Car guys...

[santahog]

How much money ya got?..
http://www.n2amotors.com/vehicles.aspx?VehicleID=2#Link6
http://www.n2amotors.com/PicDisplay.aspx?Section=Vehicles&VehicleID=2&SidePic=1&LastPic=7

[Magoo541]

Cool cars but not my style.  If I were going to spend that much money it would be on gas to drive an old muscle car with WAY too much motor 

[Tyler Durden]

will they take a personal check?
 

[Tyler Durden]

I'm with Magoo here.  

Just doing Craig's List searches for the St. Louis area, it looks like it is possible to get a late 1960's or early 1970's  Dodge Challenger with matching numbers that is NOT a complete and total BASKET CASE for a reasonable sum.

The engine-less  basket case Camaro's, Corvette's, and Mustangs would be out of my price range still, especially when I consider how much I would have to sink into them.

at least with a few of the Challengers I have seen, I could at least actually hop in them and drive away.

all Camaros, Vettes, and Stangs anywhere close to my price range would require me to buy a flatbed trailer to load up them up on to get them back home.

a two door Chrysler Newport doesn't look half bad either.

anywhooo.....getting back more on topic.  Those no 2 alike cars are awesome, and I can appreciate the work that went into them, especally if that is really sheet metal and not fiberglass or some molded plastic.

[santahog]

Cool cars but not my style.  If I were going to spend that much money it would be on gas to drive an old muscle car with WAY too much motor 

It may sound like blasphemy, but I disagree.. Have you driven one of the newer Mustangs? I had a 07, 5 speed GT, (30k new) that you couldn't PRY off the road.. I took crowned roads that would be dangerous at 40 mph in a 69, at 60 and 70 mph in the 07. There really is no comparison. The GT had a pretty good growl too, that could be nicely enhanced with a trip to the shop. To bring a 69 to the level of completeness of a 07 would take a bunch of money, and it wouldn't be remotely as safe or reliable as a new one..
With 1/4 miles in the 10 to 11 second range and a top end that will get you as dead or in jail as any classic, I'll always go for a new Mustang of Mopar. I'm not sold in the new Camero yet. I don't trust GM enough to even entertain the notion. (I'm too broke to buy another one again anyway).
Sorry. I know it goes against the grain, but when I had the choice to go old or go new, I'm glad I went new..
 

[Sponsor]

[Tyler Durden]

oh yeah, as far as performance goes in something other than just a straight yeah, I'd imagine anything made in the last 10 years acts like it is on rails compared to anything muscle car wise from the 60's or 70's.

[Pathfinder]

To the OP - interesting design challenge and a very interesting result. Not for me, but still I gotta appreciate the design work that went into producing that example. Can you tell my Dad was an industrial designer? I think the first words I ever spoke were Raymond Loewy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Loewy)! 

Being a Ford guy, the "marriage" I would prefer to see is the wedding of the front end of a '68 Mustang GT-500KR with the '73 fastback back end.

Santa, you're 100% on the money - the old cars, no matter how fondly remember them, cannot compare with the engineering of today's car. As much as we turn up our noses at the over-cramming of EPA-mandated crap in the engine compartment, today's cars run and run and run with minimal maintenance and with excellent handling.

What late '50s through '60s car can go 100k+ miles without rusting out or generally just falling apart? I have an 2004 Oldsmobile Alero that is running great after 125k miles in ND - no rust, just a little paint coming off the plastic front bumper. What would a Detroit special from the '50s look like after 8 years and 125k miles? And the Olds is safer and better handling than the '58 Mercury I had in the mid 60's.

[billt]

It may sound like blasphemy, but I disagree.. Have you driven one of the newer Mustangs? I had a 07, 5 speed GT, (30k new) that you couldn't PRY off the road.. I took crowned roads that would be dangerous at 40 mph in a 69, at 60 and 70 mph in the 07. There really is no comparison.

I agree. Today's new high performance cars leave the 60's era muscle cars in the dust. Back then you had what? A 426 Hemi, or a 427 Chevy pulling right around the mid 400 horsepower range. They were geared so low from the factory they were screaming their guts out at 75 MPH on the highway, getting around 8 MPG doing it.

They were undependable as hell, and idled like a coffee can full of rocks. I had a new 1970 Chevy Nova SS, 396 / 375 HP with solid tappets. The car was fast, but it handled like crap, got terrible fuel economy, and had no top end. Today a stock Mustang GT pulls over 400 HP, gets mileage in the high teens, and has a top end of well over 150 MPH. Not to mention it is dependable as hell, and handles like a dream. The older high performance cars had a style that was attractive, but I would much rather own a newer high performance vehicle. For $60,000.00 you can have a Z-06 Corvette, or a Shelby Mustang that will wipe the street with 99% of the cars currently on the roads today, along with any 60's era muscle car. And it will get you to work as dependably and economically as your neighbors SUV. Pretty hard to beat.

[tombogan03884]

3 words, Front Wheel Drive

[Solus]

I agree. Today's new high performance cars leave the 60's era muscle cars in the dust. Back then you had what? A 426 Hemi, or a 427 Chevy pulling right around the mid 400 horsepower range. They were geared so low from the factory they were screaming their guts out at 75 MPH on the highway, getting around 8 MPG doing it.

They were undependable as hell, and idled like a coffee can full of rocks. I had a new 1970 Chevy Nova SS, 396 / 375 HP with solid tappets. The car was fast, but it handled like crap, got terrible fuel economy, and had no top end. Today a stock Mustang GT pulls over 400 HP, gets mileage in the high teens, and has a top end of well over 150 MPH. Not to mention it is dependable as hell, and handles like a dream. The older high performance cars had a style that was attractive, but I would much rather own a newer high performance vehicle. For $60,000.00 you can have a Z-06 Corvette, or a Shelby Mustang that will wipe the street with 99% of the cars currently on the roads today, along with any 60's era muscle car. And it will get you to work as dependably and economically as your neighbors SUV. Pretty hard to beat.

Vastly improved tire compounds and the fact that American manufactures finally moved to 4 wheel independent suspension put pony cars into  handling contention.  

I own a 2000 Camaro with a 350.  Car and Driver did some comparisons and wondered why it was kicking Mustang and modified 1996+ Camaro's butts...  They tested it and found instead of the 315 advertised HP it  had 345hp...modern HP, not the inflated ones of the 60s.'

Now that is very close to 1hp per ci....which is good anywhere...and pretty phenomenal in an engine design from the 50s.

When you get cornering G forces in the 90% area, you are way out of what any non-initiated driver will use.  Long before they will back off...

Feeling almost as much weight pushing you sideways as down will test the nerve of any one not used to doing it....most will back out at 70% or less.

Back in the 70s a modified Datsun (Nissan) 240Z in D Production would generate 1.25% cornering G forces...truly amazing for that era.