Why was 1967-1973 the golden age of cars?

>most of those cars were slow as fuck
Most of the cars I listed ran 13s in the late 60s and early 70s from factory, which was more than decent.
Still probably as fast or faster than whatever shitbox you drive despite being 50 years old.

and Im not even going to get into pic related, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fairlane_Thunderbolt.

Stay salty.

>rants like a bitch because he likes garbage cars
>Stay salty

JUST

most of those cars are 14 second piece of shits with and tuning

body yes. reliability and fuel economy no.

>tones of collectors cars come from that time
Tons of things that are old are collected. Doesn't make them good.

>most of those cars are 14 second piece of shits with and tuning
except they are not?
If you can't accept actual documented times and figures because you have some bullshit bias then just continue live on with ignorance.

you continue to delude yourself into believing those pieces of shit are worth anything when stock

if you cant accept that you should stick to hanging around boomers

I'm not him, but it's clear you know nothing about this subject and are just spouting memes for.. I don't really know why. Sexual thrill?

It's an objective fact that the horsepower and 1/4 mile times of these cars were unparalleled by almost any production vehicle at the time. Nobody's doubting that they handled like boats, but HP, acceleration, and top speeds? Nobody could touch American muscle for triple the price.

Performance peaked somewhere in the 90s.
Everything since then has been gimmicky bullshit.

Performance has steadily increased, but so has weight due to safety and other garbage. The fact that a modern car can pass a 90s car at all means they are much better engineered.

youre just moving goalposts

most of them were still slow as fuck

a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle with 375hp (1967)

99.99% of muscle cars were S-H-I-T

cant turn
cant stop
horrible to drive
sounds like a rough running tractor
they were poorfag mobiles for stop light racing

If you're into american stuff.
It was 90s for the japs.

>American glory years
Wow it's fucking nothing

>muscle cars are anemic
here's a list of the muscle cars of that era showing that they aren't
>"gross horsepower is full of shit"
>"most of those cars were slow as fuck"
>"another subjective opinion of mine"
here's someone showing you that cars of that era ran times that would be acceptable TODAY for being quick.
>you're just mad because they are (my subjective opinion again)
>let me say something I know nothing about
guy says nobody could touch the cars at the time for triple the price
>"a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle"
You just proved him right and contradicted the absolute shit out of yourself

1967 Porsche 911 S: 8s to 60mph,15.47s quarter mile, $6990

1967 Chevelle SS: 6.7s to 60mph, 14.9s quarter mile, $3000

So... Yeah.. I know, Google is hard sometimes. But I ask that you at least try.

Really, "golden age" depends on your point of view. In terms of pure performance, the golden age is now. In terms of style, it really depends on your taste. I think the era you mention had a decent mix of both. The cars still had character and engine/suspension tech was alright. It was before the boxy 80s and before smog crap. Not a bad era.

they arent quick by todays standards at all
theyre slow as fuck

>muh price

every time

and no I didnt

if they were so fast they wouldnt barely be able to beat a car with less than half the horsepower

muscle cars are shit

nice

you used google

unsourced claims from Google

musclefags are legit retarded

even brought up the muh price shit like every musclefag does when they get their shit pushed in

>Car and Driver 1966
Porsche 911 S

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 92 mph

>Motor Trend 1966
1967 Chevelle SS 396
0-60 - 6.5
1/4 mile - 14.9 @ 96.5mph

american car companies LOVED sending in specially tuned cars to every magazine and their real world performance was even worse

muscle cars are shit

>911 acceleration taken from C&D's estimate of what a broken in 911 might do
You must have a big basket to hold all these cherries you pick.

And you STILL had to choose a car 2.5times the price, rear engined sports car, to MATCH the acceleration of a specific muscle car.

So I'm confused as to what point you think you were making.

But keep "insulting" me, it's really working in your favor.

muscle cars arent fast

thats all there is to it

they cant do anything unless you modify them

theyre SHIT

Less regulations.

Don't argue with shitposters user.

Just enjoy some nice cars.

But the average Mustang of the time had an anemic straight 6 that barely made 100bhp

Don't listen to boomers, they all want you to think they had Shelbys they bought themselves after working 2 years at the local grocery store straight out of highschool

Show me on the doll where the muscle cars hurt you.

The 911s of the era were nowhere close to as fast as many American cars in any respect

>just keep deluding yourself user

cant argue with you guys anyway

youre stuck in your ways

its called actually driving one

then you quickly realize theyre awful in about every way

...

yes

lets compare 2 completely different clas-

>heartbreaker

wew almost wasted some effort there

I drive one every day. I've also driven vintage 911s. I guarantee you haven't driven either.

