Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, a 427 Yenko would be overkill. Driving a 12-second car on the street. On the other hand, why not?
Yeah, a great year for cars... '69. And yes, by '74, the party was pretty much over for muscle cars.
I remember the "bad old days" all too clearly. Up to 69 things were getting mostly better, in 69 GM made some significant improvements to suspension geometry across the board and improved handling. 70 was about as good as 69. In 71 the horsepower measurements went from gross to net, so the numbers went down quite a bit, compression ratios were down some but these cars were not slugs, and the loss of HP was more on paper than in reality. Although, yeah, not as good as the previous 2 years. 72 about like 71. But in 73 the smog regs brought about some truly horrible mills in stock trim, and 74 was somewhat worse. In 75 the invention of catalytic converters allowed a mild recovery, but it would be in the mid 80's before anything remotely "fast" right out of the box came from Detroit, anyway...
I remember the "bad old days" all too clearly. Up to 69 things were getting mostly better, in 69 GM made some significant improvements to suspension geometry across the board and improved handling. 70 was about as good as 69. In 71 the horsepower measurements went from gross to net, so the numbers went down quite a bit, compression ratios were down some but these cars were not slugs, and the loss of HP was more on paper than in reality. Although, yeah, not as good as the previous 2 years. 72 about like 71. But in 73 the smog regs brought about some truly horrible mills in stock trim, and 74 was somewhat worse. In 75 the invention of catalytic converters allowed a mild recovery, but it would be in the mid 80's before anything remotely "fast" right out of the box came from Detroit, anyway...
Anything after 1971 both suffered performance-wise as well as styling. Muscle cars just started looking...uglier. Anyone have a reason for this phenomenon?
1. The useful vehicle- A Chevy Silverado 2500HD or F-250 Super Duty, depending on whose is better that particular year. I'd lean toward the Chevy this year.
2. The collectible vehicle- 2005-2008 Ford GT.
3. The fun vehicle- 2012 Mustang GT. I could actually afford to drive, insure, and repair it, unlike most of the supercars you guys would list here
Anything after 1971 both suffered performance-wise as well as styling. Muscle cars just started looking...uglier. Anyone have a reason for this phenomenon?
I remember the "bad old days" all too clearly. Up to 69 things were getting mostly better, in 69 GM made some significant improvements to suspension geometry across the board and improved handling. 70 was about as good as 69. In 71 the horsepower measurements went from gross to net, so the numbers went down quite a bit, compression ratios were down some but these cars were not slugs, and the loss of HP was more on paper than in reality. Although, yeah, not as good as the previous 2 years. 72 about like 71. But in 73 the smog regs brought about some truly horrible mills in stock trim, and 74 was somewhat worse. In 75 the invention of catalytic converters allowed a mild recovery, but it would be in the mid 80's before anything remotely "fast" right out of the box came from Detroit, anyway...
Someone made a good point when he said the peak of the muscle cars was 1969. Because compression ratio started dropping for some cars beginning in 1970.
For example, the Mopar 383-4 bbl went from 10.0:1 in '69 to 9.50:1 in '70. The 440 went from 10.1:1 to 9.7:1. And the Cadillac 472 went from 10.5:1 in '69 to 10.0:1 in '70. Fortunately, some stayed the same, like the 426-Hemi and 340.
So 1970 was the "beginning of the end." Although there were still true muscle cars offered in 1970, like the 454 LS6 Chevelle, the Hemi and 440 Mopars and 429 Mustang, to name just a few.
Yes, I would say the 1984 Camaro was the beginning of good performance again.
May I please have 7 instead? I cannot narrow the list.
1969 Jensen FF or 1974 Jensen Interceptor Convertable. (For style - evenings out etc)
1973 Jensen Healey (for fun)
1969(?) Plymouth Barrcuda convertable, or a GTO judge For classic muscle and cruising)
New Corvette (for performance - driving too fast, etc)
2011 Dodge Ram Laramie (for practical use)
2011 conversion van (for road trips with the family).
Nissan Leaf or something similar (for commuting)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
70 was about as good as 69. In 71 the horsepower measurements went from gross to net, so the numbers went down quite a bit, compression ratios were down some but these cars were not slugs, and the loss of HP was more on paper than in reality. Although, yeah, not as good as the previous 2 years. 72 about like 71. But in 73 the smog regs brought about some truly horrible mills in stock trim, 
and 74 was somewhat worse. In 75 the invention of catalytic converters allowed a mild recovery, but it would be in the mid 80's before anything remotely "fast" right out of the box came from Detroit, anyway...
