: The Return of American Muscle



MCaesar
12-13-05, 09:58 AM
Who says family guys can't have any fun:

1/4 mile
300C SRT8 13.2@109
Charger SRT8 13.2@109
CTS-V 13.2@109* (with 04-05 LS6 engine)
STS-V 13.2@107
GTO 13.3@107
Mustang GT 13.8@103

Skidpad
Charger SRT8 0.90
CTS-V 0.90
300C SRT8 0.89
Mustang GT 0.89
GTO 0.88
STS-V 0.87

70-0
Charger SRT8 162 feet
300C SRT8 162
GTO 167
CTS-V 167
Mustang GT 170
STS-V 170

Interior Volume
300C SRT8 107 cubic feet
Charger SRT8 105
STS-V 104
CTS-V 98
GTO 95
Mustang GT 83

Road Test MPG
Mustang GT 16
300C SRT8 14
GTO 14
CTS-V 13
STS-V 12

Price as Tested
Mustang GT $28,865
GTO $33,500
Charger SRT8 $43,115
300C SRT8 $45,450
CTS-V $51,295
STS-V $77,000

SOURCE: Car & Driver

fcuk
12-13-05, 10:24 AM
LS7 in the V?! SIIIICK. :cool2:

MCaesar
12-13-05, 10:28 AM
OOOOPS

That should read LS6!!!!

alcast082
12-13-05, 10:28 AM
:nono: no we wish this was a reality, But it is a typo it has an ls6 not an ls7
If the V had an ls7 we would be way faster, :devil: over a 100 horses faster.

fcuk
12-13-05, 10:37 AM
no doubt the diff would be the same

Staxxin
12-13-05, 11:22 AM
LS7 in the V?! SIIIICK. :cool2:

You're right....the LS7 would be SICK :lildevil:

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 12:59 PM
So honestly was this a return of muscle post or did you really want to show us that one rag gave the Charger better than V numbers? If anyone actually believes these numbers I've got a .... For example the V and GTO stop in the same distance right; maybe if the V is stopping in water.

MCaesar
12-13-05, 03:51 PM
So honestly was this a return of muscle post or did you really want to show us that one rag gave the Charger better than V numbers? If anyone actually believes these numbers I've got a .... For example the V and GTO stop in the same distance right; maybe if the V is stopping in water.

Ha

Wake up and smell the burning rubber

1. Car & Driver is by far the most accurate tester of all the magazines

2. All 3 major magazines have tested each one. The V ranges from 13.1 to 13.4 (and is the fastest), the SRT8s range from 13.2 to 13.5, the GTO ranges from 13.3 to 13.7 and was the slowest in 2 of 3 comparison tests so get your facts straight before attacking someone.

Actually one day when I have time I am going to compile all the test results from all the available magazines and average them.

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 04:00 PM
What fact did I get wrong? I commented on the stopping distance of the V and GTO, BOTH of which I own. The 05 got better brakes, than my 04 has, but they aren’t CTS-V good.

I didn't realize C&D had been crowned the most accurate magazine, who factually decided this? You I guess.

The way you gave the numbers it would appear the V and SRT8's are the same in acceleration, but by your own admission the V is generally considered faster so why not put numbers that reflect this?

And I wasn't attacking you. If you read through the way you list it the Charger is king, even in a tie you list the Charger higher. It reads like a Charger ad so I was asking an honest question.

DrivingAmericanNow
12-13-05, 04:04 PM
so get your facts straight before attacking someone.

:duck: Might be getting time to pull out the kitties...........

Seattle CTS-V
12-13-05, 04:17 PM
If anyone actually believes these numbers I've got a ....

What's not to believe, really? All of these numbers are soooo damn close to one another that it really is pointless to argue which is faster, goes around corners better, or stops faster. What I do feel is true is that most drivers with the manual cars (myself included) will lose most of the time in drag races to the automatic cars. You gotta earn every tenth in our precious V's while those in the SRT's just punch it and go.

