Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by 90lxwhite, Oct 3, 2013.
Ooooh heads in the near future I see . No problem.
All I got was more facial hair from having to shave everyday... Well man be ez I'd better hit the hay. Nice chit chattin w ya. Maybe one day I'll see 12's I'd settle for a low 13 I think. I need to start working on the 90 lx again but time n money is something I'm lacking at the moment. The wife and kiddo eat it up. Well lemme rephrase, the bakery gets the time n the wife gets the $. Her ass needs to hurry up and finish school
One can dream
I hear ya, have a good one.
You know, it's almost 17 years old ('97), and it still turns a ton of heads here. It's really clean for such an old car, and I still keep her garaged. Germans love it. Girls want a ride, kids stop and point, porsches and Bimmers want to test her out on the autobahn. Was a great decision to bring it over here. I'll probably sell it here where I can get a little more, before I come back to the states.
That's so badazz you're livin the dream my man. U S A U S A
my sister had a Cavalier z24 and took it with her when she moved to Germany. This was back in the early 90's, but they all loved that thing too
What just happened???
Ha yeah yeah
Tell me about it....I'm 58 and my first muscle cars came stock with 350+ HP and 4.10 gears and no overdrive....nobody cried about rpm's ...........but nothing ran better than mid-13's either. Lol
That's because the quoted 350+hp was SAE gross. Converted to SAE net as it has been used since the early 70's, those hp numbers would have been about 20% lower. Bias ply tires didn't help either but that wouldn't have mattered a great deal 'cause even the fastest muscle cars were only trapping 100-104mph back in the late 60's with a 13.8-14.2 ET.
Yeah technology has surpassed the old adage "there's no replacement for displacement"
- 427 Cobra
- 427 Torino
- 428 SCJ
- Boss 429
- 426 Hemi
- 427 ZL1 Camaro/Corvette
- 454 Chevelle
A few could do better than 13.8. You might quote some magazine articles from the time, but the mags were sketchy. Sometimes, they were running ringers. Sometimes, there was quite a lot to be gained without buying a part for the car.
The golden age of drag racing....hmmmm?
Don't take my statement the wrong way. I'm sure those cars could all run mid-low 13s or better in the right hands right off the showroom floor. Some would even go 12s. I know that the 428SCJ Mustangs were supposed to be high 13s or low 14s, but my father went mid 12s in one with just a few "tweaks" and good driving. Given the popularity of domestric, rear wheel drive, large displacement cars, I probably would have been ecstatic to live in that time period. The interest and popularity are what made it the "golden age." Not necessarily the cars.
LOL....agreed. It's just that it tool 40 yrs to get stock production engines under 300 cid to produce 400+ hp....much less 500-600 hp small blocks with blowers. It was a great time...."everyone" owned a muscle car and car dealers were so competitive that they all had their own drag cars that ran every weekend at the local tracks....just to establish which manufacturer was the powerhouse and persuaded the motor heads of America to buy their cars. There were also several distinct musclecar models from each car company.
Not to mention the bang per buck factor.
That said, I think we're living another golden age of muscle cars right now considering their HP numbers, performance potential , and affordability.
I used to go to E town every weekend in the 70's and early 80's. Most of the guys that ran old muscle cars on the street were in the low 13's and high 12's and we thought that was fast. The really fast guys could hit low 12's or 11's with a power adder. The stock muscle cars were mid 14 second to 15 second cars with the average driver.
Disagree w the affordability unless you're making 60k+. Even then the average wage vs cost of chit is way off balance. I get where you're coming from w the new gt's making twice as much hp as the 90's models but they cost twice as much also.
It's all relative. In the 90's a new GT was about 14-15k. Gas was $1 a gallon, an average house was $100k, and the average salary from 1986-1993 was
Factor in inflation and the decline in the dollar, and that is why prices seem double, but in fact adjusted are about the same.
The dollar has lost about 40% of it's relative value since 1990, so $1 from 1990 adjusted for inflation in today's dollar is the equivalent of about $1.73 today.