I found a web page that shows the performance stats for a 70 Coronet 440 as mid 14's and less than 100 mph through the 1/4 mile. Do a search for Dodge Coronet 440. It is at How Stuff Works. I personally remember seeing those cars run between mid 13's and mid 15's, depending on driver and tuning.
I would dispute that. That is a two ton car. One of my friends had a Hemi Charger that never ran in the elevens. And his car had headers and slicks. There is simply no way one of those vintage sleds could get into the elevens. Stock big block muscle cars of that era could not run that fast.
Nah, not a chance. The best that car could do would be a mid 13 second quarter mile unless you went inside the engine. The 2012 Mustang V6 runs a stock mid 13. As much as I loved my old Boss, it wouldn't get close to any of the new breed of performance cars. People buy and love those old cars for the nostalgia, not the performance. You could make it go fast in a straight line with a couple of grand in the engine, but it's never going to follow any of the new cars around a corner
@RHO1953 Bullshit, my grandfather had a 440 coronet auto with short rear gearing from the factory. He bolted on a pair of hoosiers and it went low 12's first pass, he let air out of the tires and it went 11.9's, that's stock with slicks. Granted, it was running near 7k rpm through the traps but it went 11.9's. The stock tires on classic muscle spun halfway down the track. On my grandfathers old videos there was also a stock hemi dart running 11.7's on slicks.
Get real. As much fun and nostalgic as it is to see these cars and remember them, they are pigs compared to new vehicles. I had a 69 Boss 302 Mustang. I loved the car, it was great, but it can't compare in any way to a late model Mustang. A late model GT is faster, handles better, rides better, smoother, more comfortable, easier starting, more reliable, gets better mileage, brakes better. It is the same with all these old cars. Look at that big pig wallow around the pylons. It is a boat anchor.
When your new Mustang is rotting in a junk yard people will still be seeking out these cars and as for the new chargers my son owns 2011 dodge challenger srt8 it can't catch my 340 dart swinger on it's best day and its stock all but gas charged shocks and 245/60/14 radial tire !....questions? HA HA HA
To all the nay sayers, negative folks & general strokes: We're you even there when these beasts were rusting away in the mid 70's? The people who love these cars tried like hell to keep them going despite waitin' in a gas line for a couple hours. We drove them 'cause they were WAY better than the new 76 Mustang II or the Vegas that was gettin' shoved down our throats. Those aforementioned cars were truly P(ieces)OS and if you didn't live then, shut the F up, you don't know squat.
@MrPFFlyer yeah, I was there. I had one, all my friends had cars like that. I had a 69 Mustang Boss 302, my chums had Hemi Chargers, Ford Torino SCJ's, Challengers, Camaros, you name it. They are fond memories but don't compare to a new car. A new Mustang V6 will outrun most of them.
@RHO1953 Say what you want, get some modern suspension components under a car like this and some fat street tires front and rear and it'll outrun most cars including todays camaros and mustangs etc, especially a mopar big block. I've seen decently built 340 small block dusters/darts etc. outrun c5 vettes by buslengths....
@iplayveryloud i dont think he claimed it came that way. it wasnt unusual for us to keep the 440 and sub a 383 in its place when we parted company with these cars back in the day. thats why people go ape for the numbers bull shit. 68-71 440hp engines had excellent foundry castings. choice stuff for future builds.
I owned a '69 GTX w/the high performance 440. You guys take your "fast" engines and put them in that 4,000 lb. car and see if they can move the beast like the 440 did.
@SOFSoldier1 my very point, these tricked out cars of today don't have as much steel to move down the road as the TRUE muscle cars of old. They just can't compare...apples to oranges.
Anyone performance orientated enough to enjoy gauges and numbers and stuff like that has the flip over this dash board. It makes the driver feel as though he is running the thing, not a computer. 1:45 - 1:57
I used to own one and sold it for $800 in 1982, had 383 Super Commando engine :-( Biggest regret of a car owner ever. Now I can't find one for under $50k.
