Dead Muscle Car Era
03-05-2012, 03:47 PM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead Muscle Car Era I was at home talking to my dad about all the muscle cars he had back in the day. (72 Charger, 70 Challenger T/A, 69 Charger Daytona, '70 Gran Torino, '67 Fairlane, 86 Monte Carlo SS) Some cars that are out now or coming back out are being screwed up. I understand the muscle car area is over and all but damn. GM messed up when they made the Impalas, Monte Carlos, and the Grand Prix a FWD with a 325 small block Chevy. They were good and very unique cars but the FWD had massive torque steer and the transmissions were made of glass! Then GM came back out with the Regal. I used to drool when my dad's friend has his '83 Buick Regal with a worked 305 small block and a 1987 Buick Grand National GNX. Now the Regal is just a small but sharp looking car. Thats about it. Dodge messed up by making the Charger a sedan and extra heavy. The Challenger is a nice car but its too damn heavy. Now Dodge is bringing back the Dart and i can tell just by looking at it, that im not going to like it. What are your opinions on this topic?
03-05-2012, 05:47 PM
#4
12 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My gxp will smoke the **** out of any mid 70's thru 2003 grandprix stock for stock. All of these new cars will definitely out last the old school cars too. I don't understand the weight and fwd either. I am in love with the new 5.0 mustang a the all new charger.
03-05-2012, 06:36 PM
#5
i hate all this new crap, charger a gay 4 door family car, but i will say the new super bee charger is pretty sharp but still cant compare to any charger built, the mustang has always been around and imo is the best new edge pony car out, there all lost on what made these cars big back in the day, we dont need all the bells and whistles this new crap has, we need a big motor that can run and some what light. my fav new car is the copo concept, its a race car, add a few things to that to make it street legal and we can maybe compare to the classics, no cars will ever come close to the 60s and early 70s era
03-05-2012, 07:21 PM
#7
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who likes that fact that imps and montes are fwd? I love muscle cars of 60s and 70s. And I have had 4 mustangs. 98, 2000, 07 v6 and 07 gt. I like cars that are unique too, like these ls4s. Muscle cars are the best but no matter how close the newer ones look or if they are rwd or not, we will never have the old muscle cars back.
Trending Topics
03-05-2012, 07:33 PM
#8
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want muscle you gotta have the cash. ZL1, ZR1, any V Series.
I bought my car because it's FWD and needed a DD. If it was rear wheel I probably wouldn't have bought it.
I bought my car because it's FWD and needed a DD. If it was rear wheel I probably wouldn't have bought it.
03-05-2012, 07:35 PM
#9
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look wise. Dead, definitely. Performance wise, not really.
all of the first gen challengers run around 14 seconds for a the 1/4 mile, except for the top end 426 that ran mid to low 13s....the new Challenger SRT will do low 12s.
the FWD LS4 montes and impalas were the fastest ones ever produced...Not saying our LS4 WBodies are muscle cars, but still.
the 305 was a turd. 5.0 and 165-185 hp? LoL. my friend had a trans am with the "5.0 HIGH OUTPUT" with an exhaust...my 2001 monte carlo ss with a puny 3800 would beat it by at least 2 car lengths everytime we ran at the 1/8.
the GNX was a beast though, 0-60 in 4.7...but in the 1980s it cost 30,000 dollars. if you figure in inflation thats about 59,000 in 2010 dollars, add about a thousand more for 2012 dollars.
But i understand what youre saying...The whole point of a muscle car was a small car with a big motor. the original camaro weighed about 2900 pounds...nowadays thats what a compact weighs, lol. But if you compare it to a 75 camaro it only weighs about 200 pounds more. but its alot faster, drives better, safer, and gets better mileage.
all of the first gen challengers run around 14 seconds for a the 1/4 mile, except for the top end 426 that ran mid to low 13s....the new Challenger SRT will do low 12s.
the FWD LS4 montes and impalas were the fastest ones ever produced...Not saying our LS4 WBodies are muscle cars, but still.
the 305 was a turd. 5.0 and 165-185 hp? LoL. my friend had a trans am with the "5.0 HIGH OUTPUT" with an exhaust...my 2001 monte carlo ss with a puny 3800 would beat it by at least 2 car lengths everytime we ran at the 1/8.
the GNX was a beast though, 0-60 in 4.7...but in the 1980s it cost 30,000 dollars. if you figure in inflation thats about 59,000 in 2010 dollars, add about a thousand more for 2012 dollars.
But i understand what youre saying...The whole point of a muscle car was a small car with a big motor. the original camaro weighed about 2900 pounds...nowadays thats what a compact weighs, lol. But if you compare it to a 75 camaro it only weighs about 200 pounds more. but its alot faster, drives better, safer, and gets better mileage.
03-05-2012, 07:41 PM
#10
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I was at home talking to my dad about all the muscle cars he had back in the day. (72 Charger, 70 Challenger T/A, 69 Charger Daytona, '70 Gran Torino, '67 Fairlane, 86 Monte Carlo SS) Some cars that are out now or coming back out are being screwed up. I understand the muscle car area is over and all but damn. GM messed up when they made the Impalas, Monte Carlos, and the Grand Prix a FWD with a 325 small block Chevy. They were good and very unique cars but the FWD had massive torque steer and the transmissions were made of glass! Then GM came back out with the Regal. I used to drool when my dad's friend has his '83 Buick Regal with a worked 305 small block and a 1987 Buick Grand National GNX. Now the Regal is just a small but sharp looking car. Thats about it. Dodge messed up by making the Charger a sedan and extra heavy. The Challenger is a nice car but its too damn heavy. Now Dodge is bringing back the Dart and i can tell just by looking at it, that im not going to like it. What are your opinions on this topic?
People who talk about how the old days being better either weren't around then or simply have bad memories. I was a teenager in the 80's and my parents owned some of the premier GM performance vehicles of that era: My mother drove an '88 Trans Am GTA with the TPI 350 and later a '90 Corvette, while my Dad's DD was an '87 Buick National. As teenagers, my friends and I tinkered with '60's Mustangs, Camaros, and the like.
Having driven all of those cars, I can tell you that there is no comparison between those eras and now in terms of performance. Today, even a 2012 Camry V6 will outrun most of those 60's and '80's muscle cars. While you may have fond memories of that '83 Regal with a "worked" 305, chances are that car had trouble breaking into the 15's. Not trying to knock it or insult you, but that was the reality. Now, in that era, high-15's was very quick, so no doubt the car probably felt fast. Same with a stock Grand National. While those cars respond readily to modification, the upgrade technology was still very young, and so while a stocker with decent tires and good gas could run 14.00s and even touch the 13's, most were not that fast until later, as mods became more available and cheaper. The mid-80's Monte Carlos SS cars, while great looking, ran high 15's on the 305 H.O. motor...Very easy pickings for any LS4 car.
My whole point is, back in the 60's and 80's, if your car ran 14's it was considered fast. Most performance cars couldn't even do that. Google up a mid-80's Vette and look at the 1/4 mile time, or even a 87-93 Mustang GT (one of the benchmarks of the era). Contrast that with a 2012 Camaro V6 that will get to 60 in under 6 seconds and run high-13's in the quarter.
Muscle is not dead...It's better and cheaper than ever.
Uhh, that car exists in your choice of two-door or four-dour body styles. They're called GTOs and G8s. Only, they come with better motors than do our cars.
03-05-2012, 09:09 PM
#11
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all paid the price by taking a chance on the LS4 as far as transmission troubles are concerned. As for torque steer, it's not a problem if you have decent tires. When we bought our Impala at 30,000 miles, it had the shitty Goodyear RSAs with about half the life left. The car would pull to the left badly on hard acceleration. After putting some decent tires on it, it went away almost completely. These cars have surprisingly little torque steer for the amount of power they put to the ground.
People who talk about how the old days being better either weren't around then or simply have bad memories. I was a teenager in the 80's and my parents owned some of the premier GM performance vehicles of that era: My mother drove an '88 Trans Am GTA with the TPI 350 and later a '90 Corvette, while my Dad's DD was an '87 Buick National. As teenagers, my friends and I tinkered with '60's Mustangs, Camaros, and the like.
Having driven all of those cars, I can tell you that there is no comparison between those eras and now in terms of performance. Today, even a 2012 Camry V6 will outrun most of those 60's and '80's muscle cars. While you may have fond memories of that '83 Regal with a "worked" 305, chances are that car had trouble breaking into the 15's. Not trying to knock it or insult you, but that was the reality. Now, in that era, high-15's was very quick, so no doubt the car probably felt fast. Same with a stock Grand National. While those cars respond readily to modification, the upgrade technology was still very young, and so while a stocker with decent tires and good gas could run 14.00s and even touch the 13's, most were not that fast until later, as mods became more available and cheaper. The mid-80's Monte Carlos SS cars, while great looking, ran high 15's on the 305 H.O. motor...Very easy pickings for any LS4 car.
My whole point is, back in the 60's and 80's, if your car ran 14's it was considered fast. Most performance cars couldn't even do that. Google up a mid-80's Vette and look at the 1/4 mile time, or even a 87-93 Mustang GT (one of the benchmarks of the era). Contrast that with a 2012 Camaro V6 that will get to 60 in under 6 seconds and run high-13's in the quarter.
Muscle is not dead...It's better and cheaper than ever.
This. And you'd also smoke any pre-04 GTO, too. That includes the 389 tri-power cars.
Uhh, that car exists in your choice of two-door or four-dour body styles. They're called GTOs and G8s. Only, they come with better motors than do our cars.
People who talk about how the old days being better either weren't around then or simply have bad memories. I was a teenager in the 80's and my parents owned some of the premier GM performance vehicles of that era: My mother drove an '88 Trans Am GTA with the TPI 350 and later a '90 Corvette, while my Dad's DD was an '87 Buick National. As teenagers, my friends and I tinkered with '60's Mustangs, Camaros, and the like.
Having driven all of those cars, I can tell you that there is no comparison between those eras and now in terms of performance. Today, even a 2012 Camry V6 will outrun most of those 60's and '80's muscle cars. While you may have fond memories of that '83 Regal with a "worked" 305, chances are that car had trouble breaking into the 15's. Not trying to knock it or insult you, but that was the reality. Now, in that era, high-15's was very quick, so no doubt the car probably felt fast. Same with a stock Grand National. While those cars respond readily to modification, the upgrade technology was still very young, and so while a stocker with decent tires and good gas could run 14.00s and even touch the 13's, most were not that fast until later, as mods became more available and cheaper. The mid-80's Monte Carlos SS cars, while great looking, ran high 15's on the 305 H.O. motor...Very easy pickings for any LS4 car.
My whole point is, back in the 60's and 80's, if your car ran 14's it was considered fast. Most performance cars couldn't even do that. Google up a mid-80's Vette and look at the 1/4 mile time, or even a 87-93 Mustang GT (one of the benchmarks of the era). Contrast that with a 2012 Camaro V6 that will get to 60 in under 6 seconds and run high-13's in the quarter.
Muscle is not dead...It's better and cheaper than ever.
This. And you'd also smoke any pre-04 GTO, too. That includes the 389 tri-power cars.
Uhh, that car exists in your choice of two-door or four-dour body styles. They're called GTOs and G8s. Only, they come with better motors than do our cars.
That '83 Regal ran a best 13.7(saw with my own eyes at Atco raceway in NJ) which is pretty good, well to me anyway, and that GNX ran somewhere in the mid 11's. But you're right Performance wise today these cars are way better than back in the day. These LS4 cars and other vehicles with v8s out performed their old counterparts from the 60's and 70's. But times are changing and these are changes we have to deal with.
03-05-2012, 09:12 PM
#12
^^^ I agree even these new heavy *** cars are faster than the lighter original versions. Engineering and chassis design has come so far in the last 2 decades along with technology. Its a direct coorilation. Weight makes the cars more comfortable and better in bad weather. I mean my buddies Challanger 392 rides like a "cadillac" and goes great in the snow. Even with the weight penalty we have now cars get better mileage, accelerate faster, have higher top speeds, handle better, and most importantly are WAY safer. That's not to say an old car isn't more fun, just for fun factor alone I'll take my 66 Chevelle over the Impala any day, but they are about equally as fast in every situation except top speed where the Impala runs about 25-35mph faster...
THE MUSCLE CAR ERA IS NOW AND IT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!! POWER FOR THE PEOPLE
If you want light weight coupe with a big V8, long nose, and short rear deck get yourself a used and abused C5 Vette for about 15 grand, and put another carefully spent 5k into it and you'll be as fast as a new Z06, which is really damn fast...
THE MUSCLE CAR ERA IS NOW AND IT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!! POWER FOR THE PEOPLE
If you want light weight coupe with a big V8, long nose, and short rear deck get yourself a used and abused C5 Vette for about 15 grand, and put another carefully spent 5k into it and you'll be as fast as a new Z06, which is really damn fast...
03-05-2012, 09:24 PM
#13
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
That '83 Regal ran a best 13.7(saw with my own eyes at Atco raceway in NJ) which is pretty good, well to me anyway, and that GNX ran somewhere in the mid 11's. But you're right Performance wise today these cars are way better than back in the day. These LS4 cars and other vehicles with v8s out performed their old counterparts from the 60's and 70's. But times are changing and these are changes we have to deal with.
And that had to be a seriously built 305 to run those times in a 3600-lb car in that era. There are all sorts of reasons why the 305 is very limited in potential.
03-05-2012, 09:37 PM
#14
Things always change over time, some argue that it's bad, others enjoy it. You can't please everyone.
Have you ever sat in/driven a late 60's early 70's muscle car? Many of them are uncomfortable as a **** just to sit in let alone try to control without power steering/4,000 lbs/400+hp/drum brakes ect ect.
Nowadays, everything performs better and is more comfortable in just about every aspect. With that comes more technology, R&D, weight, design, and ultimately cost.
Have you ever sat in/driven a late 60's early 70's muscle car? Many of them are uncomfortable as a **** just to sit in let alone try to control without power steering/4,000 lbs/400+hp/drum brakes ect ect.
Nowadays, everything performs better and is more comfortable in just about every aspect. With that comes more technology, R&D, weight, design, and ultimately cost.
03-05-2012, 09:45 PM
#15
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that you implied otherwise, but a stock GNX wouldn't run mid-11's. If we're talking modded vehicles, then yes, there was some 80's stuff could be massaged to go fast. I thought we were talking factory performance.
And that had to be a seriously built 305 to run those times in a 3600-lb car in that era. There are all sorts of reasons why the 305 is very limited in potential.
And that had to be a seriously built 305 to run those times in a 3600-lb car in that era. There are all sorts of reasons why the 305 is very limited in potential.
03-05-2012, 10:26 PM
#16
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
They were stout cars, but also need a lot of attention to keep them in top shape, due to both age and the technology. That's the reason I sold the GN and bought the Camaro. My stock-engined 160,000 mile 2002 Z28 just dyno'd at 360 HP to the rear wheels with just bolt-ons and a tune. At the track (on slicks), it shouldn't be too far behind my old GN, but with a lot fewer tuning headaches.
It's evolution, man. Everything gets better over time!
03-05-2012, 10:50 PM
#17
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah..A GNX was good for mid-13's right out the door with an idiot behind the wheel. And it only took a couple of years for the mods to really get cranked up for the Turbo Buicks. By the time 2000-2002 rolled around, 11-second GNs were plentiful and common. Hell, my Dad's old car went 11.71 @ 118 on an unopened motor with 130,000 miles on the clock.
They were stout cars, but also need a lot of attention to keep them in top shape, due to both age and the technology. That's the reason I sold the GN and bought the Camaro. My stock-engined 160,000 mile 2002 Z28 just dyno'd at 360 HP to the rear wheels with just bolt-ons and a tune. At the track (on slicks), it shouldn't be too far behind my old GN, but with a lot fewer tuning headaches.
It's evolution, man. Everything gets better over time!
They were stout cars, but also need a lot of attention to keep them in top shape, due to both age and the technology. That's the reason I sold the GN and bought the Camaro. My stock-engined 160,000 mile 2002 Z28 just dyno'd at 360 HP to the rear wheels with just bolt-ons and a tune. At the track (on slicks), it shouldn't be too far behind my old GN, but with a lot fewer tuning headaches.
It's evolution, man. Everything gets better over time!
03-05-2012, 11:01 PM
#18
12 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take 65 GTO, 69 zl1 camaro, 70 Buick GSX, 74 455 SD firebird and a 87 Regal GSX in a heartbeat! I can only drive what I can afford.. Hell, if I was to take all of the money that I have dumped into this gxp, then I could have a serious car!
I however, really like my car. In fact, I had to rub the dash today while driving it today, and when I did, I felt a warming sensation flow thru my heart. I have been an old school Pontiac and Buick guy for a long time. I am however done with drum brakes, carbs, distributors, and stuipid oil leaks.. I am also done with rust buckets that are hard to find parts for. The LS4 will be a forgotten car in another 5 years and parts will be hard to come by.
I really want to build a foxbody Mustang with a ls4 that gets mounted to v6 4l6e using my same cam/set. Obviously the intake would get flipped and the front cover would go. 2900 fox with 430 plus crank hp should fly!
Sb chevy with a 4 bolt main equals 50 more hp then your 2 bolt and double hump heads flow better them big blocks.. lmao
I however, really like my car. In fact, I had to rub the dash today while driving it today, and when I did, I felt a warming sensation flow thru my heart. I have been an old school Pontiac and Buick guy for a long time. I am however done with drum brakes, carbs, distributors, and stuipid oil leaks.. I am also done with rust buckets that are hard to find parts for. The LS4 will be a forgotten car in another 5 years and parts will be hard to come by.
I really want to build a foxbody Mustang with a ls4 that gets mounted to v6 4l6e using my same cam/set. Obviously the intake would get flipped and the front cover would go. 2900 fox with 430 plus crank hp should fly!
Sb chevy with a 4 bolt main equals 50 more hp then your 2 bolt and double hump heads flow better them big blocks.. lmao
03-05-2012, 11:26 PM
#20
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I wish that could've worked out, too. It would have been easier selling to someone I know (even if online) than a total stranger. I just try to not think about it, and it's easier to forget when I'm behind the wheel of the Camaro!