(first posted 10/17/2015) In his write-up on the 1968 Plymouth Barracuda Formula 340 S, Paul indicated that there might be a vintage review available. In fact, between the 1967 launch of the second generation Barracuda and the 1968 launch of the 340 V8, there were quite a few articles written praising the Plymouth. One of the best is this one, from Car and Driver in March 1968, where they compared a 340 Barracuda with a 390 Javelin, 396 Camaro, 390 Mustang, 390 Cougar and 400 Firebird. Read on to see how the Barracuda stacked up during the height of the Pony Car wars.
I’d take the Cougar, my all time favourite American car. Make it a 302 4 barrel auto in black cherry please. They’re all great lookers though I was never a fan of big block pony cars. I had a dark green 69 AMC Javelin secretary’s special 6 cylinder auto for my second American car for 2 years, great looks, very reliable and not so bad on the hard stuff. My brother had it for his first American car then my sister had it for 2 more years.
If you want it too handle better then get the 302-4V J code. If you want it to go fast, in a straight line, then splurge a little and get the 427-4V. Once you do that then thrown out Fords manual on how to tune the engines.The geniuses at Ford had my 302 tuned for 26 degrees of total advance. Now imagine the engine given 36 degrees total advance. That 390 they tested in both cars needed their initial moved up to 10-12 degrees and both to have their advance plate checked to see what slot was in use. My Cougar, when newly owned by my father, was a pia to start in the morning till I solved the problem 36 months later as I delved into distributor science.
The Cougar did well in SCCA races til Ford pulled the plug on the Mercury race team, can’t have an in house Mustang fighter!
Yeah, me too. And dump another $300 (1968 $) in the suspension. That’s a beautiful design.
Interesting how different the Camaro and Firebird tested.
And the constant flow of comments like “carburetor out of adjustment”, “trim pieces falling off”, and “4000 post-strike cars” reminded me that these are the good old days when it comes to cars.
I have this issue and its neat reading insites not affected by time, its strange reading about shoddy assembly and balky engines and they report it like its normal. I’d love to have any of the cars in this test but the Mustang GT would be my pick–If I had been there I would have fought for the car “Don’t you guys realise this will be the most valuable car of the bunch someday!!!!”
I know. I mean, the passenger seat on the Barracuda wasn’t bolted down, and it still came in second. I also suspect, despite their best efforts, that the Firebird maybe made a stop at Royal Oak Pontiac before it came into their hands…
Car and Driver and their Royal Bobcats must have been on Pontiac’s payroll. It’s funny that a carefully massaged Firebird 400HO just beat out an indifferently slapped-together Barracuda 340S. I recently read Patrick Bedard’s good bye column from when he retired. He wrote, “in the Sixties, if you wanted the best car, you bought American.” “From the standpoint of power, or comfort, or durability, or style, Detroit made the best.” His point was that the opposite is true today, but reviews like this one are a reminder that American cars were a gamble even fifty years ago.
It’s really cool to read these sort of articles about the cars when they were new in the market. As a Millennial who’s only exposure to muscle and pony cars is at car shows, it’s sort of nice to get a sense of these cars as cars, rather than just nostalgia bubbles.
As for me, well that’s a tough decision as to which one I would take.
The Cougar would probably be my choice, but I recognize that it probably isn’t a true pony car. I’m aware of the more luxurious touches and additions Mercury did to make the car seem more at home in the lineup, but the fact that the suspension is soft and the general lack of sporty aspirations almost seem unfair to call it a pony car. Judging from the description, it seems more like an American adaptation of the European Grand Tourer than a genuine performance car. Of course, that’s sort of why I would choose it, as far as day to day driving and having to LIVE with the car rather than buy it for credentials that don’t matter a whole lot in the real world, the Cougar is probably much more what I would want. Plus, it was always my favorite styling wise.
As for having to buy an actual pony car with the sporting credentials, well, that’s a bit of a tie between the Barracuda and Firebird. I think both fit the credentials well, I like both styling, and they do come from the two manufacturers that defined the American performance car back then (I would argue Dodge is more of Chrysler’s answer to Pontiac than Plymouth, but Plymouth did at least create some very genuine performers in that class) I would probably lean more towards the Firebird, if only because I’m not sure how high of an effect the Mopar build quality lottery was during that time period, but I would be satisfied with either.
BTW, that ad for the Landau hardtop attachments for European imports just seems, so wrong. So very, very, very wrong.
Yes how to destroy your Jaguar Es styling in one fell swoop, its nice to reread this road test I like most of you have read it before when the cars in question were quite new but in this part of the world virtually unobtainable, 68 saw the first pony type car from the left island that we could get and it wasnt exactly disgraced by these six either having a full Chevrolet powertrain saw to that, Around the same time a local garage owner aquired one of the very few Mustangs to hit NZ pre 1970 he got a 64 and pulled the 289 out and fitted it to his business partners MK4 Zodiac and in its place installed a 390 it proved to be a very fast car, but of these six given the opportunity I’d have the Firebird not due to any of the results but because I like them.
About a year before this multi-ponycar test, Car&Driver tested a Cougar XR7 against a Jaguar 420G sedan…..as both had wood (or wood-look) dashboards and rows of toggle switches. The Cougar did quite well against the Jag.
As far as the Cougar not being a “true” ponycar, that charge might also be leveled at the Firebird. While the philosophy behind each car was “soft/luxury” compared to their more mainstream sister cars….both had sporty/performance models in the lineup. (In the Mercurys case, a model called Eliminator.) Mercury would eventually re-position the Cougar as a mid sized car…..in a quest to go where the customers were going.
BTW, Cougar and Mustang Grande…..same thing, different sheet metal.
The 420G Jag is a fat soft executive 4door sedan not a pony car, real wood too hardly a comparism for the Cougar,
I’m well aware of the existence of the Eliminator model for the Cougar, but I’m solely judging the Cougar in the context of this test. Considering that this was back in the days when Mercury was considered a relatively upmarket brand, the Cougar being considered an American Grand Tourer makes more sense to me than being a “true” pony car. The Pontiac Firebird is a little bit different (wasn’t it given as a consolation effort in lieu of the Banshee concept reaching production and encroaching on the Corvette’s territory?) but it fits a bit more in the “true” pony car sense because Pontiac was slowly starting to turn itself (or had turned itself) into GM’s sports division, whereas Mercury was sort of Ford’s version of Oldsmobile/Buick. Of course you could argue that both Olds and Buick had performance cars despite being upmarket brands as well, but with the exception of the Eliminator, the Cougar always seemed more concerned with being a performance car with traditional Mercury qualities than a full bred performance car.
I also think that both the Cougar and the Mustang Grande may have been the same thing, but the success and failure between the two models could be explained by customer perception. The Grande was introduced at a time when the model image for the Mustang was solidly solidified in the public eye, so putting the standard luxury trappings on it didn’t make much sense. The Cougar on the other hand had been marketed differently, so buyer perception wasn’t as severe (I also think this is part of why it turned into a Personal Luxury Car in the 70s, the car’s natural propensity for being a bit more upscale made the transition seem less jarring than other cars that went that route)
Of course, this is all just coming from someone who’s knowledge is a bit limited, but I guess that’s what I’m approaching this from
GM was constantly cutting Pontiac off at the knees when it came to performance cars. GM wanted Chevrolet to be the top performance brand. As soon as the 1962 Pontiac 421 Super Duty’s started winning on a regular basis, GM banned all factory backed racing. When Pontiac introduced Tri-power on the GTO in 1964, it was a both a success on the sales floors and the street. In 1967, GM banned all multiple carb engines with the exception of the CHEVROLET Corvette of course. The Pontiac Ram Air 5 engine development program was killed in the GM boardroom in 1969. GM clearly favored Chevrolet and it’s a miracle that Pontiac was able to develop the performance engines and cars that they did. Especially with the knowledge that all that time and energy would soon be wasted when the suits at GM eventually pulled the plug.
Not a very strong argument. It may be true Chevrolet was favored, but not for the reasons you explain.
No doubt to me:
Mustang.
Genuine Pony Car.
The rest are (very good!!!), imitations
I suspect a 302 4bbl powered mustang with 4 speed, limited slip, and less mushy suspension would blow away all the others in a road race.
Drop a 1969 302 Boss motor into it and it would probably win the drag race also.
A great read. Here are my takeaways:
If popularity was the same as competence, every cruise-in and car show would be loaded with Firebirds, Barracudas and Javelins instead of Mustangs and Camaros.
The Firebird came out at the peak of John Z’s finely tuned Pontiac Division. It was the best put together of the batch, and did most everything well. Delorean and his crew understood this group of auto testers and built cars for them to the extent that few others did. And they made it pretty.
Good old Chrysler. the Barracuda could have won this shootout. But for poor execution. The carb was screwed up, and the car came in dead last in build quality. Also, the full time power steering (though I am personally a fan) had no business in a car of this class. The Pontiac variable ratio setup was the real deal – I put it through its paces in Mom’s 74 Lemans, and it was fabulous – head and shoulders above anyone else’s steering gear in 1968.
I am surprised that the Javelin did so well on the road test part, AMC was typically found wanting when it came to suspension dynamics, something that they got wrong more often than right.
That Pontiac is too nose heavy for a road racer. Only 40% on the rear wheels.
A 67 to 68 Mustang fastback with 302 motor(no AC and no power steering) is as close to 50-50 weight distribution as anything in this class ever was…for the sixties that is. The best combo from GM would probably be a 1970 Camaro with a large journal 327. The best from Ford probably a 68 fastback with a 69 302Boss motor.
They’re all nose heavy, pretty much anything with a front mounted engine/transmission is, especially with leaf springs out back.
From Car and Driver On Mustang:
1965 289 K code Fastback: 57/43
1969 Boss 302: 55.8/44.2
You think leaf springs makes the rear end light??
btw, your specs are crap unless you are quoting notchbacks with automatics, power steering, and air conditioning. Here are some better numbers for cars without those heavy options:
1970 Mustang Trans-Am Boss 302…
front 51%
rear 49%
1965/66 Mustang GT-350…
front 55%
rear 45%
The 302 boss engine was lighter than a regular 302 engine and probably even lighter than a 289.
Compared to a 4 link coil rear with a panhard bar, yes.
There’s a hell of a lot more to the discrepancy of those claimed figures you put up than just the engine weight. Race cars aren’t representative of street car weight, the track prep between a 66 GT350 and a 69 Boss 302 changed quite a bit in those years
” pretty much anything with a front mounted engine/transmission is, especially with leaf springs out back”…you typed that
Lets see…old Corvettes have large V8 motors up front and a leaf spring rear…and their weight distribution is in the neighborhood of 48% front, 52% rear.
I don’t care about the discrepancy between the 66 and the 70 which I posted. I care about the discrepancy between my numbers and yours. The discrepancy between the 66 and the 70 that I posted are due to the weight of the body/chassis differences existing between a 70 mustang and a 66 mustang. A 66 mustang is much smaller and lighter than a 70 mustang. Therefore the weight of the engine up front skews the weight distribution to the front much moreso in the smaller lighter car.
The discrepancy between my numbers and yours are mine are magazine tested weights of STREET cars, and yours are RACE cars. There’s a significant amount of circumstances that can account for that discrepancy and can be done purposefully by the builders of the cars to do so, even including adding ballast if necessary.
Lets see…old Corvettes have large V8 motors up front and a leaf spring rear…and their weight distribution is in the neighborhood of 48% front, 52% rear.
Complete and utter apples and oranges comparison. The Corvette from the C2 and beyond used an Independent rear suspension, which is inherently heavier than solid axle layout, the leaf spring in the Vette simply stands in place of traditional coils, it’s nothing like the Hotchkiss drive Mustangs use which is quite literally an axle, two shocks, and two springs. Besides that significant difference, the engine and passenger compartment placement in the Vette are located significantly further toward the rear of the car than it is even on a Mustang, whose engine is still well over the front axle centerline, despite it’s slightly offset-rearward-from-Falcon passenger compartment. The Corvette was a real deal ground up sports car chassis layout, none of the pony cars were much more than modified sedan platforms
I’m not comparing a corvette to a camaro.(You should know, however, that even the older vettes made before independent rear suspension had a weight distribution such that more weight was on the rear wheels than the front)
I’m responding to your incorrect statement:
” pretty much anything with a front mounted engine/transmission is, especially with leaf springs out back”
How many more examples would you like me to post for you?
BTW, a 55/45 distribution is not too bad for a road racer. A 60/40 distribuition just don’t cut it. 60/40 is too nose heavy. That’s all I said. Then you decided to make some incorrect statements in response to that.
It isn’t an incorrect statement. Once again, the Corvette is an actual sports car, it’s driveline/passenger compartment placement practically give it front-mid-engine weight distribution, unlike ponycars. The statement you chose to so vehemently pick apart was clearly headed by “pretty much”, and low volume, purpose specific cars like a Corvette encompass the exceptions that statement inherently excludes pretty damn accurately. Not to mention that it says leaf springS plural, referring to the vast majority of American cars of the time, and the across the board ponycar users of two parallel solid axle leaf springs, not a single transverse leafspring used in an independent suspension system on a sports car. If those are the other examples you’d like to cite, don’t waste your time, because they aren’t even remotely connected with my statement.
I’ll even clarify the statement if you want – A front engine/transmissioned sedan with rear hotchkiss drive is inherently nose heavy. All things being equal the hotchkiss drive is lighter compared to a 4 link/coil spring layout, and lighter still than an independent rear suspension layout(whether coil, leaf, or torsion bar). Better?
john: ’57-’62 Corvette carried between 52 and 54.5% of its weight on the front end, depending on year and configuration.
I seriously doubt that a Boss 302, with it’s larger canted valve head’s, is going to be lighter than a regular 302. Look at the dimensions of each and the Boss 302 is the larger of the 2. Add up the beefier block and mains and forged steel crank and the Boss is definitely heavier. Boss weighs in at 500 lbs. 302/289 Windsor weighs in at 460 lbs.
