Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/12/2004 7:03:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 7:06:55 AM EST by BeetleBailey]



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:05:09 AM EST
I'm not a 'Cuda fan, and I don't like it!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:05:17 AM EST
ARRRRGHH..my eyes!!!

Mommy! Make it go away!!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:07:18 AM EST
[ArethaFranklinInTheBluesBrothers] Don't you blaspheme in here! DON'T YOU BLASPHEME IN HERE!!! [/ArethaFranklinInTheBluesBrothers]

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:08:05 AM EST
I've seen people do sh@t like that before. It's desecration as far as I'm concerned.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:12:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:13:14 AM EST
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115


Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:14:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115




That ain't the point. It's like comparing airsoft to an M4
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:15:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:16:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115





Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:16:14 AM EST
Those AAR 'Cudas are icons of the era. For someone to take a cheap economy knock-off and try to make it look anywhere like the beast that the AAR was is utter stupidity. And, if Chrysler tries to come out with a "new" 'Cuda they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO. HO
'pez out.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:18:08 AM EST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





That ain't the point. It's like comparing airsoft to an M4


+1
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:19:55 AM EST
that is just wrong on so many levels... funny as hell, but wrong...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:19:57 AM EST
That's just wrong.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:30:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:30:16 AM EST
effing neon drivers


I hate those damn things
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:32:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
I hate those damn things




So do I and I OWN one! It IS cheap transpo though. I'd set it on fire before I tried to dress it up like an AAR Cuda or any other muscle car.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:33:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 7:35:46 AM EST by BeetleBailey]
Wow really? A neon has 460 HP off of the lot?


"Chrysler Trans-Am manager Pete Hutchinson and engine builder Keith Black destroked the small-block 340 to 303.8 cubic inches and developed new cast-iron heads with pushrod holes shifted slightly to permit bigger ports. Early on, Chrysler reported 460 hp, but development produced more as the season progressed."
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:35:06 AM EST
Maybe "Kooter" would be a better name?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:40:24 AM EST
That's about as useful as nipples on a man.

MT
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:40:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 7:41:43 AM EST by gus]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...




Having owned both, the only thing the new one does better is drive past gas stations. Plus, I don't think this is some new Chrysler concept car, it's just what some nimrod Neon owner did to his own car.


ETA - the "real" AAR Cuda in the lower pic isn't real either - it's a model.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:44:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By gus:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
I hate those damn things




So do I and I OWN one! It IS cheap transpo though. I'd set it on fire before I tried to dress it up like an AAR Cuda or any other muscle car.



Maybe we could arrange that at a shoot in the near future.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:45:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 7:46:05 AM EST by Redcap]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...



Better get your facts straight, junior.



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:49:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By gus:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...




Having owned both, the only thing the new one does better is drive past gas stations. Plus, I don't think this is some new Chrysler concept car, it's just what some nimrod Neon owner did to his own car.


ETA - the "real" AAR Cuda in the lower pic isn't real either - it's a model.



Was talking about the GTO comment... I don't really get why some salivate over the classics (in terms of performance, not collectability) while criticizing new performance cars when new performance cars badly defeat old ones. I can only conclude that some simply like lots of noise and tiresmoke, curves be damned...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:54:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:04:01 AM EST by DriftPunch]

Originally Posted By Redcap:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...



Better get your facts straight, junior.

141.157.157.99/Gary/aarneon5.jpg




Ok, in the language you people seem to live by in terms of whether or not a car is worthy, here goes:

'69 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 6.2 sec.
Standing 1/4 mile . . . .14.45 sec. @ 97.8 mph

'04 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 5.3 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.8 sec @ 103.8 mph

For good measure of an exotic:
'03 911 Carrera (not awd)
0 to 60 mph . . . . 4.8 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 105.8 mph

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:57:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Wow really? A neon has 460 HP off of the lot?


"Chrysler Trans-Am manager Pete Hutchinson and engine builder Keith Black destroked the small-block 340 to 303.8 cubic inches and developed new cast-iron heads with pushrod holes shifted slightly to permit bigger ports. Early on, Chrysler reported 460 hp, but development produced more as the season progressed."



To my knowledge, no TA/Challenger or AAR/Cuda "left the lot" witha 460 hp, de-stroked 340, Trans-AM race engine. Also to my knowledge, every TA and AAR "left the lot" with a 340 6-pak/6-bbl, rated at 290 horsepower. However, these engines did have some goodies on them that were unique to the 6-pak/6-bbl in addition to the carbs and intake. Both the heads and the block were unique to the 6-pak/6-bbl, and were produced with modification-for-racing in mind.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:03:11 AM EST
god knows nothing matters more than 0-60 and 1/4 mile times... if it can go 0-60 quick when it's new, it's ok to be as tacky looking as possible.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:11:57 AM EST
BLASPHEMY

This pic will help bring balance to the evil in this thread:
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:15:02 AM EST
What is the curb weight of each of these three cars?..........



Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Redcap:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Frankenpez:
they had better do their homework first rather that screw it up like Pontiac has done with the GTO.

JMHO

'pez out.



Does it not bother you that the new one is better than the old in every statistic? This is not to say that the classics are not desirable, they most certainly are, but their 'legendary' status is undeserved for the most part. If you want one to turn it into a drag car, then you have a point, but then again, you'll be ruining a classic anyway if you do that...



Better get your facts straight, junior.

141.157.157.99/Gary/aarneon5.jpg




Ok, in the language you people seem to live by in terms of whether or not a car is worthy, here goes:

'69 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 6.2 sec.
Standing 1/4 mile . . . .14.45 sec. @ 97.8 mph

'04 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 5.3 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.8 sec @ 103.8 mph

For good measure of an exotic:
'03 911 Carrera (not awd)
0 to 60 mph . . . . 4.8 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 105.8 mph


Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:17:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:


Ok, in the language you people seem to live by in terms of whether or not a car is worthy, here goes:

'69 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 6.2 sec.
Standing 1/4 mile . . . .14.45 sec. @ 97.8 mph

'04 GTO
0 to 60 mph . . . . 5.3 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.8 sec @ 103.8 mph

For good measure of an exotic:
'03 911 Carrera (not awd)
0 to 60 mph . . . . 4.8 sec.
1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 105.8 mph




Youre comparing this:


to this?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:20:46 AM EST

I can only conclude that some simply like lots of noise and tiresmoke, curves be damned...



yep, that's me.................what was your point?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:21:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:23:51 AM EST by 1911lover]
Great....another "tits on a boar hog" wannabe. Got a piece of advice for you guys trying to tell some of us the new shit-wannabees coming from the auto makers is somehow 'better" than the '60s muscle cars...save you breath...It just ain't gonna happen. Call me a dinosaur or flame away, but there isn't even the slightest comparison, except in name only. Cite all those great stats etc., etc. that you want to...makes no nevermind to me. You are wasting your time, the concrete molds set up in the '60s, got broke in the '70s and nothing can ever replace them. Its part of my long gone youth, and not you, Detroit, the rice eaters or anyone else will ever change that!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:24:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By BB:

Youre comparing this:photo of convertable '69 Judge

to this?photo of new one



All day long...

Obviously, today a '69 convertable Judge is a valuable collectable, and an extremely desirable car. Given the choice between the two, I'd take the Judge. However, this doesn't change the fact that the new GTO is a better car. If that '69 Judge was commonly available, I'd go with the modern GTO.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:26:48 AM EST
I've got but 2 things to say.

1. That paint job is a disgrace. It's not a Cude, never will be a Cuda, so back off.
2. The new GTO is a joke. I've got a '71 GTO (in progress) and it's about a million times better than the new one. The new one takes away from th actual spirit of the muscle car. Hence all new GTO's should be destroyed.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:32:05 AM EST
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?


I always hated that color.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:34:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By BB:

Youre comparing this:photo of convertable '69 Judge

to this?photo of new one



All day long...

Obviously, today a '69 convertable Judge is a valuable collectable, and an extremely desirable car. Given the choice between the two, I'd take the Judge. However, this doesn't change the fact that the new GTO is a better car. If that '69 Judge was commonly available, I'd go with the modern GTO.



It may perform better, but it sure don't look better. Looks like a sunfire.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:41:24 AM EST
Hey the dodge boys made it wonder what they'll call it? "Cuda II"
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:21:36 AM EST
OMG were comparing cars that were built more than 30 years ago. the cars of today BETTER be f*cking better cars statistically. Those who still believe older cars are better (like myself) probably think so because no matter how good (performance--wise) a car of today is it will never match up comparatively to what a car was back then. the sad truth to the whole thing is that auto manufacturers, being the original thinkers they are, have to resort to design methods that bring back the cars of yesterday and try to evoke in the driver the image that they themselves have 1. a fast car and 2. (implied) that they work on the car and know enough about cars to be able to drive it ( like back in the day, when you actually had to KNOW about cars and how they worked to get it fast). so until the pricks who drive the shittyass brand new gto's stop acting and driving like theyre living in 1965 driving a 1965 goat, i will continue to back up the belief that, in every respect, the muscle cars pre-1973 are 10 times what any shitty detroit POS wannabe muscle car could ever achieve
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:40:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115




That ain't the point. It's like comparing airsoft to an M4



That, and the fact that it's slower than what GM had out in 1993...

It's like dressing a 10/22 up in an 'assault rifle' stock... It's still a 22 rimfire...

Dress an econobox up in 'sportscar' trim, and you still have a (SLOW) econobox...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:54:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115




That ain't the point. It's like comparing airsoft to an M4



Speed is speed. Power is NOTHING. Power to weight ratio is EVERYTHING.

Why can't big block lovers admit it?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:14:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By sirbordsalot311:
Those who still believe older cars are better (like myself) probably think so because no matter how good (performance--wise) a car of today is it will never match up comparatively to what a car was back then.

1

and 2. (implied) that they work on the car and know enough about cars to be able to drive it ( like back in the day, when you actually had to KNOW about cars and how they worked to get it fast).
2

so until the pricks who drive the shittyass brand new gto's stop acting and driving like theyre living in 1965 driving a 1965 goat, i will continue to back up the belief that, in every respect, the muscle cars pre-1973 are 10 times what any shitty detroit POS wannabe muscle car could ever achieve
3

1 + 2 + 3 lead me to conclude that your problem is not with the machine, but with the market satisfying nature of the automotive marketplace. You seem angry that excellent peformance can be purchased today, as opposed to developed from an inferior base form through sweat equity as it was in yesteryear. Thus the pride of creation becomes secondary to the simple act of purchasing and you don't like it.

I remember an editors comment in a similar context about the Acura NSX when it came out. HE said that it was too perfect and would almost be boring to own regardless of its capabilities.

If you want to be a tinkerer, fine! You have my respect. However, don't frown upon progress simply because it encroaches into areas that used to be owned by enthusiasts only.

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:16:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
SRT-4 Neon?

Performance
0 - 60 Time(seconds) 5.91
1/4 Mile Time(seconds) 1/4 Mile Speed(mph) 14.48 101.80
Braking 60 - 0 mph (ft.) 115




That ain't the point. It's like comparing airsoft to an M4



That, and the fact that it's slower than what GM had out in 1993...

It's like dressing a 10/22 up in an 'assault rifle' stock... It's still a 22 rimfire...

Dress an econobox up in 'sportscar' trim, and you still have a (SLOW) econobox...



There are plenty of fast econoboxes out there. I liked the video of the Subaru STi beating a Viper in the 1/4 mile.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:16:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:18:01 AM EST by TexRdnec]


Speed is speed. Power is NOTHING. Power to weight ratio is EVERYTHING.

Why can't big block lovers admit it?



my 340hp/450ft/lbs big block says you can suck on his cam



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:21:51 AM EST

Oh my gosh... How did this go from a "the Cuda-wannabe Neon is GAY - end of story" (which it is) to a "new sports cars of today perform marginally better than Cudas anyway with their plastic bodies and DOHC's"

Yeah - but the rice burners don't sound like heaven and run like hell (glass shaking, heads turning). Period.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:33:30 AM EST
The asshole that did that should be dragged thru a rose garden behind that abomination.

SG
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:43:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:

Speed is speed. Power is NOTHING. Power to weight ratio is EVERYTHING.

Why can't big block lovers admit it?



my 340hp/450ft/lbs big block says you can suck on his cam






Am I supposed to be impressed?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:47:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:

Speed is speed. Power is NOTHING. Power to weight ratio is EVERYTHING.

Why can't big block lovers admit it?



my 340hp/450ft/lbs big block says you can suck on his cam






Am I supposed to be impressed?



actually, asshole, i'd say thats damned impressive for a factory engine
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:50:18 AM EST
I have straight pipes on my 460 F250.
It makes so much noise, that it sets off car alarms as I roll down narrow streets.
It makes me happy.



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:51:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I have straight pipes on my 460 F250.
It makes so much noise, that it sets off car alarms as I roll down narrow streets.
It makes me happy.






+1, but not a ford!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:55:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:55:55 AM EST by SWO_daddy]

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:

Speed is speed. Power is NOTHING. Power to weight ratio is EVERYTHING.

Why can't big block lovers admit it?



my 340hp/450ft/lbs big block says you can suck on his cam






Am I supposed to be impressed?



actually, asshole, i'd say thats damned impressive for a factory engine



Hey asshole, are you making up some "inadequacy"?

I could give a flying fuck how much power and torque your car/truck/boat has.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:56:32 AM EST

I like Cudas, but the Neon doesn't bother me. Why? It takes away nothing from the legacy of the Cuda.

It's like a kid wearing a Michael Jordan jersey. Don't get mad, it takes nothing away from Michael.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top