87-na vs. chevelle ss 454
well i was at the square and this chevelle came up and was all revving and stuff and im like man thats bs..so i fired up my 7 and started revving and shooting flames and whatnot. on the drive through town on the way to the by-pass we were doing little 40 rolls and i was just as fast. well we get to the by pass and i was getting ready for the tradtitional 3 honks (1 ,2 ,on the 3rd go) and i was in 2nd instead of 1st like i should be. but my stupid friend rolls down my awesome manual windows and yells go. then i see the chevelle start to pull and i was up with it till about 85 mph even with the shitty start.. then........it pulled away at about 90....we raced again later and it drove by me but then i flew past it at 140mph...and the chevelle couldnt keep up
Trending Topics
Originally Posted by cdrad51
It's not b/s fellas, what's not to believe? read it again. They raced, the Chevelle beat him, then he did a ricer fly-by. 
Good death.

Good death.
lol i retract to BS flag.
Originally Posted by I3oostedCubes
Chevells came w/ more motors than just a 454 and not even is most years was the 454 avaliable. What year was it?
Originally Posted by SiKoPaThX
Okay...I'm just about done with all these rediculous N/A kills lately.
Yeah but Chevelle SS is bit more heavier and has the Aero disadvantage so it is much slower than the Z06.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
You realize those horsepower numbers for the 454 are grossly inflated right? They were rated in SAE Gross, not SAE Net, which is the current formula used. The new LS2 in the C6 definately put down more power than that 454 did stock. I don't think people realize how overrated muscle cars were back in the day by modern standards. Hardly any big block Chevelles were made from the factory and as was just posted, they ran low 13s at the very best. A turbo II can do that with like a grand worth of mods.
I'm not saying that big blocks aren't badass... it's just that in stock form these cars really aren't all that impressive especially with the overrated horsepower numbers. Souped up shitboxes like EVOs can do low 13's.
I'm not saying that big blocks aren't badass... it's just that in stock form these cars really aren't all that impressive especially with the overrated horsepower numbers. Souped up shitboxes like EVOs can do low 13's.
Originally Posted by 03EBZ06
Yeah but Chevelle SS is bit more heavier and has the Aero disadvantage so it is much slower than the Z06.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
1969 COPO 427/425 ---> 0-60 in 5.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.3 sec @ 108mph.
1970 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.
1971 454 Chevelle SS ---> 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.35 sec @ 97mph.
most muscle car guys do not know how to tune their engines, my 383 stroked '69 elcamino would have put my T2 to shame but i had to sell the car to keep the T2, the T2 will someday surpass the american steel but i still miss the ole tank...
Originally Posted by arghx
You realize those horsepower numbers for the 454 are grossly inflated right? They were rated in SAE Gross, not SAE Net, which is the current formula used. The new LS2 in the C6 definately put down more power than that 454 did stock. I don't think people realize how overrated muscle cars were back in the day by modern standards. Hardly any big block Chevelles were made from the factory and as was just posted, they ran low 13s at the very best. A turbo II can do that with like a grand worth of mods.
I'm not saying that big blocks aren't badass... it's just that in stock form these cars really aren't all that impressive especially with the overrated horsepower numbers. Souped up shitboxes like EVOs can do low 13's.
I'm not saying that big blocks aren't badass... it's just that in stock form these cars really aren't all that impressive especially with the overrated horsepower numbers. Souped up shitboxes like EVOs can do low 13's.
i agree, i have driven in a lot of old steel muscle cars and they have a hard time with traction at low speeds. i should especially know this having owned my elcamino, i thought the *** end was going to drop out of at times with the 285's and locked 12 bolt when it gripped though it took off like a bat out of hell.
Originally Posted by Karack
i agree, i have driven in a lot of old steel muscle cars and they have a hard time with traction at low speeds. i should especially know this having owned my elcamino, i thought the *** end was going to drop out of at times with the 285's and locked 12 bolt when it gripped though it took off like a bat out of hell.
12bolt = the mother of rear ends =P






it was a chevelle with a 454? was he driving in reverse?