I quite think the opposite.
Key word is obnoxious. Being that guy isn't cool.I quite think the opposite.
For me it depends on exactly how obnoxious you are being.Key word is obnoxious. Being that guy isn't cool.
That's not a compact car
Well its shorter and narrower then a current Mazda 3 Sedan.That's not a compact car
Yeah but the Mazda 3 is massive for a compact car.Well its shorter and narrower then a current Mazda 3 Sedan.
For me it depends on exactly how obnoxious you are being.
Sub zero. Send this to the ice box. It's just so odd but oozes cool because it's a AMC, and not your typical Ford/GM/Mopar hunk of iron. But it doesn't weigh anything so they were quick for their day, at least the V8 engines. Most of them were economy cars but the "performance" models (AMC got hit the hardest with emissions regulations and its related powerloss) could scoot pretty good. 150hp for it's engine size might now seem like much but when you consider that typical American 4 and 6 cylinders of the day were making well under 100 horsepower, I can almost justify it due to the many reasons of the causes which we all know. Besides, even swapping stock parts for stock parts off other earlier engines these days can really boost your power without spending money. So while like every 70s car gets polled and then gets panned for their large displacement engines and wheezing power, you can more or less double your power out of these without spending a dime if you know what you're doing.
I don't mind the looks, although I can see why so many think it is ugly. Also is pretty easy to turn these things into monsters.
Lions roar versus a mouse squeak makes all the difference.
Especially when the quoted weight figure is for the 4 Cylinder.But you'd look like such a bell end when your 'lions roar' is no faster or even beaten by a 'mouse squeak'.
8.5 to 60 for the earlier, lighter ones.But you'd look like such a bell end when your 'lions roar' is no faster or even beaten by a 'mouse squeak'.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1970-1978-amc-gremlin8.htmEspecially when the quoted weight figure is for the 4 Cylinder.
I would be surprised if the V8 is under 1500kg.
Yes I was waiting for this, since it's the most go to method of Gremlin fans as much as it is for Chevy fans to quote why the LS production series = best engine series ever. Also Chevette and Luv fans do this quite a bit too, like those in favor of the Gremlin. Beetle fans or a certain degree do it as well. Yet the one issue with both groups is that these things only become great when you go to lengths of money spending and labor to change them from the SU show room manufactured form* (which is what we're voting on) to what ever cool super monster dream you or anyone else has.
*The only exception to this rule is toward production cars from the show room floor becoming racer cars with little variation or middle ground variation. This doesn't count the garage builder because if it did virtually any car is SZ with time and money and the right builder.
I ment to say the 6.6L one(On further research only 20 were sold so it's basically meaningless anyway).8.5 to 60 for the earlier, lighter ones.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1970-1978-amc-gremlin8.htm
Even the Popular Science as-tested weights show near 2600 pounds for the early 4 seat six, and the relatively compact AMC V8 wouldn't have been 600 pounds heavier than the full size straight 6.
I guess we Australians were spoilt at the same period when it came to Light V8s: http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/holden_torana_LX_technical_specifications.htmThe 6.6 was externally the same engine. Just like the contemporary Pontiac engines, they were all built off of basically the same block and varied in cylinder displacement. If they also transplanted the Javelin's accessories and dual exhaust it would have been somewhat heavier, but that would still be, what, 2900-3000 pounds for a car with 255 horsepower?
But as you said, it was essentially a hand-built specific dealer option so it doesn't really factor in.
I voted S-Z for the production spec model in the OP.
Yeah that's great and all, but then you support it with what I quoted you at and I countered accordingly so...great eyeroll but if you can't connect the dots, sorry for you.
In other words you talk about how they can be turned into something of a monster for the road, and I say (to make it simple for you) who cares considering any car can be turned into one. And it doesn't help it become any more cool because it's still a crappy car as bought and uncool to SU.
Seriously Uncool.
Not even wayne and garth could make this car cool.
Closest you could get in America was the Dart 340. Same horsepower with a somewhat larger engine but several hundred pounds heavier.I guess we Australians were spoilt at the same period when it came to Light V8s: http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/holden_torana_LX_technical_specifications.htm
The LX Holden Torana SS Hatchback had 240hp at 1180kg in 1976 from a 5.0L V8.
Your the expert on what is cool and what is not.
It's you're sir, and if you want to proclaim me that go right ahead, sarcastically or not. I fall in line with all the others that do it as well which is pretty much everyone who participates in this thread. If you don't want to have an actual conversation it would have been easier to keep me on ignore rather than this somewhat childish act.
I mean at least @Slash tries