Production line stock 440/4 barrel cars trapped in the mid to upper 90 MPH range through the 1/4 mile, which my 2010 VW GTI can also do. I've changed my e-mail notifications so that I get none in order to avoid having to deal with clueless people who prefer myth to fact. These cars were built more than 40 years ago and simply aren't that fast by today's standards - regardless of what tires they're fitted with.
@harddrivin1le You're comparing apples to oranges, who cares if your GTI's faster, it's not even the same league.
There's plenty of newer model, bone stock cars faster than 40+ year old muscle cars.
2010 technology vs 1969 technology. <<< ppfff WHAT!?
But who's gonna look at your common everyday Sally the 16 year old high school cheerleaders hurr durr 2010 GTI when it's sitting next to a classy '69 GTX?
@harddrivin1le dude you need to take that vee dub's nut's out your mouth ! against a plymouth gtx ?!, even if you won (not gonna happen dude it's a fuckin' gti ) you still lost !
@harddrivin1le and yet nobody cares. and who in their right mind is gonna give a rats ass about that teutonic pile of yours 40 years from now? same answer, nobody. face it, your new millenial commuter was born with no style.
@iplayveryloud Well, I said "about". I tend to look at the wheelbase, height and width of a car more than the overall length. I look at that as being mainly cosmetic. Taking that into consideration, the GTX is about the same size ass the New Challenger. But looking at overall size, of course, the GTX is bigger. The "Fitness" comes down to proportions. The New Challenger has shorter overhangs and is taller, making it look "fat".
@Mikejesmike If what I found on the car is to be believed, and there are reasons it could be, the GTX weighed 3460lbs and opposed to the 2011 Challenger R/T's roughly 4200lbs.
Some reasons are the GTX has much less in it. The GTX was not designed to withstand a speeding SUV. There's less equipment. The new Challenger uses needlessly overbuilt German engineering.
Even though the tires sucked the 1/4 mile MPH will be very close to the same with bias ply or slicks, a 3.23 or 3.91 rear ratio. The 1/4 mile speed indicates the amount of power the car has to the wheels and really doesn’t change much due to traction or gearing. A 1969 Plymouth GTX 440 with a factory tune, through the mufflers would run about 96 mph in the quarter. That equates to a minimum elapsed time for that speed of 14.09 seconds. Its just not capable of running 13’s in street trim.
is it me or do the tires from back then look really cheap? they (and in other vintage road tests from like 69-71) seem to almost grind into dust as soon as you brake...
Say what you want, blame it all on the tires, but a lot of the problem has to do with power:weight ratio. This car is nearly 1000lbs heavier than my car. It won't get away that easily, and with the sloppy cornering of a car that heavy with rear wheel drive, I could keep up easily on a road track.
@wildbloodydragon Stock for stock, the outdated suspension of the GTX vs. the sportier suspension of the GSR. The quick take-offs of the GSR coming out of the corners compared to the slower low speed take-offs of the heavy V-8, the higher rev limit of the GSR allowing for more top-end power. I could come up with more, but I'm not arguing anymore over something I posted a month ago. I've already said that for it's time the GTX is a beautiful car, which is what brought me to this video.
@PsychoFreke That'd really depend on the track. Stock for stock GS-R has a serious lack of power, and GTX has a serious problem with tire grip. On a tight track GS-R has an obvious advantage but on a power track the GTX will smoke the GS-R.
@sloman571 You must be really bored to go 3 or 4 pages back and dig up my comment from 4 months ago. If you knew anything you would know that displacement doesn't mean anything. That would be like saying a 2.4L Dodge Stratus could beat a 1.6L Civic Si B-Series. Anyone who understands that the two engines are tuned differently, have different power bands, different curb weights, different gear ratios, and completely different suspension would know that your displacement argument is ludicris.
