-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
best car of 80's votes
- Thread starter 1980'slover
- Start date
i once had the idea to buy one but they cost $25,000
Does the yellow one have a Flux Capacitor?
vintaggeman
Well-Known Member
:lmao::lmao:
Doctordirt
Silence is Broken
Buick GNX
Sorry 'bout that. I am a "car guy",not an english teacher. The spelling of "Camaro" is a touchy subject with Camaro owners. I have better things to worry about than --> ' <-- that ****.
No ITS not a fricken Camero.
electroking
a- v- karma member
1987 Toyota Camry, 5-speed (first year with the 16 valve engine)
Owned the car from 1988 to 2002, got it from 18260 km (yes, I still remember
the mileage after 20 years), to about 339000 km, sold it in October and
I heard it died the following spring.
I don't believe the 2002 Corolla that replaced it will go as far (it's true
I drive much less than I used to)...
Owned the car from 1988 to 2002, got it from 18260 km (yes, I still remember
the mileage after 20 years), to about 339000 km, sold it in October and
I heard it died the following spring.
I don't believe the 2002 Corolla that replaced it will go as far (it's true
I drive much less than I used to)...
Panteraguy
New Member
... and let's not forget the '89 Porsche 930!!! It could really outrun those Cameros!!! 
... and let's not forget the '89 Porsche 930!!! It could really outrun those Cameros!!!
The '89 Porsche had a 1/4 mile time of 13.6 and a top speed of 162mph.
Which Camaro are you talking about? Everyone knows GM was limited by the EPA in the 80's and wasn't interested in building exotic engined models to compete with Porche. However there was the rare/exotic Yenko Camaro that was capable of out accelerating a 930 Porche easily, but I wouldn't recommend doing 160mph with that suspension.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The 98-02 Camaro Z28/SS had a 1/4 mile time of 13.0 and a top speed of 164mph. By 1989 standards, this is an exotic engined sports car.
These are stock specs as delivered from the factory. Mine is FAR from stock.
Maybe you should check your facts first and maybe catch up on your musclecar knowledge. They didn't stop building them in the 70's.
Panteraguy
New Member
jbrainey, I wasn't trying to piss you off..... just being playful. In my experience, most of us "car guys" like to mess with anyone that has different car interst than the one we have.
Oh Please! You haven't said anything to piss me off. I have been around and driving muscle cars since '73 and I love to talk cars.
By the way, welcome to AK and nice Delorean you have there.
Panteraguy
New Member
:wave:
OK! and take good care of that Camero!:wave:
Oh Please! You haven't said anything to piss me off. I have been around and driving muscle cars since '73 and I love to talk cars.
By the way, welcome to AK and nice Delorean you have there.
OK! and take good care of that Camero!:wave:
i just love muscle cars
ShaneC
Super Member
At least the Fiero has the engine in the right place (and that nasty tendency to catch on fire).
MR2 for the win! I miss my lil' 85. (and the '91, but making due w/ the '03).
Anywho - I'm gonna say the 1989 Supercharged MR2. T-Tops and a 5spd preferably.
i think the 89' nissan 300zx turbo was cool which had an digital dash like the 1984 nissan 300zx
I had an 85 Chrysler Laser identical to the pic below.
It had a 2.2L turbo engine. I remember the TV commercial
that Darth Vader did for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si0fIW2iIug
It had a 2.2L turbo engine. I remember the TV commercial
that Darth Vader did for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si0fIW2iIug
Attachments
My vote would be for the 82 Caprice (not quite sure on the year)... GM screwed up the paint from the factory and so put a hidden lifetime warranty on the tha paint for as long as the original owner had the car. It also had a power train problem so another hidden warranty was put on the engine giving the original owner engines for the life of the car. So as long the original owners kept it on the road you could have a new paint job and engine every couple of years........ of course why would you.....
Just as a side note since I saw the Fiero mentioned above....
By 86 GM had the engine problem resolved (if you got below 4 qts of oil the engine might catch fire) so those made after that were actually pretty good cars and because of their design you could by several kits and completely redesign the sheet metal. The biggest problem with that car is that it was introduced as the pace car at the Indy 500 which gave people the impression it was a sports car. It was in fact intended to be one of GM's first attempts at producing a small economical commuter vehicle. Marketing and the initial engine problem doomed a car that could have been something.
Just as a side note since I saw the Fiero mentioned above....
By 86 GM had the engine problem resolved (if you got below 4 qts of oil the engine might catch fire) so those made after that were actually pretty good cars and because of their design you could by several kits and completely redesign the sheet metal. The biggest problem with that car is that it was introduced as the pace car at the Indy 500 which gave people the impression it was a sports car. It was in fact intended to be one of GM's first attempts at producing a small economical commuter vehicle. Marketing and the initial engine problem doomed a car that could have been something.
I have to disagree (slightly) With Fast Eddie. Supra Mk. 2 ('82-'86). Near-perfect weight dist., reasonable kerb weight, and unbreakable powertrain. The Mk. 3 was far too porky, it put on 500 lb. Today, guys are using the Turbo in the Mk. 2 putting down 400+ bhp. They're quicker and outhandle a Mk.3. My '87 Cressie 5-speed gets honorable mention. My four-door Sup. but I miss My '85 Sup sumpin' terrible. :tears: My '85 Celica GTS is a poor substitiute.
Similar threads
