Checked off a big "bucket list" item

[bcla]

My best friend in High school had a 1974 Gremlin with a 304 V-8. That car was SCARY fast.

Was it really that fast? I looked it up, and the engine was listed as 150 hp. Granted that's stuffing a big engine in a small car, but even today you're talking over 200 HP out of a family sedan.

My folks bought a 1975 Chevy Monza 2+2 with a 5.0L V8. Seemed kind of crazy thinking of modern cars, but it was during the introduction of catalytic converters and unleaded gas. It wasn't really that fast considering the engine size and weight, especially with an automatic transmission.

 

[tvguy]

Was it really that fast? I looked it up, and the engine was listed as 150 hp. Granted that's stuffing a big engine in a small car, but even today you're talking over 200 HP out of a family sedan.

My folks bought a 1975 Chevy Monza 2+2 with a 5.0L V8. Seemed kind of crazy thinking of modern cars, but it was during the introduction of catalytic converters and unleaded gas. It wasn't really that fast considering the engine size and weight, especially with an automatic transmission.

150 hp in a 2600 pound car. Its competition was the Pinto, 83 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2500 pound car, and the Vega with 76 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2535 pound car. Almost twice the horsepower in the Gremlin, almost impossible to start out without spinning the rear wheels.
Yes, technology has improved horsepower, but I can't believe the horsepower figures some cars advertise now. My 87 Suburban has a 454 that is rated at 230 horsepower. A 2.0 Ford Ecoboost 4 cylinder today is rated at 240 horse power. We have a few Escapes at work with this engine, and they are quick, but can it really put out nearly the same horsepower as an engine 4 times bigger?

 

[Squirlz]

150 hp in a 2600 pound car. Its competition was the Pinto, 83 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2500 pound car, and the Vega with 76 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2535 pound car. Almost twice the horsepower in the Gremlin, almost impossible to start out without spinning the rear wheels.
Yes, technology has improved horsepower, but I can't believe the horsepower figures some cars advertise now. My 87 Suburban has a 454 that is rated at 230 horsepower. A 2.0 Ford Ecoboost 4 cylinder today is rated at 240 horse power. We have a few Escapes at work with this engine, and they are quick, but can it really put out nearly the same horsepower as an engine 4 times bigger?

That Gremlin's 0-60 time back then was just under 9 seconds. I imagine it felt fast at the time., when Corvettes didn't have much more power. Your Suburban is strangled with emissions crap versus 454s in the 70s that produced 450 HP. Todays small engines are fully capable of making higher horsepower, but probably not as much torque as the old pushrod V8.

 

[bcla]

150 hp in a 2600 pound car. Its competition was the Pinto, 83 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2500 pound car, and the Vega with 76 hp (140 cubic inch 4) in a 2535 pound car. Almost twice the horsepower in the Gremlin, almost impossible to start out without spinning the rear wheels.
Yes, technology has improved horsepower, but I can't believe the horsepower figures some cars advertise now. My 87 Suburban has a 454 that is rated at 230 horsepower. A 2.0 Ford Ecoboost 4 cylinder today is rated at 240 horse power. We have a few Escapes at work with this engine, and they are quick, but can it really put out nearly the same horsepower as an engine 4 times bigger?

It was a little before my time, but muscle car power figures from the lat 60s and early 70s were notoriously bloated. Then the automakers started using industry standards for output measurement and people were wondering where the power went. Also, by the 70s the newer emissions requirements were starting to really reduce power output.

Most cars these days have 3 or 4 valves per cylinder, sophisticated fuel injection, and other things to boost power. Also - the EcoBoost is turbocharged. 240 HP out of a 2L turbo was possible over 20 years ago. Doing that with good fuel economy is another matter.

A big torquey engine is pretty well suited for a large vehicle like a Suburban. Most aren't drag racing them. I'm pretty sure the power curve for the EcoBoost is up in the higher revs. The Suburban engine is designed to move a bigger weight at moderate revs.

As far as the OP goes, I remember visiting a old friend (we've met up a few times in the past few years but never at his house) sending a message that I was going to be near, and he sent a message back asking if I wanted to see his Ferrari. I thought he was kidding until I got there.

 

[Bluestars]

Nice!!!

 

[tvguy]

It was a little before my time, but muscle car power figures from the lat 60s and early 70s were notoriously bloated. Then the automakers started using industry standards for output measurement and people were wondering where the power went. Also, by the 70s the newer emissions requirements were starting to really reduce power output.

Most cars these days have 3 or 4 valves per cylinder, sophisticated fuel injection, and other things to boost power. Also - the EcoBoost is turbocharged. 240 HP out of a 2L turbo was possible over 20 years ago. Doing that with good fuel economy is another matter.

A big torquey engine is pretty well suited for a large vehicle like a Suburban. Most aren't drag racing them. I'm pretty sure the power curve for the EcoBoost is up in the higher revs. The Suburban engine is designed to move a bigger weight at moderate revs.

As far as the OP goes, I remember visiting a old friend (we've met up a few times in the past few years but never at his house) sending a message that I was going to be near, and he sent a message back asking if I wanted to see his Ferrari. I thought he was kidding until I got there.

Yup. The VERY VERY OLD design (1962) Buick 231 V-6, when having electronic ignition, fuel injection and a turbo added in 1976 put out a whopping 235 horsepower. The 289 in my 65 Mustang is rated at 225 horsepower.

 

[cdndisneymum]

Awww, bless...enjoy!

 

[TAX GUY]

Wow! Nice Camaro!

Soooo I see I should move from advisory to tax. Lol

Nice car!

tax is where it's at!!

Beautiful! I want a car like Knight Rider Maybe someday!

Back in high school I had a 1984 Trans Am. It too was black (with gold trim). That was my Knight Rider.

Auto or stick?

this one is an auto. My wife doesn't drive a manual and I didn't want to exclude her from driving it.

Grand Sport?

No, just a base model.




It's a 1999 base model C5 Corvette convertible. I'm now the 3rd owner. It just turned 60,000 miles the day I picked it up. It came with ALL the service and maintenance records, right down to the original window sticker! This generation of Corvettes have become very affordable, which is why I was able to make it happen. I can now say, it's living up to the hype and its everything I thought it would be.

 

[bcla]

this one is an auto. My wife doesn't drive a manual and I didn't want to exclude her from driving it.

That's supposed to be an advantage. I wouldn't want my wife behind the wheel of a car with that kind of power. She'd probably wreck it.

At least the newer Vettes still have sticks. Ferrari doesn't offer them any more. Neither does a Nissan GT-R. That's my dream car.

 

[Squirlz]

That's supposed to be an advantage. I wouldn't want my wife behind the wheel of a car with that kind of power. She'd probably wreck it.

At least the newer Vettes still have sticks. Ferrari doesn't offer them any more. Neither does a Nissan GT-R. That's my dream car.

The Cadillac CTS-V is no longer offered with a stick. My 2012 is one of about 360 Station Wagons ever made with a stick. 565 horsepower!

 

[bcla]

Yup. The VERY VERY OLD design (1962) Buick 231 V-6, when having electronic ignition, fuel injection and a turbo added in 1976 put out a whopping 235 horsepower. The 289 in my 65 Mustang is rated at 225 horsepower.

My first car that I owned under my own name was a 1995 Acura Integra GS-R. That put out 170 HP out of a normally-aspirated 1.8L 4 with about a 2650 lb curb weight. It was FWD and had a tendency to chirp the tires. It was also easy to drive, as it drove like an econobox unless the engine was flogged. The power all came at the top end, but it was easy to get it there with a light clutch and a transmission that was geared for it. Just make sure the engine is warmed up and floor it until near the fuel cutoff at 8100 RPM and shift. It got loud, but was still smooth all the way up to the redline.

The biggest problem with it was that it was notoriously easy to steal. At least the insurance settlement was good.

 

[tvguy]

My first car that I owned under my own name was a 1995 Acura Integra GS-R. That put out 170 HP out of a normally-aspirated 1.8L 4 with about a 2650 lb curb weight. It was FWD and had a tendency to chirp the tires. It was also easy to drive, as it drove like an econobox unless the engine was flogged. The power all came at the top end, but it was easy to get it there with a light clutch and a transmission that was geared for it. Just make sure the engine is warmed up and floor it until near the fuel cutoff at 8100 RPM and shift. It got loud, but was still smooth all the way up to the redline.

The biggest problem with it was that it was notoriously easy to steal. At least the insurance settlement was good.

Yeah, my commute car is a 2003 Focus 2.3 140 HP PZEV. My wife drives a Mercury Mountaineer 4.0, 205 hp and every time she drives my Focus she spins the wheels. She is used to driving a car that ways almost twice as much.

 

[bcla]

Yeah, my commute car is a 2003 Focus 2.3 140 HP PZEV. My wife drives a Mercury Mountaineer 4.0, 205 hp and every time she drives my Focus she spins the wheels. She is used to driving a car that ways almost twice as much.

A former coworker bought a Focus around 2008. He got it with a manual, and said his wife wasn't too happy about it since she couldn't drive it. Still, I heard that the dual-clutch automatic transmission had some serious issues, although I'm not sure if it was available for that model year.

 

[tvguy]

A former coworker bought a Focus around 2008. He got it with a manual, and said his wife wasn't too happy about it since she couldn't drive it. Still, I heard that the dual-clutch automatic transmission had some serious issues, although I'm not sure if it was available for that model year.

I rented a 2014 Focus with that trannie, it had 14,000 miles on it and I couldn't get it out of the rental lot the trannie was slipped so bad.
Walked right back in to get another car. I think it was introduced i 2010.

More than one transmission overhauling guy has told me that the automakers need to learn that a simple automatic with no more than 4 or 5 speeds is really the most reliable transmission.

 

[bcla]

I rented a 2014 Focus with that trannie, it had 14,000 miles on it and I couldn't get it out of the rental lot the trannie was slipped so bad.
Walked right back in to get another car. I think it was introduced i 2010.

More than one transmission overhauling guy has told me that the automakers need to learn that a simple automatic with no more than 4 or 5 speeds is really the most reliable transmission.

I wasn't sure when it became available in the US, but it was a true dry dual-clutch, and the idea was to get better fuel economy as dry clutches are more efficient. There was something about shift programming that didn't work.

Probably not as crazy as the original F1-style single-clutch transmissions. Those were extremely harsh and not terribly reliable. I believe they were something like a $5000 option on a $175,000 Ferrari F355. They were also breaking down all the time when Ferrari started using them in F1 when other teams were still using traditional manual transmissions.

Still, I'm used to light synchronized manual transmissions. I was talking to someone in line somewhere about clutch pedals and I said mine wasn't particularly hard on my knees. The guy asked what I drove, and he said something about something like an old Ford manual without synchros being tough to shift and with a heavy pedal. Made it sound like the Autopia pedal.