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

fintail

With so many premium cars these days using runflats, tire noise can be hard to escape.

None in the fintail, and not really much engine noise in most conditions, but there's often a little gear whine, which I am so used to now I think I can gauge speed by it.

sda

andre1969 said:

To be honest, I don't think there's a Buick out there anymore that I'd really want to own, either, although at this point I think they're down to just crossovers. And if I wanted a crossover, I think I'd go for something like a Dodge Durango or Ford Explorer. Although to its credit, I don't think the new Enclave is bad; it just doesn't really do anything for me.

Similarly, the recently-discontinued Regal and LaCrosse don't seem like bad cars, but they just don't stir any desire in me to own one. If I was in the mood for a new(ish) car right now, I'd probably go for a Charger. Although, I do like the Impala.

I think the last Buick car that I really liked was the Lucerne, but I was always a bit worried about the engine choices. By that time, the 3.8 probably wasn't enough engine to move that much car, and I've always worried about the 4.6 Northstar, and its reliability/repair costs. The Buick 3.8 ultimately gave way to a 3.9 Chevy V6 which, if I'm not mistaken, is traceable all the way back to the old 2.8 Citation engine! It did have more power than the 3.8, but I don't know much about it. And, in later years, the Lucerne got facelifted, and I didn't care for the grille/headlight treatment, which seemed a bit overdone and ill-proportioned.

It’s too bad the Northstar had the head bolt stretching, head gasket issue along with the common split block oil leak. They were a sweet running engine that had a refined yet muscular sound when driven hard. They were even decent on gas. The Olds 4.0 for 2001 ran on regular, previous versions on premium. My 01 4.0 would average 19-22mpg in day to day driving and 26-28 mpg on highway trips.

jwm40517

I am probably older than most in this group and I found roadburner's comments about fast for the time of interest. I continue to be amazed at all categories of performance from the modern cars. He mentioned his M235i and it's 12.9 quarter. That would make him the quickest car in most towns in late 60's.


Cars like my 66 ChevyII with 327-350 HP would run 12.7 but required 4.56 gears and little 7 inch slicks if otherwise stock. Then it took forever to stop with the little drum brakes, would not go around a corner and certainly had no AC. Tire technology has improved greatly over 50 years. And the new cars do this with tiny engines compared to the V-8's of the 60's and provide amazing comfort and features that would seem like science fiction in my day.

Had neat cars when young but the current stable is Honda Oddy and Mercury GM that has been described as a leather couch with 4 tires. Can't remember lunch yesterday , but have vivid memories of specific street races in 1967.

roadburner

As I've mentioned before I have a 1991 magazine that is a compilation of road tests from the old Hi-Performance Cars magazine. The fastest 1/4 mile time was a 12.5 posted by a 1969 Motion Performance big block Camaro- with 4.10 gears, uncapped headers and slicks. Aside from that car most of the others put up 1/4 mile ETs in the 13.5-14.5 second range. Those times are on the SLOW side of average for performance cars these days. As I noted above, my 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 could run in the low 14 second range all day long- and that's with a 2.3 liter turbo that averaged 26+ mpg over the 8 years and 158,000 miles I had it.

stickguy

On the highway Sunday, a 75ish corvette, period drown, a 70yellow mustang. And a 69 camaro white with orange dual stripes

fintail

Out yesterday saw the SE-R, Prizm, and Bronco II I also saw last week - seems someone might be using older cars as commuters.

xwesx

kyfdx said:

tjc78 said:

I like that style. BBS wheels look great on it too.

I came thisclose to buying a white '89 in the summer of 1990. Someone bought it while I was looking at it, and two months later, I bought an '84 911 Targa.

Man, you sure traded down on that one!

ab348

We were discussing the downsized '78 GM A-body and A-Special models here last month. Yesterday I picked up the new Collectible Automobile magazine at a newsstand and lo and behold, they have a feature on the '78-'80 Monte Carlo!

It has some very interesting concept sketches and clay model photos of what GM Design was thinking during development. Even though the concept sketches are the typical exaggerated, swoopy sorts of ideas that designers always seem to draw, the pics of the clay models show that GM could have come up with something that ended up looking quite different to what they actually produced. The layout of the article was such that on one pair of pages are all those concept/clay model images, then you turn the page and there are photographs of what was actually produced. It really made me instantly think "How did they get from those, to THAT?".

The article offers a clue though. It seems to suggest that Bill Mitchell really wasn't sure of what he wanted as the process went on. He indicated at the start that he didn't want certain themes, but then as time went on those crept back in. It says that in the end there were 4 clay models developed and put outside in the Design Center courtyard for Mitchell and the other execs to evaluate and decide which one would be used in production. Unusually, Mitchell apparently was indifferent to all of them and couldn't decide. Dave Holls took him aside and apparently convinced him to go with the one he liked best, and that's how Chevy ended up with the "steaming pile" design (sorry, couldn't resist).

The odd thing is that when you look at all the images in the article, what really came through was that the most off-putting part of the design for me was the front end and rear panel/taillight treatment on the Monte. None of the proposals shown had those actual treatments, and just about all of them looked better to me than what they ended up using. The cleaned-up refreshes introduced for '81 actually looked closer to some of the early proposals shown.

The other interesting point made in the article was that when you looked at what was standard equipment on the downsized cars versus what was standard on the previous models (i.e. V6 vs V8, etc), the shrunken designs were quite a bit more expensive to purchase. They must have been quite profitable for GM.

roadburner

I read a book that discussed the development of the Mustang II; initially the plan was ti either have a fastback or a notchback. The notchback clay model was very angular and attractive- akin to the Fox body notchback. The decision was made to go with the fastback, which looked similar to the production car. Late in the development process some focus group(s) indicated a lot of people liked the notchback- so the designers simply grafted a notchback formal roof on to the fastback design.

andre1969

I wonder how the Mustang II would have fared as only a fastback? As it was, the notchback coupe took the majority of the sales for all years, '74-78. Personally, I don't mind the notchback style, although when you're dealing with cars this small, the fastback, being a hatchback, was more versatile.

The Mustang II tends to get a lot of flak nowadays, in retrospect, but honestly, I think it was the right car at the right time. Considering the oil embargo that hit at the tail end of '73, Ford would have been slaughtered if they tried selling the '71-73 style in '74. Plus, by that time performance was pretty much dead at Ford. Looking at my old car book, Ford did offer a 275 hp 351 for '72, but for '73, it only had a 154/156 hp version (manual shift/automatic?)

But then, the Mustang II fell from favor pretty quickly. I guess part of the problem is that in its new size, it was getting a lot of competition from the Japanese imports, plus the Chevy Monza and its clones. The Starfire/Skyhawk were slow sellers, but the Sunbird was a pretty hot seller for awhile. Meanwhile, the Camaro and Firebird were pretty much unrivaled at that point, filling in not only the traditional ponycar market, but even taking over for the musclecars, since there wasn't much left based on a domestic compact or midsize that was truly considered "high performance"

Oh, as for the Collectible Automobile, hate to say it, but I had forgotten about the '78-80 Monte Carlo article, because I went straight to the DeSoto Firesweep A lot of those concepts for the Monte were pretty interesting. Some of them almost seem a bit Buick-ish to me. One of them makes me think of the Cordoba, and one of them makes me think of that Packard revival from a few years back that looked a bit like a 6000 SUX from Robocop!

Interesting that they drew up a concept for a 4-door version. I wonder how a 4-door "personal luxury sedan" would have gone over with the general public? I sort of looked at the 1980-85 Seville, and the 1995-99 Aurora, as kind of a "personal luxury sedan", as the Seville was heavily based on the Eldorado by then. And, the first Aurora made me think a bit of what could have been a 4-door Toronado.

fintail

I've always liked the 81+ Monte more than 78-80, the swoopy lines are harder to pull off on the shorter car, IMO. I suppose a turbo model (80 only?) could be interesting, I remember there was one in town when I was a kid, the turbo badge on the hood always caught my eye.

Mustang II fastbacks aren't bad looking at all for the era, at least to me.

andre1969

Oh, on the pricing for the Monte Carlo, at first I was thinking there wasn't much difference, once you factor in inflation. According to an inflation calculator, just in that one year, inflation was about 7.6%. A '77 was $4968 for the S, and $5298 for the Landau. A '78 was $4785/$4935 for the base Sport Coupe (V6/V8) and $5678/5828 for the Landau (again, V6/V8). BUT, while the '77 had an automatic standard, for both the 305 and 350, for '78 a manual shift was standard on all engines.

Here's an oddity. The 1978 brochure lists the Buick 231 being the standard V6, and the Chevy 305 being optional, and its the same for 49-state and California cars. But, the EPA's website lists the tiny Chevy 200 V6 being standard in 49 state cars, with the 231 being an option, and the 305 top dog. California cars are 231 or 305 only, and CA also banned the manual transmissions. Regardless, the $150 premium for the 305 was worth every penny!

One detail I do like about the '78-80 Monte Carlo, is that it uses a fairly large rear quarter window in its design, rather than an opera window. That was a nice change of pace, for a personal luxury coupe. Overall though, I still like the style of the '81-88 models better.

**Edit: I just glanced through the article, and it answers my question about the 200 V6. Apparently at mid-year, that engine was introduced at a $40 credit option. So that would probably explain why it didn't show up in the brochure I saw online, but did get captured by the EPA's numbers.

And geeze, not even an AM radio was standard?! Did the '77 at least have an AM standard?

roadburner

andre1969 said:

I wonder how the Mustang II would have fared as only a fastback? As it was, the notchback coupe took the majority of the sales for all years, '74-78. Personally, I don't mind the notchback style, although when you're dealing with cars this small, the fastback, being a hatchback, was more versatile.

The Mustang II tends to get a lot of flak nowadays, in retrospect, but honestly, I think it was the right car at the right time. Considering the oil embargo that hit at the tail end of '73, Ford would have been slaughtered if they tried selling the '71-73 style in '74. Plus, by that time performance was pretty much dead at Ford. Looking at my old car book, Ford did offer a 275 hp 351 for '72, but for '73, it only had a 154/156 hp version (manual shift/automatic?)

But then, the Mustang II fell from favor pretty quickly. I guess part of the problem is that in its new size, it was getting a lot of competition from the Japanese imports, plus the Chevy Monza and its clones. The Starfire/Skyhawk were slow sellers, but the Sunbird was a pretty hot seller for awhile. Meanwhile, the Camaro and Firebird were pretty much unrivaled at that point, filling in not only the traditional ponycar market, but even taking over for the musclecars, since there wasn't much left based on a domestic compact or midsize that was truly considered "high performance"

There was a 351 CJ available in the 1973 Mustang; it was rated at 266 hp.

I liked the fastback Mustang II; it was just amazing how slow the V8 cars were. The Monza was little better. My 1979 Arrow 2.6 GT was faster than either car.

texases

I remember going to a car show in '74 with the Mustang II featured in the Ford area. They had a poster showing how much it was like the 1st gen T-bird, size-wise! Wonder if that attracted any buyers...

andre1969

roadburner said:

There was a 351 CJ available in the 1973 Mustang; it was rated at 266 hp.

I liked the fastback Mustang II; it was just amazing how slow the V8 cars were. The Monza was little better. My 1979 Arrow 2.6 GT was faster than either car.

I was looking in my old car encyclopedia when I mentioned that performance was dead by '73, but that book does tend to be wrong from time to time! And, on further examination, it does list a 246 hp version of the 351 being offered in the '73 Torino coupe.

For Mercury, it lists the 246 hp being offered in the Montego coupe, and, does indeed list a 264 hp version being offered in the Cougar, with a (CJ) in parenthesis after it. But, for whatever reason, they left that off the Mustang entry.

Also, it looks like they were still offering a hot 351 even in '74, again in 246/264 hp setups for the Montego and Cougar (now that the Cougar was a full-blown personal luxury coupe). But, they don't list either engine as being offered in any version of the '74 Torino. So, once again, I've learned not to take that book as the gospel!

And yeah, you'd think a 302 in the Mustang II, would make for a pretty quick car, but it didn't. Although, looking at the specs, that engine only put out 122 hp in 1975, 134 in 1976, and 139 in 1977-78. I'd imagine the transmissions might have been part of the problem, though. Didn't domestic manual shifts tend to suck back then, compared to the Japanese?

ab348

I was reading an article recently - I think it was the piece in the previous CA about the Ranchero - that discussed Ford's engine choices in the mid-70s and was surprised to see how the 351-4bbl retained significant power well into the malaise era. Don't know how they managed to do that. when other engines were so emasculated. The same held true at Chrysler. There was a piece posted today on Hemmings about the '75 Roadrunner (Fury) that indicated that a fairly potent version of the 360 and 400 was still available for order if your knew what to ask for.

I don't know much about ford V-8s of that era but something tells me that the 351 was physically larger externally than the 302 and that fitting it into the Mustang II would have been a real challenge. Plus of course things like the differential and brakes would have needed to be upgraded from the Pinto-spec pieces. Even when the Fox-body Mustang came out the base models were lame, with the 4-cylinder engine that could barely get out of its own way.

ab348

fintail said:

I've always liked the 81+ Monte more than 78-80, the swoopy lines are harder to pull off on the shorter car, IMO. I suppose a turbo model (80 only?) could be interesting, I remember there was one in town when I was a kid, the turbo badge on the hood always caught my eye.

I had forgotten all about the '80 Monte Carlo Turbo until I read the article yesterday. It was only offered that one year and had a unique hood with a bulge to give enough room for the turbo engine. I don't think I ever saw one locally. The article indicates a good reason too - it was something like a $650 upcharge, whereas you could order the 305 V-8 and get similar performance for just an extra $80.

uplanderguy

The 231 V6 was standard on the '78 Monte Carlo in my home state of Pennsylvania. I tend to trust what the manufacturer puts out more than any other site. ..plus, I actually remember this. The Malibu got the 3.3 V6. In '80, both got the 229 V6, an improvement over both IMHO.

The Turbo Monte Carlo was also available in the '81 model year.

I've mentioned that my first new car was an '81 Monte Carlo, 267 V8, no A/C, Positraction, intermittent wipers, two-tone light jade over dark jade. I liked it a lot. It was stolen in Oct. '82 with 35K miles and never found. A girl I knew in college commented that it reflected a difference between me and my college roommate, who bought a V6 '81 Firebird new at about the same time.

Also, the 3-speed trans was only available on V6's in '78, not the 305. That was available with a 4-speed however. Here it shows the 4-speed was available on the V6 as well, which I didn't remember. My guess is that that would've been the least-ordered combination of all.

http://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com/chevrolet/montecarlo/1978/1011.jpg

EDIT: andre mentions a $40 credit in the Monte to get the 200V6. My memory of how GM worked back then--and I'll tell you, I was at our local Chevy dealer's as often as my house!--was that when you saw credit options, it was usually because of a sourcing problem of some kind, temporary. An example of that is Rally Wheels on '74 Monte Carlo Landaus, when Turbine I wheels were standard. I saw exactly one with a $68 credit for Rally Wheels. Never saw another after that. Not in the brochure. And I do remember revised brochures when standard equipment or options or models changed within a model year, which was rare.

There is much-love for "G Bodies" out there. You might be surprised at the numbers in the Facebook page. Last year their national meet was in Cleveland and I went. I enjoyed it. Lots of, shall we say, "California style" cars there, but I enjoyed it.

There are some '73-77 GM midsizes I like, but the bulk....ugh. I could like some bone-stock '78 GM mid-sizes. The use of space is impressive to me, and the character seems more contemporary than '73-77. Some of the engineering bravado was just that, all in the effort to save weight, but I could like one just because there won't be another one at the local cruise-in.

When I was twenty I rode to central Missouri from western PA in my friend's parents' new four-door Cutlass Salon Brougham. I thought it was pretty darn nice inside for a car of that size. It was a pleasant drive.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

The 231 V6 was standard on the '78 Monte Carlo in my home state of Pennsylvania. I tend to trust what the manufacturer puts out more than any other site. ..plus, I actually remember this. The Malibu got the 3.3 V6. In '80, both got the 229 V6, an improvement over both IMHO.

The Turbo Monte Carlo was also available in the '81 model year.

Yes, I misread the article. It does in fact say it was available in both '80 and '81. But in '81 you could only order the 305 if you lived in an area that required California emissions equipment, otherwise you were stuck with the 4.4L V-8.

The article said that the 231 was standard in '78, but that the 200 V-6 was offered as a credit option midyear.

uplanderguy

RE: Radios--no GM I can think of in the '70's, even '79, had a radio as standard equipment. Probably Cadillac by then, but even I can remember a new '72 Calais at our dealer's with no radio. I always get a chuckle when I see ads with "radio delete". It wasn't a "radio delete", it wasn't optioned with a radio.

uplanderguy

One odd thing about the Monte of that era--although I guess this was a carry-forward from the '73-77 run--every single Monte Carlo built from '78 through '80, no matter how cheap, had 205-70 tires and the F-41 suspension standard. That went away in the '81 model year as standard equipment.

