I don't get along with rice boys (girls)

Yay!!!

I have to say I believe that is one of the best stories I've ever heard!!! :bananaman

 

What about all the customized vans from the 70's. Car shows used to be full of them.

 

no, i have no "hp" stickers if you wanna c here is my car.

www.cardomain.com/id/dougiefizzle

 

Although I am well aware that there are cars that a Maverick will never handle as good as, I will take on a 280-Z through the twisties any day of the week. I am not impressed with the handling of those cars. Some of the best handling "production" cars ever built happen to be the 3rd-generation Camaro and Firebird. Those are not exactly world-class cars and do not cost world-class money. A Maverick or Mustang can be modified to keep up with them. I fully expect a car costing $75,000 to $200,000 to out-handle a Maverick, regardless of the modifications. But when comparing "apples to apples", I stick to my original statement...

 

You've got to remember you are talking about 30 years of engineering advances...does anyone remember the "computer controlled carbs" of the early eighties?? Ican still remember the day my father bought a new 1990 escort pony only option was an auto 1.9 litre he hands me the keys and says he'll see me at home ... I beat the snot out of it on the way home from the dealer and I swear this thing was almost as fast as my 74 grabber ...now my daily driver is a 2000 300m this thing makes 255 horse v-6 and it'll rev to its redline of 7 grand just by mashing the throttle to th floor before shifting...it's all relative a new car in 71 $2,000 now abasic beater 12-15,000 ...175 hp 4banger (at the rear wheels)as opossed to 138hp v-8 at the flywheel I feel that's amazing...the are all cool but the atitudes could use an"atitude adjustment even when I was younger I was happy to be able to keep up with a new vette but i knew my place that in the end he ld eat me alive....."can't we all just get along?....besides Turbos are coming down now Ive always wanted to do a small-block turbo.

 

T.L. you name the place and we will see how our 280z does against a mav with similar mods. We road race both our Skyline and the 280z and both can definitely hold their own. The 280z was used in Europe and is still used today in rally races. Personally not liking their handling is a matter of personal opinion but to bad mouth them in general is unfair. Skylines do not cost 75,000 to 200,000 either. Neither do WRX's. Is a Viper, Porsche, High end BMW going to handle better than a mav or a z, yes but we're not talking about those cars.

 

I have a couple of those old magazines as well, one compares the size of the Maverick to a VW bug and some Datsun hatchback. When I first talked about fixing up my Mav I got hell from a lot of local motorhead telling me it was a waste of time, I should fix up a Mustang or a Camaro like every other person in my area. I think our cars were the domestic "rice" of the 70's with the option on neon stripes and, non funcioning hood scoops, and yes, even a rear "wing", and even in many instances underpowered in stock form. I almost chickened out and went the Stang route until my friend picked up a 67 Mustang with a 200 inline six, with an automatic... We were both in highschool at the time, and the insurance on his car, was ridiculous just because it was a Mustang. then there was my Maverick, pretty much the same setup at the time, costing me a quarter to insure than his slow ride. Score one for the Maverick! from that time on, I did my mods, taking my licks from the "cooler car owners". but now, since I held onto it, and fixed it the way I like, they are harder to come by and I have younger kids and older folks as well saying how cool it is, and how they don't see many of them around. I'm glad I stuck it out. and now It will be borderline obnoxious when the Windsor gets dropped in!

 

so am is till considered a ricer for owning a jap car?

 

There are two problems with that statement. First: it's not 138 at the flywheel, but rather 138 at the rear wheels, and second: That 175hp 4-banger doesn't make anywhere near the torque of the 138hp V-8. The torque is what's gonna move the car. The 175hp numper is almost meaningless when comparing the power output of the two engines...

 

I wasn't bad-mouthing them in general, just the handling. The topic here turned from speed to handling, and for a car that's supposed to be a "sports car", something the Maverick was never originally intended to be, I am not at all impressed with the handling of the 280-Z. I am fully confident that my Maverick can hang in with your 280-Z in the curves. That is not saying that your 280-Z sucks or anything, I'm only referring to that one aspect of it. There is no way I could hang with a later model 'Vette, a Viper, or exotic sports car. My Maverick does not exhibit world-class handling at all, but it handles quite good for a Maverick. Again, I'll take on a 'Z' any day...

 

But Mavericks and Comets are "pretty"

What it boils down to is this: Hondas, even suped up decked out Hondas are ugly little turds of cars. Old Detroit iron on the other hand, even if beaten up and languishing in a junkyard, are generally candy to the eyes Why throw your money into a turd when you can buy candy instead?

 

I think the popularity of the ricers is in how little they sell for on the used car market. They are generally bought by younger folks, who don't have the income to buy and restore a classic muscle car. I have a 20yr old, and he says when he gets a car, it will have to be something like a Honda, Mitsubishi, or Mazda, if for nothing else, so he can afford to put gas in it. And, I guess you fix up what you have, and can afford. I don't like the little cars personally, and hate the "elephant fart" exhaust and wings, but hey, they can do what they want with them.

 

Yes torque gets you there and hp keeps you therebut again with factory "4.11's"
for the four and its stock ability to rev to 6-7000 where 2.79 3.00 and approx 5000 rpm valve float that difference is almost mute..... I'm pretty sure that in 74 it was at the flywheel not the rear although I could be wrong it has happened once or twice before:confused: either way the ricers are not any different than us at that age ...you do what you can with what you got

 

Grabber-1, well said. We all have our preferences and have budgets in which to work within. At least we all have a strong opinion about what we like

 

Here is the engine horse power ratings in 1974 for Mavericks/Comets, these numbers are at the rear wheels.

200 - 1 bbl - 84 Horsepower
250 - 1 bbl - 88-93 Horsepower
302 - 2 bbl - 137-138 Horsepower