Split group - Classic/Late Model
SP
I really don't want to start a war or get flamed here. But I am not at
all interested in classic 'stangs. As a matter of fact, I get annoyed
at classic stang articles in many of the magazines (thank you mm&ff
though).
I just think that if anyone is interested in classic cars, that is for
a classic car magaizine. I wonder if it would be possible to split
this group like I knew another group do (inline skaters hate
skateboarders).
I just don't think any of the classic posts help late model
enthusiasts and vice versa.
Michael Dyke
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:55:14 -0500, SP <sdp...@mars.superlink.net>
wrote:
IMHO, I rather enjoy the mix of classic and late model since I own
both. This combination is also quite useful if some are attempting
resto-mods and wanting to add EFI 5.0s, T5s, etc..to their classic
cars.
Michael Dyke
Hompage: http://www.planetc.com/users/dykemw
Email:dyk...@planetc.net <---Change net to com
jeff tamulis
If you don't like the threads about old mustangs, click ignore, or don't
read them.
We appretiate (sp?) your opinion, because this is a free country. But
our (my) opinion is that I like the variety, I don't have an older
mustang, I have an 85 GT. I still get some interesting insight.
To the ones not wanting to read old mustang posts: don't read them.
To the ones posting old mustang posts: keep it up cuz _I_ want to read
them.
Just my american free rights $0.02 worth 8-)
Have a nice FREE day.
GOGGLEBILL
I find them all interesting if only for the way the different model mirror the
industry mentality during the periods they were built. I don't buy 5.0
magazines. I own a 70 Boss. I like them though. In fact I took a 84 GT to
Germany for three years while in the army. The autobahn is a real blast in any
good 'stang. The reason a lot of us love the older cars is because we are
older and because performance was not a dirty word. In fact it really amounted
to horsepower wars which we, the consumer, really won. Remember, we went
through a fake 'fuel crisis' and about 20 years of federally mandated 55 mph
interstate speed limits when we knew we were being lied to. Besides, the
further one gets from 'the good old days' the better they look. My wife's 94 GT
is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't rust, it gets 23+ mpg,
it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any speed but if you
really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip it's face off, period.
NoOption5L
>My wife's 94 GT is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't rust,
it
>gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
>speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip it's
face
>off, period.
Rip it's face off. ??? I take it your Boss isn't stock and the wife's GT is an
auto with 2.73s. A stock Boss generally ran mid to high 14's, and a 94 GT with
a stick and 3.08's should run comparable times.
Patrick
Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
TFrog93
In article <19980124204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, goggl...@aol.com
(GOGGLEBILL) writes:
>Besides, the further one gets from 'the good old days' the better they look.
>My wife's 94 GT is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't rust,
>it gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
>speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip it's
>face off, period.
FLAME WAR!!!!
Oh, boy. Let's start a Classic vs. Late Model Flame War! Here's my shot:
Your 1970 Boss was crap. Sure, we look back with fond memory at the old muscle
cars (hell, we're not "real men" if we don't like the old steel), but the car
itself was garbage. Other than the engine... The body was crude, the interior
was senseless, and the underpinnings were dangerous at any speed. (Egad, I was
just remembering the tires....something about "bias ply"?) In the early 70s,
the words "Build Quality" and "Fit and Finish" hadn't even been invented yet!
It was a wonder that these cars held together long enough to run a 1/4 mile in
13.5 seconds!
And why are the 1969-1973 Mustangs called the "big" Mustangs? When lined up
alongside my '93, they're about the same length and width. My '93, though, is
built better (not MUCH better, but better), uses interior space better, has
lower lumbar support (hey, I'm old), and can easily run a 13.5 with minor mods.
AND, it doesn't come with an optional 8-track player.
Nope. I treasure the old Mustangs (and love to listen to the talk about them),
but I'd never own one. I like the amenities found in the newer Mustangs.
SPEAKING OF CLASSIC MUSTANGS... My brother-in-law owns a body shop, and
recently took to restoring older Mustangs. He rebuilt a 1968 fastback to
original condition, and allowed his son to use it. He has just sold it for
$15,000 to a man who bought it for his 16-year-old son... AACCHHHH! Now, I
know that a car like that needs to run, and not just be trailered from one
Mustang show to another, but a 16-YEAR-OLD?!? Why not just take it out and
crush it now!
dwight
ArsonFindr
dwight I'd have to agree with you.
I LOVE my 64.5 & the wife's 66 but only for driving during the day when the
weather is nice. The a/c is fairly adequate, the heat not much better, forget
ergonomics, I had to drop the front & rear to get mine to handle safely, the
AM radio had to go and there's no way to see the controls you're hunting for in
the dark without using a flashlight.
BUT, like I said I love the cars, just don't ask me to drive them everyday.
What you'll never be able to experience with a new car is the satisfaction of
owning a 30 y/o car that looks like it just rolled off the dealer's lot. With
a new car anybody can buy one.
My $.02
bill
64.5 hardtop, 260 V8 bored .060, 3 sp., orig. a/c, SVO cam, Edelbrock Performer
intake, Holley 4v, Pertronix, 289 Hi-Po manifolds, Pro Motorsports Eng. 1.5" A
arm lowering kit, Jacobs wires.
66 hardtop, '93 HO 5.0, bench seat, orig. a/c & ps!
Henry Blau
No hold on here!!!!
The Boss 302 is not crap. At least not in my opinion.
So you see a quality difference between the 90's and the 70s'. Duh.....It doesnt'
take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Ford's priorities were very
different. The only similarity was that they wanted to sell cars!!
As for wanting a 93 over a Boss???? I have a 93 Cobra. Yes it's fast, handles well,
has great brakes (13 inch Baer Claws) and is very easy to drive. But the Boss was a
great car. Yes, they were a bit tough to drive real fast, but remember they were
muscle cars. Their purpose was to go fast and handle relatively well. Just like our
93's, with a bit of work, you can make them handle very well. And remember the one
simple fact. Ford had only 2 years to develop the street version of the Boss 302.
How many years did they string out the Fox platform, 14 before making major
changes.
In 1970, no engineer even knew what the word lumbar meant.
Give me a Boss over my Cobra ANYDAY!!!!!
And that's my opinion, what's yours?
Edward Kim
Henry Blau (h_b...@conknet.com) wrote:
: Give me a Boss over my Cobra ANYDAY!!!!!
: And that's my opinion, what's yours?
I'll take your Cobra. :)
**********************************************************
*Edward Kim *
*Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 *
*'97 SVT Cobra (#1714 of 6961) *
**********************************************************
Steve Hanis
Split it
狂人
In <6alh6a$ht6$1@nnrp3>, on 01/27/98
at 02:48 PM, "Steve Hanis" <ha...@swbell.net> said:
>Split it
Nah, many hot rodding stuff can be applied across the generations...
--
=Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester.=
====Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member.====
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 3.0
MutStang
:>Split it
:
:Nah, many hot rodding stuff can be applied across the generations...
Get "both" NG's!
neil
TFrog93
In article <19980126191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, arson...@aol.com
(ArsonFindr) writes:
>BUT, like I said I love the cars, just don't ask me to drive them everyday.
>What you'll never be able to experience with a new car is the satisfaction
>of owning a 30 y/o car that looks like it just rolled off the dealer's lot.
>With a new car anybody can buy one.
Agreed, Bill. The classics are gorgeous, and I don't consider myself "worthy"
of owning one. But, hopefully, in another 25 years my '93 LX will be looked
upon as a "classic", looking just like it did the day it was built. (Fingers
crossed.)
dwight
TFrog93
In article <34CCE638...@mindspring.com>, Windsor LX
<maxwedgeNOSPAM!!!@mindspring.com> writes:
>Oh boy... I can tell Bar isn't reading, he would have been all over that
>comment. He has been driving a less that 12.50 second 72 Barracuda
>since the day he got his license on his 15th birthday. There are always
>exceptions to the rule. Like, Shirley Muldowny....
Yes, Max, there are ALWAYS exceptions. But, in general, I sincerely recommend
AGAINST putting v8-powered classic Mustangs into the hands of your normal
naive, pasty-white, spoiled, automotively-ignorant, just-got-my-license,
don't-get-out-much, Nintendo-64-playin', rap-music-listenin',
baggy-pants-uniform-wearin', suburban male wannabes. Otherwise, SURE!
dwight :()
ArsonFindr
>>Yes, Max, there are ALWAYS exceptions. But, in general, I sincerely
recommend AGAINST putting v8-powered classic Mustangs into the hands of your
normal naive, pasty-white, spoiled, automotively-ignorant, just-got-my-license
I agree 100% dwight. I WAS that guy and my car suffered for it tremendously.
If I knew then what it would cost now to put the car back in the shape it was
when I got it I don't think I would have driven it at all. My kids are gonna
drive some weak, used 4 cyl. until they can afford to buy & maintain their own
"real cars" responsibly.
FENATIC
Yes, Max, there are ALWAYS exceptions. But, in general, I sincerely recommend
AGAINST putting v8-powered classic Mustangs into the hands of your normal
naive, pasty-white, spoiled, automotively-ignorant, just-got-my-license,
don't-get-out-much, Nintendo-64-playin', rap-music-listenin',
baggy-pants-uniform-wearin', suburban male wannabes. Otherwise, SURE!
dwight :()
Like to hear the story about the gorgeous black early fastback that some idiot
father bought his son? It had four wheel disc brakes, ok? Not just another
overpriced con job, but a very nice car. Within two days the fool punk totaled
it.
FENATIC
re late model desireability. The only reason inexperienced "Ford buffs" think
these slugs are fast is the 5 speed tranny. Put that behind the 200 hp 2
barrel 289 (the equivalent of those weak kneed 5.0 motors) and you would see
the same performance. But you gotta love the looks on those spoiled kids faces
when any of my 60's beaters pastes em off the line. With a lot less gear and
$$$ involved.
Chris Matthaei
ERegber
I don't think that it is a matter of all teenagers that are spoiled little
brats. I was 15 when I got my Grandmothers 65 coupe. I payed to have the car
restored to daily driver condition. I have yet to wreck the car and I have had
the car for 6 years. On the ohter hand I have a couple of friends whose
parents bought them cars and out of 10 of them 2 still have the original car.
The others wrecked one or more cars in 4 yeatrs of driving. I think it is
because a lot of these little prcik that get everything handed to them don't
realize how much work and effort go into earning the money to keep and run an
antique car let alone a antique Mustang.
My $.02
Erich Regber
65 coupe 289 4V 3 spd.
NoOption5L
>Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>From: fen...@aol.com (FENATIC)
>re late model desireability. The only reason inexperienced "Ford buffs" think
>these slugs are fast is the 5 speed tranny. Put that behind the 200 hp 2
>barrel 289 (the equivalent of those weak kneed 5.0 motors)
The old 289 2 barrels 200hp was gross HP. The newer motors '73? and up are
rated in net HP. Big difference!
As far as the tranny goes, first gear in a five liter car is quick (3.35) but
the other three gears are comparable to most four speeds.
>and you would see
>the same performance. But you gotta love the looks on those spoiled kids
faces
>when any of my 60's beaters pastes em off the line. With a lot less gear and
>$$$ involved.
I've raced and surprised a few, slightly modded, 289/302 Mustangs. One owner
of a nice '68 302 car with a slight cam was disbelieving and got angry when I
told him my motor was stock. I never could convince him.
Keller, Michael
NoOption5L wrote:
>
> >My wife's 94 GT is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't rust,
> it
> >gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
> >speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip it's
> face
> >off, perio
>
> auto with 2.73s. A stock Boss generally ran mid to high 14's, and a 94 GT with
> a stick and 3.08's should run comparable times.
>
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
---
Well, almost. The headlights get sucked off the late model's facia,
which makes it look like the face of the car is getting ripped off.
Keep the NG together. Its more fun this way. Beside, everything that
applies to the old iron applies to the new and vise-versa.
Lets keep in mind that when we compare the 1/4 mile performance of the
old versus the new that several very important things are different. The
biggest difference is the overall gear ratio in a launch mode. The nice
steep first gear in the late model cars goes well with the
3.08/3.27/3.55 rears they typically run with. However, the old cars
close ratio four speed had a 2.38 (wide ratio had 2.78) first gear.
Couple that with the typically installed 3.50 or 3.91 rear end in the
Boss cars and things are difinitely in the 5.0's favor when launching
the car. The next thing is tire technology.
Give me a matching set of tires, a 4.56 rear gear (or a five speed) and
lets run'em off. I'm certain that things would be different. But thats
not fair either. 4.56's on the street are no fun and the five speed
wasn't available in 1970, so in an as-built state of tune, the 5.0 guys
have a slight advantage over the Boss.
That is until the Boss gets rolling. The 70-120MPH pull is quite
different in the Boss cars than a 5.0, especially if the Boss motor has
headers and a good exhaust system. The Boss cars *pull* you to 120+ in
short order, the ride to 120 in the 5.0 is a hohum tug. The near stock
5.0 has trouble keeping close enough to see the color of the licence
plates on a near stock Boss out on the open road. Sorry 5.0 guys, just
the truth. 5.0's can't even walk a healthy '89 SHO Taurus out on the
open road, how are they going to keep up with a healthy screamer like
the Boss 302? 290hp at 5800 rpm is no lie, but thats at 5800rpm which is
800-1000rpm from is HP peak. At peak, these little screamers put out
more like 325-350hp. Thats still 280HP by todays standards. Add headers
and a little tuning the Boss motors typically make 375-385HP.
If I had to drive a Mustang everyday though, the late model is the only
way as far as comfort and convenience go. I'm good for a long day in my
'69 428SCJ Mach or '70 Boss 302 but thats it. I' wouldn't want to have
to drive them every day. Too much noise, too much heat, too much gas,
too much fun. The oldies are good in small doses but if I had to live in
one, it would be a new one.
-Mike.
NoOption5L
> >My wife's 94 GT is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't
rust,
> it
> >gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
> >speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip
it's
> face
> >off, perio
>
>>Rip it's face off. ??? I take it your Boss isn't stock and the wife's GT is
an
>>auto with 2.73s. A stock Boss generally ran mid to high 14's, and a 94 GT
with
>>a stick and 3.08's should run comparable times.
> Well, almost. The headlights get sucked off the late model's facia,
>which makes it look like the face of the car is getting ripped off.
So your Boss isn't stock.
> Keep the NG together. Its more fun this way. Beside, everything that
>applies to the old iron applies to the new and vise-versa.
Agreed
>Lets keep in mind that when we compare the 1/4 mile performance of the
>old versus the new that several very important things are different. The
>biggest difference is the overall gear ratio in a launch mode. The nice
>steep first gear in the late model cars goes well with the
>3.08/3.27/3.55 rears they typically run with.
Only 2.73s and 3.08s come in stick cars
However, the old cars
>close ratio four speed had a 2.38 (wide ratio had 2.78) first gear.
>Couple that with the typically installed 3.50 or 3.91 rear end in the
Boss cars and things are difinitely in the 5.0's favor when launching
the car. The next thing is tire technology.
3.08 x 3.35 = 10.318
2.78 x 3.91 = 10.869
>Give me a matching set of tires, a 4.56 rear gear (or a five speed) and
>lets run'em off.
NO Stock vs Stock, because then I could say with an offroad pipe and
3.73s...and our both our lists would just grow and grow.
302 Boss cars typically run mid/high 14's with traps speeds in the high 90's.
Stick shift 5 speed Fox Mustangs will run mid/low 14's. Mine ran 14.2's @ 98
UNpower shifted.
>I'm certain that things would be different. But thats
>not fair either. 4.56's on the street are no fun and the five speed
>wasn't available in 1970, so in an as-built state of tune, the 5.0 guys
>have a slight advantage over the Boss.
Agreed
>That is until the Boss gets rolling. The 70-120MPH pull is quite
>different in the Boss cars than a 5.0, especially if the Boss motor has
>headers and a good exhaust system.
The Boss heads were a poor match for a street 302 cubic inch motor.
>The Boss cars *pull* you to 120+ in
Would a Boss 302 hit 120 with 3.91s and 1970 areodynamics?
>short order, the ride to 120 in the 5.0 is a hohum tug. The near stock
>5.0 has trouble keeping close enough to see the color of the licence
>plates on a near stock Boss out on the open road.
A Fox LX 5 liter will run into the 140's out on the open road.
What quarter miles times and traps does YOUR Boss turn?
>Sorry 5.0 guys, just
>the truth. 5.0's can't even walk a healthy '89 SHO Taurus out on the
>open road, how are they going to keep up with a healthy screamer like
>the Boss 302? 290hp at 5800 rpm is no lie, but thats at 5800rpm which is
>800-1000rpm from is HP peak. At peak, these little screamers put out
>more like 325-350hp. Thats still 280HP by todays standards. Add headers
>and a little tuning the Boss motors typically make 375-385HP.
A little tuning and traction and a 5 liter can run very low 13's with traps
over 100mph.
> If I had to drive a Mustang everyday though, the late model is the only
>way as far as comfort and convenience go. I'm good for a long day in my
>'69 428SCJ Mach or '70 Boss 302 but thats it. I' wouldn't want to have
>to drive them every day. Too much noise, too much heat, too much gas,
>too much fun. The oldies are good in small doses but if I had to live in
>one, it would be a new one.
Agreed, I loved driving my brothers '66 GT350H, but for daily use I'd never
trade!
Keller, Michael
NoOption5L wrote:
>
> > >My wife's 94 GT is a better built car than the 70. No doubt. It doesn't
> rust,
Doesn't rust? Obviously, this is not a northern car. All kinds of late
model 5.0 rot boxes up here! Not necessarily the '94 up cars....yet.
Give it another year or so and the blistered hood lips, door bottoms and
deck lids will start showing up on those too.
> > >gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
> > >speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip
> it's
> > face
> > >off, perio
> >
> >>Rip it's face off. ??? I take it your Boss isn't stock and the wife's GT is
> an
> >>auto with 2.73s. A stock Boss generally ran mid to high 14's, and a 94 GT
> with
> >>a stick and 3.08's should run comparable times.
>
> > Well, almost. The headlights get sucked off the late model's facia,
> >which makes it look like the face of the car is getting ripped off.
>
> So your Boss isn't stock.
About as stock as most 5.0's these days. Other than a bumpstick that is
close to stock (less duration on the intake side, more lift on both
ends), roller rockers (stock ratio), and headers it stock. I do have all
the original parts including the cam. rockers, SMOG, and exhaust system
for the car though.
>
> > Keep the NG together. Its more fun this way. Beside, everything that
> >applies to the old iron applies to the new and vise-versa.
>
> Agreed
>
> >Lets keep in mind that when we compare the 1/4 mile performance of the
> >old versus the new that several very important things are different. The
> >biggest difference is the overall gear ratio in a launch mode. The nice
> >steep first gear in the late model cars goes well with the
> >3.08/3.27/3.55 rears they typically run with.
>
> Only 2.73s and 3.08s come in stick cars
>
> However, the old cars
> >close ratio four speed had a 2.38 (wide ratio had 2.78) first gear.
> >Couple that with the typically installed 3.50 or 3.91 rear end in the
> Boss cars and things are difinitely in the 5.0's favor when launching
> the car. The next thing is tire technology.
>
> 3.08 x 3.35 = 10.318
> 2.78 x 3.91 = 10.869
All Boss 302's came from the factory with the close ratio 4-speeds
(2.38 first)
So, the calulation is 2.38 x 3.91 = 9.306 - yuk.
>
> >Give me a matching set of tires, a 4.56 rear gear (or a five speed) and
> >lets run'em off.
>
> NO Stock vs Stock, because then I could say with an offroad pipe and
> 3.73s...and our both our lists would just grow and grow.
Yeah, we could get a real long list going, we can even flip to see who
runs the blue bottle crutch! I'll let you have the nitrous if I can add
headers, a roller cam and a five speed to the Boss. They'll be equal
then.
> 302 Boss cars typically run mid/high 14's with traps speeds in the high 90's.
Thats a little soft. With modern rubber they're right there with the
5.0 stuff.
> Stick shift 5 speed Fox Mustangs will run mid/low 14's. Mine ran 14.2's @ 98
> UNpower shifted.
Typical of what I've seen. Maybe a little better than normal. I've seen
more run 14.5-14.7 than I've seen run close to the 14.0 mark. Picky
picky.
