Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Anthony @ LG Motorsports
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion

General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion Come chat about other cars.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2008, 07:34 PM   #1
smokn'
 
Drives: Banana boat
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The carribeen
Posts: 228
Old muscle vs. New muscle???!?!

So I was just curious, why are new cars in general faster, even though the old ones often had as much, if not more ponies? i.e. 1970 chevelle ss w/ the 454(my dream car)- curb weight: 3260lbs, 450 hp, and a 0-60 of only 6.1??? that's mazda rx8 range almost?!?!!? the goat does 0-60 in 4.6 w/ 400 hp and a 3800lb curb weight. so, in general, what made the old muscle slower?
smokn' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:36 PM   #2
Chevyrocker
Weekend Rockstar
 
Chevyrocker's Avatar
 
Drives: Depends on the day...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Palm Beach
Posts: 1,445
one word for ya. TECHNOLOGY
Chevyrocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:37 PM   #3
camaro5


 
camaro5's Avatar
 
Drives: Off Into The Sunset
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cape Coral, Florida
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsenn View Post
one word for ya. TECHNOLOGY
I was going to say Technology, Technology, Technology
camaro5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:56 PM   #4
MCPOAJ
 
Drives: NOTHING
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NE.
Posts: 674
because people like to lie about older muscle cars and are jelous and give them bad rep.
MCPOAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 08:25 PM   #5
SSmoked

 
SSmoked's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 Camaro ZL1 #1255
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: O' Canada
Posts: 1,283
the old muscle cars did have TRACTION CONTROL lol.
__________________
SSmoked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 08:29 PM   #6
TheMadHatter99
Kept the Faith
 
TheMadHatter99's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 Camaro 2SS/RS CGM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 722
Inefficiencies in the drive train that caused more power to be siphoned off before reaching the wheels is a big reason. Additionally you've got aerodynamic concerns and weight issues.
__________________
TheMadHatter99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 08:55 PM   #7
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 22,009
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
There are a few differences between now and then. First, hp is calculated differently now. Its net power not gross power. However, engines back then were often under rated anyway so those probably balance out. Secondly, tires have come a long way since then. Plus, there has probably been a great reduction in drive line losses over the last 40 or so years.

Also, I've heard that the Chevelle's weight was around 3500 lbs with the big block, not 3260.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather
__________________

Camaro5 Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 09:14 PM   #8
z28camaro2471
C5 Member #227
 
z28camaro2471's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaros
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 787
Tires, tires, tires and exhaust.

Put slicks and headers on the good ole' muscle and they will run head to head with the new stuff. Of course they still can't stop or corner, but they'll get it done in a straight line!
z28camaro2471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 10:03 PM   #9
Camaro68


 
Camaro68's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 Camaro 327ci 2SS/RS 376ci LS3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince William, VA
Posts: 3,062
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
There are a few differences between now and then. First, hp is calculated differently now. Its net power not gross power. However, engines back then were often under rated anyway so those probably balance out. Secondly, tires have come a long way since then. Plus, there has probably been a great reduction in drive line losses over the last 40 or so years.

Also, I've heard that the Chevelle's weight was around 3500 lbs with the big block, not 3260.
I agree and it always go's to tech, look how far we have come with the coumputer on board. Look at the new Vette, thats just not motor
under there.
Camaro68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 12:56 AM   #10
KILLER74Z28
MOD SQUAD
 
KILLER74Z28's Avatar
 
Drives: 2G1FT1EW9A9100666
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 5,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokn' View Post
So I was just curious, why are new cars in general faster, even though the old ones often had as much, if not more ponies? i.e. 1970 chevelle ss w/ the 454(my dream car)- curb weight: 3260lbs, 450 hp, and a 0-60 of only 6.1??? that's mazda rx8 range almost?!?!!? the goat does 0-60 in 4.6 w/ 400 hp and a 3800lb curb weight. so, in general, what made the old muscle slower?
That’s because the curb weight is way off. Put the car on the scale and it tips close to 4000 lbs. Back then they classified weight differently… My title on my 74 Z says its only 3300 and I know with even the mods I have done to make it lighter it's still close to 3600.
__________________

Who cares about the Blue Oval crowd and their little Ponys? We're getting our Camaro back-and it'll be Supercharged!-MDAII
Team LS3
KILLER74Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 01:20 AM   #11
Jay
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Drives: Audi A4
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Van City, Canada
Posts: 429
as other people said..... TECHNOLOGY..... which comes from devotion to R&D.

Every movement from a technical point of view in a car has improved... less grinding and rubbing at spots where it shouldn't, better fuel delivery, better suspension, better air flow/exhausts, aerodynamics, more electrical devices on board to help where its needed, better metals beings used in certain areas (titanium or forged stuff versus the good old aluminum), shorter gear boxes, better drivetrain, tire technology, lighter wheels, overall ability to maximize each and every pony in the engine, not to mention oil in the engine is much better formulated today, hoses and other small parts are more sealed and of better quality, power steering anyone? lol. you name it baby.... it all got better.

All the above can be summarized in one word.... TECHNOLOGY!! and continual R&D.
__________________

"HEAVEN JUST COULDN'T HANDLE ALL THE NOISE"
JAY
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2008, 02:05 PM   #12
The_Blur
Jayhawk USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 6.2L of AWESOME! 2011 L99 2SS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Whiting Field
Posts: 14,221
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Weight—it was measured differently back then. I can't remember what the old measurement was, but the new one is based upon a full tank, a load of average-weighing passengers, and bonus weight in the trunk to compensate for baggage.

Horsepower—this too is measured slightly differently. I can't remember how, but even today the standards are only estimates. Take your car to 2 different dynos and you'll get 2 different numbers. Also, remember that elevation may yield different results. I don't know the modern elevation for dyno runs that car companies use as a standard, but I think it's different than back then. I read this somewhere, but now I can't remember where.

Efficiency—not all the power got to the wheels back then. Even today, a significant amount of power is lost in translation. With new technology, more of the power gets to the floor.

Tires—stock tires are just better than they used to be. With decades of additional research, it's downright unfair to compare a '67 Camaro with a '02 model with stock rims and tires because new ones are comprised of new technology that make them handle the power better.

Aerodynamics—while this only makes a big impact at really high speeds, it still impacts quarter mile runs and other types of racing. On the dyno, this doesn't explain anything, but it is clear that newer cars tend to be built with the wind tunnel in mind. Isn't that why they've been redesigning the Volt?

Tuning—computers on cars have vastly changed the way our engines run. With better tuning ratios and numbers, we get better results. Using the same engine, we can clearly show that the tune makes a difference. All of you with modified cars know that chips and reprogramming tools, when properly used, are great ways to gain horsepower that was already built into your ride.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 05:25 PM   #13
smokn'
 
Drives: Banana boat
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The carribeen
Posts: 228
^thanx guys, u really answered my question
smokn' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 05:45 PM   #14
CamaroSpike23
Mr. Nitpicky
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,861
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
one other thing,

i see blur hit on it a bit. is the motors themselves. yeah, they made 400 hp but they didnt do it very efficiently. 10 miles to the gallon sucks. mixed in with the weight, is how the weight it placed in the car. with the cars coming off the line lower from the factory than the days of old leaf springs. with upgraded suspension comes better times.

what ive always laughed at is the fact that back in the day they offered these super engines straight from the factory for relatively cheap. 300hp was the starting point. not 170, or 250. with the exception of the vette, and a few SS camaros, how many other cars came out with over 300hp? (not including the new G8 and whatnot, im talkin the last decade or two)

hell with the emissions cutting down in the 70's, the Z28 of 76 was rated at like 175hp.
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogwinters View Post
Read that link that Spike posted, it'll tell you everything you need to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camaro Diesel Muscle Car? KILLER74Z28 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 142 03-14-2014 07:38 PM
Businessweek: "Just don't call it a Muscle Car" Scotsman 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 87 06-11-2008 05:46 PM
Why you like Muscle Cars? .Hack General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 14 03-04-2008 02:57 PM
Muscle car exhaust sound linkwpc 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 19 12-09-2007 06:50 AM
American Muscle: Ford, Dodge, and Chevy fierocamaro Off-topic Discussions 1 10-31-2006 10:43 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.