Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords



  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,420
    I think we voted already that the seller is delirious and watching too much television.


  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    ok simon, it's not making the next round! :)
  • cptchetcocptchetco Posts: 32
    As Ken mentioned, it was not unusual for Ford up to the early 70s, to sell cars with too small a carburator and exhaust. I understand the purpose of this, and it goes back to the Flatheads, was to allow torque in the regularly usuable speed ranges, and under tax the engines (so the don't work as hard at high power settings) to extend their usefull life.

    It not only worked, it made them very easy to "hop-up"
  • datbadatba Posts: 3
    i have a question? i have a 71 monterey with a 450 V8 in it... it runs good, its completely stock and clean. but how much are they worth?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,851
    Are you sure that's not a 429? I just looked in my old car book, and it shows a 429 as being the biggest engine in 1971, although a 460 was first available for 1972.

    My book also shows 3 different 429's being available for the Monterrey: a 320 hp version, 360, and 370.

    What body style is it? And is it a Monterrey or Monterrey Custom?
  • I grew up with 60s and 70 Fords and Chevys. My dad worked for Ford in the 70s and my mom worked for a GM leasing agency and got a free lease car every six months. I had a 78 Ford Granada that I love. But, honestly, I would never own a big car like that ever again. It was so hard to park and even to drive with its wide turning radius.

    But, I tell you, I haven't really found affordable cars that have the kind of torque and horsepower as those old tanks.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,168
    "But, I tell you, I haven't really found affordable cars that have the kind of torque and horsepower as those old tanks."

    Modern affordable cars may or may not have less horsepower than the old Detroit tanks, after you account for the changes in how horsepower was calculated then versus today, but modern cars tend to develop their horsepower at higher rpm than the old ones. I agree that the old barges tended to have more torque, especially at low speeds, than the new cars. The fact that new transmissions have more gears than the old ones is a compensating factor. In addition, the new cars tend to be lighter than the old ones you refer to, but maybe not all that much lighter, due to all the new safety and emissions regulations. Lastly, modern cars are much more aerodynamic than the old ones, but the benefit of this is minimal in accelerating from stop sign. The upshot, though, is that a new four cylinder Accord/Altima/Camry/Fusion/Malibu can probably out-accelerate an old Fury/Galaxie/Granada/Impala/or whatever by a comfortable margin, and V6 versions of the '08 cars would absolutely blow the old ones away. Even the old cars with the big engine options wouldn't stand a chance against the new V6s.

    The old cars felt faster than what they actually were, compared to newer cars, because of the sounds they made, and the fact that the back of the car went down and the hood came up more under hard acceleration. This contributed to the feeling of quick acceleration.

    Can anyone help with horsepower (after conversion to the new way of calculating) and torque (including rpms, if possible) comparisons?
This discussion has been closed.