an@hou2h.UUCP (A.NGUYEN) (05/25/84)
-- I am getting tired of people proclaiming Detroit muscle cars to be great sport cars. Those cars are good at one thing and one thing only: going fast in a straight line. That's fine -- there's nothing wrong with neck-snapping acceleration, just don't try to tell me that blinding straightaway speed is all there is to a well-rounded sports car! A true sports car must be able to stop and turn as well as it can accelerate. I certainly don't want to sell my soul for a car that is always first off the line only to sink to its knees when the first turn comes up! Au "Driver? Why do we need a driver?! Won't that swoopy sports car go fast by itself?!"
dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (05/29/84)
-->I am getting tired of people proclaiming Detroit muscle cars to be
-->great sport cars. Those cars are good at one thing and one thing
-->only: going fast in a straight line. That's fine -- there's
-->nothing wrong with neck-snapping acceleration, just don't try to
-->tell me that blinding straightaway speed is all there is to a
-->well-rounded sports car!
-->
--> Au
I have to disagree with Au in that all Detroit muscle cars are good
for is "going fast in a straight line".Going fast in a straight line
encompasses several points in performance driving :
1. Acceleration from a standing start (What most people think of when
talking about Detroit iron).
2. Passing acceleration (One of the best points for D.i.).
3. Capacity for excellent braking (Not always a standard feature).
4. Excellent for high speed cruising (What 55 mph sign officer).
One must bear the last point in mind when talking about the pros & cons
of D.i. as most of them were designed when 55mph had no significance to
99% of americans.Some of these cars early - mid sixties are probably
rare enough to be declared "classics" pretty soon.Most of them that are
worth preserving only see limited usage ,weekends ,special events etc.
I prefer to drive my Z28 when I'm going to be driving quite a distance
say over 200 miles but get immense pleasure from stealing my wifes fiat
X1/9 and zapping around country roads.
I think that there are still very valid reasons for owning a nice
piece of D.i. if you have the room to use it,however as the north-east
(where I presently live) get more and more crowded there will come a
time (I'd guess 5 years) when I'll have to put the Z28 out to pasture
or relegate it to pure weekend driving away from the crowds.
Sounds to me like the end of an era,
sounds like the mid-west calling me back to them wide open roads.
Bye for now,
Dave Peak(pyuxhh!dxp)lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (05/30/84)
> I am getting tired of people proclaiming Detroit muscle cars to be > great sport cars. Those cars are good at one thing and one thing > only: going fast in a straight line. That's fine -- there's nothing > wrong with neck-snapping acceleration, just don't try to tell me that > blinding straightaway speed is all there is to a well-rounded sports > car! > A true sports car must be able to stop and turn as well as it can > accelerate. I certainly don't want to sell my soul for a car that > is always first off the line only to sink to its knees when the first > turn comes up! I hate to admit it, but the handling specs for the '84 Chevy Corvette are better than those for the Porsche 911, and the reviews (Road and Track - Car and Driver) confirm it.
an@hou2h.UUCP (A.NGUYEN) (05/31/84)
-- > Dick Lincoln (princeton!eosp1!lincoln) > I hate to admit it, but the handling specs for the '84 Chevy Corvette > are better than those for the Porsche 911, and the reviews (Road and > Track - Car and Driver) confirm it. The '84 Vette is *NOT* a muscle car! It is a desmogged, strangled, atrophied, castrated muscle car. True muscle cars do quarter miles in 12 seconds! But then again, the Vette is a much more well rounded sports car. Au
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/01/84)
> > I am getting tired of people proclaiming Detroit muscle cars to be > > great sport cars. Those cars are good at one thing and one thing > > only: going fast in a straight line. That's fine -- there's nothing > > wrong with neck-snapping acceleration, just don't try to tell me that > > blinding straightaway speed is all there is to a well-rounded sports > > car! > > A true sports car must be able to stop and turn as well as it can > > accelerate. I certainly don't want to sell my soul for a car that > > is always first off the line only to sink to its knees when the first > > turn comes up! > I hate to admit it, but the handling specs for the '84 Chevy Corvette > are better than those for the Porsche 911, and the reviews (Road and > Track - Car and Driver) confirm it. What that says is that a Corvette is not (no longer?) a Detroit muscle car. (I've heard that the Corvette achieves its handling at the cost of "refinement" - i.e., the ride is rather rough - and that detracts somewhat from the "fun-to-drive" aspect of the car. Chevy is supposedly working on that...) It's nice that Detroit realizes that straight-line acceleration isn't all there is to a high-performance car. Now that European and Japanese manufacturers offer real competition in the marketplace, if Detroit hadn't realized this they'd be in worse trouble than they are in currently. Now they're starting to realize that things like "build quality" are important, too - too bad they didn't realize that until the Japanese had already taken such a large share of the market. It's a new era in the auto business; I'd like to see the American auto industry (management and labor) realize that it's "change or die" time (although those wonderful wonderful trade restrictions are permitting the industry to change more slowly - perhaps more slowly than they should). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (06/03/84)
Reading about the 'Vette's handling, and whether or not it is a real muscle car, I pose the following question: Do we have a consensus that anything with handling is by definition not a muscle car? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, what do we do about all those Herb Adams Camaros? -Joe P.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/04/84)
> Reading about the 'Vette's handling, and whether or not it is a real > muscle car, I pose the following question: > Do we have a consensus that anything with handling is by definition not > a muscle car? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, > what do we do about all those Herb Adams Camaros? Simple - we say they're not muscle cars. It depends on the definition of "muscle car" - is it a car with muscle (in which case I think we'd all agree that a Porsche 928 or 911 Turbo is definitely a muscle car) or is it a car with nothing but muscle (in which case a Herb Adams Camaro isn't a muscle car)? I'd make the decision based on what the "classic" muscle cars had - could you take, say, a 440 Hemi 'Cuda down a twisty mountain road without too much, shall we say, "drama"? Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
an@hou2h.UUCP (A.NGUYEN) (06/04/84)
-- > Do we have a consensus that anything with handling is by definition not > a muscle car? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, > what do we do about all those Herb Adams Camaros? Loosely speaking, muscle cars are anything that will light up the tires in all four gears! (Muscle car with 5 speeds? Blasphemy!) (-: Handling and muscle are not mutually exclusive. A Porsche 930 is a muscle car. Herb Adams Camaros are muscle cars. Doesn't matter if it comes from the heartland or the fazerland! Au
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (06/04/84)
In addition to going to multi-port fuel injection for '85, Chevy engineers are responding to the biggest criticism of the '84 Vette, its ride harshness. The Z51 (did I get the number right?) suspension option is having its spring rates lowered to be fairly close to the base suspension of last year (although stabilizer bars will retain the bulk of the optional suspensions handling advantages). There are also some changes to tire dimensions, etc. The article in Road and Track claimed just as good smooth-road handling, with improved rough-road performance. The Vette will still be a stiflly sprung, and somewhat harsh riding car, though. Chevy engineers feel this "all-out" handling emphasis is where they want to be. Their goal in softening the springs was only to increase adhesion on rough roads (avoiding wheel hop and chatter), not to make it more of a highway cruiser / GT car. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 AT&T Bell Laboratories
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (06/04/84)
It seems we are getting mired down in definitions.
Generally speaking, a muscle car was an intermediate sized
Detroit produced car with an engine out of a full sized or
high performance car from the same company. Some samples
of these cars were:
o Pontiac GTO = Le Mans with 389 or 421 CID engine
o Olds 442 = Starfire with Old's 98 engine
o Chevelle SS = Malibu with 454 CID engine
Ford and Chrysler had similar packages. Some of these cars could
be had with handling packages. The larger, heavier engines did not
help the handling characteristics of these cars.
The Mustang and Camaro were never called sport cars, but sporty cars.
With the handling pakages, both these cars were pretty good handling
machines. With the large engine options these were also muscle cars.
My Webster's New World Dictionary defines sport car as:
a low, small automobile, typically an open car with a high-compression
engine and seats for two.
The Corvette has always fit that definition. It seems some peoples
definition of sport car includes limits as to the cars displacement,
number of cylinders and country of manufacture.
Dave Williams
Tektronix, Inc.
ECSguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/05/84)
> Loosely speaking, muscle cars are anything that will light up the > tires in all four gears! (Muscle car with 5 speeds? Blasphemy!) (-: > Handling and muscle are not mutually exclusive. A Porsche 930 is a > muscle car. Herb Adams Camaros are muscle cars. Doesn't matter if > it comes from the heartland or the fazerland! The original posting that started this off said: > I am getting tired of people proclaiming Detroit muscle cars to be > great sport cars. Those cars are good at one thing and one thing > only: going fast in a straight line. so I guess the distinction is between a "muscle car" - which can handle well - and a "Detroit muscle car", which can't. The 930, obviously, isn't a Detroit muscle car (it's a Zuffenhausen muscle car :-)), and one could argue that a Herb Adams Camaro isn't one, either, if its handling qualities are due to Herb Adams' tweaking and not the Detroit design. I presume that "Detroit muscle car" referred to a car from the heydays of the muscle car; I can't speak for their dynamic qualities one way or the other. Maybe someone experienced with those cars in their "stock" form can speak to this question? Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
jeff@qubix.UUCP (06/05/84)
I read with a great deal of interest the responses to the question
of '84 Vette Stiffness/handling/comfort. Strange - all these people
were voicing opinions and passing judgement and none had actually driven
an '84 Vette! I've put about 4400 miles on my '84 Vette
(with Z51- but of course!) and I have something
to say, but first I'd like to respond to Dick Lincoln's assertion that
the '84 Vette is not a muscle car cause real muscle cars do 12 second
quarter miles. I' ve never read anything anywhere that is more true
or accurate than his response to muscle cars. I step on the gas and
ask myself "where's the horsepower"?? It's true - the '84 is a slug.
It feels like maybe a 15.0 to 15.5 second car. Of course it is probably
the fastest (least slow) car made in the US today but OF COURSE it isn't
a muscle car!! Guess what - Detroit hasn't MADE a muscle car in
13 years! Fortunately Chevy still makes and sells powerful motors,
they just don't put them in the cars they sell. They expect you to
do that yourself. Go back to the parts counter and buy an L-88 short
block and some open chambered heads, put together your rat motor, and go
fast.
I was truly disappointed when I read that Chevy softened up
the suspension in the '85 Vette. It's bad enough that they messed
up the base suspension, but they also weakened the Z51. What astounds
me is the automotive press complains (Car and Driver etc.) that the
suspension is too stiff and these are SPORTS CAR magazines?? OF COURSE
the car rides rough you idiots! It's suppose to! You don't buy a
'Vette if you want creature comforts. If I didn't want to feel any
bumps I would have bought a Caddy. The truth is that the Z51 pack-
age is a very good compromise between comfort and handling. If anything
the suspension could be stiffer, it certainly does'nt toss me around
like my '66 with F41 suspension. Despite the extremely comfortable
ride, the handling of my '84 defies description. Two things are absolutely
remarkable - cornering force and road feel (i.e. steering response).
My '66 Vette may actually generate as much sideways G's but the feel of the
two cars is as different as night and day. The steering response makes
all the difference. I just can't believe the wimps who ride in a
'Vette and whine "it's too rough! I can feel the bumps!".
Another thing I don't understand is the direct contradiction
in Guy Harris' response. Actually, he's just repeating something he
heard but he says "I've heard that the Corvette achieves it's (good)
handling at the expense of "refinement" - i.e. the ride is rather rough
and that detracts somewhat from the "fun-to drive" aspect of the car."
So going by that reasoning, the softer the suspension, the more fun a car is to
drive. That means that a big limo would be the funnest car to drive
and a Can-Am racer would be a terribly boring car to drive. And since
it's a fact that the stiffer the suspension the better a car handles
that means the better a car handles, the less fun it is to drive!?
Shows you how screwed up I was -- I always thought the better the handling
the more fun to drive.
In another response Guy Harris talks about the "Best Handling
American Car" article in Car&Driver. I read that story and
I found the conclusion they came to absolutely baffling. Their data
showed the 'Vette had MUCH better cornering, MUCH better steering response
("Knife-edged" is how they described it) than the Z-28 so their conclusion
is that the 'Vette handles MUCH worse than Z-28!! Therefore, great
cornering and great steering response equals bad handling. Now that's
certainly logical! I would beg to disagree with Guy when he says the
staff of Car&Driver "aren't exactly the sort of people who want a sports
car with the ride of a Cadillac". Apparently a Cadillac ride is EXACTLY
what they would want in a sports car.
Guy also talks about the test at Firebird raceway. Since the
'85 Vette yielded faster lap times than the '84, that means the '85
suspension is better, right? That was the conclusion reached. Hey,
wait a second! The '85 had 15% more horsepower! That's why the lap
times were better!! In fact, I read a report by an Autoweek reporter
and he said the '85 had worse road feel than the '84. He said that
he thought the skid-pad performance would be about the same cause of
the wider wheels and bigger anti-roll bar. Well I don't think the
skid pad numbers will be as good for the '85, but we will have to wait
a few more months to find out. Doesn't matter anyway cause how the car
FEELS is what's important and from what I've read the feel of the '85
isn't as good. And even if the bigger tires and bigger anti-roll bar
did make up for the softer suspension, if the good springs from the '84
were used on the '85 it would be better still and the name of the game
is suppose to be "make it as good as possible".
In all fairness to Guy, he appears to be mostly repeating
what he has read and not necessarily agreeing with it.
--
Jeff Buchanan @ QUBIX Graphic Systems, Inc., Saratoga, CA.
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!
...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!jeff
decwrl!qubix!jeff@Berkeley.ARPAemma@uw-june.UUCP (06/05/84)
Admittedly, my question about a question was intended to add heat, rather than light, to the discussion. I was planning to add a later submission regarding "what is a muscle car", but Dave Williams has already done that for me. The point is, it is really impossible to set down a list of criteria which will unambiguously separate sports and muscle cars. Handling? Compare a '66 Barracuda S with one of the last MG's (a lousy sports car by then, but a sports car all the same). Dave's criteria would make the Chrysler Laser a muscle car! We all know, deep in our heaart of hearts, the difference, and don't tend to make mistakes. We don't call a Porsche 930 a muscle car, or a Camaro a sports car. Granted, Au, most of the '60's muscle cars had the handling of a ballistic missile. But the brush was a little broad. -Joe P.
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/05/84)
This really is an interesting discussion of muscle vs. sports cars, but everything that Detroit makes is NOT a muscle car. The new 'Vette is an example. This car should be compared to exotic cars like a 928 or a 308GTB4 and the like. A muscle car is a '67 GTO or an early '70's Trans Am with a 454 (or whatever those humungous engines displaced). Even a new Z28 has a hard time justifying the muscle car label. Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (06/06/84)
What do we call the first Camaro Z-28, with the 302 engine. This
car was very little removed (during its first year or two only) from
the versions used in the Trans-Am race series, except for the
engine being de-tuned, and having a full body, with interior, etc.
The suspension was not very much different, and the car handled
tremendously. A similar situation exists for the first ('65 and '66)
Shelby GT-350s. Hertz used to rent out these, in a special Hertz
gold and black paint job. It was common practice to rent one,
take it to the weekend SCCA race, run it as is (just pump up the tires)
and return it on Monday. (How did it get all those little dents, you ask?)
Although these two are muscle cars, and from Detroit, they both handled
better than many sports cars. They were about as close to race cars as you
can get, and still be legal.
Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611
AT&T Bell Laboratories
PS: Speaking of street-legal race cars, anyone remember the Pegaso?
(Or, remember reading about it, as they were very rare.) This Spanish
car was made in the late 50's, early 60's, and was exactly the same as
Pegaso's Formula 1 car of the same era, but with a full body. The engine
and chassis were unchanged.mikey@trsvax.UUCP (06/08/84)
#R:hou2h:-46800:trsvax:55200064:000:235 trsvax!mikey Jun 7 16:25:00 1984 God forbid, don't forget the Buick Stage 1, or even the VERY limited, dealer modified only, Stage 2. mikey at trsvax P.S. Does anyone know how many Stage 2s were ever built? Has anyone ever seen one, other than in a magazine?
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/08/84)
A few comment about the article from; Jeff Buchanan @ QUBIX Graphic Systems, Inc., Saratoga, CA. >>My '66 Vette may actually generate as much sideways G's but the feel of the >>two cars is as different as night and day. The steering response makes >>all the difference. I just can't believe the wimps who ride in a >>'Vette and whine "it's too rough! I can feel the bumps!". Now really, I need some numbers to believe your '66 and '84 'Vettes are even comparable. If you think your '66 was a good handling car (especially compared to the new one) your judgement is suspect. >So going by that reasoning, the softer the suspension, the more fun a car is to >>drive. That means that a big limo would be the funnest car to drive >>and a Can-Am racer would be a terribly boring car to drive. And since >>it's a fact that the stiffer the suspension the better a car handles >>that means the better a car handles, the less fun it is to drive!? >>Shows you how screwed up I was -- I always thought the better the handling >>the more fun to drive. I find two glaring logic errors here. First it is possible that the suspension could be too stiff on a car, thus if the suspension was softened the car would be more fun to drive. Carrying this argument out to extremes of the limo is absurd, moderation is possible. Second it is not a fact that the stiffer the suspension the better the handling. In fact, in Grand Prix racing it was noted that even though they allowed for suspension travel the suspension actually doesn't travel. They experimented with no suspension but (not surprisingly) it made the cars nearly undrivable. I realize that this is an extreme example, so I will also mention Peugots (sp), they are well known for soft springs and suspension but undoubtably handle better than many harsher sprung cars. >> In another response Guy Harris talks about the "Best Handling >>American Car" article in Car&Driver. I read that story and >>I found the conclusion they came to absolutely baffling. Their data >>showed the 'Vette had MUCH better cornering, MUCH better steering response >>("Knife-edged" is how they described it) than the Z-28 so their conclusion >>is that the 'Vette handles MUCH worse than Z-28!! Therefore, great >>cornering and great steering response equals bad handling. Now that's >>certainly logical! I think what Car&Driver really discussed was the best *driving* car. The main point I got out of the article was their feeling that the 'Vette required too much driver input and forced the driver to concentrate on driving at all times. I think most of us like to be able to relax occasionly. My own experiences back-up C&D's reporting. Another example might be the 930 Turbo, both C&D and Road&Track gave it poor grades as a highway cruiser (read GT) because of its nervousness. Notice I'm comparing your precious 'Vette to the 930, I think it's a valid comparison, the 'Vette may even be the winner. I would beg to disagree with Guy when he says the >>staff of Car&Driver "aren't exactly the sort of people who want a sports >>car with the ride of a Cadillac". Apparently a Cadillac ride is EXACTLY >>what they would want in a sports car. Come now, you've read enough in the magazine to know better than this. I really do like the new 'Vette, I've enjoyed the time I've spent driving and riding in one. This car is a huge step forward for the American automakers, it has been many years since they've put out a car competitive in this market. Unfortunately the car is harder to drive than many people would like, Chevy is (or has) responded to their complaints. As long as they don't compramise too much everyone might be pleased. Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
ludemann@sun.uucp (Jim Ludemann) (06/14/84)
I think this discussion needs a new distinction, that of GT, or Grand Touring cars. I drive a 911, my friends drive 928s, and the only thing we can agree on is that the two cars are for different purposes. A 911 is a sports car, and as such it is for driving on tight twisty roads where flat out is ~90 mph. A 928 is a GT car, which means it is for meant for cruising all day at 120-140 mph and not making its driver tired, or for driving on gentle twisty roads where flat out is ~120 mph. A muscle car is meant purely for getting thrills from outrageous acceleration, and not for driving anywhere. A new Vette is a GT car, and an old Vette is a muscle car. ^D