Cadillac Owners Forum banner

'70s cars, the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

51K views 148 replies 40 participants last post by  dchavezo 
#1 ·
What memorable rides can you think of from that interesting decade? I have some fond recollections of the Vega, cute little car!
Datsun Zee Ex Pacer X
 
See less See more
1
#112 ·
I remember driving a friend's 1975 Monte Carlo when it was new and being impressed with how well it handled. I had just gotten my 1975 Chrysler Cordoba at the time, and while the Cordoba was probably ultimately the better handler, the Monte Carlo felt better just tooling around surface streets. If I remember correctly the Chevy was about $4700 well equipped, I think I paid around $5400. for the Cordoba which had among other things "Corinthian Leather."

When the downsized "B" bodied cars came out in 1977, I thought the best looking of them was the top of the line Chevy sedan in two tone blue. A really nice American family sedan!
 
#113 ·
I have a special fondness for 1973 C3 Corvette Stingray. It's the last model to have the chrome rear bumpers and the first to get the energy absorbing front bumper system with urethane bumper cover. These styling features were unique to this model year only. The small block L82 was a fairly decent performer, considering it was produced during the the time of the oil embargo and worldwide gas crisis.
 
#114 ·
orconn said:
Gee, Kevin, after 20 years you would at least think the interior would be immaculate. Damn American cars!
29 years to be exact.
Overall it has held up well. Its got 67k on it (sat in a garage from 1986 till the mid 00's). Its like driving a 30 year old car thats got 10 years of use.
It is nicer than most 90s car interiors I've been in condition wise, so I guess I can't complain too much.
 
#116 ·
I'd call this the good. I had so much fun with this thing. Those seats... They're the most comfortable seats I've ever been in. Car, couch, recliner, period. Watching that hood ornament ten miles away turn in front of you is a kick. I would rock the hell out of one of these. AMAZINGNESS. The whole time I was behind the wheel, there was a huge, ridiculous grin on my face. :cloud9:



 
#122 ·
jayoldschool said:
lol, Chevy 305s and Olds 307s would have been an UPGRADE at the start of the 80s. Our 81 Chevy Impala Sport Coupe had the WONDERFUL 267 V8. What a great car ruined by a pathetic engine.
I love the 307 in my lesabre. Its spunky, but not a performance oriented motor by any means. Its (obviously) not the best possible engine they could have shoved in the car (should have a 403, 350, or at least the vin 9 307). When the 307 goes, dad said hes putting a 455 or pre smog 350 in it.
I will say, compared to a buddies 91 RMW with the tbi 305 (150 hp in a 4k lbs car), its a rocketship. I buried the pedal on his RMW and was like "is this it?" It made noise like it was accelerating, but moved out slower than molasses. I think it was slower than the 307 in my 86 FWB (with all of 140 hp in a 4500 lbs car).
 
#128 ·
I love the 307 in my lesabre. Its spunky, but not a performance oriented motor by any means. Its (obviously) not the best possible engine they could have shoved in the car (should have a 403, 350, or at least the vin 9 307). When the 307 goes, dad said hes putting a 455 or pre smog 350 in it.
I agree. My '78 Lesabre had the Pontiac 301 in it. It never seemed under powered to me. Years later, I acquired a '78 Electra 225 with a 350. I mainly bought it because the Lesabre had been such a good car. The 350 was a little more powerful, but I traded some reliability for that little extra power. The Buick 350 was not as good as the Chevy or Olds 350 for some reason.

Now, a friend of mine in college had an early '80's Buick Skylark with a 4 cylinder. Now that was anemic! :helpless:
 
#127 ·
CadillacLuke24 said:
:D I never said that technology existed back then :D

Drop a 454 in there and you'll be good to go :D
It did exist, but AFAIK, it had not been used in an american production car yet. I recall reading an article from the late 60s (68?) where olds engineers made a 5 cam 455. It had dual overhead cams, them a dummy cam to drive the fuel pump. IIRC, it made 600- 700 hp.
 
#130 ·
Only briefly sold in America in the early '70s, but the 1967 NSU Ro80 was considered the most advanced car of its time. Rotary motor, 4 wheel disc brakes, all independent suspension, front drive, semi-auto gearbox, 0.355 drag factor. Trouble was apex seal rotor wear and under 18 mpg economy in the fuel crisis.



 
#131 ·
frip said:
Only briefly sold in America in the early '70s, but the 1967 NSU Ro80 was considered the most advanced car of its time. Rotary motor, 4 wheel disc brakes, all independent suspension, front drive, semi-auto gearbox, 0.355 drag factor. Trouble was apex seal rotor wear and under 18 mpg economy in the fuel crisis.
Those are some ugly cars!!!!!
 
#132 ·
Rotary anything is bad news IMO. There has sprung up a whole aftermarket industry building parts to convert your blown up rotary RX-7 to various Ford and GM v8's. Personally I like the all aluminum LS1, LS2, LS3, etc Vette motors in them, since they're lighter and don't upset the balance like an all iron SBF or SBC.
 
#133 · (Edited)
They have some trouble with longevity, but they have some major advantages as well, mostly due to the low mass rotating assembly with few moving parts (unrivaled high rpm smoothness, high rpm stability, extremely small and light wieght, will handle all you can give it - a potential performance monster). Besides, rotary IS Mazda, when it comes to the auto industry. While it is becoming common to replace them with piston alternatives, it's not something I would do. The rotary is the key element of the unique RX7 package. Replace it and you really don't have a RX7 anymore - so then whats the point of having one?

If you want a piston variant, get a Miata and swap your heart out!
 
#134 ·
Dude I totally agree. When a rotary is running right it is an amazing machine. Its just that it doesn't run right for very long.

As to your v8 Miata suggestion, I'd much rather have one of those over a v8 RX-7. They're about 500lbs lighter and just plain balls to the wall insanity. Even a mildly worked over aluminum LS1 from your garden variety Z28 Camaro is going to give you 350+rwhp, in a package that weighs about 2500-2600lbs at the most.

If your pockets are deep, you can build a perfectly streetable, pump gas, aluminum block, 7.0 liter LS7 with WELL OVER 500 rwhp, just depending on how wild you want that cam. I don't think you'd find any sort of traction with that much hp with tires that would fit in the stock Miata wheel wells. That type of hp would require a complete rethink of the rear end/suspension, probably a mini-tub to fit some fatter tires back there.
 
#135 ·
Aron9000 said:
Dude I totally agree. When a rotary is running right it is an amazing machine. Its just that it doesn't run right for very long.

As to your v8 Miata suggestion, I'd much rather have one of those over a v8 RX-7. They're about 500lbs lighter and just plain balls to the wall insanity. Even a mildly worked over aluminum LS1 from your garden variety Z28 Camaro is going to give you 350+rwhp, in a package that weighs about 2500-2600lbs at the most.

If your pockets are deep, you can build a perfectly streetable, pump gas, aluminum block, 7.0 liter LS7 with WELL OVER 500 rwhp, just depending on how wild you want that cam. I don't think you'd find any sort of traction with that much hp with tires that would fit in the stock Miata wheel wells. That type of hp would require a complete rethink of the rear end/suspension, probably a mini-tub to fit some fatter tires back there.
Haha her miata and my corvette.. Actually, you have to get an f body LSx. But they do sleep together in the garage.
 
#136 ·
#137 ·
I am glad they had a vid because I was hoping to hear/see it run. After seeing it, it is really hard to get the sound and image to settle into your brain! I love it. I would love to do the same to an old early 70s Honda 600 coupe! Something about taking an old "greenie lovers" car and putting a loud, smoke belching, 2 stroke in it appeals to me. I would also enjoy the looks from people as I pull start it!
:histeric:
 
#142 ·
#144 ·
Cadillac truly lost their quality around the 67 model year. Gone was all the brightwork, great interior styling, metal trimmings and tight fit and finish. The 69-73 interiors were very cheap feeling and bland as can be.

I should know after owning a 68 and 72 Cadillac's, the 68 was much better inside, even the paint was of higher quality.

But compared to my now 64 Cadillac Deville that I picked up recently, the 64 is truly one of the last "high quality" stylish Cadillac's IMO. It's a much better well built car than the other 2 by far.

The 70's Cads were "ok", they rode nice and were very smooth, but to me the 71-73's were the worst years for quality, the body rattled and the car simply didn't have that isolated feeling like the older Cads did. The interior was cheap crap, even the exterior mouldings was garbage quality pot metal, but granted the doors and hood felt like a tank.

Cadillac improved the cars slightly starting in 74-76, the interiors got nicer looking, more plush, and was better constructed. Overall though I would say if I ever was in the market for a 70's Cadillac, my only other 70's Cad I would ever purchase again after the awful 72 I owned would be a 75 Fleetwood Brougham with the rear seat footrest. To me that was the epitome of pure luxury. A Rolls Royce of luxury cars.

But after owning a few Cadillac's, none of them can match the ride, interior comfort, quietness, plushness, style, it's imposing size, and even quality than my 78 Lincoln Continental. The Lincoln is literally like driving on a cloud, it is so unbelievably smooth, isolated, and soft riding that sometimes I wonder how could anybody drive a car like this across the country and not easily be put to sleep, it's that nice. Plus everything outside of it, like the quality chrome mouldings, the grill, the fit and finish, the thickness of the metal, the door panel quality and seat comfort I feel blows away the Cadillac's of the same year. Even the pre 77 Cads. One issue I personally have with the Lincoln is although it rides and drives supremely , it doesn't have a whole of lot of ornamentation on the inside like Cadillacs do, nor is the drivetrain exclusively "Lincoln" but rather shared with other big Fords of the era.

I honestly would love to have a 69-70 Cadillac as it has one of my favorite grills, I actually rode in one years ago, that car was awesome!
 
#145 ·
#148 ·
It's a shame. This thread is so old that a lot of the picture links are dead now. I would've loved to have seen some of the pics that had been posted!

My official first car was a 1985 Ford Escort - not exciting in any way, the pinnacle of boring really, but it was the two-door hatchback and not particularly ugly. The wagons were hideous abominations, but the hatches were just plain as can be. My unofficial was a 1978 (I think) AMC Hornet sedan. I say unofficial because I was too young to drive when I owned it, and I sold it before I ever drove it. It was given to me by a neighbor because she knew how much I appreciated it's unique hideousness. Not only was the AMC Hornet a revolting-looking car straight from the factory, but mine was especially bad looking. The factory red had faded to a dirty orange color. The vinyl top (which was brownish-tan, on a red car... ughhhhh...) was coming off in shreds. It had a couple nasty dents and wrinkles, and was missing all it's hubcaps back before showing your steel wheels was socially acceptable. Add to that the lovely tartan plaid interior, and a climate control panel that included the setting "For Desert Use Only" (I swear on all that is holy this is TRUE) and the fact that the hood pull said "bonnet" like we were driving it through Jolly Ole England or something.

Why did AMC go out of business again? Or how about a better question - why did they ever go into business?

Personally, I'm big into big sedans. I even like some of the ugly or boring ones. Chrysler had some cars in the 60's and 70's that are considered unforgivably ugly, but I generally like their stuff from this era. I love the Cordoba! (I realize the cordoba isn't a sedan, I just love it.) I probably won't make a lot of friends for saying that. My friend had a mid/late 70's Newport. It looked like an aircraft carrier on wheels. He had some body work done to it and a cheap paint job, and it looked fantastic afterward. I always thought that in AMC's Hornet/Concord lineup, the 4x4 wagons were the coolest looking. Mainly because they were ugly, and it's pretty much okay if your 4x4 is ugly. I've always been partial to the Granada and Fairmont/Zephyr lineup too. They're boring, but not terribly ugly. I'd still drive one today, especially with a 5.0 transplant!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top