Slowest car ever

Status
Not open for further replies.
Engine technologies of today (variable valve timing, variable geometry intake, direct injection) have done for us today what fuel injection did for us in the 1980's.

I don't think the horses are getting smaller. Sure the engines are getting "peakier" but we're not talking 7000rpm 1.5L Honda engines either. That's peaky.

Most produce a relatively flat torque curve, but because the valve geometry can change that torque is now available at higher RPMs, where it proves more useful in generating horsepower.
 
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Consumer Reports did a comparison test on 2009 sports cars this month (Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger) and all of the 0-60 mph times were around 5 seconds. The same models that they tested in 1968 all ran around 10 seconds. We're living in the golden age of performance cars. Get 'em while you still can.

a lot of that is tire technology and better suspensions. the net hp is better now than it was in '68.
 
I used to think the slowest car ever was a VW Microbus. They were the bain of my cross country trips. They held everybody up on two lane roads.
Car and Driver or Road and Track had a picture of a convoy of Model Ts being followed by a Microbus. They captioned it "The only time in recorded history a Microbus was held up by someone else" or something like that.
 
Originally Posted By: mpvue
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Consumer Reports did a comparison test on 2009 sports cars this month (Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger) and all of the 0-60 mph times were around 5 seconds. The same models that they tested in 1968 all ran around 10 seconds. We're living in the golden age of performance cars. Get 'em while you still can.

a lot of that is tire technology and better suspensions. the net hp is better now than it was in '68.


NET being the key word. HP in the 60's was measured in SAE GROSS, which is a much more "generous" specification, since the engines were run without accessories and with open exhaust.

Modern SAE NET is a much better indicator of power output, since the engine is tested essentially as it will be fitted in the car.

For comparison:
My '87 GT T-Top was ~3300lbs, and rated at 225HP/300lb-ft using the (older) SAE NET specification. It went 15-flat on a street tire at 100Mph, 14.2 at 99.9Mph on a drag radial.

A 1969 Camaro 375HP (GROSS) 396 SS ran 14.77 at 98.7Mph.

And it was lighter.

Mph being a good indicator of actual power output, it is no wonder why I see a lot of (absolutely gorgeous in many cases) older cars that hit the drag strip and run in the 14, 15, 16 and 17 second range.

With a few mods, these cars could be made much faster, but off the showroom floor, as rated from the factory, they SAE GROSS rating scheme really makes many THINK that these cars were a lot faster than they actually were.

There were a few exceptions however.

TASCA (a Ford dealer in the states) sold a version of the BOSS 429 known as the "TASCA Super BOSS". It was fitted with the 494ci CAN-AM version of the BOSS 429 engine with an upgraded cam and intake, and running the NASCAR version of the heads.

This thing ran bottom 11's on the stock GoodYear Polyglass tires.

TASCA's flagship car, which was run by the dealership spent its entire life drag racing. The old girl recently received a change in ownership, freshened, fitted with an 1150 domi and MSD ignition.

She made 735HP to the tires and went mid-10's on Goodyear polyglass junk.

So while there were some setups that would leave one wanting at the drag strip today, there are others, like the car above, that would genuinely cause some wide-eyes.

And again, I'm talking STOCK examples here. I am well aware that any of the small and big block engines from that era can be worked to achieve some very good ET's.
 
I've driven an all original stock 396 Chevelle on polyglas bias ply tires and it gave me new respect for the drivers of that era. It was a manual 4 speed and would spin first and second and give a loooong screech in third. If I had to guess, it probably trapped around 100mph but couldn't have run better than mid-upper 14s on a good day.
 
One of the most fascinating episode of Top Gear had them try out "Budget Exotics". They were all beaten handily by today's run of the mill family sedan.

It is easy to notice that in last twenty or odd years all of the gains in the engine technology had been more towards higher performance than mileage improvement. The cars have also become *huge*. The classic 1982 Accord hatchback (with the rectangular headlights) was probably not much bigger than current Fit! And it used to give well in excess of 30 mpg on the road but I doubt it broke 10 seconds on 0-60 times.

- Vikas
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I've driven an all original stock 396 Chevelle on polyglas bias ply tires and it gave me new respect for the drivers of that era. It was a manual 4 speed and would spin first and second and give a loooong screech in third. If I had to guess, it probably trapped around 100mph but couldn't have run better than mid-upper 14s on a good day.


And here I am, happy that I can at least chirp my tires between shifts at around redline
frown.gif
lol
 
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I've driven an all original stock 396 Chevelle on polyglas bias ply tires and it gave me new respect for the drivers of that era. It was a manual 4 speed and would spin first and second and give a loooong screech in third. If I had to guess, it probably trapped around 100mph but couldn't have run better than mid-upper 14s on a good day.


