[VCS2600]

There are some new ones around right now (new Camaro, Challenger, reborn retro Mustang), so which company made the best ones in the old days, and today?

Of the old skool ones I like the AM Javelin/AMX, of the new cars I think the Camaro because the GM cars are better handlers than the current Mustang, new Challenger.



Old F body

[Dark Lord]

javelin and an amx.... really? AMC just sourced parts from everybody, then threw them all together to make those cars. and this is coming from some one with a javelin and an amx. 70 and 71.

im going to have to go with chevy, but i am a little biased.

[Tyrsonswood]

Chevy.......


also can't rule out Pontiac ('70 Trans Am) and Plymouth ('70 'Cuda) from back in the day...... I know, I've owned them. (also '67 Qlds 442, '64 and '69 Chevelle SS, '67 and '84 Camaro, '70 Duster......... I'm sure I forgot a couple )

[Callandor]

What I should have been rolling in if I had been smarter with my money the last 2 years:-

[Dark Lord]

from what ive heard, your better off with out it. over priced piece of shit for the most part.

500hp on a stock suspension and drivetrain... ya, great idea there.

[niceguyrichy]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

from what ive heard, your better off with out it. over priced piece of shit for the most part.

500hp on a stock suspension and drivetrain... ya, great idea there.

do they still use a live rear axle on that thing?
cos that would be funny

[Dark Lord]

ineed they do.

[niceguyrichy]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

ineed they do.

it's amazing that they even contemplated using one in the first place.
it's more amazing still that they actually went ahead and produced the car with a live axle.
and it's ludicrous that people still actually buy the damn thing regardless..

[Neshi]

I have to say Chevy and Dodge. The camaro and charger being my favorite.

My dreamcar is either a
'67 Camaro SS
'69 Yenko Camaro
'68 Charger R/T

[Earthmonger]

Well, as cliche as the car is, I've always had a crush on 1984 Dodge M4S, which only three or four of exist, and at least one is just a replica.


Shitty movie (The Wraith), awesome car. Aside from that, I never really cared about muscle cars. I have always been passionate about old boxy Cadillac hearses. Especially on a 4x4 chassis.

[Judas]

The modern "Retro" cars of the charger/camaro/mustangs are nothing more then a guad damn joke for the most part.

Cheaply made, relatively poor overall performance, they are grabbing a buck just by slapping an old name and a refitted modernized similare body on the car and calling it a similare name.

The older cars were cheap too, but they could at least take the shit and abuse that they were made for. Cheap cars that were fun as hell and highly customizable for any occasion. Throw in the Dodges Bullet Proof drive trains (bodies were cheap), and you could go ripping around to no end.

Today, if you tried to pull of just about ANY of the stunts and manauvers that people did with the old cars, on surfaces that were anything but clean and nearly perfect, the car would be destroyed.

You can barely drive those vehicles down dirt roads or gravel roads without gradually destroying the entire underside of the car, pinching fuel/brake lines and severing anything else that might be running that way back there.

The metals used are so soft with the aluminum used for most of everything and the mostly overall plastic unibody results a car that will neither last nor indure what the cars were "originally" designed for.

It's a bloody joke.

It's also halarious when much older car, 2 or 3 times the weight, and sometimes a little less horsepower/torque (dino'd vs bhp) is able to outclass these cars any day of the week in all avenues except one, and it's only initially. Acceleration, but it only is a factor of the line, halfway through a 1/4 mile they are quite often able to catch up and easily overtake.

There is more respect given for someone with a much older car, in good shape, and if you spend the additional cash that is actually relatively cheap to do, you can get those older cars far more horsepower, better mileage then any of the modern cars.

[Neshi]

pics of my cars..


'67 Camaro SS


'69 Yenko Camaro


'68 Charger R/T

[Chaos]

I bet that 68 Charger kicks ass aand swallows gas faster then a drunken ho! The 67 Camero is sweet though

[Tyrsonswood]

Ummm............ that's a '68 Charger. BIG difference







@Judas........

and if you spend the additional cash that is actually relatively cheap to do, you can get those older cars far more horsepower, better mileage then any of the modern cars.

Sort of........ but you're not going to get the mileage/HP ratio of a new car with the old ones...... HP, yes, mileage, not so much........... This new HHR I have freaks me out as to how well it does on both respects with a normally aspirated 4 cylinder. (Of course Lotus had a say in the design ) Gasoline "direct injection" and "Variable Valve Timing" isn't something you are going to be building into a modified older car. This HHR is not a muscle car but can walk away from most cars on the road and get 30 MPG doing it. (I love confusing the Mustang guys around here... )

[Dark Lord]

its also a 69 camaro, not an 87.

[Neshi]

haha, im not good with numbers, always make typos.

and I thought it was an '67 camaro?

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

Sort of........ but you're not going to get the mileage/HP ratio of a new car with the old ones...... HP, yes, mileage, not so much........... This new HHR I have freaks me out as to how well it does on both respects with a normally aspirated 4 cylinder. (Of course Lotus had a say in the design ) Gasoline "direct injection" and "Variable Valve Timing" isn't something you are going to be building into a modified older car. This HHR is not a muscle car but can walk away from most cars on the road and get 30 MPG doing it. (I love confusing the Mustang guys around here... )

Actually with heavy modifications.. you can, but also taking into consideration weight as well..

obviously you should be able to get far more miles out of a car that weighs 1/3rd.

But you can still get very HIGH milage out of high horse power vehicles provided your never flooring it often...

What is sad is that under the same "ripping it up" circumstances, the older cars sometimes do FAR better milage wise then the newer cars.... which is utterly absurd and just shows how rediculious poorly made current technology is in terms of advancements.

All they've done is managed to turn current cars into plastic weak deathtraps that can't take any form of abuse and are expensive as hell.

[Tyrsonswood]

Speaking of weight...... (man this is going off topic)


'68 Camaro, 3000 lbs. Base V8 was a 307 cubic inches (most were 327 CID) with 200 HP That's engine HP, convert that to wheel HP and it would be about 180 give or take. Probably got about 18 - 19 mpg, much less with "spirited driving" ........... This isn't the high performance version.... just a base model.



'07 HHR 3300 lbs. Inline 4, 145 cubic inches (2.4 L) with 175 wheel HP. Driving at speed limit but getting there as quickly as possible, gets me about 30 mpg. It's got 1/2 the engine of that Camaro, weighs more and performs relatively similar (baring the rear wheel drive / front wheel drive difference) Getting better mileage than an old V8 Camaro ever could......

There has been advancements in technology that allows this........

Will this car last as long under normal useage like the '68?

"Oh, Hell No"

[Dark Lord]

a 6 speed and better diff. gearing will do that.

for about 5k i could swap out the 4 speed in my vette for a 6spd and new rear end. get some nice 4.11s in the rear and shred tires in the first 4 gears, but still cruise at 70mph @ ~2k RPM. i would easily get 25mpg with this set up, and it would be a whole hell of alot more fun to drive.

currently though ive got a 4spd and 3.36s in the rear and i get around 15mpg. 60mph in 4th puts me at about 2700rpms. top end is 120-130 at well over the 5200 redline.

[Neshi]

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

Speaking of weight...... (man this is going off topic)


'68 Camaro, 3000 lbs. Base V8 was a 302 cubic inches (most were 327 CID) with 290 HP That's engine HP, convert that to wheel HP and it would be about 200 give or take. Probably got about 18 - 19 mpg, much less with "spirited driving" ........... This isn't the high performance version.... just a base model.



'07 HHR 3300 lbs. Inline 4, 145 cubic inches (2.4 L) with 175 wheel HP. Driving at speed limit but getting there as quickly as possible, gets me about 30 mpg. It's got 1/2 the engine of that Camaro, weighs more and performs relatively similar (baring the rear wheel drive / front wheel drive difference) Getting better mileage than an old V8 Camaro ever could......

There has been advancements in technology that allows this........

Will this car last as long under normal useage like the '68?

"Oh, Hell No"

Having pleasure at the car you are driving is worth something as well. I'd rather pay for the extra petrol driving my '69 camaro SS than hopping in a Toyota Prius.. Even though the latter gets more mpg.

[Necrosis]

Originally Posted by Earthmonger

Well, as cliche as the car is, I've always had a crush on 1984 Dodge M4S, which only three or four of exist, and at least one is just a replica.


