0-60 time?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Dec 23, 2008 | 07:51 PM

Gary7

Thread Starter

Road Warrior

Joined: Dec 2008

Posts: 1,530

Likes: 1

From: Upstate, SC

0-60 time?

I've searched the Internet for a good, ol' fashioned road test on a Dyna with the TC96 but I haven't found any.

Any of you guys know the stats, like 0-60, 0-100, top speed, etc.?

Dec 24, 2008 | 09:14 AM

Centerline

Road Warrior

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 1,789

Likes: 9

From: Double Oak, Texas

0-60 on a stock Dyna 96" is probably about 4.5 to 5 secs.
0-100 is probably about 14-15 seconds.
Top speed about 115. If you are patient and glued to the tank, no wind, etc. maybe, just maybe 120.

60-0 to zero, if you have just one front disc .... way longer than it should be.

Dec 24, 2008 | 10:10 AM

rounder

Ultimate HDF Member

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 7,562

Likes: 11

From: Palm Harbor fl.

I found a zero to sixty time of a little over 6 sec. somewhere. Lets just say don't go challenging any Mustang GT's stock....LOL

Dec 24, 2008 | 10:22 AM

drhooligan

Tourer

Joined: Apr 2006

Posts: 346

Likes: 0

From: Pittsburgh, PA

Good point. Factory stock performance cars are wildly faster than the stuff that ruled the streets in the 60s and early 70s. A base, coupe '09 Corvette with automatic rips 4 second flat 0-60 and 12 flat 1/4s on stock run flats! That is simply amazing for an EPA compliant, showroom stock vehicle. The old big blocks are a joke when compared to these new high tech machines.

Last edited by drhooligan; Dec 24, 2008 at 11:02 AM.

Dec 24, 2008 | 11:12 AM

Prodriverdon

Road Master

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 971

Likes: 1

From: Chicago/Arlington Heights

I agree that todays rides are a tech /epa miracle but I can still fix my old 71 Chevelle SS w/402 4 speed but dont know anything about my wifes Honda Accord..........

Dec 24, 2008 | 11:36 AM

SC-Longhair

Club Member

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 11,483

Likes: 39

From: Passaic County, NJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by drhooligan

I don't know about that. I owned a stock '70 Olds 442 back in the early 90's and raced a Mustang GT on the highway. I could tell it had a little work done to it. To say that all he saw was my taillights is an understatement. Nothing better than pure brute force horsepower.

Dec 24, 2008 | 11:39 AM

rounder

Ultimate HDF Member

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 7,562

Likes: 11

From: Palm Harbor fl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC-Longhair

till the two of you had to go around some corners...

Trending Topics

Top end rebuild Go Big or Stay Home?

156

6.3k
Wax Question

18

556
I want to be able to at least do maintenance

15

570
HD Boom audio headset

17

309
Not an oil question

13

263

Dec 24, 2008 | 01:09 PM

drhooligan

Tourer

Joined: Apr 2006

Posts: 346

Likes: 0

From: Pittsburgh, PA

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC-Longhair

I'm a huge fan of the old American Mucle Cars but none of them can do a job on the new stuff, stock vs. stock.

The early 90s Mustangs were pretty weak. The current gen., '05 up Mustang GTs will run mid 13s bone stock. The average muscle car from the 60s ran high 14s to high 15s. That was damn fast back then. Big block Mopars, Vettes etc. could get you down close to 14 second quarters in factory config. Obviously anything can or could have been modified to perform better.

A current GT500 or GT500KR Mustang will run low 12s, mid 11s respectively, both on stock tires and would flatly destroy from anything Detroit had to offer back in the day. Crazy but true.

Don't forget that the pre '72 cars used a completely different rating system(BHP) for HP than the current cars use(SAE). The old stuff would post HP #s about 25% lower under the current SAE standards. The old motors were also the victim of significantly higher parasitic driveline losses. The performance cars in todays showrooms have acceleration, cornering, and braking capabilities that were unimagineable off the assembly line 40 years ago.

Last edited by drhooligan; Dec 24, 2008 at 01:45 PM.