My 1965 442 is faster

Discussion in '1970 Plymouth HEMI 'Cuda' started by Bighead, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. Proud Owner of a 1965 442
    4=400 4=4 barrel 2=dual exaugst
    The second 4 meant 4 speed only in 1964
    from 65 and up in meant 4 barrel

    IN 1965 Motor Trend tested a 1965 442 convertible
    It had 3.55.1 rear ratio and did a 5.5 second 0-60
    My 65 coupe is lighter and has 4.11.1 ratios so it should do 0-60 in less than 5 seconds
     
  2. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Dude, I wish I had that car!
     
  3. #3 Bighead, Dec 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Dan if u want to see a picture go to http://442.com/vcs/oldsowners.html
    you can find a picture of a 1965 442 mine is not there but mine is a really nice blue with baby moon wheels and is a non post car
     
  4. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Thanx, man, love the site!
     
  5. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Ok, so what was the point of telling us that your car is faster then a Hemi Cuda? You sure it is faster, are you basing that off these statistics?
     
  6. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Of course his 442 can outrun it!
     
  7. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Well, at least thet's what I'd place money on. It'd probably be pretty close.
     
  8. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Actually, the second four has always meant four barrel carb. A stock Cutlass before 1965 could still be bought with an automatic and also bear the 442 badge
     
  9. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    The only year you could get the 442 package before 1965 was 1964 1/2. In the 1964 1/2 442 the second 4 stood for 4 speed and it was the only time the second 4 in 442 stood for four speed.
     
  10. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Are both you guys on crack??? You must have been reading too many General Mistake Magazines like Chevy Craft or Chevy Rod Magazine!!! Get a clue!!!!!
     
  11. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    I think i know what im talkin about cause i own the car
     
  12. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    My 1970 Chevelle is faster that ur Stang, whats ur point?
     
  13. #13 Sedriss, Mar 16, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  14. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Hey, I wouldn't be to sure about that.
    I think that the 1970 Chevelle 454 SS LS6 could do it
    but not a 65 4-4-2...
     
  15. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    I hope you people realize that the stats on this page wrong. the actual power in a hemi was more like 500. also look at the 1/4 time and the 0-60 time. they don't match up. ne ways this site is not the absolute authority on stats. i've noticed many that are wrong. either way you look at it though this car is awesome. i dont care if you are a chevy guy or a ford guy you cannot deny that mopar, for the most part, led the muscle car era. ther were of course a few exceptions but it seems that all muscle cars fans respect mopars regardless of where your loyalty lies, ford or chevy.
     
  16. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    how many people are going to believe you if we cant see it you stupid idiot.
     
  17. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    well if you were a real car enthusist you would know that. and besides the numbers were probably posted on those old poly glas tires and not new ones. now if you will recall when the viper first came out they put it up against a hemi and guess what the hemi only lost by about .1 sec. and that was with the little skinny tires put some 265/50's on it and i bet the hemi would eat the vipers lunch. and i dint think you have any room to be calling me an idiot. if youdidtn know that about the hemi then you are the stupid idiot.
     
  18. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    how mcu did you spend on it?
     
  19. Re: My 1965 442 is faster

    Those were BEAST man.
     
  20. somethings not right here. i know after 65 one of the 4's switched meaning from 4speed cause it was the first year available with an auto, but i never remember hearing of a 4 meanign 400. not all 442's had 400's. my uncles (damn it i wish i knew which) 68 or 69 has the 350 in it. i wanna say 350 rocket but that doesn't sound right for a 442, but it is the original motor although i don't know how much of it is original lol. that things been raced out but he'll never get rid of it. then again i thought that bout his old 67ish buick rag top but he did (that fricken pissed me off)
     
  21. isnt it 4 4 2 for 4 barrel carb, 4 speed trans and 2 exhausts??? not all 442a came with a 400 engine.
     
  22. the 442 and the cuda are sweet cars, dont get me wrong, but speed isnt everything....try and take a corner with those cars
     
  23. I try not to hate too much, but this is a worthless post on this thread; only placed to get people upset. Lord knows I agree with you, but that's why I'm calling you out on it. Also while I'm hating...I don't know the rules, but I'm pretty sure A/Stock class is not so stock as to give reliable data for its road-going siblings. The 'Cuda was good for high 12's [on a good day] back when it was new. You'd have to do a bit more than tires to shave 3 seconds off the ET.

    As for who's is faster, I'm not sure, but the Hemi 'Cuda was apparently not the icon back then that it is now (I get that from a reliable source who lived through that era, as I'm too young to remember). Hemi has, however, solidified itself in racing history by being THE engine design for drag racing for decades and is making a resurgence in the auto world by making big, heavy land-yachts embarass Ferraris [barring a few] at the stop light...Hmm - kinda like back then.
     
  24. And my d*ck is bigger then yours. Get a grip mate. This is exactly the same thing as on these tech-sites where all those infantile people can't resist posting things like 'MY rig with SLI 6600GT's is still faster than the X1800 presented here'. Make sure you note the 'MY'. If you want to brag about your 442 (a car that deserves some bragging, true) then do so in it's own forum, but don't come spoiling the space dedicated to this truly marvellous automobile. Which in the end will beat your 442 anyway <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  25. your right the jerkoff who dosn't know his facts is wrong oh by the way NO car could run a 0-60 in under 5 not even a GT500
     

Share This Page