me either

 

Guess it got pulled. I printed a Copy of it. It looks alot like the Camaro drawing in Super Chevy (November 2000?), but has hidden headlights, a full width chrome Chevy bar across the front, and 1969 taillights grafted on.

If you even remotely think the 2005 Mustang Fastback is is retro, you'll probally need a map and and some help to figure out that this isn't a '69.

 

Use this link

 

that yenko ss looksbad *** man, i <3 it... just give it a rear spoiler

 

Most every 454 Chevelle SSs is not the LS6 (450hp) and the option was never advertised. To top it off, this was a one year only engine, offered only in 1970! Most all had the LS5 at 360hp. Car magazines of the day were given LS6s to test, but genuine factory ones are very rare, and fall under that expensive & rare disclaimer I mentioned.

The SS 396s were generally 350-375hp

The LS6 had a 0-60 time in the low 6 second mark, and generally modern tires drop roughly half a second to 60 and less than that in the quarter mile. So, for an engine that generally added almost 30% to the price of the base car (roughly $3,200), you would get a car that's roughly as fast as a good '97 LT1 Camaro or a really lucky post 99 Mustang.

To put it into perspective, it's like taking a $25,000 Camaro, and choosing an engine that costs $7,200 or more. An LS6 Chevelle was only less than 1/5 lower in price than Corvettes back then. That would be about the same as the new GTO costing $38,000! And the SS was the CHEAP Muscle car!

That makes modern Camaros & Mustangs performance steals! They cost less than the median price of cars today, yet they go as fast (in some cases faster) than the high priced, rare engined cars of the "muscle car" era.

For the average person (you & me), cars that we can actually go into a showroom and buy without a racing license or filling out a special order form and waiting for months, or sending it to an aftermarket tuner, or having the price of the car jacked up to near heartstopping levels, are far quicker today than they ever have been in automotive history.

 

I think you're confusing the words "fast" and "quick." An automatic transmissioned LS-1 Z28 can accelerate as quickly as a stock '69 ZL-1. However, the geared up classic can't manage much over 120mph, while the Z28 is a true 160mph car.

The difference between "the golden era" and today is far greater than you've indicated. With the sole exception of the 426 Hemi, the late '60s cars weren't even luke warm by modern standards.

 

Guess I didn't make it clear, because it seems on the surfase I bounced between the 2 terms. Quick=acceleration, Fast=top speed.

No car from the "Muscle car era" can even touch the top speeds of todays cars, because as you pointed out, their gearing. On acceleration, today's cars are generally quicker than what the average person could buy in that era (and in some cases even quicker). Yes, those stories of the cop catching someone at 140mph in 2nd gear in their Dodge Hemi is pure nonsense (few cars broke 125, Hemis cost almost as much as the car they were installed in, and back then factory brakes generally were ineffective above 100).

I'm not pointing anyone out because this happens on other sites and whenever the subject comes up in conversation, but fans of the 60s tend to point out the difference in Tire technology as the reason today's cars are quicker, but the difference isn't that great. Also, the 60's cars were geared up the wazoo, with most running 4.XX:1 and up, and they aren't as quick as Z28s. Throw Camaro Z28's 3.23 ratio on these same muscle cars, and it doesn't matter what tires you put on them, it won't be pretty.

 

very cool pics. I'm usually not real big on the retro thing. I really dislike the new mustang. But your design is really cool. I do think the next gen should be smaller and lighter though.

 

Correction: no car from the "muscle car era" could combine the top speed and the acceleration of todays cars. A 1961 E-type Jaguar could top out at over 150mph, but 0-60 times were in the high 6 second range. In contrast, a '68 Charger R/T with the Hemi could do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds(!) with the torque-flite automatic. (The slushbox was actually quicker than the clumsy, obstructive 4-speed.) Top speeds over 125mph+ were pretty much fantasy, however.

 

I wouldn't actually call a 1961 Jaguar E-type a muscle car (era arguably started around 1964, and muscle cars were all but a US-only... and not long after, Australian... phenomenon).

 

I can't dispute the fact that right now is the best time in our lifetimes for fast cars, but I can definitely suggest that if STYLE (not to mention RWD) is a priority on your list, then the 60s - 70s is where it's at, hands down.

I'm sure a Focus or a Pee Pee Bruiser can outrun half the cars from back then, but would you seriously want to be caught in a clown car like that? *laugh*.

Some people are RABID about power power and more power, and then more on top of that. But if it comes in some AutoCAD-beta-tester safetybubble sh!tbox like all of today's cars, then that power is tainted from the start.

I've seen very few exceptions to this rule in the modern era. Thirdgen being the main example, but then again the development for it started in 1975, when there was still some common sense circulating.

 

You have no arguement from me kizz.

The point I'm making is if you were a 22-25 year old buying a performance car in the 60s vs buyng one today (and you grew up in an age where you were force-fed the idea that FWD was better than RWD), the performance cars you buy today are no doubt quicker & faster than the ones you would buy in the muscle car heyday. Sedans (for some odd reason or another) don't have the stigma against them they once had.

In short, it's obvious what everyone here, as owners or fans of fast RWD performance cars prefer. I think our knowledge of true performance is collectively far above the average of say a FWD performance enthusiast site. But strictly from a acceleration and top speed (not to mention handling & braking), when you take FWD & sedan bodystyles out of the equasion, today's cars have unbelievable performance when compared to the cars we tend to place on a pedastal from an age we tend to glorify.

 

I think part of the reason sedans don't have that stigma anymore is Airbags. Now you can't put a child seat in the front of a car, and it is a real pain in the *** to put one in the back of a coupe.

 

Wow, I especially like the back end!

Rear View

 

if none of the links work anymore thats becuz ive pulled the pix to redo them, but ill have the new ones back soon