Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

https://www.0-60specs.com/chevrolet/

A few others were under 7 seconds, but not many.

Interestingly, the Chevy Bolt runs to 60 in 6.3-6.5 seconds, on batteries.

I really hate hot hatches.  I understand why they're so beloved in Europe, but I loathe them.

even my small block Nova was at 6.1 in 1970

Chevrolet Nova SS 350 4-speed (man. 4) , model year 1970, version for North America U.S. (up to September)
manufactured by Chevrolet in USA
2-door coupe body type
RWD (rear-wheel drive), manual 4-speed gearbox
gasoline (petrol) engine with displacement: 5733 cm3 / 349.8 cui, advertised power: 223.5 kW / 300 hp / 304 PS ( SAE gross ), torque: 515 Nm / 380 lb-ft, more data: 1970 Chevrolet Nova SS 350 4-speed (man. 4) Horsepower/Torque Curve
characteristic dimensions: outside length: 4811 mm / 189.4 in, width: 1839 mm / 72.4 in, wheelbase: 2819 mm / 111 in
reference weights: base curb weight: 1498 kg / 3302 lbs
how fast is this car ? top speed: 190 km/h (118 mph) (©theoretical);
accelerations: 0- 60 mph 6.1© s; 0- 100 km/h 6.5© s (simulation ©automobile-catalog.com); 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 14.7© s (simulation ©automobile-catalog.com) 1970 Chevrolet Nova SS 350 4-speed (man. 4) Detailed Performance Review
fuel consumption and mileage: average estimated by a-c©: 20 l/100km / 14.1 mpg (imp.) / 11.8 mpg (U.S.) / 5 km/l, more data: 1970 Chevrolet Nova SS 350 4-speed (man. 4) Specifications Review

I'm 6'4" (or used to be anyway).  I don't have the seat in the GTI all the way back.  It is a bit low to the ground for me, but so are sporty cars in general for obvious reasons.

The GTI of course if FWD, but the general handling flaws of that have been largely suppressed.

Yes, I don't hate everything about the 71-73s, but they certainly weren't as elegant as the earlier models, and especially the 65-66 which were of course the smallest of them all.

I liked the '67-68 Mustangs better than the '65-66s at the time.  And if one were wanting to resto-mod an old Mustang, the '67-68 models are a better place to start, as they've got a bit more room under the hood for a bigger engine.  They could fit a Ford big-block engine in it and did with the 390.  They'd have more room to put a modern Coyote engine in there.
But the originals were lighter and were a cleaner design.  If I were going to buy an old Mustang and put a 289/302 in it, it would be one of those.

I used to chuckle that Ford calls its 302 a 5.0 L engine.

I liked the '67-68 Mustangs better than the '65-66s at the time.  And if one were wanting to resto-mod an old Mustang, the '67-68 models are a better place to start, as they've got a bit more room under the hood for a bigger engine.  They could fit a Ford big-block engine in it and did with the 390.  They'd have more room to put a modern Coyote engine in there.
But the originals were lighter and were a cleaner design.  If I were going to buy an old Mustang and put a 289/302 in it, it would be one of those.

Yup, I like the smaller, cleaner lines on the 65-66.  Strange chrome "scoop-fingers" on the 66 notwithstanding, of course.