Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Because men who buy Corvette Stingrays have absolutely nothing to prove, ever, GM is adding dashcams to all new models that create a video-game like HUD. On the plus side, our national penis length average is about to go up a little bit   (money.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Corvette Stingray, HUD, glove boxes, video overlay, telemetry, throttles, HD video  
•       •       •

8877 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2014 at 10:25 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-06 04:40:13 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Dr Jack Badofsky ,
Fano: why SHOULDNT all cars have a hud? i''d like to never look at the dashboard.
You do know that police can use your own HUD speed reading against you, right? At least they wear legally able to here in NY. Last thing I want is my speed displayed on my windshield for everyone else to read.

I had one on a pontiac. I think it was dropped and is not so common because of a patent issue that GM cost. And other people can't see it . It isn't like a old overhead projector if you know what that is. It has to be tuned directionally very tightly and is only can be seen by the driver to the best of my knowledge. Maybe the backseat behind the driver could set it, but no others.

It was really nice.


I think it was available on the GTP and the Trans-Am all the way until the end of Pontiac.  My Google-fu is not that great, but here's a link for the Grand Prix.  http://www.ranrich.com/gp1997.htm">http://www.ranrich.com/gp1997.htm
 
2014-01-06 05:14:20 AM  

slotz: Fano: why SHOULDNT all cars have a hud? i''d like to never look at the dashboard.

The reason GM tossed the HUD was because, in their testing, they found that drivers were actually more distracted having the HUD than they were having to look down at the instrument panel to check speed, etc.
The HUD pulled too much attention and the drivers, somehow, because they were facing the windshield, believed they were watching the road when they were actually staring at the HUD elements.


I know we all think we are superior at everything here on fark, but I am not surprised in the least that a HUD is distracting.

I know one would distract me, and honestly I dislike most of the newer dash and radio options. I want a dial for the radio tuner, not a seek button with a hold option to scroll. I want tactile feedback on every button and knob. I want a clear view of where I am going without salient features that draw the focus of my eyes. And fark the touchscreen crap they've played around with.

If you are superior, that is great. Not only do I not hold any delusions in that respect, but I know even as an average driver half the people on the road are worse. Why increase the odds of a bad driver hitting you?
 
2014-01-06 05:38:53 AM  

slotz: Fano: why SHOULDNT all cars have a hud? i''d like to never look at the dashboard.

The reason GM tossed the HUD was because, in their testing, they found that drivers were actually more distracted having the HUD than they were having to look down at the instrument panel to check speed, etc.
The HUD pulled too much attention and the drivers, somehow, because they were facing the windshield, believed they were watching the road when they were actually staring at the HUD elements.


Interesting. I wonder if it could be a training/experience issue. Surely a generation raised on games would be more used to having a screen overlay- I'm looking forward to getting that new garmin that projects onto the screen. The device shown in the article looks a bit distracting with all the colors though. All I really need is speedometer and gas gauge, maybe the radio station in the corner.

cdn-www.airliners.net
Pilots obviously have been trained in this, but then, I guess they are the best of the best, and used to traveling in the... DANGER ZONE
 
2014-01-06 05:42:22 AM  
Subby sounds poor and jealous.
 
2014-01-06 06:26:49 AM  
This is awesome for people who actually track day their cars. But is sounds like subby has no idea what a track day is and is illiterate.
 
2014-01-06 06:30:02 AM  
I just can't win.  Friend said my rav 4 was a lesbian car and have been told that my truck makes it look like I'm compensating for "something" .  I am not sure what to do.. Buy a Prius and pretend to be gay I guess.
 
2014-01-06 06:39:55 AM  

Fish in a Barrel: I'm looking to get a camera system like this in my car to record autocross runs, but they're really expensive.  I could just cobble something together with the Torque app and a separate camera, but I can't find a reference for my car's extended PIDs, and I really want some of that extended data.


Torquerecorder, a plugin for Torque, does this perfectly. I think it is even developed by the same dev.
 
2014-01-06 07:04:32 AM  
Does the drinking game apply here too?
 
2014-01-06 07:22:42 AM  

Twitch Boy: So if I buy a rusted out '89 Geo Metro with 150000 miles everyone will think I'm packing a 12-incher?


Well I assume people that like to push the nice car=small penis meme have even smaller penii than they are wishing on the nice car driver because they are obsessed with floppy wiener.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:27 AM  
I can't afford a nice things like you. You must have a small penis LOL!
 
2014-01-06 07:58:30 AM  
GM needs to make up its mind whether it wants to sell a profitable super car, or a cheap super car for the slightly better-heeled masses. The latter isn't going to make money, because it relies on unrealistic sales requirements. Make a BETTER Corvette, something that actually competes with Porsche, Lamborghini et. al. in terms of not just performance, but ride sophistication and quality, and super rich people will buy enough of them to justify the marque. Chevy won't make a lot of money from them, but they'll keep the prestige of the badge, which would drive sales of Camaros, etc.
 
2014-01-06 08:19:11 AM  

mbillips: GM needs to make up its mind whether it wants to sell a profitable super car, or a cheap super car for the slightly better-heeled masses. The latter isn't going to make money, because it relies on unrealistic sales requirements. Make a BETTER Corvette, something that actually competes with Porsche, Lamborghini et. al. in terms of not just performance, but ride sophistication and quality, and super rich people will buy enough of them to justify the marque. Chevy won't make a lot of money from them, but they'll keep the prestige of the badge, which would drive sales of Camaros, etc.


They do. Might want to do your research. Libs hate American cars, we get it. But at least read.
 
2014-01-06 08:23:07 AM  

skinink: I wish a HUD could be overlaid on part of the windshield. That would be pretty nice and it could be restricted to maybe three or four elements showing, tops. Speed, gas, alerts. Maybe the fourth element could be navigation queues, like arrows indicating when to turn, distance info from goal.


Sygic GPS can do this, at least the Android version, although since it's standalone, it obviously doesn't have access to any of the vehicle-specific data.  It works fairly well at dusk/night/dawn, but isn't bright enough to be of much use during the day.  Still, a pretty nice GPS setup in general if you don't want to shell out for a dedicated unit.

/I don't work for them or anything, just like their software and their prices
 
2014-01-06 08:49:34 AM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-06 08:51:24 AM  

Oldiron_79: Twitch Boy: So if I buy a rusted out '89 Geo Metro with 150000 miles everyone will think I'm packing a 12-incher?

Well I assume people that like to push the nice car=small penis meme have even smaller penii than they are wishing on the nice car driver because they are obsessed with floppy wiener.


I'm pretty sure Haterade is made 90% of the tears of people that assume if any man has it better than them, it must be because they are compensating for their penis. I don't think size queens think about dick as much as they do.
 
2014-01-06 08:52:09 AM  

skinink: I wish a HUD could be overlaid on part of the windshield. That would be pretty nice and it could be restricted to maybe three or four elements showing, tops. Speed, gas, alerts. Maybe the fourth element could be navigation queues, like arrows indicating when to turn, distance info from goal.


Uh... They had that in the 90s on a few cars. Several GM models had it available (Pontiac Bonneville, Grand Prix, Buick Park Ave, and some others) and, oddly enough, top of the line Nissan Altimas had it, too. I'm sure there were others. Usually, they'd show speed, alerts, and a couple other things. They were never all that popular.
 
2014-01-06 09:13:31 AM  

serial_crusher: I'd love it if dashboard cameras came standard on all vehicles.  I record all my bike rides "just in case", but have yet to install cameras in my car.

/ NSA and the insurance companies would also love it...


I have one in each of my cars and the insurance company said they don't care.  They gave a reason but it didn't make any sense.
 
2014-01-06 09:44:48 AM  

neilbradley: TinyFist: rev. dave: Rhino_man: rev. dave: I drove one in the new game Gran Turismo 6.  If the game is accurate, it is not too bad, but the GT-R Touring car is much better.   It tends to spin out a lot and is hard to slow down, also jumps the curb in turns a lot if you are not used to it.  Sony calls the game a driving simulator.  Not sure I could drive such a fast car in real life since you don't get to restart when you crash.

I'm pretty sure Top Gear tested this and found that, yes, Gran Turismo is insanely realistic... but your lap time will be a good deal slower in real life because of the fear of death.

Good to know, I love the game, learning a lot about cars that I never really cared much about before.
The 2 tracks I had the hardest time driving on with it were Willow Springs, very difficult, but I could not keep it on the super difficult Nürburgring track.

I thought Jeremy Clarkson did some laps in an Acura NSX and they proved it was horribly inaccurate, like the brakes on a stock car would be demolished after like two turns at full speed...

I own an E92 M3 and track a C6 Z06. Gran Turismo 6 is not realistic with either of those cars. And you have to remember, Clarkson, May, and Hammond are columnists/entertainers, not "drivers" as it were.


1.  Gran Turismo is not insanely realistic.  It is well behind sims like iRacing, rFactor, Assetto Corsa, RaceRoom Experience, Project C.A.R.S., and even its rival Forza.

