Are new cars actually better than muscle cars?

Mopar68 · Dec 05, 2004, 5:56 PM

I've been thinking and doing some research, and i've come to the conclusion that older muscle cars are infact just as good, if not better than their modern equivalents. Example: Chevy. In the past couple of years, chevy has had some pretty amazing performance cars. The last Z06 could do 0-60 in an amazing 4 seconds flat and could do 12.5 seconds in the quarter. The last SS camaro was pretty amazing too. 5.1 seconds to 60 and 13.5 in the quarter. Even the last real big performance sedan, the impala SS, was great.0-60 in 7 seconds and the quarter in 15.4 seconds was pretty good for a sedan that size back in '94. But, are they better than the classics? No.

Look at the old 1969 Chevy corvette ZL-1. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and the quarter in about 12 flat, faster than the Z06. The 1969 Super Yenko Camaro could do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and could do 11.9 seconds in the quarter, totally destroying the last SS. Even the 1970 Chevelle 454 could destroy the modern equivalent, the Impala SS. 0-60 in 6 seconds and the quarter in 13.7 seconds was and still is amazing.

Now, all of you are thinking "well this isn't fair, the SYC and the ZL-1 were both ultra rare cars. Of course the Z06 and SS can't keep up". Well, think about it. There are no real current limited production cars that chevy offers. Gone are the days when ultra limited production cars could be offered to the public. All the ultra limited performance cars from chevy stay concepts, like the 302 camaro concept, the white shark concept and the tiger shark concept. I do know of a ZL-1 camaro supercar, but it isn't all that much faster than the SYC. Plus, it has a HUGE engine, which just wouldn't make sense as an everyday car.

Now you're thinking "well what about build quality. Older Chevys can't hold a candle to todays quality". In my opnion, thats wrong. True, the later chevys might have more stuff. But have you ever open and closed the door on an older camaro or vette? How bout sit in the seats, open the trunk, or do any other quality check stuff? Old chevys are bullet proof. They're solid. They're heavy duty. Now compare that with a Z06 or SS. They're more comfortable, no doubt. But they use cheap materials and their all plasticy. I dont like that. I'd rather have an amazingly solid car that isn't as comfortable over a comfortable car with crappy interior materials.

What are you thinking now? "well the fuel mileage on those old cars are crappy" is what you're probably thinking. It's true, old cars did have crappy fuel mileage. But is it really that much different than modern cars? The LS6 V-8 got 19/28 mpg, while the 427 could probably do 12/20 mpg. Big difference, yes. But that was years ago. I believe that if you got these older cars to run on normal, unleaded gas, they could have decent fuel mileage. Not as good as the LS6, but up their. I dont know about you, but i could sacrifice the fuel mileage for the better performance and better sound.

"How bout handling? Old muscle cars handled like boats". True, but not the high performance ones. Which would you rather throw around a track, a 2002 Camaro SS or a Super Yenko Camaro? I'd pick the SYC. The Z06 does .99g's on the skipad, but personally, i'd rather take the ZL-1 around the track. Same with the impala SS and the Chevelle 454.

So what am I trying to say here? Am i trying to say that since chevy has the technology, they should create cars that could surpass the cars of yester year without breaking a sweat? Am i saying that cars in the late 60's were downright crazy? Well, i'm saying both. Chevy is doing a good job making fast cars, but they should be making limited production, ultra special cars. Look at the sucess of Chevy in NASCAR. They could easilly make a monte carlo SS NASCAR edition with a modded LS2 V-8 with like, 500hp. What about the sucess in the lemans series? They could make a vette with a 600hp V-8 and call it the corvette LM. Chevy, as well as many more companies, need to be more creative. They need to let their imagination run wild. They dont need ot be cost effective because they'll be limited production run cars.

So, what do all of you think? Do you agree? Do you have any more examples of companies like this?

igaboj · Dec 05, 2004, 6:21 PM

Sure.. the name SS isn't synonymous to high performance any more, compared with what it meant before.. names like "Impala SS" or "Monte Carlo SS" really have nothing to do with what SS once was. However.. i will have to disagree with what you said about the Z06 and all.. the older cars were great for straight line performance.. compared to today's names.. such as Monte Carlo SS or Impala SS.

