Let's try the inverse - name cars you should like but don't

TR8owner wrote: In reply to moTthediesel: That's absolute nonsense. The rules changed for 1968 to favor 3.0 prototypes which eliminated the big block 7.0 Ford J cars as well as the larger engined Ferrari V12's. The rules allowed the older 5.0 litre cars since more than fifty examples had been produced. Ford officially withdrew from the program due to the rules change but John Wyer privately campaigned older 5.0 GT40's for the next two years and soundly DEFEATED the factory Porsche 908's and early 917's for 68/69. Not bad for a five year old design now running without factory development. The 917's only became dominant during 1970 at which time the 5.0 GT40 was now quite obsolete. Ford had accomplished what he wanted - destroy Ferrari. Porsche only became a major player a few years after Ford had officially ended the program. Prior to then they were only competitive in the 2.0 class with the 904's, 906's etc. The 904's could occassionally challenge the Cobras in the GT class for an over all win, but only under certain conditions. Those pushrod V8's kicked a lot of Euro ass back then.

You're absolutely right of course, although I wouldn't say Ford destroyed Ferrari so much as outspent them (by what? 20X maybe?) in a Lemans "Space Race" --

As for the 917's - yes they had teething troubles the first year, but clearly John Wyer saw the writing on the wall, as in '70 it was the Panzers that sported the Gulf colors. Hardly surprising either that 904's didn't consistently beat Cobra's as the snakes had twice the cubic inches. But anyway, this thread was about illogical automotive bias, and as such, pushrod V8's will still always be the Walmart of performance engines.

When I open the hood of a new Mustang, or Camaro, the first thing I expect to see is a geriatric greeter.

and in a way, I do ---

moTthediesel wrote:

TR8owner wrote: In reply to moTthediesel: That's absolute nonsense. The rules changed for 1968 to favor 3.0 prototypes which eliminated the big block 7.0 Ford J cars as well as the larger engined Ferrari V12's. The rules allowed the older 5.0 litre cars since more than fifty examples had been produced. Ford officially withdrew from the program due to the rules change but John Wyer privately campaigned older 5.0 GT40's for the next two years and soundly DEFEATED the factory Porsche 908's and early 917's for 68/69. Not bad for a five year old design now running without factory development. The 917's only became dominant during 1970 at which time the 5.0 GT40 was now quite obsolete. Ford had accomplished what he wanted - destroy Ferrari. Porsche only became a major player a few years after Ford had officially ended the program. Prior to then they were only competitive in the 2.0 class with the 904's, 906's etc. The 904's could occassionally challenge the Cobras in the GT class for an over all win, but only under certain conditions. Those pushrod V8's kicked a lot of Euro ass back then.

You're absolutely right of course, although I wouldn't say Ford destroyed Ferrari so much as outspent them (by what? 20X maybe?) in a Lemans "Space Race" -- As for the 917's - yes they had teething troubles the first year, but clearly John Wyer saw the writing on the wall, as in '70 it was the Panzers that sported the Gulf colors. Hardly surprising either that 904's didn't consistently beat Cobra's as the snakes had twice the cubic inches. But anyway, this thread was about illogical automotive bias, and as such, pushrod V8's will still always be the Walmart of performance engines. When I open the hood of a new Mustang, or Camaro, the first thing I expect to see is a geriatric greeter. and in a way, I do ---

Except the new 5.0L Mustangs are DOHC.

ReverendDexter wrote: I understand where you're coming from. It's weird to have a "performance car" that when I'm running at 10/10ths, I shift at 4500rpm.

Welcome to the early 90's, where most small block v8's were readily being shifted at 6k rpm and have only gone up from there.

When you decide you've had enough of your "s2000" dream car, come take a rip in a LT1 or LS1 camaro with some handling mods. Seeing god is stomping on the loud pedal near the top of 2nd and still kicking the ass end of the car out at 100km/h

Of course, I just saw a S2000 that made 400 supercharged whp on pumpgas with a bone stock motor + tuning and injectors... did I mention that power was at 8900rpm? Makes me warm and fuzzy inside.

I love all cars, and I've owned enough to say there are very few I hate... but there are lots I would NOT buy if I had the choice (mainly, anything electronic/gimmicky/take away the feel). I'm hoping the Subaru will end up making lots of gnarly noises (I love teh tractor!!11!!) at 8000rpm on the track!

moTthediesel-Mustangs have been SOHC since 95 and as RexSeven pointed out the new Mustangs are now DOHC. I really want to like new cars in general, but I hate the fact that even when I put the seat as low as it will go, I know I'll hit the headliner on just about any bump in the road.

