Car Quiz

[Bonam]

Yup...those were the days. Cars are boring now.

I dunno, I personally never really saw the point or allure of "muscle cars". I mean, you can almost never actually take advantage of such a car's performance. 99% of the time it's just for show, nothing else.

[wyly]

Heh...when my 1972 Torino...or 1965 Mustang (Coup)...or 1980 Ford F-100 Stepside broke...I could fix it. Then I bought an 1988 Merc Sable...nice car...but good gosh under the hood. Took 16 hours just to replace the #@*&*$ heater core...required removal of electronic dash...drop the steering...remove the seats...not always in that order. Pain.

ya...I had an old dodge Fargo (68 I think), I could climb up and sit in the engine bay and put a tool tray on the fender wheel while I worked on it, did all the work myself...20 years later I had a Ford Aerostar that needed a new alternater I think it was, I couldn't get my hand in to touch it and barely see it with a flashlight! needed to take half the engine components out to get at it for what was a 1/2 hr job on the old Fargo...I closed the hood and took it to a tech... Edited August 5, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Yup...those were the days. Cars are boring now.

you're in love with another era which is ok, but cars today are better than they were in the sixties, handle much much better and faster as well...todays cars just aren't any fun to work on so you lose that personal conection with something you fix on your own...

[Jack Weber]

you're in love with another era which is ok, but cars today are better than they were in the sixties, handle much much better and faster as well...todays cars just aren't any fun to work on so you lose that personal conection with something you fix on your own...

That's the problem with alot of these "tuner" cars...Having been nto my share of car shows,most of tuner crowd seems to be into add on stuff...ie.Nitrous Oxide bottles,new air intake,new exhaust system,fuel management chips,maybe transmission upgrades...But it's alot of other stupid stuff too like video game screens in the back of the front seats...And a real cool stereo...snazzy graphics and rims...

I've rarely seen one of theseguys that's into tuners ever tear and engine down and bore the cylinders out,or machine the heads to increase compression,go to roller rockers etc...Frankly,I doubt the parts are available even if somebody wanted to do that.

I agree,mucle cars basically are good for straight line stuff because they are very heavy and they go by the old adage of "There is no replacement for displacement".Bigger the motor,bigger the horse...And,the cost of mechanical upgrades to make the big motor even bigger is'nt hard to understand,or even do yourself..

[wyly]

That's the problem with alot of these "tuner" cars...Having been nto my share of car shows,most of tuner crowd seems to be into add on stuff...ie.Nitrous Oxide bottles,new air intake,new exhaust system,fuel management chips,maybe transmission upgrades...But it's alot of other stupid stuff too like video game screens in the back of the front seats...And a real cool stereo...snazzy graphics and rims...

I've rarely seen one of theseguys that's into tuners ever tear and engine down and bore the cylinders out,or machine the heads to increase compression,go to roller rockers etc...Frankly,I doubt the parts are available even if somebody wanted to do that.

I agree,mucle cars basically are good for straight line stuff because they are very heavy and they go by the old adage of "There is no replacement for displacement".Bigger the motor,bigger the horse...And,the cost of mechanical upgrades to make the big motor even bigger is'nt hard to understand,or even do yourself..

displacement rule used to be true no longer though, my pickup is faster than most of the muscle cars of the 60's in 0-60 time... some of the little imports with 2-2.5 liter engines are putting out over 300hp and sub 5 sec 0-60 times...

but I'm sure very few of the owners actually modify their own cars unless their technicians and as you say modify today means pay a technician to do it for you...

[Jack Weber]

displacement rule used to be true no longer though, my pickup is faster than most of the muscle cars of the 60's in 0-60 time... some of the little imports with 2-2.5 liter engines are putting out over 300hp and sub 5 sec 0-60 times...

but I'm sure very few of the owners actually modify their own cars unless their technicians and as you say modify today means pay a technician to do it for you...

I had this same sort of discussion with a guy I work with over the new Dodge Hemi Challenger vs the '70/'71 Hemi Challenger...

The pro for the old car was that the technology was easily accessable to anyone hwo wanted to know.You got gobs of horsepower in a fairly potent chassis package for the time.

He was saying that the new car was a "kids hemi"...I said that actually the Chrysler Hemi used now is based on the small block Hemi truck motor from the late '50's.But it's had 5 and a half decades of technological refinements on the engine itself,4 and a half decades on the chassis and suspension,the same for the tire technology.For the size of the old Hemi,although it put out alot of horsepower,it did'nt put out as much as it could have.So the samll block actually puts out more than a horse a cube

You get more bang for the buck with the newer Challenger than the old one,and it's mechanically alot more reliable...

Still,I 'd love to go for a rip in a '71 Hemi Challenger....

[wyly]

I had this same sort of discussion with a guy I work with over the new Dodge Hemi Challenger vs the '70/'71 Hemi Challenger...

The pro for the old car was that the technology was easily accessable to anyone hwo wanted to know.You got gobs of horsepower in a fairly potent chassis package for the time.

He was saying that the new car was a "kids hemi"...I said that actually the Chrysler Hemi used now is based on the small block Hemi truck motor from the late '50's.But it's had 5 and a half decades of technological refinements on the engine itself,4 and a half decades on the chassis and suspension,the same for the tire technology.For the size of the old Hemi,although it put out alot of horsepower,it did'nt put out as much as it could have.So the samll block actually puts out more than a horse a cube

You get more bang for the buck with the newer Challenger than the old one,and it's mechanically alot more reliable...

Still,I 'd love to go for a rip in a '71 Hemi Challenger....

my brother still has his '66 Mercury Comet Cyclone GT, it always scared the crap out of and me still does...only now I realize why, the handling was horrific under hard acceleration the nose came up and it would drift all over the lane...but as you say it's still fun...

[Wilber]

Finally got my 66 Chrysler 300 convertible back on the road this year. Upside, these things are really simple, you can put one together from scratch with nothing much more than basic tools, parts and shop manuals, the 440 TNT sounds great and it goes real well for a big boat. Downside, it gets about the same mileage as my diesel pickup towing a 10,000 lb. trailer, plus it uses premium. Wish gas cost the same as when I took it apart twelve years ago.

As far as driving dynamics go compared to new cars, the brakes and steering suck and until you get used to it, feels like you are driving a big noodle compared to something newer and German. It is surprisingly stable though and goes dead straight if you take your hands off the wheel at over 100 KPH.

[Wilber]

displacement rule used to be true no longer though, my pickup is faster than most of the muscle cars of the 60's in 0-60 time... some of the little imports with 2-2.5 liter engines are putting out over 300hp and sub 5 sec 0-60 times...

The displacement rule still applies. An engine is just a big pump. The more fuel you can pump through it and burn efficiently, the more power it will produce. Burning more fuel efficiently requires more air. There are only three ways to pump more air. 1. more RPM. 2. More displacement. 3. Turbo or supercharging.

I'm a fan of boosted engines, not only do you get larger displacement power from a small displacement engine, you get larger displacement torque over a wide rpm range.

[AngusThermopyle]

Who really cares what cars look like after 1975?

Come on now DOP, there were a few good ones made after that date. I've just picked up a 78 Silver Anniversary edition Vette from our neighbour for $i,000, it's in many many pieces since her husband was a car guyhe's done. and was going to rebuild it from the ground up before he passed away.

Granted the 78 was never a powerhouse (220 HP) but it is still a beautifull car and quite collectable being the Anniversary Edition. I anticipate that this project will take me at least a couple of years to complete and I will not be modifying the vehicle. She'll get the same paint she came with, the charcoal grey lower and silver upper two tone paint job. I'm even going to keep the original AM/FM/Cassette deck she came with. It's just my opinion but I think she'll be a very nice car when she's done.

Edited August 9, 2010 by AngusThermopyle

[DogOnPorch]

The Corvette managed to stay true to its form well past 1975...agreed. See this post for my favorite, though.

[Wilber]

Buick Grand Nationals from 84 on are very desirable, particularly the 87 GNX which would do 0-60 in five and a half seconds and 13 second quarter miles at over 100 MPH.

[DFCaper]

32/35. Ashamed to say that it was the muscle cars that I got wrong.

Where I work there was a mint Grand National that was all orginal that was sweet.

[bloodyminded]

Who really cares what cars look like after 1975?

Holy crap. We align.........

How odd.

Edited August 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

I think that the 1968-69 Dodge Charger is one of the great pieces of industrial artwork.

-k

[Jack Weber]

I think that the 1968-69 Dodge Charger is one of the great pieces of industrial artwork.

-k

I agree...

The 1970 Plymouth Road Runner is none to shab,either.

Or...

A 1970 Buick GNX...

[Wilber]

Ah, the Roadrunner. All the bosses said to the engineers is we want a car that costs less than three grand and can do 100 MPH quarter miles. That's it. Any chance of something like that happening to day?

[DogOnPorch]

Ah, the Roadrunner. All the bosses said to the engineers is we want a car that costs less than three grand and can do 100 MPH quarter miles. That's it. Any chance of something like that happening to day?

...with the radio on.

[kimmy]

Ah, the Roadrunner. All the bosses said to the engineers is we want a car that costs less than three grand and can do 100 MPH quarter miles. That's it. Any chance of something like that happening to day?

I have heard that the factory-rated horsepower (335) is actually much lower than the Roadrunner is capable of producing. The "335 horsepower" figure is derived from the car's curb weight (about 3350 pounds) and the belief that a ratio of less than 10 pounds per horsepower would put the car in a higher-priced insurance category. The "335 horsepower" figure was regarded with a wink and a nudge-- it was more than equal to rivals that had higher "on paper" ratings.

I have heard people say that 2 things killed the muscle car era. One was OPEC. The other was the insurance industry. The Roadrunner might have put drag-strip performance into the range that young people could afford... but the insurance industry put it back out of their price range within a few years.

Could somebody create an equivalent today? $3000 1968 dollars is the equivalent of about $19000 2010 dollars. I believe that the supercharged version of the Chevy Cobalt costs about $25000 and is capable of a 100mph quarter mile in just over 14 seconds. The Dodge Caliber SRT4 is also about $25000 and is allegedly capable of a 100mph quarter mile in just over 14 seconds. The Roadrunner was obviously a whole lot of car for the money, but if one is just looking at the ability to go fast in a straight line, there are some pretty cheap cars today that aren't far off.

But I think that anybody who can afford the insurance premiums for performance car is probably going to want to drive something with a little more style anyway.

-k

[Wilber]

I have heard that the factory-rated horsepower (335) is actually much lower than the Roadrunner is capable of producing. The "335 horsepower" figure is derived from the car's curb weight (about 3350 pounds) and the belief that a ratio of less than 10 pounds per horsepower would put the car in a higher-priced insurance category. The "335 horsepower" figure was regarded with a wink and a nudge-- it was more than equal to rivals that had higher "on paper" ratings.

I have heard people say that 2 things killed the muscle car era. One was OPEC. The other was the insurance industry. The Roadrunner might have put drag-strip performance into the range that young people could afford... but the insurance industry put it back out of their price range within a few years.

Could somebody create an equivalent today? $3000 1968 dollars is the equivalent of about $19000 2010 dollars. I believe that the supercharged version of the Chevy Cobalt costs about $25000 and is capable of a 100mph quarter mile in just over 14 seconds. The Dodge Caliber SRT4 is also about $25000 and is allegedly capable of a 100mph quarter mile in just over 14 seconds. The Roadrunner was obviously a whole lot of car for the money, but if one is just looking at the ability to go fast in a straight line, there are some pretty cheap cars today that aren't far off.

But I think that anybody who can afford the insurance premiums for performance car is probably going to want to drive something with a little more style anyway.

-k

All correct kimmy. A lot of the manufacturers were under rating the power of their engines because of the insurance companies. 340 Darts and Dusters were much quicker than they had any right to be with the 290 HP the factory claimed. The base 335 hp, 383 in the original Road Runner eventually morphed into 440's, 440 six packs and even the Hemi. It's true the numbers these cars put up are outclassed by many new cars but considering the new ones contain the benefit of 40 more years of technology, they should. The only guy I knew with a calculator in 1973 was a civil engineer, PC? What the hell is that?

As a former Mini Cooper owner (two of the real ones, not todays Beemer) I really liked the idea of a sleeper. Remembering the look on someones face when this little box with 10 inch wheels was still there or leaving them behind was something I still enjoy. Specially when I was getting close to 50 MPG doing it.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

Holy crap. We align.........

How odd.

After a few beers, I imagine you, myself, Jack, American Woman, BC-2004, eyeball, M.Dancer, dre, capricorn, etc, etc....would be found to have far more in common than not. None of us are skinning cats in our spare time, I assume. Well...not so sure about Jack...

[Jack Weber]

Only kittens..Not cats...