In reply to Nick (picaso) Comstock:
Carbs were/are easy. It was the attempt to clean up carbureted engine emissions that led to miles of vacuum hoses, vacuum mechanical devices, lower compression ratios, overlap cams, heated intakes, air pumps/air injection, rough idle, dieseling, hesitation, surging, stalling, choke heaters etc etc etc.
t25torx wrote: I guess these cars really were that bad.
Funny, didn't seem that bad at the time. Especially since they were all that way and that's all there was. Compared to modern technology they are that bad. I remember when all those shown were new. 
Maybe a Granada? (Or is that grenade)
I had one with a 302 in high school. Not a bad car for the era, but I did have to replace upper control arms when they snapped right behind the ball joint.
According to wiki they share suspension parts with the pinto and Mustang II.
I drive my wife's '78 Nova all the time, and as a DD with the 4-hr commute to and from Minneapolis every weekend for about 6-months while I was between cars. It's a 40k mile car and as reliable as any 40k mile new car.
The one complaint I have is that the rubber in the front suspension is pretty much gone and with so many options I haven't been able to decide which way to go with it when I rebuild it. Keep it cushy and stock or firm it up, or how far in between?
That said, for six years I've been waiting for something to go wrong with the engine or transmission so I can justify swapping in the 5.3/200r4 combo I put together for it but it keeps running great and even pulls down 21mpg on the two lane to the cities.
think of it this way back in the 70's and 80's they were used as a DD therefor they can be used as a DD now
Choosing the worst decade in cars seems a bit masochistic. They were ill handling, gutless, and for the most part ugly. Other than that.....
Ya idk what dieseling is and i'm in my 30s.
Someone mentioned a Hornet. I would take a Hornet AMX.
Of the cars listed, I would go with the Monza. Out of cars that fit the criteria but not mentioned I would be looking at "Colonnade" A-bodies, Mirada's/Cordoba's, Torino's/LTD II's; you know stuff that came with V-8's.
And really, how can anyone have a conversation about Rockford inspired cars without mentioning the Firebird Esprit (says the guy with a '78 Esprit).
Here's a cheap manual Monza for you (not the bodystyle I would want, but it says the carb has been fixed for your carbophobes out there): http://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/cto/5627875133.html
How good were brakes in that era?
You guys fill me with apoplectic rage.
SEADave wrote: Of the cars listed, I would go with the Monza. Out of cars that fit the criteria but not mentioned I would be looking at "Colonnade" A-bodies, Mirada's/Cordoba's, Torino's/LTD II's; you know stuff that came with V-8's. And really, how can anyone have a conversation about Rockford inspired cars without mentioning the Firebird Esprit (says the guy with a '78 Esprit).
There's a guy at cars & coffee trying to sell a gold 81 esprit - I break out in to a cold sweat.
A little resto, some rally wheels, and a personalized plate that reads 853 OKG and I'd start wearing a sport coat every day.
I don't have any hair to speak of, and I'm not 6' 3" like Jimmy was, so this is as close as I get:
(yes, I'm a Rockford Files geek...)
I had a Monza Spyder just like that. 5.0 (305) was all we knew about it. Lord have mercy that thing was quick for a malaise car. For any car. It was too quick for me. I wrecked it. We sold it off to a fellow who pulled the engine. He claimed it had 3 freeze plugs which should indicate a 400 SBC. Cheaters.
You'll need to log in to post.
