Patrick's Agenda -- CJ Explains It All

CobraJet wrote:

> > > > In comparision, MM&FF's Evan Smith recently flogged a totally
> > > > original 1 of only 57 built R-code (425 HP, 4-speed, 8-barrel)
'66
> > > > 427 Fairlanes. After 12 passes at E-town, he was able to
register
> > > > a best of "13.39 at 104 mph and change".

> > > A tenth slower than my 289 Mustang. I smell trailer queen.

> > 13.20s with a plain ol' 289 Mustang, huh? (Hmmm... I smell
something
> > too.) Pretty heedy stuff for a little small block, especially
> > considering SEEverist's big-block 455 Buick GS with headers, M&T ET
> > Streets, full exhaust/x-pipe, ignition upgrade, traction aids,
shift
> > kit, ect., only ran 13.40s. And Stevie isn't a shabby driver.
Hell,

> Stevie doesn't leave with a 40-lb flywheel turning 5000 rpm and
> shifting a 2950-lb car at 7800. Stevie admits to leaving his car in
> Drive to shift by itself. Night and Day.

Pure stock 289s don't turn 7,800 rpm. Pure stock cars don't leave the
line at 5,000 and hook. We're talking factory stock; you're talking
modified. Night and day. Your Mustang is irrelevant to this
discussion.

> > even my Cobra with headers, 3.55s, and drag radials has only run in
the
> > 13.40s, and it also has the help of more cubes, roller rockers/cam,
and
> > better heads than any factory 289. Lets go even a step further.
My
> > brother refused to race my old stock 5-oh LX with his '66 GT-350
> > because he knew he'd get wiped. He knew it, and I knew it, because
> > both of us had driven both cars. And my old LX was only a low
> > 14-second car.

> > Perhaps, you should give us a few more details about this 289
Mustang?
> > For one, what was the trap speed? And two, ALL the mods thrown at
it.

> This car has been discussed in detail in this newsgroup. If your
> memory fails you, there's always Google.

You can sit here and play NG ping pong, but you don't have time to
repost the details of this miraculous pure-stock Mustang that ran low
13's. THEN doesn't even post the trap speed as asked. You're clearly
avoiding the questions...nice... how convenient.

> > > > The numbers of which are not too
> > > > different from Car Life's 1963 road test of an H&M (Holman &
Moody)
> > > > prepped NASCAR 410-bhp 427 Ford Fastback. (According to H&M at
the
> > > > time, their prepped 427 was putting out 500.) The car was a
> > > > 4-speed, weighed 4055 pounds, and had a 3:50 gear at the time
of the
> > > > test. The tires were "Gumballs" (with high tire pressures) and
were
> > > > mounted on 8.5" wheels. With a pro driver, the car ran the 1/4
at 14.2
> > > > with a 105 mph trap.

> > > The original owner I bought my R-code '63 427 Galaxie
stickshift
> > > car from had 12.80 times slips from 1963. It had skinny cheater
slicks,
> > > headers, and 4.57 gears. All else stock, non-pro driver.

> > And its trap speeds were?

> Like I took notice of them knowing that I'd have to inform you 20
> years later. Nitwit.

Oh, so now you don't even have the time slips. No time slips = no
proof. Plus, the car wasn't factory stock, so it's irrelevent to
this discussion.

> > Umm... Evan's car was pure stock. A half second gained with
headers,
> > slicks, and 4.57s IS believeable.

> Evan's car was a unibody Fairlane, some 600 pounds lighter than
the
> full-frame Galaxie. You really don't know much about this stuff, do
> you? And I'll bet you didn't figure that the Medium Riser heads and
> increased overlap cam on the '66 is worth 50-60 horsepower more than
> the 63's Low Riser setup.

Yeah, we're comparing it to the Galaxie you don't have time slips for,
and wasn't factory stock. Again, your car is irrelevant to this
discussion.

<snipped other non-topic stuff>

> > "Pure stock" 455 Olds and 428 Fords don't put down 405 and 362
> > REAR-WHEEL horsepower respectively. How could they? They didn't
even
> > have gross advertised (you know, the really optimistic ones.)
> > _flywheel_ horsepower figures that high.

> > And before you get all ****y with me, ask the SEEverist what his
old
> > 455 laid down.

> I don't have to get ****y. NHRA factored the CJ at 400 horsepower
> from the get go.

400 gross advertised hp. Who cares? Its SAE net number would equal
about the same number as the older quad-cam Cobras, about 305-320.

> The Pure Stock rules would allow oversized valves,
> zero deck height, internal block massaging, adjustable rockers,
> non-stock cams with optimized cam phasing, twelve inch increase in
> displacement, loose piston clearance, lowered oil pump pressure, a
> switch to a wide ratio gearbox (works much better with broad torque
> engines), blueprinted automatic, and a host of other mods I can
> eventually think of.

> The fact is, it passed tech for the race like everyone else and
> turned 12's.

Yes, according to their rules it ran 12's pure stock. But factory cars
didn't come with oversized valves, zero deck height, internal block
messaging, 12 inches of additional displacement and/or a blueprinting
engine. And what is being discussed here is whether pure stock factory
cars ran 12s, so THESE "pure stock" cars are irrelevant. Now the
"pure stock" cars that ARE relevant to this discussion are the ones
that are either [relatively] untouched originals, OR cars that have
been restored back to as close to original specs as possible.

Are we clear?

> > > > > But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way
before

> > > > > my time anyway.

> > > > Well, we both know it wasn't happening in factory trim.

> > > So what?

> > Well, good golly... I don't know... could it be that CJ is missing
the
> > whole point of this thread...? Gee willikers, I think that's it!
Hey
> > CJ, maybe, instead of cutting me up, you could start a thread
talking
> > about the POTENTIAL of factory muscle cars. Then you could drag
out
> > scores of dyno tests of modified engines/cars.

> As I mentioned elsewhere, old tests are for bench racers. This
> series is the here and now.

And it's a great series. I love it! But don't kid yourself into
believing a '64 427 belted out anywhere near 516 horsepower when it
left the factory.

> > > This series is the closest thing to realizing the potential of
> > factory style Muscle Cars.

> > Potential has it's own series. It's called F.A.S.T -- Factory
> > Appearing, Stock Tired.

> Now you're getting into stroker cranks and way more room for
> refinement.

"Refinement" Would that be the same as "more efficient"?
You're not trying to say you like your engines more efficient, are
you? <other readers, it's a little inside joke>

> > "Pure stock", on the other hand, should be as close to PURE STOCK
as
> > possible! Which means lots of 15, 14 and 13-second cars, and just
a
> > smattering of 12-second cars.

> Ah, but there *are* 12-second cars. Isn't that the point?

I've said this numerous times. There were some factory Super Stock
cars and specialty stuff that ran 12s. I'm stating the
run-of-the-mill stuff didn't run 12s. THAT'S the point.

> > > Much better than the old tests, or Smith beating on an obviously
> > subpar example.

> > You don't even know how quick/fast these cars were in pure stock
> > factory trim. Sad. Either your delusional or you're in denial.
I'd
> > say it's a little of the first and TONS of the second.

> What's sad is you've forgotten how many of these cars I grew up
> with, and how many I raced. And back in the day, nothing stayed stock
> for more than few days.

You were a teenager in the 70s. The stuff you experienced were
modded-up hand-me-downs. In other words, you didn't buy a '63 427
Galaxie off the showroom floor. And, apparently, you've never raced
one on a drag strip before either or you'd have timeslips.

> > > Of the 12 cars highlighted, 3 were running sticks, and they were
> > > all Fords. The Cleveland Torino and the 429CJ Spoiler were both
> > > undergeared at 3.50's; both those engines need stiff cogs in
> > > intermediates. The big Merc was the only one geared right with a
stick.
> > > The Mach I, considering that stock converters are required for
> > > automatics, would probably be even faster with a manual.

> > All that big-block torque spinning little 14-wheels/bias-ply tires,
and
> > they still need 4.XX gears. That always amazes me.

> That's because you don't know Jack **** about these engines. All
the
> canted-valve Fords were designed for high-rpm use, and the street
> versions were severely undercammed.

First, maybe that's why they didn't run 12's in factory trim,
huh?
Second, adding tons of gear to a torquey RWD car that's running stock
tires isn't a prescription for quicker e.t.s, it's a prescription
for a fogbank.

> I own and raced a 3.50-geared Cyclone Spoiler 4-speed. It was
undergeared for
> the quarter. My friend had a 4V Cleve Torino stick car. He changed to
3.89's
> and still was undergeared. See, Patrick. First hand > experience. You
never
> had it and you never will.

Experience doesn't come from driving your car with one hand and
jacking off with the other. Experience doesn't come from racing a
buddy, who SAYS his car runs 12s, and holding your own against his car
through a gear or two on the street. Experience, in this discussion
comes from a drag strip timeslip you can quote from. In that regard,
CJ, apparently, you never had it and you never will.

> > > My XR7 (heavier than a Mach) ran quicker 12's with a PI intake
and
> > > a mild converter, and bigger tires (on the original 14-inch
wheels).
> > > Bummer, huh?

> > Bummer...? Why? Should it have run quicker with all the
[unlisted]
> > mods you did to it?

> I'm being sarcistic, nitwit. The car had over 100k on the stock
> bottom end, lots of blowby, cut front springs with no weight
transfer,
> no traction device, leather interior, power windows, all the A/C
parts
> except the actual compressor, and 300 pounds of ballast in the trunk
to
> keep the rear from skating under accel.

You missed it. The points were your car wasn't stock, and you
didn't give the specs/details of how this now nearly 4,000 pound
Cougar ran 12s, and, again, you didn't give us any timeslip
information.

"Timeslip" you know... the little card that lists 60-foot and 1/4
mile times and trap speed? That's good info to have when you're
claiming 12s!

> > Please descibe this car in detail, AND give us its 12-second e.t.
and
> > trap speed?

> Why bother? You'd just make up some more **** to dodge the facts.
> Did I mention my Fairlane Cobra stick car was faster? Did I mention
my
> 455 4-4-2 was in the 12's? Did I mention my '70 Road Runner had
> 12-second time slips? Did I mention I still own all these cars? Did I
> mention that I have a better grasp of in-depth musclecar dynamics and
> combustion physics than you and 180 could ever accumulate in a
lifetime
> of heated collaboration?

Why bother?! You haven't given us any facts than to SAY your cars
have run 12s. It's all lip service. Hey, did I ever tell you every
car I've ever owned ran 12s, and they all did it in pure-stock
factory stock trim? Yep, no ****! My old '69 Super Bee, 12s. My
'67 Impala, 12s. My '68 Comet, 12's. My '68 Dodge pickup,
12's. My '76 Dodge pickup, 12s. My old LX, 12s. My Cobra, 12s.
My wife's Accord, 12s. Even my daughter's '83 LTD, 12s. Huh, do
I have timeslips...? Oh, I don't have anytime slips. Nor, am I
going to give you any details on my vehicles.

Pretty persuasive arguement, huh?

> And what do you have? An outdated Mustang and a monkey on your
back.
> Oh yeah, and the naivete to think nobody can see you're a hypocrite
> with an agenda steeped in ignorance.

Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to tell us
how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling (10-12
different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st generation muscle cars
('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock factory trim.

And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they
ran in factory trim."

That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck!

Patrick
'93 Cobra

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> CobraJet wrote:
>
> Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to tell us
> how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling (10-12
> different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st generation muscle cars
> ('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock factory trim.
>
> And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they
> ran in factory trim."
>
> That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck!
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

Ah, Patrick Patrick Patrick. Seven years of this (maybe more before
I showed up?) and all you've proven is that you are the only one that
can compare apples and oranges and produce a banana. This impresses
nobody but the monkey on your back. The obsession with magazine tests
and the attitude that if someone doesn't have a time slip then he is a
liar, is so much smoke to cover up the fact that you are ignorant when
it comes to the intricacies, characteristics, and relationships that
make up the whole classic muscle car hobby.

In retrospect, maybe you *should* continue to regurgitate the "news"
stories about the current vehicular offerings, because you are clearly
out of your league otherwise. Every newsgroup needs a mascot, right
Bulldog?

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

CobraJet wrote:

> > Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to tell
us
> > how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling (10-12
> > different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st generation muscle
> > cars ('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock factory
trim.

> > And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they
> > ran in factory trim."

> > That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck!

> Ah, Patrick Patrick Patrick. Seven years of this (maybe more
before
> I showed up?) and all you've proven is that you are the only one that
> can compare apples and oranges and produce a banana. This impresses
> nobody but the monkey on your back. The obsession with magazine tests
> and the attitude that if someone doesn't have a time slip then he is
a
> liar, is so much smoke to cover up the fact that you are ignorant
when
> it comes to the intricacies, characteristics, and relationships that
> make up the whole classic muscle car hobby.

What I've proven is that you can't answer the question. The question
of how fast were they in factory stock trim. When Rick, when are you
going to answer? Seven years and *every* *single* time you've run off
without answering. Is the answer really that painful? Is it a sin?
Are you scared? What is it, Rick? Why is it so hard for you?

> In retrospect, maybe you *should* continue to regurgitate the
"news"
> stories about the current vehicular offerings, because you are
clearly
> out of your league otherwise.

Rick, you don't understand that you can see/and admit a vehicle's
shortcomings and still love it just the same. Case in point the Fox
Mustangs. As you know I've been driving one since 1987. I hate their
brakes, the chassis flexes a little too much, there are some cheap
interior pieces, the seating position is far from perfect, the seats
suck, and they need more horsepower (doesn't everything?), but all
these deficiences doesn't keep me from loving them. I love Fox
Mustangs! And there are *scores* of other cars -- new and *old* --
that I love even though I know they are far from perfect. I know too
that none of them were the quickest or fastest car built. I can admit
it because it just doesn't matter. While speed and power is awesome,
it's what the car does for you that matters most. Now fess up and end
this madness.

> Every newsgroup needs a mascot, right Bulldog?

Rick, it was Pitbull.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

In article .com>,
> wrote:

> CobraJet wrote:
>
> > > Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to tell
> us
> > > how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling (10-12
> > > different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st generation muscle
> > > cars ('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock factory
> trim.
>
> > > And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they
> > > ran in factory trim."
>
> > > That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck!
>
> > Ah, Patrick Patrick Patrick. Seven years of this (maybe more
> before
> > I showed up?) and all you've proven is that you are the only one that
> > can compare apples and oranges and produce a banana. This impresses
> > nobody but the monkey on your back. The obsession with magazine tests
> > and the attitude that if someone doesn't have a time slip then he is
> a
> > liar, is so much smoke to cover up the fact that you are ignorant
> when
> > it comes to the intricacies, characteristics, and relationships that
> > make up the whole classic muscle car hobby.
>
> What I've proven is that you can't answer the question. The question
> of how fast were they in factory stock trim. When Rick, when are you
> going to answer? Seven years and *every* *single* time you've run off
> without answering. Is the answer really that painful? Is it a sin?
> Are you scared? What is it, Rick? Why is it so hard for you?

The only way to know how fast they really were in Stock trim is to
dig up times run in Stock Eliminator back then. When that class first
started, there were no headers or slicks or anything else allowed. Not
were there the abundance of "tricks" the modern cars employ.
Basically, it was a showroom class.

If it's all that important to you, *you* dig it out. I don't have
the time, nor do I care. Other than the occasional mention of this or
that car in a old mag, I wouldn't even know where to find a list of SE
times.

>
> > In retrospect, maybe you *should* continue to regurgitate the
> "news"
> > stories about the current vehicular offerings, because you are
> clearly
> > out of your league otherwise.
>
> Rick, you don't understand that you can see/and admit a vehicle's
> shortcomings and still love it just the same. Case in point the Fox
> Mustangs. As you know I've been driving one since 1987. I hate their
> brakes, the chassis flexes a little too much, there are some cheap
> interior pieces, the seating position is far from perfect, the seats
> suck, and they need more horsepower (doesn't everything?), but all
> these deficiences doesn't keep me from loving them. I love Fox
> Mustangs! And there are *scores* of other cars -- new and *old* --
> that I love even though I know they are far from perfect. I know too
> that none of them were the quickest or fastest car built. I can admit
> it because it just doesn't matter. While speed and power is awesome,
> it's what the car does for you that matters most. Now fess up and end
> this madness.

The 60's cars have better brakes than the Fox, flex less, have nicer
interiors, better seats (well, most of the intermediate and full sizers
do), are far easier to work on, less expensive to maintain, have more
charismatic styling and individualism, and can be hopped up for less
money.

There, I 'fessed. I love the classics for all of this and the fact
that they send me back to a time I much prefer to the garbage we live
in today. Happy?

>
> > Every newsgroup needs a mascot, right Bulldog?
>
> Rick, it was Pitbull.

Sorry, I knew Bull had something to do with it.
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

CobraJet wrote:
> The only way to know how fast they really were in Stock trim is to
> dig up times run in Stock Eliminator back then. When that class first
> started, there were no headers or slicks or anything else allowed. Not
> were there the abundance of "tricks" the modern cars employ.
> Basically, it was a showroom class.
>
> If it's all that important to you, *you* dig it out. I don't have
> the time, nor do I care. Other than the occasional mention of this or
> that car in a old mag, I wouldn't even know where to find a list of SE
> times.
>
Hey Rick, if you want to find ET's for Stock Eliminator, just go to
www.draglist.com They have a pretty good data base on that site, and it
goes waaaaay back! I know for a fact that a friend of mine, back in 75,
held the record for Z/S in a 73 Vega 4 cyl with an ET of 16.54.

Gary

In article >, GEB
> wrote:

> CobraJet wrote:
> > The only way to know how fast they really were in Stock trim is to
> > dig up times run in Stock Eliminator back then. When that class first
> > started, there were no headers or slicks or anything else allowed. Not
> > were there the abundance of "tricks" the modern cars employ.
> > Basically, it was a showroom class.
> >
> > If it's all that important to you, *you* dig it out. I don't have
> > the time, nor do I care. Other than the occasional mention of this or
> > that car in a old mag, I wouldn't even know where to find a list of SE
> > times.
> >
> Hey Rick, if you want to find ET's for Stock Eliminator, just go to
> www.draglist.com They have a pretty good data base on that site, and it
> goes waaaaay back! I know for a fact that a friend of mine, back in 75,
> held the record for Z/S in a 73 Vega 4 cyl with an ET of 16.54.

Thanks, I'll check it out in a few minutes. I'm sure Patrick will
beat me there.

BTW, the "zoot FE" in the BB group morphed into some V8 Pinto talk.
>
> Gary

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

CobraJet wrote:

> > > > Okay, you want my agenda? Here's my agenda: For CJ/Rick to
tell
> > > > us how quick and fast (e.t and trap speed) a small sampling
> > > > (10-12 different cars -- you pick the examples) of 1st
generation
> > > > muscle cars ('64-'73) were in the quarter mile, IN pure-stock
> > > > factory trim.

> > > > And please don't dodge it, AGAIN, with "I don't care what they
> > > > ran in factory trim."

> > > > That's my agenda, and your assignment. Good luck!

<CJ dodging the question snipped>

> > What I've proven is that you can't answer the question. The
question
> > of how fast were they in factory stock trim. When Rick, when are
you
> > going to answer? Seven years and *every* *single* time you've run
> > off without answering. Is the answer really that painful? Is it a

> > sin? Are you scared? What is it, Rick? Why is it so hard for you?

> The only way to know how fast they really were in Stock trim is to
> dig up times run in Stock Eliminator back then. When that class first
> started, there were no headers or slicks or anything else allowed.
Not
> were there the abundance of "tricks" the modern cars employ.
> Basically, it was a showroom class.

>From what I've been able to find so far, Stock Eliminator is FAR from
anything you'd have/get in a factory car. I'm going to keep looking
for a good link though.

> If it's all that important to you, *you* dig it out. I don't have
> the time, nor do I care. Other than the occasional mention of this or
> that car in a old mag, I wouldn't even know where to find a list of
SE
> times.

I don't buy the no time thing. Doesn't matter... I'll find it.

<little snip>

> > Rick, you don't understand that you can see/and admit a vehicle's
> > shortcomings and still love it just the same. Case in point the
Fox
> > Mustangs. As you know I've been driving one since 1987. I hate
> > their brakes, the chassis flexes a little too much, there are some
> > cheap interior pieces, the seating position is far from perfect,
the
> > seats suck, and they need more horsepower (doesn't everything?),
but
> > all these deficiences doesn't keep me from loving them. I love Fox
> > Mustangs! And there are *scores* of other cars -- new and *old* --
> > that I love even though I know they are far from perfect. I know
too
> > that none of them were the quickest or fastest car built. I can
> > admit it because it just doesn't matter. While speed and power is
> > awesome, it's what the car does for you that matters most. Now
fess
> > up and end this madness.

> The 60's cars have better brakes than the Fox,

Sadly this is probably true.

> flex less,

Doubt it.

> have nicer interiors,

No way, not with their skinny-ass steering wheels, cheap vinyl
everywhere, horrible gauges, even cheaper plastic parts, and gaudy
chrome trim.

> better seats (well, most of the intermediate and full sizers do),

Flat seats with no adjustment vs Fox Mustang seats. As bad as they
are, I'd still have to opt for the Fox seats.

> are far easier to work on,

For clearence and a limited number of components yes. But for carbs
and points, modern is better. Still the edge goes to older.

> less expensive to maintain,

Yes, older is better.

> have more charismatic styling and individualism,

That's only because they're old. Back in the day, most were considered
boring to look at. 30-35 years from now, an '04 Terminator will be SO
cool and classic looking compared to everything else on the road.

> and can be hopped up for less money.

Agreed.

However, you can't drive the old ones everyday anymore (who wants to be
a curator?), without overdrive they suck on modern highways, handling
is on par with a dump truck, and they pollute worse than a dog that ate
a bean burrito.

> There, I 'fessed. I love the classics for all of this and the fact
> that they send me back to a time I much prefer to the garbage we live
> in today. Happy?

No, no, no. You didn't do the assignment, you goof. <Someone hit this
guy upside the head with a set of quad cams.> 10-12 classics and list
their e.t.s and trap speeds in factory stock trim. C'mon dude, it
isn't that hard. You *said* you have all the old magazines... go look.

> > > Every newsgroup needs a mascot, right Bulldog?

> > Rick, it was Pitbull.

> Sorry, I knew Bull had something to do with it.

That's right, the author of the "no-bull zone".

Pitbull Patrick
'93 Cobra

(snip)

Excuse me, gentlemen, a few sane comments...

>> The 60's cars have better brakes than the Fox,
>
>
> Sadly this is probably true.
>
>
>>flex less,
>
>
> Doubt it.
>
>
>>have nicer interiors,
>
>
> No way, not with their skinny-ass steering wheels, cheap vinyl
> everywhere, horrible gauges, even cheaper plastic parts, and gaudy
> chrome trim.
>
>
>>better seats (well, most of the intermediate and full sizers do),
>
>
> Flat seats with no adjustment vs Fox Mustang seats. As bad as they
> are, I'd still have to opt for the Fox seats.
>
>
>>are far easier to work on,
>
>
> For clearence and a limited number of components yes. But for carbs
> and points, modern is better. Still the edge goes to older.
>
>
>>less expensive to maintain,
>
>
> Yes, older is better.

And let's not forget property taxes, insurance, and the never ending
finance charges.

>
>>have more charismatic styling and individualism,
>
>
> That's only because they're old. Back in the day, most were considered
> boring to look at. 30-35 years from now, an '04 Terminator will be SO
> cool and classic looking compared to everything else on the road.

I disagree completely. You seem to forget that for the past 20 years,
most cars have adopted the worn-bar-of-soap look. How does that inspire
anyone to plunk down that kind of money? The Big Three all have
"retro-styled" vehicles that have sold very well. Hmm...
In the 50s, 60s and 70s, bold styling (for a variety of audiences) came
way before drag coefficient in terms of what made a desirable external
shape.

>
>>and can be hopped up for less money.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, you can't drive the old ones everyday anymore (who wants to be
> a curator?), without overdrive they suck on modern highways,

Many can be equipped with overdrive for not a hell of a lot of money. I
drive my '67 about 8,000 - 10,000/year.

handling
> is on par with a dump truck,

"Handling" is a very vague description, but alright. They aren't as
refined. Performance potential? A lot more of it than perhaps you know
depends on the driver's hands and feet. "It's not the car, it's the
driver" holds a lot of truth. In the (I think D) modified autocross
class, I flung (not my) '55 XK140 with a punched-out Ford 302, open rear
end, and top loader around a full 3 seconds quicker on a 45-sec course
than the next challenger - a heavily tweaked (and "faster") 88 LX 5.0
with gonzo tires, driven by a mutual acquaintance. He ****ed and
moaned, and tried to find where the unfair mechanical advantage was. My
Jag owner friend just informed me I'd be helping with the next brake job
after the final run. All drums...

Over-reliance on inherent handling characteristics rather than actual
skill gets a lot of people killed.

and they pollute worse than a dog that ate
> a bean burrito.

Creating a new car and driving it for 100,000 miles pollutes the
environment far worse than keeping an old, pre-smog BB car running for
that many miles ever could.

>> There, I 'fessed. I love the classics for all of this and the fact
>>that they send me back to a time I much prefer to the garbage we live
>>in today. Happy?
>
>
> No, no, no. You didn't do the assignment, you goof. <Someone hit this
> guy upside the head with a set of quad cams.> 10-12 classics and list
> their e.t.s and trap speeds in factory stock trim. C'mon dude, it
> isn't that hard. You *said* you have all the old magazines... go look.
>
>
>>>>Every newsgroup needs a mascot, right Bulldog?
>>>
>
>>>Rick, it was Pitbull.
>>
>
>> Sorry, I knew Bull had something to do with it.
>
>
> That's right, the author of the "no-bull zone".
>
> Pitbull Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"Wound Up" > wrote in message
...
> > That's only because they're old. Back in the day, most were considered
> > boring to look at. 30-35 years from now, an '04 Terminator will be SO
> > cool and classic looking compared to everything else on the road.
>
> I disagree completely. You seem to forget that for the past 20 years,
> most cars have adopted the worn-bar-of-soap look.

You must like the current sharp edged Cadillacs?

>How does that inspire
> anyone to plunk down that kind of money?

Style is about getting a reaction and any reaction is better than no
reaction. Recently bland brands, such as Nissan, Subaru and Cadillac are
trying to create stronger reactions right now. Others have settled into a
familiar look (Porsche, Corvette, Jeep, Beetle and now the Mustang) that's
likely to continue indefinitely. Some love one and wouldn't be caught dead
in another.

Totally bland cars like Accords and Camrys prompt millions of people to pay
$$$--for their trouble free operation rather than looks.

The best indicator of who will buy a product is whether the person has
already bought the same product.

>The Big Three all have
> "retro-styled" vehicles that have sold very well. Hmm...
> In the 50s, 60s and 70s, bold styling (for a variety of audiences) came
> way before drag coefficient in terms of what made a desirable external
> shape.

They've also had retros that didn't do well (e.g. Chevy SSR, T-Bird,
Prowler). You can find good and terrible models in any era--the 70s spawned
the Pinto and Pacer.

> > However, you can't drive the old ones everyday anymore (who wants to be
> > a curator?), without overdrive they suck on modern highways,
>
> Many can be equipped with overdrive for not a hell of a lot of money. I
> drive my '67 about 8,000 - 10,000/year.

It's a much bigger issue than overdrive.

> handling
> > is on par with a dump truck,
>
> "Handling" is a very vague description, but alright. They aren't as
> refined. Performance potential? A lot more of it than perhaps you know
> depends on the driver's hands and feet. "It's not the car, it's the
> driver" holds a lot of truth. In the (I think D) modified autocross
[snip]
> Over-reliance on inherent handling characteristics rather than actual
> skill gets a lot of people killed.

It's *also* true that traction and stability control, independent
suspension, better tires, etc. make cars easier to handle. The same people
would be reckless with either level of technology.

-John

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Wound Up" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >The Big Three all have
> > "retro-styled" vehicles that have sold very well. Hmm...
> > In the 50s, 60s and 70s, bold styling (for a variety of audiences) came
> > way before drag coefficient in terms of what made a desirable external
> > shape.
>
> They've also had retros that didn't do well (e.g. Chevy SSR, T-Bird,
> Prowler).
>
The three mentioned above all share the common traits of being underpowered,
and overpriced. IMO, the styling isn't what's killing them. There was a lot
of interest in both the T-Bird and SSR, until the price reared it's ugly
head. The Prowler (while not my cup 'o tea) would be scary with a nice hemi
tucked in there.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt. (on steroids)