Question: Oh man – where do you start on such a pathetic diatribe…
>>>> That seems to be Mike Hunt’s point of view. I live by myself, I don’t >>>> need >>>> a land yacht. Mike was offering me sympathy just because I ‘can’t >>>> afford’ a >>>> big car. I just don’t want or need one! Besides, the few big cars >>>> I’ve >>>> driven over the years are definitely off-putting on big cars.
>>>First – you need to read again, the list of cars Mike Hunt has owned. >>>Far >>>from a list of exclusively land yachts. But then again – that would not >>>fit your whining position now, would it?
>>>> 1. 74 Ford LTD in driver’s ed. I’d already done some driving with the >>>> 62 >>>> Corvair by that point, and by comparison, what a POS! The brakes were >>>> very >>>> spongy, the steering needed a week to respond, and the accelerator also >>>> needed a week’s advance notice.
>>>So let’s see.. in ‘74 you were driving an LTD and comparing it to a car >>>12 >>>years older than it, and yet you claim that it was superior. This in >>>spite >>>of the fact that it’s a damned Corvair you are comparing the LTD to. >>>Now – >>>I’m not going to say the LTD was the epitome of sports car handling, but >>>your comparison is just plain ludicrous. Some of us remember the Corvair >>>when it was new. Your credibility is sinking even further – if that is >>>really possible.
>> The 1962 Corvair was a decent car with a standard gear-box – but >> nothing compared to the 66-69 models.
> We had Powerglide. The Carina (next car after) had a hot little 4 speed > manual
>> he 1974 LTD was a BOAT.
>>>> 2. The Brown Bomber (2 different cars, both based on the 1973 >>>> Chevy/PantyRack/Phewic/Oldmobooble full sized wagon) Drove marginally >>>> better than 1, but not enough to make me want one. Oddly enough both >>>> cars >>>> were nicknamed the Sh!tmobile by their owners. . . .
>>>Of course. As is always the case when people like you quote people who >>>don’t exist or are not available for confirmation. Oddly enough – you >>>sound just like every other bullshit artist with an agenda.
>> ANd the 1973 GM wagon was also a boat. Not a bad car, but definitely >> would NOT turn on a young guy. If he was a horny bugger the chevy-van >> was a better bet.
>>>There were a ton of cars that I drove in the 60’s and 70’s that were a >>>mile >>>from my definition of a good car. No matter – they were the defintion of >>>a >>>good car for a large percentage of the population. At the same time, >>>there >>>were a good number of cars that were exactly what I considered to be >>>great >>>cars – some in very different ways. You undertake to compare something >>>that is far from your tastes as if that were all that were available at >>>the >>>time. You continue to make yourself look foolish..
>> The Valliant/Dart family was a good car – and the Cuda variants were >> also good. The Swinger/Demon was a FUN car that went like blazes in a >> straight line, could be made to handle relatively well, but was always >> under-braked. The 4 door sedans were reliable if not inspiring, with >> the same handling. >> The Chevy 2/Nova and Chevelle – along with their corporate stablemates >> were also decent cars – as was the cheaper AMC Hornet/Gremlin. >> ANd don’t forget the Camaro/firebird and even the Javelin/AMX
>> Ford’s Falcon and Fairlane were also decent cars. And their Mustang >> was a fun car that could be bought with a small budget, or loaded to >> the gills. >> However, today’s technology makes it possible to build vehicles that >> perform and last MUCH better than the cars of the ’70s. >> One HP per cubic inch was the holy grail in the 60’s and 70’s. Today >> most econo-boxes manage that. >> 100,000 miles used to mean a car was totally worn out, and likely had >> undergone some serious repairs to keep it on the road. Today 200,000 >> is the new 100,000 – and with some models 300,000. >> A six year old car back in the 60’s and ’70s had virtually no resale >> value. It was JUNK. >> Today I drive 13 year old cars, and scrap18 year old cars.
>> Even the poorest of today’s North American cars are, in many ways, >> better than those of the 60’s and 70’s, but many have no “spirit” and >> we KNOW they could be so much better if both the designers and the >> assemblers took more pride in their work.
>>>> 3. 68 Ford Mustang 289. Better than 1, but nose heavy. By then I’d >>>> driven the Carina about 6 months. Nice car but about the only thing it >>>> really did better than the Carina was eat gas. Had a lot of bells and >>>> whistles, which really don’t excite me at all. I had her up to highway >>>> speed and a bit more, but I got the Carina up to 80 and she still >>>> hadn’t >>>> really hit top end.
>>>You are an absolute fool. Yes – the Mustang was nose heavy in stock >>>form, >>>but for one, it was a car meant to be built from. This was an era when >>>people bought cars and then built them up. But… even taking it at its >>>showroom form, to compare it to a Carina is such foolishness.
> And this was a 289 with an AUTOMATIC transmission. No mods, it was a > ‘family’ car. Bells and whistles don’t impress me.
> The things I evaluate in a car when I’m buying:
> 1. How good is the running gear, and what sort of use am I going to get > out of it?
> 2. What shape is the body in, if it’s not new.
> 3. What sort of gas mileage does it get?
> 4. How does it feel? Does it feel like it’s holding the road or more > like a land yacht just sort of sailing around the lane?
> 5. Any odd sounds? I’m pretty used to overhead valve engines with > hydraulic lifters, so I know what they ’should’ sound like more or less. > When you hear the famed GM ‘tick-tick-tick’ sound running at engine speed, > you know you have a problem either right then or quickly coming.
>>>So it did not excite you – it sure as hell did excite a ton of people. >>>Your point continues to be that American car manufacturers cannot and >>>have >>>not built cars to meet the wants, desires and dreams of people. Well >>>fool, >>>the Mustang proves you wrong. The damned car sold like hot cakes because >>>it was exactly what people wanted.
>>>So you got your Carina up to 80 – hell you could do that in second gear >>>with a 289 Mustang. It appears that you have very low key demands of a >>>car
> Funny I think the Mustang with its auto tranny may have only had 2 gears > but I think it had a 2 between D and L
>>>that you own, but high level demands of a car that > you chose to degrade. >>>The issue with your Carina is that you had a few more mph to go before >>>you >>>it top end while that Mustang had a lot more to go.
>>>> 66 Chevelle 4 door with the 396 engine. Had this one up to 80 on the >>>> highway once.
>>>You are opening yourself up so badly with this one. It’s not even worth >>>explaining to you how stupid you are making yourself look…
>>>> But the body was already rusting out badly. There was no >>>> rear floor. There were places where you could make out the original >>>> paint >>>> color (Metallic Mint Green, for those of you My Cousin Vinnie fans). >>>> Most >>>> of the time it was only hitting well on 4 of the 8. The time I got her >>>> up >>>> to 80, the owner had just put in new spark plugs. Also, it’s the only >>>> car I >>>> ever ran out of gas in, and that was in the driveway of the gas >>>> station. >>>> This was in the hills SE of St Louis in Missouri, you had to drive UP >>>> the >>>> driveway to get to the pumps. I had so little in the tank that trying >>>> to >>>> run UP the hill rolled what little fuel remained away from the intake. >>>> We >>>> ended up BACKING IT UP the hill to the pumps.
>>>So – that is a real statement. Have you any idea at all what the 396 was >>>all about, and what it represented in the development of American cars?
>>>> What’s really sad is some of the overseas branches of like, Ford, make >>>> really nice small cars. My sister was just in England and her >>>> boyfriend >>>> rented a small Ford Fiesta or some such. It was a nice little car, >>>> got >>>> about 40 mpg. But they don’t offer such things over here.
>>>Or some such. You can’t even remember the name of the car, but you are >>>oh-so-certain of the mileage it got, just so you can conveniently bash >>>the >>>American car manufacturers. You lose more points with this one.
>>>> Another thing that bugs me about the car industry here is that we seem >>>> to >>>> block out any real ‘econoboxes’ anymore. The Smart Car supposedly gets >>>> about 50 mpg in Europe, but the American verion gets barely better >>>> mileage >>>> than my Corolla.
>>>”Supposedly”. Go ahead – whine all night about “supposedly”.
>>>Oh yeah – don’t forget to whine about the weight that US safety >>>requirements add to cars. Weight that does what??? Hint – mileage…
> Yeah, after 1970, the Nanny State started taking over. The American 3 > were happy about that, because that made Volkswagen

Answer: I still own my 1971 Pinto. I take it to old car shows all over the east cost. I see Pintos, Corvairs Valiants, Darts, Chevy IIs, Chevelles, Hornets, Gremlins, Camaros, Firebirds, Javelins and AMXs but I rarely, if ever, see ANY Jap cars from that era. If they were such great cars, were are the old one? They certainly are not still on the road, that’s for sure LOL

Related posts:

  1. Import owners are to blame for the recession
  2. Import owners are to blame for the recession
  3. GM and Ford sells more diffent models that get 30 or more MPG than does ANY import
  4. GM and Ford both sell more vehicles in the US than ANY import
  5. 1969 Mustang
  6. Pinto
  7. Mustangs Cobras and Firebirds will clean house!