Horsepower dilemma

My point was that the “displacement is everything” thinking that dominates the minds of muscle car types is silly and outdated, and their cars weren’t even that fast when they had 400+ cubes, not that literally nobody has ever made a car fast.

 

Some pretty good 0-60 times for some 400+ cu-in cars in the 1970’s. I was there.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15381162/fastest-cars-1970s/

 

Yep, and my 68 Camaro does great, too. I believe we are talking past each other. Those times fine, and the accord sport would place mid pack on that list. With 2.0L, because displacement isn’t everything

 

Here’s another good link to muscle cars of that era. Always fun to go down memory lane for me lol.
https://musclecarsillustrated.com/fastest-classic-muscle-cars/

I have a 2020 Accord 2.0 Turbo and an older Accord V6, while both have great acceleration, I assure you they don’t fit in the middle of the above list for 1/4 mile times.
https://www.carindigo.com/honda/accord/0to60

 

Back in the late 70's when I started Drag racing street / strip cars . If a car ran a mid 12 sec pass to as fast as a high 11 sec pass that car car was considered as a very fast street car

Now today a street / strip car that can easily run a 10 sec pass to as fast as a mid 9 sec pass is considered fast street car by today's standards . I've even seen very streetable cars that can run 7.50's in the quarter mile

As for a fast street car my 72 Camaro has a 600hp 427sbc , built TH350 trans with a Transbrake and 4500 stall converter Ford 9" with spool . The Camaro also has a 8 point cage and fully street legal and should easily run 10 sec passes

 

For some reason the Blue Flame popped into my mind. Probably had more power than the OP needs though.

 

Amazing how technology changed things. Computer head design was a revolution.

 

I thought we were talking about 0-60, now suddenly it’s 1/4 mile times. And your accord would fare VERY well against common “fast” muscle cars

but it is worth noting that other tests would have your accord on that list, if not as high as on your 0-60 list

 

Just looked a little more, you’re right other sources show faster 0-60 times for the Accords.

 

If you brought up a 442 because you thought it has a 442 CI engine, it doesn’t have a 442 CI engine. Back in the 60s there weren’t many cars with an engine that large since most were just below 400 CI.

 

Not sure who carindigo is, but I trust c+d more.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/amp36439199/2021-honda-accord-sport-20t-by-the-numbers/

 

I didn’t. I brought up the 442 because it was a mid pack muscle car

 

I've seen 0-60 times with the current Camry V6 between 5.3 to 5.8 seconds. It would give most of those cars a good run for their money. Hell I think the RAV4 Prime is around 5 seconds.

 

Even still, thanks to technological advancements, you can easily make more than double the horsepower with the same size V8 as a 60s hot rod

 

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the fact that many of todays cars are faster than cars decades ago. Just dispelling the claim that the muscle cars of that era “weren't very fast”.

 

That’s my point. That displacement alone is a very small part of the story. This thread started because someone seemed to think displacement was the primary driver of power output and a useful comparison point between a Tacoma and forester. It isn’t, at all

 

They were as fast as the econobox mom cars of today.

And we don’t worship the rav4 as some ground pounder fast car, but we will salivate over a 396 chevelle being “fast.” They weren’t. They’re insanely cool, but they aren’t great performers…which goes back to my initial point, that “displacement is everything” thinking is outdated and mythological

 

Oh I know that. But the average pony car wasn't necessarily all that quick when compared to modern grocery getters. A garden variety V8 Mustang was probably mid 7s to 60....about what my 4.0 Tacoma is. But when compared to the average sled which was probably 13 seconds it was very quick.

I've got a bunch of old auto magazines from the 50s and 60s. I love reading them. But the performance, reliability and handling of modern vehicles is miles ahead of the old stuff. And we don't want to even talk about safety.

 

Toyota should revive the smaller 4.7 V8 originally used in the Tundra and make it an option for the Tacoma.

 

The 4.6 which replaced the 4.7 is a better engine....more power, more torque, timing chain instead of a timing belt.

That said.....it will never happen. The V8 is dead