[GT182]

By Car and Driver magazine..... 0 to 60 mph. Take a look if you haven't seen this before. Pontiac even beat out Chevies.

1964 Tempest GTO was #3 at 4.6 seconds. Only 2 were faster, and they were from ol' Carroll Shelby himself.

Look and see...... http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/...60s/ss-BBlCPtZ

[Stuart]

Car and Driver cooked their numbers more than probably any other car magazine, so I'd take that information with a healthy grain of salt. I suspect the only way a stock GTO would accelerate that fast back then (particularly with 1964 tire technology) is if you drove it off a cliff.

[i82much]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Car and Driver cooked their numbers more than probably any other car magazine, so I'd take that information with a healthy grain of salt. I suspect the only way a stock GTO would accelerate that fast back then (particularly with 1964 tire technology) is if you drove it off a cliff.

Maybe that's part of it, but the fact that the car had a 421 instead of a 389 probably had a little something to do with it too.

[Chris65LeMans]

I'm having trouble accepting their number for the 289 Mustang - even with the digger gears.

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by Chris65LeMans

I'm having trouble accepting their number for the 289 Mustang - even with the digger gears.

Most definitely a stopwatch glitch. Back then, I had a 1966 390 GT Fairlane and a buddy had a 66 Mustang GT, both 4 speeds. My Fairlane would beat the Mustang by a bus length to 60mph. I wouldn't go near those other cars listed with the same 0-60, they were so much faster. I couldn't beat a 325HP Chevelle SS much less a 427 Corvette.

[MikeNoun]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Car and Driver cooked their numbers more than probably any other car magazine, so I'd take that information with a healthy grain of salt. I suspect the only way a stock GTO would accelerate that fast back then (particularly with 1964 tire technology) is if you drove it off a cliff.

I believe that's exactly what Jim Wangers said about that particular road test.

Car And Driver was trying to make a name for themselves, trying to be controversial, and what better way to do that than to pit a "lowly" new Pontiac sedan against a thoroughbred Ferrari, and then declare Pontiac the winner? Great publicity for Pontiac, the GTO, and Car And Driver. The only people that probably weren't thrilled were the small number of Ferrari owners in America at that time.

Mike

[goatman65]

Would a 421 GTO really be much faster than a 389 GTO?

[Poncho60]

Wangers covered the details of the Car & Driver test in his book...Glory Days. There were 2 cars if I remember correctly...one was a ringer w a 421 in it. Wangers knew the times that C&D was getting were totally out of line but decided to just let it go...I think he knew it would be a win-win for C&D and Pontiac. If I also remember correctly from the book, all the C&D people wanted to just drive the 421 car once they had driven it once. This resulted in the car being taken onto the road course where it eventually spun a bearing due to oil sloshing in the pan.....according to Jim. That book he wrote certainly had the appropriate title (IMO).

[Stuart]

C&D also supposedly got a 1965 2+2 to do the zero to 60 run in 3.8 seconds, so you know their stop watches were super accurate.

[Jim Rotella]

I believe that almost all of the car manufacturers of that era were sending ringers to the magazine press corps. The battle for sales in the muscle car market hit its high point in the mid to late 60's. The automakers' engineers usually super-tuned those cars before the press tested them, some even sent along their own mechanics to make sure those cars stayed in top tune. Pontiac wasn't the only manufacturer that sent out ringers for testing, they all played that game.

[400 4spd.]

Originally Posted by goatman65

Would a 421 GTO really be much faster than a 389 GTO?

Having ridden in both and owned one, my opinion is yes. I bought the 421 GTO, a 65 convertible.

[lust4speed]

One word makes those road tests virtually impossible back in the day: Tires

I don't think the term "smoke 'em if you got 'em" started in the military...

[rexs73gto]

In 1986 I raced the 64 GTO ringer that was then owned by Paggett Peterson, & before the race (during the GTOAA NATS) he was trying to console my by saying he was sorry in advance for beating me & we had not raced yet. He was telling me the story about how this was the car that Pontiac had used in the Car & Driver tests & how fast it was. I had my 73 GTO then as I do now. I was able to run a 13:02 @ 106 back then which was pretty acceptable at the time. I was running a 400 with #48 heads & an M22 4 spd. with full exhaust to the bumper & a Q-jet. I beat the 64 by about 6 cars back then. Paggett was not a happy camper as he thought he was going to leave me way behind. We had a long talk after but he was not happy. So that 421 64 GTO was not as fast as it was suppose to be. It had good tires on it in 86 but there is no way it was going to do a 4.6 to 60mph then or in 64.

[george kujanski]

Last week I was relaxing and decided to read one of my books...."muscle cars". Pretty good book about 50's and 60's cars. Quoted 0-60 times in the book for various fast machines of the day were 5, 6, and even 7 seconds, probably due to the weight of the cars back then.

Surprised to read that; it seems even garden variety cars today meet those numbers.

How about a Tesla....2.8 seconds!

Technology wins out over brute force.

George

[Stuart]

There are a bunch of videos on Youtube of the Tesla in what they call "ludicrous mode". It probably doesn't do much for the battery range but it looks like fun.

[geeteeohguy]

I tuned and drove many 289 Mustangs, and NONE of them, even the 271HP model could come close to 5.1 seconds 0-60. They just didn't have the oats. I remember waxing '66-67 Ford 390 GT Fairlanes and 325-350HP SS396 Chevelles with my old 2 speed auto, 4bbl bone stock gold '65 GTO....wasn't even close. The 3.9 Big Car time from 1965 was the stuff of legend back when I was a kid....I remember it well. Still don't know if I believe it!

[geeteeohguy]

Another thing not mentioned is driving technique. Sometimes a slower car will wax a much faster car easily, due to driver skill. Especially if the cars are 4 speed cars. I've seen videos of veterans speed/powershifting that are so fast it sounds like and automatic.....no way could I personally bang a gear that fast.....and that's what wins races.

[flyingn]

All those super low numbers (5.5 seconds and under) were all 100% fudged. Please don't believe em for a second. NONE of those cars with the tires on them could ever dream of such numbers

[Dick Boneske]

Sorry for you doubters, but my '64 GTO, when new, with Carter AFB, 7.50X14 Uniroyals, 3.90 gears and wide ratio Muncie would do 0-65 all day between 4.3 and 4.6 seconds using a mechanical stop watch. This was with my brother-in-law in the passenger seat running the watch.

I used 0-65 since that was the speedometer error--65 on the speedo was exactly 60 mph as determined by highway markers and a stopwatch.

That same car also ran 14.08 @100.00 at the drag strip. This was before any mods to the engine, but with a pair of Hoosier recapped drag slicks I borrowed. Drag strips were much different in the '60's. Anything but slicks would result in wheelspin as though you were driving on wet pavement. There were no bleach boxes--that came later. After adding Tripower and the "Royal Bobcat" treatment, Doug's three-tube headers, the car ran a best of 13.29@109.75.

[george kujanski]

From the book, the really quick cars were around 14 sec or so.

George