Back to the topic though - it's great to see so many American cars puttin' a hurtin' on the foreign rivals.

Luna.
12-13-05, 04:23 PM
WWhat I do feel is true is that most drivers with the manual cars (myself included) will lose most of the time in drag races to the automatic cars.

Are you suggesting that, overall, automatics are faster in 1/4 mile races than manuals?

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 04:34 PM
What's not to believe, really? All of these numbers are soooo damn close to one another that it really is pointless to argue which is faster, goes around corners better, or stops faster. What I do feel is true is that most drivers with the manual cars (myself included) will lose most of the time in drag races to the automatic cars. You gotta earn every tenth in our precious V's while those in the SRT's just punch it and go.
Back to the topic though - it's great to see so many American cars puttin' a hurtin' on the foreign rivals.
Well then when we talk about GTO's I don't ever want to hear how the V is faster or that it stops better or any of the true stuff that gets brought up. I should have just gotten another GTO and saved some money.

Katshot
12-13-05, 04:37 PM
I think he's just pointing out the fact that even a mediocre driver can hit a good ET with an automatic, whereas the driver of a manual will have a harder time hitting his car's max. potential.
I would be willing to debate the manual vs. auto performance issue if you want but it will surely turn ugly because most guys don't understand the dynamics between the two and just rely on old theory and hear-say.

lawfive
12-13-05, 04:38 PM
Are you suggesting that, overall, automatics are faster in 1/4 mile races than manuals?

I think he's saying that while you need to be a pretty good shifter to get decent numbers in a V, your grandma can get the same numbers as you in an SRT-8.

Sorry to talk about your grandma...

Katshot
12-13-05, 04:39 PM
I should have just gotten another GTO and saved some money.

You expect an arguement on this?

MCaesar
12-13-05, 05:20 PM
1/4 mile
300C SRT8 13.2@109
Charger SRT8 13.2@109
CTS-V 13.2@109* (with 04-05 LS6 engine)
STS-V 13.2@107


Alphabetical order

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 05:48 PM
Alphabetical order
What fact did I get wrong?

I didn't realize C&D had been crowned the most accurate magazine, who factually decided this?

The way you gave the numbers it would appear the V and SRT8's are the same in acceleration, but by your own admission the V is generally considered faster so why not put numbers that reflect this?

Katshot
12-13-05, 06:06 PM
What fact did I get wrong?
I didn't realize C&D had been crowned the most accurate magazine, who factually decided this?
The way you gave the numbers it would appear the V and SRT8's are the same in acceleration, but by your own admission the V is generally considered faster so why not put numbers that reflect this?

Dude,
You're repeating yourself. It's weirding me out. :bonkers:

MCaesar
12-13-05, 09:25 PM
What fact did I get wrong?

I didn't realize C&D had been crowned the most accurate magazine, who factually decided this?

The way you gave the numbers it would appear the V and SRT8's are the same in acceleration, but by your own admission the V is generally considered faster so why not put numbers that reflect this?

Simple, when you thought you could guess my intentions, someone you don't know from a mailbox, you were WRONG.

As for the numbers, it says pretty clearly that all numbers are from one source. Why? Because they use not only the most accurate method, read up on it, but because comparing different mags only increase inaccuracies.

The way I gave the numbers? No, that is the way that they were recorded in actual tests.

deal with it

MCaesar
12-13-05, 09:27 PM
So honestly was this a return of muscle post or did you really want to show us that one rag gave the Charger better than V numbers? If anyone actually believes these numbers I've got a .... For example the V and GTO stop in the same distance right; maybe if the V is stopping in water.

Here is another example

I can choose to believe a published magazine that has been testing cars for years with well documented, scientific methods or a ficticious person on an Internet board.

Oooohhh, tough call there.