> >I'm certain that things would be different. But thats
> >not fair either. 4.56's on the street are no fun and the five speed
> >wasn't available in 1970, so in an as-built state of tune, the 5.0 guys
> >have a slight advantage over the Boss.
>
> Agreed
>
> >That is until the Boss gets rolling. The 70-120MPH pull is quite
> >different in the Boss cars than a 5.0, especially if the Boss motor has
> >headers and a good exhaust system.
>
> The Boss heads were a poor match for a street 302 cubic inch motor.
But were they? They were used in the homologation of a purpose built,
high rpm race motor. Unlike the 5.0, the Boss motors were not intended
for or designed for passenger car use. Of course they were compromised
in they're unintended street use. Set them up right and things get
silly. Look at the Boss 429. My SCJ will walk on a truly stock shotgun
motor on the street, but give the Boss nine the cam, induction, headers
and gears to really work and there is nothing out there that can touch
it.
>
> >The Boss cars *pull* you to 120+ in
>
> Would a Boss 302 hit 120 with 3.91s and 1970 areodynamics?
Eeeaasily. I've been there many times. The rev limiter will keep a box
stock (exhaust, SMOG and everything) Boss 302 to just about 120MPH with
3.91's, it limits the motor to 6150, but it starts to kick in around
6000 rpm. Unhook the rev limiter and the motor will pull to 6800+rpm in
fourth gear in stock trim, or approximately 135mph. My friend regularly
wrings his '70 Boss out to over 150mph. On one ride I observed a new
Monster tach at 6900rpm in fourth gear...and still pulling hard. I
begged him to back off. Figure out 6900rpm, 265-60-15tires and 3.50
gears. Assuming the tires are around 27 inches thats about a buck fifty
and change. These cars aren't bricks, they just have some funky aero
stuff to deal with at the ass end. Lower the car to the ground and rake
it a little and the body is supposedly good for 2 bills with the
appropriate aero changes. Didn't Smokey Yunick do some testing back in
'69/'70 using '69 bodies out at Bonneville? If I'm not mistaken he had
both the 428SCJ and Boss 302 equipped cars running way out there, say
over 170?
>
> >short order, the ride to 120 in the 5.0 is a hohum tug. The near stock
> >5.0 has trouble keeping close enough to see the color of the licence
> >plates on a near stock Boss out on the open road.
>
> A Fox LX 5 liter will run into the 140's out on the open road.
Yea, but it takes a year and a day to get there once your past the 80mph
mark. I don't like hanging my ass out in the wind for that long. I like
to wind it up then back off. Running for miles at a time over 100mph has
its draw backs. Like I said, any '89-95 SHO driver owns most late model
guys out on the open road. I had to back pedal just to keep the 5.0 guys
next to me during 100+ blasts in my wife's 89 SHO.
> What quarter miles times and traps does YOUR Boss turn?
I don't have 1/4 mile times for car dollies. Maybe if I oil the casters,
she'll bust into the low two year mark. It hasn't been registered since
1974. I found the car in a barn in 1990. (honest) Its a 40,375 mile
cream puff that fell victim to improper storage for a lot of years.
Right now its on a rotiserie getting a ground up resto. I worked in a
FOMOCO only restoration shop for a number of years and have several
friends with Boss 302 Mustangs and an Eliminator. I've driven plenty of
Boss', Shelby's, and other special interest Fords at speed. Other than
headers, all the Boss' were pretty much stock. The ones I've seen run at
the track run in the high 13's-low 14's @ 95-100mph on street rubber and
3.91's except for the nut case that runs his 3.50:1 equipped ride to
150+ - his runs 14.2/99mph.
> >Sorry 5.0 guys, just
> >the truth. 5.0's can't even walk a healthy '89 SHO Taurus out on the
> >open road, how are they going to keep up with a healthy screamer like
> >the Boss 302? 290hp at 5800 rpm is no lie, but thats at 5800rpm which is
> >800-1000rpm from is HP peak. At peak, these little screamers put out
> >more like 325-350hp. Thats still 280HP by todays standards. Add headers
> >and a little tuning the Boss motors typically make 375-385HP.
>
> A little tuning and traction and a 5 liter can run very low 13's with traps
> over 100mph.
So can most any Boss.
Tisk, tisk.
>
> > If I had to drive a Mustang everyday though, the late model is the only
> >way as far as comfort and convenience go. I'm good for a long day in my
> >'69 428SCJ Mach or '70 Boss 302 but thats it. I' wouldn't want to have
> >to drive them every day. Too much noise, too much heat, too much gas,
> >too much fun. The oldies are good in small doses but if I had to live in
> >one, it would be a new one.
>
> Agreed, I loved driving my brothers '66 GT350H, but for daily use I'd never
> trade!
>
No opportunist are you! Trade for the Shelby, sell it to me cheap then
go out and pick up a Saleen. Come on, use your head. All you gotta do it
talk your brother into letting the Shelby go.
Hey, its been fun rattling sabres with you. When I get my Boss done,
maybe we can meet somewhere and beat the snot out of each others cars.
Until then all I have to cruise in is my SCJ Mach I.
Have Fun. -Mike.
Unknown
SP <sdp...@mars.superlink.net> wrote:
The volume of daily post here is very low compared to the
ibm.flight-sim newgroup I read that gets between 400 and 650 posts a
day. Just don't read the headers your not interested in.
>I really don't want to start a war or get flamed here. But I am not at
>all interested in classic 'stangs. As a matter of fact, I get annoyed
>at classic stang articles in many of the magazines (thank you mm&ff
>though).
>
>I just think that if anyone is interested in classic cars, that is for
>a classic car magaizine. I wonder if it would be possible to split
>this group like I knew another group do (inline skaters hate
>skateboarders).
>I just don't think any of the classic posts help late model
>enthusiasts and vice versa.
>
David Bodiford
'98 Cobra
ASmall9494
Fenatic incorrectly wrote,>The only reason inexperienced "Ford buffs" think
>>these slugs are fast is the 5 speed tranny. Put that behind the 200 hp 2
>see
>>the same performance. But you gotta love the looks on those spoiled kids
>faces
>>when any of my 60's beaters pastes em off the line. With a lot less gear
>and
>>$$$ involved.
Now for the facts. In 1972, the way the SAE decided to rate horsepower changed
forever. Before '72, they used gross hp. In other words, they ran the engine
on the dyno with no accessories, no air intake box or filter, and they used
tuned headers. After '72, they switched to net horsepower; this meant they had
to use all accessories the real air intake kit on the car, and the real exhaust
that would be sold with the car. That's why hp ratings for the same engine
dropped about 35-50hp in one year. So, your 200 60s hp is about 175 hp today,
which means every GT or Cobra mustang built since 85 will make you look silly.
I love nothing more than having the opportunity to race some loud mouth in a
late 60s early 70s muscle car that has way more cubes than me and my 281. It's
embarrassing for them most of the time, especially the stockers. The era of
the muscle car is now. Go and drive one Ford, and even the hated GM both sell
them. They're called mustang GTs, Cobra, Z28, and SS, and they will crush your
panty waste 289 2 barrel. Don't believe me drive to Washington this spring
when the track opens and I'll be glad to prove it. And don't even think of
taking it to the course.
riored97cobra#301
P.S. I've been rebuilding ford small blocks for the past 7 years. If its not
a boss 302 or a heavily built custom job, it doesn't hold a candle to the 85
and later HO roller engines. So don't try and BS me about the good ole days
anymore. I love old cars, but they're slow compared to what can be had today.
Yah, with 4.11s or 4.30s old cars could get into the 13s, but todays cars do
the same thing with 3.27s or 3.42s. Think on that one for a while.
ASmall9494
See,
Patrick and his 87 LX prove my point. He walked all over the slightly modded
68. Old cars are wonderful, but new cars accelerate just as well. Oh, by the
way new cars have a big top speed advantage as well.
riored97cobra#301
SEEverist
>Don't believe me drive to Washington this spring
>when the track opens and I'll be glad to prove it. And don't even think of
>taking it to the course.
If you're talking about Washington State, SIR opens Sunday, Sunday, Sunday.
Damn, I gotta buy me a toy to take racing.
Steve
Current head of the bashing department for rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang:
"Weekend pass people" mode is ON!!
TFrog93
In article <19980131100...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, asmal...@aol.com
(ASmall9494) writes:
>P.S. I've been rebuilding ford small blocks for the past 7 years. If its
>not a boss 302 or a heavily built custom job, it doesn't hold a candle to the
>85 and later HO roller engines. So don't try and BS me about the good ole
>days anymore. I love old cars, but they're slow compared to what can be had
>today.
See? And I thought my memory was fuzzy, because I did inhale.
I read my new Mustang Monthly, and they list the specs on the gorgeous older
Mustangs they write up. For instance:
1970 Boss 302, 3.91 gear, 4-speed..........14.93 @ 96mph
1969 Boss 302, 3.50 gear, 4-speed..........14.57 @ 97mph
(Test results from Car & Driver of 1970, 1969)
But, uh-oh...
1985 GT hatchback, 3.08, 5-speed...........15.62 @ 88mph
And here's my one-and-only 1/4 run....
1993 LX hatchback, 2.73? 5-speed..........15.237 @ 92mph
What can we tell from this? Only that if I ever learned how to drive, my '93
would easily be able to keep up with the legendary 1970 Boss 302!
Bottom line: Since the artificial oil shortages of 1973 and 1978 (?), it has
taken us over 15 years just to get back to where we were. Only now, we have
acceleration, speed, AND lower lumbar support.
Can't wait to see what the next decade has in store.
dwight
IanMustang
It sounds like you just jelous that the 16 year old has a classic and you
don't. By the way when I bought my Mustang (1967) I knew nothing about cars.
The engine was in mint condition but I wanted some mods. I tore it apart
knowing only how to do oil changes at this point. I took it out with ease and
disassembled it and put it back together with no problem. It runs so perfect.
When the time ever comes for you to rebuild a newer mustangs engine HAVE FUN!
So when you rip down that strip pullin your 13s make sure that you don't pop
the engine! Rebuilding the insides won't be that bad but hey thats the easy
part. Where my rebuild would end yours would really begin. Half the engine on
your car is made up of wires. I don't want a computer to tell my car what to
do. I want to floor the bitch and know that there is nothing getting between
me and my horse power plant besides a lever connecting my foot to the carb.
The only thing that I will give the newer cars over the older ones is
suspension and braking. The steering is all in a person's opinion. Personally
I like the stiffer steering (that is why I even jetted my power for manual
steering). Everything but the brakes and suspension goes to the classic cars.
The engines ruled and the body can withstand more abuse than the newer cars.
15mph fender bender between a classic and a newer stang who is going to come
out with the less damage. THE CLASSIC. It might have no damage. The newer
cars ARE nice and I love ALL Mustangs but a classic has its advantages!!!!!
ASmall9494
Ian,
>When the time ever comes for you to rebuild a newer mustangs engine HAVE FUN!
>
>So when you rip down that strip pullin your 13s make sure that you don't pop
>the engine! Rebuilding the insides won't be that bad but hey thats the easy
>part. Where my rebuild would end yours would really begin. Half the engine
>on
>your car is made up of wires. I don't want a computer to tell my car what to
>do. I want to floor the bitch and know that there is nothing getting between
>me and my horse power plant besides a lever connecting my foot to the carb.
>The only thing that I will give the newer cars over the older ones is
>suspension and braking. The steering is all in a person's opinion.
>Personally
>I like the stiffer steering (that is why I even jetted my power for manual
>steering). Everything but the brakes and suspension goes to the classic
>cars.
> The engines ruled and the body can withstand more abuse than the newer
>cars.
Do you really believe this senseless drivel about the awesomeness of old
engines. Go pick up a classic mustang magazine like mustang monthly. Why in
the hell would someone take a 60s mustang and replace the engine with a 5.0, if
the old engine was so great? Your non roller early windsor has nothing on the
5.0. The 5.0 is a roller engine for heavens sake. Do you even know what that
is? Fuel injection has made carbs obsolete especially for street cars. Fuel
injection wins in tuneability, all wheather driveability, ease to modify. Yes,
I like old mustangs, but they just don't compete with newer cars. Handling and
braking; why even mention these. Steering; are you kidding. Most early
mustangs (falcon chassis); can't even hold a straight line on the highway
because of their lousy steering setup. Why do you think PST exists? They made
all their money replacing all those old suspension parts in 60s and 70s muscle
cars with polyurethane and higher durometer rubber. Older engines are easier
to rebuild I will concede that, but not everyone who works on a car is a
simpleton. You disassembled and put your engine back together. Congrats, but
it runs great? Did you check your bearing, piston, ring, thrust clearances?
Did you degree your cam? Did you measure your valve lash? Did you even use a
calibrated torque wrench? You sound pretty lucky to me. If you need to see
your awesome 60s mobile passed at the track to become a believer. Go stage
against a 5.0 or a 4.6 or a GM LT1 or LS1. Hey by the way the NHRA L stock
record holder is a 5.0 95 Cobra. It ran an 11.8 or 11.9 with a full drag race
suspension. The engine was built right. It is 100% stock, but it was
blueprinted. Try runnning a time like that in a stock 60s mobile. By the way,
that engine was only rated at 235 hp.
riored97cobra#301
P.S. I'd really like to have a 60s Shelby mustang or Boss mustang, but I'm not
deluded enough to think that it is going to blow my 97 cobra off the road. I
love old cars a lot, but performance of the late 80s and 90s makes the earlier
cars look silly. Crawl back under your rock ignore the facts, and then talk
about the yester years with your grandpa. He might believe you; I know your
wrong.
NoOption5L
>Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>It sounds like you just jelous that the 16 year old has a classic and you
>don't. By the way when I bought my Mustang (1967) I knew nothing about
>cars.
>The engine was in mint condition but I wanted some mods. I tore it apart
>knowing only how to do oil changes at this point. I took it out with ease and
>disassembled it and put it back together with no problem. It runs so perfect.
>When the time ever comes for you to rebuild a newer mustangs engine HAVE >FUN!
I have the same old motor as your '67.
>So when you rip down that strip pullin your 13s make sure that you don't pop
>the engine!
>97,000 miles and still running and racing a strong as day one.
>Rebuilding the insides won't be that bad but hey thats the easy
>part. Where my rebuild would end yours would really begin. Half the engine
on
>your car is made up of wires.
I'll gladly accept a few wires and sensors to get rid of shitty carburetors and
ignition points.
>I don't want a computer to tell my car what to
>do.
And I want a musclecar that will get 25 + mpg on the highway, will run in
triple digits for hours, come to stop from these speeds without any drama,
handles
like it's on rails, and runs over 100 mph trap speeds with pump gas.
Sounds like a MODERN mucslecar to me!
>I want to floor the bitch and know that there is nothing getting between
>me and my horse power plant besides a lever connecting my foot to the carb.
Have you ever driven a F/I car??? If you have, why would you want to go
back to a carburetor for a street car. ??? It's like getting used to a
Pentium
2 and wanting to go back to a 286.
>The only thing that I will give the newer cars over the older ones is
>suspension and braking. The steering is all in a person's opinion.
And what .68 G's of grip (that rivals a new minivan) over a modern cars .80+
g's.
> Personally
>I like the stiffer steering (that is why I even jetted my power for manual
>steering). Everything but the brakes and suspension goes to the classic
cars.
>The engines ruled and the body can withstand more abuse than the newer cars.
>15mph fender bender between a classic and a newer stang who is going to >come
>out with the less damage. THE CLASSIC. It might have no damage.
In an accident the DRIVER of the classic will take the abuse. Think about it!
What's more important you or your car?
>The newer
>cars ARE nice and I love ALL Mustangs but a classic has its advantages!!!!!
Yes they do, but a modern musclecar has many more.
You need to go take a new Cobra, Z28, Trans Am, or any other modern
performance car for a test drive then report back to us!
NoOption5L
>From: "Keller, Michael" <622...@ovmail.kodak.com>
>Hey, its been fun rattling sabres with you.
Hey, but I'm not done yet!
>> > >gets 23+ mpg, it'suick and you can carry on a normal conversation at any
>> > >speed but if you really push them both to their limits the Boss will rip
>> it's
>> > face
>> > >off, perio
>> >
>> >>Rip it's face off. ??? I take it your Boss isn't stock and the wife's GT
is
>> an
>> >>auto with 2.73s. A stock Boss generally ran mid to high 14's, and a 94 GT
>>> with
>>> >>a stick and 3.08's should run comparable times.
>
>> > Well, almost. The headlights get sucked off the late model's facia,
>> >which makes it look like the face of the car is getting ripped off.
>>
>> So your Boss isn't stock.
> About as stock as most 5.0's these days. Other than a bumpstick that is
>close to stock (less duration on the intake side, more lift on both
>ends), roller rockers (stock ratio), and headers it stock. I do have all
>the original parts including the cam. rockers, SMOG, and exhaust system
>for the car though.
Sounds like you need to stop racing the wife in her '94GT and take on a
slightly
modded, well driven FOX 5 liter.
>>>Lets keep in mind that when we compare the 1/4 mile performance of the
>> >old versus the new that several very important things are different. The
>> >biggest difference is the overall gear ratio in a launch mode. The nice
>> >steep first gear in the late model cars goes well with the
>> >3.08/3.27/3.55 rears they typically run with.
>
>> Only 2.73s and 3.08s come in stick cars
>
>> However, the old cars
>>>close ratio four speed had a 2.38 (wide ratio had 2.78) first gear.
>>>Couple that with the typically installed 3.50 or 3.91 rear end in the
>>> Boss cars and things are difinitely in the 5.0's favor when launching
>>> the car. The next thing is tire technology.
>
>>3.08 x 3.35 = 10.318
>> 2.78 x 3.91 = 10.869
> All Boss 302's came from the factory with the close ratio 4-speeds
>(2.38 first)
So, the calulation is 2.38 x 3.91 = 9.306 - yuk.
>
> >Give me a matching set of tires, a 4.56 rear gear (or a five speed) and
> >lets run'em off.
Now your going back to the , "If I only had........ Sorry, compare stock to
stock.
A FOX 5 liter is more than a match against a Boss 302 in acceleration, will
thrash it in top speed, handling, and braking...well..maybe in braking <FOX
brakes SUCK>!
>> NO Stock vs Stock, because then I could say with an offroad pipe and
>> 3.73s...and our both our lists would just grow and grow.
>Yeah, we could get a real long list going, we can even flip to see who
>runs the blue bottle crutch! I'll let you have the nitrous if I can add
>headers, a roller cam and a five speed to the Boss. They'll be equal
>then.
Forget N20, just give me aluminum Turbo Swirl GT40 heads and intake.
Good bye 'ole Boss, say hello to the new Boss!
>>302 Boss cars typically run mid/high 14's with traps speeds in the high 90's.
>>Thats a little soft. With modern rubber they're right there with the
>>5.0 stuff.
Probably very close.
>>>Stick shift 5 speed Fox Mustangs will run mid/low 14's. Mine ran 14.2's @
98
>> UNpower shifted.
>Typical of what I've seen. Maybe a little better than normal. I've seen
>more run 14.5-14.7 than I've seen run close to the 14.0 mark. Picky
>picky.
The 14.2 was the second pass I'd have ever took down a drag strip. The car was
driven in
hot off the street and the first run was an easy 14.4 (and I found out later
with the wrong spark plugs...damn auto parts store) Power shifting and with an
experienced driver, I'm quite sure
a 13.9 or 13.8 was possible.
>> The Boss heads were a poor match for a street 302 cubic inch motor.
>But were they? They were used in the homologation of a purpose built,
>high rpm race motor. Unlike the 5.0, the Boss motors were not intended
>for or designed for passenger car use. Of course they were compromised
>in they're unintended street use.
And a 5 liter (or any new car) is compromised with meeting emissions and
CAFE. Something a Boss car never had to deal with! Get your modified
Boss to meet these numbers; then we will race!
Again, you need to get out of the wife's GT (automatic 2.73's???).
And drive in a 5 speed Fox LX, then compare.
>I like
>to wind it up then back off. Running for miles at a time over 100mph has
>its draw backs.
Mine will run for hours over 90+ with bursts well into triple digits in New
Mexico
summer heat!
>>Like I said, any '89-95 SHO driver owns most late model
>>guys out on the open road. I had to back pedal just to keep the 5.0 guys
>>next to me during 100+ blasts in my wife's 89 SHO.
SHOs are strong running cars but "back pedal" for a 5 liter. ???
A 5 liter what? Pickup.
>> What quarter miles times and traps does YOUR Boss turn?
>I don't have 1/4 mile times for car dollies. Maybe if I oil the casters,
>she'll bust into the low two year mark. It hasn't been registered since
>1974. I found the car in a barn in 1990. (honest) Its a 40,375 mile
>cream puff that fell victim to improper storage for a lot of years.
Sounds like a NICE car, I'd love to see it!
>Right now its on a rotiserie getting a ground up resto. I worked in a
>FOMOCO only restoration shop for a number of years and have several
>friends with Boss 302 Mustangs and an Eliminator. I've driven plenty of
>Boss', Shelby's, and other special interest Fords at speed. Other than
>headers, all the Boss' were pretty much stock.
>The ones I've seen run at
>the track run in the high 13's-low 14's @ 95-100mph on street rubber and
>3.91's
Right were a well tuned, well driven 5 liter should be at with 3.08s.
>except for the nut case that runs his 3.50:1 equipped ride to
>150+ - his runs 14.2/99mph.
Let's see 3.50 gears, 15 inch tires, 6800 red line = 150 + + hmmm ???
>> >Sorry 5.0 guys, just
>> >the truth. 5.0's can't even walk a healthy '89 SHO Taurus out on the
>> >open road, how are they going to keep up with a healthy screamer like
>> >the Boss 302?
A well tuned stock 5 liter will have no trouble beating a stock boss on the
open road.
Out on the open road, I would take a/my 5 liter over a Boss 302. While yours
is bouncing
off the 6,800 red line, I'll be cruising at 4,500. Good Luck!
>290hp at 5800 rpm is no lie, but thats at 5800rpm which is
>> >800-1000rpm from is HP peak. At peak, these little screamers put out
> >more like 325-350hp. Thats still 280HP by todays standards. Add headers
> >and a little tuning the Boss motors typically make 375-385HP.
Cars -- We both have the same 302 with a manual and RWD.
Motors --You have a stronger crank and block, but the 5 liter definitely ISN'T
a weakling with
many 5 liters running 10's with a stock block. The 5 liter has a much better
torque
curve for the street, turns over every time (hot or cold weather), no ignition
points or
cranky carburetor, and starts with a twist of the key.
--Advantage 5 liter
Transmission -- Boss 302 for strength, 5 liter for gearing and the overdrive
--Advantage 5 liter
Aerodynamics -- no question
--Advantage 5 liter
Handling -- no question
-- Advantage 5 liter
Braking -- Fox but plenty of questions - Fox brakes are sorry for '80's
technology, barely
adequate for '70's
--Advantage 5 liter (damn, it's hard to give a Fox Mustang any braking
compliment)
Looks -- no question, the Boss 302's are BEAUTIFUL cars! I my opinion the best
looking
Mustangs ever built! The GT 350/500s are a close second, only a little to big
for my tastes to
win the prize.
--Advantage Boss 302
>> A little tuning and traction and a 5 liter can run very low 13's with traps
>> over 100mph.
>>So can most any Boss.
>Tisk, tisk.
>> > If I had to drive a Mustang everyday though, the late model is the only
>> >way as far as comfort and convenience go. I'm good for a long day in my
>> >'69 428SCJ Mach or '70 Boss 302 but thats it. I' wouldn't want to have
>> >to drive them every day. Too much noise, too much heat, too much gas,
>> >too much fun. The oldies are good in small doses but if I had to live in
>> >one, it would be a new one.
>
>> Agreed, I loved driving my brothers '66 GT350H, but for daily use I'd never
>> trade!
>
>No opportunist are you! Trade for the Shelby, sell it to me cheap then
>go out and pick up a Saleen. Come on, use your head. All you gotta do it
>talk your brother into letting the Shelby go.
I was talking car for car! Not trade for car, then sell car for a profit, to
buy something else.
Besides, without the money factor I wouldn't sell my LX for any Saleen, or any
other Mustang.
>Hey, its been fun rattling sabres with you. When I get my Boss done,
>maybe we can meet somewhere and beat the snot out of each others cars.
>Until then all I have to cruise in is my SCJ Mach I.
My final point is this: The Boss 302 was a great car IN IT'S DAY. But overall
you can not
beat a modern musclecar with an old musclecar. And hopefully for all of us, in
twenty years
we will be to say this again!
Come on out to New Mexico, just be prepared for a 20% loss of HP < 5300 ft of
elevation sucks>
Or maybe this summer, I'll take the Stang back home to Michigan for a visit.
Are you any place in between. ???
>Have Fun. -Mike.
You too!
ASmall9494
Steve,
I am talking about Washington state. I live in Bremerton. I'd be glad to make
the trip to Seattle. Sunday would be tomorrow. Hmm, definitely sometime.
riored97cobra#301
ASmall9494
You guys aren't to bright, lets compare apples to apples and oranges to
oranges.
Dwight said:
>I read my new Mustang Monthly, and they list the specs on the gorgeous older
>Mustangs they write up. For instance:
>1970 Boss 302, 3.91 gear, 4-speed..........14.93 @ 96mph
>1969 Boss 302, 3.50 gear, 4-speed..........14.57 @ 97mph
> (Test results from Car & Driver of 1970, 1969)
>
>But, uh-oh...
>1985 GT hatchback, 3.08, 5-speed...........15.62 @ 88mph
>
>And here's my one-and-only 1/4 run....
>1993 LX hatchback, 2.73? 5-speed..........15.237 @ 92mph
>
>What can we tell from this? Only that if I ever learned how to drive, my '93
>would easily be able to keep up with the legendary 1970 Boss 302!
Now lets compare specialty Fords to speacialty Fords and GTs to GTs. Compare
the Cobra to the Boss mustangs, and compare GT to GT. (apples to apples). A
modern mustang cobra runs circles around your boss 302 plain and simple. Pick
any cobra 93-98. Now compare those 60s hi-po 289s and GTs to GTs from '85 to
present. Are you starting to get the picture? The only really fast fords in
the 60s had FE motors 427s, 429s, and even some hi-po 390s, and yes a really
awesome 406. Your little boss 302 is a real nice car; I really like them, but
stop trying to say it runs circles around modern muscle cars because it
doesn't. I'm sorry you have difficulty driving your '93. Oh yah, once again
all the old cars posted those amazing times with 4.11, 4.56s and other really
bug gear ratios; todays cars run the same or better with 3.27s (Ford) and 3.42s
(GM). So run the same gear ratios and then where do the 60s & 70s stand. Yes
I have many friends with 60s muscle including one with a 68 Camaro with 396,
and a friend with a 455 Olds; needless to say they don't make fun of new cars
like you.
riored97cobra#301
TFrog93
I'm starting to regret this little flame war...
Let us start with one basic premise: All Mustangs, all years and all models,
are wonderful cars. We love them all. Since the introduction of our favorite
pony (designed originally to please EVERYONE), the bulk of attention has gone
to the mythical road beasts of the 1969 through 1973 model years. During this
time, the Boss 302 gave you instant respect, and the over-400ci engines made
you King For a Day. Even now, some 25 years later, owners of these legendary
Muscle Cars hold their heads up proudly, and deservedly so.
From 1974 through 1985, there was no such thing as "horsepower wars", and those
of us who lived through this wondered if there would ever again be
high-performance automobiles for the general public. The Fox Mustang crept up
in numbers through this period, and became (in 1987-88) a truly respectable
performance car. (Remember, though, that the Fox Mustang, born in 1979, was
met with derision by Mustang fans of the day. We accused Ford of putting the
"Mustang" nameplate on a Fairmont, and trying to pass off an inferior product.
The V8s in the early Fox models were weak, underpowered, artificially limited
and disappointing, to say the least.) Thus, for all of the years between 1974
and 1987 (a long stretch), the last of the "big" Mustangs were looked upon as
the best ever.
Today's cars have a whole lot more to answer to than just making power.
Today's environment demands a clean-burning engine, fuel efficiency, and
attention to "safety concerns". There is more legislation about what goes into
BUILDING a car than DRIVING one. (I just made that last part up.) Also, or
still, the Ford Mustang has to appeal to a broad range of appetites, from those
who buy a car strictly for the engine to those whose idea of automotive
excellence is in the number of cupholders available. Despite all of that, I
was able (in 1993) to drive a car home from the Ford dealer that would put up
1/4-mile times that RIVAL the mythical Mustangs of yore! To me, who lived
through a lot of bleak years on the automotive landscape, this was an
incredible event, and I found myself at the track for the first time in my 40+
years.
To ASmall, I would say only that I was defending the late model Mustang's place
in performance history. You obviously read my post as a slam against the newer
Mustangs, but I swear that was not my intention. As I said, I'm amazed when I
see the 1/4-mile times of the old Mustangs, and marvel that my newer Mustang
can keep up with these legendary cars! When you accuse me of "making fun" of
any Mustang, you are either very new around here, or you didn't bother to read
my previous posts.
dwight
In article <19980201104...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, asmal...@aol.com
CobraJet
In article <19980201151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
(SNIP)
There seems to be a couple of major points not addressed in the
comparison of late/early 1/4 mile times. After all, as Dwight mentions
below, let's compare apples to apples. For starters:
1. The Boss 302 factory option was there to legalize the use of that
engine in ongoing Trans-Am class competition. Its large port/short stroke
combo was designed to be effective at 4000 rpm +. Its low end torque was
dismal, and for the most part, it was a loser on the street. Getting
excited because a late-model car betters the original Boss et's is a little
unrealistic. People drag racing B302's had to gear them anywhere from 4.88
to 6.00 to optimize their particular power curve. The Boss was Legendary
for carving corners and turning heads, not straight-lining.
2. The newer cars are built with a broader low-end torque curve for
street use. Since it is torque that accelerates a car, not horsepower,
these cars are bound to be better in the 1/4 mile than a Boss 302 or Z/28
302. This also explains why they need less rear gear.
3. Everyone is quoting old test times for the classic musclecars. The old
leaf spring/skinny tire combo were totally inadequate in transferring the
considerable power to the ground. Test drivers had to compromise launch
techniques to keep from going up in smoke. This of course resulted in
slower times. Those of you who read MuscleCar Review shootouts see that the
classics are still turning less than thrilling et's because they are
required to run stock suspension and tires. Find them on modern rubber with
some traction aids and the times drop dramatically, and are in general are
much quicker than most modern cars (please note how I worded that).
Basically, the new/old dispute will always be apples and oranges because
they have little in common except that they both have huge followings.
After all, performance is addicting...gotta have more.
CobraJet
P.S. Of interest: my best friend owns a loaded '97 Mustang Cobra. After
putting it on the scales, we discovered that it is 25 lbs. heavier than my
'69 428CJ Ram-Air Fairlane Cobra!
.
Ronald Cole
ASmall9494
Ronald and Dwight,
I like old mustangs as much as the next guy. I love working on any ford
especially small block fords, where I have a lot of experience. You guys are
right, put a Boss 429 SCJ on slicks and my car is toast. What I'm angry about
is some guy who posted in this thread and said is 200 hp (1960s hp) 2V 289
stomped all over new cars, which simply is not true. Has traction was horrid
in the 60s; it's still not that great today on radials. 4 plys of the 60s are
really ludicrous. You guys are right about the low end torque of the Boss 302,
and I would really love to have one for myself, but I probably never will for
obvious reasons. I don't think the group should necessarily be split either.
If some had a small block rebuild question, I'd be a good guy to ask. BTW, I'm
looking for early small block 221 or 260 heads because of their small chambers.
My whole point is that I don't need some guy with a 175 (today hp) 289 telling
me how he can blow all the new cars off the road, because just about everyone
knows it's just not the case. I still don't think that comparing a Boss 302 to
a 93 LX is fair. You should be able to get your 93 into the 14s stock by
shifting at 5300-5400 rpm. Don't bother revving it to 6K. I think maybe you
should compare 289 hi-pos to 87-93 LXs and GTs. Those old 271 hp hi-pos ran
15s too. They too with better traction can get into the 14s possibly even 13s
with minor mods. The whole point is that old muscle cars don't just run off
and leave newer ones sucking their exhaust fumes at the strip which is a
widespread rumor. I just wanted to dispell the rumor. By the way newer cars
especially the 89-95 mass air cars aren't that much harder to work on, parts
are cheap, and they tune themselves. After all, the Boss 302 was built for
racing, road racing. If we really want how strip times why not bring up the
AFX Mustangs? They were really fast. After my car was designed as and is one
fast street car. I hope this sheds a little light on where I'm coming from?
The whole reason I like new mustangs is that you can buy one and turn into
whatever you want in a car and still afford to own it and another car and a
house. If I had a Boss 302 or 429 anything I wouldn't beat on it near as hard
as I do my car. After all my car is replacable.
Anthony
riored97cobra#301
ASmall9494
Dwight,
BTW your 93 LX 5 speed should be a 3.08 rear.
Anthony
riored97cobra#301
NoOption5L
>Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 05:30:24 -0800
>Put a 5-speed behind a Boss motor and the contest is OVER.
Put a few curves into the equation and the contest is over for the Boss.
Henry Blau
Man another one of these...... My late model Cobra is better than your Shelby or
Boss.
Give it up man. Have you ever challanged Shelby or Boss, that is in similar
condition to
your new Cobra? I'm sure that either of those vintage machines WILL kick your butt.
If you need
someone to run against, I can probably hook you up with someone that will take
their high dollar
Shelby and smoke you.....
As for quick pure stock times, check out some of the 68 CJ/GT's. As Hot Rod
magazine said back
then. "It is the fastest running Pure Stock in the history of man" (Hot Rod
Magzine, March 1968) And it ran without a drag suspension. Dump a bunch of cash
into anything and it will run. Even your 4 valve 4.6.
So, what does your Cobra run?
GT350SHELB
>Put a 5-speed behind a Boss motor and the contest is OVER.
Put a few curves into the equation and the contest is over for the Boss.
Patrick
Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
this guy has never driven a boss fast if he thinks a lx will outhandle a
boss .and the boss will stop faster than your lx
CobraJet
> Man another one of these...... My late model Cobra is better than your
Shelby or
> Boss.
>
> Give it up man. Have you ever challanged Shelby or Boss, that is in similar
> condition to
> your new Cobra? I'm sure that either of those vintage machines WILL kick
your butt.
> If you need
> someone to run against, I can probably hook you up with someone that will take
> their high dollar
> Shelby and smoke you.....
>
> As for quick pure stock times, check out some of the 68 CJ/GT's. As Hot Rod
> magazine said back
> then. "It is the fastest running Pure Stock in the history of man" (Hot Rod
> Magzine, March 1968) And it ran without a drag suspension. Dump a bunch
of cash
> into anything and it will run. Even your 4 valve 4.6.
That stock Cobra Jet Mustang ran a blistering 13.56 sec. 1/4 mile on
F70X14 bias-ply whitewalls, no less! To be fair, most of the late/early
disputes have been small-block vs. small-block. However, everyone seems to
be forgetting the early Shelby GT-350's that were produced with 306-horse
289 engines. They were faster in the 1/4 than a Boss 302 and weigh nearly
half a ton less than a new Mustang GT. There's our winner.
CobraJet
>
> So, what does your Cobra run?
>
>
> > If you need to see
> > your awesome 60s mobile passed at the track to become a believer. Go stage
> > against a 5.0 or a 4.6 or a GM LT1 or LS1. Hey by the way the NHRA L stock
> > record holder is a 5.0 95 Cobra. It ran an 11.8 or 11.9 with a full
drag race
> > suspension. The engine was built right. It is 100% stock, but it was
> > blueprinted. Try runnning a time like that in a stock 60s mobile. By
the way,
> > that engine was only rated at 235 hp.
> >
> > riored97cobra#301
> >
> > P.S. I'd really like to have a 60s Shelby mustang or Boss mustang, but
I'm not
> > deluded enough to think that it is going to blow my 97 cobra off the
road. I
> > love old cars a lot, but performance of the late 80s and 90s makes the
earlier
> > cars look silly. Crawl back under your rock ignore the facts, and then talk
> > about the yester years with your grandpa. He might believe you; I
know your
> > wrong.
.
NoOption5L
>Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>Date: 4 Feb 1998 23:35:16 GMT
>>Put a 5-speed behind a Boss motor and the contest is OVER.
>Put a few curves into the equation and the contest is over for the Boss.
>Patrick
>Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
>this guy has never driven a boss fast if he thinks a lx will outhandle a
>boss .
A STOCK Boss will not out handle a Fox V8 Mustang. Stock Boss skid pad numbers
are around .7 Gs, LX numbers around .82. While I've never driven a Boss; I
have driven a '66 Shelby. No contest!
>and the boss will stop faster than your lx
Yes, Fox brakes suck, but I don't think 60's tech will beat them.
TFrog93
In article <19980204014...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, asmal...@aol.com
(ASmall9494) writes:
>Dwight,
BTW your 93 LX 5 speed should be a 3.08 rear.<
Hmmm.... Now that I look at the door tag, I see "AX M" and "TR 2BOSS".
Somebody previously said that '93s built late in the model year had the Cobra
transmission, and now you tell me I've got a 3.08 rear. Wow. I'm impressed!
dwight
August '93 LX 5.0, 5-speed
Jeff Tamulis
> this guy has never driven a boss fast if he thinks a lx will
> outhandle a
I have driven a 1969 BOSS 302 and
a 1985 GT and a 1993 Cobra
The 1993 Cobra Handles better, and brakes faster.
The 1985 GT breaks the rear-end easier
the Boss "FEELS" _MUCH_ faster (and can break the tires loose shifting
into 3rd at 70MPH
I used to work as a mechanic and as far as low end grunt, the 1993 cobra
had more there, however once on the highway the boss was just unreal to
drive.
As far as the brakes are concerned, the Boss "felt" better, but the
cobra I'm sure stopped better.
(didn't actually test this tho.)
The boss handled very well (don't get me wrong) but it was all orginal
and had bias ply tires I think (round track oval I think they were
called.) and I'm sure if it had 55 series tires like the cobra it would
have handled MUCH better too.
Just my .02
Jeff
NoOption5L
>>Dwight,
>>BTW your 93 LX 5 speed should be a 3.08 rear.<
>Hmmm.... Now that I look at the door tag, I see "AX M" and "TR 2BOSS".
>Somebody previously said that '93s built late in the model year had the Cobra
>transmission, and now you tell me I've got a 3.08 rear. Wow. I'm impressed!
Sorry dwight, the M axle code = 2.73's. Z = 3.08's.
MSM859
First car ever owned was a 1965 Mustang GT fastback--long time ago. Was alot
of fun. Just bought 1997 Mustang Cobra convertible. Is alot of fun. I
wouldn't go back.
NoOption5L
>That stock Cobra Jet Mustang ran a blistering 13.56 sec. 1/4 mile on
>F70X14 bias-ply whitewalls, no less!
And a few *small block* '98 Camaros have run an even more blistering
13.3's @107.
>To be fair, most of the late/early disputes have been small-block vs.
>small-block.
No need to be fair. The 281 cubic inch Cobra will out run any stock
Boss 302, Shelby 289, 390 GT, and be right their with a Boss 351 and
Boss 429.
>However, everyone seems to be forgetting the early Shelby GT-350's
>that were produced with 306-horse 289 engines. They were faster in the
>1/4 than a Boss 302 and weigh nearly half a ton less than a new Mustang
>GT. There's our winner.
The Shelby GT-350 times that I remember were around high 14's @ 94 or so.
The Boss 302 times were mid/high 14's @ 97-99. I used to drive my brother's
cherry '66 GT 350H with 3.89's and his car wasn't as fast as my then stock
'87 LX.
> CobraJet
CobraJet
In article <19980206030...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
> >That stock Cobra Jet Mustang ran a blistering 13.56 sec. 1/4 mile on
> >F70X14 bias-ply whitewalls, no less!
>
> And a few *small block* '98 Camaros have run an even more blistering
> 13.3's @107
What's a new Camaro on big-ass tires got to do with the Classic/Late
Model stuff? There's little argument that Chevy has dealt Ford a fairly
lethal horsepower blow this year. When Ford unleashed the 428 CJ at "335"
hp the NHRA immediately re-factored it to 400 (this with stock cast iron
intake and exhaust manifolds). Put big sticky tires on the CJ and wave
bye-bye.
