Mecum Auctions
I was recently perusing the road test summary from the July 1969 issue of Car Life magazine, and it occurred to me that it summarized performance figures for some of the hottest cars of the muscle car era, from the Dodge Hemi Charger to the Boss 429 Mustang to the loudly colored AMC SC/Rambler. How did their acceleration compare in Car Life tests? Let’s take a look.
In order to keep this post relatively digestible, I decided to focus only on 1969 models (about half the cars in the table above are ’68s), and only those models that a reasonable modern reader would consider a muscle car: big-engine intermediates (which Car Life called “Supercars”), big-engine pony cars, and the occasional hot compact. The Road Test Comparator didn’t include the three very muscular cars Car Life had tested in that same issue, so I threw those in as well.
Although the Road Test Comparator lists quarter mile elapsed times, not trap speeds, I figured readers would appreciate also having the speeds through the lights, as well as the 0 to 60 mph times. Those figures, like the quarter-mile elapsed times, “are those recorded by CAR LIFE’s two-man road testing team with the car in showroom stock condition.”
1969 Dodge Super Bee approaching the lights on a dragstrip / Darryl Norenberg
Some of the times are slower than you might expect for a particular car with a given powertrain, which the Car Life editors generally discussed in the text of the applicable test. The most common reason for disappointing performance in this class was traction — bias-ply street tires of this vintage couldn’t handle big engine torque without going up in smoke — but their test cars occasionally suffered engine or transmission woes, some obvious, some not. Unlike some of its rivals (e.g., CARS or Hot Rod), Car Life was not in the business of tweaking its test cars to trim every possible tenth of a second from their quarter-mile ETs. As the editors explained in January 1969:
CAR LIFE’s running battle with factory public relations men is to keep them from “doctoring” a car before we get it (we can tell) or for [sic] trying to supply outright hot rods. Agreed, fast quarter-mile times look good in print (and some magazines rightly base their entire tests on running dragstrip competition among the various makes of cars). We don’t, and for good reason. When we test a “stock” car, we mean showroom stock—not NHRA-stock which allows unlimited amounts spent on tuning and fiddling, plus blueprinting to a hair’s breadth within factory specs.
So, could a well-tweaked blueprinted car with only the driver and no bulky test equipment aboard conceivably have beaten these times? Sure, but that was not the point. These figures are a reasonable indicator of the performance of cars people could actually buy at the time, in stock form, albeit tested by professional drivers in controlled conditions. As it was, the straight-line performance needed no apologies — each of these cars was capable of running the standing quarter mile in less than 15 seconds, making them among the fastest cars in the world at that time.
Here’s the summary:
1969 Dodge Super Bee 440 Six Pack
1969 Dodge Coronet Super Bee with 440 Six Pack and Ramcharger hood / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: July 1969
- Price as tested: $4,868
- Rated output (SAE gross): 390 hp | 490 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.91 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.3 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 13.8 sec. at 104.2 mph
1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429
1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429 / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: July 1969
- Price as tested: $4,868
- Rated output (SAE gross): 375 hp | 410 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.91 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.1 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.09 sec. at 102.85 mph
1969 Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds
1969 Hurst/Olds / Orlando Classic Cars
- Issue: July 1969
- Price as tested: $4,760
- Rated output (SAE gross): 380 hp | 500 lb-ft
- Powertrain: Turbo Hydra-Matic, 3.42 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.2 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.1 sec. at 100.1 mph
1969 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 440
1969 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 440 / Bring a Trailer
- Issue: June 1969
- Price as tested: $3,931
- Rated output (SAE gross): 375 hp | 480 lb-ft
- Powertrain: TorqueFlite, 3.55 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 5.6 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.01 sec. at 103.81 mph
1969 AMC SC/Rambler
1969 AMC SC/Rambler / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: May 1969
- Price as tested: $2,998
- Rated output (SAE gross): 315 hp | 425 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.54 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.3 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.2 sec. at 100.8 mph
1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS396 L78
1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS396 with ZL2 Cowl Induction hood / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: May 1969
- Price as tested: $4,294
- Rated output (SAE gross): 375 hp | 415 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.73 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.8 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.77 sec. at 98.72 mph
