This guy always had a fixation on stiffer suspension and handling but no one ever bought these cars back then for handling, they were all about comfort.
There's a difference between a soft ride and awful suspension control, the latter of which most of these boats had regardless of the brand. You could have nearly the same cloud-like ride with far better engineering and control in the suspension department. I understand what you're saying but having suspension with so much wallow it's uncontrollable is inexcusable, the 70's Ford line-up was especially bad about this.
that's only because we're used to how maniacs behind the wheel drive now... I owned a '72 Chrysler New Yorker back in 1977 and it handled better than any car I've ever had since... but, then again, i know how to drive properly, always have.
Geordo1960 You took the words out of my mouth. If all those full size cars came with stiff suspensions back then, nobody would have bought them. People didn't run those cars through slalom's, they wanted them to ride cushy on the road.
There are no records of anyone ever dying in a car accident because of a soft suspension. There are millions of accidents though that can be traced back to a firm "safer" suspension though because the firm suspensions encourage faster driving which contributed to the accident.
@@waynejohnson1304 Unless you count the people that went off the road because the beast could not handle it. Throw in evasive driving that was severely hampered by cars that handled poorly and you were done! Better handling = safer cars so making them garbage to slow people down is ignorant. If we got rid of seat belts, front disc brakes and used wood rims with skinny tires like they did 100 years ago...ultimate safe cars! Well, no...
@@EVnewbie So, in other words, more people dying in the so-called "safer cars" is okay? That IS, make no mistake about it, what you just implied. The suspensions were firmed up at the same time that air bags and anti-locking brakes came into being so there is no way of knowing what would have happened if the suspensions were left soft but, we do know that there are more high speed accident now than ever before. Firm suspensions encourage fast driving. If you are going to put a Formula One suspension on a car, people will drive it like a Formula One race car. According to Motor Trend Magazine, German has a 1% lower accident rate then we do BUT, a 1% higher death fatality rate. Accidents happen too fast to blame a suspension. I have well over 5,000 videos of accidents from UA-cam and there is ZERO evidence that that a suspension ever came into play. There is all kinds of evidence though which indicates that the firmer suspensions are encouraging faster driving that is leading to MANY accidents. In 1980, and before, most people drove 65 to 70 MPH on the Interstates. It was RARE to see people going over 80 MPH. Now, it is not unusual to see people driving 90+MPH. As long as you actually enjoy a higher death rate, fine, but, some of us do not.
@@waynejohnson1304 You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same. For this reason, you can't make something completely safe because people will naturally be more careless to a level of safety they are comfortable with. Bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks and unicycles--people will use them to their own risk level. If you build a car with sloppy suspension, weak brakes, no seat belts, no air bags, skinny bias ply tires people will drive slower to be sure. However! When the fit hits the shan, a deer jumps on the road right in front of you, you hit back ice, a child runs into the street, sudden pouring rain, a tire blows out, lightning hits a tree, dust storms, smoke from forest fires etc. hit you then it is a BAD thing to have great brakes, stiff suspension, great tire grip, anti-locks, air bags, superior lighting, traction control etc. because F it, we need to slow down idiots? Really? Sorry! Idiots are always out there, you can never make anything idiot proof but we need to save the lives of idiots? OK, put the speed limit at 15MPH to save the idiots or, just late Darwinism take it's course! The reason they made cars safer was because the governments around the world realized that the garbage rolling down the streets in the 50's and 60's were death traps and people died, normal people just driving around died because of poor suspensions, poor handling, weak brakes, no crash protection in the doors, no roll over protection, useless bumpers, non-collapsing steering columns, doors would open up in a crash, metal dashboards would break your knees and the list goes on an on. 60 years ago the gas tanks we behind the seat in pickup trucks! Don't forget the steering wheel would not collapse, the dash was steel, manual drum brakes, single master cylinders so front and rear brakes would fail at once, lap belts which did little as you bent at the spine to hit a solid metal post holding the steering wheel, broke your knees on the steel dash, the gas tank ruptured in a side impact and so on. They took a 50's Impala and hit a modern Impala head on and the the old Impala driver would of died--the modern Impala driver would of been OK. After all, in an accident--most of the time one driver is at fault while the other driver(s) are victims so I'll take a great handling, great stopping, tight steering car anytime to avoid idiots. I also drive in rain, snow and in dusty conditions so I have to battle mother nature also. There will always be idiot drivers no matter what car they are driving--that is a given until self driving cars take over to remove the idiot from the equation. Making cars more hazardous to slow down a few idiots while making the cars far worse for people that don't drive like idiots (most people on this planet) is a really bad idea. Heck, we should get rid of ground fault interupters, remove electrical grounds, get rid of all those non conductive electrical devices so people respect electricity more! Think about it...
@@EVnewbie I don't know why you mention brakes, skinny tires, and all of the rest of the advances that actually do save lives because I agree with those advances. Designing cars to perform like Indy race cars though does NOT prevent accidents. It encourages them. You wrote: "You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same." Exactly my point. You have been brainwashed into thinking that a firm suspension will somehow prevent you from having an accident when there is not one piece of evidence to back up your claim. If I am in a Ferrari and someone pulls out in front of me, I will still hit him. If the back of my car is hit on the highway, I am still going to spin out regardless of what suspension I have. My question is this: Where will I benefit by driving a car with a firm suspension? I have owned Cadillacs since 1989. I have had a 1976 Coupe DeVille, a 1971 Fleetwood, and my present CTS4. The ONLY two things I can do better with my CTS4 is brake quicker (because of the wider tires and wider brake rotors) and take corners faster (because of the wider tires). So, why should my new Cadillac ride like a Mack truck? THAT is the question I would like you to answer. How is my firm suspension helping me avoid an accident? Why should I suffer because of it? Answer me that.
@@rovervitesse1985 Yes I do. I've been in them. They sucked in EVERY way. I understand liking these cars, but liking these cars is like liking black powder firearms. They are interesting oddities of the past. Just don't compare them to modern firearms.
Exactly! and Vintage Fisher Stereo systems...tube amplifiers..Analog Thermostats, cause the damned digital ones have batteries that run out and your furnace quits when you are out of town and freezes the pipes ...Ya goodam right ANALOG did the job boys.....yup that's us! I do not want a damned computer board on my Stove that fricking breaks then is discontinued so that I have to trash a perfectly good $2000 Jen-Air Combo Cooktop range.....Analog...Analog...analog.....yes by God...Communists created the damned computer chip! heheheh....
@@georgewilson1184 It really felt good to get that off my chest. Literally just got a call have to replace ANOTHER appliance at my rental house...the dryer now..10 years is what they are good for...Better off buying used stuff...where do I find a good Admiral dryer now?
Yep . . if I remember right, they were 225 or so horsepower and about 350 lb ft out of the factory with single exhaust. That you could uncork 25 more horsepower and 25 more lb ft just from the move to dual exhaust, while still having the factory exhaust manifolds, tells you exactly how restrictive that single tailpipe was.
15 mpg for a 4500 lb behemoth with a 455 V-8 isn’t “pretty good”, it’s miraculous. My ‘75 Grand Prix weighed only 4100 pounds and had the 400 engine and we never saw more than 12 mpg.
Incredible cars.Bought my friends fathers '74 2dr Limited loaded 455 4barrel for$300.After a 10 yr nap('86-'96)in garage fresh gas/battery & plugs fired right up.Towed a 30' camper after adding air shocks 75-80mph down the highway to Joysey shore.Slept many a night after doing o.t.on the velour back seat.Sold her after an offer I couldn't refuse.Would love another one.
I had a '71 Buick Electra 225. The 455 - 4bbl that year put out 315 gross BHP; about 230 net. It could get out of it's own way but it was no drag racer. The soft factory springs got mushy, so I put booster shocks on all four corners, which lifted the car nicely and gave it a surprising level of control for such a huge barge. I found some 60 profile Goodyear Blue Streak rayon belted radials meant for State Police cruisers and put them on it too. It was still no track weapon but it was finally competent on the highway. Never got better than 16 mpg, though.
Never make fun of these cars. At 75 MPH, your passenger could recline their seat and sleep through a tankful of gasoline. NONE of the cars today, including the top of the line Mercedes, will allow that now. These cars represented the last of the long-distance cruisers. For anyone over the age of 50, they are sorely missed. Today's cars are 4-5 hour cruisers, at best. These cars were 10-hour cruisers. If you've never ridden in these cars, you have absolutely no idea of what you are missing.
You've obviously never driven in a used Bentley. Heck I've fallen asleep in 90's Crown Vics...they might not have quite the float of an old Caddy or Buick but it gets the job done.
@@DustyNonya Even the Bentleys are considered firmly sprung compared to this Buick. There is no comparison to the 90s Crown Vics either. These cars were in a category all their own. You would have to ride or drive in one to fully understand.
@@DustyNonya Every 90's Crown Vic or Grand Marquis I ever rode in had a squirmy jittery ride, they rode soft but the ride quality was always kind of "busy" especially over bumps. My grandads old '95 Fleetwood and my aunts 91 or '92 Caprice Classic (with the skirts) rode alot "floatier" lol.
@@waynejohnson1304 I never said the Bentley or the Crown Vic were on par with old Caddy or Buicks, but they're still sleeper mobiles compared to a Camry. That's why I said "They're not like a Cadillac or a Buick but get the job done.' I've road in plenty of Buicks and Cadillacs...frankly the 80s Buick Grand National/Regal Types were almost as bad as a Reliant K, IE polar opposite of a 71 Riviera.
@@Stressless2023 Someone who knows their 90's cars :D. Caprices and Fleetwoods were definitely floatier than a Vic, I just mentioned it because even those will put me to sleep if I'm in the back seat. I just find it hysterical when people who have actually driven a Cadillac or Buick from the 70's whine about the body roll. God Forbid they ever had to drive a Semi Truck or even a 4500, they's sound like a European driving a Challenger for the first time.
The 455 2 bbl with 170 HP did 0-70 in 19 seconds, within half a second of a Greyhound bus tested the same day. The base model, with the V6, would not do 70 except in the downhill section of the course, and hit 60 in just under an hour, unless John Davis was in the car. Through the cones, it was wallowy, but slightly ahead of the Queen Mary. And that's with the "stiffer springs". Earlier models, with softer springs, would shake violently when attempting a turn. Dealers would suggest that new owners avoid turning except when absolutely necessary and to try to stop the car first. In the event of a panic stop customers were advised not to inhale for two minutes to avoid smoke damage to the lungs. The car shown had to be retired after filming as it would no longer track in a straight line. The front and rear compartments were in different lanes. The front shocks were replaced when it was discovered they were filled with chocolate pudding. A fully loaded LeSabre would sometimes be seen rolling backwards down a hill. Passengers would have to walk the hill, carrying their own luggage, while a lone driver would try to nurse the car up hill. I want one.
It is worth noting that with all of the complaining about how awful this car handled that none of the pylons was knocked over. Not one car accident in the history of the automobile can be traced to a soft suspension. NOT ONE! Accidents happen so fast that the suspension plays no role in the outcome. Today, we have cars that ride like trucks in order to avoid accidents that have never happened except in the minds of those who imagined them. In one hundred years from now, there will still be no one reading this who will be able to write and/or say: "I was saved by my firm suspension". We were all bamboozled! So, instead of having nice riding cars, we now have hard riding crap with hard riding tires and hard seats because some fearmongers told us they were somehow better.
Wayne Johnson....We can blame Germany for their influence on American automakers change over to rock hard suspensions that do handle more precisely on narrow twisting European roads and high speed Autobahns. America has wider straight highways and slower speed limits which makes that unnecessary. A German You Tuber buys and imports Cadillacs and Lincolns to Germany because he says they are much more comfortable on a long trip and prefers the softer American suspensions of 70's American Land Yachts. Yes I agree I also prefer a softer ride.
I own a 1975 with 455 / 4bbl with the uprated suspension option and its pretty decent for its size. Brakes also are very good. Even better with todays rubber
I’m sure that if you have just the right options on those Lesabres including a 4 barrel carb you’ve got quite a road car that will get you where you want to go in style and comfort
Dang.. The first car I owned was an 74 Buick LeSabre 454 4 barrel duel exhast. weight 5800 pounds with a half tank of gas. Gas hog, but best riding vehicle I ever rode in. Smooth and stable. The big engine hauled ass very well for that tank of a car.
15 mpg was pretty impressive considering how they're abusing the car, and considering the points-ignition of the time, the weight and (lack of) aerodynamics, and a carburetor. The best I managed on my 1972 Olds 98 (455 4-bbl) was about 15.5 MPG, but it had some minor carburetor issues, and it probably could've used a tune up. Built for low-end torque and for comfort . . NOT for speed.
I can't stand it, and I always say, these kids and young folk watch to much t.v., 22, Dubs, Pimp My Ride, Training Day, 1978-1980 Chevrolet Monte Carlo's ! I agree with the rest of u, leave it alone already, I like old cars kept original, and they r worth more any way.
Well... almost. It really needed a 4-bbl carburetor, that 2-bbl carburetor was a joke... an effort to just quickly meet the insurance and Federal mandate.
All of the "more comfortable than a modern car" comments I imagine are coming from passengers. Sure they float and have a great feel but when you have to pump the brakes on bias ply tires or spin an 18" steering wheel twice to turn roughly 45 degrees...and suddenly you appreciate the new Challenger even with it's foam-laden rear quarter panels.
I daily drive a 68 Pontiac, and I really think the ride is better than when I drive a late model car. It has the kind of effortless one finger power steering and the torque to get up to speed just above idle. The ride is much less jarring than modern hard sprung cars, and overall it's a comfortable driving car. Let the people who prefer the old cars prefer to old cars. To each his own.
@@woodyofp8574 Agree. I drive my car from 1975 - not daily but - frequently from medio March to medio November. We do have a brand new car in the house, but nothing beats the smooth and quiet ride of a 1975.
Today's cars are so much better in what way? I had a '72 Chrysler New Yorker from 1977-1982 that I would trade for my current car, a 2019 Lincoln Nautilus, any day of the week!
@@Nunofurdambiznez thats a Lincoln... my camry se gets better mpg... faster 0 to 60... amazing brakes! wider after market tires and it handles about as well as any modern FWD ... car seems to love being driven hard with those stiff springs... dont get me wrong, i love these old cars i grew up with but i dont suffer from some delusion that they were at all great. they left alot to be desired... but at the time they were a huge leap forward... 100 years prior EVERYBODY was on horseback... heck, 1920 still had most people using mass trans and horses
Gotta love how Bud just threw all his testers around including this ole boat, fishtailing through the cones with the grace of a whale on ice skates. 😂😂
Uggh. My dad had a 1974 Lesabre, yellow with a black vinyl roof. U-G-L-Y. Looked like a kid with a face full of braces. And black vinyl seats that would burn your legs. Handled like an aircraft carrier, but at least it had a 4BBL carb on the 455. It was pretty indestructible, which is about the nicest thing I can say about it.
My Grandparents had one. Comfy and sort of luxurious, but it was underpowered and boat ish handling. I never turned down a chance to drive it though. Always liked big cars. They some fiber optics in the dash panel. I know because I broke one line trying to replace a bulb.
performance and handling is a far cry from the 1972 Buick Centurion that they've tested, I'd much prefer the 1972 Buick Centurion over this car any day.
It was to allow the engine to deliver the same high torque at low rpm for effortless driveability, but starve it at higher rpm so emissions tests were passed.
@@scdevon Not really since the second set of two barrels only kicked in under high power demands. Around town, you would just be driving around on two barrels.
Me neither. I also saw 4V, which could easily be assumed as "valve". I'd bet "bbl" came from colloquial use of common (and correct) usage for "blue barrel" (standardized 42-gal. oil barrel size), with the subconscious "I don't know why "pounds" is abbreviated as "lbs." either, but that's what everybody uses", LOL.
Just seeing the year "1974" associated with any American car is enough to make a person ill. 1974 was an awful year for a lot of reasons. The EPA gutting the performance of your V8 engine to 1/2 of what it was in 1970 was just icing on the cake. They still drank just as much fuel to make 50% of their horsepower, too.
I always consider 1974 and 1975 to be the worst years of the 1970's when it comes to the automotive industry, to me if I were to buy a classic car it would be a 1972 or earlier due to the vehicles not being fully smogged/
@@Doobie1975 1975 is much worse, that's when the cat converter came out and really killed performance. The G.M. cars in 1973 and 1974 still had true dual exhaust on some models.
@@markg7030 I don't consider 1973 to be as bad as many people make it out to be but always thought 1975 was the low point of the automotive industry, I do admit I do like the GM cars built from 1977 to 1979.
The Buick 455 was never sold with a 2 barrel carburetor in my area.. I have never seen a 2 barrel big block buick manifold and I have owned dozens.. crazy.. must have been one of those quadrajet fake carbs with no secondaries lol..
I've never liked the mid 70's GM full size coupe's at all, I do notice you hardly see any of the GM full sized coupe's from the mid 70's but still see a good number of the 60's/early 70's GM full sized coupe's.
Black guy's love these big old cars. Lots of them are inherited from old aunties and they are customized with giant wheels and crazy paintjobs. Good for them, I say.
***** These cars would just be sitting in driveways and salvage yards otherwise. They're not collectible and no one cares about them... except when they see someone else enjoying them apparently.
This show always carries on about Buick brakes over other GM cars, but I'm almost 100% sure that all GM cars shared the same brake sizes and configuration on all of their cars back then on the front disc/ rear drum vehicles within a GM vehicle platform. There's probably no difference at all between the brakes on, say, a 1974 Olds 98 and this Buick.
Chevy CORVETTE had always the finest brakes. Disc @ all 4 corners. In that year. ('74,75,76) had front disc /rear drums. GM made sure that the best brakes ( disc on all 4 corners )was reserved for the Chevy CORVETTE & '76 Cadillac Eldorado.
That car had been faster then that, this guy did a video about a car that I used to have, a 1969 Impala with a 396 with a 2 bbl, he said that car could even punch his way to a wet Kleenex, my car would smoke the tires and bury the speedometer, with no trouble, my car could run a 0-60 in 7.3 not 10 sec like he said!!!
@@mhoraites1055 they also took off with the car in drive and didn't wine the engine out through the gears, their transmissions had a under 5000 RPM shift point, if you put it in a lower gear and held it there and shifted it manually the cars would have been faster
Chrysler never offered a 440 2bbl - Likewise a 460 2bbl from Ford. I've seen a 400 2bbl from of them yes. I did eventually find the 455 2bbl in brochures for Buick (Never looked in Olds' brochures)
The only thing that they did wrong with that car was put a 2bbl. carb on a 455. They should have offset that with dual exhaust at least. Other than that it was a beautiful car!!!
Considering how they were driving it, 15mpg wasn't bad. 1974 was the absolute low point for power in American cars. Starting in 1975, most cars came with catalytic converters, and manufacturers started advancing spark and raising compression ratios.
Actually most makes had a horsepower decrease in 1975 with the restrictive cat and loss of true dual exhaust systems. Things improved later with advancements in technology.
Wouldn't it be cool to get a few examples for testing from the 50's and 60's like the Wildcat and Roadmaster?? 19 seconds to 70?? is that even possible????
Lol.. no. It led to declining sales of US vehicles, poor reliability, and then Japan with their smaller cars took hold. Way too much to type here, but if the EPA had done their homework, and mandated ceramic catalytic converters instead of charcoal pellet ones... it might not have led us down the path of losing a car company and Detroit looking like an armpit. Also... there was no reason for them to force the car companies to lower compression ratios. That was done by the insurance lobby, purposely, to hurt the performance of cars so that they wouldn't go as fast, and there would be less accidents. It wasn't until something like ~1986 when they were finally allowed to do it. Older V8s had something like 10:1 compression, and then the insurance-lobbied law forced manufacturers to not increase compression on anything higher than 8.5:1. By the early 80s, that had been raised to 8.9:1, and then finally by 1986 I believe it was rescinded. There was another law too... the Federal Government said you couldn't have a speedometer that went over 85, believing that you wouldn't speed beyond 85 if it didn't say anything faster. It was ridiculous. That was also passed around 1974. Had nothing to do with technology... just regulation that was pushed by the insurance lobby.
Smog pollution is awful. Poor Joe consumer had plenty of choices, stop crying about government "interference" with your "freedom" to pollute. I'd rather have a slow car and cleaner air.
Look Mom! It's not an ugly crossover! It's a clean mean beautiful classic machine!
"At no time were any of the crew members overcome by exhaust emissions." I see what you did there lol.
This guy always had a fixation on stiffer suspension and handling but no one ever bought these cars back then for handling, they were all about comfort.
1000 thumbs up, exactly right!
There's a difference between a soft ride and awful suspension control, the latter of which most of these boats had regardless of the brand. You could have nearly the same cloud-like ride with far better engineering and control in the suspension department. I understand what you're saying but having suspension with so much wallow it's uncontrollable is inexcusable, the 70's Ford line-up was especially bad about this.
that's only because we're used to how maniacs behind the wheel drive now... I owned a '72 Chrysler New Yorker back in 1977 and it handled better than any car I've ever had since... but, then again, i know how to drive properly, always have.
That makes perfect sense. You had to pay attention in these older cars. Newer cars make don't you pay much attention to driving.
Geordo1960 You took the words out of my mouth. If all those full size cars came with stiff suspensions back then, nobody would have bought them. People didn't run those cars through slalom's, they wanted them to ride cushy on the road.
2bbl on a 455 is a killjoy
the braking times were really good for 1974 standards
Yeah that 2 barrel would be coming right off immediately
Absolutely no reason to have a 2bbl on an engine of that size
I think those were the best braking distances for 50 and 70mph on all these videos. And a big car too, impressive.
They were actually known to be better off the line than 4bbls. The focus for these cars would not have been WOT speed.
149 ft from 70 is good now
Built for a modern, economical, comfortable, High speed freeway based road system!! In a country that valued it's quality of life!
hope we get that soon... never really existed but on leave it to beaver
Whoever the test driver was, he deserved combat pay for risking his life, piloting this behemoth like a sports car.
There are no records of anyone ever dying in a car accident because of a soft suspension. There are millions of accidents though that can be traced back to a firm "safer" suspension though because the firm suspensions encourage faster driving which contributed to the accident.
@@waynejohnson1304 Unless you count the people that went off the road because the beast could not handle it. Throw in evasive driving that was severely hampered by cars that handled poorly and you were done! Better handling = safer cars so making them garbage to slow people down is ignorant. If we got rid of seat belts, front disc brakes and used wood rims with skinny tires like they did 100 years ago...ultimate safe cars! Well, no...
@@EVnewbie So, in other words, more people dying in the so-called "safer cars" is okay? That IS, make no mistake about it, what you just implied. The suspensions were firmed up at the same time that air bags and anti-locking brakes came into being so there is no way of knowing what would have happened if the suspensions were left soft but, we do know that there are more high speed accident now than ever before. Firm suspensions encourage fast driving. If you are going to put a Formula One suspension on a car, people will drive it like a Formula One race car. According to Motor Trend Magazine, German has a 1% lower accident rate then we do BUT, a 1% higher death fatality rate. Accidents happen too fast to blame a suspension. I have well over 5,000 videos of accidents from UA-cam and there is ZERO evidence that that a suspension ever came into play. There is all kinds of evidence though which indicates that the firmer suspensions are encouraging faster driving that is leading to MANY accidents. In 1980, and before, most people drove 65 to 70 MPH on the Interstates. It was RARE to see people going over 80 MPH. Now, it is not unusual to see people driving 90+MPH. As long as you actually enjoy a higher death rate, fine, but, some of us do not.
@@waynejohnson1304 You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same. For this reason, you can't make something completely safe because people will naturally be more careless to a level of safety they are comfortable with. Bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks and unicycles--people will use them to their own risk level. If you build a car with sloppy suspension, weak brakes, no seat belts, no air bags, skinny bias ply tires people will drive slower to be sure. However! When the fit hits the shan, a deer jumps on the road right in front of you, you hit back ice, a child runs into the street, sudden pouring rain, a tire blows out, lightning hits a tree, dust storms, smoke from forest fires etc. hit you then it is a BAD thing to have great brakes, stiff suspension, great tire grip, anti-locks, air bags, superior lighting, traction control etc. because F it, we need to slow down idiots? Really? Sorry! Idiots are always out there, you can never make anything idiot proof but we need to save the lives of idiots? OK, put the speed limit at 15MPH to save the idiots or, just late Darwinism take it's course! The reason they made cars safer was because the governments around the world realized that the garbage rolling down the streets in the 50's and 60's were death traps and people died, normal people just driving around died because of poor suspensions, poor handling, weak brakes, no crash protection in the doors, no roll over protection, useless bumpers, non-collapsing steering columns, doors would open up in a crash, metal dashboards would break your knees and the list goes on an on. 60 years ago the gas tanks we behind the seat in pickup trucks! Don't forget the steering wheel would not collapse, the dash was steel, manual drum brakes, single master cylinders so front and rear brakes would fail at once, lap belts which did little as you bent at the spine to hit a solid metal post holding the steering wheel, broke your knees on the steel dash, the gas tank ruptured in a side impact and so on. They took a 50's Impala and hit a modern Impala head on and the the old Impala driver would of died--the modern Impala driver would of been OK. After all, in an accident--most of the time one driver is at fault while the other driver(s) are victims so I'll take a great handling, great stopping, tight steering car anytime to avoid idiots. I also drive in rain, snow and in dusty conditions so I have to battle mother nature also. There will always be idiot drivers no matter what car they are driving--that is a given until self driving cars take over to remove the idiot from the equation. Making cars more hazardous to slow down a few idiots while making the cars far worse for people that don't drive like idiots (most people on this planet) is a really bad idea. Heck, we should get rid of ground fault interupters, remove electrical grounds, get rid of all those non conductive electrical devices so people respect electricity more! Think about it...
