While true, you also spent a LOT more time fixing them than newer cars. The 70s were a time when cars were still holding on to older technologies when people were wanting newer tech.
The poor performance was due to the government mandates for catalytic converters and other pollution reducing devices that were forced on auto makers before they were ready to be properly implemented. Most cars of that era suffered from this issue. The Chrysler Cordoba and Ford Grenada were hardly economical basic transportation.
@@theclearsounds3911Agreed. The only NEW car I ever bought was the 1979 Mercury Monarch, sister of the Granada. A total POS from day one. I finally traded it in on a 1975 Firebird, and was much happier, driving the 'Bird over 200,000 miles over eight years, literally wearing it out. 😊
@@theclearsounds3911 Little known fact... the Grenada was a stretched Pinto, for all intents and purposes. Only the scorned Lincoln Versailles had actual decent car parts on it, like the famous Ford 9" rear axle and good brakes. The Big Three HATED little cars with such a passion because of lessened profitability under their bloated systems of doing business. Thus their revenge on their customers for demanding small economical cars was to give them nothing but cheap POS cars no matter what the size and cost.
@@lancerevell5979 In 1976 my dad and I took a Grenada for a test drive... he shook his head and said, "I'll stick with the old '65 Ford Custom", which was a way better car he'd bought new in '65.
The Gremlin was nothing more than a shortened Hornet. I owned 4 of them. They were economy car and I didn't have any real problems with them. I drove them to work and the grocery store. That's what they were designed for. The only thing that they were bad for was getting loose on a wet road . That was because they were light in the back end .
@@buzzwaldron6195 And the serious lack of concern for rust preventitive coatings. They rusted horribly fast. If you overheated the engine, you were very likely to destroy the aluminum block. It was an attractive little hatchback that had styling that resembled the Camaro, but too many issues to make you want to keep it.
And Volkswagon Beetles turned over a lot easier than any Corvair would. But Ralph Nader hated GM and cars in general. GM was King and Nader wanted to bring them down. To this day Ralph Nader has never owned a car. FACT!
And in 1972 the Volkswagen Beetle took the title for the best selling car of all time away from Ford. The Beetle surpassed the Ford Model T in the total number produced. The Beetle continued in production in other countries, and was finally phased out in 2003. It started in production in 1938. The longest in production car platform ever. Very few changes were made, and no major restyling was done during it's run.
@@ericknoblauch9195 Yep cheap easy to get transportation. I had one for 6 months as I was between cars and got one to hold me over. Not the best built regarding quality but the were just basic transportation.
My neighbor had a Pacer, he loved that ugly thing. I had a 79 Cordoba, it was a decent car, V8 318 and plenty of get up and go and carried my early family around just fine. It was easy to work on too.
Wrong choice of pictures to the vehicles being talked about made this video comical. This reviewer stood either in more subway cars or buses instead of sitting in private passenger cars in his lifetime than what he's willing to admit.
When I was in high school in the '70's my girlfriend had a denim edition Gremlin . The upholstery was denim . I really liked that little car and she didn't have any problems with it . I like allot of the cars listed here . Lol
I had a girlfriend that bought a new pacer. They were both gone soon after. If she bought a new javelin things might have worked out better. I loved those cars.
Monte Carlo does not belong on this list. It was pretty much on par with most late 70s large GM cars who's power and performance were choked out by emissions gear.
If you try to purchase one of these Monte Carlos now, even without an engine, they are pricey and well worth it, they were awesome cars. The Cordoba was a great car also, not sure what this person has on his mind making this video.
The early Monte Carlos were/are awesome; luxury and performance, they gave a good solid feeling ride, and handled decent enough.......I think this is THE WORST video ever made about the subject, just really terrible
@@Eddie.D346 We have had both the Monte Carlo and the Chrysler Cordoba, they were great cars, the owner of this channel needs to find another type of work, they don't know anything about vehicles other than hearsay from others that don't know anything about them either.
