emma (04/09/83)
Sure, I'm interested. It's just that I have yet to get a followup to any of the notes I've put out! Ah, for the days when you could only get the limited-slip differential option on a Charger with a big engine-- my 383 isn't big enough! A Golf GTI with an amazing 130 hp? My Charger was rated at 320 (call it 200-250 with modern measuring). And you can put eight foot 2 x 4's in the back, too. -Joe P. (cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma)
wookie (04/11/83)
While indeed the cars of today can't come close to the performance in terms of brute force power via large CID's, and the cars of today are not built as well, and they are designed using computers to reduce the weight to bare minimum and therefore use marginal material thicknesses, just take one of those 1960's quarter mile dragsters into a corner and then you will find out where today's cars shine. Handling has improved by orders of magnitude because of the ability to design with computer aid and now because we don't have brute force quarter mile dragsters the auto companies in the U.S. had to improve performance in other areas in order to offer something to the public. Don't get me wrong I love those great old cars and in fact have a 1965 Pontiac 2+2 (421 tri-power) The performance in a straight line is absolutely unbelieveable by today's standards but I just can't keep up with the modern agile cars on a really twisty back country road. It would be interesting to take a stock 1960's vette out on a good short race course like Lime Rock in Connecticut and see just how it would do against a stock 1984 vette. Let me know what you find out! Keith Bauer White Tiger Racing Bell Labs Murray Hill
guy (04/12/83)
Just out of curiosity (the 60's were a long time ago, and I was probably too
young to notice such things anyway), what were: 1) the typical 0-60 and
quarter mile times for 60's muscle cars, and 2) what was the "typical" engine
displacement of those cars?
I have the impression that the 0-60 times were in the 5-6 second range;
current cars like the Mustang GT have times in the 7 second range, if I
remember correctly.
As for displacement, were they more of the 420+ CID sort or the 327-350 CID
sort? Were most of them actually in the 327-350 range or not? And what was
the performance difference between, say, a 350 Vette and a 427 Vette?
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!guydoehring (04/12/83)
Ah yes, I love those cars. I had ( unfortunately I have tuitition to pay ) a '67 GTO convertable with the 400 and Hurst Dual Gate. That car could run, but as Kenneth says, only in a straight line. It just had too much torque for its weight. Even with new tires when the roads got wet, the darn thing would spin its wheels ( and no, it wasn't the way I drove either ). Gas mileage was not that bad, I could get almost 20 mpg if I was very careful. I like the power, but have just as much, if not more fun, with handling which I got a good taste of with a Fiat Spyder. now stuck with my 69 Wildcat, the martian decvax!yale-comix!doehring uucp DOEMARS@YALEVM bitnet Doehring-Martin@YALE (maybe)ARPA
davee (04/14/83)
Now that we know that the Catalina has the best 0-60 time, I'm selling mine for $10,000, as is. David