What do you miss about classic cars or cars of the past?

[Rob Hall]

25 minutes ago, Xingu said:

I miss the ease of maintenance on the older cars and how (for the most part) easily you could do a engine swap. Computers and emission controls have have made things more difficult. I know some still find it fairly simple to do this things on modern cars, but to me it feels like I have to learn another language when it comes to computer and emission controls.

 

The most complex maintenance I've done on modern cars is replace the wiper blades, add washer fluid and oil, and replace some bulbs.   Some bulbs require removing the front fascia--those would be a trip to the dealer for me. 

[larman]

I guess it depends on what you remember and when you were born. I was driving age in the 80's so most of the cars I was involved with were hohum. I had a '74 Charger, 400, 4bbl motor. great looking car, but a new RT would spank it in every way, except possibly looks. My grandmother had an '86 or '87 Chevy Celebrity, she bought new, I currently have a 2016 Chevy Malibu and it is better in everyway,  INCLUDING  looks. Back in those days my buddies all had 5.0 Mustangs and a few had Camaros or Firebirds, they were the hot cars of the day. A V6 version of the Mustang or Camaro would pretty much run with or dust the highest perfomance 80's versions now. A GT or SS  would  destroy its 80's counterpart in any performance contest. That's not counting the Shelby or ZL1 which are flat out monsters. There are those who say, 'Yeah but everything costs more". Does it? When you consider economies of scale. Maybe it does, but I have a better chance of affording a modern muscle machine now than I did when I was a kid. Back then I had low paying jobs and was also paying for schooling. Yes, it is also true it is not as easy to work on newer stuff, but there are plenty of modern hot rodders who do. And honestly with a stock SS Camaro, RT Challenger or GT Mustang throwing down 4 second 0-60 times, or less and 12 to 13 second 1/4 times or less, do you really need to further modify them? The one thing I guess I miss would be being able to buy a car that had all the performance options, with out the frills, like a big block late 60's Biscayne Sedan. Of course, that  really hasn't been possible since probably the early to mid 70's. I am probably inviting a good amount of flaming from those whole love the good old days, but the stuff I have now IS the best I have had, and on a side note, I just got a ride in my buddies 2016 ZL1 Camaro the other day. It is by far, the fastest stock street car I have ever been in. I hope that in 15-20 years, that car seems as dated as the 80's cars do now. That's the way it should be. 

[Rob Hall]

Yeah, when I was young in the 80s-90s I remember my 87 Mustang GT being a fast car.. today's GT has more than twice the horsepower and an extra gear, way faster and better gas mileage (and has cupholders!).   Performance has improved quite a bit since the 80s.   In a few years, I'll get another fun car, maybe a modern Mustang GT or Challenger SRT..the Camaro really doesn't appeal to me. 

Or comparing daily drivers... my '14 Jeep now is way nicer than my '00 Jeep was, has 100 hp more, 4 more gears, and gets better gas mileage.  And the '00 Jeep was way nicer than the '88 Bronco II that I had in the 90s.  Evolution is good is vehicles. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Rob Hall

[BeakDoc]

I miss the ease with which an older car could be worked on. You didn’t need a Masters in engineering with a Bachelors in computer science or some nine gajillion dollar specialized tool. I miss the leaded gas smelled. I miss the way a big block V8 sounded without being siphoned through a catalytic converter. But most of all, the two things I miss the most, are vent windows and having the dimmer switch in the floor.

[High octane]

5 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

I was a teenager and learned to drive in the mid 80s, so that is the era of my youth... I do like the squared off styling of the 80s in general more than a lot of the overly rounded and bland designs of today.  But I do avoid rose colored glasses--  I realize today's cars are much better built, safer, more reliable, and can go well behind 100k miles.  Horsepower is way up from the 80s, and cars and SUVs today are way smoother and more comfortable, IMO.   And the cupholders and infotainment systems are much better today.   I do miss the variety of body styles that used to be on the market, esp. all the coupes. 

We had cup holders in our cars back in the 60's and they were usually blondes or brunettes in their late teens.

[TooOld]

I miss Sunoco 260 .

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, TooOld said:

I miss Sunoco 260 .

I miss cars that need Sunoco 260. 

I don't miss not paying what they'd charge for Sunoco 260 today, though. 

[1972coronet]

Each manufacturer's vehicles had their unique-to-them sounds ; Chrysler's Gear-Reduction Starter   comes to mind right off .

Every vehicle had its unique odours  which became more apparent with age ; I can still smell the interior of any 60's - 70's Chrysler .

I miss REAL gasoline --- California's garbage witches' brew gas has got to be thee worst smelling trash , from its liquid / gaseous state to its vapour state . Yes , leaded gas smells 'sweet' , especially the racing grades . Unfortunately , we now have to smell what can only be compared to a burning lake ! 

Sure , new(er) vehicles are quite reliable and will run a long time without having to change engine oil every 3,000 miles ( thanks to fuel injection / dry intake manifolds ) , and will start hot or cold just as effortlessly . 

However , when time comes to replace something simple ( again , light bulbs ! ) , it's a monumental undertaking ! The battery in the company's 2015 Transit Connect took a big ol' healthy deuce ---- it took over an hour to replace the stupid thing ! It's crammed-under the cowl , which requires removing a grip of plastic c-rap out of the way ! Could have replaced FIVE batteries in my '72 Coronet in that time ! 

- 

[1972coronet]

1 minute ago, Snake45 said:

I miss cars that need Sunoco 260. 

I don't miss not paying what they'd charge for Sunoco 260 today, though. 

100 octane ( R+M/2 ) unleaded is retailing for around $9.00-$10.00 / gallon here ! 

110+ octane leaded grades have to be closer to $15.00-$17.00 / gallon , AND it's "Not For Use In On-Road Vehicles" ( pfft ! I can smell that stuff a mile away as it emanates from the pipes of a , say , 1969 Hemi Road Runner that one of our customers has ) .

[MrObsessive]

3 hours ago, HomerS said:

When I was looking for a used Pontiac G8, a local GMC/Buick dealer had one.  As with the usual "I have to take this to my manager" I was encouraged to walk around the showroom and see the latest GM had to offer.  I don't want an SUV....I don't want a Crossover....I want a car.  Especially as they shorten the wheelbase the driver side wheel well cuts into the dead pedal space.  I'm 6'0" so I prefer to straighten my legs out, not sit upright like I do at my desk all day.

A G8 was one of the cars I was looking at when I needed another car. I DO like the proportions on those............long dash to front axle ratio, clean looks and V8 powered although that was not of utmost importance. I wanted to be able to get in and out of the car, and not be cramped when I'm inside. I ended up not getting one, because the bank mentioned that the car was 'too old' and couldn't be financed. This was in very late '14, and the GM stopped production of those in '09.  

I do hate the short front ends on a lot of the cars today. Small cars it's not so bad for obvious reasons, but on larger cars it looks outright ungainly and totally unappealing to me.

About the Challenger: I own one and when the car first debuted, I was a little put off by how 'tall' it was. As I did some digging into the design of the car, I learned that Chrysler had to use an existing platform's hard points (cowl, basic frame architecture) and in this case it had to be the Charger/300. Perhaps it could use a slight sectioning in the middle, but I have to say that for long trips, nothing beats the flat out roominess of it. I don't see the car as a direct comparison of the Camaro/Mustang. My insurance company tells me they consider the car full sized due to its dimensions, particularly interior space. I found the Camaro and Mustang to be woefully cramped, so I doubt I'd ever buy one of those.

You could say that the Challenger is the truly the last full sized two door that's out there. Everything else is either a 'pony car', or some type of small compact/sports car. Full size two doors have gone by way of the dinosaur unfortunately.

No, I'm not a fan of the Crossover/SUV's either. I'll take a nice size wagon any day over one of those. If I had to have one, I did like the Toyota Venza.........a vehicle they've since stopped making. That had some nice lines and wasn't overly big or too tall.

Who knows-----in time those might grow on me too, and who's to say 30-40 years from now they won't be collectible like certain cars years ago people thought were never going to be worth anything.

A 1955-'57 Chevy comes to mind............

[MrObsessive]

15 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

Each manufacturer's vehicles had their unique-to-them sounds ; Chrysler's Gear-Reduction Starter   comes to mind right off .

Every vehicle had its unique odours  which became more apparent with age ; I can still smell the interior of any 60's - 70's Chrysler .

I miss REAL gasoline --- California's garbage witches' brew gas has got to be thee worst smelling trash , from its liquid / gaseous state to its vapour state . Yes , leaded gas smells 'sweet' , especially the racing grades . Unfortunately , we now have to smell what can only be compared to a burning lake ! 

Sure , new(er) vehicles are quite reliable and will run a long time without having to change engine oil every 3,000 miles ( thanks to fuel injection / dry intake manifolds ) , and will start hot or cold just as effortlessly . 

However , when time comes to replace something simple ( again , light bulbs ! ) , it's a monumental undertaking ! The battery in the company's 2015 Transit Connect took a big ol' healthy deuce ---- it took over an hour to replace the stupid thing ! It's crammed-under the cowl , which requires removing a grip of plastic c-rap out of the way ! Could have replaced FIVE batteries in my '72 Coronet in that time ! 

- 

You got to hear my Corvair starting sound effect! Nothing ever sounded quite like them starting up!

OK, I know I'm not crazy now. When I was a kid in the '60's, I used to think gasoline smelled so good!! I knew that something changed over the years and that was it..........the lead was taken out! Ahhhh the memories!

[Oldcarfan27]

9 hours ago, Dann Tier said:

I really miss the way they looked light, sleek, low.....as if they could slip right on past with no problem. I'll pick three cars to "pick-on"; starting with the worst. 1) Challenger, 2) Camaro, and 3) Mustang. There is NOTHING low, sleek, or light about these.....especially the first two. They look like bricks with wheels. Its kinda like they put'em in a vise and smashed them until they were narrower, and tall/thick.....they look like SUV's!!! i'm a Mopar guy, but that Challenger is THE WORST offender of all!! Wnen you have that much door, you NEED some kind of design feature....edge....angle.....something to destract from those incredibly FLAT, BORING, STUPID looking doors!! The Camaro is a fraction better, but still suffers from the Heavy, Thick, Brick look. The only thing I don't like about the Mustang, is that the front end looks like its sagging....melting.

I agree with the proportions aspect, the new versions just look to bottom heavy. And what's with the mail slot windows? I've been inside all three and the blind spots are horrible!

Although, I do believe Steve McQueen could even make one of those look cool if he chased the baddies in one of the new Mustangs!

[OldTrucker]

The cars of the 30's thru the 70's were sculpted works of art. You could see the heart and soul of the creator in the design and it was all pretty much done by hand!

Now they have all this high tech stuff (cad) at their disposal and can't come up with anything that does not have any appeal other than that of a jelly bean!

They can claim all they want that they design for comfort too because I have yet to see a car that does not seem to be built to hold anyone over 5 foot tall or weighing more than 120 pounds!

[Bucky]

I bought a new Dodge Avenger in '95. It seemed like those cars were everywhere, along with the Chrysler Sebring cousin to the Avenger. Now, they don't seem to be around.

[iamsuperdan]

There's a few things I miss.

First, style. There are a lot of new cars I really like. But then I think about something. If you think about something iconic, say the 5-6-7 Chev Belair. Or a 60 Impala. You have cars with style and design. They're desirable, people want them. They want them stock, they want them modded. It's all the same, people want them. Despite that fact that when new, they were just a family car. They weren't special when they were new. Think that kind of thing will happen with a current Impala? Or a Ford Fusion? Or a new Dodge Charger? I highly doubt it.  They might be good cars, but they aren't desirable.

 

Second, simplicity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-technology Luddite.  I love tech. I love my bluetooth, I won't buy a vehicle without heated seats and a remote starter, and I get disappointed if it doesn't have cooled seats. I need a big stereo, and I need the best headlights available. Despite all that, I miss the availability of simple vehicles. I remember growing up, my dad would only buy simple cars; partially because he was cheap, partially because he just doesn't like all that foo foo stuff. I don't think they'd be huge sellers, but imagine how awesome that would be if Dodge introduced a Challenger with no AC, no power windows, mirrors, touch screens, no big stereo, no LEDs, no fancy heavy 20" wheels. No heavy power seated seats, less sound deadening, less plastic trim under the hood. Big engine, manual transmission, crank windows. I'd love it.

