New Goat ?? Hear Come Da Judge !!! - Page 2

Snakebite · 11-27-2002, 04:02 PM

I had a 55 Chevy that had a 327 that I built up. It would go like snot up to about 70 mph and then the lousy aerodynamics took over. It was a real handful at 80-90 mph. Top speed was only 105, but the acceleration was incredible. A 55 Chevy in good shape is going for $10,000 or more. The handling stunk, the drum brakes were a joke, but I wish I still had it! It would pull the front wheels of the ground in low gear.
My new Focus SE is light years ahead of that old 55 Chevy. It only makes 130 hp and won't out accelerate it, but it does everything else better....a LOT better.

PAPA G · 11-27-2002, 04:17 PM

which back seat would you rather have for making out at the drive-in????

Snakebite · 11-29-2002, 11:28 AM

Thats a good question PapaG. I had to think a little bit on that one. I'd pick the new car because the front seats recline

Don't really need the back seat.

:nod:

Oxford · 10-10-2006, 10:05 AM

I had a 1949 DeSota Fluid Drive that was so hot that my students took it apart and mounted it on a display stand with casters. They loved to stand around admiring themselves in their white coveralls next to that live power unit.

Gyrene · 10-10-2006, 01:02 PM

In 1958, I had a 1958 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser 4 door hardtop with the 430 cu in Lincoln (truck engine) with two huge Holley 4 bbl carbs feeding separate intake manifolds to the opposite cylinder bank from where the carbs were mounted. It had 425 HP, and 425 pounds feet of torque. It got about 3 to 4 mpg when hitting the throttle hard, 15 to 17 mpg in town, about 18 mpg average and up to 24 mpg on the highway when I was just cruising at 70 to 80 MPH. I have no idea how fast it would go, because the speedo only showed 130, and the needle would go way beyond that, to maybe 150 or so.

Gyrene · 10-10-2006, 01:10 PM

As Klaus said, this was before the magic 1 HP per Cu In was being reached regularly by any of the production car manufacturers, but it was getting close.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EDIT CAPABILITY???

I think that my computer is messing with me, if it has been on for a while, I have to reboot to get back some of its features! THE EDIT CAPABILITY IS BACK!!!

heilung · 10-10-2006, 04:27 PM

Back in June 1969, I took delivery of my brand new 69 GTO with the 400 and 4spd. Of course that wasnt CCs. I never could get used to that Communist measuring system. Heilung

Gyrene · 10-10-2006, 07:52 PM

heilung - The Metric System is actually easier to work with than our comglomeration of various unrelated (and difficult to relate) English System of Weights and Measures. I can use either, and they work best if you don't attempt to use conversion factors to see what the measurements are in the other system, as you work with whatever you are working with.

At times it is necessary to make a conversion to make something a value in the system you work with, but for the most part you should just jump in and work with it. This is why most of our scientific companies just jumped in and switched to the Metric System a long time ago, and to keep consistency with the general public, they label almost everything with both systems, however the system they work with is the Metric System, and they convert the Metric measure to the English System for the label. The Space Program has always used the Metric System, for the very reason that it is much easier to work with (i.e. harder to make a major mistake, without it being a glaring error).

The strange thing about the Metric System, is that the U. S. A. was the first country to approve the Metric System for use (1874), and likely will be the last to implement it, along with one of the small West Africa countries. The English System as applied in England is a far cry from the English System that has been used in the USA, and they have incorporated the Metric System for a lot of their Weights and Measures.

`

Johnny_Revolver · 10-10-2006, 08:34 PM

Strictly speaking, the `english` or Imperial measuring system is slightly different to the US version. The names are same but the amounts are different. An Imperial Gallon is 4.5 litres, and a US Gallon is 3.8, so the pints are quarts are different too. I never understood why that was the case. Australia, as a Commonwealth country used have the imperial wieghts and measures system till I dunno, 1974 I think, and then we went metric.
Also, regarding the GTO, it was called a Monaro here, and we don`t make it anymore, atleast not for our local market.

Dennis · 10-10-2006, 09:47 PM

wow this is an old thread that has ben revived
thats cool
looking at some of the old names that are here make me wonder where the old guys like Ben P and some of the others are?

Gyrene · 10-10-2006, 10:49 PM

Dennis - You mean Ben P the chef? I haven't seen or heard hide nor hair from him for at least a couple of years!

troy2000 · 10-10-2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klaus

It is true that many people really like the old muscle cars. I will not fault them for that. I was trying to head off a bunch of claims about "the good old days" with a dose of reality. I admit many of the old cars really had personality, great looks, and sounded awesome. They also tended to have very poor mileage, smoked bad, needed constant tweaking, and generally were not as safe or well handling as modern cars.

I would assume they're going to modernize this puppy. And an updated hemi should beat the !!!! out of any economy 4-banger, modernized or not.

I'm not disconnected from reality. For example, as much as I love my 1970 CJ5 Jeep with the 225 V-6 odd-fire in it, I know modern Jeeps will run rings around it (on the highway, at least), and are usually more reliable. On the other hand, when something does go wrong with it, I can (and do) fix it using just wrenches, patience and commonsense troubleshooting. I don't have to spend more for computer diagnostics than the replacement parts will cost me.

Rookie_Rover · 10-10-2006, 11:39 PM

I have already seen the Modern GTO. Look Nuttin' like to old upright and racy Goat of the past.

11-27-2002, 04:17 PM	#22
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	BUT TELL US SNAKEBITE......................... which back seat would you rather have for making out at the drive-in????

10-10-2006, 10:05 AM	#24
Oxford Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Gladstone, Missouri Posts: 13,021 Blog Entries: 4	I had a 1949 DeSota Fluid Drive that was so hot that my students took it apart and mounted it on a display stand with casters. They loved to stand around admiring themselves in their white coveralls next to that live power unit. __________________ "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right".

10-10-2006, 01:10 PM	#26
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886	As Klaus said, this was before the magic 1 HP per Cu In was being reached regularly by any of the production car manufacturers, but it was getting close. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EDIT CAPABILITY??? I think that my computer is messing with me, if it has been on for a while, I have to reboot to get back some of its features! THE EDIT CAPABILITY IS BACK!!! Last edited by Gyrene; 10-10-2006 at 10:47 PM.

10-10-2006, 04:27 PM	#27
heilung Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 225	The REAL GTO Back in June 1969, I took delivery of my brand new 69 GTO with the 400 and 4spd. Of course that wasnt CCs. I never could get used to that Communist measuring system. Heilung

10-10-2006, 09:47 PM	#30
Dennis Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,877	wow this is an old thread that has ben revived thats cool looking at some of the old names that are here make me wonder where the old guys like Ben P and some of the others are? __________________ Submitted with respect to all

11-27-2002, 04:02 PM	#21
Snakebite Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tucson, Mexico Posts: 1,839	I had a 55 Chevy that had a 327 that I built up. It would go like snot up to about 70 mph and then the lousy aerodynamics took over. It was a real handful at 80-90 mph. Top speed was only 105, but the acceleration was incredible. A 55 Chevy in good shape is going for $10,000 or more. The handling stunk, the drum brakes were a joke, but I wish I still had it! It would pull the front wheels of the ground in low gear. My new Focus SE is light years ahead of that old 55 Chevy. It only makes 130 hp and won't out accelerate it, but it does everything else better....a LOT better.

11-29-2002, 11:28 AM	#23
Snakebite Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tucson, Mexico Posts: 1,839	Thats a good question PapaG. I had to think a little bit on that one. I'd pick the new car because the front seats recline Don't really need the back seat. :nod:

10-10-2006, 01:02 PM	#25
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886	In 1958, I had a 1958 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser 4 door hardtop with the 430 cu in Lincoln (truck engine) with two huge Holley 4 bbl carbs feeding separate intake manifolds to the opposite cylinder bank from where the carbs were mounted. It had 425 HP, and 425 pounds feet of torque. It got about 3 to 4 mpg when hitting the throttle hard, 15 to 17 mpg in town, about 18 mpg average and up to 24 mpg on the highway when I was just cruising at 70 to 80 MPH. I have no idea how fast it would go, because the speedo only showed 130, and the needle would go way beyond that, to maybe 150 or so.

10-10-2006, 07:52 PM	#28
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886	heilung - The Metric System is actually easier to work with than our comglomeration of various unrelated (and difficult to relate) English System of Weights and Measures. I can use either, and they work best if you don't attempt to use conversion factors to see what the measurements are in the other system, as you work with whatever you are working with. At times it is necessary to make a conversion to make something a value in the system you work with, but for the most part you should just jump in and work with it. This is why most of our scientific companies just jumped in and switched to the Metric System a long time ago, and to keep consistency with the general public, they label almost everything with both systems, however the system they work with is the Metric System, and they convert the Metric measure to the English System for the label. The Space Program has always used the Metric System, for the very reason that it is much easier to work with (i.e. harder to make a major mistake, without it being a glaring error). The strange thing about the Metric System, is that the U. S. A. was the first country to approve the Metric System for use (1874), and likely will be the last to implement it, along with one of the small West Africa countries. The English System as applied in England is a far cry from the English System that has been used in the USA, and they have incorporated the Metric System for a lot of their Weights and Measures. `

10-10-2006, 08:34 PM	#29
Johnny_Revolver Gun Liker Join Date: May 2005 Location: Queensland, Australia Posts: 1,209 Blog Entries: 6	Strictly speaking, the `english` or Imperial measuring system is slightly different to the US version. The names are same but the amounts are different. An Imperial Gallon is 4.5 litres, and a US Gallon is 3.8, so the pints are quarts are different too. I never understood why that was the case. Australia, as a Commonwealth country used have the imperial wieghts and measures system till I dunno, 1974 I think, and then we went metric. Also, regarding the GTO, it was called a Monaro here, and we don`t make it anymore, atleast not for our local market.

10-10-2006, 10:49 PM	#31
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886	Dennis - You mean Ben P the chef? I haven't seen or heard hide nor hair from him for at least a couple of years!

10-10-2006, 11:39 PM	#33
Rookie_Rover Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Western Tennessee. Posts: 300	I have already seen the Modern GTO. Look Nuttin' like to old upright and racy Goat of the past. __________________ Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself – Twain.