No Love For The Oldies?

[mustangGT90210]

You realy know very little about cars like the KPGC110 GT-R, if you say something like this. The KPGC110 only weights 1100KG and has a high reving 2.0 dohc with fuel injection and all round disc brakes. it even has a 5 speed transmission, all this on a car from 1970.

From 1968-1972 the KPGC10 won 50 race's, of wich 49 in a row.

Sooo, you go on saying US road cars sucked in the 60's/70's compared to japanese ones, yet you show a race car

i was talking to TUPACRULEZ spelling master, because he called the KPGC10 a muscle car.

Japanese muscle at best, but then again, 2.0 litres of fury sure is intimidating...

You want to get technical? let me tel you a 7 liter OHC cast iron in the front, aint the same as a aluminium 4.2 V8 in the middle. Muscle cars don't handle wel for many reasons, one of them is the weight distribution. Why do you thing JGTC supra's didn't use the cast iron 2JZ I6 but the much smaller and lighter 3S-GTE I4?

On again with the damn race car comparisons to american ROAD CARS. Not to mention JGTC sure as hell wasn't around back then. We all agree muscle cars don't handle the best, but you're trying to tell me a 150 hp (tops) car that goes 0-60 in over 10 seconds is going to beat a '71 Mustang that does that same feat in 5.8 seconds? It may not handle as well, but you know what, by the time you get that POS up to speed, I'll be in the next corner, away from your little oil burning slug

And why do all people get mad when i say the truth. i'm not hating on muscle cars, but we all know leafsprings and cast iron V8's aint made for the track.

You ARE hating on them. You want to know something else? You probably REVERE the R35 GT-R, guess what just beat it round the 'Ring? A Corvette, with ancient technology. Where's your computers getting you now?
Cast Iron V8's may not be made for the track, but in the end, they are still a hell of a lot faster around it than the comparable Japanese car.

And why do you people only show race cars as example's? Maybe you should thing a little about that.

Maybe you should think about not posting race cars as examples. Look up higher

 

[STJ88]

Sooo, you go on saying US road cars sucked in the 60's/70's compared to japanese ones, yet you show a race car

Thats a street KPGC10 with plastic cover over the headlights, but you are to stupid to figure that out.

Japanese muscle at best, but then again, 2.0 litres of fury sure is intimidating...

Don't make me laugh, i will bet you any thing that a KPGC10 GT-R is faster than a Charger R/T on a track. You don't need 7L when you only weigh 1100KG. And the engine of the GT-R make's 80bhp per liter, how many muscle cars from 1970 do that? And how many were DOHC and had direct injection and all round disc brakes.

On again with the damn race car comparisons to american ROAD CARS. Not to mention JGTC sure as hell wasn't around back then. We all agree muscle cars don't handle the best, but you're trying to tell me a 150 hp (tops) car that goes 0-60 in over 10 seconds is going to beat a '71 Mustang that does that same feat in 5.8 seconds? It may not handle as well, but you know what, by the time you get that POS up to speed, I'll be in the next corner, away from your little oil burning slug

Let me put it to you like this, 1100KG and 160bhp= 8 sec. And i realy wanna know how you mustang is planning to stop with its drum brakes. And the KPGC10 won 49 race's of the 50.49 consecutive wins

guess what just beat it round the 'Ring? A Corvette, with ancient technology. Where's your computers getting you now?
Cast Iron V8's may not be made for the track, but in the end, they are still a hell of a lot faster around it than the comparable Japanese car.

Hell of a lot faster? the ZR1 beat the GT-R by 3 seconds. it has 150bhp more than the GT-R no back seat, 2.4 liters more and costs about $30000 more. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. The top spec corvette beat the base GT-R, We all know what the V-spec will do to the ZR1.

And hating on the GT-R's computers is idiotic. Thanks to them 99% of the people won't get them self killed, i would like to see you run the ZR1 to its max.

Maybe you should think about not posting race cars as examples. Look up higher

just look higher.

 

[mustangGT90210]

Thats a street KPGC10 with plastic cover over the headlights, but you are to stupid to figure that out.

It has a roll cage. That's a modern photo. The suspension ain't stock either, so don't even start with me, that car may have started as a street car, but it's not anymore.

Don't make me laugh, i will bet you any thing that a KPGC10 GT-R is faster than a Charger R/T on a track. You don't need 7L when you only weigh 1100KG. And the engine of the GT-R make's 80bhp per liter, how many muscle cars from 1970 do that? And how many were DOHC and had direct injection and all round disc brakes.

Hp/liter is a pointless thing. It's been proven many times over on this forum. A 425 horse 7.0L still makes 60hp/liter, so in the end, that pretty much kills what you're saying here. We know muscle cars weren't the most technologically advanced, no need to even bring that one up, we all know it.

