From: bryan@elara.mitre.org (Bryan Blackwell)
Subject: Re: Re: Sentra E vs. Saturn SL (SE-R & SC)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:39:04 GMT

In article <Bs02I9.Jou@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, gtong@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Gordon P. L. Tong) writes:
|> In article <BryAH4.L0J@acsu.buffalo.edu> v368ucgd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (TOM STEEGMANN) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul25.122858.1407@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm) writes...
|> >> 
|> >>Speaking from some experience with muscle cars in the 60's,
|> >>the Shelby Mustangs were the best of a bad lot.
|> >> 
|> >>BUT, they were NEVER well balanced, sophisticated, or refined.
|> >> 
|> >>Any econobox of today has better brakes, suspension, and
|> >>especially TIRES, than any muscle car of the '60's.  As for
|> >>engine power, I would like to see a genuine Shelby Mustang,
|> >>vs. a Sentra SE-R at Nelson's Ledges......
|> >	
|> >	What about a 67 L88 vette? Or any of the injected small block
 ***Stuff deleted****
|> >
|> >Tom
|> >
|> >
|> >> 
|> >>Jeff
|> >>Who is admitting his age again....
|> 
|>  Okay, okay. I can't take this anymore. For a car that gets 17mpg, I would 
|> hardly consider this a "jap econobox". I also believe that a 1992 300zx turbo
|> would prove much more stable and perform better than a "67 lbb vette". Why ?
|> We are talking about 25 years difference in technology here. Are you trying
|> to say that a car built 25 years ago can still perform better than any 
|> japanese "econobox" sports car (ie. I'm referring to 1993 rx-7,Mitsu 3000gt,
|> Dodge Stealth, and of course 300zx turbo). If so, then that is like saying
|> that a 1967 black & white television provides a better picture than
|> a Sony trinitron. 
|> 
|>    Okay, I'll give you credit that the 67 vette may perform equally if not 
|> better than a 300zx turbo in straight line acceleration (0-60) but i doubt 
|> that the vette would still survive after the 100mph mark (this is where
|> aerodynamics play an important role). As for handling, my (now sold)
|> 86 colt had 4 wheel independent suspension but I wouldn't say that it
|> whip the 300zx turbo. Also, we are talking about 25 years difference in tire
|> technology here. Surely a tire from a 67 vette is no comparison to a tire
|> from a 92 300zx turbo.
|> 
It seems that the comparison is for pure stock vehicles here, but I don't agree
that that's really valid, particularly in the area of tires.  Tires play a bigger 
part than most people realize.  Put some decent tires on an old car and it
will surprise many newer vehicles with "advanced engineering".  That's
not to say that there haven't been many improvements in vehicle design,
it's just that these things are far more incremental than the auto makers
would have you believe.  My wife and I have a number of old ('65 - '73) cars,
and they perform very well indeed with just some minor tweaking - tires and
alignment mostly.

|>     You mentioned brakes. How did the vette cool it's brakes ? Did it have
|> vetnilation ? Did you know that the 300zx turbo has two ways of cooling the
|> brakes ? First, the brakes are vetned disk front and rear. Secondly, the 
|> rims have a fan like appearance to not only suck out air from underneath
|> the vehicle (improving high-speed stability) but also to cool down the brakes
|> as well. Did you know that if a car has trouble cooling down it's brakes it
|> will eventually cause brake fade which will reduce the effectiveness of the
|> brakes under repeated hard braking ? 
|> 
Nissan doesn't sell the 300ZX in Germany because the brakes are not considered
adequate for high speed (sustained speeds over 65mph, by their definition). So
much for whose brakes are better.  That's not to say that a 60's 'Vette would be
any better, but I think you picked a poor example.
Newsgroups: rec.autos