Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Most of my dislike for unibody comes from repair cost and overall weakness to minor accidents. I understand there made to have crumple zones but they collapse far to easily on most cars. I had a 89 rs camaro that was totaled by a guy in front of me on the highway losing a paving stone and it boncing up under the car multiple times destroying the whole right side of the unibody and touching nothing else. I know it has its advantages but I have seen to many cars totaled from an accident a car with a frame would have drove away from(i use to be a mechanic at a ford dealership and did the non-body work repairs for the body shop.

As people driving trucks that dont need/use them as trucks I cant stand it. Although soccer moms driving diesel as great fun when I worked at ford. Always had them towed in after filing them with unleaded or not knowing to plug them in/use a anti-gel additive in the winter.

When did they make a two-seater Mustang?

It's not really a two seater, it just doesn't come with the back seats to save the weight.

Andrew1975 wrote:

When did they make a two-seater Mustang?

It's not really a two seater, it just doesn't come with the back seats to save the weight.

Hmm, interesting. Do you know when it was made?

voryn15 wrote:Most of my dislike for unibody comes from repair cost and overall weakness to minor accidents. I understand there made to have crumple zones but they collapse far to easily on most cars. I had a 89 rs camaro that was totaled by a guy in front of me on the highway losing a paving stone and it boncing up under the car multiple times destroying the whole right side of the unibody and touching nothing else. I know it has its advantages but I have seen to many cars totaled from an accident a car with a frame would have drove away from(i use to be a mechanic at a ford dealership and did the non-body work repairs for the body shop.

As people driving trucks that dont need/use them as trucks I cant stand it. Although soccer moms driving diesel as great fun when I worked at ford. Always had them towed in after filing them with unleaded or not knowing to plug them in/use a anti-gel additive in the winter.

Yeah, that is one of the draw backs of unibody. I had an accident in my MR2, I spun out during a turn at about 80 and smashed backwards into a divider. It looked like I just dented the bumper, car drove fine. Upon further inspection the entire back end (where the engine is) was shifted about 1 inch to the right. The insurance estimate was 5K because I bent so much unibody. Can you say totaled! I got it fixed though with a salvage title, I actually made some money.

What ford was using unibody? Probe?

Hmm, interesting. Do you know when it was made?

I'll have to find my old issue of (was it car and driver or road and track). It was a limited run, but I don't remember off hand. I'm almost positive it was a direct ford product and not a solon job, this was maybe 2-3 years ago.

voryn15 wrote:Most of my dislike for unibody comes from repair cost and overall weakness to minor accidents. I understand there made to have crumple zones but they collapse far to easily on most cars. I had a 89 rs camaro that was totaled by a guy in front of me on the highway losing a paving stone and it boncing up under the car multiple times destroying the whole right side of the unibody and touching nothing else. I know it has its advantages but I have seen to many cars totaled from an accident a car with a frame would have drove away from(i use to be a mechanic at a ford dealership and did the non-body work repairs for the body shop.

As people driving trucks that dont need/use them as trucks I cant stand it. Although soccer moms driving diesel as great fun when I worked at ford. Always had them towed in after filing them with unleaded or not knowing to plug them in/use a anti-gel additive in the winter.

Slightly off topic, how was it working for Ford? I plan on working as a mechanic with a Ford dealership after I graduate UTI.

Well lets just say im no longer in the buisness because of that place. But not so much fords fault as the dealership I worked for. Just be certin before you go to uti that this is what you really want to as its a lot of money in schooling and tools for what was for me, my dream job turned nightmare in about 2-3 years.

As far as fords with a unibody, almost all cars are. exceptions were the mustang and crown vic.

I would guess that since ford seams to be the only American car company that doesn't seam to have it's head up it's.....I'd suspect rather well.

As far as fords with a unibody, almost all cars are. exceptions were the mustang and crown vic.

Really? I didn't know that. I haven't really looked at a ford in a while. The only American company I really cared for was Pontiac. But well..........

Andrew1975 wrote:I would guess that since ford seams to be the only American car company that doesn't seam to have it's head up it's.....I'd suspect rather well.

I wouldnt go that far this is the same company that had to do a recall on the focus in 2002ish because they left the dust seals oit of the rear wheel bearings and in states with snow in the winter, they were getting salt in the bearings and corroding with disastorus results. Oh and the whole firestone recall was mostly fords fault the recomended tire pressure on those explorers was 24psi which is severly under inflated for a,truck tire.

voryn15 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I would guess that since ford seams to be the only American car company that doesn't seam to have it's head up it's.....I'd suspect rather well.

I wouldnt go that far this is the same company that had to do a recall on the focus in 2002ish because they left the dust seals oit of the rear wheel bearings and in states with snow in the winter, they were getting salt in the bearings and corroding with disastorus results. Oh and the whole firestone recall was mostly fords fault the recomended tire pressure on those explorers was 24psi which is severly under inflated for a,truck tire.

Well I mean now. They didn't go bankrupt or borrow money during that whole fiasco, they are going quite strong. I bought a bunch of shares a few years ago right after the other companies took bailouts when they were cheap, it has been one of my best investments growth wise.

DickBandit wrote:That's another issue I have.

Car performance, like video games today, are becoming dominated by the voice of the people who don't care about the true potential and performance of what made so many cars so great.
Yes, back in the 60s Mustangs were oriented towards the everyday driver. HOWEVER, people loved the Mustang for its reliability as well as its sleek design. The reliability of that car is what has kept it alive through the decline of sports cars world-wide.

Nowadays the automobile market is dominated by the voice of soccer-moms who want bigger cars for no damn reason. Hippies who don't realize that cars ARE NOT the biggest cause of "Green House Gases!!" (*cough cough* Volcanoes, Cow Farts *cough cough*) And retards who think that bolting, mind you, BOLTING an obnoxious exhaust tip on their car improves performance by 5hp and also increases their penis by 2".

I'm pretty sure the market has always been defined by idiots buying impractical and goofy crap. I base this theory on two points;
1) Humans make up the same percentage of the market for cars that they always have, 100%.
2) Humans are stupid, and always have been.

I'm also not sure 'performance' is really the true end goal of cars, either. If the car spends 70% of its time in traffic going to work, and almost all of the the rest of the time driving around streets with fairly low speed limits, I don't think it is very sensible to buy a car with a really high top end speed, unless you're a big enough fan to go out on the amateur racetrack on weekends. Yet that's the cars we keep buying.

Surely cost, safety, comfort and (maybe) fuel efficiency are bigger concerns for 95% of the market?

SSH SSSSSSH!!!!!
Sebster, don't give them any ideas!! They may be listening!!!

Mwahahahahahaha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:It's mostly due to size really. They have not made these cars to be performance cars strictly. Much like the old muscle cars they are just large cars with big engines. Most of the old cars were just your moms car with a big engine sports package, that's what these are basically. They are built for comfort first, performance is secondary. They are looking for big markets and big sales, you don't really get that with strictly performance cars. True performance cars, don't sell well because they are too expensive, too uncomfortable and too basic, you can't sell them to the average guy with a wife and kids who can only afford one car.

That's what I thought. So really there's no issue over why cars are suddenly much heavier, outside of being generally bigger.

Really, there's just a curiosity over a period of American car manufacturing history in which small, high performance cars were built in decent production numbers. It's a period that some modern cars have attempted to emulate, but not really.

Also to note more gears adds almost no weight anymore.

Why is that?

No, our gas is cheap because the US pays for it in different ways, we fight for it, plus we buy in volume baby.

No, it's taxes. Going to war in some random place or another doesn't get you cheaper gas, you pay the same per barrel as anyone else. Nor is there any kind of bulk discounting. Once you've got enough gas to fill up a tanker, there's no economies of scale.

Seriously, if you remove the tax component from fuel prices the final figure is within a few cents, the whole world over.

