My 1st car, a 68 Chevy Biscayne w/ the straight 6.... 2 speed Powerglide..... it was a boat but fun, simple to work on and like alot of Chevy's around the mid 80's time frame, a rust bucket
Listening to your presentations, is just like talking to a buddy about the latest and greatest new cars growing up in the 60’s. I grew up near Flint, MI, where GM was king with four Chevy plants, a seven block long Buick plant, three AC-Deacon plants, and GMI: the West Point of GM. ( now Kettering University ) My Father would eventually would retire as Chief Metallurgist/Chemist, but in the 60’s many of their friends who rose to very senior levels at retirement at Olds, Chevy & AC, sat around our dining room table talking business. It was a great time!
Very interesting content. As a 22 year old i never experienced this era and I never realized how full of myths and straight-up lies surround the muscle car era up to 1973 or so. This is great content. Keep it up
Just watched this a year after its release. Really interesting stuff. I was born in 1960, so it wasn't until the mid-1970s I had a real interest in this type of car, but they still seemed somewhat the norm back then. My HS parking lot had at least one Chevelle SS, a Dodge Super Bee, a few pony cars. A buddy had a 1969 Firebird 400. We used to putz around in my 1964 Kaiser-Willys CJ-5 (F-head engine), then hop into the Firebird. It was quite the contrast! Both were fun cars for their purpose. The Firebird was just sensory overload with the HP V-8 sound, torque, and G-force induced-head-stuck-to-the-back-of-the-seat acceleration...and my Jeep...it had that classic Rat Patrol jeep sound. Quite the contrast! Youth!
Re; 1964 Plymouths- my Dad actually shopped these before buying a GTO. He said the 383 engine wasn't really thought as well of as the Pontiac 389, and it wasn't really optionable to anything like GTO spec. He *wanted* the hemi 426 package, but the cost of it was much higher than people realize- a stripped hemi Plymouth would have cost more than a loaded tri-power Pontiac! He said a well tuned tri-power GTO 4 speed w/4.11 gears would run 13's all day Saturday, low 14's with my Mom driving, and smooth enough that she could drive it around town for errands like a 2 speed auto (1>3) while he was at work! : )
Good video man. It's nice to actually watch a muscle car video where the narrator actually knows what he's talking about. Muscle Car of the Week is another good RUclips channel that features a different new muscle car every week. Keep up the good work sir.
I remember in 1964 I saw a Pontiac GP and i thought it was out of this world with its double stacked headlights , tinted glass and deep red metallic paint and an amazing interior. I know about seeing the past in rose tinted glasses but I still think to my mind it is my dream car, another Pontiac I saw in the early sixties was a parisienne , I’ve never seen or heard of it since, did I imagine it? as a young man in this time here in England I totally loved American cars ❤️
The early muscle cars look so much better compared to those around a couple years later. Both the GTO and the 442 are my favourites. Thx for uploading!
Hi Greg, I congratulate you for an outstanding production of these videos. As a former US Navy pilot and mechanical engineer, I was very impressed by your research and the dedication you have invested in your video productions. I was a Ford Motor Company-trained intern and I agree with most of your statements, that is/was the way we were taught at FoMoCo as young engineers. Please let us know about your "part 2" of this excellent series. Incidentally, your aircraft videos are also very informative, I know... I was there. Ciao, L (FoMoCo engineering).
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah, I realize you're busy and the videos you put out have got to be very time consuming to make considering the research alone. They are greatly appreciated.
It was a time of endless possibilities. Mostly we had anaemic British cars in New Zealand when I was a kid but we certainly noticed these beautiful American cars: usually owned by prosperous farmers and businessmen with access to foreign exchange currency. The Australian stuff was the closest to these but were usually 6-cylinder and somewhat scaled-down. I’ve made up for all this deprivation with a 300c Chrysler 392ci SRT8 in my old age! And it gets extraordinary fuel efficiency too. You don’t have to drive it fast - but you can!😊 Still remember when my older brother purchased his first set of radial tyres in the 70’s : a true technological advancement.
Dave, thanks for your post. Radial tires were a huge improvement. However here in the US, the big three automaker stuck with BiasPly tires way too long for all the wrong reasons. That's a story for another time.
Nice series. Many of the more expensive cars you mention (eg Riviera) were part of the pre-existing "Personal Luxury Vehicle" class. The bodies, frames, and engines of these PLVs frequently became Muscle Cars when stripped of their lux and beefed up with Performance/Handling equipment.
Thanks for watching until the end! Not too many have commented on that part of the video. That class of vehicles like the Riv, Grand Prix, 2+2 and others existed for decades at that point, and they are great cars.
I grew up during the performance or muscle car era. Ive owned 26 high performance cars and at 80 still own two. The era started with the the 1949 Super 88. It was basically the Chev platform with a 303 c.i. OHV V8. The fastback Olds thus was light and for its time was FAST. it would run out at just a bit over 110. It was highly successful in NASCAR for a few years. It should be noted that NASCAR not dragracing was the major impetus for factory development of faster and faster factor cars. The Olds and Cadillac engines generally had the most powerful engines until Chrysler brought out its Chrysler hemi. By 1957 the big hemi was making in its highest tune state around 400 hp. The smaller 343 hemi in the Desoto was making 345 and the Adventurer which was lighter than the Chrysler wasxactually faster. Meanwhile in 1955 Chev brought out its stellar small block with 265 c.i. By 1957 the engine grew to 283 c.i. and with fuel injection was making 283 hp. Pontiac had gotten a V8 in 1954 and while initially wasnt much by 1957 was putting out over 300 hp and beginning to win in NASCAR.Olds was also putting out over 312 hp with tripower andca factory optional camshaft and although heavy still won a NASCAR race. The Fomoco Stable was still using its Yblock engine. These engines were heavy and not particularly good performance except for the McCullough supercharged versions which under Holman Moody massaging won in NASCAR along with the larger Yblock Mercs. But on the street the Chevs and Pontiacs generally ruled. Chry d ler developed a Plymouth which by 1958 was 318 c.i. and making aroundc305 hp. And Dodge had the 354 hemi. Which was the previous years Chrysler 300 engine .in the much larger These were in their day VERY fast cars. In the late 50s and very early 60s the fastest street cars were the light weight cars with engines over 400 c.i. This included the Mopar 413 max wedge dual carb cars the 409 Chev dual carb cars and the 406 tripower Fords. Listed in order of fast and reliability But there was an outlier... the 421 Pontiac SD. While the first 3 made from 405 hp up to someshere a bit north of 425 hp the SD made around 485 hp. They werent common and they were expensive. They could be found most commonly in the lighter Catalina ag as in basically a Chev suzed chassis. You couldnt factory order an SD. If you wanted one you had to irder a stripper Catalina then go down to your local Pontiac dealer and vreak out the parts catalog and buy a replacement part for every major engine component except the block. Then you had to osy someone who knew what they were doing to assemble the engine. Pontiac even had ALUMINIUM exhaust manifolds sumiliar to headers which were fine for the street and drag racing but melted in NASCAR use. And to add insult to injury you could but front end shhht me and door aluminium replacements aluminium bumpers and plexi windows. It wasnt cheap. But if you a nd your pocket book had the staminia and strength the result was in 4 speed form a car that ruled NASCAR and the street for around 3 years. These cars are rare Ive only seen 2 on the street back in the day and today they are held by collectors. Pontiac dud this to win and evade the GM adherance to the no racing pledge ofv1957 which Ford and Chrysler promptly and enthusuastically flouted. Ponticac ruled in NASCAR with th e ir SD based cars fir around 3 years. In 1963 Chevrolet aware that the truck motor based 409 simplyvwas no longer competive against MOPAR 426 max wedges brought out the precursor to its 396 andc427 big bock porcupine headed engine. And it along with Ford and mopar offered a luminium body kits by then. These cars were strictly for racers. And they ran. And they won. Thus giving rise to the 425 hp 396 found in the 1965 C orvette. see next post .
I devoured everything I could read back then so not much of what was in the video was new to me. What WAS new and extremely interesting is the gross vs. net horsepower chart. To think of how much power modern engines produce in comparison is mind-boggling.
Greetings Greg, from an Australian perspective, ( wherein our muscle cars were essentially based on Ford and GM local production.) The Ford falcon phase 3 GTO was considered the fastest available production vehicle in the world: ie 4 doors, 5.8 litres and a top speed of 140 mph when homologated for racing; it was never the less still a Ford. With poor handling etc. The later years of both GM and Ford in Australia were entirely locally produced engines and body, suspension design. I should add as an afterthought that the third arm was Chrysler, which remained highly competitive early in the 60~70's period, before retiring from local production. The glory days of Australian muscle cars were at their zenith in the post 70's world. With successive iterations of local vehicles playing to a captive local market. The cars produced later in the 90's plus era were highly successful worldwide, and also in being shipped to the USA, as in the GTO which was a commodore from Holden Australia, and various highly successful Ford models with either the straight 6 Barracuda engine ( a final refinement of the original Straight 6 from the early 60's falcon engine. This was considered by many, myself included, as the superior engine to the Ford V8, as it was far lighter, and had higher HP and torque in a lighter package. Jeremy from top gear considered it the finest sports car under $100,000 in the world, certainly at a price not far from $60,000
Very good. Really enjoyed that. The first car I owned that I wanted to keep was 64 Cutlass. Mine was 330 with "Jetaway" 2spd auto. I wanted a 4 spd (what teenager wouldn't) but insurance would have been prohibitive. I could run it out in low to 70 mph easy and did regularly as a proper teen driver would. Had lots of fun in that car.
1960 buick 401 nailhead i owned one it would go over 120 miles per hr i bought it for 175 dollars back in 1966 from a gm dealership those were the days
Thanks for posting this video. The 60's were some of the first cars I worked on. Many happy memories. Looking forward to the next videos. Very thorough with great objectivity!
As an aside on the Falcon/Mustang, Ford also produced the Mercury Comet on the same platform. Marketing was a bit more upscale, but like the Thunderbolt, the Comet had the AFX, which dominated the drag circuit that year. They also had an interesting marketing gimmick in that they ran 4 Comets 100,000 miles continuously at the Daytona Speedway to prove their reliability.
Sorry for being so long after video came out. I have to comment here. I was surprised at the mention of the comet. I owned a 65 Caliente with the uprated 289. That car was a dream to drive. Handling was good even by 90s standards when I owned it. Performance was not 0-60 comparable to some. But as a package in SCCA races I could hold my own against even late 60s early 70s more well known cars. Often forgotten I sincerely believe that the Caliente and Cyclone were the first real Ford muscle cars.
I helped fix up a White Pontiac convertible when I was a young teenager in Australia , I think 451 cubic inches but certainly well over 400, two speed column shift auto. I remember us kids going for a ride. We had 4 in the back, 4 on the bench seat in the front, top down and the sun out. It was so much fun.
Good series, I grew up at the time a first car could be a muscle car, cheep. So GTOs for me. I did have a stock 64 4spd 4 bbl with the higher gear. Great car, bare bones and with a little tweaking (get it to launch) pretty fast. My older brother went to Vets. Good times.
Great stuff. I remember everything covered with huge clarity. The country was absolutely car crazy - the economic realities hadn't yet turned dark. It was great fun. And as I understand it, today a mint mid-60s GTO would go for a bundle. Anyway, keep it coming. One of the best channels on YT.
Great video. I remember an editorial in a muscle car magazine where the editor was reminscing about having a '63 Mopar - it was a 4 door ex police car with either the 413 or 426 wedge. He said it would absolutely kill a GTO because the GTO would just sit there and burn the tires whereas he would hook up and be gone ... BUT the GTO was SO much sexier ...
A great, informative video on the cars of my youth. I envied those who had these cars but on my "budget" I settled for cheap :-) Still, we used to live and talk about these cars on my block. The 426's and 383's were great engines. The small block Chevy's were strong and reliable. I recall my Dad's 327 2bbl outperformed a later 400 CI (low compression dog). My grade school buddy's sister had a GTO that her gearhead father bought her. We used to get rides to the beach in it. Great times and thinks again for bringing back those memories. I really like your style of narration as it's not "overdone" but educational and to the point.
Hi Greg, in the late 70s I owned a 65 GTO. Without going into all of engine details, it was not stock. Yes it hauled ass and was a GAS to drive. It ran high 12s at the track, WOOHOO! Keep up the good work.
I was 17 years old and a detail guy at the local Olds dealer. I remember my first 442 (a maroon '64 model) clean up after it off the car hauler and went thru the new car mechanic who adjusted timing, carb, and other specs. I cleaned it up after the mechanic was done. Later, I overhauled mainly 216 & 235, 6-cyl. used Chevy trade-ins.
I was lucky to have as my first car a ‘64 GTO. With tri-power, 4:11 rear and a Munchie 4 speed and a Hurst sifter. I am 70 years old now and every vehicle I have owned since then has been slow.
Then you don't purchase decent cars, that '64 is rubbish by today's standards in every way. It would be cool for select Sunday's short drives but....lol.
@@johnbecay6887 Try to live with an 1960's American car today, you'll see. VERY COOL anyway, just not a daily driver which is what it sounded like. Severely lacking in capability, brakes, handling, acceleration, safety... Maintenance to high, exhaust is brutal, it wallows all over the road with wheels only loosely associated with frame. lol. With ample money upgrades could be made obviously. I like those old cars a lot just don't want to HAVE to drive one.
@@Mrbfgray I do live with a 1965 GTO everyday. You're stating that modern cars with over 50 years more R&D are better drivers. Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? Compare a 1965 GTO to a 1915 Model T. Is the GTO a better car? The OP was talking about the romance of the GTO and, maybe, he never did own a faster car. The 1964 GTO is one of the rare cars that changed automotive history. There were a few cars out there that were quicker. But the early GTO was much more. It was fast. It handled. It was stylish with charisma to burn. In one word, they were sexy. And there were thousands of them. They also were daily drivers. Pontiac and Jim Wanger's clever use of the media turned the GTO into an automotive icon overnight. Fast forward to 2064. There will be tons of attention on the 100th anniversary of the 1964 GTO. How many articles will there be on a 2014 Toyota, a 50 year old car by then?
This series will hit me where I live. A college acquaintance took 3 of us for a ride in the 1964 4-speed GTO his parents had just bought him, and I was hooked. Once I'd graduated from college and could make the payments, I special-ordered what I guess you're going to call a "Pony Car" - a 1967 Plymouth "Formula 'S'" Barracuda fastback in soft yellow, 273 V-8 with a huge Carter 4-barrel carburetor, 4-speed manual transmission with Hurst shifter, and a 3.55 rear axle. I tweaked the ignition a bit, but otherwise left it stock, and won several trophies at the local dragstrip, handily beating unsuspecting Camaro and Firebird owners. My best race time was 15.3 and 89 mph. Oh, and it regularly got 9, as in "nine," miles per gallon. But gas at the local station was only 19.9 cents a gallon so I ignored the fuel mileage. Once real life settled in, I couldn't afford both a house payment AND a car payment, plus the cost of gas, so the Barracuda was traded for something much more economical. Still, I've never forgotten it.
I was 11 when the Barracuda (I called them Baccarudas) appeared and I was stoked - a sci-fi speedster looking fast standing still. Then the Falcon/Mustang appeared and the media went nuts. I don't know why. The Mustang looks like it wants to go somewhere. Also the Mustang basically had no backseat. Don't debate me, commentors. I spent a few hours in the backseat of a 64 Mustang as a passenger. My brother always insisted on the front seat. He could twist my head off without blinking.
Oh, that's a true story. A 69 Road Runner in a magazine test did run 12's! However as I said, it wasn't in a configuration that was representative of what people actually bought. But...you could order the car that way if you wanted to!
The 69 1/2 Roadrunner 440 6BBL is my favorite muscle car ever made...and I'm a Ford man. Basically just as fast as a Hemi but way cheaper to buy and maintain and way better street manners than the Hemi had. But the 1970-71 426 Hemi was alot better street engine than the 1966-69 version was because Chrysler switched from a solid cam to a hydraulic cam in the Hemi in 1970. Again I'm a Ford guy but Mopar definitely built the best high performance drivelines back then. Ford was always a bit behind Mopar and GM in those days as far as street performance went
Greg you are spot on as usual , I enjoy your videos very much , my interest in ww 2 aviation and super cars from the 60s & 70s. explain that . By the way my first quick car was a 2 year old 1964 GTO close ratio 4 speed 2 door post with a 3.90 rear axle and by the Speedo I could never make it past 100 mph. Thanks
In Aussie, the 1964 'muscle car' scene was somewhat modest by comparison: Holden introduced the _X2,_ a twin carb version of their sole offering, the Red Six. Ford introduced a "Super Pursuit" 200c.i. six. Valiant got a V8! (may have been later) Their six was most powerful by far. Studebaker Lark and locally built Mini Coopers were Police pursuit cars. 😊
Great video. Love the GM 60s rwd v8. Tempest 2d 64, Biscayne 2d 67 and impala 2dht 65 are my toys in the category. Glad to see the balanced reporting on 1/4mile times and horsepower rating. I understand those that want to be loyal beyond reason, but truth is always better than wishful thinking. If you ever drive one of these cars in good driving condition, you will know there's more to them than 1/4mile figures or hp-figures. I love a car that starts in any weather, can handle in any weather and still gives me chills when I open up. In the 90s I used a plain jane chevelle 64 with a Buick 71 455 th350 as a daily driver and later an Impala sports coupe 65 with a 305 pg as daily driver. The Chevelle was the best in all respects except looks. The 455 made the car skew, what felt like 45°, when mashing the pedal at a red light (turning green). Looked impressive to spectators and passengers turned green with the stop light. Man I loved the nimble feel to that car in the city. The fullsize chevies aren't that easy to get nimble, and the rear view is pretty bad. 275/60 on rally wheels in the rear. Was not be able to fit those in my Tempest (the Chevelle 64 was 1890mm wide, the Tempest 64 1860mm wide).
to me the most amazing promo of this era was the 64 Comet 100,000 miles averaging 100 plus , and I recently read they averaged 124 mph for 10,000 ! miles, average !! cruising for sure.
Great presentation. One point though Oldsmobile's 4-4-2 was never called a "Four- Forty Two". As you pointed out 4-4-2 stood for Four Barrel Carburetor, Four Speed Transmission and Two (dual) exhaust. Great detailed video nonetheless. Tanks for posting this.
Oldsmobile "Four forty-two"?!?! Heresy! It was and always will be a Four-Four-Two. Call it the "Four forty two" and you risk calling down the ghost of Dr. Oldsmobile to haunt you forever. 😄
Your vids are amazing. I worked a a Hotrod shop when in my teens and spent lots of time wrenching on these cars. Did my first wheelstand in a 700hp tubbed 73 Nova at age 16. Fun times.......
I felt led to point out a couple of things I’m 74 years old when I was in high school I worked at the car dealership and I seen a lot of these things first hand. You could get three speed automatics late in the year cars in the Chevy lineup usually it was likein the SS 396 chevelle although I did see some occasional power glides in these cars also late and 65 when they drop the 409 from the large impala all the big block 396 as I ever seen were the three speed dramatic any powerglide SS 396 Chevelle I ever seen was always somewhat of a rarity. You did an excellent job though. I’ll be looking through your whole series trying to critique certain mistakes or errors. I might see but that’s what us old gearhead do.😂
@@dannyruble5488 - I want a metallic red '64 Chevelle/white vinyl interior with 500 HP SBC 400" with 283 stickers on it and a 6 speed manual with 4.56:1 rear end... 345-ZR35-15 rear tires...
BuzzLOLOL The White (and beige) interiors did not age well ... and the 4: 56 gear set is not the best choice... I know of at least 2 or three similar builds , and the sleeper look is cryo cool.
@@dannyruble5488 - I had a '75 Monte Carlo and '77 Grand Prix both with white interior and they looked perfect until the bodies/frames rusted out and they went into the junkyard... and they were undercoated...
Don't underestimate the Buick "Nailhead" V-8, Max Balchowsky ran one for years in his famous race car Old YellerII, that car beat up on just about every Ferrari, Porsche, Maserati, Jaguar and any other big name European sports car in SCCA sanctioned road racing events for years, Max and his wife Ina built the car by hand and Max chose the Buick Nailhead V8 because he understood that there's more to filling a cylinder at high RPM's than big valves and ports, he understood that a properly shaped smaller port and valve at higher RPM's with the right cam has enough port velocity to fill a cylinder even more then an engine that has valves and ports that are too big, a fellow by the name of Jerry Branch tried to tell Harley Davidson that same thing for years and eventually they started to listen (why they didn't listen right off the bat I don't know, he only did the heads for all of their factory XR750 race bikes and every set of heads on the 83 and 84 XR1000 street bike version), compare the valve and port size of an 88ci Twin Cam engine to a 74ci Shovelhead engine made 30 years before it, they're smaller but they feed an engine that's 14ci bigger and flow about 15 to 20 percent better on a flow bench, and a fun fact about Max Balchowsky is he's the guy who modified and tuned the 3 Chargers and 2 Mustangs for filming the movie Bullitt.
H-D did "listen to Jerry Branch" (as well as their own engineers), but their overall customer base didn't really start to care about extracting more HP until the mid 80's with the Evo engines.
Just to be clear, I love the nailhead. I was specifically talking about the 300 cubic inch variant that even with 11.0:1 compression, a pretty hot factory cam, good 4bbl, and duals only puts out 250hp. There wasn't a lot of room to increase power with that engine as they could with the small block Chevy or some others. The 401 and 425s were very competitive right up until the end, and I will give them their due.
@@T1mbrW0lf The Evo engine was the first one that Harley had Branch finalize the ports and the combustion chamber, they were flying him from California to Milwaukee every weekend when they were working it out, their ports are smaller than a Shovel's and they flow better, as far as Harley's "own engineers" they contract that kind of work out to Porsche, that's Harley's best kept secret, they've been working with them since the mid 70's when they developed the Nova project, it's a shame that bike was never produced (a new CEO took over at AMF and killed the program), they started to publicly admit to their relationship with Porsche when the V-Rod came out but the fact is they've had them doing the "hardcore" engineering work on engines for years, Harley just didn't want their customer base to know that, just like they don't want them to know that nowadays they're having the flywheel assemblies fabricated in Mexico, I saw it written right on the label that also had the bar code, part number and Harley bar and shield logo on it, it was on a box that had a stock replacement set of 88ci flywheels in it from a dealership, and this was 3 or 4 years ago, Harley's got a lot of cats they don't want getting out of the bag.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The 300ci Buick engine of that era was not part of the Nailhead family of Buick engines, that block and heads are from an entirely different engine family, a lot of confusion rises from the fact that Buick would use the same "Wildcat" stickers on the air cleaners of both Nailhead and non Nailhead engines, the number used on the sticker is actually supposed to be it's torque rating if I remember correctly, so most people naturally think that any air cleaner that has a Wildcat sticker on it means that they were all the same engine family , I know you weren't hating on the Buick's, I've never seen you do that to anything on any of your videos, I was just saying don't cut those Nailheads short, most guys do because of their relatively small valve size and the fact that you can only go a shade oversized with the valves because of the castings, everyone's always starry-eyed over big numbers for everything and a port or valve that's too big for what you're doing kills power more than people think it does, and it also kills throttle response and mileage/efficiency, by the way, Max's race car "Old YellerII" was powered by a 401ci Nailhead engine, you'd probably also be interested in knowing that it's the same engine used on the "starter cart" for the SR-71 Blackbirds.
Just to be clear, I really like Buicks, and I have owned a 300, 401 and a 425. The first car I ever bought was a Buick with a 425, and the first new car I ever bought was also a Buick. You are correct that the 300 is not normally considered to be in the "Nailhead" family. Of course "Nailhead" isn't an official term. My feeling is that since the 300 also has vertical valve covers (or very nearly so) and nail like valves just like the 401, I figure it can reasonably be called a Nailhead. Keep in mind, I was just barely covering the Skylark in this video. As you probably expect, when we get into 1965, there is be a lot to talk about regarding the 401 in the Skylark GS.
Being an A body Mopar guy I never did like the definition of a muscle car. I get over it when I bang gears in my 340 4 speed 70 Dart though. Is a fun car to drive. Can’t wait for more vids on the subject. I know it will be well done.
The 340 Dart is one of my favorites. I consider it sort of a mini muscle car. It has all the performance and characteristics of a regular intermediate based muscle car, but about 7/8 scale. The 340 dart was no joke and would outperform a lot of bigger name and much more expensive muscle cars.
The Dodge - Plymouth A bodys are one of favorites. The formula S and 340 dart with modern tires and shocks are well balanced cars that are fun to drive.
I'm only 28 but for my first car I had to have a classic Mopar, wanted a Road Runner but ended up with a barely-running '70 Duster because that's what was in my dad's budget. Now after 10+ years rebuilding, modding and driving it myself I prefer the smaller A-bodies over the hyped-up big block "mid-size" cars which are still pretty big by modern standards.
The two speed automatics. Slip and slide with Powerglide. A friend in HS has a 63 or 4 Pontiac full size with a 4 speed automatic. 3 speed with a built in overdrive In 63 Ford offered the Spint (iirc) package on the Falcon with a high output 289.
Yes, in 1964 you could get a three speed automatic in most full size G.M. cars. However no G.M. intermediate that year could be purchased with a three speed automatic, only two speed versions.
Good job. My '66 GTO with 3 deuces, 4 speed, and 3.55 posi turned a 13.12 at 107 MPH at Richmond. This was pure stock with 140 octane aviation gas and the timing bumped, a Bobcat kit, and cheater slicks only. The B stock record holder that year - also a GTO - beat me by a fender length. This car also would turn 7,000 RPM on a calibrated Sun Tach in top gear and I won $50 off a Coronet 440 owner who said his car would go 150 on his speedo - he did hit 146. This was my second GTO and right from the first you could tell it was just a sweeter engine. I still have it, but it gets much gentler treatment these days. Other than having to replace a timing chain and a couple of water pumps, and replacing the Bobcat head gaskets, the engine is still original. A stock '65 350 HP 327 Chevelle running A stock - he was lighter - did beat me two out of three runs. He would jump me a half a car length off the line and then I would be catching him all the way. The time I beat him I had the cheater slicks and he only jumped me about 3 feet off the line. Good memories.
Thank you for that post. The Bobcat kit from Royal Pontiac was a pretty big deal. I will be covering it in one of my 1966 episodes. Right now it's looking like the 1966 model year is going to take 2 or maybe even three episodes because so much happened that year.
There is just so much that happened, it would be tough to explain it all. In fact, I would say that cars have come farther between 1980 and now than they did from 1920 to 1980!
Cars of the 60's will be driven 100 years from now. Cars of today will be piles of broken plastic. I hit a dog one night in my '68 Corolla. I had to spend 50 cents at a car wash. My mom hit a dog in her 2015 Yaris. It caused over $7000 in damage. Most "advances" are useless expenditures.
SEE PREVIO U S POST. Pontiac transitioned from its 421 Sd To the 421 2 plus 2 around 1963. These were with tripower 4 speeds and high 3 series gears still fast cars faster in fact than ANY stock GTO feom 1964 thru at least 1967 and hence faster than most so called muscle cars. By 1964 the situation was as follows. I was a lance corporal in the Marine Corp and on a limited budget . Neverthe less I had a 5 7 Olds Super 88 with a modified 394 Olds engine tripower thanks to intake manifold spacers a BAnd M turbohydro and unfortunately a Olds open stock lazy geared rear end which I hadnt yet replaced due to fiscal constraints. The enginecwas making acording to the dyno of the shop that put it together just around 370 hp. It was in the Suoer 88 post 2 door sedan light for an Olds but still relatively heavy. I ran into my first GTO in late 1963. In San Bernardino. And got a oundly thrashed by the lighter lower geared 4 speed car. Then I spent the next two years in Vietnam. At that point for all practical purposes the MOPAR maxwedge cars with their excellent 3 speed tirqueflite reansmissuons and Hd rear ends still ruled the street akthough not common.
Hi Len, you're right. Although I would argue that it fits the description of a nailhead, most people don't consider it one. I'll add something about this to the description right away.
From Leo: And the 300 was a pooch. Reliable and long lasting, but not muscle material, a lot like all those small valve 307's they put in Novas. Had cars that came with both of them.
@@barbmelle3136 very true, but most customers didn't care much. They wanted a torquey reliable car and the 300 delivered on that. These cars weren't very heavy so the 300 would be adequate for the vast majority of owners in 1964. I've driven a stock Nova 307 with Powerglide and it felt great.
The "300" Buick was a new engine in 1964, a development of the aluminum 215 V8. That engine was redone in an iron block with aluminum head for 64 only and bored and stroked out to 300 cid. It was about the lightest V8 made with a weight of 405 lbs, more than 100 pounds lighter than the Chevy SB. It was later stroked further to 340 cid in 66 and 67 and bored out in 68 to 350 cid. The aluminum version was sold the Rover who who produced it for decades for both sedans and Land Rover. It was also the basis for the Repco Brabham V8 which won 2 F1 championships. It was not a 'nail head' and had lots of promise in development but Buick was more interested in it's larger offerings and it was sadly overlooked. Another issue was tires. With the tires of the time the only way any of the cars of this class were getting into the range of 13 second 1/4 miles was with drag slicks. Stock wouldn't do.
Great videos man - well presented, concise, accurate and interesting and thank you for coming to a simple and common definition for "muscle car" that is arguably the nearest to a standard...I've heard the terms "possibly" and "arguably" for the first muscle car referred to such vehicles as the 51-53 Hudson Hornet, The Avanti - the 52 Olds Rocket 88, and even the '32 V8 Ford Roadster by various enthusiasts along the way with their reasons droned on til the term "me thinks thou argue too much" comes to mind....but the "Tempest GTO pkg." is the one I've come across the most often. - ALSO, if you could help define the term "pony car" I for one would - after listening to your more informed views - would take it as definitive. THANX again Greg...AHHH never mind - all I had to do was listen further
I would say the cu in to car weight of the '56 Studebaker Power Hawk with the 374 Packard V8 qualifies as a "super car" although the motor didn't breath the best and the car was front heavy. A '60s factory speed equipped Mopar 340 in a Dart would leave it at the light I imagine. Hell a '90s VW VR6 would . . . among other more contemporary rides.
Yup, that was certainly true. In fact the early emblems spelled it out that way 4-4-2. Later they switched to 442 but as far as I know it was still called a 4-4-2 in dealer literature and commercials.
Nice job on the '64s. Please consider doing a video on the El Camino story. It is interesting in that it is the Chevelle body with a truck bed on it and so many parts are interchangeable. '68 to '72 El Camino was, I think, one of Chevy's most successful brands and is still highly collectable. Thanks.
Believe the fender badging read 289, and in small print above, "Hi-Po". This was the engine Shelby used in his cars, adding hi-rise intake (I think), Holley carb, and headers which resulted in a 290 HP output. Maybe there was a cam swap, but I can't remember for sure.
A great argument can be made that 67' was the best year. It was the last year for the traditional body styles, but the first year for a lot of the new engines, like the Buick and Pontiac 400s. Plus That's the year Dodge and Plymouth started to hit back really hard with the 375hp 440ci engine.
I really like your videos. I have one minor disagreement. The Buick 300 was based on the 198 V-6, and the aluminum 215 V8, it was not a nail valve V8, and for 1964 only, it had aluminum heads. The '64 aluminum heads will bolt to a 215, or any of the later British Leyland 3.5, and larger V8s.
1964 GTO production projections, vs actual sold, similar to the 1968 Roadrunner, Plymouth originally estimated that it would sell 2,500 vehicles in 1968; it actually sold 45,000 copies, then in 1969 sold nearly 80,000. beep beep... Today Mopars dominate the big money collector muscle cars.
6:20 it wasn’t just the 3 carbs that increase hp. They installed a hotter cam which is why it lost low-end torque. 8:19 Buick engine lost hp in 72 because they installed a weaker cam.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles My sources is life. I grew up around cars. My dad had a junk yard. He worked on cars and whenever he wanted a faster car. He installed a hotter cam. He had a 1970 225 and a 73 Riviera. Both had 455 and the difference in hp was around 100 hp.
Well the 1970 has higher compression. I used the 71' and 72' specifically for comparison because they were both the low compression version. Thanks for your comment.
I understand that, but I can't find any evidence of it, you could be right, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Either way, net power is lower than gross, it's just a question of how much lower.
Most of us consider the first muscle car to be the 1949 Olds 88. It was basically a Chevy sized vehicle with a high compression over head valve 303 ci V8. Even by the mid 50's, the old 49 was still considered quick. The "Super 88" had a 98 V8 and either a manual or a hydromatic. Olds continued to put out a hot muscle car of some type all the way into the 70's. It was a very innovative company. The 49 88, the 442's and of course, in 1966 the Toronado. Pontiac didn't really get into performance until the late 50's but it's GTO in 64 was a real game changer. As for muscle car performance, those cars were reasonably quick, but not as fast as people think. The average Nissan 350Z of around 2004 could pretty much blow the doors off most all those 60's muscle cars. The Nissan has a rating of 287 hp. But, if that was converted to 60's numbers, it would probably be around 400 hp. That in a 3200 lb car where as most muscle cars really tipped the scale at almost 4000 lbs. Very few vintage muscle cars had over 400 hp in 60's ratings. Still, there is nothing like the feeling of driving a 1967 GTO with a Hurst shifter and a 421 4bbl V8.
As long as you realize the 421 was never stock in a '60's GTO. Pontiac got into performance with their '55 V-8. A stock '49 Olds 1/4'd in the 21's. Which was good for the time but not good by the mid '50's.
Well,I understand what you’re saying and I liked it so much that I’m getting ready to watch part 2 in a few minutes! Only complaint (and its a small one) is that there’s a dash in between the numerals 4-4-2. This signifies that you should pause in between,when you read the numbers. So,it’s actually a Four,Four,Two. Not a Four,Forty two. I’m sure you’ve caught a little flak for that,before,though.
Well done!!! Great piece of research and video I was born in 51, so that was my teen era. Loved Chevy Impala SS. Only ones I didn't own were 64 and 68. After coming home from Vietnam Chevy's were out of my life. My new love a 69 Pontiac Grand Prix. How I wish I had that car today. Thanks Greg! Can't wait for part two.
Hi Greg, great work ; however the Buick 300 is not, to my knowledge, a Nailhead, but rather an iron block derivative of their previous 215. It's even fairly well known that a 300 crankshaft in a later Rover V8 gives a nice Aluminium block stroker around 4.7-4.8 L.
Sir, awesome video, really enjoying it. However the graph at 25:00 pains me. Can please show the full y axis (time in seconds) when you make a bar chart? Other than that this video might send me on a journey researching the European car of the 60s how they differ, what the trends were here. Thank you for making me curious.
Dang it, you're right about that graph, I should have made it horizontal! I'll do better in the next video. Fun fact, the 1966 and later Fiat 124 runs what is really a mini version of the G.M. A body suspension.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That section seemed really out of place. Do you think anyone that was looking to buy a muscle car was worried about added wear and tear of steep gears in the back? Adding tri power adds W&T, but we love it
I'm not sure the extra wear and tear was on the mind of very many buyers, but it was a factor. I do think that the poor suitably on the highway deterred a lot of people from getting the super short gearing. There are reasons that the vast majority of muscle cars were sold with rear ends in the 3.0-3.4 range.
Well thank you. Most of it comes directly from dealer or factory data, so I am doing what I can to keep it accurate, I'm not just going my memory here :)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ; Agreed. Although they did race the "Square Bird" in NASCAR with some success, speed parts weren't available from the factory. It later became the 462, until Lincoln finally retired it in 66'. The 61' 406 Starliner, although light for its size almost qualifies, but only came with "3 on the tree" or automatic, I think. Ford probably didn't have a true muscle car until the 66' Fairlane 500 with the 427 or 390 popped on the scene. The Chrysler 300's from the mid-Fifties would probably qualify if they were just a little bit smaller in overall size.
5 лет назад
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Perhaps not because of the platforms it was available in. However it was the first American V8 to achieve 400 horsepower on a regular production car.
You asked once about early GTO cams and carbs. I believe the the 4bbl used the 067 cam and the Tri-Power the 068. The numbers are the last 3 digits of the cam number. Specs are here: www.dapa.org/building-a-strong-street-machine-part-5-pontiac-camshafts/
I miss my 1969 Camaro 327, 4 speed, vette wheels, flat black hooker header side pipes and a dull forest green, just a nice driving car that handled well, think about that car a lot.
If I was buying a new car in 1964 it would probably be either a 389 Tri Power-4 speed GTO or a 421 Tri Power-4 speed Catalina. Id be really tempted to buy a 426 Max Wedge-4 speed Plymouth Savoy but the 389/421 Pontiac's were better engines for everyday street use than the 426 Max Wedge. Id probably go with the 421 Tri Power Catalina because I'm 6 foot 4 and prefer a roomier full size car
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles - Interestingly, even in this '66 Chevelle commercial, the '66 GTO was shown to likely be quicker stoplight-to-stoplight every time: ruclips.net/video/SJIRitKQYrM/видео.html Also, the Chrysler/Ford unibody cars were so light in the back end, they were slow off the line... .
Well done. Can't wait to hear about the full size big block cars. You mentioned it in passing with Oldsmobile...how about a series on the police cars of that era. They had some hot motors back then.
If you told the Pontiac dealer that you exceeded the redline by 500rpm, they probably would not have honored the warranty. OK, yes, those V8s would rev higher than the official redlines, and they usually didn't have rev limiters to stop you, but I was simply going by the official number.
I just checked out that channel. I wouldn't say one is superior to another, it's just a different format. He stays on target, and keeps his videos to a reasonable length. I tend to wander and have longer videos. I think his videos are more geared towards the casual enthusiast and collector. Mine tend to get pretty hard core, as we will see in part 2.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes, I have to agree, Old Car Memories is aimed more at the general public than what you have produced here. For those of us who are old enough to have been around when the muscle car era happened and who are knowledgeable this video is much better. IE, much more details and accuracy than most other videos on the subject. There are other channels that are produced by people who are frankly clueless. They produce videos that are supposedly about muscle cars and basically feature any old rear wheel drive American car and call them muscle cars. What's happening is the definition of a muscle car has broadened way beyond what a real muscle car really is.
A '62 Olds Jetfire "barn" find. A bit long but a incredible find. Turbo before turbo was cool. Heck I liked the Cushman scooter. Greg, as usual great video. ruclips.net/video/k5Zl-hdM40k/видео.html
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
My 1st car, a 68 Chevy Biscayne w/ the straight 6.... 2 speed Powerglide..... it was a boat but fun, simple to work on and like alot of Chevy's around the mid 80's time frame, a rust bucket
Listening to your presentations, is just like talking to a buddy about the latest and greatest new cars growing up in the 60’s. I grew up near Flint, MI, where GM was king with four Chevy plants, a seven block long Buick plant, three AC-Deacon plants, and GMI: the West Point of GM. ( now Kettering University ) My Father would eventually would retire as Chief Metallurgist/Chemist, but in the 60’s many of their friends who rose to very senior levels at retirement at Olds, Chevy & AC, sat around our dining room table talking business. It was a great time!
Very interesting content. As a 22 year old i never experienced this era and I never realized how full of myths and straight-up lies surround the muscle car era up to 1973 or so. This is great content. Keep it up
Just watched this a year after its release. Really interesting stuff. I was born in 1960, so it wasn't until the mid-1970s I had a real interest in this type of car, but they still seemed somewhat the norm back then. My HS parking lot had at least one Chevelle SS, a Dodge Super Bee, a few pony cars. A buddy had a 1969 Firebird 400. We used to putz around in my 1964 Kaiser-Willys CJ-5 (F-head engine), then hop into the Firebird. It was quite the contrast! Both were fun cars for their purpose. The Firebird was just sensory overload with the HP V-8 sound, torque, and G-force induced-head-stuck-to-the-back-of-the-seat acceleration...and my Jeep...it had that classic Rat Patrol jeep sound. Quite the contrast! Youth!
great video thanks for the look back at what was probably the most exciting time in American automotive history.
Re; 1964 Plymouths- my Dad actually shopped these before buying a GTO. He said the 383 engine wasn't really thought as well of as the Pontiac 389, and it wasn't really optionable to anything like GTO spec. He *wanted* the hemi 426 package, but the cost of it was much higher than people realize- a stripped hemi Plymouth would have cost more than a loaded tri-power Pontiac!
He said a well tuned tri-power GTO 4 speed w/4.11 gears would run 13's all day Saturday, low 14's with my Mom driving, and smooth enough that she could drive it around town for errands like a 2 speed auto (1>3) while he was at work! : )
Brought back a lot of memories! In the sixties cars went crazy just like everything else!
Good video man. It's nice to actually
watch a muscle car video where the narrator actually knows what he's talking about. Muscle Car of the Week is another good RUclips channel that features a different new muscle car every week. Keep up the good work sir.
I remember in 1964 I saw a Pontiac GP and i thought it was out of this world with its double stacked headlights , tinted glass and deep red metallic paint and an amazing interior. I know about seeing the past in rose tinted glasses but I still think to my mind it is my dream car, another Pontiac I saw in the early sixties was a parisienne , I’ve never seen or heard of it since, did I imagine it? as a young man in this time here in England I totally loved American cars ❤️
The early muscle cars look so much better compared to those around a couple years later. Both the GTO and the 442 are my favourites. Thx for uploading!
❄😂❄
Clean, crisp lines...no excess fat.
Hi Greg, I congratulate you for an outstanding production of these videos. As a former US Navy pilot and mechanical engineer, I was very impressed by your research and the dedication you have invested in your video productions. I was a Ford Motor Company-trained intern and I agree with most of your statements, that is/was the way we were taught at FoMoCo as young engineers. Please let us know about your "part 2" of this excellent series. Incidentally, your aircraft videos are also very informative, I know... I was there. Ciao, L (FoMoCo engineering).
You said what I wanted to say , and it is true Greg has a fantastic amount of info & gets it across very well.
These were OUTSTANDING. You explained it well and put everything into proper perspective. I hope you continue on with these soon.
