[i82much]

Originally Posted by Hitman

No, that's fine. Yes you can build it right, you have zero control over if you have a accident or not.

My whole thing is there are good people out there that want to have a fast car, want to drag race or autocross but they cannot build a old car so the modern muscle is perfect for that person. The hobby should not be inclusive of a car strictly because of it's age. I'd love to have a older hotrod that had all the safety and convenience of the old stuff. I guess I've just been conditioned to the new stuff cause of my daily drivers and work vehicles.

Yeah I completely recognize how great modern cars are from a value perspective, from a practical perspective. I just don't feel anything when I look at them or get near them. Probably feel something if I drove one of those Hellcats, though!

[wheneaglesfly]

The Hellcat is in a class by itself I think.
No one buys a Hellcat just to run to the Grocery store & back.
Nor A Beer Run to fill garage fridge.
Pontiac is gone officially .
Corvette can't compete. Base LT4 Not enough.
C7 Z06 all will say are 80,000 only but to get one its actually $100-105 k.
And its still not enough to win against the Hellcats every time.
Camaro is a big car too.
. Under powered.

All Pontiacs are old now.

[NBF823]

I'm definitely not anti-new car, I'm just not understanding why their pushing for such large cars.

I also do love a visceral car. I think I would do well with something like a 427 cobra kit car as a second vehicle. Spartan interior and little creature comforts are a virtue to me. Guys ride motorcycles and they don't catch any crap, but if I want a car with no AC, carpet, headliner, or radio and nothing but sticky tires and ear crushing exhaust - I'm a weirdo.

[goatwgn]

Originally Posted by i82much

Then build it right and don't wreck. I have no interest in modern cars.

Me either. And cars of the '70s did have safety features. Try a '74 Grand Safari against the '59 Impala or the '09 Malibu. '70s cars had 5 mph bumpers, padded dashes, side door guard beams (look more like guardrails lol), padded upper door panels, rollover protection in the form of double walled steel, folding hoods, collapsible steering columns, padded steering wheels, headrests, shoulder harnesses. You could even get airbags in '74-'76 "B", "C" and "E" cars. A moot anyways. If you are driving a car from the '60 or '50s and you are really paranoid about getting killed in an accident, then build a rollcage into it, and wear a safety harness, helmet, and HANS device. Not to take nothing away from new cars, but they aren't everybody's cup of tea, and I can understand why old cars wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea either. I personally don't want to drive one after working on the things all day.

[mgarblik]

As GOATWGN stated, when you work on new stuff all day, you don't have any desire to own a high dollar new car to drive home at night. As I posted elsewhere, I recently owned a 5L new Mustang GT 6-speed. A great car, a high 12 second car, 300-400 lbs lighter than a Challenger or Camaro. Nothing ever went wrong with it. 30 MPG on the highway in 6th gear at 1500 RPM's at 80 MPH. But it's a completely different sensation, boring if you will drive, compared to an old muscle car. Old cars are not for everybody. They rattle and squeak, they have wind noise, they have lousy brakes and marginal steering compared to a modern muscle car, and they are slower when comparing stock to stock. Don't care, I like driving my 62 Catalina much more than the Coyote Mustang much to the complete dismay of my understanding wife.

[Jim Doran]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

As I posted elsewhere, I recently owned a 5L new Mustang GT 6-speed. A great car, a high 12 second car, 300-400 lbs lighter than a Challenger or Camaro.

No desire to hijack or start an argument, but wanted to keep the facts straight on camaro vs mustang weights. Camaro is lighter than the mustang.

2016 Camaro: 455 hp, 455 lb-ft, 3,685 lbs (manual); 8.1 lbs/hp

2016 Mustang: 435 hp, 400 lb-ft, 3,705 (manual); 8.5 lbs/hp

[77 Canamman]

The Camaro shed some weight with the latest gen.

[mgarblik]

No argument here about the weights of the new muscle cars. The Mustang in my family was a 2011 GT for reference. It's gone, replaced with the much more fun to drive and own 62 Catalina!. I guess my more general point was I agree with Mr. Glasco that you can't really compare the new and old muscle cars in an objective way. Stock vs Stock, old muscle cars lose in every measurable way. But we live and enjoy these cars in a subjective way. Why are these old cars so valuable? Because they have the feel and sensation of speed that the new cars simply don't deliver as you drive them. The Mustang I had delivered less of a sensation of speed at 110 MPH than the Catalina at 50 MPH. To many people that is progress and I won't argue the point. The tires alone put these new cars worlds ahead of the 14" bias tires our old cars ran on. It's just fun to see an old car put a new one on the trailer. In 1976 I drag raced a brand new 75 Corvette with my 4-door Canary yellow 4-door 1966 Ventura, 389 2bbl. 290 HP. Beat the Vette by about 6 car lengths and to this day I chuckle when I look at the finish line picture. The guy was almost in tears.

[vidguy]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

Old cars are not for everybody. They rattle and squeak, they have wind noise, they have lousy brakes and marginal steering compared to a modern muscle car, and they are slower when comparing stock to stock. Don't care, I like driving my 62 Catalina much more than the Coyote Mustang much to the complete dismay of my understanding wife.

Yeah I feel the same way as I stomp the gas in my Formula that is my Daily Driver..My wife sorta gets it..
But we rattle and squeak too..

[goatwgn]

Originally Posted by 77 Canamman

The Camaro shed some weight with the latest gen.

Speaking of "Old Cars" Canamman, and people talking about them rattling and squeaking, etc., I think you will agree with me (as I own a '74 Cutlass Supreme), that these '73-'77 Intermediates are some of the best riding cars ever built, and do not rattle, squeak, or have wind noise. The chassis design on these cars is very good at a combination of handling and road isolation. When I got this car from a family member back in 1988 so I could relieve my '66 Pontiac of "daily driving" duties, I just loved the way it rode and handled, to the point I modified the brakes, steering box, and geometry on my '66 to give it a similar feel. I used this for a daily driver ever since, racking up 500000 miles on it.

[J GLASGO]

I actually have a Scat Pack Shaker. And while it is fast, it is not as fast as my 67 GTO. The Gto when get on it on the street is all over the road, and is a test of driving skill. The Challenger is easy to keep straight. The Gto is chaotic, heart pumping thrill ride. The Challenger is fast,but not the same rush.

[77 Canamman]

Originally Posted by goatwgn

Speaking of "Old Cars" Canamman, and people talking about them rattling and squeaking, etc., I think you will agree with me (as I own a '74 Cutlass Supreme), that these '73-'77 Intermediates are some of the best riding cars ever built, and do not rattle, squeak, or have wind noise. The chassis design on these cars is very good at a combination of handling and road isolation. When I got this car from a family member back in 1988 so I could relieve my '66 Pontiac of "daily driving" duties, I just loved the way it rode and handled, to the point I modified the brakes, steering box, and geometry on my '66 to give it a similar feel. I used this for a daily driver ever since, racking up 500000 miles on it.

I agree, hence why I have owned so many. They are just modern enough to drive well, but not have some of the annoyances of a modern car. The styling is another feature I always loved.

The chassis was so proven, with little modification, it was used for the hugely popular 1977-96 full size GM's.

[goatwgn]

Originally Posted by 77 Canamman

I agree, hence why I have owned so many. They are just modern enough to drive well, but not have some of the annoyances of a modern car. The styling is another feature I always loved.

The chassis was so proven, with little modification, it was used for the hugely popular 1977-96 full size GM's.

Very true. I have actually had a later "B" bodies on a lift next to my own car when I was changing my oil at lunch one day (1994 Buick Roadmaster). Everything was identical except for the transmission crossmember, and there are two tubular supports on the frame where the front torque boxes are, that bolts to the side rails and onto the front engine crossmember. These are tack welded on the "B" and "C" cars, where mine are bolted in. As a matter of fact, I mounted a set of identical supports onto the frame on my '66 Tempest Custom, and it stiffened the front end enough I noticed it handled better. If you ever need brake parts, spindles, etc for your Grand AM, or Lemans, you can get them right off of these later model "B" cars and they will bolt right in. I would bet the rear ends would probably work as well, even though most of them are weaker than the ones in our earlier "A" cars. Exceptions being the Impala SS, Fleetwood Brougham Etc.

[wheneaglesfly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVzz...e_gdata_player

[goatwgn]

That thing sounds sweet. I could listen to that thing breathe wide open all day long. Basically a '79 Trans Am turned mechanically into a Ram Air IV 1970 4 speed Trans Am. Nice car.

[wheneaglesfly]

Originally Posted by goatwgn

That thing sounds sweet. I could listen to that thing breathe wide open all day long. Basically a '79 Trans Am turned mechanically into a Ram Air IV 1970 4 speed Trans Am. Nice car.

I posted that 1979 Trans Am with the Ram Air IV engine burning rubber Krazy Wild on a Corvette Forum..........Made them all Insane Mad.

Hellcats released & Z06 Failed being #1 as planned.
Actually a 2014 Viper bone stock in Florida Street Raced a New C7 Z06.....
Viper cleaned House.
Then Hellcats decimated real bad.

Vette guys still burning mad.

Been a Vette owner since 2007.
Never sold my Pontiacs, owned a long time now, long before a Vette.