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

tjc78

Nice survivor, but not something I’d like to drive everyday compared to a modern truck. Interior in those is pretty bad too.

fintail

Those S10s were a thing when I was in high school, I knew several guys with one - they were ~10 years old at the time and had depreciated enough to be useful for young drivers. A 4x4 was the status model, of course.

Speaking of those, I saw a Syclone this morning - not something seen every day, or week, or month.

uplanderguy

I think the upper trim level on this era S10 was called "Tahoe", before there was that other thing.

I don't know if I've ever seen a Syclone, anyplace besides when I used to go the Cleveland Auto Show.

fintail

There's at least one Typhoon running around the area, too. GM had some flashes of cool in the 90s.

On the road today saw a W124 cabrio, an STS-V, and while sitting at a long light at a 5 way intersection listening to the 90s Sirius/XM station, this pulled up across from me:

uplanderguy

That looks like a life-size kid's toy! An old friend used to say about any vehicle he saw with bumpers like that, "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers!". And Pontiac was accused of 'cladding'! LOL

I never got when people paid to have paint 'splashed' on a car, like on this one.

"Hello Kitty" too, ugh!

tjc78

I’m some ways that RAV started it all. It all meaning the fall of sedans .....

kyfdx

Amazing how cars hold up in the PNW. Looks new.

stickguy

tjc78 said:

I’m some ways that RAV started it all. It all meaning the fall of sedans .....

Sedans fell because other styles were a better fit for the needs of buyers. Give people something better than what they had, and they will gravitate toward it. 4 doors will likely always be around even if more of a niche market.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

That looks like a life-size kid's toy! An old friend used to say about any vehicle he saw with bumpers like that, "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers!". And Pontiac was accused of 'cladding'! LOL

Yes, I agree. I hated that first Rav4, not because I knew that it would be the first shot into the downfall of sedans (because I had no idea) but because they were just such awful-looking vehicles, especially the 2-doors like that. A baby step up from the hideous Suzuki X-90.

tjc78

IMO SUV's became "cool" and after that then their practicality became "needed". Before the SUV craze everyone was happy with Caravans (some even with cool woodgrain, lol)

At the end of the day the full size crossovers (Highlander, Enclave, Pallisade, etc) are tall minivans without sliding doors.

andre1969

One of my neighbors at the old house had one of those first-gen Rav-4s. Older guy who fell on hard times. I think it was a combination of a divorce, the Great Recession, and getting laid off all crashed down on him at once. I forget how many miles he told me he has on it, but it's up there. Last time I saw it was probably a couple months ago. 4-door model, dark green color, although these days it's mostly spray-paint green.

I had actually forgotten there was a 2-door version of the Rav-4! Maybe I'm mellowing out in my old age, or have just gotten worn down from decades of bombardment by increasingly badly styled vehicles, or a combination thereof, but the style of that Rav-4 doesn't really bother me. It actually looks a little more like a "trucklet" for lack of a better word, along the lines of a Tracker, than the more car-like crossovers that came later. But, I guess you could call it the starting salvo of the crossover. I'm sure they were a lot less truckish than a Tracker.

texases

Same here, that Rav4 looks fine for its time, no problem. And there isn't paint 'splashed' on it, those are adhesive stripes.

Michaell

My best friend just inherited a '99 RAV4 from his Aunt. 145k on it, and in immaculate condition. He's the one that also has the gen I G35 with fairly low miles.

He really likes it - practical and takes RUG, which is a big deal in California.

texases

"It" - the Rav4 or G35?

Michaell

texases said:

"It" - the Rav4 or G35?

The RAV4 - the G35 takes premium.

What's good is that with a multi-car discount, his total insurance bill actually went down.

stickguy

I noticed that when I had the 3rd car on the policy. It was very cheap once you got to more cars than drivers!

ab348

stickguy said:

I noticed that when I had the 3rd car on the policy. It was very cheap once you got to more cars than drivers!

There has been a periodic debate that insuring cars and not drivers is simply a scheme to increase insurance company profits, since you cannot drive more than one car at a time. Of course if you had multiple drivers in a household that argument goes out the window.

fintail

That RAV4 was something I rolled my eyes at when new too, but now doesn't offend me, probably a combination of 90s nostalgia and the shameless overstyling of modern cars. 2 door makes it unusual, along with those (stock) wheels.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

"Hello Kitty" too, ugh!