Joey'sVee
12-13-05, 09:43 PM
lol!
:gun: :brutal:

CVP33
12-13-05, 09:46 PM
Flashback to 2003 if you will. We're losing the Camaro, the Mustang was anemic, the rwd Impala was long since dead, the Corvette was priced out of reach and the only 'bang for the buck' to be found is in 6 cylinder turbo charged furrin cars. Flash forward just 2 short years and now we have all these cars to choose from and more importantly to argue over. IMHO if you have ANY of the following cars you've died and gone to heaven:

GTO
SRT-8 (insert model here)
CTS-V
STS-V
Mustang GT
Corvette (especially Z06)
SRT-10 (insert model here)

BTW - If you own two of the above then you have the automotive equivalent of sex. :lildevil:

Joey'sVee
12-13-05, 10:01 PM
I agree with the exception of the GT.

Dennisscars
12-13-05, 10:16 PM
For example the V and GTO stop in the same distance right; maybe if the V is stopping in water.

Agreed, My son's 04 Goat (red too) stops pretty good but won't pull your retinas like my V. (black too).

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 10:34 PM
Simple, when you thought you could guess my intentions, someone you don't know from a mailbox, you were WRONG.

As for the numbers, it says pretty clearly that all numbers are from one source. Why? Because they use not only the most accurate method, read up on it, but because comparing different mags only increase inaccuracies.

The way I gave the numbers? No, that is the way that they were recorded in actual tests.

deal with it
So do you not understand that a sentence with an "or" and a "?" in it means I'm asking you a question and trying to determine your intentions. It does not mean I'm stating a fact. I don't even think it's possible to state a fact using a sentence with an or and a question mark in it.

I'm still missing what fact I got wrong.

I'm still missing how C&D got crowned the most accurate mag.

I'm still missing why you choose the numbers that make the V look worst and Charger look the best when posting on a V board. Oh wait I'll help with this one because C&D is the most accurate of all magazines.

The fact that C&D has the GTO and V with the same stopping distance is beyond laughable. The brake difference between these cars is so drastic even my unreliable butt dyno can tell the difference. Go test drive both cars and even though you really want to come back and tell me I'm wrong you'll agree that C&D screwed the pooch there.

MCaesar
12-13-05, 10:46 PM
Don't try BSing now. You were attacking my integrity. At least be big enough to own up to it.

MCaesar
12-13-05, 10:47 PM
Flashback to 2003 if you will. We're losing the Camaro, the Mustang was anemic, the rwd Impala was long since dead, the Corvette was priced out of reach and the only 'bang for the buck' to be found is in 6 cylinder turbo charged furrin cars. Flash forward just 2 short years and now we have all these cars to choose from and more importantly to argue over. IMHO if you have ANY of the following cars you've died and gone to heaven:

GTO
SRT-8 (insert model here)
CTS-V
STS-V
Mustang GT
Corvette (especially Z06)
SRT-10 (insert model here)

BTW - If you own two of the above then you have the automotive equivalent of sex. :lildevil:

Well, we have 2 in the family plus an E55

Dennisscars
12-13-05, 10:49 PM
http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/small-animal-pictures-breeders-babies/angora-rabbit-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/angora-rabbit-0001.jpg
Black is the fastest color..

Luna.
12-13-05, 10:49 PM
Well, we have 2 in the family plus an E55

NICE...

Where do you live?

Dennisscars
12-13-05, 10:51 PM
Flashback to 2003 if you will. We're losing the Camaro, the Mustang was anemic, the rwd Impala was long since dead, the Corvette was priced out of reach and the only 'bang for the buck' to be found is in 6 cylinder turbo charged furrin cars. Flash forward just 2 short years and now we have all these cars to choose from and more importantly to argue over. IMHO if you have ANY of the following cars you've died and gone to heaven:

GTO
SRT-8 (insert model here)
CTS-V
STS-V
Mustang GT
Corvette (especially Z06)
SRT-10 (insert model here)

BTW - If you own two of the above then you have the automotive equivalent of sex. :lildevil:

oooh... I have three!:cool2: When does the sex start?? :hmm:

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 10:52 PM
I'm sure I missed something because the most accurate magazine wouldn't publish different numbers in different articles, but I went to thier site and pulled up a CTS-V review and found different numbers.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7780&page_number=6

When you gave the V's range of 13.1 to 13.4 you must not have accounted for C&D's very accurate 13.7

AmesCTS-V
12-13-05, 10:55 PM
Don't try BSing now. You were attacking my integrity. At least be big enough to own up to it.
No not really your post reads like a Charger ad so I was asking exactly what I thought. So honestly was this a return of muscle post or did you really want to show us that one rag gave the Charger better than V numbers?

ace996
12-13-05, 11:45 PM
I like the picture of the bunny with a pancake on its head. I like bunnies and pancakes. Just never thought of both at the same time. And the other bunny with toilet paper....now that's funny. I really can't think of something funnier...
-ace

Dennisscars
12-13-05, 11:56 PM
I'm here to please, so please aim...
http://www.syberpunk.com/images/oolong/linked/cup.jpg http://www.syberpunk.com/images/oolong/linked/soba3.jpg

Katshot
12-14-05, 06:07 AM
Flashback to 2003 if you will. We're losing the Camaro, the Mustang was anemic, the rwd Impala was long since dead, the Corvette was priced out of reach and the only 'bang for the buck' to be found is in 6 cylinder turbo charged furrin cars. Flash forward just 2 short years and now we have all these cars to choose from and more importantly to argue over. IMHO if you have ANY of the following cars you've died and gone to heaven:
GTO
SRT-8 (insert model here)
CTS-V
STS-V
Mustang GT
Corvette (especially Z06)
SRT-10 (insert model here)
BTW - If you own two of the above then you have the automotive equivalent of sex. :lildevil:

What about the '03 Mustang Cobra, or the Ford Lightning? Not what I'd call anemic.

MCaesar
12-14-05, 06:34 AM
NICE...

Where do you live?

Mullica Hill NJ

I see you are from California. I was raised in Santa Barbara.

Between myself, my brother who is 4 doors down, and my cousin who is around the corner, we have

01 E55
05 CTS-V
06 Charger SRT8

and

66 Mustang Convertible with worked 289
70 Firebird Formula

Katshot
12-14-05, 06:42 AM
What about the '03 Mustang Cobra, or the Ford Lightning? Not what I'd call anemic.

Sorry, I forgot about the Dodge SRT-4. Also not what I would cal anemic.

MCaesar
12-14-05, 07:35 AM
I'm sure I missed something because the most accurate magazine wouldn't publish different numbers in different articles, but I went to thier site and pulled up a CTS-V review and found different numbers.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7780&page_number=6

When you gave the V's range of 13.1 to 13.4 you must not have accounted for C&D's very accurate 13.7

Well since they had re-tested it I thought it made sense to go with the most recent time. Perhaps their initial test was affected by:



Straight-line acceleration is crimped by spasmodic axle hop

The third problem we encountered was axle tramp, also known as wheel hop, during hard acceleration from a standing start, and it's one that can't be explained away so easily. Morris notes that with a judicious combination of clutch slip and wheelspin, GM development engineers have finessed 0-to-60 runs in the 4.5- and 4.6-second realm, which is pretty much what we anticipated with this car's Corvette powertrain. Unfortunately, we hadn't been to the GM school of CTS-V launch technique, so our efforts were rewarded by rear-wheel hop, with severity in direct proportion to the level of aggression employed to get the car out of the blocks. It soon became clear that further runs were likely to bring the test to a premature end, whereupon we left off.

The result was a disappointing 0-to-60 timeó5.2 seconds versus the 4.7 seconds we estimated in September. And although we believe Cadillac engineers when they say they've found ways to drive around this phenomenon, we also believe that CTS-V owners attempting to extract the best 0-to-60 times from their cars are likely to become intimately acquainted with differential replacement costs



Hmmm, pretty darn accurate if you ask me. As the wheel hop problem varies tremendously from car to car it is clear they got one of the bad ones in their first test and a better one in the second test.

It also shows how GM did a poor job on refinement and how it takes a lot of practice to launch one properly.

Thanks for helping me.

MCaesar
12-14-05, 07:37 AM
On the other hand, its pricing is right in step with die Deutschen, and so is its straight-line performance, despite a substantial edge in engine output. Thanks to its relative heft, at 4.8 seconds the Caddy was a 10th slower to 60 mph than the bad-boy Benz and nudged the Mercedes by a mere bumper in the quarter-mile: 13.2 seconds at 109 mph. However, these numbers are substantially better than the ones we recorded for a very early production CTS-V last March. Although rear-wheel hop is still a problem in all-out launches, it was easier to manage in this car, knocking 0.4 second off the 0-to-60 time and a half-second off the quarter-mile performance. Cadillac ads claim 4.6 seconds to 60, but this is the best we've managed so far.



Try reading a little bit before posting and you won't put your foot in your mouth so quickly

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8682&page_number=3

Katshot
12-14-05, 07:47 AM
Sorry, I forgot about the Dodge SRT-4. Also not what I would cal anemic.

There was also the GM supercharged cars like the Pontiac GTP and Buick Regal GS. They were respectable in stock trim and with mods as simple as a pulley swap, were veritable KILLERS on the 1/4 mile.

All in all, I think there's been some pretty hot cars all along, they just didn't get the press-time that these newer hot-rods seem to be getting. Oh and by the way, IMO, the '03 Mustang GT while not anything in comparison to the Cobra, was still a hell of a nice car for the money. It had pretty good power and was fun as hell to drive.

Dooman
12-14-05, 08:24 AM
There was also the GM supercharged cars like the Pontiac GTP and Buick Regal GS. They were respectable in stock trim and with mods as simple as a pulley swap, were veritable KILLERS on the 1/4 mile.

All in all, I think there's been some pretty hot cars all along, they just didn't get the press-time that these newer hot-rods seem to be getting. Oh and by the way, IMO, the '03 Mustang GT while not anything in comparison to the Cobra, was still a hell of a nice car for the money. It had pretty good power and was fun as hell to drive.

My opinion.. American Muscle means 8 to 10 cylinder cars. (ya ya, my Dad drove a Buick GN)

Katshot
12-14-05, 09:23 AM
My opinion.. American Muscle means 8 to 10 cylinder cars. (ya ya, my Dad drove a Buick GN)

Then at least your dad understood that performance has nothing to do with cylinder count. IMO, the Buick Grand National is one of the greatest examples of a modern-era American muscle-car.

Dooman
12-14-05, 11:12 AM
I was going with more of the Nostalgia that goes along with "Muscle cars". You added modern.. I can see your point.

MCaesar
12-14-05, 01:45 PM
There is no way I would ever leave a Grand National off the American Muscle list. Those cars were beasts and the GNX were Corvette killers.

I also would include the GM supercharged V6 squadron as well. For a while, after the demise of the Impala SS and before the current wave, they were the ONLY American muscle.

Katshot
12-14-05, 02:04 PM
Only American Muscle from GM that is.

CVP33
12-14-05, 04:55 PM
What about the '03 Mustang Cobra, or the Ford Lightning? Not what I'd call anemic.

Katshot,

Great catch. Unfortunately both those vehicles suck in my opinion. I know it's only my opinion but again it was my list. :duck:

MCaesar
12-14-05, 05:41 PM
The 03 Cobra ran consistently in the 12s stock - that is muscle.

thebigjimsho
12-14-05, 05:56 PM
I, for one, always take C&D's vehicle tests as bond.

They do not focus on other magazine tests. They always try to test to get the most accurate readings possible. They use the best equipment, they do acceleration tests in opposite directions and try to eliminate wind and grade variables. If they get handed a test car with a possibly slipping clutch, they tell you. If they see a discrepancy between a pre-production and production car, they tell you. If they feel the manufacturer slipped them a ringer, they tell you.

