Gearheadotaku wrote: I wouldn't worry too much saftey wise unless it was a very rusty example. Add modern tires, brake pads/shoes, and shocks. Big sway bars are cheap and won't wreck the ride quality. Remember you've got a 2000lb 'advantage' over many other cars.
You sure about that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
In reply to Sky_Render: That was posted and discussed on the first page. Just sayin'. But thanks for the contribution just the same!
Personally, safety wouldn't concern me a lot. But I've never really been in any kind of accident that could hurt anyone, so I may be biased. In '74 they got 5 MPH bumpers and I can tell you those things work. When I was 16 I had a low speed head on with an old Buick in my '74 Capri. (Wasn't my fault) The Buick was totaled. Bent my license plate. They're kinda ugly, but usually makes them cheaper.
When I was DDing my '72 Capri, I did replace the seat belts with new ones and did feel safer. I'm not saying all the improvements since then don't work, just saying people survived driving cars for a lot of years without them. Is there a risk? Sure, but there's a risk in driving any car. You have to weigh it all.
I had a '76 Capri briefly - if you live somewhere that does emissions testing, those carburated cars are tough to get through. I'm not sure when the standard go tougher. I assume '75 when cats and unleaded fuel came along.
I drove Tom Celica to work today. I can't really say an '84 has any safety gear that a '74 didn't have. But even the crude EFI in that thing is a giant leap forward from the smog era carb set ups.
First of all, I don't trust the IIHS for anything. They are a safety lobby group, have a definite axe to grind by showing how unsafe cars were and how far they still have to go, and have shown in the past they're not above theatrics.
As for the crashworthiness of new cars vs. older cars, anything before the '80s or so is not designed to crumple in a crash. The kinetic energy that is absorbed in a modern car in folding up and accordioning on the ends before it reaches the passenger compartment is, well, redirected. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's not.
Case in point: in college, I drove an '85 Dodge Diplomat ex-highway patrol car. It was hell for stout. Lots of bracing, seam welding where most production-line cars were spot welded, etc. While stopped at an intersection, I was rearended by a '90s Taurus doing about 25 or 30. The Taurus did what it was designed to do, folded up and was totaled, but didn't hurt anyone. The Diplomat...well, my bumper was bent and the car was shoved forward four feet, but other than that you couldn't tell anything had happened. Unfortunately, my seatbelt didn't lock and I got thrown headfirst into the window and wound up with a concussion.
Yes, clearly it's not what the car looks like after a crash, it's what the occupants look like.
psteav wrote: First of all, I don't trust the IIHS for anything.
I hate to say this, but the Euro Ncap is actually pretty good.
Also, IIHS and NHTSA use unbelted occupants. Airbags make the new/old crash look worse than it is.
I don't know what to believe. It's obvious that newer cars are better. How much better remains unknown.
I disagree about all pre-1980's car having no crumple/ crash zones. The W123 Mercedes (designed in the 1970's) perform very well in crashes. And I've personally witnessed the crash performance of the Volvo 122 chassis- it bends and crumples, but the passenger compartment is essentially a cage.
most 70s cars, unless designed in the 60s had crumple zones. They were in their infancy, but they were there
The IIHS uses belted dummies in testing now. I'm not sure what the criteria is when they do and don't use, but I've seen videos with both. Crumple zones aren't new technology. But like airbags, which have been around for decades, they've just become the norm...or law.
When doing trainings, I always say that even though today's cars are much safer, there are two things to remember. First, a lot depends on the way a car is engineered/designed. Second, even with a great design, physics are physics. I use a couple videos to demonstrate. The first is the 4 door Toyota Yaris being offset crash tested into a wall at 35mph. It does well. Then they offset crash it into a Camry, and the results are bad. The Yaris' roof and floor fold like a tin can, would be very ugly for the driver. I also have a video of the Smart ForTwo being side impacted tested. It does better than some large pick ups, like the Ram 1500. The caveat is that these tests are done in a controlled environment, it's impossible to 100% replicate real life scenarios. However, the general findings still apply.
Not sure I'd want to DD one, but if you like it, do it! 
I learned to drive in the '70's, and have a ton of experience in these. First, I spent all my time trying NOT to drive one. We had a '74 Delta 88, a '70 Dodge Monaco wagon, and an AMC during that time, and I also drove the grandparents Chrysler Cordoba, Olds 98, and Dodge Dart.
We also had a Datsun 810 and a 240Z. Guess which I preferred?
Anyway, some observations. Excluding the Datsun's, the Dart was the MPG king. It got around 14mpg. Not sure where some get their figures, but they are not all that accurate. For instance, the Delta 88 was lucky to get double digits, and the Monaco would get maybe 15 if you were lucky on the highway.
The 98 was a '76 model with a 455, and it averaged about 12mpg if I remember correctly, and it also got the distinction of being the best driving of the full sized cars listed here. By contrast, the 810 was faster and handled better than every car listed, except the 240. It averaged around 18mpg city, maybe 24 or 25 on the interstate.
My favorite of the Americans was the Dart by far. It was a '72 Swinger with a 318. It drove pretty well and stopped well also for it's type of car. It was light years better than the others, but light years worse than the 240Z or 810. I still loved it though. In the early '80's my grandfather sold it for $500 and never let me know. It had about 30,000 miles on it at the time and looked and drove like new. I still regret never having known and buying it.
A photographic journey of some of my DDs.... and this is all since 2000.
1966 Bonneville. I drove it like this for 5 years. I had to have the alternator rebuilt and I swapped heads for low-octane gas, but super reliable.
73 Hornet Sportabout wagon. I had to deal with the 4-wheel manual drum brakes, but it was a great car.
73 Impala Station Wagon. This thing went cross-country twice with zero issues. I built the 454 and TH400.
73 Maverick. This had a 302 and it ran like crazy. I bought it for $300. I spent $67 on a battery and drove it for a year, then sold it for $400
So, YES, drive a 70s barge. My favorites were the mopar "fuselage" cars. 69-73.
a video i made a few years ago of what it looks like from the driver's seat of a 74 Monte Carlo..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150228351510441&l=8820952623854908077
just watching the video made me miss the car and all the sensations of driving it..
here's an external view of what the car looked like to everyone else:
it might not look like it, but it was actually a pretty nimble and responsive car to drive, especially after swapping in the Monte SS steering box and 92 Caprice 9C1 front sway bar.
For anyone considering this adventure, I could be convinced to part with my '78 Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance for challenge money. Rebuilt 425, carb, etc etc.
I think one of the big things to make a 70's anything more enjoyable and safer to drive, daily or not, is good brakes. I remember the four wheel drums setup in my '64 Savoy; hard to modulate cold, and once hot nearly impossible. If I had the knowledge (and income) that I have today, I'd be shopping for 12" or larger front brakes along with whatever wheels it took to fit them there. And maybe even adding a vacuum booster, if it gave me easy to modulate, powerful brakes that didn't go away after two good stops.
I'd like to think the above brake/wheel/tire upgrade would go a long way towards keeping me out of an accident, along with making the car nicer to drive.
If you're proximate to central/ western VA...
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/cto/3747709612.html
pres589 wrote: I think one of the big things to make a 70's anything more enjoyable and safer to drive, daily or not, is good brakes. I remember the four wheel drums setup in my '64 Savoy; hard to modulate cold, and once hot nearly impossible. If I had the knowledge (and income) that I have today, I'd be shopping for 12" or larger front brakes along with whatever wheels it took to fit them there. And maybe even adding a vacuum booster, if it gave me easy to modulate, powerful brakes that didn't go away after two good stops. I'd like to think the above brake/wheel/tire upgrade would go a long way towards keeping me out of an accident, along with making the car nicer to drive.
i don't think anyone made a full size car with front drum brakes after about 1972 or so.. the big GM's came standard with 12" discs in the front and 11" rear drums standard after about 1969 or so, with the mid size A bodies getting standard 11" discs in the front with the redesign in 73, and upgraded to 11" drums in the back across the boards in 75. 12" front brakes for the 73-77 A bodies are a simple spindle swap from a 77-96 B body with the HD suspension (cop cars, wagons).. they aren't world class brakes and, but they get the job done in a panic situation.
In reply to novaderrik:
Yeah, I realize that 70's barges had better brakes than their 60's counterparts, but I still think that (like you noted) they could be improed upon. That's more in "tuning", though, playing with pad compounds, maybe improved proportioning of pressures, maybe moving to rear discs (to get rid of the adjusters required on drums as much as anything) if a guy can find the right parts for not insane money.
After I made my post above I spent about five minutes searching the Internet for options; Wilwood has a kit that Summit sells for a bit under a grand for 12.2" front discs and multi-piston calipers for the front of my long-gone Savoy, rotors and hubs, everything save for hoses. For the rear I think the smartest move would have been to go to something like the rear axle out of a Liberty with discs and the proper bolt pattern all ready to go. Figure new hard and flex lines, a prop valve and master cylinder, maybe $1500 if a guy is really careful with his money and the brakes would be light years ahead of stock.
novaderrik wrote: i don't think anyone made a full size car with front drum brakes after about 1972 or so.. the big GM's came standard with 12" discs in the front and 11" rear drums standard after about 1969 or so, with the mid size A bodies getting standard 11" discs in the front with the redesign in 73, and upgraded to 11" drums in the back across the boards in 75.
Disk brakes were optional on big Pontiacs from 1967 to 1970, and were standard starting in 1971. I think other GM makes were similar. As mentioned they had 12" disks, and would stop pretty well - I think they were mainly limited by the traction of the tires available at the time.
edit: for people wanting to add disk brakes to 1960s or earlier cars, http://www.scarebird.com/ sells kits that are pretty attractive - they provide mounting brackets designed to work with readily available late model rotors and calipers that you can buy at most any auto parts store. I know a number of people who have used them and were happy with the results.
I see nothing wrong and everything right with that. Yank out the old smog engine, drop in something modern with an OD and roll. Turbo 4.8 maybe?
1990 Crown Victoria NMNA. I'm not a Ford guy, but i'd drive the wheels off this thing, especially in that condition for that price. Technically not a 70's land yacht, but it is it's direct decendant.
Bobzilla wrote:
That place is less than 100 miles form me. I must check out their site.
Bobzilla wrote:
that's not a "barge" by 70's standards.. that was GM's new downsized full size cars that were based on the old mid size chassis...
that being said- i'd drive it.. i've had 3 of those 2 doors with the fastback window (2 Impalas and one Caprice), and they are awesome cars with almost unlimited potential for upgrades with cheap junkyard parts.. and if you must get shiny new aftermarket chassis parts, anything for a 94-96 Impala SS bolts right up...
You'll need to log in to post.
