Are we in the new Muscle car era and don't know it?
05-15-2003, 08:15 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Are we in the new Muscle car era and don't know it?
While doing some research on the GTO the other day I noticed how slow old Muscle cars really were...
Most were 14,15, and even 16 second cars in the quater miles with 13's reserved for a few rare models. Sure most of these cars could be modded to go faster, but in terms of factory performance todays cars are much better. Think about it, a mid 60's GTO would run 15's all day, yet today you can go in the showroom and buy a V6 Accord and tear the stock GTO up all day long. Same goes for pretty much any FWD family sedan designed in the last 4 years. Even the 240HP supercharged Impala SS threatens to be the fastest factory Impala SS ever (aside from the mid-90's ones which it would be a close race)...I am talking about old Muscle cars here.
The new 260 HP Grand Prix I am willing to bet will be the fastest GP ever, and faster than 90% of the GTO's ever made. This begs a question...do we take the FWD sedans of today for granted? Most old muscle cars couldn't stop, turn, were too heavy, and not that safe..Today FWD sedans and coupes handle and stop MUCH better, are way safer, much better fuel econmy..you get my drift.
If these cars were RWD everyone would love them...so my question is why is FWD so bad?
Also if 5-10 years from now an oil embargo were to hit and we are stuck with nothing but slow hybirds and fuel cell cars, will we looks back on todays cars as classics from the second muscle car era?
Most were 14,15, and even 16 second cars in the quater miles with 13's reserved for a few rare models. Sure most of these cars could be modded to go faster, but in terms of factory performance todays cars are much better. Think about it, a mid 60's GTO would run 15's all day, yet today you can go in the showroom and buy a V6 Accord and tear the stock GTO up all day long. Same goes for pretty much any FWD family sedan designed in the last 4 years. Even the 240HP supercharged Impala SS threatens to be the fastest factory Impala SS ever (aside from the mid-90's ones which it would be a close race)...I am talking about old Muscle cars here.
The new 260 HP Grand Prix I am willing to bet will be the fastest GP ever, and faster than 90% of the GTO's ever made. This begs a question...do we take the FWD sedans of today for granted? Most old muscle cars couldn't stop, turn, were too heavy, and not that safe..Today FWD sedans and coupes handle and stop MUCH better, are way safer, much better fuel econmy..you get my drift.
If these cars were RWD everyone would love them...so my question is why is FWD so bad?
Also if 5-10 years from now an oil embargo were to hit and we are stuck with nothing but slow hybirds and fuel cell cars, will we looks back on todays cars as classics from the second muscle car era?
05-15-2003, 08:31 AM
#2
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Posts: 3,505
yeah the FORD Mustang is pretty dman fast as is the new DODGE Viper DODGE SRT-10 and DODGE's new turbo charged neon.The FORD Lightning can brush off 12's with 1 or 2 bolt ons.
just a few you conviently overlooked
edit:
if you dont know why FWD is bad in the performance aspect perhaps you shouldn't be passing yourself off as the all knowing car comparison guide
poor traction off the line, ****ty understeer just to name a few...
just a few you conviently overlooked
edit:
if you dont know why FWD is bad in the performance aspect perhaps you shouldn't be passing yourself off as the all knowing car comparison guide
poor traction off the line, ****ty understeer just to name a few...
Last edited by treyZ28; 05-15-2003 at 08:37 AM.
05-15-2003, 09:09 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 200
Vette, Viper, Neon, Lightning, Camaro, Trans Am, Cobra, Saleen, Mustang GT, S2000, 350Z, Ferrari's, Lambo's....The list goes on and on. We are definetly in a muscle car era. I bet the government will come out with stricter pollution laws again soon or something, then we will go into another muscle-car depression era. But after that.....wheee.
05-15-2003, 10:11 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Sorry, this can't be a true muscle car era without the Camaro and Firebird. 
Every car is quicker than they were 30 years ago, so it's hard for me to compare and say that this is the new Muscle Car era. After all, a Maxima is pretty quick, quicker than most muscle cars of the 60's but do you consider it a "real" muscle car?
Every car is quicker than they were 30 years ago, so it's hard for me to compare and say that this is the new Muscle Car era. After all, a Maxima is pretty quick, quicker than most muscle cars of the 60's but do you consider it a "real" muscle car?
05-15-2003, 10:24 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Originally posted by treyZ28
yeah the FORD Mustang is pretty dman fast as is the new DODGE Viper DODGE SRT-10 and DODGE's new turbo charged neon.The FORD Lightning can brush off 12's with 1 or 2 bolt ons.
just a few you conviently overlooked
edit:
if you dont know why FWD is bad in the performance aspect perhaps you shouldn't be passing yourself off as the all knowing car comparison guide
poor traction off the line, ****ty understeer just to name a few...
yeah the FORD Mustang is pretty dman fast as is the new DODGE Viper DODGE SRT-10 and DODGE's new turbo charged neon.The FORD Lightning can brush off 12's with 1 or 2 bolt ons.
just a few you conviently overlooked
edit:
if you dont know why FWD is bad in the performance aspect perhaps you shouldn't be passing yourself off as the all knowing car comparison guide
poor traction off the line, ****ty understeer just to name a few...
Understeer is good in your average non-performance car...it is much more forgiving when you have idiot drivers. In a performance minded car oversteer is more desirable..but your average Accord driver isn't drifting around turns.. Either way i would say that a new Accord could outhandle every 60's muscle car aside from maybe a Vette.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
Again please stop trolling my threads..
05-15-2003, 10:35 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Southern California (SoCal)
Posts: 1,912
If 5-10 years from now slow Hybrid/fuel cells dominate the scene then I think your right in stating the FWD performance cars would be considered classics.
Lets all pray that your dooms-day scenerio never plays out.
Lets all pray that your dooms-day scenerio never plays out.
05-15-2003, 10:52 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OR
Posts: 2,368
I like to think this time as the "HP era".. It seems everything has moved up in HP ratings.. SUV's, pickups, compact cars, sedans, lux cars, sports cars..
300 hp is practically baseline for performance. 400 hp and you start talking... You can now get 500 hp at about $100,000 mark now
You have sports cars that need to hit mid 12's and pull a g around a turn. and expected to be about as reliable as yoru average sedan..
You now have lux cars, with an overabudance of HP to move their heavy lux weight to 13 second quater mile times.
"normal" sedan's are edging into the mid 14's
Compact cars - Sti, Evo, SRT-4...
A truck that does 0-60 in about 6 seconds is now considered slow.
Fute EPA mpg and the pollution laws will probably end this era. Maybe even stricter saftey regulations too.. Gas isn't getting any cheaper either.. Hmm, sounds familiar..
After this era, I perdict the next major leap that'll bring performance era back in the relatively far future are new ultra lightweight materials that can be cheaply used in mass produced vehicles. So if our HP goes down by half, hopefully the avg weight will go down by half too... Top speed will suffer, but how often do you go above 130 mph?
-----
I would not want to buy a performance FWD car.. as other people said, it has trouble putting relatively large amounts of power down. be it tq steer or the simple fact weight wants to transfer to the back on acceleration.. The front wheels now have to the duty of both turning and pulling the vehicle..
300 hp is practically baseline for performance. 400 hp and you start talking... You can now get 500 hp at about $100,000 mark now
You have sports cars that need to hit mid 12's and pull a g around a turn. and expected to be about as reliable as yoru average sedan..
You now have lux cars, with an overabudance of HP to move their heavy lux weight to 13 second quater mile times.
"normal" sedan's are edging into the mid 14's
Compact cars - Sti, Evo, SRT-4...
A truck that does 0-60 in about 6 seconds is now considered slow.
Fute EPA mpg and the pollution laws will probably end this era. Maybe even stricter saftey regulations too.. Gas isn't getting any cheaper either.. Hmm, sounds familiar..
After this era, I perdict the next major leap that'll bring performance era back in the relatively far future are new ultra lightweight materials that can be cheaply used in mass produced vehicles. So if our HP goes down by half, hopefully the avg weight will go down by half too... Top speed will suffer, but how often do you go above 130 mph?
-----
I would not want to buy a performance FWD car.. as other people said, it has trouble putting relatively large amounts of power down. be it tq steer or the simple fact weight wants to transfer to the back on acceleration.. The front wheels now have to the duty of both turning and pulling the vehicle..
