Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

Cars of the '70s, Decade of Disaster or Delight?

axlon

By axlon
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
Posted
Maybe that should be Afternoon Delight, if anyone can remember that popular Starline Vocal band song? Lol. Cars from that time can get a bad wrap, but there were some worthwhile things from those days like GM's radial tuned suspension (RTS) and ESC ignition, and some interesting rides. What notable cars can you think of from those years? :wavey:


1976%20Chevrolet%20Vega%20Cosworth-04.jp




MazdaR100andRX2for1972ModelYear.jpg



Blake Noble Newbie

Blake Noble

Posted
Posted

The Cosworth Vega ... oh man, oh man. I think I wrote something on here a long time ago about the Vega and learned in the process of writing that, that the Cozzy Vega cost just a few hundred dollars less than a contemporary Corvette. Of course, it wasn't half of the car the Corvette was,

GMTruckGuy74 Newbie

GMTruckGuy74

Posted
Posted

Pontiac Trans Am, Grand Am, Grand Prix, Can Am are all '70s cars I admire from that decade. I'm a fan of the other '73-'77 Colonade cars too - namely the Buick Century & Regal and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.

However, what seals the deal for me are GM's trucks from '70-'79. I'll take any year GMC Sierra please :smilewide:

Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted (edited)

I love many cars of the '70s...the decade started out at the peak of the muscle car era--the year I was born. And though power dropped through out the decade, I love so many of the styles of cars of that decade...the green and brown land yachts--massive 2dr coupes, convertibles, 4dr hardtops, huge wagons w/ woodgrain...'personal luxury' coupes of all shapes and sizes...and the downsized full sizers toward the end of the decade that are huge by today's standards....and best of all, most cars of the 70s were still RWD, what with FWD relegated to import subcompacts and a couple-three big GM coupes.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
G. David Felt Grand Master

G. David Felt

Posted
Posted

Some lovely amazing auto's.

More amazing is that what took 4-6 years to bring to market is now taking about 18-24 months. Technology has helped in many ways.

I wonder what the shortest time to market auto out there is? From concept to built for sale?

So my other question is engines in this era.

We had 500 cubic inch monsters, would be great to see how the 70's oil crunch affected size. A chart showing the most common engines by size and HP from 1970 to 1979. Cool way to see how things changed.

SAmadei Newbie

SAmadei

Posted
Posted

We had 500 cubic inch monsters, would be great to see how the 70's oil crunch affected size. A chart showing the most common engines by size and HP from 1970 to 1979. Cool way to see how things changed.

Not sure it would be as extreme as you think. Most of the GM engines of the 70's were bread and butter stuff... straight 6s and smaller V8s... 350s were popular the entire decade. The big engines started off the decade as somewhat less than common and ended the decade virtually extinct... but they were always numerically dwarfed by the other engines. And since they were generally saved, they are still around as a larger percentage of the survivors.

Even just studying the 350, there are a lot of factors to consider as you go from the 1970 L48 with 300hp/380ftlb to the lowly 1979 L65 with 145hp... it really becomes an apples to oranges comparison.

balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted

More amazing is that what took 4-6 years to bring to market is now taking about 18-24 months. Technology has helped in many ways.

Where have you seen it took 4-6 years to develop a model?? Engineering something completely new is another matter, but 'standard' new models? Traditional lead times were always right about 24 months.

The GM '59 program shifted gears during the program- the bodies as produced were first penned Mar '57, they had to be cranking off the assembly lines in August '58 for the Sept intros, so that's 17 months. Prior to that, up to Feb '57, the bodies (very early stages of development) were totally different, and extension of the '58s. GM Styling threw all that in the trash & started new.

smk4565 Mentor

smk4565

Posted
Posted

I would say decade of disaster. The few good cars of the 1970s were very early on, and those were cars designed in the 60s, and sold from around 1967-1972. There were a few bright spots like the Eldorado convertible or Mercedes SL, the Lamborghini Countach, etc. But super cars and Mercedes SL's look good in any decade. The 1970s brought us the Ford Pinto, AMC Pacer, AMC Gremlin, Chevy Vega, and the Mustang II. Few decades had so many awful cars.

  • Disagree 2
Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted

I saw an Alfa Romeo Montreal up close last weekend at one of the auctions here..beautiful car in person, love the front end design.

Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Citroen SM is hella cool.. my '70s Euro dream car garage would have one, along w/ an Alfa Romeo Montreal, BMW 6-series, Ferrari Daytona and Dino, '73 Porsche 911 RS, '76 Porsche 930 Turbo, '79 Mercedes Benz 450SEL 6.9.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
  • Agree 1
  • 2 weeks later...
axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
  • Author
Posted
With stats of 0-60 mph in under 9 seconds and top speed of 120 mph were the Trans Am 455 and BMW 530i 4 speeds, the fastest full 4 seater cars in 1975 America? I can't think of any others.
6ae78f1512_640.jpg

530i-1975-us4.jpg
balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted

'73-74 T/A SD-455s were road tested in the mid 13s at around 105 MPH in just the quarter. I did see one test @ 14.7

Only figure I could find close for the BMW was a '77 630csi, which ran a 17.1. Not bad for the day but the T/A SD was a whole 'nuther level.

Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted (edited)

By '75-76 sounds like the T/A's performance was off though from '73-74...googling turned up that the '75 T/A 455 was down to 200hp and gone for '76, leaving the 400..also found these snippets on 2gta.com:

1975:

In it's H.O. guise, the 455 now produced a asthmatic 200 horsepower at 3500 rpm while at only 2000 rpm its torque peak of 330 lb/ft was achieved. The same low compression and cylinder heads were fitted, although the cam profile patterned 1974's base 455. WX coding on the cylinder block denoted the 455. In September of 1975, Car and Driver magazine found out in the quarter mile, the 455 T/A took 16.1 seconds to travel the same distance the '73 SD-455 covered in 13.5 seconds. Terminal speed was down to 88.8 mph, versus 104. Eight-hundred fifty-seven people were lucky enough to get this engine in place of the 400.

1976:

the April 1976 issue of Car & Driver discovered accelerating from 0-60 took 7.0 seconds, while an additional 8.6 seconds were needed to produce a speed of 90.3 mph in completing the quarter mile. Winding the big inch engine to 4850 rpm, 350 rpm beyond the maximum recommended engine speed, gear produced a top speed of 118 mph in fourth gear. In 1976 these were big numbers, however, our beloved bird did not fare so well. The Corvette was .3 seconds quicker in the 1/4-mile time and went 6.5 mph faster on the top end, benefiting from less frontal area. The worst news of the article was a bias-ply tired 360 cubic inch Dodge Dart didn't quit going any faster until it's 220 horsepower propelled it to nearly 122 mph.

I seem to recall reading in Car and Driver or R&T as a kid that in '78 the Dodge Little Red Express pickup w/ the 360 was the quickest US market vehicle.

Though with numbers like these, I would think the Porsche 930 Turbo was probably the fastest car on the US market in '76-78 or so...

Model 0-60 mph 0–100 km/h 0–160 km/h (100 mph) 0–200 km/h 1/4 mile 1 km Top speed

1975 930 260 hp 5.2 s 5.5 s 12.4 s 20.1 s ? 24.2 s 246 km/h (153 mph)

1978 930 300 hp 5.0 s 5.4 s 12.0 s 19.7 s ? 24.4 s 260.9 km/h (162 mph

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted (edited)

No; the WX-code 455 was continued into '76 for the Firebird, this; 2 years after the Z-28 was discontinued and the largest motor in the Camaro was the 350. My source book (Pontiac Musclecar Performance 1955-1979) confirms it, and you can google "1976 trans am 455" and see plenty of actual cars available.

Unfortunately, performance retreated into the shadow in the late '70s; looking at a road test here of a '77 Ferrari and it's doing the quarter mile in a pathetic 16.7 @ 86 MPH. As retroactively poor as the T/A looks now, it was still among the top performers. It whips the ferrari, after all... ;)

In fact, the entire overview of the ferrari is loaded with the pathetic. How's 60-0 in 163 ft sound today?

-- -- -- --

May very well be right on the 930 Turbo.

Edited by balthazar
axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No; the WX-code 455 was continued into '76 for the Firebird, this; 2 years after the Z-28 was discontinued and the largest motor in the Camaro was the 350. My source book (Pontiac Musclecar Performance 1955-1979) confirms it, and you can google "1976 trans am 455" and see plenty of actual cars available.

Unfortunately, performance retreated into the shadow in the late '70s; looking at a road test here of a '77 Ferrari and it's doing the quarter mile in a pathetic 16.7 @ 86 MPH. As retroactively poor as the T/A looks now, it was still among the top performers. It whips the ferrari, after all... ;)

In fact, the entire overview of the ferrari is loaded with the pathetic. How's 60-0 in 163 ft sound today?

The Trans Am 455 HO came out as a 1975 1/2 entrant, but the HO part of the name was dropped for 1976. I assume that Ferrari was a 308 GTB or GTS. Around 150 ft was how long most good cars in the 1970s and 1980s took to stop from 60 mph, although Road & Track achieved 128 ft with their 1975 BMW 530i and Car and Driver got 0-60 mph in 8.7 seconds with their 530i. Road Test recorded an 18 second 1/4 mile with a loaded automatic 1975 Trans Am 400.

On the subject of brakes cars in those days had skinny tires, usually no ABS and relatively small rims, which meant it was impossible to fit anything bigger than around a 11 in brake rotor in a 14 in wheel. I noticed on Dreamcar Garage a Shelby Mustang GT 350 took almost 200 ft to stop from 60 mph. And that's a valuable performance icon from the '60s. Many Pontiac GTOs from the '60s only had 4 wheel 9.5 in drums. Those cars didn't stop well.

-- -- -- --

May very well be right on the 930 Turbo.

balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted

Car Life, 1960 Invicta, 60-0 : 138'. 4-whl aluminum 12" drums. The mid-'60s Pontiac aluminum drum cars have done 145'- or almost 20-ft shorter than the 4-whl disc ferrari referenced above (which did not stop well either). 'Drum><disc' is not the end-all determining factor.

balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted (edited)

^ I have a number of first gen Toro references in my library, but back in the day many mags used 'stopping rate' numbers rather than feet, so I have no distance.

'66 tested by R&T recorded 20 ft/sec2, and control was marginal. Rear brake lock-up was an issue here. Overall rating was 'fair'.

Toro gained optional discs for '68, there the braking rates improved to 29 ft/sec2, with no fade.

Tires were a HUGE component in braking back then. A good radial will improve everything vintage today, across the board.

Interesting to note : when Buick gained optional discs, they performed worse WRT fade than the drums they were slated to replace.

'68 Rivie with discs: # of stops from 80 (@ 60-sec intervals) before 20% loss in deceleration rate: 2. Rate was 23 ft/sec2.

'67 Wildcat with drums: # of stops from 80 (@ 60-sec intervals) before 20% loss in deceleration rate: 6 tho rate was a tiny bit worse @ 22.

Buick had the best brake engineers @ GM in the '50s/60s.

If you read a lot of vintage road tests you find braking performance is all over the charts. I have 1 test that's still a high water mark; 91' 60-0, '68 Olds 442, IIRC.

Must've been a lot of production variances....

Edited by balthazar
axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

^ I have a number of first gen Toro references in my library, but back in the day many mags used 'stopping rate' numbers rather than feet, so I have no distance.

'66 tested by R&T recorded 20 ft/sec2, and control was marginal. Rear brake lock-up was an issue here. Overall rating was 'fair'.

Toro gained optional discs for '68, there the braking rates improved to 29 ft/sec2, with no fade.

Tires were a HUGE component in braking back then. A good radial will improve everything vintage today, across the board.

Interesting to note : when Buick gained optional discs, they performed worse WRT fade than the drums they were slated to replace.

'68 Rivie with discs: # of stops from 80 (@ 60-sec intervals) before 20% loss in deceleration rate: 2. Rate was 23 ft/sec2.

'67 Wildcat with drums: # of stops from 80 (@ 60-sec intervals) before 20% loss in deceleration rate: 6 tho rate was a tiny bit worse @ 22.

Buick had the best brake engineers @ GM in the '50s/60s.

If you read a lot of vintage road tests you find braking performance is all over the charts. I have 1 test that's still a high water mark; 91' 60-0, '68 Olds 442, IIRC.

Must've been a lot of production variances....

Agreed, and often the same model behaved differently when tested by various magazines (economy, brakes, acceleration). Apart from stopping distance, lock up and fade in repeated braking are also to be considered. I would agree that cars like the Ferrari 308 family / Mondial and even 348 are given a lot of praise, just because they are a Ferrari. Also back in the '50s Maserati were experts on big finned drum brakes from their racing experience.

  • 4 months later...
axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The falling level of horsepower and speed in the '70s sparked interest in the gray market. Expensive imports were brought in, federalized for emissions/bumper laws and sold at high prices to wealthy buyers in small numbers. It continued until the mid '80s. From that point on companies got a handle on pollution controls and high performance brands started bringing the "good" versions back to America. Didn't happen overnight though!

 

November 1978
 
 
 
  • 3 weeks later...
A Horse With No Name Mentor

A Horse With No Name

Posted
Posted

Plus they are a nice break from modern iron...and one can only look at so many sixty nine Camaro pics...

Oh I do like that Alfa, BV.

Absolutely!

balthazar

balthazar

Posted
Posted

I can get into the early '70s stuff if its spiffy enough. I did like the '73 Road Runner we pulled out of the weeds the other day, as far as design goes.

The bulk of the '70s is a let down to me after so much exposure to '60s stuff, tho.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...
axlon Newbie

axlon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In German spec the 924 Turbo was as fast as a 911 SC 3.0, handled better, was more economical and cost less. But lacked that 911 mystique.

 

924turbos1.jpg

knightfan26917 Apprentice

knightfan26917

Posted
Posted

HOLY COW.....what an awesome thread!!!!!!  I see it was started when I was away from the board.  Ah, well ... at least I'm seeing it now ... such awesome eye candy as the 1970s is my favorite car decade.....

 

My favorite from that era, the Caprice Classic of course!  What else?

 

 

The Cosworth Vega ... oh man, oh man. I think I wrote something on here a long time ago about the Vega and learned in the process of writing that, that the Cozzy Vega cost just a few hundred dollars less than a contemporary Corvette. Of course, it wasn't half of the car the Corvette was,

 

 

Heh ... didn't know that.  Saw one at a dealership in southern IL a couple weeks ago; have pics of it cued for feature on my website soon.

 

 

I'm a fan of the other '73-'77 Colonade cars too - namely the Buick Century & Regal and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.

 

Featured 1976 ads for both of those 2 cars on my website this past Saturday, 05/16/2015!

 

 

Cort :) www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve
"So many people have come and gone; their faces fade as the years go by" __ Boston __ 'More Than A Feeling'

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search