rai

427-CU (7.0L) 68 Vette 4-MT with so-called 435-hp and 460-TQ weighed 3271 lbs
5.3s 13.8@105mph

Shelby Mustang same size engine 335-hp(rated) (400-hp actual) and 440-TQ 3530 lbs 3-AT
5.4s 13.9@103mph

For all the power of these 7L machines they are only a bit quicker than a S2000.

The Vette has vintage bias-ply tires with disk/disk brakes. Mustang has radial tires 215 or 225 (f/r) and disk/drum brakes. Both cars had 15 inch rims.

Skidpad was 0.65g (vette) and 0.68g (stang) and braking from 70 mph was 255 ft (vette) and 283 ft (mustang).

The C6 has 0.95g and 161 ft (braking 70-0) and the new GT500 has 0.9g and braking from 70 in 172 ft.

The old mustang takes 122 ft longer (than the C6) to stop from 70 mph.

I understand they rated HP differently back then. But it's something how the S2000 with 1/3 the TQ is similar in acceleration. Porbably down to tires and gearing etc..

I saw a 20th anniversary of motor week on TV and they showed how cars couldn't stop back then. No ABS they were all over the road in a panic stop.

no_really

um, tires and traction. Put narrow bias ply tires on an S2000 and see what you get. Also, yes, hp ratings were done differently, so a 1968 400hp rating does not equate to 400hp today.

As far as "not being able to stop then," um, yeah :/ That's why everyone from that era is dead, right? Sure, if you don't have anti-lock brakes, locking up the tires at 60mph is going to result in a skid. But since when is the brake pedal an on-off switch? Anti-lock brakes is a relatively new feature to come standard on cars. Ten years ago, it was still an option for most, and yet, somehow, miraculously, you can find pictures of cars from that time that aren't still moving, so apparently they were able to get them to stop.

rai

These were the Hi-Po versions of the Vette and Shelby Mustang. I can only wonder how slow the V6 mustangs were.

I had a 76 Chevy Nova with I6 that was so slow when I got a 81-HP fuel injected 1988 VW Fox it was a big improvement.

My Nova used to stall during panic stops. It's carberated engine would pause 2 second before it would start to accelerate (I'm not kidding).

no_really

So your Nova needed a tune-up. I have had used cars that needed something fixed before. I'm not kidding.

cdelena

Ridiculous test when the tires were so drastically different. One of the biggest improvements in automobiles in the past thirty years has been tire technology.

Granted the mag just tested the cars as they got them, but the tire upgrade makes a huge difference. The difference in an old bias-ply tire and a new radial is dramatic when it comes to traction, handling and driving feel.

aklucsarits

There was a similar article that Grassroots Motorsports did about 3 yrs ago comparing a 1965 Porsche 356C, a 1967 Jaguar XKE, and a 2003 Honda Odyssey EX in acceleration, braking, slalom, and timed autoX. The Porsche and Jag were the quintiscential sports cars of their day, but the big old 2 ton+ , 7 passenger Honda minivan pretty much dominated them in overall performance.

Andrew

DERF

Tires also cost less now than they did 30 years ago.

The 1960's Were the Hot Rod Years, Today we have Faster, Better Handling and Safer High End Hot Rods.









Fast Forward 30 years (Time Warp)

Wow the S2000 was so slow back in 2006, my stock single C cell nuke pack in my 2036 Huffy scooter could smoke one in the quarter mile. Why would someone buy such a slow car ?

rai

The Mustang had modern tires BFGoodrich radial T/A

vinsanity

lol...modern, but still not very good from a performance standpoint. I put those tires on the bare steelies of my old white Altima for the comical nascar effect

cdelena

Yes, and since the Vette in the test had old bias-ply tires the comparison of the cars was not really meaningful.