Back to the Future - Now Grampa is Confused

"Desu-San-Desu" (Desu-San-Desu) 08/04/2014 at 11:13 • Filed to: None

4

33

So, I had a thought recently about how advanced cars have become and how much we take it for granted. So I thought about how people 50 years ago or so would have reacted to modern cars upon encountering them the first time- once they got over the disappointment of none of them flying first, of course.

So my question for you guys is, for the purposes of blowing the minds of all the muscle-car hot-rodders and such, what car would you send back in time to, say, 1969 to serve them a slice of humble pie with a side of " You've got to be kidding me..."

My vote? The 2015 WRX.

Now, my reasoning for this is very convoluted and esoteric, but there's some logic to all of it. Sort of how I always function. Here's some basic reasons for choosing the WRX over the billions of other car choices, including the big-brother STI:

-It's cheap. At least by our standards. A Porsche 918 or a McLaren P1 are all well and good, but they're so expensive to essentially be incomprehensible. Not, we've got to pick something that's in a reasonably attainable price range and comparable to many of the cars driven back then, accounting for inflation. Inflation accounted for, the WRX would've cost about $4,000 in 1969. So you can approach your younger dad or grampa and say "Oh hey! A Shelby Mustang GT500! That cost about the same as this right here!"

-It's fast. Absurdly fast considering the displacement of the engine. Even accounting for the turbo, it's still fast. Turbo-charging was barely even a thing back then, so that alone would blow their minds, not even going into how efficient modern turbos are. You could just walk up to a MOPAR afficianado and say "Yeah...0-60 in 5 and a half seconds. Nearly 270 horsepower? Oh? Engine size? No-no, it's not a 440. It's a 2 liter 4-cylinder. Yeah, pretty cool, right?"

-It handles insanely well while still being comfortable to drive. This, along with price, is another reason for choosing the base WRX over the STI. The STI is so firm you'll need a spinal brace after a week. But the WRX is still comfortable around town without sacrificing handling or cornering capabilities. Take a 1969 gearhead around the block and he'll marvel at the comfort of the ride, but then hit a back road and put the tire grip to the test and he'll be screaming " HOW!? " At which point you'll try and explain about coilover suspensions and brake-based torque vectoring and within two minutes your passenger will be convinced your an alien from another planet.

-It's All-Wheel-Drive. That wasn't even in the conceptual phase back then. You'd have to call it 'Four-Wheel-Drive' just to made it comprehensible. Even then, it'd still confuse the hell of of them: " Wait...it's four wheel drive? Like a truck? But it's a car! Where's the transfer case? There isn't one? But how- what? HOW many differentials!? "

-It may be low-tech by our standards in the cabin, but it'd be a space ship by theirs. A comfortable, overwhelming spaceship. But even then, the 6-speed manual, while still 2 more gears than even the top-of-the-line performance cars back then, is still a manual with a clutch pedal. The instrument cluster, while digital and brightly lit, still shows the same information it did back then, just with a few extras. The radio is still a radio. Knobs are still knobs. Everything is still basically the same, but just...BETTER. It's not so high-tech that they can't wrap their head around it, but it's still enough for them to grasp just how much things have advanced, comparatively.

-It's Japanese. Consider the cars coming out of Japan at the time and the bias directed towards them. Now picture that same biased guy in a Challenger R/T getting destroyed by a little Japanese sedan with a four cylinder engine, both in the corners and in at the stoplight. Just picture his face.

-It looks futuristic. It may not be amazing to behold for us today, but imagine this thing suddenly passing you on the street in 1969. You'd think the Martians had arrived! But it's still a car- headlights, tail lights, four doors, four wheels, and even the hood scoop was something not totally unheard of back then. It's just enough futuristic pisazz, like the LED lights and allow wheels, to make them whistle and go ' Wow... ', but not so futuristic as to be unrecognizable as just a car and not a spaceship.

-Most, not all, but most of the standard equipment existed back then in some form, but was only reserved for the highest priced models of the best brands. " 4-wheel disc brakes? Standard? That must have cost a fortune! Oh...you work as a bag-boy at a grocery store and can still afford this? And...airbags? You mean they inflate to protect you if you hit something? And the brakes will pump themselves to keep from locking up? Wait, THE STEERING WHEEL MOVES!? "

Basically, the WRX is the bargain find of our generation. It packs the most performance and all-around versatility for the pricepoint. It's underpriced compared to the competition, but is still back-to-basics enough to be comprehensible. There are faster cars out there, and more expensive cars out there. But there's almost nothing out there that provides the level of performance, technology, and daily driveability while still being priced low enough to be considered inexpensive by nearly everyone. It's humbling in that it would kick ass against nearly anything from 1969, but when asked about it, you can just yawn and say "Oh this? Yeah, I got it because I didn't want a Camry."

So what about you guys? What would you send back to 1969, just to screw with people, and why?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:21

0

-It's All-Wheel-Drive. That wasn't even in the conceptual phase back then. You'd have to call it 'Four-Wheel-Drive' just to made it comprehensible. Even then, it'd still confuse the hell of of them: " Wait...it's four wheel drive? Like a truck? But it's a car! Where's the transfer case? There isn't one? But how- what? HOW many differentials!? "

The Range Rover was launched in '70, just sayin'. I'm pretty sure there are other examples, but it was *definitely* well beyond the conceptual phase. Not on the common man's radar, necessarily, but even so.

Desu-San-Desu > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/04/2014 at 11:23

1

Still a truck. And also, was the original Range Rover AWD or 4WD? My main remark on this is that it's a car with power to all 4 wheels, but it doesn't use a transfer case. Just imagine explaining symmetrical AWD to some guy in his driveway in 1969, haha.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:27

1

All. Wheel Drive. The Range Rover was *always* offered with a lockable center diff. Further, there was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_FF

It had a transfer case, but torque splitting - not a standard 4WD system at all. It was a biased limited slip. IOW, enthusiasts *did* have a chance in '69 of not being wowed by AWD.

GhostZ > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:28

1

And...airbags? You mean they inflate to protect you if you hit something?

I chuckled at this, realizing that Airbags really didn't exist back then. They're considered such a staple of automotive safety we really take it for granted.

That being said, there were cars with mechanical 4WD that used cluched differentials back then (the Jensen FF was the only sports car, but Jeeps were known for all sorts of wacky 4WD drag racing configurations), and there were cars that got tons of power out of a turbocharged 4-cylinder (Offenhauser, anyone? some were FWD!) and there were cars that had far more grip than the WRX (most were race cars, mind you) so I think, depending on who saw it, it would less of a "wow, I didn't know that existed" and more of a "Wow, I didn't know it was possible to put that in a 4-door sedan!" since almost all of these innovations existed prior, but only in unique vehicles purpose built for it.

It's like the iPhone. No one was shocked at the idea of using the a handheld device for browsing the internet, to play music, or unique applications, but everyone was shocked that all of those features could be put inside one device .

Desu-San-Desu > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/04/2014 at 11:29

0

Awesome! I learned something today! Thanks man. :-)

StoneCold > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:30

0

270 NET horsepower. You'd have to give the gross HP number to make the comparison even more insane.

Also, movable steering wheels were a thing, just only on certain luxury cars, and they were for sliding into the seat more than ergonomics though...

OPPOsaurus WRX > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:31

2

I stopped by a local car show with my '14 WRX. I got there before it really started to see if anyone can show a car. He said yea you can bring down what ever you want, not realizing I was in what I wanted to show. When I told him we was all confused. (this is a show mostly of old guys and old american cars) He told me there's a fence jumpers show down the street on the weekend but said if i really wanted to I could show it and asked what it was. I said its a WRX like what they race in the forest rallies. HE said 'so its a 6 cylinder?' well no its a 4, but it has a turbo. Hw then noticed the 2 car seats in the back. I added in it hits 60 in less than 6 seconds and its AWD. He went to go get a hot dog.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:32

0

I'd also contest whether the Rangey is delineated into "truck" as clearly as all that, although it's obviously more of a truck than the Jensen FF or the WRX. Sure, it was body on frame, but many *cars* still were at that point, and it was definitely not offering much truck-like other than ground clearance and straight axles. It was much more of a true wagon than the Land Rover ever was.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:33

1

Even more fun, you'll note that the Jensen has ABS. Yes.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:33

0

1969 Subaru 360, for reference.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:34

8

Listen.

TO THE SOUND OF SILENCE.

And many mighty torque things that force all your internal organs into a little puddle in the base of your spine as you proceed to headbutt the horizon.

Desu-San-Desu > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 08/04/2014 at 11:40

0

I'd wait for the Model 3 and take it back, since it is supposed cost about the same as a Toyota Avalon, haha.

Rico > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:51

0

Saw one of these at an event I attended yesterday in that exact color and it looked pretty nice. I also saw a red 2015 STI on Saturday which looked awesome. I know STIs are known for their blue colors but red was really, really nice.

spanfucker retire bitch > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 11:53

1

Wait a minute...this car is made of what!? And where's the engine?

HammerheadFistpunch > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 12:11

0

Man I think about this question more than I should. Good choice for the reasons listed.

HammerheadFistpunch > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/04/2014 at 12:12

0

Range rover specifically? Because I know the disco's had a period where there was no CDL option.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 12:13

0

Approaching Jetson levels of future.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > HammerheadFistpunch 08/04/2014 at 12:20

0

Range Rovers started with a center diff, have always had one. I *think* with a lock always, but I could be wrong - I believe the lock is described in a '74 car book I have...

The Disco being a re-engineered "cheap" Rover initially from a RR variant chassis, sacrifices being made here and there shouldn't be surprising.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 12:26

0

This isn't a hard one. Show at any dragstrip and spank just about everything there in a car that kinda looks the same. And imaging the looks on their faces when you tell them it get 20mpg on the highway.

Also Just think about this in 1969 most production muscle cars ran a 1/4 in the low 13's... A '15 Mustang Ecoboost will supposedly run 13.8s with four cylinders, and 140 Cubic Inches.

chaozbandit > Desu-San-Desu 08/04/2014 at 12:45

0

Either the MY15 GT-R for the sense of speed and roadholding or the BMW i8 because hybrid.

Tom McParland > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 08/05/2014 at 20:48

0

Shit if you sent this car back 20 years in the past you would blow minds.

anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq > Desu-San-Desu 08/06/2014 at 04:24

0

Haha, I think about this so much. I'd show 'em an Audi RS7 Looks amazing, AWD, extremely advanced. The WRX is a very good choice, though...

anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq > anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq 08/06/2014 at 04:24

0

Wait - Tesla Model S. Yeahhh.

mpiersd > Desu-San-Desu 08/06/2014 at 11:48

0

Pagani Huayra

drdude > Desu-San-Desu 08/06/2014 at 14:14

0

I would like to point out that saying "nearly 270hp" would not have been impressive back then. They used to rate the big boy muscle cars with what we would consider inflated numbers... so your under 300hp car would be scoffed at by the "500 hp" big block boys.
Even though technically, you made more hp (but less torque) and could be faster.

Also, your "performance" car weighs the same as the largest, heaviest big block cars back then.

Airusalimov > GhostZ 08/06/2014 at 14:32

0

Again, it is stated that the WRX is a somewhat normal car by today's standards, it packs all of the optional extras of yesteryear in one reasonably price package + 4WD
Also, just hanging on to the iPhone thing. I was doing all those things years before the iPhone, and with a bigger touch screen. I know what you meant by that statement, it's just that it always bugs me how people praise that man with the jobs.

GhostZ > Airusalimov 08/06/2014 at 14:35

1

When you convince millions of people to give you money, you get to spend it on deciding how history is written.

samssun > Desu-San-Desu 08/09/2014 at 19:56

0

As a counterpoint: C7 Corvette. Or C6. Or C5 Z06...

Socraticsilence > GhostZ 08/23/2014 at 00:35

0

That's why you bring the CVT back instead of the manual— they're used to Auto's but not Auto's that perform at manual levels and don't suck.

GhostZ > Socraticsilence 08/23/2014 at 00:48

0

We would need to build a CVT that performs at manual levels and doesn't suck, first.

Socraticsilence > GhostZ 08/23/2014 at 00:51

0

So the CVT on the 2015 WRX then— look at the splits, its within a tenth of a second of the manual 0-60, that's close enough that its shocking.

GhostZ > Socraticsilence 08/23/2014 at 00:55

0

A lot of autos do the same, and in some cases are actually faster depending on the gear ratios, than the manual.

0-60 is not where a CVT would shine, but overall track times or 0-100 speeds. I have no doubt in my mind that a CVT can be built that would be faster than a manual at all times, but the problem is getting it to take the abuse of heavy acceleration from a powerful motor repeatedly. This consigns them to sub-300HP applications.

I can't wait for the day when someone invents a CVT that can handle 1000 ft/lbs and uses it for 0-200mph runs where there's no shifting involved.

But we're more likely going to see fix-gear electric cars at that level before CVTs ever get that good, as CVTs generally become pointless when torque remains constant, as it tends to do with an electric motor (but not always).

Socraticsilence > GhostZ 08/23/2014 at 01:00

0

The reason it appeals to me for the WRX is it allows you by switching into boring mode to counter the one thing WRXs for me always had going against them— crap mpg for the power.