Classic American muscle killed by an FD!
11-09-2005, 08:58 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: green brook, nj
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by RE-Amemiya7' post='776194' date='Nov 7 2005, 12:25 AM
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.
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.
11-09-2005, 12:24 PM
#12
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage' post='776840' date='Nov 9 2005, 08:58 AM
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.
11-09-2005, 03:23 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Stacked outside you're trailer door
Posts: 1,430
Originally Posted by RE-Amemiya7' post='776909' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:24 AM
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 *** clown and hasnt seen many 1st gen Camaros pushing 1500+rwhp.
11-12-2005, 01:02 PM
#14
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by sweet7' post='776997' date='Nov 9 2005, 03:23 PM
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.
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!
11-19-2005, 04:34 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: green brook, nj
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by sweet7' post='776997' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:23 PM
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 *** clown and hasnt seen many 1st gen Camaros pushing 1500+rwhp.
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.
12-20-2005, 03:53 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: green brook, nj
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Lionheart240' post='788098' date='Dec 19 2005, 04:08 PM
Your signature says you ran a 13.5 @ 108mph with a 2.4 60ft.
^___^
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)