@@EVnewbie I don't know why you mention brakes, skinny tires, and all of the rest of the advances that actually do save lives because I agree with those advances. Designing cars to perform like Indy race cars though does NOT prevent accidents. It encourages them. You wrote: "You need to read books on this, the concept is called "percieved risk" in that when people think something is 100 percent safe, they have more risky behavior to keep the level of percieved risk the same."
Exactly my point. You have been brainwashed into thinking that a firm suspension will somehow prevent you from having an accident when there is not one piece of evidence to back up your claim. If I am in a Ferrari and someone pulls out in front of me, I will still hit him. If the back of my car is hit on the highway, I am still going to spin out regardless of what suspension I have.
My question is this: Where will I benefit by driving a car with a firm suspension? I have owned Cadillacs since 1989. I have had a 1976 Coupe DeVille, a 1971 Fleetwood, and my present CTS4. The ONLY two things I can do better with my CTS4 is brake quicker (because of the wider tires and wider brake rotors) and take corners faster (because of the wider tires). So, why should my new Cadillac ride like a Mack truck? THAT is the question I would like you to answer. How is my firm suspension helping me avoid an accident? Why should I suffer because of it? Answer me that.
More comfy than a modern car on a long trip.
No way.
No support from the seats.
Constant correcting needed to steer.
@@Incomudro1963never drove one I see. You do not need to constantly correct it
@@rovervitesse1985 Yes I do. I've been in them.
They sucked in EVERY way.
I understand liking these cars, but liking these cars is like liking black powder firearms.
They are interesting oddities of the past.
Just don't compare them to modern firearms.
People that drive big Buick’s also have Admiral appliances in their homes
Exactly! and Vintage Fisher Stereo systems...tube amplifiers..Analog Thermostats, cause the damned digital ones have batteries that run out and your furnace quits when you are out of town and freezes the pipes ...Ya goodam right ANALOG did the job boys.....yup that's us! I do not want a damned computer board on my Stove that fricking breaks then is discontinued so that I have to trash a perfectly good $2000 Jen-Air Combo Cooktop range.....Analog...Analog...analog.....yes by God...Communists created the damned computer chip! heheheh....
GT-37 Guy cool
@@georgewilson1184 It really felt good to get that off my chest. Literally just got a call have to replace ANOTHER appliance at my rental house...the dryer now..10 years is what they are good for...Better off buying used stuff...where do I find a good Admiral dryer now?
GT-37 Guy Sorry I wouldn’t know good luck
Except for a Kelvinator refrigerator.
Dad drove a '73 LeSabre Custom coupe with a 455-4 and dual exhaust. It made 250 hp, 375 lb ft torque. It could move out and sounded great doing it.
Yep . . if I remember right, they were 225 or so horsepower and about 350 lb ft out of the factory with single exhaust.
That you could uncork 25 more horsepower and 25 more lb ft just from the move to dual exhaust, while still having the factory exhaust manifolds, tells you exactly how restrictive that single tailpipe was.
15 mpg hard driving was pretty good on this boat.
I get about 12-15 on my 71 Lesabre with the 350. With 23 gallon tank I still get about 270 miles per tank.
Thanks to a 2 bbl carb so it technically delivered half the gas to previous 4 bbl.
15 mpg for a 4500 lb behemoth with a 455 V-8 isn’t “pretty good”, it’s miraculous. My ‘75 Grand Prix weighed only 4100 pounds and had the 400 engine and we never saw more than 12 mpg.
The Fender Fan 270 miles per gallon or per tankful?
Tommy Udo 15mpg on the highway maybe, he is dreaming for that around town 455 Cubes.
Incredible cars.Bought my friends fathers '74 2dr Limited loaded 455 4barrel for$300.After a 10 yr nap('86-'96)in garage fresh gas/battery & plugs fired right up.Towed a 30' camper after adding air shocks 75-80mph down the highway to Joysey shore.Slept many a night after doing o.t.on the velour back seat.Sold her after an offer I couldn't refuse.Would love another one.
I had a '71 Buick Electra 225. The 455 - 4bbl that year put out 315 gross BHP; about 230 net. It could get out of it's own way but it was no drag racer. The soft factory springs got mushy, so I put booster shocks on all four corners, which lifted the car nicely and gave it a surprising level of control for such a huge barge. I found some 60 profile Goodyear Blue Streak rayon belted radials meant for State Police cruisers and put them on it too. It was still no track weapon but it was finally competent on the highway. Never got better than 16 mpg, though.
That big new Buick roaring down that track, sliding around those curves, too much fun🤗🤗🤗
This review is much better than MotorWeek "reviews."
Those are some of the best brakes I've seen on a 1970's vehicle, that is even very good by today's standards.
Beautiful beast. We had a green 74 LeSabre luxus with a two spoke steering wheel. The rust ate it up by the time it was ten.
fantastic American cars
Never make fun of these cars. At 75 MPH, your passenger could recline their seat and sleep through a tankful of gasoline. NONE of the cars today, including the top of the line Mercedes, will allow that now. These cars represented the last of the long-distance cruisers. For anyone over the age of 50, they are sorely missed. Today's cars are 4-5 hour cruisers, at best. These cars were 10-hour cruisers. If you've never ridden in these cars, you have absolutely no idea of what you are missing.
You've obviously never driven in a used Bentley. Heck I've fallen asleep in 90's Crown Vics...they might not have quite the float of an old Caddy or Buick but it gets the job done.
@@DustyNonya Even the Bentleys are considered firmly sprung compared to this Buick. There is no comparison to the 90s Crown Vics either. These cars were in a category all their own. You would have to ride or drive in one to fully understand.
@@DustyNonya Every 90's Crown Vic or Grand Marquis I ever rode in had a squirmy jittery ride, they rode soft but the ride quality was always kind of "busy" especially over bumps. My grandads old '95 Fleetwood and my aunts 91 or '92 Caprice Classic (with the skirts) rode alot "floatier" lol.
@@waynejohnson1304 I never said the Bentley or the Crown Vic were on par with old Caddy or Buicks, but they're still sleeper mobiles compared to a Camry. That's why I said "They're not like a Cadillac or a Buick but get the job done.'
I've road in plenty of Buicks and Cadillacs...frankly the 80s Buick Grand National/Regal Types were almost as bad as a Reliant K, IE polar opposite of a 71 Riviera.
@@Stressless2023 Someone who knows their 90's cars :D. Caprices and Fleetwoods were definitely floatier than a Vic, I just mentioned it because even those will put me to sleep if I'm in the back seat.
I just find it hysterical when people who have actually driven a Cadillac or Buick from the 70's whine about the body roll. God Forbid they ever had to drive a Semi Truck or even a 4500, they's sound like a European driving a Challenger for the first time.
Now, imagine that same car brand new with the 455 & today's advances!
Les chanceux qui avaient comme travail de tester ces magnifiques voitures !💖
Man I wish we could buy cars like these now.
Love this big ol' cars. Got a 70 LeSabre 455 4 barrel carb. I get almost 20mpg highway and it's a dream to drive.
The 455 2 bbl with 170 HP did 0-70 in 19 seconds, within half a second of a Greyhound bus tested the same day. The base model, with the V6, would not do 70 except in the downhill section of the course, and hit 60 in just under an hour, unless John Davis was in the car. Through the cones, it was wallowy, but slightly ahead of the Queen Mary. And that's with the "stiffer springs". Earlier models, with softer springs, would shake violently when attempting a turn. Dealers would suggest that new owners avoid turning except when absolutely necessary and to try to stop the car first. In the event of a panic stop customers were advised not to inhale for two minutes to avoid smoke damage to the lungs. The car shown had to be retired after filming as it would no longer track in a straight line. The front and rear compartments were in different lanes. The front shocks were replaced when it was discovered they were filled with chocolate pudding. A fully loaded LeSabre would sometimes be seen rolling backwards down a hill. Passengers would have to walk the hill, carrying their own luggage, while a lone driver would try to nurse the car up hill. I want one.
There was no V6 offered in 1974
@@rovervitesse1985 Thanks
The big car performed really well, doing the cones, the car almost takes the entire lane when its sideways, but did great.
I'm glad they put it on the road course....nice to see this sprightly lynx navigating those turns.
It is worth noting that with all of the complaining about how awful this car handled that none of the pylons was knocked over. Not one car accident in the history of the automobile can be traced to a soft suspension. NOT ONE! Accidents happen so fast that the suspension plays no role in the outcome. Today, we have cars that ride like trucks in order to avoid accidents that have never happened except in the minds of those who imagined them. In one hundred years from now, there will still be no one reading this who will be able to write and/or say: "I was saved by my firm suspension". We were all bamboozled! So, instead of having nice riding cars, we now have hard riding crap with hard riding tires and hard seats because some fearmongers told us they were somehow better.
Wayne Johnson....We can blame Germany for their influence on American automakers change over to rock hard suspensions that do handle more precisely on narrow twisting European roads and high speed Autobahns.
America has wider straight highways and slower speed limits which makes that unnecessary.
A German You Tuber buys and imports Cadillacs and Lincolns to Germany because he says they are much more comfortable on a long trip and prefers the softer American suspensions of 70's American Land Yachts.
Yes I agree I also prefer a softer ride.
I think this car performed beautifully
I own a 1975 with 455 / 4bbl with the uprated suspension option and its pretty decent for its size. Brakes also are very good. Even better with todays rubber
I’m sure that if you have just the right options on those Lesabres including a 4 barrel carb you’ve got quite a road car that will get you where you want to go in style and comfort
I couldn't wait to get into this when it first came out!
Dang.. The first car I owned was an 74 Buick LeSabre 454 4 barrel duel exhast. weight 5800 pounds with a half tank of gas. Gas hog, but best riding vehicle I ever rode in. Smooth and stable. The big engine hauled ass very well for that tank of a car.
15 mpg was pretty impressive considering how they're abusing the car, and considering the points-ignition of the time, the weight and (lack of) aerodynamics, and a carburetor.
The best I managed on my 1972 Olds 98 (455 4-bbl) was about 15.5 MPG, but it had some minor carburetor issues, and it probably could've used a tune up.
Built for low-end torque and for comfort . . NOT for speed.
I can't stand it, and I always say, these kids and young folk watch to much t.v., 22, Dubs, Pimp My Ride, Training Day, 1978-1980 Chevrolet Monte Carlo's ! I agree with the rest of u, leave it alone already, I like old cars kept original, and they r worth more any way.
Well... almost. It really needed a 4-bbl carburetor, that 2-bbl carburetor was a joke... an effort to just quickly meet the insurance and Federal mandate.
Literally nobody watches those shows
Believe it or not those 455’s got even worse powerwise in 1975 when the catalytic converter made its entry
I remember these commercials in 1974, I was 14 years old but was nice cars GM should bring it back.
All of the "more comfortable than a modern car" comments I imagine are coming from passengers. Sure they float and have a great feel but when you have to pump the brakes on bias ply tires or spin an 18" steering wheel twice to turn roughly 45 degrees...and suddenly you appreciate the new Challenger even with it's foam-laden rear quarter panels.
I daily drive a 68 Pontiac, and I really think the ride is better than when I drive a late model car. It has the kind of effortless one finger power steering and the torque to get up to speed just above idle. The ride is much less jarring than modern hard sprung cars, and overall it's a comfortable driving car. Let the people who prefer the old cars prefer to old cars. To each his own.
@@woodyofp8574
Agree. I drive my car from 1975 - not daily but - frequently from medio March to medio November.
We do have a brand new car in the house, but nothing beats the smooth and quiet ride of a 1975.
Perfect cart for Frank Cannon.
I am amazed by the 15mpg mixed, a 350 2bbl '74 Camaro LT only managed 14mpg, 1000lbs lighter and 25 less HP.
I miss cars like this from a nostalgoic point of view, but today's cars are so much better.
