Build Quality in the Muscle Car Era

[Dusk_Blue_Z]

Where did Chevrolet rank against Ford and Chrysler back in the late 60's/early 70's in terms of fit and finish, reliability, and overall quality? I've spent most my time reading books on Camaro's. Seems like fit and finish was OK, reliability was good and same with quality. Was there much variation in output from Norwood to Van Nuys to Janesville? I'd imagine many of the processes were identical.

I love hearing stories about these old cars, so if you have one by all means share. Otherwise if anyone is versed in Mustangs and Cuda's/Challengers/etc and could recommend a book that might capture some of this topic, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Nick

[69Z28-RS]

Regarding fit and finish, and overall quality, I'd say GM rated #1 among those with Ford second and Chrysler 3rd.   Chrysler always got nitpicked on their fit/finish/quality, but i always considered their engineering second to none in those days.
I've been going thru my 69 Z28 the past few months, after it having sat in my garage since 1980.. and I've become very impressed again with how well the Camaros were designed and built.  Much better quality than today's 'tin can' cars in my opinion, but of course.. times have changed..   fuel cost 10X more, etc..

[lakeholme]

Back in the day three words:
Body by Fisher

[69Z28-RS]

SPeaking of fuel costs as one reason todays' cars have more plastic and less real steel... 

I recently removed my glove compartment and things under the dash for checking/cleaning etc..  and of course, had to clean out the glovebox.. first time since 1980.   There were 50 or 100 gas receipts, mostly Amoco 'white gas' premium, and some Shell super.   I examined the prices I was paying back then.   An example:    on 23June1977, I purchased 12.0 gallons of Amoco super (white) for a grand total of $8.15 (67.9/gal)..       That price was pretty typical of the prices from the '76 thru '80 period of these receipts..    but of course, we were all complaining..  the octane had dropped, the price has risen.. etc....

[tmodel66]

Back in the day three words:
Body by Fisher

^^^^^  What he said !! ^^^^^
As far as gas prices go I remember pumping gas at my daddy's service station for 19.9  a gallon.  That's 19 cents not a dollar 99.  I was 5 maybe 6 years old but none the less pumping gas. I think premium was 23.9 a gallon unless a gas war was on. 

[lakeholme]

Back in the day three words:
Body by Fisher

^^^^^  What he said !! ^^^^^
As far as gas prices go I remember pumping gas at my daddy's service station for 19.9  a gallon.  That's 19 cents not a dollar 99.  I was 5 maybe 6 years old but none the less pumping gas. I think premium was 23.9 a gallon unless a gas war was on. 

Yes, seriously.  we had a couple of Chevrolets (Impala, Chevelle --the Camaros came later to my household) and a Ford (Mustang) at the height of the Muscle Car Era.  I liked the Mustang --wish I had it now-- but it did not seem to have the fit and finish that the Chevy had.  It may have not been true, but Chevy people believed that Fisher made a  superior product.

[Oaklyss]

Yes, GM was #1 in quality. My 1971 Dodge Challenger RT 383's body was a piece of junk. Although the motor was great!. However, what was concidered good in 1969 is still far short of today's build quality. My 2011 Camaro had excellent paint and body. My 1969 SS's paint and body would be cause for complaints to the dealer. The paint is bare where the front sheet metal panels join, the rear panel is not aligned, and there are runs in the paint:

[bergy]

I couldn't believe the poor quality of welds on my 1970 Challenger!  IMO GM was way ahead of both Ford and Chrysler in production & assembly operations.  Chrysler engines and transmissions were great though.

[Vince]

I've read in more than one place, including the opinion of Joe Oldham in his book "Muscle Car Confidential, Confessions of a Muscle Car Test Driver", that GM lead the way in build quality in that era with Chrysler taking a distant third behind Ford too.  All the articles though also mentioned that in terms of engineering, specifically engines, transmissions, drivetrains that Chrysler didn't take a back seat to anyone. 

[lakeholme]

In much of the Muscle Car Era, however, Ford was the Manufactures winner in NASCAR for a variety of reasons...

[67conv6cyl]

I have had both Mustang and Camaro, I can tell you first hand GM quality way way better,  Mustang bottom of trunk was top of gas tank, lots of body vibration on mustang, subframe on Camaro I feel was much better than fords shock towers. By the way to grease front fittings on mustang you had to cut holes in shock towers (look at any original mustang you will find home made holes in towers)   Mustang does not handle as good or ride as smooth and even though Camaros have there typical rust spots a Mustang will rust EVERY WHERE places that you would not believe or at least I couldn't.  Hence the nick name Rustang! Don't get me wrong I liked my Mustang too they just are very poor Quality. Never had a Cuda

[69Z28-RS]

In much of the Muscle Car Era, however, Ford was the Manufactures winner in NASCAR for a variety of reasons...

David Pearson was one of those *reasons*..  while Petty Enterprises and King Richard helped give Chrysler more than their share..

[lakeholme]

In much of the Muscle Car Era, however, Ford was the Manufactures winner in NASCAR for a variety of reasons...

David Pearson was one of those *reasons*..  while Petty Enterprises and King Richard helped give Chrysler more than their share..

You bet!  I grew up down the road from the Petty Enterprise shops.  Also, Chrysler boycotted at least one of those years.

I have had both Mustang and Camaro, I can tell you first hand GM quality way way better,  Mustang bottom of trunk was top of gas tank, lots of body vibration on mustang, subframe on Camaro I feel was much better than fords shock towers. By the way to grease front fittings on mustang you had to cut holes in shock towers (look at any original mustang you will find home made holes in towers)   Mustang does not handle as good or ride as smooth and even though Camaros have there typical rust spots a Mustang will rust EVERY WHERE places that you would not believe or at least I couldn't.  Hence the nick name Rustang! Don't get me wrong I liked my Mustang too they just are very poor Quality. Never had a Cuda

Amen to the bad ride! Mine drove like a battleship in rough seas --floating all over the place.

[68camaroz28]

I couldn't believe the poor quality of welds on my 1970 Challenger!  IMO GM was way ahead of both Ford and Chrysler in production & assembly operations.  Chrysler engines and transmissions were great though.

Interesting that I never owned a Chrysler vehicle back in the day as I was a die hard Chevy guy and it came honest as my Dad was selling Chevrolet's and Olds since 1958 so I spent time at the dealership as a kid, but Chrysler did build great drive-trains. But back to the question, GM has some great built vehicles! 

[Dusk_Blue_Z]

Thanks for the responses. I'll check out the Muscle Car Confidential book, thanks for the recommendation.

Nick