User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 12:23:06 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: About the only thing they do better. Besides ease of service is longevity, Anything 69 and older does not really have circuit boards to worry about. Otherwise, modern cars blow them out of the water in every single respect. Bullshit. They started updating them to newer electronics in the 90s because 1960s technology sucked then. Now you can see them with Bluetooth and television screens unless they’re the same old underpowered piece of shit they were 5 decades ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 12:42:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look no further than quarter mile times. 13 sec was "very fast" back in the "muscle car" days. The stock Demon is banned from NHRA events because it's too fast (sub 10 seconds). Fucking Grand Cherokee Trackhawk or Ram TRX will crush an old Camaro/Mustang/Chevelle/Corvette. Demons are not banned because they’re to fast that’s stupid to even say. If that was true there wouldn’t be cars running any faster that 10 seconds. They don’t have the proper safety equipment. Look at my avatar, I have no problems racing a TRX or Trackhawk, and yes I smoked a TRX and their supercharged and I’m normally aspirated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 12:48:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <----boomer I have owned a '66 Fairlane GT/A 390ci, C6 auto since 1990. Just a couple small things done to give it something near the EXAGGERATED horse power rating. Ain't no way that car ever had 335hp. The car is mostly original to the average car guy. OP is entirely correct. In a head to head with the average modern 4cyl, I'm betting I could almost keep up. I would certainly fall WAY behind in cornering because coil springs & hydraulic shocks coupled with drum brakes are wholly inadequate. I've said it often, that Fairlane is a slug. It’s not the engines so much as the power doesn’t get to the ground. Granted a computer controlled engine will run better but the actual power is generated the same. Muscle cars had shit suspensions, shit brakes, manual transmissions that could bind the linkage up, etc. So many improvements could be made, oh wait that’s what they did. No 4 cylinder will ever sound as menacing as a well built, and well tuned V-8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 12:49:12 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I find the Miata to be a good litmus test for who is and isn't a car enthusiast. If you can't appreciate and respect the Miata for what it is and what it has done, we can't be friends.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:07:23 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:10:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryI saw a Mustang II yesterday with a 302. I shuddered. [massive 139 HP from the factory] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:18:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I saw a Mustang II yesterday with a 302. I shuddered. Mine was a Fox chassis '86 GT. Factory rated at a whopping 200 horsepower, had it dyno'ed after bolt on goodies and it made 180 horsepower to the ground. It was fast enough to stomp all the rivers at the midnight drags 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:39:28 AM EDT
[#8]
The fact is that barring a handful of exceptions, the golden era of muscle cars had a long reign and were absolutely incredible cars. After a few decades cars got good again, but its really not the same. Car culture has completely changed. Society has changed. The classic metric for this stuff has always been drag racing, whether on the strip, between lights, or planned street races. Most of the strips are gone, street takeovers have taken over street races, and Karen's cell phone is even making racing between lights more than a couple pulls impossible. The cars that people are making a big deal about because they're so much faster than something from the 60's or 70's are getting smoked by EVs. They're filling that gap between vintage cool and hairdryer on wheels.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:37:15 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Been playing with this for 10 years or so. Like I was saying they’re all fun in different ways. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/378350/B4056E06-914D-4D87-97B3-E152A2E477B6-2703761.jpg Performance wise, those Camaros stomped on their peer Mustangs, but dang they were boring to look at. Totally uninspiring design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:47:58 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Older cars can be kept running for over half a century with minimal cost, unfortunately new stuff will end up being scrapped much sooner in its life cycle. Its unavoidable with more complication comes more cost and more potential failure points along with harder to maintain. I really don't care how fast they are. I'll take reliable and simple over fast and complex any day. I can buy a vehicle form the 60-70's and keep it running for another 20-30 years with minimal cost. Engines can be rebuilt something alot of newer cars can't say. There's a reason why "rebuilding my '60s era engine" is a thing, even if it is somewhat easy to do. Those engines don't last as long as newer ones. 100k miles used to be a benchmark for engine life, now, 100k is a four year old car that is still "new." My daughter has an '08 Ford Focus with a crappy little four banger that has 245,000 miles on it and she drives it every day. In 1984, there were precious few '68 anythings still running around as daily drivers and if they were, they sure as heck didn't have a quarter million miles on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:54:13 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: General Motors G body was my favorite. 87 Olds Cutlass Supreme with the Euro clip was always one of the cars I should have kept.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/562864/87_Olds__1__jpg-3214088.JPG I've said on many occasions that the G Body should be the next aftermarket body to go up for sale by Dynacorn, Real Deal Steel, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:55:36 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOf course it is. That '84(ish) Mustang 5.0 had what, 205hp? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:55:50 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should look at what guys are doing with coyotes in F150's and Mustangs Just because it's happening doesn't make it common. Those guys are also pulling the motors a lot because they're constantly breaking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:57:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Op is kinda correct
My classic car gives me a headache and causes pain in the right foot/leg. The headlights are utter dog shit. The windscreen wipers might as well not be there it’s out performed in almost every way by mundane cars these days even electric ones. I still love it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 6:59:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have entertained the idea of an LS swap into a Z3. Maybe it will happen once I retire. This is a prototype in the BMW museum, so it will work...  (Z3 Roadster with BMW V-12) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 7:17:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryWell, the girls out there knock me out, you know Rock, rock, rock 'n' roll high school Cruisin' around in my GTO Rock, rock, rock 'n' roll high school I hate the teachers and the principal Don't wanna be taught to be no fool Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock 'n' roll high school Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock 'n' roll high school |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 7:41:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restomods (on old classic iron with different engines, suspensions, etc) are just like lifelike sex dolls. They look the same but aren't the real thing. A HUGE majority of the automotive community of the last 120 years of the automobile age disagree with you. Mods to engines, drive trains and bodies have been a driving force since the first Model T came off the assembly line. I built the 69 AMX for my wife. Frankly the antiquated trunnion front suspension that it came with should have been ditched two decades earlier. Having the option to upgrade the front suspension to adjustable coil overs with a power rack not only improved handling and drivability it gave the car a much better stance. It in no way degrades the driving experience and the car is just as real as the day it came off the AMC assembly line in Kenosha. Going from this originally      To this was a vast improvement     
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 7:57:55 AM EDT
[#18]
You do you.
When I made 1Lt on flight pay all my squadron mates and I bought sports cars. My buddies did what you suggested. They bought new sports cars. Toyotas, Mazdas, etc. All about $45k in 1986 dollars. I bought a 1966 corvette for the same money. Their cars have been in the landfill for over a decade now. Mine is in my garage and is worth 3x what I paid. Obviously I got more pussy than they did. But its not the quantity that was the difference. I noticed the kind of women attracted to men who know how to work on their own car, run straight pipes on 11-1 small blocks, and know how to drive a stick shift are a lot more fun than those attracted to men who can barely make payments on a car they know absolutely nothing about. Obviously you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:02:02 AM EDT
[#19]
If your fuel injectors are at 100% duty cycle, is it really SFI...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:08:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Think about it: the driving experience between an original and one highly modified to 'suit your driving needs' are two different things. Flogging around one (say Barracuda, Mustang,Camaro) in original condition: solid rear axle with stiff leaf springs, drum brakes, manual windows, no air, rudimentary front suspension, etc. would be very different that one with all that modified or replaced. I guess the difference between an enthusiast and a purist. To put that another way, say you have an original M1 Garand and one that has been heavily modified: a stock/chassis swapped, different caliber, different twist, different optics, different trigger. The shooting experience would be different, because you wanted it to. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your analogy is lost on me.  I am building a restomod that retains the spirit of the era it's from (which definitely includes modifications) while improving some drivability issues. If you don't grasp the idea of modifying a car to suit your desires, then you're just not a real car guy. You're a magazine reader or a rich guy with a barn full of "collectibles". Only collectors care about having everything original. I'm not rich enough to be a car collector. I'm an enthusiast. Think about it: the driving experience between an original and one highly modified to 'suit your driving needs' are two different things. Flogging around one (say Barracuda, Mustang,Camaro) in original condition: solid rear axle with stiff leaf springs, drum brakes, manual windows, no air, rudimentary front suspension, etc. would be very different that one with all that modified or replaced. I guess the difference between an enthusiast and a purist. To put that another way, say you have an original M1 Garand and one that has been heavily modified: a stock/chassis swapped, different caliber, different twist, different optics, different trigger. The shooting experience would be different, because you wanted it to. My Mach1 has all the things you mentioned except it has disc brakes (which it came with new in '70), and sloppy suspension ( I rebuilt it with some stiffer components). Some of the 'drivability' upgrades are safety necessities, since it now has 2x the power it has back then. It would be suicidal to do that without upgrading the brakes and suspension some. As for being a "purist," well, I contend that having a muscle car and *not* modifying it is wrong - unless you're a collector. If you could go back in time to 1972 or so and find a muscle car: Mach 1, R/T Mopar, SS Chevy etc. that was still exactly the same as the day it rolled off the showroom floor, that would've been rare. I have leaf springs, a carburetor, a 4-speed, manual Windows, and the big V8 rumble. I have everything a person would have wanted in 1970 - I'm just slightly less likely to die in it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:12:03 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A CRX w/ a Civic Type R drivetrain would be a wild "restomod". I used to have an '82 Corolla 2 door (IT HAD A HEMIIIIIII!!!!) and thought throwing a GR Corolla drivetrain on it would be a fun little sleeper. I know a guy who has a pretty bad-ass VW Beetle (newer style), and he’s looking for a Golf R drivetrain to swap in for AWD hot rod Beetle shenanigans. He already hurts a lot of feelings with his Beetle, AWD will just make it worse. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:22:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever it is, it's the car that he's making / having made the way he wants it. Never said it wasn't |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:26:41 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know a guy who has a pretty bad-ass VW Beetle (newer style), and he's looking for a Golf R drivetrain to swap in for AWD hot rod Beetle shenanigans. He already hurts a lot of feelings with his Beetle, AWD will just make it worse. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:38:42 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My Mach1 has all the things you mentioned except it has disc brakes (which it came with new in '70), and sloppy suspension ( I rebuilt it with some stiffer complements). Some of the 'drivability' things are safety necessities, since it now has 2x the power it has back then. It would be suicidal to do that without upgrading the brakes and suspension some. As for being a "purist," well, I contend that having a muscle car and *not* modifying it is wrong - unless you're a collector. Go back in time to 1972 or so and find a muscle car: Mach 1, R/T Mopar, SS Chevy etc. that were still exactly the same as the day they rolled off the showroom floor. That would've been rare even then. I have leaf springs, a carburetor, a 4-speed, manual Windows, and the big V8 rumble. I have everything a person would have wanted in 1970 - I'm just slightly less likely to die in it. 71 was when the magic happened for mustang steering and suspension. Up through 70, they had the old suspension geometry and the power steering had that sloppy control valve setup. It works by having 3 inches of slop in the steering linkage. I redid the whole front end on my 69. Shelby drop upper control arms and bump steer eliminator tie rod ends improve it some. But that sloppy ass steering is just disappointing. The mustang II rack and pinion swap, or converting it to manual steering to get rid of the play, and then making it electric power steering are popular for a reason. Which is why I'm all for upgrading and restomodding cars to suit you. I agree 870% that there have been improvements in automobiles over the past 70 years. I'm all for putting some of those improvements on old cars if you want to. You can pick and chose what improvements you want and what newfangled shit (like catalytic converters and touchscreen infotainment) you dont want. And you are definitely right about them modifying their cars back in the day. When you look up marti reports on mustangs, you will see the car was ordered with basic bitch steel wheels and hubcaps. Then the buyer went to the parts counter and ordered the fancy wheels. So the steel ones came off before the car had 1 mile on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:39:35 AM EDT
[#25]
67 Volkswagen Type 3 square back
With a DAZA 5 cylinder and the 7 speed DCT would be an epic build! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:40:25 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m definitely a car nerd. One of my dream cars is an early bronco, preferably pre 74 so I don’t have to deal with emissions, but in the garage I have my 93 rx7. I love the car and will never get rid of it, but my 19 giulia is a far superior car. Faster, better gas mileage, air conditioning. I could list more. I do have a 66 mustang I’m going to restore when my son gets old enough, and I’m seriously thinking about an eco boost v6. But the noise from an old v8 might make me think differently. Either way I refuse to own a vehicle with carbs. My son has a Giulia and he loves all this new tech. He isn't a mechanic but he helped me around the hanger while he was in college. Pulling aircraft engines and tearing them down for O/H and performing general servicing is in his wheelhouse. He called me one day and says I can't find the oil dip stick on this frigging car . Turns out you use the radio to check the oil. I just found out last week you use the radio to retract the brake pads to change them.I'll agree the Giulia is a far superior car today even if sitting next to a 66 mustang that rolled out of a time machine, with respect to driving, economy, safety but that's pretty much where it ends. Now where does anyone think that Giulia be when it's almost 60 years old? That bronco and mustang are still here. Time will kill these plastic cars and trucks being mfg today. Cars have become as disposable as appliances around the house. I have a fridge in my garage that was made in the late 80's. It's been in the Florida heat humming away since 98. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:48:53 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A HUGE majority of the automotive community of the last 120 years of the automobile age disagree with you. Mods to engines, drive trains and bodies have been a driving force since the first Model T came off the assembly line. I built the 69 AMX for my wife. Frankly the antiquated trunnion front suspension that it came with should have been ditched two decades earlier. Having the option to upgrade the front suspension to adjustable coil overs with a power rack not only improved handling and drivability it gave the car a much better stance. It in no way degrades the driving experience and the car is just as real as the day it came off the AMC assembly line in Kenosha. Going from this originally https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/94229.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/85086.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5032C-242509.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5092c-242520.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5103c-242524.jpg To this was a vast improvement https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5461c-203069.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5466c-204426.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5462c-204423.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5465c-204425.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG_5871c-679838.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Restomods (on old classic iron with different engines, suspensions, etc) are just like lifelike sex dolls. They look the same but aren't the real thing. A HUGE majority of the automotive community of the last 120 years of the automobile age disagree with you. Mods to engines, drive trains and bodies have been a driving force since the first Model T came off the assembly line. I built the 69 AMX for my wife. Frankly the antiquated trunnion front suspension that it came with should have been ditched two decades earlier. Having the option to upgrade the front suspension to adjustable coil overs with a power rack not only improved handling and drivability it gave the car a much better stance. It in no way degrades the driving experience and the car is just as real as the day it came off the AMC assembly line in Kenosha. Going from this originally https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/94229.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/85086.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5032C-242509.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5092c-242520.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5103c-242524.jpg To this was a vast improvement https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5461c-203069.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5466c-204426.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5462c-204423.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG-5465c-204425.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/78788/IMG_5871c-679838.jpg Exactly. Now we have people that wouldn't blink at an LS swap losing their shit over a Tesla swap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:56:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. Now we have people that wouldn't blink at an LS swap losing their shit over a Tesla swap. I'm over here cheering for elon to hurry up and make more teslas. I can't wait for them to be all over the junk yard with $300 motors. Thats how the pushrod windsors were, and the SBCs, and now the LS and vortecs. I wouldnt mind his motor and his battery. I dislike everything other thing about his cars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 8:56:46 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My son has a Giulia and he loves all this new tech. He isn't a mechanic but he helped me around the hanger while he was in college. Pulling aircraft engines and tearing them down for O/H and performing general servicing is in his wheelhouse. He called me one day and says I can't find the oil dip stick on this frigging car . Turns out you use the radio to check the oil. I just found out last week you use the radio to retract the brake pads to change them.I'll agree the Giulia is a far superior car today even if sitting next to a 66 mustang that rolled out of a time machine, with respect to driving, economy, safety but that's pretty much where it ends. Now where does anyone think that Giulia be when it's almost 60 years old? That bronco and mustang are still here. Time will kill these plastic cars and trucks being mfg today. Cars have become as disposable as appliances around the house. I have a fridge in my garage