If it was the 1960s, would the twins be considered muscle cars?

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Gunman

True sportscars for a purist, would only have 2 seats, and no roof,

Wait a second...

Since when has a car needed to be a convertible to be a purist sports car?

[tahdizzle]

Ultimate Sports Car was a convertable.


P.S. When are you slackers gonna make a Mach V Themed twin?!

[continuecrushing]

Originally Posted by Poodles

Years ago a magazine took an old Porsche and compared it to a modern mini van. Guess which vehicle did best in every single performance test?

Ultimately no, the twins would be on the same level as the MGB's and other British sports cars of the time, not muscle cars.

mini van=modern day sports car haha

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by Poodles

Keep in mind horsepower was measured differently back then. It's the engine on an engine dyno without any accessories (alternator, power steering pump, water pump, etc). Dyno any of those cars today and you'd be sorely disappointed...

They also under rated the horsepower on most of the muscle cars due to insurance premiums. The 69 Camaro Z28 and the 70 Boss302 Mustang were rated at 290HP/290TQ but most automotive publications stated they were closer to 350+HP. It makes it difficult to compare now to then.

Still. it is amazing how electronic engine management has allowed today's cars with less than half the displacement eclipse the performance of those legendary machines.

Originally Posted by chrisl

Wait a second...

Since when has a car needed to be a convertible to be a purist sports car?

Man, you do not want to open that can of worms again do you?

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Rampage

Man, you do not want to open that can of worms again do you?

Well...

(I just have a really hard time accepting any criterion that makes a Boxster a sports car but not a Cayman, or a Corvette Grand Sport but not a Z06, or an Elise but not an Exige...)

[Gunman]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Wait a second...

Since when has a car needed to be a convertible to be a purist sports car?

I may have been blurring sports car with roadster a bit. Two seats for a sports car, top or no top. No top and no side windows for a roadster.

Still, you get the old MG, Triumph, AC crowd, and it would have to be british to qualify too

The twins are 2+2's.

[n2oinferno]

Imagine bringing a Veyron SS, Agera R, or Huayra back to the 60s....

[kavanagh]

Originally Posted by NWFRS

Possibly.

Our Twin's 0-60 times ARE typical of the best sports cars from the '60's.

They'd have been competing with other 2+2 coupes from the period like the Jaguar E-type coupes, Toyota 2000GT, Datsun 240z, Lotus Élan +2, Ferrari Daytona, Maserati Ghibli, etc...

But I tend to think of a "Muscle car" as a big heavy American car with awful suspension.

Personally I like the Toyota 2000GT and Sports 800 connection. :-)

I agree. I understand why the makers chose the FT86 moniker because of its reference to the currently wildly iconic AE86 (which was my wife's first car by the way) due to so much pop culture around Initial D and also the idea that it's an inexpensive, fun, rear wheel drive like the AE, but I really feel like this car is more closely based on, and descended from, the 2000GT.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Well...

This can of worms is one I'm willing to open every single time lol. I hate my ragtop.

[LSxJunkie]

Originally Posted by robwbright

An odd question... but since the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times are right in line with the muscle cars of the day (see link), I think it's a fair question.

http://listverse.com/2009/08/15/10-c...n-muscle-cars/

I'm half-trolling, of course... LOL. But everyone whines about the twins being slow. Yet no one whines about muscle cars from the '60s being slow.

Try putting 400lbs/ft of torque through a set of skinny bias ply tires. The low rolling resistance 215s on your car would be an upgrade.

Originally Posted by Xti

Muscles cars are called muscles because they have so much Torque, and Weight, and is built like a tank. I don't see anything fit the 86. Do you ? Modern Muscles has gone on a diet for cost relation, and emission, but the definition has not changed much.

Define tank. A 70 Chevelle SS 454 with an automatic weighed 3700lbs. That is exactly what an e92 M3 weighs. A 69 Camaro Z/28 with JL8 fixed calipers and power steering (the only one to have) weighed 3380 A new Camaro SS weighs 3860.

[Talus1]

Originally Posted by kavanagh

I agree. I understand why the makers chose the FT86 moniker because of its reference to the currently wildly iconic AE86 (which was my wife's first car by the way) due to so much pop culture around Initial D and also the idea that it's an inexpensive, fun, rear wheel drive like the AE, but I really feel like this car is more closely based on, and descended from, the 2000GT.

An AE86 Corolla GTS was my first (nearly) new car, too. The twins don't really remind me of that car.

The first time I drove one of the twins I thought it was the modern version of the original RX-7. It is in about the same place in the market, as a lightweight inexpensive sporty car with an emphasis on handling over pure power, and is another a car that wouldn't exist if not for its unique engine. I drove my brother's 1980 RX-7 for a year back in the mid 90's. It was just as tail happy as my BRZ but at least the BRZ doesn't try to catch fire every day, which the RX-7 would do if you left the choke on for too long. No joke. Flames used to come out of the big hole in the muffler. The fiance was unimpressed. Luckily she married me anyway.