Was there ever a better ALL AROUND car

[Lee Stewart]

I am partial to the 1969 model. I like the changes made from the 68 to 69. The front and rear now have definition with a more three dimensional look. I never cared for the lower body stripes on the 68. As Larry Shinoda once said . . . sometimes less is more. I also like the Air Grabber which first appeared on the 69. Probably not very functional but when you raised the hood it definitely made a statement.

The GTX was an expensive muscle car: MSRP was $3416 for the hardtop. But you did get the standard HD torqueflite auto trans along with bucket seats and F70x14 redlines. And most important the standard HD drum brakes which were 11" x 3" in the front and 11" x 2.5" in the rear. This was a sore point (IMO) on 1968 and prior GM muscle cars which used 9.5" x 2.5" on the front and 9.5" x 2" on the rear.

Add a radio, power steering and power brakes and maybe the road wheels and you are up to $4000. Total GTX production for 1969 was 14,902 a drop from 68's 17,914.

[m22mike]

How about GM A bodies from about 68 through 1972.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

Don't forget the 1970 B Body which was, in my opinion, the best of the 1968-1970 B Bodies. Here is my 1970 Charger R/T 440 4 speed.

[EZ Nova]

Originally Posted by m22mike

How about GM A bodies from about 68 through 1972.

Little smaller. Nothing wrong with them. I think the GTX's with the wood-grain interior touches were just a bit nicer finished off. And that is only my thoughts. Just like in today's cars, some higher end cars offer the wood-grain interior packages.

[Arrowsmith]

Originally Posted by EZ Nova

Little smaller. Nothing wrong with them. I think the GTX's with the wood-grain interior touches were just a bit nicer finished off. And that is only my thoughts. Just like in today's cars, some higher end cars offer the wood-grain interior packages.

There are probably a good number of Buick and Oldsmobile (and maybe Pontiac) muscle car folks who would disagree with your assessment.....

[Tracker1]

Originally Posted by Arrowsmith

There are probably a good number of Buick and Oldsmobile (and maybe Pontiac) muscle car folks who would disagree with your assessment.....

You got that right Arrowsmith. Except for the 4 inch wheelbase short-fall for the GM car, the track, overall length and width of Mopar 68-70 B-bodies and say, a 1970 GTO is nearly identical.

I've owned examples of both, including Hemi and Six Pack models, LS6 and Ram Air. For overall driving and comfort and build quality - it isn't even close! The full chassis GM had it all over Mopar in the intermediate class from 1968-1972. I can't even say that is my 2 cents, really - bet a lot of Mopar engineers from back in the day would agree if they were being honest

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Tracker1

You got that right Arrowsmith. Except for the 4 inch wheelbase short-fall for the GM car, the track, overall length and width of Mopar 68-70 B-bodies and say, a 1970 GTO is nearly identical.

I've owned examples of both, including Hemi and Six Pack models, LS6 and Ram Air. For overall driving and comfort and build quality - it isn't even close! The full chassis GM had it all over Mopar in the intermediate class from 1968-1972. I can't even say that is my 2 cents, really - bet a lot of Mopar engineers from back in the day would agree if they were being honest

I was thinking the same thing.

Felt like I was in an alternate universe for a little while there.

K

[Arrowsmith]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

....

Felt like I was in an alternate universe for a little while there.

K

Me too...

[Steve Shauger]

I think the original poster said it best when he started this thread " I'm a bit biased as my first car was a 68 GTX convertible clone, 440 4sp 4.10 Dana".


I can't compare because I haven't owned and B body Mopars. The E body Mopars, I can they have wow factor and I liked looking at my AAR, but much prefer driving a Z28. I agree that build quality was lacking on some Mopar products. They had damn great drivetrains!