Pure Stock - Small Blocks through the years

I was dinking around with the results again, and thought I would break out the top 12 small blocks (360 cid and under).

 

Don't see a list attached but it would positively have to have a 1969 DZ 302 with dealer installed cross ram very close to the top of the list. Being a GM sort of guy and a Z28 owner I think the 1970 LT-1 would also have to be on the list somewhere. I used to have a 1966 289 Hi-Po Fairlane, that was a very wicked motor. 71-72 351C Cobra Jet were unique in that they were building performance when all the other manufacturers were detuning.
1. LS7 427 (not under 360ci but the baddest SB ever)
2. '69 302 DZ X-Ram
3. '62 327 Fuel Injected
4. '69 Boss 302
5. '70 350 LT-1 (hp comes from rev'ing ci's and none does it better).
6. '66 289 HiPo
7. '68 340 Six Pack
8. '72 351 C HO
9. '57 283 Dual Quad
10. '70 Buick 350 HO (probably the most torque on the list)

 

In keeping this in the PSMCDR context, the 302 cross ram Z-28 is illegal by PSMCDR rules. That is a dealer installed item. Not a FACTORY installed item. Eric Maher's 68 is the fastest of the 302 cars that has come out. Usually they are in the low 15 sec. range.
You list a 340 six pack for 1968. If that is a Mopar 340 you are referring too, then that car/engine combo was NEVER made. The 340 only got 6bbl in 1970 on the Challenger T/A and the 'Cuda AAR. Period.
We have a LT-1 Z-28 that comes out every year this number matching Zed runs in the mid-low 14's.
A 350 Buick may have the highest torque numbers, but is usually a low 15 second/high 14 second performer.

Those are "reality" numbers, and not a magazine's wish list.

I know this post will probably stir up a storm and get Oldsmobile hi-jacked before the dust settles, but it will make good wintertime discussion material!:grin:

 

Nah...this side of the Olds highjacking keeping quiet here. Go back a few years more and you'll see the Ramrod was one of the quickest in 2001 at 13.50 at Quaker and even a 13.30 at 105 at Stanton that year with the original motor. Next few years were with a backup standard bore, resto motor (high 13's) while the orig was in rehab recovering from an overdose of eating camshafts . Best it's seen with this setup was this year at Indy at a 14.08 at 99.

We do, however, tip the scales pretty stoutly. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Sorry Dave, I only have access to records from the modern era: 2003 when they started posting the results on the internet

 

Can't see the list either.

 

Man - I say we all chip in and get Brian a new computer!

:laugh:

 

New? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

yeah, that Wang or TRS80 has served it's purpose :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I can see the list from my home pc. I guess they were hosted in photobucket or another site that our corporate network blocks. I get the point now. However I am surprised by the list, it is a select group of vehicles that are currently run in a specific format race class. I would be interested to see how these cars compare against some of the old Car & Driver or other performance tests of the day these cars were current. Those Studebakers sure get a healthy bump from the tall gears!

 

You are right on the Mopar 6 pack. The 340 came out in '68 but the 6 pack was not introduced for production until 70. :error:
The list of fastest appears to have LT-1 as the fastest sb of all. Maybe you saw some 14 sec Z28's, but the LT-1 with a 4.10 and 4spd is a tough combo to beat in a Vette or Camaro. My 71 Z ran low 14's pure stock. :eek2:
That GS 350 is top 10 in 2004 if you bump out the duplicate 340's. And it does it with the lowest gearing off any car in the list. :laugh:
I say touche!

 

It's been well-documented that the old magazine test results are pretty much complete bunk. Between the factories providing non-representative cars (either ringers which flew or press cars which didn't), and the magazines fudging the numbers ("We've gotta show our readers how we're better tuners and drivers than the yahoos at that other magazine"), there's not much point in compiling any such list.

I think the healthy bump the Studebakers get can be found on the induction side of the engine, not the driveshaft side. :Brow:

 

that is why I did a top 12... to be fair to the cars that are Naaaaaa..........turrrr......allllll.........lyyyyyyyyy assssssss....pirrrrrrrr....aaaaaaaaaa...........teddddddddd.

 

Bravo.....you nailed it. :bglasses:

 

Well, I almost made the list. I suspect the column shifted three speeds are hurting the ET's. Ran a 13.70 but that's still slow. NOT naturally aspirated!!

 

I do not understand the difference in between a magazine list and this list, except these are recently documented witnessed numbers. I doubt the manufacturers sent mechanically altered cars that would not qualify in the Pure Stock class; sure they insured the details were all attended to so that it got the best numbers possible. If ringers & tuning is not the difference why is there a 70 LT-1 4spd 4.10 Vette that runs 12.6 and another that runs 13.9? That is a big spread for 50lbs weight difference. And since both cars are on the list I expect the drivers are both very good. Manufacture prepared cars and magazine staff tuners/drivers versus your list's personal tuners/drivers, all the same unless you are indicating the magazines posted fraudulent numbers. I think some of you are in denial unless the magazine is touting that your '70 Stage 1 is the King of the Hill, then the magazine nailed it! The problem with the list is that it has some guys that are willing to run their $100K cars WOT, but not so many that you get a representitive sample comparable to a 69 Boss Mustang prepared by SVO in 69 for Road & Track. Ford did not care if that car came home in one piece or not. I care if my numbers matching Z does. A magazine list compiled from reputable publications has merit.

 

I was around back in the day, and let me tell you, the cars the factories sent out for the initial media promo were very exceptional cars. Not cheating, just very different from what you could drive off the showroom. Most were in advance of the full production run to get the word out early, so were not even as built production cars. One thing to look at very closely is the weight in those tests. Showroom cars typically weigh a lot more than the factory test cars (which is what they sent out to the mags). Good example is my 68 W31 which has a title weight of 3250 and in actuality weighs anywhere from 3600 to 3750 depending upon options. Pretty sure that was typical of the other car makers, too.

:bglasses:

 

In recent timesMagazine writers from yesteryear have come forward and admitted to "fudging the numbers" to make for better magazine sales, for what you call "reputable publications"

Not trying to bust your chop's Tim, just answering some of your question's, and replying to some of your comment's.:TU:

 

How about a top 20 ??