 

Third, and most importantly for me; the manual transmission. I HATE automatic transmissions in cars. In trucks? Whatever. But I hate that you can't buy many cars with three pedals. It's been almost 10 years since you could buy a Ferrari or a Lambo with a manual. And Porsche have eliminated the manual on certain models. That all seems blasphemous to me. Yes, I know that they are faster, but they aren't as much fun. And that's the point of those cars. It bugs me that unless you go with a BMW or VW, you really can't get a manual transmsission. And if you can find a manual (like a Mazda 6) it's a zipper with the tiniest engine available. Give me a manual and a few options.

 

 

 

[Bucky]

This shows the diff between a 2015 Challenger and a 1970.....

	Challenger  SE, SXT	Charger R/T	Scat Pack	1970 Dodge Challenger
0-60	~6.6 ?	“Mid 5s”		n/a
Horsepower/Torque	305 / 268	372-375 / 400-410	470 / 470	425/490
Mileage	TBD	TBD	TBD	n/a
Wheelbase	116”	120"	120”	110
Length	197.7	200.1"	?	191.3
Width	75.7	74.5"	?	76.1
Height	57.0	58.2"	?	50.9
Track	63.1	63"	?	60.7
Weight (lb)	3,834	4,082	?	to 3,336
2014 Chall. weight	3,720	4,132	? (vs SRT)
Weight distribution	52/48	54/46	?

 

1970 Mustang

Wheelbase	108 in (2,743 mm)
Length	187.5 in (4,762 mm)
Width	71.7 in (1,821 mm)
Height	50.5 in (1,283 mm)
Curb weight	3,122 lb (1,416 kg) (base)[50]

 

2015 Mustang

Wheelbase 1 0 7 .1  

Overall length 1 8 8 .3  

Overall width 7 5 .4  

Overall height 5 4 .4  

Track, front/rear 6 2 .3/64.9

The '70 Challenger was bigger than the '70 Mustang, so I don't think the new Challenger isn't all that far out of place. The new Mustang is very close to the same size as the '70 model.

I'd love to have a recent Challenger in the driveway to go with the 2017 300S we enjoy cruising in.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bucky

[peteski]

5 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

. . .

I love tech. I love my bluetooth, I won't buy a vehicle without heated seats and a remote starter, and I get disappointed if it doesn't have cooled seats. I need a big stereo, and I need the best headlights available. Despite all that, I miss the availability of simple vehicles. I remember growing up, my dad would only buy simple cars; partially because he was cheap, partially because he just doesn't like all that foo foo stuff. I don't think they'd be huge sellers, but imagine how awesome that would be if Dodge introduced a Challenger with no AC, no power windows, mirrors, touch screens, no big stereo, no LEDs, no fancy heavy 20" wheels. No heavy power seated seats, less sound deadening, less plastic trim under the hood. Big engine, manual transmission, crank windows. I'd love it.

. . .

I'm a bit confused. So do you love tech, or simplicity, in a *contemporary* car?    It sounds like you really love your gadgets, but if they made a simple stripped car you would forgo all your conveniences and love to own a simple car? Or you would love it for others to buy and drive such car?  You can't have it both ways .

[disabled modeler]

18 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

Proportions, Proportions, Proportions! I cannot stand the way a lot of these cars are styled today proportion wise. I'm so tired of the windshield over the front wheels look! Yes, I know that many of them have FWD architecture, but I look no further than the original Olds Toronado from 1966-'67.

FWD, but there's not a bad line or disjointed styling cue anywhere on 'er! Now styling is subjective and someone in their 30's and 40's may not appreciate this. But with so many cars sharing the same styling cues (rooflines come to mind), where is the daring and dashing style from the '60's and '70's??

Yeah, today there really are no BAD cars, I just wish a lot of them had the "gotta have it" looks about 'em.

OK rant over!

I cant agree with you more Bill.   I miss the power and styling they had...they were real cars.  My first car was a 72 Olds Toronado...never asked me for anything.  I hate the fact most newer cars all look the same and rear wheel drive is almost a thing of the past.  With todays prices one would expect a little more from them.   I had a 72 Chevy van with a 350ci in it..it had 479,000. miles on her when I sold it due to the body condition still ran awesome and was very reliable.   

[Snake45]

9 hours ago, Bucky said:

This shows the diff between a 2015 Challenger and a 1970.....

