Are old 'fast' cars still fast by modern standards?

>can old cars be fast?

That depends, how fast do you wanna spend?

>>16552122
Looking to vastly fast, pass and gas those aghast people of lower caste.

File: calauis.jpg (100KB, 760x487px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 760x487px

>>16552089
>Are old 'fast' cars still fast by modern standards?
whats considered fast?

My 16 year old barge does 6.x secs to 100km/h

sub 4 second 0-60 is fast
sub 12s in the 1/4 is fast

we live in an era where stock a Mustang GT and Camaro SS run 12s and low 4 second 0-60 times

no that Jaguar is nowhere near fast and wasnt even that fast in its day

its about on par with a Toyobaru

anything can be fast if you want to spend the money

>>16552238
>sub 4 second 0-60 is fast
thats supercar territory

sub 6's is still acceptable

>>16552238
>no that Jaguar is nowhere near fast and wasnt even that fast in its day
:'(

The generation after it has a 5 speed and another 50bhp. They look pretty much the same, maybe I should shop for one of those instead.

It's speed is only a small part of the buying decision but I do want it to be semi-quick.

File: superbirdrr.jpg (846KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1920x1080px

>>16552089

This prehistoric 20 foot long beast is still faster than 98% of the cars on the road in Europe today.

>1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt
>11 second quarter mile on as delivered factory stock tires
>9 seconds on modern drag slicks

Still in the running as one of the single fastest street legal vehicles ever sold.

File: 2017-alfa-romeo-giulia-001-1.jpg (201KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 750x422px

>>16552266
no it was supercar territory in the 90s

these days its just high end car territory

2s are what supercars run now

>>16552304
well the next gen wont get stiff competition by 200hp econoboxes at least

tech advancements are a bitch anon

>>16552323
most BMWs are faster than it so I doubt it

>>16552324
kek its just a race car that you could theoretically drive on the street

that 9 second pass isnt on stock engine either

>>16552360
any sub 9s 0-60 car is faster than 98% of the cars on the road in europe today.

Europe as a whole cucked cars.

>>16552304
honestly the series I XJ is the only one worth getting if you're looking for jag sedans that aren't new, the Lucas fuel injection is a nightmare to work on on the post 73 cars

>>16552360

Most low end diesel BMW's struggle to hit 200kph. Superbirds (road going, not the Daytona race version which did 200mph) could do over 220kph depending on how good you were at tuning a carb.

>>16552396
yes but even something like an old E36 328i has a higher top speed

Im not that familiar with diesel cars tho since Im an American

>>16552396
>Comparing a low end diesel BMW to a 60s high end sports car
>Autism

>>16552396
>a homologation car with a 426ci V8 built for high rpm performance is faster than a diesel econobox
wow

>>16552334
>2s are what supercars run now
But its at the point where its deminishing returns.

most sportscars run 4s right?

>>16552435

The other guy compared it to a BMW. I said the only BMW's Europeans could afford are low end diesels. Which is slower than a 1970's muscle car.

Lay off the Gran Autismo.

>>16552446

You could order that engine in a grocery getter car from the dealer. It's nothing special.

Haven't read the whole thread and maybe someone else has said this, but...
I think people tend to get too caught up in being quicker than other things on the road and being quick by our ever evolving standards. How fun a car is doesn't really change over time, and that's what you should be after. How much fun you have driving a car, whether it's slower than most shit or quicker than most shit. I'd understand wanting to have something blazing fast by modern standards that will smoke most stuff if you're tracking it, but most people aren't, and just driving a car around isn't a competitive setting.
Tl;dr drive what you have fun in and not what's necessarily fast by our rapidly changing standards

>>16552453
there are luxury sedans that run mid-low 4s
yes most sports cars including common ones like Mustangs and Camaros are in that range which is why I consider 3s fast

even then there a lot of luxury style cars and sports cars that pull 3s too

>>16552446
hardly any of them came with a 426 anyway

dude is just some tard trying hard to talk shit on Europe

>>16552476
>You could order that engine in a grocery getter car from the dealer. It's nothing special.
>$900
>whole car cost $4,300 base
>not special

>>16552478
True desu. There are a lot of fast cars out there that are boring as shit.

Similar to how AWD will let you drive faster in the rain, but isn't necessarily more fun than RWD.

File: mcdonalds-Big-Mac.png (271KB, 444x433px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 444x433px

Top speed of 150 mph and 0-60 in 6-seconds is okay today

I really like the look of those cars, and considered one for a while, but alas I don't own any tweed.

>>16552377
Interesting desu.

My understanding was the XJ6 is pretty damn reliable as far as Jag's go provided the electrics don't play up, did I fall for the meme? I thought they were more reliable than the XJ8 which followed, which had issues with timing chain tensioners, the tranmission and obviously nikasil but thats no longer an issue.

>>16553307
I thing if you buy a car like that you kind of have to go the whole hog and dress accordingly.

I guess you can either go all out typical Jag driver with a stick on moustache and tweed everywhere, or you could go dodgy second hand car salesman with a bomber jacket and cigar.

>>16553275
>Similar to how AWD will let you drive faster in the rain, but isn't necessarily more fun than RWD.

>crashing in to a ditch is "fun"

>>16553486
>having AWD
>thinking you're a driving god right up until the second you overestimate how much grip you have and understeer into a ditch is "fun"
All AWD does is give you a false sense of confidence and tempt you to do stupid things.

>>16552143
dayum