Was 1970 the Apex of the Muscle car era?

**Murder after Midnight** · 06-28-2013, 03:52 PM

What do you guys think?

**transamtom** · 06-28-2013, 04:50 PM

I like the 98-2014 era better.

Now we can have our cake and eat it to.

Better brakes,tires fuel economy,HP,driveability, handling,NVH,affordability.

The list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong those cars are great......in someone elses driveway.

**2002ssslp** · 06-28-2013, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by transamtom

I like the 98-2014 era better.

Now we can have our cake and eat it to.

Better brakes,tires fuel economy,HP,driveability, handling,NVH,affordability.

The list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong those cars are great......in someone elses driveway.

Having owned several HP 60's and 70's muscle cars I could not agree more. Back in the mid 70's I was driving a big block Dodge Charger with 4 wheel drum brakes on F70-14 bias ply tires and rwd in the snow. How the hell did I not die. Going uphill in the snow was one long fishtail. The clutch was a cable driven unit and there was no abs. I did not even have power brakes and I was lucky when the heat would work. Today's tech is the way to go.

**FasstChevys** · 06-29-2013, 07:21 AM

For nostalgia purposes - I believe the cars from 65'-70' were "better"(styling, looks, options, etc) than the current cars - but there's no denying the cars of today would blow the doors off the 65'-70' cars in nearly every category. Technology leads us forward - not behind.

**pajeff02** · 06-29-2013, 09:17 AM

1970 Buick GS Stage 1.

**TLS_Addict** · 06-29-2013, 07:49 PM

I would say they are the apex.....for turn one. Now we are on to a bigger badder turn.

***SMWS6TA*** · 06-29-2013, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by transamtom

I like the 98-2014 era better.

Now we can have our cake and eat it to.

Better brakes,tires fuel economy,HP,driveability, handling,NVH,affordability.

The list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong those cars are great......in someone elses driveway.

+1 here

**5.0THIS** · 06-30-2013, 01:08 AM

I think some of you may have missed the point of this question. Nobody is comparing the cars of the 60s and 70s to the cars of today. It should be beyond obvious how far we've come. I think by "muscle car era" he specifically meant the late 60s, early 70s.

And to answer the question, I'd say 69 was the pinnacle. 1970 started to see emission systems and the beginning of the end. And pretty much the most badass engines of that era existed in 69 model year cars (L88, ZL1 in the case of GM)

**Kyle C** · 06-30-2013, 01:57 AM

I bet if you look at the percentage of total development and marketing budgets that were devoted to muscle cars in the late 60's/early 70's you may find it was by far the apex for U.S manufacturers.

**67CamaroRSSS** · 06-30-2013, 07:45 PM

1970 had the BBC 454 LS6 at 450 gross HP so that probably was the apex for mass produced carbed engines. Don't get me wrong as I like older cars (I really do have a 67 Camaro with a 454 in it) but it doesn't even compare to the muscle cars built today.

**5.0THIS** · 07-01-2013, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by 67CamaroRSSS

1970 had the BBC 454 LS6 at 450 gross HP so that probably was the apex for mass produced carbed engines. Don't get me wrong as I like older cars (I really do have a 67 Camaro with a 454 in it) but it doesn't even compare to the muscle cars built today.

I figured someone would bring up the LS6 and the 450hp rating. It had the highest factory power rating, but it was completely outgunned by the L88, ZL1, and even the L72, all of which were underrated even more than the LS6. Don't get me wrong though, the LS6 was still a great engine.

**67CamaroRSSS** · 07-01-2013, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by 5.0THIS

I figured someone would bring up the LS6 and the 450hp rating. It had the highest factory power rating, but it was completely outgunned by the L88, ZL1, and even the L72, all of which were underrated even more than the LS6. Don't get me wrong though, the LS6 was still a great engine.

You may notice I qualified that with the "mass produced" comment as, except for the L72 (which the LS6 replaced), the L88 and ZL1 weren't exactly run of the mill production engines.

All in all it's torque that moves the car, so I might just change over to the 510 lbs-ft produced by the Hemi killer Buick Stage 1 455, also a 1970 engine...

**theorangeguy** · 07-01-2013, 10:07 AM

I'd say the 70's are what pushed us into the current cars and we are certainly in the 2nd muscle car era right now...right now you can go to any dealership and see 400+hp cars off the show room floor with race suspension. I'd say we got the 70's beat power/performance wise BUT the 70's will forever be THE muscle car era in my opinion.

**Zinergy** · 07-01-2013, 12:34 PM

Right now we have the 60-70s beat but think about the l71/l72 as 5.0 said, 435hp-450hp 427 in the 60s vettes. How long after emissions did it take for use to have a factory chevy vette with more power... 2006 unless I am forgetting something. In the case of emissions and horsepower, technology did take us backwards until recent years.

I think the 60s and 1970 were the apex of muscle cars. They looked better, and in some cases were made better.

**67CamaroRSSS** · 07-01-2013, 02:17 PM

Back then you could also choose between a stripped down thinly veiled race car and a luxo barge with the same engine in the same vehicle. Can't do that these days...

**pajeff02** · 07-01-2013, 06:02 PM

^^ The new Z/28 appears to be a bit of an exception from what I just read in GMHTP.

**5.0THIS** · 07-02-2013, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by 67CamaroRSSS

All in all it's torque that moves the car, so I might just change over to the 510 lbs-ft produced by the Hemi killer Buick Stage 1 455, also a 1970 engine...

The 455 that made 510 lb ft made a whopping 350hp. You can argue it was underrated, but all of the big dog engines were. The hemi was rated at 425hp and 490 tq. Assuming dead equal cars, the 455 might pull out by a tenth or two on its' best day, but that hemi engine car would drive by it so fast it would suck the fucking paint off the Buick. 20lb ft of torque isn't anything for a difference. It was all a moot point though, the Chrysler cars launched better than the Buicks anyway, at least in stock form. And nobody went with the Buicks to go fast. The Chryslers were much easier to modify. And if you wanted a fast GM product, you went Chevrolet, because the engines were just plain better. Just my opinion.

**transamtom** · 07-02-2013, 01:45 AM

Or you can spend 85k on a COPO Camaro(if you can get one) and run mid 8's.

It's not street legal but if you can afford the car you should be able to manage the fines

**theorangeguy** · 07-02-2013, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Zinergy

Right now we have the 60-70s beat but think about the l71/l72 as 5.0 said, 435hp-450hp 427 in the 60s vettes. How long after emissions did it take for use to have a factory chevy vette with more power... 2006 unless I am forgetting something. In the case of emissions and horsepower, technology did take us backwards until recent years.

I think the 60s and 1970 were the apex of muscle cars. They looked better, and in some cases were made better.

If the late 60's and 70's were the apex of the muscle cars, and the modern times is the new muscle car era...that means the 80's was a tad bit retarded.......................................... ...........I never had the pleasure of owning a sports car from the 80's, but they sure were slow

**Zinergy** · 07-02-2013, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by theorangeguy

If the late 60's and 70's were the apex of the muscle cars, and the modern times is the new muscle car era...that means the 80's was a tad bit retarded.......................................... ...........I never had the pleasure of owning a sports car from the 80's, but they sure were slow

Most cars, sports or muscle from the 70s, 80s were slow. Thes 90s were just a bit better.