I wasn't serious about considering a Grand Prix in '81, but I remember looking then and a clock and full wheelcovers were standard on an '81 Monte Carlo, while both were optional on the Grand Prix, which struck me as unusual. A Grand Prix with dog dish caps? Apparently.

andre1969

Just out of curiosity, I pulled up some axle ratio specs for the 1980 Monte. Good LORD! The turbo was stuck with a 2.41:1 axle! So was the V-6, whether you got the 229 (49 state) or 231 (CA). The 267 had a 2.29:1! The 305 had a 2.29:1 standard, with a 2.73:1 being optional.

You'd think they'd want to give the turbo a quicker ratio, so that it could rev up quicker. Especially since turbo lag was a bigger problem in those days, wouldn't a quicker axle help offset that somewhat?

I know that none of these engines were exactly designed for high revs, but geeze, these ratios are ridiculous! The Chevy 267 especially seems like it got the worst of both worlds...the weight of the 305, but not much more powerful than the V-6 engines. And with the indignity of that extra tall ratio thrown in for bonus points.

I've often questioned, too, just how much these extra tall ratios really helped with fuel economy? I'm convinced they'd mainly fake out the EPA laboratory test numbers, but in the real world, people were laying into the gas pedal longer and harder in an attempt to get the same performance that a quicker ratio would have given them. And while they might give you better highway economy, if you really loafed it, under the slightest load they'd be quicker to downshift, relying on the lower gears.

I mean, I can understand a taller axle being more economical, up to a certain point. But once you hit that certain point, it seems to me anything taller would do more harm than good.

uplanderguy

What I remember most about my 267 in my '81 was that it sounded better, and idled smoother, than my parents' '80 229 V6...more befitting a Monte Carlo...but it was slow.

But my parents' '80 had F41 and P205-70's, even though it was a six with no A/C! Like I'd said, all Monte Carlos, really from '73 through 80, had bigger tires and "sport" suspension standard.

I looked at the '79 Monte brochure and it does indeed show the 3.3 V6 as standard. I don't remember ever seeing that so apparently both my hometown dealer and college-town dealer were being sent 3.8's and V8's, LOL.

andre1969

That 3.3/200 must have been a miserable engine, no matter what car it went in. My first car, a 1980 Malibu with the 3.8/229 didn't seem bad at the time, but most likely only because I didn't have much to reference it against. Most of my friends' cars at the time were even worse dogs, so that also gives me a fonder, if perhaps rose-tinted-glasses, memory of that old Malibu.

But I'm sure I'd hate it if I had to drive it today, and I imagine I'd hate a 3.3 even worse! But then, I think of cars like a 1981 Diplomat or LeBaron with a 90 hp slant six, or a Fairmont-based Thunderbird with the 200 V6, and when viewed alongside those, perhaps it's not so bad?

uplanderguy

As much as I like '62 and later Studebakers, I grew up GM (Chevy), but I can't think of a more-misguided styling attempt than the '80 Thunderbird. Talk about "designed by committee". "Carved out of a block of wood" comes to mind. The instrument panel I remember as completely forgettable, even in that age of completely forgettable, and a 200 V6? No thanks.

MHO only of course.

ab348

That 1980-82 generation of T-Bird was simply an abominable body design. The last new Ford of the Gene Bordinat school of styling. The thing I could never get past was how fat-hipped it looked, with the rear wheels tucked way deep into the openings. But the CA article notes that in 1980, the T-Bird actually outsold the Monte.

Andre's question about standard equipment is referenced in the article. While it says nothing about radios and I believe none of these cars came with one as standard, the big '77 Monte had V-8, automatic, PS and PB as standard while none of those were standard on the '78 Monte. They did become standard (except for the V-8) a couple of years later.

uplanderguy

I know it's said Henry II had his hand in styling decisions, and he liked that 'block of wood' look it seems.

tjc78

My mom's early 80s Escort had no radio

Funny story on that one. My Mom and Dad just divorced. Mom needed a car and her and my Dad worked out something on a one year old Escort. It was a nicer trimmed model with radio, AC, etc.

Dad thinks it's a done deal and leaves her there to finish up the deal. SM asks her, "wouldn't you rather have a brand new one for the same money?" So she says, yes! Of course the brand new one was pure stripper with the only option being an automatic.

Dad was not happy...

She didn't keep that one long and traded it for an 85 Dodge Charger with all the options. It may as well have not had AC as it didn't stay working for long and needed expensive repairs more than once.

andre1969

Yep, the T-bird managed something like 156,000 units for 1980, compared to around 148,000 I think, for the Monte Carlo. But then the T-bird fell off fast, as GM regained some of their popularity with the re-skinned '81 models.

When I was a kid, I liked the '80 T-bird. I've always thought hidden headlights were cool. And the '80 T-bird was the first car I can remember noticing, as a kid, to have digital instrumentation. I know it wasn't the first, period, but just the first that caught my eye as a kid.

But, as I got older, and got pickier about styling and proportioning, I started to like them less and less. And, unless you get an upper-level model, the interior just has too much Fairmont in its DNA.

For some reason though, I don't mind the Cougar XR-7 of that era.

ab348

I was out this AM and in traffic I pulled up behind/next to a Chevy Trailblazer SS. I had never seen one before and either had forgotten or never knew they existed. It was a pretty sharp-looking rig. Research when I returned home revealed it had the 2006 6-liter LS2 V-8 from the Corvette. Don't know how I missed that.

Michaell

ab348 said:

I was out this AM and in traffic I pulled up behind/next to a Chevy Trailblazer SS. I had never seen one before and either had forgotten or never knew they existed. It was a pretty sharp-looking rig. Research when I returned home revealed it had the 2006 6-liter LS2 V-8 from the Corvette. Don't know how I missed that.

A neighbor down the street from me has one. Still sounds good.

fintail

I vividly recall looking at car brochure when I was a kid, maybe 1987-88, I think for either a Cavalier or Celebrity (I always asked friends and families to get me brochures when car shopping). For one of these cars, you could order it without radio for a "credit option" (I think that was the term). Not sure how it was for Stude at the time, but for MB in the 60s and I think well into the mid 70s, radios were not standard, and I believe dealer-installed for much of that time. The fintail was delivered without a radio, not gaining one until it was 6 years old, when the second owner bought a used year-correct radio for the car. It cost over $100 then, I have the receipt.

In odd sightings, saw an XLR, non-V, I call the color "old man red" (dark red) for this particular car

uplanderguy said:

RE: Radios--no GM I can think of in the '70's, even '79, had a radio as standard equipment. Probably Cadillac by then, but even I can remember a new '72 Calais at our dealer's with no radio. I always get a chuckle when I see ads with "radio delete". It wasn't a "radio delete", it wasn't optioned with a radio.

fintail

I see that generation of Bird as maybe peak malaise. Weird styling, weak engines, having none of the appeal of what came before or after. But, it had a pretentious look, and that was a thing at the time, so it somehow sold even in some rough economic times. The 81 Monte looks worlds better, although when the 83 Bird debuted, it had some real competition.

ab348 said:

That 1980-82 generation of T-Bird was simply an abominable body design. The last new Ford of the Gene Bordinat school of styling. The thing I could never get past was how fat-hipped it looked, with the rear wheels tucked way deep into the openings. But the CA article notes that in 1980, the T-Bird actually outsold the Monte.

Andre's question about standard equipment is referenced in the article. While it says nothing about radios and I believe none of these cars came with one as standard, the big '77 Monte had V-8, automatic, PS and PB as standard while none of those were standard on the '78 Monte. They did become standard (except for the V-8) a couple of years later.

ab348

Fin, your comment on radios gave me a sudden flashback to when I was a pre-teen, late 1960s. I've mentioned how my brothers bought British cars around that time, as did we (a 1968 ADO16 Austin 1100) and I also remember dad looking at a Rover 2000TC. All of this occurred at the one local dealer for these cars, called Halifax British Motors. They were located in the middle of the city in a somewhat sketchy area at the time, but the dealer seemed welcoming enough. In their smallish showroom I remember being taken by a display fixture they had showing off the actual radios they could install. It was one of the type that had 12V power supplied to it and all of the radios were wired into antennas and speakers, so you could try them out by pushing the right button. Fun stuff to amuse a kid.

As I recall, none of them were branded as Austin, MG, Rover, etc or even BMC. Unlike the domestic makes where if you bought GM you got a Delco radio, or a Ford with a Philco radio back then, these were all different makes. I remember Audiovox, Automatic Radio, and I think even a Blaupunkt made it in there at the higher end. I remember the one we got in the 1100 did not have station presets, but had 2 or 3 buttons on the front for what I believe was treble, midrange and bass. I think it was Audiovox but I can't be sure.

fintail

He should have bought a landcrab! I've always kind of liked those.

