350 Rocket vs Hemi
October 2nd, 2012, 12:17 PM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Look, let's just cut to the chase. Go to the 1970 Oldsmobile SPECS Booklet and you can add up the MSRP for any model combination you want to, whether you're trying to make that price be higher or lower.
You'be he hard pressed to get to $5,000, though - the most expensive Cutlass model listed is the 3-seat Vista Cruiser for $3,778, and the most expensive Cutlass 2-door is the 4-4-2 Convertible for $3,567.
W-31 for the base F-85 including suspension upgrades adds no more than $591 to the $2,787 F-85 (=$3,378).
W-30 package for the top-of the line 4-4-2 (at $3,312 to $3,567, depending on body type) adds $370 (=$3,682 to $3,937).
I will leave it to others to list every possible option combination in support of their arguments.
I will note, though, that the median household income in 1970 was $9,870, for men working year-round, full time, it was $9,180 (with about ⅓ of wives working at all - whether full or part-time), while the median income in 2011 was $45,230, with 35% of families where someone is employed having just one wage earner, 52% having two (wife works), and 13% having three or more (presumably parents and child or husband, wife, and adult relative all working).
So, about $9,000 a year, with ⅔ of that being earned by Dad alone vs about $45,000, with ⅔ of that being earned by multiple family members together.
That $4,000 for a well-equipped hi-po Olds was about 44% of a year's pay in 1970, with enough to spare in ⅔ of households for Mom to bake cookies, make curtains, and send the kids off to school every day,
which would translate out to about $20,000 as 44% of today's median, with both parents scrambling to work and ⅔ of the kids coming home to a dark house and a note after school every day.
- Eric
You'be he hard pressed to get to $5,000, though - the most expensive Cutlass model listed is the 3-seat Vista Cruiser for $3,778, and the most expensive Cutlass 2-door is the 4-4-2 Convertible for $3,567.
W-31 for the base F-85 including suspension upgrades adds no more than $591 to the $2,787 F-85 (=$3,378).
W-30 package for the top-of the line 4-4-2 (at $3,312 to $3,567, depending on body type) adds $370 (=$3,682 to $3,937).
I will leave it to others to list every possible option combination in support of their arguments.
I will note, though, that the median household income in 1970 was $9,870, for men working year-round, full time, it was $9,180 (with about ⅓ of wives working at all - whether full or part-time), while the median income in 2011 was $45,230, with 35% of families where someone is employed having just one wage earner, 52% having two (wife works), and 13% having three or more (presumably parents and child or husband, wife, and adult relative all working).
So, about $9,000 a year, with ⅔ of that being earned by Dad alone vs about $45,000, with ⅔ of that being earned by multiple family members together.
That $4,000 for a well-equipped hi-po Olds was about 44% of a year's pay in 1970, with enough to spare in ⅔ of households for Mom to bake cookies, make curtains, and send the kids off to school every day,
which would translate out to about $20,000 as 44% of today's median, with both parents scrambling to work and ⅔ of the kids coming home to a dark house and a note after school every day.
- Eric
So, I don't think $4000 for a "fully equipped hi-po Olds is a fair price. Bump it to $5000 and now you are over 50%. Plus, the median income of 2011 is after one of the worst economic downturns in history. What was it in 2007?
Again, there are plenty of ways to crunch the #s, but my point is that even in 1970, a car like this was very expensive and only a certain percentage of people would/could afford to buy and drive it. Just like today, no way I am dishing out $40,000 for a vehicle, I love my 71 Skylark (Olds powered, of course), but it isn't faster.
Last edited by captjim; October 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 PM.
October 2nd, 2012, 04:32 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Northlake, IL
Posts: 633
Again, the most basic modern muscle cars in 2012 (no additional options) are 50%+ more expensive than the most basic big block muscle cars in 1970 (no additional options). There's no playing around with stats, no adding or subtracting of factory options to bolster arguments, just black and white numbers processed through the government's own inflation calculator, compared with black and white numbers. One could say that the 1970 model was more stripped down, but one could just as easily say that the 2012 models are extravagant. But it doesn't matter, we're talking like for like, most-basic factory configuration. And as I had mentioned, there were less-expensive big block muscle cars available in 1970, but the 455 442 seems to be an appropriate example.
1970 442: $3,376
Adjusted for inflation: $20,045.35
2012 Camaro SS MSRP: $33,180
Price difference: +65.5%
2012 Mustang GT MSRP: $30,505
Price difference: +52.1%
2012 Dodge Challenger RT MSRP: $30,990
Price difference: +54.5%
If you have some facts that show this to be wrong, it would be interesting to see.
1970 442: $3,376
Adjusted for inflation: $20,045.35
2012 Camaro SS MSRP: $33,180
Price difference: +65.5%
2012 Mustang GT MSRP: $30,505
Price difference: +52.1%
2012 Dodge Challenger RT MSRP: $30,990
Price difference: +54.5%
If you have some facts that show this to be wrong, it would be interesting to see.
October 2nd, 2012, 05:13 PM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Again, the most basic modern muscle cars in 2012 (no additional options) are 50%+ more expensive than the most basic big block muscle cars in 1970 (no additional options). There's no playing around with stats, no adding or subtracting of factory options to bolster arguments, just black and white numbers processed through the government's own inflation calculator, compared with black and white numbers. One could say that the 1970 model was more stripped down, but one could just as easily say that the 2012 models are extravagant. But it doesn't matter, we're talking like for like, most-basic factory configuration. And as I had mentioned, there were less-expensive big block muscle cars available in 1970, but the 455 442 seems to be an appropriate example.
1970 442: $3,376
Adjusted for inflation: $20,045.35
2012 Camaro SS MSRP: $33,180
Price difference: +65.5%
2012 Mustang GT MSRP: $30,505
Price difference: +52.1%
2012 Dodge Challenger RT MSRP: $30,990
Price difference: +54.5%
If you have some facts that show this to be wrong, it would be interesting to see.
1970 442: $3,376
Adjusted for inflation: $20,045.35
2012 Camaro SS MSRP: $33,180
Price difference: +65.5%
2012 Mustang GT MSRP: $30,505
Price difference: +52.1%
2012 Dodge Challenger RT MSRP: $30,990
Price difference: +54.5%
If you have some facts that show this to be wrong, it would be interesting to see.
I will agree that you can get a stripped down muscle car for high $3,xxx, but you could not get a comparable car to todays for much less than $5,000. That is one reason the Road Runner sold so well. Stripped down basic hot-rod. Big engine, light car (for the times) and nothing else.
If you honestly think that $3376 is a fair, representative price for a 442, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't know how you can honestly state that when I showed you a link to a real sticker of $4000 for a 350 2bbl, am radio drum brake Cutlass.
Oh yeah, and the newer cars are still faster. And safer. And more comfortable. And more reliable.
Last edited by captjim; October 2nd, 2012 at 05:37 PM.
October 2nd, 2012, 06:16 PM
#85
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
I don't think that the point is to compare the exact options on the cars of each era, though I can understand the argument for doing so.
I would prefer to look at comparable "entry-level" "performance" cars, understanding that "entry level" cars today all come standard with A/C and power windows, both of which were expensive luxury items "back in the day."
The point is that the average Joe had a much easier time buying into a new "performance" car in the sixties than he has now, even though those two cars are not perfectly comparable.
Heck, I'd like to compare the 4-4-2 with a new car that has crank windows and just a heater, but I can't, because you can't order them that way anymore.
It's called "feature creep" and it's why everything is so darn complicated nowadays!
- Eric
I would prefer to look at comparable "entry-level" "performance" cars, understanding that "entry level" cars today all come standard with A/C and power windows, both of which were expensive luxury items "back in the day."
The point is that the average Joe had a much easier time buying into a new "performance" car in the sixties than he has now, even though those two cars are not perfectly comparable.
Heck, I'd like to compare the 4-4-2 with a new car that has crank windows and just a heater, but I can't, because you can't order them that way anymore.
It's called "feature creep" and it's why everything is so darn complicated nowadays!
- Eric
October 2nd, 2012, 06:21 PM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Northlake, IL
Posts: 633
Ha ha ha I'm not playing with the numbers. Factory numbers, you can look them up yourself. $3,376 IS the base price for a 1970 442 with a 455. Page 3 and 8 of the Wildaboutcars spec sheet. Page 509, Krause Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1987. If we have to agree to disagree because you won't accept a fact, they don't call that agreeing to disagree... As to the subjective things that are better about new cars in your opinion, I still assert that the old cars are better, in my opinion. 
October 2nd, 2012, 06:34 PM
#87
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Ha ha ha I'm not playing with the numbers. Factory numbers, you can look them up yourself. $3,376 IS the base price for a 1970 442 with a 455. Page 3 and 8 of the Wildaboutcars spec sheet. Page 509, Krause Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1987. If we have to agree to disagree because you won't accept a fact, they don't call that agreeing to disagree... As to the subjective things that are better about new cars in your opinion, I still assert that the old cars are better, in my opinion.
October 2nd, 2012, 06:35 PM
#88
im not pointing fingers but certain people always turn post's this way. New car 40 g's for a modern muscle car worth looking at. So now you have debt on it unless you have 40 g's sitting under the couch. Now you wanna go out put on a nice magnaflow exhaust a chip, a k&n cold air intake kit, some headers, cam intake maybe a supercharger. Then it snowballs into something wayyyyyyy out in the atmosphere that's rediculous. Look i might not have the fastest thing on 4 wheels but on the street it held it's own very well. I have beaten new gto's even an m3 and one or two srt4 neons which yes i will agree a fast little car. But when you consider what i have in my car which is well under 15k believe it or not i can probably dump 10 grand and be running much faster than any new car . less streetable yes but that is the trade off. I see the modern muscle car like something a yuppy buys because he cant build anything. It's like seeing a suited guy on a harley it pisses the purist's off but what defines what a bike rider should be. Im sorry but when you have to spend 40k plus for a car that runs 12's stock it aint worth it. My buddy has a street strip trail blazer ss. he has had a tune and a cam and this and that and he only ran a mid 13. I pull my car off the trailer and run a 13.3 on the first run on a junk build 350. My engine blew up but i spent considerably less than him so i still have money to play instead of paying bills on a car that i can blow up on the street and void the warranty by adding parts to. I might add his engine blew up too. the sad p[art is he is still paying it off and has to put a new engine in it.
Last edited by coppercutlass; October 2nd, 2012 at 06:37 PM.
October 2nd, 2012, 07:45 PM
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Northlake, IL
Posts: 633
I accept as a fact that you could buy a stripped down 70 442 with a 455 (not the high output) for $3400. What I AM saying is that a 70 442 with a stock 455, single track rear, no radio, no a/c, manual steering, drum brakes, 3 speed manual trans, steel wheels and hubcaps, and on and on is NOT a fair comparison to what you get in todays cars. If you are going to use cost as the criteria, you have to compare what you get for that cost. Yes, when adjusted for inflation the newer cars are more, but you also ghet a lot more. Price that 70 442 fully loaded and you are right there. IMO.
Now let's talk about tuning old cars with hand tools versus the requirement of a laptop and software and a dyno with new cars ha ha. JK, I don't want to talk about it anymore.
October 3rd, 2012, 03:28 AM
#90
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Fair enough. And you DO get a lot more on the newer cars, but most of it is garbage that I wouldn't want. And it's not Oldsmobile circa 1970s fault that you're forced to buy all this unnecessary junk in 2012. New cars are 50% more expensive than 1970 cars, adjusted for inflation, because the car makers today refuse to allow customers the choice of what they want and what they don't want. At least you COULD choose options if you wanted them in 1970. Yet another forgotten benefit of old cars...
Now let's talk about tuning old cars with hand tools versus the requirement of a laptop and software and a dyno with new cars ha ha. JK, I don't want to talk about it anymore.
Now let's talk about tuning old cars with hand tools versus the requirement of a laptop and software and a dyno with new cars ha ha. JK, I don't want to talk about it anymore.
October 3rd, 2012, 03:33 AM
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
im not pointing fingers but certain people always turn post's this way. New car 40 g's for a modern muscle car worth looking at. So now you have debt on it unless you have 40 g's sitting under the couch. Now you wanna go out put on a nice magnaflow exhaust a chip, a k&n cold air intake kit, some headers, cam intake maybe a supercharger. Then it snowballs into something wayyyyyyy out in the atmosphere that's rediculous. Look i might not have the fastest thing on 4 wheels but on the street it held it's own very well. I have beaten new gto's even an m3 and one or two srt4 neons which yes i will agree a fast little car. But when you consider what i have in my car which is well under 15k believe it or not i can probably dump 10 grand and be running much faster than any new car . less streetable yes but that is the trade off. I see the modern muscle car like something a yuppy buys because he cant build anything.
I can build an 11 second street car for ten grand, way less than a new one, but again, not a fair comparison.
October 3rd, 2012, 02:05 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
im not pointing fingers but certain people always turn post's this way. New car 40 g's for a modern muscle car worth looking at. So now you have debt on it unless you have 40 g's sitting under the couch. Now you wanna go out put on a nice magnaflow exhaust a chip, a k&n cold air intake kit, some headers, cam intake maybe a supercharger. Then it snowballs into something wayyyyyyy out in the atmosphere that's rediculous. Look i might not have the fastest thing on 4 wheels but on the street it held it's own very well. I have beaten new gto's even an m3 and one or two srt4 neons which yes i will agree a fast little car. But when you consider what i have in my car which is well under 15k believe it or not i can probably dump 10 grand and be running much faster than any new car . less streetable yes but that is the trade off. I see the modern muscle car like something a yuppy buys because he cant build anything. It's like seeing a suited guy on a harley it pisses the purist's off but what defines what a bike rider should be. Im sorry but when you have to spend 40k plus for a car that runs 12's stock it aint worth it. My buddy has a street strip trail blazer ss. he has had a tune and a cam and this and that and he only ran a mid 13. I pull my car off the trailer and run a 13.3 on the first run on a junk build 350. My engine blew up but i spent considerably less than him so i still have money to play instead of paying bills on a car that i can blow up on the street and void the warranty by adding parts to. I might add his engine blew up too. the sad p[art is he is still paying it off and has to put a new engine in it.
"im not pointing fingers but certain people always turn post's this way."
Yes you are
"New car 40 g's for a modern muscle car worth looking at. So now you have debt on it unless you have 40 g's sitting under the couch."
Do you think people paid cash for a new car in 1970 when it was close to half their annual salary. Also, you conveniently added ten grand to the price.
"Now you wanna go out put on a nice magnaflow exhaust a chip, a k&n cold air intake kit, some headers, cam intake maybe a supercharger. Then it snowballs into something wayyyyyyy out in the atmosphere that's rediculous."
Again, you could say the same thing in 1970. And you don't need those upgrades if the car runs 12s.
"Look i might not have the fastest thing on 4 wheels but on the street it held it's own very well."
Until it blew up after a year.
" But when you consider what i have in my car which is well under 15k believe it or not i can probably dump 10 grand and be running much faster than any new car "
Even if that is true, it would not ride as well, be as safe and comfortable, or have any real value.
" less streetable yes but that is the trade off."
Not with the new cars, it isn't. You get the speed AND the manners.
"I see the modern muscle car like something a yuppy buys because he cant build anything."
Same thing was said 40 years ago by guys running flatheads in their Highboys.
"Im sorry but when you have to spend 40k plus for a car that runs 12's stock it aint worth it."
Your opinion. You stated that you have 15 grand in yours and runs a half second slower and that you compromise streetability to do it.
"My buddy has a street strip trail blazer ss. he has had a tune and a cam and this and that and he only ran a mid 13."
What has this got to do with anything?
"I pull my car off the trailer and run a 13.3 on the first run on a junk build 350."
For one season, then it blew up.
"My engine blew up but i spent considerably less than him so i still have money to play instead of paying bills on a car that i can blow up on the street and void the warranty by adding parts to."
But the money (and time) is now wasted where if you had a new car you would be making payments, but you would also be driving it without doing any work other than maintenance. And in ten years, long after it is paid for, the car still has significant value.
Last edited by captjim; October 3rd, 2012 at 02:11 PM.
October 3rd, 2012, 02:44 PM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Look, let's just cut to the chase. Go to the 1970 Oldsmobile SPECS Booklet and you can add up the MSRP for any model combination you want to, whether you're trying to make that price be higher or lower.
You'be he hard pressed to get to $5,000, though - the most expensive Cutlass model listed is the 3-seat Vista Cruiser for $3,778, and the most expensive Cutlass 2-door is the 4-4-2 Convertible for $3,567.
W-31 for the base F-85 including suspension upgrades adds no more than $591 to the $2,787 F-85 (=$3,378).
W-30 package for the top-of the line 4-4-2 (at $3,312 to $3,567, depending on body type) adds $370 (=$3,682 to $3,937).
I will leave it to others to list every possible option combination in support of their arguments.
I will note, though, that the median household income in 1970 was $9,870, for men working year-round, full time, it was $9,180 (with about ⅓ of wives working at all - whether full or part-time), while the median income in 2011 was $45,230, with 35% of families where someone is employed having just one wage earner, 52% having two (wife works), and 13% having three or more (presumably parents and child or husband, wife, and adult relative all working).
So, about $9,000 a year, with ⅔ of that being earned by Dad alone vs about $45,000, with ⅔ of that being earned by multiple family members together.
That $4,000 for a well-equipped hi-po Olds was about 44% of a year's pay in 1970, with enough to spare in ⅔ of households for Mom to bake cookies, make curtains, and send the kids off to school every day,
which would translate out to about $20,000 as 44% of today's median, with both parents scrambling to work and ⅔ of the kids coming home to a dark house and a note after school every day.
- Eric
You'be he hard pressed to get to $5,000, though - the most expensive Cutlass model listed is the 3-seat Vista Cruiser for $3,778, and the most expensive Cutlass 2-door is the 4-4-2 Convertible for $3,567.
W-31 for the base F-85 including suspension upgrades adds no more than $591 to the $2,787 F-85 (=$3,378).
W-30 package for the top-of the line 4-4-2 (at $3,312 to $3,567, depending on body type) adds $370 (=$3,682 to $3,937).
I will leave it to others to list every possible option combination in support of their arguments.
I will note, though, that the median household income in 1970 was $9,870, for men working year-round, full time, it was $9,180 (with about ⅓ of wives working at all - whether full or part-time), while the median income in 2011 was $45,230, with 35% of families where someone is employed having just one wage earner, 52% having two (wife works), and 13% having three or more (presumably parents and child or husband, wife, and adult relative all working).
So, about $9,000 a year, with ⅔ of that being earned by Dad alone vs about $45,000, with ⅔ of that being earned by multiple family members together.
That $4,000 for a well-equipped hi-po Olds was about 44% of a year's pay in 1970, with enough to spare in ⅔ of households for Mom to bake cookies, make curtains, and send the kids off to school every day,
which would translate out to about $20,000 as 44% of today's median, with both parents scrambling to work and ⅔ of the kids coming home to a dark house and a note after school every day.
- Eric
Just found this link, current data, June 2012,http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...010_story.html
$51,000 per year.