You missed her vanity license plate: "PURR4ME".

uplanderguy

Yes I had seen that, too cute for me, LOL.

tjc78

stickguy said:

I noticed that when I had the 3rd car on the policy. It was very cheap once you got to more cars than drivers!

Yeah, when I had the S10 as a third car it was something like $600 on the policy but when I took it off my total premium only went down about $300

stickguy

I would take a gen 1 RAV. If it was cheap and had a stick.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

I would take a gen 1 RAV. If it was cheap and had a stick.

I'd rather have a Gen I or II MR-2.

stickguy

Well, so would I.

xwesx

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

That looks like a life-size kid's toy! An old friend used to say about any vehicle he saw with bumpers like that, "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers!". And Pontiac was accused of 'cladding'! LOL

Yes, I agree. I hated that first Rav4, not because I knew that it would be the first shot into the downfall of sedans (because I had no idea) but because they were just such awful-looking vehicles, especially the 2-doors like that. A baby step up from the hideous Suzuki X-90.

So true. It's amazing, in some ways, that both this and the Highlander caught on fire after both their first generations were such mediocre performers and certainly nothing to look at.

xwesx

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

"Hello Kitty" too, ugh!

You missed her vanity license plate: "PURR4ME".

Hilarious. I can actually see that middle-aged driver as being the original owner, maybe purchased in her mid-20s... back when she was young enough to get away with that sort of cutesy-ness and keep a straight face doing it.

texases

We are way different. The first gen Highlander was great in my book, and with the V6 a sleeper.

tjc78

xwesx said:

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

That looks like a life-size kid's toy! An old friend used to say about any vehicle he saw with bumpers like that, "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers!". And Pontiac was accused of 'cladding'! LOL

Yes, I agree. I hated that first Rav4, not because I knew that it would be the first shot into the downfall of sedans (because I had no idea) but because they were just such awful-looking vehicles, especially the 2-doors like that. A baby step up from the hideous Suzuki X-90.

So true. It's amazing, in some ways, that both this and the Highlander caught on fire after both their first generations were such mediocre performers and certainly nothing to look at.

What was wrong with the first generation Highlander? My mom had a V6 model and it was actually very nice. Pretty roomy for it's size as well. I'm not looking it up but I'd bet it was sized like a current RAV4.

xwesx

texases said:

We are way different. The first gen Highlander was great in my book, and with the V6 a sleeper.

First gen had a V6?! I never had the pleasure. Keep in mind, my comparison at the time was with a 1996 Outback, and I found the one I drove to be sluggish and... disengaged. Good space, though.

tjc78

Yep the 3.3 from the ES and the Avalon.

The 4cyl was a little underwhelming but smooth and economical.

stickguy

the first gen Highlander was the only one I liked. definitely better with the 6 cylinder too of course

andre1969

I was curious, so I looked. The 2001 Highlander was on a 106.9" wb, and 184.3" long. The current Rav-4 is on a 105.9" wb, and is 179.9-181.1" long, per wikipedia. So, not a huge difference, really. I'd imagine the original Highlander is roomier inside, partly because it's boxier, but also partly because newer vehicles tend to have thicker doors, and are beefed up in general, to make them safer.

Meanwhile, the current Highlander is on a 112.2" wb, and 194.9" long. So, it's definitely bulked up, but still not what I'd think of as "huge". For comparison, I looked up my friend's 2017 Murano. It's on a 111.2" wb, and 192.9" long.

stickguy

the current highlander definitely feels bigger than that. I bet it is quite a bit wider too. Definitely taller.

185" to me is just about perfect. anything bigger is getting to be too big.

explorerx4

3rd row in the Highlander has never been very useable.
My 6 year old was cramped in the 3rd row when we tried it,

andre1969

I think SUVs and crossovers, maybe minivans too, tend to feel bigger and bulkier than their dimensions suggest. I know when my friend with the Murano had his 2006 Xterra, I never could back that sucker up worth a damn...and it was only 178.7"! I can back up my 2012 Ram, all 231 or so inches of it, a lot easier. I think it's because while I'm used to bigger vehicles, I'm not used to vehicles with longer rooflines, and that throws me off. I'm used to shorter roofs, like on a pickup truck, sedan, coupe, etc, but something like a wagon, minivan, suv, etc, throws me off. Plus, that Xterra had thick pillars, and bad visibility in general.

