Neat article on a 1970's 'big boat'....

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: lovcom
You conveniently fail to mention Honda cars. During the 70s and 80s Honda reliability was massively legendary. How come you don't mention that?


Any person that really knows cars knows the terrible time we had with CVCC Hondas!

OMG, man were you really there? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[SS1970chrysler]

I had an 83 Prelude with the dual carb setup. While the engine ran great, not much else did. One day, the steering gear assembly pulled out of the frame while turning. I'm lucky to still be here.
Even the structural supports of that car rotted out.
Luckily, my old land barge was still useable so it came out of retirement.(67 Catalina)

 

[addyguy]

Just to toss something in here.....my step-mom had a 1977 or 78 Civic CVCC, 5-speed. In talking to her about the car, she said it was one of the most reliable vehicles she has ever had.

Bought it new in 1977, and drove it every day for 6 years with nothing but OC's every 4k miles, and two brake jobs. No other problems with it. no fussing, just driving.

Now, as it got close to 10 years old, it rusted out completly....but early on, it was bulletproof.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: lovcom
You conveniently fail to mention Honda cars. During the 70s and 80s Honda reliability was massively legendary. How come you don't mention that?


Any person that really knows cars knows the terrible time we had with CVCC Hondas!

OMG, man were you really there? Doesn't sound like it.



the ole central vortex combustion control.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


Any person that really knows cars knows the terrible time we had with CVCC Hondas!

OMG, man were you really there? Doesn't sound like it.


Nobody understood them. They were pretty reliable for the '70s.

Like I said, it had a 3bbl carburetor. The small venturi is not a primary. Hard to accept when you just rebuilt a quadrajet. Then it had 3 valves per cylinder. That threw off all the '70s mechanics. Wait...how many cylinders is...what the?"

The good thing about the CVCC is that even when it is worn out and burning hideous amounts of oil, it will still run without fouling the plugs. The prechamber serves as a non-fouler. And in the numerous '70s gas crises, you could pump leaded fuel into your CVCC. It didn't have a catalyst. You slipped the little plastic nozzle that was still availiable at the parts store over the pump and filled up.

 

[SteveSRT8]

We put leaded into everything up until it was no longer available.

Worked fine, if a catalyst gave us any problems we removed it and used a test pipe!

But the Hondas and almost any other import had this HUGE nest of rubber vac lines that aged poorly. Leaks were hard to find.

And no one could rebuild those Japanese carbs. They were extremely, even insanely complex.

 

[Jarlaxle]

EVERYTHING had all sorts of vacuum lines in that era!

 

[Rumble]

Here's my "boat", complete with working 8-Track tape player, '79 Coupe:

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wow, that looks familiar.

 

[HM12460]

Rumble, that's a very nice looking Caddy. I owned a 1977 Ford LTD Landau 2 door way back in the day. Drove it from Norfolk, Va. to San Diego, Ca. in 1983, and then back to Norfolk while on active duty in the Navy. I really liked that car. Had a '77 Thunderbird too. I've noticed on e-bay and elsewhere nice big old cars and wagons are really starting to come up in price. Those were simpler, better times. Maybe that's part of the reason why we smile when we see these older model's.

 

[Trvlr500]

The junk the domestic's made did in fact start in the early to mid 70's. The Japanese DID have a far better handle on emission's and fuel mileage but, as I said, that was because of government regulations. Not the automotive manufacturers.

There were some pretty [censored] good American cars built in the early 70's. I own one of them and that is why it's still on the road. They were built to last. Not throw-aways.

Show me a late 60's or early 70's Japanese car that brings the money of ANY of the muscle cars (or some of the "average" cars) America made at the same time. There's a reason they bring what they bring price wise.

As a matter of fact how many Honda's or Toyota's do you see from the 60's or early 70's driving around when the weather is nice and all the old relic's are brought out of the garages.

Not many.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
...

As a matter of fact how many Honda's or Toyota's do you see from the 60's or early 70's driving around when the weather is nice and all the old relic's are brought out of the garages.

Not many.


Not many Japanese cars were even bought in the '60s. It's a bit of an unfair comparison.

I'm certain that the "007 car" Toyota 2000GT would fetch a nice sum:

Certainly quite a bit more than the AMC Hornet from The Man With the Golden Gun.
Problem is that no one in the US except for Carroll Shelby bought the 2000GT

The Datsun 240Z still does fairly well. It did cost about the same as the most basic 383 Roadrunner did then and doesn't command the same price today as a Roadrunner does, but it wasn't made to compete against the Roadrunner. It was for all intent and purpose, more of a everyman's Jaguar e-Type coupe in miniature.
Who knows what Paul Newman's '79 280ZX would fetch?

Then again, that has more to do with being "Cool Hand Luke" and "Butch Cassidy's" car.

 

[Trvlr500]

Oh, don't misunderstand me. There are quite a few Japanese cars as well as many other foreign cars that I like. The 240Z's were an exceptional car. I was just responding to the inaccurate statement that the 60's and 70's American cars were junk. They weren't. They simply had more metal and were overbuilt which is why so many are still running around.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Rumble
Here's my "boat", complete with working 8-Track tape player, '79 Coupe:



Ah, the third "downsize" year. Very nice! I think they had the look of the smaller DeVille sorted by then. The 77 and 78 both have a bit of an awkward look to me- like they don't know how to be smaller than the gigantic 76 was.

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: lovcom
You conveniently fail to mention Honda cars. During the 70s and 80s Honda reliability was massively legendary. How come you don't mention that?


Any person that really knows cars knows the terrible time we had with CVCC Hondas!

OMG, man were you really there? Doesn't sound like it.


This is not true. The Honda CVCC was only a problem for junior mechanics. That car was exceedingly more reliable then ANY American car in that era. Any good mechanic will confirm this.

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
The junk the domestic's made did in fact start in the early to mid 70's. The Japanese DID have a far better handle on emission's and fuel mileage but, as I said, that was because of government regulations. Not the automotive manufacturers.

There were some pretty [censored] good American cars built in the early 70's. I own one of them and that is why it's still on the road. They were built to last. Not throw-aways.

Show me a late 60's or early 70's Japanese car that brings the money of ANY of the muscle cars (or some of the "average" cars) America made at the same time. There's a reason they bring what they bring price wise.

As a matter of fact how many Honda's or Toyota's do you see from the 60's or early 70's driving around when the weather is nice and all the old relic's are brought out of the garages.

Not many.


Your responses are misguided and make no sense, and are as weak as the American cars sold in that bygone era.

For one, Japanese cars of that era ALSO were under the same US regulations that the domestic makes had to follow.

You own "one of them" old junky American cars NOT because it is good. You CHOOSE to keep it, so that does not make it a good car.

The value of 60's and 70's American cars does not mean that they were better. It's about supply and demand, not reliability. The ONLY reason they command more in value is because they are more sought after and this has NOTHING to do with reliability.

You see more old American cars from the 60's and 70's on the road today because a lot more of them were sold over the Japanese models during that era.

Sorry to see you choose to believe in fantasy and not facts.

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Oh, don't misunderstand me. There are quite a few Japanese cars as well as many other foreign cars that I like. The 240Z's were an exceptional car. I was just responding to the inaccurate statement that the 60's and 70's American cars were junk. They weren't. They simply had more metal and were overbuilt which is why so many are still running around.


You make the mistake of equating "more metal and overbuilt" with reliability and durability. Any engineer with half a brain would tell you that there is no relationship to quality and the amount of metal of "over building".

Gosh, your argument are so easy to refute...are you educated?

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Because the spaceship docking ring rear hatch Civics were even more laughable than a Datsun F10, that's why. The first CVCC Civic was beginning to be passable transportation. The 80s, not the late 70s, is the time when Honda became noteworthy. And the 2000s is when they went back to junk, unfortunately :-(



Do you always talk about topics that you know little about?

It was the mid 70's Honda Civic CCVC that gave Honda the best reputation in the car business for the ENTIRE WORLD. You write what you want to believe instead of what is true.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: lovcom

The value of 60's and 70's American cars does not mean that they were better. It's about supply and demand, not reliability. The ONLY reason they command more in value is because they are more sought after and this has NOTHING to do with reliability.

You see more old American cars from the 60's and 70's on the road today because a lot more of them were sold over the Japanese models during that era.

Sorry to see you choose to believe in fantasy and not facts.


If a lot more of them were sold, wouldn't that saddle them with a LOWER value? After all, something rare is worth more than something that you are tripping over on every corner. That's usually how supply and demand works

So going by that metric, shouldn't the Japanese cars be worth MORE than your plain-Jane domestic that there were vastly more of? Shouldn't they be commanding the prices of cars like the Roadrunner, Shelby, GTO and other "rare" domestic iron? After all, that's how it works for the American cars, so what makes the Japanese cars different in this regard?

Or could it be the fact that the old Japanese cars simply aren't sought after because nobody (except you apparently) has Japanese car nostalgia, regardless of whether the cars are rare or not?

Your post sort of contradicts itself.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL



So going by that metric, shouldn't the Japanese cars be worth MORE than your plain-Jane domestic that there were vastly more of? Shouldn't they be commanding the prices of cars like the Roadrunner, Shelby, GTO and other "rare" domestic iron? After all, that's how it works for the American cars, so what makes the Japanese cars different in this regard?

Or could it be the fact that the old Japanese cars simply aren't sought after because nobody (except you apparently) has Japanese car nostalgia, regardless of whether the cars are rare or not?

To be fair again, in 1968 you could buy a Corolla for about $1500. It had a 1.1 liter K slant 4 OHV. Just K. The engine didn't even have a number designation yet. It was about $200 less than a VW Beetle and about $400 less than a Rambler American with a 3.3 L6. (the Nova, Falcon, and Valiant were all over $2000)

It would probably be nearly as hard to find a base Rambler American 330 with the 3.3 as it would to find the Corolla. You can probably find 440s with the 3.8L6 and 290 V8 but less so with the 3.3 L6. And the AMC engine was solid. A later version of that engine is better known as the Jeep 4.0. But the perception was that it's a throwaway car. Cheap and crude. You didn't fix it, you got rid of it. A lot of Ramblers probably ended up in the crusher before their time. The Corolla was even cheaper and more likely to suffer that fate.

I can't explain why the Beetle didn't suffer this fate. Hippie nostalgia maybe? If anything, it was probably more crude than the other two cars. I've owned two of them and I still can't explain it.

Of all the cars listed, I would pick the Rambler. But a bit older. 1965 with the flathead six and 3 speed manual. Yeah....I'm just not that nostalgic about a Corolla. But these are different cars than the muscle cars you listed.
More nostalgic about a 240Z or an RX-2. Believe it or not, those cars had a certain panache. They weren't without their imperfections but they were very good for the time.