From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re:  <<< Mustang Powered Miata >>>
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:43:55 GMT

In article <144@mogun.UUCP> dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.062833.17928@menudo.uh.edu>, kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>> 
>> >It's a shame there used to be a time when the car was thought of as a friend and
>> >not just another machine.
>> 
>> I think you have a slightly optimistic view of history here (except possibly
>> for the period of time in which the automobile was a new invention).  I
>> can't think of a period in history in which most cars manufactured were
>> specialty cars of one form or another (e.g., musclecars).  Even during the
>> musclecar era, most of the cars made were the garden variety.  They just
>> happened to have bigger engines than they use these days.
>
>Garden variety? I can't remember any Musclecar that was garden variety.
>Heck, you could get a station wagon with a big block.

While this is true, keep in mind that just because you *could* get a lot
of cars with macho engines, that doesn't mean that all (or even most) of
the cars that people bought *had* the macho engine.

For instance, even on the Mustangs, you could get them with rather wimpy
inline 6 engines (rather than the 289), and a lot of people did so.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, while many of the cars back then had larger
engines, they were also larger and heavier than the cars of today.  I'm
just not sure whether or not they had a higher horsepower to weight
ratio than what we find today.

I will admit, though, that macho engines for most cars were more
prominent (by quite a bit!) back then than they are now.

However, I don't think this means that most people back then *didn't*
think of their cars as just machines.  They probably did, I would think.
It's just that their environment included cars with a somewhat higher
average engine size than what you find today.

Then again, maybe the *did* regard them as more than just machines.
Cars back then required more owner maintenance than the ones they
make these days.  This has its own set of tradeoffs.  On the one
hand, you don't have to do as much work on your car as you used to.
On the other hand, if you *like* doing work on your car, it's harder
to do these days than it used to be.

In any case, I think the bad old days of wimpy cars is past us.
At the very least, they are starting to fade.  Take a look at the cars
that are available today.  Back in the early '70s, when the first
generation Mustang was starting to fade, Datsun came on the scene with
the 240Z.  People loved it, apparently, as it sold quite well.  But its
acceleration wasn't particularly good by today's standards (in fact, it
was rather lousy by today's standards): 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds.  It
would still do close to 130 mph at the top end, though.

My point?  BACK THEN, that acceleration was, I think, considered
*reasonable*, if not good.  TODAY, that acceleration is going to be
considered *poor*, because most econoboxes can do as well!

Take a look around at the cars available these days.  Most of them
will get to 60 in 10 seconds or less.  The average is, I would say,
about 8 seconds now.  That's almost as good as what a stock Mustang
would do back then (the 289 version would do it in the low to mid
7 second range).

And the top end stuff they offer these days is breathtaking: less than
5 seconds to 60, from a car that costs about $30k.  If you want to spend
half that, you can get one that will do it in the low 6 second range (the
Mustang).

Yup, performance is back.  With a vengeance.  Automakers have figured
out how to put good performance in cars and still get decent mileage
and meet emissions standards that would have given the automakers of
3 decades ago nightmares.

And you can still modify some of these cars to go even faster, and still
meet emissions requirements.  A cleaner engine is a more efficient and
more powerful engine.  Nowadays, instead of playing with carbs and points,
you play with electronic fuel injection and distributorless ignition
systems.  Aftermarket companies, like Crane Cams, are coming out with
electronic widgets that will allow you to tune your car *directly*.  Dial
in the settings you want and go.

Except possibly for the few years of the Musclecar Era, today looks to me
to be the best time for cars ever.  They're almost as fast as the Musclecars
of the sixties, and they handle a hell of a lot better, and they're cleaner
and more comfortable.  You gotta love it.

So when was the worst time?  Mid seventies to early eighties, when
automakers hadn't figured out how to build high-performance engines with
good emissions characteristics.  Automakers were, it seems, in a state of
shock.

But even that can have its benefits.  Instead of concentrating on
performance, automakers learned how to make cars handle well.  The
lessons they learned have resulted in what you see around you today.
They also learned how to streamline cars (but that came slowly) to
make them efficient.

The result?  The current Mustang GT, despite the fact that it has a
significantly smaller engine than the 428CJ Mach 1, can outrun it
at the top end.  It's lighter, nimbler, and has better aerodynamic
characteristics.

Want another reason modern times are better than the Musclecar days?
Tires.  They're lightyears ahead of what they had back in the
Musclecar days.  In fact, tires back then were the limiting technology
for speed, if what I read about the time is correct.

>The 426 Hemi, 327 "fuelie" Vette, 302 Z-28, Boss 429, 455 super-duty,
>440 six-pack, LS-6 454, ZL-1 (aluminum) 427, 455 GSX.
>These are just a few examples off the top of my head, there's countless more.
>All of these engines could be had on virtually any car.

Yup.  As you point out, one of the things that they had back then that
you don't really see anymore is the incredible interchangeability of
engines.  Want a bigger engine?  No problem.  Just drop one in.  These
days, it's a lot tougher than that, especially if you want to meet today's
emissions standards.

>I don't think I really have an optimistic view of history at all, that's
>just the way it was.
>I mean, now-a-days we can't even have sex with anyone without worrying about
>death.     

No kidding.  Sucks, doesn't it?

>Sure, there was bad times then but how do they compare to todays problems?

Depends.  For cars, I would have to say that we're *much* better off than
we were during the mid seventies to early eighties.  For other problems?

Well, let's just say that these days the problems are *different*.  We
have medical technology that people 30 years ago would have lusted
after.  We can carry on this electronic conversation effectively for
*free*.  *Nobody* could do that 30 years ago, and I mean *nobody*.  We
can make *bricks* fly with fly-by-wire systems (we do it with the Space
Shuttle all the time).  The movies available these days are unequalled.
We have essentially noiseless music systems, and they're *cheap*.  And
there's effectively no more cold war.

So you must admit, it could be worse.  Hell, it *was* worse, a lot worse,
back in the seventies.  At least with respect to cars.  And computers.
And the world political situation.  And movies (the movies of the sixties
were better looking than the movies of the early to mid seventies!).
And music.  And high-performance aircraft (though I admit that it's
not something we mere mortals can paticipate in, alas.  Bureaucratic
red tape is making it more expensive and more difficult to fly your
own plane).

Of course, in some ways things *are* worse.  We have AIDS to contend with.
Fortunately, that'll pass (either we'll figure out how to kill it or
deal with it, or it'll kill us.  I'm betting on us winning this one).
Bureaucracy and government has gotten bad enough that a lot of us fear for
our basic freedoms.  That *won't* pass.  It'll just get worse, until we
as a population get fed up enough with it that we'll toss our government
out, by force if necessary.

>Oh well, sorry I rambled on so long but IMHO the cars of today just don't
>compare to the speed or seat-of-the-pants fun of the cars of yesteryear.

I hope you decide to look around.  Maybe you'll be surprised.  Maybe
you've already looked around and decided that you don't like what you
see.  If the latter, then stick around.  Looks like things are getting
better.

One thing's for sure, though: cars today are more expensive compared to
income than they used to be.  Of all the bummer things about cars today
compared to cars of the sixties, this has got to be the worst.  What
good's a car that does the 1/4 mile in 12 seconds if you have to mortgage
your house in order to buy it?

>                       David Gunsul 
>                       dcg@mogun.uucp


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)