I'm getting to it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah, I realize you're busy and the videos you put out have got to be very time consuming to make considering the research alone. They are greatly appreciated.
My first car was 64 Olds Cutlass F-85. 330/console-auto, with air. White with Black roll N tuck interior and Factory Spinners. I Do miss that car.
I wish the ads were hi def, but the info presented is accurate and even handed.
Nice cars
It was a time of endless possibilities. Mostly we had anaemic British cars in New Zealand when I was a kid but we certainly noticed these beautiful American cars: usually owned by prosperous farmers and businessmen with access to foreign exchange currency. The Australian stuff was the closest to these but were usually 6-cylinder and somewhat scaled-down.
I’ve made up for all this deprivation with a 300c Chrysler 392ci SRT8 in my old age! And it gets extraordinary fuel efficiency too. You don’t have to drive it fast - but you can!😊
Still remember when my older brother purchased his first set of radial tyres in the 70’s : a true technological advancement.
Dave, thanks for your post. Radial tires were a huge improvement. However here in the US, the big three automaker stuck with BiasPly tires way too long for all the wrong reasons. That's a story for another time.
I’m a keen subscriber! I appreciate the insight you bring to automotive and aviation subjects and the lack of hyperbole!
Still using bias-ply on one of my less powerful motorcycles and they’ve improved dramatically: Avon AM26 RoadRiders.
Nice series. Many of the more expensive cars you mention (eg Riviera) were part of the pre-existing "Personal Luxury Vehicle" class. The bodies, frames, and engines of these PLVs frequently became Muscle Cars when stripped of their lux and beefed up with Performance/Handling equipment.
Thanks for watching until the end! Not too many have commented on that part of the video. That class of vehicles like the Riv, Grand Prix, 2+2 and others existed for decades at that point, and they are great cars.
I enjoy your videos on aircraft, I absolutely love your videos on cars.
Great Video! LOTS of research and data and 'side information' than many of us, even those of us who grew up in that era, probably didn't know.
I grew up during the performance or muscle car era.
Ive owned 26 high performance cars and at 80 still own two.
The era started with the the 1949 Super 88. It was basically the Chev platform with a 303 c.i. OHV V8.
The fastback Olds thus was light and for its time was FAST. it would run out at just a bit over 110.
It was highly successful in NASCAR for a few years.
It should be noted that NASCAR not dragracing was the major impetus for factory development of faster and faster factor cars.
The Olds and Cadillac engines generally had the most powerful engines until Chrysler brought out its Chrysler hemi. By 1957 the big hemi was making in its highest tune state around 400 hp. The smaller 343 hemi in the Desoto was making 345 and the Adventurer which was lighter than the Chrysler wasxactually faster.
Meanwhile in 1955 Chev brought out its stellar small block with 265 c.i.
By 1957 the engine grew to 283 c.i. and with fuel injection was making 283 hp.
Pontiac had gotten a V8 in 1954 and while initially wasnt much by 1957 was putting out over 300 hp and beginning to win in NASCAR.Olds was also putting out over 312 hp with tripower andca factory optional camshaft and although heavy still won a NASCAR race.
The Fomoco Stable was still using its Yblock engine. These engines were heavy and not particularly good performance except for the McCullough supercharged versions which under Holman Moody massaging won in NASCAR along with the larger Yblock Mercs.
But on the street the Chevs and Pontiacs generally ruled.
Chry d ler developed a Plymouth which by 1958 was 318 c.i. and making aroundc305 hp.
And Dodge had the 354 hemi.
Which was the previous years Chrysler 300 engine .in the much larger These were in their day VERY fast cars.
In the late 50s and very early 60s the fastest street cars were the light weight cars with engines over 400 c.i.
This included the Mopar 413 max wedge dual carb cars the 409 Chev dual carb cars and the 406 tripower Fords. Listed in order of fast and reliability
But there was an outlier... the 421 Pontiac SD.
While the first 3 made from 405 hp up to someshere a bit north of 425 hp the SD made around 485 hp.
They werent common and they were expensive.
They could be found most commonly in the lighter Catalina ag as in basically a Chev suzed chassis. You couldnt factory order an SD.
If you wanted one you had to irder a stripper Catalina then go down to your local Pontiac dealer and vreak out the parts catalog and buy a replacement part for every major engine component except the block.
Then you had to osy someone who knew what they were doing to assemble the engine. Pontiac even had ALUMINIUM exhaust manifolds sumiliar to headers which were fine for the street and drag racing but melted in NASCAR use. And to add insult to injury you could but front end shhht me and door aluminium replacements aluminium bumpers and plexi windows.
It wasnt cheap. But if you a nd your pocket book had the staminia and strength the result was in 4 speed form a car that ruled NASCAR and the street for around 3 years.
These cars are rare Ive only seen 2 on the street back in the day and today they are held by collectors.
Pontiac dud this to win and evade the GM adherance to the no racing pledge ofv1957 which Ford and Chrysler promptly and enthusuastically flouted. Ponticac ruled in NASCAR with th e ir SD based cars fir around 3 years.
In 1963 Chevrolet aware that the truck motor based 409 simplyvwas no longer competive against MOPAR 426 max wedges brought out the precursor to its 396 andc427 big bock porcupine headed engine.
And it along with Ford and mopar offered a luminium body kits by then. These cars were strictly for racers. And they ran. And they won.
Thus giving rise to the 425 hp 396 found in the 1965 C orvette.
see next post .
I devoured everything I could read back then so not much of what was in the video was new to me. What WAS new and extremely interesting is the gross vs. net horsepower chart. To think of how much power modern engines produce in comparison is mind-boggling.
Greetings Greg, from an Australian perspective, ( wherein our muscle cars were essentially based on Ford and GM local production.) The Ford falcon phase 3 GTO was considered the fastest available production vehicle in the world: ie 4 doors, 5.8 litres and a top speed of 140 mph when homologated for racing; it was never the less still a Ford. With poor handling etc. The later years of both GM and Ford in Australia were entirely locally produced engines and body, suspension design. I should add as an afterthought that the third arm was Chrysler, which remained highly competitive early in the 60~70's period, before retiring from local production.
The glory days of Australian muscle cars were at their zenith in the post 70's world. With successive iterations of local vehicles playing to a captive local market. The cars produced later in the 90's plus era were highly successful worldwide, and also in being shipped to the USA, as in the GTO which was a commodore from Holden Australia, and various highly successful Ford models with either the straight 6 Barracuda engine ( a final refinement of the original Straight 6 from the early 60's falcon engine. This was considered by many, myself included, as the superior engine to the Ford V8, as it was far lighter, and had higher HP and torque in a lighter package. Jeremy from top gear considered it the finest sports car under $100,000 in the world, certainly at a price not far from $60,000
I’d love to see you talk about the Studebaker Avanti. It was an amazing car. Offered with a Paxton supercharger.
Looking forward to future videos. I graduated from H.S. in 1966, right in the middle of the muscle car era.
I'd really enjoy you covering 1970 muscle cars.
I will get to 1969 in this series for sure. I'm not sure I'll go farther than that as the series is not popular.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That's a shame, Chrysler introduced the E-body platform in 1970.
That's something I want to talk about. We'll see, maybe the series will pick up in the 67'-69' range. My 66' episode really fell flat.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Shame, this is easily your best series
Excellent ! ! ! Please , please , please ! ! ! Do an episode on " FORGOTTEN CARS OF THE 70´s "
Why would anyone give a thumbs down? Always there must be a contrary Mary
I don't really worry about it. This channel simply isn't for everyone, and it's never going to be.
Very good. Really enjoyed that. The first car I owned that I wanted to keep was 64 Cutlass. Mine was 330 with "Jetaway" 2spd auto. I wanted a 4 spd (what teenager wouldn't) but insurance would have been prohibitive. I could run it out in low to 70 mph easy and did regularly as a proper teen driver would. Had lots of fun in that car.
Very nice ! Quick to the point,and i grew up in these years as i was 13 in 1968....Love those sixties....
1960 buick 401 nailhead i owned one it would go over 120 miles per hr i bought it for 175 dollars back in 1966 from a gm dealership those were the days
Thanks for posting this video. The 60's were some of the first cars I worked on. Many happy memories. Looking forward to the next videos. Very thorough with great objectivity!
Thanks, I appreciate your comment.
As an aside on the Falcon/Mustang, Ford also produced the Mercury Comet on the same platform. Marketing was a bit more upscale, but like the Thunderbolt, the Comet had the AFX, which dominated the drag circuit that year. They also had an interesting marketing gimmick in that they ran 4 Comets 100,000 miles continuously at the Daytona Speedway to prove their reliability.
Sorry for being so long after video came out. I have to comment here. I was surprised at the mention of the comet.
I owned a 65 Caliente with the uprated 289. That car was a dream to drive. Handling was good even by 90s standards when I owned it. Performance was not 0-60 comparable to some. But as a package in SCCA races I could hold my own against even late 60s early 70s more well known cars.
Often forgotten I sincerely believe that the Caliente and Cyclone were the first real Ford muscle cars.
I helped fix up a White Pontiac convertible when I was a young teenager in Australia , I think 451 cubic inches but certainly well over 400, two speed column shift auto. I remember us kids going for a ride. We had 4 in the back, 4 on the bench seat in the front, top down and the sun out. It was so much fun.
Good series, I grew up at the time a first car could be a muscle car, cheep. So GTOs for me. I did have a stock 64 4spd 4 bbl with the higher gear. Great car, bare bones and with a little tweaking (get it to launch) pretty fast. My older brother went to Vets. Good times.
Great stuff. I remember everything covered with huge clarity. The country was absolutely car crazy - the economic realities hadn't yet turned dark. It was great fun. And as I understand it, today a mint mid-60s GTO would go for a bundle. Anyway, keep it coming. One of the best channels on YT.
Great video. I remember an editorial in a muscle car magazine where the editor was reminscing about having a '63 Mopar - it was a 4 door ex police car with either the 413 or 426 wedge.
He said it would absolutely kill a GTO because the GTO would just sit there and burn the tires whereas he would hook up and be gone ... BUT the GTO was SO much sexier ...
Great video Greg, an Oldsmobile restoration person [ going back to the curved dash ] who can agree with most everything GM you present here....
A great, informative video on the cars of my youth. I envied those who had these cars but on my "budget" I settled for cheap :-)
Still, we used to live and talk about these cars on my block. The 426's and 383's were great engines. The small block Chevy's were strong and reliable.
I recall my Dad's 327 2bbl outperformed a later 400 CI (low compression dog).
My grade school buddy's sister had a GTO that her gearhead father bought her.
We used to get rides to the beach in it.