It’s particularly amazing that the Javelin did so well in handling since it’s based on the Rambler American chassis, right down to the trunnions in the front end. (I remember reading a road test I think in Road and Track of the late 1960s Rambler American which, when commenting on handling, stated that “it doesn’t have any.”)
I’m very surprised as well.
JP: the vent window hits the rear view mirror in my 63 Valiant just like the Barracuda tested in CD. Must be a Chrysler thing.
I got a chuckle out of the Barracuda’s side mirror interfering with the vent window operation. I remember looking at one at a car show thinking the proximity of the two seemed awkwardly close.
Mustang and Camaro test last, that’s funny in hindsight. Confirms a lot of assumptions I’ve always had about these cars that are often buried or glossed over by buff books.
Anyone else notice with the cover the front ends in just this ponycar segment are more distinctive and easy to tell apart than pretty much the entire marketplace today?
Amen to that Matt. Front and rear identity used to be so much more important back then and I don’t think what we have now is all because of safety regulations.
At least Lexus is bringing back the 61 Plymouth pinched grille look….
I disagree. Cars have always looked indistinguishable from each other without their badges. Remove the grille and headlight assembly from any of the cars on the cover and then try to tell them apart.
Ever the contrarian, remove the nose and mouth from a person and they’re indistinguishable too.
Plus The only badges visible in that photo are the Cougar cat the SS and the Mustang Pony, which of all the front ends to have them are probably the easiest to tell apart. But Fine, grilles and headlights gone:
You forgot the Mercury badge, but that’s OK. To hopefully find some common ground, I will say that in any given year, comparable cars always try to distinguish themselves from each other, and usually do so well enough. But after a certain number of years, when said models are no longer commonplace on the road, the differences blend together and require a second glance to separate. I can tell a modern Camry from an Accord, for example, because they’re ubiquitous, but a mid-80s example of each would be unidentifiable as anything more specific than “’80s Japanese car” from any more than 100 feet away.
Most here could probably pick out all six of these cars without ever looking at the front/rear ends or badges. Roofline, silhouette, wheel well shape and overall proportions are pretty distinct on cars and once you start really looking it takes just a few cues to pick out make/model.
I think today’s cars from the front end are relatively easy to tell apart: Chevy’s bowtie is clearly different from Buicks waterfall grill and the Cadillacs have distinctive LED running lights, which are slightly different on each model. Chrysler’s front end is also quite distinct. Lincoln’s new front end is quite different.
Side views are more difficult. On the cars in this article the side views are a mixed bag. The Mustang is different. The Camaro and Firebird look alike, but are not too different from all the rest either.
I’d happily take any one of these. That said, here would be my preferences:
1) Cougar. I’ll admit I’m hugely biased since my Pop had a 1968 Cougar XR-7 in Augusta Green with the 302 4 barrel. It was the earliest car in our family that I remember, and even as a really little kid I thought it was amazing. The sequential taillights were so cool too.
2) Mustang. I always liked the redesign on these. It may not have been a winner in this test, but in my book it was “the” pony car.
3) Firebird. Pontiac really did work magic on the basic Camaro platform. I wish there had been a bit more differentiation from a styling standpoint–as the Cougar did so well–but this was a sweet car.
4) Barracuda. Hard to argue with the performance, though I wish it had more of the long hood/short deck proportions that defined the category.
5) Javelin. Very nicely done, though as an AMC, kind of an oddball, then and now.
6) Camaro. One car has to finish last on every list, and this would be where the Chevy falls on mine, though still a very desirable car.
It is really fun to dream of being a car buyer in 1968 an imagining what you would have picked…
Car buying in 1968 is what my father did in April 1968. I was 14 and since he was buying a car, and not getting a company car, I was able to go along. He looked at a Porsche 912, Volvo 1800, Mercedes 220 sedan, Mustang GT-CS and Cougar. He has just given up his 1967 Fury III fast top in red with black vinyl roof and 383-4V. Left him stranded too many times of the 405 in Los Angeles. He settled on the Cougar after going over the salesman’s head to the manager. Salesman did not want to sell the show room Cougar to him as it just went up the day before. I sat in the car while this was going on when the manager overruled the salesman. The Cougar is still with us.
Big block engines didn’t do most of these cars any favors. A higher output version of the Chevy 350, using the heads and cam from the 327/350, would have been a better combo in it than the very modestly-tuned 395/325. That’s of course what Chevy did in 1970.5 with the LT-1 350.
Chevy had to use lo-po versions of the 350 and 396, because of the 10lb/hp minimum rule then in effect at GM. The 396/360 would have been decidedly livelier.
The 400 in the Firebird was rated at 330/335 hp for that same reason, but undoubtedly were the same engines as the 350/360 hp versions in the GTO.
The base engine in the 1967 GTO was rated at 335 HP. These are gross ratings though and do not mean much.
I would go even smaller than the 350 in the 70 Camaro if you want a road racer. Pick one of the two smaller motors from the 68/69 Camaro…the 302 or the large journal 327…and put that in a 1970 Camaro.
I would go for the 350 all day long—in fact, today I would build a 400+ ci small block. A 350 weights exactly the same as a DZ302 or a 327 and there is no replacement for displacement…
The Firebirds had a carburetor stop on their Quadrajets to limit their power production! You could only open the carb 90% of the way…if you removed that piece, you had a GTO engine.
When I was a wee lad I liked the styling of all six cars in this road test, and I still think this was a peak year for American sporty cars.
When I read that the Firebird’s 400 cu. in. engine “started readily when cold” and “warmed up without die-outs”, I am reminded that I take for granted modern fuel injection. I live in New England, and even on the coldest mornings every car I’ve owned (in recent memory) starts right up the first time, every time.
Dan, I remember the problems I used to have with all the carbureted cars I had when I first started driving in the early ’90s (these were all late ’70s and early/mid ’80s cars). The difference between them and the fuel injected cars now is astounding -even in the coldest weather here in southern Ontario my 2004 Focus starts right up and runs smoothly. I think modern electronic fuel injection is the single greatest automotive advance in the last 50 years.
I would take the Javelin first, just because it’s the underdog.
+1 on fuel injection
Modern cars are so reliable now that they are taken for granted by most, like a refrigerator
Barracuda for me.
But with some nice period aftermarket wheels.
This would have given the car a much more athletic appearance.
Hard to believe the Barracuda is the same length as the pre 2015 Avenger/Sebring/200 brothers from Chrysler.
None of them should ever have gotten as large as they got and appear to be today.
From the text it seems AMC peak quality ended about 1966. Lots of complaints about the new for 67 Ambassador and Rebel and the tested Javelin seems to confirm it as well. Shame.
I was as surprised at the poor showing of the Camaro as C&D was.
Speaking of size, last week I saw a brand new Camaro convertible with the top dropped, the driver looked absolutely dwarfed inside it. It’s more like a very large sunroof with no side windows.
This exemplifies it:
Thanks for posting this road test,
This, and Pauls story the other day, has assured the 2nd gen, Barracuda a permanant place near the top, of my list of most wanted cars.
The only thing is fastback or hardtop coupe.
While that’s an interesting test, one look at the final drive ratios of the cars pretty much tells everything one needs to know about the results. The winners all had the lowest (highest numerical) ratios (with the strange exception of the Javelin), while the losers were at the opposite end of the spectrum, with the 396 Camaro having a 3.07:1 axle (!). No wonder the Chevy came up last in the quarter mile. If the cars had been more closely equipped, I’d venture to guess that the Camaro would have fared much better.
OTOH, those 390 Fords were completely hopeless. Hell, the specs say it even has a Holley carb, which seems like a mistake since it should have come from the factory with an Autolite.
The S-code “GT” 390 got a Holley while the 2bbl and standard 4bbl 390s used in big Fords were Autolites. Same went for the 428s as the CJ/SCJ versions were Holleys while the standard and police engines had Autolites. IIRC the Boss 302 and 429 also got factory Holleys.
Did any 390 in a Mustang come with an Autolite, i.e., a non S-code engine? There was an article on the Mustang used in the movie Bullitt where the guy who supposedly did the work on the car (Max Balchowsky) claims to have stuck with the stock Autolite carb (which would contribute to the poor performance of the car). If so, it would lend more credence to the theory that one of the Mustangs was not a GT but, instead, a regular Mustang fastback that came with a non-GT 390. It would also be more evidence that it was another reason the cars were stripped of ornamentation to make them match.
It’s odd if you look into the detail of the test, both the Cougar and Mustang have 390s but the Cougar ranks a 4/6 for ‘Starting’ while the Mustang only ranks a 2/6, which seems indicative of a difference in carbs.
Autolites of that era were well regarded for their cold-start abilities (for the standards of the times).
According to this code list, no 390 came with a Holley carb: http://www.fordification.com/tech/enginetagcodes_6572cars.htm
That is not true. The 390 GT engine option included a Holley carb, not an Autolite.
The S-code ‘GT’ 390 4V engine was the only 390 offered in the Mustang and Cougar. It did have a Holley vacuum secondary 4V carb from the factory and not an Autolite. The 390 GT engine was severely hampered by the very restrictive cast iron exhaust manifolds that they used to clear the large shock towers in the engine bay–these were said to cost upwards of 30 hp on a stock engine. The GT also used a pretty mild camshaft profile too, probably to build low-end torque since the exhaust limited RPM potential. Ford also used run-of-the-mill passenger car cylinder heads and a so-so intake manifold. The result was an engine that didn’t have the personality needed for a muscle car.
Ford remedied all of these shortcomings with the 428 Cobrajet which had MUCH better cast iron manifolds as well as dedicated performance cylinder heads and intake manifold.
Standard practice for waking up a 390 GT Mustang or Cougar was to install headers, re-jet the carburetor and recurve the distributor. This made a huge difference.
The aluminum intake from the cop 428 was another common tweak for the 390.
What about the X-code 2bbl. 390?
It goes without saying adding headers would wake an engine. Nonetheless, the 390 Mustang was a stone.
Thanks for this. All of the above were available for sale in Israel back then but had the same status as Ferraris and Lambos these days. When I was a child coming on one of those in the street resulted in dropped jaws and a sense of wonderment, so to me reading about them as normal cars in a magazine test comes – even after all these years – as somewhat just a little bit outer worldly…
For a – very – brief moment, I thought that was a small Triumph saloon in the back row of the front cover picture…
If the proportions were such a black eye for the Barracuda, perhaps they should have reviewed a fastback. It probably still wouldn’t have come completely assembled.
Things really got bad in the seventies, beginning with the flashy, but half-baked, E-body (and things just got worse from there). While not down to the level of the 1957 Forward Look cars, it was close. I suspect that the only reason Chrysler’s poor quality of the era isn’t more renowned is because they didn’t sell cars anywhere near the numbers of GM and Ford! One of my favorite stories is of a new 1969 Daytona that was experiencing poor shifting of the automatic. When the culprit was finally located, it had nothing to do with the transmission, but someone at the factory had improperly installed a front disc brake pad, effectively meaning a front wheel was constantly dragging and causing the transmission to shift as if it was under extreme load.
I worked at an Oldsmobile dealer in the ’80s. The stories of how G-bodies came off the truck towards the end of production were comical. Our mechanics had to check everything, lest we deliver cars with dry differentials or missing bolts. That Chrysler managed to distinguish itself as being of meaningfully lower quality than GM is almost an achievement in itself. Chryslers had better underlying engineering until Lean Burn and transverse torsion bars came about, but their ability to poorly finish a car was unmatched in the free world.
They were a masterpiece of engineering compared to BL Deadly Sins
Loved this article, GN. Thanks for posting it.
Friend had an identical down to the blue paint ’68 XR-7 390 auto. By the time he got it, the whitewalls were replaced by raised white letter tires. When he first bought it from his cousin (who had just purchased a mint ’62 XKE convertible) the car was in great shape and the engine was very strong. We had lot’s of fun in that beauty. I always told him to let me know when he was ready to sell. As time went by the right fender and bumper got smashed. Finally he blew up the engine going top speed on the freeway. The junkyard replacement 390 was a dog. I still wanted it, his Dad wound up trading it in on a new ’74 Pinto which he bought for him. I often wonder how little he got for it from the dealership.
I’d take either the Plymouth Barracuda (but in fastback form) or the Mercury Cougar. Both are very handsome cars, but the Barracuda represents the sporty end of the pony car spectrum, while the Cougar represents the mini-Thunderbird end of that spectrum.
As for concerns about workmanship – most of the remaining examples have been restored to a higher standard than even the best examples from 1968.
reading this i am struck by how poor those cars really were coming off the assembly line. we often wax nostalgic about this period but the reality is that the functionality of these cars along with their fit and finish was extremely poor by todays standards.
the 396 camaro they just could not get to run right. that’s straight from the factory! the ‘cuda s had paint runs! the javelin was already into squeaks and rattles.
manufacturers have gotten so much better at making cars. and we all know that todays cars are much safer than they were at this point in time. go back and look at the pictures of these cars cornering and realize that those are 70 series tires on cars with 300+ horsepower that weight ~3,000-3,500 pounds and are stopped by and large with 4 drum brakes. no wonder insurance rates were climbing.
And these were cars the manufacturers presumably knew were going to be tested. I’ve wondered how much of the unreliability etc of the era was poor engineering versus poor production quality & assembly. The unions had Detroit by the short hairs back then–now autos are made with a small fraction of the man-hours and number of people.
It isn’t clear–were all six cars 3 spd auto trans? Odd that they didn’t test manuals.
That was a worthwhile read this morning, even if a Ford Guy was disappointed with the Mustang. At least the 390 acquitted itself OK!
Who knows what I’d have purchased back then (actually, probably a Fairlane!), but a fun read nonetheless.
I’m reminded of Consumer Reports’ strategy of buying test cars off the showroom floor, rather than getting a loaner from the Detroit and expecting it to be “typical.”
’cause they knew fully well the 383 was a stupid engine to put in an A-body.
Yeah, as I was saying…
And without power steering, a 383 Barracuda would have been a beast, likely duking it out with the Fords for last place. Everyone wanted big-blocks back in the musclecar days, but the smart guys (at least those who wanted a Chevy or Mopar) went with one of their terrific small-block V8s in a ponycar.
Re: the magazine headline……
“AMX: American Motor’s answer to the Corvette.”
What would the question have been?
I missed this in the first run, both ’68 and ’15. 🙂 A great Sunday read.
Being a bit of a odd duck, I was never that attracted to muscle cars. Too crude and historically finicky to keep running right. Even these “mid muscle” cars seem plenty finicky.
But, mid price, mid performance, etc, has always been the sweet spot for me, so count me a fan of all six cars from that perspective.
My review of the six:
Barracuda: Way too much carping on the definition of sporty styling, Plymouth spent some coin moving this away from being a fastback Valiant. I think it a great looking car, too bad even the second year of this body still wasn’t bolted together well. I’d buy one.
Cougar: Unfair calling it a Ford. Far more differentiated from the Ford than the Pontiac / Chevy twins. Ford put some coin into turning the Mercury Pony into a different kind of cat, initially to great success. It’s a crossover of PLC and Pony, nothing wrong with a unique car with a unique mission. Like all six of these cars, far more sporty a drive than the full-size cars they shared showroom space with. Too bad it morphed back to a Ford over time.
Firebird: Classic peak Pontiac, probably the my first choice among these cars as a buyer. The Mitchell Magic produced a body that is clean, modern and stylish. The apparent overall quality and thoughtful engineering are hard to pass on.
Camaro: A looker in my mind as well, just enough differentiated from the Pontiac to keep both cars relevant. GM likely had the highest take rate for things like air conditioning, and why not, it was fully integrated and would have worked like the industry leading product that it was.
Javelin: Love it as a period piece, never would have considered it just for the plastic interior alone. Commendable as AMC’s engineering overlay on archaic drive train and chassis components may be, it was not competitive.
Mustang: As the last iteration of the 1964 car, it is unsurprisingly dated. The upcoming ’69 car would start addressing these issues, not necessarily with great success. But, the ’68 was still the leader of this pack, the original still the most successful with well over 300,000 sales to its credit.
I remember reading this article in C & D back in 1968-the build quality of domestic automobiles at that time was terrible-squeaks, rattles, paint issues were normal at that time period. I had a 1969 Firebird and the build quality was not great-squeaks and rattles of course, the air conditioning worked intermittingly and I never could get it properly fixed, the vinyl on both front seats separated at the seams, weather stripping wore out, etc. I had it for two years and then traded it in on a Vega; talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Of all the cars in the test, I think the Javelin would be my pick.
Hey, hush your mouth! Those are the good ol’ days you’re talking about! Show some respect! 😆
It’s always very educational to read contemporary reports and comparisons. Nowadays all we get is glossy reporting from mags like Hemmings Muscle Car and other enthusiast press. I was 12 years old in 1968, and though I was very far from buying a new car I was starting to get really interested in cars. My Dad’s new car purchases had been as interesting as a Corvair van, but mostly mainstream like a ’59 Impala coupe w/283 and Powerglide. Then a ’64 Tempest wagon w/326 and auto. My Dad hated shifting and thought that sixes were for cheapskates, like my Uncle!
Our family cars were always adequately powered. no wheezing Rambler or Falcon sixes here. My Dad made the jump to a five year old Lincoln and this was the type of car that impressed me the most. Luxury with a bit more than adequate power. I’ve never been a fan of hyper powered cars, though I owned several of the popular super bikes from the 70’s.
Pony cars during this period were ubiquitous. Everybody, and their Mother drove them! There were lots of Mustangs around, mostly sixes or small block powered as well as Camaros, also with small blocks. ( Don’t recall seeing many sixes.) Javelins were almost never seen, though the Barracuda had it’s own small following. The exotic American car from this period was the ’69 Hurst Olds, a sighting of one of these was talked about for days.
Even more soul crushing is too read Consumer’s Reports tests from that period. There weren’t any starry eyed enthusiasts on their staff. they hated every car that I’ve ever loved!
I think you’re being overly generous. It was Hemmings’ lazy, sloppy, fact-free nonsense on the subject that inspired me to write that catalytic converter article here on CC.
Good call on the Hurst/Olds. In that rarified air of the most legendary big-block musclecars like the Street Hemi, 440 Six-Pack, 428CJ, and L78 396, the ’69 Hurst/Olds holds its own. And the Oldsmobile’s 455 was the most tractable and easily used as a daily-driver. The Ford wasn’t bad, but the Mopars and Chevy were high-strung, maintenance-intensive engines suited more for the racetrack than the street.
And they built enough of them (913) so it ‘was’ possible to see one once in a while, and they were instantly identifiable by that one-year-only ‘mailbox’ air scoop at the leading edge of the hood.
Lol,,,,,,,, those 0-60 times are insane…..
No unmodified 390 automatic Cougar went 0-60 in 6.7 seconds,,, EVER,,,,, that’s crazy,,, more like 7.5 to 8 seconds..
They had some kind of equipment malfunction or were just high.
Having said that the only two I’d want are the two FoMoCo’s……
I don’t know about 0-60 times (I guess you’re probably right) but I think it’s pretty goddamn rich that their favourity-favourite Firebird started readily when cold, warmed up without die-outs, and idled so smoothly and quietly [they] had to check to be sure it was running, which was because the timing was changed on this particular car so that it was not so retarded at idle, yet the Barracuda occasionally would roar off the line and turn an astonishing ET of 14.2 @ 99 mph; other times it would be in the 15s @ 92 mph and both lost and won versus every other car because [with] the spring tension on the secondary air valve out of adjustment, operation of the rear half of the carb [was] erratic.
So somebody (why, whoever could it possibly have been?) massaged the Firebird, tuning it to other-than-factory specifications so it would run better, but did nothing about the Barracuda’s entirely-typical-of-those-times mistune.
Classy, eh! I wonder what other little adjustments, pro and con, were made (and not made) to which other cars in this group.
You have to hand it to Wangers and DeLorean; they knew how to prep their cars for the magazines, and the results (and sales) reflected that. You also have to wonder how it was that the other manufacturers never clued into that tactic. They certainly would have fared better if they’d have figured it out.
I knew guys with Pontiacs back in the day, a ’68 GTO, a ’66 Tri-Power, and a ’67 Firebird 400. The guy with the Tri-Power said it was fast, but only when the carbs were in sync.
The guy with the ’68 Goat said he was constantly beaten on the street (once by a Charger R/T with a carful of guys), it quickly began rusting around the rear window, and he traded it after a year for a much better 442 W-31, which he subsequently traded for a ’71 454 Corvette (which he kept).
The Firebird was a decent daily-driver.
…whose writers knew how to gloss over those monkeyshines. See how they said the Firebird’s timing was changed on this particular car so that it was not so retarded at idle—which paints a picture of having corrected a misadjustment—rather than saying they advanced the timing, which would have painted a more accurate picture of what was done, and why.
The auto buff magazines were well aware of this, sometimes they made efforts to minimize ringers but knew full well testing them anyway sells more magazines.
Oh many companies supplied “ringers”. This was covered before on CC. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-olds-442-pontiac-gto-comet-cyclone-gt-chevelle-ss396-buick-skylark-gs-ford-fairlane-gta-car-and-driver-test-drives-six-super-cars/
One thing that remains obvious is automatic transmissions do not belong in sporty cars of that era each one was let down by poor trannys
Build quality wasn’t Job 1 back then, it wasn’t even Job 5. Case in point, the C/D cover photo. Look at the chrome on the Cougar’s hood edge and how it’s high on the right side and low on the left. That’s a misaligned hood. Couple this with the aforementioned missing seat bolts, shoddy tune, bad paint and the carb problems and it’s easy to see how Detroit was already losing the plot. All that was needed was someone who could assemble a car properly and make sure it was running right out the door and people would become repeat customers.
I’d have wanted the obviously massaged Firebird tho 🙂
“Build it (right) and they will come” — Field Of Dreams
To think that if the Big Three (and AMC, but AMC were never thought of as being, or intended to be particularly high quality cars) had allowed for even an extra $100 into the base price of their cars, they would have been able to reinvest that into improved production quality control, heading off some of their labor issues, improving tooling, rust protection, dealer prep, etc. Unfortunately, they continued to try to compete on price and infinite combinations of available options, constantly undercutting some of the solid engineering, design, and racing division work they were still capable of.
Reading this with the hindsight of coming of age in the 1990s, but remembering the crapshoot that was my parents buying new American cars in the late 1970s and 1980s, there’s no way I would have been happy with buying a new car in 1968 that had as many quality control and prep issues as any of these cars had. Passenger seat not bolted down? Car not starting/stalling until it was good and hot, on high test leaded fuel no less? Are you kidding me?
1968 Cougar.
The interior is heads and tails above the rest. Leather seats. Looks like a European dash. It knew what it was supposed to do in the real world.
Mercury – the man’s car.
The others are not.
Very interesting reading about the quality issues and little quirks of these cars! I just picked up an 03 5 speed Mustang GT and it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same at least in terms of cheap interiors with these kinds of cars, 😂
You do know there was a fastback Barracuda right? The 340 was the best smallblock of the muscle car era bar none!
And the 390 Fords were the biggest slugs of the eraa