars. [I've owned both]
Just my :Twocents: :cheers: :icon_smile_wink:
I own a 69 original unrestored stock 27k mile Dodge Coronet R/T, 1967 GTO and a 1970 mint original Boss 302. Driven many cars out of the 60's and 70's and the 70 Boss 302 is the best handling car of that era hands down... Great engine but also a fantastic handling car stock off the showroom floor.
Quote from: 440fan on October 19, 2007, 10:20:20 PM
I own a 69 original unrestored stock 27k mile Dodge Coronet R/T, 1967 GTO and a 1970 mint original Boss 302. Driven many cars out of the 60's and 70's and the 70 Boss 302 is the best handling car of that era hands down... Great engine but also a fantastic handling car stock off the showroom floor.
You have any pics of your '67 Goat? I have a 66 Tempest
Chargerboy, are you a member over on the performance years pontiac sight also?
Quote from: derailed on November 05, 2007, 06:22:20 PM
Chargerboy, are you a member over on the performance years pontiac sight also?
yeah, I'm 66goat_boy