Remember when you could buy a stripped version of a Mustang, Camaro, or even a turbo Regal with all of the go fast goodies? I had an '87 T-Type that was every bit as quick as a Grand National, but it cost much less because it didn't have all the options of the GN. GM did this with the LT1 version of the Camaro, but it isn't as discounted on the price as one might think it should be, and none of the other muscle cars are available in a low cost version. They need to bring these cars back. Why do they all have to be loaded with options? Gimme a bare bones muscle car any day of the week...Who wants to spend $40K-$50K or more on a hot rod?
What happened to the bargain hot rods?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
The old days were much funner than today as far as options go. You could build cars in many ways such as you mentioned. I actually own an 87 Buick GN I have had since new but I wish I could afford to get a Turbo T like you had to park next to it as they were rarer. Just some education - you did not have a T-type you had a Turbo-T. 1986 was the last year for the T-type. 1987 opened the options wide open with the availabilty of so many different configurations. The T package could also be had with the other engines but most were ordered with the LC2 turbo. Then you could have chrome trim (headlights, bumpers etc) or opt for the backout treatment. You could even get a Limited with the pillow seats/no center console and column shift. In 1985 I purchased a Fiero but opted for the V6 which was the first year for the motor and most of them came with the GT trim. I purposely bought the SE trim and checked the V6 box - the only thing giving away that it was not the grocery 4cyl Fiero was the dual exhaust and the trunk read Fiero 2M6 instead of Fiero 2M4. Moving on to a more recent example of getting more power cheap is with a Cadillac CT5. The base motor is the 2.0T but get a V series and you get the 3.0L twin turbo. Or...as my friend did, she got the regular CT5 but opted for the 3.0TT motor and saved 10k on the price. (We are not discussing the Blackwing here as that is another league). The only way to tell a base CT5 has the 3.0TT motor is the trunk will say 550T instead of 350T for the 4cyl motor. So yes we can't order our cars anymore like days past but the CT5 is one example I can think of for modern times. This was a nice topic to post!
How to do spell "more profit"?
Good friend of mine growing up had a Fox body Mustang LX 5.0, every bit as fast as the GT (believe it was an ‘84 or ‘85?). Much lower sticker, though.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
They didn't go anywhere.
A base model 165hp 305 1987 Camaro started at $10,400. That's $28,700 in today's money. A new Camaro starts at $30,900. With 335hp.
A base model 165hp 305 1987 Camaro started at $10,400. That's $28,700 in today's money. A new Camaro starts at $30,900. With 335hp.
And lots more safety features and performance.
Every modern car is a hot rod! Every modern car sold in the US is a muscle car. Every car is a luxury car now.
Sporty models and convertibles are niche segments that sell in low volumes, minuscule in relative terms, and while great image builders, require a commitment that OEMs are reluctant to make, given the return on those investments.
Their sales curves typically peak early in the model cycle, and decline as they get older, which doesn't encourage further investment, so whatever refreshes and facelifts those models receive are typically more modest and less frequent. Which also hurts those models because they are more perishable, and rely more on being current, and fashionable. Nobody has to buy a Camaro. They do have to buy the SUV or minivan to haul stuff, or their family around.
If selling lower volumes of high-trim models, vs. higher volumes of low-trim (in spec, and margin) plus high-trim models can make the same amount of money, the former still works out more favorably, because it doesn't require the same investment in production costs, carries less risk, and frees up capacity on the lines to make other more profitable, if mundane models, in higher volumes.
Airlines haven't turned their focus to investments in improving the experience for first- and business-class passengers, while makingsteerage economy more miserable, by mistake.
Demand for the pricey cabin seats is less elastic, and more profitable. And since people are still willing to accept junk fees, in exchange for the deception of lower base fares, they can do alright on the cheap cabins as well, as long as they keep them loaded with passengers. Which is what the recent trends show.
Their sales curves typically peak early in the model cycle, and decline as they get older, which doesn't encourage further investment, so whatever refreshes and facelifts those models receive are typically more modest and less frequent. Which also hurts those models because they are more perishable, and rely more on being current, and fashionable. Nobody has to buy a Camaro. They do have to buy the SUV or minivan to haul stuff, or their family around.
If selling lower volumes of high-trim models, vs. higher volumes of low-trim (in spec, and margin) plus high-trim models can make the same amount of money, the former still works out more favorably, because it doesn't require the same investment in production costs, carries less risk, and frees up capacity on the lines to make other more profitable, if mundane models, in higher volumes.
Airlines haven't turned their focus to investments in improving the experience for first- and business-class passengers, while making
Demand for the pricey cabin seats is less elastic, and more profitable. And since people are still willing to accept junk fees, in exchange for the deception of lower base fares, they can do alright on the cheap cabins as well, as long as they keep them loaded with passengers. Which is what the recent trends show.
Last edited:
Right, I Just watched an Retro Motorweek on an 198x Audi sedan that had a Turbo 5 cylinder that had a whopping 155 HP. That's what a non turbo 4 cylinder puts out today standard. Now that's not leaps and bounds but gives an idea of changes.
What happened to a bargain anything?
And gotta love the ones that have total rusted out junk with $5000 up prices. They see an auto auction on TV and think their unrestored swiss cheese junk is in the same class.
There was a thread on 3 cylinder 1200 CC turbos that make more power than that.
I agree with most of what’s posted.
Cafe is another reason
The only ones that want “sports” cars are us old farts. For young people a car is no longer the status symbol it once was is another.
Cafe is another reason
The only ones that want “sports” cars are us old farts. For young people a car is no longer the status symbol it once was is another.
Lol! A Chevy Spark is any of these? Really? Lol!
It's called Hyperbole. An exaggeration used to emphasize a point.
"I think I ate a million hot dogs!" "Every modern car is a muscle car now".
As I've mentioned several times before, I have a 1991 magazine that is a compilation of road tests from the old Hi-Performance Cars magazine. The fastest 1/4 mile time was a 12.5 posted by Joe Oldham's 1969 Motion Performance big block Camaro- with 4.10 gears, uncapped headers and slicks. Aside from that car most of the others put up 1/4 mile ETs in the 13.5-14.5 second range. Those times are definitely on the slow side of average for performance cars these days. Even my wife's X1 can run the quarter in 14.6 sec @ 95 mph(a bit faster than my 1988 M6 when it was stock). My 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 could run the quarter in the low 14 second range and trap 100 mph all day long- and that's with a 2.3 liter turbo that averaged 26+ mpg over the 8 years and 158,000 miles I had it. My M235i returned similar fuel economy but ran the 1/4 mile in 12.9 seconds @ 109 mph. The C43 does it in 12.6 seconds @ 111 mph. A new X3 M40i runs the 1/4-Mile in 12.8 seconds @ 107 mph (all times taken from Car and Driver).
A few years ago I took my friend's Mercedes-AMG E63 to Ohio Valley Raceway's 1/8 mile strip. My fastest run was an 8.12 at 89 mph. I easily beat a built 1970 Buick GSX Stage I running slicks. A few years later I took my M235i to Ohio Valley and it ran an 8.59; with no limited slip I had a major problem with wheelspin. In the late '70s -when I hit the strip on a regular basis- there were very few cars that would run in the low eights, and those that did were usually seriously modified.
A few years ago I took my friend's Mercedes-AMG E63 to Ohio Valley Raceway's 1/8 mile strip. My fastest run was an 8.12 at 89 mph. I easily beat a built 1970 Buick GSX Stage I running slicks. A few years later I took my M235i to Ohio Valley and it ran an 8.59; with no limited slip I had a major problem with wheelspin. In the late '70s -when I hit the strip on a regular basis- there were very few cars that would run in the low eights, and those that did were usually seriously modified.
EVs are the bargain hot rods. And beat the expensive hot rods.
While the HP seems acceptable the power to weight is not really that good and that shows up in the 1/4 mile trap speeds of the "bargain" pony cars today (about 100MPH) . The fact is the older V8's really responded to hot rodding. It was common and easy to modify to the 400HP level in a 2500 pound car.
Modern tires, 10 speed automatic transmissions and 6/7 speed manuals do a lot to make numbers look good on modern vehicles too. But take a ride an a hot rod '60's Mustang with a great engine, and the difference in response and "pull" is impossible to ignore, 3 speeds or not.
Been through this many times. Pick the fastest Mustang front ‘60’s and the fastest Mustang from the 2020’s. As for mods, we can throw a supercharger in any of the Ford V-8’s and stomp any 60’s muscle car.
Last edited:
Just don't ask it to stop or go around a corner!!
