For All You American Car Guys

Classic Muscle vs. Modern Muscle

  • Classic Muscle

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • Modern Muscle

    Votes: 10 26.3%
  • Total voters
    38
SSWaters said:
Yes, but torque on a 4cyl at 6000 rpm versus 3000 rpm on a big block, guess who has the widest range. You can choke that 4 real fast. Lets say you take a 300 hp 4cyl to a 300 hp big block crank to crank, my money is on the wide torque range of the big block. That's my point - usable HP and TQ. It's a "gazillion HP for a split second", I personnaly want HP and TQ over a wider range. I think it's misleading on some of the ratings, 300 hp for a blip of a spike on the dyno sheet. People who buy trucks to tow with don't go after 300 hp V6's, they go after 300 hp V8's or coal burners.
Click to expand...
right now make an educated comparison.
Take a 70s 350 sbc against a new 5.3

Not only will the 5.3 out dyno it, it will get 20mpg while its doing it and run upside down.

Resto mod.

Give me a 69Mach1 shell on a 2012 platform with a coyote under the hood
 
You missed my point, I know the fuel injected 5.3 would kick the old 70's stock carb's 350's butt, I'm not that stupid. I've been around, I work on jet engines for a living. I'm saying these manufacturers now days stating 300 hp out of a 4 or 6 versus 300 hp out of a small or big block, the torque and hp curve is smoother and broader, not just a spike on the chart...understand my point?

I saying go average HP? Like HP over a 1000 RPM range at any point. Say this given car's engine HP average is 300 HP from 3500 to 4500 RPM? Something like that, not 300 Peak HP for 12 RPM around 4000 RPM?
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing most of the younger generations have never had the experience of ridin in or driving ( spanking! ) many old muscle cars simply because they are so rare these days. I have been in or driven a rebuilt 427 68 SS Chevelle, 68 428CJ Mustang, built 69 SS Camaro 302, and several others, most w 4speed manual trannys, back in the day when old musclecars were much more abundant. You had to drive these cars, not let technology or sensors and such do things to keep the car under control and the thrill or wow factor was something i'll never forget. It is also alot of fun to beat somone in a much newer fastcar, who underestimates the power, traction and speed of a big, old, heavy classic or antique car.
 
Last edited:
All I know is that when I used to get under the hood of my old '69 stingray, I didn't need a computer to tell me what to check or replace. Classics were fixed by feel and listening, not diagnostic computers and chips. It took talent and a learned skill to work on cars, not a college degree.
 
mommucked said:
I'm guessing most of the younger generations have never had the experience of ridin in or driving ( spanking! ) many old muscle cars simply because they are so rare these days. I have been in or driven a rebuilt 427 68 SS Chevelle, 68 428CJ Mustang, built 69 SS Camaro 302, and several others, most w 4speed manual trannys, back in the day when old musclecars were much more abundant. You had to drive these cars, not let technology or sensors and such do things to keep the car under control and the thrill or wow factor was something i'll never forget. It is also alot of fun to beat somone in a much newer fastcar, who underestimates the power, traction and speed of a big, old, heavy classic or antique car.
Click to expand...

I'm 26...I've bought and sold 30 vehicles all older than 1980. It's only been until the last 3 years where I could afford anything new off the lot. Only reason I still have old vehicles is because I like fixing my own stuff, and they last...the new cars are throw aways, something goes too wrong with them...I'm not gonna drop the coin to fix them, and frankly I don't know how...so I'll fall in line with the rest of the lemmings and buy another new car when the other throw away stops moving. That being said, I'd put my new bone stock, fwd, V6 Lincoln up against 90% of the stock muscle that came out of the 60's and 70's and spank them. All the while I'm doing it in plush, heated and cooled leather seats, heated and cooled cup holders, with A/C, 1000watts of crisp THX audio and in dash navigation in case I forget where the finish line is.

There is no doubt the classics have the edge when it comes simplicity, longevity and rowdiness...but I think any one that is honest with themself, knows hands down 'classic' can't hang with today's modern muscle when talking performance...5 years ago, different story. Classic will always bring a sense of nostalgia which will trigger anecdotal reminiscing, creating bias.
 
Tou-che` Utfball68 ! especially the last statement. I would add that in the 5 yrs i owned my solid camed, headers and cherrybombed only exhaust Hotrod, I never had a working stereo. The motor made the sweetest music, and the volume was adjusted w my right foot!!:D Oh and I'm 47, hence the bias.;)
 
Last edited:
Classic for me, I love for it to be simple. If age is a question, I'm 19 so no correlation there.
 
Infamous1 said:
O.K. heres a wrench!!!! I am a Fox body mustang guy!! 1987 to 1993 specifically so that is not a classic is it, nor is it modern plastic crap as Blaze put it, so where would that choice stand?? I am withholding my vote until this issue is clarified!!!
Click to expand...

I would probably put that into more of the classic category because of the fact that they aren't new enough to really have computer influence on the running systems, however, my question is something more along the lines of (since you're a mustang guy), if someone placed a 1969 Mach 1 and a 2012 Mustang of equivalence in package (probably Boss 302), which one would you take? They're both free but you only get one.
 
Alright guys this is great, loving to see both sides of this, gives me more to write about! Keep it coming! By the way there will be a copy of my paper posted after it's completed.
 
I would take the new car........................ sell it, and build my dreamcar from the 60's once I figured out which one I wanted the most ( 69 Mustang is not it ) :lol:
 
I think that the older classics just 'felt' faster. a much more visceral ride.
yes, the newer motors have more hp at idle than the older ones did, but the styling and build is no match. just motor/brakes/seats -that and some foot prints in the back window
 
JRT1393 said:
I would probably put that into more of the classic category because of the fact that they aren't new enough to really have computer influence on the running systems, however, my question is something more along the lines of (since you're a mustang guy), if someone placed a 1969 Mach 1 and a 2012 Mustang of equivalence in package (probably Boss 302), which one would you take? They're both free but you only get one.
Click to expand...
you sir are one mean individual!! The '69 Mach is my favorite all time dream Mustang!! The new 5.0 is my second all time dream Mustang!!
I am going modern!!!for drivability (already have a nice '67 coupe haha)
thanks for the clarification!!
 
My cousin has a new mustang 5.0 and has dropped a paxton procharger in it. I drove it a couple weeks ago and I have to say that thing will get up and go, looks great, sounds great (especially w the blowoffs) and rides good. My pick would be modern. I'm 27
 
Some old stats, not saying they are better, just stats, I bet those old bias ply tires wore out quick back then;

70 Buick 455 - 510 TQ
70 Chev 454 LS6 500 TQ
65-71 426 Hemi 490 TQ

66 - 69 Chev 427 435 HP
70 Chev 454 450 HP
65 Chev 396 425 HP
63 - 64 409 425 HP
63 Ford 427 425 HP

70 Hemi Cuda 13.10 @ 107
70 Chevelle SS454 13.12 @ 107
A lot more Hemis
70 Buick GS455 13.40 @ 105
69 Mach 1 13.6 @ 106

Now the super rare ones you could kind'a clone;
69 Camaro ZL-1 13.6 @ 110.21 (Museum stuff now)
69 Corvette ZL-1 10.89 @ 130 (Slicks) (Museum stuff also)
69 AMC AMX SS/G 11.0 @ 122 (I've seen one of these in SC somewhere, it's been year or 20)
 
Classic cars would be a disappointment without modern technology. Better lubricants, tire tech, etc. I like the styling of the old cars, but given most of the modern cars have brought back a lot of those looks, why bother going old? I also enjoy good brakes, something that will handle & not rob me at the pump. Now, even if the car suggest premium fuel, the ECU will compensate & you can run 87 if you want to save a few bucks if you don't plan on going to the drag strip. Safety is big factor too. My only complaint about modern cars is their weight. I'm sure this will be the next thing to change as fuel mileage standards increase.

As for the "no replacement for displacement" comment. I think Buick proved that wrong in the 80's.
 
a little off topic but you got to get all of this power controlled and to the ground. ^ anyone NOT understanding A) no replacement for displacement or B) HP to weight ratio or C) low gear/high traction launches can come ride in my 53 Willys CJ3A with a cop car TBI 5.7 motor. and just see if you can hold while I run through the gears (even mildly). it was not built to be fast but the oooolllllddd 307 in it would not stay running or crank when real cold and had points (a big no no for the old rides that sat alot), and the TBI, well its just amazing simple tech. theres alot to be said about having a car that youre always working on. old meets new and has a happy life. go old styling with new motor and brakes at least. I do miss the feel of a stick in the new rides.
 
rodnocker said:
All I know is that when I used to get under the hood of my old '69 stingray, I didn't need a computer to tell me what to check or replace. Classics were fixed by feel and listening, not diagnostic computers and chips. It took talent and a learned skill to work on cars, not a college degree.
Click to expand...
^^^this^^^
 
rodnocker said:
All I know is that when I used to get under the hood of my old '69 stingray, I didn't need a computer to tell me what to check or replace. Classics were fixed by feel and listening, not diagnostic computers and chips. It took talent and a learned skill to work on cars, not a college degree.
Click to expand...

Your statement is flawed in that electronic diagnostics are a learned skill and the feel for tweaks is still a talent, and neither require a college degree. You either evolve with tech or get ran over by it.

Then again if you want simple why stop there, why not go back before we had multiple cylinder engines...who needs timing advance..back in my day we didnt need weights and springs to have a progressive timing curve the timing was static it was what it was.

SSWaters said:
Some old stats, not saying they are better, just stats, I bet those old bias ply tires wore out quick back then;

70 Buick 455 - 510 TQ
70 Chev 454 LS6 500 TQ
65-71 426 Hemi 490 TQ

66 - 69 Chev 427 435 HP
70 Chev 454 450 HP
65 Chev 396 425 HP
63 - 64 409 425 HP
63 Ford 427 425 HP

70 Hemi Cuda 13.10 @ 107
70 Chevelle SS454 13.12 @ 107
A lot more Hemis
70 Buick GS455 13.40 @ 105
69 Mach 1 13.6 @ 106

Now the super rare ones you could kind'a clone;
69 Camaro ZL-1 13.6 @ 110.21 (Museum stuff now)
69 Corvette ZL-1 10.89 @ 130 (Slicks) (Museum stuff also)
69 AMC AMX SS/G 11.0 @ 122 (I've seen one of these in SC somewhere, it's been year or 20)
Click to expand...
Im not trying to be an ass, really Im not. But I am totally missing your point. Let me throw some other numbers at you:
2013 Mustang 5.0 420 HP/390 lb/ft - 1/4 mile 12.7 - 111 mph
Thats not super rare...and its kicking the super rare ZL1 on street tires. ANd it will get 28 mpg while doing it.
Wanna go super rare for a true comaprison..
2012 GT500 11.1 - 128 mph
And we are still talking about a 4 seat car.
Throw those super rare numbers up against a new vette and they look silly.
All this from a guy with a 65 in the garage while the wifes new 2013 sits in the rain.
From a guy who still gets misty eyed thinking about selling my black on black 69 mach 1 when I found out I was going to have my first child.
I am a classic car guy, through and through but if the goal is ultimate performance..give me a new car.
That said, there is no mistaking the skill it took to drive an old school 4 manual drum brake, manual steering unsynchronized 1st gear straight drive muscle car. To me its just like getting lucky in the back seat of a car, it was great at the time in high school, and sure its still fun every once and a while for nostalgia sake but for every day duty Ill take the modern car and the king sized bed :)
 
You are still missing my point but I agree to disagree, I put those stats up to just show what old cars had back then, not to prove anything. I know plenty of new muscle cars and even some shortbed pickups with weight in the back would dust them easily now.

This is my beef again, I wasn't dissing new muscle over old muscle, it's when the latest 4 cyl turbo Hondayotamazdahyundokia claims it's econobox has 300 HP, it's not the same as your 300 HP Chevy 5.3, the band of power isn't as broad. Yes they both have 300 HP, but one has more range.

"I'm saying go average HP? Like HP over a 1000 RPM range at any point. Say this given car's engine HP average is 300 HP from 3500 to 4500 RPM? Something like that, not 300 Peak HP for 12 RPM around 4000 RPM?"

I sold my vette with my second child, then sold my SS Impala for my wife's daily driver, miss them both but time marches on. Kids beat toys anyday in my book. Oh, she does get to drive a Joe Gibbs Tahoe.
 
Just saw a pic of a concept 2015 Stang in Car and Driver. It looks nothing like a Mustang and may have (gasp) a 4cyl option!! :eek:
 
Ron said:
Your statement is flawed in that electronic diagnostics are a learned skill and the feel for tweaks is still a talent, and neither require a college degree. You either evolve with tech or get ran over by it.
Click to expand...

My statement was my opinion. Computers and technology put a lot of good mechanics out of business because they could not afford the equipment. Just like the emissions machines that were priced at around $20,000.00 when they first came out.

And as far as the college degree...

and if you would like a little light reading that would reference your comment about evolving with the tech or getting run over by it and how it has effected our economics on a whole, there is also this.
 
Back
Top