Yes I phrased that incorrectly. The only way to have a manual trans from the factory was with a 305.

Yeah but those are sweet looking machines.

I want one.

My grandma had a Regal with the 3.8 II that I used to borrow when I got my license.

That thing was way faster than it had any right to be, and for such a literal grandma car it was a blast to drive. It would spin the tires easily and got up to speed no problem.

I nearly wrecked it going 90ish through a winding wheat field country road when a whitetail buck jumped out of the tall wheat right into the road in front of me. I immediately knew I was going to hit it and I knew it was best not to swerve to try to avoid it. It did the one thing deer almost never do, it turned around and jumped back into the wheat.

Is yours an automatic or manual?  My '96 LT4 would like to know.

Last year for the 455 was 1976.

I put an OLDS 455 in my 79.  Easy swap.  Complete sleeper.  

My gma had a Chevy Caprice Classic with a 5.7 v8. It handled like a 3/4 ton truck, had a trunk big enough to hide 3 bodies, and felt like a rocketship at the time.

Looking at the specs now, my truck nearly doubles the HP and only weighs 1k more. Cars have come so far. Boomers love to revel in their old tech, but modern grocery getters will blow the doors off of their old muscle cars.

This


Cars are brutally fast today compared to the 80s.

@Waldo0506

That's odd.  I've never run against your wife's expedition.

Really though, it isn't a car for people who don't want one.  I bought mine coming from a Nissan Frontier 4cyl that I daily drove for 14 years.  I have no problem with the HP numbers on the car.  For those thinking I only know slow, I also own 2 Ducati Hypermotards.

The 4.6LMustang GT was a turd. 215 hp out of a V8. It's embarrassing for a car built at that time.

Oh, I see where you're going... you are right.... didn't look fast either.

That second one hits me in the feels.

Iunderstoodthatreference.jpg

Agree 100% (which is why I specified the 1.8L version). I had a bone stock 94 TSi up to ~140 before I ran out of confidence in the tires. Car was still pulling and I had a good 1500 more rpm to play with. Not bad for an early 90s 4 banger.

Attached File

Hey, it was the 1980's, the auto world was just learning how to deal with all the commie regulations that killed performance, I owned a brand new 1980 vette that could not get out of its own way (not to mention the T-Tops leaked) & used to stall on the highway for a reason the dealer never figured out. Then I had an (82 or 83 i forget) 280ZX turbo that was faster than the vette, but not by much, at least everything worked & nothing leaked , the ZX is the only car to this day that miss & I regret selling. Hell even Porsche made very slow (but still smoothe & sexy) V8 powered cars (think 928S).

It was hyperbole, sure, but the 240SX, stock, was not fast.  I bought one in 1997.  It wasn't fast.

True statement.    I had a 92 Toyota ext-cab 2WD with the 3.0 v6 and 5-speed.     It would outrun my friends 240 every time !!!

.

Also true.

They should add a comma. Nothing performs, like a Saab.

Yep the olds 455 was a shorter stroke bigger bore than the Poncho 455.  I ran a .60 over 455 in my 76 and used to run a guy with a 455 Cutlass quite often.

The Olds motor would grab RPMs much quicker but my motor made more torque down low. Overall it was usually pretty close.

But they were fast for the time. Hindsight from today doesn't matter.

2017 Camry XSE 1/4 mile 14.3

Put modern rubber on any of the late 60's true muscle cars and the Camry will lose most of those races.

And 50 years of innovation should make the suspension in modern cars much better.

You do realize the GTR shared very little chassis wise and the motor in your 240 was a 4 cylinder and not a 6 cylinder, right?

Mitsubishi Starion and Chrysler Conquest come to mind as slick looking cars but still fell behind the rest of the 80's vehicles.

Attached File

No, not really. Maybe against a hemi super stock Mopar. I've done this comparison in real life and the older cars are still not fast nor comparable to anything new. My friend's 69 Camaro SS ran 14.5 in the quarter on drag radials in the mid 00s. Watched a Chevelle SS396 run high  14.1. the newest Camrys are in the high 13s.

Here is a compiled list of data from the car rags. Several cars in the 13's back in the 60's. Better tires and newer shocks would make quite a difference. And the 69 ss and ss396 were mid 14 second cars back then as well.
http://roadtests.tripod.com/

80's maybe.....

90's Vettes with the LT1 started at 300hp, the top of the line 90's Vette could hang with the Lambo's of the day.

225 actually for first gen 2v. PI in '99 went up to 260. 4V was a different beast entirely. Ranging from 305 ('96 Cobra) up to 390 (what Ford rated it at anyway-lol) for the '03-'04 Terminator.

Nick

You mean the car magazines paid to deliver favorable reviews and numbers...

Rarely did a car actually perform the way they said it did until the 80s when calibrated testing equipment became the norm. I don't believe some of those numbers.

Pontiac Fiero already posted.
How about Mitsubishi 3000GT?

Attached File

Any Kia

Turd gen Camaro/Firebird cars.

My 2019 WRX looked fast, sounded fast but wasn't it was quick but not fast. Traded it in before I had a chance to blow the engine


Attached File

For modern cars, Lexus has to be one of the worst performance/looks ratio. Until very recently, every damn car had the same 300hp v6 in it.

That's an SL, so yes its gonna be slow as balls. The VR4 was pretty stout.

There's a member here with over 400whp with bolt ons and a safe tune. The FA20 motor doesnt have the issues the EJ blocks do.

I also agree. The early 80s vettes were weak on power but long on beauty.

I wasn't worried about the FA having issues, I missed a shift screwing around one night getting on the freeway with some guys leaving work.

But they also don't look like they'd be fast either

Plus the cars loaned to reviewers were often tweaked for more power over regular production.

Yes. Rarely did they not send ringers.

Pontiac Solstace. For the poors who want to look cool and drive slow.

Attached File

First car I owned, one year after joining the military, was an 1983 Camaro with the LG4 305 cu in. V8. 8.6-1 compression, 150hp, 240ft lb of torque. I believe the differential was geared at 3.08. 0-60 could be measured in minutes. Full throttle, the engine sounded like whaaaaaaaaa. Unimpressive.
Bought it brand new ($14,110 final price, after 4yrs financing) with the standard garbage GM 12 month, 12k miles warranty. Engine started leaking oil right after the warranty expired. The engine would die at idle if the AC was on. Various plastic parts became loose. Lots of body noise.
I eventually replaced the engine with a warm 327. While the acceleration was night and day, it still wasn't quick, by any stretch of the imagination. Drove it for 16 years.

The wife had a mustard 78 Mustang II with the 302W engine with 140hp. The car "felt" quick probably because of the 4sp manual transmission, but it had transmission issues the whole time we owned it, randomly refusing to go into gear (usually at stop lights), and the brakes locked up if pressed too hard, sending the car into a spin. No pics of that car.

At the same time, I bought a project 1967 RS/SS Camaro car to restore. It eventually became the fun beast to drive, while the '83 Camaro and its replacement, a Grand Am, were the daily drivers. I kept the '67 until 2009 and it got me hoked on high horse power since it was making 427hp from it's small block 355.


Sold the '83 Camaro and bought a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am GT with the 3400 V6. 175hp, 200ft lb torque. Nice looking car, but still a slug. At exactly 100k miles, it began to fall apart in typical GM fashion - electrical problems, window motors died, engine began leaking oil, seal leaks, intake vacuum leak, etc.

I eventually sold both and bought a 2007 BMW 328i a few years after I retired from the military and began making decent money. 231hp, 200ft lb of torque. A few mods and it was over 250hp. Still 173hp less than the '67 and while still not a quick car, it had brisk acceleration, handled like it was on rails and got incredible gas mileage - 37mpg and over 500 miles on one tank of gas one time. I drove the shit out of that car for over 150,000 miles. Everything on it still worked and the body was tight - no noises. Other than normal wear and tear, it gave me few issues and cemented the fact I'd never own another American made car again. It wasn't just because of the Camaros and Mustangs...we've also had a Dodge Minivan and a Ford Escort. Keep in mind I was enlisted in the military so my pay was not up to owning "nice" cars. All US made cars I've had turned out to be garbage.

Now that I'm older and can afford it, I upgraded to an M4 Competition. A few mods to bring it well over 450hp. A fun, fuckin' psychotic, animal to drive.

I'm most speaking to the "f-sport" models that just an appearance package and 0 percent faster than the base. They were literally neck and neck with a v6 camry, speed wise.

At least now they are putting v-8s in them.

@dragontwo it has similar straight line numbers to an expedition with groceries in the back.

Subayota has the capability to make an STI version with numbers that make the car incredibly well rounded. I’d buy one if they did, I like the car except for the power numbers.

Don't forget the '67 L88 Corvette.  

600-ish factory HP

Bricklin SV-1

I don't find myself competing for drag times when I drive.  Straight line numbers are useless for how a car drives.  More power?  There's plenty of turbo/supercharger options available.  300 whp is supposedly safe on the stock internals.

I have a header, tune and flex fuel on mine and it's great.

The 4.6 was used until 2010 . The 3v and 4v 4.6's weren't slow

3Vs were turds.