Several years ago when I owned a bright orange 1972 Chevelle, I pulled up next to a sleek, low to the ground, beauty of a car. I reved my 400hp V8 and waited for the light to turn green. I took off, only to find myself several car lengths behind and I hadn’t even gotten through the intersection. It was at that moment, as I watched and listened to the FD Rx-7 pull away, that I realized that I had to have one!



Two years later, now I own the FD and I'm doing the killing.

its like, an epiphany!

One ran over my foot once, thats when I knew I had to have one.

An epiphany indeed!

A friend of mine had a Nova and was a "muscle car beats all" guy until he lost to a Acura NSX. Cool story.

a repo man called me once, thats how i knew i was goign to own one

old muscle cars are slow. what was rated at 400hp was rated with nothing on the engine and lt headers on them. Glad to see that it made you get a fd though.

My old Chevelle wasn't too slow, it could run high 12s all day. The 350 was bored 30over = 355ci, with headers, high compression heads and a 850cfm carb. it was quick but handeled like a tank. The FD that I was a single turbo ( I saw it at a show months later) and was probibly making the same hp, but about 2000 pounds less! I havent seen the FD since, if I ever do, I need to thank that guy for smoking me and starting my addiction to rotorys.

wow then u should wait till i pull up to you with the same power in my 1st gen and blow the doors of ur FD then ur gonna say u want a SA

I dont mind getting my doors blown off, as long as its but another Rx-7. You might be in for a good race come next spring, the twins are coming off and a single is going in their place. Im not sure i could keep up with a 400hp first gen, not unless i shed some weight.

well...that was more my point..they're a hell of a lot slower than people made them out to be. You have any idea what my SS(01) could do with some headers and hgiher compression heads and tuning. My point being..its amazing how over rated those older muscle cars were and how under rated newer ones are.

How true indeed! The newer ones can handel, I wouldent even think to take my Chevelle on a road track, the thing would flip or shake itseft to peaces if i had to slam on the breaks. Clasic muscle, for the most part, is only good for stright line speed, the new ones are much more balanced. But as exciting as it was to get on the throttle of the the Chevelle, it doesnt get my blood flowing like my FD does.

I grew up on muscle cars. My old man has a '69 AMC AMX, and had previously owned a '67 Stingray, and hot roded '55 Chevy. There is something very unmistakable and fun about muscle cars. There is no feeling on earth like turning the key and having you're teeth rattle out. Also 400+lbs or torque instantly on tap is no joke. Anyone who thinks muscle cars are "slow" is an ass clown and hasnt seen many 1st gen Camaros pushing 1500+rwhp.

Same here, I grew up helping my dad work on his '70 challenger 440, BOSS 302, Chevells, etc. As much as a love my rotary, you are exactely right, there is nothing like the feel and sound of a big V8 ratteling your teath out!

any car with 1500 hp is gonna be fast...



I meant that stock..they are slow..everyone makes them out to be super cars in the q/m. but realistically..what was the fastest stock et back then? low 14s...maybe high 13s ? to me..that is slow.

Your signature says you ran a 13.5 @ 108mph with a 2.4 60ft.



^___^

let it go, damm thread is 2 months old

yes..my signature does say that...do you want a cookie for being able to read that? that is also why I put the 60ft..because the car is very hard to launch..if i could catch traction...that run should have been around a 12.7 if I got a normal street tire 2.0 60ft...but thats hard when you spin through the 1st 3 gears(because it was aroound 20degrees out) and catch traction in 4th at the end of the q/m.