This guy always had a fixation on stiffer suspension and handling but no one ever bought these cars back then for handling, they were all about comfort.
There's a difference between a soft ride and awful suspension control, the latter of which most of these boats had regardless of the brand. You could have nearly the same cloud-like ride with far better engineering and control in the suspension department. I understand what you're saying but having suspension with so much wallow it's uncontrollable is inexcusable, the 70's Ford line-up was especially bad about this.
that's only because we're used to how maniacs behind the wheel drive now... I owned a '72 Chrysler New Yorker back in 1977 and it handled better than any car I've ever had since... but, then again, i know how to drive properly, always have.
Geordo1960 You took the words out of my mouth. If all those full size cars came with stiff suspensions back then, nobody would have bought them. People didn't run those cars through slalom's, they wanted them to ride cushy on the road.
There are no records of anyone ever dying in a car accident because of a soft suspension. There are millions of accidents though that can be traced back to a firm "safer" suspension though because the firm suspensions encourage faster driving which contributed to the accident.
@@waynejohnson1304 Unless you count the people that went off the road because the beast could not handle it. Throw in evasive driving that was severely hampered by cars that handled poorly and you were done! Better handling = safer cars so making them garbage to slow people down is ignorant. If we got rid of seat belts, front disc brakes and used wood rims with skinny tires like they did 100 years ago...ultimate safe cars! Well, no...
@@EVnewbie So, in other words, more people dying in the so-called "safer cars" is okay? That IS, make no mistake about it, what you just implied. The suspensions were firmed up at the same time that air bags and anti-locking brakes came into being so there is no way of knowing what would have happened if the suspensions were left soft but, we do know that there are more high speed accident now than ever before. Firm suspensions encourage fast driving. If you are going to put a Formula One suspension on a car, people will drive it like a Formula One race car. According to Motor Trend Magazine, German has a 1% lower accident rate then we do BUT, a 1% higher death fatality rate. Accidents happen too fast to blame a suspension. I have well over 5,000 videos of accidents from RU-vid and there is ZERO evidence that that a suspension ever came into play. There is all kinds of evidence though which indicates that the firmer suspensions are encouraging faster driving that is leading to MANY accidents. In 1980, and before, most people drove 65 to 70 MPH on the Interstates. It was RARE to see people going over 80 MPH. Now, it is not unusual to see people driving 90+MPH. As long as you actually enjoy a higher death rate, fine, but, some of us do not.
@@waynejohnson1304 You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same. For this reason, you can't make something completely safe because people will naturally be more careless to a level of safety they are comfortable with. Bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks and unicycles--people will use them to their own risk level. If you build a car with sloppy suspension, weak brakes, no seat belts, no air bags, skinny bias ply tires people will drive slower to be sure. However! When the fit hits the shan, a deer jumps on the road right in front of you, you hit back ice, a child runs into the street, sudden pouring rain, a tire blows out, lightning hits a tree, dust storms, smoke from forest fires etc. hit you then it is a BAD thing to have great brakes, stiff suspension, great tire grip, anti-locks, air bags, superior lighting, traction control etc. because F it, we need to slow down idiots? Really? Sorry! Idiots are always out there, you can never make anything idiot proof but we need to save the lives of idiots? OK, put the speed limit at 15MPH to save the idiots or, just late Darwinism take it's course! The reason they made cars safer was because the governments around the world realized that the garbage rolling down the streets in the 50's and 60's were death traps and people died, normal people just driving around died because of poor suspensions, poor handling, weak brakes, no crash protection in the doors, no roll over protection, useless bumpers, non-collapsing steering columns, doors would open up in a crash, metal dashboards would break your knees and the list goes on an on. 60 years ago the gas tanks we behind the seat in pickup trucks! Don't forget the steering wheel would not collapse, the dash was steel, manual drum brakes, single master cylinders so front and rear brakes would fail at once, lap belts which did little as you bent at the spine to hit a solid metal post holding the steering wheel, broke your knees on the steel dash, the gas tank ruptured in a side impact and so on. They took a 50's Impala and hit a modern Impala head on and the the old Impala driver would of died--the modern Impala driver would of been OK. After all, in an accident--most of the time one driver is at fault while the other driver(s) are victims so I'll take a great handling, great stopping, tight steering car anytime to avoid idiots. I also drive in rain, snow and in dusty conditions so I have to battle mother nature also. There will always be idiot drivers no matter what car they are driving--that is a given until self driving cars take over to remove the idiot from the equation. Making cars more hazardous to slow down a few idiots while making the cars far worse for people that don't drive like idiots (most people on this planet) is a really bad idea. Heck, we should get rid of ground fault interupters, remove electrical grounds, get rid of all those non conductive electrical devices so people respect electricity more! Think about it...
