Jay Leno's Take on the 426 Street Hemi

[Kitdy]

That's because you didn't want to hear it. You probably won't want to read it, either, but here are some direct quotes from the video.:

"These were mythical cars...can't stay on the road in its own ad...a lot of myths about these engines...it (engine) can't hold a candle to the stock base engine Corvette or even the new Mustang...[they] don't stop, don't go around corners. 'Car and Driver' and 'Road and Track' hated them...build quality was appalling."


Sounds like an "old clunker" to me.

Some of today's V6 family sedans (e.g. Toyota V6 Camry SE) are nearly as fast as that Hemi Challenger.

The engine made 350 SAE Net HP, per Chrysler Corp's ratings in 1971. (They published Gross and Net figures in the 1971 model year.) 1/4 mile trap speeds obtained in unmodified, actual production line stock examples (as opposed to specially prepared factory ringers and/or magazine "tuned"/modified examples) support that rating.

So yes, 350 Net HP from a 7.0 liter engine that required 102+ octane gasoline to run and was unhampered by emissions equipment, an air conditioning system and fuel economy standards of any sort is lacking in power, relatively speaking.

The 5.7 liter LS1 (also a 2 valve/pushrod V8) made 350 SAE Net HP 10 model years ago (1998 model year) and did it on 91 octane unleaded gas, with AC, power steering and modern emissions equipment. It also got 19 city/28 highway MPG. Even that's an older engine by today's standards. Its LS3 successor, for example, makes 436 SAE Net HP from 6.2 liters on 91 octane unleaded gas.

To be honest, I began to write something.

I am really overwhelmed and almost don't even know where to begin, so I think I'm just gonna leave this one.

[Kitdy]

That's because you didn't want to hear it. You probably won't want to read it, either, but here are some direct quotes from the video.

I can't leave this one alone.

I didn't want to hear it? How do you know?

I have only recently learned to appreciate American muscle era cars and used to be very prejudiced against them in a way similar to you were, but now I understand what they are all about.

These cars were quick for their time in a straight line and I don't think anyone claimed they were meant for handling at all. You certainly haven't shocked me with any of this information.

Are you honestly trying to prove to all of us that modern engines are superior in every way?

[clutch-monkey]

That video is great! Being an Asia-Pacific R/H/D market meant those cars were sold here (along with their little van-thing - another major revver) in modestly reasonable numbers, and are just sensational. I've even had a ride in one
However for the uninitiated this other 'muscle car' has a surprise in store .. (its both a Hemi and a Six Pack?! " I hear you ask)

Interested? Here's a reputable Road Test and one of my own Pics to show off those sensational lines

thanks for the pic, i really like those chargers. i also know someone with a hardtop S600!
the problem with price though... i just find all the hero cars of the Aus market from back then were produced in much smaller numbers thanks to our smaller market i really want a two door torana of some kind, to make it look like an SLR5000, but they just keep rising in price!

The 426 hemi was a very hot street engine by late 60s/early 70s standards and no-one is disputing that fact. It's just that a huge percentage of those who subscribe to the "muscle car" religion would have us believe that these engines made "500 HP right off the showroom floor." I posted this to dispute such claims and to demonstrate that modern pushrod/2 valve per cylinder American V8s are in much higher states of tune.

as you say, 500hp is a bit unbelievable for cars of such vintage, but then:

It's worth noting that a modestly modified 426 street hemi (stock bore and stroke, stock heads, stock crank, stock rods, stock valves and block) can produce something on the order of 425 very "streetable" NET HP on 93 octane unleaded with a modern roller cam, a good set of headers, lighter pistons with modern rings, a modern, mandrel bent exhaust system and a modern carb. and intake manifold. That's 1 NET HP per cubic inch, which isn't exactly bad. A little cylinder head work (mild porting and blending and lighter valvetrain parts) can easily add another 25 NET HP.

i think a lot of the fun is the fact that even relatively 'simple' mods can really start to unleash more power

[harddrivin1le]

i think a lot of the fun is the fact that even relatively 'simple' mods can really start to unleash more power

The same can be said for many modern engines, though (e.g. LS1).

It takes a LOT of mods to get 505 SAE Net HP from a truly streetable, vintage 426 Hemi.

GM's 7.0 liter LS7 makes that right of the crate and the LS7 is nearly 300 pounds lighter. (!)

[harddrivin1le]

And I disagree with the "clunker" terminology...

The car weighs 3,800 pounds (plus driver) and produces 350 SAE Net HP (assuming one can find the right gasoline for it). It has terrible brakes, loose steering, a heavy clutch and handles worse than any modern pick-up truck. Build quality is abysmal and structural rigidity is essentially non-existent.

There is no overdrive transmission and the car itself is loud, hot inside and rattles. The seats are terrible. Fuel economy is worse than what one could expect from a modern, heavy-duty 1 ton V8 pick-up truck.

Objectively speaking, it is a clunker - particularly so by modern performance car standards. The wheel-time I had behind a '70 340 Cuda some years ago confirmed that.

A new, base model Mustang GT, for example, would eat that Hemi Challenger for lunch on any road racing circuit in the world and the Mustang is hardly at the top of today's performance car echelon.

My money would also be on the Mustang on a drag strip - unless the Hemi were super-tuned, fitted with a modern, mandrel bent exhaust system. Then it would be about even.

[Cotterik]

in last weeks 'the times' newspaper jay leno drank the water out of the exhaust of a hydrogen-powered BMW 7 series to claim how clean it was. wonder if he's ill yet

[jcp123]

The car weighs 3,800 pounds (plus driver) and produces 350 SAE Net HP (assuming one can find the right gasoline for it). It has terrible brakes, loose steering, a heavy clutch and handles worse than any modern pick-up truck. Build quality is abysmal and structural rigidity is essentially non-existent.

There is no overdrive transmission and the car itself is loud, hot inside and rattles. The seats are terrible. Fuel economy is worse than what one could expect from a modern, heavy-duty 1 ton V8 pick-up truck.

Objectively speaking, it is a clunker - particularly so by modern performance car standards. The wheel-time I had behind a '70 340 Cuda some years ago confirmed that.

A new, base model Mustang GT, for example, would eat that Hemi Challenger for lunch on any road racing circuit in the world and the Mustang is hardly at the top of today's performance car echelon.

My money would also be on the Mustang on a drag strip - unless the Hemi were super-tuned, fitted with a modern, mandrel bent exhaust system. Then it would be about even.

That sounds about like what I drive EVERY DAY (see sig). You're right enough about handling, with some caveats (today's cars are way heavier on front-end push than you'd think), although as you probably know...handling doesn't mean much to me, nor do we have the roads around here to take advantage of it if it did. I'd object to the quality part - at least cars back then weren't made out of plastic and don't have ECU's, O2 sensors, throttle position sensors, crank and cam sensors, and mass air sensors to worry about. Working at an auto parts store, THESE are the parts that fail. I'd like to see how many of today's cars are still driving 40 years from now - especially since they're loaded up with all the electric extras which again are a longevity liability. Plus, cars like this don't depreciate like late-models, will never go out of style, and you don't need a PhD. to work on them.

I've had three modern vehicles in a row in as many years, and I put my money where my mouth is - back into a classic car because of these very reasons.

[harddrivin1le]

..You're right enough about handling, with some caveats (today's cars are way heavier on front-end push than you'd think)...

No, I don't think today's cars "are way heavier on front-end push." This recent "Car and Driver" test of a bone stock 1970 Challenger T/A proves that wasn't the case. And the T/A used a lightweight 340; the hemi was 200 pounds heavier and therefore under-steered even worse.

Specialty File: XV Challenger - The Verdict - Car and Driver - November 2007

"The baddest apple is, by modern standards, the unbelievably sloppy manual steering; it requires nearly six turns lock-to-lock and constant sawing at the wheel to keep the old monster in its lane. Even if the car could corner well, the flat vinyl seats offer as much lateral support as a grandstand bench. The manual brakes need a substantial effort of the foot on the pedal and are pretty much impossible to modulate. Although the ride is commendably supple, the body quivers, the interior rattles, and the rear axle hops over bumps. In its day, the T/A Challenger wasn’t any better or worse than its contemporaries, but in today’s high-finesse mechanical age, it’s a dinosaur, better suited to cruise nights than spirited driving....

The stock [1970 Challenger] T/A, on the exact other hand, under-steered horrendously. Any turn of the wheel simply caused the front tires to plow. Mad provocations of the throttle, which in other rear-drive cars can sometimes flick the tail out, had no effect. It’s as if the goal of the Dodge engineers were to guarantee that this car couldn’t get loose, lest someone tap the gas midcorner and end up fishtailing onto someone else’s lawn. With the unmodified car, you’d simply go straight on in. It gripped about as hard as a jumbo SUV, at 0.68 g."

Old cars WILL eventually depreciate as the generation that aspired to own them dies off.

[Ferrer]

Old cars WILL eventually depreciate as the generation that aspired to own them dies off.

We'll probably run out of petrol before.

[Kitdy]

Old cars WILL eventually depreciate as the generation that aspired to own them dies off.

I think that that is a pretty bold statement to make. Do you offer any concrete evidence to back these claims?

[charged]

Old cars WILL eventually depreciate as the generation that aspired to own them dies off.

The cashed up baby boomers are buying up big on the old Aussie muscle car scene thats for sure. Reliving the past. A lot of the baby boomers look at the old cars through rose coloured glasses. My older brother would love old A9X Torana, his mate has one and they drove up to a race meet. He was banging on how special it was etc. In reality the Liberty GT he owns now would outperform it in all areas but he still yearns for A9X.

Buying an old muscle car is based mainly on emotion nothing else as I see it.

I think that that is a pretty bold statement to make. Do you offer any concrete evidence to back these claims?

Well he cant make concrete claims yet, we have to wait another 20-30 years as see what happens to the prices then.

I think the genertaion Y ? will get given these cars by their father/grandfathers when they die and wont see what all the fuss is about. The people that are paying huge money for these cars are buying these cars on emotion as it was part of their youth they are buying back so to speak.

In saying that if a decent RT E49 was given to me I would be a very happy boy

[Fleet 500]

Ironically, the current issue of "Hemmings Muscle Machines" has an article on a 1970 Dodge Charger R/T SE with 426-Hemi.

The owner says the engine was rebuilt 20 years ago, and going by the text and the photos, the only modification I can see is headers. and the 3" Flowmaster exhaust. It was over-the-counter headers which Chrysler marketed as the Hustle Stuff banner. In the graph I posted, it has a dyno reading of 460 hp @ 5700 rpm.

Anyway, the car runs a very good 12.77 sec @ 111 mph 1/4 mile. Fuel mileage is 11 mpg (average, I suppose).

I think Jay was exaggerating the "5 mpg." I have the article Jay mentions and the mileage on their test Challenger was 7-12 mpg.
I am also wondering why Jay mentions a "6.2 second" 0-60; the Car and Driver test car got 5.8. Unless it is Jay's own car which got that time which is certainly within the expected range.

The owners says that this is the only Hemi car he's owned that starts at the first turn of the key, no matter how long it's been sitting.

[Fleet 500]

Here is the chart...

[Kitdy]

Ironically, the current issue of "Hemmings Muscle Machines" has an article on a 1970 Dodge Charger R/T SE with 426-Hemi.

The owner says the engine was rebuilt 20 years ago, and going by the text and the photos, the only modification I can see is headers. and the 3" Flowmaster exhaust. It was over-the-counter headers which Chrysler marketed as the Hustle Stuff banner. In the graph I posted, it has a dyno reading of 460 hp @ 5700 rpm.

Anyway, the car runs a very good 12.77 sec @ 111 mph 1/4 mile. Fuel mileage is 11 mpg (average, I suppose).

I think Jay was exaggerating the "5 mpg." I have the article Jay mentions and the mileage on their test Challenger was 7-12 mpg.
I am also wondering why Jay mentions a "6.2 second" 0-60; the Car and Driver test car got 5.8. Unless it is Jay's own car which got that time which is certainly within the expected range.

The owners says that this is the only Hemi car he's owned that starts at the first turn of the key, no matter how long it's been sitting.

Thanks for the info fleet. My buddy was trying to find out 0-60 mph times for the Hemi Challenger with no luck.

Do any of your old magazines have Muscle Car era contemporary Ferraris such as the 275, 330 and 365? I would be interested in seeing what they do the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile in.

[Fleet 500]

Do any of your old magazines have Muscle Car era contemporary Ferraris such as the 275, 330 and 365? I would be interested in seeing what they do the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile in.

Yes, I remember seeing a few road tests of Ferraris in Car & Driver and Motor Trend. I'll look them up!