>
> >To be fair, most of the late/early disputes have been small-block vs.
> >small-block.
>
> No need to be fair. The 281 cubic inch Cobra will out run any stock
> Boss 302, Shelby 289, 390 GT, and be right their with a Boss 351 and
> Boss 429.
My best friend back in California bought a new '97 Cobra a few months
ago. All he did was complain about the lack of torque compared to his 60's
Fords. It was the slowest car out of his 8 car collection. He's finally
happy, though, after dropping thousands into a Vortech blower, 3.73's,
etc., etc. At thirty-some-odd thousand dollars and 12.9/105 1/4's, it's now
his fourth fastest car. Still can't beat his FE's.
>
> >However, everyone seems to be forgetting the early Shelby GT-350's
> >that were produced with 306-horse 289 engines. They were faster in the
> >1/4 than a Boss 302 and weigh nearly half a ton less than a new Mustang
> >GT. There's our winner.
>
> The Shelby GT-350 times that I remember were around high 14's @ 94 or so.
> The Boss 302 times were mid/high 14's @ 97-99. I used to drive my brother's
> cherry '66 GT 350H with 3.89's and his car wasn't as fast as my then stock
> '87 LX.
In 1974 my GT/CS Mustang ran 13.20's at 102 with basically a clone of the
Shelby engine, 4-spd, and 4.11's. With L60 street tires ( still harder than
today's tires) and traction bars, I was able to hook the car coming out at
4000 rpm. This traction is the point I'm making. Original drag tests were
severely traction-impaired. The bigger the engine the worse the problem.
Equalize this factor and suddenly the older cars aren't so slow.
CobraJet......Net Racing at night (fewer tickets)
>
>
>
> > CobraJet
>
>
> Patrick
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
.
TFrog93
In article <19980205193...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, noopt...@aol.com
(NoOption5L) writes:
>>Hmmm.... Now that I look at the door tag, I see "AX M" and "TR 2BOSS".
>>
>>Somebody previously said that '93s built late in the model year had the
>>Cobra transmission, and now you tell me I've got a 3.08 rear. Wow. I'm
>>impressed!
>
>Sorry dwight, the M axle code = 2.73's. Z = 3.08's.
Yes, Patrick, I knew that! :() I also know that I don't have a "Cobra T5"
manual transmission. There were a couple of changes made to the T5 for use in
the Cobra model in 1993, and they found their way into general usage for
Mustangs built late in the model year, but that doesn't make my tranny a
"Cobra"..... The 3.08 gears would still have been an option on my '93. Since
I bought it "off the lot", I took what it had in it. Besides, I'm still having
too much fun. If I went with smaller gears, I can only imagine how many tires
I'd go through in the course of a year...
dwight
NoOption5L
>From: Henry Blau <h_b...@conknet.com>
>Man another one of these...... My late model Cobra is better than your Shelby
or
>Boss.
"Better" is in the eyes and senses of who is judging. We are saying faster.
>Give it up man. Have you ever challanged Shelby or Boss, that is in similar
>condition to
>your new Cobra? I'm sure that either of those vintage machines WILL kick your
>butt.
Stock vs stock? I don't think so. The Boss would come very close in trap
speed, but not in ET.
>If you need
>someone to run against, I can probably hook you up with someone that will take
>their high dollar
>Shelby and smoke you.....
No, better yet, compare the old drag tests vs the new drag tests.
>As for quick pure stock times, check out some of the 68 CJ/GT's. As Hot Rod
>magazine said back
>then. "It is the fastest running Pure Stock in the history of man" (Hot Rod
>Magzine, March 1968)
Notice the article was from 1968. Theirs been a whole bunch of competition
produced since this article was printed.
>And it ran without a drag suspension.
Todays cars have more of a road racing suspension (less weight transfer) than
a drag suspension.
>Dump a bunch of cash into anything and it will run.
This is true of ANY car.
>Even your 4 valve 4.6.
Yes, a 4 vavle 4.6 will RUN.
>So, what does your Cobra run?
No Cobra here, but my LX runs a faster ET, and nearly identical trap speeds
as a Boss 302.
NoOption5L
>> >That stock Cobra Jet Mustang ran a blistering 13.56 sec. 1/4 mile on
>> >F70X14 bias-ply whitewalls, no less!
>
>> And a few *small block* '98 Camaros have run an even more blistering
>> 13.3's @107
> What's a new Camaro on big-ass tires got to do with the Classic/Late
>Model stuff?
Classic 428 vs late model 347
The 13.3s @ 107 is on stock tires
>>There's little argument that Chevy has dealt Ford a fairly
>>lethal horsepower blow this year.
Yea, it's an ugly picture in '98.
> When Ford unleashed the 428 CJ at "335"
>>hp the NHRA immediately re-factored it to 400 (this with stock cast iron
>intake and exhaust manifolds). Put big sticky tires on the CJ and wave
>bye-bye.
I'll bet a stock LS1 six speed with stickies would more than keep up with a
428 with stickies.
>>>To be fair, most of the late/early disputes have been small-block vs.
>>>small-block.
>> No need to be fair. The 281 cubic inch Cobra will out run any stock
>> Boss 302, Shelby 289, 390 GT, and be right their with a Boss 351 and
>> Boss 429.
> My best friend back in California bought a new '97 Cobra a few months
>ago. All he did was complain about the lack of torque compared to his 60's
>Fords.
Yea, a stock Cobra is flat on the bottom.
>It was the slowest car out of his 8 car collection.
Not if the other 7 were stock like the Cobra was.
>He's finally
>happy, though, after dropping thousands into a Vortech blower, 3.73's,
>etc., etc. At thirty-some-odd thousand dollars and 12.9/105 1/4's,
A Vortech and ect. ect only boosted his trap speed 4-5 mph????????
Something is seriously wrong with this statement!!!!
>it's now
>his fourth fastest car. Still can't beat his FE's.
His non stock FEs, against a Cobra with some serious problems.
>>>However, everyone seems to be forgetting the early Shelby GT-350's
>>>that were produced with 306-horse 289 engines. They were faster in the
>>>1/4 than a Boss 302 and weigh nearly half a ton less than a new Mustang
>>GT. There's our winner.
>
>>The Shelby GT-350 times that I remember were around high 14's @ 94 or so.
>> The Boss 302 times were mid/high 14's @ 97-99. I used to drive my brother's
>> cherry '66 GT 350H with 3.89's and his car wasn't as fast as my then stock
>> '87 LX.
>In 1974 my GT/CS Mustang ran 13.20's at 102 with basically a clone of the
>Shelby engine, 4-spd, and 4.11's. With L60 street tires ( still harder than
>today's tires) and traction bars, I was able to hook the car coming out at
>4000 rpm. This traction is the point I'm making. Original drag tests were
>severely traction-impaired.
Then compare trap speeds, it's a much better indicator of HP anyway.
>The bigger the engine the worse the problem.
>Equalize this factor and suddenly the older cars aren't so slow.
I not here to say the classics were slow; what I'm saying is that the late
models
are not slow.
Going back to the LS1s, they are posting higher traps speeds than any mass*
produced* stock* 60 -70 musclecar. Notice mass produced, I'm not talking
about Yenkos, Cobras, ect.
Final thought: Wouldn't it be great to see new technology and old cubic inches
come together in a showroom near you. Picture modern ignition,
6 speed trans, 4.11's, 245 17's, with an all aluminum, multiport fuel injected,
400 + cubic inch V8 hemi.
Or a 400+ cubic inch V8 DOHC motor with the above options.
DarkWolfff
a new cobra may be faster than a shelby but which one will get more looks going
down the street
NoOption5L
>Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>a new cobra may be faster than a shelby but which one will get more
>looks going down the street
OK, but I wonder if it has anything to do with very few 30 year old
Shelby Mustangs roaming the streets. And in 2028, I'll bet a '98 Cobra
will draw some stares!
ASmall9494
>>a new cobra may be faster than a shelby but which one will get more
>>looks going down the street
They both will get lots of stares. That's why we all like and drive mustangs.
They are all pretty darn cool.
riored97cobra#301
ASmall9494
>Final thought: Wouldn't it be great to see new technology and old cubic
>inches
>come together in a showroom near you. Picture modern ignition,
>6 speed trans, 4.11's, 245 17's, with an all aluminum, multiport fuel
>injected,
>400 + cubic inch V8 hemi.
>
>Or a 400+ cubic inch V8 DOHC motor with the above options
Patrick,
That is one scary thought. How about a 5.4 modular DOHC; that's the current
rumor for 99. Hey can we get the car you describe in at about 3000# to boot
with full independent suspension and Baer brakes as an option; oh yah I want
coil overs at all fours too. Can you make it for about 20K too; I'd forego
power anything for that package.
riored97cobra#301
NoOption5L
>>Final thought: Wouldn't it be great to see new technology and old cubic
>>inches
>>come together in a showroom near you. Picture modern ignition,
>>6 speed trans, 4.11's, 245 17's, with an all aluminum, multiport fuel
>>injected,
>>400 + cubic inch V8 hemi.
>>Or a 400+ cubic inch V8 DOHC motor with the above options
>Patrick,
>That is one scary thought. How about a 5.4 modular DOHC; that's the current
>rumor for 99.
Let's hope so!
>Hey can we get the car you describe in at about 3000# to boot
>with full independent suspension and Baer brakes as an option; oh yah
>I want coil overs at all fours too. Can you make it for about 20K too; I'd
>forego power anything for that package.
If Ford produced the car you just described for that price, my LX and
Accord would be gone tomorrow! Sorry, kids your just going to have to
find room in the back. Or BETTER yet, I'll would take one kid at a time!
More driving time that way!
CobraJet
In article <19980210055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
> >>Final thought: Wouldn't it be great to see new technology and old cubic
> >>inches
> >>come together in a showroom near you. Picture modern ignition,
> >>6 speed trans, 4.11's, 245 17's, with an all aluminum, multiport fuel
> >>injected,
> >>400 + cubic inch V8 hemi.
Why wait for the factory? There are different styles of aftermarket FI
units for big-blocks, and you can build an all alloy 514 with existing
Motorsport parts. Time to shotgun the piggy-bank.
>
> >>Or a 400+ cubic inch V8 DOHC motor with the above options
>
> >Patrick,
>
> >That is one scary thought. How about a 5.4 modular DOHC; that's the current
> >rumor for 99.
>
> Let's hope so!
Let's pray more. 330 cubes ain't gonna be enough.
>
> >Hey can we get the car you describe in at about 3000# to boot
> >with full independent suspension and Baer brakes as an option; oh yah
> >I want coil overs at all fours too. Can you make it for about 20K too; I'd
> >forego power anything for that package.
I haven't heard such two-fisted snake strokin' in ages! OK, how 'bout a
Live Action option? Right and left rear-mounted microphones feed the sounds
of your raging exhausts and shredding tires into your Mach 760 sound
system. Killer sounds with the windows up! (Had to add a third fist into
this).
>
> If Ford produced the car you just described for that price, my LX and
> Accord would be gone tomorrow! Sorry, kids your just going to have to
> find room in the back. Or BETTER yet, I'll would take one kid at a time!
> More driving time that way!
Oh my freakin gawd you own a HONDA?! That explains your opinion of the
Classic Musclecars, Patrick. I was going to reply to your reply to my "Top
Ten" post, but I think I'll just have a slug of sake instead :) (Ain't u
wunna dem dere LFJ { little foreign junker } bashers, too, laddie boy?
CobraJet.....in the pits at the NetRaces (gimme that bottle, dangit!)
>
>
> Patrick
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
.
NoOption5L
>Oh my freakin gawd you own a HONDA?! That explains your
>opinion of the Classic Musclecars, Patrick.
My opinion of musclecars??? Here's a little background on myself.
I love any, and all performance cars! And, if you have read my posts
for a while you also will notice my performance cars MUST have as few
options as possible. That's where the handle "NoOption5L" comes from.
I special ordered my 5 liter LX without A/C or power options. I hate fat
cars! *The only exception to my rule is Emily's '85 Cutlass with the
383 stroker <g>* My dream cars ? 340 Demon, '69 440 Charger, '95
Cobra R, Viper GTS, '87 GNX, 65 GTO 389 Tri-power, '69 Yenko Camaro,
'69 Chevelle SS 396 (personal reasons), '68 1/2 428 Mustang, '70 AMX,
'93 Cobra, '67 427 Vette...are you stating to see a pattern here???
Only V8's or musclecars then? No, I wouldn't mind owning WT's DSM,
a tastefully done tricked out Integra, or a V6 5-speed Camry ect.
Now going back to the Honda revelation> You write like I screwed up
and posted that I own a Honda. Nope, I didn't screw up; in fact I've
shared this "revelation" with the group many times. I love our Accord!
Very, very solid (I wish the LX was this tight), excellent quality, handles
well (but needs better tires and to be dropped an inch or two), and the
design is clean without any frills. Gripes? Needs 50-75 more HP! But,
then doesn't everycar! <insert Tim Taylor grunt>
No, our '95 EX Accord isn't a performance car, but it performs extremely
well for the task that we bought it for - transporting my wife and two kids.
And I also love to drive it! The only problem, my wife always tells me to
"drive your car." She knows I love to spin that sucker up to about 90 -100
mph for a long drive out on I-25 south. In fact, I am eagerly awaiting this
weekend's drive in the Accord to Carlsbad Caverns.
Personally, I think that if someone owns or loves something OTHER THAN
just ALL brand Y cars, or ONLY car model Xs, or ONLY cars from this
automotive period of time, that this person is objective, an unbiased, and
not wearing "automotive blinders."
>I was going to reply to your reply to my "Top Ten" post, but I think I'll just
>have a slug of sake instead :) (Ain't u wunna dem dere LFJ { little foreign
>junker } bashers, too, laddie boy?
Please, reply, but only with your "blinders" off.
CobraJet
In article <19980211072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
You know what I like about you, Patrick? It doesn't much to get you
going, and at all hours of the morning, no less!
I don't know if blinders is quite the right word. "Obsessed" is probably
more like it. Why? Here's MY background:
Born in 1956 in the San Fernando Valley, one of the biggest hot-spots in
the country for musclebound Detroit machinery. I grew up in a middle-class
neighborhood where every other car could melt its tires. My friends and I
were bicycle-distance from new car dealerships, where we hung out on the
sidewalks watching the test drives come and go. Stop light confrontations
were everywhere. Three of the "dads" on my block had race cars. Irwindale,
Bakersfield, Lions,San Fernando, Orange County, Pomona, Ontario drags.
Cruisin' and street racing were nightly year-round ways of life. The
excitement pervaded the senses and invaded the blood. You were a sissy
without horsepower; the girls knew it and your competition knew it.
It is so difficult to explain the atmosphere at the time. I was "out
there" practically every night. "Restoration" was unknown; everyone had
modified cars. Police cars were "dyno-tuned" in private garages (some cops
knew me by my first name). I remember driving around for days at a time
with open headers on a pair of Goodyear Blue Streak slicks in my GT/CS
Mustang. 100-octane leaded was 36.9 cents a gallon. I kept a log of all my
racing activity (still have it). I had a "co-pilot" that looked for cars to
race in the cross-traffic. I had toggle switches to kill my taillights and
license lights. Most guys had nicknames relevant to their rides. Bench
racing was BS, and the number of cars getting together looking to race
could number in the hundreds (SAT night behind the Bank of America on Van
Nuys Blvd). At our "spots" we spray-painted measured-off 1/4 miles. Pairs
of racers could line up 20-30 deep.
Do you see the Big Picture? This was a life the likes of which we'll
never see again. Eventually it all slowly disappeared. I can never "get it
out of my system". The looks, sounds and feel of those cars cannot be
replaced by anything made today, no matter how fast, high-tech, or comfy. I
have been in a car business for 20 years and have driven almost anything
you can name. I have had a lot of good things to say about many of them,
but I just could not own any of them. Being committed to a certain type of
vehicle isn't tunnel vision; its just a matter of preference...
CobraJet...
'63 Galaxie 390
'64 Mercury Marauder 390
'65 Olds Starfire 425
'66 Falcon Futura (undecided yet)
'67 Cyclone GT Cnv 410
'67 Cougar 351W
'68 GT/California Special 289
'68 Torino GT 390
'68 Olds 4-4-2 400
'69 Mustang Coupe 351W
'69 Cougar XR-7 428CJ Ram
'69 Fairlane Cobra 428CJ Ram Auto
'69 Fairlane Cobra 428CJ Ram Stick
'69 Cyclone CJ 428CJ Ram
'69 Plymouth Satellite 383Commando
'70 Torino GT 351C
'70 Cyclone Spoiler 429CJ Ram
'70 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6 Air Grabber
and a '73 Mustang coupe 429 PI (bracket car to be)
...still got a few left to find...
.
SEEverist
Patrick wrote:
>My dream cars ? 340 Demon,
yeah
>'69 440 Charger,
oh yeah
> '95Cobra R,
Yes!
> Viper GTS,
Sure, why not!
> '87 GNX,
YES, Yes, yes, oh yes!
>65 GTO 389 Tri-power,
Definitely
> '69 Yenko Camaro,
Yes, of course
>'69 Chevelle SS 396 (personal reasons),
375 horse with 4spd and 4.10's, Hell yes
> '68 1/2 428 Mustang,
Oh yes
> '70 AMX,
With the GO packagage, you betcha
>'93 Cobra,
My personal dream car, any color but the red (black or blue)
> '67 427 Vette...are you stating to see a pattern here???
I'd go for the '65 with the 396. There's something about a 425horse 396 that
gets me going, especially since they did it only that year.
I had a girlfriend, prior to the current one, who had a '95 LX coupe Accord.
She hated to drive, so I spent some time behind the wheel. It's weird, this
car is a no brainer that you wouldn't realize how good it is, 'til it's gone.
Now what was her name?
I'll add mine to this list (in no particular order):
-'60 Galaxie 352 fastback........I'm becoming obsessed since THE article.
-'62 406/405 horse 6bbl. But, I want my dad's old one, wherever it is, with
the post instead of hardtop.
-'70 Buick GS 455 Stage 1, 3.64 gears,4 spd, AC, and all power options (it's a
Buick for God's sake)
-'62 Buick Skylark hardtop 215 V8/215 horse, 4spd, power steering, buckets, all
aluminum motor, rochester 4-jet carb. (My mom has this in a convertible, it
was her first car. Someday I would like it to be mine and have a hardtop to
match.)
-'?? Buick Riviera GS with the 425 8bbl. Don't care which year as long as it's
original.
-'66 Buick Skylark GS with the 401 nailhead, and the 8bbl option.
-'73 or '74 (can't remember the year) Buick Apollo GSX, because you don't have
one and neither do I.
-'66 Galaxie Cop Car 428 4bbl, 4 door, AT(I know someone with one of these too,
he runs 14.0)
-'61 impala SS (my favorite body style)
-'69 Hurst SC/Rambler
AMC The Machine (ya gotta love a car that tells air where to go and points the
direction)
-'69 Pontiac Trans Am 303 (I heard there was a 366 too, at least in
development)
-'74 Trans Am Super Duty (last of the kick-ass big blocks)
-'66 Chevy II 327/350 horse 4spd (more hp than cubic inches always gets me)
Dodge 413 max-wedge w/cross ram. I don't care what it's in as long as it's
original. This intake rules.
-AAR 'Cuda 340 6pak. I love that factory side exhaust and mismatched tire
size.
-Any 60's Chrysler Imperial. This is the closest you can get to a street legal
train box-car with a big block. You do NOT need an airbag in any one of these.
-'67? Mercury Cougar XR7 GT-E 427 or 428. Rare and cool
-'63 Comet S-23(?) w/ 289
Wait a minute, this list may not end and I don't even have a garage at my
house. I thought I'd never get through the Buick's alone. You get the idea
though, I like V8's, but respect anything that is well engineered and quick.
Some of these are very rare while some are obtainable. On the other hand some
are virtual unknowns. I guess, I just like cars, of which Mustangs are
included.
Steve
Current head of the bashing department for rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang:
"Weekend pass people" mode is ON!!
mercman
OH MY GAWWWDDDD! Cobrajet, you're my hero.
How long have you been collecting this fine stable of cars?
I immediately read off list to my wife and said, see hon, I don't have
that many!
mercman
P.S. thanks for battery, spring info
狂人
In <19980211104...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 02/11/98
at 10:49 AM, seev...@aol.com (SEEverist) said:
>> '95Cobra R,
>Yes!
YEAH! :)
>> '68 1/2 428 Mustang,
>Oh yes
Same here! :)
I'll pitch in a few of my own here... :)
Ford Super Stallion... :)
McLaren F-1 Road Car
Aston Martin DB-7 (convertable... for... err... use as the car to attend
expensive parties... :) ) Add a pair of Hellfire and SM2 Block 4 launcher,
and a few other military cannons, and this will become the car that nuked
James Bond's BMW (he was betraying Aston Martin for German cars! :) )...
Of course, by which time, 300+ HP will not be enough to move that mess of
stuff... :)
Hey, I met some fairly #%!@#$ drivers last night...
First was this guy driving a HUGH GM full sized Van (Vandura I think)
cutting me off by stomping the gas when the light turns green, and cutting
me off just before the parked car on the curb gets too close to him... It
was fun blasting past that guy in a stright line when he has the advantage
(he was on the inside turn before the stright line run... :) )... Man, that
guy was a sore loser... he goes up to about 120KM/H on CITY STREETS! I kinda
dropped out of the chase for that cops might be near, and hitting objects is
no fun either... :)
and THEN I run into another guy driving the Porsche, now this guy tailgates,
and when he got in front of me, is gets so slow that a family sedan on
another lane is faster than he is... grrrr... I wish I was driving a
bulldozer... :) <Crunch>
--
=Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester.=
====Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member.====
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 3.0
My computer, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and US Nuclear Submarines uses
***OS/2***
How about you?
CobraJet
In article <6bsnur$90h$1...@206.230.70.107>, fro...@alpha.wcoil.com (mercman)
wrote:
> OH MY GAWWWDDDD! Cobrajet, you're my hero.
>
> How long have you been collecting this fine stable of cars?
Since Thursday evening, August 12, 1973 when I bought the GT/CS from the
original owner (his girlfriend cried).
>
> I immediately read off list to my wife and said, see hon, I don't have
> that many!
But always remember she is first. My infatuation with my cars have
caused every one of my past girlfriends to leave me rather than enter into
a "competitive" marriage.
CobraJet..... :-(
>
> mercman
>
> P.S. thanks for battery, spring info
.
狂人
In <blueoval-ya0240800...@news.primenet.com>, on 02/11/98
>> How long have you been collecting this fine stable of cars?
> Since Thursday evening, August 12, 1973 when I bought the GT/CS from the
>original owner (his girlfriend cried).
Man, you are cruel... :)
>> I immediately read off list to my wife and said, see hon, I don't have
>> that many!
> But always remember she is first. My infatuation with my cars have
>caused every one of my past girlfriends to leave me rather than enter into
>a "competitive" marriage.
Like the Emily here said, look harder... :) And don't get in my way, I'm
looking for the same kind too... ;)
k
I have two Big Block Shelbys (one is a 427) and believe me you can't put
those up against the new cars. Street or strip its a joke, they don't even
know what hit em'. The only replacement for cubic inches is cubic feet.
As for the Boss 302 cars, anyone who has spent any time around them knows
they were more image than anything in their stock form. With ports that
big you have to make big RPM's to do any good and that was one of the
earlier cars I've ever seen with a rev limiter. Lets face it, Ford didn't
want to warrant an 8,000 RPM Small Block. The whole thing was for Trans-Am
racing anyway, not drag. (No Not Pontiac Trans Am) But they will run if set
up right and those cars do handle if set up right.
As for the old Hi-Po 289's, lets face it everyone knows a stock Ford small
block head is only good to hold the shop door open on a windy day. Those
heads were a little technically challenged but the rest of that motor is
solid as long as you know how to tune it. I like the newer models real well
but lets not forget what got us here.
You guys need to go to a good Shelby meet. Watch the new cars and the old
cars do battle on the drag strip and a good SCCA track. You'll find out
every era has a lot to offer and though technology offers a lot they lost a
lot when they cut back on cubic inches.
One other thing, noticed someone thought the 98' Cobra would get a lot of
looks about 30 years from now. This may be true but we'll have to see if
these late model cars can stand up that long. Who Knows?
-----Original Message-----
From: ASmall9494 <asmal...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: Split group - Classic/Late Model
>You guys aren't to bright, lets compare apples to apples and oranges to
>oranges.
>
>Dwight said:
>
>>I read my new Mustang Monthly, and they list the specs on the gorgeous
older
>>Mustangs they write up. For instance:
>>1970 Boss 302, 3.91 gear, 4-speed..........14.93 @ 96mph
>>1969 Boss 302, 3.50 gear, 4-speed..........14.57 @ 97mph
>> (Test results from Car & Driver of 1970, 1969)
>>
>>But, uh-oh...
>>1985 GT hatchback, 3.08, 5-speed...........15.62 @ 88mph
>>
>>And here's my one-and-only 1/4 run....
>>1993 LX hatchback, 2.73? 5-speed..........15.237 @ 92mph
>>
>>What can we tell from this? Only that if I ever learned how to drive, my
'93
>>would easily be able to keep up with the legendary 1970 Boss 302!
>
>Now lets compare specialty Fords to speacialty Fords and GTs to GTs.
Compare
>the Cobra to the Boss mustangs, and compare GT to GT. (apples to apples).
A
>modern mustang cobra runs circles around your boss 302 plain and simple.
Pick
>any cobra 93-98. Now compare those 60s hi-po 289s and GTs to GTs from '85
to
>present. Are you starting to get the picture? The only really fast fords
in
>the 60s had FE motors 427s, 429s, and even some hi-po 390s, and yes a
really
>awesome 406. Your little boss 302 is a real nice car; I really like them,
but
>stop trying to say it runs circles around modern muscle cars because it
>doesn't. I'm sorry you have difficulty driving your '93. Oh yah, once
again
>all the old cars posted those amazing times with 4.11, 4.56s and other
really
>bug gear ratios; todays cars run the same or better with 3.27s (Ford) and
3.42s
>(GM). So run the same gear ratios and then where do the 60s & 70s stand.
Yes
>I have many friends with 60s muscle including one with a 68 Camaro with
396,
>and a friend with a 455 Olds; needless to say they don't make fun of new
cars
>like you.
>
>riored97cobra#301
ASmall9494 wrote in message
<19980131100...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Fenatic incorrectly wrote,>The only reason inexperienced "Ford buffs" think
>>>these slugs are fast is the 5 speed tranny. Put that behind the 200 hp 2
>>>barrel 289 (the equivalent of those weak kneed 5.0 motors) and you would
>>see
>>>the same performance. But you gotta love the looks on those spoiled kids
>>faces
>>>when any of my 60's beaters pastes em off the line. With a lot less gear
>>and
>>>$$$ involved.
>
>Now for the facts. In 1972, the way the SAE decided to rate horsepower
changed
>forever. Before '72, they used gross hp. In other words, they ran the
engine
>on the dyno with no accessories, no air intake box or filter, and they used
>tuned headers. After '72, they switched to net horsepower; this meant they
had
>to use all accessories the real air intake kit on the car, and the real
exhaust
>that would be sold with the car. That's why hp ratings for the same engine
>dropped about 35-50hp in one year. So, your 200 60s hp is about 175 hp
today,
>which means every GT or Cobra mustang built since 85 will make you look
silly.
>I love nothing more than having the opportunity to race some loud mouth in
a
>late 60s early 70s muscle car that has way more cubes than me and my 281.
It's
>embarrassing for them most of the time, especially the stockers. The era
of
>the muscle car is now. Go and drive one Ford, and even the hated GM both
sell
>them. They're called mustang GTs, Cobra, Z28, and SS, and they will crush
your
>panty waste 289 2 barrel. Don't believe me drive to Washington this spring
>when the track opens and I'll be glad to prove it. And don't even think of
>taking it to the course.
>
>riored97cobra#301
>
>P.S. I've been rebuilding ford small blocks for the past 7 years. If its
not
>a boss 302 or a heavily built custom job, it doesn't hold a candle to the
85
>and later HO roller engines. So don't try and BS me about the good ole
days
>anymore. I love old cars, but they're slow compared to what can be had
today.
>Yah, with 4.11s or 4.30s old cars could get into the 13s, but todays cars
do
>the same thing with 3.27s or 3.42s. Think on that one for a while.
NoOption5L
> You know what I like about you, Patrick? It doesn't much to get you
>going, and at all hours of the morning, no less!
Talking about CARS gets me going! And it happens all the time. I get into
this newsgroup and the hours fly by.
> I don't know if blinders is quite the right word. "Obsessed" is probably
>more like it. Why? Here's MY background:
> Born in 1956 in the San Fernando Valley, one of the biggest hot-spots in
>the country for musclebound Detroit machinery.
The Detroit area is my hometown. Port Huron/Marysville to be exact.
>I grew up in a middle-class
>neighborhood where every other car could melt its tires. My friends and I
>were bicycle-distance from new car dealerships, where we hung out on the
>sidewalks watching the test drives come and go. Stop light confrontations
>were everywhere. Three of the "dads" on my block had race cars. Irwindale,
>Bakersfield, Lions,San Fernando, Orange County, Pomona, Ontario drags.
>Cruisin' and street racing were nightly year-round ways of life. The
>excitement pervaded the senses and invaded the blood. You were a sissy
>without horsepower; the girls knew it and your competition knew it.
> It is so difficult to explain the atmosphere at the time. I was "out
>there" practically every night.
We used to cruise town for hours and hours until we were borrowing gas money
to get home.
Our favorite question went something like this? It's Tuesday night. What do
you want to do? <grinning> Let's go cruising!!!
>"Restoration" was unknown; everyone had
>modified cars.
Try to find a stock 5 liter Mustang, 3rd generation F-body, or Buick GN (be
quiet David!). The new Cobras, LT/LS1s will soon be difficult to find stock.
>Police cars were "dyno-tuned" in private garages (some cops
>knew me by my first name). I remember driving around for days at a time
>with open headers on a pair of Goodyear Blue Streak slicks in my GT/CS
>Mustang. 100-octane leaded was 36.9 cents a gallon. I kept a log of all my
>racing activity (still have it). I had a "co-pilot" that looked for cars to
>race in the cross-traffic.
You forgot the secondary role of the "co-pilot." Looking for the cute girls!
>I had toggle switches to kill my taillights and
>license lights. Most guys had nicknames relevant to their rides. Bench
>racing was BS, and the number of cars getting together looking to race
>could number in the hundreds (SAT night behind the Bank of America on Van
>Nuys Blvd).
>At our "spots" we spray-painted measured-off 1/4 miles. Pairs
>of racers could line up 20-30 deep.
Spray paint? On I69 we had professional looking 2 foot wide stripes on both
ends of our quarter mile.
> Do you see the Big Picture? This was a life the likes of which we'll
>never see again.
Yes, Automotive Heaven!
>Eventually it all slowly disappeared.
For a while it did, but now it has reappeared and evolved. Some modified
street cars today are deadly fast with todays technology! Sophisticated NOS
systems, drag radials, easy bolt on S/Cs, turbos running huge amounts of
boost, extrude honing, ect.
> I can never "get it
>out of my system". The looks, sounds and feel of those cars cannot be
>replaced by anything made today, no matter how fast, high-tech, or comfy.
Your right about the looks and sounds, but the feel is the G-force "push
in the back." It's still there in the new ones.
Look at it this way, the new Viper GTS is a match for a 427 Cobra. The LS1
F-bodies are more than a match against the older BB Camaros, and the Cobra
will out run most of the classic Mustangs. And now we also have speed parts
vastly superior to the 60-70 offerings.
What have we lost? Variety! (I blame much of it on this stupid SUV trend).
We are down to a handful of performance cars. The 60s and early 70s
had so many brands, models, options, trim packages, and the engines
changed nearly every year. You never knew if the guy had a 390 or 428,
383, 440 or 426, or a 283, 327, or 350 without looking for badges.
>I have been in a car business for 20 years and have driven almost anything
>you can name. I have had a lot of good things to say about many of them,
>but I just could not own any of them. Being committed to a certain type of
>vehicle isn't tunnel vision; its just a matter of preference...
Everyone has their preferences, and I respect yours, but it seemed that you
were trying to discredit the new cars. To me, the new ones are as appealing
as the "classics." Both have pros and cons, but *I* think the newer ones have
more pros. Face it, don't you wish your "classics" had a 5 or 6 speed trans,
rack and pinion, four wheel discs, electronic ignition, multiport F/I and pull
over .8gs in the turns. True, it would ruin the crudeness or rawness appeal,
but think of the added overall performance and fun factor.
Performance cars are like a family to me. Don't insult my father
(early musclecars) and don't insult my son (late model musclecars) because
I will defend the honor of both!
Hmmm, wait a minte that makes me a mid/late 70s model. Damn that
SUCKS!!!
>'63 Galaxie 390
< **A JEALOUS SNIP**>
>'70 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6 Air Grabber
>and a '73 Mustang coupe 429 PI (bracket car to be)
> ...still got a few left to find...
.
You know, <shaking my head> I was really stating to like you until I saw the
long list of the cars you own. You LLLUCKY SON OF B*TCH!!!
Opps, sorry about the language! Really, I'm sorry! Please, forgive me!
C'mon you won't hold that little outburst against me when I apply to be your
chauffeur......will you?
Apol...@worldnet.att.net
In article <19980211104...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
seev...@aol.com (SEEverist) wrote:
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
> >My dream cars ? 340 Demon,
> yeah
>
> >'69 440 Charger,
> oh yeah
>
> > '95Cobra R,
> Yes!
>
> > Viper GTS,
> Sure, why not!
>
> > '87 GNX,
> YES, Yes, yes, oh yes!
>
> >65 GTO 389 Tri-power,
> Definitely
>
> > '69 Yenko Camaro,
> Yes, of course
>
> >'69 Chevelle SS 396 (personal reasons),
> 375 horse with 4spd and 4.10's, Hell yes
>
> Oh yes
>
Buick Apollo's????
I have 4 of them and one is a GSX. It's a '73. I also have a non-gsx '73
which is the fastest because of it's '70 GS350 engine. My other two are
both '74's. All of which are hatchbacks. By the way, if anyone knows of
parts availability, please let me know!!
Colin
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
CobraJet
In article <19980212073...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
(SNIPPOLA)
>
> >Eventually it all slowly disappeared.
>
> For a while it did, but now it has reappeared and evolved. Some modified
> street cars today are deadly fast with todays technology! Sophisticated NOS
> systems, drag radials, easy bolt on S/Cs, turbos running huge amounts of
> boost, extrude honing, ect.
This paragraph illustrates a subtle point that I have failed miserably
to make. It has gotten too EASY to go fast with today's technology. You can
spend thousands of dollars adding on this stuff you listed (Oh yes I know
all about newtech from the standpoint of reading about it every month), and
you are still no faster than the next guy doing the same thing. What has
happened is that the cost of being competitive on the street has escalated
too far. This similar to the pro ranks, where many of the "little guys"
have dropped out because they can't afford the up-to-the-minute parts it
takes to be competitive.
How many would-be enthusiasts are not in the modern version of our hobby
because of this? A lot, including me. In the old days almost anyone could
afford to have a reasonably fast car. Today it seems that a good number of
guys would rather put their money into a bumpin' stereo instead.
There is another not-so-subtle point that ties into all this. The
relative simplicity of the old musclecars allowed most of us to become
intimate with the workings of an internal combustion engine, and it was
cost effective to do so (my first intake cost me $49.95, 10 bucks less than
the new Holley perched on it!). I had a good time learning how to change
cams, clutches, and rear gears by myself in just a few hours. More
importantly, I learned how to fine-tune. I knew how to manipulate carb
squirters and pump cams, change distributor curves, and re-adjust valve
lash to get every last little horsepower. I used to re-jet with every
weather change and swap in colder plugs before a race. Races were won or
lost by what you knew more than what hardware you had. It was (still is)
very gratifying to get results by getting my hands dirty. Somehow, bumping
up the timing and letting the computer do the rest is just no challenge.
Tuning with a laptop is too easy. What's next, verbal command tuning? You
bet! VRT is on the way! Oh boy...
>
> > I can never "get it
> >out of my system". The looks, sounds and feel of those cars cannot be
> >replaced by anything made today, no matter how fast, high-tech, or comfy.
>
> Your right about the looks and sounds, but the feel is the G-force "push
> in the back." It's still there in the new ones.
Yeah, I know. I've driven them. I feel less claustrophobic slithering
under my house with new phone line. (Slithering is something all good Cobra
owners should know how to do).
>
> Look at it this way, the new Viper GTS is a match for a 427 Cobra. The LS1
> F-bodies are more than a match against the older BB Camaros, and the Cobra
> will out run most of the classic Mustangs. And now we also have speed parts
> vastly superior to the 60-70 offerings.
Truly one thing I can never argue is the effect that modern technology
and the present aftermarket have had on creating superior retrofit parts.
Just the selection of small-block heads alone is mind-boggling. The rest of
the list is too long and obvious to bother with here.
>
> What have we lost? Variety! (I blame much of it on this stupid SUV trend).
> We are down to a handful of performance cars. The 60s and early 70s
> had so many brands, models, options, trim packages, and the engines
> changed nearly every year. You never knew if the guy had a 390 or 428,
> 383, 440 or 426, or a 283, 327, or 350 without looking for badges.
There's something else we as a country have lost. Brand loyalty. The very
same thing you have called "blinders", Patrick. Picture this: There was no
Arab oil embargo in the Seventies. There was no need for America to open
its doors to a Datsun/Toyota economy car invasion. There was no mass
desertion by the American people who flocked to import showrooms to
purchase vehicles they incorrectly deemed superior to ours. Imagine
Americans today instead buying only American cars in the huge per capita
numbers that they did in the 60's. Would we have variety still? You bet -
the Big Ones could and would provide what the loyal consumers want instead
of throwing us the Mustang/F-body bones while they concentrate on the
"World Market".
Herein lies the distinction between how I see imports/new cars and how
you think I see them. I don't look at them and think "what junk - my cars
are better". I know some of them are fast and handle and all that. What I
see in the imports is the demise of the "Great American Car Era" (the SUV
thing is too recent to blame for much). What upsets me about domestics is
exactly the lack of variety you have mentioned. I don't dislike late
models. I only wish there were more to choose from (whatever happened to
the 5.8 powered T-Bird/Cougar so many of us "intermediate" people were
poised to by?). Doesn't it get just a little old opening up MM&FF magazine
and seeing page after page of basically the same car with different
add-ons? What worries me is the younger crowd who is slowly considering the
'60's about as relevant and interesting as World War 1. Without the
existence of those old musclecars I dare think that we would be all driving
little econo-thrashers like most of the rest of the world (We are getting
there anyway.) I know you still like old cars, but I can't tell you how
many "car" people I've talked to at my old shop who are clueless.
> >I have been in a car business for 20 years and have driven almost anything
> >you can name. I have had a lot of good things to say about many of them,
> >but I just could not own any of them. Being committed to a certain type of
> >vehicle isn't tunnel vision; its just a matter of preference...
>
> Everyone has their preferences, and I respect yours, but it seemed that you
> were trying to discredit the new cars. To me, the new ones are as appealing
> as the "classics." Both have pros and cons, but *I* think the newer ones have
> more pros. Face it, don't you wish your "classics" had a 5 or 6 speed trans,
> rack and pinion, four wheel discs, electronic ignition, multiport F/I and
pull
> over .8gs in the turns. True, it would ruin the crudeness or rawness appeal,
> but think of the added overall performance and fun factor.
Discredit? No, covered above. Do I wish my Classics had all that stuff?
Honestly, no. Then they wouldn't be what they are: automotive history.
(What you call crude we call elegantly simple. What you call high-tech we
call unnecessarily complicated. Even if we agree that new and old cars are
equally fast, we sure did it far easier back then, didn't we?) If I took my
factory hi-po cars and added that equipment they wouldn't be worth shit
compared to their present value. Oh sure I might take advantage of
"invisible" upgrades here and there, but I'll keep my 4-speeds and
points-style ignition, thank you. There's a hell of a lot of performance
and fun already there, remember? (I don't need extra gears to do 140mph.
Cubic inches will overcome road drag.) No sense screwing with my
"retirement" collection! Now would I build up a NON-hi-po car? (See the
difference?) I'm considering that with my '67 Cougar, originally a 289- 2V.
Until then, I'm comfy in my '86 Cougar daily driver (surprise!). Actually,
I'm starting to take a hard look at the new Dodge Dakota R/T 360...
>
> Performance cars are like a family to me. Don't insult my father
> (early musclecars) and don't insult my son (late model musclecars) because
> I will defend the honor of both!
>
> Hmmm, wait a minte that makes me a mid/late 70s model. Damn that
> SUCKS!!!
True. They make good sleepers, though. Did I ever tell you about my
friend with the 351W/4-spd/4.11 in a silver '77 Granada.........
>
> >'63 Galaxie 390
> < **A JEALOUS SNIP**>
> >'70 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6 Air Grabber
> >and a '73 Mustang coupe 429 PI (bracket car to be)
>
> > ...still got a few left to find...
> .
> You know, <shaking my head> I was really stating to like you until I saw the
> long list of the cars you own. You LLLUCKY SON OF B*TCH!!!
That's MISTER Lucky Sonofa Bitch. I am over 40.
>
> Opps, sorry about the language! Really, I'm sorry! Please, forgive me!
> C'mon you won't hold that little outburst against me when I apply to be your
> chauffeur......will you?
How can you get "chauffeur" right and misspell "oops"? Patrick, Patrick!
CobraJet
>
> Patrick
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
.
Jim Stoltz
CobraJet wrote:
<<snip>>
> There is another not-so-subtle point that ties into all this. The
> relative simplicity of the old musclecars allowed most of us to become
> intimate with the workings of an internal combustion engine, and it was
> cost effective to do so (my first intake cost me $49.95, 10 bucks less than
> the new Holley perched on it!). I had a good time learning how to change
> cams, clutches, and rear gears by myself in just a few hours. More
> importantly, I learned how to fine-tune. I knew how to manipulate carb
> squirters and pump cams, change distributor curves, and re-adjust valve
> lash to get every last little horsepower. I used to re-jet with every
> weather change and swap in colder plugs before a race. Races were won or
> lost by what you knew more than what hardware you had. It was (still is)
> very gratifying to get results by getting my hands dirty. Somehow, bumping
> up the timing and letting the computer do the rest is just no challenge.
> Tuning with a laptop is too easy. What's next, verbal command tuning? You
> bet! VRT is on the way! Oh boy...
>
I wouldn't be so hasty to make that judgement. I recently soldmy '67 GTO in favor
of the '88 GT, and just picked up an '87
Grand National. In order to safely and effectively modify these
computer controlled cars, you not only have to have a very good
understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, but
how each modification is going to affect which sensor and how.
You still have to get your hands dirty to modify these cars, it's
not just plug the laptop in, tweak, and go. I spent a helluva lot
less time under the hood of the GTO than the Mustang. To me
changing jets on the Holley is no different than swapping injectors,
or modifying the duty cycle. The laptop is a good monitoring tool,
but the modifications are still made under the hood - engines are
still big air pumps. I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of the GN,
as the interface to plug the GM computer into a laptop is cheap
and readily available - not so with Ford. I still pull plugs to see
what's going on in each cylinder, and all the old tricks still work -
headers, free-flowing exhaust, free-flowing air cleaner. All the
go-fast parts are still the same - heads/intake/cam/blower/N20
are still applicable to computer controlled engines. It's just more
difficult to get the computer to make the engine run optimally after
making those types of changes, which is part of the fun.
<<big ass snip>>
Jim
--
1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
1987 Buick Grand National - Injured but Recovering
http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
REBUILDABLE WRECKS: http://home.att.net/~jstoltz/muellers.html
CobraJet
In article <6bvqo4$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, jst...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
> CobraJet wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
> > There is another not-so-subtle point that ties into all this. The
> > relative simplicity of the old musclecars allowed most of us to become
> > intimate with the workings of an internal combustion engine, and it was
> > cost effective to do so (my first intake cost me $49.95, 10 bucks less than
> > the new Holley perched on it!). I had a good time learning how to change
> > cams, clutches, and rear gears by myself in just a few hours. More
> > importantly, I learned how to fine-tune. I knew how to manipulate carb
> > squirters and pump cams, change distributor curves, and re-adjust valve
> > lash to get every last little horsepower. I used to re-jet with every
> > weather change and swap in colder plugs before a race. Races were won or
> > lost by what you knew more than what hardware you had. It was (still is)
> > very gratifying to get results by getting my hands dirty. Somehow, bumping
> > up the timing and letting the computer do the rest is just no challenge.
> > Tuning with a laptop is too easy. What's next, verbal command tuning? You
> > bet! VRT is on the way! Oh boy...
> >
>
> I wouldn't be so hasty to make that judgement. I recently soldmy '67 GTO
in favor
> of the '88 GT, and just picked up an '87
> Grand National. In order to safely and effectively modify these
> computer controlled cars, you not only have to have a very good
> understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, but
> how each modification is going to affect which sensor and how.
> You still have to get your hands dirty to modify these cars, it's
> not just plug the laptop in, tweak, and go. I spent a helluva lot
> less time under the hood of the GTO than the Mustang. To me
> changing jets on the Holley is no different than swapping injectors,
> or modifying the duty cycle. The laptop is a good monitoring tool,
> but the modifications are still made under the hood - engines are
> still big air pumps. I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of the GN,
> as the interface to plug the GM computer into a laptop is cheap
> and readily available - not so with Ford. I still pull plugs to see
> what's going on in each cylinder, and all the old tricks still work -
> headers, free-flowing exhaust, free-flowing air cleaner. All the
> go-fast parts are still the same - heads/intake/cam/blower/N20
> are still applicable to computer controlled engines. It's just more
> difficult to get the computer to make the engine run optimally after
> making those types of changes, which is part of the fun.
Well Jim, you kinda of re-made my point for me. The reason you are not
intimidated by the newer (your cars are "older" newer at this point)
machinery is because you cut your teeth on the GTO and whatever else you
may have had before. You learned on the simpler stuff, just like me. If I
were to buy a brand new car would I be nervous about working on it? Not a
chance. Would I still prefer to mess with the 60's iron? You bet!
Now let's take the MAJORITY of younger people entering into ownership of
late-model cars. Better yet, let me cite you typical examples I ran into in
my alarm/stereo shop. Said typical young guy comes in for stuff I sell with
3-6 year old Mustang/Camaro he just bought. He takes a look at some of my
old cars (can't figure out what they are, of course) and starts talking
horsepower. Oh yeah, he reads the magazines and can recite
K&N,B303,Vortech,NOS, etc. But can he do all this himself and make it work?
98% of the time, no. 98% of the time he doesn't even have a decent set of
tools. He has to pay someone else. You can bet the other two percent have
learned something from dad or somebody. Many of the two-percenters have
gotten smart and started their own shops.
Hasty judgements? I have spent years observing the evolution. The
voluminous opinions I have "injected" (DGI - Direct Group Injection?) here
are not knee-jerk reactions. I'm sorry you see them that way.
BTW, while you're having fun wrestling with your car's computer I'll be
disappearing into the sunset. It's something we do....
CobraJet
>
> <<big ass snip>>
>
> Jim
> --
> 1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
> 1987 Buick Grand National - Injured but Recovering
> http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
> REBUILDABLE WRECKS: http://home.att.net/~jstoltz/muellers.html
.
TFrog93
In article <blueoval-ya0240800...@news.primenet.com>,
blue...@rules.com (CobraJet) writes:
>>In article<19980212073...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>>noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
> (SNIPPOLA)
>
>>>Eventually it all slowly disappeared.
>
>> For a while it did, but now it has reappeared and evolved. Some modified
>>street cars today are deadly fast with todays technology! Sophisticated NOS
>>systems, drag radials, easy bolt on S/Cs, turbos running huge amounts of
>>boost, extrude honing, ect.
>
>This paragraph illustrates a subtle point that I have failed miserably
>to make. It has gotten too EASY to go fast with today's technology. You can
>spend thousands of dollars adding on this stuff you listed (Oh yes I know
>all about newtech from the standpoint of reading about it every month), and
>you are still no faster than the next guy doing the same thing. What has
>happened is that the cost of being competitive on the street has escalated
>too far. This similar to the pro ranks, where many of the "little guys"
>have dropped out because they can't afford the up-to-the-minute parts it
>takes to be competitive.
Analogy (correct me if I'm wrong): In the 60s and 70s, billing was done by
hand, with invoices written out, and addition done on clanking old machines
resembling one-armed bandits. The best of the best would add long strings of
numbers in their heads at lightning quick speeds. Fast forward to 1998 -
billing is now done by data entry on expensive, very quick computers. The
computer does all calculations at lightning quick speeds, and prints out
professional, clear invoices. Factor in the time it takes to boot up the
system and printer, and it takes as long today to generate an invoice as it did
back then. HOWEVER, the product (invoice) today looks 100% more professional.
Today's high-tech "muscle cars" differ from yesterday's in one important regard
- whereas before, Ford listed almost enough options to make every new Mustang a
unique entity, we now must turn to the aftermarket for options. Ford's
cost-cutting measures have resulted in fewer and fewer options, so that today's
Mustangs differ only in interior/exterior colors. Virtually all Mustangs GTs
are constructed with the same menu. Today, we have only three engine options.
In the early 70s, there were...how many? Lots. I remember the experience of
ordering a new Ford, going over the extensive list of available options and
ordering a car "just for me". Now, in order to stand out from the crowd, you
turn to the huge, sprawling aftermarket for everything from wings to rollbars,
wheels to body kits.
>How many would-be enthusiasts are not in the modern version of our
>hobby because of this? A lot, including me. In the old days almost anyone
>could afford to have a reasonably fast car. Today it seems that a good number
>of guys would rather put their money into a bumpin' stereo instead. There
>is another not-so-subtle point that ties into all this. The relative
>simplicity of the old musclecars allowed most of us to become intimate with
>the workings of an internal combustion engine, and it was cost effective to
>do so (my first intake cost me $49.95, 10 bucks less than the new Holley
>perched on it!). I had a good time learning how to change cams, clutches, and
>rear gears by myself in just a few hours. More importantly, I learned how to
>fine-tune. I knew how to manipulate carb squirters and pump cams, change
>distributor curves, and re-adjust valve lash to get every last little
>horsepower. I used to re-jet with every weather change and swap in colder
>plugs before a race. Races were won or lost by what you knew more than what
>hardware you had. It was (still is) very gratifying to get results by getting
>my hands dirty. Somehow, bumping up the timing and letting the computer do
>the rest is just no challenge. Tuning with a laptop is too easy. What's next,
>verbal command tuning? You bet! VRT is on the way! Oh boy...
Come on now, you're not THAT old! My very first car, the 1974 Pinto, was so
mechanically simple that even a mechanical-moron like me could find
satisfaction in changing plugs, fuel filters, hoses, etc. When you opened the
hood on that mighty four-cylinder engine, everything was RIGHT THERE, and there
was plenty of room under the hood to maneuver.
But times change... There are a lot of changes made to the American V8 engines
that were NOT through Ford's wishes. So much regulation and legislation has
been passed since 1973 (the acknowledged turning point, the year of OPEC), that
today's engines have to do that much more than older ones. As Patrick is fond
of pointing out, they have to put out copious amounts of power, while STILL
maintaining zero-pollution standards, high-mileage standards, low noise
standards (air intake SILENCER, for god's sake???), etc etc etc. The Big Three
have continuously incorporated legislated changes into their V8 engines, while
struggling to keep power output on par. THE DAY WILL COME when our "gas
guzzling", "oil burning" American V8s are looked upon with disgust (like, for
instance, cigarette smoking), and you, me, Patrick and everybody else here
become dinosaurs. Times change.
( major snip )
>What have we lost? Variety! (I blame much of it on this stupid SUV trend).
We
>are down to a handful of performance cars. The 60s and early 70s had so many
>brands, models, options, trim packages, and the engines changed nearly every
>year. You never knew if the guy had a 390 or 428, 383, 440 or 426, or a 283,
327,
>or 350 without looking for badges.
(As addressed above...) My boss, knowing what a Mustang freak I am, game me a
1972 Ford price list that he'd found at home. This lists all models, all
available options and packages, and prices. One day, I'll have to scan it and
upload it to my web page. It's "priceless", and a real blast-from-the-past for
those who grew up in the 1980s. But remember that, other than the Beetles and
MGs, almost all cars were made by the Big Three, so they themselves had to
offer multitudinous options. Every buyer wanted to feel that his car was
somehow "different", and there were only three companies to choose from, so....
>There's something else we as a country have lost. Brand loyalty. The very
>same thing you have called "blinders", Patrick. Picture this: There was no
>Arab oil embargo in the Seventies. There was no need for America to open
>its doors to a Datsun/Toyota economy car invasion. There was no mass
>desertion by the American people who flocked to import showrooms to
>purchase vehicles they incorrectly deemed superior to ours. Imagine
>Americans today instead buying only American cars in the huge per capita
>numbers that they did in the 60's. Would we have variety still? You bet -
>the Big Ones could and would provide what the loyal consumers want
>instead of throwing us the Mustang/F-body bones while they concentrate on
>the "World Market".
I disagree, and strongly. Americans did not lose "brand loyalty" (as is
evidenced by so much here and in AOL Car Chat rooms....the term "jap crap" is
ubiquitous, even now, 25 years after the great invasion). The Big Three turned
a blind eye to what was going on in the world, and continued to pump out the
same old American iron. For better or worse, the world changed dramatically in
1973 and the Big Three did not know how to deal with it. The Japanese/German
invasion got a foothold on these shores with one priority - fuel mileage. (I
sat in those lines at the gas stations in 1973 and again in 1978. I do not
forget, and I am always thinking that another fuel crisis, real or imagined,
could come tomorrow.) The original Honda Civic was a joke, except that it got
tremendous mileage. When Detroit finally woke up to what was happening and
started offering smaller, more efficient cars, the imports upped the ante
through "build quality", a phrase that had never been uttered in Michigan.
(Remember the horror stories, about not buying an American car built on a
Monday or Friday? That was reality.) Detroit lagged behind the imports in
what was now "important" for a good decade or more. They sent execs over to
Japanese auto plants to study their methods; the Americans actually LEARNED
from the Japanese (imagine that), then brought that knowledge back and built
better and better cars. It was not just "opinion" that Japanese cars were
built better, it was TRUTH. It's very funny to me that, now that the Americans
have caught the Japanese on "build quality", the Americans and Japanese are now
in bed with each other! Things change? Forget your quaint, patriotic,
centrist "American" thinking. We truly are engaged in a global economy now,
and national boundaries are blurred by the almighty Dollar. I like to point
out that my Mustang, still built in Dearborn, was made of 94% American parts,
but what does it mean? The Asian stock markets wobble, and I still feel it in
my 401K. We're all one big, dysfunctional family now, whether you like it or
not!
>Herein lies the distinction between how I see imports/new cars and how
>you think I see them. I don't look at them and think "what junk - my cars
>are better". I know some of them are fast and handle and all that. What I
>see in the imports is the demise of the "Great American Car Era" (the SUV
>thing is too recent to blame for much).
That day has come and gone. Ford/Mazda, Mercury/Nissan/KIA, GM/Toyota/GEO,
etc. Where do the American cars end, and where do imports begin? Honda buys
SUVs from Suzuki, Mazda buys light pickups from Ford, Mercury and Nissan
jointly develop a minivan. Toyotas and Chevies come off the same damn assembly
line! The "American Car" is gone; a thing of the past. The world has moved
on, and we must move with it.
>What upsets me about domestics is exactly the lack of variety you have
>mentioned. I don't dislike late models. I only wish there were more to choose
>from (whatever happened to the 5.8 powered T-Bird/Cougar so many of us
>"intermediate" people were poised to buy?). Doesn't it get just a little old
opening
>up MM&FF magazine and seeing page after page of basically the same car with
>different add-ons? What worries me is the younger crowd who is slowly
>considering the '60's about as relevant and interesting as World War 1.
Without
>the existence of those old musclecars I dare think that we would be all
driving
>little econo-thrashers like most of the rest of the world (We are getting
there
>anyway.) I know you still like old cars, but I can't tell you how many "car"
people
>I've talked to at my old shop who are clueless.
Stop thinking nationally, and start thinking globally. Sure, your choices are
much narrower, if you concentrate solely on American products. But, when you
take into account the entire spectrum of imported product readily available to
you, your choice in a set of new wheels is virtually unlimited. I, myself,
have a choice of ONE for my next car...a Mustang Cobra. How's THAT for limited
options? Every year, I go to the big Auto Show in Philadelphia, to keep up
with what's going on in the industry. I actually LIKE to look at new Hondas
(heads-up displays, video-screen rearview, still no engine), Chryslers,
exotics, etc, but when it comes time to BUY, my money goes to the Ford dealer.
Still, it's nice to know that I can drop by the local auto mall and have my
pick from fifty different badges... And don't worry too much about the
youngsters forgetting the great steel from the 60s and 70s. Any AOLer can
attest that their Chat Rooms are crammed with people claiming to own MOPARs,
late-60s Camaros, and every kind of Mustang built between 1967 and 1973. (In
fact, there are more people in AOL Chat Rooms "claiming" to own these cars than
the number of these cars actually built!) The classics are still generally
viewed as the most desirable and collectible cars on the planet. (At least, in
our circles.) Any good car show will have a number of these muscle-cars
present, and they're the ones that get the attention, not the 1997 Cobra with
the Saleen wing and Cobra-R wheels..... And, no, THIS driver will NOT be
putting around in some little econo-clean-air-minibox. I'll be driving my '93
LX for as long as gasoline is available.
Okay. So, after the first question was raised as to whether this group should
be split into two parts (Classic and Late Model), I announced a FLAME WAR and
proceeded to call the classics "crap" - build quality strictly, but crap
nonetheless. Like you, I am in my mid-40s and have lived through the great
times, the bleak times, and the resurrection of great times in the automotive
field. As much as I love and appreciate the old steel, I still maintain that
the late 1990s is a Great Time to Be Alive! Consider this - assume a new oil
crisis in the year 2003, and another 20-year period to recover. In 2023, young
guys will see this ancient mariner cruising the streets in his restored 1993
Mustang 5.0, and they'll stare and point, saying "they don't make 'em like THAT
anymore!"
We've all lived through INCREDIBLE changes in the past years, and the changes
are accelerating in pace. Feel free to get off at any point; if the ultimate
in auto manufacturing was the 1968 CobraJet, then that's fine. If you believe
that the finest Mustang ever built was the 1998 Cobra, with more and better
Mustangs to come, then that's fine. Bottom line - to split up this group, to
segregate the two sides, would be nothing short of utter nonsense. This
dialogue, which covers all 35 years of Mustangs, is far too satisfying and
worthwhile.
Is there ANY year or model of Mustang that you can honestly say you "hate"?
dwight
NoOption5L
> This paragraph illustrates a subtle point that I have failed miserably
>to make. It has gotten too EASY to go fast with today's technology.
Going fast made easy...I love the sound of that!
>You can
>spend thousands of dollars adding on this stuff you listed (Oh yes I know
>all about newtech from the standpoint of reading about it every month), and
>you are still no faster than the next guy doing the same thing.
Sounds like NHRA drag racing. Faster and faster but the racing is still close.
>What has
>happened is that the cost of being competitive on the street has escalated
>too far. This similar to the pro ranks, where many of the "little guys"
>have dropped out because they can't afford the up-to-the-minute parts it
>takes to be competitive.
I agree, the cost has escalated, but then the guys in the 40s said the
same thing about the 50's rides, and the guys in the 50's said the same
thing about the 60's rides, and so on...
>How many would-be enthusiasts are not in the modern version of our hobby
>because of this? A lot, including me.
Including you? The owner of how many cars?...and your saying you
can't afford to mod a new car?
>In the old days almost anyone could afford to have a reasonably fast car.
Today >it seems that a good number of
>guys would rather put their money into a bumpin' stereo instead.
The same type of guys appear in every generation.
>There is another not-so-subtle point that ties into all this. The
>relative simplicity of the old musclecars allowed most of us to become
>intimate with the workings of an internal combustion engine, and it was
>cost effective to do so (my first intake cost me $49.95, 10 bucks less than
>the new Holley perched on it!).
Yea, you can't even buy bubble gum for a penny, or a BIG candy bar for
15/20 cents anymore.
