Like "Get Carter"..."The Truth Hurts"....

Got some flack over the last post about the guy who wanted 75K for a 1971 SS396 Camaro. A lot of people thought I was overly harsh bagging on the car's value and performance. I don't think I was. Here's why. Motor Trend's test of a 1972 SS396 Camaro ( The '71 and '72 models were identical except for gross and net hp ratings. The '71 had 300 gross hp, the '72 240 net hp. The engines were identical with no changes according to GM literature and service bulletins. ) showed a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 15.7 seconds. According to Motor Trend today-my 2014 Subaru Forester with a 4 cylinder engine, all-wheel drive and a 6-speed manual transmission does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the 1/4 in 15.8 seconds. Another road test of a 2000 360 Jeep Cherokee showed it did the 1/4 in 15.7 seconds. This tells me that this "Ultra-Rare" $75,000 Camaro would be beaten or given a helluva race from a light by a soccer mom in a 14 year old Jeep Cherokee or a by a 52 year old guy in a new Subaru Suv!! ( Not a Turbo WRX!! ) But going back to my comment of it's rare because nobody bought them when they were new-here's why. In 1971 a fully loaded SS396 Camaro cost about $5,500. With a 396 truck motor. The LS3 had oval-port heads, a mild hydraulic cam, a Quadrajet on an iron intake, and was optional in Impalas, Monte Carlos, Chevelles, Pickups, Suburbans and various wagons. It was a "Towing" motor. Conversely for the same or less money-the base price on a Pontiac Trans-Am was $4255.75-and it had a 455 inch V8 with RAIV heads and round-port exhaust manifolds, and aluminum intake and the vaunted "068" cam and made 480 lbs of torque at 2,700 rpm. And ran 0-60 in 5.7 seconds and the 1/4 in 14.27.  More than a full second faster than the SS396 Camaro. The Z/28 Camaro tested in 1972 by Motor Trend against a Datsun 240Z in a "A Z verse Z shootout", Ran a 13.92 second 1/4. With a 350 V8 with "202" heads, a solid-lifter cam, and a 780 Holley on an aluminum intake. A 383 / Torqueflite '71 Road Runner ran a 15.35.  For the same $5,000 plus dollars you could also buy in 1971 a 429 / 4-speed Ford Torino, a Boss 351 Mustang, a 370 hp 440 4bbl Dodge Challenger or a 385hp 440 / Six-Pack Plymouth Road Runner, a 425hp LS6 Chevelle, a 426 hp Hemi Charger, or for way less money- a strippy 340 Duster-( Which ran a 14.34 in a 1972 test with a Torqueflite!! )  or a 400, 4-speed Tempest T-37-all of which would suck up and spit out this truck-motored Camaro in a drag race or "Stoplight Gran Prix." That's what I was pointing out. A lot of them weren't sold because they were underpowered and overpriced. Same thing for 1984-86 SVO Ford Mustangs. They had 16" wheels, Recaro seats, a special suspension and a Turbocharged 4-cylinder engine that made between 175 and 205 hp depending on model year. Except they cost $17,000 in 1984 dollars and the V8 "5.0" Mustang-which cost about $12,000 in 1984 dollars-was not only 5 grand cheaper, it was faster to boot!!  Ditto for the $14,000 L69 305 / 5-speed Z/28 Camaro and Pontiac Trans-Am. Gee, why didn't they sell?  That's what I was saying-It was "rare" because no one bought them new. They were priced higher than similar cars that had better performance-the Z/28 Camaro,the Pontiac Trans-Am, the 440 Charger, the Mach 1 Mustang, et. al.  If I had 75K to spend on a musclecar I would buy a Ram Air IV Judge,or an LS6 Chevelle, a 428CJ Mustang, a 440 Six-Pack Super Bee,a Boss 302, an SD 455 T/A or a 427 Stingray, not an 8.5:1 compression iron manifold, Q-jet carbed '71 Camaro that can't outrun my wife's Jeep Cherokee!!! That's all I was saying. You can ask a million dollars for your car-doesn't mean it's worth it. Mastermind.