Mustangj said:
Before I start in on my next rant, let me state that I love Muscle cars.
Besides for the ultra rare Boss 429, LS6 Chevelle, and a handfull of other ultra rare muscle cars, in reality muscle cars were pretty slow. The majority of "Muscle" cars ran 15 to mid 14 second quarter miles. In Comparison my Friend's 2004 Caviler (stock) ran a 15.45! That would take the majority of muscle cars!
Yes, they may have ran those 1/4 mile times but it was because of the tires of the day . . . . did you ever try to put 350+ HP to the ground on 7.75 tires? I had bone stock Old's running mid 13's on F70-14 tires! Ha, those were the days to be able to do that. Slap on the slicks it was in the 12's. Also had a bone stock Camaro that ran 13.7's on those same F70-14 tires. The big one was a 375HP Factory bone stock Nova, first time to the drags, 15's sad it may seem but that was using only 2 and 3rd gear. It had so much power it would just sit there and spin in 1st so you had to take off in 2nd so spinning faster would get it going a little faster on those skinny E70-14 brick tires. It reved so high and made so much power it was barely even reving going through the traps still spinning the E70's in 3rd gear. Guess what? Slicks and a 4.56 gear put that same car with no other mods into the low 12's. Headers put it into the 11's. Sorry man, but those
WERE the days! And just now are we getting them back. Nothing from then until now could be done that way without major mods and money spent to do it!
Mustangj said:
I will agree the the 70's and early 80's were a bad time for performance cars. In my opinion if you de-trim a 70's car it looks much like a 60's car. Most 70's cars have light year advancements in
suspension and braking technology also. The 80's again have huge advancements in braking and
suspension technology and as a bonus they are generally much lighter then anything that came before. Todays performance parts make 60's muscle car performance parts obsolete. Put a modern performance engine in a 1970's or 80's car and you will have a car that out-performs a 60's muscle car. Now if you stick on a set of rose colored glasses the 60's were a really cool time for cars. The big 3 1/2 were building cars with flat black hoods, hood scoops, hood pins, spoilers, racing stripes, ralley wheels, and big blocks.
You never mentioned brakes and
suspension so that has nothing to do with what I originaly answered. But since you brought it up, Camaro's could be had with 4-wheel discs in the late 60's, and
suspension as good as any late 70's to early 90's car made. All the pony cars could be made to go and on crap tires too. The street tires of today are better than the slicks you could get back then. Anything can be made to go faster and better than it comes stock, and the 60's and 70's gave us way more reliable cars to work with straight from the Factory than what we had through the days from then up until now.
Mustangj said:
My points:
-People that pay 5 millon for a 1971 Hemi Cuda Convertable's are nuts. A 71 hemi Cuda is a mid 15 second car with crappy
suspension and crappy brakes! My friend has a 71 Hemi Cuda Hemi (stock) he bought it because he loves Cuda's. He bought it before Muscle cars had any value. He bought it because he had a similar car ih high school. (same reasons I bought my II)..
I can say, yes they are nuts for paying that much, no car to me is worth that! But, again that same Hemi Cuda of the day ran easy 13's
bone stock with the right driver. Slap on the Slicks, gears and exhaust, it was right into the high 11's and low 12's. You need to do more research and stop watching the nerds from reality TV showing what they can do with other peoples 30 year old cars.
Mustangj said:
-The car hobby is stuck in a 60's Muscle car rut. From 1972-05 zillons of cool cars have been built. Restore or modify any one of them, please.
To me that is a good place to be stuck. You were not discussing restore and modify in your first post but if you must now, a lot of $$$ and time had to go into anything to get them anywhere near to what the original muscle cars offered. Most of the late 70's and 80's aftermarket stuff that was available to the general public was in the form of wheels and decals. It took a long time for the aftermarket to catch up with the hot rodders again.
Mustangj said:
-People need realize that the engine in a 1975-1978 Mustang II is removeable. (all 70's and 80's cars have removeable engines). Since the car is 30 something years old it is likely time for a rebuild anyway. If you build a small block ford with mild modern performance parts and put it in a II, it will out run the lightning fast 1966 Shelby GT350 or 1969 Boss Mustang. (Both super cool looking 15 second quarter mile rides).
You still have to dump a lot of $$$ into it to get anywheres near what the original Muscle Cars offered, dang, I'm starting to repeat myself, but I guess it still applies to your above statement. Repeating again, Nothing from then until now could be made to run like them without
major mods done to it!
Mustangj said:
-The majority of Muscle car guys think Muscle cars were ultra quick. (they were not). Time for a reality check? The Mini Van you drive to work now, is quicker, safer, handles better then your 1965 Mustang 289 Hi-Po. Most muscle car guys no nothing about cars built after 1972.
The Muscle Cars were quick, they slapped you in the seat so hard once you got rid of the tire spin it was very difficult to reach for the shifter if you didn't already have your hand on it. Reality check done . . . . I don't and never have driven a Mini Van but you must have one to be able to speak so highly of them . . .
You do know with Koni shocks and some good tires the 1965 Hi-Po 289 Mustang is still today cleaning up the track in vintage racing don't you?
We muscle car guys you speak of do know a lot about the cars built after 1972, I know if you took a bone stock car after then, put headers, gears, carbs, intakes, ignitions, cams, and slicks it was still very difficult to get any of them into the 14's! I tried doing it to several mid-70's cars and was barely able to get there.
Heck, bone stock mid 80's cars were barley making it to the low 16's without spending a fortune.
Mustangj said:
-The car hobby needs to move on. I think Hot Rod and Car Craft need to start featuring cars from 1972-up.
I don't take those magazines but the look around, the car hobby has moved on. I'm advancing the timing on Mustang without popping the hood or getting my hands dirty. I'm changing my speedometer to be perfect with the gears I put in and never crawling under the car. I'm adjusting my fuel mix and all of the above by just sitting in the drivers seat and pushing a few buttons. Look again, it has moved on . . . .
Mustangj said:
-You can now buy a brand new re-pop 1969 Camaro body and a 1969 fast back Mustang will likely be along shortly. In my opinion there are already too many 1969 Camaro's in the world! There are so many cool cars why does everybody need a 1970 Chevelle red with black stripes????????
The cool cars you speak of are few, every manufacturer had cool cars in the day, do you consider a mid 70's early 80's car with those ugly extended park bench looking bumpers to be anywhere near as cool as a 64-72 Mustang? They had a look all their own but it was not as cool as the early years. Look hard to find it. Today's cars are looking better than ever, most late 1900's cars were all looking like the same boxes with a few details added to give them a different name. I know I never mistook a 60's Mercury Comet for a Ford Falcon or a Mustang, even though they were made on the same platform. Today I can hardly tell the difference between a BMW, Honda, Toyota, or whatever else bland design Chevy or Ford comes up with. Now, I will never mistake my '03 Mustang or the new Mustang for anything else but what it is.
