tC vs. Chevy

1626 Views 15 Replies 8 Participants Last post by 2cudas, Apr 26, 2005

Azrael

Discussion Starter · Apr 19, 2005

So I was on my way to work this morning when I pulled up behind a Chevrolet something or other at the freeway exit. It was a 70's body style, but other than that, I couldn't recognize it. It seemed somewhat modified, with an almost non-existent muffler. I don't know what else may have been done to it. Well after turning left off of the freeway, I passed him because the road is twisty right there so he waited behind everyone else going slow, while I went around in the left lane. After I turned right at the next light, I was just cruising along, and was about to shift into 4th, when I hear him gun it from behind me. So instead of shifting into 4th, I put it to the floor. He started to catch me, but he had no chance, even though he had the jump on me. Chalk that one up as a win for the tC.

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

FrostbytetC

· #2 · Apr 20, 2005

you raced an old muscle car? LOL... well.... i guess we all have our strange kill stories. Nice race

Azrael

Discussion Starter · #3 · Apr 20, 2005

I think it's funny because the drivers of all these old muscle cars think that they are the fastest things on the street. My stock tC is faster (in my best Nelson Muntz voice) ha-ha.

krzy

· #4 · Apr 21, 2005

Keep in mind: There's no repalcement for displacement. There are a lot of sleepers out there.

I've got a '67 fastback mustang with a 390 (prototype engine for the mach1 cobrajet) and even the 12 second ScionSpeed tC is going to be choking on my exhaust at the end of a 1/4 mile.

Sorry, no dyno slips - didn't think to keep em. They don't really want to let me back because I refuse to install a roll bar (not fast enough for a roll cage though).

However, on a road course an old lady in a walker could take me since the Mustang corners like its on ice. And of course the stock 4-wheel drum brakes don't help much.

I use this for when I want to go real fast.

See less See more

Azrael

Discussion Starter · #5 · Apr 21, 2005

I dig the solid wheels.

Zygote55

· #6 · Apr 21, 2005

Originally posted by krzy@Apr 20 2005, 10:25 PM
Keep in mind: There's no repalcement for displacement. There are a lot of sleepers out there.

I've got a '67 fastback mustang with a 390 (prototype engine for the mach1 cobrajet) and even the 12 second ScionSpeed tC is going to be choking on my exhaust at the end of a 1/4 mile.

Sorry, no dyno slips - didn't think to keep em. They don't really want to let me back because I refuse to install a roll bar (not fast enough for a roll cage though).

However, on a road course an old lady in a walker could take me since the Mustang corners like its on ice. And of course the stock 4-wheel drum brakes don't help much.

I use this for when I want to go real fast.

Why do you beat your GF/Wife/BF/Neighbor?

(hopefully people understand the sarcasm here)

See less See more

2cudas

· #7 · Apr 21, 2005

Originally posted by Azrael@Apr 20 2005, 06:27 AM
I think it's funny because the drivers of all these old muscle cars think that they are the fastest things on the street. My stock tC is faster (in my best Nelson Muntz voice) ha-ha.

Not to be a dickhead, but ummm, you dont even know the model, engine or anything about the car you raced, so you shouldnt assume that muscle cars are slow.

For all you know it could have been a 6 cyl nova with glasspacks. All 120 hp of it.

Come across a 70-71 440-6 pak cuda, Chevelle 454 SS (ls6), a olds 442, 66 389 Tri-power goat, etc.... (get my point) and you will not be as fortunate.........

I had a 70 AAR Cuda (340-6 pak), just a shift kit, headers, and 2800 stall converter and it was in the low 13's. Oh and some serious carb tuning....

See less See more

2

Geneo

· #8 · Apr 21, 2005

Thinking back on the 70s and car magazine tests of the muscle cars that came straight from the factory...the 0-60 times on most all of them were not impressive by todays standards. Problem was that those big block engines were struggling with emissions standards and carbs that had a ton of vacuum lines and engines with air pumps etc to sap power. Of course, if you modified the set-up...they would fly.....in a straight line.

Zygote55

· #9 · Apr 21, 2005

The invention of the catalytic converter was the death of true muscle cars.

basilisk4

· #10 · Apr 22, 2005

True muscle cars are NOT slow -- they are just styled differently than Japanese cars (and ugly, in my opinion) and unwieldy.

Azrael

Discussion Starter · #11 · Apr 22, 2005

I'm not saying that all muscle cars are slow. It's dumb to use superlatives like that. All I'm sayin is that people like the guy who tried to beat me think that they drive the fastest cars out there, when most of the time, they aren't fast at all.

basilisk4

· #12 · Apr 22, 2005

Az, just so you know, I wasn't directly addressing you or anyone else; I was just adding my unsolicited opinion/knowledge.

See less See more

f1jay

· #13 · Apr 23, 2005

then again, come across a neon srt-4 especially one with a stage 3 package and watch your cuda get smoked by a 4 banger. I've driven a 05 recently with a stage 2 package, and saw it consistently hit the low 13's. Not many mopars w/ less than 400 hp can see that

Azrael

Discussion Starter · #14 · Apr 23, 2005

Yeah, Marty, my response was more to 2cudas than to you.

2cudas

· #15 · Apr 26, 2005

Originally posted by f1jay@Apr 22 2005, 06:52 PM
then again, come across a neon srt-4 especially one with a stage 3 package and watch your cuda get smoked by a 4 banger. I've driven a 05 recently with a stage 2 package, and saw it consistently hit the low 13's. Not many mopars w/ less than 400 hp can see that

Im not going to start a flame war, I dont own the cuda anymore anyways, but to get to your SRT topic, thats Why I have the super slow, there are only a select few SRT's on all of SRT forums I even have to worry about at this stage.

Thus far, I am not impressed with Srt's, my friend has a stage 2 thats slow as balls. I've had my fair share of run ins with them, there not THAT fast. I have met quite a few hondas however, that were what they were cracked up to be.

Hopefully by the end of this season I'll be in the low 10's. I have a few goodies still to bolt on...

2cudas

· #16 · Apr 26, 2005

Originally posted by Azrael@Apr 23 2005, 06:26 AM
Yeah, Marty, my response was more to 2cudas than to you.

I agree with your other post, im just saying, I wish you had a little more information on the car you raced. I have known my fair share of SMOG era Idiots who bolt on a 1050 Holley dominator, tunnel ram intake manifold, 2.25" headers, and a .270/.270 Duration .550 lift @.050 cam, and think they are bad ass, whne their engine still has stock iron heads, and 8.0:1 compression.

Its like putting a 6-71 supercharger on a 5hp briggs, it just doesnt work...

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.