Jump to content
EUROPAS GROßE
SPORTWAGEN COMMUNITY
LateNightCable

The Amazing 80s' ...

Empfohlene Beiträge

LateNightCable
Erster Beitrag:
Letzter Beitrag:

The 1980s' may look kind of cheesy at first glance, but they had a whole a lot of charictor. There was an irrepressible pop sheen to them that was made for hot cars and big egos. But it was all fun.

6rotmvm.jpg

There was a lot of diversity. We didn't have conglomerate car companies like we have now, who buy up other marks and mold the original charictor right out of them.

miami.jpg

A Bimmer was a Bimmer, a Benz meant quality, a Lambo was no more German than Feruccio himself. And a, Bentley or a Rolls was, well, English.

mvdaytona.jpg

Crockett and Tubbs, chillin' ... 8)

Yeah, those days had a lot of spunk and charictor. Aside from technological advances, I would like to hear everyone's take on how so much charictor, and brand individuality has been lost since those days, or how you think it hasn't.

s6887.jpg

Yo! Whats' happenin' Magnum?

porsche%20rear.jpgcoconut1.jpg

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »
izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

I don't know about the cheesy styles and the crappy fashion rends of the 80's, but the cars were definitely sweet. And the music was good too. In compaison, the 90's were good for cars and music as well, but they had the advantage of being "less cheesy".

jterp
Geschrieben

When i think 80's cars I automatically think underpowered.... coming off the gad crisis and all...

Compared to today's standards nothing from the 80;s is "fast"

They do look cool though..

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

That's not entirely true. The F40, for one, was fast as hell.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

in terms of performance, the porsche 959 has everything the current 911 turbo does.

and it did it all on a smaller engine.

the average chevy or ford might have been lacking in the zoom department, but fast cars were out there.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

To say that the 80's didn't see the arrival of fast cars is a big understatement. I don't know the exact year the 959 was launched, but it was the Carrera GT of that era. The F40, similarly, was a stunner in performance. And there were plenty of lower-price-range cars such as Mustangs and Vettes that had sufficient power and performance. And the M3's were always sweet, whether it was back in the 80's or whenever else. Although the 90's and the new millenium's cars may dwarf the cars of the 80's in performance, I think you still need to rethink that whole argument.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

The 959 competed with F40 like GT to Enzo.

There were cars that went fast cheap, from the us, the Stangs, T-Birds, Gran Nationals, Camaros, Vettes, and Trans Ams. From Japan, you had the 300ZXs (which was as modern a car as you'll find today), RX-7s, Honda Preludes, and MR2s, from europe, the first generation M cars, M1, M3, M5 and M6, all which were very fast and modern cars with performance to give todays fast cars a run for their money, the Jag XJS V12, which was huge, but offset by the equally huge engine under the hood, The Ferrari 328s and 348s, the Countachs, The 80s was the era of the E30, it defined the affordable performance car, and was the symbol of yuppies. There were great cars from the 80s. I'd say there was a bit of a black hole from 77-84 due to US smog regs, but other than that, great cars was as much around as they are today.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

I read an article a while back about 959's finally being imported into the U.S. without the massive redtape of before, the author was also surprised to find the 959 lacking in any low end torque. But it still remains a supercar. I was never attracted to the appearance of it myself.

There is a boring sameness to a lot of todays cars, with more platform and parts sharing than ever before, it's all diluted. With the obvious popularity of SUVs' and " cross-over " vehicles, dedicated sportscar makers, among others have just let their integrity fly out the window in their search for a cheap buck. An automotive marque has always been a commercial entity, but they also each had a very individual personality. Now, it's like it doesn't matter anymore, whatever sells. It's all about increasing market share, and everybody wants to be a CEO these days, I wonder if any decisions are made just because somebody loves cars.

I think there may very well come a time when new cars do not interest me at all. Even if new cars ever become " near perfect ", they will surely lack one very important, but often overlooked ingredient ... Soul.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

I'll have to dispute that, somewhat. I think whatever direction cars of the future may take (and as scary as some of those might be), the cars of the future (if today's concepts are anything to judge them by) can very well end up being relatively better than today's cars. The petrol is in it's twilight years, and once it's gone, the race to find efficient replacement technologies with "soul" may begin and heat up due to the fact that Germany and America are jumping on the bandwagon with superglue on their asses. They're not likely to let go of upcoming opportunities, to become, for example, the first to incorporate and mass-produce reliable and working Hydrogen and electric hybrid vehicles and advanced class-2+ diesels of the future with enough power to at least match the cars of todays. The ideas are endless, and the design directions limitless. If nothing else, we can always rely on competition between different brands and different countries to heat things up and give us good cars. The one thing that I DO think could kill the automobile in the future, is if small but soulful and energetic companies are bought-out by soulless and robotic mass-producing empires such as General Motors. That WOULD INDEED kill the automobile we have come to know and love. But I personally think the car may not be in trouble, with so many surprises in the industry everyday. You never know what tomorrow could bring, but cars will always remain a passion. Car companies of all sizes know this and they will cash in on it 'till the world comes to an end. And that means that we the car-lovers may benefit from this.

To say that the 80's did not have any cool cars and weren't in the fast-lane as much as the 90's or today, is an understatement. The 80's gave rise to many popular rivalries that are still raging on today as heated as ever. If nothing else, the 80's was one of the main reasons behind the auto-industry boom of the 90's, a period of continued non-stop innovation and car-manufacturing that survived past economic woes such as the Gulf war.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

are you kidding, the only reason manufacturers are looking into alternative fuels is because of government requirements. It works best for both the oil companies (who are emmensely powerful) and the automotive industry, that things stay as they are now.

the problem with hydrogen is this, it takes twice as much energy to refine it as it produces when burned. fuel cells are still very expensive, and hydrogen isn't practical because it requires a very high pressure cryongenic tank. I think the best fuel alternative on the horizon may be ethanol for the moment.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

True, but now that they are being required to, they realize they will soon have no choice, and that's why they'll start taking it seriously and once every company has to join in, the companies will begin duking it out, each wanting to get there first and to do it better. The oil companies aren't part of the argument here, because if you want to count them as well, the industry won't go forward in alternative fuels at all. Things will obviously stay as they are now.

We already know it takes twice as much energy to refine and prepare hydrogen as hydrogen gives. Hydrogen is still very new, and needs time. Back in the early days when they first found oil, had they wanted to use it for internal combustion engines they wuld have met with the same cost problem as hydrogen. But with time things improved (as they almost always do). As for ethanol, I personally as in favour of it. If intercooled ethanol-injected diesel/electric hybrids start appearing in large numbers, then that may well be the future. A lot of work has gone into improving petrol engines since they were first made, and not nearly as much work has gone into improving diesels. If the same amount of work DOES go to diesel development and improvement, then the particulate emmission and CO2 problems can be fixed. Mileage is already better for diesels as it is. The price for diesel will also fall, if it goes the way of the petrol. SAme thing can even be said for hydrogen. We'll just have to see which one catches on. It depends a lot on the more influential companies out there.

I'm all for any kind of development in the engine department, and I'll keep my fingers crossed. I choose not to be too much of a nay-sayer.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Aside from alternative fuels, to forget about gas powered cars would be to forget about the very vehicles that made you fall in love with cars.

With globalization of the industry, the individual charictor will never be the same. For genuine individual charictor, I think we will have to turn to independant makers as they pop up. Even if it costs a little more. Sooner or later there will be a plateau where there is no where else to go in terms of design. There are only so many ways to package four wheels and some seats.

I've thought of a little sports car powered by a mid-mounted 130 hp. K1200 BMW 4-cylinder motorcycle engine, with a rienforced paper mache body for low cost, an aluminum frame, and an empty weight of less than 800 lbs. How's it sound?

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

sounds wildly fast, amazing for handling, and wickedly dangerous.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

Yeah it does sound fast.

I don't know about the "gas-powered" car thing. It may have made me fall in love with cars, but it wasn't the type of fuel that mde me fall in love with cars. It was the car itself. Sure, the petrol I.C. engine is interesting, and it's what we've come to know and understand, but it's time for change. I for one would welcome a change to electrical cars, for example. I'd like to own a car that uses both batteries and ultra-capacitors, and draws extra power from a sun-roof fitted with solar-collector panels. I'd like a car that doesn't destroy a planet, while giving almost the same amount of power.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Solar technology is still a little primitive in terms of needing a very great expanse of panels to produce a little " sun fuel ". A lot could be done with just working on very little and cheap city cars, like my motorcycle powered sportscar, and they could be fun as hell to drive!

This may not be practical for cars, but I have been refining a design for a self supporting water engine for some time. I think it would make good torque.

Also, I've always been facinated with the paraplane concept. As a means of air transportation, it holds so much potential; much more than is being used. I envision " air yahts " powered by huge versions of my water engine. You would never have to come down!

Sitting on the deck with a glass of lemonaide, cruising through the sky at 10,000 ft. listening to " I Ran " by A Flock of Seagulls. Living an 80's fantasy. Whoo hoo :P ! Do you ever get into the frame of mind where you feel you could come up with anything? I do.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

I'm always in that frame of mind! :wink:

You nkow, Peugeot had a water-powered concept at one of the 2003 motor shows. I think it was called the H2O. Look into that and see what they did with it.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

1 and a half months later : :wink:

Anyway, where were we? Oh yes.

The Peugout H2O, which is a cute little fire engine by the way, is different than my water engine. Where the H2O has hydrogen and oxygen coming together, triggering a displcemrnt of electrons, my water engine is just plain water pressure.

PorschePlayboy928
Geschrieben
I read an article a while back about 959's finally being imported into the U.S. without the massive redtape of before, the author was also surprised to find the 959 lacking in any low end torque. But it still remains a supercar. I was never attracted to the appearance of it myself.

Me slap.gif Latenight

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Hey, that felt good, do it again :):D .

The 959 was pretty tubby looking compared to the 911. It may have been fast, but to me it didn't look fast. I think the 928 though is a very nice looking car Playboy, if thats' any consolation.

PorschePlayboy928
Geschrieben

I think I read the same article in Excellence. About a year ago they tested a 996TT, 993TT, and 959 (Maybe a single turbo too). Anyway, from what I got while the 959 was super fast for the day, the 996 is a much better car to drive on the street/track. After seeing a few in person, I think it does kind of look on the plump side, but I would still take one in a second!

I think the 928 though is a very nice looking car Playboy, if thats' any consolation
That made my day!
PorschePlayboy928
Geschrieben

LateNightCable

gold6.gif

Posts: 914

I think your trying to say your a Porsche lover (post count) :o

Like the new sig

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

no real porsche lover loved 914

PorschePlayboy928
Geschrieben
no real porsche lover loved 914

lol. how can you say that? A 914 is a real car in the hands of a skilled driver. I would love to have one for auto-x and the track!

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

it might just be me, but i found them ugly, inimpressive, and too much of a half-assed attempt. Interesting to note, the man who designed the 914 later went on to be the CEO of VW.

izzyloveslizzy
Geschrieben

I'm not surprised; you're also not too fond of the 928, 968, or 944. Right?

LateNight, yeah you're right about that "H2O" thing. Sorry I got my stories mixed-up! :P

Erstelle ein Benutzerkonto oder melde dich an

Du musst ein Benutzerkonto haben, um einen Kommentar verfassen zu können

Benutzerkonto erstellen

Erstelle ein neues kostenloses Benutzerkonto.

Jetzt registrieren

Anmelden

Bereits Mitglied? Melde dich hier an.

Bereits registriert?


×