1969 Dodge Hemi Charger 500
1969 Dodge Hemi Charger 500 / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: April 1969
- Price as tested: $5,026
- Rated output (SAE gross): 425 hp | 490 lb-ft
- Powertrain: TorqueFlite, 3.23 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 5.7 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 13.92 sec. at 104.5 mph
1969 Dodge Hemi Charger 500
1969 Dodge Hemi Charger 500 / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: April 1969
- Price as tested: $5,261
- Rated output (SAE gross): 425 hp | 490 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.54 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 5.7 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 13.68 sec. at 104.8 mph
1969 Ford Mustang 428 Mach 1
1969 Ford Mustang 428 Mach 1 / Bring a Trailer
- Issue: March 1969
- Price as tested: $4,139
- Rated output (SAE gross): 335 hp | 440 lb-ft
- Powertrain: C6 Cruise-O-Matic, 3.50 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 5.5 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 13.9 sec. at 103.32 mph
1969 Pontiac GTO Judge Ram Air IV
1969 Pontiac GTO Judge Ram Air IV / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: March 1969
- Price as tested: $4,439
- Rated output (SAE gross): 370 hp | 445 lb-ft
- Powertrain: Turbo Hydra-Matic, 3.55 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.2 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.45 sec. at 97.8 mph
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass S W-31
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass S W-31 / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: March 1969
- Price as tested: $4,212
- Rated output (SAE gross): 325 hp | 360 lb-ft
- Powertrain: Turbo Hydra-Matic, 3.91 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.6 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.9 sec. at 96 mph
1969 Dodge Super Bee 383
1969 Dodge Coronet Super Bee / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: February 1969
- Price as tested: $4,036
- Rated output (SAE gross): 335 hp | 425 lb-ft
- Powertrain: TorqueFlite, 3.90 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.6 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.73 sec. at 95.5 mph
1969 Pontiac Grand Prix Model SJ
1969 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ 428 H.O. / Bring a Trailer
- Issue: February 1969
- Price as tested: $6,095
- Rated output (SAE gross): 390 hp | 465 lb-ft
- Powertrain: Turbo Hydra-Matic, 3.55 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.7 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.1 sec. at 95.3 mph
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra / CarScoops
- Issue: January 1969
- Price as tested: $3,945
- Rated output (SAE gross): 335 hp | 440 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.50
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.3 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.9 sec. at 95.2 mph
1969 Dodge Dart Swinger 340
1969 Dodge Dart Swinger / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: January 1969
- Price as tested: $3,470
- Rated output (SAE gross): 275 hp | 340 lb-ft
- Powertrain: TorqueFlite, 3.23
- 0 to 60 mph: 6.9 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.8 sec. at 96 mph
1969 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 340
1969 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 340 fastback / Mecum Auctions
- Issue: November 1968
- Price as tested: $3,449
- Rated output (SAE gross): 275 hp | 340 lb-ft
- Powertrain: 4-speed, 3.91 limited-slip
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.1 sec.
- Standing quarter mile: 14.93 sec. at 96.63 mph
Keep in mind that this summary is not every muscle car on sale in the 1969 model year, just those tested by Car Life. Nonetheless, it’s an exceptionally formidable lineup, with performance that stock production cars would seldom match again until the ’90s. Many of these cars were originally produced in very modest numbers, but they’re all highly collectible today, the cream of an extroverted and often brightly colored crop.
Related Reading
Vintage CL Road Test: 1969 Plymouth ‘Cuda 440 – “A Disturbing Automobile” (by Paul N)
Vintage Review: 1969 AMC-Hurst SC/Rambler – AMC Pulls A Fast One On Us (by Paul N)
CC Video: 1969 Hemi Chargers Get Wrung Out On The Track By Jacques Duval and Bud Lindemann
Vintage C&D Review: 1969 Mustang Mach1 428 Cobra-Jet – 59.3% Of Its Weight On the Front Wheels (by Paul N)
Vintage C/D Review: 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass S W-31 – “The Difference Between Transportation And A Trip” (by me)
Vintage Car Life Review: 1969 Dodge Coronet Super Bee 383 – “Lives Up To Its Decals” (by me)
Vintage Car Life Review: 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix Model SJ – “Tiger In Tuxedo” (by me)
CC And Vintage Review: 1969 Dodge Dart 2-Door Hardtop – Swinger Or Solid Citizen? (by GN)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1968 Pontiac GTO Ram Air – “It’s The Wildest” (by me)
Vintage Car & Driver Comparison Test: 1969 Hemi Roadrunner, Chevelle 396, Ford Cobra, Cyclone CJ, Superbee and GTO The Judge – “Six Econo-Racers” (by Paul N)
Whats crazy is how much faster “modern” iron was. Now that the LS1 v8 is almost 30 years old, it absolutely obliterated the times posted by these 1960s cars. About the only thing that would outrun the 1999 Camaro z28 I had would be an L88 equipped Corvette, Nova or Camaro. That LS1 powered Camaro with a 3.23 gear, stock 16″ street tires, automatic ran a 13.2@106 on a cold october night.
Granted it wasnt 100% stock with a magnaflow muffler and a modded airbox, but those are generally considered worth about 15hp, maybe one tenth in the quarter mile.
If you’ve ever seen any F.A.S.T. (factory appearing stock tire) drag racing, these same cars can be brought down to the 11’s by careful setup, weight reduction, and overboring. Modern cars benefit from traction control, fuel injection, modern tires etc. so can’t really compare. Quarter mile times would vary in the magazines back in the day due to setup and driving technique.
At which point they have only a nodding relationship to the production cars people could actually buy, and are not remotely stock. The point of these numbers is to assess the performance of STOCK cars in STOCK form.
absolutely correct. I was just making the point that with some work the old cars can be competitive with the new cars. Newer cars of course take advantage of the increase in the knowledge base. Not debating that these are period correct numbers.
The Judge tested is one of three scenarios:
1. The wrong gears were listed by CL because RAIV never had 3.55s.
2. It was really a RAIII.
3. Pontiac goofed when engineers built this car for the media fleet.
Point 1 may also explain the 4-speed Charger 500 since 4-speeds received 3.54s.
Their test car had a 3.55. Your other two scenarios are incorrect. The Vintage Review for The Judge will be coming soon.
I see from the 1969 Dodge data book that the correct ratio with the Hemi/4-speed car was 3.54; Car Life listed it as 3.55, which I assume was a typographical error, albeit an extremely minor one scarcely worth the mention.
I once read that the drivetrain of the 1969 Charger 500 came in one of two ways: Street Hemi versions got the 4-speed / Dana 60 / 3.54 gearing, with the standard cars having a 440-4v / Torqueflite / 8 3/4 rear end and 3.55 or 3.23 gearing.
But the Bud Lindemann video shows a Hemi car with a Torqueflite, so who knows.
Your memory is correct: The salesman’s guide says the Track Pak (which is what the data panel of the actual road test says the 4-speed car had, although the price didn’t match) had a 9.75-inch Dana heavy-duty axle with 3.54 ratio and Sure-Grip. The A36 Performance Axle Package, which was available only with TorqueFlite with the Hemi or 440 Magnum, had a regular Sure-Grip axle with a 3.55 axle. The Car Life Charger 500 TorqueFlite car is listed as having a 3.23 Sure-Grip axle, which would mean it did not have any of the “hi-performance groups.”
Interesting stats, I see that the 390 powered Rambler is the bargain of these cars, being the only one under $3,000 for that you get the hokiest paint job but a very competitive quarter mile time.
For return on investment I’d pick the Hemi Charger 500
The Rambler was the hands-down winner in terms of bang for the bucket. The Hemi cars were faster, but they also cost a LOT more.
The S/C Rambler came in a less noisy paint job, known as ‘B Scheme’ that lost the loud, red billboard side paint.
An apparent error is listing the Dart Swinger 340 with the Supercars; it should go in with the compacts, as well as the S/C Rambler.
As to ‘bang for the buck’, yeah, the Rambler wins for 1969, but I’d give the Ford Cobra with its standard 428CJ engine a close second.
But if other years are included, there’s the 1970 Duster 340 with an MSRP of $2547. It was as fast as the 383 Road Runner for hundreds less.
Or the screaming 1966 Nova SS with the Corvette’s L-79 327/350hp engine.
This is not an error. The text at the bottom of the Comparator page reads: “Specific automobiles are grouped in a way the editors feel will be most useful for enthusiasts and general buyers. Many cars could appear in more than one category.”
Their Fairlane Cobra test car was over a second slower to 60 mph, 0.7 seconds slower through the quarter mile, and cost almost $1,000 more. It had a number of non-performance options, but omitting those to leave the equipment comparable to the SC/Rambler, it would have cost $3,637, which was over $600 more than the AMC.
As I stated in the text, this is a list of 1969 model year muscle cars tested by Car Life as of the issue from which the Comparator page was taken, which I expanded to include the three cars tested in that issue. The 1970 Duster 340 had not even been introduced at that time. Car Life didn’t test a Duster 340 until March 1970 — I presented that test here last month — and their lightly equipped TorqueFlite test car was a half-second slower through the quarter mile than the SC/Rambler (which by then was no longer in production) while costing $157 more.
The S/C Rambler came in a less noisy paint job, known as ‘B Scheme’ that lost the loud, red billboard side paint.
It’s possibly splitting hairs but both A & B are guady. Minimize the red and blue its still a red white and blue car, and with what the market wanted a primarily white Rambler probably wasn’t it. I personally dislike both color schemes of the S/CRambler but I’d pick A hands down because its at least interesting, it’s (ironically) basically the Sox & Martin livery, I can see the charm in that… briefly…
I think if it had the scoop, magnum 500s(not painted blue, yuck!) and conventional colors like the RoadRunner these might have been more impactful in the grand scheme and less of a novelty than they were. I wasn’t there but it’s a compelling package, the price was right, the performance was right the looks were okish and S/C Rambler was a clever name(good enough for Jeep to recycle a decade later). Imagine if the 68-69 Roadrunner ONLY came in moulin rouge, (a high impact color I personally love but….), would it have sold worth a damn? AMC built a genuine supercar contender but way overshot the market with its cosmetic presentation
The Car Life SC/Rambler test is coming up, and will include pictures of both paint schemes.
I hope the cars were broken in properly before testing.
Bet you could have bought every one of them for a tiny fraction of its original price in ’74–if you could find one not flayed.
The cars were tested in the manner they were received. As the text states, Car Life deliberately did not fiddle with the cars in search of the kind of perfect tune job an NHRA stocker would receive.
Just a note – I assume that’s a typo/copy-paste error (in the CC post, not the Car Life table) for the SS396 Camaro. I’m guessing it didn’t have Torque-Flite …
I still remember reading a test of a Camaro, I think an SS396, in Hot Rod magazine around this time. I was amazed at how much quicker it was with cheater slicks. My limited exposure to the 4 and 6 cylinder cars around me as a pre-teen did not include wheelspin. And like Car Life, Road & Track which was my preferred car magazine of the time, did not modify test cars.
Of all the cars featured here, the L-78 Camaro is likely the one most affected by traction, car prep and state of tune. These cars were notoriously difficult to launch and the L-78 required frequent attention due to solid lifters and rapid point wear at 6000 plus rpm.
By the time I came along, gasoline quality was a big issue for anyone running as much compression as the L-78 as well.
By the time you got all the performance a big block Camaro ( or any big block pony car) was capable of you had a single purpose car for sure.
Typo is fixed now; thanks.
Oops, yes, that was a copy-paste error.
I spent a lot of time at dragstrips in the ’80s when cars like this were still commonly seen in their natural environment instead of trailers, car shows and auctions. Owners who were on the strip for the first time were invariably disappointed that their Roadrunner, 396 Chevelle or big block Mustang wasn’t anywhere near as quick as what the big name magazines said it was 15 or so years ago. The numbers shown here are a lot closer to reality in my experience.
Most of these cars got their reputations on the street, not the strip and drag racing is a whole different animal than street racing. 0-60 meant more on the street, since most guys weren’t nervy/stupid enough to run 100 mph plus on a public street. These cars went like hell but most of them didn’t stop worth a damn.
I’m glad I got to play with cars like this back when the only people who were interested in them were fellow gearheads. By 1990 or so, collectors started to take over and soon hose clamps with the correct date code became more important than low ETs. Sigh….
Excellent article !
