Question for the people old enough to be driving in the mid to late 70's...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Question for the people old enough to be driving in the mid to late 70's...
What did you do when the cars became crap because of smog and what not? I mean..my old 79 Firebird had like 300hp...and I could not imagine it with 120HP?
I know during this time more Mustangs and F-bodies we sold more than ever. So did people buy these cars and instantly mod them. Or did you leave them as is...and drive around looking cool like Burt Reynolds?
I know during this time more Mustangs and F-bodies we sold more than ever. So did people buy these cars and instantly mod them. Or did you leave them as is...and drive around looking cool like Burt Reynolds?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
It's all relative.
And yes, some were stock and some were built. In the late '70's, unless you were a rich dude in a Corvette, the street was all about Z/28 vs Trans Am. And stock for stock, the '79 W72,(T/A 6.6, 4 speed) Trans Am ruled. But if you had a Z/28, all you had to do to it's smallblock is blow on it to make it go - fast.
In my old neighborhood, on the northwest side of Chicago, my buddy Louie was the first one to get a '79 T/A 6.6. In fact, he traded in his '78 Trans Am for it.
Ted had a new 4 speed Z/28. Louie blew him away. Ted didn't appreciate that much and spent the next weekend in his garage. He bolted on Hooker headers, dumped the cat, and got an Edelbrock intake.
He then went looking for Louie. When he found him at a red light, he pulled up and uttered the now legendary line, " you better take that sh!tbird tincan to the junkyard", and proceeded to blow that screaming chicken decal off of Louie's hood.
The next week, Louie had headers on his Trans Am.
And so it went......
And yes, some were stock and some were built. In the late '70's, unless you were a rich dude in a Corvette, the street was all about Z/28 vs Trans Am. And stock for stock, the '79 W72,(T/A 6.6, 4 speed) Trans Am ruled. But if you had a Z/28, all you had to do to it's smallblock is blow on it to make it go - fast.
In my old neighborhood, on the northwest side of Chicago, my buddy Louie was the first one to get a '79 T/A 6.6. In fact, he traded in his '78 Trans Am for it.
Ted had a new 4 speed Z/28. Louie blew him away. Ted didn't appreciate that much and spent the next weekend in his garage. He bolted on Hooker headers, dumped the cat, and got an Edelbrock intake.
He then went looking for Louie. When he found him at a red light, he pulled up and uttered the now legendary line, " you better take that sh!tbird tincan to the junkyard", and proceeded to blow that screaming chicken decal off of Louie's hood.
The next week, Louie had headers on his Trans Am.
And so it went......
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
You are operating from a flawed perspective Branden. Regular cars have been the quickest in history for over a decade now. Plus, you have been driving for quite awhile, and have become used to powerful vehicles.
First of all, when you're just starting to drive, you'd swear a Yugo was quick. It's all relative.
Second, although the end of the 60s, start of the 70s was the zenith of the muscle car age, there was actually relatively few of the hard core models you might think. Most actually on the streets in any number were the base or volume numbers whose performance became the top performers of the 70s.
I learned to drive 1st on my dad's '70 Impala, then later in his brand new, black, 1977, LM1 Caprice Classic. By today's standards, it's 9 seconds to 60 qualifies it as a slug. But not only was it almost too fast for a begining male driver, it was about as quick as perhaps 90 percent of the Camaros sold during the muscle car era. Ditto the Pontiac Trans Am. The W72s ran about 7 seconds to 60, which is on par with the GTOs you would likely come across and the Aspen R/T 360s, despite having 2 barrel carbs, ran pretty even with the 340s.
Keep in mind back in those days, INSURENCE was a HUGE issue.
Although people were dumping muscle cars as if they contained the plague, back then men payed far more in insurence than women, and the muscle car era was destroyed by insurence surcharges (in my sticky, I point out muscle car sales dropped like a ton of bricks after the 1969 model year, which is when the insurence companies got together and created surcharges based simply on the name of the car!).
You are also looking at horsepower numbers instead of torque. Torque in the 1970s didn't disappear as much as horsepower did, so there wasn't that big of a difference in acceleration of regular cars.
So, in short, to the young driver, outside of reading magazines, there was no effect of the demise of muscle cars on us. Hemis, LS1s, Ram Air IIs, and Cobra Jets were as rare and a big deal as coming up on a GT500 or SRT8 Challenger is today. The top sporty cars of the 1970s were on par with regular performance cars of the previous era, and was more plentyful.
The Chevrolet Monza Spyder took nearly 10 seconds to get to 60 mph. About the same as a 327 4 barrel Chevrolet Camaro, and on par with 350 4 barrel Chevelles. L82 Corvettes weren't the quickest accelerating Vetts ever, but at 130 mph, they were quicker than even most muscle cars of the muscle car era (which typically punched out to lunch at 120-125 mph due to modest engine speed and tall numerical axles) despite whatever rumor or reputations they developed over the years.
One last thing that Charlie touched on: It was ALOT easier to modify cars back then. Dropping cats was still legal, as was disconnecting smog pumps. There was no electronic nannies or computer codes to break. Simply buy your part, get a friend of family member to help you, and bolt it in or bolt it on.
First of all, when you're just starting to drive, you'd swear a Yugo was quick. It's all relative.
Second, although the end of the 60s, start of the 70s was the zenith of the muscle car age, there was actually relatively few of the hard core models you might think. Most actually on the streets in any number were the base or volume numbers whose performance became the top performers of the 70s.
I learned to drive 1st on my dad's '70 Impala, then later in his brand new, black, 1977, LM1 Caprice Classic. By today's standards, it's 9 seconds to 60 qualifies it as a slug. But not only was it almost too fast for a begining male driver, it was about as quick as perhaps 90 percent of the Camaros sold during the muscle car era. Ditto the Pontiac Trans Am. The W72s ran about 7 seconds to 60, which is on par with the GTOs you would likely come across and the Aspen R/T 360s, despite having 2 barrel carbs, ran pretty even with the 340s.
Keep in mind back in those days, INSURENCE was a HUGE issue.
Although people were dumping muscle cars as if they contained the plague, back then men payed far more in insurence than women, and the muscle car era was destroyed by insurence surcharges (in my sticky, I point out muscle car sales dropped like a ton of bricks after the 1969 model year, which is when the insurence companies got together and created surcharges based simply on the name of the car!).
You are also looking at horsepower numbers instead of torque. Torque in the 1970s didn't disappear as much as horsepower did, so there wasn't that big of a difference in acceleration of regular cars.
So, in short, to the young driver, outside of reading magazines, there was no effect of the demise of muscle cars on us. Hemis, LS1s, Ram Air IIs, and Cobra Jets were as rare and a big deal as coming up on a GT500 or SRT8 Challenger is today. The top sporty cars of the 1970s were on par with regular performance cars of the previous era, and was more plentyful.
The Chevrolet Monza Spyder took nearly 10 seconds to get to 60 mph. About the same as a 327 4 barrel Chevrolet Camaro, and on par with 350 4 barrel Chevelles. L82 Corvettes weren't the quickest accelerating Vetts ever, but at 130 mph, they were quicker than even most muscle cars of the muscle car era (which typically punched out to lunch at 120-125 mph due to modest engine speed and tall numerical axles) despite whatever rumor or reputations they developed over the years.
One last thing that Charlie touched on: It was ALOT easier to modify cars back then. Dropping cats was still legal, as was disconnecting smog pumps. There was no electronic nannies or computer codes to break. Simply buy your part, get a friend of family member to help you, and bolt it in or bolt it on.
Last edited by guionM; Feb 25, 2009 at 12:44 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
I don't think my perspective is flawed. Cars lost a lot of power from 1969 to 1979. It is all relative really...but if you traded in say a 70 Trans Am for a 79 Trans Am..you got a much different car.
You are operating from a flawed perspective Branden. Regular cars have been the quickest in history for over a decade now. Plus, you have been driving for quite awhile, and have become used to powerful vehicles.
First of all, when you're just starting to drive, you'd swear a Yugo was quick. It's all relative.
Second, although the end of the 60s, start of the 70s was the zenith of the muscle car age, there was actually relatively few of the hard core models you might think. Most actually on the streets in any number were the base or volume numbers whose performance became the top performers of the 70s.
