2:55 Mustang II was a 1974 model year intro, not a 1973 model. Same goof at 10:07. 12:08, Monaco, named after the principality. 12:40: The 1st year Seville was a ‘76 model. Thanks for putting this together. Great pictures!
The Mustang II year was something I missed in editing that has annoyed me every since. However, according the American Automobile Encyclopedia, Cadillac produced just over 16,000 1975 model Sevilles on the Nova platform.
@@thehopelesscarguy Thanks for acknowledgement. I think the confusion with the Seville was that the first Seville was released in mid-year 1975, earlier than typical releases. But the first model year has always been considered a 1976 model. I appreciate the time and effort you put in to compiling the info and photos.
Thank you for the Nostalgia about the 70s I always appreciate the history I think your video was very very informative well done and I enjoyed the pictures of all the old Vehicles especially the red Torino my first car
3:53 I ADORE that land yacht. I bought a 1973 Chrysler Newport, which was not nearly as cool but it was just as big....almost...and I bought an 8-door 1970 Chrysler airport limousine for some weird reason when I was 24. OK OK OK I will stop. 🤣
Great 👍video ! My parents owned a 1976 Dodge Aspen and the down-sized 1982 Pontiac Parisienne ( Canadian ) . Great memories I remember most of these cars back in the day .
I'll admit I watched your vid for the groovy pinto estate wagon with its porthole and graphics, but was surprised how extensive this informative vid was. I was completely unfamiliar with your channel, but you now have another subscriber here! Cool T-shirt too, BTW. If you have any more info on the thumbnail pic, I'd love to hear more about it. Cheers
I watched your Pinto vid, and saw these models for the very first time. Thanks for the sweet nostalgia. Very much looking forward to binging on your channel.
You are too kind. The Pinto "Cruising Wagon" was introduced in 1977 and was delivery or panel wagon with a variety of graphics packages and they were not very common.
Our family's automotive purchases bookended the 70s....we purchased a 1970 Chevy Kingswood wagon and a 71 AMC Hornet coupe. Mom drove the wagon...Dad used the Hornet to commute to work and school. Every few years, he would consider replacing either one but it seemed that people he knew that were buying new cars seemed to have problems with reliability and performance. The two we had were decent runners and required minimal maintenance. Though the Hornet almost met its end in a pretty severe car accident. In 1979, he finally decided to replace both...a 1979 VW Rabbit which was built in PA and a 1979 Olds Cutlass Salon four door. Pretty much Peak Malaise at that point. The Rabbit was a nightmare to maintain. The Cutlass ran and ran and ran...and we sold it in 1991 with over 140K miles on it. The Rabbit overheated and nuked it's engine in 1987. Getting my license in 1981, the message was pretty much doom and gloom for automotive performance...by 1983 it seemed things were looking up and cars were getting more stylish....I usually think of the 83 Ford Thunderbird of being the first real 80s cars. Otherwise, I agree with your observations and it's a very comprehensive view of that era, that I remember all too well.
Thank you. I always enjoy hearing peoples experiences. You may find the soon to be posted (Next week I believe) look at horsepower in the 70s interesting.
I bought a 1965 Monaco as my first car when I was 17. Cost $550. 93,000 miles and a dent in the back. The owner (seller) pronounced it the same way you do, but the advertisements and all the local police departments pronounced it "MON-aco" and not "Mon-AH-co". I think that the Principality of Monaco may pronounce it that way, but Dodge owners and most police departments pronounce it with the emphasis on the first syllable. But, hey, it's a free country (or it was).
To be honest, growing up I didn't even realize the car and the principality were the same word. But as we like to say, Dee-troit is in Michigan, Duh-troit is in Orgun.
an entire vid should be done on the 66 - up catalytic smog battle. were you aware that congress forbid carmakers from collaborating on pollution controls? HCG might be the only you-tuber up for it. good job. also love how you don't pan the cars, like most others do, so if i want to screengrab a car, i don't have to fight the pan !!!! subscribed.
Thank you for clarifying so much that people these days normally get wrong about that decade. We always hear now that every seventies change was due to the oil crisis. It's almost never mentioned that the oil crisis occurred in 1973, a couple of years after performance cars had declined in popularity and after subcompacts had been introduced and luxury-trim cars had begun to be more favored. It's also important to note, I think, that there wasn't strong public opposition to the safety regulations and emissions regulations at the time. People really did accept them. There wasn't that strong anti-government attitude that would be expected in later decades. Plus, environmental issues were taken seriously at the time, much more so than today, as I recall it.
Thanks, and agreed. Even hot rodders, who were the were the biggest complainers were not against them, they just bemoaned the loss of stock performance, which was not as bad as people make it out to be.
I complained a lot in the 70s about what was happening to the cars but I would love to have them back. Yes, the pre-67 models are what I most covet generally speaking but things have gotten so bad that I would take the 70s rides back in a heartbeat.
@@thehopelesscarguy that is not an unreasonable cutoff. :D My current standard is early to mid 90s. I am driving my 1991 Colony Park primarily because I can't afford a 65.
That Pinto sedan delivery that was in the thumbnail, those cars were extremely rare and worth a lot money today. and the 2.3 L I four cylinder engine is still being used today. however the ones being used today are massaged to be more efficient. and that is because the foundation of the engine is very durable. it's one of best four cylinder engines ever produced.
Yeah. I friend of mine had Pinto delivery some 20 years ago, and I have a picture of it around here someplace. But it was on the Alaska coast and even then it was pretty well eaten up by rust.
Hilarious thumbnail. I knew a kid in ‘78 that had one of those. Porthole windows and air shocks with super wide wheels and tires in the rear. He even drove it off-road on some trails. 🤣
It was the most 70's image I had. I remember people buying those porthole windows and sticking them on everything, Air shocks were the cheap way to fit those wide tires on just about anything. I drove my of trails all the time.
@@thehopelesscarguy Mark 3 to Mark 5s, Tbirds, Toronados, LTDs, Granadas, Malibus, Coronet, just all over interesting. Maybe because all cars look a like now? Really all they need to.do is make a retro powertraij kit to make 70s cars as fuel efficient as 2020 cars. Otherwise modern cars arent inspiring
I think your analysis is good, it makes sense. Another thing to consider is corporations have owners, corporate presidents and boards serve the owners of the corporations and governments also are also incorporated and have owners. The people who run and own the the world are the people who own the debt of the world. So the real power behind the scenes are the owners of the world debt. These people create money out of thin-air, so their financing is a big scam, that has enslaved the world in debt they created.
I am a nostalgic car guy . I like classics like muscle cars but I love quirky little beaters too ... Like The Pacers , First Gen Vegas , Renault Le Car etc... to me its all great
The big block engines- specifically the 460 (385 engine), was never offered in the LTD II because of fuel consumption. The FE engines had been gone from the car lines (Torino, Galaxie, LTD) since 1971. Ford made the 400M motor the optional engine for the LTD II in 77 and 78- the 400M was a variant of the 351 Cleveland (the 335 series)- a small block, modified to allow a 4 inch bore and stroke. A nice hot rod motor but not a big block. ALSO- the Mustang II was released in September 1973, (normal release time for new models) but it was a 1974 model. The 73 Mustang looked exactly like the 71-72 Mustang with a slight change in the grille.
In 1985 I went from a 69 Torino Squire wagon to a 81 Ford Courier. Missed the power but liked the fuel savings. From that I went to an 83 Mazda B2000 Sundowner, a major upgrade with AM/FM, intermittent wipers and air conditioning. When rust got into the frame I traded it in for a new 1990 Dodge Dakota. Just got better from there. I've bought new cars ever since.
Grew up with a 69 Torino Squire with the hotter 351 and PS, air, power disc brakes & HD suspension. White & a blue interior. I had semi-seriously looked for one for years to no avail.
Thanks for a very informative video! I allways believed in the fuel crisis explenation but government regulations on emissions and safety is far more correct history.
Thanks this was very informative. U know your stuff 👍 there's only one thing you forgot to mention about the muscle cars is sales fell mostly because insurance companies put higher premiums on teenagers and young adults who wanted to insure them. Hence the lack of sales in the 70s. Some car companies got around that by selling what was called at the time junior supercars. Like the Plymouth Duster and Dodge Demon 340 for example or the Heavy Chevy Chevelles and Pontiac GT-37
Here where I live in New York, you could get a 1970s car and yank off all the emissions crap off of them!! It wasn't unheard of to guys like myself who ran headers and larger camshafts on the streets back then!! And this went on until well into the late 1980s!! So basically you'd get a neutered 454 or a 350 add some race parts to it, and you were right back into a "true muscle car"! Certainly you had to still run mufflers or you'd have every cop in the county hunting you!! BUT pulling up to a 1979 Mustang GT with a turbo four banger in it, and blowing his doors off, was not uncommon, after a "weekend of tuning" and about $1200 worth of parts from places like Summit Race Equipment!! I personally ran a 1974 Oldsmobile Omega with a Rocket 350 in it, and a larger camshaft in 1984 to 1986!! And it was a blast pulling along side a brand new IROC Z28 Camaro and see him in my rear view mirror as I left the stoplight!! Also at the same time (and the same car) there was a shop in my town that still did engine machine shop work, and I had the heads slightly worked on too, which allowed the motor to "breath" a little better!! Surprised more than one guy in a V6 Firebird or a stock Trans Am as well too!! And trust me even the later 5.0 Mustangs were no match for that car either!! The only thing it wouldn't past was a gas station......LOL!!! Or a tire shop! Hehehe
I think this was common in most parts of the country. At a time when modifying a new car meant more than a big muffler and giant rims and it didn't take a skill or fancy tools to ad real horsepower.
Not sure where you are getting your opinions from but I lived through those years. The muscle cars were much sought after, even if the plain cars outsold them. What killed them was the sudden increase in insurance rates emissions. Yes, gas milage was a factor. Just because the big cars sold, the cars had smaller and/or detuned cars to get more fuel efficiency. The monarch was a perfect example. The monarch appealed to people who wanted a smaller sedan that could still fit a family. It gave a smaller option to the larger and torino. All of those rebadged imported cars were brought in because the import car companies were better than the Americans at small fuel efficient cars.
@@thehopelesscarguy The difference is you said the muscle cars died off because they were not wanted. They were wanted. First the huge insurance rate increases took a huge hit to muscle cars, then, the emission requirements killed them off, not lack of desire by the public.
@@jked7463 There is a difference between wanting one enough to put a poster on your wall, and wanting one enough to put your money down, which people didn't. People may have lusted after them, but they were expensive to purchase and own and not very practical. Popular in the public eye, sure, but not in relation to actual sales.
@@thehopelesscarguy We can go back and forth in perpetuity. Yes, muscle cars were always known to be a niche market. No, they were never meant to sell in great numbers. One of their roles was to be a halo car to draw buyers into the sales floor for the lesser models. But the muscle car option packages sold better than expected until the insurance rates went up....and up....and up. Then sales went down....and down....and down. So I guess if we want to finalize this string we can say we were both right.
@@jked7463 Theres a reason insurance rates on cars with higher power ratings went up. Insurance companies are not in the business of losing money. Too many teenagers and 20 somethings wrapping cars around telephone poles etc. Plus muscle cars did one thing well. They were a one trick pony. Go fast in a straight line and that's it. They handled like crap. But so did just about everything else Detriot built. Braking was sub par. But then a lot of the handling issues could be blamed on the tires. In the 1960s DeLprean wanted to build a two seater using the Poncho SOHC inline six. With an eye on a twin cam upgrade and a multi valve head. GM corporate ie Chevy killed it because it might have taken sales from the Corvette. They could have beat the 240Z to the market.
The Seville shared the 'hard points' of the Nova but almost nothing else. The 1976 Seville looked nothing like a Nova, and the style has aged really well. It was a very clean and modern looking car for the mid-1970s. The Lincoln Versailles, on the other hand, looked like a Granada that had been vomited on by a very ill JC Whitney catalog. The only redeeming quality of the Versailles was the disc brake equipped rear end. The rear end from the Versailles could, with a bit of help from a torch, be installed into the 1965-1973 Mustang. For years a Versailles to Mustang rear end swap was the only practical way to get rear disc brake on the the first gen Mustangs.
@@thehopelesscarguy I think they just weren't going to let Ford one-up them. GM took one look at the Versailles and thought, "Wow! Americans will buy crap like this? We can build something even crappier. Behold, 'Cimarron by Cadillac'! " That's what it was called, not Cadillac Cimarron.
I was born in 1969, so I don't have many memories of car lots in the 70's. Can you imagine driving down the Blvd seeing a line of NEW muscle cars ??? They didn't sell well and were impractical. Sounds comedic now.
Expensive performance options with limited offerings that raise your insurance premiums has always been a hard sell, particularly when everyone is offering it on nearly every model.
Space and Rockets dominated 50's imagination, youth music and television 60's, architecture and clothing 70s, computers and electronics 80s. Car design and marketing was affected by those trends.
@@mpetersen6 Well, must are pretty shapeless once you get past the headlights. And electric cars are the plastic bags grocery bags of the auto industry.
The really CRAZY PART IS A 1973 Nova was considered a "compact car" and the 1971 Pinto and 1973 Vega were considered as "sub compact cars"....BUT think about how big these cars actually were!! OR to take it a step further a 1988 Ford Taurus was considered a "mid sized car" which would have been the same class as a GTO, Chevelle or Fairlane of the 1960!!! BUT the 1988 Taurus was slightly smaller than a 1973 Chevy Nova and had less horsepower! Equally a Ford Focus or a Chevy Cobalt today is considered a "compact car" but it is much smaller than a Nova, Omega, Ventura, or Apollo (the Buick Apollo/ Skylark) which was considered a compact car in the 1970s!! And going even further, the same Ford Focus or Chevy Spark or Cobalt is as small or smaller than a Pinto or Vega which in the 1970s was considered a "sub compact"!! What kills me the most is the fact that in the Nova or even a Chevelle or any of the older cars for that matter you could order different engine and transmission options!! You could get a four speed manual transmission in almost anything, likewise you could order a larger more powerful engine in a car that was a "smaller car"!! Like the Nova could be ordered with a V8 engine and a four speed stick shift!! You can't do that in cars today!! And I used to DREAM of owning a V6 1980s car with a standard shift transmission in it, but nobody would build one by the time 1984 rolled around (two years after I graduated high school that is)!! And a kid like me had the damnedest luck at car dealerships because nobody would sell me a Mustang or a Camaro, and a Corvette was totally out of my price range!! In fact I looked much younger than I actually was in those days!! At the age of 27 I had more than one car dealer tell me "Bring your parents with you next time!" as he assumed I was only 15 years old, when I was actually married with two kids of my own!!!
When OPEC reduced oil production and export in 1973 fuel prices soared (realtively speaking). This COMBINED with safety and emissions regs together forced automakers to reduce the size and weight of their cars. They also introduced new small size cars such as the Chevette and partnering up with foreign car manufacturers - GM with rebranded Toyota Corollas, Chrysler with Mitsubishi and Ford with Mazda. The fuel crisis was NOT A MYTH ! ! ! !
I didn't say the fuel crises was a myth. The myth is that Muscle cars went away because of the fuel crisis and small cars arrived because of it as both happened before 1973. The Chevette was developed with GM's European Opel Division, which GM had been import small cars from since the 60's.
Emissions were certainly a big factor. But there were other factors in play. Riding fuel costs cert as only didn't help. With gas doubling in price (still cheap compared to other countries though) people with long commutes began to consider other options. I lived through the 70s (b 1953). There were domestic cars that offered acceptable fuel mileage for the era. Every manufacturer offered cars that got 25 mpg or better on the highway. And many of the imports really didn't do that much better. But what really killed the US car industry IMO was the poor build quality along with the disastrous reputations of cars like the Pinto and the Vega.
Quality certainly declined, with recall records being broken every few years. Not helped by constant cost cutting and new products rushed to market. And this was not unique to the U.S. industry, but where U.S. and European brands were getting worse, the Japanese brands started bad but were improving. A change the European market felt almost immediately, not only loosing the majority of their U.S. market share, but much of it in their home markets. Something that would take another decade or two to happen in the U.S. . Of course many of the Japanese brands today are like the American brand then, being carried by a dated reputation. Not that there is much of a threat for them to worry about.
@@thehopelesscarguy The US auto industry along with a lot of its customers had their collective heads stuck in the period from 1955 to 1968 or so. The warning signs were there but the Big 3 were blind to them. Of the Big Three Ford may have been the most adaptable but that's not saying much. GM was tied to the customer sales ladder. Chrysler, well Crysler was just dysfunctional IMO. Poor little old AMC saw the wave coming but simply bet the farm on the wrong product. What they should have developed was a minivan. The Europeans aside from the Germans simply were building crap. But the Germans were also very expensive to repair. And some of their parts were common repairs. BMWs used to have reputation for eating water pumps. Fiats and Alfas. Does fragile work. The Brits. Some interesting sports cars but most people prefer to drive their cars than wrench on them. The French. Really. I'll grant the Swedes made some decent cars.
I think government regulations move hand in hand with private actions, except for pollution control. People wanted smaller cars after gasoline prices when up.
@@thehopelesscarguy True. There's even an economics study / model that found Covid-19 restrictions by government were reactive not proactive (consumers would have stayed at home anyway). see: privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3631180
Some BS in video... by 1975 full size cars weren't selling well but still being produced in big numbers and thus selling at a fraction of their sticker price to move them... could buy most full size cars for $2K - 4K... but small piece of crap cars like Dodge Colts were $6K !!!
MYTH of the fuel crisis! Not one but *two* (1973 and 78-9) fuel crises were grim, shocking realities. Violence even erupted in competition for the limited gas available. BE a car guy; give real info.
I have a sort of affection for the 1973 LTD because my dad started dating my mom again and let me use his LTD wagon when I didn't have my own car yet. He was a Ford man forever after a brief stint as a Chevy owner in the 1940's and my mom said he said that they had terrible transmissions....but that's because she said he ruined a tranny in their 1947 by pushing it stuck in reverse, forward. Now I think that was just dumb, and like a lot of things your mom says about your dad, I don't know....but when he bought a 1959 Ford and my parents divorced (before I was even a gleam in his eye) my mom never trusted Fords because she had endless problems because some dumb mechanic (or sneaky one) sold her the wrong sort of battery for a Ford (you must know the poles are the opposite on a Ford battery as compared to a GM or Chrysler) and she had to return to the shop again and again (she was very cute, if that matters) and finally she said "I'll never buy Ford or GM again" and switched to Mopar. Her last car (and the only new car she ever owned and she bought with her own money as a secretary) was a 6-cyl 1973 Plymouth Gold Duster. Only new car I've ever been in, to this day. I have a showroom restored 1971 Olds 442 convertible, though....
Wonderful cruise thru a forgettable automotive decade. 👍 I'm 73, been a car nut since I was 8. In retrospect the majority of American cars from the 70s are terrible vehicles: too big, too heavy, too blimped out, too many goofy roof-window designs, too much velour, too many padded roofs, often very poor construction and rust prevention, and worst of all, some of the worst engine technology of all time. In an effort to reduce emissions and run on unleaded fuel, the drivability, performance and gas mileage suffered. It was not until the universal adoption of computer controlled fuel injection that engines became cleaner and performance and fuel economy also increased. Things did improve a bit with the 1977-78 downsizing that occured with many brands. Look on the streets and car shows: about the only 70s cars you will see are some of the pony cars, Corvettes, Datsun Z cars, and a "performance" car that probably has had an engine swap. Note: in 1975 the small block under the hood of that year’s Corvette had only 165 horsepower. And all those never ending names that the auto companies came up with and are now gone and forgotten. When was the last time anyone has seen on the street a Fairmont, Monarch, Hornet, Matador, Cordoba, Coronet, Duster, Granada, Torino, Pinto, Vega, Skyhawk, LaSabre, Regal, Cutlass, Ventura, Gremlin, Pacer, Aspen, Volare, Mariner, Scamp, Montego, and dozens of other names all but since forgotten and gone to the crusher. You are much more likely to see cars from the 60s at car shows than ones from the 70s. Best cars from the 70s weren't cars, they were the nifty compact trucks, that I wish the companies would bring back. The new Maverick truck is hardly a compact; four doors, what's with that? 🙄
Computer controlled fuel injection may very well be the most significant improvement to the internal combustion engine since . . . . maybe the fuel pump. Mechanically there is very little difference between 60s and 70s cars, it is what they bolted to those parts that makes the difference. Careful throwing old names like that around, you might encourage someone to slap it on a new SUV, or as they did with a Maverick, a pseudo pickup thing.
You might want to do your research a little better, because I still own a 1976 Mercury Monarch Gran Ghia 2 door and it's a very good car. and it along with the Lincoln Versailles, and Lincoln mark four, and mark five, were the only passenger cars to have four wheel disc brakes. the only other car to have four wheel disc brakes was the Corvette. the Monarch that I have is in very good condition. and still runs great dispite it has a lot of miles on it. and if I continue to keep decent maintenance intervals on it. I can see being able to clock up a lot more miles on it. these cars are often mistaken for a Granada. but the Monarch is quite a bit different than the Granada. this one has the previously mentioned four wheel disc brakes. but it also has hydraboost system, and the larger 110 amp alternator, 302ci 5.0 L Windsor small block, and a C 4s transmission, and a nine inch posi trac rear end, and bucket seats, and a floor console, it's a real survivor. but it's not the only one there are a lot of seventies and eighties model, vehicles from GM and Ford still on the road. however Chrysler corporation took a big hit because of their lean burn system. it was on almost all their vehicles and it was a complete fail. I used to do pretty good changing those systems to regular systems. Chrysler even knew there was a problem with them. because they made kits to do away with the learn burn system. that a person could purchase from the part's department at Chrysler, Plymouth, and Dodge, dealership's. hell I still have a 1978 Ford F150 and a 1985 Bronco II. that I have driven for well over twenty years without having to do anything to it. with the exception of regular maintenance repairs. but it's starting to show some signs, that it's going need some work done on it in the not to distant future. there's a lot of those vehicles that could be and are still on the road. however in this current society it's a throw away world. and a lot of these vehicle met their end long before they should have.
@@musicauthority7828 Glad you like your 76 Monarch with its 134 hp 5.0L engine. If you drive low and slow you may be getting 18 mpg. You like Ford products so may I suggest a lightly used Ford Fusion hybrid: avg 42 mpg and 195 hp. 🙂
@@rizzlerazzleuno4733 Your wrong the Monarch is actually fairly fast, I had a 1974 Camaro and the Mercury would easily out run it in fact there was no contest. however with the posi trac rear it can be a little bit of a handful it gets sort of squirrelly. the Camaro looked a little nicer because it had new paint. but it was a dog and the doors where falling off it. and it would have been a real headache to fix it. so I made the right decision and got rid of it. the Mercury is still got it's original paint and looks pretty good. I'm pretty happy with it I have some plans for it. I already have a Borg Warner T-5 for it and I'm looking into a Ford motorsports 5.0 crate engine for it. but I have some other projects that I have to take care of first. Oh I have a Focus and I can't stand it. I think I will stick with older Fords new vehicles are garbage.
I mark 1973 as the beginning of the doldrums for the US automotive industry. As pointed out in the video, the CAFE standards and emissions requirements reduced compression ratios, added parasitic equipment -- and thus reduced performance. Hence, you had engines with 400+ CID putting out a paltry 200 horsepower -- which is as much as my '97 Volvo 850GLT, which has less than half the displacement. And most American cars were stupid-looking and cheap in those days, with increasing amounts of plastic inside and out, awkward proportions, topped off with fake wire wheel-covers. Detroit did not make a comeback in quality and performance until the early '90s. The only good vehicles made in the USA during that period were the police models and trucks -- probably because they did not suffer from government restrictions as much.
Lets not forget that these 400+ CID engines had torque ratings nearly twice their horsepower ratings which is not something the smaller modern engines can say and people did you family cars for towing in those days. U-haul used to rent a tow hitch that would clamp on to the bumper of any car of that period. As far as a come back in quality, I don't know that they have. In those days when people talked quality it was in reference to durability and these days it seems to be all based around fit and finish.
@@thehopelesscarguy Totally agree with your second paragraph. We do have production cars with enormous horsepower today, even standard family haulers are pushing 250-300 hp. To get that power and still fulfill emissions regulations they are so fiddly though. Sensors that can shut the entire engine down are crazy. I mean sure, give us the warning and let us know there's a problem, but why shut the whole thing down when most of the time it's probably just a bad sensor? And even if it's not, leave it on the shoulders of the owner to decide whether or not to keep driving and ruin the car. They treat people like morons. Maybe a lot of them are and that's why things are like this now? And then you have the problem of everything being packed into the engine bay with such a close tolerance that you have to take many unassociated parts off just to perform basic maintenance like changing spark plugs. Hell I own a car in which you can't even check the transmission fluid, it's a closed system and if you have a problem you're supposed to just take it to the dealer. But what if the problem is a simple slow leak? What if that car is 12 or 15 years old and you don't want to pay a dealer 1000++ dollars to diagnose and the problem? And what if they don't even want to work on an old car so they quote you a stupidly high price just to make you buy a new car? Thank god for TH-cam lol. At least we have this place where people can share tricks and fixes to keep these kinds of cars on the road. And also thank god for cheap Chinese knock off parts too. If it wasn't for Rockauto I don't think we'd have nearly as many 02-09 cars on the road as we do.
@@jokerzwild00 It does seem like manufacturers are trying to make cars more disposable. I don't understand why they make cars intentionally harder to work on. I have a car with a aftermarket transmission dipstick and a "universal" tool for checking transmission fluid so they can save a dollar a car and have them fail sooner from lack of maintenance. I can assure you it isn't getting me into new car dealerships.
@@jokerzwild00 It is sad to think that a V-6 Camry can out drag and out handle the original GTO but it still somehow manages to be more boring while it is doing it. I have one car I was able to buy a transmission dipstick for, although it didn't come with one and I've bought a "universal tool" so I can check another. I think automotive engineers should be required to attempt basic maintenance on the cars they helped develop after they go into production. My 2003 Ford Ranger has 2 dash lights still working. The bulbs are 89 cents a pair, but you have to pull the dash out to replace them. I was quoted $700 to have it done for me. To replace dash light. My 59 Plymouth has a 40 pound radio with vacuum tubes but I can still reach all the way up to the dash vents without removing anything. The improvement is what now?
@@thehopelesscarguy In most '59 Plymouths you can reach from the rocker panel all the way to the top of the dashboard without removing anything if the rust holes line up... ; )
I like the videos it's really nice but where you get this Cadillac Seville is basically a Chevy Nova the Cadillac Seville is a far better car than the piece of s*** Chevy Nova that's a larger body cell I think you mean a space more in a Chevy Caprice and Impala
Thanks. The Sevilles K Platform started with the Novas X Platform, reinforced it and extended its wheelbase 3 1/2 inches. It shared the Novas sub-frames and Chevys 350 V-8.
2:55 Mustang II was a 1974 model year intro, not a 1973 model. Same goof at 10:07. 12:08, Monaco, named after the principality. 12:40: The 1st year Seville was a ‘76 model. Thanks for putting this together. Great pictures!
The Mustang II year was something I missed in editing that has annoyed me every since. However, according the American Automobile Encyclopedia, Cadillac produced just over 16,000 1975 model Sevilles on the Nova platform.
@@thehopelesscarguy Thanks for acknowledgement. I think the confusion with the Seville was that the first Seville was released in mid-year 1975, earlier than typical releases. But the first model year has always been considered a 1976 model. I appreciate the time and effort you put in to compiling the info and photos.
@@mattskustomkreations Thank you.
1st photo of Mustang II is not 1974 with the recessed grille. More pushed out version for the V-8 was later.
Great overview and interesting take on what was actually happening to the auto market in the 1970s.
Thanks.
Thank you for the Nostalgia about the 70s I always appreciate the history I think your video was very very informative well done and I enjoyed the pictures of all the old Vehicles especially the red Torino my first car
Thanks
The 70s were no where near as neat as people think.
Very cool video Sir I was born in '72 and remember these cars, my Dad had Lincoln Mark 5 in the 80's from his uncle.
Very cool!
1970 here, I remember most of these.
3:53 I ADORE that land yacht. I bought a 1973 Chrysler Newport, which was not nearly as cool but it was just as big....almost...and I bought an 8-door 1970 Chrysler airport limousine for some weird reason when I was 24.
OK OK OK I will stop. 🤣
Feel free to go on. Sharing is what its all about.
Great 👍video ! My parents owned a 1976 Dodge Aspen and the down-sized 1982 Pontiac Parisienne ( Canadian ) . Great memories I remember most of these cars back in the day .
Thank you.
Extremely nice photos.
Glad you enjoyed
great video... excellent timeline of how it went back then
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed.
What a blast from the past! All the cars I grew up with in the late 70’s and early 80’s!
Glad you enjoyed.
I'll admit I watched your vid for the groovy pinto estate wagon with its porthole and graphics, but was surprised how extensive this informative vid was. I was completely unfamiliar with your channel, but you now have another subscriber here! Cool T-shirt too, BTW. If you have any more info on the thumbnail pic, I'd love to hear more about it. Cheers
I watched your Pinto vid, and saw these models for the very first time. Thanks for the sweet nostalgia. Very much looking forward to binging on your channel.
