Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Vintage vs. Modern performance:
Vintage cars had the edge on performance 4 5.33%
Modern cars have the edge on performance 61 81.33%
Neither is inherently better than the other 10 13.33%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:23 PM
 
2,025 posts, read 4,175,120 times
Reputation: 2540

Advertisements

I wonder if they know they are racing

2006 Subaru Impreza WRX STI 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.8

2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty 4x4 Crew Cab Diesel 0-60 mph 8.6 Quarter mile 16.6

Those are stonking numbers for a big truck but nowhere near what a real WRX will do. Now a Impezza wearing unearned WRX badges might work a bit slower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:27 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by GnomadAK View Post
I wonder if they know they are racing

2006 Subaru Impreza WRX STI 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.8

2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty 4x4 Crew Cab Diesel 0-60 mph 8.6 Quarter mile 16.6

Those are stonking numbers for a big truck but nowhere near what a real WRX will do. Now a Impezza wearing unearned WRX badges might work a bit slower.
They know it. 0 to 40 MPH...run and gun old school style. Stab and steer...whatever you want to call it. While their getting their 5,500 hole shot lined up for peak power on a launch 1,600 RPM and I'm at max power. 2008 wasn't a 7.3L. That's a 445 cu V8 BTW. Zoooooom....it slams you in the seat. If I had the 4:10s it would be even better. No need 3:73s do the job just fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:30 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
Hurts even worse when your engine never runs much over 2,900 RPM all the way flat on the floor wide open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:32 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,796,991 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
Alright, as an offshoot of the vintage vs. modern styling thread, and because that thread keeps deviating to talking about performance... which era do you think had the edge on performance?

Was it the days of massive V8's that made massive torque to get two-and-a-half tons of steel and chrome to 0-60 down the boulevard like a Nike missile? The days of open-top, windshield-less British roadsters that were basically sheet metal over a skeletal frame that weighed 1200lbs whose BMC A-series engines could be floored through the corners?

Or is it the today, the era of variable valve timing and twin turbos that launch aerodynamic sedans and coupes from 0-60 in time that was reserved for supercars just a couple decades ago? Where adaptive independent suspension, 50/50 weight distribution, and limited slip differentials allow you to pull over 1 lateral G in the turns?

Gentlemen, start your engines
Is this really a question? You touched upon the most important fact: what decades ago was reserved for high priced high performance cars now can be achieved in some family sedans. Despite sentiments every reasonable person have to acknowledge that automotive technology is going forward and cars are getting better not worse. Of course you should only compare apple to apples.

Last edited by rebel12; 09-25-2012 at 09:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,726 posts, read 16,738,692 times
Reputation: 14888
It's kind of hard to compare, because you have to imagine cars that should be similar competing against each other. That's easy with some cars, like a new Corvette versus and old one, or new versus old Mustang, but what about average, every day cars? How would a base model Nova compare to a brand new Sonic? Or a 1972 Honda 600 versus a 2013 Honda Fit? I'm guessing the newer cars would trounce the old ones in just about every way, although the old Honda might best its modern counterpart in fuel economy. As far as the cars that were the absolute pinnacles of performance, I think the newer ones would still win but some of the oldies (like the Shelby Cobra, for example) were very impressive considering the technology at the time. And some of the old European roadsters were awfully capable handlers, but I imagine they were also trickier to drive than a modern sports car, and severely limited by the tires regardless of everything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:42 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
There really are no rules in this cat and mouse game. Every man for himself....speed costs money...how fast do you want to go? Banks Power | 99-03 Ford - 7.3L Power Stroke>>Stinger®-Plus System
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:45 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
Is this really a question? You touched upon the most important fact: what decades ago was reserved for high priced high performance cars now can be achieved in some family sedans. Despite sentiments every reasonable person have to acknowledge that automotive technology is going forward and cars are getting better not worse. Of course you should only compare apple to apples.
Cars with 271...350...and even 400+ could be bought for less than 5k. Most were $2,500 to $4,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,039 posts, read 16,858,983 times
Reputation: 12950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverboat Gambler View Post
There really are no rules in this cat and mouse game. Every man for himself....speed costs money...how fast do you want to go? Banks Power | 99-03 Ford - 7.3L Power Stroke>>Stinger®-Plus System
So, now you're arguing in the defense of modern over vintage...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:47 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
That's real world usable power. Not 8,000 RPM dyno tuned pulling it out of your arse horsepower. Big difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:50 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,816,387 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
So, now you're arguing in the defense of modern over vintage...?
I was comparing a 4,000 pound carb, V8 car to a 2,000 pound state of the art with EFI, OHC, NOS, near or above 20 PSI turbo at first. Ok....so I changed it up to a almost 8,000 pound vehicle with a turbo too against a vehicle that weighs 1/4th of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top