Today's mini motor cars beat many of the old "muscle cars" in many ways..

[ironglows]

Yes, through computerized machining, ignitions and fuel distribution systems, there are tiny  3 cyl engines today that can in many ways, beat the old rubber burners !
 
At the 10 minute mark in the video, we see how a 2.0 liter engine of today beats a 6.0 liter V8 of yesterday.. gets better mileage, and may even last longer than the oldies, due to more precise manufacture, improved fuel feed, lubes and rubber.

  Interesting, to say the least.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESc1GpDxieM

[Bob Riebe]

Sadly so many , trailer queens or might as well be , owners make no attemept to replace old systems brake systems , ignition systems , chassis components etc. and leave  , or "restore" their cars back to level of ALL the faults it had out of the factory.
There are now companies repairing and or making new hi-performance drum brakes, for those who do not want to go to the expense of putting on discs.

Any one driving a performance car with all the smog gear in place , at least in states where you can remove it one way or another is driving a look at me car.
There are new carburettors now that can be adjusted for all aspects of engine performance, easily, you do not have to take it apart for adjustments they are not cheap but cheaper than todays factory computer systems.
 
Any one who compares cars of fifty years ago, in the state they were made, tires and suspension even more than engines,  is doing the equivalent of Three-Card-Monte.
The fuel mileage often comes from computer controlled cylinder shut-down, which if you are cruising down a free-way makes lots of sense.

But gas mileage, THAT, is some thing Detroit threw in the garbage after the very early sixties when compact cars were the hot sellers when many secretary cars had mileage well into the twenty mpg zone.
In the old Mobile Economy Run, after the first AMC and Studebakers pissed off the big 3 Chrysler products were the best of the best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The event was a marketing contest between the automakers. The objective was the coveted title as the Mobilgas Economy Run winner in each class. However, starting in 1959, entries were judged on an actual miles-per-gallon basis, instead of the ton-mileage formula used previously which favored bigger, heavier cars.[2] As a result, compact cars became the top mileage champs. In the 47-car field for 1959, a Rambler American was first - averaging 25.2878 miles per US gallon (9.3015 L/100 km; 30.3694 mpg‑imp) - while a Rambler Six was second - with an average of 22.9572 miles per US gallon (10.2458 L/100 km; 27.5704 mpg‑imp) - for the five-day, 1,898-mile (3,055 km) trip from Los Angeles, California to Kansas City, Missouri.[2]

The efficiency of models as AMC's more compact Ramblers caused them to be all but banned from the event. As a result, Ramblers and Studebakers were put in a separate class. This was because the 'Big Three' auto makers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) did not have competitive cars at the time and were trounced in the fuel efficiency rankings until they introduced smaller platforms (GM "X" body, Ford Falcon, Chrysler A platform).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Category: Hemmings Classic Car

Crossing the finish line after traveling 3,310 miles from Los Angeles to Boston in the 1966 Mobil Economy Run, this Plymouth Belvedere I won Class C: Intermediate-Size Sixes, posting 23.10 miles per gallon. Despite being set back by a slow leak in a tire, it still bested a Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, Mercury, and an AMC.
By 1966, the Mobil Economy Run had been illustrating the fuel efficiency potential of new cars in real-world driving conditions for numerous years, and had also served as a marketing tool for the company and the automakers.
Cars were purchased from dealers by the United States Auto Club, the event's sanctioning body, and precautions were taken to ensure that the cars were stock and remained that way. Yet actions by some of the manufacturers' teams during vehicle break-in and prep, paired with intense fuel consumption-reducing driving techniques, meant that a typical owner would be hard-pressed to achieve the same miles-per-gallon figures.
Plymouth stepped up to produce three winners in the 1967 Mobile Economy Run from Los Angeles to Detroit, and the Valiant in Class A: Compact Sixes also posted the highest overall fuel mileage at 24.57 mpg. A Barracuda won Class B: Compact Eights with 22.31 mpg and a Belvedere II topped Class D: Intermediate-Size Eights at 20.01 mpg.
========================================
Now take one of those compacts from back then and put on a after-market computer run fuel injection system, (There are so many out there now, you can now put on on darn near any post WW II car made)
and see what the old school would get then.

[Lloyd Smale]

ive been saying the same thing forever on here and nobody ever agreed. A new 4x4 pickup would hand most of the old muscle cars we grew up with its @ss as would a honda accord. It might not be near ass cool or sound near as good but the facts are the facts. Now add all that technology to something like my 6.4 liter challenger and see what you get. Ive said it a hundred times on here. TODAY is the golden age of muscle cars. Probably 82 percent of the muscle cars from the 60s and 70s ran quarter miles in the 15s. Maybe 10 percent in the 14s, 1 5 percent in the 13s and  3  percent (and thats pushing it) would crack the 12s right off the showroom floor (and ill give them modern tires to prove me wrong and put my title on the table if you take a ride). Ive have the dyno from the tune they put in my car. Before the tune it put down 425 to the rear wheels, after the cat back, cold air and tune it put down 455. An ls6 or 426 hemi was lucky on its best day to see 350 on a wheel dyno so tires sure arent going to make that up. Bottom line you can say its not fair to compare but thats exactly what were doing. You say to be fair you have to give the old car this and that but they didnt have this and that and it wasnt even invented then. Yup i can drop an ls or modern hemi in an old car and make it as fast but they sure as heck couldnt then. You can say a carb will make power and is simpler. Sure it will. If you dont mind 8 mpg and simpler? How man moving parts are in your carb that can wear out. Your talking to a guy thats probably had 50 holleys on the bench and Quadra jets too. They were NEAR as reliable as fuel injection and had more moving parts. If they were truely better wed still be using them. TRUTH be told theres NOTHING thats better on a 60s car then todays cars. Throw the same time and effort and money factoring in cost of living to mod a new car as your saying you need to make this comparison fair adding to your ls6 or gto. He gets slicks why shouldnt I? He gets a eldebrock manifold and a holly why shouldnt i get a bigger throttle body and a ported intake? He gets headers? Why not me? Bottom line is i dont even need them. Hes still toast in a street race.

 Ya you can dig up some bs magazine claiming they drove a ls6 or hemi cuda  to low 12s but back then it was routine for car manufactures to give those testers tuner cars that might not even have a stock cam and had heads masaged ect. They did it because those numbers sold and if you worked for hot rod you sure werent going to have car craft drivers beat your times so you outright lied.
You can go to the dealer and by a camaro ss mustang 5.0 or a 6.4 challenger for no more factoring in cost of living then one of those old cars of yesterday and it will eat it for lunch. Fact of the matter is theres MAYBE 6 muscle cars of yesterday that might break into the 12s in the quarter. A camaro ss, 5.0 mustang or a 6.4 challenger will run low 12s and get 25 mpg with the air on on the way to the track. I owned those old cars. Matter of fact owned one of what some claim to be the quickest an ls6 chevelle. My challenger would whip its but and in ANY category other then cool factor you want to compare it to. Ive said this before too. If i could go back in time what would i take in the time machine? My challenger? Nope. Id take my pickup. Id could have made a living lining up a pickup against those muscle cars back then. Jaws wouldn't have just dropped the would have fell off.

 Now compare those old muscle cars to something like a hellcat, redeye, gt500, zl1 camaro, zr1 corvette, heck even the base model vet now does 0-60 in 3 seconds. thats a SOLID 2 seconds quicker then a ls6 or hemi cuda or a boss 429. Now like i said ill give it to you that something your wife car pools with will whoop a gto or a mach 1. But what self respecting man is going to get caught dead in a honda mini van! Want to whip an old muscle car and still be eco friendly. Buy a turbo 4 cyl camaro or mustang or a v6 challenger. You will whip the muscle cars of yesterday, out handle any car (even most race cars) of the 60s, stop better and overall have a much safer car. You can do it all and get near 30mpg, as good of gas mileage as that mini van, for no more money. Might not haul 8 kids but how many of us have 8 kids to haul. Heck at least in the case of the challenger my trunk is nearly as big as the back of a mini van. Fold down the back of the back seat and it would darn near hold a sheet of plywood. Heck even the 6.4s get 25 mpg (wife got 27 driving it back from MN when we bought it and by the way it does not have cyl deactivation)which is as good as many mini vans and sport utilitys do. 5.7s and the ss camaro probably do 3mpg even better.

Isnt even just American muscle. Look at something like a nissan gtr, or a  accura nsx. Remember that in the 70s adding a hemi to your order form about doubled the price of your car and put it square in the price range of those two cars or a new corvette or a hell cat and all of those are in a different universe compared to my old ls6. To me the only thing that SUCKs is im 64 and not 34 so id have more years to drive and have fun with these AMAZING machines. I feel for those who just talk the talk and run around in those little 4cyl eco boxes or worse yet a mini van. Well i guess at least today there peppy little things that are light years better then a ford pinto of chev chevette. Must be hell giving up on fun in life and resign yourself to reminiscing about the good old days and doing it with selective memories.

[ironglows]

Of course, nobody..well let's rephrase that, I would not doubt that the old muscle cars would show much greater mileage and performance with today's technology in place. ..But that is exactly what the man in the video was pointing out.

   Before retirement, I worked a number of years with Motorola, automotive division.  Much of our product was in "mass air flow" (to the engine) and precise fuel metering.

With the old carbureted systems, often some cylinders were starving, while others were flooding, even the ignition timing was nowhere near what is in use today.

  Then came improvements in rubber, and even in tread design.
   Bob, you were correct with the little guys (Nash & Studebaker) kicking the big guy's butts in the Mobilgas economy run, a much observed annual event.  Here's a movie of the time..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ief_Yc-E-Vk

[Lloyd Smale]

mass air flow is even an antique way to meter air and fuel today. Last car i had with a mass air flow sensor was a 1987 5.7 iroc camaro i bought used in 91. I believe in 88 chev switched to map sensors instead. The cars then didnt even have injectors that were timed. They were batch fired meaning all of them squirted at the same time and the fuel and air just hung there waiting for a valve to open.

[Bob Riebe]

A mas air flow sensor tells a timed injector how much air is coming so it can inject the correct amount of fuel to each cylinder.
So from Throttle Body to Multi Port to Sequential (Timed) injection to Direct injection they all have air flow sensors fuel injection each system needs to know how much air is coming so to be able to place the corrct amount of fuel in the air flow.

With the newer computer systems the air intake and fuel delivery systems can speak to each other more precisely.
The black art of carbs. , if one needs for an engine to perform at max performance in one level of operation, a carb. can still be set and deliver more performance than a injection system as those dudes who spent their lives using them know how to do it precisely.
One reason NASCAR switched to injection systems was the gents. who knew this black art were getting fewer and fewer and charged a humongous amount to do it, plus they NEVER told anyone else their secrets.

Timed systems have been around for over fifty years but the old mechanical systems were impractical for street cars.
Electronic carburettors had a form of air flow sensor for fuel mileage but were a pain in the buttocks as they were a not as adjustable (sealed) compared to a standard carb..

[Lloyd Smale]

yup a carb will dump gas like a garden house in top fuel and funny car motors that run alcohol and go through 5 gallons i a quarter mile but even prostock cars have gone to fuel injection. A holley carb is a basic gas dumper no high tech no rocket science. I think those nascar teams could sure find a carb tuner. Fuel injection didnt add power to those nascar motors. Nascar motors today dont make any more hp then they did in the 70s when they had a free hand to mod engines and on some tracks much less because they have to run a restrictor plate. But it would be simple for them today to add another 200 hp reliably. Heck you can buy a hellcat, mustang, or camaro that you can drive your kids to the track that makes the same hp as a nascar engine. It sure wasnt because they couldnt find guys that knew how to tune a holley. Lack of tuners sure didnt have them going to fuel injection. They did it to appease the environmental people claim they were polluting less and using less fuel. Yup in EXTREME cases maybe on more then a 2000 hp motor a carb will make giant hp but were talking street here. Watch a top fuel dragster go down the track burning raw fuel in the exhaust pipes with flames comming 4 foot out of them. Those are you ultra efficient garden hose holleys.

 I've yet to see someone take a new vette camaro, mustang, challenger, gtr nsx ferrari or for that matter ANY fuel injected car and throw away the fuel injection and stick a holley on it for street use. Now ive seen many people take our old small block chevs and fords and slap holley and other manufactures bolt on fuel injection on them. I know one thing for sure if i could have bought a bolt on system like the holley for my chevelle or my gtx i would have stood in line for days to get one and there would have been such a demand for them that the line would have been that long. Bolt on a system that would flow up to a 1000cfm, adjust fuel air and timing and compensated for rpm, air pressure, air temp and timing to just the edge of detonation and had the added bonus of making my 10mpg (at its very best with grandma driving) to at least 50 percent more and adding years to the life of that motor.  Talk about a no brainer.

A mas air flow sensor tells a timed injector how much air is coming so it can inject the correct amount of fuel to each cylinder.
So from Throttle Body to Multi Port to Sequential (Timed) injection to Direct injection they all have air flow sensors fuel injection each system needs to know how much air is coming so to be able to place the corrct amount of fuel in the air flow.

With the newer computer systems the air intake and fuel delivery systems can speak to each other more precisely.
The black art of carbs. , if one needs for an engine to perform at max performance in one level of operation, a carb. can still be set and deliver more performance than a injection system as those dudes who spent their lives using them know how to do it precisely.
One reason NASCAR switched to injection systems was the gents. who knew this black art were getting fewer and fewer and charged a humongous amount to do it, plus they NEVER told anyone else their secrets.

Timed systems have been around for over fifty years but the old mechanical systems were impractical for street cars.
Electronic carburettors had a form of air flow sensor for fuel mileage but were a pain in the buttocks as they were a not as adjustable (sealed) compared to a standard carb..