You are too kind. The Pinto "Cruising Wagon" was introduced in 1977 and was delivery or panel wagon with a variety of graphics packages and they were not very common.
Our family's automotive purchases bookended the 70s....we purchased a 1970 Chevy Kingswood wagon and a 71 AMC Hornet coupe. Mom drove the wagon...Dad used the Hornet to commute to work and school. Every few years, he would consider replacing either one but it seemed that people he knew that were buying new cars seemed to have problems with reliability and performance. The two we had were decent runners and required minimal maintenance. Though the Hornet almost met its end in a pretty severe car accident.
In 1979, he finally decided to replace both...a 1979 VW Rabbit which was built in PA and a 1979 Olds Cutlass Salon four door. Pretty much Peak Malaise at that point. The Rabbit was a nightmare to maintain. The Cutlass ran and ran and ran...and we sold it in 1991 with over 140K miles on it. The Rabbit overheated and nuked it's engine in 1987.
Getting my license in 1981, the message was pretty much doom and gloom for automotive performance...by 1983 it seemed things were looking up and cars were getting more stylish....I usually think of the 83 Ford Thunderbird of being the first real 80s cars. Otherwise, I agree with your observations and it's a very comprehensive view of that era, that I remember all too well.
Thank you. I always enjoy hearing peoples experiences. You may find the soon to be posted (Next week I believe) look at horsepower in the 70s interesting.
I bought a 1965 Monaco as my first car when I was 17. Cost $550. 93,000 miles and a dent in the back. The owner (seller) pronounced it the same way you do, but the advertisements and all the local police departments pronounced it "MON-aco" and not "Mon-AH-co". I think that the Principality of Monaco may pronounce it that way, but Dodge owners and most police departments pronounce it with the emphasis on the first syllable. But, hey, it's a free country (or it was).
To be honest, growing up I didn't even realize the car and the principality were the same word. But as we like to say, Dee-troit is in Michigan, Duh-troit is in Orgun.
an entire vid should be done on the 66 - up catalytic smog battle. were you aware that congress forbid carmakers from collaborating on pollution controls?
HCG might be the only you-tuber up for it. good job. also love how you don't pan the cars, like most others do,
so if i want to screengrab a car, i don't have to fight the pan !!!! subscribed.
Something to put on my to do list.
I have panned in a few videos, but I to like to see the whole car.
I honestly think that the US Congress wanted the American automotive industry to fail.
Thank you for clarifying so much that people these days normally get wrong about that decade. We always hear now that every seventies change was due to the oil crisis. It's almost never mentioned that the oil crisis occurred in 1973, a couple of years after performance cars had declined in popularity and after subcompacts had been introduced and luxury-trim cars had begun to be more favored. It's also important to note, I think, that there wasn't strong public opposition to the safety regulations and emissions regulations at the time. People really did accept them. There wasn't that strong anti-government attitude that would be expected in later decades. Plus, environmental issues were taken seriously at the time, much more so than today, as I recall it.
Thanks, and agreed. Even hot rodders, who were the were the biggest complainers were not against them, they just bemoaned the loss of stock performance, which was not as bad as people make it out to be.
I complained a lot in the 70s about what was happening to the cars but I would love to have them back. Yes, the pre-67 models are what I most covet generally speaking but things have gotten so bad that I would take the 70s rides back in a heartbeat.
There was a time that I insisted I wouldn't buy anything newer than 1973. Or maybe I just dreamt that.
@@thehopelesscarguy that is not an unreasonable cutoff. :D My current standard is early to mid 90s. I am driving my 1991 Colony Park primarily because I can't afford a 65.
@@mkshffr4936 I understand, I have a 91 country squire project myself.
That Pinto sedan delivery that was in the thumbnail, those cars were extremely rare and worth a lot money today. and the 2.3 L I four cylinder engine is still being used today. however the ones being used today are massaged to be more efficient. and that is because the foundation of the engine is very durable. it's one of best four cylinder engines ever produced.
Yeah. I friend of mine had Pinto delivery some 20 years ago, and I have a picture of it around here someplace. But it was on the Alaska coast and even then it was pretty well eaten up by rust.
Hilarious thumbnail. I knew a kid in ‘78 that had one of those. Porthole windows and air shocks with super wide wheels and tires in the rear. He even drove it off-road on some trails. 🤣
It was the most 70's image I had.
I remember people buying those porthole windows and sticking them on everything,
Air shocks were the cheap way to fit those wide tires on just about anything.
I drove my of trails all the time.
Pretty nice looking cars
Depending on what you are into.
@@thehopelesscarguy actually all of them more or.less are fascinating.
@@broncomcbane6382 As time goes by.
@@thehopelesscarguy Mark 3 to Mark 5s, Tbirds, Toronados, LTDs, Granadas, Malibus, Coronet, just all over interesting. Maybe because all cars look a like now? Really all they need to.do is make a retro powertraij kit to make 70s cars as fuel efficient as 2020 cars. Otherwise modern cars arent inspiring
@@broncomcbane6382 That is what makes restomods great. 70's cars are not as heavy as they look so modern powertrain makes a quick, economical old car.
Great video
Thanks!
I think your analysis is good, it makes sense.
Another thing to consider is corporations have owners, corporate presidents and boards serve the owners of the corporations and governments also are also incorporated and have owners. The people who run and own the the world are the people who own the debt of the world. So the real power behind the scenes are the owners of the world debt.
These people create money out of thin-air, so their financing is a big scam, that has enslaved the world in debt they created.
Now that is a rabbit hole.
I am a nostalgic car guy . I like classics like muscle cars but I love quirky little beaters too ... Like The Pacers , First Gen Vegas , Renault Le Car etc... to me its all great
Same here. I'd drive a Tatra if I ran across one.
Too bad you didn't include a photo of the Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon.
The result of not planning thumbnails in advance.
The big block engines- specifically the 460 (385 engine), was never offered in the LTD II because of fuel consumption. The FE engines had been gone from the car lines (Torino, Galaxie, LTD) since 1971. Ford made the 400M motor the optional engine for the LTD II in 77 and 78- the 400M was a variant of the 351 Cleveland (the 335 series)- a small block, modified to allow a 4 inch bore and stroke. A nice hot rod motor but not a big block.
ALSO- the Mustang II was released in September 1973, (normal release time for new models) but it was a 1974 model. The 73 Mustang looked exactly like the 71-72 Mustang with a slight change in the grille.
You are correct.
In 1985 I went from a 69 Torino Squire wagon to a 81 Ford Courier. Missed the power but liked the fuel savings. From that I went to an 83 Mazda B2000 Sundowner, a major upgrade with AM/FM, intermittent wipers and air conditioning. When rust got into the frame I traded it in for a new 1990 Dodge Dakota. Just got better from there. I've bought new cars ever since.
Intermittent wipers are an overlooked convenience, like auto cancelling turn signals. We don't realize they are there until they are not.
Grew up with a 69 Torino Squire with the hotter 351 and PS, air, power disc brakes & HD suspension. White & a blue interior. I had semi-seriously looked for one for years to no avail.
Thanks for a very informative video! I allways believed in the fuel crisis explenation but government regulations on emissions and safety is far more correct history.
The fuel crisis did have an impact but it wasn't nearly as big of an impact as people think.
You're driving me crazy here! The Maverick was not shortened for the two door version. It was stretched in 1971 for the 4 door version.
The 4-door carried on with the Falcons 110. in WB.