The biggest non-sequitir on my automotive do-not-want list is probably the Acura NSX. I know, I know, it's a reasonably priced, reliable supercar, but somehow... the styling seems unexciting, and the V6, while capable, just seems too pedestrian for this kind of car.

Add forced induction and I might be able to live with it.

Corvettes and Mustangs. They're good bang-for-the-buck cars, but they are so common that I have a tendency to yawn when I see them.

HiTempguy wrote: Seeing god is stomping on the loud pedal near the top of 2nd and still kicking the ass end of the car out at 100km/h

Did you just make a Metric Reference???

I had a Ford Ranger with a 4.0L that would do the same thing with 3rd.

I recently had a chance to drive a Camaro SS 4th Gen. Not a bad car but IMHO that has got to be one of the worst chassis to ever see more than 250 hp.

I would kick sideways in 2nd at 60 MPH, but wow what chassis flex. I felt like I was in a Fox Body T-top it was so bad.

I saw God but it was because I thought the car was going to snap in half.
Car was in great shape and had 95K on it.

Pathetic

GM = Great Motors GM = Gawd-aweful Machines

BobOfTheFuture wrote: Really, Anything super modern. I dont care that the new paddle trans is faster, that the anti-lock stops better, that the computers and awd make it so you can pull out of the corner better. In the end, a robot car would be the fastest, and wouldnt make mistakes! But on the other hand nobody just watches the CPU race by itself on Forza for a reason. Dont tell me a car is cool for the same reasons.

Wait just a dang minute! You are BobOfThePast! What have you done with BobOfTheFuture?

93EXCivic wrote: I don't really understand how people say that supercars don't do anything for them. Sure I could never afford one but that is kinda like saying ...

No one's saying that just because they don't like a Veyron, they would rather have a Civic. It's more like, if you had your pick of Jessica Alba and Biel, you say that you get all the reasons you should be giddy about Alba but other than some angry sex thanks to the list of quality attributes, there is nothing that stirs your passion about her. Biel on the other hand, you'd choke your brother on your left nut after removing it with an ice cream scoop to be with her. No one's offering you either, but while both are generally accepted as something you should admire and desire... you really don't.

A more down to earth example for me is my original post about the 911. Maybe I couldn't afford any of the higher models but I could swing a new Carrera. Sure, I'd take one for free but I wouldn't make any sacrifices to own one, I just don't care about them much. A Jetstream blue Z06 on the other hand, is a very different story. I think after I get mine I will spend the first few nights sleeping in it.

911.

Godzilla (GTR)

Any Lambo.

Most Ferrari's (excluding the 308 and the 599).

Viper.

BMW 3-series....they have all the right stats, just too much german overengineering for me to get into them.

I will qualify this last one... I love how beautiful British cars are, they are without a doubt some of the most beautiful vehicles ever produced. But Jeebus... can they get their quality control somewhere neat Chrysler 1990's era for crying out loud? (that is far from a compliment to Chrysler)

HiTempguy wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: I understand where you're coming from. It's weird to have a "performance car" that when I'm running at 10/10ths, I shift at 4500rpm.

Welcome to the early 90's, where most small block v8's were readily being shifted at 6k rpm and have only gone up from there.

Oh, my 5.0 will spin 6k all day long, it just doesn't make any power up there. Dyno curve just starts dropping once it hits about 4500, and the torque is between 3k and 3500. The b-port Cobra I had I would (not as) regularly (as I would've liked) hit the 7k rev-limiter because that thing just kept pulling all the way to the top.

1988RedT2 wrote: Miata. I love almost everything Mazda. A small, great handling roadster should push all my buttons. It just doesn't.

Agreed. They do absolutely nothing for me.

FlightService wrote: Did you just make a Metric Reference??? I had a Ford Ranger with a 4.0L that would do the same thing with 3rd.

Slightly OT, but I LOLed....

njansenv wrote:

FlightService wrote: Did you just make a Metric Reference??? I had a Ford Ranger with a 4.0L that would do the same thing with 3rd.

Slightly OT, but I LOLed....

Miata, S2000, MG roadsters...

I just don't dig convertibles or anything without a permanent roof. And I've never liked the styling of the Miata.

Ferrari (Sans 550 Maranello. Mmmm...) Lamborghini (Minus Miura. I LOATHE how the Countache and Diablo look, and just "ehn" to the Murci and Gallardo) Porsche (Dislike the style, don't like the idea of rear-rear...) Mercedes (Heavy tanks. Blech.) Bugatti Veyron (Ugly, meh...)

This list could go on...and on....and on....