Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 341

Thread: "The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    looking at the figures hdd produced I would say that my bone-stock 100 kw diesel car was already faster than your Caddy. let alone my "carefully blueprinted" car as it is now.....
    That depends what yours runs in the 1/4 mile.

    But let's compare your "carefully blueprinted" car after I put lower gears (a 3.21:1 rear axle ratio replacing the stock 2.94:1) in my '69.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    That depends what yours runs in the 1/4 mile.

    But let's compare your "carefully blueprinted" car after I put lower gears (a 3.21:1 rear axle ratio replacing the stock 2.94:1) in my '69.
    WHY DO YOU TURN THE TOPIC OF EVERY THREAD INTO A 1969 CADILLAC TOPIC?

    The car is an old boat that handles poorly, has lousy brakes, poor structural rigidity, terrible performance and abysmal fuel economy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT! I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!

    That axle ratio swap might knock 2/10ths of a second off your ET while having virtually no effect on the Trap Speed. Yet, you act like it's the equivalent of bolting on a supercharger.

    The axle ratio swap plus dual exhaust likely wouldn't compensate for the 300 pound difference between your boat and the lighter coupe version as tested by MOTOR TREND in 1969. Furthermore, your boat likely has to run a heavily retarded spark in order to cope with today's lower octane fuels. That would reduce power, relative to 1969 levels.

    Thus, it's highly doubtful that your boat would run anything better than a perhaps a 16.8 sec. ET - WITH the 3.21 gear swap.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-14-2008 at 08:28 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    WHY DO YOU TURN THE TOPIC OF EVERY THREAD INTO A 1969 CADILLAC TOPIC?
    Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet post # 27
    Then what would you call a typical Rolls-Royce or the larger 6-cylinder Mercedes from that era... super slow?
    (amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)


    What's next? the 472cid Cadillac vs Rover 2000cc? Oops, already done that. Citroen 4cyl diesel? Nope, loser. How about DKW 2-stroke?
    The car is an old boat that handles poorly, has lousy brakes, poor structural rigidity, terrible performance and abysmal fuel economy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT! I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!
    Don't hold back now hdd .. tell us how you really feel

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority

    (amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)


    What's next? the 472cid Cadillac vs Rover 2000cc? Oops, already done that. Citroen 4cyl diesel? Nope, loser. How about DKW 2-stroke?
    I remember that topic, it was great.

    DKW 2-stroke...? Nope, too fast I think.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    DKW 2-stroke...? Nope, too fast I think.
    The F12 was a force to reckon with in the European Touringcar races....

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    The F12 was a force to reckon with in the European Touringcar races....

    ...as were 1969 Cadillac Sedan Devilles.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    The car is an old boat
    If you think my car is a "boat," what would you call those Escalades? Don't they weigh something like 7,000 lbs?


    that handles poorly,
    It handles just fine for the typical Cadillac owner.

    has lousy brakes,
    The Motor Trend test Cadillac stopped from 60 mph in 148.3 feet. Not great, but not lousy... probably better than some other cars... even modern ones.
    Fade resistance is good. In Consumer Reports test of a '68 Sedan de Ville, pedal effort for the 1st 1/2 g stop from 60 mph was 50 lbs, and it only went up to 55 lbs for the 10th repeated stop.

    poor structural rigidity,
    ?

    terrible performance
    ? The engine makes more power than the tires (even modern tires) can handle. A full-throttle start will cause a lot of wheelspin. There is plenty of power on tap and an 83 mph trap speed is not "terrible."

    and abysmal fuel economy.
    About the same mpg as the larger SUVs.

    NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT
    Except for the hundreds of thousands of Cadillac fans.

    I would rather have a brand new, stripped down Kia!
    Now there is a car nobody (except you) cares about! Were you abused by a 1960s car as a child? Just wondering because all you seem to do is bash them.

    That axle ratio swap might knock 2/10ths of a second off your ET while having virtually no effect on the Trap Speed. Yet, you act like it's the equivalent of bolting on a supercharger.
    What is that? A guess, right? It will make a noticable differnce. It did on my Dart when I changed from 2.93s to 3.23s. I didn't time a 1/4 mile but the 40-60 mph went from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds.

    The axle ratio swap plus dual exhaust likely wouldn't compensate for the 300 pound difference between your boat and the lighter coupe version as tested by MOTOR TREND in 1969. Furthermore, your boat likely has to run a heavily retarded spark in order to cope with today's lower octane fuels. That would reduce power, relative to 1969 levels.
    Dual exhaust adds 15-20 hp. The shift kit I added eliminates shift delay and the timing is not retarded because I use lead substitute and bigger jets in the carb. I also plan to go one range colder with spark plugs.

    Thus, it's highly doubtful that your boat would run anything better than a perhaps a 16.8 sec. ET - WITH the 3.21 gear swap.
    That is only a guess. BTW, they actually make headers for the 472 engine. I may put those in one day. But I guess it will only cut the e.t. by 2/10ths!
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    If you think my car is a "boat," what would you call those Escalades? Don't they weigh something like 7,000 lbs?




    It handles just fine for the typical Cadillac owner.



    The Motor Trend test Cadillac stopped from 60 mph in 148.3 feet. Not great, but not lousy... probably better than some other cars... even modern ones.
    Fade resistance is good. In Consumer Reports test of a '68 Sedan de Ville, pedal effort for the 1st 1/2 g stop from 60 mph was 50 lbs, and it only went up to 55 lbs for the 10th repeated stop.



    ?



    ? The engine makes more power than the tires (even modern tires) can handle. A full-throttle start will cause a lot of wheelspin. There is plenty of power on tap and an 83 mph trap speed is not "terrible."



    About the same mpg as the larger SUVs.



    Except for the hundreds of thousands of Cadillac fans.



    Now there is a car nobody (except you) cares about! Were you abused by a 1960s car as a child? Just wondering because all you seem to do is bash them.



    What is that? A guess, right? It will make a noticable differnce. It did on my Dart when I changed from 2.93s to 3.23s. I didn't time a 1/4 mile but the 40-60 mph went from 4.8 to 4.0 seconds.



    Dual exhaust adds 15-20 hp. The shift kit I added eliminates shift delay and the timing is not retarded because I use lead substitute and bigger jets in the carb. I also plan to go one range colder with spark plugs.



    That is only a guess. BTW, they actually make headers for the 472 engine. I may put those in one day. But I guess it will only cut the e.t. by 2/10ths!
    Maybe you should buy a supercharger for it, too.

    With any luck it may not be much slower than a brand new 4 cylinder/automatic Accord.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    Maybe you should buy a supercharger for it, too.
    That would be fun but kind of extreme.

    With any luck it may not be much slower than a brand new 4 cylinder/automatic Accord
    Accord? You mean the cars of which the interior is 90% plastic and of which you see 30 others when you pull into a parking lot?
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    Don't forget Fleet's obligatory 7.7 litre V8 Cadillac performance-comparison against 2.8 litre 6-cyl Mercedes, to prove superiority
    Don't blame me that some Mercedes were underpowered.

    amusingly he's now resorted to using the 2800cc version after finding out the V8 M-Bs were heaps faster than his behemoth)
    The 6.3 was faster but it was also about 3 feet shorter, weighed about 1,000 lbs less and had a super-low 3.98:1 1st gear ratio (compared to the 2.48:1 for the '69 Cad). The 6.3 Merc, though, was slower than many of the muscle cars Mercedes claimed it would "put a hurt on."
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    Accord? You mean the cars of which the interior is 90% plastic and of which you see 30 others when you pull into a parking lot?
    That's right, a METAL dashboard is more preferable.

    Hitting one's head on it enough times in a collision might be enough to alter sensible thinking to the point where one might actually wanted to drive a 40 year old boat that was slower than a new Kia and got worse mileage than any currently sold SUV.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    D The 6.3 Merc, though, was slower than many of the muscle cars Mercedes claimed it would "put a hurt on."
    Which "muscle cars?"

    The specially prepared/modified/optimally tuned "test fleet" examples that most of the magazines tested/reported on or the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS that customers got suckered into buying by the misleading advertising, "road tests" and hype of the era?

    Here it is nearly 40 years later and some people (like you) are still buying into it.

    Jay Leno isn't buying into it, though. He owns fast cars and he knows that his production line stock 1970 Hemi Challenger (one the "ultimate" musclecars) isn't one of them.
    Last edited by harddrivin1le; 02-14-2008 at 03:00 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    Which "muscle cars?"

    The specially prepared/modified/optimally tuned "test fleet" examples that most of the magazines tested/reported on or the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS that customers got suckered into buying by the misleading advertising, "road tests" and hype of the era?

    Here it is nearly 40 years later and some people (like you) are still buying into it.

    Jay Leno isn't buying into it, though. He owns fast cars and he knows that his production line stock 1970 Hemi Challenger (one the "ultimate" musclecars) isn't one of them.
    I think we have had all this in several other threads....let's concentrate on the question at hand...the 10 worst muscle cars...and that was certainly not the Benz....
    Last edited by henk4; 02-14-2008 at 03:10 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    That's right, a METAL dashboard is more preferable.

    Hitting one's head on it enough times in a collision might be enough to alter sensible thinking to the point where one might actually wanted to drive a 40 year old boat that was slower than a new Kia and got worse mileage than any currently sold SUV.
    Your head won't hit a metal dash board when you're wearing the lap and shoulder belts.

    When you praise Kia, something definitely wrong!
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by harddrivin1le View Post
    Which "muscle cars?"

    The specially prepared/modified/optimally tuned "test fleet" examples that most of the magazines tested/reported on or the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS that customers got suckered into buying by the misleading advertising, "road tests" and hype of the era?

    Here it is nearly 40 years later and some people (like you) are still buying into it.
    I was referring to the Car Life road test... know the one I'm talking about?

    Jay Leno isn't buying into it, though. He owns fast cars and he knows that his production line stock 1970 Hemi Challenger (one the "ultimate" musclecars) isn't one of them
    Many muscle car enthusiasts would strongly disagree. But I do realize how much you hate classic cars. What happened, did one run over your foot or something about 40 years ago?
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 Worst Value Cars Ever
    By h00t_h00t in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 03:29 AM
  2. Commodore thrashes Falcon in October sales
    By adrenaline in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-07-2006, 11:34 PM
  3. top 10 worst concept cars ever!
    By Craiben in forum Classic cars
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 07:45 AM
  4. The 10 fastest current production cars.
    By 6'bore in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-26-2005, 03:20 PM
  5. V8 Supercar race 1 Albert Park
    By charged in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •