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)
 
Old 09-07-2013, 08:27 PM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,987 posts, read 21,853,815 times
Reputation: 7007

Advertisements

Will not waste my time reading all the remarks about a RICER.....they are just as stupid as the NEW 17 in rims and higher on the new cars.

The NEW cars have the Low Slung look and huge wheels in the fender wells with the Rotors exposed......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,473 posts, read 33,157,899 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wcu25rs View Post
Of course they are for different purposes. This all started when I said I got away from muscle cars because I prefer a car that can do more than go fast in a straight line, and you then went on about how muscle cars could handle. Obviously, in those days, there were some muscle cars that did handle far better than other ones, but compared to today's cars, there is absolutely zero comparison. That's why you don't see as many young people interested in muscle cars because in most scenarios todays import performance cars are cheaper than old muscle, get better mileage, are more reliable, in some cases are faster in a straight line, and corner far better than a muscle car ever thought about.

Like I've said earlier, I'm not hating on muscle, as I've owned them, and been around them since age 16, but these are just facts.
Except, as mentioned, for those who do suspension upgrades on their classic muscle and pony cars and race them on road courses. Not a huge amount do it, but some do. Which means classic muscle and pony cars can handle if the owner desires it to.

And don't kid yourself... plenty of those under 30 years old admire classic muscle cars, along with many of those hoping to own one someday. The visual impact (styling) and driving "feel" of a muscle car is far different (better) than any import ever thought about! Also, many young people are not interested in old muscle because they were not alive when they were popular. Fortunately, there are opportunities to see these American icons and car shows and other events. Some lucky ones even get to ride in them or drive them. It's not only because they are rare that classic American muscle cars (and luxury cars) are selling for $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. It's because they are desirable and fun to drive. It's just not the same feeling when you drive a modern plastic bubble!

As far as reliability, most of those old hi-performance muscle car engines were incredibly rugged, tough and reliable. It wasn't a muscle car, but the '66 Dodge Dart GT I used to own with mildly modified V-8 engine never, EVER, even whimpered or gave any trouble with the many burnouts I did during the 20+ years I owned it. Winding out 1st gear to 45 mph and 2nd to 75 mph... never a problem from the engine or transmission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,237 posts, read 24,707,490 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightleopard654 View Post
The "appeal" differs from person to person.
One popular reason for ricing a car is if you're 16 and you inherit a mod-able car like the Civic. Then the rich white punk who goes to your school gets a new Camaro for his first car, and he's got all the chicks wanting to go for a ride in it. So to compete, you rice your parents' old Civic, race the Camaro kid, kick his a$$, and next thing you know you're the guy taking chicks for rides. That was how the whole thing started, anyways.
One problem...the real girls don't flock to some clown driving a riced out Civic. Maybe the girls too fat/geeky looking to get a guy might.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 01:20 AM
 
Location: The Valley of the Sun
1,479 posts, read 2,709,479 times
Reputation: 1534
I think sooped up Civics look retarded but I'm sure there are many thousands of people that think my SV650 looks stupid. I know for a fact that my entire family and most of my co-workers think I'm out of my mind for doing trackdays and club races on my Yamaha R6 and when I start racing SuperMotos I'm sure that will be frowned upon as well.

Bottom line: To each his own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 03:01 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 24,120,831 times
Reputation: 6822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Good. Then maybe you will stop comparing them to real cars!



Right, as if everyone drives their cars on twisty roads every day.
I also don't see the point of a car that doesn't stop and turn except at a drag strip. Fortunately, those muscle cars could turn and stop (yes, even out on the road and on twisty mountain roads).

For example, the '71 Dodge Charger Super Bee with the 426-Hemi engine tested by Motor Trend (Dec., 1970) stopped from 60-0 mph in only 115.1 feet. A '71 Charger Super Bee with the 440-6 pack engine stopped from the same speed in 119.1 feet.

A '69 Lincoln, also tested by Motor Trend (April, 1969) stopped from 60-0 mph in 109.9 feet; that is probably a shorter stopping distance than 80% of new cars! (I have seen road tests of late-model cars and some take 120 or more feet to stop from 60-0 mph.)



If you have to ask that question, you are not a muscle car fan! The point being that the classic muscle cars could burn rubber, and very well. I don't see the point in taking a curve at 60 or 70 mph, but I do know why many car fans burn rubber. It's practically a part of Americana!
I find those distances very hard to believe, given all the deficiences relative to some of the modern sports cars that took farther to stop. I've driven numerous muscle cars, including the pictured 440 6 pack Challenger, Indy Pace car Camaros, etc, and I know none of them would be anywhere close to those distances, even on modern tires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puginabug View Post
LOL me too. I have no idea what "riced up" OR "donk" means.
When you looked up those terms, either in this thread, on this forum, or on the internet, what did you find?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bagu View Post
Will not waste my time reading all the remarks about a RICER.....they are just as stupid as the NEW 17 in rims and higher on the new cars.

The NEW cars have the Low Slung look and huge wheels in the fender wells with the Rotors exposed......
Is that all new cars? Every single one of them? No exceptions? Maybe you're only referring to a few vehicles, rather than millions. 17" is not huge by any definition.

Last edited by vmaxnc; 09-08-2013 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,473 posts, read 33,157,899 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
I find those distances very hard to believe, given all the deficiences relative to some of the modern sports cars that took farther to stop. I've driven numerous muscle cars, including the pictured 440 6 pack Challenger, Indy Pace car Camaros, etc, and I know none of them would be anywhere close to those distances, even on modern tires.
I know, I've heard that before. But some classic cars did have very good brakes, whether some want to believe it or not.

Here are the actual figures:

Motor Trend, April, 1969

-------------------------- Chrysler------- Lincoln------- Cadillac
-------------------------- Imperial------- Continental--- Coupe de Ville
-------------------------- Le Baron-----------------------------------

Stopping distances from:
30 mph-------------------- 19.0 feet----- 29.0 feet----- 26.2 feet
60 mph-------------------- 116.7-------- 109.9--------- 149.8

The figures for the Imperial and Lincoln surprised even the testers. And they said, "We know the stopping distances of the Imperial and Continental from 60 mph will cause an avalanche of letters, but the distances represent the mean and are not even the best of the multiple stops made."

I would ask if the distances are hard to believe, why would they have the relatively long distance for the Cadillac? Also, they would have had a lot of complaints from those who bought those cars based partially on the road test results. However, not one letter was printed by a reader claiming that his car took much longer to stop than the tested cars.

This is another example, a road test of a 1966 Chrysler 300 by Car & Driver (Nov., 1965), hardly a magazine biased toward American cars.

Brakes

Response-------------- Excellent
Pedal pressure--------- Excellent
Fade resistance-------- Excellent
Smoothness----------- Good
Directional stability----- Excellent

Now, a Consumer Reports (April, 1968) test of a Cadillac Sedan de Ville

Brake fade test from 60 mph

Pedal effort for initial 1/2-g stop------ 50 lbs
Effort for 10th repeated stop--------- 55 lbs

One more, the test results of the Chargers mentioned...

------------------- Charger 500----- Charger Super Bee-- Charger SE---- Charger Super Bee

Engine------------- 383-4 bbl-------- 440-6 pack-------- 440-4 bbl----- 426-Hemi
Transmission------- 3-speed manual-- automatic---------- automatic---- automatic

Stopping distances
-- from 30 mph----- 32.6 feet--------- 27.0 feet---------- 32.2 feet----- 28.8
-- from 60 mph----- 123-------------- 119.1-------------- 122.3-------- 115.1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 06:44 PM
 
Location: WNC
1,571 posts, read 2,951,040 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Except, as mentioned, for those who do suspension upgrades on their classic muscle and pony cars and race them on road courses. Not a huge amount do it, but some do. Which means classic muscle and pony cars can handle if the owner desires it to.

And don't kid yourself... plenty of those under 30 years old admire classic muscle cars, along with many of those hoping to own one someday. The visual impact (styling) and driving "feel" of a muscle car is far different (better) than any import ever thought about! Also, many young people are not interested in old muscle because they were not alive when they were popular. Fortunately, there are opportunities to see these American icons and car shows and other events. Some lucky ones even get to ride in them or drive them. It's not only because they are rare that classic American muscle cars (and luxury cars) are selling for $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. It's because they are desirable and fun to drive. It's just not the same feeling when you drive a modern plastic bubble!

As far as reliability, most of those old hi-performance muscle car engines were incredibly rugged, tough and reliable. It wasn't a muscle car, but the '66 Dodge Dart GT I used to own with mildly modified V-8 engine never, EVER, even whimpered or gave any trouble with the many burnouts I did during the 20+ years I owned it. Winding out 1st gear to 45 mph and 2nd to 75 mph... never a problem from the engine or transmission.
Driving feel and visual is completely subjective. I agree with you on looks to an extent, but driving feel? No. The driving feel between my WRX and my 67 Camaro(as well as both of my dads) is night and day. I simply prefer the feel of a turbocharged car and being extremely flat during cornering, but that's just me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,473 posts, read 33,157,899 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wcu25rs View Post
Driving feel and visual is completely subjective. I agree with you on looks to an extent, but driving feel? No. The driving feel between my WRX and my 67 Camaro(as well as both of my dads) is night and day. I simply prefer the feel of a turbocharged car and being extremely flat during cornering, but that's just me.
Yes, it is subjective. My former '66 Plymouth Fury had a very "open" feeling when driving it. Because it had no headrests, a low beltline, an upright roofline and lots of glass area.

I feel claustrophobic when riding in my sister-in-law's 2007 Toyota Camry and my brother's 2008 Acura TL because those lack all the things mentioned above.

Having rode in an driven cars which had engines with loads of torque, for me, nothing can top that! I don't care for turbo-lag; I like a car to jump off the line (which the American V-8s could easily do). I don't like hard cornering; it makes me nauseous!

But again, to each his own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,237 posts, read 24,707,490 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by wcu25rs View Post
That's why you don't see as many young people interested in muscle cars because in most scenarios todays import performance cars are cheaper than old muscle, get better mileage, are more reliable, in some cases are faster in a straight line, and corner far better than a muscle car ever thought about.
Actually I think the young people of today really want classic muscle, the problem is the price to own one is out of their reach, thanks to Barrett Jackson exposing to the world what the baby boomers are willing to pay to live their second childhood. Plus just to buy one you need good credit or you need a specialty loan; with a newer car you have a better chance of getting financed. Fact is classic muscle will get you laid quicker than most imports even if they're slower and don't corner. BTW you know now you can make most any classic muscle car handle well in the corners like the newer cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 09:26 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 24,120,831 times
Reputation: 6822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
I know, I've heard that before. But some classic cars did have very good brakes, whether some want to believe it or not.

Here are the actual figures:

Motor Trend, April, 1969

-------------------------- Chrysler------- Lincoln------- Cadillac
-------------------------- Imperial------- Continental--- Coupe de Ville
-------------------------- Le Baron-----------------------------------

Stopping distances from:
30 mph-------------------- 19.0 feet----- 29.0 feet----- 26.2 feet
60 mph-------------------- 116.7-------- 109.9--------- 149.8

The figures for the Imperial and Lincoln surprised even the testers. And they said, "We know the stopping distances of the Imperial and Continental from 60 mph will cause an avalanche of letters, but the distances represent the mean and are not even the best of the multiple stops made."

I would ask if the distances are hard to believe, why would they have the relatively long distance for the Cadillac? Also, they would have had a lot of complaints from those who bought those cars based partially on the road test results. However, not one letter was printed by a reader claiming that his car took much longer to stop than the tested cars.

This is another example, a road test of a 1966 Chrysler 300 by Car & Driver (Nov., 1965), hardly a magazine biased toward American cars.

Brakes

Response-------------- Excellent
Pedal pressure--------- Excellent
Fade resistance-------- Excellent
Smoothness----------- Good
Directional stability----- Excellent

Now, a Consumer Reports (April, 1968) test of a Cadillac Sedan de Ville

Brake fade test from 60 mph

Pedal effort for initial 1/2-g stop------ 50 lbs
Effort for 10th repeated stop--------- 55 lbs

One more, the test results of the Chargers mentioned...

------------------- Charger 500----- Charger Super Bee-- Charger SE---- Charger Super Bee

Engine------------- 383-4 bbl-------- 440-6 pack-------- 440-4 bbl----- 426-Hemi
Transmission------- 3-speed manual-- automatic---------- automatic---- automatic

Stopping distances
-- from 30 mph----- 32.6 feet--------- 27.0 feet---------- 32.2 feet----- 28.8
-- from 60 mph----- 123-------------- 119.1-------------- 122.3-------- 115.1
Thanks for the post. I'm still shaking my head.
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