Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2015, 08:24 PM
 
17,600 posts, read 17,629,777 times
Reputation: 25655

Advertisements

Today's subcompact could drag with factory stock V8 cars of the mid to late 70s. Not saying today's subcompact could beat them, but there wouldn't be much time difference depending on the model. Many of today's compacts could give the factory stock muscle cars of the mid to late 70s a run for the money in straight line and cornering. Today's optional engine family sedans could beat those stock muscle cars in a drag race. Many of the cars of that period rust easily, bad plastics that quickly discolored and crack in the sun, low horsepower, low fuel economy, and in some cases styled by narcotics (think screaming chicken or pin stripe cobra). Performance began returning in the mid80s, but build quality on American cars was still stuck in the 70s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2015, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,913 posts, read 5,227,108 times
Reputation: 5824
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch View Post
The smog pump generally only used up about 5 HP. The low HP was due to the carb jetting being way lean, spark retarded, low compression, and funky cam timing. If you took the belt off the smog pump with no other changes, you would have had about 150 HP.

Actually the better spec engines from this vintage had the smog pump, they were jetted a *bit* richer, for a bit better power and drive-ability, the smog pump added some oxygen to the exhaust stream to get it closer to stoichemetric for the benefit of the catalytic converter.
Never knew that. I do recall though that the 76model was a bit more peppy. If I recall, they made the car smaller in 78. Had a V6 or that 305?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,913 posts, read 5,227,108 times
Reputation: 5824
Forgot, the challeng and chargers were neat and cheap.....the 72 mustang had a long nose and long slant on the rear windshield.....67-68 firebirds and camaros were nice....and common....we also had the vw "thing".....so.....there's......that....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 08:49 PM
 
3,759 posts, read 5,853,701 times
Reputation: 5537
Had a 73 Luxury LeMans with the fender skirts. Had the 400 V8. Went around everything except the gas station. Not the best build quality but it was dependable. Better than the 75 Volvo 242 with fuel injection. The injection system would plug up and left us stranded several times. What an expensive POS. Never buy another Volvo again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 08:52 PM
 
Location: SC
8,793 posts, read 8,157,503 times
Reputation: 12992
Quote:
Originally Posted by rattle axis View Post
To clarify, OP is asking which cars were good from that time period. Hence the cars being named align with your perception of good vehicles.
My Bad. Guess I was thrown by the thread title.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 10:20 PM
 
25,840 posts, read 16,515,156 times
Reputation: 16024
Ford LTD's were solid. That is if 5000 lbs sedans with 400 CI engines are a practical vehicle. But they were awesome at what they were designed for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,508 posts, read 33,295,278 times
Reputation: 7622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post
Forgot, the challeng and chargers were neat and cheap.....the 72 mustang had a long nose and long slant on the rear windshield.....67-68 firebirds and camaros were nice....and common....we also had the vw "thing".....so.....there's......that....
The VW Thing is best forgotten.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 04:10 AM
 
287 posts, read 326,830 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dburger View Post
I like pretty much everything made during that time. The 1975-80 Chevy Monza and its badge engineered sisters are some of my favorite cars of all time.
Aluminum block engine blocks that warped at the first sign of over-heating and bodies that rusted out in about a year. Monzas were pieces of crap...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,289 posts, read 32,330,688 times
Reputation: 21891
Quote:
Originally Posted by froglipz View Post
Thinking back during the 10 years 1975-1985 seems every car made was awful. Were there any cars from that time period that weren't?
I was in High school from the 1979 - 1980 school year till the 1982 - 1983 school year.

Cars that my friends and myself liked back then were the BMW 320I, Porsche 924, Ford Mustang. Some neighbors had the Lincoln Mark VI 2 door coupe with its long hood. I still love the look of that car. My dad had a 64 Coupe De Ville and a 1977 Ford Thunderbird. Olds cutlass was still selling well back then. I had a 71 olds cutlass.

What I miss from back then is all the British sports cars. MG's MGB and the Midget. Loved the Triumph Spitfire. That was probably my all time favorite British Sports car. Back then they seemed to be secondary cars, weekend cars. Probably due to Government regulations British Leyland stopped selling the MG's and Triumphs here in the States in 1980 I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC & Augusta, GA
899 posts, read 1,014,821 times
Reputation: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by deweyforprez View Post
Aluminum block engine blocks that warped at the first sign of over-heating and bodies that rusted out in about a year. Monzas were pieces of crap...
Very, very few had the problematic 2.3L 4 cylinder. Most had the reliable Iron Duke, Buick V6, or a V8. With a V8 and a few other small modifcations, you could have a fun and fast car. I have a 383 stroker for when I finally buy one. Yes, the build quality suffered, but every car back then did. There are still plenty of these 70s and 80s cars around.

The hatchback's shape is simply a thing of beauty:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:07 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top