You stated a "well equipped hi-po Olds for $4,000. A 442 with the W-30, p/s, a/c, posi, disc brakes, and am POS radio was $4400 Add in cool rims and you are at 50% annual salary. 50% of todays median is $25,500, only 5-7 grand short, nowhere near the 50% mentioned here several times. And, if you more realistic options to the 442, (dual gate, TH400, spoiler, FM radio, you are very close to the same percentages. This is what I mean about "playing with the numbers", you can make it come out however you want. A fully loaded 442 with ALL the options is around $5500. That is 62%. 62% of $51,000 is $31,620, the price of a new Challenger, Mustang, or Camaro.
Last edited by captjim; October 3rd, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
October 3rd, 2012, 04:01 PM
#95
I will this say in general. People who call someones opinions stupid. Is a self centered @##hole. I did not need to put fact behind what I said because it was my opinion. Funny how some people actually take the time to break down what people say to prove a point those people usually die bitter and angry.
October 3rd, 2012, 04:01 PM
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
October 3rd, 2012, 04:09 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
I will this say in general. People who call someones opinions stupid. Is a self centered @##hole. I did not need to put fact behind what I said because it was my opinion. Funny how some people actually take the time to break down what people say to prove a point those people usually die bitter and angry.
I thought you said "that is all". Again, I am neither bitter nor angry, you just made some statements that made zero sense and I pointed out why. If you don't want people to critique your posts, take more time with them. I actually learned several new things in this thread from links Integration and MDchanic posted, and I thank them both!
Our opinions differ and we had a civil debate. Should we all agree on everything? That would be dull. Your post is stupid, IMO, hastily made, and not well thought out, as most of your posts are.. Mentioning your buddys street strip 13 second Blazer makes no sense at all.
October 3rd, 2012, 04:31 PM
#98
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 49
Captlim, I posted the Blazer. Your right. The Blazer had nothing to do with your debate.
I put it here for two reasons. (1) why does it matter what someone wants to invest their money / time on. If they enjoy it. (2) My lame attempt at levity.
Personally I don't care ether way. If I contributed to escalating this thread beyond what was ( I thought ) like minded people sharing their love for cars, Then I am truly sorry for that. I happen to like that Blazer and the fact that it belongs to one of my best friends makes it even better. So again I say sorry if I have offended anyone.
Now can we talk about something less stressful, like religion or politics
Just kidding !!
I put it here for two reasons. (1) why does it matter what someone wants to invest their money / time on. If they enjoy it. (2) My lame attempt at levity.
Personally I don't care ether way. If I contributed to escalating this thread beyond what was ( I thought ) like minded people sharing their love for cars, Then I am truly sorry for that. I happen to like that Blazer
and the fact that it belongs to one of my best friends makes it even better. So again I say sorry if I have offended anyone. Now can we talk about something less stressful, like religion or politics
Just kidding !!
October 3rd, 2012, 05:07 PM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Why do so many people think that if you disagree it is such a terrible thing? You haven't offended anyone. The discussion is today's factory muscle cars vs those of the late 60s/earlty 70s. Neither your vehicle or Coppers are applicable. Neither is my 71 Skylark.
October 3rd, 2012, 05:26 PM
#100
they kind of are because alot of people buy used cars. alot of people modify cars. The trailblazer makes sense because it its " modern muscle " He bought it is making payments on it he raced it and he blew his engine up. Now he has payments and has an engine to replace. Me my engine "blew up " but you fiorget to mention i had all my money on parts and the top end the bottom end i had all of 600 dollars into. So i didint loose a whole lot. The real fact is my engine never blew up it failed after 45 quarter mile runs and 5k very hard street miles. It started to make noises and i found 4 broken piston skirts . You love to bring up the fact my engine blew up but the fact it lived as long as it did was awesome. I never intended it to stay in longer than a few months it turned into a year. You fail to mention where i stated i had a very limited budget. When you are 20 years old and you just wanna beat on your car whats one to do . Do like i did i put together a frankenstien engine built with new and re used parts and i found out how far i could push it. If it was a failuer or i did something wrong it would have died well before a year. even guys who build engines kill em on the dyno. Again modern cars are fast and streetable and comfortable but you pay x amount for so much. Plus the companies that make these cars are garbage now. i worked in a body shop for 6 years and they nothing but plastic and clips and some bolts. sure they are safe but just dont bump into a curb or the bumper rips there goes 800 on a plastic bumper or a repair. Jim you dont have to agree or disagree with opinions becasue opinions cant be wrong or right . why do you have to point out the fact you disagree with it. Your opinion is worthless to me but you are entitled to it .
Last edited by coppercutlass; October 3rd, 2012 at 05:34 PM.
