header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Sporty Cars

 (Read 3096 times)

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #154 on: April 29, 2020, 11:28:27 PM »
Tail fins add weight and no volume obviously.  The drag part is probably minimal.

Aerodynamics for mpgs is not that much of a thing any more really, but weight is.  Cars are all pretty aerodynamic now, 0.30 is common.

Cleaning up the underside of the car is important, as well as keeping air out from underneath.  And since a lot of cars can exceed 140 mph today, there is emphasis on downforce at speed which causes drag.

The Pinto and Vega weren't crappy general designs but their execution was awful.  Car makers discovered you don't save much money just by making a car smaller, you still have the labor costs, all you save is on some steel and glass.  Had they made those cars basically smaller versions of larger cars in effect they would have cost nearly as much. 

Then they discovered that making a car smaller didn't always mean a lot better mpgs in the real world.  My first wife brought a Chevy Chevette with her, a new one, and it was hard pressed to get 26 mpg highway.  It was an automatic, and horrible.It had the two barrel carb on it.  That was a bad car, rear wheel drive, and not much room.
The Pinto and Vega made an interesting study in contrasts.
The Pinto was like a small version of a big, standard car.  Cast-iron straight-4 (rather than V-8), smaller transmission, the same layout in just about every way, but smaller.  My sister had a Pinto wagon with wood-grain vinyl on the sides.  "Pinto Squire," I think it was called.  She loved it, and it drove pretty well.  IMO, the only thing wrong with the Pinto was the unsafe mounting of the gas tank.  Of course, that was a very serious flaw which Ford could have fixed rather than deciding that it was cheaper just the pay the damages in the inevitable lawsuits.
The Vega was an attempt to really make something new.  Aluminum-block engine, rack-and-pinion steering, some performance aspirations.  And it was a piece of crap.  The aluminum-block engine, oddly, had a cast-iron head.  It was a very fragile engine, overheated, sprang leaks, etc.  It was later replaced with a cast-iron engine.  Chevy had a rep back then of letting their customers do the development work, so that by about the 3rd (and often final) year of a body style, everything would work pretty well.  That didn't work with the Vega.  By the time it got sorted out, its image was fatally damaged.
The was a high-performance Vega, the Cosworth Vega, introduced in 1975, the 6th year of production.  It was too little, too late.
Play Like a Champion Today

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #155 on: April 29, 2020, 11:36:33 PM »
and dangerous.FF i had a '72 NOVA 250 6 cyl,decent car.Never had any Muscle cars.Almost bought a '69 Z-28 jet black with pearl White stripes
Novas weren't great cars, but they were sporty

I totaled my 1970 SS drag racing in high school
good times
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5424
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #156 on: April 29, 2020, 11:55:50 PM »
That's a '73 model.
Yes, I know.  That's why I posted it in contrast to the beautiful original 60s models, and the 80s Fox body models.  

Specifically, that's a '73 "Grande" model which I find to be fairly ugly.

Not all 73s were that bad though.  The Mach 1 looked okay from the front 1/4, though the side shot roofline still looks pretty bloated:





CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #157 on: April 30, 2020, 12:58:10 AM »
Yes, I know.  That's why I posted it in contrast to the beautiful original 60s models, and the 80s Fox body models. 

Specifically, that's a '73 "Grande" model which I find to be fairly ugly.

Not all 73s were that bad though.  The Mach 1 looked okay from the front 1/4, though the side shot roofline still looks pretty bloated:

I figured you knew.
But there are a bunch of young whippersnappers on the board who might not.
Plus, I was getting ready to talk about the '71-73 Mustangs, so I identified this one as one of that breed.
IMO, the kick-up in the beltline behind the door is what makes this style look so big and heavy.
For '73 the "Ram Air" hood rode over a 351 with a 2-barrel carb.
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #158 on: April 30, 2020, 07:40:02 AM »
The Nova was the same as the Camaro mechanically if you optioned it right.  Leaf springs in the rear.  F41 suspension.  Wide oval tires.

They really were round pretty much.

