Classic Musclecars

Mr_Shiftright · May 2001

Yeah, and about the only 80s American car worth decent change these days. So collectors agree with you.

I think all GM executives should be dragged to collector car auctions and be allowed to see how nuts the crowd goes for '57 Chevies and 60s Chevelles and Camaros and then they should be locked in a room until they figure out how to do that again!

"Muscle Cars" were, after all, big engines stuffed into "small" (by 60s standards) bodies. So modern muscle cars should be able to combine good looks, a reasonable size and lots of power that people can afford. American cars just aren't fun anymore!

ezrapon · May 2001

Just read a number of posts on a GTP board. These guys are claiming 13 sec 1/4. and 0-60 in the mid 2 second range. Either they are all full of it, or there is a new king of the road amonst us! These guys should be out hunting Vipers and Porches for money. I got to see one of these modified monsters... 2 sec 0-60?????

Mr_Shiftright · May 2001

Sounds absurd unless they've turned it into a rail....how could you keep all that power down on streetable tires?

lt1vette16 · May 2001

a '67-'69 Camaro for my first car. Something in need of a few parts and a paint job. Any suggestions?

Mr_Shiftright · May 2001

Yes, I think Hemmings Motor News is one place, and Ebay might be helpful if there's a car listed in your area.

Also, try a search engine search (like www.google.com) for "Camaro project cars" or just "project cars" and see what comes up

badtoy · June 2001

would equate to a 0-60 time of 5.5 to 6 seconds -- not 2. Must have been a misprint. 2-3 seconds is what a Formula 1 car does 0-60 in, and a AAA top fuel dragster does it in half a second (!!!).

dgraves1 · June 2001

I'm guessing that is 0-60 FEET in 2 seconds. The 60 foot time is a usually given to you when you make a run at a dragstrip. Mid-2 seconds is not very good. I have seen a number of amatuers break 2 seconds.

jmmctighe · June 2001

Best memories of my Dad's 71 Cougar w/ 351C. Fast car that handled great. Even the Mass. staties wanted to race! I wouldn't know the driving experience as he sold it 3 months before I got my licence for $650 and a set of tires. I guess thats why I'm still here writing this post.
BTW, he's been looking for one like it ever since

moparmad · June 2001

That GTP story reminds me of an incident I had forgotten until I read that.
My wife and I were out for a cruise in my '70 Cuda when the guy in front of me in a GTP starts waving his hand out the window. So I waved back through my windshield at him and his little boy who was standing up backwards in his seat(good thing we have all those car seat laws in NY for everyone to ignore). As we come up to a very sharp right hand corner the guy slows to about 35 mph sticks his hand out the window again and motions with his index finger for me to follow him,then punches it. He must of read too many articles on how bad old cars handle and figured he would kill me around the corner. To make a long story short,my wife was laughing as I passed him when I could see up the road,his boy was clapping and he just looked kind of deflated,as my 30 year old Mopar growled at him through her duel glasspacks.

al57 · July 2001

purchased in 1974 for $350 at height of gas crunch with 100,000 miles..dad was a transmission mechanic..had hurst dual gate auto 400 with 360 horses fast car kept until 1980 sold for $2500.. could snap your neck back at will but used to chew up rear axle bearings..like i said dad was a mechanic so i got to test drive cars coming in for repair..hands down fastest car driven from the shop was a 1970 superbird 440 with 3 dueces that was in restoration process,though bias belted tires etc were the only way back then it didnt matter much the car rarely stayed on the asphalt

rayt2 · July 2001

Just jumped on and scrolled back a few have'nt read any mention of the AMC Muscle cars. Well time to chime in. Bought my first and last muscle car in 1971, it was a 1969 Big Bad Blue AMX (as the option pkg. was called)that was sitting on the dealers lot. The first owner had traded it in for a wagon since his family no longer consisted of two and the car only had two seats. His bad luck was my good fortune. This car has AMC's big block 390 loaded with all the goodies AMC had to offer. Presently in process of restoring and will have it back on the road in September for the cruising nights, can't wait.

Ray T.

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

I've seen a few AMC AMX's and they do look bad...but many i've seen only had a small v-8(under 300ci). That must be a bad @$$ car man, have fun on those cruise nights!

sideways68 · September 2001

hows it goin? I'm pretty new to the car game. I loved cars for a few years now and I finally got my first classic a few months ago. (68 camaro-base model) I thought I new a little, but since I've started wrenching turns out everything I was told was either wrong, or not up to my standards. I'm a perfectionist.(not grammar wise) Anyway, I want my car to handle. I'm talking lowered all around big rims 17x8, small tires ? And this is where the questions begin. I need to know what would be good -leafs for the back -shocks front & back
-sway bar sizes
-traction bars
yadda yadda yadda
IF ANYONE CAN HELP ME OUT, I WOULD MORE THAN GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

smily1 · September 2001

I have to laugh sideways68 because I need to ask a similar question myself. I have a 68 firebird and need to replace the rims and tires. The last set had the wrong back spacing and rubbed the inside of the fender on all 4 tires on even moderate bumps/dips. Front are 15x7 with 215 60 series and the rear 15x8 with 245 60 series. It sure looks nice but I want either 15x7 with 225 55 series all around or 16x7 with 235 50 series all around.

I guess my question is where can I find a back spacing table for different tire/rim configurations?

sideways68 · September 2001

I could use something like that myself. Right now I've got 265/65 15 in the back
245/45 14 up front
your probably wondering how that works. Well, it doesn't. I can only ride by myself. Any extra weight and it's ridiculous. I got the rims & tires off a chevelle SS that was just sitting in some guys yard.
So I didn't even bother checking sizes. But let me tell you, they look so badass. Theres so much rubber under my wheel well its great. too bad I can't turn it yet.

jlflemmons · September 2001

I think that is what they called it. It was a two door American with positrac, 390 V8, 4spd, and the one I saw was white with a red/white/blue stripe right down the middle.

How about the 62 Olds Jetfire? Turbocharged 215ci aluminum V8. Got to ride in one of those and the sound of the turbo spooling up while getting pushed back in the seat was pretty cool.

1970 W-30 442. Torque monster at about 500ft lbs. Learned high performance driving in one of these. Not only did it accelerate like a banshee, it handled pretty good in the twisties.

bhill2 · September 2001

was a Hurst SC/Rambler. American Motors wanted a piece of what Hurst had done for Olds, and so contracted with them. The car had a 390 with 2x4 bbls, and a 4 speed with a Hurst shifter (naturally). Keep in mind that this was a SMALL car for the time, about the size of the original Falcon. You could spend all of the tread on your rear tires trying to find traction, but when it did hook up it went like holy stink. Didn't handle badly either, given that the weight distribution had to be something like 70/30. In the end, though, it was still a Rambler.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2001

That car was tested by a number of mags and looks like best 1/4 times were in the low 14s at around 100 mph.

ndance · September 2001

At the risk of being wrong (never owned one, don't know anyone who has ever owned one, don't want to own one) I'd be real suprised if they have 2x4 bbls, probably more like a single quadrajet or Carter. For what it's worth they came in two paint patterns, an 'A' and a 'B'. You've gotta love the upholstery and that great big 'AIR' sticker on the hood (I guess it's to tell the air molecules where to go).

speedshift · September 2001

A while back we talked about the dual quads over in the Rambler thread. It was one of the Group 19 speed parts available through dealers. Not stock but maybe a few were installed by dealers. (Although a racing-oriented AMC dealer is a little hard to comprehend. I went to a Rambler dealer in 1966 and the showroom was like a mortuary.) The dual quad manifold must have been an aftermarket piece with an AMC part number.

Yeah by the late '60s some musclecars were over the top which should have been an indication the writing was on the wall. Of course some people woould say every musclecar was over the top--that's their appeal.

ndance · September 2001

I gotcha. Kind of like all the dealer available (and sometimes dealer installed) parts options on Chevrolets like dual quads on pre-1969 Z/28's, cold air induction on pre-1969 Camaros and earlier Chevelles, headers on Z/28's etc. All of that stuff is great for causing arguments between car show people as to originality.

It's really kind of amazing what the size of the high performance OEM business must have been like. Add in all the complete engine assemblies via parts departments, whole ecosystems of parts like all the Shelby junk that was available, plus goofy stuff like cross boss/inline autolite 4v and it shows what we've lost by building cars in a more 'atomic' fashion.

While I'm on the topic, its really pretty funny how 30 year old manufacturing processes (using mostly paper record keeping, I imagine) were somehow able to build so many variants and options. Just looking at old order sheets really brings this out (ie the number of optional drivetrains, colors, interiors, etc etc). In addition, those guys somehow could build a convertible with only a $150 delta or so. I suppose that given only so many engineering man hours (even including CAD/CAM and things like computer driven machining equipment for fast turn on prototypes) that the time is spent building vehicles with 5x the complexity and that time must be made up elsewhere, in this case by reducing the number of car lines and options.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2001

Also don't forget they pretty much threw them together as fast as they could. You don't have anywhere near the quality standards of today.

ndance · September 2001

I don't see where 'quality' gets in the way of manufacturing variations. In any case 'quality' is kind of a disingenuous word, the ways it can be expressed are too varied...eg

1) Improved materials (ie reciprocating parts alloys)
2) Improved design (ie modern connector designs)
3) Improved care in assembly (ie better line monkeys)
4) Improved assembly techniques (ie robots)
5) Improved fabrication techniques (ie CNC)
6) ???

I can't say that it's a clear win for modern manufactured goods (although a lot of things *are* better). Modern engineering cycles allow not only improvements but cheapening of design. One quick example is transmissions/rear ends which are built to barely meet load requirements. In addition, shoveling complexity all over the vehicle implies difficult debugging (witness the 1 zillion messages concerning Silverado vibrations, I'm sure the Chevy engineers thought they were being clever in the new truck, but ended up changing too many things at once).

If anything bums me out, it's the slow death of high craftsmanship in manufacture. It happened with cars long ago, but a good example can be found in musical instruments. The Japanese have made real inroads into making well-made, consistent wind instruments (along with the Europeans ), but you know what? earlier instruments not only show a much higher level of finish quality (such as engraving) but *sound better*. Early US built horns (especially from just before WWII) and European horns built up to and through the '60s are superior (and handmade).

The point? That the grind towards lowering the labor input in products has resulted in pablum. We're heading for a world of PC-like, shrink wrapped, 'no user servicable parts inside', appliances. Something is being lost here.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2001

Yes, you do lose character but you gain reliability. There is no car from the 60s that can run as long and as hard as a modern car. The only advantage of a 60s car is that they are so simple and straightforward you can repair things, replace parts of assemblies, bolt and unbolt, diagnose easily and do body repairs with far less trouble involved. Every part has a bolt and nut, not some dinky plastic clip or snap ring or cardboard backing. So in a sense a 60s car may "run longer" because I believe that when year 2001 cars start failing in 2010, people will simply throw them away. You can barely find a technician to cope with 2001 technology, much less find one ten years from now who is going to remember, and have tools and computers for, a decade-old technology propelled by ancient computer chips. Just try and find parts for ten year old computers. Good luck.

66vette · September 2001

What car today would be a classic years from now? Maybe the Viper and the Vette, but cars like the PT clunker are a joke. My sister thought i would like it because of my love for cars, when she bought hers i just bit my lip.
Its nice to hear that some one like sideways68 just got their first muscle car, have fun with it, but remember you will get more great comments making it stock and beautiful, and raise the value, most of us looking for these kind of cars start deducting money because how much it will cost to get it stock again. My 10 year old loves the look of a stock muscle car, ive told him over the years how much more respect the stock cars got by the owners, i just paid a little over $900 dollars just for a radiator for my vette just to keep it stock, when i could have been cheep and got one for $269. Lets make them last! have fun!

rea98d · September 2001

Never mind....I'm not gonna comment.

ndance · September 2001

>Never mind....I'm not gonna comment.

Wait, you just did...well, I won't respond....oops.

rea98d · September 2001

If you won't respond, neither will I.

D'oh!

Classic Musclecars

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles