C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

[Steven S.]

Re: C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

Thanks Wayne! No trips down the quarter with yours just for fun??

[Edward S.]

Re: C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

Steve,
Looks like my car is not quite as fast as it seems. Price of the car today, makes fun trips down the track a possible risk. Saw a few really nice restored old ones do some damage - I could take my C6 for a spin.

[Steven S.]

Re: C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

Steve,
Looks like my car is not quite as fast as it seems. Price of the car today, makes fun trips down the track a possible risk. Saw a few really nice restored old ones do some damage - I could take my C6 for a spin.

Well, I know the feeling. I have had a few cars over the years that I thought were faster than they actually were, just as long as they put a smile on your face who cares what numbers they post. We have a C5 that lays down a high 11 second 120mph pass, after getting out of that, all my old stuff just feels slow... but I still prefer them

Steve

[Loren L.]

Re: C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

My observations/memories from the time would be that the well-driven/well GEARED solid lifter SBC could be right there at the end against a hard-to-launch 396 - the indicator was that the 396 through the traps would be 4 to 9 mph faster.

[Bill M.]

Re: C2 1965 396 quarter mile performance?

Steve -- Both the R & T and the Car Life L78 tests had a 3.70 rear -- probably the same car used for both magazines.

Here's another data point from Popular Hot Rodding: this car had a 3.36:1, the standard ratio for the '65 L78, and it weighed 3370:

Lions drag strip: launch at 1500; no e.t.s given; average mph = 106
Fontana drag strip: launch at 2000; 13.75 best e.t; average mph = 105