Today's cars are so much better in what way? I had a '72 Chrysler New Yorker from 1977-1982 that I would trade for my current car, a 2019 Lincoln Nautilus, any day of the week!
@@Nunofurdambiznez thats a Lincoln... my camry se gets better mpg... faster 0 to 60... amazing brakes! wider after market tires and it handles about as well as any modern FWD ... car seems to love being driven hard with those stiff springs... dont get me wrong, i love these old cars i grew up with but i dont suffer from some delusion that they were at all great. they left alot to be desired... but at the time they were a huge leap forward... 100 years prior EVERYBODY was on horseback... heck, 1920 still had most people using mass trans and horses
151 ft for 70-0 braking is great even today and even more remarkable since that Buick had a disc/drum setup with no ABS
It's sad what happened to automobiles in the 1970s/80s.
1:35 THE CREW WASN'T OVERCOME BY EXHAUST EMISSIONS. THAT SAY'S IT ALL ABOUT PRE-2000 CARS.
"Pre-2000", please, but it was a strange comment.
He was making a joke, in that the car was so slow, the exhaust gas almost catched up to the finish line.
Nothing more stressful than to parallel park one of these boats during your drivers license test with a state trooper sitting shotgun.
2taxedout, exactly, my test was in a similar sized Delta 88.
That's hard to think that a 455 put out less than 180 horsepower. Emission crap really did rob those engines of power.
Severely retarded spark, tiny carburetors, low compression, exhaust gas recirc--all power killers.
The last decent year for stock cams and compression ratios was 1971. 1974 was definitely the official start of the dark ages.
the lunch lady's automobile of choice
and a damn good one too!
Cars have come a long ways
have they??? in what ways?
before 74 the big cars were really really nice.
With 175hp its amazing it even chirps em off the line.
Not hard to spin bias plys...
Alex Youngberg With only 175 hp in a car this size it is! TORQUE is what made this car spin tires.
Gotta love how Bud just threw all his testers around including this ole boat, fishtailing through the cones with the grace of a whale on ice skates. 😂😂
Uggh. My dad had a 1974 Lesabre, yellow with a black vinyl roof. U-G-L-Y. Looked like a kid with a face full of braces. And black vinyl seats that would burn your legs. Handled like an aircraft carrier, but at least it had a 4BBL carb on the 455. It was pretty indestructible, which is about the nicest thing I can say about it.
Only i remember this cae of Mr. Ronald DeFeo Sr.
A 455 with modern engine control technology would be 500hp.
Does it come with a harbor pilot when you want to park?
My Grandparents had one. Comfy and sort of luxurious, but it was underpowered and boat ish handling. I never turned down a chance to drive it though. Always liked big cars. They some fiber optics in the dash panel. I know because I broke one line trying to replace a bulb.
Interesting to hear the brakes referred to as binders.😊
performance and handling is a far cry from the 1972 Buick Centurion that they've tested, I'd much prefer the 1972 Buick Centurion over this car any day.
Painful to watch. Why take that big boat on a course meant for a sports car.
Testing
Looks fun
No true American would ever ask that!
I had a 72 LeSabre. Very nice until the tornado got a hold of it. Never did find that car. It was gone.
Daddy bought a 73 with 455 . it was a dog A/C went out bringing it home -- Trans no good engine felt like the brakes were on and 11 to 12 mpg
I like this car.
Can you even imagine... a 455 cubic inch... guys, that's a 7.6 liter engine... with a 2-barrel carburetor??? What in God's name???
It was to allow the engine to deliver the same high torque at low rpm for effortless driveability, but starve it at higher rpm so emissions tests were passed.
455CID = 7.5 liters
460cid =7.6 liters
It was probably designed to move a lot of weight...just not move it all that quickly. My guess is that it was good for trailer towing?
2 barrel engines had much better driveability and better low end torque for daily driving as long as you're happy to live life below 3500 rpm.
@@scdevon Not really since the second set of two barrels only kicked in under high power demands. Around town, you would just be driving around on two barrels.
How the hell is "BBL" the abbreviation for "barrel?" Never understood that.
Me neither. I also saw 4V, which could easily be assumed as "valve". I'd bet "bbl" came from colloquial use of common (and correct) usage for "blue barrel" (standardized 42-gal. oil barrel size), with the subconscious "I don't know why "pounds" is abbreviated as "lbs." either, but that's what everybody uses", LOL.
@@louf7178 V = "Venturi"
The guy that came up with the BBL abbreviation was a st-st- stutterer -
@@rsstrazz6261 Thanks.
And why did the Pound Sign become a Hash Tag? Sounds like the mark in your undershorts when you blow a wet fart -
Back when the brakes were called "binders" and the tires looked like they would roll right off their rims in the cornering test.
Wow 19 seconds to 70mph - probably close to 1/4 mile time too. 15mpg driven hard is great mileage though. - I guess that was the tradeoff.
Yeah, I guess that was the trade-off....better than '73, though- not by much.....still these cars were ALL BEAUTIFUL & BIG!!!
Woah that body roll.
That's right. Go down the obstacle course to take that Buick soft coil wallowy car's sheet metal and bumpers for a grinding metal down run !
I thought I was tuned in to the Rockford Files.
performance wise a far cry from the 1972 Buick Centurion 455 they
tested.
Just seeing the year "1974" associated with any American car is enough to make a person ill.
1974 was an awful year for a lot of reasons. The EPA gutting the performance of your V8 engine to 1/2 of what it was in 1970 was just icing on the cake. They still drank just as much fuel to make 50% of their horsepower, too.
I always consider 1974 and 1975 to be the worst years of the 1970's when it comes to the automotive industry, to me if I were to buy a classic car it would be a 1972 or earlier due to the vehicles not being fully smogged/
@@Doobie1975 1975 is much worse, that's when the cat converter came out and really killed performance. The G.M. cars in 1973 and 1974 still had true dual exhaust on some models.
@@markg7030 I don't consider 1973 to be as bad as many people make it out to be but always thought 1975 was the low point of the automotive industry, I do admit I do like the GM cars built from 1977 to 1979.
Def needed the 4 barrel, dual exhaust as well the rear swaybar.
does anyone know which site this is ? where is this track today ?
I love it...🤗
The Buick 455 was never sold with a 2 barrel carburetor in my area.. I have never seen a 2 barrel big block buick manifold and I have owned dozens.. crazy.. must have been one of those quadrajet fake carbs with no secondaries lol..
