Question for the people old enough to be driving in the mid to late 70's...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
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?
In 1975 I traded my 1970 1/2 Z28 for a Vega Cosworth. That car was a lot of fun and as I was doing lots of miles per year, it was better on fuel costs. Low compression motors were the thing at that time, but I swapped out the pistons to High-Performance pistons from Chevy, and had them machined down to 10.5:1 compression. A little cam timing, a little exhaust modifications and the Vega Cosworth was a much more interesting car.
I sold it in 1979 and purchased a '79 Z/28. I was not happy with the performance of the '79 Z/28's weak sauce engine, but it was a 350 and could be improved easily. I change the car from a automatic to a 4 speed Corvette close ratio. Put a original Z/28 hi-rise intake manifold and Holly 780 carb. Change the cam, spring, and lifters. Thus the car ran much more in keeping with the 1970 Z/28 I had.
I had a '69 Z/28 in '69 and have driven some of the hot stuff from "the good old days". The 302 was a sweet engine and with headers and tuning, and making sure you kept after the lash on the solid lifters, it was really something. I got the opportunity to drive a 1967 L88 Corvette quite a few times and that combo can stand up to it's rep even today.
High performance cars from this present era shame the originals with but a few exceptions from the "golden era".
Opinions always will differ, and what folks value and find desirable will differ too.
I admire some of the styling and attitude some of the performace stuff from the 1960's had. It was a time when car manufacturers widely tapped into the desire for fun and fast cars. Undeniably much heritage and loyalty was born in those times... BUT, when I watch a Barrett Jackson auction? When the huge dollars are bid for "clones", I'm left shaking my head. Those cars were NOT that good. What you can buy now hands them their ***... I figure people are bidding up their memory and the attitude thing. It isn't the performance. Not when compared to the performance out there now.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
First, it wasn't until the 1993 LT1 Trans Am that acceleration recovered to the sub-6 second level and quarters at 14 seconds or less at over 100 mph (the .
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.
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.
I can think of several cars that were in the 4 and 5 second range for 0-60 times. Grand Nationals, Trans Am with the turbo 6, 3rd gens with the L98.
And insurance was not the end all of muscle cars in the 60's, and 70's. It was the crappy smog motors and like you said the gasoline change and the gas shortage of the 70's. Back then insurance was not required by law to drive your car. I wish they would bring that back, I hate insurance companies.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
guionM
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
14
Jun 19, 2002 08:30 AM