2.  None of the console sims simulate brake fade.

3.  Gran Turismo has never had accurate kerbing in their games.

4.  Why are you even comparing a touring car with a factory stock car in the first place?
 
2014-01-06 09:57:30 AM  

Thunderpipes: mbillips: GM needs to make up its mind whether it wants to sell a profitable super car, or a cheap super car for the slightly better-heeled masses. The latter isn't going to make money, because it relies on unrealistic sales requirements. Make a BETTER Corvette, something that actually competes with Porsche, Lamborghini et. al. in terms of not just performance, but ride sophistication and quality, and super rich people will buy enough of them to justify the marque. Chevy won't make a lot of money from them, but they'll keep the prestige of the badge, which would drive sales of Camaros, etc.

They do. Might want to do your research. Libs hate American cars, we get it. But at least read.


No, they don't. I watch Top Gear, and they test Corvettes every time a new one comes out. They always marvel at the power and track performance, but also talk about how technologically primitive, uncomfortable and cheaply made they are. There's a reason a Corvette costs two-thirds to half the price of a Porsche 911 with similar performance. It's not engineered or manufactured as well. You want to compete head-to-head with Audi-engineered Lamborghinis, you're going to have to charge a lot more than $60k. All the truly great American luxury and performance cars from the turn of the 20th century through the '50s were EXPENSIVE. A top-of-the-line 1950s Cadillac cost more than a contemporary Rolls Royce, and was a much better car.
 
2014-01-06 10:07:03 AM  

TrotlineDesigns: I just can't win.  Friend said my rav 4 was a lesbian car and have been told that my truck makes it look like I'm compensating for "something" .  I am not sure what to do.. Buy a Prius and pretend to be gay I guess.


or just drive whatever you want to spend your money on, and tell your friend to f off

i drive a 2005 scion xb 1.8l 4 cyl, and i don't feel like any less of a man than when i had a 74 chevy nova with a 350. it takes a lot less gas than the nova, that's for sure!
 
2014-01-06 10:27:50 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Fano: why SHOULDNT all cars have a hud? i''d like to never look at the dashboard.

You do know that police can use your own HUD speed reading against you, right?  At least they wear legally able to here in NY.  Last thing I want is my speed displayed on my windshield for everyone else to read.


Why? It's not legally required to accurately report your speed -- it just cannot underestimate it. But it's usually set at the factory to 2-3 mph over your actual travel speed at highway speeds. Some manufacturers try to get it under 1 mph off, though.

\unless you change your tire size...
 
2014-01-06 10:28:56 AM  
While this is going to encourage reckless driving, at least they'll be a video record to prove these drivers were at fault.
 
2014-01-06 10:30:04 AM  

mbillips: technologically primitive, uncomfortable and cheaply made


fark yes, that just translates to "cheap and light", which many car buyers prefer. I wish they still made cheap, light, janky cars in Japan, but they don't because everyone is so "aspirational", your office admin has to have leather and two sunroofs. The new Civic is twice as heavy as the one they made 20 years ago.

Everyone imagines themselves as sophisticated connoisseurs of comfort and build quality.  More comfort features mean more weight. More weight means worse performance. Worse performance means you're getting less for your money and what you do get has to work harder, so it breaks down sooner.

/yelling at cloud
 
2014-01-06 10:32:06 AM  

mbillips: GM needs to make up its mind whether it wants to sell a profitable super car, or a cheap super car for the slightly better-heeled masses. The latter isn't going to make money, because it relies on unrealistic sales requirements. Make a BETTER Corvette, something that actually competes with Porsche, Lamborghini et. al. in terms of not just performance, but ride sophistication and quality, and super rich people will buy enough of them to justify the marque. Chevy won't make a lot of money from them, but they'll keep the prestige of the badge, which would drive sales of Camaros, etc.


Lamborghinis don't have ride sophistication. They're a slightly more affordable Ferrari.
Porsche can't decide if it wants to be Ferrari or BMW.
The Corvette has always been a car that can keep up with a super car, but at a 1/4 the price. Consider it an entry-model race car.
 
2014-01-06 10:34:45 AM  

mbillips: No, they don't. I watch Top Gear, and they test Corvettes every time a new one comes out. They always marvel at the power and track performance, but also talk about how technologically primitive, uncomfortable and cheaply made they are. There's a reason a Corvette costs two-thirds to half the price of a Porsche 911 with similar performance. It's not engineered or manufactured as well. You want to compete head-to-head with Audi-engineered Lamborghinis, you're going to have to charge a lot more than $60k. All the truly great American luxury and performance cars from the turn of the 20th century through the '50s were EXPENSIVE. A top-of-the-line 1950s Cadillac cost more than a contemporary Rolls Royce, and was a much better car.


The engineering on the Corvette is just fine. It just requires more tradeoffs to reach the price point, and what's sacrificed is NVH perks and materials quality. But then, dedicated race cars aren't comfortable, either.
 
2014-01-06 10:50:38 AM  

Dougie AXP: serial_crusher: I'd love it if dashboard cameras came standard on all vehicles.  I record all my bike rides "just in case", but have yet to install cameras in my car.

