NoHope

What do you MEAN!? You have a 2012 Camaro! I would love a 5th Gen. SS.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

A glance at my sig makes it obvious that I love both generations - enough to own both an auto and a manual in each. I daily drove 60's Pontiacs for years, but one day when I came close to rear-ending somebody, I made up my mind that I needed a modern car for daily driving. I'm with RPM WS6 - I could care less about gadgetry.

Anti-lock brakes, the performance, and reasonable fuel economy are the highlights of the new cars. The styling, simplicity, great ride, and raw aggressiveness are the charm of old muscle.

NoHope

Pretty weak brakes on those old cars ehh?

I can see people why people don't like the styling of the newer cars, but OMG the '98-'02 Trans Am is PERFECT. Every line was given the utmost attention to detail, it's possible the MOST aggressive looking T/A they ever made, I absolutely LOVE the look of that car.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

For me the only car that has held a candle to the 65 & 68-70 GTO is the 93-02 Formula. I actually like the look of the 93-97 cars better than the 98-02.

Oh, and I do like the C6 Corvette a lot too.

88blackiroc

iTrader: (3)

I couldn't choose. IMO the best car is one that combines everything together.
I 69' camaro or 70' chevelle with a ls7 or 454 lsx would be one of the best cars I could imagine.
The new school power along with old school looks? You can't beat it

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I agree with RevGTO's statement about ABS (and larger disc brakes in general) being a welcome progression for a daily driver.

But truthfully the power 4-wheel drum brakes on my '71 aren't all that bad at surface street speeds in good weather. Modulation is noticeably different from disc setups, but it's something you get used to. Only time I really notice how inferior they are to modern brakes is at expressway speeds. When you drive an older car with older equipment, you just learn to adjust your habits - for example, I keep a greater distance between myself and the cars ahead of me. But there is no question that ABS is also a real plus in a daily driver when it comes to bad weather.

Styling wise, my personal opinion is that the best looking cars ever built were various GM products from 1966-73 and various Mopar products from 1968-74. I also greatly enjoy the simplicity of these cars and would not be interested in any sort of conversions to modern powertrain control electronics. To me, the simple old gasoline toilet bowl is part of the appeal.

99ws6ta346

Having owned mostly classic (Pontiac) muscle cars that eventually morphed from street cars into drag cars with Pontiac power, I definitely have a soft spot for them. I once told a buddy of mine that as far as I was concerned, the pinnacle of automotive styling was reached in 1969 with the Judge in Hugger orange (Carousel Red to Pontiac purists). As I rapidly approach my fifth decade of existence however, I decided to make the move to a more modern muscle platform. Just yesterday, as I was cruising in my 99 TA, I was thinking to myself why didn't I do this sooner. The smooth ride, the handling and the power 'leather' buckets were a welcome departure from the stark utilitarian interiors I had grown accustomed to, and it was definitely 'nice' to have a ballsy LS purring under the hood as well. Also, the thought of actually enjoying air conditioning on a 95 degree day is a welcome one. LOL

hutchman

Well stated! I do miss the smell of a rich mixture on a cold start!

anthonyisd3ad

Hmmm... did you once own a 240sx? Your house and your garage looks strangely familiar.

lt1 sport

iTrader: (13)

My favorite is old muscle with new drivetrain/supension/etc. Old muscle just has a certain feel and draw to it, sound, looks, etc. I like driving new muscle( my 4th gens, vettes, brother has a 2012 boss), but everytime i hop in one of dads old cars, particularly his 70 396 SS Nova, it has a feel like no car from this era could ever have. I could sit and cruise in that thing for a whole Sunday afternoon. And the way the hoods and doors shut on a piece of old iron is second to none. Those were the real muscle cars.

KingJacobo

A few years ago in high school, I bought my 66 Pontiac, my first car. The classics have something that newer cars just don't have, soul. Recently I noticed during a friday night cruise on a deserted street that I was only doing 35 in a 40. I sped up to 40, then realized I was enjoying myself more going at the granny 35. lt1sport said it best, the old cars are REAL cars. Everything is so simple about them, and they have a certain elegance (even fire breathing big blocks) that no modern car can touch. Watch someone pull up in a 60's car, then in a modern LS. You'll see what I mean.

I do have a modern DD though, drum brakes honestly are outright dangerous in panic stops. But my DD is also 20 years old

This video sums it up pretty well. SPOILER: 69 Firebird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=mDTRu4hXjp8#

FST SS

I turned 21 in 1971 and my first new car was a 1971 Boss 351 Mustang. Before that I also owned a 1967 GTO 400/4sp. That era was completly different than today. Gas was .35 but you only got 7mpg IF you kept your foot out of it. Those cars were rough, raw and aggressive. You knew when you were going 100 miles per hour. I am so glad I lived then (and lived to tell about it!). Having said that, I love my 2000 SS. In my opinion it is the closest thing to having the best of both worlds. I have modified it to where it feels rough and aggressive. Loud exhaust, solid MM's, very stiff suspension, light flywheel, gears, a little weight reduction, console delete, Mister gasket rubber shift boot, Hurst Billit w/chrome short stick and T-handle. It has some of the old school feel while also having new tech brakes, fuel injection, 20 mpg and sleek styling. 100 miles per hour feels like 70. I think we are reliving some of those old days except that back then a guy right out of high school could go to work at Chrysler and be able to afford just about any car he wanted. Not so today. In 1971 I made $8500/year and my Boss Mustang cost $3000. That's 35% of my salary. In 2000 I made $50,000 and my SS cost $30000, that's 60%. So relatively speaking I was better of back then. All you young guys today remember these times cause they won't last forever!!!

