re: Barrett-Jackson: 1970 Super Bird goes for $1.65 Million.

quote:

---

Never liked the giant wing or the extended front clip of the Super Bird. They just look ridiculous on a car that was already large by all accounts, the Challenger/Barracuda.

I'd much rather have a Cuda, which is the same thing underneath. Or a non-vinyl top Challenger

---

Never cared for the look either, but I get it. Very rare, fast, racing-history, and no doubt what it is when you see one.

quote:

---

Muscle cars are cool AF but they are often considered much faster and quicker than they really were

---

Good post. I love the old muscle cars (and have had a few), but their performance is often exaggerated.

My 68 Roadrunner (first car I owned) would "bury" the linear speedometer, showing over 120 on the speedometer. Looking back, I realize that those speedometers were generally inaccurate at those speeds and that I was likely going about 115.

I made two bad car buying decisions in my life: In 1976, I could have bought a cosmetically perfect Pontiac Judge with a blown motor for $500. I passed. In the early 80's, I could have picked up an orange Superbird (complete and operational) at a very reasonable price and I passed.

I could have stored both safely at farm and made out well.

quote:

---

Muscle cars are cool AF but they are often considered much faster and quicker than they really were. A stock 1970 Cuda Hemi would get smoked 0-60 and in the 1/4 by a modern Honda Civic Type R. In modern terms 60s-70s muscle cars were slow but they are still damn cool.

---

True, but tire technology of the day greatly limited them as well. A stock 426 with modern tires/slicks/drag radials will outrun a Civic R that runs 14.xs. A Civic on the same tires will not run low 12s.

Same could be said the 80's icon Ferrari 308/ Porsche 911s which would get beat by most modern family sedans.

To each his own, I'd rather have the slower classic like I would a mechanical timepiece over a more accurate quartz.

Everyone's mileage may vary.

quote:

---

Muscle cars are cool AF but they are often considered much faster and quicker than they really were

---

No they aren't. Everyone in the car world knows run of the mill cars on the road today smoke those old cars. At the time, they were fast

quote:

---

No they aren't. Everyone in the car world knows run of the mill cars on the road today smoke those old cars. At the time, they were fast

---

You realize you are making my exact point other than I have talked to many people that absolutely don't know how slow the old muscle cars are in modern terms.

well said

quote:

---

Never liked the giant wing or the extended front clip of the Super Bird. They just look ridiculous on a car that was already large by all accounts, the Challenger/Barracuda.

I'd much rather have a Cuda, which is the same thing underneath. Or a non-vinyl top Challenger

---

Too bad you have no clue to what you’re talking about. Challengers and Barracudas were stand alone “pony” cars designed to compete with the mustangs and camaros in the Trans Am series. I sold a 71 cuda 2 years ago as well as a 73 roadrunner.
The Superbird was a nose and spoiler added to a 1970 Roadrunner along with Dodge Coronet fenders.. It’s cousin, the Daytona, was a Charger with the added nose and spoiler. Both could only be had with a 440 or 426 hemi. NASCAR mandated 500 be street cars before they were allowed on the track. The fender scoops while cosmetic on the street car were actually functional on the race car allowing the fenders to be cut so the tires didn’t rub on the track when lowered.

Yea 71 was the last great year of the muscle car.

quote:

---

1969 Mach 1

---

Soon

quote:

---

One of the things noticed is the 3 spd 727 torqueflite auto transmission. I wouldn't think it was a popular choice but if only few were originally installed, a rare combo such as this could actually add to its value.

---

Compared with other autos, the torqueflite was a beast, and showed up in a lot of big-motor mopars of the day.

And anybody says that's ugly, can drop down to the nearest Sonic.

(My driver's ed car was a 68 Charger).

quote:

---

my 1969 Mach 1 was faster than 1972-74 vehicles in the same class. By 1977 Detroit had figured it out and I couldn't beat a 77 Trans Am for instance.

---

Your Mach 1 must have been a Windsor and tired by '77. The '77 TA even with the W72 package (L78 engine) only had 200 horse power (though that is SAE net) where even a '69 351W had 290 gross ~230 net and the Mach 1 was at least 500 pounds lighter than a 77 TA. Those awesome looking Starlight black and gold TAs were slugs. That era Z/28 and TA were high 16s cars. At least if you line up against a 4 cylinder Camry you have a drivers chance but you better cut a good light.

I pinpoint the 2nd muscle car era starting with the 6th gen Mustangs and their 300hp aluminum 4.6l 3 valve engine in 2005. Europe started their neo horsepower wars a little sooner with early 2000s M3s and C32s having 333 and 349 hp respectively.

Even I think the HP wars have gotten nuts:

700+hp trucks
800+hp muscle cars
600+hp sedans
1000+hp electric sedans
900+hp sports cars
and hypercars approaching 2000hp and even more
hell Ducati just announced a new Panigale V4 with 238hp on a bike that just weighs 370 pounds.


99% of people driving those machines trying to use anything like their potential would look like a monkey fricking a football until they bin it into the Armco even with the electronic nannies going full tilt.