that was made in the late 80's. It's been in the Florida heat humming away since 98. Cars were a hell of a lot more disposable in the 60's than today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:02:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Restomod is where both worlds meet. A 69 Camaro with a LSA, brakes and suspension would be my choice. Only modern options I’d add would be a/c, power windows and cruise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:05:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restomod is where both worlds meet. A 69 Camaro with a LSA, brakes and suspension would be my choice. Only modern options I’d add would be a/c, power windows and cruise. There it is |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:07:38 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contrary to some people's ideas, there are some of us who can enjoy more than one type of thing. I love old cars, and muscle cars are some of my favorites. However, I was grinning like an idiot child the first time I drove a Miata.  Yep. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:19:07 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restomod is where both worlds meet. A 69 Camaro with a LSA, brakes and suspension would be my choice. Only modern options I’d add would be a/c, power windows and cruise. While I can truly appreciate well done private restomod, I'd rather have the factory version:  Resembles a Mustang from the '60s, but with modern design and tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:30:29 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 71 was when the magic happened for mustang steering and suspension. Up through 70, they had the old suspension geometry and the power steering had that sloppy control valve setup. It works by having 3 inches of slop in the steering linkage. I redid the whole front end on my 69. Shelby drop upper control arms and bump steer eliminator tie rod ends improve it some. But that sloppy ass steering is just disappointing. And you are definitely right about them modifying their cars back in the day. When you look up marti reports on mustangs, you will see the car was ordered with basic bitch steel wheels and hubcaps. Then the buyer went to the parts counter and ordered the fancy wheels. So the steel ones came off before the car had 1 mile on it. I still have the factory components, but with the UCA drop and urethane bushings. The entire system is, indeed, bad (it's an econo-car setup, in essence). It was not in my budget to do an entire subframe swap, but I would have. I also went with some aftermarket steering components. Remember when the trend in musclecars was a "day 2" resto? The point was that so many of these cars got immediately modified that day 2 of ownership was a different car. The difference is that in that trend, everyone was using period-correct mods. I liked that era. I've gone a step further: aluminum heads, roller cam, hydraulic clutch actuator, drilled & slotted rotors - are all modern relative to the car's age. I didn't want to lose the 'classic' flavor, though. Too much modernizing does not suit me. I want to keep the raw and unrefined nature of the car that's part of the experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:53:12 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can even swap a 90s ford truck over from the shit OEM computer to a holley sniper setup and integrate with all the stock electronics. If I ever need to do work to the engine in my '91, I'll probably swap over to a Holley Terminator setup. I think it would look way to wrong to go from injectors to a carb lookalike efi. Any engine fix/upgrade to the stock 351w would send me down the road of a full rebuild to do a 408w stroker w/ much better flowing heads and cam.... But then I'll also probably want a 6R80 vs the E4OD... So for all that, I'd probably end up money ahead dropping in a 7.3 Godzilla takeout Engine/Transmission combo... But it just hit 95k miles, so won't do anything for a long time besides see if I can get someone to fix the R-12 ac system leak instead of a R134a swap? It get hot in the summer without ac, even with the triangle vents. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:53:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Performance wise, those Camaros stomped on their peer Mustangs, but dang they were boring to look at. Totally uninspiring design. That was the Trans Am’s department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:56:58 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What they can do on the track will never erase them having been really stupid looking chick cars. Now they are fedora cars. Yep. Only the Fiata looks somewhat ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:59:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Nostalgia is the biggest liar you will ever meet. I hear boomer car guys go on and on about how fast their muscle car was and how modern cars are shit. They are completely delusional, modern 4 cylinders make equal or more power than your giant v8s made. Modern cars don't need a complete tear down and rebuild every 50k miles like the cars of yesteryear. Line any of those old muscle cars up next to a modern Mustang or Charger, it's night and day. 14 seconds used to be a fast qt mile, guys are daily driving cars that are running low 8's. Yes the modern car is harder for people to work on themselves but if you're not a complete dumbass it is doable. Old cars are cool but lets be honest about how great they really were. *edit* Before anybody starts with dyno numbers, those old school numbers are complete horseshit and has been proven time and time again. Put them on the dyno, yall were lied to about what those cars made. My 55 Chevy truck has a LS and fairly modern suspension. Power windows, 4 wheel disc, nice stereo, front and rear cameras, modern bucket seats and 3 point seat belts. Probably a mid to high 13 second truck that’ll get 18 miles to a gallon, with the air on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:02:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Old cars really kinda sucked outside of looking and sounding cool. Poor suspensions, no traction control or ABS, shit gas milage, if it was high enough “performance” (LOL) it needed tuned up whenever the seasons notable, like 87 miles between oil changes, nothing lasted… shit fell apart and needed major overhaul/repairs/maintenance from like 70,000-100,000mi. 87% of classic cars are terrible vehicles. But hey, they looked and sounded cooler. Quote HistoryQuoted: Old cars really kinda sucked outside of looking and sounding cool. Poor suspensions, no traction control or ABS, shit gas milage, if it was high enough “performance” (LOL) it needed tuned up whenever the seasons notable, like 87 miles between oil changes, nothing lasted… shit fell apart and needed major overhaul/repairs/maintenance from like 70,000-100,000mi. 87% of classic cars are terrible vehicles. But hey, they looked and sounded cooler. Quoted: Yes. That's all some folks want. VROOM! VROOM! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:02:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The irony is nowadays an old grocery getter is rarer and more interesting (IMO) than the hi-performance cars of that day. Yeah the really cool cars of history are the ones forgotten in their day, but re-discovered by enthusiasts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:15:33 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes captain obvious, we (and I) know. This was already understood and presumed Because clearly, the person who wrote the post doesn't know what he meant by the words he used. I could only mean what you say. How very leftist english professor of you. Do I have to hold your hand and lead you to what the next step is, if you care at all about trying to address what you're replying to? I was referring to older cars in general. Do you truly believe that what you said applies to all cars older than ... what? the 90s? I didn't make any silly performance claims. I didn't say they are (in original form) comparable to current stuff in performance. Read what you're replying to and reply to what it says, not to the boogeyman in your skull. You are not the center of the universe. I stated that the same things that make modern cars faster can be applied to older cars. If you wanted to reply to that, you should have replied to what that means. Oh look. You didn't bother to account for ... wait for it ... *Last longer without any maintenance. Do your maintenance on an older car and upgrade the materials on it and it will absolutely outlast the modern stuff. ... I hear of modern engines where they don't even give you enough meat in the cylinders, on the deck, or on the head to be able to resurface them once. Use till done, throw away. You're exhibiting that you either didn't understand what you read and what it means, or that you don't have the experience to know what it means. An engine was (and still is) "dead" when it can *no longer be repaired.* That is what I was referring to. Which is made obvious by the surface thicknesses comment, which only applies in regard to repairs to *rebuilding the engine.* I wasn't talking about "don't maintain and use it till it dies" nor was I even talking about "change your oil and top off the coolant like a normal person does." As far as "dead at 100k miles" - in normal use, my experience is that normally maintained vehicles before the cars went to crap in the 70s tend to go about 120-180k. If you actually did your full maintenance (which was more extensive back than) than the sky was the effective limit. The same as it is now: ignore the car and it dies somewhere between 100 and 200k miles. Treat it really well and you run the thing till either the rings stop sealing or the valve seals go and oil starts burning through the cylinders. Unless you've been cursed with a GDI car. You are actively avoiding the point that the older vehicles had to be built more robustly in their structures because *they didn't know how to or weren't able to* cheapen those things up and have the car be reliable at all. Yes, and we can buy fine wire iridums and put MSD along with megasquirt boxes running injectors on our cars and get the same thing too. Your point? Or did you conveniently ignore upgrade the materials on it You don't have to hone them every 100k. How you build it controls for that quite a bit and the parts you choose do as well. Yes, it's better to have an engine that you can fix when it's broken than one that you can't because it was designed to NOT be fixable. If you think otherwise, than you are objectively wrong. The only way you can think this and not be objectively wrong is if you also think it doesn't matter if you can repair it when it eventually inevitably breaks or not. I am not the boogeyman who scared you at night by saying nice things about older cars. You can safely just reply to what the stuff I posted means and ignore your childhood memories of the boogeyman. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are you one of those guys who can't comprehend how all the improvements that made 9mm cartridges competent ... can all be applied to .45? Hint hint, your ricebois are only that fast because they have power adders. You can do the exact same things with old iron.  There's a much bigger difference between old cars and new cars than power, it takes more than just power to make a car perform in more than a straight line, and some engines take "power adders" better than others. Yes captain obvious, we (and I) know. This was already understood and presumed Quoted: "Old iron" means a big lump of an engine that probably doesn't flow or rev very well hooked up to a 2-4 speed transmission riding on a crap chassis with crap suspension and crap brakes. Because clearly, the person who wrote the post doesn't know what he meant by the words he used. I could only mean what you say. How very leftist english professor of you. Do I have to hold your hand and lead you to what the next step is, if you care at all about trying to address what you're replying to? I was referring to older cars in general. Do you truly believe that what you said applies to all cars older than ... what? the 90s? Quoted: Newer cars in the same category (in this case, muscle cars) have engines that flow and rev much more freely paired with 6 speed manual or 8-10 speed automatic transmissions, and these drivetrains ride on responsive and stiff chassis, they have good independent suspension systems, sometimes with adaptive tech, and they have 4 wheel ABS disc brakes with discs bigger than the wheels were on the old cars. How much money and work would it take to get a '60s Mustang to hang with a modern GT or Dark Horse? How about a '60s Camaro to hang with a modern SS or ZL1? Or a Mopar anything with a modern Scat Pack or Hellcat car? You'd probably double the cost of the new car just trying to get the old one to keep up. I like old cars, I'm not here to bash on them, and I'll probably buy one if/when prices ever come back to earth, but when people make silly performance claims and pretend that performance is comparable to current stuff, it gets old. I didn't make any silly performance claims. I didn't say they are (in original form) comparable to current stuff in performance. Read what you're replying to and reply to what it says, not to the boogeyman in your skull. You are not the center of the universe. I stated that the same things that make modern cars faster can be applied to older cars. If you wanted to reply to that, you should have replied to what that means. Quoted: Quoted: *Last longer without any maintenance. Do your maintenance on an older car and upgrade the materials on it and it will absolutely outlast the modern stuff. They had to build them with more longevity in the structures and materials in the past because they didn't have access to the data and computing power that would allow them to build something so crappy and get away with it. In other words, they'd have made the cars back than just as crappy for their time as they do now, but they weren't able to. I hear of modern engines where they don't even give you enough meat in the cylinders, on the deck, or on the head to be able to resurface them once. Use till done, throw away. Vs .100 or more able to be taken off all those surfaces in the slant 6 in my car out back, and you may not even have to resurface / hone on a rebuild if you take good care of it. It can outlive my grandkids. This is also nonsense. Vehicles built before the '90s had 5 digit odometers for a reason. They were generally considered dead by or shortly after 100k, and they weren't expected to last 200k, 300k, or more like modern cars. Oh look. You didn't bother to account for ... wait for it ... *Last longer without any maintenance. Do your maintenance on an older car and upgrade the materials on it and it will absolutely outlast the modern stuff. ... I hear of modern engines where they don't even give you enough meat in the cylinders, on the deck, or on the head to be able to resurface them once. Use till done, throw away. You're exhibiting that you either didn't understand what you read and what it means, or that you don't have the experience to know what it means. An engine was (and still is) "dead" when it can *no longer be repaired.* That is what I was referring to. Which is made obvious by the surface thicknesses comment, which only applies in regard to repairs to *rebuilding the engine.* I wasn't talking about "don't maintain and use it till it dies" nor was I even talking about "change your oil and top off the coolant like a normal person does." As far as "dead at 100k miles" - in normal use, my experience is that normally maintained vehicles before the cars went to crap in the 70s tend to go about 120-180k. If you actually did your full maintenance (which was more extensive back than) than the sky was the effective limit. The same as it is now: ignore the car and it dies somewhere between 100 and 200k miles. Treat it really well and you run the thing till either the rings stop sealing or the valve seals go and oil starts burning through the cylinders. Unless you've been cursed with a GDI car. You are actively avoiding the point that the older vehicles had to be built more robustly in their structures because *they didn't know how to or weren't able to* cheapen those things up and have the car be reliable at all. Quoted: In contrast, I know two guys with GM 6.0L trucks that put over 150k on the original spark plugs, Yes, and we can buy fine wire iridums and put MSD along with megasquirt boxes running injectors on our cars and get the same thing too. Your point? Or did you conveniently ignore upgrade the materials on it Quoted: and I know several people daily driving 200k+ mile cars with original engines and transmissions that have never been opened or rebuilt. A lot has changed over the years. Metallurgy and manufacturing tolerances are greatly improved. The ability to manage fuel in real time means engines are no longer running lean or rich for half of every drive. Ignition timing is much more precise. Radiator fans can run at full speed while car sits in traffic on a hot day, or they can idle while a car is being driven before hitting operating temps on a cold day. Advancements like these, big and small, mean engines can go a whole lot longer with a lot less maintenance, repair work, and downtime. Is an old I6 or small block V8 that can be honed/bored but that needs to be honed every 100k or so better off than an engine that can't be honed but that will go 400k+? I wouldn't make that argument. You don't have to hone them every 100k. How you build it controls for that quite a bit and the parts you choose do as well. Yes, it's better to have an engine that you can fix when it's broken than one that you can't because it was designed to NOT be fixable. If you think otherwise, than you are objectively wrong. The only way you can think this and not be objectively wrong is if you also think it doesn't matter if you can repair it when it eventually inevitably breaks or not. I am not the boogeyman who scared you at night by saying nice things about older cars. You can safely just reply to what the stuff I posted means and ignore your childhood memories of the boogeyman.   One last little nugget that breaks this narrative of yours is, even if an engine can be resurfaced, that work rarely happens at the mechanic level anymore. Only special vehicles and those belonging to a subset of enthusiasts get that level of attention. Engines with that much cylinder wear either get shipped to used engine resellers as cores or replaced with salvage yard engines and thrown in the trash. In the real world, the difference between an engine that can be resurfaced and one that can't is basically zero. They're both getting R&R'd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:24:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you rather listen to a fart can or beautiful big American V8 rumble? There are plenty of good sounding engines that aren't American V8s. Really, those F&F era Civics you seem to be referencing of are the exception, not the norm, even for Japanese I4 cars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:25:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The irony is nowadays an old grocery getter is rarer and more interesting (IMO) than the hi-performance cars of that day. Sucks for the enthusiast, though. The aftermarket only supports what people are willing to pay for. Which is 90% mustang, camaro, corvette, squarebody truck. My 1969 thunderbird was a nicer car all around than the mustangs of the same year. They advertised it as coming with more features standard than you could even special order on most other cars. Base drivetrain in the t-bird was the 429+C6. Power windows, seats, locks, brakes, cruise control, ABS, yada yada. But since it costed more and it was not a race car, fewer sold. That translates to less aftermarket support. Now to keep it maintained, it costs a lot more money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:26:56 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah the really cool cars of history are the ones forgotten in their day, but re-discovered by enthusiasts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The irony is nowadays an old grocery getter is rarer and more interesting (IMO) than the hi-performance cars of that day. Yeah the really cool cars of history are the ones forgotten in their day, but re-discovered by enthusiasts. I saw an absolutely mint Geo Metro a while back and was fawning all over it, my wife just looked at me like
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:28:35 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are plenty of good sounding engines that aren't American V8s. Really, those F&F era Civics you seem to be referencing of are the exception, not the norm, even for Japanese I4 cars. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would you rather listen to a fart can or beautiful big American V8 rumble? There are plenty of good sounding engines that aren't American V8s. Really, those F&F era Civics you seem to be referencing of are the exception, not the norm, even for Japanese I4 cars. V12(and some v10) > Flat 6 >>>>>> everything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:33:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I saw an absolutely mint Geo Metro a while back and was fawning all over it, my wife just looked at me like One of the girls on my daughter's crew team has a very nicely kept 1990s Ford Escort. I love seeing it. I have no idea how it has survived this long. My wife just shakes her head at me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 3:44:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://d11a6trkgmumsb.cloudfront.net/original/3X/b/3/b3a66b4b25e369043f0fbb3abc3e01a16bf12d8f.png https://gifdb.com/images/high/non-stop-reeee-keyboard-click-crpiepgmtggpwx8l.gif One last little nugget that breaks this narrative of yours is, even if an engine can be resurfaced, that work rarely happens at the mechanic level anymore. Only special vehicles and those belonging to a subset of enthusiasts get that level of attention. Engines with that much cylinder wear either get shipped to used engine resellers as cores or replaced with salvage yard engines and thrown in the trash. In the real world, the difference between an engine that can be resurfaced and one that can't is basically zero. They're both getting R&R'd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are you one of those guys who can't comprehend how all the improvements that made 9mm cartridges competent ... can all be applied to .45? Hint hint, your ricebois are only that fast because they have power adders. You can do the exact same things with old iron. There's a much bigger difference between old cars and new cars than power, it takes more than just power to make a car perform in more than a straight line, and some engines take "power adders" better than others. Yes captain obvious, we (and I) know. This was already understood and presumed Quoted: "Old iron" means a big lump of an engine that probably doesn't flow or rev very well hooked up to a 2-4 speed transmission riding on a crap chassis with crap suspension and crap brakes. Because clearly, the person who wrote the post doesn't know what he meant by the words he used. I could only mean what you say. How very leftist english professor of you. Do I have to hold your hand and lead you to what the next step is, if you care at all about trying to address what you're replying to? I was referring to older cars in general. Do you truly believe that what you said applies to all cars older than ... what? the 90s? Quoted: Newer cars in the same category (in this case, muscle cars) have engines that flow and rev much more freely paired with 6 speed manual or 8-10 speed automatic transmissions, and these drivetrains ride on responsive and stiff chassis, they have good independent suspension systems, sometimes with adaptive tech, and they have 4 wheel ABS disc brakes with discs bigger than the wheels were on the old cars. How much money and work would it take to get a '60s Mustang to hang with a modern GT or Dark Horse? How about a '60s Camaro to hang with a modern SS or ZL1? Or a Mopar anything with a modern Scat Pack or Hellcat car? You'd probably double the cost of the new car just trying to get the old one to keep up. I like old cars, I'm not here to bash on them, and I'll probably buy one if/when prices ever come back to earth, but when people make silly performance claims and pretend that performance is comparable to current stuff, it gets old. I didn't make any silly performance claims. I didn't say they are (in original form) comparable to current stuff in performance. Read what you're replying to and reply to what it says, not to the boogeyman in your skull. You are not the center of the universe. I stated that the same things that make modern cars faster can be applied to older cars. If you wanted to reply to that, you should have replied to what that means. Quoted: Quoted: *Last longer without any maintenance. Do your maintenance on an older car and upgrade the materials on it and it will absolutely outlast the modern stuff. They had to build them with more longevity in the structures and materials in the past because they didn't have access to the data and computing power that would allow them to build something so crappy and get away with it. In other words, they'd have made the cars back than just as crappy for their time as they do now, but they weren't able to. I hear of modern engines where they don't even give you enough meat in the cylinders, on the deck, or on the head to be able to resurface them once. Use till done, throw away. Vs .100 or more able to be taken off all those surfaces in the slant 6 in my car out back, and you may not even have to resurface / hone on a rebuild if you take good care of it. It can outlive my grandkids. This is also nonsense. Vehicles built before the '90s had 5 digit odometers for a reason. They were generally considered dead by or shortly after 100k, and they weren't expected to last 200k, 300k, or more like modern cars. Oh look. You didn't bother to account for ... wait for it ... *Last longer without any maintenance. Do your maintenance on an older car and upgrade the materials on it and it will absolutely outlast the modern stuff. ... I hear of modern engines where they don't even give you enough meat in the cylinders, on the deck, or on the head to be able to resurface them once. Use till done, throw away. You're exhibiting that you either didn't understand what you read and what it means, or that you don't have the experience to know what it means. An engine was (and still is) "dead" when it can *no longer be repaired.* That is what I was referring to. Which is made obvious by the surface thicknesses comment, which only applies in regard to repairs to *rebuilding the engine.