"You must conisder drag, weight distribution, how the ECU works, lots of other things.
"

The ecu working has nothing to do with the times of the car, perhaps you are more refering to the power distribution curve of the engine. Weight distribution is also minimal, perhaps you mean suspension geometry in that case( the lighter the rear springs comparably to the front and less the compression on the shocks the more ability of the car to shift back pushing traction on the rear wheels). Coefficient of drag in this case is minor, the difference between the cd numbers of this and a camaro are minimal. However, only power distribution is as important or makes as large an impact as hsp and gearing (the ls1 has a nice even power curve, always has). The car does not have a traction problem, thus you should realize most of the power reaches the ground. Watch what you assume about my engineering abilities, I have helped design and am currently designing custom suspension systems for older cars for the purpose of road racing.


And theres a few things wrong with your mentioning the aussie holden. For one the power difference between the two cars. Furthermore weight and weight distribution(handling) for the cars has changed. The things that I know for sure from my one over: the body, the placement of the gas tank(11 inch difference due to federal standards), interior).

And then there is the fact that the holden would beat something like the cobra around a track with ease(granted thats a given, cobras are as solid as a wet noodle).

GM is notorious for underrating their cars. They don't have to refund money like Ford(ie Mazda). If they say it will run 13.5s and most of the numbers seem to point to 13.5s, I believe them. I will give you this for sure though, being that you haven't ridden in, seen someone test, or driven the car, challenging the word of engineers on the times of the car takes some guts.

Oh and for the record, most of the magazine numbers aren't some proffessional driver. Most of the magazines drivers couldn't drive the cars out of a paper bag(with a few exceptions, tiff). I've run times in a stock car similar to what c/d and m/t say for several new cars, and frankly I can't drag for crap.(nor do I care too. I'll beat my opponent when we get to the turn at the end of the straight)

Muscle cars are dead. They lived from 1966-1971. It's an era that will never be relived. The Corvette, as well as the Cobra, is not a muscle car, it's a sports car. When you start costing twice as much as any other 400 hp car, you lose the privilege of calling yourself a muscle car. Bang for your buck, bang for your buck!! Anybody from Uncle Jim to Cousin Joey can open up a hood and fiddle around and tweak those extra horsepower. Electronics, wires, and chips ended that. Muscle cars are ugly and mean, not pretty! Ugly and mean don't sell no more! And catalytic converters are for pussies!!!!!!!!!!! (As are restrictive mufflers, grrrr!)

Uhm - actually - the fully performance optioned cars from that era were not that cheap.

You often had a base car costing $2500 - with $3000 or more to fully realize the "big numbers history shows us"..

:)

That being said, by your very definition the muscle car is going onsale at your pontiac dealer.

The new GTO ;)

Cheap, powerful and unbalanced... :D

wtf?

:shock: did you just popped up a 3 years old topic?! :lol: WTF?! :lol:

Now that really is sad :lol:

@Iwan - you more then welcome.. :lol: :lol:
I think this is some kind of a record! :lol: