Quote:
Originally posted by big_bubba
Hey irseg, to have a muscle car with 150HP is a joke--you'd have to have a 70s emissions choked GM/Ford/Mopar small block....even a freaking late '60s 225 cu. in. mopar slant six is almost at 150. And they get a lot better than 12mpg.
I sure as hell won't get much better than 12mpg when my car is done (lights, glass, etc and then go for a safety so I can get plates and drive it legally)---but find me a ricer that's only got as much as I have in my car ($3400CDN including buying it) that can beat my 300hp, 400ft-lb honda-crushing V8 and I'll lick the bottoms fo your feet.
Pain Train is right--Muscle will always win.
|
Wasent the 1980 Turbo trans am rated at like 180 hp ?
$3400 CDN huh? Thats, what , 2500 american? Buy some cheap AWD Eclipse, tear out everything thats not needed, sell all the extra stuff. Put half the money into the car and the other half twords the purchase price....I bet it would be close.
(is it 300 hp to the wheels or 300 at the flywheel, if its the previous ignore this whole paragraph)
Seems to me stock or stock new imports are pretty badass compared to old musclecars , so if you have the money why not get something better?
2002 Neon SRT4 14.2 @102 mph 2.4 4 cylinder
1969 Corvette 13.56
1969 Shelby GT-500 13.87@104.52
1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12@107.01
source
Sure, the later ones are super badass and yes, technically quicker, but those are some eliete musclecars and they only get slower from there. The engines are 3 times as big but only manage a second in a quarter mile. On the street I would bet you couldent tell a difference.