HAHAHAHAHAHA Corvette SS WHAT?????
#51
01-15-2007, 06:58 AM
Legend
RE: HAHAHAHAHAHA Corvette SS WHAT?????
The wing depends on the type/size and the car in which it's on. That style wing always looks great on the Viper and I loved it on the Viper GTS ACR/GT2. Here are afew great looking Vipers with a similar wing:
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/9CD6CA0F45AF4085AB6B98AD7451A9F3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/12D5C45C9FFD4FB4A023C19038279CAB.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/8F1A3F4AD84849BF9BEFCE0A3DF90005.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/0AB03B45707245A1911843F298D258C9.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/9CD6CA0F45AF4085AB6B98AD7451A9F3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/12D5C45C9FFD4FB4A023C19038279CAB.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/8F1A3F4AD84849BF9BEFCE0A3DF90005.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/193/0AB03B45707245A1911843F298D258C9.jpg[/IMG]
#52
01-16-2007, 05:34 AM
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: TBK Enterprises
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: HAHAHAHAHAHA Corvette SS WHAT?????
ORIGINAL: DevilsReject
The 300C was first built in 57, not 56....and it was considered a luxury car/sedan, not a performance model. Same with the Chrysler 300F, only it was a 1960's model, not a 61. The '60 300F had an optional 400hp motor, but I believe it was only offered in like a dozen models...By Chrysler's OWN definition, those cars were never "muscle" cars..
The Corvette had almost 300hp as early as 1957-58.....and the '61 Impala SShad a motor option for 425hp.
The AMC Rebel is one of the very earliest muscle cars, if not the first. Debuted in '57 with around 250hp, but it was the first hardtop sedan to be designated a "muscle" or "performance" car. This company would eventually become a part of what is now Chrysler.
ORIGINAL: MG42pillbox
No ones talking about pony cares but you, I don’t even really care for pony cares, I epically don’t care for old fords or chevys that is for sure. So what exactly does that have to do with anything here? Oh and by the way the 61 Chrysler 300F 413 max wedge dual quad 380+ horse power was the First muscle car. But only more in-depth enthusiasts would understand that. If car histories were actually fair with Chrysler instead of trying to discredit them, the first official muscle car would be the 1956 300C oh and it had a Hemi Thanks. And if you want to discredit that car in order to make GM look better than the 64 Belvedere was the first muscle car. There would be no racing, no muscle, and no race cars in America as early as it happened without Chrysler.
So what was GM doing at this time? I guess what they do best, (playing catch up). Thanks for bringing all that up though.
No ones talking about pony cares but you, I don’t even really care for pony cares, I epically don’t care for old fords or chevys that is for sure. So what exactly does that have to do with anything here? Oh and by the way the 61 Chrysler 300F 413 max wedge dual quad 380+ horse power was the First muscle car. But only more in-depth enthusiasts would understand that. If car histories were actually fair with Chrysler instead of trying to discredit them, the first official muscle car would be the 1956 300C oh and it had a Hemi Thanks. And if you want to discredit that car in order to make GM look better than the 64 Belvedere was the first muscle car. There would be no racing, no muscle, and no race cars in America as early as it happened without Chrysler.
So what was GM doing at this time? I guess what they do best, (playing catch up). Thanks for bringing all that up though.
The Corvette had almost 300hp as early as 1957-58.....and the '61 Impala SShad a motor option for 425hp.
The AMC Rebel is one of the very earliest muscle cars, if not the first. Debuted in '57 with around 250hp, but it was the first hardtop sedan to be designated a "muscle" or "performance" car. This company would eventually become a part of what is now Chrysler.
1961?
Chrysler already had cars made for performance by then sorry. They might have had a different image or advertisement campaign, but they were performance cars from what the designers designed them for, thus influencing other manufacturers to make what happened in that era a reality. Chrysler made the leaps In racing engine technology and that is the bases of all performance oriented American cars. They start with normal cars and upgrade engines first.
Your year correction does not change the fact that Chrysler did it first. The Corvette started with a 6 and had to play catch up real fast and has yet to stop. J
The Chevy offer is nice but much too little, and much too late. Chrysler was even more in 61 and already made engine more capable and/or even made the same power per ci easier.
Oh and by the way the SS package Impala wasn’t from the factory, it was a dealer install. The factory engine was 409 with 11 to 1 compression ratio rated at 368hp at 5800RPM and could be ordered without the SS package.
*Chrysler already had 392 Hemi making similar displacement power with less compression 4 years earlier.
*11 to 1 compression 409 made 368 factory HP in 1961 @ 5800 RPM and needed dual exhaust to make the accomplishment.
*10 to 1 compression 392 made 345hp in 1957 @ only 4600 RPM. LOL…
Oh and in 1961 the optional 413 made 400 Horse power factory, came standard with 375 Again Sorry to disappoint you.
So much more to go
#53
01-16-2007, 01:11 PM
RE: HAHAHAHAHAHA Corvette SS WHAT?????
ORIGINAL: MG42pillbox
1961?
Chrysler already had cars made for performance by then sorry. They might have had a different image or advertisement campaign, but they were performance cars from what the designers designed them for, thus influencing other manufacturers to make what happened in that era a reality. Chrysler made the leaps In racing engine technology and that is the bases of all performance oriented American cars. They start with normal cars and upgrade engines first.
Your year correction does not change the fact that Chrysler did it first. The Corvette started with a 6 and had to play catch up real fast and has yet to stop. J
The Chevy offer is nice but much too little, and much too late. Chrysler was even more in 61 and already made engine more capable and/or even made the same power per ci easier.
Oh and by the way the SS package Impala wasn’t from the factory, it was a dealer install. The factory engine was 409 with 11 to 1 compression ratio rated at 368hp at 5800RPM and could be ordered without the SS package.
*Chrysler already had 392 Hemi making similar displacement power with less compression 4 years earlier.
*11 to 1 compression 409 made 368 factory HP in 1961 @ 5800 RPM and needed dual exhaust to make the accomplishment.
*10 to 1 compression 392 made 345hp in 1957 @ only 4600 RPM. LOL…
Oh and in 1961 the optional 413 made 400 Horse power factory, came standard with 375 Again Sorry to disappoint you.
So much more to go
1961?
Chrysler already had cars made for performance by then sorry. They might have had a different image or advertisement campaign, but they were performance cars from what the designers designed them for, thus influencing other manufacturers to make what happened in that era a reality. Chrysler made the leaps In racing engine technology and that is the bases of all performance oriented American cars. They start with normal cars and upgrade engines first.
Your year correction does not change the fact that Chrysler did it first. The Corvette started with a 6 and had to play catch up real fast and has yet to stop. J
The Chevy offer is nice but much too little, and much too late. Chrysler was even more in 61 and already made engine more capable and/or even made the same power per ci easier.
Oh and by the way the SS package Impala wasn’t from the factory, it was a dealer install. The factory engine was 409 with 11 to 1 compression ratio rated at 368hp at 5800RPM and could be ordered without the SS package.
*Chrysler already had 392 Hemi making similar displacement power with less compression 4 years earlier.
*11 to 1 compression 409 made 368 factory HP in 1961 @ 5800 RPM and needed dual exhaust to make the accomplishment.
*10 to 1 compression 392 made 345hp in 1957 @ only 4600 RPM. LOL…
Oh and in 1961 the optional 413 made 400 Horse power factory, came standard with 375 Again Sorry to disappoint you.
So much more to go
For starters, Chrysler wasnt making high HP performance/muscle cars before the 60's......they were making luxury styled sedans that had big power motors in them....but of course you automatically equal that to a performance car........ it's one thing to make a performance sedan....but another entirely to make a performance coupe.....and that's ultimately what we're discussing.....not some car the size of a freakin land yacht....every single car you've brought up was literally the size of a tank...
Year corrections are important, as you spew them as fact.....so instead of spewing false information...please get it right.
As for standard vs. optional.....who the hell cares.....the fact remains those motors existed and were available as a FACTORY motor.......including the 400hp Chrysler motor and the 425hp Impala SS motor...and the 409 had an optional 425hp version that year....it was in about 150 cars from factory.....in 61, the SS was a factory package....from 62-69...it was an appearance package only and could be put on at a dealership....
A step further....if all your going to do is argue compression.....it's easier to argue because Chrysler's always had to use the biggest blocks to get that very low compression. It's funny, but GM and even Ford has been able to the get the power out of smaller blocks.....and it's rather amusing that you bring up compression........a GM block has stood the test for 40+ years.....you'd really think that by now you'd have some respect for them..... and go look at cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche....are you going to even dream of saying that those cars are crap because they require higher compression ratios to generate the same power?
As for the Corvette.....who was it competing against? Nothing that Chrysler had......it was competing with the Thunderbird...and since Chrysler never had anything that really came close to the same class as the Corvette until the Viper......how would they have been playing catchup?
Just food for thought.... the 61 SS Impala with just the 360hp motor....ran a blistering 14.02 1/4 mile....while the only thing Dodge had that was "considered" a muscle car, Dodge Dart......ran a low 15.01 sec 1/4 mile with 25 morehp...
[align=left]1960 Corvette (MT)[/align][align=left]283/270hp, 4spd,0-60 - 8.4, 1/4 mile - 16.1 @ 89mph[/align]1960 Chrysler 300F (MT)[align=left]413/375hp, 3spd auto, 3.31,0-60 - 7.1, 1/4 mile - 16.0 @ 85mph [/align][align=left]1960 Dodge Dart (ML)[/align][align=left][align=left]383ci/330hp, 3spd auto, 4.56, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 15.19 @ 86.03mph[/align][align=left]1960 Pontiac Catalina (ML)[/align][align=left]389ci/348hp, 3spd manual, 4.55, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 14.55 @ 94.53mph[/align][align=left]1960 Pontiac Ventura (MT)[/align][align=left]389ci/333hp, 3spd manual, 3.42,0-60 - 7.9, 1/4 mile - 14.8 @ 89mph[/align][align=left][align=left][align=left][/align]1961 Corvette (CL)[/align][align=left]283ci/315hp, 4spd, 4.11, 0-60 - 5.5, 1/4 mile - 14.2 @ 99mph[/align][align=left]1961 Corvette (CL)[/align][align=left]283ci/270hp, 4spd, 3.70, 0-60 - 5.9, 1/4 mile - 14.6[/align][align=left][align=left]1961 Chevrolet Imapala SS (MT)[/align][align=left]409ci/360hp, 4spd, 4.56, 0-60 - 7.0, 1/4 mile- 14.02 @ 98.14mph[/align][align=left][align=left]1961 Dodge Dart (CL)[/align][align=left]413ci, 385hp, 3spd auto, 4.10, 0-60 - 7.4, 1/4 mile - 15.1 @ 92mph[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Notice anything about that list.....almost ALL are GM products....not Chrysler.....and it wasnt until 62 that Dodge even had a car crack into the 14 second mark.....[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]And I'll go a step further....is it really any surprise that the top 10 best selling "muscle" cars from the years 64-69......that only ONE Chrysler product made the list? The rest were all GM....and that list was not my opinion....but of people who were considered in the know at the time.....and by sales...[/align][/align][/align][/align][/align]
#54
01-16-2007, 01:40 PM
RE: HAHAHAHAHAHA Corvette SS WHAT?????
ORIGINAL: MG42pillbox
1961?
Chrysler already had cars made for performance by then sorry. They might have had a different image or advertisement campaign, but they were performance cars from what the designers designed them for, thus influencing other manufacturers to make what happened in that era a reality. Chrysler made the leaps In racing engine technology and that is the bases of all performance oriented American cars. They start with normal cars and upgrade engines first.
Your year correction does not change the fact that Chrysler did it first. The Corvette started with a 6 and had to play catch up real fast and has yet to stop. J
The Chevy offer is nice but much too little, and much too late. Chrysler was even more in 61 and already made engine more capable and/or even made the same power per ci easier.
Oh and by the way the SS package Impala wasn’t from the factory, it was a dealer install. The factory engine was 409 with 11 to 1 compression ratio rated at 368hp at 5800RPM and could be ordered without the SS package.
*Chrysler already had 392 Hemi making similar displacement power with less compression 4 years earlier.
*11 to 1 compression 409 made 368 factory HP in 1961 @ 5800 RPM and needed dual exhaust to make the accomplishment.
*10 to 1 compression 392 made 345hp in 1957 @ only 4600 RPM. LOL…
Oh and in 1961 the optional 413 made 400 Horse power factory, came standard with 375 Again Sorry to disappoint you.
So much more to go
ORIGINAL: DevilsReject
The 300C was first built in 57, not 56....and it was considered a luxury car/sedan, not a performance model. Same with the Chrysler 300F, only it was a 1960's model, not a 61. The '60 300F had an optional 400hp motor, but I believe it was only offered in like a dozen models...By Chrysler's OWN definition, those cars were never "muscle" cars..
The Corvette had almost 300hp as early as 1957-58.....and the '61 Impala SShad a motor option for 425hp.
The AMC Rebel is one of the very earliest muscle cars, if not the first. Debuted in '57 with around 250hp, but it was the first hardtop sedan to be designated a "muscle" or "performance" car. This company would eventually become a part of what is now Chrysler.
ORIGINAL: MG42pillbox
No ones talking about pony cares but you, I don’t even really care for pony cares, I epically don’t care for old fords or chevys that is for sure. So what exactly does that have to do with anything here? Oh and by the way the 61 Chrysler 300F 413 max wedge dual quad 380+ horse power was the First muscle car. But only more in-depth enthusiasts would understand that. If car histories were actually fair with Chrysler instead of trying to discredit them, the first official muscle car would be the 1956 300C oh and it had a Hemi Thanks. And if you want to discredit that car in order to make GM look better than the 64 Belvedere was the first muscle car. There would be no racing, no muscle, and no race cars in America as early as it happened without Chrysler.
So what was GM doing at this time? I guess what they do best, (playing catch up). Thanks for bringing all that up though.
No ones talking about pony cares but you, I don’t even really care for pony cares, I epically don’t care for old fords or chevys that is for sure. So what exactly does that have to do with anything here? Oh and by the way the 61 Chrysler 300F 413 max wedge dual quad 380+ horse power was the First muscle car. But only more in-depth enthusiasts would understand that. If car histories were actually fair with Chrysler instead of trying to discredit them, the first official muscle car would be the 1956 300C oh and it had a Hemi Thanks. And if you want to discredit that car in order to make GM look better than the 64 Belvedere was the first muscle car. There would be no racing, no muscle, and no race cars in America as early as it happened without Chrysler.
So what was GM doing at this time? I guess what they do best, (playing catch up). Thanks for bringing all that up though.
The Corvette had almost 300hp as early as 1957-58.....and the '61 Impala SShad a motor option for 425hp.
The AMC Rebel is one of the very earliest muscle cars, if not the first. Debuted in '57 with around 250hp, but it was the first hardtop sedan to be designated a "muscle" or "performance" car. This company would eventually become a part of what is now Chrysler.
1961?
Chrysler already had cars made for performance by then sorry. They might have had a different image or advertisement campaign, but they were performance cars from what the designers designed them for, thus influencing other manufacturers to make what happened in that era a reality. Chrysler made the leaps In racing engine technology and that is the bases of all performance oriented American cars. They start with normal cars and upgrade engines first.
Your year correction does not change the fact that Chrysler did it first. The Corvette started with a 6 and had to play catch up real fast and has yet to stop. J
The Chevy offer is nice but much too little, and much too late. Chrysler was even more in 61 and already made engine more capable and/or even made the same power per ci easier.
Oh and by the way the SS package Impala wasn’t from the factory, it was a dealer install. The factory engine was 409 with 11 to 1 compression ratio rated at 368hp at 5800RPM and could be ordered without the SS package.
*Chrysler already had 392 Hemi making similar displacement power with less compression 4 years earlier.
*11 to 1 compression 409 made 368 factory HP in 1961 @ 5800 RPM and needed dual exhaust to make the accomplishment.
*10 to 1 compression 392 made 345hp in 1957 @ only 4600 RPM. LOL…
Oh and in 1961 the optional 413 made 400 Horse power factory, came standard with 375 Again Sorry to disappoint you.
So much more to go
in an effort to prevent this from looking like a mindless fanboy site with members who cant admit that a company other than Chrysler makes performance cars, im shutting this one down...
