Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to
the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT.

Here are some times for those old nostalgic cars for 0-60 and 1/4
mile:
Ford Torino Cobra SCJ 7.3 14.90 ( http://tinyurl.com/24oad )
1969 Plymouth GTX 440 5.8 13.7 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als )
1967 Cutlass "Turnpike Cruiser" 8.7 16.5 ( http://tinyurl.com/2hvkf )
1967 Cutlass 442 7.1 15.5 ( http://tinyurl.com/2hvkf )

And I'll throw in an old favorite:
A 1967 Ford Mustang (390ci V8 w/4spd) 7.4 15.6 (
http://tinyurl.com/28als )

Of course, the Gremlin was a joke:
1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als )

But the PT Cruiser GT has real potential:
2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Manual) 6.4 15.3 (
http://tinyurl.com/2nv6n )
2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Auto) 7.2 15.7 (http://tinyurl.com/3gbng
)

The GTX is the only car that could beat the manual version of the PT.
And, yes, I can imagine waxing nostalgic about good times in the PT
cruiser: cruising the highway, playing tunes on the CD-player over and
over and over again. It's a lot easier than with a radio or 8-track.

What about memories about tailgate parties from the back of the PT.
Those will be cherished.

And yes, memories of rides to school in the old PT Cruiser...

Joe R

 

The 304 X was pretty darn quick, a 360 HO even quicker, and a 401 was
incredibly quick!!!!! And yes, you COULD buy a Gremmy with a 401
straight from the dealer - if you knew the right dealer. (not a
factory option, but a dealer installed special)

 

The PT GT is a fine car for its day, but it can't really compare with
the styling, power, and visceral appeal of 60s cars.




If you go back and look again, I did list the PT Cruiser as one of a
handful of modern cars that MIGHT still have a following 30 years from
now. Frankly, I think Roadrunners will STILL outnumber PT Cruisers at
carshows in the year 2034.

 

I'm partial to the Dodge Omni GLH and GLHS. The Dodge Spirit R/T was
also another quick car. These were all practical and could surprise
many sports cars from their era.

 

I certainly stand corrected.
I had no idea there were such gremlins out there.
Joe

 

Ahh yes the day of bias ply tires that would spin untill the car barely
got any traction. Then would spin at every upshift. The slicks of the day
were not much better. SS/A cars from that era, run about 3&1/2 to 4 seconds
quicker at nestalgia drags with modern slicks.

3 to 4 seconds? That's right. Take all those cars you think you could
wax and run them with modern radial tires. Your PT crusier will show what a
joke it is.

My 84 C-10 with a high milage 305 Eats PT Cruisers for lunch.
Charles

 

A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really
hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the
smallest engines available?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

First your comparing the option gt engine to the standard Gremlin
engine. If you had the optional Gremlin 304 V8 engine in 1972 you
came up 8.5 seconds.. 7.2 for todays comparable automatic GT Cruiser

'Course a 72 Gremlin listed out around $2500 which would be about
$10,600 in todays dollars. The GT starts around what? 27k? So for
only 2.5 times as much money I can go 1.3 seconds faster 0 to 60.

You are right... They sure don't compare...

Steve B.

 

Overall length on a 72 Gremlin was 161 inches. A mid 80's Mustang was
181 inches. Not that much difference and those came with 5.0's all
day long. I think we just remember them as tiny because everything
else back then was so HUGE.

Steve B.

 

Woa! All I knew about was the 304 - borrowed a friends a couple of
times. Even that was dangerous in the hands of a youngster! 360 or
401!? I can't imagine.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

That was my point Bill. You said that you "find those times really
hard to believe". I was trying to point out the car wasn't really all
that little and similarly powered cars have been offered in recent
years.

Steve B.

 

the Ford 5.0 is a 302 CI.. it works out to like 4.95l or something so
they rounded it up.

-Bret

 

You are a psychopath for judging cars based on how fast they go. How
many people have you murdered on the highways??

 

As an American, I am embarrassed by DJT's comments.


** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and
including the underscore in my email reply header.

 

:|> Overall length on a 72 Gremlin was 161 inches. A mid 80's Mustang

You could also get a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder, turbo or nonturbo, an inline six
and the 5.0 V8 of course in a mid 80's Mustang.

 

20 inches is a big difference when it comes to vehicles. A 2003 Neon: 174.4
inches. An Intrepid? 203.7 inches. That's less than 30 inches overall
length between the smallest and largest models Dodge made that year.

A 2003 Caravan is 189.3 inches long (the Grand Caravan 200.5). So a Neon is
less than 15 inches shorter than a Caravan, and the Intrepid is longer than
a Grand Caravanl!

Incidently, a 2WD RAM regular-cab pickup with an 8' box is 229.7 inches
long.

--Geoff

 

Got it - thanks!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

On 6 May 2004 10:00:01 -0700, (Joe)

Are all these from the same site as that?

Did you note the following?

* The Performance numbers are theoretical based on computer simulation
of available data

How accurate can that possibly be?

Doesn't anyone have actual data?

 

Close enough - 1% diff. Thanks for the info. - it's good to be accurate
and precise.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")