The New Ponycar Wars?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Better throw the Neon SRT-4 in there too. It'll run with a Mustang.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

That is a pretty good ride performance wise, just to bad they stuck it i a Neon body. The performance figures I saw put it right there with a original

MadDAWG

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

It doesn't wash. The original Mustang was a styling and marketing concept, all show no go. It had just enough glitz to attract those who thought the long hood/short deck of the XKE's, Aston Martins, and Ferraris of the day is what made them fast. But with the Mustang, performance and technology always took a back seat to the bean counting and the bottom line.

The Camaro came along 2.5 years after the Mustang, and likewise was pretty much all show no go (although from the beginning the SS with either the 350 small block or the 396/375 big block were pretty potent for what they were).

By contrast, the Evo and WRX are closer to all go, no show. Whatever sacrifices in content their planners have made were made to put the money into the running gear. This was completely a foreign concept to the Detroit of the '60's. Even Detroit's supposed pur sang vehicle -- the Corvette Stingray -- was too heavy and too flexible, on account of its fiberglass body construction, chosen solely for its lower cost of production compared to aluminum or steel.

Fuel injection, four valve heads, intercoolers, engine management computers and sensors, full time four wheel drive -- this is straightforward? Not even slightly close to the '60's Mustangs and Camaros. Not even straightforward in comparison to most other '03's.

The

No again. The new for '55 Chevy small block and the new for '62 Ford "Challegner" had been produced and installed by the millions by the time they landed in the Mustang and Camaro. I mean, if you're talking generically, I guess turbo'ed 4-bangers have been around awhile. They began running them at Indy in the 50's. But the specific engines and configurations of the Evo and STi are exclusive to those cars, while the Mustang's 289 and the Camaro's 327 were to be found in IDENTICAL trim in millions of grocery-getters.

Nothing close to the Mustang. ONE MILLION sold in the first two years! THAT'S a broad spectrum.

And isn't

No 283 Camaros.

No 427 Mustangs and fewer than 2,000 427 Camaros.

No way. That would be a completely different vehicle. It was easy to drop any size motor into a Camaro; a little less so with a Mustang because of the shock towers, but even with the Mustang the FE would fit in there. As far as adding a beefy toploader, an M-22, a 9-inch, a 12-bolt, stiffer springs, and a bigger radiator, with a Mustang or Camaro it was something any shade tree guy could do, and we're still doing it. Adapting similar weight-handling and torque-handling measures to a FWD econobox in today's environment of perfection-demanding crybaby owners, government regulation, and products liability would be a lot more complicated. No way. If anything, they'll just strengthen the internals on the 4-bangers and crank up the boost, and make the things even peakier (worse driveability) than they are now. In fact, you pretty much have to move the horsepower higher up in the band to keep the low end torque from shredding the CV joints.

Yrs, 180 TS 28

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

their go. In fact, I'd say they share many similarities with 60's

You missed my weasel word, "closer to." My point is that the Evo and WRX skew more toward function over form, while the '60's Mustang and Camaro were skewed way in the opposite direction. Only the Boss 302 and Z-28 came close to being a balanced hi-po package. I've never driven a 289 hi-po, but going by the factory specs it had to have terrible handling and brakes and only adequate power.

Unless you stepped up to the $900 hemi option (a VERY pricey choice on a car with a $3000 base price) or the nearly as expensive 440-6v (not even available in '68 or '69), the Road Runner with the standard

I think it's a little more complicated than that, to take a chassis designed for 100 to 150 ft-lbs of torque and put in a motor with twice the torque. And a "body redesign" for a low volume niche vehicle would jack up the price considerably.

I think the 307 came out in '69, as an economy V8. The solid lifter Z-28 302 came out in January '67, with just 602 units produced in the '67 model year. Somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 more were sold in '68 and '69 combined.

A '63-up Ford 427 FE (4.23 X 3.78) was 426.7, or a true 427 ci. But a '66-up 428 FE (4.13 X 3.98), as used in the 68.5 and up Cobra Jet Mustang, was 426.3, or 426 ci.

Define inexpensive. The best candidate for this scenario would be the Infiniti G35 chassis with the Titan truck motor (5.6-liter DOHC V8 300 hp @ 4,800 rpm and 375 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm). (With 300 hp @ 4800, imagine what it would one do if you built it to do 6500 rpm!) But inexpensive? Certainly cheaper than a 5-series BMW, but I doubt if you could do it for less than the price of an SVT Cobra. Which is nothing like the value of a $3500 '69 396/375 Camaro or 428 Mustang.

Yrs, 180 TS 28

The '69 396 Camaro and 428 Mustang were more like $4,000. (Just FYI - The GT-500 tickled $5Gs.) Sure this doesn't sound like much today, but back in '69 and being paid a '69 wage these cars weren't exactly cheap. Gosh, you could probably buy a decent house back in '69 for $10-20Gs. Anyone out there know for sure?

Ahhh... but I think we're going off track a little. Bottom line: I think the EVO and STi are closely following the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird formula. These two cars are--being based on cheap cars, having a cult-like following, and are supported by factory motorsport programs--much like modern-day Boss 302s and Camaro Z/28s.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

A rough but fairly close conversion factor, based on the Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index, is that one '69 dollar is worth five '03 dollars. So a $4,000 '69 Camaro or Mustang, with 350-400 horsepower (and an additional 50 readily available with $200-300 worth of aftermarket cam and headers), power disc brakes, power steering, a

About houses, in 1964 my folks bought a custom built 4-bedroom 2-bath on a 10,000 sq ft lot in Kansas City, Mo., for $25,000. (Their house payment was $108, and they made every one without ever refinancing. THAT is old school.)

By 1969 I don't think you could buy a "decent" house for much less than $20,000, but $20,000 and up would probably do it.

Off track? In a newsgroup?

Bottom line: I

Well, as long as you use nice weasel words, like "much like," we'll get along fine.

Yrs, 180 TS 28

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

I'd chalk up the '03's advantage to 34 years of tire technology and chassis development, not to the output of the engines. 428 Jet Mustangs and 396/375 SS Camaros with a 3:90 or better gear could reach the 12's with the slightest tweaking -- headers, slapper bars, and slicks. Throw on a cam and forget about it.

That's only because of modern overdrive trannies. The '60's had the Hone-O-Drive aftermarket overdrive. One of these would bring the revs down for highway cruising, for those who cared.

If it were legally possible to build a '69 bigblock Camaro or Mustang today and sell it for $20,000 -- and it's not -- I think a 350 hp car for $20,000 might move a few units, regardless of all the negatives you mention.

And anyway, I would hope that 34 years of technological progress would have produced a better product. Can I interest you in a 1969 McIntosh amp and tuner -- 25 measly watts per channel, total harmonic distortion in the whole numbers, and costing about $5000 in '03 dollars? How about the Texas Instruments arithmetic-only calculator (no square root key even) that I bought in 1972 for $100 -- $500 in '03 dollars, or about what a 2.0 gigahertz, 80 gigabyte PC (with monitor) goes for now. 26" color TV's cost $1000 in '69. That's $5000 '03 dollars, or about what a 50" plasma TV goes for now.

Looking in the other direction, compare a '69 Cobra Jet Mustang or SS Camaro with a '35 flathead Ford or a 6-cyl '35 Chebby, and the advances in performance and comfort are much, much greater. I seriously doubt that a '35 Ford would not have sold in 1969, even if it stickered way under $1000. (Although come to think of it, a '30's-era product WAS available in 1969, for about $1500. It was the VW Beetle, and it did pretty well.) But I think a $20,000 428 Mustang or 396 Camaro might move quite a few units today.

Yeah, I do. The vast differences in mechanical complexity and price, and the fact that ALL WRX's and Evo's are hi-po cars, while few Camaros and Mustangs were, are what limit the analogy.

Yrs, 180 TS 28

The new Mach 1 has run 13.0s without any tweaking. It has also run a couple mph faster in the 1/4 than the 428 CJ ran in "fastest pure stock known to man (103 mph)" article.

Tire technology. In those pure Stock Drags, those guys were cutting

2. Even the K Neon SRT-4 runs 103 mph trap speeds. 103... not only will it neuter my Cobra, but it's also faster than about 98% of the muscle car road test numbers in my old magazines.

Check out the lastest MM&FF. Referring to the '03 Cobra... here's a snip:

"...11 second times are second nature with Cheater slicks and minor tweaking..." "At press time, more than one '03 has dipped into the unthinkable (for a mildly-modified, factory engine) 9-second zone..." "Forget the supercar '60s. These are the good old days."

And the scary thing is, things will only get scarier. The stuff in the pipeline is going to be totally nuts!

I know. And, as you know, every car sold today has it.

Without the nostalgia factor, I'd bet not many.

Nope, no thanks.

Technology... once the biggest fear of gearheads, is now their best ally. How ironic.

I don't. Okay, a few might be fascinated by their primitive nature, but the rest would criticize them. GM couldn't even sell enough

These are 21st-century versions. 30 grand is minivan (a 60's station wagons equivalent) prices.

The Lancer is the lo-po version of the EVO. The Impreza is the lo-po version of the WRX.

Now do you see the similarities?

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

For those who may not know or may forget, the Porsche 944 S2 and 968 had a 3.0 4-cylinder. I can't think of many 4-cylinders above 2.6 liters, though.

Other "big" fours,

- 1961-1964Pontiac Tempest 195 cu. in / 3.2L (half of a 389 V-8, see

- 1962-1970 Chevy Nova 153 cu in / 2.5L (2/3 of a 230 InLine 6), they also made a 3.0L marine version of this engine

Ed

Brad wrote: