Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

19039049069089091080

Comments

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    Imperials make me think of this:

    We're the ones in the Imperial, and we're running last?! :shades:

    A 1960 must be pretty rare today.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,876
    From what I understand, Imperials are often prohibited from being entered in demo derbies for precisely that reason. They were built like tanks.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,876
    Here's '63 coupe. Reupholstered front seat at least...and is this what an Imperial front seat looked like in '63? Where's the center armrest?

    That front seat upholstery looks all wrong to me, both in terms of pattern (the stitching pattern is too wide) and the fabric (looks like a velour material). Too bad.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,876
    edited January 2013
    The IPs are similar but not identical. Here is a '67 Chrysler New Yorker IP:

    image

    Here's the Imperial:

    image

    The Chrysler IP bowed out in the center while the Imp's did not, and the Imp also had a number of neat features like a pop-up vanity mirror in the glove compartment and a cover for the radio.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • berriberri Posts: 4,179
    I think 1966 was the last year of stand alone Imperials?
  • bhill2bhill2 Posts: 1,349
    It may just be my inner car freak showing, but I am somewhat bothered by the fact that the seller of that '66 doesn't know that year has a 440 in it, not a 413.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv, 2001 Jaguar XK cnv, 1985 MB 380SE (the best of the lot)

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I thought that '67 Imperial had a 'bowed out' look to the top pad, but maybe that's just sagging of an old vinyl part. Thank you for pointing out the differences, and there are quite a few.

    A "pop-up vanity mirror in the glove compartment"? Wonder where they got that idea? Same place they were able to pick up the "Challenger" and "Daytona" names! ;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    In my memory, it's unusual to see a convertible with a rear-seat center armrest like that Imperial has. My experience with large convertibles is mostly GM, but I always figured in a convertible, GM made the rear-seat back cushion thinner, making a center armrest not nearly as useful. Matter of fact, in the early '70's, GM even started cutting out rear-seat center armrests in coupes, when the hardtop sedan version of the same model and interior trim had them (Pontiac Grand Ville with optional Custom interior; Buick Centurion).

    Neat touch on that Imperial.

    Is that vinyl or leather inside? If leather, it's avoided the wrinkly/lined leather look that seems so typical.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,876
    edited January 2013
    I'm pretty sure it's leather.

    Here's a pic of the silver leather interior. Imagine how great it would look with the original Charcoal Gray Metallic paint on that '67.

    image

    Regarding rear-seat center armrests, I suspect GM did that because the top mechanism ate up significant width in the rear because the frames went into each side until '71, making the rear seat narrower than the coupes. Of course starting with the '71s the frame was different to alleviate that problem but I bet the GM bean counters wouldn't allow the armrest to return, as part of GM's continued cheapening up of their cars back then.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,960
    I remember reading that when the Mopars were redesigned for 1969, the convertibles picked up about 10" in back seat shoulder room, because of a redesigned top mechanism. At first, I thought that might have been a bit of hyperbole, but after seeing how much room the surrounds for the top intrude into the back seat area, I can believe it. Looks like it eats about 5" on either side, easily.

    I wonder what kind of gains GM saw when they went to the "scissors" type mechanism for 1971?

    Awhile back, I took a tape measure to my '67 Catalina, and the way I measured its shoulder room, got 62.5" in the front seat, and about 56" in the back seat, measured between the narrower area in between where the top cuts in. Looking at the sales brochures, Pontiac didn't publish shoulder room, although they did show legroom and headroom stats. I just checked the 1970 Buick brochure though, and they're showing the LeSabre convertible as only having 52.3" of shoulder room in the back! So, I wonder if GM changed the top mechanism from '67-68 to '69-70? Or, maybe I just measured wrong?

    I just dug up a '71 Buick brochure, and they're showing the LeSabre convertible at 61.7" of shoulder room! So, it looks like the big '71 GM cars got about a 10" gain in shoulder room, too!

    I think the '71 full-sizers had something
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,162
    If something happened to my Brougham, I'd go for it! I imagine it would also survive a nuclear war, but with my luck, some d*** dirty apes would burn it!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Thanks for posting. I can tell that interior is leather; wasn't sure about the eBay car.

    What are the black fold/crease areas in the car seats? Are they black leather or vinyl, or a suede-like material, do you know? Interesting contrast.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,960
    I have a gut feeling that those black creases are just vinyl. Also, the side bolster on the center armrest is vinyl. But interestingly, it looks like the side bolsters of the seat itself is leather.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,441
    In case you want the same basic (well, roughly) car, for a whole lot less money. Obviously not the same condition, but it does have a goofy roofline!

    http://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/3454361934.html

    image

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Interesting car for next to nothing.

    Needs water pump=it over heats so could be more serious.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I have a friend whose parents had new '56, '60, '65, '67, '70, and '73 Caddy sedans and '76 and '78 Sevilles. My friend's Mom (who recently passed) was a tiny little lady...probably not even five feet tall. He said she used to always say, even later, how she liked their '60 Cadillac, which was a flat-top sedan, as she "...could really see out of it". I can't imagine her even driving a car that large!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    That car does have amazing visibility. Just look at it in that pic! Even thinner pillars than my old car, too. So unlike the blind spot monsters of today.

    My grandma had a downsized FWD big Olds in the 80s, and she liked that car a lot, because the trunk was low, which made reversing easy. Her next cars (2x Taurus) always had her complaining about visibility.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,179
    but it does have a goofy roofline!

    Have some mercy - it was the fifties :D

    I think that flat top roof line worked best on the Impala.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited January 2013
    Out my home office window just now, a pale green '62 or '63 Chevy truck cab-with-stake bed. Saw evidence of an unpainted repair at the bottom of the LR front fender, but other than that, moved smartly up our street. Never seen it around before. It had the wraparound windshield, but I didn't notice the location of the front fender series nameplate, which would have told me for sure the year.

    One of those vehicles some might say, "Who would want one?", but there it was, zipping up the salt-covered streets of Kent, OH, 50 years old or darn close.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,960
    At one time, I thought about trying to find an older 60's truck to replace my '85 Silverado with Only problem is, it seemed like they were either overly-restored/resto-modded, or in much worse shape than my '85, but nothing in between.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    LR= "lower right", but I didn't make that very obvious!
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,617
    I found myself behind a very nice black over black Buick Electra convertible of mid 70s vintage (w antique plates). I got a good look as the old duffer driving it (original owner?) was doing 20 in a 25 zone. I'd say it was in good number two condition spoiled only by small wheels with snap on fake wires.

    Needless to say I passed him like he was standing still. ;)

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    That'd be a LeSabre most likely, andys. The '70 Electra was the last Electra convertible.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,617
    Well I didn't see a model name or count the portholes but it looked pretty spiffy for a LeSabre.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    Spotted a dark blue late 2002 (big bumpers) with sliding metal sunroof.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited January 2013
    I almost asked you, "2002 what?" !

    I'm old-skool, but I always hated numbers as a model name of a car.

    To me, the worst was the Cadillac "Series 62". They used that up to the '64 model year. You go into the dealer and say, "I want a '61 62" or "How 'bout a '64 62?" LOL
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Safety regs ruined the style of many a car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,960
    Well I didn't see a model name or count the portholes but it looked pretty spiffy for a LeSabre.

    LeSabres started getting pretty big, pretentious, and luxurious by the mid 70's, so it would be easy to mistake one for an Electra. Once the 5 mph bumpers went into effect, I think they topped out around 226". An Electra wasn't that much bigger...maybe 231"? I do remember there were a few years where the Electra was actually an inch or two longer than Caddy DeVille.

    I always thought the '75 LeSabre convertible was a sharp looking car. Make mine baby blue with the Buick magnum wheels. And a 455. :shades:
    image
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    To me, nobody's factory wheels were better than Buick's.

    I can just picture that LeSabre, andre--white top and white vinyl seats with blue dash, seat belts and carpet, right?!

    I remember our local eye doctor buying a firethorn-colored '76 Eldo convertible when new...white interior with red dash, etc. When I was back in town visiting a few years ago, I saw a slightly beat-up looking Eldo pull up to the intersection, top down, and it was the good Dr.! Still owned it. He was a white belt and shoe kind of guy, and somehow that Eldo seemed just right for him! Before that he had a light blue '71 Eldo convert.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,796
    Saw one of these today:

    image

    Flat gray primer, Crager wheels w white stripe tires, young guy driving it. Looked like a project car.

    From behind, I could see the left rear tire was about 3"-5" to the right of the left front tire. Bent frame I presume.
Sign In or Register to comment.