We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Quoted post[/post]]
The LS1 is a solid engine, but I would like to see an LS7 sitting in my garage.
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.
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.
A Muscle car is any car that you're afraid to floor
You are REALLY bad at understanding what people say.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.