@@EVnewbie I don't know why you mention brakes, skinny tires, and all of the rest of the advances that actually do save lives because I agree with those advances. Designing cars to perform like Indy race cars though does NOT prevent accidents. It encourages them. You wrote: "You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same." Exactly my point. You have been brainwashed into thinking that a firm suspension will somehow prevent you from having an accident when there is not one piece of evidence to back up your claim. If I am in a Ferrari and someone pulls out in front of me, I will still hit him. If the back of my car is hit on the highway, I am still going to spin out regardless of what suspension I have. My question is this: Where will I benefit by driving a car with a firm suspension? I have owned Cadillacs since 1989. I have had a 1976 Coupe DeVille, a 1971 Fleetwood, and my present CTS4. The ONLY two things I can do better with my CTS4 is brake quicker (because of the wider tires and wider brake rotors) and take corners faster (because of the wider tires). So, why should my new Cadillac ride like a Mack truck? THAT is the question I would like you to answer. How is my firm suspension helping me avoid an accident? Why should I suffer because of it? Answer me that.
Exactly! and Vintage Fisher Stereo systems...tube amplifiers..Analog Thermostats, cause the damned digital ones have batteries that run out and your furnace quits when you are out of town and freezes the pipes ...Ya goodam right ANALOG did the job boys.....yup that's us! I do not want a damned computer board on my Stove that fricking breaks then is discontinued so that I have to trash a perfectly good $2000 Jen-Air Combo Cooktop range.....Analog...Analog...analog.....yes by God...Communists created the damned computer chip! heheheh....
@@georgewilson1184 It really felt good to get that off my chest. Literally just got a call have to replace ANOTHER appliance at my rental house...the dryer now..10 years is what they are good for...Better off buying used stuff...where do I find a good Admiral dryer now?
Incredible cars.Bought my friends fathers '74 2dr Limited loaded 455 4barrel for$300.After a 10 yr nap('86-'96)in garage fresh gas/battery & plugs fired right up.Towed a 30' camper after adding air shocks 75-80mph down the highway to Joysey shore.Slept many a night after doing o.t.on the velour back seat.Sold her after an offer I couldn't refuse.Would love another one.
I had a '71 Buick Electra 225. The 455 - 4bbl that year put out 315 gross BHP; about 230 net. It could get out of it's own way but it was no drag racer. The soft factory springs got mushy, so I put booster shocks on all four corners, which lifted the car nicely and gave it a surprising level of control for such a huge barge. I found some 60 profile Goodyear Blue Streak rayon belted radials meant for State Police cruisers and put them on it too. It was still no track weapon but it was finally competent on the highway. Never got better than 16 mpg, though.
Yep . . if I remember right, they were 225 or so horsepower and about 350 lb ft out of the factory with single exhaust. That you could uncork 25 more horsepower and 25 more lb ft just from the move to dual exhaust, while still having the factory exhaust manifolds, tells you exactly how restrictive that single tailpipe was.
The 455 2 bbl with 170 HP did 0-70 in 19 seconds, within half a second of a Greyhound bus tested the same day. The base model, with the V6, would not do 70 except in the downhill section of the course, and hit 60 in just under an hour, unless John Davis was in the car. Through the cones, it was wallowy, but slightly ahead of the Queen Mary. And that's with the "stiffer springs". Earlier models, with softer springs, would shake violently when attempting a turn. Dealers would suggest that new owners avoid turning except when absolutely necessary and to try to stop the car first. In the event of a panic stop customers were advised not to inhale for two minutes to avoid smoke damage to the lungs. The car shown had to be retired after filming as it would no longer track in a straight line. The front and rear compartments were in different lanes. The front shocks were replaced when it was discovered they were filled with chocolate pudding. A fully loaded LeSabre would sometimes be seen rolling backwards down a hill. Passengers would have to walk the hill, carrying their own luggage, while a lone driver would try to nurse the car up hill. I want one.
15 mpg for a 4500 lb behemoth with a 455 V-8 isn’t “pretty good”, it’s miraculous. My ‘75 Grand Prix weighed only 4100 pounds and had the 400 engine and we never saw more than 12 mpg.
15 mpg was pretty impressive considering how they're abusing the car, and considering the points-ignition of the time, the weight and (lack of) aerodynamics, and a carburetor. The best I managed on my 1972 Olds 98 (455 4-bbl) was about 15.5 MPG, but it had some minor carburetor issues, and it probably could've used a tune up. Built for low-end torque and for comfort . . NOT for speed.
Dang.. The first car I owned was an 74 Buick LeSabre 454 4 barrel duel exhast. weight 5800 pounds with a half tank of gas. Gas hog, but best riding vehicle I ever rode in. Smooth and stable. The big engine hauled ass very well for that tank of a car.
Today's cars are so much better in what way? I had a '72 Chrysler New Yorker from 1977-1982 that I would trade for my current car, a 2019 Lincoln Nautilus, any day of the week!
@@Nunofurdambiznez thats a Lincoln... my camry se gets better mpg... faster 0 to 60... amazing brakes! wider after market tires and it handles about as well as any modern FWD ... car seems to love being driven hard with those stiff springs... dont get me wrong, i love these old cars i grew up with but i dont suffer from some delusion that they were at all great. they left alot to be desired... but at the time they were a huge leap forward... 100 years prior EVERYBODY was on horseback... heck, 1920 still had most people using mass trans and horses
I’m sure that if you have just the right options on those Lesabres including a 4 barrel carb you’ve got quite a road car that will get you where you want to go in style and comfort
Uggh. My dad had a 1974 Lesabre, yellow with a black vinyl roof. U-G-L-Y. Looked like a kid with a face full of braces. And black vinyl seats that would burn your legs. Handled like an aircraft carrier, but at least it had a 4BBL carb on the 455. It was pretty indestructible, which is about the nicest thing I can say about it.
All of the "more comfortable than a modern car" comments I imagine are coming from passengers. Sure they float and have a great feel but when you have to pump the brakes on bias ply tires or spin an 18" steering wheel twice to turn roughly 45 degrees...and suddenly you appreciate the new Challenger even with it's foam-laden rear quarter panels.
I daily drive a 68 Pontiac, and I really think the ride is better than when I drive a late model car. It has the kind of effortless one finger power steering and the torque to get up to speed just above idle. The ride is much less jarring than modern hard sprung cars, and overall it's a comfortable driving car. Let the people who prefer the old cars prefer to old cars. To each his own.
@@woodyofp8574 Agree. I drive my car from 1975 - not daily but - frequently from medio March to medio November. We do have a brand new car in the house, but nothing beats the smooth and quiet ride of a 1975.
Never make fun of these cars. At 75 MPH, your passenger could recline their seat and sleep through a tankful of gasoline. NONE of the cars today, including the top of the line Mercedes, will allow that now. These cars represented the last of the long-distance cruisers. For anyone over the age of 50, they are sorely missed. Today's cars are 4-5 hour cruisers, at best. These cars were 10-hour cruisers. If you've never ridden in these cars, you have absolutely no idea of what you are missing.
You've obviously never driven in a used Bentley. Heck I've fallen asleep in 90's Crown Vics...they might not have quite the float of an old Caddy or Buick but it gets the job done.
@@DustyNonya Even the Bentleys are considered firmly sprung compared to this Buick. There is no comparison to the 90s Crown Vics either. These cars were in a category all their own. You would have to ride or drive in one to fully understand.
@@DustyNonya Every 90's Crown Vic or Grand Marquis I ever rode in had a squirmy jittery ride, they rode soft but the ride quality was always kind of "busy" especially over bumps. My grandads old '95 Fleetwood and my aunts 91 or '92 Caprice Classic (with the skirts) rode alot "floatier" lol.
@@waynejohnson1304 I never said the Bentley or the Crown Vic were on par with old Caddy or Buicks, but they're still sleeper mobiles compared to a Camry. That's why I said "They're not like a Cadillac or a Buick but get the job done.' I've road in plenty of Buicks and Cadillacs...frankly the 80s Buick Grand National/Regal Types were almost as bad as a Reliant K, IE polar opposite of a 71 Riviera.
@@Stressless2023 Someone who knows their 90's cars :D. Caprices and Fleetwoods were definitely floatier than a Vic, I just mentioned it because even those will put me to sleep if I'm in the back seat. I just find it hysterical when people who have actually driven a Cadillac or Buick from the 70's whine about the body roll. God Forbid they ever had to drive a Semi Truck or even a 4500, they's sound like a European driving a Challenger for the first time.
My Grandparents had one. Comfy and sort of luxurious, but it was underpowered and boat ish handling. I never turned down a chance to drive it though. Always liked big cars. They some fiber optics in the dash panel. I know because I broke one line trying to replace a bulb.
It is worth noting that with all of the complaining about how awful this car handled that none of the pylons was knocked over. Not one car accident in the history of the automobile can be traced to a soft suspension. NOT ONE! Accidents happen so fast that the suspension plays no role in the outcome. Today, we have cars that ride like trucks in order to avoid accidents that have never happened except in the minds of those who imagined them. In one hundred years from now, there will still be no one reading this who will be able to write and/or say: "I was saved by my firm suspension". We were all bamboozled! So, instead of having nice riding cars, we now have hard riding crap with hard riding tires and hard seats because some fearmongers told us they were somehow better.
Wayne Johnson....We can blame Germany for their influence on American automakers change over to rock hard suspensions that do handle more precisely on narrow twisting European roads and high speed Autobahns. America has wider straight highways and slower speed limits which makes that unnecessary. A German You Tuber buys and imports Cadillacs and Lincolns to Germany because he says they are much more comfortable on a long trip and prefers the softer American suspensions of 70's American Land Yachts. Yes I agree I also prefer a softer ride.
Gotta love how Bud just threw all his testers around including this ole boat, fishtailing through the cones with the grace of a whale on ice skates. 😂😂
I can't stand it, and I always say, these kids and young folk watch to much t.v., 22, Dubs, Pimp My Ride, Training Day, 1978-1980 Chevrolet Monte Carlo's ! I agree with the rest of u, leave it alone already, I like old cars kept original, and they r worth more any way.
Well... almost. It really needed a 4-bbl carburetor, that 2-bbl carburetor was a joke... an effort to just quickly meet the insurance and Federal mandate.
performance and handling is a far cry from the 1972 Buick Centurion that they've tested, I'd much prefer the 1972 Buick Centurion over this car any day.
The Buick 455 was never sold with a 2 barrel carburetor in my area.. I have never seen a 2 barrel big block buick manifold and I have owned dozens.. crazy.. must have been one of those quadrajet fake carbs with no secondaries lol..
It was to allow the engine to deliver the same high torque at low rpm for effortless driveability, but starve it at higher rpm so emissions tests were passed.
@@scdevon Not really since the second set of two barrels only kicked in under high power demands. Around town, you would just be driving around on two barrels.
The handling didn't look that bad, honestly. I think my 2000 Town Car leaned more. Put a good set of shocks under it and it would glide without wobbling all over the road.
Just seeing the year "1974" associated with any American car is enough to make a person ill. 1974 was an awful year for a lot of reasons. The EPA gutting the performance of your V8 engine to 1/2 of what it was in 1970 was just icing on the cake. They still drank just as much fuel to make 50% of their horsepower, too.
I always consider 1974 and 1975 to be the worst years of the 1970's when it comes to the automotive industry, to me if I were to buy a classic car it would be a 1972 or earlier due to the vehicles not being fully smogged/
@@Doobie1975 1975 is much worse, that's when the cat converter came out and really killed performance. The G.M. cars in 1973 and 1974 still had true dual exhaust on some models.
@@markg7030 I don't consider 1973 to be as bad as many people make it out to be but always thought 1975 was the low point of the automotive industry, I do admit I do like the GM cars built from 1977 to 1979.
That car had been faster then that, this guy did a video about a car that I used to have, a 1969 Impala with a 396 with a 2 bbl, he said that car could even punch his way to a wet Kleenex, my car would smoke the tires and bury the speedometer, with no trouble, my car could run a 0-60 in 7.3 not 10 sec like he said!!!
@@mhoraites1055 they also took off with the car in drive and didn't wine the engine out through the gears, their transmissions had a under 5000 RPM shift point, if you put it in a lower gear and held it there and shifted it manually the cars would have been faster
The only thing that they did wrong with that car was put a 2bbl. carb on a 455. They should have offset that with dual exhaust at least. Other than that it was a beautiful car!!!
This show always carries on about Buick brakes over other GM cars, but I'm almost 100% sure that all GM cars shared the same brake sizes and configuration on all of their cars back then on the front disc/ rear drum vehicles within a GM vehicle platform. There's probably no difference at all between the brakes on, say, a 1974 Olds 98 and this Buick.
Chevy CORVETTE had always the finest brakes. Disc @ all 4 corners. In that year. ('74,75,76) had front disc /rear drums. GM made sure that the best brakes ( disc on all 4 corners )was reserved for the Chevy CORVETTE & '76 Cadillac Eldorado.
Chrysler never offered a 440 2bbl - Likewise a 460 2bbl from Ford. I've seen a 400 2bbl from of them yes. I did eventually find the 455 2bbl in brochures for Buick (Never looked in Olds' brochures)
I've never liked the mid 70's GM full size coupe's at all, I do notice you hardly see any of the GM full sized coupe's from the mid 70's but still see a good number of the 60's/early 70's GM full sized coupe's.
Black guy's love these big old cars. Lots of them are inherited from old aunties and they are customized with giant wheels and crazy paintjobs. Good for them, I say.
***** These cars would just be sitting in driveways and salvage yards otherwise. They're not collectible and no one cares about them... except when they see someone else enjoying them apparently.
Me neither. I also saw 4V, which could easily be assumed as "valve". I'd bet "bbl" came from colloquial use of common (and correct) usage for "blue barrel" (standardized 42-gal. oil barrel size), with the subconscious "I don't know why "pounds" is abbreviated as "lbs." either, but that's what everybody uses", LOL.
Considering how they were driving it, 15mpg wasn't bad. 1974 was the absolute low point for power in American cars. Starting in 1975, most cars came with catalytic converters, and manufacturers started advancing spark and raising compression ratios.
Actually most makes had a horsepower decrease in 1975 with the restrictive cat and loss of true dual exhaust systems. Things improved later with advancements in technology.
I had no idea a 455 came with a 2bbl ? same with the 396 chevy , I was shocked to see it tested by Bud with a 2bbl . Did Caddies ever come with 2bbls ? I dont think the 440 mopar ever had a 2bbl ?
