I had a 72 Fiat spider that I drove in the seventies. It was pretty much the last of the pre emissions cars, with 108 HP, 0-60 in about 10 seconds. I drove it foot to the floor everywhere on 165 series tires, and it would do an honest 108 MPH all day long, smooth as silk.

Not a fast car by today's standards, but even today I would be breaking the law on a constant basis if I drove it like I used to drive it. It was not a quick car, but I never slowed down. After that, I had a Fiat with a built engine that pulled 8000 RPMs. I certainly thought I was cooking with gas... I absolutely loved that car.

Nuvolari's last race was the 1947 Mille Miglia, where he ran an 1100 CC Cistalia. It was not a quick car, But in Nuvolari's hands, it was fast. Everybody knew it was the driver in those days, but the Cistalia had heart as well.

Why, when I was a kid, we had to drive to school through two feet of snow - backwards. You kids have it easy nowadays.

even if you go back to the true muscle cars of the 60s ... even they were pretty awful cars, and could easily be dealt with, with a v6 camry/accord:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncJVyu-JQhE

6.2 0-60? lel
14.5 in the quarter? and this is a muscle car? lol

161 feet on the brakes for 60mph .... jesus.

None of that Camaro Mustang chatter meant anything when the intercooled Grand National came along.

I had a 82 Citation X-11 (2.8 V-6, 4 spd) that had better cornering numbers than the 82 Camaro, maybe better acceleration if I remember correctly. Seems the Corrvette, of course, handled better, as well as accelerated faster. The Z-28 probably had a higher speed than my X-11 too.

Hah, I had an X-11 too. At the time, I enjoyed the 2.8, manual trans, bucket seats, several gauges, etc... It seemed much sportier than most of the other crap that I'd been driving.

A good reminder of just how terrible most cars were in that era. Especially the American ones, who I really don't think were trying all that hard. My SC was a true super car back then.

I was just thinking this, and the 944 Turbo also came into my mind: consider how much the game moved forward in just a few years. By 1987, performance cars were actually FAST again! The Corvette was faster, the Camaro and Mustang were significantly more powerful... what a difference five years can make.

The 911SC was a real bullet, (and a good running car), for those times. The 3.2 Carrera was that much quicker when it came along a couple years later, then the 951 was quicker still, etc.

Today, a stock SC feels underpowered compared to modern cars, showing just how far things have come. 1982 was close to the nadir for performance but it climbed quickly from that point. I don't think that there was a zillion dollar exotic in 1982 that could keep up w a base model Boxster or Cayenne from 2016.

I would rate my SC as "adequate" from a performance standpoint. A Camry V6 would dust me in a drag race but I don't find it to be lacking. I'm sure if I tracked it I would have a different perspective.

Absolutely. It's still adequate, and would provide a very different experience from a Camry. I think the point is that back in the day, the SC was a veritable rocketship compared to the other vehicles, but these days, it's absolutely not a rocketship. Back when I had my '88 targa, a modern mustang or camaro would eat it alive in a straight line. The older 911s are still amazing cars, just not the borderline supercars that they were when they were new.

Yeah, rocketship is not an adjective that comes to mind when I drive it. But it sure makes the 986S feel fast!

My family had a 1980 regular Chevy Citation with a manual transmission. Those old X cars are kind of a late night TV joke these days, but it was a tough little car and lasted us almost 200,000 miles. If I recall correctly, Chevy advertised that the Citation X-11 was faster than the NA 944, which was pretty unbelievable at the time, but might have been true. Cars of that era were horrible. Rust everywhere, choked by emissions and safety equipment and without a sense of style for the era. The later 80s were better with the original Ford Taurus and swooping Thunderbirds. But we really are living in the golden age of engines and car design today.

I had a 84 mustang gt convertible with the 5.0. Was one of about 500 for that first year offered

Anyway, it seemed to go pretty good. Suspension upgrades made a big difference and then I installed an Edelbrock cam, intake and Holley 4bbl carb. Never dynoed it but it seemed faster.