1971 Plymouth Cuda 440: Regular Car Reviews

[jeremy]

I don't agree with many of Mr. Regular's opinions, but here's a 71 'Cuda review.

[Admin]

Well, I made it to 7:25 and "it has solid pushrods", and my wifi crapped out. So I think I'll just leave it there.

[jeremy]

Dec 7, 2020 19:46:02 GMT -5 Admin said:

Well, I made it to 7:25 and "it has solid pushrods", and my wifi crapped out. So I think I'll just leave it there.

You don't want to hear more about why classic muscle cars are garbage, and modern muscle cars are bad too because they look like classic muscle cars?

[DynoDave]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And auto makers have made light-speed progress in advancing the art and design of automobiles. But in my book, that alone does not make them desirable.

[jeremy]

Sure, but can you live with me having an opinion about his opinion? 

[Admin]

On topic opinions and discussions are always welcome, as long as we keep it civil.

I'm going to get on my old-guy soapbox for a moment. I have personally had my fill of people, many too young to have driven in or lived through the era, comparing cars of one generation to another. This car is from 1971. That's 50 years ago.

If I had written a lengthy article in 1971 comparing the 'Cuda to a 1921 Ford Model T, with 23 H.P., 2 speed trans, funky 3 pedal setup, all leaf spring suspension, and 2 wheel brakes...would that be a "fair" comparison? Would I look intelligent and well educated on the subject if I droned on about how awful the Model T was by comparison to the new 'Cuda?

Comparisons of any two products over such a large span of time are only useful in demonstrating how much progress an industry has made. If you want to know how good the 'Cuda was, compare it to other offerings from 1971. (This is not unlike, in my opinion, the debate you and Nacho are having about Dodge Vs. Mercedes. Both great cars, but for different reasons. Two cars designed for different markets, different buyers, and vastly different price points. It's apples and oranges to me, and always a compliment to the lower priced car when it compares favorably to a more expensive vehicle in any way.

When I see these guys going off about how bad "old" cars were, I just tune them out. I have too few hours left to devote them to that.

OK, I'm off the soap box. Who wants to use it next?

[jeremy]

In the case of the 'Cuda I would say it still does everything you need, if you are driving within legal limits; but it has the advantage of being simple and easy to repair. It's not the car's fault that the owner decided to put in a barely streetable cam. The one advantage I will give newer cars is in safety equipment, but how old can an airbag get before it becomes unsafe?

I see people complaining about how dated the screens are in cars only ten years old, and people having to replace the magnetic ride shocks in older Cadillacs and Mercedes with regular shocks, so it looks like the tech advantage is temporary in some cases. IMO HVAC modules are completely inferior to cables.

I've never heard of a 14-15" rim breaking.

I'm not against new cars, but I see trade-offs, not clear superiority.

[hanks73340]

I'm in agreement with Dave. No comparison to judge with that kind of time frame involved. Our 40 - 50 year old cars can't compare to todays cars being built with the exception of possibly one thing. Our cars are definitely easier to work on than trying to get into todays cars. Today everything is almost controlled by a centralized computer inside the dash. Sensor this, sensor that. Todays cars do ride and handle nicer with the new technology. With that being said, you basically could take our old cars and gut them except for the shell and invest a ton of money to bring them into today's world. Maybe if I win the lottery I can do that.