Gas tax though is pretty hard, America is a big and spread out country.

Dude, I live in Australia. My state, WA, is about 50% bigger than Texas and has 2 million people.

Despite that we pay taxes that are on par with most European countries.

If that tax went directly to a fund for good high speed public mass transit I might be on board. But to punish people like me that already drive a 4 banger......meh.

It would only be right to signal the increases well ahead of time, but that's probably politically impractical.

Really, there's just a curiosity over a period of American car manufacturing history in which small, high performance cars were built in decent production numbers. It's a period that some modern cars have attempted to emulate, but not really.

I'm not sure what period you are talking about. Americans as far as I know have never really built small high performance cars in decent production numbers. That's more of a Japanese thing. Americans have almost always been about big performance cars.

Why is that?

If you look at the diagram of a transmission, the gears are all in an orbital set up, they really don't way anything. Transmissions have gotten lighter as they progressed to an electronic function versus a purely mechanical function (think 300lb cash register vs a modern touch screen pos system). The old purely mechanical automatic transmissions used to be a beast. Try looking at those old blueprints and diagrams will make your head spin. Hell, anymore they are so light and effective most manual transmissions are just self adjustable automatics.

No, it's taxes. Going to war in some random place or another doesn't get you cheaper gas, you pay the same per barrel as anyone else. Nor is there any kind of bulk discounting. Once you've got enough gas to fill up a tanker, there's no economies of scale.

Seriously, if you remove the tax component from fuel prices the final figure is within a few cents, the whole world over.

I was just having fun with the fighting and volume thing.You may be right, but oil is a commodity, gas is not. Oil is then refined on scale no? The refineries are in the US. I don't know if that really has anything to do with it or not. I do know we do tax gas quite a but maybe not as much as everything else.

Dude, I live in Australia. My state, WA, is about 50% bigger than Texas and has 2 million people.

Despite that we pay taxes that are on par with most European countries.

Yeah, but when you are as large as the US and so reliant on shipping that uses the highway system any increase in the price of gas has huge ramifications on the cost of goods, which in turn effects the economy pretty harshly. Again it the taxes went into highspeed rail, and public transport so that we could in turn use less gas I'd be up for it.

It would only be right to signal the increases well ahead of time, but that's probably politically impractical.

Yeah, I mean if they don't raise the tax specifically for that and earmark it as such it will never go there.

I honestly don't know how people drive their big lumbering behemoths right now. I know people that moved 20-30 miles out of the city (whiteflight jerks) and bought big expensive houses and big expensive trucks when gas was cheap. They now drive that worthless gas guzzler into town every day and back to their worthless houses for the job that pays less now with inflation. I bought my fun used little 4 banger sports car, moved downtown and ride my bike or my vespa most everywhere.

Back on topic though as big as the new muscle cars are, if you look America does not make the super giant land yachts anymore (thank god). Look at some of those 60's and 70's cars they were so long and heavy, you could fit a prius in the trunk and lay down on the hood and not have anything hanging over. Although again I find the giant tall SUVs even more annoying. I can't see over your car when I'm driving

sebster wrote:
I'm also not sure 'performance' is really the true end goal of cars, either. If the car spends 70% of its time in traffic going to work, and almost all of the the rest of the time driving around streets with fairly low speed limits, I don't think it is very sensible to buy a car with a really high top end speed, unless you're a big enough fan to go out on the amateur racetrack on weekends. Yet that's the cars we keep buying.

Funny thing is, many auto makers build a high-performance (like formula series stuff) machines to test out new automobile technology.

When I say performance, I don't mean Ferrari F150 (Yep, the F150) style performance, but a quick, nimble, fun to DRIVE car. Good handling, tight turning, quick off the line.

And I actually do go to a amateur-style race event. I've done a couple autocross events. It's basically a time trial race event that is made to compete drivers' skill rather than simply who has the fastest car.

I had a 2010 Scion tC. It's the underdog of Japanese sports coupes. When I raced it at an autocross event I was extremely impressed!! There is a lot of torque in that small car, which means it sprints off the line. No matter how hard I slammed the brakes or how hard I cranked the wheel, that car would not let go of the road. I picked a cone on each turn (the track was made up of traffic cones) as a pivot point, and the tC would put it's nose right on that cone and gracefully glide through the turn.

That's performance. And that car is only $20,000.

Sadly a couple months ago the clutch mysteriously burnt out at 14,000 mi. ...Seriously, 14,000?! Toyota/Scion obviously made a boo-boo somewhere when assembling the specific car I bought. Nobody else has had a problem like this with their tC.

Andrew1975 wrote:I'm not sure what period you are talking about. Americans as far as I know have never really built small high performance cars in decent production numbers. That's more of a Japanese thing. Americans have almost always been about big performance cars.

The thread started with the OP lamenting the new versions of old pony cars were much heavier. My point was that it seemed liked pony cars were something of an unusual blip at the time. Rather than seeing the weight of the new versions of these cars as a trendline, we should look at the old cars as being very unusual.

If you look at the diagram of a transmission, the gears are all in an orbital set up, they really don't way anything. Transmissions have gotten lighter as they progressed to an electronic function versus a purely mechanical function (think 300lb cash register vs a modern touch screen pos system). The old purely mechanical automatic transmissions used to be a beast. Try looking at those old blueprints and diagrams will make your head spin. Hell, anymore they are so light and effective most manual transmissions are just self adjustable automatics.

I'm learning a lot in this thread, thanks.

I was just having fun with the fighting and volume thing.You may be right, but oil is a commodity, gas is not. Oil is then refined on scale no? The refineries are in the US. I don't know if that really has anything to do with it or not. I do know we do tax gas quite a but maybe not as much as everything else.

I think everyone recieves oil then refines it. Oil is the kind of thing where it's used in such vast quantities that maximum economies of scale are accessible by all but the smallest countries.

Yeah, but when you are as large as the US and so reliant on shipping that uses the highway system any increase in the price of gas has huge ramifications on the cost of goods, which in turn effects the economy pretty harshly. Again it the taxes went into highspeed rail, and public transport so that we could in turn use less gas I'd be up for it.

We're just as reliant on transport. Perth to Sydney, so coast to coast, is about the same distance as LA to Atlanta. In between those two you've got what, 150 million people? We've got 20 million between them. So every mile travelled by a truck is supplying a fraction as many people. We're just as subject to fuel price changes that you are.

Point is, you adapt. The inflation sucks when fuel goes up, the hit to your backpocket sucks, but the money then goes towards important infrastructure (as you point out, you'd need to see it tied directly to key infrastructure). And on top of that you get all the benefits of

Yeah, I mean if they don't raise the tax specifically for that and earmark it as such it will never go there.

I was thinking that it'd be more fair to signal the tax increase well ahead of time. Tell people five years out that taxes fuel will increase, and the per gallon cost will increase by 40% or whatever. Give people time to adjust, to take it into account with their next car purchase before they felt the hit.

But politically, given the election cycle and all that, it'd be impossible.



And yeah, it seems the old mega large sedans are gone... but it seems like they've been replaced by SUVs. Ultimately, at least some of those old mega big sedan things looked pretty stylish, I've never seen a good looking SUV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DickBandit wrote:When I say performance, I don't mean Ferrari F150 (Yep, the F150) style performance, but a quick, nimble, fun to DRIVE car. Good handling, tight turning, quick off the line.

Sure, and what I'm saying is that kind of performance isn't really needed for the driving most of us do. Good handling, quick off the line type stuff isn't needed for the average commute to work.

And I actually do go to a amateur-style race event. I've done a couple autocross events. It's basically a time trial race event that is made to compete drivers' skill rather than simply who has the fastest car.

Sounds like awesome fun.

DickBandit wrote:
Nowadays as we can see, the demand for pure breed performance machines have once again risen! The Challenger, Camaro, and even the Dodge Charger have made a triumphant return from retirement! ...However, their Golden Years haven't been to kind to them:
Both the Challenger and Charger weigh in at 4000+!!!
The Camaro: 3750lbs!!!
And the Mustang weighing in the least at.... 3500 lbs (GT model)

The 2002 Camaro had a curb weight of 3400 lbs, much lighter than the G3 models, and only slightly lighter than the G5. Going back to the classic generations, you're looking at 4000 lb cars.

The G1 Challenger (as far I'm concerned the G2 never existed) weighed over 4000 lbs ever year, as did the G2 Charger.

The G4 Mustang weighed in around 3250 lbs, and the classic models (G1 and G2) weighed right around 3700 lbs.

Regulations matter, sure, but its also a matter of design looking back to the G1 and G2 versions of all these cars.

@OP

Is it your nostalgia week or something?

This is your second thread in as many days where you've said that modern versions of your favourite thing when you were younger, are inferior.

dogma wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
Nowadays as we can see, the demand for pure breed performance machines have once again risen! The Challenger, Camaro, and even the Dodge Charger have made a triumphant return from retirement! ...However, their Golden Years haven't been to kind to them:
Both the Challenger and Charger weigh in at 4000+!!!
The Camaro: 3750lbs!!!
And the Mustang weighing in the least at.... 3500 lbs (GT model)

The 2002 Camaro had a curb weight of 3400 lbs, much lighter than the G3 models, and only slightly lighter than the G5. Going back to the classic generations, you're looking at 4000 lb cars.

The G1 Challenger (as far I'm concerned the G2 never existed) weighed over 4000 lbs ever year, as did the G2 Charger.

The G4 Mustang weighed in around 3250 lbs, and the classic models (G1 and G2) weighed right around 3700 lbs.

Regulations matter, sure, but its also a matter of design looking back to the G1 and G2 versions of all these cars.
When you say G1 I assume Generation 1.

From what I saw, the curb weight of a Mustang in 65 and 66 was around 2500 lbs.
[/url]http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1965/specs.html[/url]

The Fastback is the beefier V8 model.

I'm just trying to figure out where all this extra weight comes from.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:@OP

Is it your nostalgia week or something?

This is your second thread in as many days where you've said that modern versions of your favourite thing when you were younger, are inferior.

...This is thread #2. And no, none of it would be "nostalgic" because I did not exists until 1991.

I'm not saying the cars of today are "inferior" either. Like I've said several times, where's all this extra weight coming from?

The current generation of American Muscle and... kinda Pony Cars are still true testaments to their predecessors, but AGAIN, it seems as though they are putting on some unhealthy weight.

The reason this intrigues me so much is back in the 90s when the Mitsubishi 3000GT (aka GTO) made its debut it was often picked on because of its weight. The base model weighed in at 3100lbs and the higher end models went up to a whopping 3800lbs. It was joking called "the boat" because of it's weight. So back then it was seen as a fatty of a sports car, but nowadays that is completely normal. So it's just a very minor complaint I have with current generation sports cars. But that doesn't mean I think the current generation is bad. Quite the opposite. I'm happy to see that the demand for sports cars is back and manufacturers are excited more than ever to produced better sports cars.

The thread started with the OP lamenting the new versions of old pony cars were much heavier. My point was that it seemed liked pony cars were something of an unusual blip at the time. Rather than seeing the weight of the new versions of these cars as a trendline, we should look at the old cars as being very unusual.

Ah, I see. I just never considered those cars small "built small high performance cars in decent production numbers". When I think small I think Honda Civic or such, I wouldn't consider anything that can handle a V8 small. But I got your point.

Interesting enough, there is talk that the next corvette will not be an 8 or will be a very small 8. It is creating a large debate. Not a big vette fan myself so meh.

^
Funny thing is that seems to be an "issue" for all American auto makers.

And I put issue in quotations for a reason.

With the Mustang crowd there is an uproar that 4 cylinder Mustangs will make a return. Honestly I don't see why that's an issue. I believe it was the end of the third generation Mustangs and beginning of the fourth generation that the 4 cylinder option was made. It may have been a smaller engine, but it was still a damn good car as always!

Sometimes the "big block" crowd annoys me. I have a 6 cylinder 66 Mustang that many people say "You should drop a V8 in it!" or "Put a real engine in it!!" My theory with these people is that their TMI is too small so they need a bigger engine to compensate. That's how you can spot someone who can't truly appreciate a car for what it is.

If the Mustang and other muscle/pony cars get smaller engines, So what? They'll still be just as good as they always have been.

The reason for this is gas prices seem to be making a huge impact on cars now more than ever. So many auto makers are rethinking their strategy. In fact, in 2014 Ford plans to release a V6 Mustang that is twin-turbo charged for better fuel economy.

What cars don't need anymore are CAFE standards+DOT safety standards. These combined kill fuel economy. Also, want lower gas prices? Quit custom blending for individual states and stop making ethanol. Ethanol is a giant boondoggle designed to buy votes from farmers in Iowa and Nebraska. It's thermodynamically inefficient and harder on the water table than refining Oil is.

I know what you are talking about. When I show up in my 4banger MR2 people that don't know don't expect much. Tune that 4 banger and combine it with the light weight and I've taken down much larger cars. I beat Corvettes regularly at autocross! Granted the courses are usually designed for the smaller more nimble cars.

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah, I see. I just never considered those cars small "built small high performance cars in decent production numbers". When I think small I think Honda Civic or such, I wouldn't consider anything that can handle a V8 small. But I got your point.

Probably my fault, for either mangling my point or just making a non-sensical one. I'm very out of my depth in this thread.

Andrew1975 wrote:I know what you are talking about. When I show up in my 4banger MR2 people that don't know don't expect much. Tune that 4 banger and combine it with the light weight and I've taken down much larger cars. I beat Corvettes regularly at autocross! Granted the courses are usually designed for the smaller more nimble cars.

It's true, in fact in one of the events I was at half of the cars were either Mazda Miatas or Honda S2000s. One of the officials at the end of the day when he was reading off the scores jokingly said "All S2000 drivers get a penalty of 5 seconds for cheating!"

It's cool, because whenever the big V8 snobs (not all V8 owners are snobs!) cackle at my inline 6 engine I laugh right back as I pass them up at a gas station from having to feed their pig of an engine every 4-5 days.

DickBandit wrote:^
Funny thing is that seems to be an "issue" for all American auto makers.

And I put issue in quotations for a reason.

With the Mustang crowd there is an uproar that 4 cylinder Mustangs will make a return. Honestly I don't see why that's an issue. I believe it was the end of the third generation Mustangs and beginning of the fourth generation that the 4 cylinder option was made. It may have been a smaller engine, but it was still a damn good car as always!

Sometimes the "big block" crowd annoys me. I have a 6 cylinder 66 Mustang that many people say "You should drop a V8 in it!" or "Put a real engine in it!!" My theory with these people is that their TMI is too small so they need a bigger engine to compensate. That's how you can spot someone who can't truly appreciate a car for what it is.

If the Mustang and other muscle/pony cars get smaller engines, So what? They'll still be just as good as they always have been.

The reason for this is gas prices seem to be making a huge impact on cars now more than ever. So many auto makers are rethinking their strategy. In fact, in 2014 Ford plans to release a V6 Mustang that is twin-turbo charged for better fuel economy.

They say that because they still want some performance from there cars. As far as ford making a twin turbo v6 lol i think ill pass they can't make there naturally aspirated mustang motors last and there the same company that in 02 when the 03 cobra came out(the only mustang with a good 6 speed manual which was actually a camaro 6 speed by the way) they put the same rear end in it that was in the v6 and in the GT. normally not a problem but the GT ripped that rearend apart and the cobra had more HP and tourque.

^
OUCH! Sounds disastrous! Surprised I haven't seen any topics on that issue.

Honda S2000s are pretty amazing and quite the bang for the buck, when it was first released it had the highest HP per liter in the history of production cars. It's got almost perfect weight distribution, Hard to get from a front engine car. The only real issue is you have to over rev them all the time to maintain torque (it's based more on a motorcycle engine than a standard automobile). I was very sad to see both the Saturn Sky and the Pontiac solstice get the axe, the redline editions of those cars were pretty good.

I'm not a big turbo fan myself. Yes they have gotten better and transition much nicer, but they do put a lot of extra wear on an engine, not to mention maintenance costs.

Andrew1975 wrote:Honda S2000s are pretty amazing and quite the bang for the buck, when it was first released it had the highest HP per liter in the history of production cars. It's got almost perfect weight distribution, Hard to get from a front engine car. The only real issue is you have to over rev them all the time to maintain torque (it's based more on a motorcycle engine than a standard automobile). I was very sad to see both the Saturn Sky and the Pontiac solstice get the axe, the redline editions of those cars were pretty good.

I'm not a big turbo fan myself. Yes they have gotten better and transition much nicer, but they do put a lot of extra wear on an engine, not to mention maintenance costs.

Well I hear as long as you're not an idiot who cranks up the PSI too damn high, your engine should be fine. My buddy said he's seen the worst of the worst from the aftermath of Fast and The Furious when it first came out. He cried when he saw so many Supras destroyed because a bunch of dumb teenagers were compressing the air too damn much because they had no idea what the hell they were doing besides "making bigger numberz!!1" and thought that alone would increase the speed. He hates the Supra for that reason alone.

Any turbo is putting extra strain on the engine, but over compression is just dumb. Supras are sweet, I just hate that giant wing on them. I like sleeper cars though.

'Splain to me a "sleeper car". Heard the term before.

And yes, that is another issue. People who put unnecessarily large spoilers on their cars.
Like all the freakin' Civics (which most I've seen have little to NO aftermarket performance work) that have those STUPID large steel aftermarket spoilers. On my Scion tC I had the pedestal spoiler, but that was to accent the body of the car.
I seriously want to pull up to those people and just ask them "Does your car exceed 200mph? No? THEN YOUR SPOILER IS 100% POINTLESS AND ABSOLUTELY slowed!!!"

A sleeper car is basically a well tuned car that doesn't advertise it. Its meant to not attract unwanted attention from cops. Imagine a civic with a base model body, but everything else has been upgraded. You can actually imagine somebody's grandma driving it, but then it blows you away. So no big spoilers, no spinners or low profiles, no neon, just what you need to do to make it perform better. Some people go as far as to paint them in primer and remove all the insignia's from them, but I always thought that was more of a dead giveaway that this guy is serious. Giant spoiler just scream poser.

Real spoilers can be a benefit at as low as 40MPH, those things you see on most cars are not spoilers, they are just decoration.

DickBandit wrote:
When you say G1 I assume Generation 1.

Yep.

DickBandit wrote:
From what I saw, the curb weight of a Mustang in 65 and 66 was around 2500 lbs.
[/url]http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1965/specs.html[/url]

The Fastback is the beefier V8 model.

I'm just trying to figure out where all this extra weight comes from.

The fastback is what I was referencing, it was 3625 if I recall correctly.

Sebster basically nailed it with the accessories claim. Note that even the top of the line Mustang, non-fastback, weighed in at 2800 lbs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:A sleeper car is basically a well tuned car that doesn't advertise it. Its meant to not attract unwanted attention from cops. Imagine a civic with a base model body, but everything else has been upgraded. You can actually imagine somebody's grandma driving it, but then it blows you away.

My Civic was one of these. The only obvious change came in the form of a seat swap with a '97 Prelude.

I miss that car, but my newly purchased Exige makes up for it a bit.