/ NSA and the insurance companies would also love it...

No. quick trips to the titty bar and to get snacks at the Sheetz/WaWa are of no consequences. and I'm tired of Insurance agencies dictating our lives.

If they don't like paying out on good claims, maybe they should stop issuing insurance policies.


Well you obviously did not learn one dam thing about insurance companies. If you are in an accident the first thing you should do is hire a lawyer to talk to your insurance company. Yeah that's right I said hire a lawyer to fight the company you were paying for insurance. Don't try and talk to an agent your self they figure you are a chump, just go straight to the law talking dudes.
 
2014-01-06 10:53:34 AM  

RockofAges: Plymouth Acclaim


Used to drive one of those, actually liked it. I remember when American brands tried to compete with Japanese cars instead of making boomer bonermobiles. Doesn't anyone remember how SLOW muscle cars were?

Most muscle cars were considered "sporty" because they could be made kinda fast in a straight line by bolting on parts. But from the factory, they performed like shiat. They caught the imagination of boomers because they looked fast and sounded fast, and imports were verboten back in the day, so we had nothing to compare them to. We look back on them as classics because we don't remember actually driving them. They got 13mpg and for that you got mostly sound and sheet metal.

I've driven old Chargers, Furies, etc, and I am surprised anyone thought of them as performance cars.
 
2014-01-06 11:08:11 AM  

kidgenius: slotz: Worked for Hughes Aircraft back in the 80's.  When GM bought us, first thing they did was experiment with a HUD for their cars, built by our engineers.  HUD was discarded as being too distracting for the average driver.  Hmm...I wonder what changed?

GM bought Hughes in 85. Any cars in the development cycle at that time would likely not be able to have anything from Hughes in it. Usually takes about 5-10 years to incorporate things into a car (wait for current model to finish and get it into the next model). GM offered a HUD in the Grand Prix and C5 Corvette. Both cars were released in 1997.


I said "experimented" not "produced."  It was recognized as a failure in testing which is why you didn't see it widely incorporated.  So I guess the use of "tossed" is an overstatement; my apologies.
 
2014-01-06 11:09:56 AM  
Glitchwerks:1.  Gran Turismo is not insanely realistic.  It is well behind sims like iRacing, rFactor, Assetto Corsa, RaceRoom Experience, Project C.A.R.S., and even its rival Forza.

GT on the other hand is accessible with a controller, and the driving dynamics are pretty good for a console game.  I wouldn't want to try playing iRacing with anything other than a good wheel/pedals.
 
2014-01-06 11:34:13 AM  
Your penis-extending vehicles don't actually extend your penises, so the national average penis size would stay the same.

/you're welcome, tiny dick subby
 
2014-01-06 11:35:06 AM  
... or if you wanted HUD... you could just always wear your helmet.

http://www.skullyhelmets.com/heads-up-display-helmet/
 
2014-01-06 11:36:00 AM  

This text is now purple: mbillips: No, they don't. I watch Top Gear, and they test Corvettes every time a new one comes out. They always marvel at the power and track performance, but also talk about how technologically primitive, uncomfortable and cheaply made they are. There's a reason a Corvette costs two-thirds to half the price of a Porsche 911 with similar performance. It's not engineered or manufactured as well. You want to compete head-to-head with Audi-engineered Lamborghinis, you're going to have to charge a lot more than $60k. All the truly great American luxury and performance cars from the turn of the 20th century through the '50s were EXPENSIVE. A top-of-the-line 1950s Cadillac cost more than a contemporary Rolls Royce, and was a much better car.

The engineering on the Corvette is just fine. It just requires more tradeoffs to reach the price point, and what's sacrificed is NVH perks and materials quality. But then, dedicated race cars aren't comfortable, either.


The article is about how they're going to stop making Corvettes, because the market for half-price supercars just isn't there. I'm theorizing they could save the Corvette by making it a full-price supercar, and selling fewer of them. There hasn't been an American car that competed equally with European top-line luxury or performance cars since the '50s, which is too bad. We used to lead the world in car design and technology, and now we just lead on value for money. We could do both, in different market segments, but our car companies choose not to, with the exception of Tesla.
 
2014-01-06 12:55:23 PM  

This text is now purple: Dr Jack Badofsky: Fano: why SHOULDNT all cars have a hud? i''d like to never look at the dashboard.

You do know that police can use your own HUD speed reading against you, right?  At least they wear legally able to here in NY.  Last thing I want is my speed displayed on my windshield for everyone else to read.

Why? It's not legally required to accurately report your speed -- it just cannot underestimate it. But it's usually set at the factory to 2-3 mph over your actual travel speed at highway speeds. Some manufacturers try to get it under 1 mph off, though.

