Around here (New England) there are a lot of ordinary people who are into old cars-there is a weekly (Saturdays) old car show at a shopping strip near where I live. Most of the cars are 1950’s and 1960’s models-lots of Mustangs, Camaros, etc., with the usal oddball cars thrown in (a few Studebakers and AMC models).
However, the decade of the 1970’s is conspicuosly absent-there are almost no cars ever shown.
Is this because the 70’s models were so hideous? Or was it the problems with the engines (advent of emission controls).
This seems to hold for foreign makes as well-you just don’t see a lot of these cars-anywhere.
Are most 1970’s cars ignored by collectors?
the '70s was the death of the muscle-car era, specifically 1971-1972. tightening emissions standards dropped hp levels substantially. Plus, the 5-mph bumper standard came in for 1973, so by the standards of the day cars did get uglier. Look at, say, a 1971 Cougar vs. a 1973, the bumper on the '73 is a cow-catcher in comparison.
The shining example of the emissions-choking of that era is the Cadillac V8. in 1976, their largest engine was a 500 cu. in. (8.2 liter) V8, and it had all of 190 horsepower.
Plus, the ones that hadn’t massively broken down rusted away long ago.
Who even *wants *a 70’s US car today? They were shit. The cars of the 80’s were even worse.
Sorry Elvis, at least the American manufactures had largely solved the rust problem by the 80’s. There was a day and night difference from the 71 Plymouth and 77 Chevy LUV that I owned that rusted through the fenders in a few years and the 81 Pontiac with no rust when I traded it in in 1992.
cars of the '50s and '60s were shit too. you’ve got to keep in mind that the people who are interested in these cars are interested because they’re the cars they grew up with.
further, people only want the “hot” cars of the day. You know, GTOs, Boss 302s, Road Runners, etc. Nobody gives a crap about the millions of 6-cylinder Camaros, Plymouth Satellites, Chevy Biscaynes, etc. All of those things have long since gone to the scrap heap.
There are absolutely people who still care about Plymouth Satellite. Or the AMC Marlin. Anything vintage will have people restoring it.
“nobody” was a generalization.
Basically, the double whammy of the clean air act taking effect and the energy crisis both striking at pretty much the same time. After 1974, cars were both hobbled by emissions regulations (or perhaps more accurately, by the big 3’s poor responses to them) and were becoming increasingly plasticy and gutless in attempts to improve economy. The “high end” cars became huge relatively slow luxury barges and even the supposed sports cars weren’t much better. There was a bit of a crisis in police departments as their pre-smog cars wore out and nothing they could buy new, including the CHP’s Mustang II’s, could come even close to keeping up with the 5-10 year old cars criminals were driving.
There’s a few 70’s cars that still have pretty good followings. 70’s pickup trucks and 4x4’s, which escaped most of the emissions stuff, are in some demand (although plenty of them are still working too). Some of the import cars from that period are becoming borderline classics too, especially the Datsun 240Z. A big part of why the Japanese kicked the big 3’s butts during this period was that they showed you could make cars that were fun to drive and reasonably efficient. The last of the air-cooled VW’s (sold as convertables until '79) are also fairly valuable because they started getting downright powerful fuel-injected engines while everyone else was de-tuning. A lot of the British roadsters you see on the road are also 70’s vintage, which also were seen as efficient fun back in their day and still are today.
I’ll disagree a bit with “jz…” in that '71 and '72 were still OK. The era of smog controls that signalled the end of the muscle car era began with 1973. The technology used was horrid. Certainly, the cost of insurance started to become a problem in the nearly 1970’s, but you could still buy a good performing muscle car in 1972.
Yeah, I see plenty of 71’s and 72’s, and then the drop-off occurs. It’s not just emissions and fuel mileage either, the quality of American cars dropped at a staggering rate between the mid 70’s and the 80’s. I bought my first Toyota in 1980, when the Chevy dealer had nothing on the lot, and couldn’t even deliver the car I ordered. Our cars were so bad by that time, that nobody wanted them.
no, it was horrible in the '50s and '60s too, it’s just that there weren’t any viable alternatives until the '80s.
““The only failure point was the decided and obvious lack of quality control. The 1957s started to rust within several months of being built. They leaked water on both sides of the windshield posts on all models. Torsion bars broke leaving cars looking like fallen over Towers of Pisa. Upholstery split, seams tore, seat springs popped through, paint flaked off in huge chunks, hubcaps wouldn’t stay on, rear view mirrors vibrated, door handles broke with ease, locks froze easily, and interior appliances fell off. However, in all fairness to Chrysler, they were NO worse than Ford or Chevrolet in that era. Ford quality was just as bad, if not worse.”
Yesterday I had the unique experience of driving a '76 Cadillac Castilion, a rare station wagon with the same 500ci/190hp engine. Not only was it a hideous car, it was way too heavy and underpowered to get away from the people who were slowing down to laugh at the monster. Luckily, it was on the way to a museum so hopefully no one will be forced to drive it again. To me, it is indicative of the vehicles of the 70s.
I have a 1977 Pontiac Sunbird (same thing as the Vega). It came with a little 4 cylinder engine.
But now it has a 350 V-8, and is much more fun!
I also had 1976 Gremlin with a straight six, with some work that was a fun car, too.
Why keep it stock? Get a body you like, and see what ya can do with it.
You’re right about that. I guess it was degrading all along. I still think it got worse in the 70’s. Increased use of plastic, less steel all around, hardball spares, shoddy construction, innovations that nobody wanted… And the viable alternatives were adding power options, sound systems, decent service, plus the better mileage and longer life of the car while US models just got crappier.
And yet, there’s a large school of people that believe classic cars are more reliable than newer cars. I think it’s because they somehow feel sturdier, with thicker sheet metal and doors. These are often the same people that complain that it’s harder to do routine maintenance on a modern car. “It’s all computers now! Get off my lawn!”
I see a lot of restored cars from the late 1970s and early 1980s in predominantly minority inner city neighborhoods. Just search for “box Chevy” or “donk”.
WTF does plastic have to do with anything? Were you even alive back then? with rare exception (e.g. the Vega) our cars in the '70s weren’t any worse than previous; it’s just that there was something credible to compare them to.
they weren’t, not by a long shot. even the worst GM car of the '90s was more reliable then any domestic car from the '50s through the '80s.
I have to agree. I have owned mostly GM from every decade since the 50’s, and driven and observed many others. When Ralph Nader took over auto design, cars went down hill in the 70’s, retaining all the problems of the 60’s and adding many more. Eventually the strength of American industry over came everything and the consumers started getting something for their money. The UAW also saw the handwriting on the wall. While it had its problems, the 92 Grand Am I had with a 5 speed and HO Quad 4 was a nifty device for under $20K. You didn’t read about it in Motor Trend. With the 4, it could run away and hide from any V-8 or 6 I ever drove while getting better millage. The Cavalier I am driving now won’t lay rubber in third gear, but serves my needs.
70’s cars in general had terrible quality and pretty bad performance even for the muscle cars compared to average sedans today. Some old-timers believe that their cars were much, much faster and better performing than they were as a general rule.
My 2010 Toyota Rav-4 Sport can destroy most muscle cars through made throughout history with a combination a 6.3 second Zero - 60 time + good handling at higher speeds on a curved course. If you crash, you have a good chance of living through it too.
Performance cars of the past were loud and seemed like a beast to handle but that was about all they had going for them. They had poor reliability and handling. Modern technology snuck up on them so that even regular passenger sedans of today can outperform many of them more safely and reliably. The only thing the old ones had going for them was looks and most of them lost that badly in the 70’s and 80’s.
Hey! My 1972 Grandville is a great car, in so many respects. Not modern respects, but by 1972 respects. Truly my only regret is that it’s not a convertible, which is so much more coveted.
Those are the same people that complain that you can’t get drunk and run over a mailbox at 20 miles per hour without needing all the safety equipment replaced (bumpers) like you could do with the all steel models. Ask them whatever happened to half of their original kids sometime. Funeral bills get pricey too.
There is no way in hell a sane person can say any car has been more reliable than it is today. They just didn’t drive that much and you don’t need to be a shade-tree mechanic if your car doesn’t have problems every week. I would think something is off if everyone in my neighborhood was out working on their cars every weekend but that is the way it was back them. Try getting 25+ MPH at 270 HP like my current vehicle does with no real maintenance scheduled for over 100,000 miles. Absurd! Most cars didn’t even make it that far back then.