I suspect MB dealers had something similar, but I have never seen an image to confirm it. MB radios weren't branded MB until the early 90s IIRC. Before that, the factory would install a system, but the radio was Becker. I think Blaupunkt was the popular aftermarket brand. In the olden days before they were factory installed (but you could order a speaker and antenna, I think these eventually became standard even without radio), Becker was by far the leading choice, then Blaupunkt and others - I think I have even seen a period Motorola in a fintail.

I had the fintail's radio rebuilt in the late 00s, as it randomly conked out. Becker is still in business in the states, and does a good business refurbishing old head units, as many, myself included, don't like an anachronistic radio in their old car. It has presets, a tone selector, light, etc. It still works fine, and the light emits a pleasing green glow. It is a Europa TR, dating from the same year as the car:



These radios are somewhat collectible now, as they were a popular accessory in other Euro cars.

ab348 said:

Fin, your comment on radios gave me a sudden flashback to when I was a pre-teen, late 1960s. I've mentioned how my brothers bought British cars around that time, as did we (a 1968 ADO16 Austin 1100) and I also remember dad looking at a Rover 2000TC. All of this occurred at the one local dealer for these cars, called Halifax British Motors. They were located in the middle of the city in a somewhat sketchy area at the time, but the dealer seemed welcoming enough. In their smallish showroom I remember being taken by a display fixture they had showing off the actual radios they could install. It was one of the type that had 12V power supplied to it and all of the radios were wired into antennas and speakers, so you could try them out by pushing the right button. Fun stuff to amuse a kid.

As I recall, none of them were branded as Austin, MG, Rover, etc or even BMC. Unlike the domestic makes where if you bought GM you got a Delco radio, or a Ford with a Philco radio back then, these were all different makes. I remember Audiovox, Automatic Radio, and I think even a Blaupunkt made it in there at the higher end. I remember the one we got in the 1100 did not have station presets, but had 2 or 3 buttons on the front for what I believe was treble, midrange and bass. I think it was Audiovox but I can't be sure.

andre1969

I guess one thing that was really a slap in the face for the T-bird, is that in 1980, the 200 inline 6, all 88 horsepower of it, became a credit option somewhat late in the year. The 115 hp 255 V-8, which was a smaller-bore version of the 302, was the official standard engine. The 302, which had 131 hp by then, was standard on the $11,679 Silver Anniversary special. For comparison, the base T-bird that year started at $6432, and a Riviera or Toronado started in the mid/upper $11K range.

For 1981, the 200 became standard, with the 255 being standard in the "Heritage", which basically replaced the Silver Anniversary. The 302 was once again optional across the board. Sales dropped from 156,803 to 86,693. In comparison, the Monte Carlo, with its modern updating, saw a boost from 148,842 to 187,850. The majority of the Monte Carlo's sales came from the cheaper Sport Coupe, rather than the more expensive Landau. My book doesn't break out sales of the T-bird by trim level, but I'd imagine the majority of sales were the base model.

For 1982, that was probably when the T-bird hit rock bottom. Standard engine was still the 88 hp 200, although the newly introduced 232 V-6, with 112 hp, was an option. The 255 was standard again, on the Heritage, optional on others. Sales shrunk to 45,142. 1982 was a bad year for the auto industry in general, though. The Monte Carlo, which saw a brief surge for '81, fell back to 92,392 units this year.

1983, while still a horrible year for the auto industry in general, was definitely a turnaround year for the T-bird. The new aero style sold 121,999. And it also a return to the 302 as an option, with the 255 being dropped. And, the introduction of the turbo coupe. The Monte Carlo, meanwhile, only sold 91,605 units, plus an additional 4714 of the new SS.

roadburner

I loved the 1984 T Bird Turbo Coupe that I ran as my work beater from 1993-1998. I thought the subsequent generation was a step backwards.

andre1969

Didn't the '89+ T-bird and Cougar sort of get too big and heavy, for its own good? I think it was actually a few inches shorter than the '83-88 style, but was wider, on a longer wheelbase, and considerably heavier. I know they seemed popular for a few years, but by then they were pretty much the only game in town if you still wanted a RWD domestic personal luxury coupe. With the Regal/Grand Prix/Cutlass Supreme going FWD, and the Monte Carlo going away for awhile, they pretty much had no real competition any more. Well, there was the Chevy Lumina. Its coupe sold about 43,000 in the first model year, 1990, but sales went nowhere but down.

