Well, this is interesting,,,

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KzMitch
Wow. So let me get this right.....40-ish years of technology has an impact of performance.
Hmmmm.
Who'd a thunk it?

I wonder how a 40 year old television compares to a new one.

Thank you Captain Obvious for the newsflash.
div>


LMAO!!! Time marches on eh?

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Look at Europe, where a typical mid level car is just a bit slower than those US models mentioned by OP but the MPGs are far higher many cars range in the 45-65 MPG range and quite a few are small displacement gas engined turbos.


Not a valid comparison. The imperial gallon used in Europe is larger than the US gallon. Using imperial gallons when calculating MPG will always result in ~20% higher returns versus results in the US.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


I wonder how fuel efficient cars in the US could be if there wasn't a pointless HP race in this segment?


I wonder the opposite. How fast would common cars be if there wasn't a cafe fleet fuel mileage requirement. What would the market bear?
In the 60's you could order a stripdown car with a big engine. Now to get the big hp you have to buy all the junk with it.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Look at Europe, where a typical mid level car is just a bit slower than those US models mentioned by OP but the MPGs are far higher many cars range in the 45-65 MPG range and quite a few are small displacement gas engined turbos.


Not a valid comparison. The imperial gallon used in Europe is larger than the US gallon. Using imperial gallons when calculating MPG will always result in ~20% higher returns versus results in the US.


I'm taking that into account, it is typical for the cars I mentioned to get an equivalent to 45-65 MPG or better.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


I wonder how fuel efficient cars in the US could be if there wasn't a pointless HP race in this segment?


I wonder the opposite. How fast would common cars be if there wasn't a cafe fleet fuel mileage requirement. What would the market bear?
In the 60's you could order a stripdown car with a big engine. Now to get the big hp you have to buy all the junk with it.
Untill recently you could get a Camry CE V6 with a manual.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Look at Europe, where a typical mid level car is just a bit slower than those US models mentioned by OP but the MPGs are far higher many cars range in the 45-65 MPG range and quite a few are small displacement gas engined turbos.


Not a valid comparison. The imperial gallon used in Europe is larger than the US gallon. Using imperial gallons when calculating MPG will always result in ~20% higher returns versus results in the US.
Burst that little bubble.

DO they still sell by the Imp Gal in Canada?

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
cough*thunderbolt*cough


Yes, but that was hardly a regular production 'street car', although street legal way back then.

It was built as a factory drag race machine, as were the 'lightweight' Mopar Hemi and wedge sedans, and the 5th gen COPO Camaro is today (but NOT street legal

).

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: turboaccord1
Crazy that the average family sedan now days is just as quick or quicker than muscle cars from the late 60's early 70's, and sports/ performance cars of 20-30 years ago. My how times have changed. Even the 4 cylinder variety of the Accord, Camry and Nissan will hit 60 from a stop in around 7 seconds.


The golden age of "muscle" cars are now relegated to being beat by an accord.

However the accord isn't half as sexy,nor sounds half as good and I guarantee ya most of the cars on the bottom list will getcha laid.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Difference is I don't want anything from the top part of the list.

Amen brother!!

I'd take the V6 Altima though :^) Kind've a wannabe 370Z 2+2 :^P

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: turboaccord1
Crazy that the average family sedan now days is just as quick or quicker than muscle cars from the late 60's early 70's, and sports/ performance cars of 20-30 years ago. My how times have changed. Even the 4 cylinder variety of the Accord, Camry and Nissan will hit 60 from a stop in around 7 seconds.


The golden age of "muscle" cars are now relegated to being beat by an accord.

However the accord isn't half as sexy,nor sounds half as good and I guarantee ya most of the cars on the bottom list will getcha laid.


Meh. A stock BOSS-9 would run mid 13's on polyglass garbage. A modern cam and a decent carb and it was a beast. The TASCA version was bottom 10's with the 494 CAN-AM version of the engine.

Same goes got a lot of the big block cars. They weren't rockets stock but they had a pile of very easily realized potential. You aren't dropping two entire seconds off the ET of your Accord with a cam swap, LOL!

Now of course technology has brought us a very long way but as you said, the bottom 1/2 of the list has a great deal more sex appeal than the top half. And good lord, the SOUND......

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You aren't dropping two entire seconds off the ET of your Accord with a cam swap, LOL!

Nor will they with just a tire (skinnies/slick) swap either!! LOL

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You aren't dropping two entire seconds off the ET of your Accord with a cam swap, LOL!

Nor will they with just a tire (skinnies/slick) swap either!! LOL


So true! LOL!

 

[hattaresguy]

Or if you wanted a fast sedan in the late 80's early 90's you could have just gotten an AMG Hammer, Renntech 6.5L, Brabus, or an S600.

None of those modern Japanese 4 doors are faster today. Maybe a bit off the line because they are light with good gearing, but once you get rolling say good by.

 

[Chris142]

The muscle cars were often detuned from the factory.just advancing the timing would make a huge difference in power. Add headers,a tune and unrestricted air intake and they were a completely different car.

They sure felt faster than a Camry.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Look at Europe, where a typical mid level car is just a bit slower than those US models mentioned by OP but the MPGs are far higher many cars range in the 45-65 MPG range and quite a few are small displacement gas engined turbos.


Not a valid comparison. The imperial gallon used in Europe is larger than the US gallon. Using imperial gallons when calculating MPG will always result in ~20% higher returns versus results in the US.
Burst that little bubble.

DO they still sell by the Imp Gal in Canada?


Sorry. it's probably the first time I have agreed wit Antiqueshell but even calculated in U.S. gallons I have seen that kind of millage, even at high speeds in large vehicles.

No, in Canada Gas is sold in Litres

 

[ryan_of_the_e34]

OP, have you ever:

bladed at 45?
had to do a stakeout on your herby-curby trashcan?
felt compelled to ask someone if they made chilli "with or without beans" in a situation that had nothing to do with chilli?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: turboaccord1
Crazy that the average family sedan now days is just as quick or quicker than muscle cars from the late 60's early 70's, and sports/ performance cars of 20-30 years ago. My how times have changed. Even the 4 cylinder variety of the Accord, Camry and Nissan will hit 60 from a stop in around 7 seconds.

And at the same time pollutes the air a lot less and also consumes a lot less gas.

The modern engines with help from much more sophisticated engine management control generates much higher power per liter, couples with much better transmissions and tires it sure beat the muscle cars from the late 60's early 70's.

The worst engine performance was late 70's mid 80's, at that time many engines in American cars generated less than 40-45HP per liter. Now almost all engines by any manufacture generate more than 70-75HP/L, some as high as 85-90HP/L or more.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Taildragger
1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS 0-60 mph 7.9 | Quarter mile 15.2


My Buick can do that.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Not surprising considering nearly 300 HP is available in most midsizes, which are smaller and lighter than the average family car from say 40 years ago.

I wonder how fuel efficient cars in the US could be if there wasn't a pointless HP race in this segment? A lot of cars are faster in a straight line now than what their operators can handle. You know, the people who sit at the light when it turns green, then floor their SE Special Edition with Moons & Tunes Tech Value package to get ahead of all the people who went around them as they sat at the green light.


I too would like to see a bit less HP and more MPG even though the MFG's are doing a good job of both. I still think it'd be even better. For example:

My '04 Altima 4 cyl(170 hp) in my signature was magazine tested back in '02-'06 for 0-60 in 9 sec's. That's fast enough for me! I can get about that too with my Fisher Scientific digital stop watch...~ 9.2 sec. Fast enough for me!

With an EPA of 23/29, I am only ~ 24 MPG city and ~28 hiwy. I wish both were better and they are today in all 4 cyl family sedans. But, most have 15-20 more HP, are heavier and faster too(~ 7 sec's). I'd still want a bit less HP and more MPG.

These new cars are down right quick! Don't get me wrong, I like the power but, I'd give up some of the HP for better MPG any day!

 

[Taildragger]

Originally Posted By: ryan_of_the_e34
OP, have you ever:

bladed at 45?
had to do a stakeout on your herby-curby trashcan?
felt compelled to ask someone if they made chilli "with or without beans" in a situation that had nothing to do with chilli?



Do I know you?

( yes, I get it!)