rickb (12/17/82)
One subject that I have not seen too much interest in on net.auto
is the subject of the Muscle Cars of the sixties and early seventies.
Are there any people out there who own/dream of/collect these types
of vehicles? I myself have quite an interest in muscle cars, mostly
the GM built ones, however, ANY make supercar interests me. I currently
own a '67 SS/RS Camaro, with original 375 H.P. 396, a '69 Z/28 with
original 302/290HP, and a '67 Firebird 400 convertible. I am interested
in swapping information/stories with anyone else who is interested in or
owns muscle cars. PLEASE send responses to me by Mail, not to the net, as
I can already feel the heat of the flames!!! Thanks,
Rick Bensene
Tektronix, Inc.dbg (04/11/83)
..au contraire. Being in high school in the late sixties I drove some and lusted after others of the "muscle car" era. BUT the ones I drove (and I bet the ones you drove too) were the most unpredictable handling beasts. Power steering should have been called Power oversteering. I remember rear ends that walked all over the place in any kind of demanding turns. No sir, I'll take independant struts around, rack and pinion, and a high revving six any day. (I sure would like to loosen up in a new vette). dbg (performance Supra)
prgclb (04/11/83)
Who needed a "sports car" in the late 60s? My father's Pontiac Catalina, a conservative suburban family-man's car, had plenty of uumph to it -- 400 cubic inch V-8 with a two-bbl carb -- I could peel rubber at 60 mph when pulling out to pass someone! Wouldn't be of much good today, even if I still had it. It drank ONLY high-octane leaded premium gasoline. My poor 1980 Chevy Malibu (today's conservative suburban family-man's car), it complains when I want to pull out into the ordinary flow of city traffic. Carl Blesch Bell Labs - Naperville, Ill. IH 2A-159, (312) 979-3360 ihuxm!prgclb
iy47ab (04/12/83)
What about today's muscle cars? I'm thinking specifically of the remarkable Toyota Celica Supra, combining power with performance in a truly incredible sporty car. That thing can *fly* ... talk about <<power>> !! Sure, the 60's muscle cars were such things of which dreams are made; but some of the new ones do come close. Lady A
zhahai (04/14/83)
Count me with those that don't worry too much about the loss of the muscle cars.
Sure, they were fun, but I'd much rather have a car with great handling and good
performance than vice versa. But you have to take into account: I don't live
by a long straight stretch of unpatrolled highway; I live in the mountains of
Colorado. I think something like a Rabbit GTi is a lot more FUN TO DRIVE there,
it handles great in the corners and can give all the accelleration ya really
need. I wonder if most of those pollutin' guzzlin' monsters of the 60's could
really keep up on a good twisty mountain road? Finesse! Not brute power.
Zhahai Stewart
...{ucbvax|allegra}!nbires!zhahai
PS: I don't have a GTi, but I've driven one on our roads. Maybe next year.
(sigh)bertp (04/15/83)
Come come now folks, What IS all this pre-occupation with Chrysler/GM? The only real Automobiles from this era were manufactured by the man from Texas (lamentably, he's sold out to Chrysler). A 427 cid King Cobra would outrun AND outhandle ANYTHING made (domestic or foreign) in those days. And my very own 1967 GT-350 was only outrun by the 400+ cid's. But when we got to the corners; I had 'em...
rickb (04/15/83)
Another Muscle Car fan. I think that the cars of today are fine for what they were designed for - relative economy, good handling, and less that breathtaking acceleration. It really isn't fair to compare the cars of "the good old days" with the cars of today, because the whole 'point' of what the cars were designed for is different. The Muscle Cars - Hemi Mopars, Big Block Chevelles, Novas, Camaros, & Vettes, Mountain Motor Fords, and the rest, were designed to have 'reasonable handling, killer acceleration, and reasonable comfort'. They were not designed to go through corners at speed, get good fuel economy, and be real comfortable. The cars of today are nimble, light weight, efficient on fuel, and are CAPABLE of good performance in the straight line with the proper modifications. It is all a matter of what one prefers. I myself, prefer the feeling of your eyeballs setting themselves back in the sockets. I like to push down the pedal a little and really FEEL the result. My girlfriend and I currently own 3 60's MuscleCars. 1) 1967 RS/SS 396, 375HP Camaro 2) 1969 Z/28 Camaro 3) 1967 Firebird 400 Convertible All of these cars are pretty crummy at going around corners with the power on. They all would end up somewhere less than desirable if pressed into competition with some of the quicker cars of today on a winding country road. However, when the straight stretch comes up, the tide would turn, VERY QUICKLY, with the new cars choking on clouds of tire smoke. Of course, the MuscleCars would run out of gas, and probably lose and overall performance test, but they weren't really made for ^(an) that in the first place. I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is like comparing apples and oranges.. The cars of today may not be able to melt an L60 set of rear tires, but they can get one around more efficiently, more comfortably, and probably a little more reliably. The cars of the '60 & early '70's are for those purists who like to occaisionally make a trip to the beach, or the dragstrip, just to remember the good old days.
avsdS:avsdT:critter (04/18/83)
In the 1960's, not too many people cared about 0-60 accelation times, but rather 1/4 mile e.t.'s and top speed. In those days, a "rod" that could do an 11 sec/ 130 MPH 1/4 mile was the one on the block to beat. I would consider my 1964 GTO ragtop, with a 389 3-2bbl engine, about average on the muscle car scale. It would do about a 13 sec/ 110 MPH quarter. Although the cornering performance was atrocious on 60's muscle cars, it's amazing what heavy duty sway bars and gas filled shocks can do for the handling of one of those old irons. Of course modern day agility can't be expected, but it can make the difference between night and day on a twisty back road. critter
emma (04/20/83)
Regarding the chilimaker from Texas. While he is doing development work for Chrysler now, I don't think it's accurate to say that he sold out. He's done a lot of work with buddy Lido in the past, and since Ford canned Iacocca, it is only reasonable that he would go off with hi.. -Joe P.
guy (04/22/83)
The new 'Vette may not be all that much better than anything else, but anything
that (claims to have) handling better than a 928 at a fair bit less $ (25-26K
for the 'Vette, 38K for a 928, now 43K for a 928S) isn't too shabby. And
consider that it's an American car; as previous commenters have noted, American
muscle cars have traditionally been mostly straight-line machines.
Speaking of American world-class supercars, anybody know what happened to the
Vector W2? It was going to be America's answer to the Lamborghini Countach and
the Ferrari 512BB (actually, even more like America's answer to the Aston
Martin Bulldog - the cars had a number of design similarities; twin-turbo
5.4(Bulldog)/5.7(W2) litre V8, De Dion rear axle, BIG tires, etc.). Aircraft
grade parts all over, 700+ HP out of a twin-turbo all-aluminum Chevy 350,
no expense spared (i.e., in the 100K price range). Haven't heard anything
about it recently. Did the guy sort of fall off the edge of the earth, or
is it still in gestation, or is it coming Real Soon Now?
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!guynaz (04/27/83)
Reply-To: naz@sdcrdcf.uucp (Norman Azadian) Organization: System Development Corporation--a Burroughs Company References: <tektroni.1071> <sdccsu3.554> The comment about the new Corvette being wimpy betray a lack of understanding about what the new 'vette is. One thing it isn't is a race car. Comparisons to the Electramatic 28zx are grossly unfair. Real production cars (as opposed to the Porsche 935, which is only technically a production car) can't be compared to a race car which costs a small fortune to build and about 23 hours a day to maintain. For the first time, Chevy has augmented the traditional 'vette power with some real handling. They not only put in a good suspension, they made special effort to lighten critical suspension parts. Thus it has cast aluminum wishbones, just like the F1 race cars. To top it off, they got Goodyear to design a new set of tires for it. These new tires really borrow from F1 tire technology and are the next best thing to glue. The 83 'vette may not be the fastest thing in a straight line, but 7.1 seconds for 0-60 isn't exactly slow. And the best part comes at the end of the straightaway when all that attention to the suspension shows up in some incredible cornering speeds. If you think all this is good, wait until next year when they will probably give it a manual transmission and a turbo! NHA