Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Chevrolet Camaro, Why Have You Forsaken Thee???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CobraBob" data-source="post: 12234632" data-attributes="member: 6727"><p>I have to agree the article was a bit amateurish. It was entertaining to read, though. Some of his comments were a bit laughable. For example....</p><p><em>"These days, that’s not so easy. Sensors, ECUs and molded plastic take the fun out of working on cars like the Camaro."</em> Maybe it's a bit more complex when you go beyond the simple intake/exhaust, but not all that difficult. And isn't it more fun to get a bigger bang for your buck with the mods you make? A simple re-tune, intake and exhaust yields nice gains. Your modding choices for modest gains were more restricted back then which resulted in a lower bang for the buck ratio. And if you think wrenching is what hot rodding is all about, you can certainly build the motor from the bottom up for a bullet-proof setup that will go toe to toe with just about anything on the street. It's not all that difficult for the average gearhead nowadays. </p><p><em>"After driving it, I don’t think it was made in the same fashion as, say, the new Mustang 302."</em> Umm, maybe that's because you should be comparing it to the GT in your article. Or, you should be test driving the 1LE Camaro if you're looking to compare the car to the Boss 302. </p><p>"<em>They resurrected the old-style Camaro and bastardized it with nostalgia, instead of engineering."</em> Didn't Ford basically do the same thing with the 2005-2013 Mustang? They just did a much better job overall.</p><p><em>"We had a ’68 SS and I loved that thing. It didn’t understeer or oversteer. It would just spin up and launch."</em> Understeer/oversteer is a factor in a street race from a dig, or at the drag strip? I know, I know. He said two different things in one statement. It was just confusing in a funny way. I had this picture of someone turning the wheel sharply to the left after the launch.</p><p><em>"Driving it (the '68 Camaro) was very visceral."</em> IMO all of the new muscle cars bring deep inward feelings as well, at least to their owners. Just adding a nice exhaust system with a deeper tone and volume will set your inner feelings ablaze. And let's remember that the old school Camaro was about as raw as they come. Performance wise, it pales to today's muscle cars.</p><p><em>"When you were idling, the whole car shook back in forth because it had such a loping 305 motor- probably because that ’68 Camaro is 1,500 lbs. lighter than the modern incarnation."</em> Ah, so reducing the weight of the new Camaro will cause it to shake back and forth. And 1,500 lbs. lighter? Does this guy even check his facts. A 1968 Camaro SS with a 350 motor weighed 3,091 lbs. The new SS weighs 3,849 lbs. That's a difference of 758 lbs., not 1,500. Wow! </p><p></p><p>Well, I thought the article was fun to read, but from a technical review standpoint it was a bit lacking. JMO.</p><p></p><p>"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CobraBob, post: 12234632, member: 6727"] I have to agree the article was a bit amateurish. It was entertaining to read, though. Some of his comments were a bit laughable. For example.... [I]"These days, that’s not so easy. Sensors, ECUs and molded plastic take the fun out of working on cars like the Camaro."[/I] Maybe it's a bit more complex when you go beyond the simple intake/exhaust, but not all that difficult. And isn't it more fun to get a bigger bang for your buck with the mods you make? A simple re-tune, intake and exhaust yields nice gains. Your modding choices for modest gains were more restricted back then which resulted in a lower bang for the buck ratio. And if you think wrenching is what hot rodding is all about, you can certainly build the motor from the bottom up for a bullet-proof setup that will go toe to toe with just about anything on the street. It's not all that difficult for the average gearhead nowadays. [I]"After driving it, I don’t think it was made in the same fashion as, say, the new Mustang 302."[/I] Umm, maybe that's because you should be comparing it to the GT in your article. Or, you should be test driving the 1LE Camaro if you're looking to compare the car to the Boss 302. "[I]They resurrected the old-style Camaro and bastardized it with nostalgia, instead of engineering."[/I] Didn't Ford basically do the same thing with the 2005-2013 Mustang? They just did a much better job overall. [I]"We had a ’68 SS and I loved that thing. It didn’t understeer or oversteer. It would just spin up and launch."[/I] Understeer/oversteer is a factor in a street race from a dig, or at the drag strip? I know, I know. He said two different things in one statement. It was just confusing in a funny way. I had this picture of someone turning the wheel sharply to the left after the launch. [I]"Driving it (the '68 Camaro) was very visceral."[/I] IMO all of the new muscle cars bring deep inward feelings as well, at least to their owners. Just adding a nice exhaust system with a deeper tone and volume will set your inner feelings ablaze. And let's remember that the old school Camaro was about as raw as they come. Performance wise, it pales to today's muscle cars. [I]"When you were idling, the whole car shook back in forth because it had such a loping 305 motor- probably because that ’68 Camaro is 1,500 lbs. lighter than the modern incarnation."[/I] Ah, so reducing the weight of the new Camaro will cause it to shake back and forth. And 1,500 lbs. lighter? Does this guy even check his facts. A 1968 Camaro SS with a 350 motor weighed 3,091 lbs. The new SS weighs 3,849 lbs. That's a difference of 758 lbs., not 1,500. Wow! Well, I thought the article was fun to read, but from a technical review standpoint it was a bit lacking. JMO. " [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Chevrolet Camaro, Why Have You Forsaken Thee???
Top