* I wasn't talking about "don't maintain and use it till it dies" nor was I even talking about "change your oil and top off the coolant like a normal person does." As far as "dead at 100k miles" - in normal use, my experience is that normally maintained vehicles before the cars went to crap in the 70s tend to go about 120-180k. If you actually did your full maintenance (which was more extensive back than) than the sky was the effective limit. The same as it is now: ignore the car and it dies somewhere between 100 and 200k miles. Treat it really well and you run the thing till either the rings stop sealing or the valve seals go and oil starts burning through the cylinders. Unless you've been cursed with a GDI car. You are actively avoiding the point that the older vehicles had to be built more robustly in their structures because *they didn't know how to or weren't able to* cheapen those things up and have the car be reliable at all. Quoted: In contrast, I know two guys with GM 6.0L trucks that put over 150k on the original spark plugs, Yes, and we can buy fine wire iridums and put MSD along with megasquirt boxes running injectors on our cars and get the same thing too. Your point? Or did you conveniently ignore upgrade the materials on it Quoted: and I know several people daily driving 200k+ mile cars with original engines and transmissions that have never been opened or rebuilt. A lot has changed over the years. Metallurgy and manufacturing tolerances are greatly improved. The ability to manage fuel in real time means engines are no longer running lean or rich for half of every drive. Ignition timing is much more precise. Radiator fans can run at full speed while car sits in traffic on a hot day, or they can idle while a car is being driven before hitting operating temps on a cold day. Advancements like these, big and small, mean engines can go a whole lot longer with a lot less maintenance, repair work, and downtime. Is an old I6 or small block V8 that can be honed/bored but that needs to be honed every 100k or so better off than an engine that can't be honed but that will go 400k+? I wouldn't make that argument. You don't have to hone them every 100k. How you build it controls for that quite a bit and the parts you choose do as well. Yes, it's better to have an engine that you can fix when it's broken than one that you can't because it was designed to NOT be fixable. If you think otherwise, than you are objectively wrong. The only way you can think this and not be objectively wrong is if you also think it doesn't matter if you can repair it when it eventually inevitably breaks or not. I am not the boogeyman who scared you at night by saying nice things about older cars. You can safely just reply to what the stuff I posted means and ignore your childhood memories of the boogeyman. https://d11a6trkgmumsb.cloudfront.net/original/3X/b/3/b3a66b4b25e369043f0fbb3abc3e01a16bf12d8f.png https://gifdb.com/images/high/non-stop-reeee-keyboard-click-crpiepgmtggpwx8l.gif One last little nugget that breaks this narrative of yours is, even if an engine can be resurfaced, that work rarely happens at the mechanic level anymore. Only special vehicles and those belonging to a subset of enthusiasts get that level of attention. Engines with that much cylinder wear either get shipped to used engine resellers as cores or replaced with salvage yard engines and thrown in the trash. In the real world, the difference between an engine that can be resurfaced and one that can't is basically zero. They're both getting R&R'd. Oh no, someone posted more than 144 characters, we must react like extras from idiocracy! Show everyone where the bad paragraph touched you on the doll!  It's pretty surprising to see people openly admitting their immaturity and lack of patience like this. "rarely happens at the mechanic level anymore" ... you mean people take blocks to the machinist? GASP! Serious question: do you even know what normal everyday procedures are at the machinist's shop for freshing up engines for rebuild are? I'm a poor broke schmuck and I have some decent idea of it because we've done it several times in my family. "Sent out to resellers as cores" ... LOL. I see you also didn't touch where I pointed out that you ignored what I'd said, but given your reaction of "oh noez, too much text" I guess you don't have enough self control to have read those bits. Text is scary! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 3:47:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: V12(and some v10) > Flat 6 >>>>>> everything else. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Would you rather listen to a fart can or beautiful big American V8 rumble? There are plenty of good sounding engines that aren't American V8s. Really, those F&F era Civics you seem to be referencing of are the exception, not the norm, even for Japanese I4 cars. V12(and some v10) > Flat 6 >>>>>> everything else. Straight 8s sound neat to my ears.  The Best Sounding Straight-8 Engines In The World The car at 8:20 sounds like a lion roaring as it drives away from the camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:10:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mine was a Fox chassis '86 GT. Factory rated at a whopping 200 horsepower, had it dyno'ed after bolt on goodies and it made 180 horsepower to the ground. It was fast enough to stomp all the rivers at the midnight drags 20 years ago. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I saw a Mustang II yesterday with a 302. I shuddered. Mine was a Fox chassis '86 GT. Factory rated at a whopping 200 horsepower, had it dyno'ed after bolt on goodies and it made 180 horsepower to the ground. It was fast enough to stomp all the rivers at the midnight drags 20 years ago. The first car I ever owned was a 1979 Mustang Cobra with the TRX wheels and handling kit. The guy who ordered it even left off the a/c and radio. It had a whopping 140? horsepower out of a 302 with a 2 barrel carb. I rebuilt it with decent for the time(1986) parts and stuck a NOS cheater system on it. The engine might have made 200 horsepower at that point but the 200ish shot of nitrous really woke it up. Best guess I ran 100+ bottles through the engine before I windowed the block. I didn't have a fuel pressure safety and it went lean... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 5:11:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do you. When I made 1Lt on flight pay all my squadron mates and I bought sports cars. My buddies did what you suggested. They bought new sports cars. Toyotas, Mazdas, etc. All about $45k in 1986 dollars. I bought a 1966 corvette for the same money. Their cars have been in the landfill for over a decade now. Mine is in my garage and is worth 3x what I paid. Obviously I got more pussy than they did. But its not the quantity that was the difference. I noticed the kind of women attracted to men who know how to work on their own car, run straight pipes on 11-1 small blocks, and know how to drive a stick shift are a lot more fun than those attracted to men who can barely make payments on a car they know absolutely nothing about. Obviously you know what I mean. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File