@sloman571 Learn more about cars before you post such ignorant comments. I also owned a '74 Dodge Dart w/an LA 318 Chrysler Motor and dual barrel carb. If you know anything about Chrysler motors, you'll know the 318 was a 5.2L. My GSR could beat that Dodge Dart. That's not saying the 318 wasn't a powerful motor. I left many imports behind in that car...
@chevyman5436 That statement stood out for me too... it reminded me of the eight coil packs and spark plugs I just replaced on my friends Ford 5.4L Triton engine.
Integra? 4 CYLS?, foreign cars??!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Detroit Muscle only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would much rather hear the heartbeat of a 440 instead of a 4 cyl "Briggs and Stratton!
If you look at today's cars, we've come a long way. Stock 0-60 time on my 96 Integra GSR is 7.1 secs on a 4 cyl 30mpg car with better cornering. Impressive considering that's the exact same stock time for this GTX that likely gets half the gas mileage. Nevertheless, I can't deny that the GTX is a beautiful car. I know some of the new 4 cyls can keep up, but there's still something about the feel and sound of well-tuned classic muscle that makes my heart pump and brings a smile to my face! =)
"Gitix"? It never occurred to me (or, I suspect, anyone else) to pronounce it that way! I like the slight-oversteer comment! Such a cool car. Apparently cheaper than ever to buy now as everyone is broke. I'll have a Hemi with a 4 speed in black, thanks.
I wish i could own this car, thanks to the rich asses that rather pay $800,000 and up for these cars and the little guys like me could never afford one of these now. I seen these back in the early and mid 70's and the guys that had them, cared for them like newborn babies. There are a lot of guy that own these still but you wont see em out the garage or sittin in their driveway. My father is a heavy Mopar guy and he told me these GTX's are like bullets.
Sweet video. For their day, the GTX was one of the best handling big-inch cars on the road. Anyone else notice the at-length description of the Air Grabber system that this one didn't have, even though they said it did? It's a little hard to squeeze that fiberglass box in there with the A/C compressor installed.
@cabraden1 First off, this is a GTX, not a GTO. And yes, they did have an air intake system available - known as the Air Grabber. It's a fiberglass box that attaches to the bottom of the hood and draws air through the tops of the bulges in the hood. If the Air Grabber was chosen, orange mesh inserts replaced the black solid aluminum ones that were standard. Speaking of standard, the Air Grabber was standard with the Hemi in '69, option code N96. Trust me, I owned one, hence my screen name.
Over 7 sec to get to 60 miles per hour. 3 seconds of the time was spent just burning rubber. Tire technology wasn't the best for gripping back then. Rubber compounds were so much different too. I imaging with the proper grip the 0-60 times would have been below 5 sec.
Pretty cool shake-down for the "Gettix"! My modified '69' 440 X hits the 100mph mark in about 7.2 seconds. Of course,thats with slicks,at the track! 60' times are in the 1.54-1.56 sec. range. Randy B.
a 3750 pound, 1963/64 Mopar 426 max wedge could run Mid 12's with slicks. 4.56 gears. 100percent stock motor.
summitdrinker 6 days ago
I found a web page that shows the performance stats for a 70 Coronet 440 as mid 14's and less than 100 mph through the 1/4 mile. Do a search for Dodge Coronet 440. It is at How Stuff Works. I personally remember seeing those cars run between mid 13's and mid 15's, depending on driver and tuning.
RHO1953 1 week ago
I would dispute that. That is a two ton car. One of my friends had a Hemi Charger that never ran in the elevens. And his car had headers and slicks. There is simply no way one of those vintage sleds could get into the elevens. Stock big block muscle cars of that era could not run that fast.
RHO1953 1 week ago
thumbs up if you was looking for nvidia gtx graphic card
UunonMopo 3 weeks ago
@UunonMopo You are amongst petrol heads here - I don't think you belong. Peace.
fifty1fifty74 2 weeks ago
yep you can upgrade these old mopars suspensions and make they handle much better. And it's not hard, and it's really not big bucks to to do it.
summitdrinker 3 weeks ago
Nah, not a chance. The best that car could do would be a mid 13 second quarter mile unless you went inside the engine. The 2012 Mustang V6 runs a stock mid 13. As much as I loved my old Boss, it wouldn't get close to any of the new breed of performance cars. People buy and love those old cars for the nostalgia, not the performance. You could make it go fast in a straight line with a couple of grand in the engine, but it's never going to follow any of the new cars around a corner
RHO1953 3 weeks ago
@RHO1953 Bullshit, my grandfather had a 440 coronet auto with short rear gearing from the factory. He bolted on a pair of hoosiers and it went low 12's first pass, he let air out of the tires and it went 11.9's, that's stock with slicks. Granted, it was running near 7k rpm through the traps but it went 11.9's. The stock tires on classic muscle spun halfway down the track. On my grandfathers old videos there was also a stock hemi dart running 11.7's on slicks.
SirKowalski666 1 week ago
Back to squealsville.
dalotel 4 weeks ago
Get real. As much fun and nostalgic as it is to see these cars and remember them, they are pigs compared to new vehicles. I had a 69 Boss 302 Mustang. I loved the car, it was great, but it can't compare in any way to a late model Mustang. A late model GT is faster, handles better, rides better, smoother, more comfortable, easier starting, more reliable, gets better mileage, brakes better. It is the same with all these old cars. Look at that big pig wallow around the pylons. It is a boat anchor.
RHO1953 1 month ago
When your new Mustang is rotting in a junk yard people will still be seeking out these cars and as for the new chargers my son owns 2011 dodge challenger srt8 it can't catch my 340 dart swinger on it's best day and its stock all but gas charged shocks and 245/60/14 radial tire !....questions? HA HA HA
224wilson 1 month ago
To all the nay sayers, negative folks & general strokes: We're you even there when these beasts were rusting away in the mid 70's? The people who love these cars tried like hell to keep them going despite waitin' in a gas line for a couple hours. We drove them 'cause they were WAY better than the new 76 Mustang II or the Vegas that was gettin' shoved down our throats. Those aforementioned cars were truly P(ieces)OS and if you didn't live then, shut the F up, you don't know squat.
MrPFFlyer 2 months ago
@MrPFFlyer yeah, I was there. I had one, all my friends had cars like that. I had a 69 Mustang Boss 302, my chums had Hemi Chargers, Ford Torino SCJ's, Challengers, Camaros, you name it. They are fond memories but don't compare to a new car. A new Mustang V6 will outrun most of them.
RHO1953 1 month ago
@RHO1953 Say what you want, get some modern suspension components under a car like this and some fat street tires front and rear and it'll outrun most cars including todays camaros and mustangs etc, especially a mopar big block. I've seen decently built 340 small block dusters/darts etc. outrun c5 vettes by buslengths....
SirKowalski666 3 weeks ago
None of these old lead sleds are comparable to their modern counterpoints. The new Mustang will run circles out of any of the old classics.
RHO1953 2 months ago
@RHO1953 Only in safety and fuel economy, the two most uninteresting properties of a car.
doritostheking 1 month ago
i like how it says it has an air grabber when it dosent. LOL
hottrodmike 3 months ago
"It aint no HEMI mama" LMAO.......love this show and the catchy phrases.
olechevy 3 months ago
I miss my '70 GTX 440 Commando. I still dream about it....35 years later.
Sterling77XDm40 3 months ago
@Sterling77XDm40 - My first car was a 70 GTX....I feel your pain bro....
wahahn 1 month ago
man i was looking for a Nvidia product
lipevolcom2 4 months ago
no air grabber....
linmayu 4 months ago
Anyone know what racetrack these tests where done on? It looks like a fun one.
Jabberdau 5 months ago
@Jabberdau They used several different tracks for the show, but I think this one was at Grattan Raceway near Belding, MI.
egrand1508 4 months ago
Loved the part when the presenter says "The Driver is running the thing, not the computer".