05-15-2003, 10:56 AM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Posts: 3,505
Originally posted by formula79
My point was that the average FWD sedan performs as well as just about any 60's Muscle cars...I didn't include the Viper ect because they are obviously better. Either way my point was performance wise we are in perhaps the best era ever and don;t know it..even you average FWD sedan can lay down 13's. Understeer depends on who makes the cars...GM's have very little torque steer along with Chrysler's....Nissan is very bad with torque steer though.
Understeer is good in your average non-performance car...it is much more forgiving when you have idiot drivers. In a performance minded car oversteer is more desirable..but your average Accord driver isn't drifting around turns.. Either way i would say that a new Accord could outhandle every 60's muscle car aside from maybe a Vette.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
Again please stop trolling my threads..
My point was that the average FWD sedan performs as well as just about any 60's Muscle cars...I didn't include the Viper ect because they are obviously better. Either way my point was performance wise we are in perhaps the best era ever and don;t know it..even you average FWD sedan can lay down 13's. Understeer depends on who makes the cars...GM's have very little torque steer along with Chrysler's....Nissan is very bad with torque steer though.
Understeer is good in your average non-performance car...it is much more forgiving when you have idiot drivers. In a performance minded car oversteer is more desirable..but your average Accord driver isn't drifting around turns.. Either way i would say that a new Accord could outhandle every 60's muscle car aside from maybe a Vette.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
Again please stop trolling my threads..
yes, our family cars are second to none. ::double checks:: yep, cars are definatly better than they were 40 years ago.
i hardly concider that a flame....
I was agreeing with you. jus pointing out some cars your missed
05-15-2003, 01:33 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 95
Originally posted by formula79
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
I lurk off and on, so I don't know if you are being actively trolled. However if his post was a troll (all the points, not just the one I mentioned) it was a well hidden one in that he made some very good points in his post.
In my opinion rear wheel drive will always be my choice for a pure performance car. For a daily driving car I'd go with AWD for the performance in weather conditions, and the nice launch from a stop, as it just makes more sense to me. However I've yet to see the AWD car with the power and sound that I prefer in cars, so most likely out of all my current choices I'd go GTO if I could afford to get a new car right now. I don't like the way front wheel drive cars feel when I drive them, and I imagine many of us who grew up driving Camaro's and such feel the same.
In the end, for many of us, it's SOTP that determines if we like a car, and fact is the old muscle cars still throw you back in your seat, rev real loud, and have that tank feeling that you can only get from being surrounded by a ton of detroit steel.
Is today a muscle car age? No, I don't think so. However I think it is an interesting age all on it's own of nice high tech vehicles that put out great power and very satisfying times. I'm not sure what I would call this age, I'm not a slogan guy, but IMHO none of these cars, including the Camaro and Mustang are muscle cars.
05-15-2003, 01:46 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Posts: 3,505
Originally posted by formula79
My point was that the average FWD sedan performs as well as just about any 60's Muscle cars...I didn't include the Viper ect because they are obviously better. Either way my point was performance wise we are in perhaps the best era ever and don;t know it..even you average FWD sedan can lay down 13's. Understeer depends on who makes the cars...GM's have very little torque steer along with Chrysler's....Nissan is very bad with torque steer though.
Understeer is good in your average non-performance car...it is much more forgiving when you have idiot drivers. In a performance minded car oversteer is more desirable..but your average Accord driver isn't drifting around turns.. Either way i would say that a new Accord could outhandle every 60's muscle car aside from maybe a Vette.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
Again please stop trolling my threads..
My point was that the average FWD sedan performs as well as just about any 60's Muscle cars...I didn't include the Viper ect because they are obviously better. Either way my point was performance wise we are in perhaps the best era ever and don;t know it..even you average FWD sedan can lay down 13's. Understeer depends on who makes the cars...GM's have very little torque steer along with Chrysler's....Nissan is very bad with torque steer though.
Understeer is good in your average non-performance car...it is much more forgiving when you have idiot drivers. In a performance minded car oversteer is more desirable..but your average Accord driver isn't drifting around turns.. Either way i would say that a new Accord could outhandle every 60's muscle car aside from maybe a Vette.
