70s Firebird

[A930Rocket]

Early Trans Am coupe or 70-72 Olds 442 vert for me.

[MMiller]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

I lust after a 1970 firebird trans Am with 400 ci in HO ram air IV and four speed.
370 under-rated hp.
in my yoot a friend's older brother had one but I never got a ride.
That's one I would really really want.
But, they didn't make many of them. It'd be lots easier and cheaper to get one with the 455 HO engine and almost the same performance.

Yup... I'm a fan of this gen. Friend in HS had one, cool then, cool now.

[manbridge 74]

And now the buzzkill...

Things that were irritating about these:
-Front ends can require frequent rebuilds if you aren’t the “grease it every oil change” type
-valve guides probably have improved but I recall them needing refreshed every 50K or so
-doors are super heavy and the handles are sub par pot metal
-rear axle not much fun on bumpy or off camber turns
-interior materials one grade up from cardboard
-generally heavier than needed, Poncho engines are all dimensionally the same size from late 60s to early 70s, even their 350 was a “big block.”

[manbridge 74]

Some cool things I recall:

The high compression big cam engines had their own sound due to air gap intake manifold design.(you almost needed an engine hoist to pull these off!)
Great instant torque
Headers with manual exhaust dump valves made for other worldly car guy approved racket

[ckelly78z]

One of my favorite cars I had just after high school graduation was a 1978 Formula Firebird (white, with a burgundy interior, and T-tops). Mine had the snowflake wheels, and a 305 automatic....still loads of fun, and fairly quick. Loved thge stance, the sounds, and the open air feel.

[KFC911]

^^^^ I am just devasted to hear this.... 78z ....

'70 Cougar w/ a 351 before I bought my '78 302 V8 CJ5 ....immediately ignored the warranty/emmissions bs....headers w/ sidepipes . With a few exceptions....by '78....disco also sucked

Used to day trade my new CJ5 with a hs friend's 78z....I did love that car too .

But not much else made in the USA in the late 70s...

[sammyg2]

Reminds me of my brother's '78 Z-28.
It took about a year for the cheapo door handle on the inside of the driver's door to break and maybe three years before the headliner started drooping down. it was always something with that car, it literally fell apart within 5 years of (hard) use.

My point?
Build quality of muscle cars sucked bigtime compared to nowadays, that's why these cars are mostly good from a nostalgia/more fun to own than to drive standpoint.

But I would still like to have one in the garage. I'm just not quite foolish enuuff to spend the money to get one.

[1990C4S]

I would choose a nice 996 with AC over any of those cars. YMMV.

[rattlsnak]

I had an itch a few years ago and bought a really nice 67 RS Camaro. That thing would burn rubber 1st through 3rd gear but you couldn't take a corner in it, and I had forgotten just how big those cars were! Today's tiny parking lot spaces and rush hour traffic really limited when/where I could drive it.

[Sooner or later]

A 67 is a couple inches smaller thwn a 2018 model. Same width and about 8" shorter than a Camry.

They are bigger than one would think

[pitargue]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

I lust after a 1970 firebird trans Am with 400 ci in HO ram air IV and four speed.
370 under-rated hp.
in my yoot a friend's older brother had one but I never got a ride.
That's one I would really really want.
But, they didn't make many of them. It'd be lots easier and cheaper to get one with the 455 HO engine and almost the same performance.

Yeah, like this. :-) . (Really miss that old Trans Am series)

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

A 67 is a couple inches smaller thwn a 2018 model. Same width and about 8" shorter than a Camry.

They are bigger than one would think

1967 firebird
189" long
72.6" wide
51.5" tall
~3250# weight

2019 Toyota Camry V6
192.7" long
72.4" wide
56.9" tall
3572# per toyota.com

A Toyota camry is not what I'd call a big car. How small would you expect a vehicle that could come with a 400ci V8 to be? Yeah, they are bigger than a 911 or a miata, but then Porsches have always been relatively diminutive, especially compared to the competition. And camaros, firebirds and mustangs weren't sports cars, they were pony cars.

My first car in 1986 was a 1965 Chevy Impala 2dr

213" long
79.5" wide
55.5" tall
~3600#

My first Porsche, an '88 911
169" long
65" wide
52" tall
~2800#

My current Porsche, '08 Boxster S
171.6" long
70.9" wide
50.9" tall
~3000#

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by masraum

1967 firebird
189" long
72.6" wide
51.5" tall
~3250# weight

2019 Toyota Camry V6
192.7" long
72.4" wide
56.9" tall
3572# per toyota.com

A Toyota camry is not what I'd call a big car. How small would you expect a vehicle that could come with a 400ci V8 to be? Yeah, they are bigger than a 911 or a miata, but then Porsches have always been relatively diminutive, especially compared to the competition. And camaros, firebirds and mustangs weren't sports cars, they were pony cars.

My first car in 1986 was a 1965 Chevy Impala 2dr

213" long
79.5" wide
55.5" tall
~3600#

My first Porsche, an '88 911
169" long
65" wide
52" tall
~2800#

My current Porsche, '08 Boxster S
171.6" long
70.9" wide
50.9" tall
~3000#

I was replying to Rattlsnak who stated how big a 67 Camaro was. I was saying it wasn't that big compared to today's avg cars.

Sorry for the confusion.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

I was replying to Rattlsnak who stated how big a 67 Camaro was. I was saying it wasn't that big compared to today's avg cars.

Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I missed his post.

Agreed, modern cars, in some ways have gotten silly big, and old cars, while not small, are not really as big as they seem in many cases.