Wasn’t the Mustang changed in 74 rather than 73? Also at 12:55 the Cadillac is a Sedan deVille not a Fleetwood..
Right! Mustang was a NOTHING car after '74! Had Caddys...they were all not memorable after 1976.
You are so right, I don't know how I missed that in editing.
First Mustang II's prolly went on sale August of 1973... as '74 models... Mustang II's were the best looking Mustangs...
Thanks this was very informative. U know your stuff 👍 there's only one thing you forgot to mention about the muscle cars is sales fell mostly because insurance companies put higher premiums on teenagers and young adults who wanted to insure them. Hence the lack of sales in the 70s. Some car companies got around that by selling what was called at the time junior supercars. Like the Plymouth Duster and Dodge Demon 340 for example or the Heavy Chevy Chevelles and Pontiac GT-37
Insurance companies and performance cars have never really gone well together.
Here where I live in New York, you could get a 1970s car and yank off all the emissions crap off of them!! It wasn't unheard of to guys like myself who ran headers and larger camshafts on the streets back then!! And this went on until well into the late 1980s!! So basically you'd get a neutered 454 or a 350 add some race parts to it, and you were right back into a "true muscle car"! Certainly you had to still run mufflers or you'd have every cop in the county hunting you!! BUT pulling up to a 1979 Mustang GT with a turbo four banger in it, and blowing his doors off, was not uncommon, after a "weekend of tuning" and about $1200 worth of parts from places like Summit Race Equipment!! I personally ran a 1974 Oldsmobile Omega with a Rocket 350 in it, and a larger camshaft in 1984 to 1986!! And it was a blast pulling along side a brand new IROC Z28 Camaro and see him in my rear view mirror as I left the stoplight!! Also at the same time (and the same car) there was a shop in my town that still did engine machine shop work, and I had the heads slightly worked on too, which allowed the motor to "breath" a little better!! Surprised more than one guy in a V6 Firebird or a stock Trans Am as well too!! And trust me even the later 5.0 Mustangs were no match for that car either!! The only thing it wouldn't past was a gas station......LOL!!! Or a tire shop! Hehehe
I think this was common in most parts of the country. At a time when modifying a new car meant more than a big muffler and giant rims and it didn't take a skill or fancy tools to ad real horsepower.
Not sure where you are getting your opinions from but I lived through those years. The muscle cars were much sought after, even if the plain cars outsold them. What killed them was the sudden increase in insurance rates emissions. Yes, gas milage was a factor. Just because the big cars sold, the cars had smaller and/or detuned cars to get more fuel efficiency. The monarch was a perfect example. The monarch appealed to people who wanted a smaller sedan that could still fit a family. It gave a smaller option to the larger and torino. All of those rebadged imported cars were brought in because the import car companies were better than the Americans at small fuel efficient cars.
I also lived through those years and you didn't really contradict anything I said.
@@thehopelesscarguy The difference is you said the muscle cars died off because they were not wanted. They were wanted. First the huge insurance rate increases took a huge hit to muscle cars, then, the emission requirements killed them off, not lack of desire by the public.
@@jked7463 There is a difference between wanting one enough to put a poster on your wall, and wanting one enough to put your money down, which people didn't. People may have lusted after them, but they were expensive to purchase and own and not very practical. Popular in the public eye, sure, but not in relation to actual sales.
@@thehopelesscarguy We can go back and forth in perpetuity. Yes, muscle cars were always known to be a niche market. No, they were never meant to sell in great numbers. One of their roles was to be a halo car to draw buyers into the sales floor for the lesser models. But the muscle car option packages sold better than expected until the insurance rates went up....and up....and up. Then sales went down....and down....and down. So I guess if we want to finalize this string we can say we were both right.
@@jked7463
Theres a reason insurance rates on cars with higher power ratings went up. Insurance companies are not in the business of losing money. Too many teenagers and 20 somethings wrapping cars around telephone poles etc. Plus muscle cars did one thing well. They were a one trick pony. Go fast in a straight line and that's it. They handled like crap. But so did just about everything else Detriot built. Braking was sub par. But then a lot of the handling issues could be blamed on the tires.
In the 1960s DeLprean wanted to build a two seater using the Poncho SOHC inline six. With an eye on a twin cam upgrade and a multi valve head. GM corporate ie Chevy killed it because it might have taken sales from the Corvette. They could have beat the 240Z to the market.
The Seville shared the 'hard points' of the Nova but almost nothing else. The 1976 Seville looked nothing like a Nova, and the style has aged really well. It was a very clean and modern looking car for the mid-1970s. The Lincoln Versailles, on the other hand, looked like a Granada that had been vomited on by a very ill JC Whitney catalog. The only redeeming quality of the Versailles was the disc brake equipped rear end. The rear end from the Versailles could, with a bit of help from a torch, be installed into the 1965-1973 Mustang. For years a Versailles to Mustang rear end swap was the only practical way to get rear disc brake on the the first gen Mustangs.
I think the success of the Seville encouraged Cadillac to get lazier.
@@thehopelesscarguy I think they just weren't going to let Ford one-up them. GM took one look at the Versailles and thought, "Wow! Americans will buy crap like this? We can build something even crappier. Behold, 'Cimarron by Cadillac'! " That's what it was called, not Cadillac Cimarron.
@@MrSloika Most nicely equipped Cavalier you could buy.
I was born in 1969, so I don't have many memories of car lots in the 70's. Can you imagine driving down the Blvd seeing a line of NEW muscle cars ??? They didn't sell well and were impractical. Sounds comedic now.
Expensive performance options with limited offerings that raise your insurance premiums has always been a hard sell, particularly when everyone is offering it on nearly every model.
Space and Rockets dominated 50's imagination, youth music and television 60's, architecture and clothing 70s, computers and electronics 80s. Car design and marketing was affected by those trends.
Absolutely. So what do we blame for todays cars?
@@thehopelesscarguy
Jelly Belly 😁 Cars today on average are pretty ugly imo.
@@mpetersen6 Well, must are pretty shapeless once you get past the headlights. And electric cars are the plastic bags grocery bags of the auto industry.
Remember watching old Streets of San Francisco, Hawaii 5-0 , or any cop show from the 70's and how BIG the cars were ?????
If you believed TV the LTD was the cop car of choice.
Another thing that killed the muscle cars was high insurance surcharges for large engines and high horse power ratings.
yep
The really CRAZY PART IS A 1973 Nova was considered a "compact car" and the 1971 Pinto and 1973 Vega were considered as "sub compact cars"....BUT think about how big these cars actually were!! OR to take it a step further a 1988 Ford Taurus was considered a "mid sized car" which would have been the same class as a GTO, Chevelle or Fairlane of the 1960!!! BUT the 1988 Taurus was slightly smaller than a 1973 Chevy Nova and had less horsepower! Equally a Ford Focus or a Chevy Cobalt today is considered a "compact car" but it is much smaller than a Nova, Omega, Ventura, or Apollo (the Buick Apollo/ Skylark) which was considered a compact car in the 1970s!! And going even further, the same Ford Focus or Chevy Spark or Cobalt is as small or smaller than a Pinto or Vega which in the 1970s was considered a "sub compact"!!
