circa 1970
No "circa" about it-----this IS a 1970 Plymouth Barracuda.
The Barracuda may have been a good car, but it was a severe disappointment to Chrysler Corporation in terms of sales. Over a period of 11 (ELEVEN!) model years (1964 through 1974) and three styling 'generations', some 380,855 Barracudas were built. To the average non-car person, that may sound like a lot. But it really wasn't: Ford built well over half a million Mustangs for the 1965 model year alone!
In view of the foregoing, Barracudas of any kind are rather rare today. According to Wikipedia: "The small number of Barracudas remaining in existence is the result of low buyer interest (and low production/sales when the vehicles were new)." Well, that's true as far as it goes, but there's another factor that Wikipedia ignores. That is, the cars weren't particularly sturdy to begin with, and they suffered a lot of abuse early on.
I've got an old (1978) edition of Consumer Guide's "Complete Guide To Used Cars", and it's a publication that regards muscle cars in general with undisguised revulsion. Of the Barracuda, we read: "The predatory Plymouth Barracuda lost its stylistic edge with an all-new 1970 model, and it died of sales starvation in 1974. Since Barracuda was never in the youth-market pond anyway, it is bound to add poor parts availability to its other shortcomings." In contrast, they wrote that "pre-1970 Barracudas enjoy some popularity with special-interest auto buffs and retain more resale value because of it." That may no longer be the case, but whatever.
CG noted that, from 1970 on, rear-seat Barracuda passengers suffered "the worst legroom in the class, making this car effectively a two seater". In case you still weren't convinced to steer away from it: "The revamped 'Cuda has very poor visibility" both forward and rearward. And the cars were allegedly noisier than both Mustang and Camaro.
They DID give the 'Cuda credit for good handling, but accused the rear suspension of having "a definite built-in harshness". Steering? "The newer car has even less feedback from the wheel to give a performance feel". Their conclusion: "In all, Barracuda does not seem to be a tough, dependable car. Since it appealed mostly to tire-spinning teenagers, the few still on the market are basket cases, or soon will be".
Tell us how you REALLY feel, Consumer Guide! In fairness, the Barracuda probably WAS a lousy deal as a 'used car'. But now, over half a century later, that's not what they're all about. 'Practical transportation' doesn't even enter the picture. Those "tire-spinning teenagers" are senior citizens, and cars like the 1970-74 Barracuda represent a a way for them to relive their youthful fantasies. Case kinda closed, wot?
circa 1970
No "circa" about it-----this IS a 1970 Plymouth Barracuda.
The Barracuda may have been a good car, but it was a severe disappointment to Chrysler Corporation in terms of sales. Over a period of 11 (ELEVEN!) model years (1964 through 1974) and three styling 'generations', some 380,855 Barracudas were built. To the average non-car person, that may sound like a lot. But it really wasn't: Ford built well over half a million Mustangs for the 1965 model year alone!
In view of the foregoing, Barracudas of any kind are rather rare today. According to Wikipedia: "The small number of Barracudas remaining in existence is the result of low buyer interest (and low production/sales when the vehicles were new)." Well, that's true as far as it goes, but there's another factor that Wikipedia ignores. That is, the cars weren't particularly sturdy to begin with, and they suffered a lot of abuse early on.
I've got an old (1978) edition of Consumer Guide's "Complete Guide To Used Cars", and it's a publication that regards muscle cars in general with undisguised revulsion. Of the Barracuda, we read: "The predatory Plymouth Barracuda lost its stylistic edge with an all-new 1970 model, and it died of sales starvation in 1974. Since Barracuda was never in the youth-market pond anyway, it is bound to add poor parts availability to its other shortcomings." In contrast, they wrote that "pre-1970 Barracudas enjoy some popularity with special-interest auto buffs and retain more resale value because of it." That may no longer be the case, but whatever.
CG noted that, from 1970 on, rear-seat Barracuda passengers suffered "the worst legroom in the class, making this car effectively a two seater". In case you still weren't convinced to steer away from it: "The revamped 'Cuda has very poor visibility" both forward and rearward. And the cars were allegedly noisier than both Mustang and Camaro.
They DID give the 'Cuda credit for good handling, but accused the rear suspension of having "a definite built-in harshness". Steering? "The newer car has even less feedback from the wheel to give a performance feel". Their conclusion: "In all, Barracuda does not seem to be a tough, dependable car. Since it appealed mostly to tire-spinning teenagers, the few still on the market are basket cases, or soon will be".
Tell us how you REALLY feel, Consumer Guide! In fairness, the Barracuda probably WAS a lousy deal as a 'used car'. But now, over half a century later, that's not what they're all about. 'Practical transportation' doesn't even enter the picture. Those "tire-spinning teenagers" are senior citizens, and cars like the 1970-74 Barracuda represent a a way for them to relive their youthful fantasies. Case kinda closed, wot?