Great times and thinks again for bringing back those memories. I really like your style of narration as it's not "overdone" but educational and to the point.
Hi Greg, in the late 70s I owned a 65 GTO. Without going into all of engine details, it was not stock. Yes it hauled ass and was a GAS to drive. It ran high 12s at the track, WOOHOO! Keep up the good work.
I was 17 years old and a detail guy at the local Olds dealer. I remember my first 442 (a maroon '64 model) clean up after it off the car hauler and went thru the new car mechanic who adjusted timing, carb, and other specs. I cleaned it up after the mechanic was done.
Later, I overhauled mainly 216 & 235, 6-cyl. used Chevy trade-ins.
Great series..should have started in 1960..thru..70..imo
Maybe, I did start off with a video about the 1962-1963 Jetfire.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles sorry..missed that 1
I was lucky to have as my first car a ‘64 GTO. With tri-power, 4:11 rear and a Munchie 4 speed and a Hurst sifter. I am 70 years old now and every vehicle I have owned since then has been slow.
Then you don't purchase decent cars, that '64 is rubbish by today's standards in every way. It would be cool for select Sunday's short drives but....lol.
@@Mrbfgray why rubbish? why the insult? the GTO changed the automotive landscape.
@@johnbecay6887 Try to live with an 1960's American car today, you'll see. VERY COOL anyway, just not a daily driver which is what it sounded like. Severely lacking in capability, brakes, handling, acceleration, safety...
Maintenance to high, exhaust is brutal, it wallows all over the road with wheels only loosely associated with frame. lol. With ample money upgrades could be made obviously. I like those old cars a lot just don't want to HAVE to drive one.
@@Mrbfgray I do live with a 1965 GTO everyday. You're stating that modern cars with over 50 years more R&D are better drivers. Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? Compare a 1965 GTO to a 1915 Model T. Is the GTO a better car? The OP was talking about the romance of the GTO and, maybe, he never did own a faster car. The 1964 GTO is one of the rare cars that changed automotive history. There were a few cars out there that were quicker. But the early GTO was much more. It was fast. It handled. It was stylish with charisma to burn. In one word, they were sexy. And there were thousands of them. They also were daily drivers. Pontiac and Jim Wanger's clever use of the media turned the GTO into an automotive icon overnight. Fast forward to 2064. There will be tons of attention on the 100th anniversary of the 1964 GTO. How many articles will there be on a 2014 Toyota, a 50 year old car by then?
@@johnbecay6887 I'm happy for you, I appreciate antiques too, iconic or otherwise.
This series will hit me where I live. A college acquaintance took 3 of us for a ride in the 1964 4-speed GTO his parents had just bought him, and I was hooked. Once I'd graduated from college and could make the payments, I special-ordered what I guess you're going to call a "Pony Car" - a 1967 Plymouth "Formula 'S'" Barracuda fastback in soft yellow, 273 V-8 with a huge Carter 4-barrel carburetor, 4-speed manual transmission with Hurst shifter, and a 3.55 rear axle. I tweaked the ignition a bit, but otherwise left it stock, and won several trophies at the local dragstrip, handily beating unsuspecting Camaro and Firebird owners. My best race time was 15.3 and 89 mph. Oh, and it regularly got 9, as in "nine," miles per gallon. But gas at the local station was only 19.9 cents a gallon so I ignored the fuel mileage. Once real life settled in, I couldn't afford both a house payment AND a car payment, plus the cost of gas, so the Barracuda was traded for something much more economical. Still, I've never forgotten it.
Too bad you couldn't have kept it. Down the road you could have swapped in a cammed up 360, and gotten a few more suckers.
Barracuda Formula S was a bit under rated. They could be quick as mentioned here.
Was factory rated at 235hp.
The 64 gto is the first car I fell in love with always wanted one but I had to settle for a 68 Bonneville 2 dr
I was 11 when the Barracuda (I called them Baccarudas) appeared and I was stoked - a sci-fi speedster looking fast standing still. Then the Falcon/Mustang appeared and the media went nuts. I don't know why. The Mustang looks like it wants to go somewhere. Also the Mustang basically had no backseat. Don't debate me, commentors. I spent a few hours in the backseat of a 64 Mustang as a passenger. My brother always insisted on the front seat. He could twist my head off without blinking.
Love the subject matter and look forward to the rest of the series. Especially that '69 440 Road Runner you mentioned.
Oh, that's a true story. A 69 Road Runner in a magazine test did run 12's! However as I said, it wasn't in a configuration that was representative of what people actually bought. But...you could order the car that way if you wanted to!
The 69 1/2 Roadrunner 440 6BBL is my favorite muscle car ever made...and I'm a Ford man. Basically just as fast as a Hemi but way cheaper to buy and maintain and way better street manners than the Hemi had. But the 1970-71 426 Hemi was alot better street engine than the 1966-69 version was because Chrysler switched from a solid cam to a hydraulic cam in the Hemi in 1970. Again I'm a Ford guy but Mopar definitely built the best high performance drivelines back then. Ford was always a bit behind Mopar and GM in those days as far as street performance went
What's the difference between "horsepower" and " brake horsepower" ? With 365 in front of both ratings, which one is stronger ?
Greg you are spot on as usual , I enjoy your videos very much , my interest in ww 2 aviation and super cars from the 60s & 70s. explain that . By the way my first quick car was a 2 year old 1964 GTO close ratio 4 speed 2 door post with a 3.90 rear axle and by the Speedo I could never make it past 100 mph. Thanks
Great explanation - this connects many dots for me regarding the development and origins of the muscle car. Thanks for all of your excellent work!
In Aussie, the 1964 'muscle car' scene was somewhat modest by comparison:
Holden introduced the _X2,_ a twin carb version of their sole offering, the Red Six.
Ford introduced a "Super Pursuit" 200c.i. six.
Valiant got a V8! (may have been later) Their six was most powerful by far.
Studebaker Lark and locally built Mini Coopers were Police pursuit cars.
😊
and the M.F.P.'s pursuit special.
Back in '73 my brother in law had a beautiful '65 Olds 442 convertible with a 4 speed, I wonder how much it would worth today?
An excellent comprehensive history of a great era of USA cars, when they were rolling pieces of art!!!
Great video. Love the GM 60s rwd v8. Tempest 2d 64, Biscayne 2d 67 and impala 2dht 65 are my toys in the category.
Glad to see the balanced reporting on 1/4mile times and horsepower rating.
I understand those that want to be loyal beyond reason, but truth is always better than wishful thinking. If you ever drive one of these cars in good driving condition, you will know there's more to them than 1/4mile figures or hp-figures.
I love a car that starts in any weather, can handle in any weather and still gives me chills when I open up. In the 90s I used a plain jane chevelle 64 with a Buick 71 455 th350 as a daily driver and later an Impala sports coupe 65 with a 305 pg as daily driver.
The Chevelle was the best in all respects except looks. The 455 made the car skew, what felt like 45°, when mashing the pedal at a red light (turning green). Looked impressive to spectators and passengers turned green with the stop light. Man I loved the nimble feel to that car in the city. The fullsize chevies aren't that easy to get nimble, and the rear view is pretty bad. 275/60 on rally wheels in the rear. Was not be able to fit those in my Tempest (the Chevelle 64 was 1890mm wide, the Tempest 64 1860mm wide).
to me the most amazing promo of this era was the 64 Comet 100,000 miles averaging 100 plus , and I recently read they averaged 124 mph for 10,000 ! miles, average !! cruising for sure.
Great presentation. One point though Oldsmobile's 4-4-2 was never called a "Four- Forty Two". As you pointed out 4-4-2 stood for Four Barrel Carburetor, Four Speed Transmission and Two (dual) exhaust. Great detailed video nonetheless. Tanks for posting this.
That's true.
Oldsmobile "Four forty-two"?!?! Heresy! It was and always will be a Four-Four-Two. Call it the "Four forty two" and you risk calling down the ghost of Dr. Oldsmobile to haunt you forever. 😄
Your vids are amazing. I worked a a Hotrod shop when in my teens and spent lots of time wrenching on these cars. Did my first wheelstand in a 700hp tubbed 73 Nova at age 16. Fun times.......
I felt led to point out a couple of things I’m 74 years old when I was in high school I worked at the car dealership and I seen a lot of these things first hand. You could get three speed automatics late in the year cars in the Chevy lineup usually it was likein the SS 396 chevelle although I did see some occasional power glides in these cars also late and 65 when they drop the 409 from the large impala all the big block 396 as I ever seen were the three speed dramatic any powerglide SS 396 Chevelle I ever seen was always somewhat of a rarity. You did an excellent job though. I’ll be looking through your whole series trying to critique certain mistakes or errors. I might see but that’s what us old gearhead do.😂
In 1964 all the G.M. muscle cars with automatics were two speeds. That's not an error.
My dad actually have the 350 hp 327 4 speed in a 64 Chevelle SS. It was a hoss.. bought it new. White w/red int
Don't think 350 HP 327" came out until '65...
BuzzLOLOL Damn , beat me to it.
@@dannyruble5488 - I want a metallic red '64 Chevelle/white vinyl interior with 500 HP SBC 400" with 283 stickers on it and a 6 speed manual with 4.56:1 rear end... 345-ZR35-15 rear tires...
BuzzLOLOL The White (and beige) interiors did not age well ... and the 4: 56 gear set is not the best choice... I know of at least 2 or three similar builds , and the sleeper look is cryo cool.
@@dannyruble5488 - I had a '75 Monte Carlo and '77 Grand Prix both with white interior and they looked perfect until the bodies/frames rusted out and they went into the junkyard... and they were undercoated...
Don't underestimate the Buick "Nailhead" V-8, Max Balchowsky ran one for years in his famous race car Old YellerII, that car beat up on just about every Ferrari, Porsche, Maserati, Jaguar and any other big name European sports car in SCCA sanctioned road racing events for years, Max and his wife Ina built the car by hand and Max chose the Buick Nailhead V8 because he understood that there's more to filling a cylinder at high RPM's than big valves and ports, he understood that a properly shaped smaller port and valve at higher RPM's with the right cam has enough port velocity to fill a cylinder even more then an engine that has valves and ports that are too big, a fellow by the name of Jerry Branch tried to tell Harley Davidson that same thing for years and eventually they started to listen (why they didn't listen right off the bat I don't know, he only did the heads for all of their factory XR750 race bikes and every set of heads on the 83 and 84 XR1000 street bike version), compare the valve and port size of an 88ci Twin Cam engine to a 74ci Shovelhead engine made 30 years before it, they're smaller but they feed an engine that's 14ci bigger and flow about 15 to 20 percent better on a flow bench, and a fun fact about Max Balchowsky is he's the guy who modified and tuned the 3 Chargers and 2 Mustangs for filming the movie Bullitt.
H-D did "listen to Jerry Branch" (as well as their own engineers), but their overall customer base didn't really start to care about extracting more HP until the mid 80's with the Evo engines.
Just to be clear, I love the nailhead. I was specifically talking about the 300 cubic inch variant that even with 11.0:1 compression, a pretty hot factory cam, good 4bbl, and duals only puts out 250hp. There wasn't a lot of room to increase power with that engine as they could with the small block Chevy or some others. The 401 and 425s were very competitive right up until the end, and I will give them their due.
@@T1mbrW0lf
The Evo engine was the first one that Harley had Branch finalize the ports and the combustion chamber, they were flying him from California to Milwaukee every weekend when they were working it out, their ports are smaller than a Shovel's and they flow better, as far as Harley's "own engineers" they contract that kind of work out to Porsche, that's Harley's best kept secret, they've been working with them since the mid 70's when they developed the Nova project, it's a shame that bike was never produced (a new CEO took over at AMF and killed the program), they started to publicly admit to their relationship with Porsche when the V-Rod came out but the fact is they've had them doing the "hardcore" engineering work on engines for years, Harley just didn't want their customer base to know that, just like they don't want them to know that nowadays they're having the flywheel assemblies fabricated in Mexico, I saw it written right on the label that also had the bar code, part number and Harley bar and shield logo on it, it was on a box that had a stock replacement set of 88ci flywheels in it from a dealership, and this was 3 or 4 years ago, Harley's got a lot of cats they don't want getting out of the bag.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
The 300ci Buick engine of that era was not part of the Nailhead family of Buick engines, that block and heads are from an entirely different engine family, a lot of confusion rises from the fact that Buick would use the same "Wildcat" stickers on the air cleaners of both Nailhead and non Nailhead engines, the number used on the sticker is actually supposed to be it's torque rating if I remember correctly, so most people naturally think that any air cleaner that has a Wildcat sticker on it means that they were all the same engine family , I know you weren't hating on the Buick's, I've never seen you do that to anything on any of your videos, I was just saying don't cut those Nailheads short, most guys do because of their relatively small valve size and the fact that you can only go a shade oversized with the valves because of the castings, everyone's always starry-eyed over big numbers for everything and a port or valve that's too big for what you're doing kills power more than people think it does, and it also kills throttle response and mileage/efficiency, by the way, Max's race car "Old YellerII" was powered by a 401ci Nailhead engine, you'd probably also be interested in knowing that it's the same engine used on the "starter cart" for the SR-71 Blackbirds.
Just to be clear, I really like Buicks, and I have owned a 300, 401 and a 425. The first car I ever bought was a Buick with a 425, and the first new car I ever bought was also a Buick. You are correct that the 300 is not normally considered to be in the "Nailhead" family. Of course "Nailhead" isn't an official term. My feeling is that since the 300 also has vertical valve covers (or very nearly so) and nail like valves just like the 401, I figure it can reasonably be called a Nailhead. Keep in mind, I was just barely covering the Skylark in this video. As you probably expect, when we get into 1965, there is be a lot to talk about regarding the 401 in the Skylark GS.
Being an A body Mopar guy I never did like the definition of a muscle car. I get over it when I bang gears in my 340 4 speed 70 Dart though. Is a fun car to drive.
Can’t wait for more vids on the subject. I know it will be well done.
The 340 Dart is one of my favorites. I consider it sort of a mini muscle car. It has all the performance and characteristics of a regular intermediate based muscle car, but about 7/8 scale. The 340 dart was no joke and would outperform a lot of bigger name and much more expensive muscle cars.
The Dodge - Plymouth A bodys are one of favorites. The formula S and 340 dart with modern tires and shocks are well balanced cars that are fun to drive.
I'm only 28 but for my first car I had to have a classic Mopar, wanted a Road Runner but ended up with a barely-running '70 Duster because that's what was in my dad's budget. Now after 10+ years rebuilding, modding and driving it myself I prefer the smaller A-bodies over the hyped-up big block "mid-size" cars which are still pretty big by modern standards.
The two speed automatics. Slip and slide with Powerglide. A friend in HS has a 63 or 4 Pontiac full size with a 4 speed automatic. 3 speed with a built in overdrive
In 63 Ford offered the Spint (iirc) package on the Falcon with a high output 289.
Yes, in 1964 you could get a three speed automatic in most full size G.M. cars. However no G.M. intermediate that year could be purchased with a three speed automatic, only two speed versions.
Good job. My '66 GTO with 3 deuces, 4 speed, and 3.55 posi turned a 13.12 at 107 MPH at Richmond. This was pure stock with 140 octane aviation gas and the timing bumped, a Bobcat kit, and cheater slicks only. The B stock record holder that year - also a GTO - beat me by a fender length. This car also would turn 7,000 RPM on a calibrated Sun Tach in top gear and I won $50 off a Coronet 440 owner who said his car would go 150 on his speedo - he did hit 146. This was my second GTO and right from the first you could tell it was just a sweeter engine. I still have it, but it gets much gentler treatment these days. Other than having to replace a timing chain and a couple of water pumps, and replacing the Bobcat head gaskets, the engine is still original. A stock '65 350 HP 327 Chevelle running A stock - he was lighter - did beat me two out of three runs. He would jump me a half a car length off the line and then I would be catching him all the way. The time I beat him I had the cheater slicks and he only jumped me about 3 feet off the line. Good memories.
Thank you for that post. The Bobcat kit from Royal Pontiac was a pretty big deal. I will be covering it in one of my 1966 episodes. Right now it's looking like the 1966 model year is going to take 2 or maybe even three episodes because so much happened that year.
Nice job, as always. Not being a car enthusiast, I’d be curious to know what the advances are between cars of the 60s and now.
There is just so much that happened, it would be tough to explain it all. In fact, I would say that cars have come farther between 1980 and now than they did from 1920 to 1980!
wpherigo1: The answer to that question could easily fill a book! I might take a rcack at answering your question someday.
Cars of the 60's will be driven 100 years from now. Cars of today will be piles of broken plastic.
I hit a dog one night in my '68 Corolla. I had to spend 50 cents at a car wash.
My mom hit a dog in her 2015 Yaris. It caused over $7000 in damage.
Most "advances" are useless expenditures.
SEE PREVIO U S POST.
Pontiac transitioned from its 421 Sd To the 421 2 plus 2 around 1963.
These were with tripower 4 speeds and high 3 series gears still fast cars faster in fact than ANY stock GTO feom 1964 thru at least 1967 and hence faster than most so called muscle cars.
By 1964 the situation was as follows.
I was a lance corporal in the Marine Corp and on a limited budget .
Neverthe less I had a 5 7 Olds Super 88 with a modified 394 Olds engine tripower thanks to intake manifold spacers a BAnd M turbohydro and unfortunately a Olds open stock lazy geared rear end which I hadnt yet replaced due to fiscal constraints.
The enginecwas making acording to the dyno of the shop that put it together just around 370 hp.
It was in the Suoer 88 post 2 door sedan light for an Olds but still relatively heavy.
I ran into my first GTO in late 1963.
In San Bernardino.
And got a oundly thrashed by the lighter lower geared 4 speed car.
Then I spent the next two years in Vietnam.
At that point for all practical purposes the MOPAR maxwedge cars with their excellent 3 speed tirqueflite reansmissuons and Hd rear ends still ruled the street akthough not common.
Small error here. The Buick 300 was not a nailhead. It was the iron version of the aluminum 215.
Hi Len, you're right. Although I would argue that it fits the description of a nailhead, most people don't consider it one. I'll add something about this to the description right away.
From Leo: And the 300 was a pooch. Reliable and long lasting, but not muscle material, a lot like all those small valve 307's they put in Novas. Had cars that came with both of them.
@@barbmelle3136 very true, but most customers didn't care much. They wanted a torquey reliable car and the 300 delivered on that. These cars weren't very heavy so the 300 would be adequate for the vast majority of owners in 1964. I've driven a stock Nova 307 with Powerglide and it felt great.
The "300" Buick was a new engine in 1964, a development of the aluminum 215 V8. That engine was redone in an iron block with aluminum head for 64 only and bored and stroked out to 300 cid. It was about the lightest V8 made with a weight of 405 lbs, more than 100 pounds lighter than the Chevy SB. It was later stroked further to 340 cid in 66 and 67 and bored out in 68 to 350 cid.
The aluminum version was sold the Rover who who produced it for decades for both sedans and Land Rover. It was also the basis for the Repco Brabham V8 which won 2 F1 championships.
It was not a 'nail head' and had lots of promise in development but Buick was more interested in it's larger offerings and it was sadly overlooked.
Another issue was tires. With the tires of the time the only way any of the cars of this class were getting into the range of 13 second 1/4 miles was with drag slicks. Stock wouldn't do.
Great videos man - well presented, concise, accurate and interesting and thank you for coming to a simple and common definition for "muscle car" that is arguably the nearest to a standard...I've heard the terms "possibly" and "arguably" for the first muscle car referred to such vehicles as the 51-53 Hudson Hornet, The Avanti - the 52 Olds Rocket 88, and even the '32 V8 Ford Roadster by various enthusiasts along the way with their reasons droned on til the term "me thinks thou argue too much" comes to mind....but the "Tempest GTO pkg." is the one I've come across the most often. -
ALSO, if you could help define the term "pony car" I for one would - after listening to your more informed views - would take it as definitive.
THANX again Greg...AHHH never mind - all I had to do was listen further
I would say the cu in to car weight of the '56 Studebaker Power Hawk with the 374 Packard V8 qualifies as a "super car" although the motor didn't breath the best and the car was front heavy. A '60s factory speed equipped Mopar 340 in a Dart would leave it at the light I imagine. Hell a '90s VW VR6 would . . . among other more contemporary rides.
Great video. As one who grew up in that era I would offer one correction: nobody ever called the Olds a "four forty two." Always "four four two."
Yup, that was certainly true. In fact the early emblems spelled it out that way 4-4-2. Later they switched to 442 but as far as I know it was still called a 4-4-2 in dealer literature and commercials.
Actually, up here in Canada, I honestly think we did call it a "four forty two". Sorry about that eh....LOL Super videos Greg! Cheers.
It seems very odd that someone would sell a high performance car with just two gears. What were they thinking?
Automatics were more primitive back then, even many manuals were only three speeds.
Autos were duds no matter how many gears.
Great research! Very interesting. Thanks for this.
Nice job on the '64s. Please consider doing a video on the El Camino story. It is interesting in that it is the Chevelle body with a truck bed on it and so many parts are interchangeable. '68 to '72 El Camino was, I think, one of Chevy's most successful brands and is still highly collectable. Thanks.
The 271-hp 289 was first used in the mid-year '63 Fairlane.
Believe the fender badging read 289, and in small print above, "Hi-Po". This was the engine Shelby used in his cars, adding hi-rise intake (I think), Holley carb, and headers which resulted in a 290 HP output. Maybe there was a cam swap, but I can't remember for sure.
@@robj2704, the 271/289ci had solids, so yes a cam swap. In the Shelby GT350 it was rated 306HP.
I do love your vids. So looking forward to 1967, IMO the best model year, as most cars seem to be my favorite from '67.
A great argument can be made that 67' was the best year. It was the last year for the traditional body styles, but the first year for a lot of the new engines, like the Buick and Pontiac 400s. Plus That's the year Dodge and Plymouth started to hit back really hard with the 375hp 440ci engine.
THE 59 BEL AIR 4 DOOR HARDTOP WAS A CRUISING MACHINE. PLENTY OF ROOM, ESPECIALLY AT THE DRIVE-INN'S YEAH !
I really like your videos. I have one minor disagreement. The Buick 300 was based on the 198 V-6, and the aluminum 215 V8, it was not a nail valve V8, and for 1964 only, it had aluminum heads. The '64 aluminum heads will bolt to a 215, or any of the later British Leyland 3.5, and larger V8s.
That's correct, the 300 is not a nail head, but it does look like one.
1964 GTO production projections, vs actual sold, similar to the 1968 Roadrunner, Plymouth originally estimated that it would sell 2,500 vehicles in 1968; it actually sold 45,000 copies, then in 1969 sold nearly 80,000. beep beep... Today Mopars dominate the big money collector muscle cars.
Very nice synopsis. Good info.
6:20 it wasn’t just the 3 carbs that increase hp. They installed a hotter cam which is why it lost low-end torque.
8:19 Buick engine lost hp in 72 because they installed a weaker cam.
Could you state or link your sources for that?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles My sources is life. I grew up around cars. My dad had a junk yard. He worked on cars and whenever he wanted a faster car. He installed a hotter cam. He had a 1970 225 and a 73 Riviera. Both had 455 and the difference in hp was around 100 hp.
Well the 1970 has higher compression. I used the 71' and 72' specifically for comparison because they were both the low compression version. Thanks for your comment.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I said 72 had less hp because of a weaker cam.
I understand that, but I can't find any evidence of it, you could be right, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Either way, net power is lower than gross, it's just a question of how much lower.
Everything you need to know with a minimum of mickey mouse. Best info channel on youtube.
Damn I thought I knew about cars till I seen this, awesome video
Most of us consider the first muscle car to be the
1949 Olds 88. It was basically a Chevy sized vehicle with
a high compression over head valve 303 ci V8. Even by the mid 50's,
the old 49 was still considered quick. The "Super 88"
had a 98 V8 and either a manual or a hydromatic.
Olds continued to put out a hot muscle car of some type
all the way into the 70's. It was a very innovative
company. The 49 88, the 442's and of course,
in 1966 the Toronado. Pontiac didn't really
get into performance until the late 50's but it's
GTO in 64 was a real game changer.
As for muscle car performance, those cars
were reasonably quick, but not as fast as people think.
The average Nissan 350Z of around 2004 could pretty much blow the doors
off most all those 60's muscle cars. The Nissan has
a rating of 287 hp. But, if that was converted to 60's numbers,
it would probably be around 400 hp. That in a 3200 lb car where
as most muscle cars really tipped the scale at almost 4000 lbs.
Very few vintage muscle cars had over 400 hp in 60's ratings.
Still, there is nothing like the feeling of driving a 1967 GTO with a Hurst shifter
and a 421 4bbl V8.
As long as you realize the 421 was never stock in a '60's GTO. Pontiac got into performance with their '55 V-8.
A stock '49 Olds 1/4'd in the 21's. Which was good for the time but not good by the mid '50's.
I know some who has a matching numbers Z16, chevelle 396. I've seen it, breathed the air that touched it. Has no one mentioned that car??
Hi John, I have mentioned it, but not in this video since it's about 1964. I have quite a bit about it in the 1965 video.
Good stuff! Looking forward to the next videos
I’ve got no clue what you’re talking about but I still love your videos.
Well,I understand what you’re saying and I liked it so much that I’m getting ready to watch part 2 in a few minutes! Only complaint (and its a small one) is that there’s a dash in between the numerals 4-4-2. This signifies that you should pause in between,when you read the numbers. So,it’s actually a Four,Four,Two. Not a Four,Forty two. I’m sure you’ve caught a little flak for that,before,though.
Oh,dude,so sorry! Meant to post in comments. This is what happens when you wake up in the middle of the night,rip a dab and watch a little RUclips.
Well done!!! Great piece of research and video I was born in 51, so that was my teen era. Loved Chevy Impala SS. Only ones I didn't own were 64 and 68. After coming home from Vietnam Chevy's were out of my life. My new love a 69 Pontiac Grand Prix. How I wish I had that car today. Thanks Greg! Can't wait for part two.
I love the 69' Grand Prix. It's much like the early Riviera, lots of muscle and with tons of luxury.
Hi Greg, great work ; however the Buick 300 is not, to my knowledge, a Nailhead, but rather an iron block derivative of their previous 215. It's even fairly well known that a 300 crankshaft in a later Rover V8 gives a nice Aluminium block stroker around 4.7-4.8 L.
That's true.
Great video Greg, thanks for the upload.
Sir, awesome video, really enjoying it. However the graph at 25:00 pains me. Can please show the full y axis (time in seconds) when you make a bar chart?
Other than that this video might send me on a journey researching the European car of the 60s how they differ, what the trends were here. Thank you for making me curious.
Dang it, you're right about that graph, I should have made it horizontal! I'll do better in the next video. Fun fact, the 1966 and later Fiat 124 runs what is really a mini version of the G.M. A body suspension.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That section seemed really out of place. Do you think anyone that was looking to buy a muscle car was worried about added wear and tear of steep gears in the back? Adding tri power adds W&T, but we love it
I'm not sure the extra wear and tear was on the mind of very many buyers, but it was a factor. I do think that the poor suitably on the highway deterred a lot of people from getting the super short gearing. There are reasons that the vast majority of muscle cars were sold with rear ends in the 3.0-3.4 range.
Your comments on the sixties cars seem fairly accurate, so, thumb up.
Well thank you. Most of it comes directly from dealer or factory data, so I am doing what I can to keep it accurate, I'm not just going my memory here :)
Mercury had the big ole' MEL 430/400 starting in 58' for their Turnpike Cruiser and was an option for the 2nd Generation T-Bird.
Yes, but it's still not a Muscle car.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ; Agreed.
Although they did race the "Square Bird" in NASCAR with some success, speed parts weren't available from the factory.
It later became the 462, until Lincoln finally retired it in 66'.
The 61' 406 Starliner, although light for its size almost qualifies, but only came with "3 on the tree" or automatic, I think.
Ford probably didn't have a true muscle car until the 66' Fairlane 500 with the 427 or 390 popped on the scene.
The Chrysler 300's from the mid-Fifties would probably qualify if they were just a little bit smaller in overall size.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Perhaps not because of the platforms it was available in. However it was the first American V8 to achieve 400 horsepower on a regular production car.
Mercury will be hitting back when we get to the 1966 cars.
You asked once about early GTO cams and carbs. I believe the the 4bbl used the 067 cam and the Tri-Power the 068.
The numbers are the last 3 digits of the cam number. Specs are here: www.dapa.org/building-a-strong-street-machine-part-5-pontiac-camshafts/
I really like this series. Looking forward to the next one.
Outstanding work Greg your such a great teacher
I miss my 1969 Camaro 327, 4 speed, vette wheels, flat black hooker header side pipes and a dull forest green, just a nice driving car that handled well, think about that car a lot.
I would miss that car too. I feel that they really got right with the 69' Camaro, and never got it that right again.
My buddy had a new '68 Camaro..327/275 powerglide..he would wind it out in low..when he shifted to high it was like being shot out of a cannon
If I was buying a new car in 1964 it would probably be either a 389 Tri Power-4 speed GTO or a 421 Tri Power-4 speed Catalina. Id be really tempted to buy a 426 Max Wedge-4 speed Plymouth Savoy but the 389/421 Pontiac's were better engines for everyday street use than the 426 Max Wedge. Id probably go with the 421 Tri Power Catalina because I'm 6 foot 4 and prefer a roomier full size car
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles - Interestingly, even in this '66 Chevelle commercial, the '66 GTO was shown to likely be quicker stoplight-to-stoplight every time:
ruclips.net/video/SJIRitKQYrM/видео.html
Also, the Chrysler/Ford unibody cars were so light in the back end, they were slow off the line...
.
Well done. Can't wait to hear about the full size big block cars. You mentioned it in passing with Oldsmobile...how about a series on the police cars of that era. They had some hot motors back then.
My dad had a love for hotrodded ex Ma state police cars. 66 Fury 440 automatic and a 65 Polara wagon and a 413 Max Wedge were outstanding
5200 redline? I didn't shift my '64 4bbl till 5700. Okay, I did use the adjustable rocker nuts.
If you told the Pontiac dealer that you exceeded the redline by 500rpm, they probably would not have honored the warranty. OK, yes, those V8s would rev higher than the official redlines, and they usually didn't have rev limiters to stop you, but I was simply going by the official number.
OK so this is superior to Old Car Memories videos in every way.
I just checked out that channel. I wouldn't say one is superior to another, it's just a different format. He stays on target, and keeps his videos to a reasonable length. I tend to wander and have longer videos. I think his videos are more geared towards the casual enthusiast and collector. Mine tend to get pretty hard core, as we will see in part 2.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes, I have to agree, Old Car Memories is aimed more at the general public than what you have produced here. For those of us who are old enough to have been around when the muscle car era happened and who are knowledgeable this video is much better. IE, much more details and accuracy than most other videos on the subject. There are other channels that are produced by people who are frankly clueless. They produce videos that are supposedly about muscle cars and basically feature any old rear wheel drive American car and call them muscle cars. What's happening is the definition of a muscle car has broadened way beyond what a real muscle car really is.
perfection, as usual
also would love to see you talk about soviat ww2 fighters
Thanks, and I will include a little bit about the Soviet fighters in my next video, and a lot of detailed information down the road.
A '62 Olds Jetfire "barn" find. A bit long but a incredible find. Turbo before turbo was cool. Heck I liked the Cushman scooter. Greg, as usual great video.
ruclips.net/video/k5Zl-hdM40k/видео.html
I've often thought the 55 and 57 chevys were the best looking sedans ever made. The 59 ugh!!! what happened?
Very interesting, Best wishes from this side of the pond.