My I968 RT Charger vs a BMW M5 or 6 and there mite have been a R in

A modern BMW has a 5 speed automatic that includes overdrive. With a 68
charger with an automatic (3 speeds) you have no chance
of beating in a high speed race. 0 to 60, maybe.

I raced an M3 with my 69 Vette about 10 years ago. Was a surface street so
I pulled out at about 60 mph. I had the 427 with 3 carbs for 435 hp. I
would punch it and pull a half lenght ahead then shift. He would catch up
so I would punch it in that gear and get ahead, then I would shift and he
would catch up. I could keep ahead basically any time I wanted.

You cannot compare perfornance of classic cars to modern ones. They were
each designed for different times.

Bet your Charger is going up in value whereas that M3 is dropping in value.
I have a 64 Vette convertible in my garage along with my wife's 325 Ci
convertible. Like em both.

Vito


"SAT W-7" > wrote in message
...
> It was a BMW M-5 .......Are there 5 or 6 speeds ?
>
> Yes my aero dynamics is bad on the I968 Charger because it catches
> the air like a baseball catchers mit + i do not have a front bumper so
> even more air my car has to push through ......Yes i have a automatic
>
> They are cool looking cars , it was black and it had a hood scoop or
> at least i think it was a hood scoop ?
>
> A guy at work told me they cost around 80,000 $ ....
>
> I do not know how accurate my speedometer is at those speeds but it
> was saying I20 to I25 so my best guess the BMW M 5 was going I30 to I35
> .....
>
> It was FUN to race it even though i lost ..
>
> I do not know what year the BMW was either ?
> It looked pretty new to me ...My car is from I968
> What kind of engine do they have ?
>
> Thank you for all that info you posted ..
>
> By the way as much fun as it was it was also very dumb to do too.....We
> were lucky no cops were around.......
>
>

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in message
.. .
> "R. Mark Clayton" > wrote
>> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote
>>> The M88 is quite a different engine from the M30 that was in the 535i
>>> and 735i (twin vs. single cams, to begin with.) Perhaps you're thinking
>>> of the M535i, which had the M88 not the M30.
>>
>> I think perhaps I was :-( hence not much noticable difference in
>> performance when I drove it. The official M badge fooled me, and
>> probably not a few purchasers!
>
> Could have been just a badge, as well; lots of up-badging as well as
> de-badging.

It was a close friend and the car was genuine M, however I had forgotten
that there was an intermediate M535i.

I debadged my 740i because I had a cherished number with 735 in it.


> There have been many discussions about the plethora of designations
> of BMW cars. I never figured out the M535i/M635Csi stuff until a couple
> of
> years ago - partly because we never got them in the US. BMW is going
> to wacko badging with the X3/X5/X6 here in the US - I believe that
> the X5 is going to be "X5 xDrive35d".
>
> And then there are the after-market guys (not so much in Europe because
> of your inspection regulations), but it's quite possible that someone has
> put an M88/S38 into a 7-series from that era.

Nah mine have all been bog standard, but the first two 735i's were manual
and consequently more fun to drive (and I was a lot younger). These days
you can only really get a manual box in M5 or 6 series and for me (6'8")
these are a little cramped and / or impractical.

>
> FloydR
>

Uncle_vito > wrote:
>A modern BMW has a 5 speed automatic that includes overdrive. With a 68
>charger with an automatic (3 speeds) you have no chance
>of beating in a high speed race. 0 to 60, maybe.

I strongly discourage the use of automatic transmissions. But I will say
that modern automatics are a whole lot better than they were in 1968, both
in terms of performance and reliability.

>I raced an M3 with my 69 Vette about 10 years ago. Was a surface street so
>I pulled out at about 60 mph. I had the 427 with 3 carbs for 435 hp. I
>would punch it and pull a half lenght ahead then shift. He would catch up
>so I would punch it in that gear and get ahead, then I would shift and he
>would catch up. I could keep ahead basically any time I wanted.
>
>You cannot compare perfornance of classic cars to modern ones. They were
>each designed for different times.

Yes, and when modified they become more different still.

I think the original poster should go out and drive a BMW 2002. It sure
won't keep up with the Charger on the straightaway.... but it will make
you smile when you drive it. And remember it's more or less a design
contemporary with the Charger, but very different in their design philosophy.

>Bet your Charger is going up in value whereas that M3 is dropping in value.
>I have a 64 Vette convertible in my garage along with my wife's 325 Ci
>convertible. Like em both.

As long as it makes you smile. I have to say when I have driven older
'Vettes, they felt really fast in one direction, and that doesn't seem
pleasant or practical to me. But that's me.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Older Vettes were the car to have when they were new. Don't confuse the
Corvette with the muscle cars of the era. Yes the muscle cars didn't do the
twisties well, but the Corvette was not really a muscle car. It was a
sports car built for 25 cents a gallon gas.

It did the twisties pretty good too. Dick Gulstrand. Grand Sports, etc. A
pretty big racing history. Also, price a 45 year old Corvette with a 45
year old BMW and you will see which was the more popular car.

Also watch the Barrett Jackson car auctions. But those are stupid rich guys
that have more money than brains.

Vito


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Uncle_vito > wrote:
>>A modern BMW has a 5 speed automatic that includes overdrive. With a 68
>>charger with an automatic (3 speeds) you have no chance
>>of beating in a high speed race. 0 to 60, maybe.
>
> I strongly discourage the use of automatic transmissions. But I will say
> that modern automatics are a whole lot better than they were in 1968, both
> in terms of performance and reliability.
>
>>I raced an M3 with my 69 Vette about 10 years ago. Was a surface street
>>so
>>I pulled out at about 60 mph. I had the 427 with 3 carbs for 435 hp. I
>>would punch it and pull a half lenght ahead then shift. He would catch up
>>so I would punch it in that gear and get ahead, then I would shift and he
>>would catch up. I could keep ahead basically any time I wanted.
>>
>>You cannot compare perfornance of classic cars to modern ones. They were
>>each designed for different times.
>
> Yes, and when modified they become more different still.
>
> I think the original poster should go out and drive a BMW 2002. It sure
> won't keep up with the Charger on the straightaway.... but it will make
> you smile when you drive it. And remember it's more or less a design
> contemporary with the Charger, but very different in their design
> philosophy.
>
>>Bet your Charger is going up in value whereas that M3 is dropping in
>>value.
>>I have a 64 Vette convertible in my garage along with my wife's 325 Ci
>>convertible. Like em both.
>
> As long as it makes you smile. I have to say when I have driven older
> 'Vettes, they felt really fast in one direction, and that doesn't seem
> pleasant or practical to me. But that's me.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

Uncle_vito > wrote:
>Older Vettes were the car to have when they were new. Don't confuse the
>Corvette with the muscle cars of the era. Yes the muscle cars didn't do the
>twisties well, but the Corvette was not really a muscle car. It was a
>sports car built for 25 cents a gallon gas.

I'll give the Corvette a lot of credit for that. It does the twisties a
whole lot better than the muscle cars of that era. And a lot better than
some of the Corvettes of the seventies, too. But it's not what I would
call nimble. It doesn't make me smile the way the 2002 does.

>It did the twisties pretty good too. Dick Gulstrand. Grand Sports, etc. A
>pretty big racing history. Also, price a 45 year old Corvette with a 45
>year old BMW and you will see which was the more popular car.

That's another point in favor of the old BMW too.... they don't sell for
crazy prices the way the Corvettes do.

>Also watch the Barrett Jackson car auctions. But those are stupid rich guys
>that have more money than brains.

It's too painful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Yes, a 2002 was a great car.


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Uncle_vito > wrote:
>>Older Vettes were the car to have when they were new. Don't confuse the
>>Corvette with the muscle cars of the era. Yes the muscle cars didn't do
>>the
>>twisties well, but the Corvette was not really a muscle car. It was a
>>sports car built for 25 cents a gallon gas.
>
> I'll give the Corvette a lot of credit for that. It does the twisties a
> whole lot better than the muscle cars of that era. And a lot better than
> some of the Corvettes of the seventies, too. But it's not what I would
> call nimble. It doesn't make me smile the way the 2002 does.
>
>>It did the twisties pretty good too. Dick Gulstrand. Grand Sports, etc.
>>A
>>pretty big racing history. Also, price a 45 year old Corvette with a 45
>>year old BMW and you will see which was the more popular car.
>
> That's another point in favor of the old BMW too.... they don't sell for
> crazy prices the way the Corvettes do.
>
>>Also watch the Barrett Jackson car auctions. But those are stupid rich
>>guys
>>that have more money than brains.
>
> It's too painful.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

Uncle_vito > wrote:
>Yes, a 2002 was a great car.

It still is!

A car should be fun to drive, otherwise what's the point? I'm increasingly
upset at BMW because too many of the newer cars just aren't fun to drive.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."