Why was 1967-1973 the golden age of cars?

Depends how you look at it.
The performance was decent and styling is subjective but tons of collector cars came from that time.
Safety wasn't really a priority.

I say it was the highest point of classic cars before the oil crisis killed the vibe.
When fuel prices were high and you couldn't get gas on certain days of the week, all of a sudden no one wanted these big thirsty cars anymore. They wanted the celica, civic, datsun, and other tiny jap cars that arrived just in time.

The final years before the oil crunch and horsepower was still a priority instead of emission control/fuel economy. Beautiful car styling; Torino's, Chargers, Cyclones, Chevelles, etc.

it wasnt

the whole period was overrated anemic shitboxes

at least if were talking America only

>>16173631
They looked and sounded sexy and that's all that really matters to some people.

>>16173572
No

today is the golden age imo
we're at the pinnacle of safety and ICE performance.
soon it will be all self driving electric cars

>>16173640
yeah you shouldnt base what a golden era is based on feeling

>>16173686
this

File: 1315598166010.jpg (178KB, 1040x780px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1040x780px

>>16173631
>OP's pic
>"The cars were rated very conservatively at 375 hp (280 kW) and 450 lb·ft (610 N·m) of torque. Actual output was well over 500 horsepower (370 kW)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_429_Mustang
You know Ford lied about the power of high output production cars right?

The dodge Charger of the same year made
335hp/400 lb-ft from the 383
375 hp/480 lb·ft from the 440
425 hp/490 lb·ft from the 426
The Dodge Coronet, Plymouth Belvedere, Plymouth Satellite,Plymouth GTX, and Dodge Challenger had these same engine options.
And the 69 Camaro with the 427 made 425 hp at the time. And these were all unmodified, stock factory options, and I only named a few.

And this was all 47 years ago.
But it's still true the handling was sub par compared to European cars of the time, but anemic? Get the fuck outta here.
1973+ for sure.

>>16173765
gross horsepower is full of shit

most of those cars were slow as fuck

muscle cars were complete trash

File: tmjmpc22lkb0.jpg (160KB, 1280x766px)

160KB, 1280x766px

>>16173773
>most of those cars were slow as fuck
Most of the cars I listed ran 13s in the late 60s and early 70s from factory, which was more than decent.
Still probably as fast or faster than whatever shitbox you drive despite being 50 years old.

and Im not even going to get into pic related, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fairlane_Thunderbolt.

Stay salty.

>>16173820
>rants like a bitch because he likes garbage cars
>Stay salty

JUST

most of those cars are 14 second piece of shits with and tuning

body yes. reliability and fuel economy no.

>>16173601
>tones of collectors cars come from that time
Tons of things that are old are collected. Doesn't make them good.

>>16173826
>most of those cars are 14 second piece of shits with and tuning
except they are not?
If you can't accept actual documented times and figures because you have some bullshit bias then just continue live on with ignorance.

>>16173837
you continue to delude yourself into believing those pieces of shit are worth anything when stock

if you cant accept that you should stick to hanging around boomers

>>16173842
I'm not him, but it's clear you know nothing about this subject and are just spouting memes for.. I don't really know why. Sexual thrill?

It's an objective fact that the horsepower and 1/4 mile times of these cars were unparalleled by almost any production vehicle at the time. Nobody's doubting that they handled like boats, but HP, acceleration, and top speeds? Nobody could touch American muscle for triple the price.

>>16173686
Performance peaked somewhere in the 90s.
Everything since then has been gimmicky bullshit.

>>16173858
Performance has steadily increased, but so has weight due to safety and other garbage. The fact that a modern car can pass a 90s car at all means they are much better engineered.

>>16173855
youre just moving goalposts

most of them were still slow as fuck

a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle with 375hp (1967)

99.99% of muscle cars were S-H-I-T

cant turn
cant stop
horrible to drive
sounds like a rough running tractor
they were poorfag mobiles for stop light racing

File: 1471517938895.jpg (98KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x640px

>>16173572
If you're into american stuff.
It was 90s for the japs.

>>16173572
>American glory years
Wow it's fucking nothing

>>16173876
>muscle cars are anemic
here's a list of the muscle cars of that era showing that they aren't
>"gross horsepower is full of shit"
>"most of those cars were slow as fuck"
>"another subjective opinion of mine"
here's someone showing you that cars of that era ran times that would be acceptable TODAY for being quick.
>you're just mad because they are (my subjective opinion again)
>let me say something I know nothing about
guy says nobody could touch the cars at the time for triple the price
>"a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle"
You just proved him right and contradicted the absolute shit out of yourself

>>16173876
1967 Porsche 911 S: 8s to 60mph,15.47s quarter mile, $6990

1967 Chevelle SS: 6.7s to 60mph, 14.9s quarter mile, $3000

So... Yeah.. I know, Google is hard sometimes. But I ask that you at least try.

File: 1478838149685.jpg (220KB, 1400x823px)

220KB, 1400x823px

>>16173572

Really, "golden age" depends on your point of view. In terms of pure performance, the golden age is now. In terms of style, it really depends on your taste. I think the era you mention had a decent mix of both. The cars still had character and engine/suspension tech was alright. It was before the boxy 80s and before smog crap. Not a bad era.

>>16173922
they arent quick by todays standards at all
theyre slow as fuck

>muh price

every time

and no I didnt

if they were so fast they wouldnt barely be able to beat a car with less than half the horsepower

muscle cars are shit


>>16173926
nice

you used google

unsourced claims from Google

musclefags are legit retarded

even brought up the muh price shit like every musclefag does when they get their shit pushed in

>Car and Driver 1966
Porsche 911 S

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 92 mph

>Motor Trend 1966
1967 Chevelle SS 396
0-60 - 6.5
1/4 mile - 14.9 @ 96.5mph

american car companies LOVED sending in specially tuned cars to every magazine and their real world performance was even worse

muscle cars are shit

>>16173948
>911 acceleration taken from C&D's estimate of what a broken in 911 might do
You must have a big basket to hold all these cherries you pick.

And you STILL had to choose a car 2.5times the price, rear engined sports car, to MATCH the acceleration of a specific muscle car.

So I'm confused as to what point you think you were making.

But keep "insulting" me, it's really working in your favor.

>>16173996
muscle cars arent fast

thats all there is to it

they cant do anything unless you modify them

theyre SHIT

>>16173572
Less regulations.

File: 1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt.jpg (194KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x400px

>>16173996
Don't argue with shitposters anon.

Just enjoy some nice cars.

>>16173572
But the average Mustang of the time had an anemic straight 6 that barely made 100bhp

Don't listen to boomers, they all want you to think they had Shelbys they bought themselves after working 2 years at the local grocery store straight out of highschool

File: akk1968mold.jpg (17KB, 380x507px)

17KB, 380x507px

>>16174005
Show me on the doll where the muscle cars hurt you.

File: transam.jpg (252KB, 709x903px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 709x903px

>>16173948
The 911s of the era were nowhere close to as fast as many American cars in any respect

>>16174026
>just keep deluding yourself anon

cant argue with you guys anyway

youre stuck in your ways

>>16174041
its called actually driving one

then you quickly realize theyre awful in about every way

File: 1969-dodge-charger-daytona-71-nascar.jpg (23KB, 550x297px)

23KB, 550x297px

>>16174026

>>16174049
yes

lets compare 2 completely different clas-

>heartbreaker

wew almost wasted some effort there

File: alllebayyy026.jpg (413KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1200x800px

>>16174051
I drive one every day. I've also driven vintage 911s. I guarantee you haven't driven either.

File: 1887_1970_Ford_Torino-13_amp_14_low_res.jpg (487KB, 790x518px)

487KB, 790x518px

>>16174051
>cant argue with you guys anyway

>youre stuck in your ways

Damn straight.

File: 2014-dodge-charger-srt-satin-vapor-edition-03.jpg (465KB, 3000x1014px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 3000x1014px

>>16174051
Driving one today, and comparing them to today's cars, duh; they're garbage. But this is a thread about great ages in automobiles; you don't say "1940s were such a shitty age for televisions: they didn't even have color!".

At the time, they were fantastic. It was a great age, that ended basically with the oil crisis. Never really came back, until now I guess. We're starting to see every day cars sold with 300+HP options again. This is probably the best age of cars, but the late 60s were pretty damn good. And I'm saying this as someone who has driven 60s American and European cars, but isn't old enough to drink in the United States of Donald Trump. So you can cut the boomer crap.

>>16174102
>At the time, they were fantastic

nope they were horrible cars for everything that didnt involve going straight

most of them were just slow as fuck even then

they were literal shitboxes with bigger engines

your feelings dont change facts

nothing about muscle cars are good unless youre the kind of knuckle dragger who thinks going straight is fun

and then you have to modify it to even do that worth a damn

File: MFW Americans Clap.png (154KB, 246x227px)

154KB, 246x227px

>>16173765
So what was the nought to sixty time in any of these cars?
Never. Never was the nought to sixty time, merifat.

File: 1455586919281.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px)

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>16173882
70s and 80s Japanese were excellent periods as well.

>>16173773
The power numbers were exaggerated but they were still the quickest things around.
Sure there were some quick Ferraris too but they were making about 50 cars a year or something.

>>16174065
Porsche were in the slow class? Yeah, we know.

>>16174135
you aren't even listening to him

yes they are shit, relative to a brand new mustang which would have been a fucking hypercar back in 1969.

>>16174210
no Im listening

outside of straight line performance they were shit

do you call 1 trick ponies fantastic?

File: 1968_ford_mustang_shelby_gt500-pic-49014.jpg (40KB, 495x371px)

40KB, 495x371px

>>16174135

No one cares m8.

https://youtu.be/OrEL2OQkvOY

>>16174226
>o-oh shit he has a point
>umm yeah I dont care lol

whatevs bruh

you can eat shit if you want to but Imma laugh

File: galaxiebscc.jpg (210KB, 748x743px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 748x743px

>>16174215
If they only were good in straight lines why were they faster than every Euro car in every production car circuit racing league that existed in the 60s?

>>16174234
ok heartbreaker

Ill reply to you this time

they had 4-500hp V8s and went up against <200 hp cars

sometimes they still lost or barely won

thats not impressive

File: 2.jpg (85KB, 800x534px)

85KB, 800x534px

>>16173948
>911 was faster
>>16174049
proven wrong
>>16174065
>yeah but it's not fair!

>>16174215
>only good in straight lines
>>16174234
proven wrong
>>16174239
>yeah but it wasn't fair!

Could you move goalposts any more?

>>16174215
Guess what, retard? Compared to modern stuff everything was shit.
The American cars at least had power.

>>16174244
thanks for proving you cant read this is why I usually ignore you

>a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle with 375hp (1967)

doesnt say anything about faster

>proven wrong

they won only because of straights

if the competition had comparable power they wouldnt stand a chance

look as a 289 cubic inch v8 can barely out run a small 4 cylinder folks

so amazing

>>16174252
barely

and the cars were still mostly slow

>>16173830
Things that are collected are usually good, you dont see many 70's family sedans in demand, nor do you see really shitty unreliable(even at the time) cars in very high demand(except for a few)

File: mufp_071000_21_z1969_mercury_marauder_x_100front.jpg (119KB, 640x480px)

119KB, 640x480px

>>16174229
Exactly.
No one cares about your opinion.

>>16174256
>and the cars were still mostly slow
so just like every other country then?

>>16173765
Oh yes post gross ratings of prototype engines with non factory specification intake manifolds and cam and exhaust etc
Anyone who believes the bullshit that muscle cars were underrated instead of horribly overrated is an idiot

>>16174270
the difference is nobody is acting like a 1969 Datsun is some blazing fast beast

people think a 1969 big block V8 that runs 14s is amazing

File: fal12.jpg (114KB, 672x448px)

114KB, 672x448px

>>16174256
>they won only because of straights
Damn, if only racing was conducted on a tiny circle then true European engineering could be appreciated. The American cars were faster at everything for a fraction of the price, and it wasn't close. No amount of mental gymnastics on your part can portray it any other way.

>>16173926
Not seeing that 13 second muscle car LOL
15 seconds it is

>>16174276
Everyone lied about power in those days, not just the Americans.

>>16174277
Except 14s was amazing in the 60s, especially for a 2 tonne tank that cost a quarter what a porsche with similar performance did.
You stupid cunt.

>>16174279
oh man

that car that got btfo by a Mini!

excellent evidence

goddamn at least your one of the most consistently retarded trips so I cant be surprised

>>16174286
Japan end Europe didn't lie about 4 cylinders making 120hp
Americans lied about their v8s making 400hp when in reality they were lucky to pump out 160hp
Look at the 70s and the real power of the engines when required to measure them without using jewish trickery

>>16174287
The mini also beat 911s at the same time, are they shit cars too now?

File: 1963-pontiac-tempest-rear-three-quarter.jpg (49KB, 660x438px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 660x438px

>>16174281
11.60 in 1963 straight off the showroom floor

>>16174287
It got BTFO? On which stage was the Mini faster?

>>16174286
its not impressive tho

its a shitbox that can go straight that barely outruns a car with 2x less hp

>Everyone lied about power in those days, not just the Americans.

not really at least not to the same degree as Americans

DIN ratings are usually pretty accurate by NET standards

Americans were the kings of bullshit

>>16174286
Also a 14.9 IS NOT a 14
Its an entire afternoon of running 15s until lady luck decided to work on your side

>>16174302
wat

the Mini won the whole event

a V8 lost to a fwd 1L shitbox

>>16174302
>stripped out shit box with radials and a top speed of 140mph because muh 1/4 mile gearing
Lol

Also American shit cars never won the marathon DE LA route which is arguable the pinnacle of performance racing back in that Era

File: 50167-500-0.jpg (34KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x333px

>>16174281
>1/4 - 11.08 seconds @ 128 mph

File: Dynosty_Scion_FRS_Turbo_Dyno_Chart_Comparison_NA_4psi_9psi[1].png (173KB, 800x338px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x338px

>>16174299
Stop making things up retard. Everyone lied, every country. Some of them still do.

>>16174303
>"NET" is a standard
my sides

>>16174310
Now I know your a shitposter. A 14.999 is still a 14 second car, like it or not. That applies to Honda's as well.

>>16174320
>p-please let me cherry pick these bespoke factory built race cars!!!
Lol nah kiddo keep trying though
I'm sure your 140hp (actually underated by 9001hp according to baby boomer hot rod monthly) "king cobra Mustang" runs the 1/4 in that time too

>>16174317
The Falcons were DQ'd for causing too much butthurt
>inb4 retard anon tries to argue that the FIA isn't massively corrupt and can be trusted

>>16174324
sae net

stop grasping

>>16174318
yeah they have to post race cars to prove how fast stock cars are

I dont understand

everyone knows theyre fast when you upgrade them

>>16174338
I'm not grasping I'm laughing at your wikipedia degree

>>16174337
sore loser

>Cant even beat an outdated 1L fwd shitbox with a V8

JUST

>>16174340
keep grasping

you know Im right so you avoid the subject

>>16174324
>Stop making things up
Sorry not sorry I wasn't on the Ford gm or dodge marketing teams back in the 60s

>>16174327
14.9 is a 14.9
No one calls it a 14 because that would imply it can actually dive into the 14s not barely struggle to break into the .9s once

>>16174318
>trying to argue a top speed of 140 is a bad thing with 1960s barn door aerodynamics
Jaguar were cheating to hit 150mph.

File: 06.jpg (2MB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1993px

>>16174317
So which stage was that? Any stage will suffice, if the Mini was faster it would be easy to link to the results

>>16174338
>"race cars"
Nope, these were cars anyone could buy from a dealership if they wished, they were titled and could be driven on the street just like any other car of the era. There is nothing "upgraded" or "modified," that would be like saying a trim package on a new car equates to modification and only the base model is a normal car

>>16174359
Sorry my conversions are a bit off I'm not used to working with third world units

I meant more like 160kmh which is like 100mph

>>16174347
God you sound so pathetic it's hilarious. Maybe one day you'll have a car of your own :D

>>16173572
huge ego
lots of money
few regulations

>>16174363
This just in a 911 gt3r isn't a race car because it shares the same platform as a carrera

>>16174372
This just in a Nismo GTR isn't a race car just because it's faster than your favourite car and makes your arguments look retarded.
Also a 911 GT3R is a race car lmao

File: c.png (7KB, 652x53px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 652x53px

>>16174363
your logic is retarded

who cares about who won battles when you know who won the war

nice to know GT3 cars and the like are street cars too

stay mad musclecuck

>>16174367
damage control hard af

stop projecting

literally loled

File: laughing.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>16173855
Nobody gives a flying fuck about comparing to other cars of the time, this whole thread is about what era of cars are the best, and the 60s-70s are complete fucking trash by every performance metric compared to anything built in 1990 or later.

>mfw your 7.0L V8 is slower than a FWD NA hatchback.
>mfw your car handles like a boat anchor with shopping cart wheels

File: 1471862085593.jpg (31KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 601x508px

>>16174378
>literally loled

File: 09MPET-cary1-W600.gif!OpenImageResource.gif (89KB, 600x247px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x247px

>>16174363
You watch the F.A.S.T. cars? Insane what they can run.

>>16174376
NISMO GTR isn't a race car there are no factory backed series to race in unlike the 911 or even miata :^)

>bbbut muh hemi dart that was built Strictly for drag racing and only 80 made is totally the same as a slant 6 dodge demon because it is!!!

>>16174379
you know a Mclaren F1 is slower than a VW Golf round the Nurburgring?
what a piece of shit eh?

>>16174372
>>16174376
>>16174378
How would anyone have trouble with this distinction?

Is it built by an auto manufacturer, sold at a dealership, with a title, and registered for street use? It's a street car

No title, built by race shop, sold directly for race use? It's a race car.

>>16174378
>your logic is retarded
Are we talking about what cars were faster? If we are then it's the Falcon. Do you want to explain your judging criteria? Do you apply the same arbitrary handicap to small displacement cars when dreaming about cars you will never drive?

File: hyperpak.jpg (85KB, 808x762px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 808x762px

>>16174391
>knocking on the leaning tower of power.

A true shitposter legend.

>>16174351
Not even the same person but your literately making stuff up. Your making claims without any evidence to back it up. I don't even like muscle cars, your just an ignoramus.


Have fun with your 1 liter hatchback with its 10+ 0-60 time.
>but muh handling
>>16174379
That's point of the thread moron. By that logic today's cars would be the best.

>>16174396
>The press release stated that Dodge wanted to make a factory built and ready drag racer out of the 68 Dart GTS hardtop for competition in class B super stock drag racing.
Yep not a race car

Also did the mini or falcon win? That's who was fastest

>>16174391
>NISMO GTR isn't a race car
that's the point retard
>it's only a race car if it makes my bottom sore ;_;

>>16174396
>faster

too bad it lost my man

straight line speed isnt everything

>>16174407
Mini won

>>16174410
See the post directly above yours and keep crying

Do you also think the viper acrx is not a race car??

>>16174415
>Mini won
after a DQ for political reasons

>>16174428
didnt get dqed it came in 2nd

sorry your 300+hp v8 cant beat a 90hp fwd car

shouldnt be such a sore loser over it

>>16174442
okay not dqed they gave them time penalties
still quicker

>>16174407
>>16174415
>>16174442
Nice benchracing and pulling numbers out of ass
A muscle car is way funner to drive than a torqeless euro shitbox from the 60s. get over it. You say straight line speed isn't everything but that works both ways too.

>>16174452
still lost

:^)

>>16174456
its not benchracing you dumb nigger

this shit happened is from the 1964 Monte Carlo rally

muscle cars are shit to drive get over it knuckledragger

>>16174460
still slower
:^)

>>16174456
It's not bench racing this is real racing, i.e butthurt Frenchmen making up the rules as they go along to get the winner they want.

>>16174460
It is benchracing, but whatever
How would you even know how muscle cars drive with your nanny state goverment?

>>16174462
but it won
its times are faster

so its faster in the results book


>>16174472
>actual statistics and events
>benchracing
>thinks the US is a nanny state

what the fuck

>>16174477
Just because it won with a certain driver in certain race doesn't mean its faster.


You dense motherfucker
and for the record I like my nip cars

File: d4d554b01ab19f45e49add6318cf8ba7.gif (329KB, 500x284px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 500x284px

>>16174488
its
faster
in
the
books
nigga

all that matters

>>16174506
fuck it im done


You win. Some meaningless rally back in 1964 really proves that muscles cars are shit

>>16174529
>Monte Carlo
>meaningless

sore loser

thanks for conceding the victory I shall take it and leave

>>16174536
I hope you never come back


You are the cancer of /o/

What a shitty fucking thread

>>16173572
because CAFE didn't happen till 75. Most of the emissions and fuel economy shit didnt happen until around the mid 70's.

Along with the Oil Crisis of course, which started in 73.

Also, there is way too much obsession with safety, to the point where cars are bloated and their designs have to accomodate all the useless junk inside.

Shit like this is why I stopped enjoying cars

>>16175843
Arguments on 4chan?

File: ford-mustang-boss-1969-wallpaper-5.jpg (849KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 1600x1200px

>>16174135
>nope they were horrible cars for everything that didnt involve going straight
I dont think you understand the fact that that is exactly what the point of a Musclecar was. In fact that was generally the point behind most American cars of the 60's and 70's. they were long and large because American roads tended to be long streches, and not twisty curvy like Europe.

>most of them were just slow as fuck even then
well the fastest car of that late 60's/early 70's was only about 175mph. And Musclecars were meant to be the working man's performance car. obviously they weren't gonna have anywhere near the same speed

>they were literal shitboxes with bigger engines
pretty sure you don't know what shitbox means, but, yeah. Muscle Cars were the idea of "hmm lets take this huge performance engine, and stick it in a normal sedan with some lightly sporty styling"

>your feelings dont change facts
youre the only one here with hurt feelings.

>nothing about muscle cars are good unless youre the kind of knuckle dragger who thinks going straight is fun
buttblasted eurocuck. I'm sorry all your streets are curves and you don't have glorious straight highways for miles.

>>16174234
DELET THIS

>>16175863
No, just the general shittyness of the car community. Plus I'll never make enough money to truly enjoy the cars I do like.

>wake up in the morn

all muscle cars are crap even Clarkson said it

you can eat shit without getting mad that people are laughing at you over it

File: 1971 caddy coupe deville.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>16173572
agreed and i'm yuropoor

File: 1971 cadillac coupe deville.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px)

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>16176197
I forgot to say yurop didn't have to much succes with cars in that time except exotics of course

>A period of comically disproportionate ugly landbarges with fuckhuge v8s making 150hp and getting 2mpg
>golden age

>>16173631
>anemic
Here's that meme again.

>>16176201
911
Neue Klasse
Kadett Rallye
Fiat Spiders
a whole slew of small French sports cars
TVRs, Triumphs, Morgans and all the other British sports cars

then you had stuff like Alpina and AMG tuning cars

cant even get started on stuff like Mercedes which BTFO every landbarge made at the time and all their econoboxes that blow away the sad excuse America called economy cars at the time

compared to the US the European cars were much more diverse and interesting

>>16176222
yeah bruh

200hp from a "HiPo" 4.7L engine is amazing
never mind that Porsche made the same with a 2.0L

>>16176241
porsche was making 230hp from 3.2 litres in the 80s

>>16176197
>President Nixon
>only president who ever resigned
>only president who would've certainly been impeached if he hadn't resigned in precaution

>>16176254
and GM was making 230hp from a 5.7L in the 80s

your point?

>>16173572
>few safety rules
>high octane fuel because lead
>big engines because cheap gas

>>16173773
>gross horsepower is full of shit
Net was like 30 off the gross lmao
Say whatever you must to protect your shitbox.

>>16173765
>But it's still true the handling was sub par compared to European cars of the time
There are literally TV shows where muscle cars are shown to handle well on shit roads.
>>16173826
Factor Hemi Cudas ran like 11s nerd.

>>16173829
>fuel economy no.
Big blocks are reported to get somewhere around 17 mpg with conservative driving. Not bad from 7 liter engines.

>>16173842
post yfw 40 year old cars are faster than your camry.

>>16173876
>cant turn
You're the same type of fag in another thread saying RWD is god-tier because it can turn and FWD can't.
>cant stop
Pre-ABS brakes will stop on a literal dime.
>horrible to drive
sounds like a rough running tractor
opinions lmao
>>16174032
>But the average Mustang of the time had an anemic straight 6 that barely made 100bhp
And they were almost as light as a Miata.

>>16174281
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/plymouth-0-60-mph-times/
Notice how the "muscle era" cars are universally faster than anything 1980's+

>>16174286
>especially for a 2 tonne tank
Sorry, not even the pigfattest muscle cars weigh 4000 lbs.
As a matter of fact, modern cars are starting to be heavier than fat muscle cars of the 70's.

>>16174397
this

>>16176241
>200hp from a "HiPo" 4.7L engine is amazing
Hp loss from gross to net is minimal, maybe 20 at max depending on accessories.
Also, most engines were bigger, the horsepower wars quickly brought V8s up to 340-400 CID range.
>but muh 7 liter 100 horsepower
lol no. There's a fundamental misunderstanding you have here.
Horsepower for big block cars was around 300 which by today's standards is mediocre. These engines were not there to make horsepower. It was the assloads of torque, that was the point of it.

>x made the same with y!
Nobody cares, a Porsche is a complete 180 from a Ford Galaxie. They are two completely different approaches to a car.

>>16176277
this is a literal wall of shit

completely unsourced claims
opinions
and butthurt

Ill stick with the facts boomer boy

>>16176277
>Net was like 30 off the gross lmao

Are you implying that 70s muscle cars had less than 10% parasitic loss?

>>16176282
>this is a literal wall of shit
Sorry you can't refute my facts.

>completely unsourced claims
This is common knowledge among non-shitposters and hondacucks.

Stay ass-ached.

>>16176285
>Are you implying that 70s muscle cars had less than 10% parasitic loss?
Before the drivetrain, yes

Before you start crying and bitching, i own an air-cooled car, turning that fan consumes less than 10 horsepower at 5k rpm and it's a shitload harder to spin than an alternator.

I like my American landbarges.

They look awesome and 90s cars you performance freaks are shilling about look like shoes.

If I wanted a performance car i'd get a modern car or a bike,
but ideally, I personally would have a garage with a 60s muscle car, a fast bike, a beater sleeper for lels, and a reliable pickup truck for winter and work

>>16176277
>These engines were not there to make horsepower

Anon, I am afraid you might be retarded.
The only reason for an engine to be in a car is to generate horsepower.

>>16176291
and here he goes

still no sources

not a single fact has been posted

this is more retarded than heartbreaker

File: 1414223185064.jpg (22KB, 318x374px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 318x374px

>>16176277
>Net was like 30 off the gross lmao


1971 Base 350 Corvette engine: Gross = 270HP. Net = 210HP.

1971 LT-1 Corvette engine: Gross = 330HP. Net = 270HP.

1971 LS-5 Corvette engine: Gross = 365HP. Net = 285HP.

1971 LS-6 Corvette engine: Gross = 425HP. Net = 325HP.

It depends on the engine and trans, but it's way more than "30hp lol"

>There are literally TV shows where muscle cars are shown to handle well on shit roads.

That's a massively retarded argument. In Dukes of hazzard the charger makes 20ft+ high jumps do you also think it survives that?

>Factor Hemi Cudas ran like 11s nerd.

On the same exact link you posted http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/plymouth-0-60-mph-times/ it says the cuda actually did 13.9, nerd.

>Big blocks are reported to get somewhere around 17 mpg with conservative driving. Not bad from 7 liter engines.

Funny how you just google big block mpg and you have "reports" of low 12-14mpgs actually

>post yfw 40 year old cars are faster than your camry.

2016 Camry V6 SE: 14.1sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-camry-se-v6-road-test-review
And it's not an official time, they just mesured it for the review.

>And they were almost as light as a Miata.
make it from 700lb to 1000lb more


>Notice how the "muscle era" cars are universally faster than anything 1980's+

Wow shit cars are better than the worst cars american industry has seen

Anyway just to prove that you have an uneducated stupid and wrong opinion.

File: BM chevelle.jpg (145KB, 720x453px)

145KB, 720x453px

Stay fucking buttmad, asshole.
People like muscle cars not because they're the fastest, not because they're the most well made cars in history ever, not because they're insanely luxurious, not because of high-tech engineering that was not heard of back then, or any of this shit.
People like muscle cars because they're beasts. They look insanely aggressive without looking like one another, they're thick, wide and long, and they sit on phat tires while the paint either reinforces the aggressiveness or attracts attention.
And what's more, there's nothing else at all like a loud, huge thumping V8 at your command. It's a feeling like no other, and no other kind of block gives the same instictive satisfaction as hearing the engine roar like an animal and the nearly 2 ton monster lurch forward at relatively insane speeds.
But I think you can't enjoy them since you've apparently cut off your fucking balls, anon.
Rip in piss, you'll never enjoy the best automotive feeling ever.

>>16176408
this is what damage control looks like

and he made a whole damn paragraph of it

>m-muh feels

>>16176277
>pre ABS brakes will stop on a dime.

ABS technology is based on cadence braking, which is a racing technique.
Not to mention that this is only true if the car maintains full grip on the road under heavy braking, which it won't because it doesn't have ABS.

>>16176291
Go back to your corvette forums, boomer.

>>16176445
If you want to stop it's faster to lock-up.
They do not lock-up during racing because it will destroy the tires faster and you can't turn when the wheels are locked.

>>16176262
GM was making 400hp cars for half the price of a 150hp BMW in the 60s

>>16176408

I really want to own a classic muscle car some day (from the UK, so hardly any here) as they look really fun and sometimes that is what cars are about.

