You are here: Forums Future Vehicles Modern Muscle with Classic Names

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

175 messages,  Last post on Nov 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM

You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h

What is this discussion about? Dodge Charger SRT-8, Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Concept Cars, Coupe

Messages Page 19 of 19 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#173 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [andre1969] by papasam1 Nov 08, 2008 (6:56 pm)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 25, 2006 6:15 am) I guest I should ask just how many of you were actually driving does the first crisis, I was bron in 1952 and was just starting love the muscle car era when this crisis came along. I have heard all type of hear say crap about how and why it started with most of it being from some grand pop or grand mom that didn't even own a muscle car or even knew what they were. And yes the insurance was going up but that was nothing, new the car industry always lied about horse power in cars just to keep the insurance down and the insurance companies were just starting to change with the times. The mustang II was a nescessary car for the times along with nova,acclaim and a number of other car that were needed. If we are to talk these types of things aleast get all the facts. Replies to this message: davethecarnut (Nov 10, 2008 10:57 am) andre1969 (Nov 10, 2008 11:35 am)
#174 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [papasam1] by davethecarnut Nov 10, 2008 (10:57 am)
Replying to: papasam1 (Nov 08, 2008 6:56 pm)  Not just gas and insurance prices, but don't forget (excuse me while I channel my inner "Gore"), emission equipment choked the heck outta engines too. Unfortunately it was a necessary evil. I've lived in So. Cal all my life and I remember my eyes would burn from the smoggy air back then. Believe it or not, air quality here is much better than it was in the early 70's.
#175 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [papasam1] by andre1969 Nov 10, 2008 (11:35 am)
Replying to: papasam1 (Nov 08, 2008 6:56 pm) And yes the insurance was going up but that was nothing, new the car industry always lied about horse power in cars just to keep the insurance down and the insurance companies were just starting to change with the times.   I don't think high insurance rates played much of a part until the 1970's. If anything, most car companies were over-stating their hp in the 60's, rather than under-stating it. Horsepower is what sold cars in those days. Chrysler's 340 was one of the few under-rated engines...probably because if they listed its true horsepower, then people would question whether they really needed some of the bigger engines. It was rated around 270-275 hp with the 4-bbl. When the rating system went to net hp, it still had 245 hp, or about 89-90% of its gross rating. Many engines were lucky if their net rating was 70% of its gross rating, although to be fair, some engines had their compression cut at the same time, so there was a real loss in addition to the "paper" loss.

Messages Page 19 of 19 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Future Vehicles Modern Muscle with Classic Names