The pinto did everything it was designed to do. It was quite reliable, also the mustang Ii was built on the same platform the pinto was. There are far too many mistakes in this video to list them all in one comment
Indeed! All the AMC cars were disparaged far beyond what I experienced. They were as reliable as any one else's 70s cars were, and easy to work on. Some were, admittedly, visually challenged (not Aztec level though, although we were 30 years from finding out). And if they were underpowered, it meant you optioned it out wrong.
My sister went out with a guy who said he had a Corvette, When he took her to his house to show her, it was completely disassembled, in his basement (It was a '53, though!). I guess I was more impressed than she was.
The Chrysler Cordoba was quite popular in the 1970s. It was the 1980s when it deflated and faded into oblivion. A lot of cars showed in this video are from the 1980s.
Chrysler's bankruptcy in the early 1980's led them to focus on the new K platform and not invest much engineering into it's aging rear wheel drive platform cars that would be phased out after 1988.
@jeffrobodine8579 That's absolutely true. But the Cordoba's new styling and lousy performance was the main reason it was dropped from Chrysler's lineup.
Most of these cars were big sellers for their respective companies and those same manufacturers wish they could sell any vehicle in the numbers that they were selling in the 70s.
I had a 1980 Pinto which had over 400,000 miles on it; my first car and the best car I ever owned! Other than burning through clutches (my fault) it was a great car!
@@larryhullinger4141 Sorry, Slappy, but it's not terribly uncommon. Most Pintos would rust to pieces before the engine ever needed anything beyond normal maintenance.
I had a friend who had a wagon that he loved. The body finally just about fell off the car, so he traded someone a little leatherwork for another wagon with a very good body, slapped it on his good chassis, and back on the road. Don't know how many miles that one had, but it was 6 figures, too!
If you had a Pinto out West, they could last. My 79 Bobcat ( Mercury's Pinto), had well over 300,000 miles when I got rid of it. But it was still running in 2001, as was my 64 F-100. I could only take two vehicles when I left CA. I took a 87 Celebrity, over 300K when it failed, and 83 B300, which at 250K, traded off for an 89 B300.
My first car was a 1977 Volaré. It was a 318 V8 4-speed and was a great car. My dad put chrome rims, white-letter tires and installed a kick-ass stereo. It was a great car, it was quick and fun to drive and overall was a great car. So there. 🤪
They did have rust recalls for front fenders and the cowl area that were later resolved. In extreme use, front transverse torsion bars would break causing taxi and police agencies to shy away from them for 78-80. But the over all design lasted until 1989 in the M cars, and made Chrysler a ton of $. 83-85 Fifth Aves were strong sellers. They weren't anything more than restyled Volare' s with the same platform and same running gear, with all the fluff 1 could slather on. They weren't terrible cars at all.
Not sure I'd agree about the Cordoba--at least the 1st gen. A family member bought a 1976 new. Rock solid chassis. The handling, power, and brakes were above average, when compared to the other large cars we had access to. Even the mileage was fair, and even good, compared to the 1975 Buick we had. Drove it in to the 1990's with a minimum of problems.
I had 3 chevettes. First one was quite used, but i put a ton of trouble free miles on it.The following 2 i bought new. Same experience, never took one back for warranty work, replaced a few batteries an at least 1 starter. These were all work cars, as a tri county service tech in metro Detroit. They all gained very high mileage in a few years but still reliable cars. I made a tidy extra income off those cars with the company reimbursement that put food on the table an clothes on my kids backs! Most of my co workerd always bought cars that they took a loss on due to the cost. I didn't look cool, didn't care an although far from a performance machine, it handled navigating all the various freeways in metro Detroit just fine.
My dad bought one new..told me something goes clunk around corners. I found a 13 mm impact socket in the pass. side door. 😅 Told him to sell it quick after they drove it through miles of ash from Mt Saint Helen's eruption. Alot of stops made to clean the air filter. 😮
@@fanggun4219 I worked at a California auto parts store when Mt St Helens erupted. Air filters were back-ordered for us for about a month because the people in the Pacific NorthWest needed the existing inventory then bought all the air filters the factories could put out.
I can't even begin to list the inaccuracies and mistakes in this video, which is ironic giving its purpose of pointing out flaws in automobiles. Don't even bother watching this video.
