Where's Celerity ?

[hondarin]

i didn't start anything, i stated my opinion, and some people didn't like it.

 

[Celerity]

Tombstone Post:


I like the Mustang. It's proportioned well, balanced well and it's sexy as hell. In the future, maybe we can get one that gets reasonable gas mileage.

I think it's as sensible as me buying a WRX - maybe more so (I don't like 4 doors). And if it could get the same mileage, then I would jump on it.

But soon, you'll see that happen. And when it does (And perhaps becomes a hatchback) I would be on that like stink on shit.

I took itout looking for action last night. I found it in 2 races, both with Tegs. The races were friendly, and pretty dead-on even (I don't know the roads, come on guys). And charlotte has the FUNNEST racing roads in the country. It's like NFSU here. The roads are gently sloping, banked in corners, dip low into the valleys, and curve out just right. Most of the roads are like rollercoasters - Perfectly smooth.

If I ever make a street racing video, I'll be sure to hit Charlotte on the tour.

 

[DarkHand]

Quoted post[/post]]
The LS1 is a solid engine, but I would like to see an LS7 sitting in my garage.

I'll take an L66, thank you.

 

[totalburnout]

Quoted post[/post]]
okay, when you say "big V8," it means big displacement, it has nothing to do with power. in fact it usually has to do with gobs and gobs of torque. which, is what the real muscle cars had, lots of torque; there were some with lots of hp too, but the torque was always on top. that's why i say that there are no real muscle cars today, because the engines are smaller (because they can be smaller now with technology and tuning) and thus have less torque.

You're fucking kidding, right? Please tell me you're jokoing.

So a modern engine has less torque? A Ls1 and Ls7 have less torque than cars during the muscle car era?

A fucking 2.5L turbocharged boxer engine in the Subaru STi lays down more torque than most of the cars of the past.

Look at the so called "muscle cars" from the times and look at what time they ran a 60 foot in or what time they ran a quarter mile in. The new Nissan Altima will destroy their times and lay down a relatively large amount of power and its just an economy car.

A real muscle car was an underpowered steel boat, if you want the definition of a muscle car.

 

[Battle Pope]

Unfortunately that's true. The "performers" of the muscle car era were lucky to break 15 seconds stock. They may have come with a bajillion ft-lbs of torque and a couple hundred horsepower but that's just not enough to propel 6000 lbs of steel down a quarter mile track in a respectable amount of time. Sure with a bunch more money they ran 12s without breaking a sweat, but that can be said of any car.

 

[infamouz]

DON'T REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE MUSCLE CAR ERA, but how much "Does" a stang v8 weigh anyway?

 

[Airjockie]

alot....

 

[Celerity]

A Muscle car is any car that you're afraid to floor


If you wanna call your modern day mega-horsepower car a Muscle car, by all means - Do.


It's not an exclusive club to belong to. Shit, by the very definitions of our hobbies our Hondas are "Hot Rods"


-> Steve

Also, the Mustang isn't that heavy. It's not light, but it's reasonable.

 

[hondarin]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
okay, when you say "big V8," it means big displacement, it has nothing to do with power. in fact it usually has to do with gobs and gobs of torque. which, is what the real muscle cars had, lots of torque; there were some with lots of hp too, but the torque was always on top. that's why i say that there are no real muscle cars today, because the engines are smaller (because they can be smaller now with technology and tuning) and thus have less torque.

You're fucking kidding, right? Please tell me you're jokoing.

So a modern engine has less torque? A Ls1 and Ls7 have less torque than cars during the muscle car era?

A fucking 2.5L turbocharged boxer engine in the Subaru STi lays down more torque than most of the cars of the past.

Look at the so called "muscle cars" from the times and look at what time they ran a 60 foot in or what time they ran a quarter mile in. The new Nissan Altima will destroy their times and lay down a relatively large amount of power and its just an economy car.

A real muscle car was an underpowered steel boat, if you want the definition of a muscle car.

okay first of all, i didn't say anything about an LS1 or an LS7. i have nothing but love for the LS1, LS2, LS6, and LS7. in fact, i think the LS2 and LS7 are the best production V8's in america right now. what i was trying to say, is that a 1970 chevelle SS454 with a muncie 4-speed had a good 500 lb-ft of torque at around 3000 rpm. in 1969 with good street gas, that car would easily run a 13.1. put on some headers and slicks, and you're running 12's easy. 1969 Camaro COPO ZL-1; if you think the STi is impressive, do some research on that car.

your description of muscle car was right about on thing, they were huge steel boats.
but underpowered?!!?!?! the real muscle cars, i'm talking supe'd up V8's with at least 383ci (okay, some 350's were pretty powerful too) were not underpowered, were not slow, and were affordable until gas prices went up. case in point, my uncle bought a brand new 69 chevelle SS396 as his first car when he was still in high school.

why do you always start stupid arguments and try to spread your ignorance to the rest of the world?!?

this is the last time i gonna try to help you by setting you straight.


P.S. i kinda like this definition celerity->

A Muscle car is any car that you're afraid to floor

 

[totalburnout]

Setting me straight on an idiotic personal definition of a muscle car? Hmmm...


Look up the 1/4 mile time of the "muscle cars" that came from yesteryear and tell me what times they were running. 99% of factory cars were not running under a 14 second quarter mile; the camaro, the roadrunner, the gto, the corvette, the mustang, etc., etc.