Shitty movie (The Wraith), awesome car. Aside from that, I never really cared about muscle cars. I have always been passionate about old boxy Cadillac hearses. Especially on a 4x4 chassis.

Oh come on man you know you LOVED that movie!

For you that don't know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlt05VbspAQ

[Tyrsonswood]

Originally Posted by Neshi

Having pleasure at the car you are driving is worth something as well. I'd rather pay for the extra petrol driving my '69 camaro SS than hopping in a Toyota Prius.. Even though the latter gets more mpg.

But with the Toyota you could experience a high speed flaming death ride when you least expect it..... What could be more exciting.

[Judas]

strange considering that the 1978 cobra II we've got with a 302, stock engine 2 barrel carb would dino about 170-180 hp, with the newer Boss II 302 with the 4 barrel carb dino's approximately 290hp (both dinod AT the wheels NOT bhp)

the first got good mileage due to being geared for general highway use where as the recent changes puts you at bout 3100 rpm @ 55-60mph, which of course doesn't translate into good mileage at all obviously.

Now the 1973 delta 88 olds weighing in at over 6200lbs without occupants, packing the 455 rocket 4 barrel stock otherwise, dino at the wheels approximately 330hp under peak efficiency. The car driven reasonably gets precisely 20 miles to the gallon.

My 95 grand prix, a 3.1 liter, bhp is about 140, weighs about 2800lbs and gets approximately 28 mpg when driving it economically

A 2008 Dodge Caliber with i beleive a 1.8L, bhp i beleive is a little over 80, weighs just under the 3000 lbs as well, gets about 32-34 mpg

A brand new 300bhp + Retro Mustang, weight is approximately depending on model, about 3500lbs, under typical driving conditions gets about 26mpg

A 1978 Lincoln Continental mark V weighing in at just over 8000 lbs with a 400 2 barrel, pushes about 26-28mpg under good driving conditions. it DINOs at the wheels for aproximately 220hp, Torque ft. lbs. however is VERY good on it.

A finely tuned hybrid mechanical/computer fuel injected big block such as a 455/454, super modified (various parts trimmed up and tuned up to modern day technological advancements) is easily able to obtain when dumped into a 1960-1970s vehicle, such as a chavelle, camaro, something relatively small like that not only is able to break the 500-600 BHP mark with ease which is available at any time with no modifications required, under typical driving conditions is able to manage 30+ and even break 40 mpg.

I've personally drove these vehicles....

[jandarsun8]

Not my car, but one I'd love to own.

[VCS2600]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

javelin and an amx.... really? AMC just sourced parts from everybody, then threw them all together to make those cars. and this is coming from some one with a javelin and an amx. 70 and 71.

im going to have to go with chevy, but i am a little biased.

I think you exaggerate, American Motors used their own engines and bodies, and from what you have said we should consider cars like the DeTomaso Pantera and Jensen Interceptor as Fords and Chryslers respectively...which is nonsense of course.

[Falstaff]

For Raw PERFORMANCE........
Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth
Come one....they could be purchased with HEMI engines right off the show room floor.
They may have been as ugly as an old Hay Bailer, but they could move.
Specialty and Sports cars dont count.
A young soldier or airman could buy one when he got back from Vietnam and really feel the full power of the 0 - 60 acceleration even if meant getting to the stop sign faster.

[Chaos]

I have to agree, they were often ugly SOB's but for raw performance they ruled their era.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

For Raw PERFORMANCE........
Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth
Come one....they could be purchased with HEMI engines right off the show room floor.
They may have been as ugly as an old Hay Bailer, but they could move.
Specialty and Sports cars dont count.
A young soldier or airman could buy one when he got back from Vietnam and really feel the full power of the 0 - 60 acceleration even if meant getting to the stop sign faster.

[Tyrsonswood]

I agree also, except for the "ugly" part..... they were functional, somewhat utilitarian, ..... but not ugly.

As far as looks goes, not much can equal the '70 AAR 'cuda. Just sayin'

[Chaos]

yeah the HEMI powered Cuda's kicked some serious ass

[BiGBrOwNPimpsta]

69 Charger is nuts


There's a stingray that looks exactly like this one parked next to me in my condo



But of the modern era I still like the Dodge Viper most of all!