31st Mar 2013, 11:44

No, these cars aren't practical. Nobody drives these things every day, because you'd be spending half of each day at the gas station. They were classy, comfortable, and great in most regards, but with gas being what it is, you'd have to be John Gotti or Pablo Escobar to have enough money to keep these things on the road today.

And this is a site about cars, not about spreading your political ideologies. If you want to do that, go to YouTube and do that; just don't expect those people to behave very civilized.

I'd rather we didn't have another 440 comment argument like what we had with the 1978 Lincoln Continental. With arguments going on for that long, it's only inevitable that the main topic of this conversation will quickly change into something completely unrelated.

1st Apr 2013, 09:05

I'm the one who originally wrote the comment about these cars not being able to pass 116 mph. I have to say, I never expected guys like you to follow a comment to try and start another 455 comment argument about nothing.

I agree that these cars aren't practical for daily driving. Especially with the larger V8 engines. However, they make great weekend/vacation cruisers for people who can keep them in good shape.

Yes, they aren't very quick off the line. Mainly because of all that emissions equipment that choked power, and because the three-speed C6 transmission is heavy and requires a lot of power to operate, which will drastically affect performance.

And lastly, I don't know what you're talking about with the global warming crap and progressivism and whatnot. These don't use leaded fuel, so they're hardly the worst thing for the environment. Keep your political views and ideology out of this site, and head to YouTube if that's what you want. On the other hand, I don't know any young people who legitimately care that much about the Earth unless they're just in some club trying to get something for their resume. And I know a ton of young people, so I know what I'm talking about.