As for 185"? I've only owned on car that was shorter than that...the 1988 LeBaron turbo coupe, that I bought from my uncle, for my ex-wife to use when I was married. It was, wait for it...184.9"! For being based on the K-car, that thing was actually a pretty nice car for the time.

As for 3rd rows, didn't they try putting a 3rd row in the Rav-4? That seems like a stretch to me. Or rather, a squeeze. I think most vehicles that have a rear seat, whether a second row or third row, that's designed to fold forward, fold flat, be removed, etc, compromises some comfort for utility. Even with old school station wagons, the back seat often gave up some comfort compared to a 4-door sedan, because it was designed to fold flat or flip forward. I'd imagine that minivans probably have the best third row accommodations.

texases

I wish I could find something with the 1st gen Highlander's combination of interior room, visibility (HUGE windows, compared to today), performance (V6), and reliability, in a similar size. Two row only.

stickguy

nothing these days has that kind of visibility.

I have no need for a 3rd row so those CUV ones being useless doesn't matter to me, other than losing the cargo space under the floor.

I found our Odyssey to be very easy to drive. All the length in the back was not a big deal. Big windows so easy to see out of, and a nice short front end. It is the huge hoods on trucks these days that bother me.

explorerx4

I liked the 3 rows because each kid got their own row.

andre1969

I think it's really going to be hard to find that kind of overall blend with modern vehicles. I don't think anything is all that space-efficient these days, in relation to its overall size, simply because of the way they've beefed and thickened things up for safety, additional airbags, and so on. And more stringent side impact protection is probably what's responsible for those higher beltlines and smaller windows.

texases

Oh, I know it. Close would be a Forester, but the performance isn't the same, and Subaru seems to be having some oil burning issues withe the 2.5L, now that they (maybe) got the head gasket problem fixed).

andre1969

stickguy said:

It is the huge hoods on trucks these days that bother me.

That might be something that catches me off guard, the next time I'm in the market for a truck. I've heard that they were going to start making the hoods and front-ends taller and blockier, supposedly for pedestrian protection. Although, I dunno what's worse...getting thrown over the hood of a truck, or sticking to the front-end. With my Ram, the hood at least slopes down a bit, and the fender line really drops off, almost like those early 50's cars, where the fender line was still below the hood. And on my old '85 Silverado, its hood was short, flat, and sloped pretty far down. But these newer trucks seem taller, and bulkier.

stickguy

they are. The Freightliner I used to drive I could get within inches of a car ahead of me (that was fun!) because the front sloped down and you sat so high. Could easily see the front corners (the back, well, that was a long ways away). When I drove an F150 and a Silverado, I would stop 10' behind because I couldn't tell what the heck was in front of me and where. It was like looking over the bow of a tanker.

sda

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

"Hello Kitty" too, ugh!

You missed her vanity license plate: "PURR4ME".

Meow, not

fintail

She's either a furry or a dozen cats escape when she opens the door

uplanderguy

I'm thinking some Pontiacs used a wheel similar to that RAV's, but I used to scratch my head about when manufacturers started making wheels look like cheap plastic wheelcovers. It used to be they tried to make certain wheelcovers look like a wheel, LOL.

andre1969

Now that I think about it, back in the 90's a friend of mine had an '89 or so Toyota pickup (before they started naming them "Tacoma") that had wheels similar to that early Rav-4 above. I thought his were aftermarket, but now that I think about it, we knew a woman who had a Tercel, and she got something in the same style, on her car. I remember my friend with the pickup got his nose bent out of joint when he saw "his" rims on a Tercel!

For some reason, I'm picturing that same type of style on something like a Pontiac Grand Am.

uplanderguy

I was actually thinking late '80's or '90's Bonneville as well.

andre1969

I wonder if this is what my memory is going back to?

tjc78

That's the wheel I thought you were talking about. I don't mind that one at all. Actually for the 90s that was a good looking car IMO.

uplanderguy

I think I was originally thinking of this, although it's bright-finished:

https://www.carspecs.us/cars/1993/pontiac/bonneville/1808

Sorry I can't just copy the pic here; I use a cheap Samsung tablet with no mouse so there's no such thing as 'right click', even on the big square thing that substitutes for a mouse.

I miss the days of some brightwork on cars. and trucks. I think that's one reason that '89 S-10 I posted earlier just grabbed me.