And here I am, happy that I can at least chirp my tires between shifts at around redline
frown.gif
lol


LOL! Power-shifting, I could melt my tires 1st through 3rd in my '87, and could always get rubber on a 5th to 3rd downshift at 120Km/h.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I've driven an all original stock 396 Chevelle on polyglas bias ply tires and it gave me new respect for the drivers of that era. It was a manual 4 speed and would spin first and second and give a loooong screech in third. If I had to guess, it probably trapped around 100mph but couldn't have run better than mid-upper 14s on a good day.


And here I am, happy that I can at least chirp my tires between shifts at around redline
frown.gif
lol


LOL! Power-shifting, I could melt my tires 1st through 3rd in my '87, and could always get rubber on a 5th to 3rd downshift at 120Km/h.


No way a Rustang could spin even in first gear.
lol.gif
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I've driven an all original stock 396 Chevelle on polyglas bias ply tires and it gave me new respect for the drivers of that era. It was a manual 4 speed and would spin first and second and give a loooong screech in third. If I had to guess, it probably trapped around 100mph but couldn't have run better than mid-upper 14s on a good day.


And here I am, happy that I can at least chirp my tires between shifts at around redline
frown.gif
lol


LOL! Power-shifting, I could melt my tires 1st through 3rd in my '87, and could always get rubber on a 5th to 3rd downshift at 120Km/h.


No way a Rustang could spin even in first gear.
lol.gif
lol.gif



Good thing I owned an actual Mustang and not a Rustang then
wink.gif
LOL!

FWIW, that's what we call the junker 4-bangers that people drive in the winter
grin2.gif
 
I won't mention on here what the Mustang guys used to call my car. Let's just say the censor would censor every word lol.
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I won't mention on here what the Mustang guys used to call my car. Let's just say the censor would censor every word lol.


HHAHAHAHHA

GN's were and still are really cool cars. I've always had a lot of respect for them as they seem to be a lot more about going fast. Unlike the F-body guys, many of whom cam the [censored] out of some stock piece of junk and then pretend it ET's well.
 
Originally Posted By: mpvue
I don't require a lot of hp in my daily driver, but my 4 cyl VUE is somewhat less than adequate from a standing start, it needs a little more.
slowest I've driven was my '93 saturn SC1; 85hp, 5 speed. to be fair, I think it was a bit old and tired, but it couldn't maintain 65mph, forget it if you turned on the A/C. you could have it floored and you would be slowing down. merging was downright scary.
fixed it all w/ a twin cam swap, 124hp.not much more, but a healthy engine, and the car only weighed 2400lbs. then I was hitting 75 at the end of some ramps w/ still another gear or two to go.


Yeah!, I had a 94 Sl1 in AUTO!?

It was really slow. With 3 people in the car, and then kick on the a/c... forget it.
 
That is interesting but I would like to have seen those cars running properly for a fair test. Still shows how far cars have come.
 
Where I used to race, a woman took home quite a few trophies with something like a late '70s "Road Runner." (An orange Volare with Road Runner decals, if I'm remembering right.) She ran right around 20 seconds, but was consistent. She got about a half-track head start on a lot of the cars.

I also saw a race-only slant-six Duster do a bye run. I don't know what the ET was, but the run seemed painfully long. The slant-six is a weird-sounding beast with an open header.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
I used to think the slowest car ever was a VW Microbus. They were the bain of my cross country trips. They held everybody up on two lane roads.
Car and Driver or Road and Track had a picture of a convoy of Model Ts being followed by a Microbus. They captioned it "The only time in recorded history a Microbus was held up by someone else" or something like that.


Got a good, nostalgic laugh out of this one. Way back when I was a baby lawyer (maybe 15 years ago) and was still serving as a public defender, I got a NOT GUILTY verdict on a totally absurd DUI case. My client was a wannabe hippy (a 20-something in about 1995...) who was wearing Birkenstocks, had a tie-dyed t-shirt, hair to his butt, and yes, was driving a 1968 VW Microbus. The state's case really started to unravel when their star witness, an overly self-righteous marmish woman, still angry (I theorize) since my guy had cut in front of her, testified that my guy was was going UP the Bob Sykes bridge doing at least 80 mph. The BSB is the one that goes to and from Pensacola Beach, and is quite steep on both sides. The jurors were openly laughing when I pointed out in closing argument that a VW Microbus couldn't do 80 mpg going down the back side of the bridge with a burning shuttle rocket booster strapped to its roof rack. NG verdict came back in about three minutes. That one was pure fun!
cheers3.gif


EDIT: getting back on topic, my 1969 Beetle wasn't much faster. . .
 
Last edited:
When I had my Civic, it was interesting merging onto busy interstates. Even when I floored it, it still seemed like it took forever to reach speed. Trying to pass people from 60 mph took some effort too. I miss it though.

Now with the Max if I give it more than half throttle I would end up doing 55 from a dead stop before I know it. Okay maybe that is a little exaggerated, but it's quick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom