Last post on Feb 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
#1 of 34 For the love of a Classic muscle car
Nov 02, 2008 (7:43 pm)
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
#2 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [papasam1]
Nov 03, 2008 (6:21 pm)
there is satisfaction in driving a vehicle with no helpers other than steering, throttle, and brakes.
#3 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [explorerx4]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 04, 2008 (7:46 am)
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.
#4 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (8:16 am)
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.
#5 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [texases]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 04, 2008 (8:22 am)
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".
#6 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (8:44 am)
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.
#7 of 34 I think modern cars in general...
Nov 04, 2008 (9:07 am)
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!
#8 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (9:54 am)
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.
#9 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [andre1969]
Nov 04, 2008 (10:02 am)
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.
#10 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [fintail]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 04, 2008 (11:14 am)
yeah but you'd have to thrash it---don't do that! Let it take the full 15 seconds.