• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

"Give me a big V8 or give me death!"

Meep-Meep

дворянин
Local time
1:19 PM
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
10,230
Reaction score
4,494
Location
NorCal
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/muscle-car-over-145900463.html


Well, that was fun. Five decades of stonking American horsepower have come to an end.

Bloomberg's Jing Cao has the story:

Ford Motor Co.’s Mustang has pulled ahead of its perennial rival, GM’s Chevrolet Camaro, in part by offering a smaller engine that’s turbocharged to satisfy the need for speed and threatens to send the V-8 to the boneyard.

...

The four-cylinder option contributed to the surge in Mustang deliveries, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence report released Thursday. Consumers prefer the smaller engine because the turbo technology boosts both horsepower and fuel efficiency, said Kevin Tynan, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

“The landscape is really changing,” he said in an interview. “The younger car culture doesn’t need big V-8s anymore. This is the way we’re going to make horsepower in the future.”

There used to be a big debate about whether smaller, 6-cylinder engines disqualified Stangs and Camaros that had those motors from consideration as muscle cars. Sure, the V8 versions made the cut. But the V6s were for poseurs.

The advent of widespread turbocharging in the auto industry has changed that. Even turbo fours can serve up respectable horsepower. Who cares what you have under the hood?

There's been some talk lately that muscle cars are turning into sports cars. Business Insider's Ben Zhang made this case in his review of the 2015 Mustang GT (he had the old-school 5.0-liter V8 version, but the car has received a massive update to the way it handles, a big departure from previous generations). Muscle cars are all-American and, for their history, were supposed to get their patriotic power from big, loud V8s.

Sports cars, meanwhile, have more of a European lineage. As does turbocharging.

Younger folks don't seem to give a hoot about this distinction. A Mustang or Camaro is a fast fun car in the same way a Porsche is. For the muscle-car diehards, this brand of thinking is heresy. Give me a big V8 or give me death!

Unfortunately, the whole V8 premise — and the premise of the large-displacement, naturally aspirated engine generally — is becoming increasingly indefensible. The future belongs to fuel economy. So if you want a "real" muscle car in the 2020s, you may have to buy one used.

Update: Some have noted that the muscle car lives on in the form of Dodge vehicles packing V8 Hellcat Hemi power and obnoxious levels of horsepower. Fair enough. But the whole Hemi thing strikes me as the smallest of the Detroit Big Three protesting too much against the decline of muscle. Is a 707-horsepower Dodge Challenger a muscle car? Or an over-muscled car? It's more like a supercar than a muscle car, really.
 
I read that earlier this morning, sad really
the same thing happened starting back in 1972-ish

why fix something that's not broken,
give me my V-8, that way I won't have to say I could have had a V-8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPhLfX6aCbk
 
One of these days i will buy a newer Challenger and it will be used. Ten - fifteen years from now I'll be too old to care about V8 vs. V6 vs. turbo 4. But if I was a kid growing up today and could get a turbo 6 with 400 HP and knocking down 25 mpg, I'd buy it in a NY second.
 
Mathew Debord is boring. I get tired of reading the drivel spewed by Yahoo. When cars are outlawed, I will own a car. It will be a V8. Hellcat is a Muscle Car, not a Supercar. It is the biggest baddest bastard of all. Ever. He is hallucinating.
 
What kind of MPG are the new V8's of today getting if driven for economy? Getting in the mid teens with a 440 (yeah, it was possible) back in the late 60's was considered pretty dang good with 10 being the norm for a hot rod. When you look at the price of gas, it's on par with it's cost back then too when you consider inflation etc.
 
I really don't care. I look at a car as a total package, and if it looks like something I'd drive, handles and goes fast then how it gets there is less important.

I can think of many...a lot of slow cars with V-8 engines. A turbo-4 was available in Mustangs back in 1979, and for almost twenty years (1974-1993) the 4 cylinder Mustangs made the bulk of the sales. So nothing new here.

What's under the hood of this car is 310 horsepower and even more torque. 5.2 seconds to 60mph and 31 mpg highway and better handling than the heavier engine options. I would be happy with it.

Here's one doing 12s at the strip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJn75u9C3SQ
 
I have been anxiously awaiting this. Make all new cars turbo 4's. Only then will I be able to buy all the recent V8 muscle I've been longing for. I would like a Cadillac CTS-V 6 speed. A Pontiac G8 GXP and a Hellcat Challenger.
 
Shelby Charger?

13 second quarter and 28 MPG.

1987
 
DeBord. They pay him to write that ****. Hard to believe.
 
Is it just me ? The term " fuel economy" had absolutely NO consideration when I was buying a muscle car, whether it was back then or now. I recall I think it was Mobil or Shell, had a TV commercial where the car with better fuel economy ripped through a big white sheet ; didn't even pass my mind when getting a car with a ground-ripping V8. Oh, I've built turbo cars than ran as fast or faster than our cars, but IT AIN'T THE SAME.
 
Is it just me ? The term " fuel economy" had absolutely NO consideration when I was buying a muscle car, whether it was back then or now. I recall I think it was Mobil or Shell, had a TV commercial where the car with better fuel economy ripped through a big white sheet ; didn't even pass my mind when getting a car with a ground-ripping V8. Oh, I've built turbo cars than ran as fast or faster than our cars, but IT AIN'T THE SAME.

It's just you. :)

Although economy isn't at the top of the list, it still weighs in. If you want to cruise around on a Sunday afternoon and it costs you $30, you're more likely to do it more often than if it costs you $75.

My road runner was my daily driver when I got it in 1977 and the cost of gas did matter to me.
 
If you want economy/mileage don't buy muscle. That's not what they are for. They are purpose built for performance.
 
Is it just me ? The term " fuel economy" had absolutely NO consideration when I was buying a muscle car, whether it was back then or now. I recall I think it was Mobil or Shell, had a TV commercial where the car with better fuel economy ripped through a big white sheet ; didn't even pass my mind when getting a car with a ground-ripping V8. Oh, I've built turbo cars than ran as fast or faster than our cars, but IT AIN'T THE SAME.

:iamwithstupid: pretty much my thought's too

I didn't buy a muscle car for mileage, it's the last thing I think of !!
even if the newer cars get great mileage
especially for the weight, HP/TQ they have now...
3-4 times what the OE muscle cars ever did

I like all the new technology, new electronics & turbos, especially superchargers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1hEQbGRJ_Q
that are making power better than the old V-8 form the 60's - early 70's hay-days,
but I personally, still love the new & old V-8's too...

different strokes for different folks
 
If you want economy/mileage don't buy muscle. That's not what they are for. They are purpose built for performance.
I'm starting to get worried. Everytime I come here to read, I see these posts by this Dennis guy. It seems as if I got this alter-ego/split personality posing with the Dennis name, that comes on here to write whats on my mind. But I swear, I've never been to San Jose ! (I think... :drunken_smilie:
 
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. Fuel mileage has never had a bearing on any vehicle I've ever bought. When we had a PT Cruiser, I said give me the turbo. It was the only one that wasn't a complete dog. When we bought our '09 Jeep last summer, I said give me the Hemi. (Grand Cherokee mileage sucks no matter what anyway.) My daily driver is a 7,000 lb Ram (that's DODGE Ram). When I ordered that, I said give me the Cummins. It wasn't because the fuel economy was better, it was because it was the superior engine choice. My sister has a Smart Car. I'll walk or kill myself before I ever drive something like that.
 
There's different generations of everything. There will never be another 60s-70s muscle car era. It was special then and is still special now. The youngsters can't afford our cars unfortunately. Even if they could they would probably gravitate toward these new cars.


Although ran into a young guy that was driving a new retro challenger. It was a beast - not sure if it was a Hemi or not but I complimented him on the beauty he was driving. He told me he was thinking of selling it. When asked why - he said everyone was always staring at him while he was driving it..... Hello.....
 
Listening to these guys is like watching Lucy reruns. You've seen them all before. You know what's going to happen. And you know why it's going to happen.

Ford is going down the exact same path with the Mustang they did in 1981. A bunch of young up and commers show up and say "consumers today want something new, something different, something that's not like the old stuff", and they're right. Consumers as a whole do want all those things, but consumers as a whole aren't the ones who've been loyal Mustang buyers and enthusiasts for decades.

So Ford reinvents the product line, which pisses off a decent sized chunk of the Mustang faithful, but there's enough of them left that when coupled with the new folks who are attracted to the brand they bring sales up and everyone at Ford rejoices. But before long all those new folks who show up to get The Next Big Thing quickly dump their Mustangs once some other maker's The Next Big Thing hits the road and the small segment of enthusiasts who migrated to the new style aren't enough to keep sales up and they start to tank.

This failed approach is what doomed the Mustang in the 1980s and 1990s, and it wasn't until someone decided to ask the Mustang enthusiasts why they weren't buying and found out they weren't going to pay $25k for a car with a Mustang badge on it but none of the characteristics the associated with a Mustang under the badge that they realized their errors and went retro in 2005. And now Ford is repeating it's errors... again.
 
Bruzilla...the Mustang was doomed in the 1980s and 1990s? They sold over three million copies in those two decades - it seemed like every third issue of Car Craft or Hot Rod had a 5.0 Mustang on the cover. It's the newer ones that aren't selling as well; Ford hasn't cracked the six figure sales mark for the 'Stang since 2007.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top