From: gtong@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Gordon P. L. Tong)
Subject: Re: 300zx better than the L88? NOT!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:12:46 GMT

In article <Bs7w2D.LyA@acsu.buffalo.edu> v368ucgd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (TOM STEEGMANN) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.195506.27457@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes...
>>In article <1992Jul29.183455.304@wam.umd.edu>, fitchitt@wam.umd.edu () writes:
>>|> In article <Bs0FIs.1Fs@acsu.buffalo.edu> v368ucgd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (TOM STEEGMANN) writes:
>>|> >
>>|> >	In reply to the poster who didnt seem to think that a L88
>>|> >vette couldnt "survive" over 100mph, the top speed for this model
>>|> >was, in fact, 147 mph. This was done with bias ply tires. Try that in 
>>|> >your 300zx. Also, I dont need a lecture on brake cooling. The aluminum
>>|> >calipered L88 did just fine. It stopped from 80mph in 218 feet. The 
>>|> >300zx turbo takes *gasp* 231 feet! So much for your new technology
>>|> >argument. In fact, despite what you think, there has been very little
>>|> >new technology in any car for the past 30 or 40 years.
>>|> 
>>You know, I'm a big fan of the old 'vettes, but this argument is ludicrous.
>>Very little new technology?! You obviously havent done anything under the
>>hood recently! Computerized electronic engine management, anti-lock brakes,
>>traction control...the list goes on and on.  As for your braking statistics...
>>I would seriously like to know your source, because they sound awfully 
>>suspicious.
>> 
>>I won't even begin to talk about cornering...the older cars don't even
>>compare in that category.
>> 
>
>	My sources are Road and Track, feb 1991 for the 300's distance,
>and I got the vette information from a Chevy power up book that sells
>aftermarket parts. As far as technology goes, none of the things
>that you listed help a car go faster, which is what we were talking about.
>Anti Lock brakes do not make a car stop faster, they only keep you from 
>skidding. If you are such a bad driver that you cant modulate your brakes
>without computer assistance, maybe you should avoid performance autos.
>	Why wont you talk about cornering? Ever been in an old Lotus Elan?
>How about an early 240Z? Obviously you havent. Many old cars could corner
>quite nicely. If you put modern tires on any old car, it helps alot. Also,
>you can buy polyurethene bushings for the suspensions of most old muscle
>cars that drastically improve handleing. I have a friend who has a 71
>Buick Skylark with the aforementioned modifications that could beat the
>piss out of many newer "sports" cars. It will go 0-100-0 in 16 seconds.
>Try that in your new, technologically superior, car. 
>	Apparently you are the one who has not spent much time under
>the hood. Just changing the oil on your Camry does not make you an
>expert.
>

 In my original post, I implied that the L88 vette would not be as stable 
(ie. not as sure-footed ) than the 300zx turbo. I did not mean that it could
not "survive". Now, I could be wrong, I've never driven a 60's vette, nor
do I intend to. But, just from the technological articles as well as the
articles from car magazines, I do believe that 30 or 40 years worth of
research and development must have paid off somehow. 

From Car & Driver November 1986, they did an article with a comparison of
the old 300zx turbo with a modified 71 Datsun 240z. Just to quote,
"We're willing to concede that you have proved one significant point:
a golden oldie CAN keep up with one of today's brave new cars, at least in
terms of raw speed. DGrazia's 240z demonstrates that an affordable older
car shot up with some mechanical Geritol can be as much fun as a new one.
Although we don't think a car like Degrazia's is very satisfying as daily
transportation."

My point is this, given the stock 60's L88 and the stock 92 300zx turbo, I
believe IMHO that the newer car would prove more stable in handling and
high speed manoeuvrability, as well as provide a better combination of
high performance handling and ride quality. I've been in an 86 vette,
and eventhough the handling looks good on paper, and it performs well
in track events, it provides an extremely bone-jarring ride in long
distance travels. The 86 300zx that I sat in was much more composed and
more comfortable. But remember this is my honest opinion. 

Also, IMHO opinion I would tend to believe that the Chevy Power up book
would have a biased opinion with regards to the number provided in braking.
As you mentioned, it was a catalogue selling aftermarket parts for the vette.
R&T on the other hand is an ( I hope so anyways) source and attempts to
provide unbiased opinions about the cars that they test. Unless, one
independent source performed a side by side comparison, I would be 
skeptical about comparing numbers from two different sources.

One last point, brake cooling has nothing to do with stopping distance.
Brake cooling plays an important role in reducing brake fade. Brake fade
is caused by repeatedly braking hard (as is done in autocrossing). So in 
other words, one attempted measurement at braking distances does not
prove that a car will not fade (ie brake cooling "is quite fine"). It is
repeated stops that determines this. 

I do believe that your bias towards old muscle cars is as strong as my
bias towards newer highly technological sports cars. So, I think that
further proving one's point is like talking to a wall that echoes back
your exact words. 

Gordon
Newsgroups: rec.autos