October 3rd, 2012, 06:14 PM
#101
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
they kind of are because alot of people buy used cars. alot of people modify cars. The trailblazer makes sense because it its " modern muscle " He bought it is making payments on it he raced it and he blew his engine up. Now he has payments and has an engine to replace. Me my engine "blew up " but you fiorget to mention i had all my money on parts and the top end the bottom end i had all of 600 dollars into. So i didint loose a whole lot. The real fact is my engine never blew up it failed after 45 quarter mile runs and 5k very hard street miles. It started to make noises and i found 4 broken piston skirts . You love to bring up the fact my engine blew up but the fact it lived as long as it did was awesome. I never intended it to stay in longer than a few months it turned into a year. You fail to mention where i stated i had a very limited budget. When you are 20 years old and you just wanna beat on your car whats one to do . Do like i did i put together a frankenstien engine built with new and re used parts and i found out how far i could push it. If it was a failuer or i did something wrong it would have died well before a year. even guys who build engines kill em on the dyno. Again modern cars are fast and streetable and comfortable but you pay x amount for so much. Plus the companies that make these cars are garbage now. i worked in a body shop for 6 years and they nothing but plastic and clips and some bolts. sure they are safe but just dont bump into a curb or the bumper rips there goes 800 on a plastic bumper or a repair. Jim you dont have to agree or disagree with opinions becasue opinions cant be wrong or right . why do you have to point out the fact you disagree with it. Your opinion is worthless to me but you are entitled to it .
In no way, shape, or form would anybody consider a Trailblazer a top of the line modern muscle car. We are not comparing used cars, way too many variables. Of course people pay for having both power and comfort, they do so today and they did so in 1970. Those cars were the most technologically advanced production cars in that price range for the time. And just like they were MUCH better than cars built in the 30s, today's cars are MUCH better than those built in the 70s.
Another thing that you overlook is that you are taking advantage of newer technology. Things that we take for granted today (multi angle valve jobs, split pattern cams, ring seal, oil control, etc) were closely guarded "race" secrets back in the day. So the reason your car ran 13.3 instead of 14.3 is due in part to advancements made, ones that were not available in 1970. So again, your example is not relevent.
Also, with a 3.91 gear the 455 W-30 442 ran a 13.7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_442#1970
My little 355 with a 3.42 in a heavier car ran 13.9. Why? Because I was able to take advantage of 40 years of technological advancements in engine, suspension, and tires.
October 3rd, 2012, 06:23 PM
#102
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
"Plus the companies that make these cars are garbage now". That makes no sense to me.
October 3rd, 2012, 07:05 PM
#103
The trailblaze ss is considered a muscle car/truck performance vehichle. Look i worked in a body shop i worked on a wide range of cars gm cars are put together like lego's. clips and 7mm screws hold the bumper on maybe two 10mm bolts on some like the g6 . Dodge cars same thing put together real carppy a ton of clips and maybe one set of bolts for the bumpers . ford just as bad except @$$ backwards and weird sizes like 5.5 and 9mm bolts where 7mm, 8mm, and 10mm bolts are the norm. You wanna know what is a really well put together car. hunday's are impressively put together they use more bolts than clips for the bumpers , also vw's are really well put together not only structurally but from a design stand point. Thats how i feel i only tore down and repaird hundered upon hundreds of cars. Thats just my opinion. These companies i speak of gm, dodge and ford to some extent have driven them selves into the ground everything is made in other countries parts engines etc. the quality is not there. If you saw how some cars are put together you would be amazed how cheap and flimsy they are.
Last edited by coppercutlass; October 3rd, 2012 at 07:11 PM.
October 8th, 2012, 04:11 AM
#107
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Braintree, Mass
Posts: 728
I love the looks, feel and the sound of my 70 Cutlass and the looks and sound of any other old muscle car or almost any of the 60’s early 70’s American cars. My 71 Caddy was also a joy to drive, there was a feel of authority with the rumble of the 472 under the hood, yes even those old luxury boats had an unmistakable sound of a large V8 even with the stock exhaust systems and they are fun to drive and work on.
October 9th, 2012, 07:11 AM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,452
October 9th, 2012, 09:40 AM
#109
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
I love the looks, feel and the sound of my 70 Cutlass and the looks and sound of any other old muscle car or almost any of the 60’s early 70’s American cars. My 71 Caddy was also a joy to drive, there was a feel of authority with the rumble of the 472 under the hood, yes even those old luxury boats had an unmistakable sound of a large V8 even with the stock exhaust systems and they are fun to drive and work on.
October 9th, 2012, 11:14 AM
#110
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,070
The heart of the SRT8 392 is a 6.4-liter Hemi V8 with 470 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque.
If quarter mile races are more your thing, know that this coupe can run the quarter in mid 12's with the automatic transmission, or high 12's equipped with the row-it-yourself gearbox.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-...ger-srt8-392/#
High 12's doesn't seem to hard to do in a muscle car. I think the old iron can hang with the new cars. The 350 might have to try a little harder.
If quarter mile races are more your thing, know that this coupe can run the quarter in mid 12's with the automatic transmission, or high 12's equipped with the row-it-yourself gearbox.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-...ger-srt8-392/#
High 12's doesn't seem to hard to do in a muscle car. I think the old iron can hang with the new cars. The 350 might have to try a little harder.