The only thing that puts me off is that most are automatics.

>>16176417
what other reason is there to be into cars?

>>16173686
>we're at the pinnacle of ICE performance
That doesn't start till his inauguration in January, you dope.

>>16176509
>muh price

everytime

and no they were not

most of their "400hp" shitboxes made more like 300

I get that numbers are muscle cars have but that doesnt make them good

that BMW will be more comfortable, have better mpg, handle better, ride better, and just about everything that makes a car good will be better

>>16176518
feels dont make a car good

it just makes you look like a faggot when you bring them up

muscle cars are lowest common denominator cars and thats about all there is to it

said it before and Ill say it again you can eat shit but Im going to make fun of you for it

>>16176408
>muscle cars
>not looking like another

LMAO

Fucking burgertards.

>>16176300
Not an argument.

>>16176301
Not an argument.

>>16176391
>It depends on the engine and trans, but it's way more than "30hp lol"
"no"

>In Dukes of hazzard the charger makes 20ft+ high jumps do you also think it survives that?
Literally scenes of it being able to turn along with almost every other car and keep rolling without any cuts.

>Funny how you just google big block mpg and you have "reports" of low 12-14mpgs actually
yeah nah, literally first link
http://classicoldsmobile.com/forums/big-blocks/6608-impressed-455-mpg.html

>2016 Camry V6 SE: 14.1sec

1969 GTX: 13.5 sec
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/plymouth-0-60-mph-times

>make it from 700lb to 1000lb more
Straight 6 66' Mustangs were as light as 2400 lbs. Keep maymaying.

>Wow shit cars are better than the worst cars american industry has seen

Oh, my bad, i thought so many people in here claimed the worst cars ever are muscle cars.
2bh it's their envy typing for them.
Really that's what the shitposters ITT are about.

>muh gross hp pls stop asspounding my civic lmao

>>16176445
nah, ABS increases stopping distance.
This was why ABS was so controversial when it was introduced.
No, technology hasn't made it better, people just dealt with it.

>>16176450
I dislike corvettes hillshill.

>>16176609
and still hasnt posted any sources

can only shitpost

even moves goal posts now

this is sad

>>16176619
>and still hasnt posted any sources
>>16176609
>http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/plymouth-0-60-mph-times
>>16176609
>http://classicoldsmobile.com/forums/big-blocks/6608-impressed-455-mpg.html

Anyway neither have you posted any sources.
Face fax nigga, 60-70s was the golden age of the automobile and everything after 76 has been a piece of trash including the car you own and drive and all the cars you like with exception to any car made between 1959 and 1976.

>>16174320
nice racecar

File: 2016-Dodge-Viper-ACR-rear-three-quarter-in-studio.jpg (344KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 2048x1360px

>>16173858
ok

>>16176642
>Zeroto60times
>thinks anecdotal evidence of a modified car means anything
>completely ignores goal post moving

youre on the level of GTR vs Corvette shitposters or are legit mentally handicapped

even in motor trend a 440 GTX with 4.11 gear could only run a 13.7

that 455 is a modified automatic car with 2.73 gears still gets about 10 in the city

face facts

you dont know shit and just spew garbage just put the trip back on heartbreaker

>fat
>slow
>handle like ass
>pathetic fuel economy
>rust

This has to be a post by a retarded boomer that's discovered the internet, right?

>>16176531
still slower, half the power and more expensive. and that's assuming bmw are honest with their power claims. and they're not.
and a corolla is a good car. doesn't mean it's interesting enough for anyone to give a shit.

>>16176672
I think so

or one of the retarded grandchildren that buy every story

>>16176675
only America lied about power to a crazy extent

DIN ratings were actually close to SAE net

still a better car but of course all you do is benchrace

plenty of Corollas are more interesting than most muscleshits

but all you do is look at numbers so eh

File: 70_Chevelle_SS396.jpg (183KB, 700x510px)

183KB, 700x510px

I dont think there's a point in trying to make this commie shitler and his little buttbuddies that muscle cars are great cars since he doesnt listen anything at all.
>inb4 he owns no car at all
>>16176417
>you like cars because of feelings, you're a looser! damage control
niggeroid, you're fucking arguing over the value of something people put on because of their relationship with them.
You not liking Muscle cars is a thing, shitting up a thread because you're a fucking looser with no life and no pasison in anything is another.
Hang yourself.
>>16176549
>implying
faggot that's like saying the MR2 and Fiero are the same because they're both kinda shaped the same and have RR L4
stop being fucking retarded for a second and scoop the shit out of your eyesockets
>>16176687
>corollas
>more interesting than muscle cars
we're hitting levels of bait that shouldnt be imaginable

>>16176687
Non American car companies are just as bad. The standard might be more accurate but companies are still dishonest. Good luck finding a BMW S54 or Ferrari V8 (except the F40) ever getting close to the quoted output.
It's only now with turbos everywhere that cars make what they should, and that's just because turning up the boost is easy.

>>16176687
The interesting corollas are interesting. You're asking people to be intersted in all corollas just because they're all techinically good at what they do (being cheap to run).

>>16176713
all I see is butthurt and damage control

even posted the most generic boomer trash car you could

>>16176715
lolno heres a BMW 2002 on a dyno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABLiVZPw5M

thats 75whp with drivetrain losses thats around 100hp right

guess what theyre rated at from the factory?

101hp

meanwhile heres a 289 HIPO making 214whp with cams, heads, exhaust, headers, intake, and carb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdPfQ1HiiTE

shit if it had anywhere near 271 stock it should be way more

American car companies were just lying fucks

>>16176731
and most muscle cars are slow and boring

only the crazier ones are worth a shit

works both ways homeslice

File: taxicab.jpg (695KB, 2048x1381px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 2048x1381px

>>16176665
>can't dispute facts
>attacks source as not credible

Here we see a shitposter trying to hit all the marks on his way out of the thread.

>even in motor trend a 440 GTX with 4.11 gear could only run a 13.7
One thing you laptime fags don't understand is the quality of the driver.
Also factors such as atmospheric pressure.

>that 455 is a modified automatic car with 2.73 gears still gets about 10 in the city
So what you're saying is it's all in the gearing, not the engine, you know, how it's always been?

>shitposts about muh hp and engines and fuel economy.
>activates my trap card that gearing is a bigger factor than everything else.

>you dont know shit and just spew garbage
Practice what you preach Hondacuck.
Better yet, post car.

>>16176672
>>rust
You got me there, not your other shit though because that's all 100% false but even shitbox Hondas from this era rusted like they were submerged in salt water.

>>16176745
nice cherry picking, also can you explain why you think the BMW should have 33% drivetrain losses?

>>16176713
>I dont think there's a point in trying to make this commie shitler and his little buttbuddies that muscle cars are great cars since he doesnt listen anything at all.
He's only bootyblasted that his autismbux can't pay for a decent car like a Toronado or even a mediocre car like a Cougar.

>>16176761
The drivetrain losses should be around 20% but you also need to take into consideration power losses from the passage of time.
A stock car will lose power as it ages.

>>16176759
zeroto60 doesnt even have sources

they just post whatever

real credible

I know youre old and/or retarded and dont understand the internet but whatever

no if it was a decent engine it would get better MPG

BMW 2002 gets 20+ easy and has a 3.90 rear end

>>16176761
>cherry picking

you literally cant argue with musclefags

you give them evidence and the deny it

most head up their own ass fanbase in the automotive world

wish I had the article from Mustangs and Fords where stock 289 HiPos were dynoing 150whp

>>16176761
101-33%=67
101-20%=80

How did you come to the conclusion that a car with 75whp and rated at 101bhp has 33% drivetrain losses?

>>16176786
>zeroto60 doesnt even have sources
neither do you kek
>they just post whatever
So do you kek

>I know youre old
guess again

>BMW 2002 gets 20+ easy and has a 3.90 rear end

A 2 liter engine is getting better mileage than a 7.4 liter engine wow my mind is blown.

>>16176764
I'm bootyblasted my workbux wont buy me a murican car in general because they're all expensive as fuck but at least I embrace my love for them, not like some people.
>>16176745
>Chevelle SS '70
>most generic boomer white trash car
nigger what are mustangs and camaros?
any normie you ask about muscle cars will answer "mustang" or rarely "camaro", but that's about it.
>because a car is slow, it's bad
>muscle cars are boring
you fucking double nigger, there's nothing boring about a car wanting to throw you off the road. A corolla or a camry is boring in their own right, a muscle car, even the most basic 3 speed manual L6 barebones model is a barrel of fun. Yeah, it's slow, but who actually gives a shit about laptimes? You're not gonna race it anytime soon.

>>16173572
You mean American cars.

>>16176832
I already posted sources

but hey you can keep shitposting since you know Im right

>A 2 liter engine is getting better mileage than a 7.4 liter engine wow my mind is blown.

oh Im sorry what

>So what you're saying is it's all in the gearing, not the engine, you know, how it's always been?

>>16176839
>3 speed manual L6 barebones model is a barrel of fun

way to lose all credibility in 1 line I literally just laughed out loud

those are legit fucking garbage that have no redeeming qualities other than that you can scrap them

and yeah the 70 Chevelle SS is THE generic boomer trash overpriced muscleshit

JUST

you cant with these guys folks

theyre all deluded shitposting tards

>>16176839
>I'm bootyblasted my workbux wont buy me a murican car in general because they're all expensive as fuck
m8, ignore the bullshit sites. I've found half-decent muricanmobiles on craigslist for reasonable monies.
If you look outside the classic boomer carriages like firebirds, camaros, chargers etc. then you'll find something cool.

Mercury Cougars are fairly cheap and pretty much a first gen mustang with hideaway headlights.

>>16176851
>I already posted sources
No you didn't.

>>So what you're saying is it's all in the gearing, not the engine, you know, how it's always been?
Gearing isn't ever going to make up for almost 4 times as much gas burned.

>>16176858
I did

but your head is up your ass

you guys just cant be helped

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

File: dodge charger owners manual.jpg (23KB, 479x640px)

23KB, 479x640px

>>16176872
>I did
nope. If you did you would make an effort to quote yourself but clearly you didn't so i have nothing to worry about.

oh well, more cool cars for me.

>>16176891
nope

if you cant follow a thread Im not holding your hand

all you do is deny evidence anyway

you can enjoy eating shit but imma lau-
honestly getting tired of typing at this point

File: americammuscle.png (18KB, 791x178px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 791x178px

Just gonna leave this here

>>16176903
>nope
nope

>if you cant follow a thread Im not holding your hand
>being this rekt he can't even prove himself right
Wow, the future is truly bleak if someone like you can vote.

>honestly getting tired of typing at this point
Good, fuck off teenage cuck.

>>16176919
>9:1
there's your problem.
Guess someone needs slightly longer conrods.

>>16176922
>Wow, the future is truly bleak if someone like you can vote.

I didnt vote for Trump

>Good, fuck off teenage cuck.

oh

you really are just an angry boomer

>>16176919
>288rwhp
4 times what that bmw earlier in the made. with less than 4 times the displacement

>>16176929
>I didnt vote for Trump
exactly, you're the trash that's plaguing America and honestly, this isn't shocking news, your doublethink exposed your political leanings way before you came out of the closet.

>you really are just an angry boomer
No, I'm 22 and i own two classics so far.

>>16176277
>Net was like 30 off the gross lmao

No it was not you idiot.
Gross BHP is the engine on a stand without filters, exhaust, accesories.

>>16176928
>slightly longer conrods
i hope you're only pretending to be retarded

>>16176941
>Gross BHP is the engine on a stand without filters, exhaust, accesories.
no shit

>>16176939
Trump voters are legit retarded

really explains your actions itt as well

>No, I'm 22 and i own two classics so far.

more like 62
at least mentally lmao

>>16176937
I am not the fag that posted the BMW
I am the fag that proves that manufacturers were lying about those powers output.

>>16176947
>Hillary voters are legit retarded
fix'd
All your posts are probably salt for losing the election 2bh

>>16176939
Ah, so you're a dumbass redneck that guzzled the metaphorical cum from daddy's dick and never had an original thought before. Now it all makes sense

>>16176955
I didnt vote for Hillary

>wasting your time voting when your vote doesnt matter

most Americans wanted Hillary but the country is fucked so Trump gets it

voting is a waste

>>16176919
>factory claims 450 BHP
>barely puts out 280 at the wheel
>factory claims 425BHP
>barely 350BHP in reality

kek, muscle cucks btfo

>>16176958
>Ah, so you're a dumbass redneck that guzzled the metaphorical cum from daddy's dick and never had an original thought before. Now it all makes sense
nope.

>>16176964
>>wasting your time voting when your vote doesnt matter
I guess there's one thing we can agree on, i didn't vote either.

>>16176851
>a manual L6 early '60s muscle car is less fun/interesting than your everyday trashheap toyota corolla automatic FWD with an asthmatic dohc 1.6 engine
you just proved you're retarded.
My dad bought a '69 bel air sedan with the L6 and auto, and we had a fucking blast trying to blow the engine apart. shit had no exhaust beyond the headers but it was tons of fun.
also, the engine didnt fucking die at all.
and I've never said they werent overpriced, but blame the boomers.
>>16176852
Nigga I live in France. A fucking C10 in mediocre condition with a L6 and auto is 10k.
it's bullshit.
But I'm looking at a Continental (Mark IV iirc) with the vee ayte but it needs work but I guess it could be made very fun for cheap.

>>16176964
Are people that don't understand the electoral college stupid or just uneducated? Maybe both? How could you not understand such a simple concept and why it's important?

>>16176983
dude fucking no

even base model V8s like 305s, 304s, and 318s are awful

the L6 are just garbage not worth anything

cars are like women

theyre all fun when you treat them like shit

>>16176985
its not important its bullshit

File: 1466606997912.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>16176983
>Nigga I live in France.
oh shi

>>16176919
shills won't even try to defend this
kek

File: i002340.jpg (91KB, 915x498px)

91KB, 915x498px

>>16176983
Are you trying to smuggle heroin into NYC?

File: t-thanks.jpg (26KB, 369x368px)

26KB, 369x368px

>>16176990
>treat them like shit
No, nigger.
Even without treating them like shit, a wonky handling sedan with lots of torks, live axle rwd and body-on-chassis is more fun than your ten billionth fwd shitbox that handles the same as every other.
And electoral college IS important you fucking idiot.
>>16177004
pic related
would I be in the US I'd own a classic US car already, but it isnt the case.

>>16177033
>would I be in the US I'd own a classic US car already, but it isnt the case.
Stay strong hombre, If iceniggers in Norway can own Chargers and Plymouths and shit then you can damn well buy whatever you want.

>>16177033
they have no torque
they have no hp
they arent fun to drive
they sound like shit

you are literally defending the absolute shit tier of American cars

like I can at least understand when it comes to your SS, Z28, Boss, Hemi, Six Pack and all that

but you are defending shitboxes with less than 100hp that cant do anything

goddanm a Frogs life sounds depressing if you think its fun

>>16177041
They're supposed to be smooth driving luxobarges, nothing else.

>>16177070
thats why they were mainly used in bare bones shitboxes eh

>>16177037
yeah
the biggest problem is I dont have space to store and work on such a car and parts are expensive.
I wouldnt give a single shit about mileage if I enjoy driving the car desu.
>>16177031
No, but I do love me luxobarges and fuckhuge V8s
since it's got rust and general neglet it's most likely gonna get mad max'd tho. AKA straightpipe, engine optimization, and throwing a lot of unnecessary shit right out.
Might get a few cashmonies from the extra parts too.
>>16177041
>they have no torque
you're fucking retarded.
Old L6s make good amounts of torque and still do more than most modern engines, but stay delusional.
>they have no HP
they're not racecars, faggot.
However, well tuned L6s can climb fucking high without having to use fuel injection or forced induction, so suck my dick.
>they arent fun to drive
I'm sorry mister "corollas are the most fun cars to drive", your fucking shit opinions arent even allowed in my vicinity. especially when you spout "t-they're only good for scrap!".
unironically kill yourself lad.

>>16177079
>Old L6s make good amounts of torque and still do more than most modern engines, but stay delusional.

you stay delusional torque means shit when you have 80hp

its slower sounds worse gets worse economy and just makes for an awful to drive experience compared to even 4 cylinders of the time

even a 1.6 Volvo from the 50s would outrun most 60s and 70s American L6s while being better in every way

>However, well tuned L6s can climb fucking high without having to use fuel injection or forced induction, so suck my dick.

lol what the fuck even

>your fucking shit opinions arent even allowed in my vicinity. especially when you spout "t-they're only good for scrap!".

youre a frenchfag who thinks garbage L6s no one in America would touch for longer than it takes to swap it out is good

stay legit fucking cucked you pathetic frog

>>16177117
>youre a frenchfag who thinks garbage L6s no one in America would touch for longer than it takes to swap it out is good
Not him but straight six is god tier and can usually make as much, or more power than V8s of the time.

>>16173882
>240z
>bluebird
>celica
>skyline GT-R
>2000gt
>galant gto
>S800

>>16173572
Try 2010s.
>Everything is fast now
>Crashing at 2mph won't kill you (yes anon, you're such a good driver and will never be in an accident)
>Suspension technology means fatter cars can actually turn
>Styling is hit or miss but the same could be said of any year
>Tons of affordable driver's cars (let's say under 55k new): Miata, M240i, various muscle, Porsche Cayman, C7 Vette, CTS, ATS etc. Before you had the Miata and that's about it, everything was either a mess or didn't exist; I will concede Japanese econoboxes are only getting worse, though.
My only real complaints are drive by wire and small windows

>>16177554
Also the people droning on about muh classics have never actually driven one and have no idea how underwhelming they are to drive; you buy one because you like the "idea" of the car, not because it's particularly good to drive.

>>16177554
You forgot
>pigfat A & C pillars
>3000lbs+
>infotainment

>>16177554
>>Crashing at 2mph won't kill you
but muh 5mph safety bumpers
http://hooniverse.com/2014/10/27/hooniverse-asks-what-was-the-70s-most-egregious-5-mph-bumper/
>>Suspension technology means fatter cars can actually turn
Muscle cars have no problem turning. They have a problem staying in a straight line from the universally sloppy steering.

File: 1401538003614.jpg (262KB, 550x447px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 550x447px

>muscle cars
roflmao

>>16173858
McLaren F1 was the peak of vehicular engineering. Prove me wrong.

>Why was 1967-1973 the golden age of cars?

HAHAHAHAHA! Only for Boomers who never drove anything newer. I grew up working on that old shit when it was only a few years old. Classic styling, plenty of torque but build quality was ass. Handling? WHAT handling? It's no accident modern builders throw the suspension in the trash and stuff crate engines with EFI after pulling the stock drivetrain.

Much love for the trucks of the period tho, especially with disc brakes because front drums are irredeemable shit. Also much love for truck inline sixes which had plenty of torque for towing.

Of course numbers matter and before the bitchass "1/8 mile so I don't frag my delicate junk" drag racing it was all quarter mile. Oh, wait, modern musclecars are quicker there, too.

Much love for the room and the comfort of those years, but I can get that and performance from a modern truck.

>>16177570
A&C pillars are to support the car in a rollover, cars got fat because they need weight and width to support power increases, otherwise they'd be incredibly unstable, expensive or both. I'll concede on infotainment beyond a basic digital display such as a GPS/music information/whatever but that really doesn't have to do much with the car itself.
>>16177578
Muscle cars weren't even fast then, either.

>muscle cars can turn or accelerate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAx2jtr3K8

>>16177596
>cracked
no

>>16177596
>comparing engines that have a 35 year gap between them


Why do people do this again.

>>16177596
>1979
Literally the height of emissions regs and well after the fall of the muscle car era.

>>16177601
>McLaren F1 was the peak of vehicular engineering. Prove me wrong.

Anything faster proves you wrong. They were pretty though. Race cars are built to produce performance, which is measurable.

An old Porsche 917 would stomp the McLaren, and at least one 917 was registered for street use if that matters, but you said "engineering" and the reign of the 917 speaks for itself.

>>16177621
>comparing a 5l performance v8 to a 1.6l economy 4cyl
yea so unfair

>>16177603
>drums are irredeemable shit.
You aren't worth shit as an enthusiast if you can't make drums stop better than discs.
My shoes are almost down to metal and they stop gooder than anything i own with disc brakes.

>>16177606
>Muscle cars weren't even fast then
I dunno, a 1957 Chrysler achieved 130 mph on wet sand with a two speed automatic.

File: Xr6 ford.png (455KB, 720x394px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 720x394px

>>16173572
My 2005 Ford Falcon straight six pulls the same 1/4 mile time as a 1970 Trans Am with a 6.6L V8. Faster around the track too with superior suspension and brakes.

Fuck your so called golden age

File: comelookatdisnigga.gif (3MB, 320x240px)

3MB, 320x240px

>>16174178
>those fucking wheels

>>16177627
>You aren't worth shit as an enthusiast if you can't make drums stop better than discs.
you are literally retarded

>My shoes are almost down to metal and they stop gooder than anything i own with disc brakes.
double retarded

>>16177633
Fast compared to other cars from the era, even econoboxes can out drag them now.

>>16177643
Nope, drums are magnificent if you can actually get them all to sync.
Of course you can't so you just shitpost.

The only downsides i've experienced are brake fade from water and they lock up very rarely.

>>16177645
Almost 50 years of technology i would hope modern cars are faster.

>>16177657
>drums are magnificent if you can actually get them all to sync
and still inferior to run of the mill discs you would find on a shitbox family sedan

>>16177664
>and still inferior to run of the mill discs you would find on a shitbox family sedan
I guess you've never driven on well tuned drums.
Mine stop the car dead if i need them to, much better than my car with discs.
As long as you don't ride the brakes they won't fade.
Maybe some day you'll understand.

>>16177657
>Almost 50 years of technology i would hope modern cars are faster.
Well yes, my point is older cars are overrated as fuck.

>>16177664
>literally guessing
lmao desu

>>16177695
They're also really fun.

File: tumblr_mw9ss2S50C1qk65n6o1_1280.jpg (871KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 1280x1280px

>>16177601
It was the high-water mark of that era and ahead of its time by over a decade for sure, but any of the new hybrid hypercars and the Snek beat it in every functional way other than having that dope-ass center seating position.

>>16177694
>As long as you don't ride the brakes they won't fade.
if you drove worth a shit theyd be gone in a few minutes

>huur duur my shitbox stops better than my other shitbox this is irrefutable proof that dics arent infinitely superior to drumbrakes
drive a real car someday youll understand

>>16177747
>if you drove worth a shit theyd be gone in a few minutes
>he thinks he can compete with my tooj torpedo
The only time i ever lost my drums was when i drove my car through a literal flood and even then they dried out in a matter of seconds.

>drive a real car someday youll understand
Your Camry isn't a real car btw.

File: 2015_classic_24_daytona_-_067aa_deremer_studios_llc_0.jpg (194KB, 1858x1045px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1858x1045px

can we just post neat cars instead?

i like this one, 3.0 CSL

>>16176472

> what are friction coefficients.

You better be trolling, mate.

>>16173858
You sound like an underage twat trying to look cool in front of adults.

File: 2fd70081bcadd99df7ac00ed16c84027.jpg (2MB, 1620x1080px)

2MB, 1620x1080px

>>16173572
leaded gas
compression
cheap gas
DISPLACEMENT

oh and those lines

we are of course talking about muscle right?

File: 0903phr_12_z+1971_dodge_demon+rear_driver_side.jpg (68KB, 640x480px)

68KB, 640x480px

>>16178298
oh i almost forgot pre-emissions

>>16178298
Modern cars have higher compression tho

>>16177639
what's with ozfags and low profile tires? Are you trying to make a donk?

File: 1964_safari.jpg (53KB, 595x400px)

53KB, 595x400px

>>16174279
ooh nice

dumping a few rally muscle i got

>>16178350
gas is about the same when adjusted for inflation too

>>16173572
Let me fix that for you.

Im OP, and was 1963-1969 1982-2002 the golden ages of cars?

File: Ford-Mustang-Mountain-Scene-Ian-Duncan.jpg (49KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x480px

>>16178414

>>16178350
correct me if im wrong, but for a bit more than a decade after they started the emissions stuff and switched to unleaded gasoline, they had to drop compression big time. modern tech allows us to have higher comp with unleaded. something something hardened valve seats too

File: hrdp_1103_06_o+grabber_oldsmobile_442+vintage_baja_1000_photo.jpg (85KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 750x563px

>>16178439

File: race_bajamav.jpg (68KB, 795x462px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 795x462px

>>16178464

File: W71HV_HM001L-640.jpg (64KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x512px

>>16178466

File: 6478773301_74f4e199da.jpg (112KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x310px

>>16178474

File: EastAfricanSafari_01_700.jpg (78KB, 700x514px)

78KB, 700x514px

>>16178487

File: EastAfricanSafari_02_700.jpg (74KB, 700x427px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 700x427px

>>16178491

File: EastAfricanSafari_03_700.jpg (70KB, 700x472px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x472px

>>16178500

File: EastAfricanSafari_04_700.jpg (130KB, 700x471px)

130KB, 700x471px

>>16178505

File: EastAfricanSafari_06_500.jpg (74KB, 500x586px)

74KB, 500x586px

>>16178509

File: EastAfricanSafari_07_700.jpg (95KB, 700x473px)

95KB, 700x473px

>>16178519

File: EastAfricanSafari_08_700.jpg (113KB, 700x473px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 700x473px

>>16178522

File: 6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01b8d217210b970c-800wi.png (99KB, 800x589px)

99KB, 800x589px

>>16178455
pretty much

the 70s crackdown was one of the best things to happen to the automotive world

File: hrdp-1205-1968-ranchero-raunchy-redo-000 (1).jpg (70KB, 640x480px)

70KB, 640x480px

>>16178529

File: maxresdefault.jpg (110KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1280x720px

>>16178533

File: MonteCarloFalcon_06_1200.jpg (405KB, 1500x1181px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1500x1181px

>>16178537

File: MonteCarloFalcon_07_1200.jpg (397KB, 1500x1113px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1500x1113px

>>16178544

File: MonteCarloFalcon_08_1200.jpg (466KB, 1500x1100px)

466KB, 1500x1100px

>>16178552

File: MonteCarloFalcon_09_1200.jpg (283KB, 1200x883px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x883px

>>16178556

File: MonteCarloFalcon_10_1200.jpg (260KB, 1200x913px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1200x913px

>>16178565

File: Cherry-2000-Mustang.jpg (65KB, 640x415px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x415px

>>16178571
and this.

>>16178487
This one is my favorite, thank you based Anon.

File: p90141918.jpg (446KB, 2400x1600px)

446KB, 2400x1600px

>>16178565
sup bruh

>>16178531
TEL was probably the best additive to gas in ever.

Stop dying so we can keep using it.

File: P90141910-paddy-hopkirk-in-the-mini-cooper-at-the-rallye-monte-carlo-1964-01-2014-2285px.jpg (266KB, 2285x1500px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 2285x1500px

>>16178544
cool seeing the same corners tho

>>16178595
yeah we kinda have the awareness of environmental impact now

I dont want leaded bullshit

theres hardly any difference in octane

File: ladart.jpg (36KB, 404x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 404x480px

>>16178593
>>16178597
niiice

>>16178586
no problem. not enough of this stuff on /o/

File: Comets on Safari 1_1.jpg (234KB, 769x1024px)

234KB, 769x1024px

>>16178519
sweet didn't have that one

File: Comets on Safari 2_1.jpg (286KB, 778x1024px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 778x1024px

>>16178635

>>16178620
TEL doesn't directly harm the environment, it just destroys cats.

>theres hardly any difference in octane
Regardless of the difference knock sensors and EFI will cover your ass no matter what you put in your tank.

File: plymouth-barracuda-don-carlton.jpg (298KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1500x1000px

>>16178632
>>16178635
the giraffe one is so fucking cool

File: Comets on Safari 3_1.jpg (411KB, 786x1024px)

411KB, 786x1024px

>>16178642

File: plymouth-duster-drivers-side.jpg (268KB, 1500x1000px)

268KB, 1500x1000px

>>16178648

File: Comets on Safari 4_1.jpg (336KB, 776x1024px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 776x1024px

>>16178651

>>16178643
yeah and cats help reduce emissions

we get by just fine without it these days

File: Comets on Safari 5_1.jpg (312KB, 769x1024px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 769x1024px

>>16178648
I know the guy who owns the negatives of most of these photos, he owns the number 81 Safari Comet, I need to get some high res scans of them to put out on the internet

>>16178663
>yeah and cats help reduce emissions
but that's homosexual.

File: Comets on Safari 6_1.jpg (341KB, 786x1024px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 786x1024px

>>16178670

File: 702435_416453525090906_503169690_n.jpg (45KB, 600x448px)

45KB, 600x448px

>>16178656

File: Comets on Safari 7.jpg (419KB, 786x1024px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 786x1024px

>>16178681

>>16178677
why are musclefags consistently cringe-worthy

File: 702913_416454578424134_1377627378_n.jpg (93KB, 577x799px)

93KB, 577x799px

>>16178670
>>16178685
thats fuckin awesome

File: THEDURABILITYRUNCOMETS-760x1019.jpg (187KB, 760x1019px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 760x1019px

The Comet holds 7 FIA endurance records to this day for distances from 5k miles to 100k miles. Mercedes beat the outright record in the 90s but with a diesel, the Comet still has the gas production car record, 108mph average for 100k miles. They were also the fastest factory drag car for 1964 and 1965.

File: 537211_10151439463325804_1691152136_n.jpg (63KB, 960x597px)

63KB, 960x597px

>>16178700

>>16178716
weird

its not in the FIA record books