Build quality was easily something that was much better back then.. when American cars were made by American hands.. rather the machines in Mexico or Brazil.

These days, the concept of power isn't much different than yesterday IMO.. just huge V8's that get power by their displacement really, so I wouldn't think that will change... but things might change once the new Z06 comes out. Things definetely can change, just like America building cars that were great in a straight line, and around curves, with the Cobra R, and Z06.. and lets not forget the viper either.

Maserati Man · Dec 05, 2004, 7:32 PM

accually the SYC has those performance times because of racing slicks, but for a long time it has been one of my dream cars.

but build quality is way different from back then, but back then they were made of steel and a lot of it. thats why they weighed around 4000-5000 lbs. one of the only things that have got me about newer cars is the style. muscle cars looked soo good and the newer versions of the cars i think is a lot worse, except the vette. corvettes have always looked good.

ok the modern day impalas and monte carlos are a joke. they are harldy what i would call "SS." they are just pathedic. plus the rear end of both of those cars are soo ugly. the tail lights of the monte carlo look horrid and why does the impala have that black strip over its lights? they look pretty bad, but atleast they have their bad performance numbers to back up their bad looks.

Joseph · Dec 05, 2004, 8:12 PM

I'de like to start off by saying that I'm from Australia and as a result I'm not as familiar with your Chev's as you guys. The closest we get to it is with our Holdens and HSV's. For example, our Holden monaro has only in the last year or two been exported to the states and badged a Pontiac GTO. But getting back onto the topic. Cars of today, and those of yesterday are very different. Firstly, those cars that were made out of steel ( and lots of it ) will kill you. A lot of people don't realise that any car that is that strong ( won't crumble easy ) is extremly dangerous. Theoretically, if at the moment of impact the car doesn't crumble then something has to compensate for the impact. That something being the driver. Cars today on the other hand are put through heaps of testing to ensure that the car is destroyed way before you are. Needless to say that they also wiegh a lot less today and as a result need less power to propell them as quick. Secondly, I can't comment for sure on the Chevy's of yester year as we don't have them here. I can speak a little on the topic though. May everyone be rest assured that no car built back then would be physically able to compete on a race track with the cars of today. Maybe in a straight line - and I say maybe. We never went backwards in technology and I can't see us ever doing it. Thirdly, and finally. Only recently in Australia, Holden brought out a concept car. Now to put things into persepctive for everyone. The average Holden SS costs around $50K Australaian Dollars / $40K US. In this SS you'll get 255 Kilowatts. 0 - 100 Km's in under 6 seconds. Relatively good for a family car tweaked up for the rev heads. This concept was called the 427. From what I read the engine may have come from the US. Anyway it was called the 427 becuase it had 427 killwatts and was primarily designed to compete with the Porsche GT2. It did. In a straight line, on the track. In every aspect. When the car was first shown at the Melbourne Motor Show many wealthy business / Rev heads placed an order for the 427 and commited themselves to $200K Aus / $180K US. Now apparently they took orders ( With deposits ) prior to production for over 200 vehicles. Six months later they came back and gave everyone their deposits back and said that for such a special low volume car they would need to Add at least another $100K to $150K Aus to justify the venture or they'de lose money. To further stregthen my foundation for my next argument - the shape of the car was the Holden Monaro exactly / Pontiac GTO. My point is that to the person asking about doing special cars for low volumes, it costs far too much money and there for can't be done. You have to take into account the labour / new machines to create the car and to build it. Look at any of the world special cars. Ferrari - sells 5K cars per annum and thats of the one entry level model and they charge $400K + Aus. Go to Mayback. They'll be luck to sell 100 cars a year and they charge in excess of $1,000,000 Aus. Anyway my point is that it can't be done. It costs the companies serious money just to create the concept, let alone put it into production. But I will say that the cars of yester year are in my opinion amazing. And they are the foundation of the cars today.

Mopar68 · Dec 05, 2004, 8:43 PM

True, i also forgot to add safety. Thats a major disadvantage of the older cars. But think it's totally possible to make limited production performance cars. For instance, my idea. Chevy has the monte carlo and the LS2. All they need to do is figure out how to put part B into part A, then tune it a little. Chevy would gain what they put in. And if they dont, so what? What happened to the days of companies making cars that cost them more than they get back? Like the porsche 959. It cost much more for porsche to build and sell it than they got back. They did it for the love of the car, not the money gain.

OBX · Dec 05, 2004, 9:53 PM

You've named some muscle cars at the very peak of muscle car performance. Most muscle cars would have average accleration by today's standards. If I compared a new Subaru Legacy GT to an average muscle car I'm not sure if the Legacy would lose on any categories: price (relatively, of course), spec, safety, acceleration, handling, practicality, fuel economy, reliability.

Maserati Man · Dec 05, 2004, 10:08 PM

the Legacy Gt is a fast car. i want my parents to buy one for our next their next car accually. 0-60 in 5.8 seconds or something like that. thats pretty fast. but subaru didnt have any muscle cars so i dont think it would be right to bring it up in this topic.

and mopar68 brought up those muscle cars comparing it to the modern day equivalent because thats what we have to work with. i think he picked the muscle cars at the top of the muscle car era because hes comparing the best of the muscle cars to the best of modern day. or something like that.

RiceBoy · Dec 06, 2004, 12:41 AM

There's a couple of things I found out about when looking at the specs for a Saleen S7:

1. The mileage sucks (10mpg city/17 highway)...compared to an older muscle car, it's either on par or worse

2. The Saleen can outaccelerate and outcorner any muscle car of yesteryear (imo...i could be wrong).

3. $430k gets you one

Taking these two things that I found out into account, and looking at the mpgs of today's muscle car compared to yesteryear's, the saleen gives out more performance for the mileage. The mileage of a Saleen and muscle car would probably be the same, but the S7 goes to 60 in 2.9 secs. I would also think that an S7 would corner a lot better, also.

But also, if you look at price, what the Saleen makes up for in performance for the mpg, it loses in price. It costs $430k, way more than any muscle car i can think of.

The cars of yesteryear and today are totally different cars. to say that one car is better off than another is not right.

12 inch pianist · Dec 06, 2004, 1:17 AM

Ok, for one, the 427 would get closer to 4 mpg. Next, in their day emsisions laws were alot less strict and we have to remember that these new cars are usable

Mopar68 · Dec 06, 2004, 9:53 AM

Are you all going to say that the 2002 camaro SS wasn't the height of the camaro of the time? Same with the imapala and Z06. And to adress the fuel mileage and emissions issue, i believe the fule mileage of a 440 magnum is around 12, so the 427 should do around that, if not better. And i can't say much for emissions. I wrote this with performance and build quality on my mind, not safety and emissions.

BTW, The Saleen S7 can't outhandle every muscle car of that era. At least on paper it couldn't. Here's some food for thought:

The 1966 Shelby 427 Cobra did 1.04 g's on the skidpad. Compare this to some of today's modern supercars.

Saleen S7: 1.02 g's

Ford GT: 1.00 g's

Ferrari Enzo: 1.05 g's

Mercedes Benz- McLaren SLR: .95 g's

Ok, so yes, the Cobra 427 was a very rare car for the time. But consider this. The 1967 Shelby Mustang GT-500 could do .88 g's on the skidpad, same as the kind of all supercars, the McLaren F1.

Respond to that however you want. I'm not saying one is beter than the other, i'm just stating facts.

OBX · Dec 06, 2004, 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maserati Man

the Legacy Gt is a fast car. i want my parents to buy one for our next their next car accually. 0-60 in 5.8 seconds or something like that. thats pretty fast. but subaru didnt have any muscle cars so i dont think it would be right to bring it up in this topic.

That's kind of my point - The Legacy GT is just a run-of-the-mill Japanese midsize sedan with a turbo, yet it can beat nearly every representative of the most talked-about era in domestic car history in every respect with notable ease. Consequently, new cars ARE better than muscle cars.

Mopar68 · Dec 06, 2004, 10:22 PM

You also have to keep in mind the tires used in that era.

12 inch pianist · Dec 07, 2004, 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopar68

Are you all going to say that the 2002 camaro SS wasn't the height of the camaro of the time? Same with the imapala and Z06. And to adress the fuel mileage and emissions issue, i believe the fule mileage of a 440 magnum is around 12, so the 427 should do around that, if not better. And i can't say much for emissions. I wrote this with performance and build quality on my mind, not safety and emissions.

BTW, The Saleen S7 can't outhandle every muscle car of that era. At least on paper it couldn't. Here's some food for thought:

The 1966 Shelby 427 Cobra did 1.04 g's on the skidpad. Compare this to some of today's modern supercars.

Saleen S7: 1.02 g's

Ford GT: 1.00 g's

Ferrari Enzo: 1.05 g's

Mercedes Benz- McLaren SLR: .95 g's

Ok, so yes, the Cobra 427 was a very rare car for the time. But consider this. The 1967 Shelby Mustang GT-500 could do .88 g's on the skidpad, same as the kind of all supercars, the McLaren F1.

Respond to that however you want. I'm not saying one is beter than the other, i'm just stating facts.

Talking to people who owned junior buger Cobra (dad included) the had absolutly NO TRACTION and most of them used the softest compound they could find. Numbers are great but dont win races, look at the Mini

Mopar68 · Dec 07, 2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12 inch pianist

Talking to people who owned junior buger Cobra (dad included) the had absolutly NO TRACTION and most of them used the softest compound they could find. Numbers are great but dont win races, look at the Mini

I'm just stating the facts. I know numbers can't really tell you how a car handles. It's all feel.

Maserati Man · Dec 08, 2004, 12:41 AM

to finally answer the question of are newer cars really better, yes, but not by much. old muscle cars have their advantages but newer cars outweigh them. older cars have bigger engines, more torque, they have stronger bodys, they are really fast in a strait line and they generally look better. but newer ones are better because you dont have to restore them, they are more reliable, they are still under warrenty, the engine doesnt have as much wear-and-tear, there are more safty features, there are more comfort features, they ride better, they respond better, power steering and they weigh less. (and im talking as if this comparison were done now, not comparing the muscle cars as if we were living back then, thats what i mean by wear-and-tear. it would pretty hard to find a muscle car that hasnt been driven. know what i mean?)

Dec 05, 2004, 5:56 PM	#1
Mopar68 The anti-hippie Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Westfield, New Jersey Posts: 7,488	Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? I've been thinking and doing some research, and i've come to the conclusion that older muscle cars are infact just as good, if not better than their modern equivalents. Example: Chevy. In the past couple of years, chevy has had some pretty amazing performance cars. The last Z06 could do 0-60 in an amazing 4 seconds flat and could do 12.5 seconds in the quarter. The last SS camaro was pretty amazing too. 5.1 seconds to 60 and 13.5 in the quarter. Even the last real big performance sedan, the impala SS, was great.0-60 in 7 seconds and the quarter in 15.4 seconds was pretty good for a sedan that size back in '94. But, are they better than the classics? No. Look at the old 1969 Chevy corvette ZL-1. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and the quarter in about 12 flat, faster than the Z06. The 1969 Super Yenko Camaro could do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and could do 11.9 seconds in the quarter, totally destroying the last SS. Even the 1970 Chevelle 454 could destroy the modern equivalent, the Impala SS. 0-60 in 6 seconds and the quarter in 13.7 seconds was and still is amazing. Now, all of you are thinking "well this isn't fair, the SYC and the ZL-1 were both ultra rare cars. Of course the Z06 and SS can't keep up". Well, think about it. There are no real current limited production cars that chevy offers. Gone are the days when ultra limited production cars could be offered to the public. All the ultra limited performance cars from chevy stay concepts, like the 302 camaro concept, the white shark concept and the tiger shark concept. I do know of a ZL-1 camaro supercar, but it isn't all that much faster than the SYC. Plus, it has a HUGE engine, which just wouldn't make sense as an everyday car. Now you're thinking "well what about build quality. Older Chevys can't hold a candle to todays quality". In my opnion, thats wrong. True, the later chevys might have more stuff. But have you ever open and closed the door on an older camaro or vette? How bout sit in the seats, open the trunk, or do any other quality check stuff? Old chevys are bullet proof. They're solid. They're heavy duty. Now compare that with a Z06 or SS. They're more comfortable, no doubt. But they use cheap materials and their all plasticy. I dont like that. I'd rather have an amazingly solid car that isn't as comfortable over a comfortable car with crappy interior materials. What are you thinking now? "well the fuel mileage on those old cars are crappy" is what you're probably thinking. It's true, old cars did have crappy fuel mileage. But is it really that much different than modern cars? The LS6 V-8 got 19/28 mpg, while the 427 could probably do 12/20 mpg. Big difference, yes. But that was years ago. I believe that if you got these older cars to run on normal, unleaded gas, they could have decent fuel mileage. Not as good as the LS6, but up their. I dont know about you, but i could sacrifice the fuel mileage for the better performance and better sound. "How bout handling? Old muscle cars handled like boats". True, but not the high performance ones. Which would you rather throw around a track, a 2002 Camaro SS or a Super Yenko Camaro? I'd pick the SYC. The Z06 does .99g's on the skipad, but personally, i'd rather take the ZL-1 around the track. Same with the impala SS and the Chevelle 454. So what am I trying to say here? Am i trying to say that since chevy has the technology, they should create cars that could surpass the cars of yester year without breaking a sweat? Am i saying that cars in the late 60's were downright crazy? Well, i'm saying both. Chevy is doing a good job making fast cars, but they should be making limited production, ultra special cars. Look at the sucess of Chevy in NASCAR. They could easilly make a monte carlo SS NASCAR edition with a modded LS2 V-8 with like, 500hp. What about the sucess in the lemans series? They could make a vette with a 600hp V-8 and call it the corvette LM. Chevy, as well as many more companies, need to be more creative. They need to let their imagination run wild. They dont need ot be cost effective because they'll be limited production run cars. So, what do all of you think? Do you agree? Do you have any more examples of companies like this? __________________ "....give it everything you've got cause it'll throw you back more than you could ever imagine." -WP

Dec 05, 2004, 6:21 PM	#2
igaboj Forum Guru Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Golden State Posts: 3,599	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? Sure.. the name SS isn't synonymous to high performance any more, compared with what it meant before.. names like "Impala SS" or "Monte Carlo SS" really have nothing to do with what SS once was. However.. i will have to disagree with what you said about the Z06 and all.. the older cars were great for straight line performance.. compared to today's names.. such as Monte Carlo SS or Impala SS. Build quality was easily something that was much better back then.. when American cars were made by American hands.. rather the machines in Mexico or Brazil. These days, the concept of power isn't much different than yesterday IMO.. just huge V8's that get power by their displacement really, so I wouldn't think that will change... but things might change once the new Z06 comes out. Things definetely can change, just like America building cars that were great in a straight line, and around curves, with the Cobra R, and Z06.. and lets not forget the viper either. __________________ It's pronounced "Eye-Guh-Boe-Jay"

Dec 05, 2004, 7:32 PM	#3
Maserati Man CCC for life Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tucson A to the Z Posts: 4,559	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? accually the SYC has those performance times because of racing slicks, but for a long time it has been one of my dream cars. but build quality is way different from back then, but back then they were made of steel and a lot of it. thats why they weighed around 4000-5000 lbs. one of the only things that have got me about newer cars is the style. muscle cars looked soo good and the newer versions of the cars i think is a lot worse, except the vette. corvettes have always looked good. ok the modern day impalas and monte carlos are a joke. they are harldy what i would call "SS." they are just pathedic. plus the rear end of both of those cars are soo ugly. the tail lights of the monte carlo look horrid and why does the impala have that black strip over its lights? they look pretty bad, but atleast they have their bad performance numbers to back up their bad looks. __________________ "I wouldn't marry a salad bar... Unless it had pudding." - Penn Jillette

Dec 05, 2004, 8:12 PM	#4
Joseph Starting Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? I'de like to start off by saying that I'm from Australia and as a result I'm not as familiar with your Chev's as you guys. The closest we get to it is with our Holdens and HSV's. For example, our Holden monaro has only in the last year or two been exported to the states and badged a Pontiac GTO. But getting back onto the topic. Cars of today, and those of yesterday are very different. Firstly, those cars that were made out of steel ( and lots of it ) will kill you. A lot of people don't realise that any car that is that strong ( won't crumble easy ) is extremly dangerous. Theoretically, if at the moment of impact the car doesn't crumble then something has to compensate for the impact. That something being the driver. Cars today on the other hand are put through heaps of testing to ensure that the car is destroyed way before you are. Needless to say that they also wiegh a lot less today and as a result need less power to propell them as quick. Secondly, I can't comment for sure on the Chevy's of yester year as we don't have them here. I can speak a little on the topic though. May everyone be rest assured that no car built back then would be physically able to compete on a race track with the cars of today. Maybe in a straight line - and I say maybe. We never went backwards in technology and I can't see us ever doing it. Thirdly, and finally. Only recently in Australia, Holden brought out a concept car. Now to put things into persepctive for everyone. The average Holden SS costs around $50K Australaian Dollars / $40K US. In this SS you'll get 255 Kilowatts. 0 - 100 Km's in under 6 seconds. Relatively good for a family car tweaked up for the rev heads. This concept was called the 427. From what I read the engine may have come from the US. Anyway it was called the 427 becuase it had 427 killwatts and was primarily designed to compete with the Porsche GT2. It did. In a straight line, on the track. In every aspect. When the car was first shown at the Melbourne Motor Show many wealthy business / Rev heads placed an order for the 427 and commited themselves to $200K Aus / $180K US. Now apparently they took orders ( With deposits ) prior to production for over 200 vehicles. Six months later they came back and gave everyone their deposits back and said that for such a special low volume car they would need to Add at least another $100K to $150K Aus to justify the venture or they'de lose money. To further stregthen my foundation for my next argument - the shape of the car was the Holden Monaro exactly / Pontiac GTO. My point is that to the person asking about doing special cars for low volumes, it costs far too much money and there for can't be done. You have to take into account the labour / new machines to create the car and to build it. Look at any of the world special cars. Ferrari - sells 5K cars per annum and thats of the one entry level model and they charge $400K + Aus. Go to Mayback. They'll be luck to sell 100 cars a year and they charge in excess of $1,000,000 Aus. Anyway my point is that it can't be done. It costs the companies serious money just to create the concept, let alone put it into production. But I will say that the cars of yester year are in my opinion amazing. And they are the foundation of the cars today.

Dec 05, 2004, 8:43 PM	#5
Mopar68 The anti-hippie Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Westfield, New Jersey Posts: 7,488	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? True, i also forgot to add safety. Thats a major disadvantage of the older cars. But think it's totally possible to make limited production performance cars. For instance, my idea. Chevy has the monte carlo and the LS2. All they need to do is figure out how to put part B into part A, then tune it a little. Chevy would gain what they put in. And if they dont, so what? What happened to the days of companies making cars that cost them more than they get back? Like the porsche 959. It cost much more for porsche to build and sell it than they got back. They did it for the love of the car, not the money gain. __________________ "....give it everything you've got cause it'll throw you back more than you could ever imagine." -WP

Dec 05, 2004, 9:53 PM	#6
OBX www.carsource.org Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Western Michigan Posts: 605	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? You've named some muscle cars at the very peak of muscle car performance. Most muscle cars would have average accleration by today's standards. If I compared a new Subaru Legacy GT to an average muscle car I'm not sure if the Legacy would lose on any categories: price (relatively, of course), spec, safety, acceleration, handling, practicality, fuel economy, reliability.

Dec 05, 2004, 10:08 PM	#7
Maserati Man CCC for life Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tucson A to the Z Posts: 4,559	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? the Legacy Gt is a fast car. i want my parents to buy one for our next their next car accually. 0-60 in 5.8 seconds or something like that. thats pretty fast. but subaru didnt have any muscle cars so i dont think it would be right to bring it up in this topic. and mopar68 brought up those muscle cars comparing it to the modern day equivalent because thats what we have to work with. i think he picked the muscle cars at the top of the muscle car era because hes comparing the best of the muscle cars to the best of modern day. or something like that. __________________ "I wouldn't marry a salad bar... Unless it had pudding." - Penn Jillette