Michaell

andre1969 said:

Didn't the '89+ T-bird and Cougar sort of get too big and heavy, for its own good? I think it was actually a few inches shorter than the '83-88 style, but was wider, on a longer wheelbase, and considerably heavier. I know they seemed popular for a few years, but by then they were pretty much the only game in town if you still wanted a RWD domestic personal luxury coupe. With the Regal/Grand Prix/Cutlass Supreme going FWD, and the Monte Carlo going away for awhile, they pretty much had no real competition any more. Well, there was the Chevy Lumina. Its coupe sold about 43,000 in the first model year, 1990, but sales went nowhere but down.

The entire design team responsible for the '89 T-Bird got fired, IIRC

fintail

I remember at least where I lived, the 89+ Bird was a big deal for the middle aged woman demographic. I think my mom might have wanted one at least at one time. IIRC many of the early ones had the 3.8, and we all know how that can end.

tjc78

My mom had a 96 Thunderbird with the wimpy 3.8. The 4.6 was soooooo much better. Stepdad wanted the V8 but got such a great deal on the leftover 96 that it was worth it.

It was a very 90s Pacific Green over tan. She loved that car.

benjaminh

Back in 1996 I wanted a new Thunderbird V-8 in a slightly sparkly white color that probably had pearl in the name. I saw one in a parking lot back then that was exactly what I wanted and thought it was good looking and luxurious, and yet bit like a BMW 6-series of the era. I almost certainly would have been happier with that than with the Focus I got three years later....

ab348

Michaell said:

The entire design team responsible for the '89 T-Bird got fired, IIRC

They must have gone rogue and done the whole development process over a period of years in secret with no executive oversight by anyone in Ford management. How they got the money is anyone's guess.

I remember hearing that there were serious cost overruns and targets for weight and component costs were badly missed, but somehow nobody stopped it and pressed the reset button. I actually liked the resulting car, at least prior to the refresh that gave the front end a look like it had just sucked a lemon. Never cared for the Cougar version much regardless though.

fintail

I recall the final run of those facelift models were held as collectibles by some buyers. Not sure how well that strategy held up, but I think overall the design aged well. I have a memory of looking at the prior facelift model with my dad, I think it was also a leftover car, maybe dark green or dark blue, with single spoke blade/directional style wheels.

In 96 or 97 I recall a friend's mom got a new Cougar, white (maybe that pearl white) with grey leather. and loaded I think, moonroof etc. It seemed pretty decent for what it was, the last gasp of the personal luxury coupe.

texases

fintail said:

I recall the final run of those facelift models were held as collectibles by some buyers. Not sure how well that strategy held up, but I think overall the design aged well.

I'm not seeing them cross the block with high bids at BJ (or any bids), so I think that strategy went into the dumper...

xwesx

Michaell said:

ab348 said:

I was out this AM and in traffic I pulled up behind/next to a Chevy Trailblazer SS. I had never seen one before and either had forgotten or never knew they existed. It was a pretty sharp-looking rig. Research when I returned home revealed it had the 2006 6-liter LS2 V-8 from the Corvette. Don't know how I missed that.

A neighbor down the street from me has one. Still sounds good.

I had a friend with one as well. It was a solid performer, but man that thing fell apart around its drivetrain.

ab348

The BaT yellow bird Seville was a no sale having failed to meet reserve. The high bid was $15,250.

fintail

Saw a ~1988 McLaren on the road. A Mustang McLaren, the 2 seat conversion. Pretty uncommon.

Michaell

Regarding the overweighted travel T-Bird, I used to travel 20 weeks a year for about 10 years. Rented a bunch of forgettable vehicles in that time, but I do remember getting a T-Bird with the V8 in Dallas once.

Big, yes.
Comfortable, also yes.

Also, more fun than something that size ought to be.

Had rain one day and I remember doing donuts in the empty hotel parking lot.

Ah, to be young and dumb again.

uplanderguy

For styling, I thought it was hard to beat the '87-88 Thunderbird. The next ones just looked so gargantuan to me for a two-door car, although I understand they had a decent back seat, something the '83's and later weren't exactly known for. I don't know why Ford wouldn't have offered three-across seating in those cars with a fold-down center armrest, which would've been my choice. Could you get a floor shift in the '89 and later cars? I don't recall. Ford had a habit for a long time in Thunderbirds of making you get bucket seats and console, but having column shift.