I'm an all-around gearhead, make no mistake about it. I like street rods, well-executed muscle cars, early 'vettes, european exotica, even British cars. I just know the limitations of the different genres, and the limitations of a 1970 Challenger in original form is that they had a build quality like they were put together by drunken whores in spaghetti factory and they absolutely refused to stop or turn. That's not elitism, unless the truth has become elite.
Believe it or not, I still find them intriguing for some reason, but mostly nostalgic. My neighbor in the '60s had a '66 Hemi Satellite that was a real sleeper, (looked like a stock bread-box car w/ wheel covers), and my buddy in HS in the early '70s bought a brand new AAR 'cuda, w/ 340 6-pack. When C&D tested the AAR 'cuda, the shifter busted loose from the transmission during 1/4 mile runs, (like something out of a cartoon), and the F/G hood fit so poorly that they wise-cracked that you could check the oil w/o lifting the hood.
I realise that since they have become so precious there are people who "re-engineer" them so that they stop, turn and do not fall apart as they drive down the road, but that is not what they were like "back in the day". They were POSs that went fast in a straight line, (although the 1/4 mile times for stock tired and suspension Hemi cars was slower than a new SUV today), and made a lot of noise. They were basically Harley panheads on 4 wheels.
A 1972 911 and a 1972 domestic car are so different in quality and execution that they might as well not be the same type of machine. The Porsche back then was truly built like a Swiss watch by great artisans, the reason that your car is so special Paul is because the opposite happens when people "re-engineer" an old 911. The end quality goes down, 10 times out of 10. You have a rare example of the real deal, not "improved" over the years by lesser artists.
