Howdy, Stranger!

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

Modern Muscle with Classic Names



  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • 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:
  • 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 Posts: 23,043
    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.
  • 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 Posts: 4,435
    '96 Buick Roadmaster:

    '96 Chevy Caprice:

    If you do get one, please don't put lambo doors on it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,043
    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 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
  • 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 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'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 Posts: 317
    I was nuts when I was his age, 16, lucky to be alive. :shades:
  • 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 Posts: 4,435
    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.

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Those were nice cars.

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,043
    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 Posts: 307
    The police package, already hot rodded, cheaper than an SS, and available at your local state auction.
  • They sold them all around here and dirt cheap, too!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,043
    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 Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    I was wondering if a Dukes of Hazzard 2 movie comes out, if the Duke Boys drive the new Charger instead. :surprise:

  • john_324john_324 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 Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    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:

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,043
    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:
  • 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 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
  • 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 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 Posts: 996
    "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 Posts: 996
    what city are you in?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,043
    "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.