> > > > I just have an awful hard time downing a manufacturer for introducing
> > > > a performance car, especially one that's done right. And the new GT
> > > > was done right! Okay, is the new GT expensive? Yes. Will we ever
> > > > see them littering the streets? No. Gosh, you know what? That's two
> > > > more things the new GT shares with the old GT-40... they're both
> > > > expensive and rare.
> > The original was built to go racing, not for street duty. It built a
> > > reputation all its own on the premier tracks of the 60's venues. The
> > > new one will never do that, either.
> The current Vette and Viper are involved in racing. So you know Ford
> > will have the new GT out there. It's inevitable.
Well, I hope so, but will they be in the same class? A 5.4 with a
> blower (are those things stamina-tested?) against an 8-liter Viper? > Hmm.
As in durability tested? The motor in the GT is one slick piece. The block is only _based_ on the Navigator's 5.4L motor. But the block is MUCH stiffer with 6-bolt main bearings, forged-steel crank, forged-steel connecting rods (Manleys I believe), forged aluminum pistons, and of course new heads. The whole motor is put together by Jack Roush and company. This mill is built like a brick shit house.
> Side note: Chevy is now promising a 500-horsepower version of its
> > upcoming C6. Yep, we'll soon have three cars running over 120 mph in
> > the quarter right off the showroom floor. Gotta love it!
I'd love it more if I could afford it.
Me too. But, I'm sure the new GT is less expensive than buying a used one. And Chevy for their part offers the most affordable one of the three.
> > > You guys are just too hard to please. But I guess this happens. It
> > > > happened in the 60's too. You can see it when you reread the old
> > > > magazine road tests. The road testers bitched about all the faults
> > > > the old muscle cars had,
> > Not all of them. The ones that did failed to realize that
> > > compromises must be made in a production car in order to please a
> > > "majority" of possible consumers, while not pricing the item out of the
> > > market. Look how Shelby had to soften up the GT350 after public
> > > complaints of harsh rides and unavailable automatics.
> There were complaints about all of them, even the late 60's more luxo
> > versions. CJ, there where some good ones, but NONE of them were
> > perfect, just like today's offerings. ALL cars (50s-'00 cars) have
> > negatives--design, performance and styling shortcomings... they all > > have them.
No mid-to-late 60's cars had styling flaws.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder often goes for the familiar. That being said, I couldn't think on an ugly one either.
> > Muscle classics have withstood time
> So far, they've only withstood _our_ time. When our generation dies
> > off, and the Fast and Furious crowd and its spawn take over will be
> > the true test. In 30 years the FFCers may pass on a '68 CJ or '87
> > 5.0 and instead opt for an '03 EVO. Just like we'd both pass on a > > Packard.
So not so. The original 50's rodders have pretty well bitten the
> dust, but look at the huge numbers of new rods being churned out by
> younger generations in both contemporary and traditional styles. Nope,
> the charisma inherent to a particular genre of automobile never goes
> away. They just wait for someone to to get hooked, and it's 1968 all > over again.
I don't know. I think anyone currently in their 30's has a thing for the old ones, but the under 30 crowd I'm not so sure about. I talk and hang out with a few of these young imports guys and they view a muscle car as just an old out-dated car. Unless it has an OHC engine, multivalves, 5 or 6 gears, IRS, and maybe a turbo it's a relic they can't relate to it. They lust over Ferraris and Porshes, not Hemi cars and Cobras. The over 30 crowd still tends to be old muscle car followers, I think, because they were growing up before the imports really got their strangle hold on the car market. But the guys born in the very late 70's and 80's it's an import world... most won't even consider buying a new "American" car, let alone an old one.
I've said this before, but we have a different audience these days
> so I'll say it again: the chances of most of the post-70's cars
> physically surviving to become classics is miniscule.
If you reread your old auto magazines, you'll find many people back then that thought the 60's car would never be worth anything. Their reasons were because the 60's cars were "mass-produced" and lined with plastic interiors. Quite unlike the "classic" cars of the 30's and
40's. Shoot, don't you remember hearing when we were growing up that the 60's Mustang would never be worth anything because they built too damn many of them? I do. I heard it a million times.
80's Mustangs and F-Bodies are being marginally supported by the
aftermarket,
50resto.com
but
> virtually everything else is disintegrating and being crushed. No
> imports of any kind will be recipients of a supported revival. Take a
> real good look around and you will see what I mean.
I remember taking that good look around back in the 70's. My brother and I used to walk the junkyards looking at all the "hot cars" being crushed. One place I vividly remember was just full of rusted out, beat up, 60's Roadrunners, Chargers and Barracudas. Being a young Mopar nut, I'd just sit in them and wonder about how they must have ran and what they would have sounded like. And wondering how anyone could just junk them. I also thought that these were the last of the performance cars. That my generation would never have the chance of walking into a new-car dealership and walking out with a factory muscle car. Then in 1982, the Mustang GT suggested a glimmer of hope. That maybe I'd get a chance. By '87 my wish had come true in the form of certain '87 LX 5.0.
> > because, as I have mentioned a
> > > million times here, the styling and driving sensations were more
> > > intense, and forever tied to the era of their birth. One only has to
> > > see attempts to carry new vehicles to market with heavy retro styling
> > > to understand the OEM's realize this, too. BUT, they will continue to
> > > have failures like the new T-Bird because they missed on the feel of
> > > the car. Everything now is overweight, sound deadened, and packed with
> > > creature comforts.
> In a way, we're nearing 1970 all over again... increasing weight
> > offset by increasing horsepower.
Actually, the 60's had a bell curve in that regard. The beginning of
> the decade saw the biggest horsepower engines straining inside two-ton
> fullsize cars. Factory drag wars resulted in lighter production
> musclecars in the middle of those years. While later years saw the
> weight pick up, the engines were not quite as brutal as the early ones.
> Tractable torque ruled the late 60's.
Were the early Wedges, 406s and 409s pumping out more than the late
60's Hemis, SS454s, Stage 1 Buicks? And what about the 427 to the 428 CJ?
Besides the factory Super Stocks, the average mid-60's car just kept getting bigger and heavier. The '66-'67 GTOs were heavier than the '64s and '65s. The '66 and '67 Chevelles were bigger than the '64s and '65s. Same story with the Fairlanes too.
> In many regards, I'm much like you on this one. As you know, I too
> > like the stripped down feeling. Give me that '65 Shelby GT350, Super
> > Stock Dodge, big block Nova, Roadrunner/Super Bee, or an '87 LX 5.0.
> The LX is a little out of its league with the other cars in this > paragraph.
Not an LX (un)optioned correctly.
> The more options and padding they have, the less desireable. However,
> > IMO, I'd be a fool to not like a 455 Buick GS, '70 GTO Judge, Olds
> > 442, or a new GTO, or Cobra Mustang.
Yeah, I've heard that before. But you continue to post news about
> all kinds of new cars.
Because they affect each other, so I think it makes the info relevant in here. If the LS1 gets a boost in HP, you can bet the Cobra's HP is going to go up to counter. If the WRX gets popular you can bet Ford will look into turbocharging the Focus.
> Where we differ is your dividing line of 1973. I don't have a line.
> > You seem to look at a new Cobra Mustang and think of it as a rip off
> > of the old Cobra Jets.
No, not at all. I have a major problem with the direction styling
> has gone in the past couple decades, what with incredibly bulbous,
> stubby back ends and hoods that slope down too radically from the
> winshield. This applies to everything, not just the Mustang.
That's because aerodynamics equals horsepower.
> I see the new Cobra Mustang as an
> > extension/evolution of the old Cobra Jets. You see blasphamy. I see
> > a proud heritage. Not trying to offend... where your party, for the
> > most part, is over. Mine hasn't ended.
As long as I have shitloads of cars and draw breath, my party rocks
> on. You don't understand, but I'm glad they don't build cars they way
> they used to. It makes the 60's stuff more exclusive.
True enough.
> > > but now years later those old cars are held
> > > > up as a sort of gold standard. All I know is I'm not going to be
> > > > stupid like those guys were. I'm going to appreciate what we have
> > > > right now, because right now we have it GOOD!
> > So you think that 20 years from now anybody is going to care about
> > > your personal opinion? Are you basing your opinion on the perceived
> > > miscalls of "real" critics whose work actually made it to print? Sounds
> > > like it.
> Here's what I'm saying. This second muscle car generation won't last
> > forever. I don't know when, and I don't know how, but at some point
> > it will end. So I'm not going to sit here, and bitch and complain
> > about how they're not exactly what I grew up with. No kidding. The
> > '70 Judge was nothing like the '64 GTO, and the '71 Boss 351 was
> > nothing a '65 289 hipo fastback either. But that doesn't make the
> > later first-generation of muscle cars any less cool, does it? That's
> > the way I see it with this second generation. Plus, with this
> > second-generation of muscle cars, I can drive and appreciate them
> > EVERY day. With a first-generation car I'd feel more like a curator.
> > And I'm too old to sit and wait for the next sunny day to go for a
> > cruise. I'd rather be able twist the key to some late-model muscle
> > and relive old memories anytime I want.
Well, if it weren't for the curators, the landmark classics wouldn't
> be around any more.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Somebody has to look after them and preserve them. I'm GLAD there are people protecting the cars from the 70's,
60's, 50's, 40's, etc. History is important! I just don't want to be one of the curators. Not unless one day I hit it big. Then I'll have my new ones parked next to my favorite old ones. '64 GTO/'04 GTO, '65 Shelby/2000 Cobra R, '67 Vette/'04 Z06, 340 Duster/LX 5.0...
The 2nd generation ushered in the era of the disposable car, and more of
> these bite the dust every day.
'60's or 90's, they're all mass produced. The days of craftsmans building/laboring over a car were gone way before the '60s.
Anyway, gotta run. I have to go race my Taurus.
You gotta SHO?
Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD