>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It isn't just about the speed off the line, it is the look and feel of the pure muscle and rumble of the stock engine and car, the sound from the factory dual exhaust and the posi, double burn out, rear tire trail going down the street in a cloud of tire smoke. Can't do that in a front wheel drive, it just isn't the same. My bro-in-laws 71' Cuda could do 150-160 mph or more all day long and hold that speed there without flinching, and without any high tech, fancy, computerized technology helping it along. Only thing that would slow it down would be the lack of road. Just pure horsepower off of the lot and no sensors going off warning you about your speed or some other issue (door ajar ) wrong in the car. His 'Cuda also came with factory, lock down hood pins which added to it's overall cool look. Cuda's also came with 340 ci and 440 ci engines as well. His was the 383ci.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have a lot to learn about newer muscle cars...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said I don't know much about the newer cars and I wouldn't call the newer ones, muscle cars, just high technology driven vehicles. You can get a 4 cylinder BMW to do 140mph and I wouldn't call that a muscle car.
>>>>>>>>. They are more dependable, last longer, cost no more to maintain, etc..>>>>>>>>
I doubt any of these. The parts made today don't last long, junk, thats why we are all here complaining about problems in our Ex's in the first place, which will lead to bad dependability and they cost way more to repair, mostly due to all that technology stuffed into them. Much more difficult to work on than older model cars which leads to higher maintenance costs as well.
>>>>>>>>Go take a ride in a new Mustang or Camaro..you'll be amazed at how much the muscle car has been improved.>>>>>>>>>
Nah, can't afford one , so I wouldn't take a test ride in something I can't own. I've seen a few around though.
>>>>>>>>>> I also have a '66 Mustang, and driving the two Mustangs back to back is no comparison. The ONLY place that the '66 does better is the body style.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then you should know what I am talking about regarding the sound and feel of an older model muscle car.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then you should know what I am talking about regarding the sound and feel of an older model muscle car.
>>>>. The ONLY things the old ones have that is better than the new muscle cars is the nostalgia, the aesthetics and the ease of working on them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are huge points on why to like them. It's also the "simplicity" of what created all that horsepower without any computerized electronic aids like todays cars, just a beefy motor and carburation tied into a heavy duty standard transmission and posi traction, pure horsepower. You either get what I'm talking about or you don't. Maybe it's my age and era I'm from, I don't know, we may be close in age, but I'm not impressed by computerized, electronically aided horsepower. Like I said earlier, you can get a 4 cylinder BMW to go 140mph with it's high tech, electronics packed into it. I'm not impressed by that and that transfers over to the copycat V-8's of today. I'm also not concerned with the comfort comparisons between them, gas mileage, or whether the undercoated, plastic covered cars of today versus the bare bones steel cars of yester year last longer in weather. Was never my point, I simply stated I liked the older ones. I've already stated that the suspensions and braking are better today as well. Since you made the rust out comparison then I could also use the argument that these plastic coated cars will fold up like cheap suits on an accident, causing more internal damage costing more to repair than an older, solid steel body car would. Remember this, the older muscle cars went just as fast as todays cars, without all the high tech tire, suspension and electronic engine help and they did it weighing a lot more as well.
>>>>>>>>>My first car was a '66 Mustang that I bought in '79. At 13 years old, it had no floorboards, rotted out quarterpanels, shot seats, a bad transmission and it needed new bearings and rings in the motor.>>>>>>>>>
You bought a 13 year old car, not knowing it's maintenance or actual driving history, like how hard it was run or beaten etc, and complain it needed some work on it? Then you state how well your 7 year old Mach 1 is running repair free and want to compare the two? You could only make that comparison if you owned both from day one, did exact maintenance on both and drove them just as hard as each other.
>>>>>>>>I guarantee that my Mach will far outlast the '66 before it needs major work>>>>>>>>
Thats 6 years away, too far of a projection.
>>>>(as long as I don't blow something on the track).
>>>>
Might be what happened to the 66 before you bought it, but in those 13 years prior, you have no way of knowing.
>>>>
Might be what happened to the 66 before you bought it, but in those 13 years prior, you have no way of knowing.