When Calling a Car 'Fast' Has Jumped the Shark

"That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms" (thatbastardkurtis5)
08/28/2016 at 10:15 • Filed to: None

I’ve got my truck advertised for sale or trade on Craigslist, and the responses more than anything has made me decide to keep it. But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

No, the other day I got an email from a guy who was offering me a fast, clean, fun car.

I asked what it was.

He said it was a 1996 Lincoln Continental.

In no corner of the multiverse is a 1996 Lincoln Continental a fast car. It wasn’t fast when it was new, it certainly isn’t 20 years later.

Then today I got another email, he said he knew I wasn’t looking for a car that was going to put me to sleep (I specified I wanted something like a Civic Si in the ad) so he has something fast and fun that would be perfect for me.

Now I’m already annoyed because of the sheer number of people who say “hey, I have something you might be interested in” and make me ask what it is instead of just saying “I’ve got a 2003 Tahoe”, so I answered:

“The last guy to say something like that to me offered me a Lincoln Continental, which is basically a sofa bed on wheels...what have you got?”

I was not the least bit surprised when it turned out to be the same fucking guy offering me the same fucking Continental again.

I'll be the first to say that regular cars are fast now, but don't try to tell me a 1996 Continental is fast or sporty.

DISCUSSION (22)

Alfalfa > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 10:29

I can’t say how many ads I’ve read where the car is called sporty or powerful simply because it has a V8. Sorry dude, the 4 banger in my Hyundai has more guts than your 85 Crown Vic.

Chuckles > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 10:35

I guess it’s fast in the sense that you could get a speeding ticket in it if you drove it off of a cliff, but I understand your frustration.

PS9 > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 11:11

Rule of thumb: if whatever you’ve got can be outrun by a V6 Camry, it isn’t fast.

Junkrat aka Rick Sanchez: Fury Road Edition > PS9
08/28/2016 at 11:26

Kinja'd!!!

Has a sad :(. Camry beats it to 60 by more than half a second.

PS9 > Junkrat aka Rick Sanchez: Fury Road Edition
08/28/2016 at 11:34

Just add 1 psi or so of boost. Then you can kill that pesky neighborhood Camry.

daender > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 11:40

The Teksid block in the Conti’ is pretty cool starting point for building a strong modular V8. Downside is that the heads are inferior to the SVT’Stang units. However, having a potent V8 block only making 220-ish horsepower doesn’t make a near-2-ton car fast, just like a stock non-turbo 2JZ doesn’t made a GS300 fast from the factory.

wiffleballtony > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 11:44

Personal opinion : if it can’t do the zero to sixty sprint in under 6 seconds it isn’t fast.

Land_Yacht_225 > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 11:44

WOAH WOHA WOHA WOHA

Now just hold your horses for a minute there. We need to have a little discussion about how a Continental is not a Town Car and is, in fact, quite fast for what it is. I had a 1998 Continental. Say the 4 speed slushbox ruins it, but that’s only after the shift into 4th.

Those In Tech 4.6 DOHC V8s are a hell of an engine. 260 horse, 270 lb-ft of torque, and it will rip to 60 in 7.5 seconds, and that’s struggling with torque steer and the transmission. And don’t even get me started on that computer controlled suspension. Tell all the maintenance horror stories you want, mine worked. And in the firm setting, it could keep that body roll in check.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > wiffleballtony
08/28/2016 at 12:13

That's always been my cut off. 0-60 in 6 or under is fast, or quick if you want to say that instead.

Batman the Horse > PS9
08/28/2016 at 13:47

Yes but we’re talking about engines that Lotus uses (maybe not the exact one but the same DNA). Modern Camry is not the Camry we think of from the days of old. Except it’s still, somehow, boring.

sony1492 > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 13:54

Bought a 1990 Volvo 740 n/a that was advertised as fast. I dont think itll do 100 and its zero to 60 is probly more than 10 seconds. I cant fathom how anyone can call that fast.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 14:17

Well the 1996 Continental had a 260HP V8 in a chassis based on the Ford Taurus. 260HP in a vehicle that weighed around 3800-3900 pounds isn’t too bad.

It was definitely fast compared to many mid size sedans of the time. The 0-60 time was in the 7.7 to 8 second range, a 15.7 1/4 mile time and a 230km/h or 144mph top speed.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/lincoln/c…

By comparison (Note that I’m only comparing the automatic version to make it a true apples to apples comparison), a Nissan Maxima SE with the automatic from that year did 0-60 in 7.9 seconds, 15.9 second 1/4 mile time and had a 221km/h or 137 mph top speed

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/22810…

Or let’s look at the mighty Taurus SHO... the Continental had roughly the same performance:

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/88679…

What about the Ford Mustang GT coupe? It was only slightly faster:

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/88562…

The Mercedes E320 had a similar 0-60 time, slightly slower 1/4 mile time and a top speed a little higher:

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/15287…

Now we all know that the Mustang was shit in those years for power. A Camaro was way better... And yes... it was substantially faster even in automatic form:

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/47249…

And the BMW 540 from that year was also faster by a similar margin:

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1996/26907…

So I have to say that the Contintental was pretty fast for its time. As fast or a little faster than many other performance sedans, but wasn’t as fast as top performers like the V8 F-bodies, Corvettes, BMW 540, the BMW M cars, or AMG stuff from Mercedes... also a bit slower 0-60 than the Northstar-Cadillacs of the time, but not humongously slower.

PS9 > Batman the Horse
08/28/2016 at 14:19

Yes but we’re talking about engines that Lotus uses

You say that like it’s supposed to mean something. They don’t pick it because it has special sports car magic they can’t get anywhere else; It reliably makes a decent amount of power, which is all you need when you make the kind of cars Lotus does.

‘A decent amount of power’ is a completely reasonable benchmark a fast car should be able to easily pass.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > wiffleballtony
08/28/2016 at 14:41

I consider a 0-60 time of 6-8 seconds to be ‘reasonably fast’. Under 6 seconds is ‘very fast’. Under 4 seconds is ‘scary fast’.

A 0-60 in 8-10 second range is ‘acceptable’. 10-13 seconds is slow. 13-16 seconds is ‘very slow’. And over 16 seconds is ‘glacially slow’ and only acceptable as a city car... and if you do use it on the highway, expect that you’ll have to be very patient and stick to the slow lane.

The 1996 Continental did 0-60 in 7.7 to 8 seconds. So it’s at the cusp of being ‘acceptable’ and ‘reasonably fast’ in my view.

To many people who bought it, it was very fast because many of those people where coming from a car made in the 1980s with far less power. The Continental that came before it only had a 155HP 3.8L V6... which had become a joke in its last few years of production (went out of production in. 1994)

Batman the Horse > PS9
08/28/2016 at 14:42

Not that anybody else couldn’t supply it but it produces great, reliable power in a compact package. That IS sports car magic you doof.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > daender
08/28/2016 at 14:44

The 1996 Continental had a 260HP 32V DOHC 4.6L V8.

You’re thinking of the Town Car which still had the 16V SOHC 4.6L V8.

I still don’t understand why Ford refused to put the 32V DOHC modular V8 in the Town Car.

PS9 > Batman the Horse
08/28/2016 at 14:48

‘Great’? 270HP is not great. It’s Average. It’s slightly less than what you should expect of a V6 in 2016, and the market is saturated by motors from other companies that provide better power and efficiency at this point. You can’t prop up a totally average amount of power as an ‘unfair’ benchmark for fast cars to meet just because you can also find it under the hood of a Lotus. It’s non-sequitur.

daender > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
08/28/2016 at 14:48

It would have probably eaten up whatever was left of the Continental’s sales.

Batman the Horse > PS9
08/28/2016 at 14:48

You seem chill.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
08/28/2016 at 14:52

If I'm being completely honest, I had forgotten the Continental was v8 powered. I was thinking it was a v6. That said, I still don't think it's something I'd describe as fast and fun. Reasonably quick in a straight line though, apparently.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > daender
08/28/2016 at 14:55

I think it would have been fine. The Town Car and the Continental were very different cars. One was FWD, the other RWD. One bigger, one smaller. One focused to the ‘traditional’ Lincoln buyer, one focused (in theory) on the less traditional Lincoln buyer.

When the Lincoln LS came out, THAT car should have been the new Continental. And they shouldn’t have limited it by dropping in inferior/cheapened 3.9L versions of the AJ-V8 and instead, used variants of the 32V Mustang Cobra engine.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
08/28/2016 at 14:59

Oh yeah... the old OHV V6 Continental was a complete joke by 1994... should have been updated with a better powertrain at least 5 years prior. Personally, I think they should have dropped the 3.2L DOHC 24V Yamaha V6 from the SHO into the Continental in 1992 as a stopgap measure.

Prior to 1992, I don’t think Ford had a FWD automatic transmission that could handle much more than 160HP.