Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge> '70s cars, under appreciated?
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: '70s cars, under appreciated? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
12-06-2013 10:54 PM
anthonyc1 Say what you want about cars in the 70's .the mfg's would love to have those sales today,hell just Cutlass Supremes alone in 76-77 would equal probably 3 models today,and they drive great and look great and were built well,you never owned one if you say other wise. The true real total crap era was the mid 80s when GM decided to go FWD almost across the board then again in 88 when there was no more G-body and few B-bodys. For example the 4100 Caddy was a turd this we know but at least up until 84 it was in a nice looking car then the downsize came in 85 on the Coupe Deville and you had crap motor in crap car same goes for Olds 98 and Electra. I had a 78 Olds 98 that is a great car,Olds 350 and built like a tank, same went for Caddies in the late 70's.
12-03-2013 06:12 PM
496CHEVY3100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfeverfred View Post
You flatter yourself. I wasn't mad at all. How would you even know? All I said was that was your opinion. Maybe putting OPINION in caps got you confused? Don't be. As far as I'm concerned, it was two people talking cars. That's it.

And I didn't mean that bumper ACTUALLY weighed 200 pounds. It just LOOKED like it. Still has an industrial vibe to it.
It feels like it lying on your back on a creeper with the government mandated cross mounted leaf springs and and shocks on the bumpers
12-03-2013 05:45 PM
dogwater 78 Z28 with T-tops. I'd really like to have a 911, whale tail, turbo, but I don't have that kind of denaro.
12-01-2013 05:30 PM
tfeverfred
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkyrie5.7 View Post
There's no need to get upset. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, just speaking my mind. By the way, the bumper on the front of the Camaro was actually aluminum, it was considerably lighter than 200lbs. These are just words, try not to take it so personally.

I write about cars all the time, and people have told me and called me some of the worse things ever, so I have pretty thick skin about my automotive opinions.
You flatter yourself. I wasn't mad at all. How would you even know? All I said was that was your opinion. Maybe putting OPINION in caps got you confused? Don't be. As far as I'm concerned, it was two people talking cars. That's it.

And I didn't mean that bumper ACTUALLY weighed 200 pounds. It just LOOKED like it. Still has an industrial vibe to it.
12-01-2013 07:26 AM
496CHEVY3100 The 74 = 76 were aluminum and the 77 was aluminum painted body color 78 - 81 are urethane plastic , 1977 the ONLY year to have a metal bumper painted body color ,this is a 1977 Z28 we ( my wife )have owned since 77 ,it now has 29,700 actual miles;

Just trying to be informative .not arguementiave.:

Sorry picture wont post but it in post above.
11-30-2013 11:29 PM
Valkyrie5.7
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfeverfred View Post
Maybe it is. it's called an OPINION. Everyone's entitled.

Whether they had it or not, those cars WERE called muscle cars by the average citizen and the media. The Vette, Trans Am and Z-28 had their power greatly reduced, but compared to other cars that came out during THAT TIME, they were fast and thus earned a muscle car name slot.

Oh that mass of plastic was a LOT better than that 200 pound rail road tie they had in '74. IMO
There's no need to get upset. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, just speaking my mind. By the way, the bumper on the front of the Camaro was actually aluminum, it was considerably lighter than 200lbs. These are just words, try not to take it so personally.

I write about cars all the time, and people have told me and called me some of the worse things ever, so I have pretty thick skin about my automotive opinions.
11-30-2013 07:12 PM
tfeverfred
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkyrie5.7 View Post
Perhaps it's just me.
Maybe it is. it's called an OPINION. Everyone's entitled.

Whether they had it or not, those cars WERE called muscle cars by the average citizen and the media. The Vette, Trans Am and Z-28 had their power greatly reduced, but compared to other cars that came out during THAT TIME, they were fast and thus earned a muscle car name slot.

Oh that mass of plastic was a LOT better than that 200 pound rail road tie they had in '74. IMO
11-30-2013 05:07 PM
Dragonoake
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post
I'll take a '77 cutlass"s" with 350/th350 buckets p/l,p/w,tilt,console,ac, half vinyl roof with porn red interior any day of the week over todays car guy cars
If I'd had the money, back in the 80's, I'd have stuck a 455 into a '79 Cutlass (probably still would) and had a lot of fun with the guys in their shiny new Trans Ams
It looked like grandma's car, but it was about the weight of a '69 Chevelle (400 pounds lighter than a '79 Trans Am), and all the 60's muscle parts would fit like it was made that way

Quote:
the real problem with the 70's was the automakers started testing out recycled metal for the car body's and that wasn't ready for prime-time
I disagree. They were recycling steel at least since the scrap drives of the 40's, and probably well before that.
The quality of the steel may have had a lot to do with it, late-50's Chrysler products had a major rust problem because of the cheap Japanese steel they used, but a lot of it was design: '55 Chevys always rusted above the head lights, early 60's Chevys (trucks, especially) had a problem just ahead of the doors, and Mavericks had it right behind the doors

Quote:
the biggest problem is peoples memory, they think or want to think every muscle car "body" came factory as a firebreather.. and that's hogwash..
The older you get, the faster your cars used to be; but yes, I can remember blowing the doors off Turbo Trans Ams with my '66 Bonneville.
Granted, it had a 421 Tri-power in it, but it was essentially stone stock

Quote:
mother earth laughs at us, as we are ants she'll brush off,when and if we do to much harm..
I've always said that earthquakes and hurricanes were Mother Nature's way of saying, "You've got all this technology and all this destructive power, and you think you are so bloody hot. Well, let me tell you, you ain't got squat. Now, let me flex my little pinky and remind you of just how puny you really are."
11-30-2013 04:00 AM
Dragonoake
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfeverfred View Post
The cars of the muscle car era are slugs compared to a lot of BASE model cars that are out now.
My '57 had a built 409 and ran high-11's, which was pretty tough in '83 ....
Now, some of the hotter muscle cars can beat it right off the showroom floor, and they still idle nice and get most of 30 mpg doing it
11-30-2013 01:43 AM
gearheadslife oh and you could walk into a dealers parts counter in the 70-80-90's and get the same stuff you could in the "muscle" car years..
I honestly think many have "selective memory"
the muscle cars got scratch in 2nd and maybe 3rd because the tires sucked.. and the cars set up was just as bad..
11-30-2013 01:37 AM
gearheadslife
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARTINSR View Post
Having gotten my drivers license in 74 with my dad in the car business I soon would be too, this was a depressing time for the car enthusiast. Between the plastic bumpers and smog and giant bumpers made out of what looked like rail road track and shocks on them from a earth mover, it looked like the end of cars as we knew them (and basically it was). It was a time of despair, what we had grown up to love was over, it would have been like Major League Baseball to have turned into "RollerBall, Professional Wrestling" sort of event.

When I first saw the 78 Mustang with the plastic bumper/grille thing on the front I knew it was over, what crap. We honestly thought that the V8 was GONE for ever, it was a very bad time for us car nuts.

That Cosworth was a shining moment, one tiny moment mind you. I road miles on my bike to the Chevy dealer to look at that car in the show room, it was what would be a "hot rod" in the future, that was it, there was hope.

The rest of the seventies produced CRAP (well at least after 72) and there was NOTHING we wanted from the offerings.

Now, heck yeah times have changed and those cars aren't "so bad" or so a lot of us think. I will find myself going over to look at a restored Pinto at a show. But it is a long time coming and most still think they are hideous junk and it will be many years before the general thought of those cars changes.

Brian
I'm sorry, I don't agree totally..
I'll take a '77 cutlass"s" with 350/th350 buckets p/l,p/w,tilt,console,ac, half vinyl roof with porn red interior any day of the week over todays car guy cars,
I'll take any 70's t/a, a '74 duster an amc hornet.... these cars tho. not fast from the factory where not bad cars at all.. hell the 73-77 a bodys will run circles around the muscle cars in handle'n and the power issue was an easy fix.. THE problem is peoples memory.. they remember the firebreathers.. not the cars the normal Joe got his hands on.. you know. the 1970 chevelle with 307 and th350 and 10 bolt with "economy gears". or the cuda with a 318 or gasp a leaning tower of power.. after having a few 66 Pontiacs (2tempest & 3lemans 1 gto convert) 4 chevelles(70-72) 1 cutlass(75) the 70's bumbers where not all that much bigger than the muscle cars, buick stage 1 anyone, back bumber that's what a foot tall
yes they move the bumpers from up tight to the body.. that frankly made them useless for what they are named for... should be called shiny trim not bumpers. the real problem with the 70's was the automakers started testing out recycled metal for the car body's and that wasn't ready for primetime YET.. guess like anything it's all an opinion.. my dad laughs at the muscle guys in the club.. as they'll wax on about the past 72 and the bumpers but druel over a 57 chevy or a 50's catty, or.. a 50-60's car with a contenential kit that pushes the rear bumper a foot away from the car.. the 70's cars where just as much a jump as the 60's cars from the 50's and the 50's from the 40's
the biggest problem is peoples memory, they think or want to think every muscle car "body" came factory as a firebreather.. and that's hogwash.. and everyone knows it.. most that anyone came across where lesser cars that the owner build up.. yes he could walk into a dealer and order a l88 crate if he wanted, but most where owner built into firebreathers, the speed parts bis didn't get huge from the factory building every car as the "muscle " cars everyone wants to remember them ALL as.. how most wax on that the underpowered 70's cars are any different is mind boggling to me..
Me, I'd take a '77 cutlass "s" over a '71 chevelle anyday.. as both need help to make it a stormer..

as far as the power issues and plastic bumper covers.. that's all the flower power gens and their "need" to save the planet. mother earth laughs at us, as we are ants she'll brush off,when and if we do to much harm..
11-30-2013 12:01 AM
Valkyrie5.7 I have nothing against nostalgic memories for any era of car, my era of auto-nostalgia (the 1980s) is looked down upon the most, so I probably have no room to talk about what car is "better". However, I don't think calling that specific run of Camaro "muscle car era" is correct at all. I don't you could call anything from 78-82 "muscle car", let alone it's definitely far removed from the era.

I'm sure the car you saw was a nice looking Z28, but all that plastic slapped on to the clean early 70s body lines just screams Disco-era to me. Go back and look at the '74 I posted earlier. I can't see how all the plastic they stuck to it 5 years later made it any better looking.

Perhaps it's just me.
11-29-2013 10:30 PM
tfeverfred
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkyrie5.7 View Post
I agree. The wrap around windshield just doesn't do it for me on this body style, I think it messes up the look of the car from a profile view. I'm not a big fan of when they went to the vents, scoops, spoilers and plastic bumper look of the 78-82 models. Just too much going on for me. Here's a good example:

I rolled up on a guy at a convenience store and he had a white Z-28 of that year and it looked bad ***! He'd totally restored it. It may not be as fast as we all like, but it still brings back good memories and isn't that a HUGE part of why a lot of us like older cars.

The cars of the muscle car era are slugs compared to a lot of BASE model cars that are out now. They had the power, but they couldn't get it all on the pavement. The manufacturers of old told a lot of lies, that's just fact. So did a lot of owners back then.
11-25-2013 10:07 PM
Dragonoake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkyrie5.7 View Post
I agree. The wrap around windshield just doesn't do it for me on this body style, I think it messes up the look of the car from a profile view.
I second that

Quote:
I'm not a big fan of when they went to the vents, scoops, spoilers and plastic bumper look of the 78-82 models. Just too much going on for me.
The Camaro was neither great nor bad, IMHO ...
But WTF were they thinking (smoking, whatever) when they designed the front end of any of the Firebirds between '79 and '91???

Then again, these are the same people who grafted a Sunbird on top of a Blazer and called it the Aztec -- Maybe they should have sold those in China ... Under the name of "Foo King Ugg Li"
11-25-2013 07:33 PM
Valkyrie5.7
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1971BB427 View Post
The flat rear glass creates a huge blind spot (had a '71 for 40 yrs!) but they just look better to my eyes.
I agree. The wrap around windshield just doesn't do it for me on this body style, I think it messes up the look of the car from a profile view. I'm not a big fan of when they went to the vents, scoops, spoilers and plastic bumper look of the 78-82 models. Just too much going on for me. Here's a good example:

This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.