Ask the Car People.SM


Classic Musclecars - READ ONLY

279 messages,  Last post on Sep 16, 2001 at 6:40 PM

You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Convertible, Sedan

Messages Page 28 of 28

#270 of 279 On SC/Rambler... by ndance

Sep 06, 2001 (5:17 pm)

At the risk of being wrong (never owned one, don't know anyone who has ever owned one, don't want to own one) I'd be real suprised if they have 2x4 bbls, probably more like a single quadrajet or Carter. For what it's worth they came in two paint patterns, an 'A' and a 'B'. You've gotta love the upholstery and that great big 'AIR' sticker on the hood (I guess it's to tell the air molecules where to go).

#271 of 279 by speedshift

Sep 06, 2001 (6:51 pm)

A while back we talked about the dual quads over in the Rambler thread. It was one of the Group 19 speed parts available through dealers. Not stock but maybe a few were installed by dealers. (Although a racing-oriented AMC dealer is a little hard to comprehend. I went to a Rambler dealer in 1966 and the showroom was like a mortuary.) The dual quad manifold must have been an aftermarket piece with an AMC part number.
 
Yeah by the late '60s some musclecars were over the top which should have been an indication the writing was on the wall. Of course some people woould say every musclecar was over the top--that's their appeal.

#272 of 279 by ndance

Sep 06, 2001 (9:53 pm)

I gotcha. Kind of like all the dealer available (and sometimes dealer installed) parts options on Chevrolets like dual quads on pre-1969 Z/28's, cold air induction on pre-1969 Camaros and earlier Chevelles, headers on Z/28's etc. All of that stuff is great for causing arguments between car show people as to originality.
 
It's really kind of amazing what the size of the high performance OEM business must have been like. Add in all the complete engine assemblies via parts departments, whole ecosystems of parts like all the Shelby junk that was available, plus goofy stuff like cross boss/inline autolite 4v and it shows what we've lost by building cars in a more 'atomic' fashion.
 
While I'm on the topic, its really pretty funny how 30 year old manufacturing processes (using mostly paper record keeping, I imagine) were somehow able to build so many variants and options. Just looking at old order sheets really brings this out (ie the number of optional drivetrains, colors, interiors, etc etc). In addition, those guys somehow could build a convertible with only a $150 delta or so. I suppose that given only so many engineering man hours (even including CAD/CAM and things like computer driven machining equipment for fast turn on prototypes) that the time is spent building vehicles with 5x the complexity and that time must be made up elsewhere, in this case by reducing the number of car lines and options.

#273 of 279 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Sep 07, 2001 (7:34 am)

Also don't forget they pretty much threw them together as fast as they could. You don't have anywhere near the quality standards of today.

#274 of 279 by ndance

Sep 07, 2001 (10:48 am)

I don't see where 'quality' gets in the way of manufacturing variations. In any case 'quality' is kind of a disingenuous word, the ways it can be expressed are too varied...eg
 
1) Improved materials (ie reciprocating parts alloys)
2) Improved design (ie modern connector designs)
3) Improved care in assembly (ie better line monkeys)
4) Improved assembly techniques (ie robots)
5) Improved fabrication techniques (ie CNC)
6) ???
 
I can't say that it's a clear win for modern manufactured goods (although a lot of things *are* better). Modern engineering cycles allow not only improvements but cheapening of design. One quick example is transmissions/rear ends which are built to barely meet load requirements. In addition, shoveling complexity all over the vehicle implies difficult debugging (witness the 1 zillion messages concerning Silverado vibrations, I'm sure the Chevy engineers thought they were being clever in the new truck, but ended up changing too many things at once).
 
If anything bums me out, it's the slow death of high craftsmanship in manufacture. It happened with cars long ago, but a good example can be found in musical instruments. The Japanese have made real inroads into making well-made, consistent wind instruments (along with the Europeans <think Selmer>), but you know what? earlier instruments not only show a much higher level of finish quality (such as engraving) but *sound better*. Early US built horns (especially from just before WWII) and European horns built up to and through the '60s are superior (and handmade).
 
The point? That the grind towards lowering the labor input in products has resulted in pablum. We're heading for a world of PC-like, shrink wrapped, 'no user servicable parts inside', appliances. Something is being lost here.

#275 of 279 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Sep 07, 2001 (6:05 pm)

Yes, you do lose character but you gain reliability. There is no car from the 60s that can run as long and as hard as a modern car. The only advantage of a 60s car is that they are so simple and straightforward you can repair things, replace parts of assemblies, bolt and unbolt, diagnose easily and do body repairs with far less trouble involved. Every part has a bolt and nut, not some dinky plastic clip or snap ring or cardboard backing. So in a sense a 60s car may "run longer" because I believe that when year 2001 cars start failing in 2010, people will simply throw them away. You can barely find a technician to cope with 2001 technology, much less find one ten years from now who is going to remember, and have tools and computers for, a decade-old technology propelled by ancient computer chips. Just try and find parts for ten year old computers. Good luck.

#276 of 279 by 66vette

Sep 08, 2001 (10:38 am)

What car today would be a classic years from now? Maybe the Viper and the Vette, but cars like the PT clunker are a joke. My sister thought i would like it because of my love for cars, when she bought hers i just bit my lip.
  Its nice to hear that some one like sideways68 just got their first muscle car, have fun with it, but remember you will get more great comments making it stock and beautiful, and raise the value, most of us looking for these kind of cars start deducting money because how much it will cost to get it stock again. My 10 year old loves the look of a stock muscle car, ive told him over the years how much more respect the stock cars got by the owners, i just paid a little over $900 dollars just for a radiator for my vette just to keep it stock, when i could have been cheep and got one for $269. Lets make them last! have fun!

#277 of 279 Line Monkeys?!?!?!?! by rea98d

Sep 09, 2001 (5:30 pm)

Never mind....I'm not gonna comment.

#278 of 279 by ndance

Sep 09, 2001 (6:22 pm)

>Never mind....I'm not gonna comment.
 
Wait, you just did...well, I won't respond....oops.

#279 of 279 Well.... by rea98d

Sep 16, 2001 (6:40 pm)

If you won't respond, neither will I.
 
D'oh!

Messages Page 28 of 28

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement