1974 Trans Am SD-455 full-throttle acceleration

[AndersonRacing44]

just rebuilt a SD 455 from a 74' trans am for my 72 firebird. these motors SCREAM

[supergooddeal]

I hear lots of motor but no exhaust. Are you running dual mufflers? Sweet ride by the way.

[Ratmouth66]

DAAAMN!

Car's got a lotta spunk!

Amazing how these 35+ year old cars can still throw you back in your seat better than most modern sports cars haha

[camirocz]

@Ratmouth66 they re nice but not that fast more hype than actually fast they were high 13 second cars at 104 mph.Quick for the 70s but not by todays standards.They handled really well for that time as well.

[tjfreak]

@camirocz I agree with all of what you said, inefficient pigs they were,but wouldn't you say that 30 + years later

& the amazing air & fuel technology advances,lighter materials, more efficient combustion,that the pony cars of today should be in the mid 11's ? at least

[tjfreak]

@camirocz On the quarter-mile Camaro SS full quarter-mile went by in 13.1 seconds at 110.4 mph.Mustang GT (on all-season Pirelli P Zero Nero tires) matched the Camaro SS's blast to 60 mph by hitting that speed in an identical 5.1 seconds from a standstill with the traction control turned off (4.8 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). But the quarter-mile took another two-tenths to complete with a slightly lower trap speed, 13.3 seconds at 107.3 mph.

[camirocz]

@tjfreak new mustang gt with 5.0 is much faster than a camaro ss,the gt is in the 12s for sure at over 112 mph

[tjfreak]

@camirocz These numbers are on a 2011 Gt & a 2011 Camaro SS, I don't care about either car ! I would just think the new muscle would be substantially faster than the 60' s 70's muscle...I'm not seein it, kind of a let down imo.. boxy ,heavy & a couple seconds better..all of them challenger mustang camaro

[camirocz]

@tjfreak do you realize a stock 2011 mustang gt going mid 12s will kill any 1960 or 1970s muscle car like it was parked.Most cars from that era were 14s and a few high 13s.Lets not compare handlinmg or braking either,or top speed.Newer is much better 100 per cent always true!

[retained4321]

@cauyou dont know shit about old power dumb ass... 1966 cobra did 12.7 quarters and 4.2 sec from 0-60. would shit alllll over a 2011 mustang gt. chevy 396's made 50 more horeses than the gt and tthat was 40 years ago so shut the fuck and kearn what your talking about

[camirocz]

@retained4321 Asshole, you werent even born when these cars were around and i was driving them .12

.7 Doesnt shit all over a 5.0 2011 gt. Aa camaro ss with a 396, never went better than 13s so buckle up that trash talking mouth of yours.

[camirocz]

@retained4321 when did a 396 make 50 mopre horses tha a new mustang?the top 396 s made 375 h,.p at the engine whereas a new mustang makes 412 at the crankso get your facts straight before you stretch that toilet mouth of yours open.12.7 does not shit all over a stock 2012 gt .Thery have run as fast as 12.6 and the boss 12.35 .

[80v8camaro]

@camirocz no... the top 396 was in a 66 corvette , it was a L78 with L89 aluminium head, should produce around 425hp..... Some people clamed that you can order it in Camaro or chevelle but I dont know if its true.

A 69 camaro with a 396 with modern sticky tire and headers can do 13s or lower in quarter mile.

The quarter mile time claimed by the factory was very high cause of the shity polyglass tire they used back then...

[retained4321]

@camirocz u dumb bitch, knowledge has nothing to do with age so thats irrelevant 1st off, and i never said anything about maro's in the 1st place your retarded ass brought them in when they were never discussed. i said cobra u non reading OLD fucker. and yes bitch ass punk COBRAS ran 12.7's which is faster then the 2010 maro, charger and more newer cars than that fagot!!! i can go on and on about cars from the 60 & 70's that eat new cars when it cums to the track dickhead

[GMisurdaddy]

@retained4321 You guys aren't seriously arguing over "magazine" test results are you? LMAO get a life you pathetic faggots!! LMAO REAL world is what matters! not some "test" done by a fucking magazine or car show! These "tests" are VERY inconsistent with REAL world conditions. A stock early LS1 f-body has been quoted at mid 13's yet they dipped into the 12's routinely...STOCK.

[retained4321]

@GMisurdaddy suck a dick u fucking fag bitch, dont worry about what the fuck im talking about worry about yo bitch if u got 1, pretty sure she sucking everybody else dick cuz a fag like u worry about too much other shit that has nothing to do with ur bitch ass..... be Cool BitchBoy!!!!

[GMisurdaddy]

@retained4321 I have read "tests" for my SSEi saying it does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds..Yet mine did it in 6.4 seconds consistently, with just a drop in K&N filter and partially gutted airbox, and I highly doubt an airfilter should knock down my 0-60 time by more than a full second...which is contrary to what's been stated by these so called "tests" Get your own Cobra or Camaro or wtf ever muscle car, and make up your OWN mind what it truly does. BTW it's nothing personal, you're all dumb on this page

[DraikonZ3]

@camirocz No shit.... Newer technology.

[Ratmouth66]

@camirocz Idk, high 13s for a factory stock car is pretty impressive for me, aside from it being 40 years old. I just saw a video of the new Boss 302s and they run mid 12s-ish. Also tires were horrible back then, i wonder if new tires would do anything for that time. Still, whether classic muscle is the fastest on the road or not, its still the most fun on the road ^_^ haha

[ztwntyn8]

@Ratmouth66 I'd say My car won't hook till 70 with bad tires. With good tires I can come out at wot.... I'd say new radials are close if not better than the old slicks. My guess is that 0-60 times would benifit by about a second and qtr mile about .5 to .8 imo and that's on big block or big torque engines in light cars.