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.
Modern super cars outhandle, outbrake and accelerate faster then a lot of the 60's and 70's muscle cars. And then to top it off the newer cars or very comfortable.
Now lets talk about when cars were cars and ment to be driven by macho thugs. Those cars were rough and tough and had a different type of power then new cars they weren't smooth or soft they had engines that shook to whole car at the stop light, they could and did knock your glasses off your face during hard acceleration. They could get tire squeal and complete lose of control at any speed or in any gear.
Which would I rather own? the old muscle cars. because every day with one of them was a day to remember.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46171
Good Idea to stay pre-1968 and avoid most emission 'de-tuning'.
My Small block stuff from the 1950's and 60's was a lot of fun, but I did enjoy my Hemi-Cuda and 340 Duster. By 1974 I was done acquiring muscle cars and soon was driving an old pickup (all I could afford to insure!). 1976 brought 50mpg (out of 48 HP) WITH a heater, wipers, and radio!, so my future was sealed.
Muscle was fun while it lasted, I am very fortunate to still be alive.
I was a teenager in the 1970s and remember being completely awestruck by these cars. I was certain they were, and always would be, the epitome of automotive performance. Fast forward 47 years and there's a 2014 Ford Taurus sitting in my driveway that will outperform any of these cars. Considering these were pretty much the top-of-line performance models at the time, it just shows how far cars have come. When compared to today's equivalents, a Hellcat Challenger, for example, it would be easy to assume we're currently in the golden era of automotive performance. Based on history, I think things are just going to get better.
Just remember by 1975 the muscle was long gone out of the pony cars, seemed like nothing even had 200 HP anymore. 80's were better than the late 70's but still the HP didn't surpass the early 70's stuff. Corvettes didn't get 300+ HP until 1990 (ZR1) or 1992 (LT1)......Big block stuff in the early 70's were more HP than that!
Just remember by 1975 the muscle was long gone out of the pony cars, seemed like nothing even had 200 HP anymore. 80's were better than the late 70's but still the HP didn't surpass the early 70's stuff. Corvettes didn't get 300+ HP until 1990 (ZR1) or 1992 (LT1)......Big block stuff in the early 70's were more HP than that!
yeah the mustang never got power back till the 5.0 HO in the Fox-Body Mustang and the F-body did not get the L98 5.7L TPI (350ci SBC) till near the end of production.
the 1980's GM/Chevy TPI 5L V-8's were nothing like Ford's MPFI 5.0 back in the mid-late 80 early 90's in terms of tunability and modifications.
although in mid-late 70's did see the Bandit era Trans-am 6.6L and Dodge lil red express pu truck beat out C3 Corvettes.
I do believe the ZR1 corvette was the one that had 405HP it had 385HP in 1990 and then after they updated the C4 in 91 had 405 with the DOHC 4-valve mercury marine built LT5 5.7L
What I find interesting is anyone who would rather drive a Honda than a ground-pounding '70 SS454 LS6 Chevelle or a '70 Hemi-'Cuda. I guess they have never experienced gobs of low-end torque which makes the car goes sideways under a full-throttle, standing-start run.
This is a perennial debate, and devolves to matters of taste. Some people prefer the brashness, loudness and styling of the classic muscle cars. Others, even amongst committed driving-enthusiasts, recoil from “ground pounding” as being gauche and a needless draw of attention. They prefer something understated… from the era in question, that might have been a Nova or a Falcon with a big-block swap; or from slightly later, a Datsun with a small-block swap.
My main regret about modern cars is that (1) they’re mostly FWD, and I hate FWD; (2) manual transmissions are almost extinct; (3) so much of the automotive enthusiast market has shifted from sports-cars and coupes to trucks; and (4) inscrutable complexity constraining the home-mechanic. I miss the idea of mainstream interest in simple, performance-oriented cars.
Today, I’d certainly prize a 1970 Chevelle SS Hemi-Cuda above a new Honda, but that’s a question of collectability, rarity and market value. I appreciate what the Chevelle was trying to do, but to me it’s just too large, too aggressive, and too ponderous in handling-response. I wish that it had the same drivetrain, but was 18” shorter, 6”narrower and 800 lb lighter, with a different suspension and different approach to stiffening the frame/body.
Too bad about loss of RWD, though!
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 04-03-2017 at 09:59 AM..
What I find interesting is anyone who would rather drive a Honda than a ground-pounding '70 SS454 LS6 Chevelle or a '70 Hemi-'Cuda. I guess they have never experienced gobs of low-end torque which makes the car goes sideways under a full-throttle, standing-start run.
Those two cars are so valuable now you wouldn't dare drive one much for fear of someone running into it and wrecking it.
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.
