Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Okie Corral (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   Welcome to the greatest muscle car era (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1492742)

Kichigai 06-26-2013 08:06

Welcome to the greatest muscle car era
 
What do you think? Is now the greatest muscle car era? Some of the new cars are putting up big HP numbers and speed that make the old muscle cars look much slower. Don't get me wrong, I love old american muscle and restored a 67 RS/SS camaro big block but it is hard to ignore the numbers and performance.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/welcome-...160000076.html

Batesmotel 06-26-2013 08:12

Hands down the best cars are made today. Just the refinements in handling make a difference. My wife has a 66 mustang. It is a great car but after a day of hard driving I an worn out. It is fatiguing to drive the older cars compared to the new ones.

HerrGlock 06-26-2013 08:22

My every day driver is a Hemi Charger. Yeah, I'm liking this throw back stuff.

The Hawk 06-26-2013 08:24

I agree. Not only can you get high HP straight from dealership, but mpg is up as well.

Kichigai 06-26-2013 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hawk (Post 20404767)
I agree. Not only can you get high HP straight from dealership, but mpg is up as well.

This is true and FAR higher reliability

ArtyGuy 06-26-2013 08:31

It is hard to debate the numbers of today (thanks to technology not available previously). I do love the current Camaro (I talk myself out of buying one at least once every two weeks) but I still gravitate to the older muscle cars. I just think they look so damn cool.

69HEMI-R/T 06-26-2013 08:35

the main problem with today's musclecars is cost! Yeah, NEW musclecars were relatively expensive back in the old days but a 2 to 3 year old car was certainly cheap enough and you could work on them yourself.
Today's musclecars are certainly better in almost every way compared to the original musclecars of the past but how many do you see in teenage of early '20 year old hands with someone "souping" them up in their driveway?

To Herrglock: If you drive one of those new 4-DOOR cars Dodge foolishly calls a "Charger" , It ain't a Charger! Chargers were only made with 2 doors! Here is a REAL Hemicharger!

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...psbb283ec9.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...ps944824af.jpg

HerrGlock 06-26-2013 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by 69HEMI-R/T (Post 20404799)
To Herrglock: If you drive one of those new 4-DOOR cars Dodge foolishly calls a "Charger" , It ain't a Charger! Chargers were only made with 2 doors! Here is a REAL Hemicharger!

How silly of me. It had a Dodge sticker price on it, says Hemi on the engine, has Charger markings on it. You're right, I'm sure it's a Pinto.

I had a '71 Duster and yeah, I'm old enough that kids my age had the late '60s/early '70s cars in HS and college. I like my current Charger better than pretty much any pony or muscle car I grew up with.

M&P15T 06-26-2013 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by 69HEMI-R/T (Post 20404799)
......a 2 to 3 year old car was certainly cheap enough and you could work on them yourself.....but how many do you see in teenage of early '20 year old hands with someone "souping" them up in their driveway?

Current muscle cars are even easier to work on.

Long-tube headers, performance cats, axle-back exhaust, X and H pipes, intake/CAI systems, are all very easy to install. If I added a super-charger and up-graded fuel injectors (or any other combo of performance up-grades), tuning the engine is simply a matter of having Bamatunes e-mail me the proper tune, and me loading it into the car.

Hell, I could have one of 9 different tunes on my car in 10 or so minutes from now.

Then there are all of the suspension, wheel & tire, and brake system up-grades, plus the usual LSDs and drive-shafts and such.

And sorry to say, but 20 somethings are not anymore likely to have a real muscle car now, than they were back in the 1960s. It's not a question of age, but money.

Modern cars are actually very easy to work on. The death of the carb has been a blessing, with tuning a car to run correctly with after-market up-grades a simple matter of a down-load.
http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps28345f03.jpg

Kichigai 06-26-2013 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtyGuy (Post 20404783)
It is hard to debate the numbers of today (thanks to technology not available previously). I do love the current Camaro (I talk myself out of buying one at least once every two weeks) but I still gravitate to the older muscle cars. I just think they look so damn cool.

I am with you

Cashgap 06-26-2013 09:14

Actually, performance is cheaper now than "back in the day".

1968 Hemi Charger sticker was $4,821. That's $32,271 in 2013 dollars. Easy to beat the Charger in every category for that price today.

And you'll have a faster car that handles so much better, is so much safer, more reliable, easier to repair, holds value better, etc.

But I also like the vibe of the '60s vehicles. You look at something that was built with all the structural integrity and attention to detail of a food truck burrito, and people drove 'em like they were rockets!!!

Bill Powell 06-26-2013 09:32

Oh, I don't know. I bought a 68 Dodge Dart 340 six pack and 4 speed, It would run right at 12 flat in the quarter in the mid teens. The front end was loose so it cornered kind of twitchy. I paid 175 dollars for it.

Kichigai 06-26-2013 09:32

I should have made this a poll so that people could vote on old vs new muscle car :brickwall:

M&P15T 06-26-2013 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Powell (Post 20404942)
Oh, I don't know. I bought a 68 Dodge Dart 340 six pack and 4 speed, It would run right at 12 flat in the quarter in the mid teens. The front end was loose so it cornered kind of twitchy. I paid 175 dollars for it.

Please share the details of the rear suspension, rear end gearing, wheels and tires, and transmission.

Plus, whatever was done to the engine, and power out-put.

I ask because, stock, 1968 340 Darts were 15.2 second 1/4 mile cars. So, unless the car you're speaking of had some serious power and traction improvements, the 1/4 mile times you've quoted are incorrect.

Hell, the 440 GTSs only did 13.3 second 1/4 mile times.

Cashgap 06-26-2013 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&P15T (Post 20404948)
Please share the details of the rear suspension, rear end gearing, wheels and tires, and transmission.

Plus, whatever was done to the engine, and power out-put.

I ask because, stock, 1968 340 Darts were 15.2 second 1/4 mile cars. So, unless the car you're speaking of had some serious power and traction improvements, the 1/4 mile times you've quoted are incorrect.

Hell, the 440 GTSs only did 13.3 second 1/4 mile times.

You forgot to consider... Memory drops about .1 sec ET and adds about a MPH to top end every year, in my experience.

Glockdude1 06-26-2013 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by 69HEMI-R/T (Post 20404799)
the main problem with today's musclecars is cost! Yeah, NEW musclecars were relatively expensive back in the old days but a 2 to 3 year old car was certainly cheap enough and you could work on them yourself.
Today's musclecars are certainly better in almost every way compared to the original musclecars of the past but how many do you see in teenage of early '20 year old hands with someone "souping" them up in their driveway?

To Herrglock: If you drive one of those new 4-DOOR cars Dodge foolishly calls a "Charger" , It ain't a Charger! Chargers were only made with 2 doors! Here is a REAL Hemicharger!

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...psbb283ec9.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...ps944824af.jpg

:bowdown: __ :thumbsup:

DanaT 06-26-2013 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cashgap (Post 20405291)
You forgot to consider... Memory drops about .1 sec ET and adds about a MPH to top end every year, in my experience.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

What I have seen is slightly different.

When waiting in line getting into the drag strip (i.e. before gates open) there are so many 10 second cars its shocking. The gates must be magical. Simply passing through them makes cars somewhere between 5 and 7 slower. I am not sure what causes, this, but my intuition is that the gates must have some sort of EMI that affects the tuning on the cars and damages the gasoline. Otherwise, I just can't figure out how a 10 second car only runs a 17 a few hundred feet later?

ilgunguygt 06-26-2013 11:49

Too bad average joe can barely afford one, or in many cases cant. In 1970 when the Chevrolet beast was the LS6 chevelle it was about a 3600 dollar car. Minimum wage was about 1.60 an hour then. Thats 2250 hours of work to pay for the car. Nowadays Minimum wage is 7.25 an hour and the cost of the top performing camaro is well above 40k. Your 7.25 wage when applied to the previous 2250 hours required to pay for the chevelle comes up to less than 17k.

Yes, the cars are faster but the average joe that used to buy them cant afford to anymore.

BigMoneyGrip 06-26-2013 13:24

1 Attachment(s)
The new "muscle cars" are nice, but the real ones had big blocks.

M&P15T 06-26-2013 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMoneyGrip (Post 20405628)
The new "muscle cars" are nice, but the real ones had big blocks.

You mean "original ones".....


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:04.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.