Dodge Charger Daytona vs Honda Odyssey

[1969chargerrtse]

I got 2 things out of that.  1). Are you kidding me, put the two of them on the oval track for what the Daytona was built for.    2) Man, I want to build a Daytona clone real real bad.    No really.

[Rolling_Thunder]

hmmmm...    I'de run my charger against that mini-van when its done...       

[pettybird]

I got 2 things out of that.  1). Are you kidding me, put the two of them on the oval track for what the Daytona was built for.   

You know, I'd put some space on the van, then back off from the sound of my 3.54/3.55 geared cars screaming for mercy, while the van trucks along at whatever speed it can muster in overdrive...

For those crying foul with the test, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords ran a 68 GT390 against a new bodied GT and the new one flat out murdered the '68. 


New>old.  End of story.

[Ghoste]

A new Mustang is a helluva lot different than a Honda minivan.

[Charger1973]

i drove it out to the track and just handed the keys to the show promoter and left

You're insane... 

[pettyfan43]

I got 2 things out of that.  1). Are you kidding me, put the two of them on the oval track for what the Daytona was built for.   

You know, I'd put some space on the van, then back off from the sound of my 3.54/3.55 geared cars screaming for mercy, while the van trucks along at whatever speed it can muster in overdrive...

For those crying foul with the test, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords ran a 68 GT390 against a new bodied GT and the new one flat out murdered the '68. 


New>old.  End of story.

I don't know that I exactly agree with that last line, you are talking nearly 40 years of evolution in cars between those Mustangs.  But that is HARDLY the end of story.

When you apply some of what has been learned from suspension and tire technology and apply it to a 40 year old Car, you REALLY CAN do a LOT with them!

Mike (NYCMille) proved that with what he accomplished on BullRun with Mr Angry.   "New>old. End of story." I really don't think so. It just takes a little old fashioned Hot Rod ingenuity!  Besides all things being equal, I'd rather have the 68 Mustang than the new one!

I think the surface has only been scratched with what can be done with an old musclecar if someone is wiling to take the time to do it.

[pettybird]

OK break down what you said.

Mr Angry came with its original suspension.  It was replaced and now it's a LOT better.  Therefore, new>old. 

If you want a minivan which will beat EVERY old Dodge in that type of event, look up the Renault l'Espace F1. 



The point of the program was to show just how far every day cars have come in technology, not to embarrass an ill handling whale of a car (there are THREE of those whales here--I stand by that.)

Are you happier with "what's available now>what was available then, end of story--" would that make you happier?


And go DRIVE a new Mustang.  They're awesome!

[69_500]

I'm going to assume that there was a post that was removed between those last two post you made Doug?

I agree it hard to think that any car from now wouldn't out corner even what was considered a good handling car from 40 years ago. If they didn't then I'd meerly say that the new engineers didn't do enough homework to see what works and what doesn't work. The same can be said about cars from 40 years ago vs cars from 80 years ago. Take a car from the late 60's against even a modified car from the 20's and run them. The passenger car from the 60's would out perform the car from the 20's if this whole ordeal was set up back in the 60's.

[pettybird]

Nah--no post missing.  You got the point, though.   

[pettyfan43]

OK break down what you said.

Mr Angry came with its original suspension.  It was replaced and now it's a LOT better.  Therefore, new>old. 

If you want a minivan which will beat EVERY old Dodge in that type of event, look up the Renault l'Espace F1. 



The point of the program was to show just how far every day cars have come in technology, not to embarrass an ill handling whale of a car (there are THREE of those whales here--I stand by that.)

Are you happier with "what's available now>what was available then, end of story--" would that make you happier?


And go DRIVE a new Mustang.  They're awesome!

Man all I am saying is put the vehicles on EQUAL FOOTING. And I would STILL rather have the OLD Mustang, any clown with good credit can go BUY a new one, just like a new Challenger or Charger. I'd rather have Mr Angry than either one of those as well. THAT is why I said "New>old end of story" ISN'T end of story.  Sorry if me disagreeing with you offends you, I didn't mean to. Just because it is shiny and new with all the bells and whistles doesn't make it greater than an old one.

I would rather have a car with PERSONALITY than something someone can just go and buy.  "New>old end of story" is your personal opinion because of your view of the cars, I just don't agree. 

Gimme a Curious Yellow 71 Challenger R/T with a nice 340 or 440+6, and you can keep the new one, bells and whistles or not, no matter HOW awesome it is. And I DO like the new ones, just NOT as much as I like the original.

Just my nickel's worth.

[Ghoste]

Ah yes, but how do you feel about Honda Odyssey's? 

[pettybird]

You know, I had originally had a "I'm not trying to ruffle feathers" disclaimer, but I thought, nah, it's not necessary...

New>old TECHNOLOGY.  I'm not sure why you don't quite catch that?

You want more "equal" for your contest?  Run that Honda against an A-100.  Run a '69 vette against a new Z06.  What do you think the outcome would be?  Hell--run the Daytona against the '86 Pontiac 2+2 (the last real NASCAR cheater body) with its crapass 160hp 305 and now 30 year old chassis.

I'm not debating which cars have more personality, or which you or I like better, but that new>old TECHNOLOGY.  You MIGHT need one entire hand to count the number of people with more seat time in wing cars than us this year--it's not that I don't get the "personality" thing.  My newest car is a '94 Mustang GT droptop.  We have seven cars here that either can or do wear antique plates.  The only things we have that are old and can still keep up with the Odysseys of the world are a couple old Porsches, but it would be laughable to suggest that in factory trim that they could possibly beat a new 911.


What you are arguing is that , technology be damned, the old cars should be allowed to use modern stuff 'cause you like the old ones better.  The purpose of the segment, the gist of my argument is that technology has come a LONG way since the 60's.  That's all. 


And stick one of those new, 'any ass can buy one' 'stangs in a four-wheel drift, all while effortlessly controlling it with the throttle, and tell me there's no personality in there somewhere.  I'd love a new one, but my '94 suits me fine for now.   





How do I feel about an Odyssey?  I'd rather have a Kia Sedona...longer warranty, cheaper...

Oh, and I'd rather have my leg shredded in a threshing machine than either.  No kids yet

[pettyfan43]

i think you are taking what I am saying the wrong way. I'm not trying to tic you off, I just have a different opinion is all.  I can't understand why that is such a big deal.

Merry Christmas, sorry I didn't mean to make ya mad. But ya know it is still a free country and I am as much entitled to my opinion as you are.  That is all any of this is, is opinion.

My feathers aren't ruffled but apparently yours are. Sorry that isn't what I intended. 

[BigBlackDodge]

I'm going to assume that there was a post that was removed between those last two post you made Doug?

I agree it hard to think that any car from now wouldn't out corner even what was considered a good handling car from 40 years ago. If they didn't then I'd meerly say that the new engineers didn't do enough homework to see what works and what doesn't work. The same can be said about cars from 40 years ago vs cars from 80 years ago. Take a car from the late 60's against even a modified car from the 20's and run them. The passenger car from the 60's would out perform the car from the 20's if this whole ordeal was set up back in the 60's.

It's all relative.


BBD

[pettybird]

Pettyfan, I have NO idea what your argument is.  I'm not upset--really--but you first argued for fairness, then said that the old cars should use technology not of its era, and then that the old car is better 'cause it's cooler.

What am I missing?


I state that the technology in new cars is far superior to the technology of cars from 30-40 years ago.  I like the oldies, too...in short bursts...

After Power Tour, it felt REALLY good to just loaf around in my Ranger pickup.  Kudos to those who use old cars as transportation exclusively.

[pettyfan43]

Pettyfan, I have NO idea what your argument is.  I'm not upset--really--but you first argued for fairness, then said that the old cars should use technology not of its era, and then that the old car is better 'cause it's cooler.

What am I missing?


I state that the technology in new cars is far superior to the technology of cars from 30-40 years ago.  I like the oldies, too...in short bursts...

After Power Tour, it felt REALLY good to just loaf around in my Ranger pickup.  Kudos to those who use old cars as transportation exclusively.

Ya know how sometimes ya try to say something, and the words just WON'T come out right?  Well I think I have figured out the misunderstanding.

When you said that new was better than old and END OF STORY, I took it to mean, there was nothing you could do with an old car to make it comparable to a new one.
So my response was that you can make the old car just as capable as the new one, if you are willing to spend the time and money to do that, and a car like Mr Angry is proof of that.
And I think my signals got crossed because what I was trying to say, is that I would FAR prefer to build that 68 Mustang you were talking about than to buy a new one. BUT I have a real soft spot for those, I had at one time, a Turquoise 67  GT.

To me it is a lot cooler to build something like the 67 Mustang/68 Charger/71 Challenger, than to go buy a new one. I much prefer the looks and personality of an original than a car that was meant to be a copy.

Don't get me wrong, I like the new Mustang, just not enough to plunk down cash to buy one, I really like the Challenger in PICTURES, I just would have to see one.

I think we were going in two different directions.

AND it is REALLY hard to distinguish "tone" on a message board. I TOOK your "tone" to be that of aggravation, sorry, no harm meant.

Does that make more sense? Sometimes I can tell you things much better by voice than trying to type it out.  But then I'm kinda goofy!

[pettybird]

The thing I'm most relieved about, reading the first line of your last post, is that you aren't going to buy me jewelry   


I think we got it together now, though.


The car I'd most like to pro tour/whatever is an early Cougar.  I love those things, and you can do everything to those that you can to a Mustang.  You know how people get all misty eyed over the general lee?  I'm the same way with Diana Rigg's Cougar droptop in 'on her majesty's secret service.'

[pettyfan43]

I had a buddy that had a 69 CJ 428 4 Speed Eliminator, Yellow, I REALLY REALLY liked that thing, and he sold it and I had NO CLUE he was going to! REALLY Wish I had!


Hey, what's wrong with that sentence?!?!?!?!?!     Besides you aren't my type, I'd never buy you jewelry!!!

[pettybird]

Haven't you heard those stupid jewelry commercials that say, more or less, that if you can't get the words out right, but her a diamond to show her how you feel?


WOW on 428/4 speed.  those are ungodly rare...

[moparstuart]

Haven't you heard those stupid jewelry commercials that say, more or less, that if you can't get the words out right, but her a diamond to show her how you feel?


WOW on 428/4 speed.  those are ungodly rare...

I would butter you up ,by buying you diamonds  dougy