Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

13

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    is retro, in a way. It's tall, and while it's a fairly large car, it's stubby. It gets most of its interior volume from height, not stretch-out room. Up front, you have a high-up seating position, which is trying to be SUV/truck-ish, but that's also how cars used to be back in the 40's and early-mid 50's. High-up seating position, but really not a whole lot of stretch-out room for taller drivers. And a very generous back seat. The trunk of the car is huge, but again, most of that is because of the height of the car. Taller car, higher decklid. Really not that unlike your typical car of the 40's, or early 50's.

    I dunno though, if the 500 has enough flash to snag those who are lured in with the Mustang. At least with the Jetta, it's not that big of a jump from a New Beetle. And the Altima is one of the sportier midsized family-type cars out there, so it ties in well with the Z. IMO though, the 500 just doesn't have that pizzaz. Now the Fusion does, IMO. I could see someone getting lured in by the Mustang, and driving home with a Fusion. Or maybe a Focus.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    So if I understand correctly, you are agreeing that a retro styled model will help drive up foot traffic at a dealership? If so I agree.

    While I am not in the market for a new car right now, I would look at a Mustang to see how it invokes the memories of cars I have owned. Would it be enough to make me pull the trigger? Now no, but if I were looking, yes. Will the charger/challenger 2 door put more people in the showroom for Chrysler group, yes. A retro Camaro? Yes.

    I agree with the previous poster about the tbird. If the angles were right and the hood and trunk fixed you would be a sweet ride. But ford could sell a lot of them at 30k. It is a cruiser not a performance car. If it were priced to compete with the Solara in price and even the SLK/Crossfire group, I think the market would see a few more on the road. The other option is the give it the squarebird treatment, extend the wheelbase and give it 4 seats. Volvo and Saab, Mercedes, Chrysler and Toyota all have fair to good selling 4 seat convertables. There is a market there, I think.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    So if I understand correctly, you are agreeing that a retro styled model will help drive up foot traffic at a dealership?

    Depends. For Ford, the track record is 50-50 -- worked for the Mustang, failed miserably for the T-Bird. The Beetle was definitely retro (had to be, by definition), but the Z was certainly not, just a sharp evolution of the last design based upon the essential concept common to all Z's (six-cylinder two-seater on a RWD platform.)

    The Mustang has obviously sold a lot of Mustangs -- in that sense, it is an unqualified success -- but I doubt if it helps to sell any of the other Ford cars. The ideal Mustang would do both.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    Since we are talking and Ford does own them, I think the next vehicle in the Jaguar product line should be based on the XK 120 - 150 model line. A purpose built convertable / or retractable hardtop (ala 500 sl), with either the 4 liter supercharged or 4.2 liter 8 used now. Put a 6 speed manual in the car and you would have a tight 2 seater based on one of the most beautiful cars ever on the road. :blush:

    I would love to also see an update on the early 60's Lincoln continental convertables with the suicide doors. My father had 2 he restored and the were just a blast to drive. Nothing like the 460 lincoln engine for effortless crusin' :)
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    I think one of the reasons that the big 3 are going back to, if not the roots, then certainly older branches is that there is a history there. For the most part cars made in Asia did not really hit these shores until the 70's with any impact. They were small, more efficient and ran well, but style wise they left alot to be desired. I really do not want to see a retro B210. British culture seems to appreciate style that add's a classic touch, see Jaguar, Morgan, and the Mini (I know not all British, but every manufacturer is in bed with at least one other, no monogamy in autos :surprise: ) The main european manufacturers that sell cars in the US, primarily German and Sweden have given us evolutionary styling, and have not really evoked classic lines from the past. A sporty update of the old P1800 would be kinda neat. Americans are a people who look forward to the future but are particularly mindful of the past. Due to our particular lifestyle, the automobile has played a large part in our lives. For a lot of us it was our first bedroom ;), it brought us to the birth of our children, to our proms, weddings, funerals. The car is almost a family member of its own. Retro will always work for that reason. There is an emotional tug, when you see these cars.

    The family had the good fortune of owning a 65 e type. Bad condition and all, we sold it during restoration, we were able to drive it a few times before really taking it apart. When I saw the new XK8 for the first time, my eyes kind of unfocused and I was back in the garage with my father, using old tools and muscle power to carefully remove parts from an old jag. I swear I could still smell the leather, the oil... It was fantastic. That is the emotional response I think a retro car envisions.

    The new crop of Asian cars do not have that connection to long ago. I had an old RX-7 with the alpha engine, when the RX 8 came out, I thought it was a good design with some bold directions. It did not take me back though to the old RX.
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    Insurance on my 2005 400hp GTO is very cheap for a 400hp performance car. It's not much more $$ to insure then a regular rental Grand Prix V6. I had the GTP supercharged Grand Prix which was only $100 a yr cheaper to insure, but, it was also 5 yrs older then GTO.

    As for low tech performance cars, my GTO was just slightly under $30k. A bargain.
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    "You are going to have a class of buyers who would love to buy a pony car or sporty car of some sort, but won't buy one because it can't hold enough kids, strollers, groceries, etc. to justify the purchase. "

    I have kids, strollers etc and bought the GTO as my 2nd car. The backseat is just as roomy as a 4 door Grand Prix or Accord etc. Just the pain of getting in and out. We get all of our stuff to fit, You have to pack smart. Many people think because they have 1 or 2 kids that they have to run out and buy a minivan or SUV. Not always.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    Just as a question, would you have preferred a more angular body with influences from the 67, to the more aerodynamic look of the current car? For a 2 door seden the classic squared off 60's models were really sharp looking cars.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    had a '67 GTO. Beautiful car, IMO. He sold it for $500 before I was old enough to remember the car, but I've seen pictures of it.

    I always thought the GTOs hit their peak, style-wise, in '66-67.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    I have kids, strollers etc and bought the GTO as my 2nd car. The backseat is just as roomy as a 4 door Grand Prix or Accord etc. Just the pain of getting in and out. We get all of our stuff to fit, You have to pack smart. Many people think because they have 1 or 2 kids that they have to run out and buy a minivan or SUV. Not always.

    It worked for you, but for some others, it won't (or at least they believe that it won't, which is all that counts.)

    The point is that it would be beneficial to Ford to have a performance car that helps customers to get interested in their other cars. If the Mustang is a one-trick pony that does nothing to move customers to look at other Ford cars, then that would be to the detriment of Ford.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    The point is that it would be beneficial to Ford to have a performance car that helps customers to get interested in their other cars.

    The point of the retro is to get some blood flowing in the potential consumer, or ride the coattails of a trend started by someone else. I see a lot of families driving small 2 door civics, accords, corollas and Scions, not because its a great choice, but likely because its a cost issue. If we are discussing Muscle cars, or image cars with retro styling, the issues of utility are secondary. The prime focus is attacting attention. If you see an old GT-350 rolling down the road, you stare, you glance, but it gets your attention. For people interested in image cars thats what they want. Why else would the average person throw down 50k for an H2. Most of the ones I see on the road are single drivers commuting. Other than, say an H1 or 85 Suburban I cannot think of a vehicle that makes less sense for its use. But it pulls people into the dealership. If you have a good experience with that car you are likely to purchase another or something from within that family for your next one.

    Thats why so many people still buy from the big three, even though qualitatively they are a little behing the asian manufacturers. My mother in law owned an old chrysler something in the 70's. She and her husband had tranny problems. She will not even ride in a chrysler product now. (30 years!) She saw a 300 the other day in a parking lot and asked me what it was. I asked her if she liked it, she said yes. Then I told her it was a Chrysler and she said, oh no then I don't like it. She has had great experiences with Buicks, thats all she will drive.

    The point is if a retro mustang, or charger, or camaro gets you into a ford, chrysler or GM, and you have a good experience you will be more likely to give them a shot the second time around. With most of these retro vehicles the smile factor is higher.

    Would I buy a mustang now because it resembled some that I owned in the past. Absolutely.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    I don't think I've been making my point quite clearly, because it's a bit different than that.

    My message here is that part of the purpose for a car such as a Mustang is to get non-Mustang buyers into Ford showrooms -- people who would never actually buy a Mustang, but for whom the car resonates greatly enough that the s/he would be more inclined to take his or her needs for a sedan, econobox, etc. into a Ford showroom than they otherwise would.

    The car should be there to create buzz even among people who wouldn't dream of getting one, for whatever reason (but likely because they would not view it as a practical purchase). You want the magic of the car to rub off on everyone looking at Ford products, not just the would-be Mustang buyers.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    You want the magic of the car to rub off on everyone looking at Ford products, not just the would-be Mustang buyers.

    I hear ya. My thought though is that for retro to work well, and for it to affect an entire product line, you would need those touches on an entire product line, don't you think?

    I just think the design of almost all fords except the mustang and the GT, do not intantly evoke a connection to the past. I agree, I do not think that someone seeing a mustang drive by is going to say, wow I think I need to by a fusion because that mustangs fantastic.

    I agree with your point. But as far as nitch, retro vehicles go, I think there will always be a place for them.

    Chrysler could market a good set of cars with fondly remembered cars like the Barracude, GTX, Superbird, Demon. Ford really only had the Mustang that made people swoon, nobody really wants a torino. By the virtue of size, GM has Chevelles, Camaro's Firebirds, Nova's, Le Mans (although thats you lowpo GTO).

    Another retro themed vehicle that could make a splash would be a ram derived powerwagon. With the right stylist a retro powerwagon would sell well to the mopar truck set.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    For me GM missed the boat with the GTO, the holden is a fine car that provides an excellent driving experience. It just do not evoke the spirit of the GTO. I think a more angular body design, as well as the Z06 engine would make a fine GTO. Any engineers out there who could comment on using the vette underpinnings for a 2 door coupe? To keep the standard bearer up you could down rate the engine 25 or 30 hp. This way the Z06 would still be performance king, but the new GTO would be an explosive car. You would not need to load it up with all the electronic nonsense found in cars these days. Tooling would be the main issue I think. Also one of the most important features was that true muscle cars were not that much more money than the more pedestrian breatheren on the assembly line. Mr. shiftright has a good post going about collector cars and makes several good points that should apply today.

    When I bought my 73 mustang, the original owners still had the window sticker in the glove box. It cost about $3400 new and I paid $3600 in 1985.

    In 73 3,400 was not cheap, but it certainly was not breaking the bank either. Today, the equivelant car would be somewhere in the low 20's.

    I do not see a retro vehicle with good performance being made at that price point. You would have to make to many, and then it just becomes another civic type vehicle.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Can you fit car seats in the back seat. The 2006 is going to be the last year right for the GTO, or do we have one more year for the best bang for the buck ????

    Rocky

    P.S. I will sure miss the GTO, and thus I'm seriously considering getting me a copy. With a good rebate and my GM discount it might be the best money one could spend for 400hp. ;)
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    Yes the car seats fit in the back. I use Britax. 2006 is the end of the road for the GTO as for now. I paid just under $30k for my 2005 with a GM discount back in March 2005. The only pain is getting in and out the back (slow seat motors) but you get used to it. Trunk is small. Otherwise I like it. As for stroller I use compact ones to save on space.
  • carfaxcarfax Member Posts: 43
    Most people to day check cars out on the internet before they go to the show rooms and already know what else Ford has to offer and they aren't interested enough to look at something they have no intention of buying and knowing that there isn't anything else that Ford has made lately in cars that is going to turn their heads either.

    In most cases it works the other way around with Retro's. You have the guy that just must have it and the one that is looking at the Fusion and the Stang catches his or her eye and drives it away.

    Ford has to build more then just one car of interest for the public to enter their show rooms or any other manufacture for that matter. Sedan and econobox buyers are just that and you have to talk them into buying a Mustang if you catch them looking at it.
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    "It just do not evoke the spirit of the GTO"

    This Holden-GTO definitely evokes the spirit of the GTO which is a big V8 (6.0 Liter) in a midsized 2 door car & very fast performance. This new GTO is the fastest-most powerfull GTO EVER BUILT. Unlike the original GTO's it can actually handle and brake quite nicely. Orig. GTO's were just straight line cars.

    "Today, the equivelant car would be somewhere in the low 20's. I do not see a retro vehicle with good performance being made at that price point. You would have to make to many, and then it just becomes another civic type vehicle."

    The new 2006 retro base $20k Mustang V6 with 210hp V6 does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. 6.9 is quite fast. Which is just as fast or faster then any 1973 Mustang.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    So this is the end of the line for the Grand Turismo Omlagato. :cry:

    I guess I better do some hard thinking if I want a copy.

    Rocky

    P.S. If I get one it will be a 6 speed Black ext w/Red leather int. Plus sport package ;)
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    I got the Impulse Blue outside with the Bermuda Blue leather interior 6spd. No sports package. My 2nd choice would have been the black with red interior. You will be able to buy them late into this year. The last boatload arrives here in Sept.
  • toddbinflatoddbinfla Member Posts: 27
    The new 2006 retro base $20k Mustang V6 with 210hp V6 does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. 6.9 is quite fast. Which is just as fast or faster then any 1973 Mustang.

    But that is not significantly faster than most sedans and might accually be beaten by some.

    Muscle cars did two things well, they went fast and they raised the hair on your neck.

    If you have a V6 mustang today (remember everything is relative), you are not pulling away from an accord at a stop light.

    Now that said, my 73 had one of the most gutless 302's ever made with a red line of only 5900 and a 3 spd stick. I could do 105 but the car was howling, and forget about block racing, you had to get out of first gear at 20 mph and the shift patern was a reversed small h first was down and left, you had to up and right to second and down to third, and the shift gates were widely spaced. It was absolutely a cruiser not a muscle car.

    Let me also correct a statement made before about the spirit, certainly the go fast capability of the GTO captures the spirit, it just looks to much like everything else on the road. Maybe I was expecting more visual presence. You know a Corvette or Viper, a Mustang or Camaro/Firebird, hell even the somewhat stealthy GNX was painted in such a way that you knew something was different.

    The GTO body just resembles to much else on the road, and I think that detracts from its overall strength.
  • carlots101carlots101 Member Posts: 35
    The Majority of those sedans that are the same or faster then the V6 Mustang are more $$, at least $5k more! Mustang is only $20k. Honda Accord V6 starts at $23k or $24k and goes up to $28k. 80% of Accords are 4 cyl which the V6 Stang will EASILY beat out at a light. For example, the Mustang GT V8 is the same price as a V6 accord and will beat it in all perf. categories! Except gas mileage.

    I agree that I wish the GTO was a little more aggressive looking, but it's not a bad looking car. It does have arguably GM's best seats and interior quality. BTW the Azteck stands out on the road from far away too, so that isn't saying too much. 1 of the advantages sof the dull styling is that it's not a cop (traffic enforcement) magnet like the Mustang is. GTO has slight similiarties in appearance to the 2004 Mercedes CLK55 AMG 2 door. Look at the Motor Trend May 2004 article when they do the comparo and comparo pictures. The problem with the Mustang-Camaro is that they are a dime a dozen, you see way too many of them. Even Vettes in my area. I don't see many GTO's.

    For such a dull car, many people give me the thumbs up or say nice car or ask about it when I'm stopped in traffic or when I pull into a parking lot. It's gotten more attention that way then my Transam did years ago!
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    It just do not evoke the spirit of the GTO.

    The GTO was a Tempest/Lemans with a small hood scoop and a Catalina engine.

    The GTO isn't retro, but a direct decendent of the Monaro which was the Austrailian Chevelle SS.
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    Dude, I owned a 72 Plymouth GTX with the 440 six pack. This car would do 135 in THIRD gear, at 3500rpm with 3000 left in 3rd and another gear to go. ... ow granted it didn't handle worth a darn

    Didn't handle? Just a small "detail," huh?

    I don't claim to know diddly squat about cars, and am definitely outclassed by the discussion here, but when I was a kid, I drove my father's late late 60's metalic gold Riviera. That mother hauled A! Heavy and steady on the road. Endless amounts of torque. 450 V8. Sleak and low, with a bullet fastback. Low leather buckets. Power everythang. Got me hauled before a judge one summer Sunday afternoon when I hit 80 shortly after the light turned green. How come all you hotrodders never mention this beast? How come it has been totally forgotten? (The sucker could leave a stock '60's Mustang V8 wondering what time it was.) :shades:
  • z28convertiblez28convertible Member Posts: 3
    HI im going to be turning sixteen soon. I was wondering if a 1997 ford mustang would be a good first car Or a 1997 chevrolet camaro as a first car. I've rode in both and to me they both have balls. I've gone about 120 in both but I've never drove one. I have a need for speed. And I know thats not good because I know ill be a new driver. But I truly admire the camaro and the mustang. 5.7 or 4.6 It's a good question. Also im a 6 foot tall kid which one do you guys think would be best fitting. I want a car that when it's needed I could shut the ids up that think there cars are so much faster than mine. And im sure that a camaro or a mustang would do that just fine. By the way I have about $10,000 to work with. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    If you really have a need for speed, go find an old LT-1 Caprice or Roadmaster. Insurance will be much cheaper. At the age of 16, if you get a Trans-aro (how they're lovingly referred to in Mississippi and Louisiana) or a Mustang, the insurance companies will make you squeal like a pig on a steamy Georgia night.
  • z28convertiblez28convertible Member Posts: 3
    Thanks for the advice. I never realized how expensive it would be. Although I've never heard of a buick roadmaster. And I like the name trans-ero thats creative. Thanks for the advice!
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    '96 Buick Roadmaster:
    image

    '96 Chevy Caprice:
    image

    If you do get one, please don't put lambo doors on it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    here are a few reference points, just to show how bad it can be. I got my driver's license in December 1986, at the age of 16. My mom gave me her 1980 Malibu, and I got an insurance policy in my own name in January 1987, liability-only, and it was $1361 for the year. By around 1989-1990, when I was 19-20, my insurance was down to around $900 per year. I started getting the new car urge, and looked around at a few. A 2-3 year old Monte Carlo SS would have run me, with full coverage, around $3200 per year. OUCH! Funny thing is, even a brand-new, 4-cyl/automatic Ford Probe with a sticker of around $11,000 also ran around $3200 per year! I shudder to think what something like a brand-new Camaro or Mustang would have cost me!

    Now, with age your insurance will go down...provided you don't do anything stupid. I knew a guy who was 25 and paid $2600 per year for insurance on a 1989 VW Fox! Idiot had full coverage on it! Plus, he had a very naughty driving record. He also caused a 4-car chain reaction on the interstate once with someone else's Ford Focus, leaving her with a heap of debt. Oh, and he drives big rigs now, cross-country. And can barely see over the dashboard, unless they put booster seats in those things. So be afraid...be VERY afraid!

    Oh, as for a Caprice/Roadmaster, don't let their massive size fool you. They had a 260 hp 350 V-8 with gobs of torque. 0-60 times are in the mid-7 second range, which still isn't Camaro/Mustang V-8 territory, but when something that big moves that fast, and still handles well, it can be a very pleasant surprise.

    Plus, they're very spacious inside, so you can do things inside them that in a Trans-Ero or Mustang would give you back problems for life! :P
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    I want a car that when it's needed I could shut the ids up that think there cars are so much faster than mine.

    There is an old saying among hot rodders, "Its not what you got, its what you do with it." For example, locally there is a 10 second Ranger (street legal). The fastest car around? No. The fastest truck around? Maybe. Which brings us to another old hot rodder saying, "put your motor where your mouth, is meadow muffin."
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "I want a car that when it's needed I could shut the ids up that think there cars are so much faster than mine."

    Just be careful. No offense intended to you personally, but this is can be the sort of outlook that gets tons of beginning drivers in a lot of trouble. There's a reason why your insurance is sky-high...your age segment is the most dangerous group of drivers on the road. Adding a high-power car to the cocktail of testosterone and lack of experience can very quickly make for a dangerous situation.

    So not saying you shouldn't get one (I wish I had one when I was 16 :( ), but rather know your limitations and respect them. Considering trying a high-performance driving school...you'll improve your abilities, and nothing impresses chicks more than telling them you've driven your car on a racetrack.

    We want you to keep posting here for a long time to come.
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    I was nuts when I was his age, 16, lucky to be alive. :shades:
  • z28convertiblez28convertible Member Posts: 3
    Thanks alot for your help. I checked in to the caprice and roadmaster. I prefer the look of the caprice. And 7 seconds for nearly a 2 ton car is pretty quick. And I drove a camaro yesterday. Although its fast and torquey. It's pretty cramped. I'm 6 feet tall mind u. I'm just hoping that a caprice can give me my need for speed. while not breaking my budget. Is a caprice as upgradable as a camro though. I also want a car that i can turn into a speed machine. Thabks for the help
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    everything you can do to a '90s LT-1 Camaro could also be done to an LT-1 Caprice. Impala SS suspension upgrades should also work on the Cappy. Or if you have the wallet and like the cosmetic changes, you could just go out and find a nice Impala SS.

    image
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Those were nice cars.

    Rocky
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    to get something like an '80's Caprice coupe and put in an LT-1 drivetrain. Those older, boxier B-bodies were a few hundred pounds lighter, and while they weren't much shorter or narrower, they just didn't feel quite as ponderous.

    Or better yet, an '80-85 Delta 88 or LeSabre coupe would probably be a good candidate for modding. Buick and Olds used more weight savings techniques in their cars so something like a Delta or LeSabre from that time weighs around 200 pounds less than an equivalent Parisienne or Caprice/Impala.

    Or, just imagine something like an '80's Monte Carlo SS with the LT-1 drivetrain! That would almost be scary! But in a fun way! :shades:
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    The police package, already hot rodded, cheaper than an SS, and available at your local state auction.
  • chevyt454chevyt454 Member Posts: 2
    They sold them all around here and dirt cheap, too!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    I'll still see some of those LT-1 Caprices around. They're mainly in the hands of local jurisdictions now, which picked them up used when the state police retired them. Supposedly the LT-1 Caprice was so much better than the Crown Vic that many departments simply refurbished their Caprices, rather than buy a new Crown Vic.

    Often they end up getting sold off and end up in taxi fleets though, where they get pounded into the ground.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I was wondering if a Dukes of Hazzard 2 movie comes out, if the Duke Boys drive the new Charger instead. :surprise:

    Rocky
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    I frankly was surprised they didn't work that into the first one. Like by the end, the Duke boys would total the '69 in some grand jump over all of Hazzard county's police cars, and get an '06, which they'd remark needs a paint job. :)

    The good part about that movie was that it managed to replicate the tv show very well. The bad part was that it managed to replicate the tv show very well. Hollywood, enough with the remakes...hire some writing talent, eh?
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Agree....If they can line-up ol Jessica, in another set of Daisy's I'm sure a Dukes of Hazzard 2 would do ok at the box office. Perhaps they can find a way to get Paris Hilton in a pair. :blush:

    Rocky
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Hollywood, enough with the remakes...hire some writing talent, eh?

    Is there even any such thing as a "New" movie anymore? Yesterday I went to see "The Hills Have Eyes", and saw that "The Shaggy Dog" was playing in the same theatre. Gawd, is there any movie/tv show out there that HASN'T been remade?!

    BTW, I thought one of the best parts of the Dukes movie was when they got caught in the traffic jam going into Atlanta, and everybody was making disparaging remarks about the flag painted on the roof! That whole anachronism/out of their element thing made me think of the "Brady Bunch" movie! It was also pretty funny when Bo was sitting in the General, by himself, and started singing along to an old Air Supply song. Remind me again why they were so big in the 80's? :confuse:
  • danny_veedanny_vee Member Posts: 2
    One of my fave bits of the movie is when Bo was trying to get away from Atlanta PD and he drifted the roundabout. He did manage to get away from them in the end (as always!).
  • zr1zorazr1zora Member Posts: 1
    hey z28convertible didyou ever find a car ?? for 10,000 ? i have a lt 1 1996 z28 convertible for sale for ten grand its funny i ran into yr post rght when i was thinking of selling my car its a hot one but i also respect it, its a marroonish purple color very very rare chevy said well under 100 painted this color as the could not even document the color my numbers 208 6911 5507 the reason im selling is i got into two homes and two payments and this damn home markets sloweddown and i have two home payments and unfortuanatly my toys got to go
  • 4bangeralero4bangeralero Member Posts: 2
    i personnally do not like dodges 'new' lineup, because the avenger, looks very similar to the caliber, and the charger is a magnum without the hatch, thats just my 2 censts tho, but i do like the 06 gt stang, but i dislike how ford stuk tht nasty tiny hood scoop onto the o7 gt's, and i looove the new camaro
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "but i do like the 06 gt stang, but i dislike how ford stuk tht nasty tiny hood scoop onto the o7 gt's"

    It's an options package...Ford brought back the old "California Special" designation.

    And before it was available, I saw plenty of Mustangs with added aftermarket scoops etc.

    Funny how despite the fairly common press about buyers liking the new Mustang design because it is less cluttered, style-wise, than the 99-04s, there are apparently enough people out there who *want* the added gingerbread... :)
  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    "Dude, I owned a 72 Plymouth GTX with the 440 six pack. This car would do 135 in THIRD gear, at 3500rpm with 3000 left in 3rd and another gear to go."

    Is this possibly true? Or were speedometers WILDLY optimistic back then?
    That would mean the car is geared for 250 mph in 3rd gear at 6500 rpm. And in 4th gear maybe 350 mph or so?

    (Was this guy just blowing hot air?)
  • joe131joe131 Member Posts: 998
    what city are you in?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    "Dude, I owned a 72 Plymouth GTX with the 440 six pack. This car would do 135 in THIRD gear, at 3500rpm with 3000 left in 3rd and another gear to go."

    Well, I think a Mopar with a torqueflite and a 2.76:1 rear would be pulling around 3500 rpm @ roughly 100-110 mph. At least, I had a buddy with a '66 Charger 383-4bbl, and it pulled 2500@75 mph. So extrapolating that out, that would come out to 3333@100 mph.

    But 3rd gear in a 4-speed transmission is going to be a quicker ratio than the 1:1 top gear of a Torqueflite. And a Roadrunner is most likely going to be geared quicker than a 2.76:1! So I'm sure that at 100 it would be running quicker than 3500 rpm, let alone 135!

    Also, those old Mopar engines, even the hairier big-blocks, tended to get their peak hp around 4800 rpm, and would redline around 5500 or so IIRC. In 1972, the 440 six-pack had something like 285 hp, according to the net rating that became the norm that year. It would've been around 370-380 gross.

    Still, a '72 Roadrunner with a 440-6pack was one of the fastest domestics around by that time. Ford pretty much gave up on performance by then. About the most power you could get was maybe 224 hp out of a 460, but you'd have to buy a T-bird or Lincoln to do it. I think the cheaper Fords and Mercurys were toned down from that. You could still get a 300 hp Pontiac/Olds 455, or a Buick 455 with around 270 hp. Or a Chevy 454 with 270 hp. There was also a 440 option at Dodge that put out 330 hp! Maybe that was a dual quad, and not a 6-pack?
This discussion has been closed.