You sight examples of cars that were very rare production cars and were only one top of the line model, they're a fraction of what is commonly referred to as muscle cars.

A general statement about muscle cars would accurately define the vast majority as heavy, underpowered car. I say underpowered in terms of a favorable weight to power ratio; its great to have 500ft. lbs of torque in a 4,000lb car...

Yes, I'll surely research that car but the STi will still be more impressive in terms of performance. There's no replacement for displacement...OR TECHNOLOGY. A STi will virtually out power, out handle, and generally outperform any car from yesteryear; technological advances make that possible. Muscle cars may have been deemed "fast" (although disclaimer as most of us all know, few cars were under 15 second cars and very few were under 14) in a straight line but could not handle nearly as well as a STi or brake as well. In current times we have the entire package, and not just fast in a straight line.


Also my point about the Ls series of engines was to combat your statement above that said, "that's why i say that there are no real muscle cars today" even though the Ls series engine certainly fits any twisted definition you have set forth. So by your own account, you deny their being muscle cars in current times on one hand, and then recognize the Ls series engine as having the same properties as a "muscle car" engine. Confusing, huh? You said it, not me.

 

[hondarin]

Quoted post[/post]]
Setting me straight on an idiotic personal definition of a muscle car? Hmmm...


Look up the 1/4 mile time of the "muscle cars" that came from yesteryear and tell me what times they were running. 99% of factory cars were not running under a 14 second quarter mile; the camaro, the roadrunner, the gto, the corvette, the mustang, etc., etc.

You sight examples of cars that were very rare production cars and were only one top of the line model, they're a fraction of what is commonly referred to as muscle cars.

A general statement about muscle cars would accurately define the vast majority as heavy, underpowered car. I say underpowered in terms of a favorable weight to power ratio; its great to have 500ft. lbs of torque in a 4,000lb car...

Yes, I'll surely research that car but the STi will still be more impressive in terms of performance. There's no replacement for displacement...OR TECHNOLOGY. A STi will virtually out power, out handle, and generally outperform any car from yesteryear; technological advances make that possible. Muscle cars may have been deemed "fast" (although disclaimer as most of us all know, few cars were under 15 second cars and very few were under 14) in a straight line but could not handle nearly as well as a STi or brake as well. In current times we have the entire package, and not just fast in a straight line.


Also my point about the Ls series of engines was to combat your statement above that said, "that's why i say that there are no real muscle cars today" even though the Ls series engine certainly fits any twisted definition you have set forth. So by your own account, you deny their being muscle cars in current times on one hand, and then recognize the Ls series engine as having the same properties as a "muscle car" engine. Confusing, huh? You said it, not me.

You are REALLY bad at understanding what people say.

oh yeah...

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletcorvettezl1.html

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/67chevroletcorvette.html

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletcorvettel88.html

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/69chevroletcamarozl1.html

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletyenkocamaro.html

http://fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletchevelle.html

http://fast-autos.net/buick/buickgs455.html

http://fast-autos.net/dodge/dodgedaytona.html

http://fast-autos.net/dodge/dodgecharger.html

http://fast-autos.net/dodge/dodgechallengerrt.html

http://fast-autos.net/plymouth/plymouthgtx.html

http://fast-autos.net/plymouth/plymouthroadrunner.html

http://fast-autos.net/plymouth/plymouthroadrunner.html

http://fast-autos.net/shelby/shelbycobra.html

and, i'm spent.

and oh yeah, NOT ALL CAMARO'S WERE MUSCLE CARS, CUZ THERE WERE QUITE A FEW 6 CYLINDERS.


EDIT* Celerity, i'd like to apologize for thread-jacking, and this will be the last time for me in this thread.

 

[totalburnout]

I'm bad at understanding what someone said? Read what I said, I said the vast majority of muscle cars. Now add up the production total of ALL those cars you posted.

"Only 2 ZL-1 Corvettes were ever built. Factory horse power ratings were at 430 hp, but actual hp is estimated at 585. "


"Only 80 Corvette L88's were produced in 1968."

"Besides the 50 ZL-1's sent to Gibb's dealership, 19 other ZL-1's were produced, totalling 69."

Thats just a snip it. Would you like me to keep going?

The cars you posted are nearly all cars that were simply designed to be limited production vehicles so they could meet standards to be raced in.

All models of the camaro were considered a muscle car, even when they were as slow as a slug. Or how about chevelles that were boats that are deemed muscle cars, or GTO's, or the list goes on and on.

Quit playing semantics.

Your definition of muscle cars leaves about a hand full of limited production models and does not agree with the general definition of a muscle car.

 

[Slo86GT]

I love listening to the ricers blabber about cars they don't, won't, or haven't ever had.

Just a few comments to answer what was said in this without commenting on the stupidity that's running rampant.

New Mustangs weigh from 3300 to about 3600 for the GT Vert's.

New Mustangs make 300hp stock, and with a tune and intake, have seen 300 WHP, good for a high 12 second slip with a good driver.

There were VERY few PRODUCTION cars from the 60's and 70's that ran low 14's or better in the 1/4 mile. I site as an example, the 7.2 liter Charger R/T mentioned. 390 HP, GOBS of torque, and squeaks by with a 13.9 1/4 mile. That is a VERY limited production car. MAYBE 2500 were made. The others you listed... even less. YENKO Camaro's, ZL1 Vette's and Camaro's?? Why do you think they sell for 100g's++? Cause they WERE and still ARE rare as hell.