I may need reading glasses now, but I could see them. Besides... none of the gauges back then were very accurate anyway. The “spoiler” on the back probably lifts the car at speed. I just said they look kool.
Which muscle car is ugly?
- Thread starter SteveSS
- Start date
I may need reading glasses now, but I could see them. Besides... none of the gauges back then were very accurate anyway. The “spoiler” on the back probably lifts the car at speed. I just said they look kool.
chargervert
Well-Known Member
To me it's not about what they are worth,its about how far Chrysler was willing to go to win. They are insane looking and purpose built!
You're right about the race purpose built, but not much for my kind of driving. That's why they couldn't hardly give them away new and were bought up cheap in the 90's when they were mostly seriously molested by then.
Never was an AMC fan but they had nice cars among the fugly's. Saw a Javlin at a car show couple years ago and it was pretty. Didn't take much notice when they came out; but the style has grown on me, wouldn't mind having one...
chargervert
Well-Known Member
All of the Daytona's sold with no problem, it was the Superbirds they had trouble selling. They made 1935 Superbirds verses 503 Daytona's. Keep in mind that during the time they were built, that stock car racing was mostly a south eastern United States sport, and was just starting to be televised so people in other parts of the country didn't really know what to make of these bizarre looking Mopars. As far as being bought up cheap in the 90s them and Hemi cars were always around 5 to 10 grand beyond my reach even back then.
I guess I’m an outlier. I always liked and even wanted a 68/69 442, especially a Hurst Olds 455-442. But my real affection was for the silver on black 1970 W30 442 my brother owned in college and sold on a whim without giving me a chance to buy it. That was the sweetest driving, handling, riding, responsive, powerful stock muscle car I ever drove.
- Local time
- 3:46 PM
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 34,078
- Reaction score
- 41,878
- Location
- Pasadena, Texas
I liked the Chevy Malibu better but not much. Always thought they looked bulky and didn't really care for the way they drove or rode....and that ride felt worse if in the back seat. Coil spring cars with a PHB to me wasn't the best combination.
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
I was born in 1961. There has been many FB threads on post your favorite car from the year you were born.
I hate that game. Lol. 1961 was definitely a transition year in US automotive design.
I hate that game. Lol. 1961 was definitely a transition year in US automotive design.
chargervert
Well-Known Member
I liked the ’70-’72 Olds body style dropping the swoopy rear. First car I restored with my dear dad was my mom’s ’72 Cutlass vert that had been passed around the family for years with winter driving until it was in sad shape. But, it was there for taking or dumping, towing it to my father-in-law’s place in his back 40. Had the idea of a 442 clone. Lol, what a way to learn about restoration! Everything needed re-fabbing or replacing. Only original body part left was the hood. Got connected with the prez of the Old’s Club of WI and snagged a LOT of NOS parts thru him and others he knew. New quarters, bumpers, deck, grilles, etc. Heck, even had to cut the cowling out finding a rust-free one we sawz-alled out of it setting it in nicely. Great time/memories with my dad as he was retired then and we consumed a bunch of PBR’s, his brand of choice. No way I could have done this w/o my dad’s talents.
Just after getting the new quarters hung, I get a call about a CA ’70 vert W-30 triple black! Damn was hard to pass it up; but back then money was tight and already had SO much time/cash in the Cutlass. After getting it done though with the slightly beefed overhauled 350, it was a great to drive, drove like new…well should have considering everything was new.
The ‘plan’ was adding more, getting a 442 hood, buckets, floor shift, etc. but then came along a CA ’63 Fury vert in great original shape in ’94. Old guy had bought it in ’89 and it just sat in his garage still with the CA plates on it. Sad as the guy was pretty ill and was letting it go. Always wanted a B-body of the era and swore off restoring a rust bucket. Sold the Cutlass; but had some fun with it for a summer before saying goodbye
Just after getting the new quarters hung, I get a call about a CA ’70 vert W-30 triple black! Damn was hard to pass it up; but back then money was tight and already had SO much time/cash in the Cutlass. After getting it done though with the slightly beefed overhauled 350, it was a great to drive, drove like new…well should have considering everything was new.
The ‘plan’ was adding more, getting a 442 hood, buckets, floor shift, etc. but then came along a CA ’63 Fury vert in great original shape in ’94. Old guy had bought it in ’89 and it just sat in his garage still with the CA plates on it. Sad as the guy was pretty ill and was letting it go. Always wanted a B-body of the era and swore off restoring a rust bucket. Sold the Cutlass; but had some fun with it for a summer before saying goodbye
- Local time
- 1:46 PM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,324
- Reaction score
- 17,625
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
Quick story. My mom's best friend had a 69 cutlass that she bought new, with a 455. Now, there aren't supposed to be ANY 455 Olds in a 69 442(whoops, NOT including 69 Hurst Olds, lol), let alone a cutlass! I wanted that car!
Turns out, when it needed engine work many years later, 455 parts wouldn't fit. It was a 350, with a 455 decal on the aircleaner....
Turns out, when it needed engine work many years later, 455 parts wouldn't fit. It was a 350, with a 455 decal on the aircleaner....
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
Impala, any Ford were no beauty queen either. Even Corvette was a little odd looking. Just a tough year for design IMO.
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
I believe 1969 was the finest year in US automotive design history. Very argumentative of course. But when considering all 3 major US manufacturers?
- Local time
- 1:46 PM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,324
- Reaction score
- 17,625
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
I'd have to vote for 70, even though I have a 69 runner.
The great cars from 69 were still there, mopars great engine were improved and more widely available,, and now available in two more beautiful new platforms. Ford had new 429 cj's, and continued the boss 429 and 302, gm now had a 350 Z28, and 454/455 intermediates, and compression across the board hadn't been lowered yet.
Just an all around great year! (Especially for Mopar. Hemi with a hydraulic cam, to stay in tune better, 440 six pack available almost everywhere, 340 Sixpack cars. What more could you want?)
Last edited:
- Local time
- 1:46 PM
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,324
- Reaction score
- 17,625
- Location
- taxifornia,soon 2b Arizona.
Mine was a slant. Got it from GTX John at least 30years ago, less motor. I had traded a legit 68 Z28 302 engine straight across for a carb-to-pan maxwege, that needed a home.
Last edited:
Well, that would explain getting stomped by a variety of 400 cubic inch Musclecars at the stoplight leaving the grocery store.
Kind of hard to figure how after 4 pages it hasn't been brought up that the term Musclecar was originally coined by - take your pick - Brock Yates, C&D Magazine, Pontiac with the GTO, to mean an intermediate sedan/hardtop with a large motor. Pony cars, sports cars and full size cars were never correctly called Musclecars, much less 4 & 6 cylinder economy cars. I think most people retroactively included earlier high performance cars like the 49 Olds, 409/427/406 full size cars, 383/413/393/426 Mopars, early large engine Pontiacs, etc, etc. Some cars were termed Supercars - some Corvettes and Cobras would probably fit, but that’s a different story. But never heard anyone back in the day call a Mustang or Challenger or Camaro as a Musclecar, except in the loosest of references.
Similar threads
