I don't care if you think it's ugly (I personally think it's bad-ass), this is one bad mofo.

For around $23k, you too can have a Getrag 6-speed, turbocharged, 2.4L, producing 285 horsepower and 265 ft.-lbs. of torque, 19" wheels, and it even has a functional hood scoop. Sure it weighs 3,100 lbs., but maybe SVT should be taking a few pointers from SRT. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS FORD!

(Just my opinion, but if they would have made the wheels and headlight black...that would have REALLY set it off.)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/dazada/caliber_srt4.jpg

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/dazada/20070822-dodge-caliber-srt4.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/dazada/CARmageddon1576.jpg

wow....yea love the powertrain and love the front end (the hood makes it).....theres something about the rear though....too many ledges/edges or somethin....

If you didn't catch the Neon SRT, this would the perfect choice.

I drove the Caliber once and I was very impressed.

Take a look at this SRT family video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MlD3Va1OQbk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tmhlStv1IPw

If you didn't catch the Neon SRT, this would the perfect choice.

I drove the Caliber once and I was very impressed.

Take a look at this test:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MlD3Va1OQbk

Blasphemy!!!! It's the SRT-4, not "Neon"! Shame on you! The sport-compact gods frown upon this trechary! Herectic! Herectic! Herectic!

Blasphemy!!!! It's the SRT-4, not "Neon"! Shame on you! The sport-compact gods frown upon this trechary! Herectic! Herectic! Herectic!

lol

Well here's a test. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xFhmcVKeNqs

lol

Well here's a test. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xFhmcVKeNqs

Cool video. 13.5" brake rotors?!

gorgeous front end. and agreed, blacked out headlights and tails, along with some simple black rims with a chrome lip...yeah. i really like that. just based on looks alone, that climbs towards the top of the sports compact list in my mind.

a neon is a neon is a neon

just like vtec is still a honda

to me it resembles a lowered minivan. i've always disagreed with dodge's styling...and i continue too.

It'll handle like the small SUV that it is...

I too like it, and it may possibly be my next vehicle. The one thing that pulls me to it more then the mazdaspeed3 is that it's made in the USA. I've seen 2 mules running around and the one I was trying to screw with, blew my doors off from a highway speeds go.

It'll handle like the small SUV that it is...

Amen to that brother. If I wanted to look ridiculous, I'd rather have this stormtrooper edition Avenger...... and I'm sure you would to Dazada!!!

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/auto_shows/2007_sema/7234994/0710_04_z+2007_dodge_avenger_stormtrooper_concept+front_view.jpg

The rest of the pics can be viewed here.....http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/2007_sema/0710_2007_dodge_avenger_stormtrooper_concept/photo_01.html

i'd roll in either...

i'd take that avenger over an srt4 caliber.. i like my cars to look like, well, cars!! the caliber is more of a crossover IMO....
and yes, the original SRT4, even if dodge tried to say it's not a neon..it's still a neon.. a fast one, but a neon nonetheless

Blasphemy!!!! It's the SRT-4, not "Neon"! Shame on you! The sport-compact gods frown upon this trechary! Herectic! Herectic! Herectic!

A neon is a neon LOL! just liek the svt focus is still a focus!

does this one have power windows in front and rollies in the back ?LOL

The style is too Tekken for me.....far to many trapezoidal shapes. It reminds me of trapper keepers from the 80's with all the geometrical shapes.

I love stormtroopers.

i love star wars, and kirby.

i would roll it, but i would immediately slam it to the ground. if the caliber srt sat nice n low it would look much better.

I drove one, they have horrible torque steer of the line, and do not hook up well, esp when dipping into a sharp turn. NO where close to the way any focus handles.

I would take a MazdaSpeed3 over this ugly thing any day. Not only because of looks, but because of handling and a lighter weight.

Blasphemy!!!! It's the SRT-4, not "Neon"! Shame on you! The sport-compact gods frown upon this trechary! Herectic! Herectic! Herectic!



Its a neon.

im prety sure the srt-4 neon had the exact same suspension as the original, just rear sics, right? never looked, id assume tho, whereas the focus and svt have 2 different suspension components and nicer interiors, the reg axt and srt had power up front and manual in the rear lol

i like the caliber my uncle has one, and its asleek lookin car, the srt version would be badass

im prety sure the srt-4 neon had the exact same suspension as the original, just rear sics, right? never looked, id assume tho, whereas the focus and svt have 2 different suspension components and nicer interiors, the reg axt and srt had power up front and manual in the rear lol

i like the caliber my uncle has one, and its asleek lookin car, the srt version would be badass

The caliber has some awesome features, cooling glovebox, great stereo, comfortable seating for normal drivers, lots of room, lighted cupholders, and a removable lamp in the rear for outings. It is extremely practical but the SRT-4 fails to compare to the SRT-4 neon because it's lacking in sheer performance layout.

I think the caliber srt is a decent bang for the buck but I'd rather take a HHR SS if I were to get that kind of ride. It just looks better to me.

i wish ford would pull there ass out of there heads

The new SRT-4 is too tall, the wheels are too big, and it doesn't have a LSD (a computer applying the brakes is not a substitute).

It's the same platform as the patriot and compass, the compromises built in to make those vehicles limits the SRT-4's potential.

The only problem with Dodge that I always had must be the cheap plastic assembly and the electric system.

i wish ford would pull there ass out of there heads
LOL[:)~]

Sweetness.. Although Im through with Getrag... Ive had so much trouble with mine...

did someone say that it needed a drop??!?! how about heads and tails?
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b214/scrammer/20070822-dodge-caliber-srt4.jpg

That front end looks HUGE. I think it's terrible...


Plus just like the Neon it's all for going in a straight line.

I just wish Dodge would just stop with the Viper-esque carryover styling cues already. That design is out like chain wallets....lol

did someone say that it needed a drop??!?! how about heads and tails?
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b214/scrammer/20070822-dodge-caliber-srt4.jpg

now if it would only stop looking like the 94 caravan i was rocking in high school.. um, yeah, it was dropped too.
when did sport compact cars stop looking like cars? oh.. and when did they stop being compact??

^
When Chrysler decided they were supposed to look like mini-SUVs...

I mean, they must've figured that since full-size SUVs sell so well that small ones would too.

oh yay, Torque steer machine. It can die, I'll get a mustang

i wish ford would pull there ass out of there heads

[rofl] nice.

I was seriously looking at getting a new Caliber last week, the thing that got me was the Lifetime drivetrain warranty. I'm looking because my chevys transmission died for the second time now. [xx(]

Ended up with an 05 focus though, got a killer deal, and I always liked the look of the thing, even if the Mazda3 is supposed to be sportier.

I've heard nothing but bad reviews so far, which doesn't surprise me in the least.

I would be utterly shocked if a bog-standard ZX3 wouldn't beat it on an Autocross or even a technical road course. Matching it up to an SVT in any contest that involves more than minor curves would simply be a joke. It's an understeering, wheelspinning minivan with a bodykit.

It is good for 2 things. Impressing people who only care about BHP and highway acceleration.

Whelp... I encourage anyone that likes the new SRT-4 to purchase it. I also look forward to the Darwin Effect to take place.

The new SRT-4 is too tall, the wheels are too big, and it doesn't have a LSD (a computer applying the brakes is not a substitute).

It's the same platform as the patriot and compass, the compromises built in to make those vehicles limits the SRT-4's potential.

Can you name another tire that comes in 225/45R19? I bet that will run a pretty penny...

If anyone is in the market for this... just think a little bit and realize that the Mazdaspeed3 is a much better buy. Not just for the tire size.

I've heard nothing but bad reviews so far, which doesn't surprise me in the least.

I would be utterly shocked if a bog-standard ZX3 wouldn't beat it on an Autocross or even a technical road course. Matching it up to an SVT in any contest that involves more than minor curves would simply be a joke. It's an understeering, wheelspinning minivan with a bodykit.

It is good for 2 things. Impressing people who only care about BHP and highway acceleration.

Hear hear!!! Good to see your still around, my man!

I wish we could compare an SVTf on that track... see if we can have a touge battle, too.

If you want a turbo mini-van, they made those- with manual transmissions too. With a Super 60 turbo upgrade kit, it's not very hard to get 300+hp out of a old 2.2L SOHC. It would cost a lot less than 23k- and maybe handle better- LOL.

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/08/mustanggt07_01.jpg

why not just put out 2,000 xtra and get a really car not a mini van that wishs it was a car. one that is nice has a big engine and goes reasonably fast. and i know there are going to be those who say that the mustang sucks but most of the people that say have never owned one or they owned one and treated it like crap. i would go with this it is a better deal.

^^I don't think that they are going for the same market share. The person who wants performance but needs the space and convenience of a 4 door/ hatch is who they are competing for. If your lifestyle is conducive to a 2-door sportscar, you porbably wouldn't be considering the Caliber and vise versa.

i doesnt look that bad and realize guys...we drive ford focus's what makes us the cream of the crop i mean i like our cars better than a calibar but neon srt4s WERE badass cars.

i doesnt look that bad and realize guys...we drive ford focus's what makes us the cream of the crop i mean i like our cars better than a calibar but neon srt4s WERE badass cars.

Absolutely. [woot]

just like the SRT4 neon this POS is just fat turd with a big turbo.

they are fast in a straight line but you throw one curve in the picture and your wheelspinning and understeering into the gravel traps.

plus 0-60 in ONLY 6 seconds. thats kinda pathetic seeing as tho you have a good part of 300 hp pulling you along. svts have 170 BHP and do 0-60 in just a hair over 7 seconds.

all SRTs are a pile of poop IMO. dodges styling is just beyond me.

If you must buy a Chrysler product why go half way...

http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/large/90250_srt8.charger.web.jpg

If you must buy a Chrysler product why go half way...

http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/large/90250_srt8.charger.web.jpg

yeah i agree

here is jeremy clarkstons (the imfamous TOP GEAR host) humble opinion on the car. i know its of the 300C but for those of you that dont know THEY ARE THE SAME CAR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8maP4CB1Nk

yeah i agree

here is jeremy clarkstons (the imfamous TOP GEAR host) humble opinion on the car. i know its of the 300C but for those of you that dont know THEY ARE THE SAME CAR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8maP4CB1Nk

That was sweet.

Whether you love it or hate it, at least the rest of the domestic automakers are listening and trying. It's hard to hear what people want when you have your head shoved as far up your ass as Ford does.

i like the fact you can get an all wheel drive version with the 5.7 hemi. a v8 with massive torque and all wheel drive to boot. i love it

I can't say I like it too much. I don't generally like too many crossovers. I can't stand the front end, and the rear looks strange. I think it's plenty quick though. It must brake like a dream also. I was starting to like Dodge for a while, but the Caliber, automatic only top of the line Avenger, 4 door Charger that looks pretty wierd kind of ruined them for me.

...i like our cars better than a calibar but neon srt4s WERE badass cars.

I must disagree with you at this point completely. They were high powered POSs. Way too softly sprung, horrific interior, ancient chassis, and so much body roll that you felt like you could reach out the window and touch the pavement mid-corner.

I did test drive one, deciding that I should give this whole "turbo" thing another honest try. Definitely had power, but it wasn't overwhelming. Threw it into an S-curve that my SVTF would have been a blast to drive through and it turned into a wallowing mess. Without another word to the salesman I turned around in the first drive I could and drove it back to the dealer.

If that's the experience I really wanted, I could just go buy an old Camaro or 5.0 Stang and at least have the traction of RWD.

Dodge is all about point and shoot.

I do have to say that my wife and I rented a Chrysler 300 and drove it from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon. I thought that it was a comfortable highway car.

I must disagree with you at this point completely. They were high powered POSs. Way too softly sprung, horrific interior, ancient chassis, and so much body roll that you felt like you could reach out the window and touch the pavement mid-corner.

I did test drive one, deciding that I should give this whole "turbo" thing another honest try. Definitely had power, but it wasn't overwhelming. Threw it into an S-curve that my SVTF would have been a blast to drive through and it turned into a wallowing mess. Without another word to the salesman I turned around in the first drive I could and drove it back to the dealer.

If that's the experience I really wanted, I could just go buy an old Camaro or 5.0 Stang and at least have the traction of RWD.

The Kia Rio in this vid appears to shoot through the slalom with more stability than the SRT-4. Watch for the STi at the end. [thumb]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKoSaoBu0mU&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKoSaoBu0mU&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I must disagree with you at this point completely. They were high powered POSs. Way too softly sprung, horrific interior, ancient chassis, and so much body roll that you felt like you could reach out the window and touch the pavement mid-corner.

I did test drive one, deciding that I should give this whole "turbo" thing another honest try. Definitely had power, but it wasn't overwhelming. Threw it into an S-curve that my SVTF would have been a blast to drive through and it turned into a wallowing mess. Without another word to the salesman I turned around in the first drive I could and drove it back to the dealer.

If that's the experience I really wanted, I could just go buy an old Camaro or 5.0 Stang and at least have the traction of RWD.

The Kia Rio in this vid appeares to shoot through the slalom with more stability than the SRT-4. Watch for the STi at the end. [thumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKoSaoBu0mU

yeah the rio was alot more stable and poised, no drama like the SRT4 which was just understeering like a cat high on catnip turning on linolium

^^^good one.

Its a nice try, but I think they really missed it with this one. Like others said, its just has alot of power and alot of cargo room. They should of put less power into the thing, made it alittle nicer looking and stiffened the chassie a bit so it handles better. Make it tunable though so if someone wants alot of power they can get it.

For that price give me alot of things...MS3, Volvo C30, New Cobalt SS. Id choose those before I bought the caliber.

Yeah, it may be fast in its crude Mopar way. It may have "way kewl" stuff like air conditioned glove box and pull-down tailgate speakers for inflicting your taste in music upon everyone within a mile radius, but it STILL is ugly as a wheel barrow full of rectums.

its fat. it has 285 horses at the crank but the base model weighs 3200lbs. a fully loaded one (cooling compartment, flip speakers) with all the crap would have to push toward the 34-3500 lbs range. thats nearly 1000 lbs heavier than the svt. and a good rule of thumb is for every 100lbs is a tenth of a second in a drag race. plus the interior is crap. ill keep my 2 tone leather heated seats and my svt styling. also you have to keep in mind the thing has 19 inch wheels. i wonder how much those weigh? yes it has big brakes... but its heavy so its not going to stop any shorter than a svt either. it probobly will outrun an svt stock for stock in a standing quarter mile but i bet it wouldnt be by much. slap a precision turbo kit on the svt and look for around 250hp to the wheels in a car that weighs a ton less and has a ton better suspension and you have a car thats way better than the srt. not to mention its still a car, not a van/suv.

The shyt is tight. Trying to get my wife to want one!!

Amen to that brother. If I wanted to look ridiculous, I'd rather have this stormtrooper edition Avenger...... and I'm sure you would to Dazada!!!

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/auto_shows/2007_sema/7234994/0710_04_z+2007_dodge_avenger_stormtrooper_concept+front_view.jpg

The rest of the pics can be viewed here.....http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/2007_sema/0710_2007_dodge_avenger_stormtrooper_concept/photo_01.html

That actually looks kinda cool. A hell of a lot better than the Caliber.

That actually looks kinda cool. A hell of a lot better than the Caliber.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I'm older than the average person in this forum, clearly not plugged into the pulse of contemporary tastes. But I think this tarted up Avenger looks like ass. It admittedly looks a little less like ass than the Caliber but when you put lipstick on a pig, you don't get a prettier pig, just a pig with lipstick on it - not only ugly but ridiculous besides.

On the other hand, maybe I'm not so far out of touch. Sales figures for the Caliber and the Avenger have been characterized as "disappointing" - translation "sucking big time" - especially taking into account that they are brand new models, with lots of advertising and press mojo behind them. By contrast, Focus sales have been gradually ticking upward. Part of this is no doubt because of the renewed interest in fuel economy, but considering that the Focus has had only minor cosmetic changes in EIGHT model years, the car is still maintaining itself in the marketplace surprisingly strongly, right up to 2008 when the first Focus in the U.S. market with all-new sheet metal is poised for debut.

I don't know how the Caliber and Avenger actually drive, and I'll likely never know, because I don't intend to be caught dead behind the wheel of either. The fact is, there are lots of cars in their prices ranges that are fun to drive, whose appearance wouldn't embarrass me.

..... They should of put less power into the thing, made it alittle nicer looking and stiffened the chassie a bit so it handles better. Make it tunable though so if someone wants alot of power they can get it.

the thing is that in the american market, stock hp numbers sell cars. and most of the buyers wouldn't know a "driver's car" if it ran them over. so many people don't realize that those 19 inch wheels hurt everything from braking distance, to acceleration, to handling.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I'm older than the average person in this forum, clearly not plugged into the pulse of contemporary tastes.

I'm only 22, but I like the older cars a lot more than newer ones. I like long hoods and big motors, so no the Focus is not my cup of tea. I own one because getting 8 mpg in my old '77 C10 wasnt cutting it. [:(]

There SRT everything soon there will be SRT mini vans

There SRT everything soon there will be SRT mini vans

LMAO, hopefully with a Hemi [headbang]

I'm only 22, but I like the older cars a lot more than newer ones. I like long hoods and big motors, so no the Focus is not my cup of tea. I own one because getting 8 mpg in my old '77 C10 wasnt cutting it. [:(]

I like the older cars too; I like their style. But it depends on what you mean by "older." I LOVE the 1930's. And the 1950's and 1960's. But the 1970's and 1980's, with some exceptions, sucked the green weenie, and now that I think about it, so did most of the 1990's.

As for the Ford Focus, when I first saw one, back in oh... 1999, I wasn't sure what to think, because it looked so radical at the time. I thought, either this new Ford is going to be a smash hit, or it was going to hit in another way... with the loudest and most expensive dull thud since the Edsel. The Focus was the opening volley in Ford's New Edge styling direction. I instantly thought the hatchbacks were especially cool. But whether successful in the marketplace or not, I was grateful that Ford design was taking risks again. It got me interested in Ford products again after decades of crap like the Pinto, the Maverick, the Lincoln Marks IV and V, the LTD, the LTD II, the Mustang II, and the years of simply dull and uninspired dreck like the Fairmont, the Tempo/Topaz twins, the Escort/Tracer twins, the 80's Crown Vics, as well as year after year of ass-ugly, cheesy and worst of all, GUTLESS Mustangs.

Then, while on a trip to Europe, I rented one - a German Focus - and I thought to myself, No car this cheap has a right to be this good on the road! Like most mainstream European cars, their gearing is such that off-the-line grunt is compromised in favor of long legs for sustained autobahn triple-digit cruising. The steering on-center feel, the confidence-inspiring handling balance, the firm but compliant ride, the humble but well-shaped seating, the edgy-looking but ergonomically efficient dash layout, the slick-shifting 5-speed, the low-buck but effective disc/drum brakes, and the fresh, clean, modern, really distinctive styling; it all added up to what I thought at the time to be the best, neatest looking, most fun to drive cheap car for the masses I had ever driven.

Please keep in mind that the last small Ford I drove was a 1989 Escort, a "yesterday's oatmeal" kind of car - a truly and excruciatingly average driving experience. The last small Ford before that was the only other good small Ford I have driven, the 1978 Fiesta (another German-designed Ford, NOT to be confused with the Korean-built Festiva of the 1990's). And the last small Ford I drove before that was a 1974 Pinto; the less said about that, the better. In that context, the Ford Focus was, and still is in my opinion, a home run, despite all the early recalls.

To show how forward-thinking the design of the Focus was in 1999, the 2006 Focus - the year I own, nearly unchanged in all that time - STILL made the then brand-new Chevy Cobalt look like a dated lump, as well as most cars in its class from the Japanese. Clearly it's past time for Ford to seriously update the Focus, and I have my reservations about the direction Ford is going with the 2008 model, but that doesn't take anything away from how Ford back in the late 90's showed the automobile world how fresh, stylish and really good a low-end compact car can still be.

As for the long hoods, big motors, etc., I'm old enough to remember those cars when they were new. The most beloved of the classic American so-called "muscle" cars are much better in our cultural collective memory than they were in real life. They had awesome torque and off-the-line acceleration, but they were terrifying to actually drive fast.

Tires were primitive bias-ply nightmares. They were poor with any kind of real lateral G, and you couldn't really trust them to stay together at sustained high speed.

Brakes were woefully inadequate considering the size and weight and power of the vehicles under which they were mounted, and front-to-rear balance was either considered a non-issue or was managed only with the most primitive excuses for proportioning valves, etc. Brakes then were mostly drums all around, so braking hard from high speed even once often caused significant fade. Wet braking could be terrifying. You would drive through a puddle and applying the brakes, even with power assist, would get you NOTHING. It took two or three pumps to squeegee off the drums enough for the shoes to start grabbing.

Suspensions of performance cars were usually flaccid by modern standards. In a corner, the car would roll over onto its door handles and understeer like the Queen Mary. The only way to keep the car out of the weeds was to use power oversteer and opposite-lock like mad, hoping the car would self-correct before it ran out of road.

Sure, there were stiffer shocks and springs available, as well as anti-sway bars. But the basic suspension geometry was primitive and poorly controlled under cornering loads, partly because of the suspension designs then used - barely more sophisticated than cart axles - and partly because of chassis and body flex. Bodies were not stiff at all; they were just rubber mounted to the frame, which was also pretty flexible by modern standards. The 60's Mustangs employed unitized body structure, but they were flimsy compared to the modern car. Camaros and Firebirds were semi-unitized with a front subframe holding the engine and front suspension. The subframe was then rubber mounted to the rest of the body structure. The cars literally felt like they were hinged at the firewall, which, in a sense, they were! The only way to improve these cars' handling was to lash everything down so tight that the ride was truly punishing.

I suppose I should say something about the transmissions. The automatics were smooth shifting, but had only 3 speeds (Chevy PowerGlides - still in use in the 60's, had only TWO!) and were terribly inefficient in transmitting power to the wheels. And the typical manual shifter felt like a stick in a bucket of rocks - shifting well meant you really had to pay attention and put your arm into it. Manuals came as three-on-the-tree, or on the floor, or, if you were willing to pay and it was even offered, a four-speed on the floor. Five-speeds were unheard-of except in Porsches and other o' them there funny-lookin' furrin' cars.

And the steering! You had two choices - slow unassisted recirculating-ball or faster and easier, but totally numb power steering. And boy was it loose! Lots of slack and little or no on-center feel. Even casual down-the-road cruising was often fatiguing because one had to keep correcting to keep the car centered in the lane. The effective top speed of the car was determined not by the power of the engine but by the driver's courage. The higher the speed, the bias-plies would start to get squirrelly, and the slop in the steering would seem to amplify in its effect, making for ever more dicey a sense of directional control.

In real-world driving, you felt you were taking your life in your hands to go much faster than 75 mph for any length of time. The engine was more than willing of course, but the tires, brakes, steering and suspension were just not up to the job. The sensation of driving fast in a 60's-vintage car was kind of like you were driving not a car, but a collection of loose car parts traveling in formation.

For comparison, I recently drove my Focus from Madison, WI to Seattle, WA and back, maintaining a relaxed and comfortable 85 mph cruise throughout most of it, with occasional dashes at 95-100 mph. My pissant 4-cylinder car could manage easily and in comfort what I would never have been able to do in my much more powerful, but much less competent, big-block Pontiac from the 1960's. I felt no anxiety about the Focus at all. Well, I take that back. My only sources of anxiety traveling at 100 mph in the Focus came from fear of the state constabulary, and fear of the critters that might rush out into the road and into my path.

The bottom line is that, while these muscle cars were icons of their period, and we have warm, fuzzy and nostalgic memories of their cultural significance, they were overall inferior performers by every modern standard except raw straight-line acceleration. The fastest car Detroit ever sold the public in the muscle car era was the 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 HO, with its 421 cubic inch V-8 with Tri-Power (3X2bbl), 376 horsepower and 461 lb/ft of torque. It was clocked by Car and Driver Magazine at the time at a top speed of 130 mph, with 0-60 reached in 3.9 seconds. There are several four and six cylinder cars that can match and exceed that top speed today, right out of the box. Indeed, my old 1999 Jetta GLX 2.8 liter VR6 had a computer-governed top speed of 150 mph. And I don't think it would take much money to make my Focus at least match it. [My German rental Focus had a 1.6 liter motor and I drove it down the autobahn at 124 mph (indicated 200 kph) for sustained periods, so I doubt my 2.0 liter U.S. spec model would need all that much to do 130 mph.]

As for the 0-60 time, a modern, and - believe it or not - heavier 2007 Corvette Z06 can beat it at 3.7 seconds - carrying its full complement of air bags, audio gear, power everything, air conditioning, all the modern safety gear and other stuff that people expect and demand in a modern car. And it would get superior fuel economy to boot! The Pontiac was purposely built a stripper, without air conditioning, power equipment, etc., in order to keep the weight at a minimum. They were built for speed, not safety or comfort.

If you love those old cars, love them for their style - don't love them for their performance as real-world automobiles. Today's cars may not seem as sexy to us now, but they are far, FAR better to actually drive and live with. And I think that car styling is in a period of renaissance right now. The best of the new stuff is really quite aesthetically satisfying indeed. And even the cars that are spectacularly butt-ugly - most Chrysler products in my opinion - at least show a styling point of view. Their designers "put it out there" - made a statement. That is far better than the droning, nearly unremitting banality of the three decades from 1970 to the turn of the 21st Century.

BRAVO!!![clap]

Somebody who doesn't have rose-tined glasses spot welded to his face telling the truth like it is...

Do you know WHY they didn't make so many of some of those rare and now ultra-desirable musclecars? They were shyte to drive!!! A Hemi 'Cuda coupe could barely keep its chassis straight and the car on the road with all that torque. Chop the top off of it with barely any thought of reinforcement and you get the "Holy Grail" of Mopars, a Hemi 'Cuda Convertible. This car had all the chassis rigidity of a sponge and all the driving thrills of a drunken, enraged bull.

It's a fine thing to have all that power and style, but unless you can use it, it's as pointless as a Hot Import Nights spoiler.

Just like a certain 300BHP, understeering minivan we've all been discussing...

Um...I think bonejob wins the award for longest reply EVER...how long did i take you to type that. I make long replys sometimes....BUT NOT THAT LONG.

I like the older cars too; I like their style. But it depends on what you mean by "older." I LOVE the 1930's. And the 1950's and 1960's. But the 1970's and 1980's, with some exceptions, sucked the green weenie, and now that I think about it, so did most of the 1990's.

As for the Ford Focus, when I first saw one, back in oh... 1999, I wasn't sure what to think, because it looked so radical at the time. I thought, either this new Ford is going to be a smash hit, or it was going to hit in another way... with the loudest and most expensive dull thud since the Edsel. The Focus was the opening volley in Ford's New Edge styling direction. I instantly thought the hatchbacks were especially cool. But whether successful in the marketplace or not, I was grateful that Ford design was taking risks again. It got me interested in Ford products again after decades of crap like the Pinto, the Maverick, the Lincoln Marks IV and V, the LTD, the LTD II, the Mustang II, and the years of simply dull and uninspired dreck like the Fairmont, the Tempo/Topaz twins, the Escort/Tracer twins, the 80's Crown Vics, as well as year after year of ass-ugly, cheesy and worst of all, GUTLESS Mustangs.

Then, while on a trip to Europe, I rented one - a German Focus - and I thought to myself, No car this cheap has a right to be this good on the road! Like most mainstream European cars, their gearing is such that off-the-line grunt is compromised in favor of long legs for sustained autobahn triple-digit cruising. The steering on-center feel, the confidence-inspiring handling balance, the firm but compliant ride, the humble but well-shaped seating, the edgy-looking but ergonomically efficient dash layout, the slick-shifting 5-speed, the low-buck but effective disc/drum brakes, and the fresh, clean, modern, really distinctive styling; it all added up to what I thought at the time to be the best, neatest looking, most fun to drive cheap car for the masses I had ever driven.

Please keep in mind that the last small Ford I drove was a 1989 Escort, a "yesterday's oatmeal" kind of car - a truly and excruciatingly average driving experience. The last small Ford before that was the only other good small Ford I have driven, the 1978 Fiesta (another German-designed Ford, NOT to be confused with the Korean-built Festiva of the 1990's). And the last small Ford I drove before that was a 1974 Pinto; the less said about that, the better. In that context, the Ford Focus was, and still is in my opinion, a home run, despite all the early recalls.

To show how forward-thinking the design of the Focus was in 1999, the 2006 Focus - the year I own, nearly unchanged in all that time - STILL made the then brand-new Chevy Cobalt look like a dated lump, as well as most cars in its class from the Japanese. Clearly it's past time for Ford to seriously update the Focus, and I have my reservations about the direction Ford is going with the 2008 model, but that doesn't take anything away from how Ford back in the late 90's showed the automobile world how fresh, stylish and really good a low-end compact car can still be.

As for the long hoods, big motors, etc., I'm old enough to remember those cars when they were new. The most beloved of the classic American so-called "muscle" cars are much better in our cultural collective memory than they were in real life. They had awesome torque and off-the-line acceleration, but they were terrifying to actually drive fast.

Tires were primitive bias-ply nightmares. They were poor with any kind of real lateral G, and you couldn't really trust them to stay together at sustained high speed.

Brakes were woefully inadequate considering the size and weight and power of the vehicles under which they were mounted, and front-to-rear balance was either considered a non-issue or was managed only with the most primitive excuses for proportioning valves, etc. Brakes then were mostly drums all around, so braking hard from high speed even once often caused significant fade. Wet braking could be terrifying. You would drive through a puddle and applying the brakes, even with power assist, would get you NOTHING. It took two or three pumps to squeegee off the drums enough for the shoes to start grabbing.

Suspensions of performance cars were usually flaccid by modern standards. In a corner, the car would roll over onto its door handles and understeer like the Queen Mary. The only way to keep the car out of the weeds was to use power oversteer and opposite-lock like mad, hoping the car would self-correct before it ran out of road.

Sure, there were stiffer shocks and springs available, as well as anti-sway bars. But the basic suspension geometry was primitive and poorly controlled under cornering loads, partly because of the suspension designs then used - barely more sophisticated than cart axles - and partly because of chassis and body flex. Bodies were not stiff at all; they were just rubber mounted to the frame, which was also pretty flexible by modern standards. The 60's Mustangs employed unitized body structure, but they were flimsy compared to the modern car. Camaros and Firebirds were semi-unitized with a front subframe holding the engine and front suspension. The subframe was then rubber mounted to the rest of the body structure. The cars literally felt like they were hinged at the firewall, which, in a sense, they were! The only way to improve these cars' handling was to lash everything down so tight that the ride was truly punishing.

I suppose I should say something about the transmissions. The automatics were smooth shifting, but had only 3 speeds (Chevy PowerGlides - still in use in the 60's, had only TWO!) and were terribly inefficient in transmitting power to the wheels. And the typical manual shifter felt like a stick in a bucket of rocks - shifting well meant you really had to pay attention and put your arm into it. Manuals came as three-on-the-tree, or on the floor, or, if you were willing to pay and it was even offered, a four-speed on the floor. Five-speeds were unheard-of except in Porsches and other o' them there funny-lookin' furrin' cars.

And the steering! You had two choices - slow unassisted recirculating-ball or faster and easier, but totally numb power steering. And boy was it loose! Lots of slack and little or no on-center feel. Even casual down-the-road cruising was often fatiguing because one had to keep correcting to keep the car centered in the lane. The effective top speed of the car was determined not by the power of the engine but by the driver's courage. The higher the speed, the bias-plies would start to get squirrelly, and the slop in the steering would seem to amplify in its effect, making for ever more dicey a sense of directional control.

In real-world driving, you felt you were taking your life in your hands to go much faster than 75 mph for any length of time. The engine was more than willing of course, but the tires, brakes, steering and suspension were just not up to the job. The sensation of driving fast in a 60's-vintage car was kind of like you were driving not a car, but a collection of loose car parts traveling in formation.

For comparison, I recently drove my Focus from Madison, WI to Seattle, WA and back, maintaining a relaxed and comfortable 85 mph cruise throughout most of it, with occasional dashes at 95-100 mph. My pissant 4-cylinder car could manage easily and in comfort what I would never have been able to do in my much more powerful, but much less competent, big-block Pontiac from the 1960's. I felt no anxiety about the Focus at all. Well, I take that back. My only sources of anxiety traveling at 100 mph in the Focus came from fear of the state constabulary, and fear of the critters that might rush out into the road and into my path.

The bottom line is that, while these muscle cars were icons of their period, and we have warm, fuzzy and nostalgic memories of their cultural significance, they were overall inferior performers by every modern standard except raw straight-line acceleration. The fastest car Detroit ever sold the public in the muscle car era was the 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 HO, with its 421 cubic inch V-8 with Tri-Power (3X2bbl), 376 horsepower and 461 lb/ft of torque. It was clocked by Car and Driver Magazine at the time at a top speed of 130 mph, with 0-60 reached in 3.9 seconds. There are several four and six cylinder cars that can match and exceed that top speed today, right out of the box. Indeed, my old 1999 Jetta GLX 2.8 liter VR6 had a computer-governed top speed of 150 mph. And I don't think it would take much money to make my Focus at least match it. [My German rental Focus had a 1.6 liter motor and I drove it down the autobahn at 124 mph (indicated 200 kph) for sustained periods, so I doubt my 2.0 liter U.S. spec model would need all that much to do 130 mph.]

As for the 0-60 time, a modern, and - believe it or not - heavier 2007 Corvette Z06 can beat it at 3.7 seconds - carrying its full complement of air bags, audio gear, power everything, air conditioning, all the modern safety gear and other stuff that people expect and demand in a modern car. And it would get superior fuel economy to boot! The Pontiac was purposely built a stripper, without air conditioning, power equipment, etc., in order to keep the weight at a minimum. They were built for speed, not safety or comfort.

If you love those old cars, love them for their style - don't love them for their performance as real-world automobiles. Today's cars may not seem as sexy to us now, but they are far, FAR better to actually drive and live with. And I think that car styling is in a period of renaissance right now. The best of the new stuff is really quite aesthetically satisfying indeed. And even the cars that are spectacularly butt-ugly - most Chrysler products in my opinion - at least show a styling point of view. Their designers "put it out there" - made a statement. That is far better than the droning, nearly unremitting banality of the three decades from 1970 to the turn of the 21st Century.

The Chevy Aveo being the exception[:D]

POY--Post of the year

BRAVO!!![clap]

Somebody who doesn't have rose-tined glasses spot welded to his face telling the truth like it is...

Do you know WHY they didn't make so many of some of those rare and now ultra-desirable musclecars? They were shyte to drive!!! A Hemi 'Cuda coupe could barely keep its chassis straight and the car on the road with all that torque. Chop the top off of it with barely any thought of reinforcement and you get the "Holy Grail" of Mopars, a Hemi 'Cuda Convertible. This car had all the chassis rigidity of a sponge and all the driving thrills of a drunken, enraged bull.

It's a fine thing to have all that power and style, but unless you can use it, it's as pointless as a Hot Import Nights spoiler.

Just like a certain 300BHP, understeering minivan we've all been discussing...

Remember the 50's two-seater Thunderbirds that make nearly everyone go weak in the knees (including moi) on sight? Ford didn't put their most powerful V-8s into them. You know why? The torque would literally twist the frame out of line, popping open one door and compressing the other to the point where the enamel paint would crack. These cars were flexi-flyers, despite being really heavy, which, along with the de-tuned motors, made the cars into real sleds, albeit very pretty ones. That is why the T-Bird never was taken seriously as a "sports car" and why it was never considered a real alternative to the Corvette.

Don't get me wrong. The first "Motorama" 1953-54 'Vettes were lead-sleds too - all-show/no-go; they were powered by the "Blue Flame" six - an uprated version of the hoary old "stovebolt" six. ("Uprated" meant they could - barely - drag an old man out of bed.) But in 1955, Zora Arkus-Duntov, newly hired as chief engineer for Chevrolet Performance, transformed the Corvette from a mere profiling poser (like the T-Bird) to the honest-to-God, ass-kicking, race-winning, American genuine-article sports car it became. Unfortunately, there was no one working at Ford back then to do the same for the Thunderbird.

The rest is, as they say, history...

[Ford did build for a short time in the 1960's - and thankfully is building a modernized version again today - a world-class sports car, the GT-40. It was, and is, a wonderful car... for the price of TWO entry-level Corvettes. I will never - unless I start playing the lottery and actually win - be able to afford a Ford GT-40. But before I die, I just MAY get a Corvette. Eight-tenths the car for half the price is just as great a deal today as it was in 1966!]

Um...I think bonejob wins the award for longest reply EVER...how long did i take you to type that. I make long replys sometimes....BUT NOT THAT LONG.

A while... Sorry about that... Sometimes I get too enthusiastic and come down with keyboard diarrhea.

Please forgive...[:(]

An enjoyable read, bonejob. Thank you for sharing your experiences and POV of a generation long past. You know... Sport Compact Car is looking for writers... wanna move to LA?