>cant argue with you guys anyway

>youre stuck in your ways

Damn straight.

Driving one today, and comparing them to today's cars, duh; they're garbage. But this is a thread about great ages in automobiles; you don't say "1940s were such a shitty age for televisions: they didn't even have color!".

At the time, they were fantastic. It was a great age, that ended basically with the oil crisis. Never really came back, until now I guess. We're starting to see every day cars sold with 300+HP options again. This is probably the best age of cars, but the late 60s were pretty damn good. And I'm saying this as someone who has driven 60s American and European cars, but isn't old enough to drink in the United States of Donald Trump. So you can cut the boomer crap.

>At the time, they were fantastic

nope they were horrible cars for everything that didnt involve going straight

most of them were just slow as fuck even then

they were literal shitboxes with bigger engines

your feelings dont change facts

nothing about muscle cars are good unless youre the kind of knuckle dragger who thinks going straight is fun

and then you have to modify it to even do that worth a damn

So what was the nought to sixty time in any of these cars?
Never. Never was the nought to sixty time, merifat.

70s and 80s Japanese were excellent periods as well.

The power numbers were exaggerated but they were still the quickest things around.
Sure there were some quick Ferraris too but they were making about 50 cars a year or something.

Porsche were in the slow class? Yeah, we know.

you aren't even listening to him

yes they are shit, relative to a brand new mustang which would have been a fucking hypercar back in 1969.

no Im listening

outside of straight line performance they were shit

do you call 1 trick ponies fantastic?

No one cares m8.

youtu.be/OrEL2OQkvOY

>o-oh shit he has a point
>umm yeah I dont care lol

whatevs bruh

you can eat shit if you want to but Imma laugh

If they only were good in straight lines why were they faster than every Euro car in every production car circuit racing league that existed in the 60s?

ok heartbreaker

Ill reply to you this time

they had 4-500hp V8s and went up against

>911 was faster
proven wrong
>yeah but it's not fair!

>only good in straight lines
proven wrong
>yeah but it wasn't fair!

Could you move goalposts any more?

Guess what, retard? Compared to modern stuff everything was shit.
The American cars at least had power.

thanks for proving you cant read this is why I usually ignore you

>a 911 rated at 180hp (1967) could do the 1/4 at around the same time as a Chevelle with 375hp (1967)

doesnt say anything about faster

>proven wrong

they won only because of straights

if the competition had comparable power they wouldnt stand a chance

look as a 289 cubic inch v8 can barely out run a small 4 cylinder folks

so amazing

barely

and the cars were still mostly slow

Things that are collected are usually good, you dont see many 70's family sedans in demand, nor do you see really shitty unreliable(even at the time) cars in very high demand(except for a few)

Exactly.
No one cares about your opinion.

>and the cars were still mostly slow
so just like every other country then?

Oh yes post gross ratings of prototype engines with non factory specification intake manifolds and cam and exhaust etc
Anyone who believes the bullshit that muscle cars were underrated instead of horribly overrated is an idiot

the difference is nobody is acting like a 1969 Datsun is some blazing fast beast

people think a 1969 big block V8 that runs 14s is amazing

>they won only because of straights
Damn, if only racing was conducted on a tiny circle then true European engineering could be appreciated. The American cars were faster at everything for a fraction of the price, and it wasn't close. No amount of mental gymnastics on your part can portray it any other way.

Not seeing that 13 second muscle car LOL
15 seconds it is

Everyone lied about power in those days, not just the Americans.

Except 14s was amazing in the 60s, especially for a 2 tonne tank that cost a quarter what a porsche with similar performance did.
You stupid cunt.

oh man

that car that got btfo by a Mini!

excellent evidence

goddamn at least your one of the most consistently retarded trips so I cant be surprised

Japan end Europe didn't lie about 4 cylinders making 120hp
Americans lied about their v8s making 400hp when in reality they were lucky to pump out 160hp
Look at the 70s and the real power of the engines when required to measure them without using jewish trickery

The mini also beat 911s at the same time, are they shit cars too now?

11.60 in 1963 straight off the showroom floor

It got BTFO? On which stage was the Mini faster?

its not impressive tho

its a shitbox that can go straight that barely outruns a car with 2x less hp

>Everyone lied about power in those days, not just the Americans.

not really at least not to the same degree as Americans

DIN ratings are usually pretty accurate by NET standards

Americans were the kings of bullshit

Also a 14.9 IS NOT a 14
Its an entire afternoon of running 15s until lady luck decided to work on your side

wat

the Mini won the whole event

a V8 lost to a fwd 1L shitbox

>stripped out shit box with radials and a top speed of 140mph because muh 1/4 mile gearing
Lol

Also American shit cars never won the marathon DE LA route which is arguable the pinnacle of performance racing back in that Era

>1/4 - 11.08 seconds @ 128 mph

Stop making things up retard. Everyone lied, every country. Some of them still do.

>"NET" is a standard
my sides

Now I know your a shitposter. A 14.999 is still a 14 second car, like it or not. That applies to Honda's as well.

>p-please let me cherry pick these bespoke factory built race cars!!!
Lol nah kiddo keep trying though
I'm sure your 140hp (actually underated by 9001hp according to baby boomer hot rod monthly) "king cobra Mustang" runs the 1/4 in that time too

The Falcons were DQ'd for causing too much butthurt
>inb4 retard user tries to argue that the FIA isn't massively corrupt and can be trusted

sae net

stop grasping

yeah they have to post race cars to prove how fast stock cars are

I dont understand

everyone knows theyre fast when you upgrade them

I'm not grasping I'm laughing at your wikipedia degree

sore loser

>Cant even beat an outdated 1L fwd shitbox with a V8

JUST

keep grasping

you know Im right so you avoid the subject

>Stop making things up
Sorry not sorry I wasn't on the Ford gm or dodge marketing teams back in the 60s

14.9 is a 14.9
No one calls it a 14 because that would imply it can actually dive into the 14s not barely struggle to break into the .9s once

>trying to argue a top speed of 140 is a bad thing with 1960s barn door aerodynamics
Jaguar were cheating to hit 150mph.

So which stage was that? Any stage will suffice, if the Mini was faster it would be easy to link to the results

>"race cars"
Nope, these were cars anyone could buy from a dealership if they wished, they were titled and could be driven on the street just like any other car of the era. There is nothing "upgraded" or "modified," that would be like saying a trim package on a new car equates to modification and only the base model is a normal car

Sorry my conversions are a bit off I'm not used to working with third world units

I meant more like 160kmh which is like 100mph

God you sound so pathetic it's hilarious. Maybe one day you'll have a car of your own :D

huge ego
lots of money
few regulations

This just in a 911 gt3r isn't a race car because it shares the same platform as a carrera

This just in a Nismo GTR isn't a race car just because it's faster than your favourite car and makes your arguments look retarded.
Also a 911 GT3R is a race car lmao

your logic is retarded

who cares about who won battles when you know who won the war

nice to know GT3 cars and the like are street cars too

stay mad musclecuck

damage control hard af

stop projecting

literally loled

Nobody gives a flying fuck about comparing to other cars of the time, this whole thread is about what era of cars are the best, and the 60s-70s are complete fucking trash by every performance metric compared to anything built in 1990 or later.

>mfw your 7.0L V8 is slower than a FWD NA hatchback.
>mfw your car handles like a boat anchor with shopping cart wheels

>literally loled

You watch the F.A.S.T. cars? Insane what they can run.

NISMO GTR isn't a race car there are no factory backed series to race in unlike the 911 or even miata :^)

>bbbut muh hemi dart that was built Strictly for drag racing and only 80 made is totally the same as a slant 6 dodge demon because it is!!!

you know a Mclaren F1 is slower than a VW Golf round the Nurburgring?
what a piece of shit eh?

How would anyone have trouble with this distinction?

Is it built by an auto manufacturer, sold at a dealership, with a title, and registered for street use? It's a street car

No title, built by race shop, sold directly for race use? It's a race car.

>your logic is retarded
Are we talking about what cars were faster? If we are then it's the Falcon. Do you want to explain your judging criteria? Do you apply the same arbitrary handicap to small displacement cars when dreaming about cars you will never drive?

>knocking on the leaning tower of power.

A true shitposter legend.

Not even the same person but your literately making stuff up. Your making claims without any evidence to back it up. I don't even like muscle cars, your just an ignoramus.

Have fun with your 1 liter hatchback with its 10+ 0-60 time.
>but muh handling
That's point of the thread moron. By that logic today's cars would be the best.

>The press release stated that Dodge wanted to make a factory built and ready drag racer out of the 68 Dart GTS hardtop for competition in class B super stock drag racing.
Yep not a race car

Also did the mini or falcon win? That's who was fastest

>NISMO GTR isn't a race car
that's the point retard
>it's only a race car if it makes my bottom sore ;_;

>faster

too bad it lost my man

straight line speed isnt everything

Mini won

See the post directly above yours and keep crying

Do you also think the viper acrx is not a race car??

>Mini won
after a DQ for political reasons

didnt get dqed it came in 2nd

sorry your 300+hp v8 cant beat a 90hp fwd car

shouldnt be such a sore loser over it