What does it feel like to drive those old ass muscle cars?
>>29142373they're very raw and rattly. it's like being strapped in a sled with a huge V8 in front.
vinyl petrol and body roll
>>29142373Contrary to popular belief, they very comfortable. But you feel every bit of the car a lot more than modern cars. They are is quite a bit of cabin noise when driving.
>>29142378They were made for teen-early 20s kids, if you wanted comfort you bought a Buick Electra.
Which cars from the 1960s and 1970s would be ideal for me, someone who hates muscle cars, hates pony cars, and wants ultra-small cars with very high fuel efficiency and designs that are the antithesis of muscle cars?
>>29142373They're comfy and the surge of torque from a big V8 just off idle feels really nice. They are pretty enjoyable, I love my dad's 383 Challenger and he has already said he's leaving it to me, but I would not pay the boomer prices for one.
>mfe you realize most muscle cars actually had a six or small block V8
>>29142373amazing. None of the cunty nanny cunt bullshit features that have infested modern cars.imagine actually driving a car, instead of a safety-mom faggot sled.
>>29142383this
>>29142400my 2011 doesnt have any of that either
>>29142431Nor does my 2010, but I can't call it a muscle car, nor old :) While it may sound like a muscle car with it's pure sex/angelic choir exhaust note, I'm relatively certain the average 2026 cuckover could gap it off the line. (2010 mustang GT)
>>29142432my point was that you dont need to go too far back to escape the shittiness, especially if you have the tools
>>29142436Yes, no argument there..I was keeping it in the context of OP's thread though.
>>29142392some gay european thing.
>>29142444Which European car from that era would fit what I’m looking for?
>>29142445maybe just get a vespa or something that you and your boyfriend can go out for mocha frappuccino together on?
>>29142390I had an E>>29142392lectra. Was a good car.
>>29142397Patrician taste, what year?. Mine only has a 360. picrel>>29142386Said it best. They rattle a lot as well and leaf spring suspension makes them rather bouncy. I have rear sway bars so I can keep on the throttle at corner exit but you have to know what your doing.That being said, people will generally get out of your way and give you room in traffic but even if they don't, visibility in these things is great. So much glass!
>>291425761971, the car originally had a 318 but someone swapped in many years ago.
>>29142392A '71 chev with a 447 and a Muncie 4 speed. You'll learn that your taste is shit and your balls will drop.
>>29142378true, land barges were comfier. they're also better highway drivers than muscle cars due to the gearing.
>>29142392MGB
>>29142383X2. I had a '72 El Camino for about a year in 2018. They're very straightforward but you really need to know how to wrench if you're going to drive one.
>>29142634when i had mine (RIP) it really was comfy. Could take it up to 80 and it felt real smooth. Lots of wind and tyre noise because it was an entry level model so not much in the way of acoustic insulation, but smooth. That 383 had plenty of power, even when you were doing >80 mph it would still keep pulling when you needed it to.>>29142576>leaf spring suspension makes them rather bouncyheh, some sections of highway that I drove on had bumps big enough to push the steering wheel a bit. Wasn't huge or anything, but would definitely surprise anyone driving it for the first time.
>>29142373sloppy
>>29142392this guy has been making posts like this on multiple boards for at least a decade now and no one else seems to have noticed itwhat a fucked up kind of autism
>>29142392A bicycle
>>29142576>leaf springChrysler skill issue.
>>29142373
>>2914239019 year olds aren't going to mind road noise from minimal sound insulation and the dashboard vibrating from the engine, it adds to the whole raw badass experience while 50 year old church secretaries in their Oldsmobile barge demanded comfort and silence.
>>29142373It's fuckin sick. Go find someone to give you a ride in one with a rowdy small block or big block.
>>29142697we do but we either ignore it or just play along for lulz>>29142725iirc gm leaf springs just went the simple route and had the axle right over the middle of the spring, whereas chrysler moved them closer to the front eye to cut down on axle wrap. One of the reasons why traction bars weren't as needed on them.
the mid-priced makes (Mercury, Oldsmobile, and Buick) muscle cars were always kind of rare because the typical muscle car buyer didn't shop at those dealerships
>>29142373Like being on a couch inside a bouncy castle with an extremely loud engine that goes slower than a GR yaris jellybean.
>>29142373Lots of frame flex and body rollThe interior smells of boomer microplasticsSkinny tires, lots of torque Very fun shitboxes on par with FWD shitboxes in fun department
>>29142697I have him word filtered
They remind me of the crown vic but made of sheet metal and with a 400hp engine that reeks of gasoline from the carb.
>>29142747didn't GM muscle all have 4-link rears?
>>29142373>A good deal of mythology surrounds the '68 to '71 Charger, but in truth at least three quarters of them came off the line with a small block 318 or 360 V8 rather than the celebrated big blocks. Beginning in 1969 the Charger could even be ordered with a Slant Six.>In addition to that, the Coronet 2-door was preferred at the time for racing as it was lighter-weight than the Charger.
>>29142373They're nice. I drove a Sabre GT just the other day and the compliant suspension was refreshing. Modern cars ride far too stiff.
>>29142977Most of the cars used in Dukes of Hazzard had a 318 because it was much more common than the big block engines and they handled better due to being lighter weight which was preferred for the chase scenes. Only one Charger used in the show had a 440 in it and none had a Hemi.
>>29142980Dude.Dont even bring up the dukes because ill go full retard and go over the full history about how they ran out of chargers and helicopters scouring 3 states and shells were mounted to Ford LTDs and shit.
>>29142373my friend owned an old challenger I think it was (1970s). Driving it was awful. >handled like a literal boat, couldn't turn worth shit>wasn't really fast at all (was like 4,000lbs with ~300hp)>if you wreck you're going to die>climate control is basically a memeIt sounded amazing, looked cool, and it was dead simple to work on. But if I wanted to own one long-term, I'd do something like a double wishbone suspension swap or something and a complete interior refresh. His was in vintage/used condition and hadn't been restored really at all, so I'm sure the experience could be much better if you dumped a bunch of money into one, whereas nuCars will always sound and look like shit. >>29142378sounds about what I remember
>>29143074I'll add that my neighbor and brother both had old luxury barges (~1960s or 70s I think) when we were in high school and they were extremely comfortable, much better than modern luxury cars. Not safe at all, and you'd probably get bad whiplash/neck injuries due to the seats, but very comfy. Also, the long, sofa-style seats were perfect for fucking. Probably would be great cars for driving around town at speeds under 50mph (until Shanquisha hits you head-on doing 80mph in a Publix parking lot).
>>29142974they did but iirc they suffered from GM things™ and their handling wasn't as good as it could've been. Chrysler's engineers apparently figured out how to get the most out of their leaf springs while still keeping the bean counters happy.>>29143074dunno about the muscle cars but my barge was pretty comfy, and it was funny being able to take those really jarring, sharp shitty speed bumps at speed and hardly feel it. It also handled surprisingly well for its size, but I think it was also because I refreshed all suspension rubbers, especially the lower control arm bushing because nobody wants to go through the effort required to replace that.
>>29142587What a fucking gay post. Way to announce that your idea of masculinity is defined by consumerism and your interest in cars is motivated by image issues.
>>29143074Challengers and all mid-large sized mopars had double wishbone front suspension though>>29142373its pretty damn good, literally the only reason i dont daily drive mine is the fuel economy being ass. I like how theyre styled bigger than they are, i like being able to drive on unpaved roads due to how tall they are, i like how simple they are, i like how i can see the bonnet like a helicopter landing pad, i like the large trunk, i like the feeling of unlimited power on tap, i adore the coke bottle styling, i like the deep cushioned seats that existed across the board, i like how cheap they are to service, i like the round headlights, i like build quality, theres so much to enjoy about them. For me the best cars were already made and built between 1965-1980. I dont know why we asked for more, or why it became more complicated, and to me theyre "The Car" of all time, sedan or coupe or wagon theyre all good
>>29143182>the fuel economy being assdo you have a vac and AFR gauges? and do you have the vacuum advance curve dialled in too? once i finally nailed my timing curve, i pretty much doubled my mpg, it went from like 8-11 mpg to 20.I also used my carb cheater's vac and AFR gauges to really tune it in, I don't think I could ever get it as well tuned without them.
>>29143186>it went from like 8-11 mpg to 20oh and this was for a mopar 383 with a 727 behind it, 3.23 rear end. Considering that gearbox had no lockup converter, it was pretty great.
>>29143186my old 383 would get about 12mpg, these days i just have a 4.4 v8 but ive never considered dialing those two in since it just works. On that one i get about 18-20mpg which is fine but aus fuel prices are too intolerable for it, it was good enough when it was 1.60 per litre. I doubt i could get much better since others in the community report about the same thing
>>29142373If you really like cars you will dig it, if not you will hate it.NVH was not a thing, it's just an awesome connection.
>>29143131You sound insecure and whiny. I prescribe you a big burnout to fix your womanly tendancies.
>>29143182>its pretty damn good, literally the only reason i dont daily drive mine is the fuel economy being ass. I like how theyre styled bigger than they areGas was cheap back in the late 60s, but even then as he said most "muscle" cars still had the small engines that were cheaper to operate.
>>29142634if boomers would have quit mining C-bodies to steal their 400/440 engines for muscle car swaps...
>>29142392Maybe some kind of little sports car.Triumph Spitfire, TR5, GT6VW Karmann GhiaMazda Cosmo
>>29142373Lots of power with little control. An abundance of body roll and bounciness. Steering can be heavy, and VERY heavy if it doesn't have power steering. And braking will take triple the distance you're used to if you've only driven modern cars. Also they were typically poorly insulated, so lots of noise and they can be really cold inside in the winter.
>>29142587>447
>>29142392Darude - Sandstorm
>>29143195i forgot to add that i also had edelbrock 5090 heads on it. the fuel economy would've improved simply from how much better flowing aftermarket heads are compared to stock
The '66 Imperial is the absolute height of Chrysler muscle barges. Every one comes with a 440, they're plenty fast, very comfortable, handle excellent for what they are, and are relatively cheap. I hate that demo derby fags try to destroy them all.
>>29143459they also get 11 highway, 8 city mileage
>>29143459in 20 years time it came down to a 4 pot econo shitbox with leather seats as Chrysler's flagship
>>29143470at least Europe could build a premium car that didn't require you to be a Saudi prince to afford the petrol tab
>>29143473Nothing Europe has made other than some sports cars has ever mattered though.
>>29143472comfy but way smaller and a turbo four is no substitute for a 440
>>29143475Pic is European, until Austin stole this from Cadillac every manufacturer had their own control layout. Even Cadillac was still experimenting.
>>29143470Yes, and? If I get 10 MPG and drive it for 500 miles, that costs me $175 if I pay an average of $3.50/gallon. If I drive a diesel that gets 20 MPG, that same 500 miles costs me $162.50 due to $6.50/gallon diesel. $12.50 is negligible and it makes my car more practical than a pavement princess diesel truck fag.>>29143472My seats are leather and have eagles.
>>29143476that's like a lawn mower engine versus a jet engine
>>29143472this was only bought by old people who wanted something that got better gas mileage than a 5th Avenue. the real premium car market had moved on to German cars by the 80s.
>>29143473it's a very overpriced I6 with 1950s styling that was a decade out of date by then and shitty electrical systems
>>29143470Trucks with big blocks are worse due to their shape.
>>29143482The only way to own a Jag is to swap it.
>>29143482the Jag six was a very good engine for the 50s that dominated racing but it was pretty old-fashioned by that point
>>29143473and regular shitboxes--nice 1.0L engine
really hard to see what youre doing in tight spaces, god help you if you've only got the single side mirror
>>29143491If that had a Datsun badge /o/ would cum buckets over it
>>29142373the performance engines like 383 need premium gas. the small blocks and 400/440 can run on regular i think.
>>29143470you'd be surprised how well their mileage could get if you tuned it up properly >>29143186in pic related, that last row had at least half of it being city driving, the other half highway. With a manual it'd probably be even higher.I also just remembered that the 8 mpg i was getting was actually still with the alloy heads. Nailing the timing and fuelling never felt so good>>29143502only for the 4 barrel 383s, those ran 10.1 compression. The 2 bbls ran 9.2, but it could vary wildly. Mine was probably averaging 8.5.Piston 1 was like 8.65:1, piston 3 was 8.3:1 lmao.
>>29143502ditto the Hemi
p. sure this is an actual vintage photo from the 50s and not a cosplay thing. some boomer's mom?
>>29142373I drove a 64 GTO before and it was the best car I ever drove. Other than the awful brakes it was not any different handling than a modern car except it sounded, looked, and felt way cooler. And it kept up with highway traffic easily.
>>29143810any car made from the 60s onward can handle modern highway speeds; that was the era when the interstate system came online. 50s and earlier mostly designed for city driving or two lane highways.
>>29143810it would have been very disillusioning to go from there to this in less than 20 years
>>29143937lot different tone to those ads
>>2914394315 colors is the official number, but it was always GM practice (maybe still is) that you could custom order a car in any color you wanted.
>>29143943looks badass>>29143937looks like a derpy grandma car
>>29143937malaise cars are shit, man. they have the acceleration of a non-turbo diesel.
>>29143953get rid of the smog hoses? too bad because the heads have pinhole intakes and super mild cams to get approximately the compression of a prewar flathead engine.
>>29142978modern cars ride too soft thoughPerhaps you have blown shocks>>29142884fag-wheel drive isn’t Fun though>>29142729What about the 20-49 year olds?
>>29143955there was brief window of about 12 years when cars had reached modern performance levels but there was no emissions stuff yet.
I drove a third gen and it felt like a low truck
feels like being a massive homo
>>29143957>fag-wheel drive isn’t Fun thoughClaims made by the utterly delusional. Right on par for a retarded dago
>>29143957>modern cars ride too soft though>people buy SUVs and pickups because they ride softer than sedanswut
>>29142681>(RIP)NO NOT THE BIG BOYWHAT HAPPENED
Like when youre putting your big pp inside a girl's tight vagina >t. 24 y/o khhv
>>29142392>Which cars from the 1960s and 1970s would be ideal for meHopping on estrogen would be most ideal for you
>>29144333>nooo economy cars are Fun how are economy cars not Fun reeeeeEeeEeeEe!!!!!>>29144757And most modern cars are cuvs and pickups, so most modern suspensions are too soft
>>29144999If you can't have fun tossing a lightweight FF shitbox to the ragged edge, you aren't a real enthusiast. Simple as
>>29144999but it was fairly obvious that anon was talking about sedan/coupe suspensions rather than CUV/pickup ones
>>29142392twingo
>>29142445
>>29142373>What does it feel like to drive those old ass muscle cars?Old.
>>29142373Like a bag of sand
>>29142392
>>29144120Stop projecting, twinky
they were shitboxes that skimped on everything so they could put a big ass motor in them and nothing else. designed to go (sorta) fast in a straight lineanyone using these things for literally anything besides sunday drives will immediately, do everything in their power to replace and change every part of the handling until its no longer a dangerous dog shit car.its also what makes them awesome because its a total fuck you and your safety car.
>>291423924 door diahatsu mira, the 80's version actually. the rear passengers spines are your crumple zone. i saw one in town 20 years ago and fucking loved it, its like the bare minimum upgrade to a wimpy go-cart. allegedly they went to raves in the thing and if it got bogged down/stuck in woods, they would just get out and....carry it over the terrain it was stuck in.
