Harry P. Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Sorry. I missed that post. Taking 1000 pounds out of a 3800 pound Challenger ought to be theoretically possible... So tell me how. You seem to be sure it can be done. If you are so sure it can be done, you must have some idea as to how. And if it's possible, why didn't the engineers see the possibility? What do you know that they don't? It's easy to say that cutting a half ton out of a Challenger is "theoretically possible." Tell me in real world terms how you would do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Oh guys, an auto hellkitty is 4490 lbs btw. There is no way to take 1000 out of it. And maintain a price point. Here is an example, the new gt350r. It will cost over twice a fully equipped gt350 and the R lost the following items. A/C, radio, rear seat. It also got some carbon body work and is the first domestic production car to wear carbon fibre wheels. How much lighter is it? 130lbs!! That's it! Keep in mind that it's fully street legal. That's what safety,emissions and electrical gizmos weigh. So to take 1000 lbs out of a modern car is just impossible and maintain a price point.... Or is it? The 15 f150 overall is 700 lbs lighter than an equally equipped 14 model due to the use of an all aluminum body. Did you know that modern mustang door crash beams are over 20 lbs a piece? Now factor in the 6-10 airbags most vehicles have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Old Challenger Vs. New.... why's the new one heavier, despite being built out of plastics and lightweight alloys? Well, how many old Challengers had air conditioning? Or antilock brakes? Or front and side airbags? Or power EVERYTHING? That all adds weight. The old Challenger, like most muscle cars, was a tin can with a big engine, while the new one is a Rolls-Royce by way of comparison. Same deal for the Mustangs, Camaros, or any other name from the musclecar era that has survived or been revived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick GMC Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 And today's muscle will pretty much beat all of yesterdays' muscle in just about every category- acceleration, top end, handling/G's, etc. All the while, the A/C is on, great tunes are eminating from sound systems that put many home audio systems to shame, the GPS will tell the driver the nest way to get there, and the gas mileage will be better on the trip than those old musclecars ever even hoped to get- often using regular gas, always unleaded. Detonation? Not on your life. Overheating problems? "Not anymore, man." Bodies and interior components last longer, warranties for 100/000 miles are not unusual. To me, this is like the "golden days of modeling" debate. Were they actually 50 years ago, or are we there now? Either way, I miss my old V8's. That was my point. People keep complaining about the old days, but in the end, are todays cars really that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick GMC Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 And today's muscle will pretty much beat all of yesterdays' muscle in just about every category- acceleration, top end, handling/G's, etc. All the while, the A/C is on, great tunes are eminating from sound systems that put many home audio systems to shame, the GPS will tell the driver the nest way to get there, and the gas mileage will be better on the trip than those old musclecars ever even hoped to get- often using regular gas, always unleaded. Detonation? Not on your life. Overheating problems? "Not anymore, man." Bodies and interior components last longer, warranties for 100/000 miles are not unusual. To me, this is like the "golden days of modeling" debate. Were they actually 50 years ago, or are we there now? Either way, I miss my old V8's. That was my point. People keep complaining about the old days, but in the end, are todays cars really that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellonwheelz3 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 My condolences to the muscle car. Electric cars scare me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie8575 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 When there was just a little rationality still loose in the world, one of engineering's basic tenets was "the best solution is the simplest solution", widely known as KISS...keep it simple, stupid. Unfortunately for the real world, the blind obsession with "progress" comes at the cost of idiotic levels of complexity and shortened service live, and the resulting VERY high cost to keep a post-warranty vehicle operational. This makes the point I was about to make, Bill. While improvement might require change, change is not always improvement. Charlie Larkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinfan5 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 That was my point. People keep complaining about the old days, but in the end, are todays cars really that bad? To most people here, yes they are that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 We as auto enthuses really represent a major number of the consumers these days. Like Harry said, many people won't even open the hood of their own car these days. It puts me in a contemplative mood, it does. Like any other piece of large, dangerous machinery, wouldn't you learn the bits and pieces that make it go? Seems really just strange to me. Cars are heavier these days because people are more distracted. Technology is small enough to fit in your palm. Your car is smarter than you'll ever be (relatively speaking). People get distracted by the glowing screens, crash their cars, and sue the company for their idiocy. Back in the fifties, cars were big, relatively simple, and had no crumple zones, airbags, or antilock brakes. You paid attention when you drive or you died in the crash that followed. Acceptance of idiocy is leading to overcomplications of simple tasks by unnecessary technology. It's also funny how many people just think of their cars as transportation, but then require surround sound systems, refrigerators, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 My condolences to the muscle car. Electric cars scare me. Done right, they should be able to scare even the most jaded of "petrolheads", just look at the acceleration numbers of the new AWD Tesla, and that's even heavier than the Hellcats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Complexity for the sake of complexity makes no sense. And yes, that is present on modern cars. I don't want or need heated/cooled/massaging leather seats and a satellite-guided ashtray. But even taking that into consideration I have to say we've got it better now than enthusiasts did 40 years