If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
Poster wrote:
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it. Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their generation overall, hands down. They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class. Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it shows. Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells. Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is Focus level. The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue. I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we like it that way. |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BTW, I don't believe Enzo actually said he loved Jeeps, but that the Jeep
was America's only true sports car because it was the only vehicle we produced that was truly purpose built. -- Registered Linux user #378193 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ford, too were using the overhead cams in '69 Mustang:
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/time...rBoss429-2.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O http://www.billhughes.com/ Ruel Smith wrote: > > I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is > not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at > 1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a > Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot > of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give > just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually > affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night > at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back > then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't > afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and > kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely > didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and > for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate. > > I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and > Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200 > grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently > voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently > claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built. > Get over it... > > I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot. > It's not as modern of a design as you think. > > The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I > thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were > race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215 > HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet, > that was a lot. > > Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88, > 1969 Corvette ZL-1, > > -- > > Registered Linux user #378193 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In message >, "L.W." wrote:
> Ford, too were using the overhead cams in '69 Mustang: >http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/time...rBoss429-2.jpg Close, but wrong link Bill. The Boss 429 was a pushrod motor. They did make a 427 cubic inch SOHC motor though http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O http://www.billhughes.com/ > >Ruel Smith wrote: >> >> I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is >> not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at >> 1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a >> Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot >> of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give >> just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually >> affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night >> at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back >> then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't >> afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and >> kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely >> didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and >> for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate. >> >> I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and >> Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200 >> grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently >> voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently >> claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built. >> Get over it... >> >> I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot. >> It's not as modern of a design as you think. >> >> The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I >> thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were >> race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215 >> HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet, >> that was a lot. >> >> Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88, >> 1969 Corvette ZL-1, >> >> -- >> >> Registered Linux user #378193 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
bllsht wrote:
> The Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.Â*Â*TheyÂ*didÂ*makeÂ*aÂ*427Â*cubicÂ*inchÂ*SO HC > motor though Correct. And Chrysler was working on a DOHC 426 Hemi to one up the SOHC 427 FE of Ford. bit NASCAR banned special engines and the project was cancelled. Musclecar Review showed pics of what was left of the prototype a few years back. http://www.thehemi.com/notable.php?id=010 Skip down to A925. The Boss 429 was a "semi-hemi", but a pushrod engine. -- Registered Linux user #378193 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bullsh*t, did it like this '68 Mustang:
http://billhughes.com/427fordOHC.jpg Clue look at the spark plug locations. Yes, and I have the push rod, tunnel port engine version standing by for my Bronco which was also used in that year Mustang: http://www.billhughes.com/429ford.jpg which is still used as the truck 460". The 427" is a different block, beginning with the 332" in '58, 352", 360", 390", This '62 406" tri-power: http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg and then the 427" push rod, side oiler, with only dual quad, and 428". Ford oil Galleys: http://www.billhughes.com/fordOilGalley.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O bllsht wrote: > > Close, but wrong link Bill. > The Boss 429 was a pushrod motor. They did make a 427 cubic inch SOHC motor > though > http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ruel Smith proclaimed:
> wrote: > > >>Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their >>generation overall, hands down. >> >>They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few >>stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out >>more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were >>turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to >>redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable >>with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines >>were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers >>for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class. >>Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it >>shows. > > > I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. You can "point it out" until your face turns blue, but according to Road & Track you have been eating too much cascara without taking the appropriate break. Range is from 6.8 to 7.9, with the 7.9 being for the early smogged models. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think Enzo loved cars per se, he loved engineering, he loved
good workmanship-and he thought of himself as a engine and chassis builder, preferring to leave coachwork elsewhere-and most of all he loved winning. Ford beat him, once or twice, Colin Chapman ditto, everyone else ditto. Enzo went the distance. Even Shel never really beat him-no one did. He's the Sinatra of fast cars. He really did do it his way. The 308 was, I think, really a Dino to Enzo-a Ferrari was a twelve cylinder automobile. The 365BB is to me the ultimate Ferrari, he couldn't sell it in America, but he'd made his point. The 308 is still a fun car to drive-yes, I have-but it has a 90 degree flat crank V8. I'd like to see a Chevelle (not gutted out and NASCARized) beat any Ferrari ever built around the N=FCrburgring. THAT, and not High School Drag Night, is what performance is about. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Three new Jeeps - Aug 1966 | L.W.(ßill) Hughes III | Jeep | 6 | April 28th 05 04:15 AM |
Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense? | Audiofan2 | Driving | 7 | March 18th 05 09:59 PM |
Jeeps won't survive the next 10 years | HarryS | Jeep | 6 | February 17th 05 02:40 AM |