I'm looking at Hemmings Motor News and someone is selling a 1970 Plymouth Road Runner for $129,000. Now granted, it's a perfectly restored example, but that kind of money will get you a decent house in some parts of the country. I've driven a 1970 Road Runner. A friend of mine in High School had one. I don't recall thinking "someday people will pay the price of a house for one of these".

Even if I had that kind of cash sitting around, I certainly wouldn't spend it on a 1970 Plymouth. They were cheap, mass-produced cars in their day with a primitive suspension and an interior straight out of a taxi cab. Still, someone out there is willing to pay. I guess nobody ever went broke betting on Baby Boomer nostalgia.



I had this 74 Camaro in pilot training. It had been modified so it was pretty fast - when it ran. Dad hated this car because it always leaked oil on his driveway.

So let's leave the fond memories behind for a minute and take a hard look at these old cars. Now don't get me wrong, I love those old cars. They had character. Some say that it's our flaws that give us character, and those cars were certainly flawed.

Reliability

Everybody fondly remembers some car from back in the day that "never let them down". Know why they remember that car? Because a lot of cars back then did let people down.

First off, those cars didn't always run that well. Some did, some didn't. A lot seemed to depend on luck of the draw. My dad had a 1965 Chevy that ran great. His 1968 Chevy never ran right for as long as he owned it. The transmission on my mom's 1970 Oldsmobile leaked from day one until the day it was traded in.

Some of them were hard to start when cold. Then you had to warm them up before you could drive them. Some, like my 1966 GTO, didn't like to start when the engine was hot. Seriously, when was the last time you heard the term "vapor lock"?



I used to terrorize the back roads of Mississippi in this 66 GTO. It's amazing I'm still alive. It had the "tri power" setup with three carburetors. You could just about see the fuel needle move.

On a modern car the computer tunes the engine several times a second. You get in, turn the key and it starts. First time, every time. Hot, cold, hasn't been driven in a week? Doesn't matter. It just works. You don't even have to warm it up. Just get in and drive. It runs the same all the time.

Durability

The old cars generally didn't last as long. "But my dad's 65 Rambler went 200,000 miles!" Sure, some of them did. Most didn't. It was a big deal for a 1960s car to break 100,000 miles. Today it's routine. My airport car has 145,000 miles on it and I wouldn't hesitate to drive it across the country.



I restored this 67 Mustang back in the late 1980s. Underneath it's still a Ford Falcon.

The newer cars don't rust out like the old ones did. Today if you see a five-year-old car with rust it's probably because it got scraped at some point and they didn't bother to repaint it.

Handling and Braking

Not even close. Tires, brakes and suspensions have come an awful long way since the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1960s an independent rear suspension was a rare thing found on sports cars like Corvettes and E-Type Jaguars. Today it's rare not to have it. Disc brakes were also quite rare back then. My 1964 Riviera, which was a very expensive car when new, didn't have them.

I tend to avoid rush hour traffic in my DeSoto. It will keep up with freeway traffic just fine, but if the guy in front of me slams on his brakes there's no way I can stop as fast as he can.

Features

Today even economy cars come standard with features only luxury cars had in the 1960s. My Riviera came from the factory with power windows, power seats and air conditioning. This was a very expensive car for 1964. Retail price, according to my books, was $4380 at time when a new Mustang could be had for just under $2000.



I restored this Riviera in the late 1980s. I still think it's one of the best looking cars ever built.

Heck, most American cars prior to the 1980s didn't even have adjustable seat backs. Unless you splurged for the power seats, you were stuck with the factory seat angle.

Safety

But those big cars back then were safer, right? Well, not really. The car probably came through an accident better, after they hosed out the remains of the driver that is. All things being equal, mass tends to win in a collision - but all things weren't equal.



This 67 Chrysler 300 was sometimes called "Big Yellow" or "The Jurassic Car". It had the famous 440 cubic inch engine.

Air bags actually have been around longer than you think but didn't become standard until the 1990s. This was all mandated by the government, of course. Safety has never been a big sell in the marketplace.

Modern cars are designed to crush, in a controlled fashion. A moving car has a whole lot of kinetic energy and in a crash that energy has to go somewhere. It can either bend sheet metal or it can bend you. Take your pick. Modern cars are designed to sacrifice the car to protect the passenger compartment. That's why after an accident you'll often see the hood shmooshed almost to the windshield - it's supposed to do that.

Not that I'd ever want to be in a wreck - but if that day ever comes I pray I'm driving my 2004 model with its umpteen air bags and crumple zones. The car will probably be a write-off, but I can always get another one.

Just think how safe we'd be if people actually put their cell phones down and drove like they're supposed to.

Pollution

'nuff said.

Fuel Economy

My DeSoto averages about 15 mpg. Most of the other 1960s cars I owned seemed to get somewhere between 15 and 20 mpg.

My Riviera, with 425 cubic inches and two four-barrel carburetors, required its own oil refinery. I used to get Christmas cards from OPEC.

To get any kind of gas mileage back then you had to buy the "cheapskate special" with the straight six and "three on the tree" manual shift. Even my VW Bug only got 30 mpg, tops.

Technology has come an awful long way since then. I'm not even talking about your fancy Tesla or Prius. EVs and hybrids have already been well covered on this blog.

Even boring old internal combustion engines have come a long way from their 1960s ancestors.

My wife's 2009 station wagon may sound like a sewing machine but that little 4 cylinder puts out more horsepower than a lot of "muscle" cars had back in the day and it gets 30 mpg on the highway. The same as my Bug did. Except the Bug was junk.

That's sure to get me hate mail from angry VW owners. People who love the old Bugs never suffered through a Chicago winter in one. I can remember scraping ice off the inside of the windshield. Now I'll have to hear about how they were able to rebuild the transmission using only a penknife and a toothpick or something.

Looks

OK, you got me there. The 1960s cars were better looking, with some exceptions. Not sure what they were thinking when they designed the '61 Plymouth Valiant. It looked like the guy who did the front end never talked to the guy who did the back end.



I sold this 66 Newport to make room for the DeSoto. This was a pretty nice car. Other than stranding me in Indiana once it never gave me too much trouble. Note that it lacks shoulder belts, headrests or rollover protection.

Modern cars are all designed in a wind tunnel to optimize fuel economy. Aerodynamics work the same whether you're in Detroit, Tokyo or Munich. That's why they all look like a rounded off bar of soap.

Boring, I know. The Beach Boys will never write a song about a Honda Accord. Chalk one up for the good old days.

Performance

Ah, now here's where the muscle cars have it all over their modern counterparts, right? Once again you'd be surprised. Some of those cars were pretty fast. Most weren't. Some could be made to go pretty fast, with the right parts and tuning. But then I could put a chip in my wife's station wagon and crank the boost up to 300 horsepower. For reasons unknown she refuses to let me do this.

So let's do an apples to apples comparison. Factory stock versus factory stock. Test data from the muscle car era is sketchy but I found an old Chevy Impala road test over at Hemmings.

So let's pit our 1966 Impala SS 427 against a late model Toyota Camry V6.

Why a Camry? Because it's the most boring, forgettable car ever built. My 76 year old father drives one. It's as reliable as a toaster and about as interesting. If I was a bank robber or a hit-man I would drive a silver Camry.

"Did you see the getaway car?"

"Yeah, it was a..........um..........you know.......one of those.......uh........"

Now the Impala SS wasn't the hottest of the muscle cars but it's pretty representative of the era. Room for six people and their dog. Big honkin' V8 engine. Fuel consumption of the QE2. You get the idea. The sound of that 427 at idle makes me all tingly inside.

In contrast the Camry is so quiet you have to check the tach to see if it's actually running.

Time for our imaginary drag race. Remember, these are stock cars with factory tires and exhaust systems. This isn't the Impala you had worked over at "Fast Eddie's Speed Shop" back in the day. The one with "cheater slicks" on the back and so much cam it wouldn't even idle.

Zero to sixty takes the Impala 8.4 seconds. I suspect much of that time is spent turning tires into smoke rather than making the car go. Tires have come a long way since then.

Meanwhile Dad's grocery-getter hooks right up and takes a mere 5.8 seconds to reach sixty. That's pretty darn quick actually. Quicker than my German sedan, but then it's geared for the Autobahn.

In the muscle car world it's the quarter-mile that really matters. I'm guessing that the Impala's horsepower advantage will start to catch up at some point but suprisingly it doesn't.

The Chevy trips the lights at 15.75 seconds at 86.5 mph. Meanwhile Dad's already at the finish line, having done it in 14.3 seconds at 100 mph. With the air conditioning on and Herb Alpert playing on the CD player. Way to go Pops!

Put some better tires on the Impala, open up the exhaust system, and I'd bet you could make that 427 go a lot faster. Sure enough, a second test with "sticky" tires and open exhaust gets the Impala to sixty in 6.9 seconds and down the 1/4 mile in 13.9 at 101 mph. That's more like what I expected to see.

Still the totally stock Toyota beats it to sixty by a full second and isn't that far behind at the 1/4 mile. Plus the Camry starts every time and doesn't even need spark plugs until 120,000 miles. Boring, I know, but it works.

I'm just saying that on average those cars weren't as hot as we think they were. A hemi 'Cuda was a fast car, but most people didn't drive hemi 'Cudas back then.

Want to see what an average 1960s car was like? I found another old road test on Hemmings. This was a 1963 Impala with a 283 V8 and the old two-speed Powerglide automatic.

Zero to sixty took it 12.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile took 19.2 seconds. I think they timed it with a calendar instead of a stopwatch. This thing was a dog with a capital D. Nice looking car, but it was a dog.

Don't lament the passing of the good old days. The average car today is quicker than the average car of the 1960s. The hottest cars of today are so far ahead it's not funny. There's nothing from the 60s that will touch a Tesla Model S (since I know everybody here wants one).

Sure, I'd love to have that 1966 Impala SS. I'd cruise down to the drive-in on Saturday night and talk about how great things were in the old days. Then I'd get in the Camry and drive to work on Monday because it's better in just about every way.