777Shock777

iTrader: (5)

A little background from me, I was born in 1992 so I missed pretty much all of the old school muscle car scene and barely missed the 93-02 f-bodies.

So I'm really happy to see these new muscle cars coming out, just because I missed a good portion of them

I'd personally vote New muscle, because I'm a geek that loves computers/video games and I gotta have those gadgets!

MrBluGruv

I think the 4th gen F-body is going to prove to be the last stop for a sort-of minimalist muscle car experience. Although the LS1 may be considered small and less powerful compared to GMs new LS engines, it still made fantastic power for the size and weight of the F-body.

Almost everything of consequence since around '02 has been terrible heavy, under-powered, or laden with gadgets, and I don't think that the weight or the gadgets will drop from here on out.

Consequently, I think that a "muscle car" or "sports car" will soon become a thing of the past, where you can only end up buying a "commuter car" which has mid-high power and is relatively affordable due to the high price for what it is (stemming from all the damned tech in them), or a "hyper car" that costs an outrageous amount of money stemming from the no-holds-barred engineering for all-out performance as well as the fancy gadgetry. There will be no "middle class" of cars soon enough.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

This post is very insightful, and I agree with all points completely.

The fact that the 4th gens were the "last stop" of sorts, is the reason why I still have two of them and will probably always have at least one. They were the last new cars to have somewhat of an old car soul. They were the last new car that I've been able to get really excited about.

There was a time when most items on a car were optional, so with a factory order sheet you could build something to suit your taste and budget...put the big engine in a stripped down car if you like, or add on a bunch of luxury options and fancy trim pieces while opting for the small engine if you didn't care about performance; or you could order all of the above. I understand that the pratice of standardization makes options more affordable on the whole, but unfortunatly this leaves some of us stuck with heavier, more complicated and more expensive junk that we don't want or need.

NoHope

I agree with 99% of this post, it's very true, in all aspects. The simple and basic features a car must have, and a few added amenities that a car can have were what made the Fbody cheap, light, and practical for modifying and racing.

The last part, about being no middle class of cars, I'm a little confused on. Are you suggesting there won't be any "middle class" performance cars? Are you suggesting the Charger, Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang are going to disappear? Or rather that their prices will keep going up and will thus become unaffordable to the middle class?

Despite all the new gadgetry and amenities that these new muscle cars have, they still offer bang for your buck performance compared with most European cars, and the RWD nostalgia and spinning fun that no Japanese car can deliver. They handle almost on par with an M3 and get better fuel economy to boot.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

I don't know about cheap. Although a stripped Formula could be had for under $20k in 93, list on my well-equipped 94 Formula was about $26k. By 2002 $26k got you a strippo, a WS6 cost $32k, and a Firehawk could be as much as $36k.

NoHope

I didn't buy these cars brand new. But I'm pretty sure on Motor Trend 1998, the Camaro Z28 started off at around $21,000...for 350HP I'd consider that a good price.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I think this post below illustrates the point well, with some real world numbers that show the shrinking "middle class" of performance cars:

The cost for new performance cars, and the fuel to feed them, does seem to have gone up faster than the incomes of many.

I did buy two of these cars new, and I can tell you that you're correct on the pricing. I have the window sticker for my '98 Z28 right here in front of me, and the base price was $20,470. Most of them came with at least the Z28 Preferred Equipment Group #1 (this included the usual power accessories), which added an additional $1,576 to the price, for a total of $22,046.

I do agree that $20-22k was a good value for a ~350hp brand new car in 1998. The closest base price competition was Mustang GT, but that got you about 100hp less for your money. Having said that.....

.....a quick search on Chevrolet.com reveals that the cheapest MSRP for an entry-level V8 Camaro in 2013 is $32,635. Compared to the $20,470 entry-level price in 1998, that's a 60% increase in MSRP over a 15 year period - and with only a modest increase in acceleration performance considering the amount of years inbetween (despite decent power gains, the weight increase has really held back the acceleration potential of an LS3 5th gen).

Granted, some might argue that more options have become standard, etc., and hence the increase in base price. But that's exactly the point here....that the OEMs are going to cram options down your throat whether you want them or not. This pratice works because, as stated above, standardization of options brings the price of said options down on the whole, and *most* people seem to want their car to be more like a living room rather than a piece of machinery these days. Those of us that actually want something more simple are in the minority, and thus are forced to pay for this unwanted content and, in effect, subsidize the cost for everyone else.

NoHope

1998 was a really bad year for the Mustang. The Motor Trend episode i'm remember was for 1999 when they finally bumped it up to 260HP. In 1998 the GT only made 225HP! It was the 305HP Cobra or go home! Ford had a ways to go back then.!
Very true. A stock LS3 Camaro is only slightly faster than a stock LS1 Camaro. The LS3's seem to be routinely hitting 13 flat and occasionally high 12's in the 1/4, where the LS1's were routinely mid to low 13 second cars, with a rare few hitting 12's. Still, awfully close for 10 years of difference in technology and close to 100HP in power differences.

These new cars are SO loaded down, they don't even feel like a muscle car anymore. They feel more like a luxury car. But I guess the general population today isn't in for a car with few options and lacking amenities, as you said most people want their car to be an extension of their house, when that happens it holds back a car's true potential.