From: gtong@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Gordon P. L. Tong)
Subject: Re: Re: Sentra E vs. Saturn SL (SE-R & SC)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:20:32 GMT

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
>or carbed big block vettes? Their brakes were 4 wheel disk with multiple
>pistons for every caliper. These could stop faster than almost ANYTHING
>made since then (except for newer vettes and porsches). They could waste
>any jap econobox on any kind of road course, or any other race for that
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>matter. I'm pretty sure it could beat the 300zx in the slalom. As far as 
>suspension goes, how does 4 wheel independent grab you? There were some
>American Muscle cars fo the day that had that feature that was "foreign"
>to the Japanese until recently. How about 0-100-0? No car has ever beat
>the cobra's sub 13 second performance in that. Check your facts before
>you go shooting your mouth off next time.
>
>
>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.

    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 ? 

However, no japanese maufacturer (or European for that matter) will ever
produce a car as exciting or adrenaline producing as the muscle cars of the
60's. I'm not trying to downgrade the american muscle car. It's just that
I doubt that a car from the 60's can still compete competently with an
all-out sports car of today.