Any reason not to DD a '70's barge?

If you're not worried about fuel mileage, the only other concern is safety.

It's a complete myth that those old barges will hold up well in a crash vs. modern cars. The old barges aren't as heavy as people think. Even though they were bigger, they weren't packed with all the computers, wiring, insulation, airbags, etc...that today's cars are. So their weight is fairly equal to today's cars. Case in point:
1971 Chrysler New Yorker. It was massive at 225 inches long. Curb weight of 4475lbs.

2013 Chrysler 300. 199 inches long, so it's 2+ feet shorter. Curb weight of 4235lbs. Only 240lbs less.

Also, those old cars didn't have any crumple zones, air bags, good seat belts, etc...and that was before any rust started compromising their structure. I've seen hundreds of old car vs. new car wrecks at work, and in the overwhelming majority the new car passengers come out much better.

Not saying you shouldn't do it. I love those old things, they're uber cool. Always have my eyes out for a cheap 70's land yacht wagon. Just think of them as having little crash protection. As others have said, just drive as defensive with them as you can.

cutter67 wrote: growing up with these cars made me fall in love with them. good examples are getting harder and harder to find, so many have gone to the scrapper or the derby. rot on these cars are so much easier to deal with, if it has frame rot and you have a welder very easy to repair i had a nice side business in the 80's plating and welding frames on these cars in Pa. i know its not right but i have used more pop rivots on some GM cars trunk and floor pans that my hand would cramp up at night. we didnt have low priced mig welders back then and welding sheet metal with a stick welder was a little hard i feel the best ones are 1976 to 1979 sevilles. the only trouble is so do a lot of other people price just keeps going up on them.....i do have one sitting in a sea container waiting for when i retire to bring back to life

There was a car lot in Greenville, SC that had a dozen of hese things parked on it. One of my favorite cars.

What do you mean, no crumple zones? What do you call that extra 2 feet of length?

Disc brakes, 3 point belts, huge safety bumpers...honestly, in 4 out of 5 crashes (i.e., less than 40 mph) you'll probably be fine. My '74 Satellite T-boned a Skylark at ~30mph that was making a left turn in front of me. I drove my car home- the Skylark was all bent up and had to be towed.

I drove a '77 Cutlass around for a while. The main issue I had was flimsiness. The cheap chrome on the interior parts and the paper-thin body panels pissed me off. Cars like that have a tendency to start looking beat up pretty quickly. Fords are a little better.

Also, once the giant wheel crowd has touched a car, I don't want it any more.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

The Caddy 500 didnt drop off in power until 72, a 71 had a healthy 365HP and 535ftlb.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: The Caddy 500 didnt drop off in power until 72, a 71 had a healthy 365HP and 535ftlb.

Well, they dropped a bit from the peak in 1970..... but yeah, they got much worse after 1971.

I've owned tons of cars from this era though, and most weren't as painfully slow as the low hp numbers would lead you to believe. For instance I had a 77 Impala 305 2bbl. On paper it should have been a terrible dog. In reality it got out of it's way just fine--- it wasn't quick, but wasn't super slow either..... and it could do a wicked brake-torque burnout!

It only had 145hp, but it had 245 lb/ft of torque, which is why it felt quicker than it was.

In reply to Cotton:

Modern midsizers get low 30s on the freeway, modern compacts with as much space inside as a 70s tank get high-30s to low-40s.

28 mpg on the freeway is tolerable. 22 is miserable; that's a pound of gas every 3 1/2 miles. Freeway cruising is the best case scenario for a big ol' boat. Get it out of high gear, or worse yet accelerate and brake, and you can watch the needle drop.

