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

kyfdx

@uplanderguy

andre1969

That Bonneville is actually an '87-91, not sure why they mislabeled it. I didn't really care for that style when it came out, but I think it's aged fairly well. I remember when it came out, reviewers were commenting that GM could only do so much differentiating it from the LeSabre/88, because it still used that fairly formal roofline, but that they did a fairly good job, nonetheless. It was probably about the sportiest big Pontiac since, what, maybe 1969? Starting in '70, the big Pontiacs seemed to me like they were starting to trade off sportiness for more of a neoclassic/personal luxury coupe, although they could certainly be good performers with the right engine, at least until emissions controls strangled them.

I don't think the '92-99 Bonneville aged well at all, though. It almost seemed too cartoonish, like a caricature of itself, and the proportions seemed a bit off. It redeemed itself, in my opinion, for 2000. Still an awful lot of Ribs & Wings, but I still thought it looked like a big improvement.

kyfdx

andre1969 said:

That Bonneville is actually an '87-91, not sure why they mislabeled it. I didn't really care for that style when it came out, but I think it's aged fairly well. I remember when it came out, reviewers were commenting that GM could only do so much differentiating it from the LeSabre/88, because it still used that fairly formal roofline, but that they did a fairly good job, nonetheless. It was probably about the sportiest big Pontiac since, what, maybe 1969? Starting in '70, the big Pontiacs seemed to me like they were starting to trade off sportiness for more of a neoclassic/personal luxury coupe, although they could certainly be good performers with the right engine, at least until emissions controls strangled them.

I don't think the '92-99 Bonneville aged well at all, though. It almost seemed too cartoonish, like a caricature of itself, and the proportions seemed a bit off. It redeemed itself, in my opinion, for 2000. Still an awful lot of Ribs & Wings, but I still thought it looked like a big improvement.

What was the top one? SSEi? Those were over the top.

andre1969

They changed it around a bit over the years, but when the top version started using the supercharged V6, they called it the SSEi.

I remember a joke going around that they were going to call the next one the SSEiEiO.

uplanderguy

I remember the Buicks and Oldses (LeSabres and Eighty-Eights) much-more than the Bonnevilles of the same era for some reason.

Although I like the four-headlight versions best for looks, I'd probably choose a later LeSabre for upgraded 4-speed FWD transmission. One year they had a striking (to me) light turquoise metallic. I could still very much enjoy a LeSabre coupe of that color...the last of the domestic FWD large coupes.

tjc78

1994 personified


Oh and Chrysler did it too...


Wait... Ford started it all in 1990

uplanderguy

I guess I meant wheels that were painted a flat silver, like a plastic hubcap.

I don't like chrome wheels, but I do like polished/machined wheels, which are about a non-thing anymore.

When I was renting cars constantly in the '80's, I remember thinking entry-level Japanese cars looked like someone stole the hubcaps--but they were this way on purpose, LOL!

tjc78

Ford had a wheel on the early Taurus models that had a plastic type spoke. It could have easily been mistaken for a hubcap.

fintail

My mom's 93 Taurus had these rather flat wheels, which were loud and proud about being period correct in their design:



I recall I knew a kid in high school who's parents let him use a ~90 Mazda 626 - it seemed very nice, white with white wheels.

Those Pontiac 3 spokes always make me think of Brabus Monoblock IIs, a somewhat popular aftermarket item in the late 80s/early 90s:



Although the Saab 900 SPG might have done it first/most:



IIRC MB also had a 3 spoke option for SLK around the turn of the century.

uplanderguy

I definitely remember that Saab wheel! Been a while though.

That early Taurus wheel at least was chromed around the edge of the wheel, which helps in my eyes.

fintail

Even here, those Saabs are thin on the ground now.

My mom's Tempo had these wheels, but with a chrome ring like on those Taurus wheels - maybe a dealer-installed accessory, as they were always on the car, or maybe a GLX thing (the car also had chrome grille inserts, again, always on the car). These wheels always seemed odd to me, like they had a porous surface:

ab348

I was always fond of teardrop wheels, a fad that now seems to have disappeared. My GTI had the ones on the top, and the late-80s MR2 Supercharged had the similar ones on the bottom.

xwesx

tjc78 said:

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.

I agree. Those Pontiacs were among the most eye-catching of the era (for me).

uplanderguy

ab, I like those polished wheels--hard-pressed to think of anything with them now.

tjc78

The Panthers got in on the teardrop theme too. They just had it turned 90 degrees.

tjc78

These wheels always seemed odd to me, like they had a porous surface:

Yes, that is exactly how the Taurus wheel was I posted above. Strange Ford thing as I never noticed another make having wheels like that.

uplanderguy

I always liked the polished, lacey-looking wheel of the '91-96 Caprice Classics.

My '93 was a base model with the wire caps, passe for sure now but I did always think GM had the best wire wheelcovers--long spokes, a lot of them, and a small center.

fintail

MB has polished wheel faces available on some designs (my car has polished flat surfaces), but inside the spokes etc is grey.

sda

tjc78 said:

Ford had a wheel on the early Taurus models that had a plastic type spoke. It could have easily been mistaken for a hubcap.

That is the exact Taurus mom had. Same color, cornering lights, wheels, LX trim, an 87 model. It was a steel wheel with a polycast center and heavy. I always thought it was a boring design.

imidazol97

uplanderguy said:

I remember the Buicks and Oldses (LeSabres and Eighty-Eights) much-more than the Bonnevilles of the same era for some reason.

Although I like the four-headlight versions best for looks, I'd probably choose a later LeSabre for upgraded 4-speed FWD transmission. One year they had a striking (to me) light turquoise metallic. I could still very much enjoy a LeSabre coupe of that color...the last of the domestic FWD large coupes.

I think the last upgrade to the 4T65E was in 2003 for the H-bodies.

tjc78

sda said:

tjc78 said:

Ford had a wheel on the early Taurus models that had a plastic type spoke. It could have easily been mistaken for a hubcap.

That is the exact Taurus mom had. Same color, cornering lights, wheels, LX trim, an 87 model. It was a steel wheel with a polycast center and heavy. I always thought it was a boring design.

Please tell me it had digital dash!!

I know I’ve said this before but the first generation Taurus LX is still a nice looking car.

fintail

My uncle had a 91 Taurus, I don't remember if it was an LX, but I recall the cornering lights. It had these wheels, which I think might have also had the odd porous finish:



I remember that car caught fire in his driveway and was a total loss, not sure what caused that. He replaced it with a LeSabre he kept for a number of years.

sda

tjc78 said:

sda said:

tjc78 said:

Ford had a wheel on the early Taurus models that had a plastic type spoke. It could have easily been mistaken for a hubcap.

That is the exact Taurus mom had. Same color, cornering lights, wheels, LX trim, an 87 model. It was a steel wheel with a polycast center and heavy. I always thought it was a boring design.

Please tell me it had digital dash!!

I know I’ve said this before but the first generation Taurus LX is still a nice looking car.

Oddly it had the standard analog dash, fuel, speed, temp, idiot lights, no tach. It did have the premium stereo, sunroof, light package that had lighted halos around the locks when the door handle was lifted, along with lighting up the interior. It was bought used in 89 with 13k and traded at 60k in 2000 for a 98 Olds Aurora, with sunroof, autobahn package.

fintail

One last Taurus thing, my uncle's car before that was an 86 Taurus L, an early car with wheel covers like this (but his had a passenger mirror):



I remember that car vividly, as it seemed so new and modern at the time, I remember him receiving a compliment about it. It was an L, so not high spec, but it had the 3.0 V6. I am pretty sure it had manual windows, and it had a very low cut cloth interior that I kind of liked. For some reason, I really liked the digital clock in the car - maybe something unique to early Taurus, it glowed kind of a blue-green I think, and looked cool.

sda

fintail said:

One last Taurus thing, my uncle's car before that was an 86 Taurus L, an early car with wheel covers like this (but his had a passenger mirror):



I remember that car vividly, as it seemed so new and modern at the time, I remember him receiving a compliment about it. It was an L, so not high spec, but it had the 3.0 V6. I am pretty sure it had manual windows, and it had a very low cut cloth interior that I kind of liked. For some reason, I really liked the digital clock in the car - maybe something unique to early Taurus, it glowed kind of a blue-green I think, and looked cool.

