Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mid-sizers of that time were boats. Full sizers were ships and land yachts, depending on the model.
That's probably because you are used to the match-box sized cars of today. Such as the ones you posted.
Quote:
The one good thing you can say about cars from back then is that NASCAR of the time actually used them rather than fake imitation shells on something else. However, they provided little downforce, and probably acted more like rudders. We don't need rudders these days, we have steering and suspension that actually work, and only need something to hold the car down.
The rear stabilizer on the Charger Daytona and Plymouth Superbird was adjustable. You could adjust how much downforce you wanted. The front torsion bars were adjustable. Also, the steering and suspension did work; they were going 200+ mph on the racetrack.
Quote:
You see, these days we want no overhangs, they serve very little purpose except to annoy people when they block the walkway with it. Push the wheels out to the corners and give us more stability.
Yes, a lot of people today actually like the chopped-off rear end. I think they look ugly. However, there wasn't that much overhang on cars like the Ford Mustang, Plymouth 'Cuda and Chevy Camaro, thus the phrase "long hood, short deck."
Overhang does serve a purpose... for one, useful trunk space (not like the mail-slot type of "trunks" on many modern cars) and it serves as a guide when backing up. Here is an example... looking out the back window of my '69 Cadillac. You can see where the car ends... very handy when backing up or parking...
The only new car I've ever bought, and the only new truck I've ever bought both had me calling customer service so much the customer service hotline people knew my voice. Safer? Depends on type of wreck you plan on having. More reliable? Can't prove it by what I've experienced !
The 1960's and 1970's were obviously where the muscle cars and all the true fans of muscle cars came from and were born from, it was that generation that spawned the word, the bought these vehicles in the hundreds of thousands per year, that spawned a decades long rivalry between two makers' cars.
The 2000's and 2010's have shown what modern technology can do to a muscle car. I think we've seen the full fledged revival and to a large extent, enthusiasm is back and nearly as strong as the first time. The muscle cars of today are not only much faster, but have excellent handling characteristics as well, all while being safer, more fuel efficient, and more comfortable.
There are SO many different models of the cars out there. The Mustang has at least 5 or more packaged between all their cars. The base v6, the GT, the GT track pac, the Boss 302, the GT350, the GT500, and I probably missed a few others. The Camaro has the base V6, the SS, the 1LE, the ZL1, and in 2014 the Z28. Then you have the Charger and Challenger and their 3 forms as well.
Do you think the cars from this generation will be sought after prized collector cars 30-40 years from now, worth even more than the old and rare muscle cars from the 1960's? Seeing the price tag on the ZL1, Z28, and GT500 I think those cars will be worth a LOT more in the future, they won't be made forever, a limited time when technology was advancing quickly and fuel remained relatively cheap.
Older cars were SO much simpler to work on, you didn't have to worry about emissions, safety parts, airbags, crash test ratings, etc, they were lighter, and cheaper to modify. New school cars are safer, cleaner, but much more complicated to work on, making tasks that might have been simple 40 years ago rather complex nowadays.
Anyways, which generation do you prefer?
If you have old cars (which I do), you have to "resto-mod" them if you really want to drive them anywhere at all
disc brakes
modern front and rear suspension
modernize the engines
We get used to how easy modern cars are to drive, that we tend to forget about how terrible the old cars were in comparison. Try stopping a Super Bee with drum brakes. Feel that "smooth ride" of a 1940s or 1950s car.
My two boys have modern V8 mustangs which are pretty fun to drive - great handling, smooth stick, nice brakes and comfortable seats. They actually look pretty cool as well. I have a 48 woody, a 32 woody, and a 69 Super Bee, all of which have been converted to "resto mods"- now they can actually be driven anywhere without worries. "Original" is bad.
The rear stabilizer on the Charger Daytona and Plymouth Superbird was adjustable. You could adjust how much downforce you wanted. The front torsion bars were adjustable. Also, the steering and suspension did work; they were going 200+ mph on the racetrack.
Not on stock parts, they ddint'. Those cars were acid dipped, modified well past the limits of the rules in place, and so far from teh street cars it's not funny.
Quote:
Yes, a lot of people today actually like the chopped-off rear end. I think they look ugly.
I like both. Sorry.
Quote:
However, there wasn't that much overhang on cars like the Ford Mustang, Plymouth 'Cuda and Chevy Camaro, thus the phrase "long hood, short deck."
In comparison to full size cars, they were short overhangs. In comparison to modern cars, they are still long overhangs, Even my 2006 Mustang, which is moder, with shorter overhangs, still has more than modern hatchbacks.
Quote:
Overhang does serve a purpose... for one, useful trunk space (not like the mail-slot type of "trunks" on many modern cars)
Mail slot? Most modern sedan have trunks that open more than vertical, which allow easy access to the trunk, but the main thing is thre are more hatchbacks now, which have ginormous openings to get MUCH larger things in teh trunk. Even those larger full size cars of old, while having width and lenth, didnt' have much height to their trunks, and gas tanks and spare tires used up a lot of useful space.
I prefer old cars with the original engine and transmission. As the saying goes, "they are only original once."
As for size...
Ah, so you picture one of the early '50s biggest cars with a modern Japanese market Suzuki that is smaller than even most of the tiny cars from Japan that we don't even get in the US? 99% of modern cars are at least double the size of the Suzuki pictured, INCLUDING modern economy cars. OTOH, the Suzuki is about the same size as a '60s MG Midget. SHoudl I reverse your image and post a '60s MG next to a modern Toyota Avalon and say, "see modern cars are bigger and more useful?" It's just as appropriate a comparison (and just as ridiculous).
I prefer old cars with the original engine and transmission. As the saying goes, "they are only original once."
As for size...
Size only matters to people that don't know how to use it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
