Video source: YouTube
Why? Not because of Burt Reynolds' smarmy acting, or how cute the young Sally Fields was, or Jackie Gleason's over the top antics. Because of the Trans Am, of course!
Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs, and Barracudas and the like emerged from the late 1960s as the most desirable models for a teen aged, gear head kid. Well, they had a lot of competition from the muscle cars that had their debut as the 1960's started. This was the era that I grew up in.
You can argue if a pony car with a big engine is a muscle car, but it all depends on how you define them.
In my book an intermediate model packing a large engine is a muscle car. The 1964 Pontiac GTO being the archetype.
I'll be discussing muscle cars in a later post.
In my mind, a pony car is a pony car first, no matter what kind of engine is under the hood.
I've had lot of exposure to pony cars over the years. In fact, my very first car was a '66 V8 Mustang coupe with a four speed.
My older brother bought a brand new '73 Camaro right out of high school. He followed that up with a '76 Pontiac Trans Am which he traded after a couple of years for a 76 Camaro with a four speed. He had convinced himself that he needed to shift his own gears. Even my younger brother had a black and gold '77 "Bandit" Trans Am for a short time.
I got several opportunities to drive each of those cars.
The second gen F body which was the basis of the Camaro and Firebird is in my opinion one of the best looking of the '70s and 80's pony cars. The designs picked up a little more gingerbread over the years but the basic lines were always preserved. The overall proportions are just so good. Just the right amount of length, and width. It looks powerful and substantial.
The earlier 67 to 69 models looked a little too tame. I hate to use the word, but "macho" does apply to the later 70's models.
These F bodies look the best as Trans Ams, or Z 28s but even the base versions look pretty fine, just ask Jim Rockford, or even the Duke himself as McQ.
video source: YouTube
A Brewster green decal delete Trans Am, I could go for one of those!
As much as I like my '96 Mustang it comes out looking a bit stubby and tall in comparison.
Even the Fox bodied Mustangs come out lacking in that comparison.
These cars are so well thought of that they have started to increase in price, at least the better examples.
Of course as a dedicated bottom feeder I've located several examples that "just need a little work."
I would like to have a nicer car but they just don't fit in my budget.
However these F bodies, any of them, could be built up to a pretty nice car.
 |
| These are the last of the second gen cars, they still look really good to me! |
What impressed me the most when I drove my brother's '76 Trans Am was the effortless performance. It was equipped with a 400 c.i. V8 with an automatic transmission. Though it was far from the Ram Air IV screamers of the past, it had no problem propelling the car to an effortless speed of 100 mph. That's what torque can do. My '66 Mustang with the 289, a contemporary Camaro with the 350 V8, or my '96 Mustang and it's 280 c.i. (4.6 liter) mill can't equal that feeling. I think my Mustang can equal the flat out performance of the old '76 Trans Am, it just doesn't provide the same kick in the pants.
Of course a new Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger can easily exceed the performance of those old machines.
Would I want to get one of those old cars? They all need work, something that I've been trying to get away from. But the good ones are way out of my reach. The basic body was almost identical until 1983, There is that variation of the rear window and the adoption of urethane covered impact bumpers. Most importantly, the later models, especially Camaros are cheaper than the corresponding Firebirds.
Either way they are all easier to work on, and parts availability is very good. A lot less frustration than my XJS.
About a year ago I was at Wheels and Deals and there was a 78 Firebird. Not a Trans Am but it did have the 350 V8. As I sat inside I remembered how good it felt to sit way down in the car and look over that long hood. I smiled to myself remembering just how much fun these cars had been. Would I still enjoy it as much? Is it just nostalgia?
 |
| Yes, I can see the potential. |
I've also very seriously considered a '71 to '73 Mustang. These models have not been as popular as the earlier model Mustangs. They have been called fat draft horses but they are not really that big. They are only a few inches longer than the '70 model. Though they are quite a bit wider. These Mustangs have eliminated some of the earlier car's shortcomings. The biggest improvement was to mount the fuel tank outside the body under the trunk floor, just like most other cars. Most cars from this series come equipped with disc brakes. Air conditioning was commonly ordered and even if the system is not currently working at least all the parts are there to rebuild it or replace with a modern retro fit system.
As with all Mustangs the fastback or convertible are the most coveted. This was still the era of the Mach One and Boss, these were only built on the fastback body. Open top cars always command a premium and it depends on what your plans are to determine which would be the best choice. Building a Mach one clone would require a fastback.
The base coupe is again the least desirable. This model has "flying buttress" style C pillars, very similar to the XJS coupes. These are usually derided by haters of this model but I actually like them. There is wide selection of engines available. Everything from a 250 CID straight six to 302 and 351 V8s.
With all of these differences in selected optional equipment, it would make the most sense to find a car that is set up the way I want it. Since these cars are not that expensive it makes sense that I look for a car that is in better condition.
Well, what about my existing '96? I already have it and I really like it. Can't I just be satisfied with it?
Maybe.
The restyling of the 2005 Mustang eliminated the stubbiness of the prior design. The slightly larger size gives a bit more presence. It's a nostalgic, retro design that features a very handsome fastback roofline. Now everyone can have a fastback! Horse power for the 4.6 GT rose to 300 hp. The same output of my Northstar Cadillac.
I have put many more miles over the years on my 2007 Mustang coupe than on my '96 GT. It is one of our family cars and we took it on many long trips. It's a V6 car but has plenty of power and will top out at 110 mph. It is a bit bigger than my '96 where it counts, wider, with a long wheel base that gives some extra rear seat leg room and it has a much bigger trunk. It feels more planted on the highway and by all accounts is an excellent road car. Fuel economy exceeds my '96 by a few miles per gallon. I've gotten as high as 28 mpg. at freeway speeds.
I've also been looking at newer Mustangs GTs, but I still cant afford one newer than 2006. My Wife asked why I would consider buying what would be basically the same car as our '07. I told her that a GT is not the same car.
Chrysler built pony and muscle cars are the most expensive models of them all. Way above my budget.
I've also never been a Mopar fan, lucky for me. Do my two minivans count?
A sobering reality is that any old 70's pony car is not going to get very good mileage. I've been reading some old road tests and a '77 Trans Am returned an average of only 12 mpg. I was checking a website and found that a '72 Mustang with a 351 V8 also returns 11-12 mpg. My '66 Riviera would return 12 mpg. at steady 60 mph. freeway cruising. My '77 Cadillac could only get 16 mpg. on the freeway. Even my '70 Mustang with a six, barely exceeded 15 mpg.
You might say that you don't buy those type of cars for the fuel economy. But I like to drive my cars. My Explorer with the 5.0 only gets between 15-17 mpg. in mostly freeway driving. It was EPA rated at 19 mpg. freeway. In day to day use I do notice the amount of fuel it consumes. I definitely have to fill it up more.
So if I don't decide a pony car, what else is there?
No comments:
Post a Comment