I will second the idea of the second gen Corvairs. I mean when GM was coming up with the idea it was inspired partially by the Porsches of the day.
Best handling American car built in 60's or 70's?
- Thread starter ledslinger
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: javacontour
1963 Pontiac Tempest with a 326. Front engine, rear transaxle, rear IRS, nearly 50/50 weight distribution.
A fast, good handling car you could buy at your local Pontiac dealership.
It just wouldn't stop. (9" drum brakes all around.)
1963 Pontiac Tempest with a 326. Front engine, rear transaxle, rear IRS, nearly 50/50 weight distribution.
A fast, good handling car you could buy at your local Pontiac dealership.
It just wouldn't stop. (9" drum brakes all around.)
In the late 60's Ford Galaxy 500 had some success in British saloon car racing, while their brakes held out!
https://youtu.be/8Dxg_AT35GA
Skip the bit of Sterling Moss in the BRM, that's boring!
https://youtu.be/8Dxg_AT35GA
Skip the bit of Sterling Moss in the BRM, that's boring!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
GT40 isn't an American car and it's certainly not "regular production cars"
Ford is an American company, it makes American cars. if you buy a VW in NA is it a Euro car? When it was built in Mexico?
And by those metrics it's the GT40, isn't it?
Ford Deutschland is to FORD as Opel is to GM. They are German car manufacturers that are subsidiaries of their American parent companies, and they create their own producs on their own or in tandem with the parent company for their own or for other markets. What an American etc car is depends on your own definition, I suppose. Where was it dreamed up, designed, where does the majority of its parts come from, where is it assembled? Your defining metrics are probably not mine. To me a Golf is a German car, even if it's not built for or in Germany, because the sum of its parts shares more with the German car than not. Do US bumpers and lighting make it an American car? No, they just make it a car created for a particular market. I would not consider the GT40 anymore an American car than I would an Opel GT.
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
GT40 isn't an American car and it's certainly not "regular production cars"
Ford is an American company, it makes American cars. if you buy a VW in NA is it a Euro car? When it was built in Mexico?
And by those metrics it's the GT40, isn't it?
Ford Deutschland is to FORD as Opel is to GM. They are German car manufacturers that are subsidiaries of their American parent companies, and they create their own producs on their own or in tandem with the parent company for their own or for other markets. What an American etc car is depends on your own definition, I suppose. Where was it dreamed up, designed, where does the majority of its parts come from, where is it assembled? Your defining metrics are probably not mine. To me a Golf is a German car, even if it's not built for or in Germany, because the sum of its parts shares more with the German car than not. Do US bumpers and lighting make it an American car? No, they just make it a car created for a particular market. I would not consider the GT40 anymore an American car than I would an Opel GT.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I will second the idea of the second gen Corvairs. I mean when GM was coming up with the idea it was inspired partially by the Porsches of the day.
Not too sure about Porsche inspiring GM, but I had a couple of Corvairs and they were just great on fast sweepers.
You'd go through the rear tires pretty quickly, though, if you used the cars as they could be used.
The flat six also had a great sound at higher revs.
The Vega was also mentioned above.
On a smooth road, the Vega in any form was a great handling car.
I had a '73 wagon and it was a joy to drive.
The engine was junk, however.
I will second the idea of the second gen Corvairs. I mean when GM was coming up with the idea it was inspired partially by the Porsches of the day.
Not too sure about Porsche inspiring GM, but I had a couple of Corvairs and they were just great on fast sweepers.
You'd go through the rear tires pretty quickly, though, if you used the cars as they could be used.
The flat six also had a great sound at higher revs.
The Vega was also mentioned above.
On a smooth road, the Vega in any form was a great handling car.
I had a '73 wagon and it was a joy to drive.
The engine was junk, however.
Originally Posted By: Olas
It was built on a Lola chassis, who weren't excluded from the original list..
For standard road cars of that era, weren't they all straight line speed and oversteer? Certainly good fun, but not really 'hamdling', per se.
Did any cars of that era have optimised spring&damper rates? LSD? Geometry? Even closely matched tyres front to rear? We're any of the cars at that time 4wd?
And they were all front heavy, weren't they? Weight distribution and balance and moment of inertia kind of put them at a disadvantage as far as real handling goes..
I think AMC made some 4WD cars during the 70s, but they had the same ground clearance as a truck.
Anyway, did the Opel Manta have good cornering? I think GM sold them at certain dealerships. I don't know much about them, or why they never became popular.
It was built on a Lola chassis, who weren't excluded from the original list..
For standard road cars of that era, weren't they all straight line speed and oversteer? Certainly good fun, but not really 'hamdling', per se.
Did any cars of that era have optimised spring&damper rates? LSD? Geometry? Even closely matched tyres front to rear? We're any of the cars at that time 4wd?
And they were all front heavy, weren't they? Weight distribution and balance and moment of inertia kind of put them at a disadvantage as far as real handling goes..
I think AMC made some 4WD cars during the 70s, but they had the same ground clearance as a truck.
Anyway, did the Opel Manta have good cornering? I think GM sold them at certain dealerships. I don't know much about them, or why they never became popular.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I will second the idea of the second gen Corvairs. I mean when GM was coming up with the idea it was inspired partially by the Porsches of the day.
Not too sure about Porsche inspiring GM, but I had a couple of Corvairs and they were just great on fast sweepers.
You'd go through the rear tires pretty quickly, though, if you used the cars as they could be used.
The flat six also had a great sound at higher revs.
The Vega was also mentioned above.
On a smooth road, the Vega in any form was a great handling car.
I had a '73 wagon and it was a joy to drive.
The engine was junk, however.
They looked at Porsches, Czech Tatras, and VW's according to some source I ran across about a year or two ago. You have to remember this is in the days well before the 911 turbo porsches. Back when Porsches had low HP and were just great handling cars.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I will second the idea of the second gen Corvairs. I mean when GM was coming up with the idea it was inspired partially by the Porsches of the day.
Not too sure about Porsche inspiring GM, but I had a couple of Corvairs and they were just great on fast sweepers.
You'd go through the rear tires pretty quickly, though, if you used the cars as they could be used.
The flat six also had a great sound at higher revs.
The Vega was also mentioned above.
On a smooth road, the Vega in any form was a great handling car.
I had a '73 wagon and it was a joy to drive.
The engine was junk, however.
They looked at Porsches, Czech Tatras, and VW's according to some source I ran across about a year or two ago. You have to remember this is in the days well before the 911 turbo porsches. Back when Porsches had low HP and were just great handling cars.
Last edited:
Uncle Tom McCahill (Popular Mechanics until c. 1974) always said Chryslers were the best-handling domestics due to their torsion-bar suspension. In a review of the '69 Plymouth Fury he said it handled 'like an eel in a vise'.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Corvair Monza with the later fully independent rear suspension, not the the Ralph Nader demonized halfshafts.
Exactly what I was thinking. My old man had the turbo charged one.
Corvair Monza with the later fully independent rear suspension, not the the Ralph Nader demonized halfshafts.
Exactly what I was thinking. My old man had the turbo charged one.
Of course, the Ford Mustang of 1979 "might" qualify for this list.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Anyway, did the Opel Manta have good cornering? I think GM sold them at certain dealerships.
Yes, at certain select Buick stores, as well as the Opel GTs.
Anyway, did the Opel Manta have good cornering? I think GM sold them at certain dealerships.
Yes, at certain select Buick stores, as well as the Opel GTs.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
True, but within Prepared class SCCA rules, almost anything can be made into a 'capable racer'.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
True, but within Prepared class SCCA rules, almost anything can be made into a 'capable racer'.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Of course, the Ford Mustang of 1979 "might" qualify for this list.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
Of course, the Ford Mustang of 1979 "might" qualify for this list.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
Inspiration for your build. 347 stroker, JE forged pistons, Eagle forged crank & H-beam rods, Dart SHP block, Novi 2000 blower, TFS heads, Upper & Lower intake, Rockers, & Pushrods, Custom Comp Cam blower Camshaft. Made 556Hp & 605Tq on a chassis dyno at 12 PSI.
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
Inspiration for your build. 347 stroker, JE forged pistons, Eagle forged crank & H-beam rods, Dart SHP block, Novi 2000 blower, TFS heads, Upper & Lower intake, Rockers, & Pushrods, Custom Comp Cam blower Camshaft. Made 556Hp & 605Tq on a chassis dyno at 12 PSI.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Of course, the Ford Mustang of 1979 "might" qualify for this list.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
I don't believe they were "blow through carbs". I think the carb was mounted above the turbo in a draw through setup, and the vacuum created by the setup caused oil ingestion. (However, I'm not 100% up on those Ford models, it's been a long time)
The better 2.3L setup is the SVO fuel injected setup, with 205HP in stock form. (T3-60 turbo) The parts are still very common (cheap) and they will easily make 275HP without much in the way of mods. 300+HP does require larger injectors, better cam and better intercooler.
I've run those 2.3L engines with well north of 30 pounds of boost. They will hold up well as long as the RPM is not allowed to get out of control. The connecting rods are the weak link.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Of course, the Ford Mustang of 1979 "might" qualify for this list.
This generation Mustang, when properly configured, with a good alignment and modern tires is still competitive today on the road course. They were quite capable.
Prior to that, the Mustang II, while not particularly "loved" by Americans or the press, actually had a good front end suspension design. One that's still used today in many kit cars. They could be made into capable racers without much fuss.
I've got an 82 Capri. 2.3l turbo I'm slowly starting to acquire parts for. Blow thru carb. The fox body platform was a decent handler and was very capable in the twisties.
I haven't decided yet whether to pull the 2.3 and run the tried and true Windsor small block. The cool factor with the turbo is nice but without modern engine controls I'm just not experienced enough with one to feel confident in tuning it.
A 5.0 though is common,parts are still cheap and easy to get.
It'll add front end weight though.
Decisions decisions.
I don't believe they were "blow through carbs". I think the carb was mounted above the turbo in a draw through setup, and the vacuum created by the setup caused oil ingestion. (However, I'm not 100% up on those Ford models, it's been a long time)
The better 2.3L setup is the SVO fuel injected setup, with 205HP in stock form. (T3-60 turbo) The parts are still very common (cheap) and they will easily make 275HP without much in the way of mods. 300+HP does require larger injectors, better cam and better intercooler.
I've run those 2.3L engines with well north of 30 pounds of boost. They will hold up well as long as the RPM is not allowed to get out of control. The connecting rods are the weak link.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: spasm3
cosworth twin cam vega?
That's my vote. I've owned two, and still have the '75. With a set of Eagle NCT's on it, I could take 25 mph entrance ramps at 55.
Do you remember when Car & Driver turned one into a rally car as one of their projects?
Originally Posted By: spasm3
cosworth twin cam vega?
That's my vote. I've owned two, and still have the '75. With a set of Eagle NCT's on it, I could take 25 mph entrance ramps at 55.
Do you remember when Car & Driver turned one into a rally car as one of their projects?
My FIL had a Fox body Mustang.
It was from new one of the worst handling cars I've ever driven.
The Muscrat II was no more than a heavier Pinto in drag.
It was in no way a good handling car and yes, I drove one owned by a GF back in the day.
Any car can be made into a capable racer.
It was from new one of the worst handling cars I've ever driven.
The Muscrat II was no more than a heavier Pinto in drag.
It was in no way a good handling car and yes, I drove one owned by a GF back in the day.
Any car can be made into a capable racer.
- Status