They were cool cars and had a lot of neat features not found on most cars. It drove well with a European supple and controlled ride and better handling than most domestics and Asians . The 3.0 Vulcan V6 was a groaner, not very energetic, but economical and reliable. When I said I found the design boring, I meant the design of the polycast wheels on mom’s LX. Those trim rings were difficult to put on and were frequently damaged when tires were changed. I liked the later year wheels better.

fintail

I recall the transmission went on my uncle's 3.0, and the head gasket went on my mom's 3.8. No way to win? (I suspect the 4 was overtaxed in that application).

sda said:

They were cool cars and had a lot of neat features not found on most cars. It drove well with a European supple and controlled ride and better handling than most domestics and Asians . The 3.0 Vulcan V6 was a groaner, not very energetic, but economical and reliable. When I said I found the design boring, I meant the design of the polycast wheels on mom’s LX. Those trim rings were difficult to put on and were frequently damaged when tires were changed. I liked the later year wheels better.

uplanderguy

RE.: The Bonnevilles of '92-99 I think, like the white one above....I think those Bonnevilles were pretty popular around here, and to my eyes looked better than the one before. You could get them without all the cladding and such. I always thought from the rear, they reminded me of an Avanti, with the 'tuck under' look there and taillights.

Later iterations of those Bonnes, when I pulled up behind them, looked angry/threatening, LOL--the taillights were in a perpetual scowl.

Boy, my knowledge/memory of even GM cars in the late '80's and '90's has diminished. I guess that's what trying to make a career, and losing interest in the product, will do. After the last RWD V8 GM cars, I just generally wasn't all that terribly interested anymore. The late '70's downsizing intrigued me, though. The direction of the entire industry in the '90's and later became a bore to me. SUV's aren't doing it for me now.

I did rent an Enclave in CA last year. I enjoyed the quiet. I honestly thought, "I haven't driven a car with this little road noise since my Cobalt". For real.

andre1969

"Quote" rel="uplanderguy">After the last RWD V8 GM cars, I just generally wasn't all that terribly interested anymore. The late '70's downsizing intrigued me, though. The direction of the entire industry in the '90's and later became a bore to me. SUV's aren't doing it for me now.

I did rent an Enclave in CA last year. I enjoyed the quiet. I honestly thought, "I haven't driven a car with this little road noise since my Cobalt". For real.

I'm kind of the same way. I wonder if it's a combination of getting older, finding other things that are more important in life, and just the industry getting a bit more boring in general?

I used to be able to keep track of most of the annual changes and all sorts of details and such. But, I'm noticing that with newer cars, I don't. For example, a couple weeks ago I was at the Nissan dealer with a friend, and on their used car lot they had a 2017 Kia Optima that caught my eye, for some reason. I think it was a combination of a nice color (kind of GM-Firethorn-ish), and it seemed like a decent price. But, I couldn't tell you the first thing about it, without looking it up. Off the top of my head, I have no idea how big its engine is, when the Optima was last redesigned, how much horsepower it has, etc. I'd have to look all that up.

Same thing with the Enclave. I can't, for the life of me, remember what year it first came out. I want to say 2006, without looking it up. I think it was given a mid-cycle refresh at some point. And I know there's a new one out now, but couldn't tell you what year it was redesigned, without looking it up.

I wonder if part of it is that they don't restyle cars every year anymore, and it takes much longer to get a total redesign out. And, thanks to aerodynamics, government regulation, etc, the new design doesn't look that different from what it replaced, so it's kind of easy to lose interest. With trucks, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, etc, I think it's even worse, as they just seem to look even more of the same.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

RE.: The Bonnevilles of '92-99 I think, like the white one above....I think those Bonnevilles were pretty popular around here, and to my eyes looked better than the one before. You could get them without all the cladding and such.

