Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





For the love of a Classic muscle car

papasam1papasam1 Posts: 84
There was a question but the old and the new mustangs and I would like to make a statement then I will try to let it go at that. Then question was why would anyone want a classic mustang over the new and more modern mustang of today. To answer that you need only to have been behind the wheel of a big block or a hot small block no computers to help you drive or to stop the tires from spinning. Some things are just for the driver and once you have started with all that untamed power on small tires, theres nothing that can take that place in your heart. So be fore you ask a question like that spin an era not a day in my shoes. Then ask me why the love of Classic Car
«1

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,442
    there is satisfaction in driving a vehicle with no helpers other than steering, throttle, and brakes. :)
  • I like cars that SOUND mechanical. I simply cannot drive, to this day, any car that doesn't make mechanical noises. My Subaru has that wonderful clackety clack of valve lifters that I like, and the whine of the gears. Exhaust note sucks but you can't have everything.

    Most older cars do sound mechanical, and you can feel what they are doing. Even the smell is important to me, of hot oil, coolant, exhaust. This is Man + Machine, not Man IN machine.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    Point about how important it is for a car to 'sound mechanical' was well made on a recent episode of Top Gear. They did a drag race between a new Honda Accord and vintage Jaguar XK and Aston Martin DB something. The Accord won easily, much to their disgust.
  • Well sure, a new 2008 Minivan could probably have won the 1954 Grand Prix of Monaco, but so what? I fully realize and understand why, in this fast paced stressful world, the appeal of driving a 2008 "isolation chamber" is a strong one, but like all compromises, you gain something and you lose something.

    I don't miss dripping convertible tops, whimpy windshield wipers and mushy bias ply tires, but I'm more than tempted to fix up a 60s cars nonetheless as my everyday driving, with "improvements".
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    I'm so used to the mild clatter and whine that comes from my fintail much of the time, I can give a good guess of speed simply by sound.

    There's something involving about driving a car that makes noises and requires inputs...like you are actually doing something. I suspect this is why many performance oriented drivers of modern cars modify the exhausts, to at least feel there is something going on.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,578
    have just gotten too "good", so that it just becomes increasingly hard to really stand out. I'm sure nowadays it's not hard to get a V-6/automatic Accord, Camry, or Altima to hit 0-60 in the low 6 second range. So if you have some high-profile car that can do it in 5, it just doesn't seem that big of a deal. Even though it takes much more effort to make a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds, compared to 6!

    But back in the day, if you had a musclecar that would do 0-60 in, say, 7 seconds, that was pretty impressive. FWIW, Consumer Reports tested a 1969 or so Charger with a 440-4bbl, relatively mild 3.23:1 rear end, and an automatic tranny. They got 0-60 in 7 seconds, so I'm sure C&D or MT would've been able to get it down to under 6. But in 1969, your typical intermediate or full-sized family car with a small V-8 typically took 10-15 seconds to hit 0-60 (CR got 10 seconds out of a late 60's Coronet 318, and around 14.5 out of a '68 Impala with a 307/automatic), and most 6-cyl domestics were 15 seconds or more. Heck, some foreign cars, like the old VW Bug, could take 30 seconds to hit 0-60!
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    There has been definite progress in the automotive world since the 60s. Modern cars handle infinitely better than those of the muscle car era, they brake far more effectively, they pollute less, they are far more reliable, and the average family sedan would embarrass a number of "muscle cars" of the day.

    However, automakers have engineered most of the "character" out of a car (especially Toyota and Lexus). Case in point, the Camry is arguably one of the best sedans produced and gives tremendous Bang for the Buck, but most car enthusiasts wouldn't be caught dead in one, because the car is about as exciting and passionate as watching grass grow...(no offense to the grass...). In their Relentless Pursuit of Perfection, many automakers have gutted out the soul of the car reducing it to a well-built appliance. Some automakers still "get it" however (Mazda for example) and make a car that has all of the benefits of modern design but is still entertaining to drive.

    I agree with Shifty about restoring a 60s car, but with improvements. You really are merging the best of both worlds, by taking advantage of modern suspension, braking, and power trains and incorporating it into the design and style of a vintage car.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    It's funny that my fintail with its little FI 2.2l (ca. 140 cubic inch) I6 can do 0-60 in maybe 12 seconds...but it revs a lot higher than an old V8, no doubt.
  • yeah but you'd have to thrash it---don't do that! :P Let it take the full 15 seconds.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    Oh, it likes to be revved. Gotta make it kick out some black smoke now and then :blush:

    But really, I think it can do 0-60 in under 15, by a couple seconds anyway. I've never really felt the car was having a hard time merging onto a highway...but then again people here like to dawdle their way onto an interstate at 38mph.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    It seems like German hp are different than American hp. Our '84 Jeep Cherokee 4cyl supposedly had about 105 hp, IIRC, but performed nothing like the '84 Audi 5000 with very similar rated hp, and similar weight. The Jeep was a slug!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,578
    Our '84 Jeep Cherokee 4cyl supposedly had about 105 hp, IIRC, but performed nothing like the '84 Audi 5000 with very similar rated hp, and similar weight. The Jeep was a slug!

    Was that the old AMC lump of an inline-4, or the Pontiac Iron Duke lump of an inline-4? I think either way, they only had about 85-90 hp. It probably hit that peak around 4000-4400 rpm, and then dropped off fast. I don't know if Jeep was still using Chrysler 3-speed torqueflites by that time, but if they were, that was probably another strike against it. That same transmission could probably handle a 318-4bbl or a 360-2bbl, so a little 2.5 4-cyl probably had to work its little [non-permissible content removed] off to spin that transmission. I think they also had to use an adaptor kit to make the Torqueflite mate up to the 4-cyl, so that probably sapped some power as well.

    My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of an Audi 5000, but I forget what kind of 0-60 time they got out of it. Probably 11-12 seconds. Well they also had a couple Jeeps in there. One was a 2.5/stick shift, while the other was a Chevy 2.8/3-speed auto, and I think the 4-cyl was actually quicker! Both times were around 17-18 seconds, though. (keep in mind that CG is sort of like CR, where their times are more conservative than what you might get with MT or C&D)
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    "One was a 2.5/stick shift, while the other was a Chevy 2.8/3-speed auto, and I think the 4-cyl was actually quicker! Both times were around 17-18 seconds, "

    17-18 sounds about right. Mine was the 2.5/stick shift, I got it for that exact reason, just as 'fast' as the 2.8/auto. My spreadsheet shows an '84 Audi at about 11 secs 0-60.
  • I think the love of a car comes from the sweat and tears and time that are put into it from the repair, the fixing,, the driving. It took one summer of working on my mustang for them to be hooked and mustang lovers for ever. Then came the driving of what they had worked on and there was no going back, so to love something like a car is having that car in your system as well as you understand the systems in the car. Just ask a car lover why he or she love that or any car. They must talk about how they became part of car. This sounds like double talk but if you understand then there nothing else to say and if you don't then theres nothing else I can tell you.
  • Them are my kids that are now girl 33 and boy 30 and still classic car lovers from the heart. Sam
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,305
    Tell us more about your Stang & what you've done to & with it.

    6RO7A169929 has been with me for over 40 years. (66 GT Cpe) :) :)
  • I am a retired Marine that have loved the mustang from the early 70's and owned my first one in 1974 a 1965 cpe and since then there have been many as my kids were going up.
    I have only has two that were close to my heart a 1968 California Special which in Hawaii in 1983 which took me a year to complete but god what a car, Between then and now again there have been many but the 1970 fastback in the one that got under my skin and has been there every since.
    The car is not for shows or has matching numbers it's my car not only by ownership but "FOR THE LOVE OF IT". In 1993 I saw the car sitting in back of a machine shop where it had been pawned by a worker at the place to the owner of the business. Well after some intense talk about the cost of the car I took it home where my 18yr old dau and 15 yr old son said dad what is that, was a good question do to the looks of the car that was missing many exter.parts as well as inter. parts.
    The 1968 C/S was the first contact that my two kids had with a car of this kind. There first ride was one they would never forget, a 6000 RPM 50 foot burnout from a 350 HP 302 mousetrap if you know the term. By the way my wife did not speak to me for a week and would never ride in the car. At this point the kids were hooked for life at 8 and 5 years old. So when the 70 Mustang came along they were there for the motor building, stero, tranny change (auto to manual) rearend change 8 inch to 9 inch, the gear change to 325 from 280, dis brake change, power brakes. GT interior placement, rack and pin steering and the body work was done by us alone with the spectramaster base coat clear coat Red RM235K.
    Dawn and Brian were there every step of the way and are now mustang lover from the heart because they have there blood, sweat, and tears invested. So we are in it for for the love of them "THE MUSTANG"

    USMC RETIRED THANKS EUPHONIUM
  • Thats hot, let us know how you are doing with the car when you get it.
  • I think that would depend on what you want to do with the car. If it's going to be your car to drive daily then the crate motor is the way to go but if you want to show the car then stay with the 283. You can put the 283 and the tranny up some where just in case you want to make it a show car later in life. I tend to want to satisfy my own desires when it comes to my cars. My car came with the 302 in it but I had the need for the 351W so thats what I put in the mustang. As I said to each his own.
  • I think that would depend on what you want to do with the car. If it's going to be your car to drive daily then the crate motor is the way to go but if you want to show the car then stay with the 283. You can put the 283 and the tranny up some where just in case you want to make it a show car latelr in life. I tend to want to satisfy my own desires when it comes to my cars. My car came with the 302 in it but I had the need for the 351W so thats what I put in the mustang. As I said to each his own.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.