You are right about 0-60 as that is the first thing I looked for on the chart but wasn’t there. The quarter mile didn’t matter since there was no quarter mile that was totally unobstructed on San Diego city streets. People I knew were all about fast which is code speak for 0-60. While I knew a few who would race four cylinder Datsuns at SCAA races I knew zero who went to drag strips. So when I went down the picture list I looked for fastest and it was the 428 CJ. To think there was some idiot on a Ford truck forum calling all FE engines junk.
The Ford truck forum has no monopoly on internet idiots. The Torino Cobra above is a 4 speed and was no match for the C6 Mustang with the same engine. Personally I think an automatic 428 Cobra Jet in any guise was one of the kings of the stoplight drags. Make mine a Cougar to be different.
The stoplight drags were what most people did in reality, and you might not even reach 60mph. The Hemi cars and Boss 429’s were not suited for this work.
A lot of ego’s got in the way of their purchases.
The Ram Air IV was not available with 3.55s, which is my point on the scenarios. 3.90 or 4.33 was the available ratio.
Regarding the 3.54 or 3.55 for the Hemi, that is dependent on the axle. As all 4-speeds received the Dana rear, it has to be 3.54. Not an uncommon mistake or typo considering automatics had 3.23 or 3.55; automatics with 4.10 received the Dana.
They were fast cars, to be sure. Especially compared to just a few years prior, very few. But…
#1 they weren’t nearly as fast as they should have been for the HP rating, and yes, I understand gross vs net etc, but I suspect many had the HP ratings come from the advertising or marketing departments, not engineering.
#2 while Car Life may have done nothing to tweak them beyond stock, I bet most of them were not stock. Maybe as little as a change in ignition timing, maybe a different distributor, maybe a different carb, maybe a blueprinted engine, maybe a .060 overbore with higher compression pistons. Car Life wasn’t going to tear in to check bore or pistons, not their fault, but I bet it happened a lot. Yes, color me cynical.
To the point of #1 So much of this is tires. Think a Hellcat would run 10s on 195-205s these old bias plies were equivalent to? Every one of these cars would benefit from modern and wider tires.
I have a club member, in my Cougar Club, who has a GT-E 427-6V with a 4.11 rear. I wonder how fast that car is 0-60?
Maybe not as fast as you’d expect. A 427 in a Cougar puts over 58 percent of the weight over the nose. With the deeper axle ratio, the engine’s torque goes to war with the lightly loaded rear tires. With a 3×2 setup, the other question is whether the secondaries are opened by vacuum or mechanical linkage; vacuum linkage isn’t progressive, so it may make for a very delicate balance to get a good launch without getting all three carburetors too early and either a) leaning out and bogging b) abruptly giving the rear tires way more power than they can absorb. So, the answer is “Very delicately!”
Vacuum
Yeah, my guess then is that it probably has to be eased off the line, since opening the throttle too far will mean abruptly tripling carburetor venturi area, possibly much sooner than either the engine or tires want. It seems like a setup that’s better suited for higher speeds, possibly with only so-so acceleration below about 30 mph.
There was a lot of variation between cars, a lot of them back then had the carb misajusted when delivered. My ’74 roadrunner’s Thermo Quad carb didn’t open fully when I got it, the kickdown was misajusted, and the air door on the carb was way too loose, making it bog. I lined up against my friend’s ’70+ 1/2 Camaro with a 307 4 barrel (Modded) on it, and just barely beat it. It was embarrassing. A week later, with the throttle opening all the way, and the trans shifting like it was supposed to, I walked away from him. My sister’s ’68 Cutlass and Mom’s ’72 Cutlass both had less than full throttle opening when we got them, and once the carbs were adjusted, they ran a lot better too. A neighbor’s ’68 440 Charger R/T ran great from day one, the guy across the street’s Roadrunner had to have it’s carb adjusted like mine would need 6 years later. I guess it depended on the dealer’s prep people more than anything.
So many cars bought back then were handicapped by the wrong rear gears. It still happens. A friend bought a ’14? Ram 1500 with the 3.23 rear gears, a bad choice, the 3.92 was and has been the ratio to get, and even the 4.10 is OK with the overdrive. The 3.23 truck is noticably sluggish compared to a truck with 3.92 or 4.10 gears. The mileage penalty is pretty much zero.