Old muscle versus new muscle – Click above to watch the video after the break

All day long, boys. All. Day. Long.

To what are we referring, you ask? Well, that's how long all six muscle cars rounded up by the staff at Motor Trend will eviscerate their tires. Such is the nature of the beast, and, in fact, it's why many automotive enthusiasts just can't get enough horsepower at the rear wheels.

What we have here are Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs, gathered in pairs - one vintage example from the height of the muscle car's reign of terror in 1969 and '70 along with one 2011 model. This begs the question: Which era of American performance resulted in the better car?

Well now, that depends on just what you're looking for...

There's simply no arguing the fact that the 2011 Camaro SS, Challenger SRT8 392 and Shelby Mustang GT500 can accelerate (though the quarter-mile results would be closer if the old bias-ply tires were replaced with something more... modern), turn and stop better than their old-timer predecessors.

But, as the editors of Motor Trend found out, that's not the whole story. Check out the video after the break to find out what we're on about.

One last thing: Words cannot express how badly we want the keys to that 1970 Challenger. It's nothing short of muscle car perfection.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 92 Comments
      Sharif Al Humaid
      • 3 Years Ago
      A redesign of a car does not necessarily mean a better car.. although this is generally true over longer periods.. Personally, I prefer the exterior design of the classics.. Yet new cars are better (generally) in being safer, more powerful and better in fuel efficiency...
      MichaelMM
      • 3 Years Ago
      Sigh...... I wish I was around for the days when you can go to the dealership and actually order a car with a transmission called, "Rock Crusher." I know today's pony cars are better in every single conceivable way, but they are hurtin' when it comes to names. How cool would it be to go into dealership and order a BOSS 302 with the Humbler Suspension Package, and Bitch Crusher Transmission?! Very, I'd say.
      Anthony Sogg
      • 3 Years Ago
      Newer muscle offers some unique features that yesteryear's Americana couldn't produce. The sights, sounds, and feel of the older cars are barnone, a joy to the senses. Today's muscle offers a lot more bang for your buck. They're also better built. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely on the side of "don't put computers in my cars" but at the same time, it's nice to know that a Mustang can easily best an M3, comparable Mercedes and Audi around the track. There are places for both in the world. I know if I had the money I'd have a brand new Boss 302 Laguna Seca parked next to it's 70's father in the garage.
        cashsixeight
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Anthony Sogg
        Ha. M3, yes. Audi? Only when the weather is perfect. Which it isn't, in the real world, most of the time. I
      greenz1977
      • 3 Years Ago
      All that vintage muscle is music to my ears.
      Samurai Jack
      • 3 Years Ago
      Vintage iron *does* rule. But I'd still rather have one of the modern cars as my daily driver. Scratch that... I'll take the Mustang.
      trippycake
      • 3 Years Ago
      inb4 someone gets mad about pony cars vs muscle cars
      MAX
      • 3 Years Ago
      The answer to many of these questions and complaints is the new Dodge Charger, it's the ultimate American muscle car. Not a bad family car either.
      J
      • 3 Years Ago
      To the left - a REAL Hemi. To the right, a FAKE Hemi (a.k.a. Pentroof combustion chambered figment of marketing's imagination)
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      masonperegrine
      • 3 Years Ago
      Can we discuss the awful light green filter or whatever that's on this video? It doesn't make it any less boring Motor Trend.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Jim
        • 3 Years Ago
        describes your post perfectly.
        MemphisNET
        • 3 Years Ago
        Sure Dan. But if any car truly had/has a soul, it's muscle cars - new and old.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Hey clown,just look at yourself before you talk.You are such a joke its ridiculous...
        LUSTSTANG S-197
        • 3 Years Ago
        I don't know. KITT seemed like a pretty enlightened little pony-car. Name me a show about a indestructible, talking Prius, and maybe I will take your comment here somewhat seriously. Otherwise a stupid comment doesn't deserve an intelligent reply.
      Travisty
      • 3 Years Ago
      Ok, my biggest complaint with the new "muscle cars" is that they're not as attainable as they once were... For example the 1969 GT500 Convertible (for example) retailed for $5,027 in 1969, which is $29,553 today according to inflationcalculator . com. That was *the* most expensive mustang you could buy, and it was still under $30k. Today you can barely get a stripped-down GT hardtop for that, and the Shelby GT500 Convertible is running almost $54,000. The point is that the muscle cars were *blisteringly* fast back then, and were attainable to just about anyone. Now in order to get the *blisteringly* fast models you're left shelling out almost twice as much money. It's suddenly not attainable to HSers or young guys with their first full-time jobs. Sure they're faster, more comfortable, and (a heck of a lot) safer, but they're trying to appeal to the *same* people. Not the same group of people (young males), but the *exact* same people who are now in their 50s+ and have real jobs, and are making a lot more money, and have disposable income. Bring back the affordable muscle car!!!
        reattadudes
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Travisty
        you might want to find another inflation calculator, because yours is WAY off. I have a feeling you weren't of car buying age in 1969. the average income in 1969 was $8,540 per year, and that Shelby was very expensive, considering you could have a new '69 Roadrunner for about $3,200. if you added a few options to that Shelby, the price could easily be more than $6,000. the video also mentioned that the engine was the same unmodified unit that was available in a production Mustang. for those bowing at the Shelby altar, let me give you a little reality check. if you were around back then, you'd know what a hard sell these cars were. to most everyone, they were "just an expensive Mustang", and dealers had to chop off the roots every few months. although you can't do this today, many Shelbys sat around so long they were just retitled as the next year's models. speed and horsepower are also very relative things. in the 1950s, 220 horsepower was a lot. cars do continue to evolve, but that doesn't mean someone with a slightly open mind can't appreciate the older models like these.
        cashsixeight
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Travisty
        Trav: Affordable muslcecars are here, but America doesn't make them. See Subaru STi, Mitsubishi EVO, etc. A musclecar was a formula of LOTS OF POWER in a small car. It doesn't need to have V8 and RWD. Besides an STi is much more fun than a stang anyway.
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2014 Jeep Cherokee
    MSRP: $22,995 - $30,095
    2015 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
    MSRP: $51,800 - $103,200
    2014 Chevrolet Cruze
    MSRP: $17,520 - $24,985