[cctalk] Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))

On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: A semi-archaic term used in reference to cars defined primarily by power output relative to the average at the time the vehicle was marketed. A semi-archaic term used to describe a car which is designed to handle well at the expense of ride comfort and size. A muscle car was typically relatively good at the quarter mile, but frequently miserable on the track. A sports car frequently was not particularly powerful.  The series one Lotus 7 shipped with a Ford Sidevalve engine rocking in at 36HP, the Series two upgraded to a Ford Kent, initially making...39HP. In the special case of the Mustang, it depends on when you ask the question. The Mustang was literally originally marketed, I kid you not, as a car for secretaries.  As you suggest, it started life as a generation-two Falcon with a body kit (this isn't strictly true, the original 1962 T-5 Mustang was a two seat, mid-engine thing of which I believe two were built).  As initially designed, it was never intended to be a high performance vehicle, although the Falcon chassis actually handled remarkably well for the time.   It was for all intents essentially a parts bin car, using interior, chassis, suspension, and drivetrain components from the Falcon and the Fairlane -- enough so that people trained to build or maintain either of those vehicles could find their way around a Mustang without any real additional training. The original six rocked in at 2.8L making a whopping 101 HP, this was almost immediately replaced by a 3.3L pumping out 120HP; the other option was a 4.3L V8 making a miserable 164HP, followed in the same 1964 1/2 upgrade by a 4.7L grinding out 210HP.  Pretty awful numbers for today, but by the standards of the time, not terribly bad given the use of dizzies and one (for the six) and two barrel carbs; for comparison, the 3.7L I6 in the first generation Camaro made 140HP. Ford wasn't uniquely bad at extracting power from gasoline, but it wasn't until the Mustang-spawned horsepower wars of the later 1960's and very early 1970's that they started to make semi-respectable power. The Series I Mustang is very much a Falcon with a body kit, but despite being sedans, Falcons handled quite well, and with the lighter body of the Mustang was quite respectable.  By the commonly used terms, the series one Mustang was a reasonable sports car, but decidedly not a muscle car.  Move to 1969, the Mustang gets larger and heavier, but the 4.9L V8 is making a more respectable 290HP while the insane 7.0L is cranking out 375 while not materially affecting weight or weight distribution.  The Mustang in now both a muscle car and a sports car.  Of course it was all downhill after that, until emissions regulations required manufacturers to make things run properly and computing power evolved to make it possible. Not sure about that.  We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early 1970's Toyota Corolla.  All sans racks, of course... -- Christian Kennedy, Ph.D. chris(a)mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419 http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97 PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97 "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…"