OMG another one that complains about the handling of muscle cars.....Originally Posted by nota
^^ and this with the 'lightweight' 340 smallblock V8
Supporting Member
OMG another one that complains about the handling of muscle cars.....^^ and this with the 'lightweight' 340 smallblock V8
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Enthusiast
depends the car: yellow for a truck, white for the racer, blcak for the hearster. I'm a classic
"I don't take any photo, just collect in all the web and share"
Fanatic
First, I have read a lot about the '68 Hemi-Dart and 'Cudas. They were not "illegal for the street." The had functional headlights and windshield wipers. It's true they were sold without a title but owners were able to register them anyway. I have seen a minimum of two Hemi-Darts at car shows which drove in and had current plates. There is one person on a 'Cuda-Challenger message board who owns a street-driven '68 Hemi-Barracuda.^^ and this with the 'lightweight' 340 smallblock V8
Yes, definitely true about the 440 Darts and Barracudas. One magazine referred to a 440 Barracuda as a "nose-heavy necksnapper!" These cars, along with others like the '69 440-6 bbl Road Runner and 440-6 Pack Super Bee were meant as street racers. And they did a very good job at that (high 12s with no modifications for the RR & Super Bee with 4.10 gears and 4-speed manual trans.).
The 340 'Cudas, though, had good overall handling. Check again the comments I posted (see below).
But this was about the 454 Chevelle's handling... I don't know how big-block Mopar pony cars got into the discussion!
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
Here are the comments...
("The Barracuda hangs on remarkably well despite junior-size tires.")
Last edited by Fleet 500; 05-11-2007 at 12:48 PM.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Supporting Member
short memory as always, you did in post 171...
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Fanatic
That was not the government interferring, but GM, as you said.
But pulling that ad didn't matter to street racers. They already knew about the GTO's reputation and they knew how the new ones performed by word-of-mouth and magazine road tests.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
And one that praises it..
(Car Life, Dec., 1968... 1969 Plymouth Barracuda 340-S)
"Winding Arizona mountain roads provided the opportunity to thoroughly check out the handling ability of the 340-S chassis and the Barracuda came through in fine fashion. The Barracuda, while not a sports car, negotiated many curves at speeds that would give some accepted "sports cars" considerable strain. The Barracuda is relatively large and heavy, compared with other GT cars, as these characteristics are evident when driving through tight curves. A lack of agility is apparent, but driver confidence remains intact. The driver soon gets the feeling that it would take some incredible occurrence to make the Barracuda lose its grip on the pavement."
And another one: (Car Life, Nov., 1968.. 1969 'Cuda 340)
"Handling, as aided by the Polyglas tires, was very good. There is mild understeer, but none of the determined front-end plow that hampers several of the big-engined Ponycars. The 'Cuda could be driven around corners in any attitude the driver chose, with front wheels pushing, all four sliding or the back wheels hung out, under power. The 'Cuda felt stable at all speeds."
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
This may surprise you, but I have driven cars with heavy understeer in the rain.Not in the snow, though.
And my dad drove cross-country several times in big cars. And one of my Uncles drove from New Jersey to California in a big station wagon, which are known to have lots of understeer.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Furniture
It is ridiculous NOT to balme muscle cars for the death toll. Normally, you have at least some valid points but if you are to apply the scienmtifc method to this situation I am sure that you would draw the conclusion that with the advent of mucscle cars, more people died in accidents. Not trying to argue that is completely irrational.
You start giving people high powered cars with poor handiling, it makes perfect sense there are going to be more deaths on the road - especially with all the younger generation buying them.
Take a look at it objectively Fleet - you are being silly this time.
Fanatic
Nope, no silliness here.
Cars are still not at fault, drivers are.
There was also a horsepower race in the '50s, not just the '60s.
There were less motor vehicle death in 1965 (49,163) than in 1980 (52,600). Source: The World Almanac & Book of Facts, 1984.
There were less motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 in 1967 in the U.S. (when every auto manufacturer had one or more muscle cars) than there was in several other countries with way fewer cars:
Nation----------------- Rate
Austria----------------- 31.9 deaths/100,000
West Germany---------- 28.3
Australia---------------- 28.2
Canada----------------- 27.1
United States----------- 26.7
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Fanatic
So there were around 3000 less deaths in 1965 then in 1980...
Hmm I guess thats a good point if the population didn't increase for a quarter century(uhh 15 years actually - Kitdy).
Population of U.S 1965: 194,302,963
Population of U.S 1980: 226,542,199
Last edited by The_Canuck; 05-11-2007 at 02:28 PM.
Furniture
... Now this is just a load of crap. Giving a tiny window of facts is incorrect proves nothing. First of all, we are not concerned with other countries, so that is absolutely pontless to mention (other factors largely winter weather I would say explain the higher rates but that is not the point). We are talking about a supposed increase in accidents/deaths in America from 1960-1970.
What you are doing is NOT scientific. You have given two specific examples that are completley irellevant. You may not see this but it is true. A scientist uses unbiased data and fully analyzes it unbiasedly then draws conclusions.
Saying there were more vehicle deaths in 1980 is completely irellevant - America's population increased in this time and we are not concerned with 1980.
Now, I have not looked at the data but I think the hypothesis that muscle cars increased the death rate in the US is completely likely. What I suggest to look at this in an a scientific manner is to look at the number of accidents per population ona yearly basis from 1960-1970, and find out the death rate as well in these ten years. I would say that would probably be sufficeint data for us to analyze and notice trends - for our purposes (This is not a federal investigation).
Fleet, don't be afraid to admit you are wrong.
Furniture
That was good math there The Canuck!80-65 = 15!
You clearly assesed the bias, but nowhere near as fully as I if I may say so.
Fanatic
Aw, hell, I looked at it like 80-60=20 + 5 or something...That was good math there The Canuck!
You clearly assesed the bias, but nowhere near as fully as I if I may say so.
Hey at least I prvided the Other numbers
Oh and I edited my post accordingly
Last edited by The_Canuck; 05-11-2007 at 02:27 PM.
Fanatic
But in 1965, the "big, bad muscle cars" were out and about! They died out long before 1980.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote