- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: All show and no go... many 80s muscle cars were weak sauce
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:08 am to chrome_daddy
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:08 am to chrome_daddy
quote:
I will say that Mustangs did re-emerge with better power options in the latter part of the 80's, but nothing to compare w the 70's.
I had a late 1980's Cherokee XJ with the 4.0 straight 6.0 and a 3.73 rear end. Up to about 35 mph, it would keep up with or even beat the same vintage Mustangs and Camaro with the 5.0L V8s. But it was more the gearing than the motors.
0
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:09 am to udtiger
Pontiac used a 3.0L v8 that was kickass but yeah most of the 80's cars were for show, kinda like a segment of useless people hanging on corners and griping about never getting a break while being handed a lifetime of cradle to grave food, meds, housing.
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 10:10 am
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:11 am to udtiger
At least they existed. A lot of those cars are models that haven’t been in production for a while.
Nobody wants anything that doesn’t look like a pissed off toaster today. It’s all about crossovers and SUVs.
Nobody wants anything that doesn’t look like a pissed off toaster today. It’s all about crossovers and SUVs.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:21 am to udtiger
The real muscle cars were built from 1965-1974
Fuel standards ruined muscle car production
80s and 90s cars were absolute crap. That’s when pickups and SUVs started to become more popular
Fuel standards ruined muscle car production
80s and 90s cars were absolute crap. That’s when pickups and SUVs started to become more popular
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:29 am to N2cars
I remember Bobby Rahal talking about driving the Porsche 935 (I think), and he said it was either 200 hp or 700 hp, and nothing in between.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:34 am to deltaland
quote:
The real muscle cars were built from 1965-1974
And they are slow as molasses compared to an economy car today.
A pre-epa Euro-delivery Lamborghini Countach is no match for a new VW GTI.
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 10:40 am
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:41 am to blueboy
quote:
The GN got from 0-60 in under 5 seconds. That's still pretty fast by today's standards.
That was the fastest US production car when it was made. That is not very fast in today’s standards. Not even close really. There are multiple sub 2 second US productions cars now.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 11:44 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Those weren't muscle cars.
Yeah, these kids don't know what a muscle car is apparently.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 11:46 am to udtiger
So many of those old cars are slow AF by today’s standards.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 11:48 am to udtiger
Blame the government and forcing engine producers to make EPA emissions regulations and fuel mileage goals.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 11:51 am to highcotton2
If you really want to laugh go red light to red light a mid-80's Camaro, Mustang GT or Corvette with a Soccer Moms new Honda Odyssey. The mini-van will straight up take them with Braxton buckled up in the back playing video games.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 12:32 pm to highcotton2
quote:
There are multiple sub 2 second US productions cars now.
No there aren't, and the ones that are aren't production cars. Anyway, I wasn't comparing the GN to the fastest of today. Sub 5 seconds is still reasonable fast, and the GNX was closer to 4 seconds. Oh and they were made 40 fricking years ago. I don't know why it's so shocking to you that cars are faster now.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 12:38 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I believe we are all aware of this. So you aren't as smart as you thought you were. Dumb arse!
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:27 pm to udtiger
A 1983 corvette had 155 horsepower. Or less than a modern economy car.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:27 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
way. Same with my other friend’s RX-7.
The first gen of rx7s was closer to the hp and 60 times of the vehicles in the video.
The 2nd gen they started offering the turbo.
quote:
The Series 5 (1989–1992) featured updated styling and better engine management, as well as lighter rotors and a higher compression ratio 9.7:1 for the naturally aspirated model, and 9.0:1 for the turbo model.
quote:
The naturally aspirated Series 5's 13B-DEI engine was rated at 160 hp (119 kW; 162 PS), while the Series 5 Turbo was rated at 200 hp (149 kW; 203 PS) at 6,500 rpm and 195 lb·ft (264 N·m) of torque at 3,500 rpm.
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:33 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
If you really want to laugh go red light to red light a mid-80's Camaro, Mustang GT or Corvette with a Soccer Moms new Honda Odyssey. The mini-van will straight up take them with Braxton buckled up in the back playing video games.
Wrong.
Current Odyssey is good for 6.5 sec 0-60.
1985 Corvette was 5.7
1985 Mustang with the right option boxes checked was only a tick or two slower.
Both were traction-limited. The Odyssey is not.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:39 pm to udtiger
It all started in 70’s with Government changing EPA rules.
We went from this glorious 1970 Boss 429
To thus piece of shite 1974 Mistang 2
We went from this glorious 1970 Boss 429
To thus piece of shite 1974 Mistang 2
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:40 pm to highcotton2
quote:
There are multiple sub 2 second US productions cars now.
Name one that you can get for under $100K.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:40 pm to OU Guy
My buddy had a Mustang ll, in green.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 1:44 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Were any of those cars even considered muscle cars?
No
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News