That’s what it’s all about man, I hope you and her are still smokin tires regularly!

She’ll remember it forever dad 😭👌

Emissions and poor fuel mileage destroyed the muscle cars.

@@sergeantmasson3669 low compression smaller cams

john jenkins I bet you miss it. I know I would.

@@electrichellion5946 Anyone whom ever owned these special brutes ALL know they SINNED by letting them go.

Sin of all sins!

@John Jenkins What was your reason for selling it? just curious

john jenkins .what do they go for now?100 grand

I agree

@@musclebone7875 Everything after '70 sucked. No power and uglier to boot.

For me 1966 to 1970 were the best years for the classic muscle cars although 1971-72 were still pretty good years for the muscle cars, 1973 was when most automobiles started to suck.

They all started to suck in 72 and by 75 they were gone completely when catalytic converters became mandatory. The 73-74 455 Super Duty Trans Am is the last true muscle car from the true muscle car era. The 340 Plymouth Duster/Dodge Demon were still pretty quick in 72-73 but that was about it other than the SD Trans Am. Actually three 440+6 Mopars(1 Plymouth Roadrunner and 2 Dodge Chargers) were built in early 72 until the 440+6 was deemed unable to meet emissions regulations anymore and discontinued

Until the earlier 1990s.

Very cool BW. A 4 speed Buick is "extremely" rare. With 110 MPH trap speed, guess his ET could've been a little better, if he were able to hook up . This car would make Ken Belle proud. :)

My dad was a Buick dealer back then. To my chagrin, he almost never ordered a GS with a 4-speed tranny. Automatics were nice, but my old man didn't get the whole concept, I don't think. But they were still fun to drive, with all that Buick torque under the hood. He did order one with a three speed manual, finally. I snuck it out for a "test drive" one afternoon. Pulled up to a stop on a back street, shoved it into first gear, revved her up, and popped the clutch! Burned rubber for several blocks. Weeee Haaa! I think I was 17 or 18 at the time. What a memory.

Not a bad time at all for such a heavy vehicle back then, probably the owner knew some tuning tricks as 110 sounds kind of high though not impossible--like this explains most 'muscle' cars barely broke the 14's, all depended on gearing and traction too, lots of testers sneak some slicks on there and say wow what a fast car, 1/4 mile gears like 410 and 456 are kind of useless on the street and highway

Whats the torque rating

@@blackice7408 Plenty!

Since the engines were all GM with so much in common, why would Buick be more reliable than Chevy or Pontiac ?

In that era, each division designed and built their own engines. For instance, the 350s from Chevy, Buick, Olds, and Pontiac had nothing in common internally. Same for the 455s. The 396 Chevy, 400 Buick and Olds, and the 389 Pontiac - not the same, once again. GM started going corporate with the Chevy straight 6 in the early 70s, phasing out division-based-and-limited engines over the next few years. In the late 70s, you could well find a either a Chevy or Olds 350 in your Oldsmobile, a Pontiac 400 or Olds 403 in your Trans Am, a 350 Olds diesel in your Cadillac, a 301 Pontiac or 305 Chevy in your Buick Regal, a Buick V6 in your Cutlass.....you get it.

The "Century", as "Banker's Hot rod" and.. really GM's first "Muscle Car", (The whole concept of using a "big" car engine in a "smaller car", Just like the Olds 88 did in the 40's-'50 and Pontiac did in the '60s...) actually goes back BEFORE the '50s! It was 1936! And, 50 years ahead of it's time, it was available not only a a traditional "hot coupe", but as a sedan! Yep, Kiddos, GM (With a Buick!) was on to the whole "sports sedan" concept in the 1930s!

22 lbs of boost?? That's what almost triple the stock amount of boost?? How did that alcohol water injection work??

Should have put those 428s in every last GTO in the late 60's.

@@w41duvernay they would've if it weren't for the 400cid limit GM put on their mid-size cars.

😢

IIRC minutes hi no

Ls6 454 properly set up destroys all these pretenders.

@@TheKwod right, because published gross hp numbers determine power to weight, driveline loses, traction, torque multipliers, and gear splits. Power band, torque under the curve, shift points, weight transfer...all mean nothing. Of course, thanks for setting the record straight.

@@TheKwod all but the buick sadly, wouldn't touch the amount of torque the 455's made

@@apollyon1118 what, 454 or 455, virtually same figures.

@@TheKwod sorta, buick 455 had the most tq ratings over all the other big blocks

The factory rating was 510 GROSS. "As installed" (SAE NET, which has been Federal Law since the 1972 model year) was approximately 380. Thing is, engine torque alone says nothing about vehicle acceleration. It must be multiplied by RPM in order to be delivered. Horsepower = Torque * RPM/5252. Actual peak engine HP for a bone stock '70 Stage is is in the 310 region (Net, as measured at the flywheel.). Figure 265 or so on a modern chassis dyno.

​​​​​@@peteshea8010The only difference between net vs gross is with net the accessories (alternator, ps, fan and ac) is included in the net figure. It takes hp to turn those pulleys. And torque is what moves you, not hp. And a stock Stage I puts down 352 hp, and 490 ft. lb. of torque to the ground on a mustang chassis Dyno. I own a 70 GSX.

Oof hard claim there, Alfa tipo 33, Alfa gulia, BMW 3.0 CS, DB5 Austin, Alfa Montreal, c2 Corvette, 250 GTO, Jag e type, etc are pinnacle of 60s design.... Not to mention the prototypes back then , Porsche 906, Ferrari sp 330, Lola's, Gulf mirage Ford GT40, etc........

jjs777fzr .a retro styled turbo gnx ? Why not!

Noob...lol

noob? not!

Bricklinsv1970 426 hemi 5.7 gt500 engine 6.4 hemi 5.0 coyote ls7 572 chevy

pure garbage

My 1st &Only Real Muscle Car I Ever had. MISS IT...

Man i wish we could go back to those days, Now everything looks generic and nasty

Eh, I guess, I just don't buy new cars. My only/daily car is a '64 Impala SS, nothing stopping people from buying these flawless cars.

commando8088 EXACTLY MAN!!!!! I'm only 28 and the more I think about it, there are plenty of classic car dealers around my area with cars anywhere from $15-$100k or more, so not only will you have a classic but you'll most likely have a car that won't depreciate in value and will be stunning to look at 4ever!😎

Ahh the good old days, when 50,000 Americans were killed each year in auto accidents in those unsafe cars!

+Bob Johnson so it's not your life.

P

favorite

@@allentoyokawa9068 My favourite since the 1967 year. 🙂

I’m a Mopar Ford guy but one of the GM cars I knocked my self out trying to buy in the mid to late 70’s was a 70 GS 455 Stage 1 I almost had one I found one in 78 for sale I was right there cash in hand but he changed his mind just couldn’t let it go no matter how many $100’s I put out. I found another one that was a flood at that they had everything new including a new crate engine but never put together it just rotted away to bad it was a clean very low mileage car.

Buick Sport Wagon shared the same roof line.

Lucky B I have a Buick Sport Wagon

Or the Custom Cruiser with the 455!

Most ppl don't know this but there were 2 Vista Cruisers that could be ordered with the "W Machine" (W-30) option in 1970. Basically everything the W-30 442 had...except it would come with the optional $40 rear seatbelts :)

Gotta disagree, I liked the 67 better. But, everyone to his own tastes.

@@dougoverhoff7568 66 the best...got myself a 65 convert

@@mikatamminen2786 The 65 is sweet, too. Drove em all, since my Dad was a Buick dealer back then. I liked the 65 a lot, too. I remember having a yellow ragtop for a demo. I turned 16 in 64, so I had it made back then. The GS was a little heavier than the GTO, but they still rocked! God, I miss those days.

@@dougoverhoff7568 Dad had a 66 Skylark 4dht 340-4 ( wildcat 375) that's why I like the 66 ...plus it has more curves than a 65.

@@mikatamminen2786 Yeah, the 66 had a sleeker style, that's true. If you remember, the Skylark came out later as a deluxe version of the Special, which some might see as a stepped or stripped down version of the Skylark, more or less. The first Specials had a lot smaller, lighter weight body, were made to fit a price point, and which I think would have really been awesome as a kind of a sleeper/muscle car. Anyway, that's why I like the 65 a bit more, because it harkens back more to the earlier models. Kind of like the 64 GTO, which was the BOMB when it came out. It was hundreds of pounds lighter than the 65 model, and which Pontiac was starting to add more luxury and comfort to it, as opposed to the original sporting and speed aspects it exemplified. Auto makers always seem to get away from the things that made some of their cars successful in the first place. For examples, just look at the Tbird and the Mustang. IMHO they screwed up both cars by going to bigger, heavier, and more luxurious cars, which was kinda dumb, I always thought. Anyway, enjoy your GS, they're really good cars and fun to drive. Wish I had one!

James Feisley - what happened to the car.

James Feisley has

love the 86-87 GN and GNX

mr black6 I have a 85 regal T-Type that I would like to build up.

WITH work done to it

mr black6 ii

mr black6 my ss would run over that gn cheeks like nothing💪🙄 . 😂

I have raced a lot of the old muscle cars and they might not be very sophisticated but boy do the ooze character

Really the Trans Am was the best all around muscle car in 70 and 71 because of the quick ratio steering and the flat handling. The brakes weren't any better than the others but the cornering and steering were a notch above and they were plenty fast.

NO manufacturers were finding "low 13s" right off the showroom floor" in 1970. A few of the tacitly tuned and oftentimes further modified on site magazine test cars logged mid 13s, though that's not what the customers bought.

@@peteshea8010 those magazine test cars weren't stock alot of the time. People don't seem to understand that manufacturers would modify them before sending them to different magazines in order to get better numbers and therefore sell more cars

@@stretch54 the Z28 Camaro handled great as well compared to other high performance cars of the day

Don Bishow true story... And LOUIS CHEVROLET DROVE ONE

Yeah, the famous 1910 Buick Bug!

I was gonna say this too!

@@DAUltimateSACRIFICE LOL, He drove a FEW Buicks!

Roberto Guerrero set a track record in 1992 for the Indianapolis 500 during qualifying. Powered by a Buick V6 to take the pole. Al Unser Sr. finished third with a Buick engine.

I owned a GTO 455HO with a switched carb from a caddy the stage 1 screamed by me three races

Stage 2 and 3

@@waterheaterservices, my father had a catalogue that offered up to stage 17 from an after market supplier. I'm not familiar with stage 3 from the dealer.

The Stage 2 was going to be a 7,000 rpm 500+hp engine, only 2 were ever built. Some parts were sold to private racing firms. None were ever built for sale. The program was cancelled in 1970 due to impending regulations. Pontiac went on to build 1265 SD-455's, Buick and Chevy performance folded, along with Mopar.

the hemi dart or baacuda , 1968, cross ram hemi

@@andrewp1998 those are the baddest factory drag cars ever...the 68 Barracuda/Dart Super Stocks

@@jeremythompson9122 YES

you know it

Whats a Baacuda? Hemi Darts weren't remotely street legal or streetable. Ditto for the pre 1970 Hemi Barracudas. Production was extremely limited, with those cars going to factory backed drag racing teams. Put a 100% production line stock 1970 - 1971 Hemi Cuda on a modern day intertia chassis dyno and it will produce something on the order of 315 HP at the wheels. Not much for a 3,800 plus pound car by today's standards!