I took a course on Taguchi Methods long ago and part of it was designing something that fit together so well and easily that it was almost impossible to assemble to incorrectly.  Great in concept.  He was a Mazda engineer.  There also was a design of experiments component that was interesting but not usable for me, nearly everything I dealt with was very nonlinear.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5424
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #159 on: April 30, 2020, 07:55:16 AM »
I figured you knew.
But there are a bunch of young whippersnappers on the board who might not.
Plus, I was getting ready to talk about the '71-73 Mustangs, so I identified this one as one of that breed.
IMO, the kick-up in the beltline behind the door is what makes this style look so big and heavy.
For '73 the "Ram Air" hood rode over a 351 with a 2-barrel carb.
Yes, I don't hate everything about the 71-73s, but they certainly weren't as elegant as the earlier models, and especially the 65-66 which were of course the smallest of them all.  

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #160 on: April 30, 2020, 08:06:26 AM »
I wonder how many running Mustang IIs exist today.  Maybe they are collectible.

Ha.

I test drove one once.  Gas prices had gone way up and I was musing about something economical and sporty.  It was really bad.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5424
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #161 on: April 30, 2020, 09:00:34 AM »
I'll admit, I didn't entirely hate the Cobra II version of the Mustang II, at least specifically when it was used in Charlie's Angels...


MrNubbz

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6403
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #162 on: April 30, 2020, 09:20:04 AM »
For '73 the "Ram Air" hood rode over a 351 with a 2-barrel carb.
Cleveland Engine's made about 5 miles from my house
"Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco." - Will Rodgers

MrNubbz

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6403
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #163 on: April 30, 2020, 09:22:42 AM »
Novas weren't great cars, but they were sporty

I totaled my 1970 SS drag racing in high school,good times
Well at least you climbed out,lot of lads didn't
"Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco." - Will Rodgers

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #164 on: April 30, 2020, 10:02:07 AM »
I've always been lucky
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #165 on: April 30, 2020, 10:07:43 AM »
https://www.motortrend.com/news/1985-chevy-camaro-irocz-info-pictures/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_medium&utm_source&fbclid=IwAR1-VDim_A4X5-3rePeeF1HEoSqs5S9kNgWcqkA75bmdbzd8wNdp19ErC6g

The IROC-Z was also the first Camaro to squeak under the seven-second mark on its way to 60 mph. It knocked it out in 6.9 seconds courtesy of its fuel-injected V-8 that was good for 215 horsepower and 275 pound-feet of twist. By 1990, the IROC-Z could do the deed in 5.8 seconds, thanks to the sneaky 1LE options package that deleted the air-conditioning and added heavy-duty Corvette front disc brakes, an aluminum driveshaft, aluminum spare wheel, unique shocks, and extra fuel tank baffling—plus an optional 5.7-liter V-8 that put out a wholesome 245 hp and 345 lb-ft of torque.

That first Camaro comment is not true of course.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #166 on: April 30, 2020, 10:13:26 AM »
first 3rd generation, perhaps
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
Re: Sporty Cars
« Reply #167 on: April 30, 2020, 10:16:02 AM »
Yeah, I presume that is what they meant.  The only exception on the 0-60 site is the 1969 Camaro ZR-1, which was a limited production effort.

I guess others would break 7 seconds, the 396 or 427 variants. (??)

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1969/446675/chevrolet_camaro_ss-396_convertible_375-hp_4-speed.html

1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS-396 Convertible 375-hp 4-speed (man. 4) (RS).
Specs datasheet with technical data and performance data plus an analysis of the direct market competition of Chevrolet Camaro SS-396 Convertible 375-hp 4-speed (man. 4) (RS) in 1969 the model with 2-door convertible body and V-8 6489 cm3 / 396 cui engine size, 279.5 kW / 380 PS / 375 hp (SAE gross) offered since September 1968 for North America U.S.. Specifications listing with the outside and inside dimensions, fuel economy, top speed, performance factory data and ProfessCars™ estimation: this Chevrolet would accelerate 0-60 mph in 6 sec, 0-100 km/h in 6.3 sec, 0-200 km/h in 26.5 sec and quarter mile time is 14.4 sec. Specs review in automobile-catalog.


 

Associate Links/Search