Let me put it to you like this, 1100KG and 160bhp= 8 sec. And i realy wanna know how you mustang is planning to stop with its drum brakes. And the KPGC10 won 49 race's of the 50.

Honestly, I don't give a flying 🤬 how many races it won in a row.

So 8 seconds to 60, theres still at least 2.8 second gap straight from the line, if the Mustang's driver is any good, blocking the GTR won't be hard, the thing could even pull even in the corner then the 'Stang would pull away again.

Hell of a lot faster? the ZR1 beat the GT-R by 3 seconds. it has 150bhp more than the GT-R no back seat, 2.4 liters more and costs about $30000 more. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. The top spec corvette beat the base GT-R, We all know what the V-spec will do to the ZR1.

I didn't say it was a hell of a lot faster. It doesn't have a cast iron block either. I said it was faster, that was all. So the GT-R has more power per dollar, but still, that didn't matter when it hadn't run it's record lap. After it ran the record, suddenly it mattered. Only 150bhp more? You're GT-R beats 700-800 horsepower cars around the 'Ring, but fails to a 638hp beast? I don't see where your argument is going.

And hating on the GT-R's computers is idiotic. Thanks to them 99% of the people won't get them self killed, i would like to see you run the ZR1 to its max.

I don't hate the computers, but you were trying to pass off the GT-R as a godsend, and then it got beaten by a car with "ancient technology." The computers aren't getting it where it needs to be.

 

[Dave A]

Thats a street KPGC10 with plastic cover over the headlights, but you are to stupid to figure that out.

I think you'll find it's more than that. It has a full roll cage, slick tyre's it has obvious modifications to the bodywork and judging from the picture possible modifications to the engine too. How the hell can you sit there and say the only tihng it has is plastic headlight covers.

Don't make me laugh, i will bet you any thing that a KPGC10 GT-R is faster than a Charger R/T on a track. You don't need 7L when you only weigh 1100KG. And the engine of the GT-R make's 80bhp per liter, how many muscle cars from 1970 do that? And how many were DOHC and had direct injection and all round disc brakes.

Stock for stock unless you can provide any data on why your right any debate on this is moot. As for the engine type, there' snothing wrong with the engines in Muscle cars, an engine being DOHC doesn't instantly make it better. I'm not saying the engines in the KPGC10's were bad, but your instantly hitting out at cars you clearly know nothing about.

Let me put it to you like this, 1100KG and 160bhp= 8 sec. And i realy wanna know how you mustang is planning to stop with its drum brakes.

Power per litre is a pointless argument, it doesn't prove anything with regards to how good a car will perform. The drum brakes is a valid point, but the cars still were raced and many muscle cars (Mustangs in particular) were successful in Euopre in various touring car series.

And the KPGC10 won 49 race's of the 50.49 consecutive wins

So did Arsenal, didn't make them champions of Europe though. That fact doesn't prove anything.

Hell of a lot faster? the ZR1 beat the GT-R by 3 seconds. it has 150bhp more than the GT-R no back seat, 2.4 liters more and costs about $30000 more. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. The top spec corvette beat the base GT-R, We all know what the V-spec will do to the ZR1.

The icing on the cake, you just can't help yourself can you? Once again talking about engine size, are you r really that thick that you think engine size is a factor in this. the differences are more to do with the character of the engine and powerbands etc, it's not a case of if you can't get 70bhp per litre or more the engine is crap. It doesn't work like that exepct in the eyes of people who don't know what they're talking about and what to sound good.

And hating on the GT-R's computers is idiotic. Thanks to them 99% of the people won't get them self killed, i would like to see you run the ZR1 to its max.

I agree, there is no reason to slam the GT-R because it has advanced computer technology, I can understand it not appealing but it's certainly not something to criticise the car over. But you must see things this way too, the way your protecting car slike KPGC10 and the GT-R and expecting other to respect them is exactly how others are protecting the cars your being so liberal about slamming. It's perfectly acceptably for you not to like them, but then go on to have to say they are worse than they are to continue to do so when you are being told by knowledgable people why your wrong and to be shown examples of where you wrong is just plaing stupid.

 

[McLaren]

Hell of a lot faster? the ZR1 beat the GT-R by 3 seconds. it has 150bhp more than the GT-R no back seat, 2.4 liters more and costs about $30000 more. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. The top spec corvette beat the base GT-R, We all know what the V-spec will do to the ZR1.

That's based on the Nurburgring time where 3 seconds is a lot, btw. But, wait until we actually see the ZR1 on other tracks. The 'Ring is no longer a great way to tell how fast a car really is.

And hating on the GT-R's computers is idiotic. Thanks to them 99% of the people won't get them self killed, i would like to see you run the ZR1 to its max.

So, what, you're basically admitting GT-R drivers won't know how to drive a performance car, so they need to computers to keep them from getting killed?

Running a car to the max will always depend on driver skill. The computers in any car whether it be the GT-R or a 430 Scuderia will only do so much.

 

[STJ88]

I'm only telling you that if i could choose for a high powerd car with or without computers. That i would choose the one wiith the computers. Because no mather how good a driver some one is, when the driving conditions are less than ideal. You will need them.

 

[McLaren]

Who says they will actually do anything to keep you any safer, though? You could put the Stig in a car with nothing but computers and he could still possibly crash it just like any other car. Those computers only do so much.

 

[Jay]

And how many were DOHC and had direct injection and all round disc brakes.

Wait a second, I am suprised no one else picked this up. You are implying the S20 in the KPGC10 has direct injection!? (I'm not talking about mechanical fuel injection here)

 

[STJ88]

I ment regular injection, direct injection was invented by mercedes and used in the gullwing. And it was first mass produced by mitsubishi in the late 90's. And the difference between direct ain't in if its mechanical, but where it injects the fuel. Some engine's use both systems like the 2GR-FSE and 2UR-GSE from toyota.

 

[Jay]

And the difference between direct ain't in if its mechanical, but where it injects the fuel.

Obviously, that's why I pointed out where you meantion DOHC and direct injection in the earlier post referring to the S20.

 

[mustangGT90210]

Ahh backup. 👍

 

[tupacrulez]

here's some more.

And the engine of the GT-R make's 80bhp per liter

ah, the classic import dickriding, riced out honda driving response. "yeah, well my car makes 90hp/litre!"
"your car is a 2 litre....". HP/litre means nothing. it is a void argument used by import lovers to try and make their cars seem better. that is all it is.

And how many were DOHC and had direct injection and all round disc brakes.

Are you joking? you just said that Mercedes invented DI, and no one produced it until Mitsu. therefore, your production 2.0 litre "muscle car" (LOL!) can't have had it, by your own 'fact'.

it has 150bhp more than the GT-R no back seat, 2.4 liters more and costs about $30000 more.

150bhp more?! try 70 or so. the GTR is making 550 at the crank. 15% loss= 480 at the wheels. and your cost argument is null and void. if you honestly think a GTR is gonna go for under 100 grand, even 120, you're off your rocker man.

 

[STJ88]

Are you joking? you just said that Mercedes invented DI, and no one produced it until Mitsu. therefore, your production 2.0 litre "muscle car" (LOL!) can't have had it, by your own 'fact'.

I didn't mean Direct injection, di you have a hard time reading or some thing. And mercedes did invent it. And its pretty funny how a 2.0 japanese car probably beats all your favorite muscle cars.

and your cost argument is null and void. if you honestly think a GTR is gonna go for under 100 grand, even 120, you're off your rocker man.

You are realy sad, making up things now. The GT-R costs $69000.

 

[McLaren]

You are realy sad, making up things now. The GT-R costs $69000.

Hello, ever heard of a thing called mark-up? I highly doubt any GT-R will be sold in the US for under $100K.

 

[STJ88]

Hello, ever heard of a thing called mark-up? I highly doubt any GT-R will be sold in the US for under $100K.

Hello who said there won't be any mark-up's on the ZR1, you people are totaly blind. When it come's to protecting you beloved US cars.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

No response to my reply? Maybe thats a good thing.

 

[McLaren]

Hello who said there won't be any mark-up's on the ZR1, you people are totaly blind. When it come's to protecting you beloved US cars.

I never did. However, the mark ups vary and so far, Nissan dealers here have been marking GT-Rs up to $140K-$150K average, same as the ZR1.

 

[-ultraflow-]

In my opinion all race cars are great the US, Japan, Europe, Australia etc... because they have all differents caracteristics.

But PD is a Japanes company and I think they gone include some 70's japanese race car like this:

Datsun 510


Datsun 510 (on the track)


Datsun 1200

 

[unv412]

i once saw a youtube clip of a 69 charger autocross against a Honda oddyssy people mover (loaded with 3 extra people to even the weight out) which ended in the van beating the dodges timen by 2 seconds or sumthing. Funny how far we've come in 40 years! but i gotta say it was heaps more fun to watch/hear the dodge struggle to get all its power to the ground, than to see the van go around the track. All i can say is that i have great love for the oldies and cannot wait to race/time trial a stock 60's skyline against a stock 60's mustang over bathurst (if it gets in GT5) or the ring. Should make for an interesting comparison. May the best OLDIE win!!