October 9th, 2012, 01:25 PM
#111
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
The heart of the SRT8 392 is a 6.4-liter Hemi V8 with 470 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque.
If quarter mile races are more your thing, know that this coupe can run the quarter in mid 12's with the automatic transmission, or high 12's equipped with the row-it-yourself gearbox.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-...ger-srt8-392/#
High 12's doesn't seem to hard to do in a muscle car. I think the old iron can hang with the new cars. The 350 might have to try a little harder.
If quarter mile races are more your thing, know that this coupe can run the quarter in mid 12's with the automatic transmission, or high 12's equipped with the row-it-yourself gearbox.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-...ger-srt8-392/#
High 12's doesn't seem to hard to do in a muscle car. I think the old iron can hang with the new cars. The 350 might have to try a little harder.
October 9th, 2012, 01:48 PM
#112
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wichita, Ks
Posts: 1,070
I'll agree that in stock form they cant run 12's but it doesn't take much. Headers and slicks might do it. A mildly build 455 could run 12's and hang with one of these hi performance cars for a lot less money. We have the advantage of ignoring the EPA's regulations and less weight than the mid sized challengers.
October 9th, 2012, 01:58 PM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
I'll agree that in stock form they cant run 12's but it doesn't take much. Headers and slicks might do it. A mildly build 455 could run 12's and hang with one of these hi performance cars for a lot less money. We have the advantage of ignoring the EPA's regulations and less weight than the mid sized challengers.
October 9th, 2012, 02:23 PM
#114
For all the blazers out there
Runs with a Charger RT
Although it's easy to figure the TrailBlazer SS as a rival of the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, it's more fun to think of it as the Dodge Charger RT fighter Chevy-heads have been clamoring for.
No, we're not crazy. Check the stats. They perform about the same, cost about the same, and both wear iconic nameplates from the muscle car era of the 1960s.
Our TrailBlazer, which stickered for $37,955, accelerated to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 14.4 seconds at 96.3 mph. The last Hemi-powered Charger RT we tested hit 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and blitzed the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 98.6 mph.
Good race, huh?
The two would also be bumper to bumper on a mountain road. The lower and lighter Charger did out-slalom the TrailBlazer, but not by much (61.8 mph vs. 60.3 mph), while the big black truck won the 60-mph-0 braking contest (118 feet vs. 121 feet). Cool.
While we expect the 425-hp SRT-8 Grand Cherokee to out-perform both, its base price is over $39,000, and it's only available with all-wheel drive. Plus, the TrailBlazer offers 81 cubic feet of cargo room and can tow 6,700 pounds. Two specs neither Mopar can compete with.
Wait, there's more
You know, it's been 10 years since Chevy offered a V8-powered rear-wheel-drive sedan. Remember the 1996 Caprice-based Impala SS? Well, you've just met its successor.
Chevy says it will build as many as it has demand for.
Runs with a Charger RT
Although it's easy to figure the TrailBlazer SS as a rival of the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, it's more fun to think of it as the Dodge Charger RT fighter Chevy-heads have been clamoring for.
No, we're not crazy. Check the stats. They perform about the same, cost about the same, and both wear iconic nameplates from the muscle car era of the 1960s.
Our TrailBlazer, which stickered for $37,955, accelerated to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 14.4 seconds at 96.3 mph. The last Hemi-powered Charger RT we tested hit 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and blitzed the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 98.6 mph.
Good race, huh?
The two would also be bumper to bumper on a mountain road. The lower and lighter Charger did out-slalom the TrailBlazer, but not by much (61.8 mph vs. 60.3 mph), while the big black truck won the 60-mph-0 braking contest (118 feet vs. 121 feet). Cool.
While we expect the 425-hp SRT-8 Grand Cherokee to out-perform both, its base price is over $39,000, and it's only available with all-wheel drive. Plus, the TrailBlazer offers 81 cubic feet of cargo room and can tow 6,700 pounds. Two specs neither Mopar can compete with.
Wait, there's more
You know, it's been 10 years since Chevy offered a V8-powered rear-wheel-drive sedan. Remember the 1996 Caprice-based Impala SS? Well, you've just met its successor.
Chevy says it will build as many as it has demand for.
October 9th, 2012, 03:23 PM
#115
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
For all the blazers out there
Runs with a Charger RT
Although it's easy to figure the TrailBlazer SS as a rival of the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, it's more fun to think of it as the Dodge Charger RT fighter Chevy-heads have been clamoring for.
No, we're not crazy. Check the stats. They perform about the same, cost about the same, and both wear iconic nameplates from the muscle car era of the 1960s.
Our TrailBlazer, which stickered for $37,955, accelerated to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 14.4 seconds at 96.3 mph. The last Hemi-powered Charger RT we tested hit 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and blitzed the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 98.6 mph.
Good race, huh?
The two would also be bumper to bumper on a mountain road. The lower and lighter Charger did out-slalom the TrailBlazer, but not by much (61.8 mph vs. 60.3 mph), while the big black truck won the 60-mph-0 braking contest (118 feet vs. 121 feet). Cool.
