When youtube gets it right: vintage car reviews
- Thread starter cwh
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Had a 78 LTD II. Probably the same frame as the 74 Cougar. With it's 302 engine it was faster than either the 74 cougar or cutlass. So in 4 years engine tech had already improved that much but it still wallowed around corners. DOT didn't ruin cars it forced car companies to make better cars. The 2017 4 banger Alfa Giulia I had did 0-60 in 5.1 the 1/4 in 13.6 at almost 104 mph all while getting 33 mpg cruising at 72 mph on the interstate. Best handling car I ever had and it was reliable. Cars are so much better now. Those DOT goals forced the car companies to get better. Something they weren't going to do on their own.
ha! I had that 74 cutlass, it was my 3rd olds (my first 6 cars were olds) I had the supreme which rode on GR78-14 tires instead of the FR78-15s the test car had, but I had upgraded when I got the car (84) to 225 70 15 and later 235s on really cool looking aluminum slots . the test car has the 2.73 on the K motor (180hp, 4bbl, single exhaust) I had a 2.87 rear and upgraded my k motor to 'm' (add dual exhaust - a simple factory bolt on due to the double hump) and I went overboard with the sways from the 442 package. these motors were pre-cat and didnt forget who their daddy was when you started opening them up. they just wanted to breathe.
Oddly the test did not opt for the M motor or even the *455* still available AND a 3 spd manual...I almost think they had to do a package delete to get the K motor in a salon. we had a 77 salon with the R motor and the folks had to delete the salon std 403 because 'gas' became an issue in the later 70's.
magazine specs for the car were 17.5 on the 350K, 16.8 on the 350M and 16.2 on the 455. there were a crap ton of factory axles available all the way up to a 3.90 (I had that one in my 72 with a 350-2bbl - very easy to light em up) as well as dealer installed 4.11 and 4.33.
Since they ordered the XR7 cougar, I would have rather seen the real competitor the 74 hurst or 442 packages
I can attest the front disc brakes were HIDEOUSLY small for a car just under 4Klbs with no easy upgrade, it was not the future yet so fitting on spindles from a B body was not a backyard exercise. when I sold the car in 89 it was a solid low 15 quarter, had a suspension like a rock, was a darker blue than the car in the video with blacked out chrome trim, full gauges, the famous sony XR27R stereo, pristine interior and it saw 15mpg on the highway. no idea if it survives, but seeing what reasonably clean survivors go for...yowza
by comparo, my middle of the road cts weighs slightly more, runs a low 14 stock, gets appx 26mpg, tops out at 155, has twice as many gears and pulls more in the corner than *any* car made in 1974 shy of an indy car. so the future is better right?
Oddly the test did not opt for the M motor or even the *455* still available AND a 3 spd manual...I almost think they had to do a package delete to get the K motor in a salon. we had a 77 salon with the R motor and the folks had to delete the salon std 403 because 'gas' became an issue in the later 70's.
magazine specs for the car were 17.5 on the 350K, 16.8 on the 350M and 16.2 on the 455. there were a crap ton of factory axles available all the way up to a 3.90 (I had that one in my 72 with a 350-2bbl - very easy to light em up) as well as dealer installed 4.11 and 4.33.
Since they ordered the XR7 cougar, I would have rather seen the real competitor the 74 hurst or 442 packages
I can attest the front disc brakes were HIDEOUSLY small for a car just under 4Klbs with no easy upgrade, it was not the future yet so fitting on spindles from a B body was not a backyard exercise. when I sold the car in 89 it was a solid low 15 quarter, had a suspension like a rock, was a darker blue than the car in the video with blacked out chrome trim, full gauges, the famous sony XR27R stereo, pristine interior and it saw 15mpg on the highway. no idea if it survives, but seeing what reasonably clean survivors go for...yowza
by comparo, my middle of the road cts weighs slightly more, runs a low 14 stock, gets appx 26mpg, tops out at 155, has twice as many gears and pulls more in the corner than *any* car made in 1974 shy of an indy car. so the future is better right?
55Redneck
Canadian Redneck
The performance #'s on the Cougar and 74 Cutlass were pretty pathetic. Cougar 460 4 bbl big block only runs and 18.2 in the 1/4 mile and the 350 Cutlass runs 19. My stock 350 powered 75 Olds 442 ran consistent 15.8's in the quarter and would leave both of the test cars in the dust in every aspect.
quiet
Addicted Member
Bud ran a nice test program. Good work if you can get it.
I have no problem with mid 70's cars. Cheap to buy, cheap to fix, comfortable. A hard enough look at it shows them to be true economy cars.
Or you can just buy a new car. Good gas mpg, big buy in, big payments, big taxes, big insurance, big bills after warranty. Or just get a used five year old and go straight to big bills out of warranty.
If you drive a lot of miles every week l guess old ain't the way to go.
The newest car I have is my old as shipped 1996 Buick Road Master Wagon I've been driving for about five years. It's a cheap used buy in, plenty fast, comfortable, quiet, lot's of room, 20 to 25 mpg, good anti-lock brakes, air bags, handles well enough to be driven, rarely gets worked on. But it too has a computer, or computers. Just not as many. If the motor tanks, I'll probably have it fixed.
It's a true economy car. And I like driving 5,000 pound sedans, so....
But that stuff in the sixte's was death on wheels. Loved them at the time.
I have no problem with mid 70's cars. Cheap to buy, cheap to fix, comfortable. A hard enough look at it shows them to be true economy cars.
Or you can just buy a new car. Good gas mpg, big buy in, big payments, big taxes, big insurance, big bills after warranty. Or just get a used five year old and go straight to big bills out of warranty.
If you drive a lot of miles every week l guess old ain't the way to go.
The newest car I have is my old as shipped 1996 Buick Road Master Wagon I've been driving for about five years. It's a cheap used buy in, plenty fast, comfortable, quiet, lot's of room, 20 to 25 mpg, good anti-lock brakes, air bags, handles well enough to be driven, rarely gets worked on. But it too has a computer, or computers. Just not as many. If the motor tanks, I'll probably have it fixed.
It's a true economy car. And I like driving 5,000 pound sedans, so....
But that stuff in the sixte's was death on wheels. Loved them at the time.
the only computer in that car that will ever give you trouble is the one for the climate control auto temp and blend door....unobtainable unobfixium. otherwise its as dependable as a hand held can opener and the hard parts to fix it are the cheapest in the rock auto catalog.
PS: if you dont have it, add the hotchkiss rear sway bar and insert a limited slip carrier if so inclined, that removes 90% of the objections car and driver had about the car....
that was the best axle option that year....I had the full trailer tow in my 91 olds wagon I got (first roundy year, 305 tbi )
you can pull 5000 lbs with it
