By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I spent over an hour and a half trying to get those POS mounts on, then gave up, went down to the local parts house and bought REAL Anchor brand mounts which bolted right up.
They never would give me an answer as to why they didn't ship the brand I ordered.
I've also used PartsTrain, AllOEMautoparts, and others. A pretty good site I hit up frequently is FrugalMechanic.com. The current pricing is not always accurate, but at least it does link you to the part you need on each of the shopping sites.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Was a Comet available with the 430 V-8 Hot Rod Lincoln engine option in 1964? :P
Seriously, a 120 mph Ford passenger car in 1964 would be a Galaxie Police Interceptor. My dad bought one at Walker and Battat Ford back then.
A '69 Z28 Camaro for instance, certainly every bit a car as a Comet, could barely break 100 mph.
A 68 Corvette with L88 engine option (the "everest" of old Corvettes?) could probably do 160 mph, but that took 550 HP.
Even if you could do 130, you'd be absolutely crazy with that suspension and those tires. This would be a frightening white-knuckle experience, ala backroad rum-running.
But the only way that Comet ever saw 120 was if little bitty tires were installed with no speedo correction. :P
What is the quickest axle ratio Chevy offered in the Camaro? Could it be possible that they had one so short that it gave blinding acceleration, but that it would redline around 100 mph?
For instance, a 4.11:1 axle would put you at around 4900-5000 rpm @ 100 mph. A 4.56:1 axle would get you to around 5500 rpm. At least, I'm just making a guess here. I remember driving a friend's '66 Charger that had a tach and a 2.76:1 axle, and it pulled 2500 rpm@75 mph, so I'm extrapolating from that.
Back in the 1950's, Chrysler actually offered a ratio of something like 6.07:1 in the 300! I can't remember if that was the '55 C-300, or the '56 300B.
I think it's interesting though, how many cars you'd consider weak can still get up to those higher speeds. I got a '91 Civic sedan up to 115 once. Granted, it was downhill on the interstate, and only according to the speedometer, so it may have been a little off. My old '69 Dart, with just a 225 slant six, had no trouble at all hitting 100 mph. And while I never took it above that, it still seemed to have plenty of pep. It's not like it hit 60 or 70 and just ran out of oomph...it kept right on going!
I always wondered if my 1980 Malibu, with its 229 V-6, could make it to 100. I found a copcar test of a 1982 Malibu V-6, and it topped out at 100.3 mph. That was better than the K-car at 97.5 mph, or the Fairmont 200-6cyl at 97.3, or the Gran Fury 225 slant six at 96.2 mph. But the 4-cyl Fairmont beat them all, at 103.4 mph!
Don't ask me how I know this, and don't mention it to my mother if you see her!
but, the darned little car was pretty rock solid at that speed.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
As for the capability of going 120 mph, speedometers were frequently quite optimistic in '64. Some are fast now too, but more so back in the day. That Comet didn't have smog controls, but an automatic equipped Caliente wasn't that caliente.
I seriously doubt any Comet could hit 120 mph, nor a '69 Camaro Z-28, nor a big block Hemi.
There is the *mathematical* top speed, that you calculate from gear ratios and then there is the *actual* top speed, which in the real world, is generally considerably less.
As one person stated in a review, if you took a typical 60s car to 130 mph, you were a "suicidal idiot".
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Dad never owned a GM car after that one...
In the mid 80's I had a dealer-loaner Dodge Omni with the 2.2 litre automatic while my car was in the shop. Noisy, crude, but plenty of scat. Overall a fun little car that was actually bigger than most "little cars." My girlfriend at the time loved it and always wanted to drive when we went out.
Coming home one night she took a long curve too fast, slid from one side to the other, and finally spun out in the middle of the road coming out of the curve. She had pushed the throttle instead of the brake. When it didn't slow down, she only pushed harder! Oh well.
A few years later in '89 I test drove a new Dodge Omni 2.2 and it felt nothing like that loaner car. Apparently the automatic trans had been upgraded with some gear changes for better MPG which made it feel sluggish around town at low speeds. I didn't want a manual trans so I never did take the Omin/Horizon plunge.
At some point, I was inside getting more coffee and the wife asked what I would ask for it. I was thinking $3300, I told her. Although most folks won't think a Z31 is worth that much, its what I feel its worth. She asked what others are selling for. "Well," I said, "there's the problem. I have never seen another like it for sale. Most are rusted or destroyed interior, or blown engine, or something else. A few are show cars and have crazy prices." So then she asked, "Then why are you selling it?"
Of course, I've thought about this, and I know all the reasons I've given myself for selling it .... yet, when it comes down to it, I don't really know why I HAVE to sell it. I don't WANT to. I just figured we have too many, need the garage space for her Saab, and how much will I really drive it. At the same time, I'll never see another like it, so will I regret not holding it and enjoying it? Quite possibly.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
One could argue that the reason so few survive is that few people cared about them as much as the people who have owned your car.
Given that one could count on one hand the number of Japanese cars that have ever achieved collector status or ever brought above-used-car money (and you'd have fingers left over), the only reason to keep it is if you plan to drive a lot and "use it up" for your pleasure.
If the answer is "not really", then it only makes sense to keep it if you have storage space, and honestly think it is going to be worth hanging onto (for appreciation).
look at it this way: if you let the nicest one around go, does it matter if you never have the desire to get another one?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
As to whether I keep it, it comes down to the typical rational vs emotional debate. Does it make rational sense for me to have 2 1985 japanese 2-seaters? No. But I like them both for different reasons. If I had the space to spare, I wouldn't be considering selling it. The wife has said she doesn't mind the Saab staying outside. I'm just not sure how wise it is to have a convertible out in the elements all the time.
If I do keep it for emotional reasons, then those emotions will have me putting more into it than it is worth. I would eventually get new carpets, replace the AC, and maybe turbo it. So there is always that "save myself now" factor to consider, too.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
besides, once you sell it, you have space for the next oddball orphan that follows you home.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Yep, on both points. And I'm speaking from first hand experience.
Also, the '302 in the Z-28 did not have hydraulic lifters, so valve float was not an issue.
I don't know about the other two, but a '69 Z-28 certainly could, though that was about it. And the sweet spot for that '302 was between 4000 and 6000 RPMs, and would easily go higher, because of the cam profile that was used. That also, however, made it harder to launch from a dead stop. So 1/4 mile times were a bit deceptive, on the low end.
I can still remember an XKE pulling away from me on the PA turnpike above Pittsburgh when me and my room mate were on the way to visit his cousin. My Z-28 pulled away from the Jag between 70 and 100, then the Jag started catching up and by the time we were nearing the 120 mph mark, the jag was pulling away.
My '89 Gran Fury's speedometer was off by about 10%, but 10% in the other direction! 100 mph true registered 91 mph on the speedometer. I had to get the thing recalibrated in the hopes of fighting a speeding ticket. I still have the little card somewhere that shows the speedometer readings versus the true speeds when it was tested.
I also had a 1979 Newport with a speedometer that was WAY off. I got busted by the cops doing 88 mph in a 65 zone. I knew I was speeding, but didn't think it was THAT bad. I do remember the speedometer reading around 73 mph. I had oversized tires on the back of that car, but I forget now what they were. I think 235/75/15? Stock on that car would've been a pathetic 195/75/15, but this car came with extra wide road wheels, and they might have used a 215/70 or 225/70 R15.
This seems to be a recurring them with me and Mopars, I've noticed. My '79 5th Ave's odometer reads a bit slow, I've noticed. About 3%. So I'd guess the speedometer might be a bit slow, as well? And I still remember the day I brought other '79 NYer home from PA. A friend drove me up there to get it, and followed me back home. He gets on the cell phone at one point and calls me...asks me why I'm doing 80 mph? I'm not, I replied, I'm only doing 70! Yup, that one's speedo was off, as well!
On another note my 93 Taurus had a bad speedo. I got a 71 in a 55 ticket. The speedo read 60. I had it fixed and took the repair bill to court and they didn't care. Of course this being Jersey they reduced it to a "no point" ticket but still had to pay a fine.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
I also remember how the A/C blower on the Dodge/Plymouth interceptors used to drive the old Keystone radar units crazy. You could aim the unit at a tree down an empty road and flip the blower to high. Clock the tree at 45 MPH :surprise:
Lots of little podunk towns wrote up tickets for 60 in a whatever. The old Keystone unit had a calibration function that generated an artificial "signal" that would calibrate to 60MPH. The town of Kendleton, Texas police force got busted on that one. Especially since the fines were to be mailed to a post office box in Bellaire, Texas. :mad:
Yup, at a distance where they could physically see the Vette, the gun was clocking the truck way off in the distance.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
In the aerospace industry, a lot of attention and money is thrown at understanding and reducing the RCS of aircraft and the equipment that goes into them.
Now for most vehicles, being of similar construction and using like materials, the RCS will probably be closely related to the frontal area presented to the radar. So a passenger car probably does have a lower RCS than an SUV. But doing something simple, such as tilting the radiator down at a slight angle, could have a significant effect on the strength of the returned radar signal. That is, you just made the RCS smaller.
The lowly Fiero. Radiator tilted down, composite body panels, and an irregular frame structure made up of over 100 irregularly shaped pieces of varying lengths.
We used to drive radar nuts with my '84. I drove into a speed trap in Arkansas one day running about 20 over. Saw the cop point the radar and I nailed the brakes. I knew I was speeding, he knew I was speeding, but the radar couldn't get a lock. As I drove by I could see him whacking the side of the hand held unit as if there were something wrong.
On the flip side, though, that little beast presented a reflection off the backend that could be picked up a long way off. Cast iron engine block sitting sideways with next to nothing between it and the back end of the car. :sick:
Well, if memory serves me right (that was a few years ago :P ), the 67-69 Z-28's would easily rev past the 6000 red line mark on the tach, at least once, anyway. My '69 could reach 60 mph in 1st gear (1000 RPMs/10 mph), 80 in 2nd, and 100 in 3rd, and still had pull in 4th at that speed.
Also, acceleration is not linear. As the car's speed increases, the HP required to go faster and faster is not linear, but exponential.
So to go say from 140 to 160 mph in a 200 HP car doesn't require a 15% increase in HP, but maybe a 30% increase. And the next 20 mph might require a 50% increase.
Many a man has changed gearing to go faster, only to find out that there's not enough HP to pull the gear.
For the record, that killer 455 would float the valves at about 5400RPM. But I have never driven a car since with so much in-your-face, stump pulling torque. Lord, that thing was a monster!
Fast, quick, 5-speed trans, and superior braking made it a performance bargain which grabbed attention beyond the usual biker world. And a few years after Honda warmed up the market, Kawasaki stepped up with the faster, quicker 900 Z1.
High performance still ruled in the 70s dealer showrooms, but it was up on 2 wheels. And yep, there was no doubt that the 60s were over. And perhaps a bit over-rated. :shades:
Most interesting to me is how quickly muscle cars evaporated. 1971 YES 1974 NO. That was it.
This rapid extinction reminds me of your comment on Japanese motorcycles. Within three years of the introduction of the Honda 750-4, the entire British motorcycle industry collapsed. I don't think I ever saw one model of one product utterly destroy the competition all by itself.