	Challenger  SE, SXT	Charger R/T	Scat Pack	1970 Dodge Challenger
0-60	~6.6 ?	“Mid 5s”		n/a
Horsepower/Torque	305 / 268	372-375 / 400-410	470 / 470	425/490
Mileage	TBD	TBD	TBD	n/a
Wheelbase	116”	120"	120”	110
Length	197.7	200.1"	?	191.3
Width	75.7	74.5"	?	76.1
Height	57.0	58.2"	?	50.9
Track	63.1	63"	?	60.7
Weight (lb)	3,834	4,082	?	to 3,336
2014 Chall. weight	3,720	4,132	? (vs SRT)
Weight distribution	52/48	54/46	?

 

The '70 Challenger was bigger than the '70 Mustang, so I don't think the new Challenger is all that far out of place.

Really? The new Challeger's wheelbase is 6" longer than the original. That means its wheelbase is longer than a (full size) '55-'57 Chevy or '64-''67 GM A-body [Chevelle, GTO, etc], and is the same as a '68-'72 GM A-body station wagon or El Camino. (And most of the real first-gen ponycars were on 108" wheelbase; Cougar and Challenger were longer.)  It's 6" taller and 500 pounds heavier than the '70. It's not a ponycar anymore, it's a midsize car (today it might even be considered a "big" car) dressed up with some 1970 Challenger styling cues. 

Not that I'd have a free one towed out of my driveway.....

[iamsuperdan]

4 hours ago, peteski said:

I'm a bit confused. So do you love tech, or simplicity, in a *contemporary* car?    It sounds like you really love your gadgets, but if they made a simple stripped car you would forgo all your conveniences and love to own a simple car? Or you would love it for others to buy and drive such car?  You can't have it both ways .

Yes you can. Two cars. I want a daily driver that has my tech. And I want a simple, fun car, without tech. One of the reasons I sold my Challenger was becasue although it was great, it wasn't exactly a fun car to take on the track. Needs a few hundred pounds of stuff removed, plus all the things I never used in the car. WOuld have greatly improved the experience. Conversely, we just finished a roadtrip of about 3000km, and my Tahoe was perfect. AC, stereo, sunroof, nav, great headlights, rear camera, streaming bluetooth audio for me and wifey, wifi and dvd for the kiddies. Perfect for long distance cruising.

 

You can totally have both.

[MrObsessive]

16 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

Really? The new Challeger's wheelbase is 6" longer than the original. That means its wheelbase is longer than a (full size) '55-'57 Chevy or '64-''67 GM A-body [Chevelle, GTO, etc], and is the same as a '68-'72 GM A-body station wagon or El Camino. (And most of the real first-gen ponycars were on 108" wheelbase; Cougar and Challenger were longer.)  It's 6" taller and 500 pounds heavier than the '70. It's not a ponycar anymore, it's a midsize car (today it might even be considered a "big" car) dressed up with some 1970 Challenger styling cues. 

Not that I'd have a free one towed out of my driveway.....

Snake, I don't remember which car magazine I read this, but they mentioned how the Challenger is actually the last American full sized two door car on the market. Comparisons to the Camaro and Mustang I understand because of its looks, but size wise there's no comparison. The Challenger on the inside is VERY roomy, and I can take long eight hour trips (I've been from here in Central PA to Toledo OH), and not feel stressed or dying to want to get out of the car at all.

I can't say the same for my Saturn Quadcoupe! While it was not a bad car at all performance and reliability wise (except for the very last year), it just wasn't a car for long trips. I think the Challenger has spoiled me in that I don't think I ever want a small car again if I can absolutely avoid it!

9 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

Second, simplicity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-technology Luddite.  I love tech. I love my bluetooth, I won't buy a vehicle without heated seats and a remote starter, and I get disappointed if it doesn't have cooled seats. I need a big stereo, and I need the best headlights available. Despite all that, I miss the availability of simple vehicles. I remember growing up, my dad would only buy simple cars; partially because he was cheap, partially because he just doesn't like all that foo foo stuff. I don't think they'd be huge sellers, but imagine how awesome that would be if Dodge introduced a Challenger with no AC, no power windows, mirrors, touch screens, no big stereo, no LEDs, no fancy heavy 20" wheels. No heavy power seated seats, less sound deadening, less plastic trim under the hood. Big engine, manual transmission, crank windows. I'd love it.

I think society today dictates what options are most wanted on a car and what aren't. 30 years ago when I was in my late 20's, I owned my TOTALLY stripper '69 AMX as a daily driver. It literally had no power anything! No power steering, brakes, windows, and believe it or not VACUUM wipers which I thought went out with the '50's.  No AC, AM radio, vinyl seats and the exhaust was loud coming from that 390 C.I. It was a 4 spd manual---fun, but a real PITA to drive in stop and go traffic, and without those creature comforts made a drive around town unbearable at times due to no AC. But I was a young 20 something and just put up with it.

Now in my late 50's I don't think, in fact I KNOW I wouldn't want a car like that today to drive on a daily basis. Tastes change, and my Challenger has just about every option except the NAV system which I can use my phone for. Buyers today are a lot more choosy, and except for a few real diehards, a stripped down model I don't think would go over very well in today's world. Some would buy it, but when it comes time to trade in or resell, I think a car like that would take a real hit, and end up losing money in the long haul.

Yeah, it's not 1968 anymore when a car like that sold like hotcakes. For good or for bad, society has become a lot more sophisticated and 'spoiled' to a degree in what they want in a car.

[iamsuperdan]

Just now, MrObsessive said:

 

I think society today dictates what options are most wanted on a car and what aren't. 30 years ago when I was in my late 20's, I owned my TOTALLY stripper '69 AMX as a daily driver. It literally had no power anything! No power steering, brakes, windows, and believe it or not VACUUM wipers which I thought went out with the '50's.  No AC, AM radio, vinyl seats and the exhaust was loud coming from that 390 C.I. It was a 4 spd manual---fun, but a real PITA to drive in stop and go traffic, and without those creature comforts made a drive around town unbearable at times due to no AC. But I was a young 20 something and just put up with it.

Now in my late 50's I don't think, in fact I KNOW I wouldn't want a car like that today to drive on a daily basis. Tastes change, and my Challenger has just about every option except the NAV system which I can use my phone for. Buyers today are a lot more choosy, and except for a few real diehards, a stripped down model I don't think would go over very well in today's world. Some would buy it, but when it comes time to trade in or resell, I think a car like that would take a real hit, and end up losing money in the long haul.

Yeah, it's not 1968 anymore when a car like that sold like hotcakes. For good or for bad, society has become a lot more sophisticated and 'spoiled' to a degree in what they want in a car.

For the most part, you're right. For example, base, zipper trucks are not popular. I move a few through work, but almost everyone adds things until they have a nice mid-level truck. The majority of the population would not accept a car that didn't have power windows or locks, or didn't have bluetooth. However, I think there is definitely a part fo the population that are so price conscious, they would take a stripped car if it meant asaving a few grand. And there are enthusiasts that would take a stripped car for the performance increase. DOne right, I think there is a nostalgic factor that would make some of the older generation buy. You'd get those guys that remember how awesome their muscle car was; big engine, hubcaps, no frills. Now if Chev introdcued a Camaro like that. They may get fed up and sell it when they realized what they bought, but I think it would sell reasonably well initially. 

[Jantrix]

THE ABILITY TO blah blah blah WORK ON THEM WITHOUT A COMPUTER AND NEEDING TO TAKE HALF THE CAR APART TO CHANGE AN ALTERNATOR.

Chrome. Two tone paint. An interesting design. The ability to ID a car from across the parking lot. Functional hood scoops.

[OneTrickPony]

One of the things I miss most is Options! Most new vehicles have packages that include different stuff but you can't pick and choose. If you want navigation, you have to buy the high end package with Bose sound, heated power seats, sun roof, etc. Individual options are rare.

The other thing I miss is interior colors. When I ordered a new Camaro in 1975, I had the choice of at least 6 interior colors (white, tan, black, blue, red, green) and you could actually get those with any combo exterior color. If you wanted a black car with red interior, no problem. Now your interior is tied to the exterior color and if you have any choice at all, it is beige or gray.

Edited August 28, 2018 by OneTrickPony

[Oldcarfan27]

2 door hardtops.

Round headlights, that made the car seem as if it was looking at you.

15 inch wheels, with 60 series white letter tires.

Wheels with a deep offset.

Engines that looked good when you opened the hood.

Multi-carb setups.

Cubic Inches - not Liters.

Car chase movies!