In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
05-28-2005 | 10:41 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
Poster wrote:
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
generation overall, hands down.
They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
shows.
Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
Focus level.
The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
like it that way.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
generation overall, hands down.
They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
shows.
Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
Focus level.
The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
like it that way.
05-29-2005 | 12:48 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
You might take a ride, vicariously in a Corvette:
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
05-29-2005 | 12:48 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
You might take a ride, vicariously in a Corvette:
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
05-29-2005 | 12:48 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
You might take a ride, vicariously in a Corvette:
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
05-29-2005 | 12:48 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
You might take a ride, vicariously in a Corvette:
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
http://www.challengevideos.com/ You may buy a new Z06 for less than
fifty thousand, or about a third of what it would take to beat it:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/CorvetteZ06/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you
> even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There
> was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota,
> and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the
> much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly
> good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they
> were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something
> like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were the performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
>
> Corvette? No one takes Corvette fully seriously. Sure, the current one
> is a credible car on the Autobahn. But for decades they weren't, and
> besides, a guy who wants that kind of car doesn't want one made in that
> quantity, bought by secretaries. He wants beautiful mechanicals, not
> shared with pickup trucks, he wants race car tech (NASCAR isn't a race
> car-it's taxicab racing) and aircraft smells.
>
> Ford GT? It's a Corvette shaped like a GT40 road racer. Pure cheese
> for the gullible. The money is in the right ballpark, but the tech is
> Focus level.
>
> The sad thing is Detroit COULD do the job. They could build a real
> contender, in fact Ford could have made the GT a serious car for
> another ten grand per unit. But since Americans are (mostly) too
> ignorant to understand the difference, the status quo will continue.
>
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsche 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
05-29-2005 | 12:51 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
05-29-2005 | 12:51 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
05-29-2005 | 12:51 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
05-29-2005 | 12:51 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> Ferraris of the 50's, 60's and 70's were t he performance cars of their
> generation overall, hands down.
>
> They were not dragsters, certainly. But who cares, except for a few
> stoplight losers? The Ferrari V12 engines were capable of putting out
> more power than all but the rumpiest musclecar engines-but they were
> turbine smooth and would make power from 1500 rpm all the way to
> redline. They would run a very long time and were highly rebuildable
> with cylinder liners and a hell-for-stout lower end. And the drivelines
> were rugged, the brakes first rate...sure, there were Cinzano wrappers
> for fuses in the early ones, but mechanically they were first class.
> Ferrari's real bread and butter was, and is, foundry work...and it
> shows.
I'll point out again, the 308 GTB had a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds. That is
not only slow, but god awfully slow. Ferraris may have made some power at
1500 rpm, but it wasn't earth shattering in any way. You have to rev a
Ferrari to get any power out of it. How good is that unless you have a lot
of road to open it up? Again, a run of the mill Chevelle SS 396 would give
just about any Ferrari a run for its money from any stoplight, was actually
affordable, and could haul 4 or more people _comfortably_ home from a night
at the drags. Only the most expensive, and rarest Ferraris were fast back
then, and unless your last name was Getty or Rockefeller, you couldn't
afford it. Ferraris of that era had manual steering, poor reliability, and
kit car build quality. Some models were very handsome, but you definitely
didn't want to try and make one a daily driver. Ferraris simply were, and
for the most part still are, shall we say...delicate.
I'm not even going to get into the ignorant crap about the Ford GT and
Corvette. Again, anyone can make a car that's extremely capable for 200
grand. The trick is to do it at an affordable price. Automobile recently
voted the C2 Corvette as the coolest car ever built. Motor Trend recently
claimed the small block Chevrolet engine as the greatest engine ever built.
Get over it...
I have news for you...DOHC technology dates back to 1913 in the Peugeot.
It's not as modern of a design as you think.
> I guess the poster never heard of a Porsch e 550RS, a 908 or a 917, or
> a Mercedes W196, 300SL, or 300SLR. Like I said, we're ignorant and we
> like it that way.
The 550 was not only a glorified Volkswagen, but an unsafe one at that... I
thought you said you wanted engines that were special? The 908 and 917 were
race cars, the Merc W196 and 300SLR were too. The 300SL had a whopping 215
HP. In 1954, when America wasn't building cars with any kind of power yet,
that was a lot.
Let's talk about real performace: 1967 Corvette L-89, 1967-69 Corvette L-88,
1969 Corvette ZL-1,
--
Registered Linux user #378193
05-29-2005 | 12:53 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps
BTW, I don't believe Enzo actually said he loved Jeeps, but that the Jeep
was America's only true sports car because it was the only vehicle we
produced that was truly purpose built.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
was America's only true sports car because it was the only vehicle we
produced that was truly purpose built.
--
Registered Linux user #378193