Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about an '89 Camaro with a 305?
Remember, those '60s Camaros running low-14s were doing so on 1960s tires. (Bias ply.) Modern radials have a much better grip and would lower those times by at least 1/2 second. And the fastest of the '69 Camaros was far faster than the fastest of the 1989s. I didn't even mention the '69 Yenko 427 Camaro (which ran 12s), the '67 Nickey 427 Camaro (11s) and the Baldwin-Motion Camaros (12s).
I've driven some '60s muscle cars in stock form that were extremely fun to drive. Well-built and loads of torque. Can burn rubber even with modern radial tires. Lots of real metal and classic '60s styling... inside and out. What '60s muscle cars did you drive?
'80s muscle cars have their good and bad points (as do '60s muscle cars). Having said that, I would much, much, much, much prefer a '60s muscle car over one from the '80s.
Christ, dude. this is what i'm talking about. i am making a simple point that these cars (3rd generation F-Bodies, in particular) get a bad rap. it seems like you want to go bark for bite and stake out turf in regards to superiority of one over the other. that was never my intention nor the point i was trying to make. my intention was to point out the the difference in the head-space that these cars occupy in our collective culture.
do i really have to list for you the muscle era cars i have driven? i mean, are you curious as to what i've driven that i found disappointing, or are you doubting my integrity that i've driven old muscle cars at all? would you like me to list the muscle era cars that i own or have owned. should i ask what late model Camaros and Mustangs you've driven? and if the points that i've tried to make here somehow land me squarely in Team 3rd Gen, should i mention the rarer optioned ones (mostly Firebirds) that were world beating cars that would give even the Nickeys and ZL1's a serious run for their money in straight-line speed, plus absolutely dominate them in every other area of performance?
P.S. most of my favorite cars in the world are American muscle cars from the late '60s.
Christ, dude. this is what i'm talking about. i am making a simple point that these cars (3rd generation F-Bodies, in particular) get a bad rap. it seems like you want to go bark for bite and stake out turf in regards to superiority of one over the other. that was never my intention nor the point i was trying to make. my intention was to point out the the difference in the head-space that these cars occupy in our collective culture.
do i really have to list for you the muscle era cars i have driven? i mean, are you curious as to what i've driven that i found disappointing, or are you doubting my integrity that i've driven old muscle cars at all? would you like me to list the muscle era cars that i own or have owned. should i ask what late model Camaros and Mustangs you've driven? and if the points that i've tried to make here somehow land me squarely in Team 3rd Gen, should i mention the rarer optioned ones (mostly Firebirds) that were world beating cars that would give even the Nickeys and ZL1's a serious run for their money in straight-line speed, plus absolutely dominate them in every other area of performance?
P.S. most of my favorite cars in the world are American muscle cars from the late '60s.
No need to get so upset. This forum is for discussion.
Next time, I will remember that you are overly sensitive.
BTW, what rarer optioned Firebirds would give an 11-second Firebird a serious run for their money?
dude, fact is i was simply validating the late-eighties TPI F-Bodies, not invalidating late-sixties muscle cars. i was also pointing out that the 3rd Gens were have been at least subconciously invalidated by the masses for reasons beyond their general performance. in response, you seemed to want to argue facts and figures as you still appear to want to do.
in answer to you question, the 1989 Turbo Trans Am (TTA) was the fasted Trans Am ever built until the 2000-ish WS6 TA's. faster still were the (rarer) 1991 and '92 Firebird Formula Firehawks, and the (very rare) Shelby supercharged 1989 Firebird Formula 350 VHO's.
dude, fact is i was simply validating the late-eighties TPI F-Bodies, not invalidating late-sixties muscle cars. i was also pointing out that the 3rd Gens were have been at least subconciously invalidated by the masses for reasons beyond their general performance. in response, you seemed to want to argue facts and figures as you still appear to want to do.
in answer to you question, the 1989 Turbo Trans Am (TTA) was the fasted Trans Am ever built until the 2000-ish WS6 TA's. faster still were the (rarer) 1991 and '92 Firebird Formula Firehawks, and the (very rare) Shelby supercharged 1989 Firebird Formula 350 VHO's.
I know about those. I was challenging and countering your claim that an '89 IROC or Trans Am will run circles around its '69 out of the box equivalent.
I do agree that not all '80s Camaros were slow. Starting in 1984/'85, they started getting some power again. And a muscle car magazine praised the '84/'85 IROC for its power and acceleration.
But the Yenko 427 Camaro, the Nickey 427 Camaro and the Baldwin-Motion 427 and 454 Phase III Camaros were faster than any stock '80s Camaro or Firebird.
I would put another vote in for the Maclaren F1 Also the Jaguar XJ220, Aston Martin Volante and of course the Lotus Esprit. All very collectible already so the value can only go up.
I know about those. I was challenging and countering your claim that an '89 IROC or Trans Am will run circles around its '69 out of the box equivalent.
I do agree that not all '80s Camaros were slow. Starting in 1984/'85, they started getting some power again. And a muscle car magazine praised the '84/'85 IROC for its power and acceleration.
But the Yenko 427 Camaro, the Nickey 427 Camaro and the Baldwin-Motion 427 and 454 Phase III Camaros were faster than any stock '80s Camaro or Firebird.
See..
lets back it up a bit. you agree with me that not all '80s F-Bodies were poor performers. great. i would actually say that '87-'92 are the years where the performance gets worthwhile, not '84. i speak on what i have learned through experience - not on what i read in a magazine. '84's are turds.
i agree with you that 427's and Phase III 454's should have an edge in straight line 1/4 mile ET's. fine. understand though, that by the '80s, a sports car was expected to do more than just go fast in a straight line.
what i kind of take exception to is the premis that a 69 Yenko, or a 68 Nickey are the equivelent of an 89 IROC-Z.
i'm familiar with your preferences when it comes to cars. you like em old, you like em stock, and you usually like em big.
i like em old too, but i also like some of the new ones, and, old or new, i like them [modified] built for speed.
i am not saying that '80s Camaros are better than '60s Camaros. what i'm saying is that when it comes to out of the box performance, [the good '80s cars] get a bad rap, and the mediocre 60's cars recieve the "Radiohead treatment."
lets back it up a bit. you agree with me that not all '80s F-Bodies were poor performers. great. i would actually say that '87-'92 are the years where the performance gets worthwhile, not '84. i speak on what i have learned through experience - not on what i read in a magazine. '84's are turds.
I forgot if it was an '84 or '85. The muscle car magazine got low-14s with one of those years.
Quote:
i agree with you that 427's and Phase III 454's should have an edge in straight line 1/4 mile ET's. fine. understand though, that by the '80s, a sports car was expected to do more than just go fast in a straight line.
Camaros and Firebirds are not sports cars. They are pony cars. Also, some people modify their '60s cars with upgraded brakes and suspension and enter them in autocrossing races (and they do quite well, sometimes outperforming newer cars).
Quote:
what i kind of take exception to is the premis that a 69 Yenko, or a 68 Nickey are the equivelent of an 89 IROC-Z.
It depends on who you ask. I would much rather own a '69 Yenko or a '67 Nickey than an '89 IROC-Z. Where I live, most of the street are straight, so owning a car which can corner at 70 mph is kind of useless.
Quote:
i'm familiar with your preferences when it comes to cars. you like em old, you like em stock, and you usually like em big.
Yes, I like them old. Stock exterior, yes. But a few cars I've owned have had some mods done to them (dual exhaust, shift kit, electronic ignition, lower axle ratio, aftermarket intake manifold and carburetor, etc.). Yes, big is my first choice ('60s and '70s Cadillacs). I also like mid-sized ('69 Dodge Coronet and Charger, '66 Ford Fairlane 390, '70 Chevelle SS 396 and 454, '69 Pontiac GTO Judge, '70 Buick GS 455 Stage 1) and some compacts/pony cars ('68/'69 Dodge Dart GTS 340, 383 and 440, '70-'71 Plymouth 'Cuda and Dodge Challenger, '68 428 Ford Mustang, '71 351 Ford Mustang, '69 SS 396 Camaro, '69 Pontiac Firebird 400 Ram Air IV, etc).
Quote:
i like em old too, but i also like some of the new ones, and, old or new, i like them [modified] built for speed.
To each his own. As can be seen above, I also like to modify some of my cars, too.
Quote:
i am not saying that '80s Camaros are better than '60s Camaros. what i'm saying is that when it comes to out of the box performance, [the good '80s cars] get a bad rap, and the mediocre 60's cars recieve the "Radiohead treatment."
I enjoy my two "mediocre" '60s cars very much. Except, they are not "mediocre."
Camaros and Firebirds are not sports cars. They are pony cars. Also, some people modify their '60s cars with upgraded brakes and suspension and enter them in autocrossing races (and they do quite well, sometimes outperforming newer cars).
semantics. 40 years removed, Camaro, Firebird, Mustang, Challenger all = "Muscle Car" to most people. and yes, i know. my '67 Firebird is modified and handles very well - better than my old 96 Z28 i think.
Quote:
It depends on who you ask. I would much rather own a '69 Yenko or a '67 Nickey than an '89 IROC-Z.
who wouldn't? is that what you're taking from this? that i would opt for an 80's IROC over a factory 427 1st Gen? if thats the case, then you're missing my point. you're taking my defense of 3rd Gens as an indictment against 1st Gens.
Quote:
I enjoy my two "mediocre" '60s cars very much. Except, they are not "mediocre."
is that what you took from that? that i think 60's muscle cars are mediocre? again, you apparently missed my point. i wasnt saying that "cars from the 60's are mediocre." what i was saying is that from a performance standpoint, some 60s muscle cars have mediocre performance and some have excellent performance. alot of 80's muscle cars have mediocre performance, and some have good performance. the difference being that, in our cultural concience, the 60's ones are all generally thought of as good, and the 80's ones are all generally thought of as mediocre. is that making sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