Yes sir... 04:04 LOL !!! This video doesn't realize that iron/aluminum engine was the Vega's BIGGEST FLAW !!! Never let it get low on coolant and overheat!
@@buzzwaldron6195let me get this right; are you saying this engine has an alloy block & a CAST IRON HEAD? That's a grave error in design! Did GM farm the design & production of this engine to a RIVAL company?
AMC built underrated cars for an affordable price. I had several friends that had gremlins that were beat to hell an still ran better every day than fords an gms offerings.
AMC motors were practically indestructible! Especially the 258 straight-six. Had one in my Jeep. Hard off-roading, pl.owing, towing, went almost 300k before the body rotted away.
I was a setious AMC guy in the 1970s and early 1980s. I owned three Javelins and a 1968 AMX 2-seater, a couple buddies had Hornets. All good cars. AMC was always very unappreciated.
@@lancerevell5979 Tried like hell to find a 401 to put in my factory 304 CJ-7! Settled for a 360. Bored it .030" over, mild cam, Performer intake & carb. Jeep got stolen! Now Edelbrock has aluminum heads!
"LOL" at the 'the mustang suffered decreased handing...'. The front steering and suspension components were legendary compared to most cars from that era, and were used on countless hot rods, restomods, kit cars. Aftermarket probably sold more of these parts that Ford ever put into the cars.
You mean Astre... 04:04 LOL !!! This video doesn't realize that iron/aluminum engine was the Vega's BIGGEST FLAW !!! Never let it get low on coolant and overheat! Pinto 1600 was more reliable than 2.0, 2.3, or 2.5L with no timing belt to keep breaking. Pontiac fixed the Vega-cousin Astre with that Iron Duke 4 engine with no timing belt or aluminum cylinders... not even a timing chain... just timing gears! Still have my ultra rare '77 Pontiac Astre FORMULA Safari (kammback) Station Wagon! 5 speed manual, posi, 28 MPG City/34 MPG Hwy...
😢The AMC gremlin in the 1970's went out of production but it lived on when AMC took out the small rear windows and put in large windows like the chevette had. They called it the AMC spirit. The spirit was a gremlin platform and drivetrain. It was the same car but only had larger rear left and right windows.
You say "that nobody wants back", well... Hi. I'm Nobody. I want ALL of these body styles back. Granted, the designs can be tweaked to work better with safety standards, but I would LOVE to see these body styles return.
That “unique”, “innovative” aluminum engine in the Chevy Vega was the car’s major design flaw. Most aluminum engines have iron or steel cylinder liners. Chevrolet engineers thought an aluminum / silicon alloy engine block wouldn’t need cylinder liners. They were proven wrong.
Yep! This was their biggest flaw. Also, if memory serves me right, I believe the cylinders in the block were siamiesed which made the problem even worse because uneven expansion made the cylinders become oval instead of round when the engine got hot. That resulted in uneven wear which quickly wore through the coating on the cylinder walls and totally ruined the engine. It was basically a throw away engine.
Yeppers... 04:04 LOL !!! This video doesn't realize that iron/aluminum engine was the Vega's BIGGEST FLAW !!! Never let it get low on coolant and overheat!
I had a 1972 Pinto and loved it. It was hit in the back end by a fool driving a NASA car. Didn't explode. I should have went after NASA, but I was young and was just glad that my wife and new born son were not harmed.
Unlike the “boomer gM “square body pick up that exploded on contact that gM got away with,the Pinto problem was in the “Run-a-bout hatch back only,gM continued to build their rust prone truck from 1973 to 1987 they should be ashamed
My Sister's first car was a 1976 Pinto, Dad bought it for her brand new. She had no trouble until she got broadsided by a drunk and totalled. The gas tank placement wasn't the problem, as most cars of the period had the same style. The construction of the tank was more prone to bursting open.
@TRM364 - He likely is speaking of the disastrous Chevy/GM trucks made with the 'side saddle' fuel tanks, mounted outside of the frame rails with no protection from impact. Over 10M trucks were made that way and GM never upgraded or recalled them due to "cost reasons." Between 1973 and 2009, more than 2,000 deaths were attributed to this major design flaw. The D.O.T. called it the "worst auto crash fire defect in the history of the D.O.T!! Made the Pinto exploding fuel tank debacle look like nothing! Also, Ford corrected the problem while GM did nothing. One of the main reasons I detest Geriatric Motors to this day.
@TRM364The retrofit recall Ford did on the early Pintos was to install a rubber boxing glove onto the trackbar bolt so it would punch a dent into the fuel tank instead of puncturing a hole in it.😂😮
@@Frank-r3y2i A 31 year-old girl in a Yugo blew off the Mackinac Bridge in 1989 going to see her boyfriend, although the Mackinac Bridge Authority maintains it was operator error.
I have to strongly disagree, with this video. These cars, had style, and character of their own, compared to what we have today . Simple, no computers, no touch screens, roll down windows, Chrome bumpers, and character and style of their own. YES, I would love see these affordable cars, back. AND, yes I would love to buy all of them, OVER any BORING YUPPIE MOBILE sold today.
The Cordoba was a luxury car. The 70s models had strong acceleration and a good ride. The 80s models looked nice, but had poor acceleration. But the 70s models were big sellers for Chrysler. Everyone I knew who owned one, loved them.
The 75 and 76 had the #2 spot in sales behind the MC for personal luxury coupes. If you knew what box to check, you could special order a P code cop 400 4bbl V8 with all the HD goodies that police cars came with. Ford and GM offered nothing like it. Granted, the ELB system and rust were serious issues with the 75-79s, but this car was a serious cash cow for Chrysler at the time. The 80-83 sales and production never came close to even the 4 yr old 79s. There was 1 recall on the 75-79 for front wheel bearing failures, which turned out to be caused by improper torque settings on the production lines, not the parts themselves.
I had an orange gremlin and loved it! I once saw a gremlin with a chev small block 350 under the hood and the back wheel wells were tubbed out with wide mags wheels and stabilizer bars. It was at the drive in when I was 17.
At least the Pinto for all it's flaws was more fun to drive and more reliable than the Vega and had higher peerformance than the Gremlin which had a higher-displacement engine/
Vega/Astre were better looking and more fun to drive! Pontiac fixed the Vega-cousin Astre with that Iron Duke 4 engine with no timing belt... not even a timing chain... just timing gears! Still have my ultra rare '77 Pontiac Astre FORMULA Safari (kammback) Station Wagon! 5 speed manual, posi, 28 MPG City/34 MPG Hwy...
the Matador was the car Christopher Lee turned into an airplane and flew out of the barn escaping Bond and the Hillbilly Sheriff. And that corkscrew jump the Hornet did was REAL!
I've owned a 1974 Monte Carlo Lando, fully optioned, since 1984 and still use it *TODAY* as my daily driver. I do not disagree with the less-than stellar performance of the detuned engine thanks to government regs, but I respectfully disagree with everything else. DeLorean redesigned the Monte Carlo for 1973 to address handling issues by changing the steering geometry and adding sway-bars. Several years back, some guy in a Firebird tried to race me around some curves… he was surprised I out ran him. When I bought the car, it had nearly 100,000 miles on it and there were electrical issues which were caused by a previous owner or some inept mechanic. I restored the wiring to factory correct and haven't had any issues since. To address the lack of power, I built a performance engine. That engine didn't produce enough vacuum for the cruise control or for the brake booster while parking in a parking lot. I solved that by installing a vacuum pump and an auxiliary vacuum storage canister. I currently have north of 500k miles and everything in the car still works. The 1970s was a tough time for all US car makers thanks to government regulations. The 5-mph bumper requirement presented all sorts of styling limitations and complying with the emissions standards was, as history shows, challenging to say the least. All the emission equipment (A.I.R, E.G.R, fuel vapor canister, etc.) used vacuum. Each of these things was essentially a controlled vacuum leak managed by the carburetor. It was a delicate balancing act of herculean proportions. All it would take to throw everything off would be a loose vacuum hose or a ruptured diaphragm. It's easy to see where the perception of unreliability came from. As for desirability, there's hardly a week that goes by when someone doesn't ask me if I want to sell it.
I'm not even going to begin mentioning all the wrong images shown, all the superficial assumptions based on hearsay and the assessment of these models based on wrong expectations (monte carlo was always a personal luxury coupé, rather than a sports car for example and who would have guessed that a cheap economy car didn't perform like a muscle car?). The inclusion of the Pontiac aztek on a list of cars from the 1970s pretty much sums it all up. I just want to mention that most of these cars were commercially very succesfull because they were very right for their (emissions-choked) time (Ford sold over 3 million pintos in 10 years to name one) and ... are way more stylish than most of todays SUVs.
The base Pinto weighed less that 2,000 lbs and cost less than $2,000. I owned a 71 Pinto for a year and I liked it. It had the optional 2.0L German engine that was rated 115hp and it ran great. After the oil embargo, I sold it for a profit. I bought a used 73 Vega GT. It was a nicely designed car but it rusted so fast you could hear it rust and the aluminum block engine without sleeves burned oil really fast.
The Pontiac Aztek was manufactured from 2001 to 2005, sot the reviewer is only off about 30 years. Also, what kind of idiot tries to make a comparison between a Chrysler Cordoba and an AMC Pacer? Also, keep in mind that many of the criticisms of lackluster performance in these mid-'70s cars were the result of the manufacturers trying to deal with attaining improved fuel economy after the Arab oil embargo and meeting higher emissions standards.
I loved my 1971 Ford Pinto. It was my very first car as it was a hand me down from my father. I drove that thing until 1981 when the engine threw a rod at about 230,000 miles. It was the 1.6 L with the one barrel carburetor that didn’t have an overhead cam or the rubber band timing belt. My father bought it brand new as one of the first of the Mahwah New Jersey assembly plant back in May 1970. After it was deemed as a rear end collision hazard, I placed a large “Flammable” diamond shaped sticker on the trunk. Later on around its 9 year mark, the fuel economy sucked as it was about 15mpg highway even with the 4 speed manual. This car was a rear wheel drive with 3.55 rear and a four-speed manual direct drive transmission. It turned about 3100 RPM at 60 mph. I think it was only about 110 hp. The other options for this vehicle later on was the 2.0 overhead cam and the 2.3 overhead cam. As far as the body was concerned, eventually, it did rust out at the floorboard, and I had to place a plywood board underneath the driver seat all the way up to the firewall.
@@buzzwaldron6195 but unlike today those broke, they were un-interference types. So you never had any damage. Today’s timing belt engines are interference engines, and will smash valves if the belt breaks while you are driving.
@@aviatortrucker6285 - Actually it's usually the other way around, early engines are crash engines, later ones have clearance... early Ford Escort engines crashed, exaggerated by timing belt also driving water pump which seized at 25K miles breaking the timing belt...
But it did handle better than any GM and Ford personal luxury coupe from 75-77, with a tighter turning radius and better brakes even in its most std form. You could opt for hd suspension, shocks, brakes, and 2 HD engines. Again Ford and GM offered nothing like that in those yrs.
You mean Astre... Pontiac fixed the Vega-cousin Astre with that Iron Duke 4 engine with no timing belt... not even a timing chain... just timing gears! Still have my ultra rare '77 Pontiac Astre FORMULA Safari (kammback) Station Wagon! 5 speed manual, posi, 28 MPG City/34 MPG Hwy...
@@Toolaholic7 You needed the standard transmission. A Pinto with an automatic was awful. The early Pintos with the 1600 cc engines were poor performers. When Ford started installing the larger engines they were much better.
@@Toolaholic7 NOT TRUE! The 2.3 and 2.5 liter four soldiered on under the hoods of Ford Ranger pickup trucks through 2001. Also used in Mustangs and Thunderbirds in turbocharged versions. Simple, reliable, and TOUGH!
So, cut off the catalytic and put in a straight pipe! That's what I did with my 1977 Camaro! Emission tests required from the Gestapo state govt? I got a P.O. box in a neighboring jurisdiction, registered it THERE!
@@SuperDean1957I had a 1979 Monte Carlo with a 155 horsepower 305 CID 4 barrel V-8 and that thing flew. You must have had the 267 CID 2 barrel V-8 with only 115 horsepower.
12:18 - Chevrolet Aveo? Looks like a Renault 16. 13:42 - Bar its name, British Ford Granada has nothing in common with the American Granada. 14:50 - What is a Mercedes S-Class W116 doing here? 21:32 and 21:37 - It's a Plymouth Horizon/Dodge Omni, no Plymouth Cricket.
Yes the video is a bit mixed up! The British made MK1 Granada & Consul were a hugely successful model for Ford of Britain , offering unbeatable value for money in 1972 to 1976( production moved to Germany in late 76 to make way for Fiestas at Dagenham) & the great marketing in using a Consul GT in the hugely popular TV series 'The Sweeney' ! Chrysler made the grave error of withdrawing the Cricket, just at the time of a fuel crisis & as Toyota, Datsun & Mazda were gaining in huge sales. It's British equivalent the Hillman Avenger had reasonable sales& sporting success .
Like a vet who takes in a sick unwanted deformed dog and nurses it back to health and keeps it for a pet, I've seen some of these cars mentioned being owned by AUTO MECHANICS, who feel sorry for those cars and tinker with them on a regular basis to keep them going and drive them as their daily driver to and from their shop and keeping them alive for DECADES!
Pinto's stayed on the road for many years, and that 2-liter motor was relatively reliable. The Chevy Vega's had aluminum engines that wore out quickly; they disappeared from the roads in just a few years. The Mustang II was basically a Pinto. Many cars from that time period were junk. It took a few years and cars from Japan to improve cars. I have noticed that Mustang II suspensions were popular in kit cars for some reason.
Pinto 1600 was more reliable with no timing belt to keep breaking. Pontiac fixed the Vega-cousin Astre with that Iron Duke 4 engine with no timing belt... not even a timing chain... just timing gears! Still have my ultra rare '77 Pontiac Astre FORMULA Safari (kammback) Station Wagon! 5 speed manual, posi, 28 MPG City/34 MPG Hwy...
@@buzzwaldron6195 The 2-liter Pinto engine was extremely reliable. Literally, 40 years later, they were still on the road running fine. They are only now disappearing, worn, finally completely out and totally antiquated. The Iron Duke engine was too little too late. Vegas were popular but disappeared from US roads in just a few years. I worked on Ford 2 liters, which are basically very well-made motors. Vegas died at 40K miles and had to be sleeved.
When I got my license the family car was a 1976 green Ford Granada 4 door. As I drove it around with my friends it became lovingly known as the "grenade". Despite the fact that it had no power, and no luxury extras, it became well-known as a great party car amongst my friends. Party on, Grenade!!
Honestly, AMC got a bad rep. My first car was an AMC Hornet that my dad gave me after it was wrecked. I repaired it and drove it for a couple of years while in High School. It was actually a pretty good car. The interior was poor though and did fall apart fast but that was no worse than any other 70s car. Many of the flaws in the Vega and Pinto were fixed and the Cosworth Vega is highly sought after today by collectors. Most 70s cars had poor horsepower due to emissions standards and most V-8s struggled to give 150HP. That, plus the excessive weight due to heavier steel bodies really made most 70s cars dogs (even the corvette and trans am were gutless. I used to work in a tune up shop). The Cordoba was not a 'bad' car but it was way over the top... more like 60s living room furniture but I did like the look of the Dodge version, the Magnum. BTW, the Aztec was not a 70s car...
The Pontiac Aztec wasn't made in the 1970s and they were actually good cars for what they were: crossover SUVs. Even the looks aren't that bad compared to many other vehicles that came out after them in this class. It was just ahead of its time.
@@kbuh505 Take a look at the Nissan Juke, Nissan Cube Honda Element or the Tesla Cybertruck. I'm not saying that the Aztek is a good looking car, but there are plenty of cars that look just as bad or worse than it does.
Picture this.... High School in the late 80s to USMC bootcamp in Dec '92.... In '90 I had a '78 Chevette that I used to drive through a ditch, to save 4 miles in my neighborhood, with 5 million stop signs. I lived 2 blocks from the back end of the only road that didn't have the signs. Loved that car. (sold when I moved from FL in '92) Late '80s, drove a '77 Cordova with T-Tops, spoke rims, brown outside-tan inside, never had any performance issues. I had friends with more expensive cars, but people wanted to ride with me. (sold when I moved to FL in '90) My service industry single mom with 3 kids drove a '79 Granada her first year in FL, without incident, until she upgraded to a '85 Mustang 5.0 in '90. Moral of the story, her longtime boyfriend covered the kitchen table with newspaper and told me step by step how to rebuild a Holley 4 barrel when I was 6 years old. All he did was check the settings on the jets, needle valves, & float. There was an issue with one of the gaskets. so I rebuilt it a second time. With proper maintenance and care, a few swap outs here and there, all lemons can be turned into lemonade.
@@buzzwaldron6195Chrysler insisted the ballast burns out because the wrong ignition coil is fitted; I discovered that Mitsubishi coils with higher primary ohms were in some cases fitted instead of the usual Mopar coils.
@@mikemartin2957 - I would expect higher coil resistance to be easier on the ballast resister... in any event, most older drivers know of the very common Chrysler ballast resister problem...
Had the brown 1979 Chevette 2dr hatchback shown here at 11:09. Mine was 4 spd manual. Loved it, got great milage and the folding rear seat was nice, adding storage space when moving. Drove it daily in all weather, went where I wanted, traction was good in snows and ice, while more powerful cars got stuck I chugged along slowly but safely. Even the large rear vent windows were nice since mine did not have air. Wish I still had it. Lost it in the mid 80's. Was told by a mechanic that I should not use a 1984 Chevette 2 dr hatchback to tow a trailer. I towed a small seven foot u-haul trailer from Florida to New York State, ran like a champ, overheated in Va, changed out a thermostat for five bucks, did all the preventive maintenance myself, and then computers came along. Point is the car took all I gave it and survived the drive . had to sell it cheap for 300 didn't want to, needed cash. Never had my Pinto explode either, also the Pinto Hatchback took all I gave it and more.
The Mustang II was a very nice car, but it wasn't a performance car and didn't deserve the Mustang name. The 71, 72, and 73, mustangs certainly couldn't be considered as "pony" cars either.
Nothing from the mid 70s performed. Even the Corvette had less than 200 hp by the end of the decade. I think all of those cars looked good, they just need to be restored with better engines.
@@troy2478 The Trans AM is probably the only iconic mid to late 70s muscle car, though even that was greatly underpowered compared to 1960s cars. Smog was a big problem so starting in 1970 they decreased the compression ratio and put the spark plugs at an angle. This reduced the flame temperature during ignition which reduced nitrous oxides that caused the smog. in 1972 they had to reduce the compression more to comply with unleaded gas. By 1975 all cars were required to have catalytic converters and burn unleaded gas. They had bypass valves that would scavenge a little exhaust to mix with the intake which would further decrease emissions and rob power. They also had air pumps to further reduce emissions. Modern cars have fuel injection, multiple oxygen sensors, precise ignition timing, and cam timing. These controls increase horse power and fuel economy, and able to keep the ignition temperature low enough to prevent most NOX.
The Pinto and Vega always looked like death traps. The Gremlin looked unsafe, but the people I know who had them, all said they were good vehicles. The Pontiac Aztec wasn't around in the 70s. I'm not a Chrysler person, so I can't comment on their products!
Let's face it, almost all 70's cars were pretty poor. With the gas crisis and pollution controls ( before on board computers) they had no power, lousy gas mileage and rust problems. There is a lot of mistakes in this video. Lucky for them I'm a car nut and watched it anyway.😎
Back in the late eighties another friend of mine had a Chevy Chevette. It was so slow that even a City bus from a standing start could outperform it. But another one of my friends had a Chevy Chevette with a 4-speed or a 5-speed in it and it would start every single time even in -30 ° weather. That's the car that we used to use as to jump start car in his dealership
@@johnaddis1022 Nope... Ours was a 3 Speed on the FLOOR stick... I think it was the first year of production when my 'Thrifty' Grampa bought it new at a extra low price in 1973 (I think the dealer marked it down because of the AWFUL color of the car. Having said all this... I kind of grew to like the uniqueness of it (other then the paint job!), but I guess the first car you have access to is always special anyway... If you click here @2:42 the telephone next to the T.V. is close to the color of our Vega, only the car was a bit darker with a little more brown.
When the Pontiac Aztec first appeared on the market, I nicknamed it the Pontiac Battle Wagon. I had the misfortune to have that as the only rental car available, go figure, in time of need.
Every car from the mid 70’s on had poor performance. They all sucked compared to the 60’s then all the way to the 90’s when we finally started having power and performance come back on the scene.
I had a 74 AMC Hornet. In the winter I would ice fish on lake Simcoe, north of Toronto. I would drive on the frozen lake as fast as I could until the car stared to drift to one side. Then I'd turn the steering wheel all the way toward the side it was drifting then floor it. I'd be doing 80 or 90 MPH spinning like a top across the lake. One time, my cousin was sleeping off his hang over in the back while the car was spinning down the lake.
Pontiac fixed the Vega-cousin Astre with that Iron Duke 4 engine with no timing belt... not even a timing chain... just timing gears! Still have my ultra rare '77 Pontiac Astre FORMULA Safari (kammback) Station Wagon! 5 speed manual, posi, 28 MPG City/34 MPG Hwy...
Me and a friend took his Gremlin and cut the rear wheel wells off then extended them to put big large tires on it. That looked good even though most of it was bondo. I didn’t see if afterwards but I bet it had cracks from our lack of auto body knowledge.
The Pontiac Aztec was NOT the 1970s It was the 1990s The Gremlin was so under powered it couldn't get out of it's own way. The AMC pacer was supposeed to gt the Wankle Rotory Engine.Nverr happened becausee of the many concept flaws.
Gremlins could be had with at least 2 different V8 options. You could get a 304 or a 401. These were very quick cars. Faster than any factory Pinto or Vega
C'mon... 04:04 LOL !!! This video doesn't realize that iron/aluminum engine was the Vega's BIGGEST FLAW !!! Never let it get low on coolant and overheat!
Get your pictures straight the Matador and the hornet hatchback or two different vehicles. You showed them as the same vehicle. The Matador is not even close to the haunted.
Got a used Dodge Aspen 4-door sedan model that I used primarily for a long work commute. Also got used for a bit over a year for traveling to science fiction conventions with a carload of friends. Positives: Tons of interior and trunk space - five, sometimes six, people and their weekend luggage could ride comfortably. It was also pretty economical on gas. Negatives: The slant-6 engine struggled with uphill highway driving, redlining to the max. At the crest, I took my foot off the gas and just steered as the engine cooled off. Also, Dodge hadn’t rustproofed it worth a damn that model year. After 3 years, all four fenders fell off, literally.
The Mustang 2 was a very good car well built and were do get off on saying bad things about AMC Amercan Motors made very safe reliable cars that were not under powered at all.
I UNDERSTAND BASE ON THE DATA, FROM THE 1970S, BUT I STILL DO LOVE THE MAJORITY OF THEM, BUT, I HAVE THE FUNDS TO RESTOMOD ANYONE TO TODAYS SAFETY STANDARDS, GREAT INFORMATIVE VIDEO ALL THE SAME, THANKS ( America Before )
The AMC Pacer was so screwed up that it's passenger door was 6 inches longer than the drivers door. This was supposedly done to make access to the back seat easier.
.......YEAHHHHH.....but you forgot to mention that they were favorites of the leftards at the time, since the seats reclined..... it was easy for them to shove their heads in and out of their a--es....
The 1973-1979 Monte Carlos were the hottest and most desirable cars of the decade, along with the Pontiac Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass. It’s astounding and irresponsible to include it in this list.