ago. Consider... Would you rather have a 400 horsepower car based on existing compact car underpinnings, with a four-speed manual trans, dinky drum brakes, rock hard bias ply tires, that can't handle anything but a straight line... oh, and struggles to average low single-digits for MPG... ...or a 600 horsepower purpose-designed performance car, with a six-speed, four wheel discs, nice sticky radials, turns like it's on rails, and knocks down 25mpg or more on average? I don't know about you, but I'm gonna have to go with option B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'll take the first car, put some cheap used tires on it, supercharge it, and have fun! Change the transmission to a five-speed. The new cars are all ugly to me, mostly, especially the ones with the same namesake as old ones. They have no soul, they've been drained of personality and originality... they've been raped and corporatized. I pay them no credence, and I consider them unwanted children of the names they share with their great ancestors. But that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinfan5 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Complexity for the sake of complexity makes no sense. And yes, that is present on modern cars. I don't want or need heated/cooled/massaging leather seats and a satellite-guided ashtray. But even taking that into consideration I have to say we've got it better now than enthusiasts did 40 years ago. Consider... Would you rather have a 400 horsepower car based on existing compact car underpinnings, with a four-speed manual trans, dinky drum brakes, rock hard bias ply tires, that can't handle anything but a straight line... oh, and struggles to average low single-digits for MPG... ...or a 600 horsepower purpose-designed performance car, with a six-speed, four wheel discs, nice sticky radials, turns like it's on rails, and knocks down 25mpg or more on average? I don't know about you, but I'm gonna have to go with option B. Its simple, we live in a day and age with the automobile, where we can have our cake, and eat it too. But you and me both know that most people here are going to go with option A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 No loss as I wasn't plannin' on gettin' a V8 in my next Ford truck anyway. I just don't need the power anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 A vehicle's only as unsafe as the driver makes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I'll take the first car, put some cheap used tires on it, supercharge it, and have fun! Change the transmission to a five-speed. Great. Just don't try to bring it to a complete stop from 60 in less than half a mile or try to turn a corner any faster than about 5mph and you'll do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Great. Just don't try to bring it to a complete stop from 60 in less than half a mile or try to turn a corner any faster than about 5mph and you'll do just fine. When I bought my '67 Impala I took it out for a test drive. The first time I hit the brakes, I thought they were broken! It's amazing how far cars have come. If you ever have the chance to drive an old car, you'll know what I'm talking about. Sloppy steering, vague handling, and downright scary brakes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinfan5 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 My first car was 60's something Mercury something or other, the song by Adam Sandler "Ode To Car" was about my car, minus the puke in the back seat. Driving at night I used a zippo so I could see the speedo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I hafta agree with you on the sloppy steering and the vague handling Harry, but if you change over to disc brakes you'll really feel the difference. I know that it saved me from one accident back in 2013. Whew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkypeanutbutter Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Great. Just don't try to bring it to a complete stop from 60 in less than half a mile or try to turn a corner any faster than about 5mph and you'll do just fine. That's just, like... Your opinion, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnwildpunk Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 U much rather have a V-10 drag pack challenger anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disabled modeler Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Erm...there are lots of non-v8 engines that can go 400k + miles, I'm not sure what you are on about. Just saying we have never owned one that could or seen one around here that I know of....all the 4 or 6cyl ones we have owned or friends have were always needing something or worked on after they got a lot of miles on them. I once owned a 73 Chevy cargo van with a 350ci it was worked hard every day we owned it...when I sold it it had 479,000.miles on it and never asked for much of anything still ran great and fuel economy was not bad at all for a V-8....18 on the highway about 13 in town. I am just happy the manufactures are realizing that a vehicle with enough horsepower to pull it easily will get good mpg because it uses less fuel to move it rather than it working hard and consuming more fuel to do the same job. Most of todays engines make there horsepower from fuel injection,turbos,superchargers,etc....old ones made it with the engine itself....the combination of the old school power and new school together ads up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 So tell me how. You seem to be sure it can be done. If you are so sure it can be done, you must have some idea as to how. And if it's possible, why didn't the engineers see the possibility? What do you know that they don't? It's easy to say that cutting a half ton out of a Challenger is "theoretically possible." Tell me in real world terms how you would do that. What you're asking me to deliver is an overview of a program that would be developed by a very senior, very well-paid engineer. I'll put a little time into it and get back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bacon Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) fuel economy was not bad at all for a V-8....18 on the highway about 13 in town. Exactly. The 2-litre turbo diesel in my big comfortable Skoda has run a real world day to day usage average of just over 45 mpg over the last three years. And get it on a nice long motorway run at 65 or so, and it's nearer to 60 mpg. And that's with 170 BHP and 260 lbft of torque. That's three times the economy of a "not bad at all for a V-8", which is why auto makers want to find an alternative... bestest, M. Edited January 15, 2015 by Matt Bacon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.