Timely thread. I just saw Fast and Furious for the first time last night. LOL.
I have quite a backlog of movies to get to…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many times have I written “SPORT BIKES”?
[/quote]
Haven’t you seen Easy Rider?
X - Have you seen this? Not a fictional movie surrounding the biker scene, but still an awesome movie I think.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Still, it is not a Motorcycle Movie.[/quote]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064276/[/quote]
Dude, do you guys ride? A 60’s movie about bikes doesn’t have anything to do with the bike culture today.[/quote]
it was more of a joke then an honest answer. Yes, I did ride till I moved to a city where that is a death wish so I know what your getting at…
[quote]inkaddict wrote:
X - Have you seen this? Not a fictional movie surrounding the biker scene, but still an awesome movie I think.
That looks interesting. I will probably get the dvd if it is available…but I want to see a movie that really puts a shine on that concept. I want big breasts, high heels, girls washing bikes in the sun half naked and some characters that make people take it seriously with some guns, explosions and fast cars thrown in for good measure. I want to see the movie Bad Boys done with bikes.
Torque tried to turn it into some weird super hero bike shit seeing as you had people riding on the top of trains, leaping off the front end and then fucking riding on the rails in front of the train on a fucking sport bike. Unrealistic is an understatement.
James Bond couldn’t pull that shit off.
It’s available on DVD
I know exactly what you’re picturing as far as a movie goes, and think it’d be bad as shit to see. Fast cars would be a nice touch, only to have some hot-shit punk think his car would whip any bike on the street…and get dusted by a stretched, slammed, NOS’d, turbo’d 'Busa or some shit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]inkaddict wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
X the best Motorcycle movie in the last Ten years was The Matrix Reloaded. [/quote]
I can’t tell if you are joking. I don’t remember bikes in that.[/quote]
This?[/quote]
Ok, I got the movies mixed up…but still that is not a whole movie about bikers and the life style surrounding riding. It DESERVES its own movie and I don’t even hate them for Torque. It is just that they seemed to shut down any further projects because that one didn’t sit well with critics.
The movie Biker Boyz SUCKS. I dare someone to say that was a good movie.[/quote]
Come on X, you not seen wild hogs lulz…
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
It’s filmed in Brazil so Brazilian hotties are good. I’m glad that they’re uising muscle cars and not ricers, remember folks there is no replacement for displacement, and their 1.8 liter engines are less than my diet mountain dew bottles[/quote]
Original muscle cars kinda suck apart from looking intimidating and having nice sounding engine. Handling, brakes, and pretty much turning the wheel are hopeless.
Pitch one of these against a Mitsubishi Evo 9 fq 360, and the measly 2000cc it has would make any muscle car shart its oil!
There is a replacement for displacement and it’s called brains and engineering.
For example Dodger charger srt8. 6.1l V8… 425 bhp?
6th gen toyota celica gt4 with a couple of tweeks, modified turbo and a few other bits and bobs can easy push 600bhp+ and thats from 2000cc’s as well.
Plus they can go round corners. And stop when they go fast. And you can park them. And see the end of the bonnet.
That is all.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
It’s filmed in Brazil so Brazilian hotties are good. I’m glad that they’re uising muscle cars and not ricers, remember folks there is no replacement for displacement, and their 1.8 liter engines are less than my diet mountain dew bottles[/quote]
Original muscle cars kinda suck apart from looking intimidating and having nice sounding engine. Handling, brakes, and pretty much turning the wheel are hopeless.
Pitch one of these against a Mitsubishi Evo 9 fq 360, and the measly 2000cc it has would make any muscle car shart its oil!
There is a replacement for displacement and it’s called brains and engineering.
For example Dodger charger srt8. 6.1l V8… 425 bhp?
6th gen toyota celica gt4 with a couple of tweeks, modified turbo and a few other bits and bobs can easy push 600bhp+ and thats from 2000cc’s as well.
Plus they can go round corners. And stop when they go fast. And you can park them. And see the end of the bonnet.
That is all. [/quote]
Dude…where the fuck were you in my Camaro VS Mustang thread?
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Original muscle cars kinda suck apart from looking intimidating and having nice sounding engine. Handling, brakes, and pretty much turning the wheel are hopeless.
[/quote]
You can’t really say that without putting into context the spirit of which they were build for and the technology available in the 60s and 70s. They weren’t concerned so much with the type of handling that’s expected today and they didn’t have computer controlled hardware.
Hell, computer designed modern tires alone are light years ahead of early muscle era. If they had that technology alone those cars would be much different.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
It’s filmed in Brazil so Brazilian hotties are good. I’m glad that they’re uising muscle cars and not ricers, remember folks there is no replacement for displacement, and their 1.8 liter engines are less than my diet mountain dew bottles[/quote]
Original muscle cars kinda suck apart from looking intimidating and having nice sounding engine. Handling, brakes, and pretty much turning the wheel are hopeless.
Pitch one of these against a Mitsubishi Evo 9 fq 360, and the measly 2000cc it has would make any muscle car shart its oil!
There is a replacement for displacement and it’s called brains and engineering.
For example Dodger charger srt8. 6.1l V8… 425 bhp?
6th gen toyota celica gt4 with a couple of tweeks, modified turbo and a few other bits and bobs can easy push 600bhp+ and thats from 2000cc’s as well.
Plus they can go round corners. And stop when they go fast. And you can park them. And see the end of the bonnet.
That is all. [/quote]
Dude…where the fuck were you in my Camaro VS Mustang thread?[/quote]
Haha i actually read and forgot to post, i’d go for the camaro based purely on the looks and it’s menacing demeanour and well i bum of transformers which kinda makes me a bit biased.
However if money wasn’t a limiting factor i’d have to be either the Shelby of the Saleen version of the mustang.
Plus the money to power ratio of these muscle cars astounds me. So much power for the money is unbelievable, although its easily explained by cheap plastic interiors which are held together with spit and tape.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Original muscle cars kinda suck apart from looking intimidating and having nice sounding engine. Handling, brakes, and pretty much turning the wheel are hopeless.
[/quote]
You can’t really say that without putting into context the spirit of which they were build for and the technology available in the 60s and 70s. They weren’t concerned so much with the type of handling that’s expected today and they didn’t have computer controlled hardware.
Hell, computer designed modern tires alone are light years ahead of early muscle era. If they had that technology alone those cars would be much different.
[/quote]
Very valid points, however, putting a man on the moon, building incredibly agile jet fighters capable of super speed with incredibly agility (although billion dollar projects) were all achievable way back. I’m pretty sure they could have figured out how to make the wheels turn when the steering wheel was moved and how to stop it moving even with millions of dollars.
Let’s put a huge engine in a car and dazzle people with 6l V8!!! and i’m not just talking about the 60’s and 70’s it’s the same story now. Modern day Mustang’s, Camaro’s, Charger’s V.S puny 2000cc japs there is no contest.
By the way the celica i mentioned, road tyres. ABS was about as technological as it got.
A bit of thought and ingenuity is all it takes.
And FTW (although no road legal obviously) 2013 formual 1 engines will be 1600cc turbo’s… with circa 750bhp!!!
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Very valid points, however, putting a man on the moon, building incredibly agile jet fighters capable of super speed with incredibly agility (although billion dollar projects) were all achievable way back. [/quote]
Yes, with multi-million dollar tax driven and funded projects that only a country could fund. Even if they had unlimited funding, they couldn’t have produced the chip embedded software back then.
Again, the string of events that happened independently from the 60’s to now allowed the vision and technology to advance to what it is today.
Sure- with slide rules they could have designed (envisioned) the perfect combination of things to build cars to do, but they wouldn’t have necessarily conceived of the materials needed or had the other available technologies that influenced modern cars.
Hell, the cars of the 40’s were more aerodynamic than cars of the 60’s. They had that figured out by then. Modern cars are as much influenced from computer tech invented in the 80’s than engineers could have ever thought of in the early 60’s pre-Moon landing.
I mean, let’s talk about how much those submarines really sucked in 1890 compared to today.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Very valid points, however, putting a man on the moon, building incredibly agile jet fighters capable of super speed with incredibly agility (although billion dollar projects) were all achievable way back. [/quote]
Yes, with multi-million dollar tax driven and funded projects that only a country could fund. Even if they had unlimited funding, they couldn’t have produced the chip embedded software back then.
Again, the string of events that happened independently from the 60’s to now allowed the vision and technology to advance to what it is today.
Sure- with slide rules they could have designed (envisioned) the perfect combination of things to build cars to do, but they wouldn’t have necessarily conceived of the materials needed or had the other available technologies that influenced modern cars.
Hell, the cars of the 40’s were more aerodynamic than cars of the 60’s. They had that figured out by then. Modern cars are as much influenced from computer tech invented in the 80’s than engineers could have ever thought of in the early 60’s pre-Moon landing.
I mean, let’s talk about how much those submarines really sucked in 1890 compared to today.
[/quote]
Also good points, but just look at Italy, ferrai’s of the 60’s and the Posrche 911 from Germany.
Smaller engines and sublime engineering.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Very valid points, however, putting a man on the moon, building incredibly agile jet fighters capable of super speed with incredibly agility (although billion dollar projects) were all achievable way back. [/quote]
Yes, with multi-million dollar tax driven and funded projects that only a country could fund. Even if they had unlimited funding, they couldn’t have produced the chip embedded software back then.
Again, the string of events that happened independently from the 60’s to now allowed the vision and technology to advance to what it is today.
Sure- with slide rules they could have designed (envisioned) the perfect combination of things to build cars to do, but they wouldn’t have necessarily conceived of the materials needed or had the other available technologies that influenced modern cars.
Hell, the cars of the 40’s were more aerodynamic than cars of the 60’s. They had that figured out by then. Modern cars are as much influenced from computer tech invented in the 80’s than engineers could have ever thought of in the early 60’s pre-Moon landing.
I mean, let’s talk about how much those submarines really sucked in 1890 compared to today.
[/quote]
Also good points, but just look at Italy, ferrai’s of the 60’s and the Posrche 911 from Germany.
Smaller engines and sublime engineering. [/quote]
Sure, but you’re proving my point.
You specifically talked about early ‘muscle’ cars. Different culture, different mindset, different economy and different landscape than European automobiles. European cars were not ‘muscle’ based.
American muscle was born out of wide open spaces and racing the quarter mile. Cornering (ie. handling) was secondary at best. Add in the economics of the time that “there is no replacement for displacement” (ie. cheaper to build a bigger block and gears) plus big gear ratios and cheap fuel to thrust a car down a straight line and you have early muscle design.
Hell, the ‘fastback’ was a huge (albeit a fad) for shaving time off 1/4 mile, yet that design had been around for decades. Additionally, fuel injection had been around for decades as well (and in commercial autos for 10+ years)-- but why didn’t it catch on in US cars?
Europe mindset is smaller spaces and curvy roads, hence cornering, more lateral balance, lower centers of gravity (generally), etc.
What’s big in America? Drag racing and single turn direction closed track races (Nascar/Indy) vs European Gran Prix / LeMans.
Each is a different culture. Even up until recently, American bike racing was quarter mile drag.
You can credit globalization, wide spread media, and culture shift for popularizing the demand for better performing cars.
So for you to say early american muscle cars ‘kinda suck’ compared to today really has no meaning because the comparison is really not 1-to-1 because the expectations of the automobiles were different.
I was talking about in a practicality sense as well. How many people you know who drag all their way home from Wal-Mart?
The modern day Camaro and Mustang are obviously built for commercial purposes so what you mentioned above is now important and compared Japanese European counterparts bhp per cc is minimal in U.S cars compared to top spec Subarus and Mitsubishi’s.
I do like old school American muscle cars, and respect what they were built for but if your looking to buy a 60’s muscle car to drive today your just causing your self grief as am guessing your guna drive to Wal-Mart and not drag race, and im pretty sure a 67 mustang doesn’t handle like the one in gone in 60 seconds.
This convo started coz of the fast and furious films. Especially in f+f 2 where the muscle races the Jap cars.
I was saying that the jap cars would probs whoop ass.
The film was comparing old school muscle to new school engineering, which is what i did so there is meaning for me to make comparison.
Also, i was talking about making huge engines with sucky hp’s liek the charger 6100c and 425bhp, compared to say a porsche 911 turbo s 3800cc with 500 bhp…? Brain over brawns. The price differance is extreme il give you that but im talking about a cc to bhp ratio here.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I was talking about in a practicality sense as well. How many people you know who drag all their way home from Wal-Mart?
[/quote]
You need to try to understand American muscle car culture of the time before you make a statement like that.
In the 60’s and early 70’s US car companies were offering street-legal (barely), race-ready daily drivers at reasonable prices and affordable for many drivers.
These cars were daily drivers and were race ready at the street light that you encountered after pulling out of the hardware or grocery store. At worst, they were driven to work daily and raced on the back roads (or in town) on the weekends.
It was likely that you were racing with groceries in your trunk if you went the distance to purchase the bigger block, performance suspension, and ram air (or whatever) packages that the manufactures offered-- remember, you could actually order your car by piece back then with any number of combinations.
Hell, even when I was in my teens well after the muscle hey-days of the 60’s (late 80’s/early 90’s) we drove our cars (I rebuilt a 77 Formula Firebird) daily and drove them on the local boulevard (raced lights) and raced them in one of a few ‘drag roads’. Probably ought not have done that looking back…