16th Aug 2001, 14:19

I owned a 68 Road Runner. I bought it new. It was yellow with the 383 and Hurst Shifter. It was a fast car. I had trouble with it back firing through the carb. Nobody ever could figure out what caused it. I found out it was bad bearings in the distributer after I traded in on a 1970 Duster 340. Now that was a fast car. I would take either of them.

16th Aug 2001, 16:42

I had a 1969 GTX 440. It was my 2nd car. I lost 13 demerit points in less than a month. I was only 16yrs. old when I had this car. I bought it for $1000.00. I didn't know at the time I let it go that it would cost me LARGE to get another one. Looks like I might have to re-mortgage the house to get one in the shape my baby was in. I miss you!!!

7th Jan 2002, 17:20

I bought a 1969 Hemi GTX in 1970 for $2500 and sold it in 1973 for $800. I just bought a 1968 440 Road Runner that was a rotisserie frame off restoration and paid $17,500. Duhhh!!!

6th Feb 2002, 14:26

The 426 is the best motor ever produced. I would even put it up against any so called "Sports car" from some foreign country. I would love to see these DOHC fuel injected foreign 4.0 "V-8" with all of this "power" beat good ol' American Iron like the 426 HEMI!!!

27th Apr 2004, 19:38

You have a hemi? Don't ever get rid of it, don't drive it and certainly don't race it. Unless its not original, than have a blast. These cars are MIGHTY expensive when original.

8th Dec 2004, 15:52

Don't drive it??? Then what in the world is the point of having a frickin' Hemi???

17th Mar 2006, 14:23

A 60s or 70s HEMI 426 are very rare and worth a lot of money. I had one that was cracked that I sold for 5000 USD.

22nd Feb 2007, 21:38

A lot of super cars like Ferrari's all ready have hemisphrical (spelling?) heads so what is the point of putting the great 426 in?

14th Jan 2008, 16:42

I am a collector of muscle cars and own both a restored 68 Roadrunner and a 68 GTO. I must say the GTO is a much more attractive and refined automobile and vastly superior in all other respects. It is no wonder that GM musclecars far outsold Mopar!

15th Jan 2008, 16:43

As it happens, I absolutely disagree 100% with this statement. I must say that the '68 GTO is a somewhat nice looking car --- only because it looks like a Roadrunner! Vaguely, though, because the Roadrunner actually looks like a mean musclecar, whereas the GTO looks like what it is --- an old guy's Bonneville or Catalina that Marv and Erma drove to the store for milk and bread.

Actually, the fact that GM outsold Mopar is only a testimonial to herd mentality. GM and Ford were about mass produced, cookie-cutter, generic cars. Mopars were always better, but distinctive enough that the "sheeple" stuck to the safety of Camaros and Mustangs.

Please, sell your Roadrunner. Let someone buy it who actually appreciates it.

26th Jan 2008, 15:47

Which year GTO? Some years do look like a Roadrunner from the side because of the swept rear pillar, and even the flared rear fenders. Do YOU know what a GTO looks like?

2nd Feb 2008, 12:56

You're just trying to split hairs rather than admit that it is true that some Roadrunners look like some GTO's. That was the statement that you now continue to argue against. Maybe you don't know what a Roadrunner looks like. I had a 1969 Roadrunner, and several '69-'70 Satellites. I STILL own a 1971 Barracuda, of which only 8,000 were built. So what's your point?

2nd Feb 2008, 13:02

I'd take a Roadunner over a GTO any day of the week. The Roadrunner is a far cooler car.

17th Feb 2010, 09:37

Regarding OP... in all the Magazines I've researched, it's got the 426 cid Road Runner only turning low 13's in the quarter. I know the car is heavy, but, you'd think it would do better than that unless it's not hooking up with the factory tires (?) I hung with the Mopar guys when I was a teenager and loved the RoadRunner and GTX --- very big cars though.