jspagna1

Me to just for the worth of the car,but look at the numbers and then look at the weight of both cars. The Cobra didn't weigh much at all. The car must have been scary to drive too with such a short wheelbase. Talk about FUN though!!

mobydick

The fastest Production (Not Counting Shelbys and limited runs) Mustang made before 2007 Model year GT500 was a 71 Boss 351 only 1806 were made, 1/4 mile E/T was 13.8. With a good driver it would run that off the truck.

bakerjd

Wow, a "progressive geezer". You don't put those two words together too often! haha

Norm Peterson

Or brakes . . .

Bingo.

You know that if in 1966 you could have briefly time-travelled to today for just a peek, with your 1966 mindset fully intact you'd have described todays cars as being "too soft", "too luxury-oriented", "too sissified", and certainly too complicated. All that refinement comes at some expense in "character", kind of like how sanding makes surfaces nicer by chopping off the high points that stand out.


Amen to that.


But maybe best overall is a well done restomod/pro-touring effort on the 1960's car of your choice, which in turn is a modern-day interpretation of the traditional hotrodding of the 40's and 50's. I know of one such car that actually did run 10's in mostly streetable trim (still needs windshield wipers IIRC) with no power adder of any sort being involved, and it runs autocross and road course lap times that are competitive with C5/C6 'Vettes. That car would simply blow OP's Dad's mind.


Norm

GTjoe49

It's a great time to be an enthusiast. I walked into the showroom knowing I wanted a car that was a cut above the rest of Detroits iron. For a few bucks more than your well equipped family sedan, I wanted a performance car, one that was noticably faster than the rest. The option list has a few good choices, taller rear end, manual transmission, bucket seats, performance tires on "mag" wheels and a high performance engine option.
The car was quick enough out of the box to take on most street racers, but digging in for a few mods would sepperate you from the pack. After getting a tune, some engine parts from the performance cataloge and some cosmetic touches, you were ready to show your new ride to the jealous masses and when the time came, it had the go to back it up.

Now, which era am I describing?

It's not about the numbers!!!

Norm Peterson

I guess that makes me "semi-progressive". Technological development can be both praised and cursed.

Efficient, fast, and structurally safe are worthy of the praise. I'd like to be able to add "structural efficiency", but since cars have been getting heavier rather than lighter this point is not so clear.

Electronic nannies that substitute somebody else's judgment over mine as a driver deserve the other. Particularly those systems which place arbitrary limits on any aspect of performance that is less than what the vehicle is inherently capable of, and those which can activate themselves without that activation being in response to something that I might be doing.


Norm

chidrock

I'm 31. I have heard people talk the same way about the older cars being faster, but I just let it go. (probably because it's coming from my father-in-law lol - when I got the supercharger in I asked him if he wanted to go for a ride and he just kind of wagged it off and mentioned how he's been in some really fast cars that this wouldn't compare to)

I'm guessing that the reason people think the older cars were so much faster was because of how they compared to the other cars on the road. These days even mini-vans can go pretty fast thanks to the progress of modern technology. I wasn't around for it, but I'm guessing the econo-boxes and trucks of those days were nowhere near as fast as what we drive with today.

Also, thanks to modern suspensions I can go 80 without realizing it in my car. I can ony imagine what it felt like to go that fast in those older cars. I remember my moms boats from the late 70's and how crazy they felt when I would get them up to highway speeds.

It really comes down to perception...

outceltj

Im like most even though I didnt grow up back then I still like the lines of the cars and can still appreciate what I thought was a nice looking car. It seems to me that for about 20 some years the lines of the cars were in my eyes terrible. The old 5.0's were boring and boxy and the S95's were a bit behind on taste as well. I do somewhat like the terminators but not nearly as much as I like my car. There was one car that I really liked and it was the pontiac firebird b/c of the hood and the WS-6 or L-1. Nice cars I thought. The camaros before they brought those back recently were ugly to me. Now I like what they have done with the cars. The challenger is great looking as well as the camaro and best of all the mustang. All though the challenger is up there. THere was a huge gap in there from the old muscle cars what I consider muscle cars now and thank god they finally brought the looks and muscle back

Thrashard340

I loe the muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's. It is the reason why I got into cars in the first place. Tires are by far the single, biggest limiting factor in that era of cars. However, HP is still HP. Even though tire technology is better today, you can still roast the hides on a GT500 (just one example, there are many I can use here), if your not careful during launch. So tires are still a limiting factor, even by today's standard when comparing stock, factory rides.

Thrashard340

[QUOTE=GTjoe49;7560611]It's a great time to be an enthusiast. [QUOTE]



I like this comment and I agree wholeheartedly. I was thinking the exact same thing in recent years. You can look at the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro and say the horsepower wars are back.