'64 Parisienne CS "barn find" - last on the road in '86 ... Owner Protection Plan booklet, original paint, original near-mint aqua interior, original aqua GM floor mats, original 283, factory posi, and original rust.
You people don't know what you are dealing with...ever drive one?
That car will put you way in the seat and lift off in every gear.
I raced/drove one in 1968 when I was 19 years old. I turned 89 MPH ( over 150 KPH) in the quarter mile, factory stock! Hey, to do the 1/4 mile at that speed in a 4000 pound car is nuts fast.
Anyway, it is actually worth more than the asking price to be honest with you. If I had 60 large, it would be here with me, and you would not be allowed inside.
Beautifull car! I agree! love to have it ..
I just wanted to remind you, that "my car" runs 101mph in the quarter in 2nd gear.. The front wheels lift off the ground, on every gear change, and the seat backs had to be re-welded from the contant strain car weighs 4200 with me in it... Its wild and scary! You would have to wear a diaper to ride in it.. No problem for me, as I am 62 and wear a diaper all the time anyway!! Actually its NUTS fast....
You people don't know what you are dealing with...ever drive one? That car will put you way in the seat and lift off in every gear. I raced/drove one in 1968 when I was 19 years old. I turned 89 MPH ( over 150 KPH) in the quarter mile, factory stock! Hey, to do the 1/4 mile at that speed in a 4000 pound car is nuts fast. Anyway, it is actually worth more than the asking price to be honest with you. If I had 60 large, it would be here with me, and you would not be allowed inside.
89 MPH with a 427 would have been slow, even back in the day
Haaa! The little fella should be standing tall and proud! (You are what you eat.)
__________________
"So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think... The good outnumber you, and we always will." Patton Oswalt
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
No not really. If the car spins quite a bit off the line his et will be slow, but the mph could be much higher.
Example, when I had the 406 in my 65 I took it to the track on street tires (BFG's)
It ran a high 14 I think it was at 103mph. I took it again another time and put some drag radials on and went 12.3 at 109 mph
Only 89? My stock '88 5.0l Mustang brand new and all stock did 14.19 @99 at Cayuga back in '89. And I can get a whole bunch of em for that much money...
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
No not really. If the car spins quite a bit off the line his et will be slow, but the mph could be much higher.
Example, when I had the 406 in my 65 I took it to the track on street tires (BFG's)
It ran a high 14 I think it was at 103mph. I took it again another time and put some drag radials on and went 12.3 at 109 mph
Thanks, but that was not my point. The period road test data is all we have to rely on on how a car performed in stock form back in the day. It provides relative data versus people's perception of what was a fast car in 1969. It is a more objective piece of evidence on a car's perfomance wieghed against the memory of how fast a car was. If perception being that a 427 4,000 ilb. car was fast then this data provides a measure of what fast means in 1969 terms.
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
No not really. If the car spins quite a bit off the line his et will be slow, but the mph could be much higher.
Example, when I had the 406 in my 65 I took it to the track on street tires (BFG's)
It ran a high 14 I think it was at 103mph. I took it again another time and put some drag radials on and went 12.3 at 109 mph
Thanks, but that was not my point. The period road test data is all we have to rely on on how a car performed in stock form back in the day. It provides relative data versus people's perception of what was a fast car in 1969. It is a more objective piece of evidence on a car's perfomance wieghed against the memory of how fast a car was. If perception being that a 427 4,000 ilb. car was fast then this data provides a measure of what fast means in 1969 terms.
this is very good
my 67 SD396 325 hp 400 auto with 273 gears I drove to the track on a friday night-car was stock- 15:29 @ 91 MPH
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
No not really. If the car spins quite a bit off the line his et will be slow, but the mph could be much higher.
Example, when I had the 406 in my 65 I took it to the track on street tires (BFG's)
It ran a high 14 I think it was at 103mph. I took it again another time and put some drag radials on and went 12.3 at 109 mph
Thanks, but that was not my point. The period road test data is all we have to rely on on how a car performed in stock form back in the day. It provides relative data versus people's perception of what was a fast car in 1969. It is a more objective piece of evidence on a car's perfomance wieghed against the memory of how fast a car was. If perception being that a 427 4,000 ilb. car was fast then this data provides a measure of what fast means in 1969 terms.
this is very good
my 67 SD396 325 hp 400 auto with 273 gears I drove to the track on a friday night-car was stock- 15:29 @ 91 MPH
mild cam (280 H) and headers on my 454 73 Corvette convertible had it running 13:91 @ 102 MPH a couple mods always made the difference
Test weight is shown at 4,025 lbs. & 390 HP engine
Just saying it did a 15.8 sec. 1/4 mile in stock form, should be comparable to a 427 stock Canadian Poncho. That would put the trap speed in the 80's wouldn't it?
-- Edited by 73SC on Friday 25th of March 2011 12:26:12 AM
No not really. If the car spins quite a bit off the line his et will be slow, but the mph could be much higher.
Example, when I had the 406 in my 65 I took it to the track on street tires (BFG's)
It ran a high 14 I think it was at 103mph. I took it again another time and put some drag radials on and went 12.3 at 109 mph
Thanks, but that was not my point. The period road test data is all we have to rely on on how a car performed in stock form back in the day. It provides relative data versus people's perception of what was a fast car in 1969. It is a more objective piece of evidence on a car's perfomance wieghed against the memory of how fast a car was. If perception being that a 427 4,000 ilb. car was fast then this data provides a measure of what fast means in 1969 terms.
Road test data from a magazine "back in the day" was just that . I lived back in the day. I remember quite well, sort of. lol
Back in 1970 I had a 360hp, 396 chevelle, I thought it was fast. I drove a buudy to Jack Carter Chev Olds to pick up his brand new LS6 Chevelle . It was fast, back in the "day' . I will never forget that chevelle, cranberry red, it was beautiful.
8o's mph in the quarter is nothing to get excited about, now or back in the ;day;
