jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (09/25/84)
> ... one could go to any Chevy house in the USA and buy a >1965 Corvette with a big block (the first year they were available), do >nothing to it but put different tires on the rear, and do 0 - 55 MPH in >2.6 sec. For a top end shot, 175 MPH is probably very likely. Take off >the mufflers and exhaust pipe and go maybe 185. > >Also this illustrates how much automotive performance has "progressed" since >1965. How would a 0-55 MPH time of 2.6 sec compare to todays fastest totally >stock, showroom floor, (except for tires) non-exotic cars? Come on all you >"turbo freaks"? What are your 0-55 MPH times? Ok, buckle your seatbelt. I love it when all of you big block motorheads quote performance figures from memories that get ever more rosy with time. Either that or you recite legends which get embellished with each retelling. 0-55 in 2.6 with a top end of 175? C'mon, even a modern F1 or CART racer has trouble meeting those performance specs and they have 800 HP on tap with 18" wide gummy tires in the back! However, trying to be fair, I thought I'd research it. Digging through my collection I came up with two road tests of big block Corvettes: a 396 cid (called the 425 HP) in the August '65 Road & Track and a 427 in the November '65 Car and Driver. By coincidence, the C/D issue also had a test of the baddest big block barn burner of all time, the 427 Cobra. I've summaraize the tests in the chart below. To get 0-55 I did a straight line interpolation between 0-50 and 0-60 (the curve is pretty straight there). Since you mentioned non-stock tires, I added a column that subtracts 10%. Fancy tires aren't going to affect top speed, though, so I left that alone. Magazine Car 0-50 0-60 0-55 0-55 Top Speed sec sec interp -10% mph ------------------------------------------------------------------------ R&T 8/65 396 Vette 4.8 5.7 5.3 4.7 136 C/D 11/65 427 Vette 4.6 5.4 5.0 4.5 152 C/D 11/65 427 Cobra 3.9 4.3 4.1 3.7 165 I'll admit, these are pretty impressive figures, but they fall far short of the claimed performance. You could attack this by saying "racing tires account for more than 10% improvement" or "I didn't mean *really* stock, I meant stock as defined by NHRA where you get to remove the spare tire and passenger's seat and the carpeting and the clock and cigarette lighter and..." but you still would have a hard time explaining the 50% gap in 0-55 times and the 15% gap in top speed. If you still want to get nasty, I'll have to lay the realities of F=MA and (rho*V**3*CdA)/550 on you. Ciao! Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Inc. ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh