- 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 2:39 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Posted on 6/8/25 at 2:39 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Know why? because unleaded gas came out.. Engines had to change compression ratio from 10.5/11.0 down to 8. see 69 Camaro vs 71....
0
Posted on 6/8/25 at 2:43 pm to Lonnie Utah
Funny how in ‘69 the Chevy Nova was bottom of the barrel and now it’s being sold as an antique muscle car. …that being said, I still wish I had one.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 3:00 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
Fair however 1980-1984 Mustang GTs & Corvettes were slower than a new Odyssey per this link LINK /
Well, if you'd said EARLY 1980's Mustangs/Vettes vs Odyssey I wouldn't have even bothered looking it up. You said "mid" and 1985 is about as mid as it gets.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 3:49 pm to highcotton2
quote:
The regular Buick Regal Grand National wasn’t even fast in today’s standards.
All the "muscle cars" from the 60s through 90s were slow compared to today's cars. When 500hp (net not gross) is pretty pedestrian for modern performace cars it is not suprising.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 4:01 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:
For reference, the 1970 454 Corvette was lauded as a proper muscle car.
Let's agree a Corvette is not and was never designed to be a "muscle car". GM/Chevrolet never referred to it as such. It only shared some of the same engines at the time.
quote:
For reference, the 1970 454 Corvette
The 1970 Corvette 454 (LS5) was rated at a pitiful 390 HP. Those were "Base BB HP" from years prior and it caused an uproar from Corvette owners. Down from 435HP (L71) and 500 HP? (L88/ZL1) the year before. So yeah, those numbers are a huge dropoff, especially when the LT-1 SB showed up with 370HP and a lot lighter in weight. The LS6 engine (450HP) went to the Chevelle that year and was offered the following year for the Corvette, but it lost 25HP from de-tuning that year.
Any comparison with new computerized fuel injection and turbo automotive tech of today with respect to performance and 40/50 years ago is silly and a waste of time.
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 6/8/25 at 4:05 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:There were no muscle cars in the 80s. In the 80's we considered muscle cars to be from 60s
No better way to rile up a bunch of crusty old bastards at work than to tell them that old muscle cars were pieces of shite.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 4:38 pm to udtiger
Long story short, anything the government has a stranglehold on, fricks thing up.
My wife’s Traverse has 310 HP, cars in the 80’s were a joke thanks to Uncle Sam…
Only thing the 80’s sucked for were automobiles…
My wife’s Traverse has 310 HP, cars in the 80’s were a joke thanks to Uncle Sam…
Only thing the 80’s sucked for were automobiles…
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 6/8/25 at 4:39 pm to udtiger
Some people have said the 03-04 Terminator Cobra saved the modern muscle car scene, but if it wasn't for the GNX, MK IV Supra, or LS based motors before it Ford never would have built that car.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 5:05 pm to Hangover Haven
quote:
Only thing the 80’s sucked for were automobiles…
Porsche and Ferrari say hello
Posted on 6/8/25 at 5:10 pm to ELLSSUU
quote:Yeah no. And with a few tweaks, Foxbody Mustangs could move. They opened a huge "tuner" aftermarket that still exists.
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 5:16 pm to chrome_daddy
Essentially a modified mustang then...
A stock 85 Mustang Gt did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds. The SVO was 6.5 seconds.
The Honda Odyssey 6.4 seconds Car and Driver
A stock 85 Mustang Gt did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds. The SVO was 6.5 seconds.
The Honda Odyssey 6.4 seconds Car and Driver
This post was edited on 6/8/25 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 6/8/25 at 5:20 pm to udtiger
All the environmental BS is what killed the power.. 80’s factory muscles cars were hot garbage. You really had to do some modding to get them to be decent
Posted on 6/8/25 at 5:30 pm to FightinTigersDammit
The only car I ever had that I really had to watch close was thr 2015 Jag R-Type.
5.0 550hp SC engine, tons of torque.
Advertised as 0-60, 3.5, but felt way faster.
Tires were shot @ 10K, never had problem with it outside of the fact that the arse-end wanted to be in the lead.
5.0 550hp SC engine, tons of torque.
Advertised as 0-60, 3.5, but felt way faster.
Tires were shot @ 10K, never had problem with it outside of the fact that the arse-end wanted to be in the lead.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 8:03 pm to highcotton2
The Grand National beat the Corvette and Ferrari at the time in a drag race. You can't compare them to today's cars. They were fast for the time period.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 8:41 pm to udtiger
quote:
quote:
By and large, the 80s were the worst decade in us automotive history.
I would tend to agree, but you should probably claw back to the late 70s
I would say the worst decade was 1975 to 1985, the first ten years of catalytic converters. The catalytic converter itself was not the problem, but the entire US car industry chose that time period to do the half-a$$ed things in every aspect, from design, quality, you name it. It they could find a way to half a$$ it, they would. Add on top of that multiple layers of new government regs, and the automakers number one goal during the era was cost cutting, which lead to some of the sh!tiest cars ever produced.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 9:32 pm to udtiger
My senior year of high school, 1991, I bought a ‘84 Camaro z28. Had 190HP. I currently drive a 2016 Ram 1500 and it has 305HP.
Defintly no such thing as an 80’s muscle car.
Defintly no such thing as an 80’s muscle car.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 9:39 pm to udtiger
It's not wrong. A 1988 5.0 Mustang has a little more HP than a modern Honda Accord.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 9:52 pm to deltaland
quote:Not through 1974
The real muscle cars were built from 1965-1974
<——Had a ‘73 Ford Mustang (last of the big ones before the Fox bodies).
There were zero muscle cars in the 1973 MY Ford lineup.
There were big block engines available but they were choked to low hp
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:06 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
It's not wrong. A 1988 5.0 Mustang has a little more HP than a modern Honda Accord.
Yea for those foxbody's you gotta put in some 3.73 gears and bump the timing and you'll be running low 13's 1/4.
Posted on 6/8/25 at 10:22 pm to OU Guy
quote:my god, is that a Pinto
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News