Is the Fury a good car?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
Is the Fury a good car?
>>14454270
objectively, no. subjectively, yes. nothing from america was that good during that period.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cDG7swx.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>14454270
I prefer The Pain
TOMMY GUN
>>14454320
>you will never make a gun out of bees
>>14454329
Why even live
>>14454297
Compared to what? German and Japanese cars were way more shit in the 60s and 70s
>>14454354
Id honestly rather a TA22 Celica than a Fury
>>14454354
>compared to what
a modern car, a comparable german car like a 2002 or E9. they are great in their own way, and they are excellent for an american road system though.
>>14454403
>things i like are objectively better
>>14454436
>implying I don't drive a 65 ford truck
it is awesome, but it stops terribly, it corners terribly, it gets shit fuel econ, but it is so comfy and it is a truly fun driving experience.
>>14454297
>60s
>not good
>>14454505
60s were great, yet 50 year old tech is 50 year old tech you know?
>>14454542
Much of which in derivative form is still in use today or was in use until rather recently, like the Buick aluminium V8 that Rover continued developing, or GM's Turbo-Hydramatic transmissions which were simply renamed in 1992, or the Chevy small block.
>>14454565
I know. but build materials, safety, efficiency, transmission tech, suspension and pretty much every part of cars has improved a lot except for outward visibility, style and a chronic lack of bench seats
>yfw my gas tank is in the cab
Both GTR and Civic Type R have faster lap times.
A miata is a better and cheaper option in my opinion.
There has never been an american car in the history of motor racing that has been able to go fast around a corner.
>>14454270
To people that have never driven muscle cars or any cars of that era, they immediately denote them as horrible cars going by the statistics. And no one blame's them, on paper they are slow lumbering beasts that drink fuel, and they are massive in size. But when you actually buy one, and drive it, you enjoy the absolute hell out of it.
It's just pure enjoyment, It's the soft seat with the big steering wheel, all the leg room in the world, rolling down the road, looking over that long hood hearing the engine burble away, resting your arm on the door, stopping to get gas (you'll do this alot) and having people walk over to look.
And you're not taking leguna seca to work everyday, so don't listen to all the people that say they are shit in the corners. They pretty much are, but that doesn't mean its undriveable in real world conditions.
Obviously people that want to corner and track don't buy Plymouth Furys unless that have mad fabrication skills and balls of steel.
If you find a fury with the police package then you'll be a bit better off with the heavy duty sway bars and struts, but it's not a major improvement.
If you can deal with the fuel consumption, the 50 year old tech and engineering, the lack of safety, and if you don't live in the middle of a city where the size is a problem, then yeah you'll probably enjoy it.
>>14454594
You know drive-by shootings? well we have drive-by bait.
>>14454270
I like mine. It's been quite reliable for me and the ride comfort is god tier. Slab sides have their quirks, Fusies look a tad better to some. With a Fury, you are guaranteed an RB engine giving you 455 lb/ft minimum and at least 335 HP and most were mated to a 727 TF trans which is damn near bulletproof unless you run a ton of power through a stock one. Rear ends are the Dodge 8.75 or a Dana 60 with both offering upgrade options down the road.
As for parts and such, it can be a pain compared to something like a Coronet, Belvidere, or Charger because of popularity, but this is easily overshadowed by the cost of a decent fury being between 2-7k making it one of the cheapest BBM cars you can find. Ask away, ill answer anything I can.
Source: Furybro
>>14454611
yes. mussel kar is gud
>>14455649
Your car has better brakes and steering than 90% of stock 60s/early 70s Ameribarges.
>>14455677
So does mu fury, but that's the thing about old muscle. It's not saying dont improve what was lackluster, just don't make me into a new car. I have a Scarebird kit front and rear on the Fury because I added power. My front end is a bit beefier than when it came out, and my T Bars are thicker than even the biggest stock bars. I've added underbody bracing to help with torsional twist and body flex. But the engine is a classic , gas sucking, fire breathing V8 with an old carb on top. With the 528, I'm going with Holleys new EFI system for easier daily driving and fuel control with the larger nitrous setup.
Tl;dr A classic can wear new shoes and work out a bit and still be a classic. Look at Jack LaLaine.
>>14455709
I didn't say it's great, but it is better. Drive a previous gen Nova with manual 4 wheel drums then get back to me m8.
>>14455677
it has slow manual steering and manual brakes with a tiny disc in front and drums in the rear. its better at going fast in a straight line
>>14455717
deleted my previous post since i replied to my own post not yours
>>14454297
>>14454403
Mars bar is right. I have owned 60s/ early 70s muscle and Benz from that area. Driven a few Porsches from that era as well.
The fury was alright for its time, especially if you liked straight lines. But muscle cars compared to anything made in the last couple of decades are absolute shit.
>>14455712
I'm planning on buying doing something similar to my next classic car. Better suspension, better brakes, some work done to the engine but still 15 inch wheels and an older engine. It's likely either gonna be a 64-72 El Camino or another A-body GM of the same era.
>528
MUH DICK
U
H
D
I
C
K
>>14455782
El Camino pricing is way up around here same with Rancheros. I'd like to find a decent condition Eldorado to truck convert but that's for another time.
>>14455782
Yeah the 528 is the next logical step because of the bottom end work in doing. I wont be making much more power N/A than the 512, but it will eat up more cam duration meaning more power overall. And the stronger bottom end will support 1200+ tested HP and torque meaning I can go from a 75/150 2 stage shot to something like a 150/250/500 3 stage setup putting me around 1150 hp to the crank and about 1000 to the wheels. Add about 100-120 to those numbers for a rough torque figure.
fury is pretty good
>>14455813
Rancheros are cheap in NorCal except for the 64-65 Falcon ones. I can get a drivable but not pretty pre-73 El Camino for 3-5k if I look hard enough. I wouldn't mind a Torino based Ranchero for a dd/beater but I wouldn't put shitloads of money into it.
I want this 64 El Camino for a beater, it's been on Craigslist long enough I could talk him down some, but the thing about the title scares me more than the rust, missing tailgate and uncertain running condition combined.
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/5443635817.html
I love it
>>14455931
Yeah titles are more of a pain than body and mechanical work because it involves the state. I'd get a but more info before I'd pull the trigger.
>>14455741
> straight lines
> not taking advantage of the independent front torsion bars that were revolutionary for its time
>>14455649
That's not a muscle car.
I own a fusie style Fury and I can honestly say it's pretty much the best classic in terms of what you get for the money. It has some real draw backs in the aftermarket areas (have fun trying to find body panels when all other body type mopars have no problem with this)
The only cars that seem to come close in value is the falcons which are scarce almost always come in sixes, mid 70s novas, and galaxies, which are usually more expensive with worse handling.
So basically the Fury is a great option if you need a classic that isn't very expensive, is easy to maintain, comes with a V8, and isn't foreign. I mention that last thing because you can get later jags and some mercs for next to nothing.
Source:Furyfag
>>14454297
>that period
I thought it was the 70s for a second.
>>14455998
Thats what I did on mine. Much larger T bars with GasAJust shocks up front and PST Polygraphite bushings on everything with a high speed pitman arm and steering gearbox. Supplemental shocks out back and trac bars make a massive difference in handling but still keeps the comfy ride and muscle handling feel. Also a bit easier to control while sideways and it squats and grabs on a hard launch.
>>14456063
When it was new it wasn't, but with an extra 56 cubic inches, more lift/duration, higher compression, aluminium heads, long tube headers, and an 850 cfm carb it is now.
>>14456649
No, being a muscle car is about more than the engine. It was an era and only cars from that era can rightfully be called muscle cars. Your car is not and never will be a muscle car.
>>14457186
To be fair what a muscle car is is among the most unnecessarily subjective things on the planet. What it comes down to is coupe, big engine, built in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc.
And personally I don't think anything that isn't American is one, sorry aussies and people who think Mercedes makes muscle cars. Anyway that's just my opinion on the matter.
That's about as bare bones as you can get on the definition and I can guarantee someone here will disagree with me on it, like I said unnecessarily subjective.
>>14454270
Good car it you aren't a shitter
>>14457569
There were no muscle cars in the 50s. The most forgiving range of years that I would accept for a "muscle car" is 1963 to 1974. Anything 1971 and newer is seriously pushing it though.
>>14458086
Ehhh there was the Fury, and a chrysler that put out around 385 horsepower around 58. Some of the first Gen hemis were pretty quick
>>14458274
So what? A V6 Toyota Highlander is quick too but it isn't a muscle car.
>>14458301
Not sure what you're trying to prove there bud.
Sorry if the fact that Chrysler's first gen hemi is a beast that makes the 300d a muscle car rustles your Jimmies.
Don't know what you would call that car other then a muscle car though.
>>14458746
a big engine doesn't make a muscle car. being quick doesn't make a muscle car. it's about being part of the muscle car era. cars like the 300 or the impala ss led the way for muscle cars but they are not muscle cars themselves. just like the current challenger is inspired by muscle cars but is not one itself.
>>14458788
Fair enough, but I myself place the beginning of the Era in the late 50s with the Fury and the 300. There are some who say the GTO started it but I don't know about that. At the very least though the GTO refined it.
Anyhow this is for the Fury fans here, it's an interesting read.
http://www.allpar.com/model/fury.html
I do completely agree with you about new 'muscle' cars though.
>>14458808
it's probably impossible to really say when the "muscle car era" began but it certainly ended by 1974 at the latest and even that is questionable.
>>14458808
What makes the GTO special is that Delorean ignored the self-imposed displacement restrictions that GM had at the time by putting the full-size 389ci engine into the mid-sized Tempest. They gave it a nascar based suspension and marketed it as a sporty grand touring car. Sportiness and performance wasn't something GM really wanted to be a part of. They only tolerated the Corvette because Chevy sold well. But the GTO was a hit and it sparked competition from the other brands leading to the height of the era with full on race cars homolagated for the street. The displacement restrictions aren't a thing anymore, and modern emission and safety regs have killed the street legal race car so a modern muscle car can't really exist as it was defined in the 60s.
>>14458893
You should also ad the advertising genius of Jim Wagner who marketed the GTO exclusively to young buyers. The ads for the GTO were solely about performance, and a whole generation of young buyers were ready to try out the performance car geared exclusively for them.
Of course taking the car out on Woodward Ave and beating most everything around no doubt helped it's street cred. By the end of the sixties all US manufacturers had an example of a musclecar.
You can argue the GTO wasn't the first, but because of DeLorean and Wagner you can't say it wasn't a huge part of the movement.
>>14458788
the impala ss is a muscle car, the 409 chevy, 389 pontiac and max wedge 413 chryslers started it. they werent base models with bright paint and tape graphics yet but they were all muscle cars.
>>14461280
Some people argue that a musclecar is a midsized car with a larger engine. Impalas were not midsized I'm not sure but I don't think any of the max wedge Chryslers were before 64 either. The 421 Pontiac 2+2 were not as well.
>>14461305
The early 60s Fury was a mid size actually. There's a pretty funny story about that actually. I guess one of the Chrysler execs overheard the CEO (or something) of GM mention that the American public didn't want a fullsize car. So the very next year Chrysler stopped making them, but immediately regretted the decision, because Americans did infact still want Fullsize cars. Anyway the whole thing resulted in the early 60s Fury being a midsize car. And they did put the max wedge in it.
I know I butchered the story a little, it's been a while since I last read it.
>>14461392
Just about right. They instructed Exner to make the full size cars smaller in 62 and the result was a Fury only a tad larger than a 64 dart, but with the new 413 available. And it really started with the 361 Chrysler Firepower/ DeSoto Firedome V8 in the 1950s. They were the first true muscle cars (affordable price, more focused on straight line than handling, large powerful engines)
>>14454577
10/10 would crash in
No
But it's still awesome. The point of owning a classic American these days isn't to have a car that does anything particularly well.
It's to have a large, comfy hunk of metal that's simple to fix, simple to look at, and won't ever look bad because of age. Classics are a much safer investment than modern cars. If you bought a Chevelle right now, the price would only go up, barring recessions.
70-71 Fury was everything.
>>14461305
fair enough. I consider them the fathers of muscle cars.
classifications aside a 61-64 impala 2 door is only 6 inches longer than a road runner and has a 3 inch longer wb.
>>14454270
Yes. Pic related, it's my baby
there should be no problems with 50 year old front torsion + rear leaf suspension right?
>>14466400
Rear leafs may be saggigs and the T bars may be worn a bit, but can be adjusted back up at the front. Replacements are available for the Fury as well.
>>14468328
Can confirm
both my Furys never had suspension work done and they both held up far better then my 95 grand prix, which was sagging noticeably after 18 years, vs no sagging after 40+ years.
Shit was built pretty decently back then.
>>14468612
Yep. Only replaced my leafs and t bars because I wanted thicker bars and more leafs and the rear springs passed a jounce and rebound cycle, front shocks were bad (replaced with kMart brand with a 1970s date code, they were shot).
