Originally Posted by Rampager2000
That is, until people start doing work to them. Hit up a drag strip and tell me how many cars you see that are under 10 seconds that aren't a classic muscle. Those big engines were **** from factory but can be made stupid with work.
Ok? Non streetable drag strip cars that are equalled by modern cars you mean?
What about when people do work on a modern V8 or a turbo engine? Same result.
That can be said for any car.
I've seen Supras and a Mitsubishi Colts at less than 10 seconds.
Originally Posted by Daniel Dudley
Big block 69 corvettes could easily turn a four second o-60 time. But you keep on telling yourself that...
What an insulting post.
Except what I said is true. Almost every 1960s muscle car car was a 13-14 second 1/4 mile car stock AT THE HIGH END of these cars. Then there were rare stratospheric cars that don't even equal their modern equivalents and were just as expensive in dollars in their day! SUPERCARS you are talking about!
A Corvette is not a muscle car, it is a sports car and the version you bring up is a supercar or halo car. Huge difference there. Muscle cars will be slower. Still, you are wrong.
Anyways..... thanks for allowing yourself to be proven wrong.
1969 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray
430hp 427 c.i. V-8
Standing 1/4 mi.
Car Life 07/1969
1968 Chevrolet Corvette 427 0-60 mph 6.2 Quarter mile 13.9
1969 Chevrolet Corvette 427 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.8
1970 Chevrolet Corvette 427 0-60 mph 6.0 Quarter mile 14.1
to today's technology.
Keep in mind I said muscle car which is something a corvette is not.
Heres some more sites you can read so you can learn more about cars:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...m/viewall.html - list of the fastest muscle cars of the era and how fast they actually are not using the blinders of nostalgia.
Of course the only respectable cars compared to today mentioned from the era is the ZL1, the two only ever built car, and a Shelby Cobra a minimalist purpose built race car.
Bring up another halo car to try and prove me wrong only for reality to remain the same. Shall I bring up modern halo cars to shame this Corvette?
Advertised as around 430hp, once again that is pre-sae HP as well. If measured by today's standards it would probably be as much as 100 less. edit: In fact in that wiki article on the C3:
net rating of only 376 hp on the ZL1.
Oh and production numbers on this ZL1? The one that compares to what numbers you bring up?
automotive experts believed only two were built
A regular 427 IS SLOWER.
As shown above.
As I said, overrated. The one exception to otherwise SLOW muscle cars is the ZL1 of which only 2 are built ever aside from $10-$20k of engine work that would produce the same results on modern cars.
Keep in mind all these cars on top of being slower than modern performance cars also handled like ****, but here in hickville USA we only live 1/4 mile at a time... right?
Care to bring up actual muscle cars now?
Oh wait, i'm right so you can't contradict what i'm saying, thats why you brought up corvettes! You realize that this corvette ZL1 was the fastest car of it's era right? It's still slower than high end relatively affordable modern cars! How much faster is the fastest car of OUR era?
You bring up strawmen I will as well.
Nostalgia doesn't equal superiority it is only nostalgia. But you keep on telling yourself that... I suggest you at least use google before insulting people again. Next you'll talk to me about how Harley Davidsons are the fastest bikes.
So what is it like reading a post that is insulting, like yours, but also ****s on everything you said while using actual facts? Try responding to someone not using insulting internet memetalk next time.
Since i'm bored at work with nothing to do, to further **** on slow, terrible handling, no brakes, overrated nostalgia 1960s muscle cars.
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.5 sec @ 102 mph
What car is this?
A budget not all that fast car compared to the #1 car of it's era.