Turbo charged 2010 camaro

[gerwulf]

If I was out of school, I would buy this one and with about 12 grand into it, it would be less than $30,000 and be damn fine.

http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail.js ... f=national

[Grocerygettersaab]

oh i completely agree hell i'm currently building an 80 corvette that i have a total of 11-12k in it right now and its gonna be something fierce when i finally get the the saab done and can start piddling with it again.

i was just pointing out that they aren't still behind but more just now back to what they were (just imagine if the government lowered the safety standards. cars would be able to be a good 300-700lbs lighter and be pretty much just as safe. can you say faster, better handling, better gas mileage, etc...)

[Steve86GN]

If you look at the old Motor Trend and other magazine car tests from the muscle car era there were no 10, 11 and very very few 12 second cars(and they were the special tuner cars i.e. Yenko Camaros, Shelby Mustangs etc.) from the muscle car era. The 69 Corvette being discussed was tested recently in a rebuilt condition not in as new condition so that really doesn't represent what the car was capable of when it was new. Most muscle cars(non tuner models) from the 60's-early 70's ran 14's in the original tests including cars like the Boss 429 Mustang. Motor Trend tested a 69 Z28 and was only able to get low 15's out of it. The Hemi E bodies ran the mid 13's and the fastest Muscle car from the time was the LS6 Chevelle that ran 13.40's. People commonly argue that the tires were the only reason the original test weren't faster but the mph from the various tests do not support that because most cars had a mph of around 100 give or take a few. Another thing to factor in is that most muscle cars from that era only got single digits for gas mileage and typically could not get more that 50-60K miles before the motor needed to be rebuilt both mainly due to 4.10(4.10's at 70mph which was the speed limit then was about 3700 rpms!) and sometimes even 4.30 gears with no overdrive. In the 60-70's it was almost unheard of to get 100K mile out of any car without a major overhaul or rebuild. Another factor is that almost none of the more serious muscle cars could have run on the gas we have now--they required leaded high octane gas. When you look at it that a LS1 Z28 was capable of high 12's bone stock with a good driver, got close to the 30 mpg, weighed more than most muscle cars(my 67 FIrebird wieghed 3190 with steel wheels and iron motor with no weight savings), passed emission standards, was capable of running on 87 octane gas, passed safety standards, had brakes that could actually stop the car, could go around a turn without flying off the road , was capable of going well over 100K miles with no major issues and was faster than a 69 SS396 Camaro I think those are pretty good adavances. I am older than many on the board and I was racing in the early 90's when there were still many muscle car being raced and they were not 10 or 11 second cars unless they were highly modified. I raced my very stock 12.20 GN(it had a chip, K&N filter, cat back exhaust and a pair of 26X8.5 slicks) at a Stock Appearing Muscle Car race in Gainesville FL in 92 and they factored it at twice its cubes(231 X 2=462) and put me in the big block class and after the first pass all of the big block guys protested the car because they were all in the 13's and they gave me my entry fee back and asked me to leave!

[Grocerygettersaab]

If you look at the old Motor Trend and other magazine car tests from the muscle car era there were no 10, 11 and very very few 12 second cars(and they were the special tuner cars i.e. Yenko Camaros, Shelby Mustangs etc.) from the muscle car era. The 69 Corvette being discussed was tested recently in a rebuilt condition not in as new condition so that really doesn't represent what the car was capable of when it was new. Most muscle cars(non tuner models) from the 60's-early 70's ran 14's in the original tests including cars like the Boss 429 Mustang. Motor Trend tested a 69 Z28 and was only able to get low 15's out of it. The Hemi E bodies ran the mid 13's and the fastest Muscle car from the time was the LS6 Chevelle that ran 13.40's. People commonly argue that the tires were the only reason the original test weren't faster but the mph from the various tests do not support that because most cars had a mph of around 100 give or take a few. Another thing to factor in is that most muscle cars from that era only got single digits for gas mileage and typically could not get more that 50-60K miles before the motor needed to be rebuilt both mainly due to 4.10(4.10's at 70mph which was the speed limit then was about 3700 rpms!) and sometimes even 4.30 gears with no overdrive. In the 60-70's it was almost unheard of to get 100K mile out of any car without a major overhaul or rebuild. Another factor is that almost none of the more serious muscle cars could have run on the gas we have now--they required leaded high octane gas. When you look at it that a LS1 Z28 was capable of high 12's bone stock with a good driver, got close to the 30 mpg, weighed more than most muscle cars(my 67 FIrebird wieghed 3190 with steel wheels and iron motor with no weight savings), passed emission standards, was capable of running on 87 octane gas, passed safety standards, had brakes that could actually stop the car, could go around a turn without flying off the road , was capable of going well over 100K miles with no major issues and was faster than a 69 SS396 Camaro I think those are pretty good adavances. I am older than many on the board and I was racing in the early 90's when there were still many muscle car being raced and they were not 10 or 11 second cars unless they were highly modified. I raced my very stock 12.20 GN(it had a chip, K&N filter, cat back exhaust and a pair of 26X8.5 slicks) at a Stock Appearing Muscle Car race in Gainesville FL in 92 and they factored it at twice its cubes(231 X 2=462) and put me in the big block class and after the first pass all of the big block guys protested the car because they were all in the 13's and they gave me my entry fee back and asked me to leave!

QFT glad to know there are people that still know muscle cars weren't as fast as they are made out to be. (but i still love em)

[speedfreek09]

there were very few cars from the 60/70 that were fast in stock trim. but i didn't see but a few on that list. most were f/x cars like the a990 belvadere/coronet, zl1 camaro/corvette, sohc fords

[gerwulf]

If you look at the old Motor Trend and other magazine car tests from the muscle car era there were no 10, 11 and very very few 12 second cars(and they were the special tuner cars i.e. Yenko Camaros, Shelby Mustangs etc.) from the muscle car era. The 69 Corvette being discussed was tested recently in a rebuilt condition not in as new condition so that really doesn't represent what the car was capable of when it was new. Most muscle cars(non tuner models) from the 60's-early 70's ran 14's in the original tests including cars like the Boss 429 Mustang. Motor Trend tested a 69 Z28 and was only able to get low 15's out of it. The Hemi E bodies ran the mid 13's and the fastest Muscle car from the time was the LS6 Chevelle that ran 13.40's. People commonly argue that the tires were the only reason the original test weren't faster but the mph from the various tests do not support that because most cars had a mph of around 100 give or take a few. Another thing to factor in is that most muscle cars from that era only got single digits for gas mileage and typically could not get more that 50-60K miles before the motor needed to be rebuilt both mainly due to 4.10(4.10's at 70mph which was the speed limit then was about 3700 rpms!) and sometimes even 4.30 gears with no overdrive. In the 60-70's it was almost unheard of to get 100K mile out of any car without a major overhaul or rebuild. Another factor is that almost none of the more serious muscle cars could have run on the gas we have now--they required leaded high octane gas. When you look at it that a LS1 Z28 was capable of high 12's bone stock with a good driver, got close to the 30 mpg, weighed more than most muscle cars(my 67 FIrebird wieghed 3190 with steel wheels and iron motor with no weight savings), passed emission standards, was capable of running on 87 octane gas, passed safety standards, had brakes that could actually stop the car, could go around a turn without flying off the road , was capable of going well over 100K miles with no major issues and was faster than a 69 SS396 Camaro I think those are pretty good adavances. I am older than many on the board and I was racing in the early 90's when there were still many muscle car being raced and they were not 10 or 11 second cars unless they were highly modified. I raced my very stock 12.20 GN(it had a chip, K&N filter, cat back exhaust and a pair of 26X8.5 slicks) at a Stock Appearing Muscle Car race in Gainesville FL in 92 and they factored it at twice its cubes(231 X 2=462) and put me in the big block class and after the first pass all of the big block guys protested the car because they were all in the 13's and they gave me my entry fee back and asked me to leave!

Not to mention that those cars had shitty, by today's standards, suspension. It would be interesting to see what some of them would be able to do with a modern suspension.