FWD has less traction- Okay here you need to step from the crack pipe....
FWD has more traction becase the whole weight of the drivetrain is over the wheels that have power. This was why FWD is easier to handle in the snow and rain. It is also one of the reasons that automakers claimed they needed to switch to FWD in the mid 80's...to make a safer car.
Traction doesn't become an issue on a FWD car unless you are talking about drag racing and have more than ~300 HP...then they can become tricky to launch...
But then again there are few people who drag race FWD cars and even fewer than have 300 HP.
Again please stop trolling my threads..
vettes handled pretty bad back in the day (depending on which gen your talking about)
The major problem then was traction. put tires of today on there now and suspension of today on an old GTO and watch it drop 1/2 a second.
05-15-2003, 01:54 PM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Originally posted by treyZ28
ps
vettes handled pretty bad back in the day (depending on which gen your talking about)
The major problem then was traction. put tires of today on there now and suspension of today on an old GTO and watch it drop 1/2 a second.
ps
vettes handled pretty bad back in the day (depending on which gen your talking about)
The major problem then was traction. put tires of today on there now and suspension of today on an old GTO and watch it drop 1/2 a second.
What I was saying is your average FWD sedan today could outhandle any of the classic muscle cars (talking skidpad, cornering, ect) with teh exception of the Vette. Seems like there are people way to worried about wheel spin at launch. It is very rare the average driver floors the hell out a car everytime the start from a stop...though being a Camaro board I could expect it to have undue weight placed on it. Also hooking up has alot to do with the driver, ect...
Last edited by formula79; 05-15-2003 at 01:58 PM.
05-15-2003, 02:10 PM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Posts: 3,505
Originally posted by formula79
Yeah, but when I say handling I mean corning, not getting off the line...those are two seperate things. Compared to an old GTO or Chevelle a Corvette handled like it was on rails for the day...the next best handling car IMO was the 2nd Gen T/A, buts thats my opinion.
What I was saying is your average FWD sedan today could outhandle any of the classic muscle cars (talking skidpad, cornering, ect) with teh exception of the Vette. Seems like there are people way to worried about wheel spin at launch. It is very rare the average driver floors the hell out a car everytime the start from a stop...though being a Camaro board I could expect it to have undue weight placed on it. Also hooking up has alot to do with the driver, ect...
Yeah, but when I say handling I mean corning, not getting off the line...those are two seperate things. Compared to an old GTO or Chevelle a Corvette handled like it was on rails for the day...the next best handling car IMO was the 2nd Gen T/A, buts thats my opinion.
What I was saying is your average FWD sedan today could outhandle any of the classic muscle cars (talking skidpad, cornering, ect) with teh exception of the Vette. Seems like there are people way to worried about wheel spin at launch. It is very rare the average driver floors the hell out a car everytime the start from a stop...though being a Camaro board I could expect it to have undue weight placed on it. Also hooking up has alot to do with the driver, ect...
psshhht, next thing you know the mood wont be made of cheese and theres no such thing as the easter bunny
thanks for the head up i guess
05-15-2003, 02:18 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 2,473
You guys are talking like they can't make hybrids and fuel cell cars fast....They just started making hybrids 5 years ago. How fast were combustion engine cars 5 years after they came out? 
And actually, for getting 65 MPG, my Insight isn't THAT slow. I can beat some imports with it of the same year, and a lot of early - mid 90 cars (yes, I have had a couple stop light wars w/ it, just for sh*ts and giggles ussually, and I end up being surprised). So don't make it sound that hybrids and fuel-cell cars can't be made fast. I can see how it might be scary when fuel-cell cars are the norm and their having a power battle, but be a little open-minded about it.
And actually, for getting 65 MPG, my Insight isn't THAT slow. I can beat some imports with it of the same year, and a lot of early - mid 90 cars (yes, I have had a couple stop light wars w/ it, just for sh*ts and giggles ussually, and I end up being surprised). So don't make it sound that hybrids and fuel-cell cars can't be made fast. I can see how it might be scary when fuel-cell cars are the norm and their having a power battle, but be a little open-minded about it.