Dec 06, 2004, 12:41 AM	#8
RiceBoy Experienced Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: SLO, CA Posts: 724	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? There's a couple of things I found out about when looking at the specs for a Saleen S7: 1. The mileage sucks (10mpg city/17 highway)...compared to an older muscle car, it's either on par or worse 2. The Saleen can outaccelerate and outcorner any muscle car of yesteryear (imo...i could be wrong). 3. $430k gets you one Taking these two things that I found out into account, and looking at the mpgs of today's muscle car compared to yesteryear's, the saleen gives out more performance for the mileage. The mileage of a Saleen and muscle car would probably be the same, but the S7 goes to 60 in 2.9 secs. I would also think that an S7 would corner a lot better, also. But also, if you look at price, what the Saleen makes up for in performance for the mpg, it loses in price. It costs $430k, way more than any muscle car i can think of. The cars of yesteryear and today are totally different cars. to say that one car is better off than another is not right. __________________ My Fast thinks that ricers...are for the weak

Dec 06, 2004, 1:17 AM	#9
12 inch pianist Forum Napoleon Complex Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: On the good ship SS 300 Foot Pianist Posts: 3,349	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? Ok, for one, the 427 would get closer to 4 mpg. Next, in their day emsisions laws were alot less strict and we have to remember that these new cars are usable __________________ I won't correct you if you're not wrong

Dec 06, 2004, 9:53 AM	#10
Mopar68 The anti-hippie Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Westfield, New Jersey Posts: 7,488	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? Are you all going to say that the 2002 camaro SS wasn't the height of the camaro of the time? Same with the imapala and Z06. And to adress the fuel mileage and emissions issue, i believe the fule mileage of a 440 magnum is around 12, so the 427 should do around that, if not better. And i can't say much for emissions. I wrote this with performance and build quality on my mind, not safety and emissions. BTW, The Saleen S7 can't outhandle every muscle car of that era. At least on paper it couldn't. Here's some food for thought: The 1966 Shelby 427 Cobra did 1.04 g's on the skidpad. Compare this to some of today's modern supercars. Saleen S7: 1.02 g's Ford GT: 1.00 g's Ferrari Enzo: 1.05 g's Mercedes Benz- McLaren SLR: .95 g's Ok, so yes, the Cobra 427 was a very rare car for the time. But consider this. The 1967 Shelby Mustang GT-500 could do .88 g's on the skidpad, same as the kind of all supercars, the McLaren F1. Respond to that however you want. I'm not saying one is beter than the other, i'm just stating facts. __________________ "....give it everything you've got cause it'll throw you back more than you could ever imagine." -WP

Dec 06, 2004, 10:22 PM	#12
Mopar68 The anti-hippie Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Westfield, New Jersey Posts: 7,488	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? You also have to keep in mind the tires used in that era. __________________ "....give it everything you've got cause it'll throw you back more than you could ever imagine." -WP

Dec 08, 2004, 12:41 AM	#15
Maserati Man CCC for life Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tucson A to the Z Posts: 4,559	Re: Are new cars actually better than muscle cars? to finally answer the question of are newer cars really better, yes, but not by much. old muscle cars have their advantages but newer cars outweigh them. older cars have bigger engines, more torque, they have stronger bodys, they are really fast in a strait line and they generally look better. but newer ones are better because you dont have to restore them, they are more reliable, they are still under warrenty, the engine doesnt have as much wear-and-tear, there are more safty features, there are more comfort features, they ride better, they respond better, power steering and they weigh less. (and im talking as if this comparison were done now, not comparing the muscle cars as if we were living back then, thats what i mean by wear-and-tear. it would pretty hard to find a muscle car that hasnt been driven. know what i mean?) __________________ "I wouldn't marry a salad bar... Unless it had pudding." - Penn Jillette

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone into 60's and 70's muscle cars?	BluCamSS	American Cars	60	Oct 29, 2006 7:16 PM
Old Muscle Cars	MattMerce	American Cars	323	Nov 18, 2005 7:02 PM
Is it just me, or do new cars look boring?	Mopar68	General	76	Sep 19, 2005 7:03 PM
Muscle cars	McLaren F1 LM	American Cars	81	Sep 19, 2005 12:15 AM
odd muscle cars	frip	American Cars	29	Jan 06, 2005 2:00 AM