While we expect the 425-hp SRT-8 Grand Cherokee to out-perform both, its base price is over $39,000, and it's only available with all-wheel drive. Plus, the TrailBlazer offers 81 cubic feet of cargo room and can tow 6,700 pounds. Two specs neither Mopar can compete with.
Wait, there's more
You know, it's been 10 years since Chevy offered a V8-powered rear-wheel-drive sedan. Remember the 1996 Caprice-based Impala SS? Well, you've just met its successor.
Chevy says it will build as many as it has demand for.
Runs with a Charger RT
Although it's easy to figure the TrailBlazer SS as a rival of the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, it's more fun to think of it as the Dodge Charger RT fighter Chevy-heads have been clamoring for.
No, we're not crazy. Check the stats. They perform about the same, cost about the same, and both wear iconic nameplates from the muscle car era of the 1960s.
Our TrailBlazer, which stickered for $37,955, accelerated to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 14.4 seconds at 96.3 mph. The last Hemi-powered Charger RT we tested hit 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and blitzed the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 98.6 mph.
Good race, huh?
The two would also be bumper to bumper on a mountain road. The lower and lighter Charger did out-slalom the TrailBlazer, but not by much (61.8 mph vs. 60.3 mph), while the big black truck won the 60-mph-0 braking contest (118 feet vs. 121 feet). Cool.
While we expect the 425-hp SRT-8 Grand Cherokee to out-perform both, its base price is over $39,000, and it's only available with all-wheel drive. Plus, the TrailBlazer offers 81 cubic feet of cargo room and can tow 6,700 pounds. Two specs neither Mopar can compete with.
Wait, there's more
You know, it's been 10 years since Chevy offered a V8-powered rear-wheel-drive sedan. Remember the 1996 Caprice-based Impala SS? Well, you've just met its successor.
Chevy says it will build as many as it has demand for.
October 9th, 2012, 03:49 PM
#116
The truth we cant handle the truth
1969 w-31 march car and driver road test 14.5
1969 w-31 car life road test 14.9 , 96 mph
1970 Rallye 350 four speed car life road test 15.27 , 94.33 mph
1970 w-31 Hot rod road test 14.62 96.05
1969 w-31 march car and driver road test 14.5
1969 w-31 car life road test 14.9 , 96 mph
1970 Rallye 350 four speed car life road test 15.27 , 94.33 mph
1970 w-31 Hot rod road test 14.62 96.05
October 9th, 2012, 05:09 PM
#117
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Northlake, IL
Posts: 633
Old cars are better than new cars.
"No, new cars are better in every way".
But old cars are cheaper.
"But they weren't cheaper when they were new".
Yes they were, and they're even cheaper now.
"But they're not as fast as new cars".
But they can be made faster far easier and more cheaply than new cars.
"But new cars can be made faster too".
But old cars are better BECAUSE they are old, and because they are NOT new.
"But new cars are better BECAUSE they're new, and because they're NOT old".
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a pattern...
I'm a team player, so if anyone has a '71 or '72 455 88 or 98 coupe that they hate because it's old, I'll do you a favor and take it off your hands.
"No, new cars are better in every way".
But old cars are cheaper.
"But they weren't cheaper when they were new".
Yes they were, and they're even cheaper now.
"But they're not as fast as new cars".
But they can be made faster far easier and more cheaply than new cars.
"But new cars can be made faster too".
But old cars are better BECAUSE they are old, and because they are NOT new.
"But new cars are better BECAUSE they're new, and because they're NOT old".
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a pattern...
I'm a team player, so if anyone has a '71 or '72 455 88 or 98 coupe that they hate because it's old, I'll do you a favor and take it off your hands.
October 9th, 2012, 06:13 PM
#118
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
Old cars are better than new cars.
"No, new cars are better in every way".
But old cars are cheaper.
"But they weren't cheaper when they were new".
Yes they were, and they're even cheaper now.
"But they're not as fast as new cars".
But they can be made faster far easier and more cheaply than new cars.
"But new cars can be made faster too".
But old cars are better BECAUSE they are old, and because they are NOT new.
"But new cars are better BECAUSE they're new, and because they're NOT old".
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a pattern...
I'm a team player, so if anyone has a '71 or '72 455 88 or 98 coupe that they hate because it's old, I'll do you a favor and take it off your hands.
"No, new cars are better in every way".
But old cars are cheaper.
"But they weren't cheaper when they were new".
Yes they were, and they're even cheaper now.
"But they're not as fast as new cars".
But they can be made faster far easier and more cheaply than new cars.
"But new cars can be made faster too".
But old cars are better BECAUSE they are old, and because they are NOT new.
"But new cars are better BECAUSE they're new, and because they're NOT old".
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a pattern...
I'm a team player, so if anyone has a '71 or '72 455 88 or 98 coupe that they hate because it's old, I'll do you a favor and take it off your hands.