 

[Nicksfix]

From Wikipedia : The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 hp weakling." The book’s author adds that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity" or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars. (QUOTE)
You got to remember something from the muscle car era,back then manufacturers were primarily concerned about (1)-drag racing , (2)-nascar racing . True , they were involved in SCCA Trans-Am as well for the international venue,but it was not their primary focus,it was all about horsepower and speed back then,it was to prove a point,that you could go to a dealership,(Ford,),(Mopar),(GM) - wherever,buy a high powered muscle / and or pony car,bolt on a pair of racing slicks,and take it to the track for some weekend fun,when you were done all you did was bolt on your regular street tires and drive down the road and go home , hence the Dodge nametag ( R/T ) - it stood for - Road and Track. Getting back to the American -vs- Japanese cars,it's a no brainer here,it was all American superiority at the drag strips and nascar tracks , did Japan ever make a car ( in that era ) that would run with King Richards 200mph+ Superbird,or how about trying to take your 2.0L " muscle " against the likes of Sox and Martin - Little Boss - 'Cuda , not a snowballs chance in hell could it compete,sorry,but facts are facts. Mr.4-speed himself ,Ronnie Sox,would not have to even pull 3rd or 4th gear..American muscle is where it's at !!!!! . As mentioned before,I AM NOT dissing Japanese,UK,German cars,or whatever - I have a love for all cars,I am just speaking of the performance aspects here on US -VS- Japanese " muscle "

 

[STJ88]

that would run with King Richards 200mph+ Superbird,or how about trying to take your 2.0L " muscle " against the likes of Sox and Martin - Little Boss - 'Cuda , not a snowballs chance in hell could it compete,sorry,but facts are facts. Mr.4-speed himself ,Ronnie Sox,would not have to even pull 3rd or 4th gear..American muscle is where it's at !!!!!

The Japanese raced on fuji speedway and other track's in the 60's and 70's. they didn't do oval's and drag.

 

[Ps3fanboy]

we need a Bmw m3 E30 ;b

 

[Nicksfix]

bring those historic Japanese cars over to the states now and do some "vintage racing" against the older " American muscle " ,the results can not and or will not change,better yet we can export our muscle over seas for some vintage racing,the results will not change. As far as electronics , computers ,ecms , pcms , blackboxes , whatever terminology you wish to call them , they are ONLY AS GOOD AS THE MAN HOLDING THE STEERING WHEEL,and that point can not , under any circumstances can not be argued,only until in all forms of motor racing when the cars become remote control ( LMAO ) will electronics be better than the man in the driver seat.Even the pinnacle of motorsports - F1- the cars still have a driver,and guess what,they still crash even with the aids of electronics.I do not have anything against electronics involved in motor-sports,but like I mentioned,they are only as good as the man behind the wheel. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nicksfix]

http://www.stockmopar.com/_images/426-mopar-engine.jpg

OR
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...g1bp8h1&sigb=136juk0rm&sigh=115sf5vn7&tt=8483

 

[Patrik]

I would love to see pretty much every american muscle car from the 60's!

 

[Jim Prower]

http://www.stockmopar.com/_images/426-mopar-engine.jpg

OR
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...g1bp8h1&sigb=136juk0rm&sigh=115sf5vn7&tt=8483

two engines from entirely different eras?

Try this one...

http://zhome.com/rnt/RBEng/432EngSmall.jpg

Now, as far as cars go, As much as I'd like to see the Japanese and American cars, there's a few older cars that haven't been mentioned much yet...

Now, I'm not gonna proclaim the superiority of one certian type over the other, but this thread is rather devoid of Euro Love.

 

[Jay]

http://www.stockmopar.com/_images/426-mopar-engine.jpg

OR
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...g1bp8h1&sigb=136juk0rm&sigh=115sf5vn7&tt=8483

You think you are any better than him making a post like this?

A High performance muscle car engine vs a lowest possible spec ecomony engine from 25 years later, this makes no sense.

 

[arvin charles]

Now, I'm not gonna proclaim the superiority of one certian type over the other, but this thread is rather devoid of Euro Love.

We posted a bunch of pics of Astons, Fiats, & BMWs on page 2 before the thread veered off into the American vs. Japanese classics.

 

[Jay]

Need some Aussie stuff

like Monaro's

 

[Nicksfix]

Granted , the engines are of different era's , but the point of it was , he's bragging 2.0 Japanese muscle , several others are talking V-8 American muscle . Sorry I did not post a pic of a 2.0 carbureted engine from 1970 , but my point was to show , which would you rather have under the hood ? Any-ways , that Chrysler hemi would still smoke that modernized 2.0 Nissan in the 1/4 mile and on an oval !!!!!!!!! BTW , the Aussie stuff is really cool ,nice pics.