Picked up a Road & Track from 1986

Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
387
Location
York, Pa.
Over Thanksgiving while visiting our daughter, she took us to a used bookstore in downtown Cincinnati that has five floors of used books. They also had some magazines and advertising brochures. I picked up a few R&Ts one of which is January 1986. Back then they always had their Road Test Summary page in every issue. There are at least 70 vehicles listed there, from Alfa Romeo Graduate to Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon. What I found interesting was the lack of performance during the 80s. Not a real surprise because I lived through that period. But when I analyzed the 0-60 numbers, all of them were slower that the 0-60 for my 2019 Audi S3. That's four cylinders with 288 hp. being quicker than the BMWs, Ferraris, and Porsches of the day. My S3 is only a few tenths quicker than the Ruf Porsche 930 Turbo and the Testarossa, but still a bit surprising to me. Those were the monsters of the day.

Anyway, I found it interesting and thought I would share.
 
Somewhere there is an newer episode of Grand Tour or Top gear, I think the former, where they test 1980 supercars - ferrari, lambo, etc. It was pretty entertaining. There slower than some VW Golf or similar on their speed chart.
 
I started driving in 1985, in my dad's 1981 Buick Skylark with a carbureted 4-cylinder that made about 90hp. Cars in the 80s tended to be underpowered. From the late 80s to the late 90s, horsepower increased substantially in cars.

A few years ago I had a 2016 BMW 550i. It had 445 hp and X-drive. It could do a 1/4-mile in 12.6 seconds. The acceleration of that modern BMW would have been better than almost any car from 1986. Faster than a Countach, Testarossa, or AMG Hammer from that era.
 
Much of this is improvements to tires/traction and suspension. Another aspect is dual-clutch automatic trannies that shift gears in milliseconds.
Back in the 1980s, 0-60 in under 5 seconds was rare, supercars only. Yet my best clocked in my '95 RX-7 was 4.8, about as fast as a Lambo Countach from 10 years earlier. Now fast cars are around 3 seconds, which is amazing when you consider that 0-60 at a constant 1G of acceleration is 2.7 seconds. So they are essentially traction limited.
 
An accord sport is quicker than many of the monsters of the previous days, probably almost or just as fast as them on the track too. Imagine taking off from a red light in your classy red Ferrari F355 and seeing a mom in an accord pass you because she's late to the dentist.

Somewhere there is an newer episode of Grand Tour or Top gear, I think the former, where they test 1980 supercars - ferrari, lambo, etc. It was pretty entertaining. There slower than some VW Golf or similar on their speed chart.

Grand Tour season 4 (I think it was 4), Hammond had a Countach and May had the F355.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind this was the normal state of affairs. When the cars we remember as "muscle cars" today first came out, such as the Mustang and Camaro, many of them were sold with straight-sixes, which were also common in full-sized cars then. A 0–60 time of 10-15 seconds was normal for all but the highest-powered cars before safety and emissions rules began to take a toll. Many small imports in the 1950s and 1960s had 0–60 times of 20 seconds or more. The big V-8s were rare in most cars like Mustangs even when new, which is why they're collectible today.

High-speed roads that even allowed 60 mph were not common in most parts of the US until the 1950s. Many rural roads were unpaved and unsuitable for higher speeds. So acceleration to 60 mph was largely irrelevant for most car buyers. Tom McCahill started the whole idea of the 0–60 test in Mechanix Illustrated in the 1940s. It wasn't a thing until he did it.

Today a car that takes 10 seconds to go 0–60 is considered a slug. Just remember that slugs were the norm throughout automotive history until the 1990s.
 
It is true that many cars had poor performance numbers in stock form. As mentioned above, some of this was due to 3 speed transmissions and lack of traction. However that does not mean that HP was lacking when racing or hot rodding. many of our 4 cylinder turbocharged race engines were capable of 700+. And the street versions made over 300 on pump fuels With adequate boost. Don’t forget that Bill Elliott was well over 200MPH in the 1980’s.

and while the ‘60s mustangs were not fast, try driving a 67 restorod with a faithful and well built 289 engine. You will be amazed at just how hard they pull. We ran 12’s with them all day long. And 8000 rpm.
 
Over Thanksgiving while visiting our daughter, she took us to a used bookstore in downtown Cincinnati that has five floors of used books. They also had some magazines and advertising brochures. I picked up a few R&Ts one of which is January 1986. Back then they always had their Road Test Summary page in every issue. There are at least 70 vehicles listed there, from Alfa Romeo Graduate to Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon. What I found interesting was the lack of performance during the 80s. Not a real surprise because I lived through that period. But when I analyzed the 0-60 numbers, all of them were slower that the 0-60 for my 2019 Audi S3. That's four cylinders with 288 hp. being quicker than the BMWs, Ferraris, and Porsches of the day. My S3 is only a few tenths quicker than the Ruf Porsche 930 Turbo and the Testarossa, but still a bit surprising to me. Those were the monsters of the day.

Anyway, I found it interesting and thought I would share.
Microprocessors i.e. tiny computers that can constantly adjust and tune an engine along with Fuel injection and later director injection made for huge leaps in performance. When Porsche brought 4 959's over for testing ( They didn't officially offer them for sale in the USA) they had PROMS from what one of the engineers described. They could burn a set of parameters to a chip, but just like a cd-r disc it was a one shot deal. I spoke to a guy a a local gas station driving a Ferrari 308, he wasn't the original owner but it's slower than his wifes new Honda Odyssey van.
 
Back in the 1980s, 0-60 in under 5 seconds was rare, supercars only. Yet my best clocked in my '95 RX-7 was 4.8, about as fast as a Lambo Countach from 10 years earlier. Now fast cars are around 3 seconds, which is amazing when you consider that 0-60 at a constant 1G of acceleration is 2.7 seconds. So they are essentially traction limited.
Ok now I'm depressed. My dream car is no longer considered all that fast. This is either a great time to be alive, or a horrible one, I'm not sure which. I can see the conversation happening already....

"Baby, I did it! I found a completely unmolested, perfect condition low mileage red '95 Rx7 nearby for a price we can afford! Can I go get it?!"

"Huh? Why would you want a slug like that? Lets go test drive the new 4-door electric Corvette crossover SUV they just came out with..."

Turns around, throws phone on the couch, walks away slowly, mumbling expletives, tears in my eyes....

I thought my '87 Turbo II was quick back then, and it was advertised at 6.6 seconds. Thats a slow minivan by today's standards.
 
... "Baby, I did it! I found a completely unmolested, perfect condition low mileage red '95 Rx7 nearby for a price we can afford! Can I go get it?!"
"Huh? Why would you want a slug like that? Lets go test drive the new 4-door electric Corvette crossover SUV they just came out with..."
Turns around, throws phone on the couch, walks away slowly, mumbling expletives, tears in my eyes....
I thought my '87 Turbo II was quick back then, and it was advertised at 6.6 seconds. Thats a slow minivan by today's standards.
Words from a fellow Wankel-phile! I autocrossed that '95 RX-7 too, so I installed DOT competition tires, racing shocks, swaybars, and straight-pipe cat-back exhaust. Even without a muffler it wasn't too loud since the turbos act as a muffler. The first time I took one of my friends for a drive (let him drive it), he said, "I've heard this was a Japanese Porsche. This isn't a Japanese Porsche, it's a Japanese Ferrari!"
 
Yup I've had three so far....I never even got to ride in a '93+. When I see them for sale now, they are miserable hyper-modified riced out beat up jokes and people ask $30k+ for them. And probably getting it.

About 15 years ago my neighbor had a nice '93 for sale, he was asking $20-ish. I thought naw, I'll wait a few years and pick up a decent roller with a bad engine, rebuild it, and be out the door cheap. Ouch.

I was shopping for a car a few years ago before I got my Spider, looking at Miatas, 370z's, whatever....and my wife said "Get anything you want, as long as it doesnt have one of those stupid rotary engines"... What a cruel, cruel woman. Smart, but cruel.
 
Over Thanksgiving while visiting our daughter, she took us to a used bookstore in downtown Cincinnati that has five floors of used books. They also had some magazines and advertising brochures. I picked up a few R&Ts one of which is January 1986. Back then they always had their Road Test Summary page in every issue. There are at least 70 vehicles listed there, from Alfa Romeo Graduate to Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon. What I found interesting was the lack of performance during the 80s. Not a real surprise because I lived through that period. But when I analyzed the 0-60 numbers, all of them were slower that the 0-60 for my 2019 Audi S3. That's four cylinders with 288 hp. being quicker than the BMWs, Ferraris, and Porsches of the day. My S3 is only a few tenths quicker than the Ruf Porsche 930 Turbo and the Testarossa, but still a bit surprising to me. Those were the monsters of the day.

Anyway, I found it interesting and thought I would share.
Those of us who owned cars through those years aren’t surprised. The 80s were a rough decade for performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hrv
I loved those lists in the back of the old magazines that showed what was tested, when, and specs.

Goes to show how much power we actually don’t need… now imagine if all the tech that goes to get major power out instead was optimized for vehicles with power and performance levels from back then. The resultant efficiency improvements would be great.
 
The 1986 Mustang GT was a lovely machine. The sound of the engine was better than any kind of music.
In my street racing days I had a 1978,Toyota pickup with a hot 20r,5 speed and 4.35 gears. I used to eat those mustangs for lunch. The standard axle ratios we're 2.73 and 3.08. The engine was only 200 hp.

Many mustangs fell to the kid in the Toyota truck!
 
Those were the days. I once flew by a policeman parked next to Laurelhurst Park in Portland, Oregon, going so fast he didn't even bother... 1975. I have gone faster(son who sells Fords has had (not kidding) three Shelby Mustang GT-500s... But never anything as monstrous as this... Same color. Same bike. How am I still alive? Kawasaki H2 Three 2stroke cylinders of hell!
 
Those of us who owned cars through those years aren’t surprised. The 80s were a rough decade for performance.

The 70s were worse, with the advent of early emissions control hardware, and compromised engine tuning.

OEMs were learning to cope, and drivers paid the extra price.

The beginnings of the horsepower wars in the early 90s and intensifired rise in the 00's and 10's steepened the curve, and further distorts the perception of the earlier eras.
 
In my street racing days I had a 1978,Toyota pickup with a hot 20r,5 speed and 4.35 gears. I used to eat those mustangs for lunch. The standard axle ratios we're 2.73 and 3.08. The engine was only 200 hp.

Many mustangs fell to the kid in the Toyota truck!
What kind of engine did you have in your 1978 Toyota truck?

I know the 1986 Mustang GT only had 200 hp, but I still love the car none the less. A friend had one. I would trade a brand new top of the line 2022 Mustang straight across for a brand new 1986 Mustang GT. The old push rod 5.0L high output makes a sound that's very pleasing to my ears. The Coyote 5.0 in comparison sounds horrible and to make matters worse, the kids around here take the mufflers off their new Mustangs.
 
Back
Top