VZLNbiker 5 months ago
@iplayveryloud i dont think he claimed it came that way. it wasnt unusual for us to keep the 440 and sub a 383 in its place when we parted company with these cars back in the day. thats why people go ape for the numbers bull shit. 68-71 440hp engines had excellent foundry castings. choice stuff for future builds.
Tarten46 5 months ago
loving the "slight hint of oversteer" at 4:42 as he's looking through the passengers window haha
mcldcrg 5 months ago
haha around 4:53 you can hear bud turning a page
vpiedra1 6 months ago
I owned a '69 GTX w/the high performance 440. You guys take your "fast" engines and put them in that 4,000 lb. car and see if they can move the beast like the 440 did.
mpitsas 7 months ago
@mpitsas my 392 Hemi 2011 Challenger weighs 4,172 lbs and runs 12.4 and 470 Horsepower....questions?
SOFSoldier1 2 months ago
@SOFSoldier1 my very point, these tricked out cars of today don't have as much steel to move down the road as the TRUE muscle cars of old. They just can't compare...apples to oranges.
mpitsas 2 months ago
lol gauges and numbers and STUFF like that lmao
stonecoldtrk 7 months ago
I must have been high the day I sold my X :' (
imexru2 7 months ago
I never knew the GTX could handle like that. Pretty impressive for a car that size, especially with the "Polyglide" tires.
whackamolechamp 8 months ago
Anyone performance orientated enough to enjoy gauges and numbers and stuff like that has the flip over this dash board. It makes the driver feel as though he is running the thing, not a computer. 1:45 - 1:57
MrOdogowen 8 months ago
I used to own one and sold it for $800 in 1982, had 383 Super Commando engine :-( Biggest regret of a car owner ever. Now I can't find one for under $50k.
Mix2rduane 10 months ago
I like how the narrator had a sense of humor, lol. Great car though. I want one!
SeeleyBooth1990 10 months ago
hermoso
Rockergrounge 10 months ago
a 69 1/2 road runner 440 six pak weighed about 3700 pounds.
this GTX weighs more
summitdrinker 10 months ago
Production line stock 440/4 barrel cars trapped in the mid to upper 90 MPH range through the 1/4 mile, which my 2010 VW GTI can also do. I've changed my e-mail notifications so that I get none in order to avoid having to deal with clueless people who prefer myth to fact. These cars were built more than 40 years ago and simply aren't that fast by today's standards - regardless of what tires they're fitted with.
harddrivin1le 10 months ago
@harddrivin1le You're comparing apples to oranges, who cares if your GTI's faster, it's not even the same league.
There's plenty of newer model, bone stock cars faster than 40+ year old muscle cars.
2010 technology vs 1969 technology. <<< ppfff WHAT!?
But who's gonna look at your common everyday Sally the 16 year old high school cheerleaders hurr durr 2010 GTI when it's sitting next to a classy '69 GTX?
Nobody.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@harddrivin1le dude you need to take that vee dub's nut's out your mouth ! against a plymouth gtx ?!, even if you won (not gonna happen dude it's a fuckin' gti ) you still lost !
sloman571 10 months ago
Another four four zero
jringhoffer 10 months ago
My bone stock 2010 VW GTI (4 cylinder turbo) is faster than that so called "muscle car."
harddrivin1le 10 months ago
@harddrivin1le because it wasn't a hemi. Your VW is also ugly.
iloveduchess 10 months ago
@iloveduchess
Excuse me?
The Hemis were dogs too by modern standards.
