Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by TriShield, Sep 20, 2009.
Just goes to show how far GM has come since the 70s.... well, all of the industry really.
I wonder what other cars were in that collection though?
i wouldnt want to drive it either
Some idiot will buy it. God damn that is ugly. And BROWN ON BROWN, of all colors.
Late '70s/early '80s American cars; the best sales tool Japanese carmakers could ever dream of...
it has a massive v8 im sure
and probably runs 16's
i almost bought a 75 when i was 17
This was a popular car in it's time. People loved the style of this model, so much so that GM tried to invoke it in the last Monte Carlo made (with a poor result).
I was in high school in the mid 90s. A friend of mine bought a cherry one of these. It was slow, the doors sagged, but it ran really good and held a lot of people.
The Japanese cars of the time were ugly and shitty. Japanese cars wouldn't catch on in the US until a few years later.
It's a piece of shit, I'm amazed they managed to sell any. The Chrysler Cordoba was much better.
Yes, that is Corinthian leather. What now, bitches?
and i'm a mopar fan.
Try 17s or 18s. Seriously. With it's low-compression, smog-equipment-choked, carbureted V8, I doubt that tank, which weighs nearly 2 tons, was putting 150 horsepower to the ground.
A Ford Tempo would dust that stock-for-stock.
probably closer to 130hp on the ground.
The base engine was a 305-ci V8 rated at 140 horsepower, and an optional 2-barrel 350-ci V8 rated at 150 horsepower was also available (a 4-barrel 350-ci V8 rated at 160 hp was standard for California cars). Those thirsting for more power could upgrade to a 4-barrel 400-ci V8 rated at 180 horsepower. These powerplants were anemic compared to former years, but still a lot of power for 1977.
So probably not even 150hp to the ground. My 1987 Grand Wagoner with the 360 2bbl was reated at 140hp crank.
FUUUU, GM moved 400,000 Monte Carlos in 1976.
It really was a different world back then.
Oh look. It's just as ugly as today's monte carlo.
The 1970 Monte SS 454 could move fairly well for such a heavy boat though. But it was a different beast than the castrated shit sold in the mid/late '70s. '71 was the first year of the decline, and it got worse as the '70s progressed.
It lacks the power to "rage". Unless it is;
1) heavily modified, or
2) being chain-pulled by a souped-up turbo-diesel pickup.
That's pretty generous
My Google search for the actual curb weight pulled up some fast ones that drag.
I'm curious what it actually weighs. Weight in old cars is deceptive given their size, many are not as heavy as today's smaller cars.
if any of them came close to 3200lbs, then it's close to what the 1975 i almost bought iirc... my gf at the time had a 85 buick century, and we were shocked that her car weighed something like 600lbs more.
Please refer to my AV for clarification.
My '76 Impala weighed ~4400 pounds, IIRC. Full-frame, iron V8, iron rear axle. A little bigger than a Monte though...
Max or root mean square?
I really think the idea of rating engines based on the maximum horsepower should be outlawed, the same way it's illegal to rate electrical equipment based on the maximum instantaneous power it can generate or consume, because what matters is the average power over time. I want to know the surface area of the space between the X axis and the torque curve. That's what really determines acceleration, and anyone who's said "yeah it makes 400hp but it has a peaky torque curve" or "yeah it only makes 200hp but the torque curve is flat" already understands the principle.
i figured you out long ago... that's why i stopped putting effort in responding to you.
Not a fan of people who make jokes from time to time, huh? Oh well.