Do you like the new gen muscle cars?

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I got into a Nissan GT-R. And looked into the engine bay. Now there's a car.
Screw these new "muscle cars".

Either get an old one, or get something that's good in these times.

So to you if you cant afford an $80k motor-trend car of the year, you shouldn't bother with a modern performance car?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The new Challenger is nice IMO...the Camaro is just as shi**y as the original, of course I own the original "musclecar"..........
Dave

A 66 GTO was not the first muscle car.

 

[Plutoman 10+ year member]

So to you if you cant afford an $80k motor-trend car of the year, you shouldn't bother with a modern performance car?

Just saying >.>

Get a 350z then or somethin'. Older (just a few years older) corvettes can be had for the price of those cars.

A nice Acura, an Infiniti G, Nissan Z, a good mercedes, imports ftw. Corvette is nice though. So much power for its price.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

A 66 GTO was not the first muscle car.

True, the 64 GTO could be considered the first muscle car, or the Olds 88 could also be considered the first muscle car

 

[Mynameismcgyver 10+ year member]

No because they don't come out of the factory with 600Hp....

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

True, the 64 GTO could be considered the first muscle car, or the Olds 88 could also be considered the first muscle car

I have always heard the 64.5 GTO was the first musclecar.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

It is what most people consider the first muscle car but the olds 88 exhibited a lot of muscle car qualities in the 50's. Powerful V8 engine in a no frills car

 

[Lil Poot 5,000+ posts]

IMO I don't like them at all, they are turning out to be less reliable than the old ones "no surprise there" not to mention they have no were near the power as some of the old ones had. I will stick with my imports reliability...FTW

they rated hp number differently back then. the new engines are more powerful.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

they rated hp number differently back then. the new engines are more powerful.

Explain? They are rated the same as they always have been. All cars are rated in flywheel horsepower. Same way they did it in the 60's. LS6 chevelles easily made 500+ horsepower and the hemis made the same if not more.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I thought they intentionally lowered HP ratings for insurance purposes more back then than now.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

they did, but that makes those engines more powerful, not less powerful as the guy above said. There are still major cases currently where cars are substantially underrated. The 03/04 SVT Cobra's were rated 390 at the crank and in reality they put close to 400 to the wheels stock. But yes a lot of the cars back then were underrated for insurance prices

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Explain? They are rated the same as they always have been. All cars are rated in flywheel horsepower. Same way they did it in the 60's. LS6 chevelles easily made 500+ horsepower and the hemis made the same if not more.

Actually, the 1970 Chevelle LS6 is considered the highest HP production car from that era. No Hemi was rated higher. And the LS6 is said to have been rated VERY conservatively for insurance purposes. Ive read tests where people have built an LS6 using all NOS parts, then tested it and found the HP numbers to be closer to the 650-700 range. Yes, an LS6 car was a brute.

I thought they intentionally lowered HP ratings for insurance purposes more back then than now.

Towards the end of the muscle cars they did, as I suggested above for the LS6. But actual ratings and/or measurements should be the same as then otherwise. Companies may rate them conservatively these days too, but they should be measuring the same way they did 30-40 years ago. There is no evidence that suggest an engine rated at 300hp these days is more powerful than one rated for 300hp back then. If anything, its more likely the other way around, and the older one was rated more conservatively. But again this depends on the actual situation, you cannot make a blanket statement like engines are 'more powerful' today then they were back then. (not that you said this flip, just sayin)

I would agree however that with new technology available, it is easier to squeeze more ponies out of each cubic inch. It wasn't too many decades ago 1Hp per cu.in. was considered the goal for performance. But now that's fairly easy to surpass. The difference is, the old cars tended to have huge engines that weren't tuned to their max, while today's engines tend to be smaller and tweaked out to their max. I prefer mixing the two.... new technology mated to lots of cubic inches...

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

Actually, the 1970 Chevelle LS6 is considered the highest HP production car from that era. No Hemi was rated higher. And the LS6 is said to have been rated VERY conservatively for insurance purposes. Ive read tests where people have built an LS6 using all NOS parts, then tested it and found the HP numbers to be closer to the 650-700 range. Yes, an LS6 car was a brute.

Towards the end of the muscle cars they did, as I suggested above for the LS6. But actual ratings and/or measurements should be the same as then otherwise. Companies may rate them conservatively these days too, but they should be measuring the same way they did 30-40 years ago. There is no evidence that suggest an engine rated at 300hp these days is more powerful than one rated for 300hp back then. If anything, its more likely the other way around, and the older one was rated more conservatively. But again this depends on the actual situation, you cannot make a blanket statement like engines are 'more powerful' today then they were back then. (not that you said this flip, just sayin)

I would agree however that with new technology available, it is easier to squeeze more ponies out of each cubic inch. It wasn't too many decades ago 1Hp per cu.in. was considered the goal for performance. But now that's fairly easy to surpass. The difference is, the old cars tended to have huge engines that weren't tuned to their max, while today's engines tend to be smaller and tweaked out to their max. I prefer mixing the two.... new technology mated to lots of cubic inches...

Yup, the Ls6's were incredibly underrated. I remember a shop that rebuilt a 426 hemi to stock specs and it was in the 600hp range. I wish I was alive back then //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yup, the Ls6's were incredibly underrated. I remember a shop that rebuilt a 426 hemi to stock specs and it was in the 600hp range. I wish I was alive back then //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

At least with GM motors, you can buy just about any motor now that you could back then. I came really really really close to buying an all-aluminum 427 ZL-1 instead of my RJ502. I still might smoe day, they were always my favorite motor as a kid.

 

[stangman67 10+ year member]

And you can get Chebby engines for fairly cheap in comparison to Ford. My Keith Craft 306 cost me 7 grand to my door //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif Is that your 502 pictured?? Whats it in? Not a huge chevy guy but is that a Chevelle in the background?