The "lightest" models (e.g. stripped Road Runners) weighed more than 3,800 pounds and the best running,
"dyno tuned" examples from the period (when they were new and production line stock) had a hard time producing 315 HP at the drive-wheels.
harddrivin1le 10 months ago
@harddrivin1le Alright so put a 2011 GTI next to this on a 1/4 mile.
iloveduchess 10 months ago
@harddrivin1le roadrunners were light weights starting at 3,200+lbs and even with the big hemi it was more around 3,500lbs
jingq2 10 months ago
@jingq2 The Hemi itself weighed 792lbs, look at some old road test articles - these weighed all of 4000lbs.
mustangcharger 8 months ago
@harddrivin1le another fiction. The 426 Hemi dyno'd at 400 RWHP; do an internet search.
SOFSoldier1 2 months ago
@harddrivin1le and yet nobody cares. and who in their right mind is gonna give a rats ass about that teutonic pile of yours 40 years from now? same answer, nobody. face it, your new millenial commuter was born with no style.
liljgoneman 3 months ago
@liljgoneman ??
blackpanterfuck 3 months ago
@harddrivin1le and 1. You're gay. 2. My 470 horsepower 392 Challenger runs in the 12s...and I would blow you out my tailpipe.
SOFSoldier1 2 months ago
xDDDD 88 ( heil hitler ) gute bewertungen xDDDDD un geile karre
booooose 10 months ago
375 hp at 4600 , thats crazy, what about the torque
gubourn 11 months ago
haha i love the music
Rustyrunaway 11 months ago
well, nowdays you should definetely upgrade to disc brakes :P
maybe a bit harder suspension and it's good to go
GIwillo 11 months ago
Very very very best than any eurotrash! or japshit!!
deeckhardt 11 months ago
@deeckhardt Nice, very white-trashy of you.
rojman123 11 months ago
@rojman123 What means (white-trashy)?
deeckhardt 10 months ago
this cars weighs 3800 to 4000 pounds
summitdrinker 1 year ago
Haha, goldfish bowl...cause EVERYBODY takes their goldfish for rides around the block at 50 mph! I'm sold on this beast!
bigdog5986 1 year ago
@iplayveryloud Well, I said "about". I tend to look at the wheelbase, height and width of a car more than the overall length. I look at that as being mainly cosmetic. Taking that into consideration, the GTX is about the same size ass the New Challenger. But looking at overall size, of course, the GTX is bigger. The "Fitness" comes down to proportions. The New Challenger has shorter overhangs and is taller, making it look "fat".
DocWolph 1 year ago
This thing is about as big as the New Challenger.
DocWolph 1 year ago
@DocWolph Probably weighs about the same, though the Challenger RT and SRT8 make quite a bit more power.
Mikejesmike 1 year ago
@Mikejesmike If what I found on the car is to be believed, and there are reasons it could be, the GTX weighed 3460lbs and opposed to the 2011 Challenger R/T's roughly 4200lbs.
Some reasons are the GTX has much less in it. The GTX was not designed to withstand a speeding SUV. There's less equipment. The new Challenger uses needlessly overbuilt German engineering.
DocWolph 1 year ago
makes me wanna try this in my 69 Roadrunner. Although mines got alittle more under the hood. :)
maplestory00 1 year ago
"sucks big chucks of atmosphere"=priceless.
Enigmalast 1 year ago
the old gitex....lol
napolean34 1 year ago
Even though the tires sucked the 1/4 mile MPH will be very close to the same with bias ply or slicks, a 3.23 or 3.91 rear ratio. The 1/4 mile speed indicates the amount of power the car has to the wheels and really doesn’t change much due to traction or gearing. A 1969 Plymouth GTX 440 with a factory tune, through the mufflers would run about 96 mph in the quarter. That equates to a minimum elapsed time for that speed of 14.09 seconds. Its just not capable of running 13’s in street trim.
DONDIVA1969 1 year ago
@DONDIVA1969 Motor Trend magazine in 1/69 issue tested a 69 GTX, 440 magnum, automatic tranny, 4;10 gears factory tires
it did a 13.70@102.8 MPH 1/4 mile also Super stock magazine tested a 69 Coronet R/T 440 magnum 4 speed, 4;10 gears 13.83@102.27 Mph
go on the net and do a search : 50 fastest muscle cars, I helped make the list years ago
summitdrinker 1 year ago
is it me or do the tires from back then look really cheap? they (and in other vintage road tests from like 69-71) seem to almost grind into dust as soon as you brake...
Corkoth55 1 year ago
@Corkoth55 The worst tire now is easily better than the best then. Plus, bias-plys just inherently suck.
FusilliJerry82 1 year ago
@FusilliJerry82 i just noticed that (like i said) they turn to dust xD
Corkoth55 1 year ago
with 3.91 or 4.10 gears, modern street slicks, and a good tune up. 13.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile are possible
summitdrinker 1 year ago
@iplayveryloud
Say what you want, blame it all on the tires, but a lot of the problem has to do with power:weight ratio. This car is nearly 1000lbs heavier than my car. It won't get away that easily, and with the sloppy cornering of a car that heavy with rear wheel drive, I could keep up easily on a road track.
PsychoFreke 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PsychoFreke
PROTIP: No one gives a fuck about your imaginary Honda.
loldecepticonlol 1 year ago
@PsychoFreke Or so you would think.
I can tell you know very little about road racing.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon Stock for stock, the outdated suspension of the GTX vs. the sportier suspension of the GSR. The quick take-offs of the GSR coming out of the corners compared to the slower low speed take-offs of the heavy V-8, the higher rev limit of the GSR allowing for more top-end power. I could come up with more, but I'm not arguing anymore over something I posted a month ago. I've already said that for it's time the GTX is a beautiful car, which is what brought me to this video.
PsychoFreke 1 year ago
@PsychoFreke That'd really depend on the track. Stock for stock GS-R has a serious lack of power, and GTX has a serious problem with tire grip. On a tight track GS-R has an obvious advantage but on a power track the GTX will smoke the GS-R.
Modified they can be really close on any track.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon
I can definitely agree with this.
PsychoFreke 1 year ago
@PsychoFreke higher rev limit don't mean shit when you have 1.8 liters of displacement !the gsr's motor should be a starter for the 440!
sloman571 10 months ago
@sloman571 You must be really bored to go 3 or 4 pages back and dig up my comment from 4 months ago. If you knew anything you would know that displacement doesn't mean anything. That would be like saying a 2.4L Dodge Stratus could beat a 1.6L Civic Si B-Series. Anyone who understands that the two engines are tuned differently, have different power bands, different curb weights, different gear ratios, and completely different suspension would know that your displacement argument is ludicris.
PsychoFreke 10 months ago
@sloman571 Learn more about cars before you post such ignorant comments. I also owned a '74 Dodge Dart w/an LA 318 Chrysler Motor and dual barrel carb. If you know anything about Chrysler motors, you'll know the 318 was a 5.2L. My GSR could beat that Dodge Dart. That's not saying the 318 wasn't a powerful motor. I left many imports behind in that car...
PsychoFreke 10 months ago
@sloman571 newer cars also use fuel more efficiently, generating more horsepower with more miles per gallon than the old gas guzzlers.
PsychoFreke 10 months ago
"makes the driver think that hes running the thing, not a computer" ah and not a moment too soon, its like he predicted the future.
chevyman5436 1 year ago
@chevyman5436 That statement stood out for me too... it reminded me of the eight coil packs and spark plugs I just replaced on my friends Ford 5.4L Triton engine.
Fantafare 1 year ago
Integra? 4 CYLS?, foreign cars??!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Detroit Muscle only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would much rather hear the heartbeat of a 440 instead of a 4 cyl "Briggs and Stratton!
roger313111 1 year ago
If you look at today's cars, we've come a long way. Stock 0-60 time on my 96 Integra GSR is 7.1 secs on a 4 cyl 30mpg car with better cornering. Impressive considering that's the exact same stock time for this GTX that likely gets half the gas mileage. Nevertheless, I can't deny that the GTX is a beautiful car. I know some of the new 4 cyls can keep up, but there's still something about the feel and sound of well-tuned classic muscle that makes my heart pump and brings a smile to my face! =)
PsychoFreke 1 year ago
"Gitix"? It never occurred to me (or, I suspect, anyone else) to pronounce it that way! I like the slight-oversteer comment! Such a cool car. Apparently cheaper than ever to buy now as everyone is broke. I'll have a Hemi with a 4 speed in black, thanks.
boddamese 1 year ago
Wonderful old car. Hopefully, my GTX looks as good as this one.
