well, quite a few of you are in on the various mustang vs camaro threads. there's numbers being thrown around. horsepower, 0-60(that's naught to 60 for you british doods
), 1/4 mile performance, skid pad, slalom, road race courses, etc.
whelp...guess what? if you've been paying any attention, it matters not the make(with the possible exception of chrysler). those glory days aren't so glorious when one looks at those numbers.
sure, ford had the thunderbolts, running 11's right off the showroom...but they were never street cars. chevy had some sort of the same thing, as did chrysler.
but here's the kicker. those things are/were the exception, not the rule. those fords n chevys running 11's were VERY hot. but try turning in one at speed. my 86 E-350 takes corners better.
the common street cars, regardless of which engine they had, or which transmission they had, were in retrospect, agonizingly slow. 1/4 mile times in the time it took to eat lunch. 0 to 100mph? sheesh....eat lunch, and go take a dump......and they may be approaching 100mph, with the daredevil pile-it "white knuckling" it.
then there's the interiors......seats, that you friggin slid from one zip code into another if you tried cornering anything over about 20mph. steering wheels so big, if ya weren't careful, you punched your front seat passenger trying to turn fast. then some of those things had what.......177 turns lock to lock?
i probably shouldn't even mention the brakes. what did they use? asbestos, and cardboard for shoes or pads? stopping from 100mph took nearly a half mile. todays tractor trailers can outstop a car of yesteryear. how the hell did they ever race those piles?
most of those cars of yesteryear are easily outclassed(with the possible exception of chrysler) by the 6 cylinder performance cars of today.
some of these facts have been driven home with a ginormous sledge hammer to me recently. couple weeks ago, i had that 79 coupe deville. talk about a car that felt "numb" driving down the road. when you turn in it, it lists to the outside of the turn nearly 10 degrees. land yacht.
today, i had a 67 mustang 289 2bbl. big arsed steering wheel, 47 turns lock to lock, brakes equal to those found on a john deere tractor, and an incredible lack of power. (remember, i keep towing the line for mustangs)
when i finished that, i test drove the 79 trans am. had the oldsmobile engine in it. tiny steering wheel(this was a plus), but still too low of a steering ratio. about 20 turns lock to lock. also, an incredible lack of power. brakes a little better than the 68 stang. i wasn't scared in this one anyway.
shop across the street has a 78 cadi in there now.......he's laughing about that one too. he's got a 68 camaro, but it's not stock. it's got a 400ci+ engine, turbo 400 tranny.......when we were talking today, he said much the same about that as i did the mustang('cept the lack of power with the worked engine in it).
all i think i can say......is thank GOD for those engineers, and designers(ya payin attention dicho?) i spend so darn much time complaining about. without those guys, we'd all still be driving those pos's from yesteryear. we'd be gagging on the exhaust, getting an incredible 7.6 highway miles a gallon, and about 3gallons to the mile in the city, spending 20 minutes on a cold morning waiting for the car to warm up enough to drive, without it stalling.
i mean seriously......c'mon. look back at performance numbers. they sucked. mom's protege is quicker than half of the stuff from back then.
ok....rant off........snack time, then bed time.
flame away folks.