I also trust their drivers in getting the best performance out of the vehicles they get. After seing them at "work" in Indy this summer, I trust them even more.

MCaesar
12-14-05, 06:47 PM
I, for one, always take C&D's vehicle tests as bond.

They do not focus on other magazine tests. They always try to test to get the most accurate readings possible. They use the best equipment, they do acceleration tests in opposite directions and try to eliminate wind and grade variables. If they get handed a test car with a possibly slipping clutch, they tell you. If they see a discrepancy between a pre-production and production car, they tell you. If they feel the manufacturer slipped them a ringer, they tell you.

I also trust their drivers in getting the best performance out of the vehicles they get. After seing them at "work" in Indy this summer, I trust them even more.

BINGO

CVP33
12-14-05, 10:58 PM
The 03 Cobra ran consistently in the 12s stock - that is muscle.

Alright damn it. The Cobra was a nice performance vehichle. Just hate the fact that is was built on a 25 y.o. chassis. The Lightning was also bad ass just not my style. And the SRT-4 great bang for the buck. But for upscale muscle this is our good ol' days.

MCaesar
12-15-05, 06:39 AM
Alright damn it. The Cobra was a nice performance vehichle. Just hate the fact that is was built on a 25 y.o. chassis. The Lightning was also bad ass just not my style. And the SRT-4 great bang for the buck. But for upscale muscle this is our good ol' days.No kidding

Even the good old days were not this good. For example, everyone talks about the 426 hemi, 454 LS6, 429 Super Cobra Jet, etc but most of the muscle cars were sold with much tamer engines that many strong econocars of today, like an Accord or Altima 6 speed V6, could either beat or tie.

Lets not even talk about braking, handling and TUNING!

Any of the more mature people here will remember how hard it was to keep a car with multiple carbs in tune.

There are only two things missing from today's cars compared to the classics:

1. Hi octane big blocks - today's engines are much more rpm dependent and don't have the incredible push as soon as you hit the gas like a high compression big block. Now you downshift a couple of gears. Then you just pressed harder and moved instantly.

2. Choices - in those days each car had about 5 engine choices and you could do crazy stuff a lot easier like a 440 Dart or 396 Nova

lawfive
12-15-05, 11:57 AM
No kidding

Any of the more mature people here will remember how hard it was to keep a car with multiple carbs in tune.

LOL... Carbs, hell; remember carrying around caps & points 'cause you never knew when you'd need 'em?


2. Choices - in those days each car had about 5 engine choices and you could do crazy stuff a lot easier like a 440 Dart or 396 Nova

Mmmm... 396 Nova. Wonder how much those are going for these days. In memory it feels like I had as much interior space in a '70 Nova 'compact' as in my V... That would make for an interesting daily driver today.

lasstss
12-15-05, 12:10 PM
I have worked on those dogs. We used to call the pontiac, vette and Chryslers with 3 carbs 'Tri fires' as invariably anyone who owned them had either caught a gas flood or backfire which cooked the hood nicely.

As far as the Vettes from the 60's early 70's.. had to be the worst riding cars on the planet. I had a buddy with a 67 vette. Very much like a carboard box with square wheels. 70's Camaros with splitting roof lines. Mustings with weak frame rails... Cracking vynal..Ahhh the good old days.....:yup:

lawfive
12-15-05, 01:04 PM
As far as the Vettes from the 60's early 70's.. had to be the worst riding cars on the planet. I had a buddy with a 67 vette. Very much like a carboard box with square wheels.:yup:

I drove one while in the Air Force; 427 engine. So I'd add "Very much like a cardboard box with square wheels that you can't get around a corner."

Dennisscars
12-16-05, 01:07 AM
I drove one while in the Air Force; 427 engine. So I'd add "Very much like a cardboard box with square wheels that you can't get around a corner."
be nice to us old schoolers...