My eyes!!! My eyes!!!
Posted on 04/02/2007 6:09:35 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel
Raw earth pounding power. Basically, so much power that the real problem is trying to keep the tires from just melting. Engines like ZL-1 Chevies and 426 hemis come to mind.
Good point. '72 was about the end of the road for real muscle cars. Of course, we are seeing a resurgence of sorts.
My eyes!!! My eyes!!!
Possibly the Buick Grand National.
I'm sorry and i mean no disrespect, but they really didn't come close, not in the '80s. If you ever get a chance, go for a ride in one of the 60s to '72 muscle cars.
Oh yes, and could buy 103 octane for a fraction of what gas costs now. I can't for the life of me remember how much though, pretty sure it was less than a buck a gallon though Oh! and it smelled good! Like gas ought to smell!! None of the odd aromas that come with newer fuels.
Now that one would be sweet.
4 kinds. You left out 2 door roadsters. A convertible without the benefit of roll-up windows. They use side curtains if anything at all.
check out my 3D ‘68 charger I made for my animation Demo reel on my website. My demo reel takes a while to load on the page.
http://www.zachsvensk.com
You know, I have been reflecting on this and I have to go back to my original. I just can't abide by the idea of a muscle car with an engine displacement described in liters, especially just 3.8 of them it's just wrong. Muscle cars were about excess and they were all American. I have had some seriously fast cars since the day. But a 427 or 426 didn't need to wait for a turbo to spool up. The tires just smoked when you punched it. The power wasn't smooth and controlled, it was raw and coarse. It didn't whine, it rumbled. It needed a nasty cam that lumped at idle to make power when you needed it, not a tweaked computer chip. It would leap with a chirp of the tires when you goosed it a little and chirped again when you let off because of the compression. It is just so different driving a small cube newer car as opposed to a classic muscle car, I don't care how many turbos or how much nitrous you throw at it. It's just different.
The smallest engine available for the Cougar was a 289ci....the same engine that killed Ferraris in the GT40, and in the Shelby Cobra.
I've got a '67, and have managed to win a couple of trophies with it.
He's still kicking himself for making that bone-headed trade, and often wonders where his Charger ended up and where it is today.
I also realized there is another. I don’t know what to call it except maybe a hybrid 2door. It’s the one that was common in the eighties.
It’s got a door and window like a 2door hardtop but the rear side window is fixed...doesn’t roll down. Consequently, there is a post between the front and rear side windows.
Thanks. I bought it last summer when I was shopping for a 60’s Mustang. I’m just getting to the point where I can enjoy driving it once in awhile. It needed a lot of work from years of not being used regularly. The previous owner averaged less than 500 miles a year over the last 20 years.
I’m still trying to decide between a full restoration or doing a custom job on it. Either way it gets lots of attention when I drive it.
My brother owns a restored ‘70 Mach 1. My 5.0 Mustang, which I have sold, would blow its doors as will my ‘03 Mach 1.
That photo always cracks me up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.