\unless you change your tire size...


I have no idea why someone would install smaller diameter tires on their car, low riders aside.  It would make no sense to kill your mileage like that for the minimal gain in improved acceleration.  I guess you could argue that, but I would guess that a judge would see right through it.
 
2014-01-06 01:03:16 PM  

mccallcl: RockofAges: Plymouth Acclaim

Used to drive one of those, actually liked it. I remember when American brands tried to compete with Japanese cars instead of making boomer bonermobiles. Doesn't anyone remember how SLOW muscle cars were?

Most muscle cars were considered "sporty" because they could be made kinda fast in a straight line by bolting on parts. But from the factory, they performed like shiat. They caught the imagination of boomers because they looked fast and sounded fast, and imports were verboten back in the day, so we had nothing to compare them to. We look back on them as classics because we don't remember actually driving them. They got 13mpg and for that you got mostly sound and sheet metal.

I've driven old Chargers, Furies, etc, and I am surprised anyone thought of them as performance cars.


We're all of these old Mopars You drove slant sixes?  With simple tweaks, a LOT of muscle cars from BITD ran 12's, others even quicker.  I heard that the Omni GLH's from the 1980's could supposedly hit 11's if driven right.  And I can't even imagine what Shelby's supercharged Cobras could do.  There were only two of those, and one went to Bill Cosby who promptly scared the shiat out of himself and got rid of it.
 
2014-01-06 01:20:36 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: mccallcl: RockofAges: Plymouth Acclaim

Used to drive one of those, actually liked it. I remember when American brands tried to compete with Japanese cars instead of making boomer bonermobiles. Doesn't anyone remember how SLOW muscle cars were?

Most muscle cars were considered "sporty" because they could be made kinda fast in a straight line by bolting on parts. But from the factory, they performed like shiat. They caught the imagination of boomers because they looked fast and sounded fast, and imports were verboten back in the day, so we had nothing to compare them to. We look back on them as classics because we don't remember actually driving them. They got 13mpg and for that you got mostly sound and sheet metal.

I've driven old Chargers, Furies, etc, and I am surprised anyone thought of them as performance cars.

We're all of these old Mopars You drove slant sixes?  With simple tweaks, a LOT of muscle cars from BITD ran 12's, others even quicker.  I heard that the Omni GLH's from the 1980's could supposedly hit 11's if driven right.  And I can't even imagine what Shelby's supercharged Cobras could do.  There were only two of those, and one went to Bill Cosby who promptly scared the shiat out of himself and got rid of it.


The Fury was a monster, no idea what motor was in it, but revving it up twisted the hood. Of course, once you actually drove it, it was a dog because it weighed a million pounds and the engine itself was heavy.

"Simple tweaks" do not make for a good car from the factory. The memory of those muscle cars comes from the look, not their actual performance, which was miserable. And I'm talking straight-line accelleration, which was supposed to be their strong suit. Forget turning or stopping.

A couple exceptions of factory-tuned or aftermarket performance muscle cars don't prove the rule, but they serve the marketing purpose of linking those tired old tanks to the racey image we've come to accept.

400-something bhp moving 3600 lbs is not an amazing ratio, and that's about as good as it got from the factory. Import compacts are better performance cars, taken as a whole segment, than muscle cars ever were by that logic.
 
2014-01-06 01:30:56 PM  

mbillips: This text is now purple: mbillips: No, they don't. I watch Top Gear, and they test Corvettes every time a new one comes out. They always marvel at the power and track performance, but also talk about how technologically primitive, uncomfortable and cheaply made they are. There's a reason a Corvette costs two-thirds to half the price of a Porsche 911 with similar performance. It's not engineered or manufactured as well. You want to compete head-to-head with Audi-engineered Lamborghinis, you're going to have to charge a lot more than $60k. All the truly great American luxury and performance cars from the turn of the 20th century through the '50s were EXPENSIVE. A top-of-the-line 1950s Cadillac cost more than a contemporary Rolls Royce, and was a much better car.

The engineering on the Corvette is just fine. It just requires more tradeoffs to reach the price point, and what's sacrificed is NVH perks and materials quality. But then, dedicated race cars aren't comfortable, either.

The article is about how they're going to stop making Corvettes, because the market for half-price supercars just isn't there. I'm theorizing they could save the Corvette by making it a full-price supercar, and selling fewer of them. There hasn't been an American car that competed equally with European top-line luxury or performance cars since the '50s, which is too bad. We used to lead the world in car design and technology, and now we just lead on value for money. We could do both, in different market segments, but our car companies choose not to, with the exception of Tesla.


Look up the history of Duesenberg.

Then look up how long they survived. Pro-tip -- Rolls-Royce stopped making automobiles for a reason.
 
2014-01-06 01:36:25 PM  

mccallcl: Dr Jack Badofsky: mccallcl: RockofAges: Plymouth Acclaim

Used to drive one of those, actually liked it. I remember when American brands tried to compete with Japanese cars instead of making boomer bonermobiles. Doesn't anyone remember how SLOW muscle cars were?

Most muscle cars were considered "sporty" because they could be made kinda fast in a straight line by bolting on parts. But from the factory, they performed like shiat. They caught the imagination of boomers because they looked fast and sounded fast, and imports were verboten back in the day, so we had nothing to compare them to. We look back on them as classics because we don't remember actually driving them. They got 13mpg and for that you got mostly sound and sheet metal.

I've driven old Chargers, Furies, etc, and I am surprised anyone thought of them as performance cars.

We're all of these old Mopars You drove slant sixes?  With simple tweaks, a LOT of muscle cars from BITD ran 12's, others even quicker.  I heard that the Omni GLH's from the 1980's could supposedly hit 11's if driven right.  And I can't even imagine what Shelby's supercharged Cobras could do.  There were only two of those, and one went to Bill Cosby who promptly scared the shiat out of himself and got rid of it.

The Fury was a monster, no idea what motor was in it, but revving it up twisted the hood. Of course, once you actually drove it, it was a dog because it weighed a million pounds and the engine itself was heavy.

"Simple tweaks" do not make for a good car from the factory. The memory of those muscle cars comes from the look, not their actual performance, which was miserable. And I'm talking straight-line accelleration, which was supposed to be their strong suit. Forget turning or stopping.

A couple exceptions of factory-tuned or aftermarket performance muscle cars don't prove the rule, but they serve the marketing purpose of linking those tired old tanks to the racey image we've come to accept.

400-something bhp moving 3600 ...


Advertised horsepower ratings were notoriously conservative on cars back then for insurance reasons.  A 427 tri-power Vette was advertised at 435hp, but everybody knew it was more like 500.  Same for CobraJets, Hemi's, LS6 Chevelles, etc.,  not to mention the gearing in the drivetrain (transformer, rear end, etc.).  Simple tuning tricks included advancing timing, disconnecting the exhaust, and removing unnecessary weight.  It was very easy to get a Camaro, Galaxy, Barracuda, etc. into the 12's, even faster by spending just a few bucks, and you're into the 11's.  I suspect you are not really very familiar with musclecars, and what they really are capable of doing with minimal investment.  Drag racing was so big back then that the Big Three had their own internal engineers covertly "testing" their cars on Woodward Ave on weekends against other cars via street races, along with track teams like the Ramchargers.
 
2014-01-06 01:42:03 PM  

doenis: Fish in a Barrel: I'm looking to get a camera system like this in my car to record autocross runs, but they're really expensive.  I could just cobble something together with the Torque app and a separate camera, but I can't find a reference for my car's extended PIDs, and I really want some of that extended data.

Torquerecorder, a plugin for Torque, does this perfectly. I think it is even developed by the same dev.


I had nothing but bad luck with that.  For some reason it will only record the video at about 10FPS, which looks terrible.  I think it's syncing the video frames the OBDII update rate.  And the java app to export the video is an awful, buggy mess.
 
2014-01-06 01:56:13 PM  
Also comes with this...
www.100open.com
 
2014-01-06 02:10:03 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: I suspect you are not really very familiar with musclecars


Aside from owning a couple, no I'm not. I never tuned any domestic cars or modified them. I just remember driving them around and they were slow and ponderous. The brakes were shiat, the suspension was shiat and they were huge. They were cool, though.

Your defense is that a smattering of cars ran fast in their highest-power factory configurations, and that some muscle cars could be modified cheaply to go fast-ish. But the vast majority of muscle cars sold were slow. Like 90-something% of them. By the time the muscle car era was over, there were plenty of cars styled that way that were slower than dirt and sold like hotcakes.

I'm not saying the muscle car era was all in your imagination, but the memory people have of these things is not in keeping with the reality of driving them for most people that owned one. They looked cool and they sounded cool, but the value was that they could be modified cheaply and that the modifications didn't make them much less reliable. That title has been handed down to tuner import compacts, the spiritual successor to the muscle car. When I see a muscle car reboot, I don't associate it with its image, I associate it with the driving experience, which sucked for the vast majority of owners.

The shiatty, underpowered versions of all the muscle cars, which made up the majority of inventory, looked the same as their performance counterparts, which sold those cars the same way the memory of their performance counterparts are selling them today.
 
2014-01-06 02:47:56 PM  
Which way to the next mission objective? Follow the arrow!
 
2014-01-06 03:04:47 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: A 427 tri-power Vette was advertised at 435hp


I'd like to add I am in no way shiatting on the 'Vette. Despite it never being my style of ride, it has always been the best price/performance value in the world and a triumph of American car-building. Pity that I can't get past the styling and associated ownership image (every owner I've ever met wore a lot of male jewelry).
 
2014-01-06 05:50:48 PM  

mccallcl: Dr Jack Badofsky: I suspect you are not really very familiar with musclecars

Aside from owning a couple, no I'm not. I never tuned any domestic cars or modified them. I just remember driving them around and they were slow and ponderous. The brakes were shiat, the suspension was shiat and they were huge. They were cool, though.

Your defense is that a smattering of cars ran fast in their highest-power factory configurations, and that some muscle cars could be modified cheaply to go fast-ish. But the vast majority of muscle cars sold were slow. Like 90-something% of them. By the time the muscle car era was over, there were plenty of cars styled that way that were slower than dirt and sold like hotcakes.

I'm not saying the muscle car era was all in your imagination, but the memory people have of these things is not in keeping with the reality of driving them for most people that owned one. They looked cool and they sounded cool, but the value was that they could be modified cheaply and that the modifications didn't make them much less reliable. That title has been handed down to tuner import compacts, the spiritual successor to the muscle car. When I see a muscle car reboot, I don't associate it with its image, I associate it with the driving experience, which sucked for the vast majority of owners.

The shiatty, underpowered versions of all the muscle cars, which made up the majority of inventory, looked the same as their performance counterparts, which sold those cars the same way the memory of their performance counterparts are selling them today.


True that the cars didn't have good brakes or suspension compared to today, but that's just the way technology was back then, plus then, as now, money was tight for budgets.  Did they need the biggest engine to go quick?  No.  One example would be a '68 Z28 did the quarter in 13.77 @ 107 moh, sopposedly on stock tires (that engine was 302 c.i.d.).  Typically the biggest engines supplied the most power, but that was the easiest way to make power back then.  Fuel injection was just becoming usable in production cars, but that was mechanical, not electronic like we have now.  Also, carburetors make more power than a similarly set up EFI car.

I'm not sure I agree on the imports being the new frontier for cheap to make to fast.  You can tinker with boost and fuel mapping, but that will only get you so far.  Larger turbines cost money (the WRX STi and the Evo, along with the GTR are the big hitters there), and there really is no making a Civic much faster without lots of $$,  just annoyingly louder.  A loud Civic is nowhere near as pleasing sounding as a modded GSXR-750 if you ask me.  They were a fad, and do retain some popularity, but the main industry seems to be the mustangs and camaros.  Friends of mine work at a very popular aftermarket manufacturer, and they don't make any parts for imports at all.  Just Ford, Chevy, Mopar, cars and trucks.  I'm not slamming mports, but it takes a lot to make them significantly faster.  You could argue the same for modern muscle cars, but they are ate very high horsepower rating already.  Off the showroom floor, a Shelby Mustang is rated at 662hp.  The base GT is 410 or so.  It's too bad two-stroke technology hasn't evolved for cars, because they provide the biggest bang-per-buck than any other motor.  Emissions were a problem, but I understand Bombardier has an insanely clean-running two-stroke motor that they make for sleds.  Lastly, the Vettes, yeah I hear you on the midlife crisis guys buying them, but they are very fun to drive...unless youre one of those two dudes in the silver Vettes street racing at the stoplight, and eventually take each other out a hundred yards or so down the street.
 
2014-01-06 05:54:19 PM  

mccallcl: Dr Jack Badofsky: I suspect you are not really very familiar with musclecars

Aside from owning a couple, no I'm not. I never tuned any domestic cars or modified them. I just remember driving them around and they were slow and ponderous. The brakes were shiat, the suspension was shiat and they were huge. They were cool, though.


If you compare them against other cars at the time, they were much better.  Compared stock-for-stock to modern cars, they're not real impressive.  Mid-range minivans can smoke a lot of stock muscle cars at the drag strip and in a road course.  Which, BTW, is hilarious to watch in person...

Luckily for people who prefer muscle car styling but sometimes need to do silly things like turning or stopping or "not buying gas every day," there's a whole industry devoted to putting modern technology into muscle cars.  You can often just bolt-on massive power brakes, incredible suspensions (up to and including IRS systems), and insanely powerful / efficient computer-controlled engines and transmissions with emissions compliance and full factory warranties.  If you can weld, too, pretty much anything's possible.  The cost savings aren't as huge as one would hope, but you're only paying for the things you want and nothing more; options "packages" on new cars are barely a step up from the cable company charging me for 9 f'in Lifetime channels and Univision just because I want the History channel.  Ok, Univision is ok...

In any event, I *like* tinkering with mechanical things and I drive a lot.  Some people prefer to buy stuff already done, and I probably don't enjoy their hobbies.  That's fine.
 
2014-01-06 06:42:33 PM  
Dr Jack Badofsky: It's too bad two-stroke technology hasn't evolved for cars, because they provide the biggest bang-per-buck than any other motor.  Emissions were a problem, but I understand Bombardier has an insanely clean-running two-stroke motor that they make for sleds.

Not everybody likes doing a top-end rebuild every month to keep their vehicle on the road. Nor does your average person like to travel with a full weather station, altimeter, barometer, and a crate of spark plugs to keep their vehicle making good power.

And the explosive narrowness of a two-stroke powerband puts it in 'experts only' category unless you nerf the living hell out of it.  The big two stroke motorcycles of the 70's were not called 'Widowmakers' because it sounded cute.

/raced two strokes
//You've not experienced a highside properly till you've had a highly tuned two-stroke seize on you mid-corner and turn into a catapult.
 
2014-01-06 06:49:48 PM  

This text is now purple: Look up the history of Duesenberg.

Then look up how long they survived. Pro-tip -- Rolls-Royce stopped making automobiles for a reason.


Rolls-Royce still makes cars.

/they're a subsidiary of BMW now, but that's not important
 
2014-01-06 07:05:22 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Your penis-extending vehicles don't actually extend your penises, so the national average penis size would stay the same.


I think the point was that the idiots with small penises would kill themselves in these things.
 
2014-01-06 07:13:09 PM  

moike: Dr Jack Badofsky: It's too bad two-stroke technology hasn't evolved for cars, because they provide the biggest bang-per-buck than any other motor.  Emissions were a problem, but I understand Bombardier has an insanely clean-running two-stroke motor that they make for sleds.

Not everybody likes doing a top-end rebuild every month to keep their vehicle on the road. Nor does your average person like to travel with a full weather station, altimeter, barometer, and a crate of spark plugs to keep their vehicle making good power.

And the explosive narrowness of a two-stroke powerband puts it in 'experts only' category unless you nerf the living hell out of it.  The big two stroke motorcycles of the 70's were not called 'Widowmakers' because it sounded cute.

/raced two strokes
//You've not experienced a highside properly till you've had a highly tuned two-stroke seize on you mid-corner and turn into a catapult.


True, early SAABs were a maintenance nightmare and tricky to drive, but with the decades of refinement of the two-stroke motor that have happens, they are remarkably reliable.  I've had 2-stroke motorcycles my whole life, and it will take Yamaha not making them anymore to get me to move to 4-strokes (offload).  They are more powerful, much simpler, and I believe with development, they could be unbelievable Ina a car.  They would help most in cars like the Fiat 500 or Smart Fortwo.

Ad, we're you using castor oil when it seized?  Running a bit lean?
 
2014-01-06 08:38:31 PM  
What he said about two strokes only making power in a very narrow range of the powerband. I race motocross and everything is four stroke now. It's a new breed of four strokes (my Yamaha has five valves, a 13.5:1 compression ratio and is electronically limited to 14,000 rpm) and they are significantly better than their older two-stoke counterparts. Some guys still go fast on the smokers but they're experts and they have to work twice as hard for similar lap times. You wouldn't want a scaled-up engine like my bike has in your car though, the maintenance would be insane.

Oh and my 2000 Z28 Camaro is a twelve-second car bone stock. You'd have to spend ridiculous amounts of money getting an import to go that fast and it'd try to blow up on you constantly. Thanks to large displacement and modern fuel injection I get that kind of speed with great drivability, reliability and over twenty mpg.
 
2014-01-06 09:33:57 PM  

ChadM89: What he said about two strokes only making power in a very narrow range of the powerband. I race motocross and everything is four stroke now. It's a new breed of four strokes (my Yamaha has five valves, a 13.5:1 compression ratio and is electronically limited to 14,000 rpm) and they are significantly better than their older two-stoke counterparts. Some guys still go fast on the smokers but they're experts and they have to work twice as hard for similar lap times. You wouldn't want a scaled-up engine like my bike has in your car though, the maintenance would be insane.

Oh and my 2000 Z28 Camaro is a twelve-second car bone stock. You'd have to spend ridiculous amounts of money getting an import to go that fast and it'd try to blow up on you constantly. Thanks to large displacement and modern fuel injection I get that kind of speed with great drivability, reliability and over twenty mpg.


I enjoy the peakiness of the two strokes.  My YZ250 is a hoot to ride, and does not have the gyro effect that the 4strokes do.  The newer bikes are faster/more powerful yes, but put similar displacement bikes together and it's no comparison.  Plus, to rebuild a 4stroke engine is a TON of cash that I don't have.  Someday, maybe.  Someday.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report