Marnet…I reduced my response just to make it more readable. Also added two references.
While some tuner cars are tastefully done, most are automotive comic relief; at least the ones that are not a danger to the owners and everyone around them.
Some of the wheels and alignment alterations (unintended or not) are a bit dangerous.
@Marnet: Your 87 Olds is probably pretty slow by today’s standards, but there is something to be said for the “feel” of an engine. A flexible engine with good throttle response is pretty much always more fun to drive and inspires driving confidence more than a monster of an engine that may provide more horsepower and torque, but not across the entire power band or as smoothly.
Tokyo Drift was on TV the other night but I caught the last two minutes so I still only have a small idea what it’s about. I don’t think you can do Tokyo drifting in a muscle car. Two minutes is so little time.
@Dagosa: Thank you for the links. Interesting reading. Delighted to find mention of the Olds V8 Rocket engine. I actually got to drive one of those a few times. My parents had a 1956 Olds 88 four door with the center posts, two toned paint with white prow and gray stern. As a lead footed 15 year old with a learner’s permit I got to drive that sweet car a few times. Of course, with either Dad or Mom in the car it rather limited the teenage tendencies to find how fast I could take off. But boy oh boy, I remember riding in the back seat when we were on two lane highways and Dad or Mom, whichever was driving, went to pass a slower car. They’d put the pedal to the floor and that car would just settle down in the rear end and take off. I swear it had better acceleration than the bigger V8 engine in the 1965 Olds. I didn’t encounter that kind of giddy up and go again until driving Dad’s 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis with its fuel injected V8.
Yeah, I had to learn not to be a lead footed driver. I’ve managed to keep it tame enough to earn only one speeding ticket in 37 years of driving but should have had a couple more, truth be told. I do try to avoid jack rabbit starts and aircraft carrier landing stops but now and then I forget I’m in a “comfort car” and simply drive the road conditions while forgetting to pay attention to the speedometer.
@oblivion: You are so right about how a flexible throttle response is far nicer to drive than a car lacking that. The current Impala’s 3.5L engine is okay but it doesn’t have that same nice feel to it that the Olds’ 3.8L engine did. I have found it being more responsive, though, since I made two long trips with a total of almost 2,500 miles within a month’s time. I didn’t use the cruise control except for a short distance due to road, traffic and weather conditions. And due to work zones, I had quite a variation in speeds I was driving, up and down from crawling along at 10 mph to back up to 70 mph. For awhile, to keep from being run over by big rigs, I was breezing along at 80 to 85. I didn’t like that because I didn’t like how the old tires handled at that speed. When those were replaced a couple weeks ago, I made a point of getting tires with top of the line traction and handling. I’m willing to sacrifice gas mileage and noise factors to get that!
@OK4450: Whenever I see cars with wheels radically different than original I always wonder how that can safely be done. Especially when I see a car or small truck turned into a low rider or a big truck up on giant wheels and huge special shocks for super high clearance to go off roading in the boonies. A neighbor has an old RAM truck rigged out such it sits so high that the bottom of the truck is higher off the ground than the hood of my car! Lordy, I’d need a ladder to climb in and out of that truck.
@pleasedodgevan2: Uhm, what is Tokyo drift? (Scurrying to do a Google search! LOL)
All this discussion makes me think how in recently watching some old tv reruns from the 1970s and 1980s I’ve noticed the huge difference in how the suspension of cars from then made cars appear to handle, especially on curves, in hard accelerations, hard stops, etc. versus how contemporary cars behave. Am I correct that not only have suspension systems improved but that the entire weight balance of cars has significantly changed from years past due to changes in how cars are constructed???
Please pardon my being so long-winded but in reading about muscle cars it makes me think of another couple of questions. I asked them some 7 years ago but have forgotten the answers so am asking again.
Engines differ in how much horse power is generated at what RPM. When comparing specs on various model cars when I was car shopping a few years ago I noticed that even if the horse power is about the same the RPM at which that HP is achieved can vary significantly on different models. I do recall that it has to do with how much low end torque there is. What I don’t recall are two things:
-
Does the gearing of the transmission affect at what RPMs the maximum HP is reached?
-
For general everyday type driving, what is best to look for in such engine performance specs to get an engine that both is flexible and will, on average, last longest if properly maintained and driven reasonably?
Performance is more than just horse power. HP to weight ratio has a lot to do with performance as well.
At the Englishtown NJ track, I’ve seen a tiny 1960’s vintage Fiat 500* spank pony cars on the quarter mile, doing near 10 seconds. It was quite a site to see.
*Well, heavily modified. It did have an engine over half the size of the car in the back seat.
1) Does the gearing of the transmission affect at what RPMs the maximum HP is reached
No the transmission has no bearing on the amount of power the engine produces at the flywheel or at what RPM it produces any given amount of power.
2) For general everyday type driving, what is best to look for in such engine performance specs to get an engine that both is flexible and will, on average, last longest if properly maintained and driven reasonably?
Generally speaking a fat, flat torque curve is nice to have. The 3.5L Ecoboost V6 Ford uses in the Taurus SHO and F-150 is a good example of this
When I got my license, a car represented freedom. 16 short years later, driving is a necessity to get from point a to b while getting in the way of texting. A car is something shiny to look at.
he couldn’t go fast enough cause his car was weighed down by the ridiculous stereo system. 
My neighbor’s son(probably around my age: early 30s) has an older Civic than I had and he’s got so much money put into the stereo system it isn’t funny. You can hear it coming 3 blocks away and the speakers protrude into the back seat.
He has a 5 year old girl and she has to scrunch up against the door of the car because of the speakers in the back, and is already developing hearing problems because of having to sit beside them.
He’s also had 3 or 4 of his stereo systems stolen, which I find hilarious. My neighbor has told him he’s basically advertising he has a big budget stereo system by thumping so loud. His son also doesn’t like him riding with him because he makes him turn the stereo off. All he hears is thumping, but his son said he was listening to AC/DC.
Generally speaking a fat, flat torque curve is nice to have. The 3.5L Ecoboost V6 Ford uses in the Taurus SHO and F-150 is a good example of this
My 7 is like that. From 2500 to 5000 or 5500 RPMs the torque is at 250 ft/lbs
Bscar2… Needless to say, guys like this have problems other then their like for ACDC. Otherwise, they would be using headphones. Child abuse is a problem stemming as much from ignorance as intent. He needs a talking to by a social worker.
I doubt a social worker talking to them would do anything. If getting his stereo system stolen multiple times doesn’t discourage him, nothing will.
I dont even like to see folks mowing their grass with a kid on their laps without hearing protection for the child,besides its dangerous(children are a respohsibility.not a posession)-Kevin