I can't believe people are worrying about safety on giant American barges in a forum where half the people are driving the flimsiest '80s Japanese sport compacts

The grandfather of an ex-girlfriend of mine had a '65 New Yorker. Black interior, black paint and so much chrome. I drove it only a handful of times, but I really enjoyed it. I tried to buy it off him a few of times (to no avail) and could have definitely see myself rocking it as a DD despite it's questionable breaking distance, thirsty engine, and yacht-like handling. But this was in rural upstate New York with minimal traffic and a relatively laid back attitude. I live in DC now and I wouldn't dare drive it in beltway traffic. If you live in a place where you have a little more room and a reasonably short commute (or certainly one with minimal traffic) go for it. I wish I could.

Joe Gearin wrote: In 1971 it had automatic climate control, a tilt (and telescopic) steering wheel, auto-dim headlights, and of course power everything.

My grandpa's 65 Olds 88(It was an early dynamic delta) was like that, he bought it used in 67, and had been a GM Executives car, had the 425ci engine, the automatic a/c, tilt/telo, autodims, power everything, but with a 4 speed. My grandma sold it after he died, and we have never been able to find it again.....It was in great shape when it left, so I'm sure if I ever did find it, it'd be more than I could ever hope to afford.

I had a 65 Olds Delta 88. What a spectacular land yacht it was. I was the third owner. The original owner was the stereotypical old man. He had it from '65 until '08 when he could no longer drive. The trunk was big enough for at least a dozen hooke...uh golf bags. Gobs of torque. Steering was a very vague concept, as was braking, but damn it was neat.

In reply to Klayfish:

Gramps' was a 2dr.....but otherwise looked like that except black.

I remember in the very early 80's a neighbor down the street had two of these...one for him, one for his wife. I was a kid at the time, and me and my friends all thought they were ultra cool and ultra rich. I still like the way they look. Would make for a nice luxobarge ride.

Yeah, fuel econ is all relative...I average about 20-25 in my daily driver, but I only drive 10 or 15 miles per day right now. And the car's paid for. I could always swap it for a 30-35 mpg beater in the ~$2000 category, I guess. I might save a dollar a day. It would pay for itself in 6 years.

We're looking at houses further out, longer commute, and when that happens I might find something a bit more economical. Even a miserly 70's yacht is going to max out around 20 mpg- which would be 4 gallons (30 pounds!) of gas per day for the longer commute. A 40 mpg car, saving 8 or 9 dollars per day, starts to make some sense then, saving 150 to 180 dollars per month.

No, I'm not looking forward to a 40 mile each way commute, but that's the price you have to pay around here to not live up your neighbors' cracks.

chaparral wrote: In reply to Cotton: Modern midsizers get low 30s on the freeway, modern compacts with as much space inside as a 70s tank get high-30s to low-40s. 28 mpg on the freeway is tolerable. 22 is miserable; that's a pound of gas every 3 1/2 miles. Freeway cruising is the best case scenario for a big ol' boat. Get it out of high gear, or worse yet accelerate and brake, and you can watch the needle drop.

22 to you is miserable, but not to me. Everyone has their own opinion and tolerance for what kind of mpg they'll put up with. If I was concerned about the mileage I would just justify it by averaging both the car and bike together based on my commuting time with each, which should average out to around 35mpg.

As far as the interior comparison. I just drove a new mazda 3 and sentra (rentals). There is no way they have the same interior space as my LTD.

In reply to Klayfish:

I love those. Make mine a '77, in either black or dark blue, please.

what makes these old tanks so awesome is the sheer size of them.. you can stretch out inside, and the long wheelbase and high aspect ratio tires soak up the bumps in the road.. they just have a different feel to them. if you grew up in the last 30 years with fwd econoboxes and lived in a city, you might not "get" it.. but if you grew up in the 70's and lived in a rural area where anything more than a trip to the grocery store was at least a 20 mile drive thru the country, then you probably grew up with these kinds of cars and can't stand the idea of wedging yourself into a late model car with a stiff suspension..

my '01 Grand Prix GTP would be considered a tank on this board- and it is an awesome car to drive on a daily basis- but it's just not the same on a long trip as just plopping down into a flat vinyl bench and stretching out to watch the miles evaporate away from your rear view mirrors. the legroom isn't there for someone like me (5'11", 245 pounds), and the moonroof severely cuts into my headroom. those weren't issues in the 74 Monte Carlo i had until a few years ago...

JohnRW1621 wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: Mopar made some absolutely enormous cars in the mid - late 70s!

I have no proof, but it always seemed to me that Plymouth Furys like this has the single largest body panel in existence. Just look at the length of that rear fender!

i think i remember reading somewhere that the hoods on the 70-72 Monte Carlos were the longest American production car panel... they are over 6 feet long, 5 feet wide, and have to weigh 200 pounds...

but these days they stamp entire sides of cars- from the firewall to where the rear bumper cover bolts on, from the rocker panel to the roof- out of one piece of steel, so the Monte might not hold that record any more..

wae wrote: I wandered across a YouTube video a while back demonstrating an IIHS frontal impact test with a '59 Bel Air hitting a 2009 Impala or Malibu. I know that a '70s Luxo-Barge isn't really the same thing, but the difference is pretty wild.

Holy cow! I would not have expected the results shown in that video.

Cotton wrote:

chaparral wrote: In reply to Cotton: Modern midsizers get low 30s on the freeway, modern compacts with as much space inside as a 70s tank get high-30s to low-40s. 28 mpg on the freeway is tolerable. 22 is miserable; that's a pound of gas every 3 1/2 miles. Freeway cruising is the best case scenario for a big ol' boat. Get it out of high gear, or worse yet accelerate and brake, and you can watch the needle drop.

22 to you is miserable, but not to me. Everyone has their own opinion and tolerance for what kind of mpg they'll put up with. If I was concerned about the mileage I would just justify it by averaging both the car and bike together based on my commuting time with each, which should average out to around 35mpg. As far as the interior comparison. I just drove a new mazda 3 and sentra (rentals). There is no way they have the same interior space as my LTD.

exactly. leave it to the guy who thinks 35mpg should be the standard or your car is worthless to piss on everyone else's wheaties.

i drive a 4x4 suburban full of tools daily, half the time pulling a trailer with more tools and materials. so 20mpg to me is a welcome change from the norm.

the guys who keep the old stuff on the road are doing a service to the environment be reusing things for their entire usable life, not casting them off to be melted down into a new prius for people who love the smell of their own farts.

BAMF wrote:

wae wrote: I wandered across a YouTube video a while back demonstrating an IIHS frontal impact test with a '59 Bel Air hitting a 2009 Impala or Malibu. I know that a '70s Luxo-Barge isn't really the same thing, but the difference is pretty wild.

Holy cow! I would not have expected the results shown in that video.

FYI, that exact video has been discussed on this forum before, that chevy is probably the flimsiest car built in that time period (excluding imports). If that test had been done with caddy or Lincoln it would have been quite different. Not saying that old cars are safer than current cars, thats just a flawed or exaggerated example.

In reply to BAMF:

that is exactly what i would expect to happen...i would bet $100.00 that it was a six in the car. i would also bet that the front frame of the belair is still there. that the new impala just skidded beside it. if you think about it there is nothing to stop the car from reaching the passenger compartment except sheet metal. i would like to see a full frontal crash between them not that the results would be that different

I still own my first car 79 Malibu my plan restore it to be my last car too. Wonder what the drive train options will be in 20yrs?

novaderrik wrote: what makes these old tanks so awesome is the sheer size of them.. you can stretch out inside, and the long wheelbase and high aspect ratio tires soak up the bumps in the road.. they just have a different feel to them.

My friend's impala, at 5'11" I could lay across the back seat with my feet against one arm rest and my head on the other.

While not as old, my `88 Caprice Estate usually averages 20-21 mpg on my freeway trips. Last year, I put 10,000 miles on it, and that doesn't include the winter months in which it sits.

Back when I still had my `71 Cutlass, I daily drove it during the warm months as well.