>I had a good time learning how to change
>cams, clutches, and rear gears by myself in just a few hours. More
>importantly, I learned how to fine-tune. I knew how to manipulate carb
>squirters and pump cams, change distributor curves, and re-adjust valve
>lash to get every last little horsepower.
*The more things change the more they stay the same. ???*
The internal combustion engine operates the same way in the new cars...air
in, air out. The new hotrodder is still switching gears, changing cams,
swapping heads, and bolting on headers and exhaust. But now, the new hotrodder
is manipulating the computer (with chips), and instead adjusting carb squirters
they're adjusting TPSs.
>I used to re-jet with every
>weather change and swap in colder plugs before a race.
Personally, I rather be driving.
>Races were won or
>lost by what you knew more than what hardware you had. It was (still is)
Your right, it still is! Ask any late model owner. "How come we both have the
same parts, but his car runs a 1/2 second quicker than mine?"
>very gratifying to get results by getting my hands dirty.
We're still getting dirty!
>Somehow, bumping
>up the timing and letting the computer do the rest is just no challenge.
I enjoy working on cars, but I enjoy driving them MUCH more. And if a
computer allows me to be more driver more than mechanic...you won't see
me upset.
>>Tuning with a laptop is too easy. What's next, verbal command tuning? You
>>bet! VRT is on the way! Oh boy...
>>> I can never "get it
>>>out of my system". The looks, sounds and feel of those cars cannot be
>>>replaced by anything made today, no matter how fast, high-tech, or comfy.
>>Your right about the looks and sounds, but the feel is the G-force "push
>>in the back." It's still there in the new ones.
> Yeah, I know. I've driven them. I feel less claustrophobic slithering
>under my house with new phone line. (Slithering is something all good Cobra
>owners should know how to do).
Claustrophobic? Then buy a newer Impala SS.
>> Look at it this way, the new Viper GTS is a match for a 427 Cobra. The LS1
>> F-bodies are more than a match against the older BB Camaros, and the Cobra
>> will out run most of the classic Mustangs. And now we also have speed parts
>> vastly superior to the 60-70 offerings.
> Truly one thing I can never argue is the effect that modern technology
>and the present aftermarket have had on creating superior retrofit parts.
>Just the selection of small-block heads alone is mind-boggling. The rest of
>the list is too long and obvious to bother with here.
>> What have we lost? Variety! (I blame much of it on this stupid SUV trend).
>> We are down to a handful of performance cars. The 60s and early 70s
>> had so many brands, models, options, trim packages, and the engines
>> changed nearly every year. You never knew if the guy had a 390 or 428,
>> 383, 440 or 426, or a 283, 327, or 350 without looking for badges.
> There's something else we as a country have lost. Brand loyalty.
Forget brand loyalty! Brand loyalty is for fools (Please, don't take it as a
personal flame)! If a company doesn't meet my needs and wants...I'm gone!
I will not continue to throw money at them for product(s) I don't want...and
then waiting and hoping they decide to build the product(s) I do want. Besides
our economy is based on the who ever builds the best for the cheapest sells
the most.
>The very
>same thing you have called "blinders", Patrick. Picture this: There was no
>Arab oil embargo in the Seventies. There was no need for America to open
>its doors to a Datsun/Toyota economy car invasion. There was no mass
>desertion by the American people who flocked to import showrooms to
>purchase vehicles they incorrectly deemed superior to ours.
American car quaility in the 70s and early 80's...Sorry, I can't find a more
fitting
adjective...SUCKED!
>Imagine
>Americans today instead buying only American cars in the huge per capita
>numbers that they did in the 60's. Would we have variety still?
Personally, I think we would of had a big variety of junk.
>You bet -
>the Big Ones could and would provide what the loyal consumers want instead
>of throwing us the Mustang/F-body bones while they concentrate on the
>"World Market".
World market? I think they are more interested in the trendy,
high profit, SUV market.
> Herein lies the distinction between how I see imports/new cars and how
>you think I see them. I don't look at them and think "what junk - my cars
>are better". I know some of them are fast and handle and all that. What I
>see in the imports is the demise of the "Great American Car Era"
I think the American auto manufactures need the competition to keep them
from getting fat and lazy..."Your new Ford/GM/Mopar car is giving you
problems?" ...ohh well, your "brand loyal" you'll be back.
>(the SUV
>thing is too recent to blame for much).
But, when is it going to end. Wouldn't be so bad if they were all like the
Syclones, SS454s, and Lil' Red Pickups.
>What upsets me about domestics is
>exactly the lack of variety you have mentioned. I don't dislike late
>models. I only wish there were more to choose from (whatever happened to
>the 5.8 powered T-Bird/Cougar so many of us "intermediate" people were
>poised to by?). Doesn't it get just a little old opening up MM&FF magazine
>and seeing page after page of basically the same car with different
>add-ons?
YES!
>What worries me is the younger crowd who is slowly considering the
>'60's about as relevant and interesting as World War 1. Without the
>existence of those old musclecars I dare think that we would be all driving
>little econo-thrashers like most of the rest of the world (We are getting
>there anyway.) I know you still like old cars, but I can't tell you how
>many "car" people I've talked to at my old shop who are clueless.
Hell, most people NEVER read their owner's manual.
>>>I have been in a car business for 20 years and have driven almost anything
>> >you can name. I have had a lot of good things to say about many of them,
>> >but I just could not own any of them. Being committed to a certain type of
>> >vehicle isn't tunnel vision; its just a matter of preference...
>
>> Everyone has their preferences, and I respect yours, but it seemed that you
>> were trying to discredit the new cars. To me, the new ones are as appealing
>> as the "classics." Both have pros and cons, but *I* think the newer ones
have
>> more pros. Face it, don't you wish your "classics" had a 5 or 6 speed
trans,
>> rack and pinion, four wheel discs, electronic ignition, multiport F/I and
>pull
>> over .8gs in the turns. True, it would ruin the crudeness or rawness
appeal,
>> but think of the added overall performance and fun factor.
> Discredit? No, covered above. Do I wish my Classics had all that stuff?
>Honestly, no.
C'mon, if the '68 428 Mustang would have been offered with a 5 speed trans
would you have opted for a four speed model. ???
>Then they wouldn't be what they are: automotive history.
>(What you call crude we call elegantly simple.
I said "crude APPEAL." I love simple!...remember my car is stripped of all,
but the essentials.
> What you call high-tech we
>call unnecessarily complicated. Even if we agree that new and old cars are
>equally fast, we sure did it far easier back then, didn't we?)
You said it was more challenging, but I get your point.
*The only constant in life is change.*
Hey, I also wish every new car was RWD and had a big inch V8, but times
have changed. We now have many more cars on the road, and F/I and
catalytic converters need to be in place if we want to be able to enjoy our
planet. I hope you don't label me as a "enviromental wacko", just because
I think the enviroment is more important than our toys. But, I have seen the
effects of no emission control devices when I lived in Turkey (very low
industry) for two years. It's not pretty! And I was able to expirence
the effects again this last summer when I returned home to Michigan for my
cities "cruise night" (BTW my brain child) Ton's of "classic" musclecars
lined the street. Above us SMOG! You could see, smell, and almost taste the
haze. It was awesome to see and HEAR the cars, but I wouldn't want to live with
the haze day in and out.
>If I took my
>factory hi-po cars and added that equipment they wouldn't be worth shit
>compared to their present value. Oh sure I might take advantage of
>"invisible" upgrades here and there, but I'll keep my 4-speeds and
>points-style ignition, thank you. There's a hell of a lot of performance
>and fun already there, remember?
>(I don't need extra gears to do 140mph. Cubic inches will overcome road drag.)
My five liter with stock gears will run as fast top end in forth as it will in
fifth.
And I love overdrive...saves the valve springs for racing, not for bouncing
off the redline cruising down the highway.
>No sense screwing with my
>"retirement" collection! Now would I build up a NON-hi-po car? (See the
>difference?) I'm considering that with my '67 Cougar, originally a 289- 2V.
>Until then, I'm comfy in my '86 Cougar daily driver (surprise!). Actually,
>I'm starting to take a hard look at the new Dodge Dakota R/T 360...
Yea, I GOT to go test drive one of those!
> Performance cars are like a family to me. Don't insult my father
> (early musclecars) and don't insult my son (late model musclecars) because
> I will defend the honor of both!
> Hmmm, wait a minute that makes me a mid/late 70s model. Damn that
> SUCKS!!!
>True. They make good sleepers, though. Did I ever tell you about my
>friend with the 351W/4-spd/4.11 in a silver '77 Granada......... >
A sleeper? Ohh, you got to tell me about it!
> >'63 Galaxie 390
> < **A JEALOUS SNIP**>
> >'70 Plymouth Road Runner 440+6 Air Grabber
> >and a '73 Mustang coupe 429 PI (bracket car to be)
>
> > ...still got a few left to find...
> .
> You know, <shaking my head> I was really stating to like you until I saw the
> long list of the cars you own. You LLLUCKY SON OF B*TCH!!!
> That's MISTER Lucky Sonofa Bitch. I am over 40.
You don't have me by much "Mister." <*hint* my daughter is 13>
>> Opps, sorry about the language! Really, I'm sorry! Please, forgive me!
>> C'mon you won't hold that little outburst against me when I apply to be your
>> chauffeur......will you?
> How can you get "chauffeur" right and misspell "oops"? Patrick, Patrick!
<shrug> Fat fingers ???
NoOption5L
Subject: Don't Split Group - Havin' Too Much Fun! (long)
From: tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93)
Date: 13 Feb 1998 02:05:46 GMT
I wanted to snip this, but it's to good! Excellent post...AGAIN tfrog!
dwight, look at the similarities between this post, and the one I
sent earlier tonight...scary!
( major snip )
dwight
Patrick
TFrog93
In article <19980213063...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, noopt...@aol.com
(NoOption5L) writes:
>I wanted to snip this, but it's to good! Excellent post...AGAIN
>tfrog! dwight, look at the similarities between this post, and the one I sent
>earlier tonight...scary!
Too kind, Patrick. Thank you.
I read your post under the other heading, and you're right! You must be as
f*ing brilliant as I am! Very much the same post....except that MY daughter is
15.
(And, no, I will not repost the entire thing again. When I was done with it, I
added the word "long" to the header as a warning. It was.)
Oh, and BTW... After that post, I stopped by one of the Car Chat rooms and
posted a little survey - What would you rather own?
1968 CobraJet or 1998 Cobra
1968 Camaro SS or 1998 Camaro Z28
1968 Barracuda or 1998 Chrysler Stratus (Cirrus? Breeze?)
In two out of three cases, the replies were unanimous - the old steel was still
the favorite. And, remember, AOL Chat Rooms are dominated by very young
people. So, the feeling that today's drivers will "forget" about the classics
from that era is wrong. The classics are still considered to be the pinnacle
of automotive performance (rightly or not).
dwight
'93 LX 5.0 hatchback
(still wish I coulda bought the "trunk", though...)
Jim Stoltz
CobraJet wrote:
> > I wouldn't be so hasty to make that judgement. I recently soldmy '67 GTO
> in favor
> > of the '88 GT, and just picked up an '87
> > Grand National. In order to safely and effectively modify these
> > computer controlled cars, you not only have to have a very good
> > understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, but
> > how each modification is going to affect which sensor and how.
> > You still have to get your hands dirty to modify these cars, it's
> > not just plug the laptop in, tweak, and go. I spent a helluva lot
> > less time under the hood of the GTO than the Mustang. To me
> > changing jets on the Holley is no different than swapping injectors,
> > or modifying the duty cycle. The laptop is a good monitoring tool,
> > but the modifications are still made under the hood - engines are
> > still big air pumps. I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of the GN,
> > as the interface to plug the GM computer into a laptop is cheap
> > and readily available - not so with Ford. I still pull plugs to see
> > what's going on in each cylinder, and all the old tricks still work -
> > headers, free-flowing exhaust, free-flowing air cleaner. All the
> > go-fast parts are still the same - heads/intake/cam/blower/N20
> > are still applicable to computer controlled engines. It's just more
> > difficult to get the computer to make the engine run optimally after
> > making those types of changes, which is part of the fun.
>
> Well Jim, you kinda of re-made my point for me. The reason you are not
The intent wasn't to refute your points, just offer another perspective. Ididn't
comment on the rest of your post because it was 100% true, IMO.
> intimidated by the newer (your cars are "older" newer at this point)
> machinery is because you cut your teeth on the GTO and whatever else you
> may have had before. You learned on the simpler stuff, just like me. If I
> were to buy a brand new car would I be nervous about working on it? Not a
> chance. Would I still prefer to mess with the 60's iron? You bet!
> Now let's take the MAJORITY of younger people entering into ownership of
> late-model cars. Better yet, let me cite you typical examples I ran into in
> my alarm/stereo shop. Said typical young guy comes in for stuff I sell with
> 3-6 year old Mustang/Camaro he just bought. He takes a look at some of my
> old cars (can't figure out what they are, of course) and starts talking
> horsepower. Oh yeah, he reads the magazines and can recite
> K&N,B303,Vortech,NOS, etc. But can he do all this himself and make it work?
> 98% of the time, no. 98% of the time he doesn't even have a decent set of
> tools. He has to pay someone else. You can bet the other two percent have
> learned something from dad or somebody. Many of the two-percenters have
> gotten smart and started their own shops.
> Hasty judgements? I have spent years observing the evolution. The
> voluminous opinions I have "injected" (DGI - Direct Group Injection?) here
> are not knee-jerk reactions. I'm sorry you see them that way.
> BTW, while you're having fun wrestling with your car's computer I'll be
> disappearing into the sunset. It's something we do....
>
> CobraJet
>
Maybe "hasty" was hasty :). I didn't mean to imply your commentswere without
basis. I guess I'm the exception to the rule. I found
the GTO impractical, and the newer (not new anymore, gawd am
I getting OLD?) stuff will go just as quick more comfortably. I
learned from my dad, an old dragracer and gear head. There are
still lots of old Pontiacs, Chevys, and a Buick here and there in my
family. I'm the black sheep, I was the first (even among my older
uncles) to succumb to the temptation of EFI (and to own a F*rd
for that matter). Some day, when I have room, and a bigger budget,
I'll have another Goat. Until then, my EFI cars get me where I'm
going, and are a blast to run at the track on the weekends. Yeah,
it's tough to do it within the realm of NJ's emissions laws, through
catalytic convertors, and with a computer resisting you all the time,
but that makes it all that more satisfying when you pick up that
timeslip at the end of a run - and the cruise home without having
to stop for gas.
CobraJet
Boy, these replies and threads can go forever, can't they? One thing is
evident in these discussions: car people have got to be the most
opinionated SOB's around (who, me?)! What's interesting is that even though
our outlooks overlap and differ on some topics, and we all learn new things
every day, our own individually defined preferences and automotive
idiosyncrasies remain pretty much unchanged. Speaking for myself, although
some of you have brought up valid and logical arguments for your views, my
philosophy and attitude about the older/newer/import stuff really hasn't
been altered much. How many of you have honestly undergone major changes in
opinion because of what others have said? I suppose that really isn't the
purpose here, anyway.
I originally got into these groups to see if I could find a core of
musclecar restorers with whom I could trade parts info, statistics, and
resto techniques. It seems that in general (some exceptions) that these
individuals are not to be found where I am looking. Even though some of the
banter exchanged has been heated at times and entertaining at others, I
truly think there exists a need for a pre-80's-only resto NG. This way
others with my interests can spend less time arguing and more time
exchanging info. Also, I think it would be fun to track people's car
building progress with some pictures. (Maybe more of those unfinished
projects would get going if you knew your fellow enthusiasts were
interested!) A cross-marque group would be able to provide info for somone
considering tackling an unfamiliar type of car.
While I am considering starting a new group like this, two major issues
surface. One, can I find enough willing participants who can keep focused
on the main idea and not get sidetracked into unrelated arguments? Two, how
much time am I willing to trade off being on the internet instead of
actually working on my cars? The former question can only be answered by
actually starting a group, I suppose. The latter is tougher. This house I
just bought has a custom 1200 square foot raised ceiling garage that is
just begging to be turned into a resto shop as soon as I am done building
the 24-vehicle "enclosed car port" that I am messing with now. Oh well,
something I have to work out, I guess.
Speaking of decisions, tomorrow (Sat 14th) I get to figure out if I
should: a) slap a $10,000 down payment on a Dakota R/T, b) start building
up a healthy 5.8L engine to replace the dying putt-putt in my daily-flogger
'86 cougar, or c) go check out this stroked SOHC motor that someone I know
is selling (no,it ain't a 4.6). I fear I may already know the answer...
Any feedback on the alt.musclecar.pre1980 idea is appreciated. Thanks for
listening.
CobraJet
.
CobraJet
In article <6c2jnk$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, jst...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>
> Maybe "hasty" was hasty :). I didn't mean to imply your commentswere without
> basis. I guess I'm the exception to the rule. I found
> the GTO impractical, and the newer (not new anymore, gawd am
> I getting OLD?) stuff will go just as quick more comfortably. I
> learned from my dad, an old dragracer and gear head. There are
> still lots of old Pontiacs, Chevys, and a Buick here and there in my
> family. I'm the black sheep, I was the first (even among my older
> uncles) to succumb to the temptation of EFI (and to own a F*rd
> for that matter). Some day, when I have room, and a bigger budget,
> I'll have another Goat. Until then, my EFI cars get me where I'm
> going, and are a blast to run at the track on the weekends. Yeah,
> it's tough to do it within the realm of NJ's emissions laws, through
> catalytic convertors, and with a computer resisting you all the time,
> but that makes it all that more satisfying when you pick up that
> timeslip at the end of a run - and the cruise home without having
> to stop for gas.
See, I knew there was old-style high-performance in your family genes!
You bring up a good point about the new cars being able to pack a punch
and still be able to commute in comfort. What happened to me and several of
my friends in the "old days" is this: There would always come a point in
building up our cars where any additional power would significantly reduce
the daily driveability. One by one we bought separate cars for
transportation use, and the build-ups continued on our musclecars. In 1978
I went from driving a 12.5 sec 455-powered Olds 4-4-2 (still got it) every
day to a new 2.3 Liter Ford Courier. Talk about withdrawal pains! Going
from 6mpg to 24mpg was OK, but I "knew" I could outrun that 4-banger on
foot.
Anyway, a curious thing started to happen after a while. I got used to
driving a slow car during the day, and taking the Olds out got to be much
more exciting than before. In 1986 I sold the Courier and went to look at
new Mustangs. I came real close to buying a blue 5.0 trunk car when I came
to my senses. I knew what would happen if I had that car: bolt-on mania!
Instead I bought a two-tone 86 Cougar with a 19 sec 3.8 and power
everything. It fit my sales rep job and continued to keep me out of trouble
with the law. (Poor cops at the local jail had to finally remove my bronze
name plate from Cell 14). My "treat" for being such a good boy was to jump
into a CJ car at night and have at it.
Today I still practice this Jeckyll and Hyde stuff with my now-tired
Cougar. I entertain the idea of a 5.8 swap, but I know I cannot keep my
foot out of it if I kept it as a daily driver. It seems that many of the
others in this group have the same problem. I haven't had a moving
violation in 19 1/2 years, and I guess I'll probably continue this tactic
for a while.
I read with amusement how many people with Mustangs and F-cars get
"razzed" by other drivers with slower cars. I get this all the time in my
6-banger Cougar from the day I swapped the original whitewalls to 60-series
tires on Mustang alloys. It's calming to know I don't have enough power to
be able to actually pay attention to these dorks. Geez, half of them are
driving imports! (Let's see, if I put on Cobra wheels, Cobra badges, and a
Cobra spoiler, could I be the world's only 40-something Mercury Riceboy?!).
CobraJet
>
> Jim
> --
> 1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
> 1987 Buick Grand National - Injured but Recovering
> http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
> REBUILDABLE WRECKS: http://home.att.net/~jstoltz/muellers.html
.
ASmall9494
> (Let's see, if I put on Cobra wheels, Cobra badges, and a
>Cobra spoiler, could I be the world's only 40-something Mercury Riceboy?!).