I learned to drive 1st on my dad's '70 Impala, then later in his brand new, black, 1977, LM1 Caprice Classic. By today's standards, it's 9 seconds to 60 qualifies it as a slug. But not only was it almost too fast for a begining male driver, it was about as quick as perhaps 90 percent of the Camaros sold during the muscle car era. Ditto the Pontiac Trans Am. The W72s ran about 7 seconds to 60, which is on par with the GTOs you would likely come across and the Aspen R/T 360s, despite having 2 barrel carbs, ran pretty even with the 340s.
Keep in mind back in those days, INSURENCE was a HUGE issue.
Although people were dumping muscle cars as if they contained the plague, back then men payed far more in insurence than women, and the muscle car era was destroyed by insurence surcharges (in my sticky, I point out muscle car sales dropped like a ton of bricks after the 1969 model year, which is when the insurence companies got together and created surcharges based simply on the name of the car!).
You are also looking at horsepower numbers instead of torque. Torque in the 1970s didn't disappear as much as horsepower did, so there wasn't that big of a difference in acceleration of regular cars.
So, in short, to the young driver, outside of reading magazines, there was no effect of the demise of muscle cars on us. Hemis, LS1s, Ram Air IIs, and Cobra Jets were as rare and a big deal as coming up on a GT500 or SRT8 Challenger is today. The top sporty cars of the 1970s were on par with regular performance cars of the previous era, and was more plentyful.
The Chevrolet Monza Spyder took nearly 10 seconds to get to 60 mph. About the same as a 327 4 barrel Chevrolet Camaro, and on par with 350 4 barrel Chevelles. L82 Corvettes weren't the quickest accelerating Vetts ever, but at 130 mph, they were quicker than even most muscle cars of the muscle car era (which typically punched out to lunch at 120-125 mph due to modest engine speed and tall numerical axles) despite whatever rumor or reputations they developed over the years.
One last thing that Charlie touched on: It was ALOT easier to modify cars back then. Dropping cats was still legal, as was disconnecting smog pumps. There was no electronic nannies or computer codes to break. Simply buy your part, get a friend of family member to help you, and bolt it in or bolt it on.
First of all, when you're just starting to drive, you'd swear a Yugo was quick. It's all relative.
Second, although the end of the 60s, start of the 70s was the zenith of the muscle car age, there was actually relatively few of the hard core models you might think. Most actually on the streets in any number were the base or volume numbers whose performance became the top performers of the 70s.
I learned to drive 1st on my dad's '70 Impala, then later in his brand new, black, 1977, LM1 Caprice Classic. By today's standards, it's 9 seconds to 60 qualifies it as a slug. But not only was it almost too fast for a begining male driver, it was about as quick as perhaps 90 percent of the Camaros sold during the muscle car era. Ditto the Pontiac Trans Am. The W72s ran about 7 seconds to 60, which is on par with the GTOs you would likely come across and the Aspen R/T 360s, despite having 2 barrel carbs, ran pretty even with the 340s.
Keep in mind back in those days, INSURENCE was a HUGE issue.
Although people were dumping muscle cars as if they contained the plague, back then men payed far more in insurence than women, and the muscle car era was destroyed by insurence surcharges (in my sticky, I point out muscle car sales dropped like a ton of bricks after the 1969 model year, which is when the insurence companies got together and created surcharges based simply on the name of the car!).
You are also looking at horsepower numbers instead of torque. Torque in the 1970s didn't disappear as much as horsepower did, so there wasn't that big of a difference in acceleration of regular cars.
So, in short, to the young driver, outside of reading magazines, there was no effect of the demise of muscle cars on us. Hemis, LS1s, Ram Air IIs, and Cobra Jets were as rare and a big deal as coming up on a GT500 or SRT8 Challenger is today. The top sporty cars of the 1970s were on par with regular performance cars of the previous era, and was more plentyful.
The Chevrolet Monza Spyder took nearly 10 seconds to get to 60 mph. About the same as a 327 4 barrel Chevrolet Camaro, and on par with 350 4 barrel Chevelles. L82 Corvettes weren't the quickest accelerating Vetts ever, but at 130 mph, they were quicker than even most muscle cars of the muscle car era (which typically punched out to lunch at 120-125 mph due to modest engine speed and tall numerical axles) despite whatever rumor or reputations they developed over the years.
One last thing that Charlie touched on: It was ALOT easier to modify cars back then. Dropping cats was still legal, as was disconnecting smog pumps. There was no electronic nannies or computer codes to break. Simply buy your part, get a friend of family member to help you, and bolt it in or bolt it on.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Is there even a stock Camaro built before 1990 that is faster than a 2010 Camaro V6?
I think a worse case scenario is the next Camaro is on Alpha and only offers 4cyl and V6 engines. A 304HP 3300lbs. car would still do the 1/4mi. in 13's. By then GM might have a 350HP 4.0L V6. It would almost be like someone hit the reset button and we went back to LT1 days.
1/4mi and 0-60 times = http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=10251
I think a worse case scenario is the next Camaro is on Alpha and only offers 4cyl and V6 engines. A 304HP 3300lbs. car would still do the 1/4mi. in 13's. By then GM might have a 350HP 4.0L V6. It would almost be like someone hit the reset button and we went back to LT1 days.
1/4mi and 0-60 times = http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=10251
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 439
From: upstate New York
I *think* the mid to late '80's IROCs came with the 350/5.7 and a stick, and were decently quick- but as said elsewhere, for every one of those you saw, there were 8 or 10 6-cylinder ones around- 'real' muscle cars were always an expensive option, so most of the Plymouths, Chevelles, Dodges and so on were the more basic models- You could get a car optioned any way you wanted, from white wall tires, fancy hubcaps (alloy Wheels were almost non-existent), no radio, AM radio, AM/FM or even an 8-track- two tone paint, fancy trim, even similar cars like say the Belair/Caprice/Impala had different grilles and different taillights- Or a Dodge Charger versus a Plymouth Barracuda- same body, different lights, grille, and trim- sort of like buying a Chevy Chevelle or an Olds Cutlass or a Buick Skylark or a Pontiac Tempest- same sheet metal, different trim and wheels, different optional engines available- even though the W30 Olds or the GSX Buick or the Pontiac GTO was made, you almost never saw one-
What made it more confusing was the guy who got his dad's Cutlass or Tempest, and then got the sport wheels from the junkyard, and put on the decals and trim pieces, so people would thing he was driving the Hurst Olds or a GTO- those are the cars that drive the collectors nuts, now days, because they buy one, run the VIN, and find out it wasn't a true collectible-
Yeah, the insurance played a part in the demise of muscle cars, as did rising gas prices and tighter emission specs- without computers and fuel injection, it got increasingly harder to produce clean burning engines, and the compression ratios got lowered, to reduce smog, but also reduce power and mileage- Also, in the early 70's, they changed the way the engines were rated for HP, went from 'net' to SAE, if I recall- used to rate engines on a stand, without exhaust, or water pumps, no alternator- for maximum output- then they changed to actually rating them how they were installed- and the numbers dropped quite a bit in the books, but not as much as you would think behind the wheel- but, yeah, an older late 60's car that could run in the 13's was quick for it's time-
Before you get too nostalgic, consider that radial tires weren't too common until maybe the mid 70's, that most cars, if they had disc brakes at all were only on the fronts, that most cars did not come with sway bars (more correctly, anti-roll bars) and that most performance was from stop light to stop light- even the 'vettes of the day really didn't handle too well- that was why the european cars were so sought after, by the sports car guys-
What made it more confusing was the guy who got his dad's Cutlass or Tempest, and then got the sport wheels from the junkyard, and put on the decals and trim pieces, so people would thing he was driving the Hurst Olds or a GTO- those are the cars that drive the collectors nuts, now days, because they buy one, run the VIN, and find out it wasn't a true collectible-
Yeah, the insurance played a part in the demise of muscle cars, as did rising gas prices and tighter emission specs- without computers and fuel injection, it got increasingly harder to produce clean burning engines, and the compression ratios got lowered, to reduce smog, but also reduce power and mileage- Also, in the early 70's, they changed the way the engines were rated for HP, went from 'net' to SAE, if I recall- used to rate engines on a stand, without exhaust, or water pumps, no alternator- for maximum output- then they changed to actually rating them how they were installed- and the numbers dropped quite a bit in the books, but not as much as you would think behind the wheel- but, yeah, an older late 60's car that could run in the 13's was quick for it's time-
Before you get too nostalgic, consider that radial tires weren't too common until maybe the mid 70's, that most cars, if they had disc brakes at all were only on the fronts, that most cars did not come with sway bars (more correctly, anti-roll bars) and that most performance was from stop light to stop light- even the 'vettes of the day really didn't handle too well- that was why the european cars were so sought after, by the sports car guys-
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Second, the '69 Trans Am had a base price of $3,556 (Z28s cost $5,207 and Corvettes started around $4700).
Third, and the most important:
There were 3,169 Trans Ams made in 1970.
There were 117,108 Trans Ams made in 1979.
Besides the absolute massive popularity of the late 70s Trans Ams over the 1970 version, there are many other perspectives you are completely missing that I think is skewing the perspective of driving in the 70s.
1. Those cars you are likely thinking of (Ram Air II, Hemis, CJs, etc..) were actually rare & expensive vehicles that weren't often seen.
2. Again, INSURENCE was the be-all/end-all. If you were under 25 years old, you simply weren't going to be driving in a 440 wedge Road Runner.
3. Fuel economy ruled. Gas went from something like a quarter per gallon to as high as $1.50. That may not seem like much today, but when you consider that today's median income is about $35K annually and in 1975 it was just over $12K, that means the real value of gas at that time in today's money was $4.50 per gallon. Even when gas settled back at just under $1 per gallon, that's still the same as $3 today.
4. You point to a 120 horsepower Firebird as if this was the norm. In 1979, the base 301 V8s had 150 horses. The 403 had 180. The T/A 6.6 had 225. BUT, don't forget that torque=acceleration. Base V8s had 250 lbs/ft, 403s and W72s had 320.
5. Finally, it was removing lead from gasoline that killed all the high compression engines after the insurence companies decimated muscle car sales. The change in SAE horsepower ratings in '72 gave the illusion that the output of engines dropped far more than they actually did.
There is the false impression (many people have this view, so don't feel bad
) that everyone was driving around in these monster cars until the government stepped in and we all ended up driving cars with the power of a mid-grade lawn mower. That's not quite the case....In January 1970, Car & Driver magazine tested a GTO with the 455HO. It reached 60mph in 6.6 seconds and the quarter in 15 flat at 96.5 mph.
Hot Rod Magazine (February '79) ran a new 1979 W72 Trans Am to 60 in in 6.7 and the quarter in 14.6 at 96.6 mph.
1970 383 Road Runners did 60 in 7 flat, the quarter in 15 flat at 96. The '78 Volare Road Runner w/the 360 did 7.3, and 15.9@88.
Doesn't exactly fit the stereotype of popular belief, does it?
Also, as mentioned, today's regular, standard-issue, and even base cars are simply F-A-S-T compared to cars from not just the 70s, but the 60s as well (look up the times of a base 6 cylinder Camaro...or even 327s... from the late 60s!).
Cars us new drivers actually ended up with (ie: 350 Malibus, Camaros, & Novas, or 302 Mustangs for example) saw essentially little change in actual performance. The only place you really noticed the difference was in car magazines.
Believe it or not, there was a much bigger drop in performance in the 1980 to 1981 timeframe than there was in the 70s.
Last edited by guionM; Feb 25, 2009 at 01:55 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,045
From: Lake Hopatcong N.J
I really find this interesting and have wondered this too being that I am a child from the early 80's.
Am I alone in thinking that why does every modern car need to push the limits of speed and power? Where are we going to go from here? Like why does an average Camry or Altama need 250+HP and 0-60's in the 6 second? Are we setting ourselves up for disapointment when fuel prices rise and we will once again have to live with less performance? Currently a "base" Corvette has over 430HP! And Mustang 4.6 is still a strong performer, I often imagine what the reaction would be like if we could zap many of our "average" vehicles back into time to see what they would be received as, the styling, electronics, and performance.
Another issue I'll try to ask: Was the battle more fun? For example, I had a 98 Camaro V6 for a long time and it probably did 0-60 in the 7 second range which would have made it a strong car to the "average" vehicle in the 60's and 70's (and even 80's), 200HP!
But half the battle was the fun of trying to race against cars that would be a challenge for me, now that I have an LS1 GTO, even though it isnt LS3 quick or light, It still is a VERY fast car and I almost dont want to push the limits or race agains any other vehicle comperable because it would be a much Faster extreme race And partially much easier making it less challenging?
I'm hoping the late 70's cars get their chance to shine on the auction blocks and I would happly own a few (mostly Camaro's or TA's) I think their values are more reasonable.
Am I alone in thinking that why does every modern car need to push the limits of speed and power? Where are we going to go from here? Like why does an average Camry or Altama need 250+HP and 0-60's in the 6 second? Are we setting ourselves up for disapointment when fuel prices rise and we will once again have to live with less performance? Currently a "base" Corvette has over 430HP! And Mustang 4.6 is still a strong performer, I often imagine what the reaction would be like if we could zap many of our "average" vehicles back into time to see what they would be received as, the styling, electronics, and performance.
Another issue I'll try to ask: Was the battle more fun? For example, I had a 98 Camaro V6 for a long time and it probably did 0-60 in the 7 second range which would have made it a strong car to the "average" vehicle in the 60's and 70's (and even 80's), 200HP!
But half the battle was the fun of trying to race against cars that would be a challenge for me, now that I have an LS1 GTO, even though it isnt LS3 quick or light, It still is a VERY fast car and I almost dont want to push the limits or race agains any other vehicle comperable because it would be a much Faster extreme race And partially much easier making it less challenging?I'm hoping the late 70's cars get their chance to shine on the auction blocks and I would happly own a few (mostly Camaro's or TA's) I think their values are more reasonable.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Like I said, it was all relative. If you had a car which could run high 14's, you were a badass ****.
And yeah, it was fun.
My first car was my dad's hand-me-down, '70 Delta 88 hardtop. I recurved the distributor, advanced the timing, installed a B&M shiftkit in the TH400 --- and oh yes, flipped the aircleaner lid over. Maybe that car ran 16's (just guessing), but I had a blast. And my local tire retailer loved me!
And yeah, it was fun.
My first car was my dad's hand-me-down, '70 Delta 88 hardtop. I recurved the distributor, advanced the timing, installed a B&M shiftkit in the TH400 --- and oh yes, flipped the aircleaner lid over. Maybe that car ran 16's (just guessing), but I had a blast. And my local tire retailer loved me!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
You must understand that the coolest thing to do in the 70's was LOOK GOOD.
It was all about the show, not so much the "go".
Look at the old TV shaows from then... Sonny and Cher, Charlie's Angels, The $6-million Man, etc. It was all about neon lights, flashing signs, bell-bottoms, big collars, perfect hair, polyester, glitz and glam.
It was also cool and you were considered "patriotic" if you were becoming conscious about the energy you were using. Electrical, gas, or otherwise, you were setting the trend if you were "saving". Remember, the world was told by some very authoritative figures that we were going to run out of oil in a few years, it was proved by the gas crunch, and studied by all. THAT was as big a deal in the 70's as much so if not more than +error1sm is in today's world. It MADE the policy and lifestyles of the day.
So picture it... you could still ride around in a cool-looking car that sounded good, and was decently quick, but you were not polluting the air as bad, and you were saving gas/oil to boot. Hence, the gaudy (by our standards) spoilers, graphics, stickers, features, bells and whistles like the 78 King Cobra, the 78 Z/28, the Bandit car, etc. You didn't have to go fast anymore... you just needed to look good.
Now for the true racers at heart, it was not difficult to go fast. You could buy a true musclecar from the 60s for nothing - folks were trying to give them away because they could not afford to put gas in them. OR you could take all the smog stuff off your car and tune it to suit you. You could leave the 137hp 302 sitting in the 76 Mustang you just bought, and swap the 2V intake for a 4v, put on a used Holley 520 cfm carb with vacuum secondaries and electric choke, swap the cam and adjust the timing on it, and be stoking 200+ good ponies in a single afternoon without losing driving manners at all. Go so far as a head swap and headers and dual exhausts, and you were going ballistic in a car that weighed well under 3000 lbs.
I guess the thing is to think hard about it and try to put yourself in that era.
It would be no more weird for us to try to understand why a 140hp ponycar was acceptable then, as it would be for someone then to be expected to strip down and be body-searched and have you stuff X-rayed before you could get on an airplane today.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 563
From: Hammer down!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL