|
|
Post by cbj5259 on Jul 2, 2013 10:25:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 14:40:13 GMT -5
I was very aware of cars in the early '50's. That was the stone ages compared to now. When the computer came on the scene, everything changed. Technology will continue to accelerate, where what was gained in the past 40/50 years, will be compressed into 2/5 years. A hundred years from now, they'll be asking.............'How did they live like that'? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by impact13 on Jul 5, 2013 7:31:40 GMT -5
My father in law always talks about how the most bad ass muscle cars he grew up with are almost turds compared to what's out there today. I was very surprised to see according to that article the newer V6 took 4 feet longer to stop from 60?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 9:34:00 GMT -5
Given that the brakes are better on the '11, they still can't overcome the difference in weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by impact13 on Jul 5, 2013 19:03:05 GMT -5
I saw it was a few hundred pounds heavier but I really thought between 4 wheel discs & probably larger rotors, and abs would have made up for it
|
|
|
|
Post by jz on Jul 5, 2013 20:21:58 GMT -5
They even commented that the braking distance didn't make sense. Probably a mistake on the 1970 part. I can't believe that 4 wheel disc with ABS would take longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 22:31:32 GMT -5
The guy driving the new Stang probably weighed 350 lbs. and the guy in the '70 weighed in at 120 lbs. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by cbj5259 on Jul 6, 2013 14:38:34 GMT -5
The guy driving the new Stang probably weighed 350 lbs. and the guy in the '70 weighed in at 120 lbs. lol And the guy in the new stang was probably texting or talking while he was driving... |
|