>
>
CJ,
You don't mind if I abbreviate, do you? If you really want to rice out you
should stick to the approved Type R and VTEC stickers. Otherwise you just
might be another fake snaker. I saw a riced 200SX today complete with yellow
type R stickers on a red car. It also had powered by Nissan stickers. If you
really want to rice out be sure and install that powered by mercury decal.
riored97cobra#301
Jim Stoltz
CobraJet wrote:
> <<snip>>
> Anyway, a curious thing started to happen after a while. I got used to
> driving a slow car during the day, and taking the Olds out got to be much
> more exciting than before. In 1986 I sold the Courier and went to look at
> new Mustangs. I came real close to buying a blue 5.0 trunk car when I came
> to my senses. I knew what would happen if I had that car: bolt-on mania!
> Instead I bought a two-tone 86 Cougar with a 19 sec 3.8 and power
> everything. It fit my sales rep job and continued to keep me out of trouble
> with the law. (Poor cops at the local jail had to finally remove my bronze
> name plate from Cell 14). My "treat" for being such a good boy was to jump
> into a CJ car at night and have at it.
> Today I still practice this Jeckyll and Hyde stuff with my now-tired
> Cougar. I entertain the idea of a 5.8 swap, but I know I cannot keep my
> foot out of it if I kept it as a daily driver. It seems that many of the
> others in this group have the same problem. I haven't had a moving
> violation in 19 1/2 years, and I guess I'll probably continue this tactic
> for a while.
I have a 19 sec '85 T-Bird 3.8 and go through the same debateswith myself. A 5.0
EFI would fit nicely in there (a 5.8 is out of
the question, though I'd love a carb'd motor in it - NJ sniffer
laws, again). But, it's my daily driver and it would be impossible
to "drive like a normal human being" (something my wife says
a lot). I don't think the emissions laws are going to get any
easier to deal with, and it's a damn shame what states like
California are doing to the hobby. The fact that I don't
own a 25+ year-old car at the moment is just a coincidence,
I buy and sell a lot of cars and I like to support the hobby. Not
only to old car owners have to beware, it's the not THAT old
old car owners that have to watch out. Cars that are neat to
own and modify, but aren't the obvious classics the 25+ year
old cars have become. So the title of the thread says "Split
Group", but regardless of our preferences ('86+ EFI or
carbs), the government (backed by big polluters) is trying to
make it difficult to own and drive our cars. 5.0 owners are
probably in bigger danger than the folks with really old cars.
The newest 5.0 is almost 4 years old already....
Jim
> I read with amusement how many people with Mustangs and F-cars get
> "razzed" by other drivers with slower cars. I get this all the time in my
> 6-banger Cougar from the day I swapped the original whitewalls to 60-series
> tires on Mustang alloys. It's calming to know I don't have enough power to
> be able to actually pay attention to these dorks. Geez, half of them are
> driving imports! (Let's see, if I put on Cobra wheels, Cobra badges, and a
> Cobra spoiler, could I be the world's only 40-something Mercury Riceboy?!).
>
> CobraJet
>
CobraJet
(rippedy-snippedy)
JIm wrote:
>
> I have a 19 sec '85 T-Bird 3.8 and go through the same debateswith
myself. A 5.0
> EFI would fit nicely in there (a 5.8 is out of
> the question, though I'd love a carb'd motor in it - NJ sniffer
> laws, again). But, it's my daily driver and it would be impossible
> to "drive like a normal human being" (something my wife says
> a lot). I don't think the emissions laws are going to get any
> easier to deal with, and it's a damn shame what states like
> California are doing to the hobby. The fact that I don't
> own a 25+ year-old car at the moment is just a coincidence,
> I buy and sell a lot of cars and I like to support the hobby. Not
> only to old car owners have to beware, it's the not THAT old
> old car owners that have to watch out. Cars that are neat to
> own and modify, but aren't the obvious classics the 25+ year
> old cars have become. So the title of the thread says "Split
> Group", but regardless of our preferences ('86+ EFI or
> carbs), the government (backed by big polluters) is trying to
> make it difficult to own and drive our cars. 5.0 owners are
> probably in bigger danger than the folks with really old cars.
> The newest 5.0 is almost 4 years old already....
>
> Jim
Do you know that California has completely passed State Bill 42,
eliminating smog checks for pre-1974 autos? In 2003 it will go to a 30-year
rolling point, moving up every year. This is going to bring a lot of the
older cars back on the road, with basically any engine combination the
owner sees fit to run. NOW we'll be seeing some interesting classic/late
model stuff in that state (my original home). Where California goes the
country goes, and the automotive press is predicting similar bills
nationwide soon. I don't know where you live Jim, but I would keep an ear
on things!! You may be "forced" to build an oldie and have some fun. (We
can all thank SEMA and other organizations for helping this bill get
passed).
The county I live in here in AZ has no smog checks at all. As the locals
say, "mufflers are optional". I could put a blown 514 in my '86 Cougar
legally if I was insane enough.(No comments from you other guys). This why
it is hard to make up my mind. Damn this freedom of choice! :-)
CobraJet
.
CobraJet
In article <19980216014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
> CobraJet loped on his keyboard:
> > I originally got into these groups to see if I could find a core of
> >musclecar restorers with whom I could trade parts info, statistics, and
> >resto techniques. It seems that in general (some exceptions) that these
> >individuals are not to be found where I am looking. Even though some of the
> >banter exchanged has been heated at times and entertaining at others, I
> >truly think there exists a need for a pre-80's-only resto NG. This way
> >others with my interests can spend less time arguing and more time
> >exchanging info.
>
> Have you tried to start your own threads asking for the information you
> are looking for?
>
> > While I am considering starting a new group like this, two major issues
> >surface. One, can I find enough willing participants who can keep focused
> >on the main idea and not get sidetracked into unrelated arguments?
>
> Yes, you are right; keeping a thread focused is a problem (look at what
> "Leisure suit Loyd" did to - American vs Japanese cars). When a thread
> rambles away from the original topic, start a new one.
Unfortunately, this still does not help in the multi-marque department.
I'm sure that other Ford owners will not appreciate me dragging GM and
Chrysler musclecar people in this NG (They probably wouldn't come in
anyway). The other problem is the issue of posting pictures. As I mentioned
above, I think that a step-up in this area can be beneficial. However,
whenever someone posts a binary people like Ken Payne and Rev Warthog give
them a "netiquette" berating on behalf of couple of guys in Europe who have
to spend an extra few cents in downloading time. Tell me THAT really helps
participation! I have observed other newsgroups that don't treat binaries
like the pox, so I know its just a matter of allowing it in the "rules".
Please don't mention mixing in car pics with the porno in binaries.autos.
>
> >Two, how much time am I willing to trade off being on the internet
> >instead of actually working on my cars? The former question can
> >only be answered by actually starting a group, I suppose.
>
> Again, start your own threads to get the information and ideas your looking
> for, and only follow these threads to reduce the time spent here.
Too likely to start up more import/dsm/late/early stuff again and the
associated NetRacing whacking. Of course, since I have gotten such an
avalanche of responses on this thought (yours only), I guess I am just
whacking, too.
>
> >The latter
> >is tougher. This house I just bought has a custom 1200 square foot
> >raised ceiling garage that is just begging to be turned into a resto shop
> >as soon as I am done building
> >the 24-vehicle "enclosed car port" that I am messing with now. Oh well,
> >something I have to work out, I guess.
I guess I should just get back to work!
>
> There you go again, first the list of cars you own, and now this! Since I
> didn't get a reply to my chauffeur application is there any chance you
> could adopt a 35 year old with a wife and two kids.?
My cats Cougar and Mustang get the other bedroom, so you'll have to do in
the garage (don't worry, it's got A/C and heat).
>
> > Speaking of decisions, tomorrow (Sat 14th) I get to figure out if I
> >should: a) slap a $10,000 down payment on a Dakota R/T, b) start building
> >up a healthy 5.8L engine to replace the dying putt-putt in my daily-flogger
> >'86 cougar, or c) go check out this stroked SOHC motor that someone I know
> >is selling (no,it ain't a 4.6). I fear I may already know the answer...
>
> My opinion is to buy the Dakota R/T. If you drop a healthy 351 in the
> Cougar you probably won't stop with the mods; and before you know it
> it's no longer a daily driver.
Too late. I nailed the Cammer (466 inch). Be sneaky in a bench seat,
column shift '64 Marauder, eh? I going to have to look around for a builder
(it's apart). I don't trust myself with those cams.
In the meantime I'm going to check out some of these car-oriented mailing
lists and see what gives...
CobraJet...with a new pair of aluminum bookends...
> Patrick
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
.
NoOption5L
>One thing is evident in these discussions: car people have got to
>be the most opinionated SOB's around (who, me?)!
Ahhh...BULLSH*T!!! We are not! I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with
this statement!!! <g>
>What's interesting is that even though our outlooks overlap and differ on
>some topics, and we all learn new things every day, our own individually
>defined preferences and automotive idiosyncrasies remain pretty much
>unchanged.
Yea, I don't think any of us really expect to radically change the other's
preferences; but I think we all hope that we can add some new perspectives,
change some opinions, and maybe alter a few stereotypes (the FE guys
really aren't old geezers, I never realized some of the import owners are
REAL gearheads, hmm...not all the 5-liter boys are punks, maybe owning
a Honda doesn't mean your stupid, and gosh...I always thought the 4.6L
GT owners were whimps).
For all our badgering, flaming, and persistence that OUR car or brand
is "God's gift to the automotive world", we should remember that we
(contributing members) all share a love for performance cars. We
should also remember that every automobile/truck is essentially the same
in its operation, and many of the same principals that help a 428 CJ streak
down a quarter mile can be applied to a new Cobra. The alignment talk a
Trans Am owner shares, that helped him go around corners faster, can be
of help to a early Stang owner. The maintence principals that allow a 5-liter
Mustang to live a long and happy life will also benefit a Talon. Or maybe a
few tweaks done to a Grand National can benefit a SC'd Mustang. And the
new tires a Z-28 owner talks about, will also perform well on a new GT.
> I originally got into these groups to see if I could find a core of
>musclecar restorers with whom I could trade parts info, statistics, and
>resto techniques. It seems that in general (some exceptions) that these
>individuals are not to be found where I am looking. Even though some of the
>banter exchanged has been heated at times and entertaining at others, I
>truly think there exists a need for a pre-80's-only resto NG. This way
>others with my interests can spend less time arguing and more time
>exchanging info.
Have you tried to start your own threads asking for the information you
are looking for?
> While I am considering starting a new group like this, two major issues
>surface. One, can I find enough willing participants who can keep focused
>on the main idea and not get sidetracked into unrelated arguments?
Yes, you are right; keeping a thread focused is a problem (look at what
"Leisure suit Loyd" did to - American vs Japanese cars). When a thread
rambles away from the original topic, start a new one.
>Two, how much time am I willing to trade off being on the internet
>instead of actually working on my cars? The former question can
>only be answered by actually starting a group, I suppose.
Again, start your own threads to get the information and ideas your looking
for, and only follow these threads to reduce the time spent here.
>The latter
>is tougher. This house I just bought has a custom 1200 square foot
>raised ceiling garage that is just begging to be turned into a resto shop
>as soon as I am done building
>the 24-vehicle "enclosed car port" that I am messing with now. Oh well,
>something I have to work out, I guess.
There you go again, first the list of cars you own, and now this! Since I
didn't get a reply to my chauffeur application is there any chance you
could adopt a 35 year old with a wife and two kids.?
> Speaking of decisions, tomorrow (Sat 14th) I get to figure out if I
>should: a) slap a $10,000 down payment on a Dakota R/T, b) start building
>up a healthy 5.8L engine to replace the dying putt-putt in my daily-flogger
>'86 cougar, or c) go check out this stroked SOHC motor that someone I know
>is selling (no,it ain't a 4.6). I fear I may already know the answer...
My opinion is to buy the Dakota R/T. If you drop a healthy 351 in the
Cougar you probably won't stop with the mods; and before you know it
it's no longer a daily driver.
Patrick
TFrog93
blue...@rules.com (CobraJet) writes:
>Unfortunately, this still does not help in the multi-marque department. I'm
>sure that other Ford owners will not appreciate me dragging GM and Chrysler
>musclecar people in this NG (They probably wouldn't come in anyway). The
>other problem is the issue of posting pictures. As I mentioned above, I think
>that a step-up in this area can be beneficial. However, whenever someone
>posts a binary people like Ken Payne and Rev Warthog give them a
>"netiquette" berating on behalf of couple of guys in Europe who have to spend
>an extra few cents in downloading time. Tell me THAT really
>helps participation! I have observed other newsgroups that don't treat
>binaries like the pox, so I know its just a matter of allowing it in the
>"rules". Please don't mention mixing in car pics with the porno in
>binaries.autos.
Well, if the naked ladies are draped over a Mustang, then I don't have a
problem with it. Are there porn pics in "binaries.auto"? Shouldn't it be
"binaries.autoerotica"? Seriously, though, this is a discussion newsgroup, and
we "frown" on binaries, because of the download time. If I want to see
pictures of cars, I know where to find them. If anyone wants to see MY car,
they can stop by at http://members.aol.com/tfrog93/trog93.html..... I would
not presume to upload a binary to this newsgroup.
>Too likely to start up more import/dsm/late/early stuff again and
>the associated NetRacing whacking. Of course, since I have gotten such
>an avalanche of responses on this thought (yours only), I guess I am
>just whacking, too.
Gee, there's a lot of that on the Internet, too.... However, to date we can
only respond to the post you've actually made. I've seen plenty of resto posts
here, and responses have been literate and informative. I've seen many debates
over the years about tires, gears, dashboards, aftermarket hoods, sources for
OEM parts, restoration garages, etc, and all have been to-the-point, without
resorting to useless comparisons of unrelated automobiles. In general, you
need only pose a question, and you'll find lots of folks with similar
experience and needs.
>My cats Cougar and Mustang get the other bedroom, so you'll have to do in
>the garage (don't worry, it's got A/C and heat).
Unlike Patrick, I'm not interested in being "adopted" and moving in... But, I
WOULD like to take advantage of that garage, on those days when Patrick and
family are out somewhere. I've always dreamed of a garage with A/C and heat,
so I could wash and wax indoors, and just generally putter around in comfort...
(sigh....) I don't suppose it also has a lift...?
>Too late. I nailed the Cammer (466 inch). Be sneaky in a bench seat,
>column shift '64 Marauder, eh? I going to have to look around for a builder
>(it's apart). I don't trust myself with those cams. In the meantime I'm
going
>to check out some of these car-oriented mailing lists and see what gives...
>
>CobraJet...with a new pair of aluminum bookends...
So, I guess you'll be using that garage for awhile then? Oh, well.....
dwight
Scott Ives
I think photos would be great! I get real tired of this "nettiquette"
thing. If you don't like the photos there is a simple solution ...
don't view or download them! If there are really folks here who don't
want to look at a pretty 'Stang maybe they are in the wrong newsgroups!
With regard to expanding the group to other muscle car folks, I am kind
of ambivalent. They are here already and I don't mind ... except for
the occasional and very tiresome "my car is better than your's" pissing
match.
Scott
Grant and Tammy Arthur
You'll never be happy with any group you start, it's impossible to keep the
freaks off and you'll never stick to the subject. That's the way the
internet is, bad as it may be, it's freedom of speech!
CobraJet <blue...@rules.com> wrote in article
<blueoval-ya0240800...@news.primenet.com>...
>
> Boy, these replies and threads can go forever, can't they? One thing is
> evident in these discussions: car people have got to be the most
> opinionated SOB's around (who, me?)! What's interesting is that even
though
> our outlooks overlap and differ on some topics, and we all learn new
things
> every day, our own individually defined preferences and automotive
> idiosyncrasies remain pretty much unchanged. Speaking for myself,
although
> some of you have brought up valid and logical arguments for your views,
my
> philosophy and attitude about the older/newer/import stuff really hasn't
> been altered much. How many of you have honestly undergone major changes
in
> opinion because of what others have said? I suppose that really isn't the
> purpose here, anyway.
> I originally got into these groups to see if I could find a core of
> musclecar restorers with whom I could trade parts info, statistics, and
> resto techniques. It seems that in general (some exceptions) that these
> individuals are not to be found where I am looking. Even though some of
the
> banter exchanged has been heated at times and entertaining at others, I
> truly think there exists a need for a pre-80's-only resto NG. This way
> others with my interests can spend less time arguing and more time
> exchanging info. Also, I think it would be fun to track people's car
> building progress with some pictures. (Maybe more of those unfinished
> projects would get going if you knew your fellow enthusiasts were
> interested!) A cross-marque group would be able to provide info for
somone
> considering tackling an unfamiliar type of car.
> While I am considering starting a new group like this, two major issues
> surface. One, can I find enough willing participants who can keep focused
> on the main idea and not get sidetracked into unrelated arguments? Two,
how
> much time am I willing to trade off being on the internet instead of
> actually working on my cars? The former question can only be answered by
> actually starting a group, I suppose. The latter is tougher. This house I
> just bought has a custom 1200 square foot raised ceiling garage that is
> just begging to be turned into a resto shop as soon as I am done building
> the 24-vehicle "enclosed car port" that I am messing with now. Oh well,
> something I have to work out, I guess.
> Speaking of decisions, tomorrow (Sat 14th) I get to figure out if I
> should: a) slap a $10,000 down payment on a Dakota R/T, b) start building
> up a healthy 5.8L engine to replace the dying putt-putt in my
daily-flogger
> '86 cougar, or c) go check out this stroked SOHC motor that someone I
know
> is selling (no,it ain't a 4.6). I fear I may already know the answer...
Jim Manson
Scott Ives <ssi...@erols.com> wrote:
>I think photos would be great! I get real tired of this "nettiquette"
>thing. If you don't like the photos there is a simple solution ...
>don't view or download them! If there are really folks here who don't
>want to look at a pretty 'Stang maybe they are in the wrong newsgroups!
It's not that simple. Binaries take up a lot of room. Quite a few ISPs
don't carry the bin groups for that reason. The only way they can do
this is by having the binaries limited to those groups. As a matter of
fact there are a couple of people that automatically cancel binaries
in non-binary groups.
Dallas Lowrey
gosh darn it, you got this redneck ta thinkin...my head hertz
what about rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang.pictures ?
upload your pics there, and point people in that direction from this
newsgroup? I dunno, it's late and I need some sleep, but it would be easier
than going to 50 different web sites.
Dallas
Scott Ives wrote in message <34E8C7...@erols.com>...
>I think photos would be great! I get real tired of this "nettiquette"
>thing. If you don't like the photos there is a simple solution ...
>don't view or download them! If there are really folks here who don't
>want to look at a pretty 'Stang maybe they are in the wrong newsgroups!
>
Jeff Seeger
Grant and Tammy Arthur wrote:
>
> You'll never be happy with any group you start, it's impossible to keep the
> freaks off and you'll never stick to the subject. That's the way the
> internet is, bad as it may be, it's freedom of speech!
Quite true, another repository for the spammers. Since
I'll likely subscribe to both, twice the deviled luncheon
meat for me...
>
CobraJet <blue...@rules.com> wrote in article
<blueoval-ya0240800...@news.primenet.com>...
> >
> > a) slap a $10,000 down payment on a Dakota R/T, b) start building
> > up a healthy 5.8L engine to replace the dying putt-putt in my
> daily-flogger
> > '86 cougar, or c) go check out this stroked SOHC motor that someone I
> know
> > is selling (no,it ain't a 4.6). I fear I may already know the answer...
Whoa, got the answer here... Take my 5.8 and give me a shot
at that cammer... PS, if you like your '86 you'd _love_
an 89+ XR7, my guess - a "find" for your roster ;)
> > Any feedback on the alt.musclecar.pre1980 idea is appreciated.
My pref's are to keep this NG as it is- great mix with good
content at both ends of the spectrum. Not too much traffic
yet not low enough to be stale. I get to lurk through some
good oldies stuff and can offer a little help here 'n' there
with folks who sound like they need it..
I was about to refer you to a forum I haunted some while
ago, sounded like the right mix for you. But when I double
checked the address, they've lost their sponsor and are
no longer. I'm bummed, lots of good stuff in their archive
now unavailable - I was _counting_ on that stuff for refer-
ence on my Boss resto.
So I take back my preference above - no more opinion. And
don't let the folks at work hear that I said that, in _any_
context....
--
Jeff Seeger
jseeger "at" appliedcad "dot" com