What kills me the most is the fact that in the Nova or even a Chevelle or any of the older cars for that matter you could order different engine and transmission options!! You could get a four speed manual transmission in almost anything, likewise you could order a larger more powerful engine in a car that was a "smaller car"!! Like the Nova could be ordered with a V8 engine and a four speed stick shift!! You can't do that in cars today!! And I used to DREAM of owning a V6 1980s car with a standard shift transmission in it, but nobody would build one by the time 1984 rolled around (two years after I graduated high school that is)!! And a kid like me had the damnedest luck at car dealerships because nobody would sell me a Mustang or a Camaro, and a Corvette was totally out of my price range!! In fact I looked much younger than I actually was in those days!! At the age of 27 I had more than one car dealer tell me "Bring your parents with you next time!" as he assumed I was only 15 years old, when I was actually married with two kids of my own!!!
And taking things even further, in 73 a Nova only came in three body styles, today most cars only come in one, and options are little more than apps.
When OPEC reduced oil production and export in 1973 fuel prices soared (realtively speaking). This COMBINED with safety and emissions regs together forced automakers to reduce the size and weight of their cars. They also introduced new small size cars such as the Chevette and partnering up with foreign car manufacturers - GM with rebranded Toyota Corollas, Chrysler with Mitsubishi and Ford with Mazda.
The fuel crisis was NOT A MYTH ! ! ! !
I didn't say the fuel crises was a myth. The myth is that Muscle cars went away because of the fuel crisis and small cars arrived because of it as both happened before 1973. The Chevette was developed with GM's European Opel Division, which GM had been import small cars from since the 60's.
The problems of patrol was caused by regulator.
Regulations were a big part of the issue.
Not getting along with Muslim oil producing countries...
It was the warranty departments that doomed these muscle cars because people would tear them up and make the factory fix their abuse caused damage.
Emissions were certainly a big factor. But there were other factors in play. Riding fuel costs cert as only didn't help. With gas doubling in price (still cheap compared to other countries though) people with long commutes began to consider other options. I lived through the 70s (b 1953). There were domestic cars that offered acceptable fuel mileage for the era. Every manufacturer offered cars that got 25 mpg or better on the highway. And many of the imports really didn't do that much better. But what really killed the US car industry IMO was the poor build quality along with the disastrous reputations of cars like the Pinto and the Vega.
Quality certainly declined, with recall records being broken every few years. Not helped by constant cost cutting and new products rushed to market. And this was not unique to the U.S. industry, but where U.S. and European brands were getting worse, the Japanese brands started bad but were improving. A change the European market felt almost immediately, not only loosing the majority of their U.S. market share, but much of it in their home markets. Something that would take another decade or two to happen in the U.S. . Of course many of the Japanese brands today are like the American brand then, being carried by a dated reputation. Not that there is much of a threat for them to worry about.
@@thehopelesscarguy
The US auto industry along with a lot of its customers had their collective heads stuck in the period from 1955 to 1968 or so. The warning signs were there but the Big 3 were blind to them. Of the Big Three Ford may have been the most adaptable but that's not saying much. GM was tied to the customer sales ladder. Chrysler, well Crysler was just dysfunctional IMO. Poor little old AMC saw the wave coming but simply bet the farm on the wrong product. What they should have developed was a minivan.
The Europeans aside from the Germans simply were building crap. But the Germans were also very expensive to repair. And some of their parts were common repairs. BMWs used to have reputation for eating water pumps. Fiats and Alfas. Does fragile work. The Brits. Some interesting sports cars but most people prefer to drive their cars than wrench on them. The French. Really. I'll grant the Swedes made some decent cars.
@@mpetersen6 It would be a major transition period. In many cases for the better, but perhaps not in a smooth way or exactly logical way.
I think government regulations move hand in hand with private actions, except for pollution control. People wanted smaller cars after gasoline prices when up.
The converse is also true: when, in the 1980s, gasoline prices went down, people started buying big trucks.
Regulations do tend to be more reactive than proactive.
@@thehopelesscarguy True. There's even an economics study / model that found Covid-19 restrictions by government were reactive not proactive (consumers would have stayed at home anyway). see: privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3631180
@@raylopez99 - Covid-19 regulations were mostly political BS !!!
Some BS in video... by 1975 full size cars weren't selling well but still being produced in big numbers and thus selling at a fraction of their sticker price to move them... could buy most full size cars for $2K - 4K... but small piece of crap cars like Dodge Colts were $6K !!!
MYTH of the fuel crisis! Not one but *two* (1973 and 78-9) fuel crises were grim, shocking realities. Violence even erupted in competition for the limited gas available. BE a car guy; give real info.
The myth isn't that the fuel crises existed, the myth is the impact that it had on the U.S. car market.
Opel was imported by GM beginning in 1958, not 1969.
ok
I have a sort of affection for the 1973 LTD because my dad started dating my mom again and let me use his LTD wagon when I didn't have my own car yet. He was a Ford man forever after a brief stint as a Chevy owner in the 1940's and my mom said he said that they had terrible transmissions....but that's because she said he ruined a tranny in their 1947 by pushing it stuck in reverse, forward. Now I think that was just dumb, and like a lot of things your mom says about your dad, I don't know....but when he bought a 1959 Ford and my parents divorced (before I was even a gleam in his eye) my mom never trusted Fords because she had endless problems because some dumb mechanic (or sneaky one) sold her the wrong sort of battery for a Ford (you must know the poles are the opposite on a Ford battery as compared to a GM or Chrysler) and she had to return to the shop again and again (she was very cute, if that matters) and finally she said "I'll never buy Ford or GM again" and switched to Mopar.
Her last car (and the only new car she ever owned and she bought with her own money as a secretary) was a 6-cyl 1973 Plymouth Gold Duster. Only new car I've ever been in, to this day. I have a showroom restored 1971 Olds 442 convertible, though....
Often times it just takes one bad experience to turn you off a brand. Which is a shame as brand quality changes with time, for better or worse.
Oh, and BIG thumbs up to the 442.
Wonderful cruise thru a forgettable automotive decade. 👍 I'm 73, been a car nut since I was 8. In retrospect the majority of American cars from the 70s are terrible vehicles: too big, too heavy, too blimped out, too many goofy roof-window designs, too much velour, too many padded roofs, often very poor construction and rust prevention, and worst of all, some of the worst engine technology of all time. In an effort to reduce emissions and run on unleaded fuel, the drivability, performance and gas mileage suffered. It was not until the universal adoption of computer controlled fuel injection that engines became cleaner and performance and fuel economy also increased. Things did improve a bit with the 1977-78 downsizing that occured with many brands. Look on the streets and car shows: about the only 70s cars you will see are some of the pony cars, Corvettes, Datsun Z cars, and a "performance" car that probably has had an engine swap. Note: in 1975 the small block under the hood of that year’s Corvette had only 165 horsepower. And all those never ending names that the auto companies came up with and are now gone and forgotten. When was the last time anyone has seen on the street a Fairmont, Monarch, Hornet, Matador, Cordoba, Coronet, Duster, Granada, Torino, Pinto, Vega, Skyhawk, LaSabre, Regal, Cutlass, Ventura, Gremlin, Pacer, Aspen, Volare, Mariner, Scamp, Montego, and dozens of other names all but since forgotten and gone to the crusher. You are much more likely to see cars from the 60s at car shows than ones from the 70s. Best cars from the 70s weren't cars, they were the nifty compact trucks, that I wish the companies would bring back. The new Maverick truck is hardly a compact; four doors, what's with that? 🙄
Computer controlled fuel injection may very well be the most significant improvement to the internal combustion engine since . . . . maybe the fuel pump.
Mechanically there is very little difference between 60s and 70s cars, it is what they bolted to those parts that makes the difference.
Careful throwing old names like that around, you might encourage someone to slap it on a new SUV, or as they did with a Maverick, a pseudo pickup thing.
You might want to do your research a little better, because I still own a 1976 Mercury Monarch Gran Ghia 2 door and it's a very good car. and it along with the Lincoln Versailles, and Lincoln mark four, and mark five, were the only passenger cars to have four wheel disc brakes. the only other car to have four wheel disc brakes was the Corvette. the Monarch that I have is in very good condition. and still runs great dispite it has a lot of miles on it. and if I continue to keep decent maintenance intervals on it. I can see being able to clock up a lot more miles on it. these cars are often mistaken for a Granada. but the Monarch is quite a bit different than the Granada. this one has the previously mentioned four wheel disc brakes. but it also has hydraboost system, and the larger 110 amp alternator, 302ci 5.0 L Windsor small block, and a C 4s transmission, and a nine inch posi trac rear end, and bucket seats, and a floor console, it's a real survivor. but it's not the only one there are a lot of seventies and eighties model, vehicles from GM and Ford still on the road. however Chrysler corporation took a big hit because of their lean burn system. it was on almost all their vehicles and it was a complete fail. I used to do pretty good changing those systems to regular systems. Chrysler even knew there was a problem with them. because they made kits to do away with the learn burn system. that a person could purchase from the part's department at Chrysler, Plymouth, and Dodge, dealership's. hell I still have a 1978 Ford F150 and a 1985 Bronco II. that I have driven for well over twenty years without having to do anything to it. with the exception of regular maintenance repairs. but it's starting to show some signs, that it's going need some work done on it in the not to distant future. there's a lot of those vehicles that could be and are still on the road. however in this current society it's a throw away world. and a lot of these vehicle met their end long before they should have.
@@musicauthority7828 Glad you like your 76 Monarch with its 134 hp 5.0L engine. If you drive low and slow you may be getting 18 mpg. You like Ford products so may I suggest a lightly used Ford Fusion hybrid: avg 42 mpg and 195 hp. 🙂
@@rizzlerazzleuno4733 Your wrong the Monarch is actually fairly fast, I had a 1974 Camaro and the Mercury would easily out run it in fact there was no contest. however with the posi trac rear it can be a little bit of a handful it gets sort of squirrelly. the Camaro looked a little nicer because it had new paint. but it was a dog and the doors where falling off it. and it would have been a real headache to fix it. so I made the right decision and got rid of it. the Mercury is still got it's original paint and looks pretty good. I'm pretty happy with it I have some plans for it. I already have a Borg Warner T-5 for it and I'm looking into a Ford motorsports 5.0 crate engine for it. but I have some other projects that I have to take care of first.
Oh I have a Focus and I can't stand it. I think I will stick with older Fords new vehicles are garbage.
@@musicauthority7828 Cool. Hang on to the Monarch. Be careful racing the Camaros.
I bought a 1972 Vega in 1973. At 30,000 miles, it was junk and I owed lots of money on it.☹️☹️☹️
Lemons.
Should have been fixed under warranty...
I mark 1973 as the beginning of the doldrums for the US automotive industry. As pointed out in the video, the CAFE standards and emissions requirements reduced compression ratios, added parasitic equipment -- and thus reduced performance.
Hence, you had engines with 400+ CID putting out a paltry 200 horsepower -- which is as much as my '97 Volvo 850GLT, which has less than half the displacement. And most American cars were stupid-looking and cheap in those days, with increasing amounts of plastic inside and out, awkward proportions, topped off with fake wire wheel-covers.
Detroit did not make a comeback in quality and performance until the early '90s. The only good vehicles made in the USA during that period were the police models and trucks -- probably because they did not suffer from government restrictions as much.
Lets not forget that these 400+ CID engines had torque ratings nearly twice their horsepower ratings which is not something the smaller modern engines can say and people did you family cars for towing in those days. U-haul used to rent a tow hitch that would clamp on to the bumper of any car of that period.
As far as a come back in quality, I don't know that they have. In those days when people talked quality it was in reference to durability and these days it seems to be all based around fit and finish.
@@thehopelesscarguy Totally agree with your second paragraph. We do have production cars with enormous horsepower today, even standard family haulers are pushing 250-300 hp. To get that power and still fulfill emissions regulations they are so fiddly though. Sensors that can shut the entire engine down are crazy. I mean sure, give us the warning and let us know there's a problem, but why shut the whole thing down when most of the time it's probably just a bad sensor? And even if it's not, leave it on the shoulders of the owner to decide whether or not to keep driving and ruin the car. They treat people like morons. Maybe a lot of them are and that's why things are like this now?
And then you have the problem of everything being packed into the engine bay with such a close tolerance that you have to take many unassociated parts off just to perform basic maintenance like changing spark plugs. Hell I own a car in which you can't even check the transmission fluid, it's a closed system and if you have a problem you're supposed to just take it to the dealer. But what if the problem is a simple slow leak? What if that car is 12 or 15 years old and you don't want to pay a dealer 1000++ dollars to diagnose and the problem? And what if they don't even want to work on an old car so they quote you a stupidly high price just to make you buy a new car? Thank god for TH-cam lol. At least we have this place where people can share tricks and fixes to keep these kinds of cars on the road. And also thank god for cheap Chinese knock off parts too. If it wasn't for Rockauto I don't think we'd have nearly as many 02-09 cars on the road as we do.
@@jokerzwild00 It does seem like manufacturers are trying to make cars more disposable. I don't understand why they make cars intentionally harder to work on. I have a car with a aftermarket transmission dipstick and a "universal" tool for checking transmission fluid so they can save a dollar a car and have them fail sooner from lack of maintenance. I can assure you it isn't getting me into new car dealerships.
@@jokerzwild00 It is sad to think that a V-6 Camry can out drag and out handle the original GTO but it still somehow manages to be more boring while it is doing it.
I have one car I was able to buy a transmission dipstick for, although it didn't come with one and I've bought a "universal tool" so I can check another.
I think automotive engineers should be required to attempt basic maintenance on the cars they helped develop after they go into production. My 2003 Ford Ranger has 2 dash lights still working. The bulbs are 89 cents a pair, but you have to pull the dash out to replace them. I was quoted $700 to have it done for me. To replace dash light. My 59 Plymouth has a 40 pound radio with vacuum tubes but I can still reach all the way up to the dash vents without removing anything. The improvement is what now?
@@thehopelesscarguy In most '59 Plymouths you can reach from the rocker panel all the way to the top of the dashboard without removing anything if the rust holes line up... ; )
My 74 Ford Courier...what a disaster .
Not a great little truck.
Mustang II started in 1974, not 1973.
Yes
The REAL cars MADE BEFORE 1974, WERE SO MUCH BETTER!
The opinion of many.
Australian Fords of the 70’s were much prettier than the USA Fords.
Some of them.
I like the videos it's really nice but where you get this Cadillac Seville is basically a Chevy Nova the Cadillac Seville is a far better car than the piece of s*** Chevy Nova that's a larger body cell I think you mean a space more in a Chevy Caprice and Impala
Thanks. The Sevilles K Platform started with the Novas X Platform, reinforced it and extended its wheelbase 3 1/2 inches. It shared the Novas sub-frames and Chevys 350 V-8.
Monaco is pronounced MON-i-co.
And yet spelled, Monaco.
Pronounce it Dodge " Mon-A-Coe " Monaco.
Hey, I just got past "flerb" and "cheby".
@@thehopelesscarguy 1960 Furd Falcar with the sewing machine engine.