“The big V8’s oozed torque and hp at low RPMs and were fun to drive at any speed. You didn’t have to try. The rice burners and turbo 4’s require you to wind the engine out like speed racer to deliver the goods. BIG DIFFERENCE.”
I was there, too. I know all about the sound and fury and burning rubber. The drama equaled fun, as you say.
But the 0 - 60 mpg times are simple evidence of technology today. BTW the turbo delivers max torque at very low rpms, and they jump off at the start.
I now have Ford Mustang GT V8. It is like coming home, effortless power and grace.
Not all modern cars are high revving. My 1986 Buick T-type Redlined @ 5,300 RPM stock and makes peak HP @ 5,000 RPM
Back in the 1990’s it ran low 12’s in 1/4 mile almost completley stock: K&N Filter, Sticky tires, $15 Chip, Cheap/free mods. With a $450 Turbo and $200 Fuel injectors, it ran 11.50’s@118 mph, driving it 180 miles one way to the track, getting 23 mpg, with the A/C on.
It was at that point I realized Old school mucle was dead to me.
My dad and I had collected about 15 old school muscle cars: Cuda’s, AMX’s, Torino Cobra/Cyclone Spoiler, Motion Camaro, Chevelles, etc. As pieces of art and icons of a bygone age, they are great, but as cars (their primary purpose) they are “not so much”.
Muscle cars were originally build to “go fast cheaply”. They were to provide an alternative to Cobra’s, Ferrari’s, Porsches, corvettes, etc. that anyone could afford.
That is why the whole craze of paying $40-$60-$100K for an old muscle car is alien to me. I’ve driven almost every one of them. Some are OK to drive while others are downright awful. Convertible ‘Cuda’s are a “loose collection of parts flying in close formation” and some idiots pay over $2 Million for one. I hope he never tries to drive it fast on the same road I’m on.