Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by RE III - Frankie, Jul 15, 2009.
Affordable muscle cars ftw!!
the first vid of the camaro sounds like it's just running open headers. and why does the engine of that camaro say "corvette"? they could have at least removed the emblems off of the engine...
oh, and in the test drive of the CTS-V, in the long straight where the guy floored it, he got it to 110+ MPH (that i could tell at least). it got there pretty quick!!!
I wish I lived in AMerica!
Why? Because we build cars nobody can afford?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. My car is an 8100 dollar Mint Green Commodore '97 model. It's done 214,000 kays and I've been good with it so far. The fastest I ever drove myself in a car was 196kmph down an old stretch of road heading out of the city towards the country to the Nth. That was in a Ute version of the car I drive now, but a model that was about 2 years earlier back in 97.
The most dangerous thing I've done in a car is swerve along the road at dangerous speed while it's raining. That was in an '86 VL Commodore on the way to the Southern beaches in our state.
I've also done some rallying in an Old '72 Kingswood and burnouts and handbrakies in my friends cars. I guess I used to be a hoon.
aS CONFIDENT AS i WAS THEN THOUGH, those days frighten me now. I'm even afraid that if there's a gun in the house that I'll shoot myself with it.
Then you don't need a new Camaro............
affordable muscle cars ftw?
99% of the cars that i see on the road today sport the mustang/camaro/charger/challenger appearance with shit horse power....
it's more a mimick, not a bloody muscle car.
All the new muscle cars start at around 50-90 thousands bucks......
I laugh at anyone that screams "guess what i got, it's a new doge challenger" only to walk out to look at it and here it's sporting a freaking 3L or smaller engine or something that completely defeats and shames the name of it..
these companies brought back the retro styles in hopes of raking in the cash, and they ARE raking in the cash off people completely unaware of what they are buying, going by cosmetic appearance instead of internal specs.
Frankly i'd take a gaud awful looking hunk of crap with a set of internal specs that would redeem it over those vehicles.
newer muscle cars, like the mustang/camaro/charger/challenger come with all different types of specifications and features making the car cost more or less depending on the cars specifications.
for example, the mustang starts at rougly $25k for your plain jane 200hp v6 model. add some features and a 320 hp v8 and the price then jumps to just under $35k. that's still $15k less than your "50-90 thousand bucks........". sure, there are still the Saleen Mustang models that offer still even more HP, around 400HP, and those start at $45k. and even that is still less than your $50k starting price statement.
my example here is just of the mustang of course. i'm sure that there are similar examples of the other three cars mentioned.
first off.. i'm dealing with CAD.... which does indeed start getting up there..
2nd.... i can get the cheapest dodge challenger/mustang/camaro right now for under 17k new off the lot... and with a bit of haggling provided, probably even less then 15k...
THAT is not a muscle car.... that is a load of crap..
considering todays technologies available, they aren't muscle cars.... lets just take the mustang and the 302 capable of 300hp.. while pretty damn good, it's still high end muscle... that's basically starter... anything less then a v8 is not muscle...
now dump a true muscle engine in that mustang, 429/460, with the technology available and we'd have well over 700-900hp without doing any significant modifications to it at all. And good mileage to boot.
Actually walking into a dealer, and asking for such a muscle car will i guarantee you, put you in a ridiculious price range.
I don't consider the 1978 Cobra II mustang we've got with the semi souped up 302 a muscle car at all, it's just a damn nice sports car......
however a 1969 Camaro SS with a 455 Rocket with a Edlebrock Injection system pumping out 725hp..... that there.. is a muscle car.
Gotta break 7.3L engine to really be a muscle car.... and 6.1L is close.. but imo... no cigar.
there is so much fail in that post judas.... i dont know where to even start with it.
please, dont ever talk about cars or money again. ever.
its a motor built directly for the vette, so the leave all the badging on them. open the hood on a caddy that has this motor, and itll say corvette. open the hood on the late model trans am and camaro SS, and theyll also say corvette on the fuel rail covers.
personal opinion varies in the muscle car...
imo i was just stating that to have muscle... requires real muscle...
in your opinion then, a real muscle car never existed in the 60/70s.
cars are putting out considerably more power today, then they were then. (very high end/after marker packages excluded. but even those were in the 500 range) and theyre a hell of alot faster today too.
the HP figures your giving for muscle car class just didnt exist in anything near a stock/ slightly modified engine.
no they didn't excist before...
i think i somewhat stated this previously...
with current technology..... what they can do with the same size engine before is considerably more today.... Big blocks before still had a pile of hp... 350-500hp in the 60/70's was some serious power, today you can reach that quite easily with smaller engines...
but they really arn't jumping for anything over 300hp... and i don't know why...
Plus today they use BHP instead of true HP.... (at the wheels) which is more deceiving.... which means that there rated 300hp actually equates to about 250 or even less then that by the time it hits the road...
they were never rated at the wheels. ever. the 2 different ratings used before where Net, and Gross. which is why my motors rated at 300hp, but i know it puts out less then that, and ever less at the wheels.
and to claim muscle cars never existed in the 60/70s, the era that they were created in... that claim is so far out in left field, its just stupidity at its purest.
i cant think of any american car out there in the performance class thats under 300hp.
camaro V6 - 300hp
Camaro SS - 422hp
08 vette, base - 430hp
08 ZO6 - 505hp
09 ZR1 - 618HP
09 Charger - 368HP
09 Challenger V6 250HP
09 Challenger Hemi 375HP
09 Challenger SRT8 - 425HP
09 Mustang V6 - 210HP
09 Mustang GT - 300HP
09 Mustang GT-500 - 500HP
ok, i was wrong. out of 12 cars, 2 of them make under 300hp, and those are V6 cars. one of which i have never seen on the road, ever. thats the V6 Challenger. theyve all been Hemis or SRT8s.
Issues they are having with the Challenger is the weight. The V6 doesn't have enough balls to make it work like a 318 would in the day. As far as I know there won't be a V6 version of the Camaro because Chevy couldn't compete with the cheap shit they built the V6 Mustang out of
We can't replace technology with torque. When push comes to shove it is about what transfers from that engine to the rear wheels.
mac, they have a V6 camaro out, at 300HP. almost every test they through at it, it beat the ever living hell out of the mustang GT.
Good they were not originally going to build it as they couldn't keep up with the cost of the aluminum beer cans the Mustang is built from
Separate names with a comma.