I've never liked the mid 70's GM full size coupe's at all, I do notice you hardly see any of the GM full sized coupe's from the mid 70's but still see a good number of the 60's/early 70's GM full sized coupe's.
Black guy's love these big old cars. Lots of them are inherited from old aunties and they are customized with giant wheels and crazy paintjobs. Good for them, I say.
***** These cars would just be sitting in driveways and salvage yards otherwise. They're not collectible and no one cares about them... except when they see someone else enjoying them apparently.
they also love fat white women and menthol cigarettes
Buelligan88
and grape soda?
Rubbish. There are plenty of us who appreciate these cars for what they are without turning them into ridiculous cartoon things.
nothing like a 455 boat anchor SMOG-motor making 175 HP
I love these videos. Thank you soo much
I had a 73 with a 350 4 barrel carb underpowered car. This car was a great car to take your girl to the drive-in.
This show always carries on about Buick brakes over other GM cars, but I'm almost 100% sure that all GM cars shared the same brake sizes and configuration on all of their cars back then on the
front disc/ rear drum vehicles within a GM vehicle platform. There's probably no difference at all between the brakes on, say, a 1974 Olds 98 and this Buick.
scdevon
Obviously the Buicks had better brake bias. The chevy of 1974 fared much worse in braking
Chevy CORVETTE had always the finest brakes. Disc @ all 4 corners. In that year. ('74,75,76) had front disc /rear drums. GM made sure that the best brakes ( disc on all 4 corners )was reserved for the Chevy CORVETTE & '76 Cadillac Eldorado.
Polished the whitewalls on this run.
How does a 455 4500lb get 15mpg when the same year they tested a 4000lb charger 440 at 8mpg?!
the le sabre probably had a 2.56:1 to get 15 mpg and a slow 1/4 mi run.
When Buicks were Buicks. GM needs to go back to these cars if it wants to survive as a car company.
That car had been faster then that, this guy did a video about a car that I used to have, a 1969 Impala with a 396 with a 2 bbl, he said that car could even punch his way to a wet Kleenex, my car would smoke the tires and bury the speedometer, with no trouble, my car could run a 0-60 in 7.3 not 10 sec like he said!!!
Jeff colt you are right. The cars must have been getting too hot or something when they came out with these acceleration times
@@mhoraites1055 they also took off with the car in drive and didn't wine the engine out through the gears, their transmissions had a under 5000 RPM shift point, if you put it in a lower gear and held it there and shifted it manually the cars would have been faster
@@jeffcolt9185 you're right.
that is the way you're supposed to test cars
Now I.know why Dan Mathews on Highway Patrol drove a Buick...
A 455 delivering 145 hp? 0-60 in 19 sec? Hated those days.
0-70 in 19 seconds. However no mention of the quarter mile time (which has got to be close to 19 seconds)
175
Check out Insane Jump by a Buick La sabre. Please it crazy.
1:34 1974 snark lol
I don't think I ever saw a 455 2 bbl period and never seen it in the option book.
Buick offered a slew of engine choices only in '74
Chrysler never offered a 440 2bbl - Likewise a 460 2bbl from Ford. I've seen a 400 2bbl from of them yes. I did eventually find the 455 2bbl in brochures for Buick (Never looked in Olds' brochures)
The only thing that they did wrong with that car was put a 2bbl. carb on a 455. They should have offset that with dual exhaust at least. Other than that it was a beautiful car!!!
Amazing how 7.5L engine could produce barely 175 WHP with a horrendous fuel economy.
I love it! I'll take one!
It’s fun to review old cars they Handel horribly and have horrible fuel mileage . Buy they are charming and kind of stylish In a gaudy kind of way
Considering how they were driving it, 15mpg wasn't bad. 1974 was the absolute low point for power in American cars. Starting in 1975, most cars came with catalytic converters, and manufacturers started advancing spark and raising compression ratios.
Actually most makes had a horsepower decrease in 1975 with the restrictive cat and loss of true dual exhaust systems. Things improved later with advancements in technology.
I'd much rather have a 1971-72 Buick LeSabre, at least the 455 Buick V8 still offered good performance and drivability in that time period.
Hard for me to believe that a big-block V8 could make so little power.
The early 70's were a bad time to be a car enthusiast. Cars didn't get to be respectable again until 1983 or so.
Graceful as a Gazelle....😂😂
Had this BUICK HAD RADIALS, THE HANDLING WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SECURE, RADIALS DIDN'T BECOME STANDARD UNTIL '75. RADIALS MADE IT WORK.
Wouldn't it be cool to get a few examples for testing from the 50's and 60's like the Wildcat and Roadmaster?? 19 seconds to 70?? is that even possible????
Wow a 3 cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage will fry this on the drag strip.
3 speed transmission shared with the chevette. Lol
No
Chevettes didn't have that big 400 trans, lol
Government killed the horsepower on these cars
Like everything else
And it lead to better engineering.
Lol.. no. It led to declining sales of US vehicles, poor reliability, and then Japan with their smaller cars took hold. Way too much to type here, but if the EPA had done their homework, and mandated ceramic catalytic converters instead of charcoal pellet ones... it might not have led us down the path of losing a car company and Detroit looking like an armpit. Also... there was no reason for them to force the car companies to lower compression ratios. That was done by the insurance lobby, purposely, to hurt the performance of cars so that they wouldn't go as fast, and there would be less accidents. It wasn't until something like ~1986 when they were finally allowed to do it. Older V8s had something like 10:1 compression, and then the insurance-lobbied law forced manufacturers to not increase compression on anything higher than 8.5:1. By the early 80s, that had been raised to 8.9:1, and then finally by 1986 I believe it was rescinded. There was another law too... the Federal Government said you couldn't have a speedometer that went over 85, believing that you wouldn't speed beyond 85 if it didn't say anything faster. It was ridiculous. That was also passed around 1974. Had nothing to do with technology... just regulation that was pushed by the insurance lobby.
Smog pollution is awful. Poor Joe consumer had plenty of choices, stop crying about government "interference" with your "freedom" to pollute. I'd rather have a slow car and cleaner air.
@@milfordcivic6755 cars still pollute the atmosphere As well as everything in this world no such thing as a Pollution free earth.
I thought the braking of this car was excellent 151 feet at 70mph is excellent, that is even good by today's standards.
Especially when you consider it weighs as much as a modern Chevy Suburban. If not more.