Is this really hard to drive old american sport car?

File: 33726030001_large.jpg (317KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1024x768px

Bait or not this legitimately made me kek.

If you really want these cars to handle and be track'able it isn't impossible and probably won't cost a lot of money. (assuming you have the money to buy a popular muscle car in decent shape that isn't rusted, worn out or needs TLC)

You could legitimately turn some of these into decent track cars such as the AMC Javelin which only weighs around 2,800-3,100 lbs. since these cars are very old i imagine they need some modern technology put into them (mainly decent tires, suspension and brakes) the Steering can also be made easier if its a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ll_mLkVo4Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZYOvM8Fp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKn8idEaZE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJ0kMY6rc4
This one isn't necessarily related but you got to hand it to the guy for turning his V6 truck into a hill-climber. Actually.. i kinda want one.

I don't necessarily have the answers for how you can do all this but i;m pretty sure there are forums you can go to and find parts for what you need or want done.

>>15311760
Nah, you can believe or not, but I'm serious.
So, that means without any modifications you can forget about nice driving.
I heard that Challenger r/t '70 can really good overcome turnings if you only change suspension and brakes.

>>15311772
And a blender can overcome its shortfalls as a fleshlight if you deal with the blades and the mince setting, what's your point? What do you mean by "nice driving?" What do you mean by "really hard to handle?" Is your head up your ass for the warmth? What answers are you trying to get here?

File: marina.jpg (36KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x430px

>>15311706
>Morris Marina Coupe

Common misconception, its harder to keep old muscle cars in a straight line then turn them

>>15311772
Go watch a muscle era Mopar try to go around a corner. The amount of negative camber on the inside front wheel will be both impressive and terrifying. And they designed it for that!

>>15311706
you're not going to be driving it the same way on a road as you do on a track.
so the things that matter for track performance mostly don't matter for general use.
people managed to drive them around every day in the 60s without killing themselves so i'm sure you can manage.
on second thoughts, the fact that you made this thread makes me think you may be sufficiently stupid enough not to manage.
get a fit instead.

>>15311706
The thing is, most roads in the USA are straight, we don't have a shit ton of turns like Europe, that's why most retards on here who talk about muh turns don't even have a valid argument

Weight and shitty aerodynamics will forever hold them back.

>>15311706
not your blog

>>15311796
Ok, maybe I'm not clear.
Let me ask again. How does handling look like in old muscle cars compare to modern cars?

>>15311980
>japanese can fan detected
Hurr durr my Nissan GTR is better hurr durr
What a comparison.

>>15311980
Hemi Cudas can run low 10's which is pretty fuckin nice.

>>15312096

I think you mean low 13's.

File: 1449292446556.jpg (428KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 960x640px

>>15312091
They don't corner as well, what did you expect?

Specifically on things like your GM A-bodies, they have a double wishbone front suspension but they're designed to understeer from the factory since your average person deals with that better. Taller spindles and balljoints and tweaking the mounting points for the upper arms in a little bit starts them on camber gain in their arc and they'll handle better. Live rear axles out back, most people here wouldn't be able to max out the performance potential of your stock muscle car rear end setup. There's a lot of shit that goes into the catchall of "handling" and just throwing out something like "changing suspension and brakes" doesn't do justice to the kind of work necessary to make them handle.

tl;dr: Stock muscle cars handle pretty poorly by today's standards but can be made to handle just about as well as anything today.

>>15312107
yeah if the owners forgot to tune before track day.

>>15312110
No car can ever be quicker than the slowest magazine time published. Duh!

>>15312117
my bad please fuck my wife sir, i'll lick you off when you're done.

>>15312109

>chassis rigidity

heavy, floppy chassis US muscles cars require soft suspension even in race trim to get them to turn well. There's a reason that 2.0l Escorts and Minis were able to keep up with and beat Mustangs and Camaros in early touring car racing.

>>15311847
>What is cross ply tires.

People have to remember that muscle was designed around different tires, and that when aligned properly for radials, they change significantly.

>>15311980
>3000lb's for a 65-66 mustang.
>Heavy shitboxes

>>15312125
>There's a reason that 2.0l Escorts and Minis were able to keep up with and beat Mustangs and Camaros in early touring car racing.

Yeah, the reasons are weight and a short wheelbase, early attempts at unibody were considerably weaker than perimeter frames, especially with the triangulation of a proper race spec cage. Spring rates (sorry, nebulous crap like "soft suspension" doesn't give me much to go on) are determined by vehicle weight, weight transfer and corner loading, all of which would go up with weight and I'll readily admit the cars were heavy compared to Minis or Escorts or whatever. Don't talk out of your ass.

>>15312139
What the actual fuck are you smoking, Mustangs didn't get obese until the 1971 model year.

first gen Mustangs are close to Miata-tier weight.

>>15312125
Not in Australia they didn't. A 65 mustang racked up 68 wins from 74 starts. It was also competing against sports cars from the world over. Not just shit box minis.

>>15312147
>Doesn't understand sarcasm.

>>15312149
>internet

>Any car can be made to perform in any magnitude you want, its just a matter of MAWDZ

>>15312147
Fun fact: the "Clydesdales" are actually a bit lighter, by 100lbs or so, than the 69-70's

>>15312144

>low weight
>short wheelbase

these are two factors that are essential to a rigid chassis, it's not a coincidence that those two cars have major success in rallying where rigidity is key, while muscles cars are nowhere to be seen.

the statement that muscle cars can be made to handle just as well as anything today is a false one since they are inherently flawed due to their low rigidity and the setup consequences that arise from that.

>Spring rates (sorry, nebulous crap like "soft suspension" doesn't give me much to go on)

You're a moron if you don't have the reasoning ability to deduce that soft suspension = low spring rate

>Don't talk out of your ass.

You're basically disagreeing with your original statement in this post, which was an idiotic one, if anyone is talking out of their ass it's you.

>>15312180
Muscle cars can be made to handle well. Take the production racing series from 1978 in Bathurst Australia. A heavy Australia muscle car, with a completely orphaned engine, does a 2:20.8 lap time in qualifying. Modern fully assembled race cars manage a 2:07. 13 seconds from a road registered vehicle, to a multi million dollar race car.

>>15311706
they respond poorly to harsh inputs
just be more gentile and load them up slowly
its a very lazy way to drive but also quite calming

>>15311706
>Is it really hard to drive an old American sports car?
Yes and no. Yes, as in the big behemoths that people really want like the Hemi Cuda I imagine will be a pain to drive. But there are some that are lighter and more nimble than the big behemoths, such as a Javelin or Maverick.
>>15311808
Not shown is the piano that is falling

theyre not hard to drive just shit to drive

never been in a car that rides as bad as an old american one