CaptainMark87 1 year ago
RussiTonkari 77,
No abs... from 60 mph they stop in 124-135 feet as other tests..
latemodelmopar93,
Actually these cars handle real good,I blow away new cars on twisties around here..
****
0-60 is 4 second range with a 440..tire spin=7's...I have a set of 275's and it out runs my new SRT-8 Challenger !!
aloc001 1 year ago
I wish i could own this car, thanks to the rich asses that rather pay $800,000 and up for these cars and the little guys like me could never afford one of these now. I seen these back in the early and mid 70's and the guys that had them, cared for them like newborn babies. There are a lot of guy that own these still but you wont see em out the garage or sittin in their driveway. My father is a heavy Mopar guy and he told me these GTX's are like bullets.
BNforever2009 1 year ago
Sweet video. For their day, the GTX was one of the best handling big-inch cars on the road. Anyone else notice the at-length description of the Air Grabber system that this one didn't have, even though they said it did? It's a little hard to squeeze that fiberglass box in there with the A/C compressor installed.
69HemiGTX 1 year ago
@69HemiGTX
1969 GTO did not have any type of functional hood scoop with air flow through the hood. The side-mounted intakes on hood are not functional.
cabraden1 1 year ago
@cabraden1 First off, this is a GTX, not a GTO. And yes, they did have an air intake system available - known as the Air Grabber. It's a fiberglass box that attaches to the bottom of the hood and draws air through the tops of the bulges in the hood. If the Air Grabber was chosen, orange mesh inserts replaced the black solid aluminum ones that were standard. Speaking of standard, the Air Grabber was standard with the Hemi in '69, option code N96. Trust me, I owned one, hence my screen name.
69HemiGTX 1 year ago
@69HemiGTX
I meant GTX but typed GTO.
cabraden1 1 year ago
@cabraden1 yes they did if it were a Ram air 3 or 4 motors.
Bag0fRats 1 year ago
"slight" oversteer? lol
latemodelmopar93 1 year ago
what a sweeeet rumble it has
StoneCold75 1 year ago
"..this 440 breathes great big chunks of atmosphere..." classic!!
culcun 1 year ago
holy shit those brakings...
RusiTonkkari77 1 year ago
yes, only slight oversteer... HAHAHAHAHA!
mcelhenyma 2 years ago
Bud's voice?
FATMIKED5183 2 years ago
"Wide Polyglas Tires" hahahahaahaaa X)
F6HemiCharger 2 years ago
0ne of the best looking mopars of all time!
426brandon 2 years ago
Greate margin of security ahahahah
Raimondo988 2 years ago
" It ain't no Hemi mama but it's quick".
hamtrak 2 years ago
I find it interesting how the GTX was available with the column-shift automatic, were they rarer than the console shift automatic?
Doobie1975 2 years ago
Over 7 sec to get to 60 miles per hour. 3 seconds of the time was spent just burning rubber. Tire technology wasn't the best for gripping back then. Rubber compounds were so much different too. I imaging with the proper grip the 0-60 times would have been below 5 sec.
matrox 2 years ago
I was just thinking the same thing
bigbuggaman 2 years ago
"Gitix" sweet.
rockyPants4000 2 years ago
Pretty cool shake-down for the "Gettix"! My modified '69' 440 X hits the 100mph mark in about 7.2 seconds. Of course,thats with slicks,at the track! 60' times are in the 1.54-1.56 sec. range. Randy B.
randyb53 2 years ago