Overpriced? In 1969, your average 17 year-old American kid who just finished high-school and works full-time at a hamburger stand could afford a Plymouth Road Runner. Even with insurance, gas, and tires, he could afford. This is an actual fact, BTW. A '69 383-powered RR, with cold-air induction, a 4-speed, and good weather could do 0-60 in 6 seconds a pull all the way to 130mph on 60's tech bias-ply tires. Complete with an unsilenced air cleaner and low-restriction dual exhaust, a special performance cam and high-flow cylinder heads.For an extra $714 he could get his/herself a 426 Hemi, with state-of-the-art (at least, at the time)techonology. Starting with dual quads flowing about 1300cfm total, mounted on an aluminum intake manifold, with a cast-iron block and cast-iron cylinder heads. Everything was shot-peened and magnafluxed, and when the whole thing was hand-assembled by expert mechanics, it was also fully balanced-and-blueprinted. Header-like exhaust manifolds were used, with 2.5" tubing. Mandrel bends? Sorry, the technology for that didn't exist in the late '60s, whether it was a cheap economical Ford, or a $20k Ferrari. BTW, Race Hemi's had single 4-bbl. carbs mounted on magnesium intakes, with aluminum heads and 12.5:1 (vs. 10.25:1) compression pistons. It is estimated that an A-990 426c.i. Race Hemi produced about 600hp & 550ft-lbs of torque at the crank. This is gross, however since there was no emmissions equipment, no A/C, power steering, and 95% of the time, a 4-speed stick, net ratings wouldn't be much different from the gross ones. Maybe -5% or something. -10%, tops. Anyway, old-school muscle cars were not ugly (that is a matter of opinion), are cheap (worth $10's to $100k's now), and were very durable and reliable. Fuel-efficient? No. Enviroment-friendly? No. But neither were Euro sports cars of the day, either, so you can't complain. There suspensions, well, I can't say they were great, but they certainly weren't bad. You try taking any '60s-engineered car with a purposely stiff suspension (designed for minimal body roll and maximum traction) off-road for 10 minutes. NO MATTER WHAT it is, your back will be hurting. Maybe mure in a competition-spec '65 Cobra 427 then in a luxury Lincoln sedan, but still. If real race cars were fuel-efficient and softly-suspended like you wanted them to be, they'd still be pushing along at 100mph and leaning side-to-side every time you turned the wheel. Polyurethane bushings didn't exhist in the '60s. BTW, most old Road Runner's or GTO's woudl smoke a Ferrari 365GTB/4 Daytona at the drag strip, or even a NASCAR superspeedway for that matter. Not on a road course, no, but FYI most '60s NASCAR musclecars could do 190mph. Some, like the '70 Plymouth Superbird could do 220mph. Not bad for the day. Anyway, the point is, you;re a jerk, Gumba Gumba, and doesn't know anything about '60s cars, whether performance or luxury-oriented, whether domestic or imported.
American Muscle vs. Euro Road Racers
1970 Plymouth Duster 340
A/C, AM/FM radio, vinyl buckets, auto tranny
0-60 in 6 seconds, 130mph top speed
1970 Dodge Charger R/T
Heater, AM radio, vinyl buckets, 4-speed stick
0-60 in under 6.5 seconds, ~140mph top speed
1970 Ferrari 365GTB/4 Daytona
Dunno what options, probably leather and crap
0-60 in 6 seconds, 170mph top speed
So basically, $20k Ferrari Daytona has acceleration equal to that of a $2.5k Duster 340. The Dusters 5.6l V8 makes about 310hp, whereas the Ferrari makes 352. Nevermind that the Ferrari has 4 more cylinders, 4 cams, 6 carbs, and all that. It has 1.2-liters less displacemen. The only reason it can do 170 is 'cause of the 5-speed and really steep gears. Give it 3.91 gears like a Duster, and voila! The top speed goes down by 10mph. 0-60 acceleration would go down by about 3/10th's of a second. Git rid of the 5th gear, and in combination with the 3.91 gears, you get the same acceleratio and top speed as a Duster, only for $17k more, and with less stash space and worse fuel-economy. All for 4-wheel disc brakes. Whoop-dee do.