Yes, I agree. Despite the car magazines loving the ‘80s version when it first arrived, I always thought it looked awkward with the boxy greenhouse and the slopey front and rear ends. The 2nd-gen looked much better while the third gen didn’t work quite as well for me, almost angry or threatening.

What let these down was the dash and interior. I remember looking at one and being overwhelmed by all the buttons and sliders.

Boy, my knowledge/memory of even GM cars in the late '80's and '90's has diminished. I guess that's what trying to make a career, and losing interest in the product, will do. After the last RWD V8 GM cars, I just generally wasn't all that terribly interested anymore. The late '70's downsizing intrigued me, though. The direction of the entire industry in the '90's and later became a bore to me. SUV's aren't doing it for me now.

I’m similar but mostly because I was not in the market from the early ‘90s until early ‘00s.

uplanderguy

Even with our largely divergent tastes here, I think this group is above-average mentally.

On Facebook and in ads, I always laugh at how often people write, "I have a 79' Grand Prix", or whatever.

Seventy-nine feet? LOL

Also, how about "new breaks" in an ad?

Sheesh.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

Even with our largely divergent tastes here, I think this group is above-average mentally.

On Facebook and in ads, I always laugh at how often people write, "I have a 79' Grand Prix", or whatever.

Seventy-nine feet? LOL

Also, how about "new breaks" in an ad?

Sheesh.

What about "bumbers" and "break peddle"? On one forum an idiot posted about having a "raddle" in his dash. I suggested that the cause was likely a raddlesnake.

sda

fintail said:

I recall the transmission went on my uncle's 3.0, and the head gasket went on my mom's 3.8. No way to win? (I suspect the 4 was overtaxed in that application).

sda said:

They were cool cars and had a lot of neat features not found on most cars. It drove well with a European supple and controlled ride and better handling than most domestics and Asians . The 3.0 Vulcan V6 was a groaner, not very energetic, but economical and reliable. When I said I found the design boring, I meant the design of the polycast wheels on mom’s LX. Those trim rings were difficult to put on and were frequently damaged when tires were changed. I liked the later year wheels better.

In 86 and perhaps 87 they had an M-5, the 4 cylinder with a 5 speed manual. Still not very sporty. It looked pretty nice, I think to appeal to the those not looking at domestics. Too bad they didn't mate it with the V6, though the SHO introduced in 88 took care of that,.

omarman

Camero is #1!

"No.1 Chevrolet Camero Z28 driven by Nigel Stuart at the Cholmondeley Pageant of Power."

uplanderguy

Chevrolet Camero

You're killing me! That's just lazy!

I read a recent online article on the Studebaker Champ pickup the other day. It mentions only being available in 1/2 ton. If the author had spent a minute (literally) checking out the brochure online, he'd see that 3/4 ton was also available. This isn't hard stuff, but once it's in print, someone will say (and I had a moderator do this before), "This website says not!".

Exhausting.

andre1969

Thought y'all would get a kick out of this...

fintail

I've seen one MT-5, ever. I think the engine in that was related to a Tempo engine, probably a bit small for a car of that size with American driving style.

sda said:

In 86 and perhaps 87 they had an M-5, the 4 cylinder with a 5 speed manual. Still not very sporty. It looked pretty nice, I think to appeal to the those not looking at domestics. Too bad they didn't mate it with the V6, though the SHO introduced in 88 took care of that,.

fintail

I don't remember that scene in the movies

That reminds me of this car, auctioned not too long ago - I remember reading a "making of" type of article where they said the Packard behaved beautifully during filming, maybe something like it ran better than the DeLorean.

andre1969 said:

Thought y'all would get a kick out of this...

stickguy

Not classic or old, but one of those Land Rover convertible crosscab clones. Weird.

uplanderguy

A guy I used to work with bought a new Taurus 4-cyl. 5-speed not long after he moved to WV and got a job there. I visited him once when it was fairly new. I saw it but don't remember much about it, other than thinking it was bold of Ford to offer a stick, even in a four-cylinder, in a family sedan that large.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

Not classic or old, but one of those Land Rover convertible crosscab clones. Weird.

Top up or down?

stickguy

Up.

explorerx4

I have a picture I took of the first Taurus, but couldn't find it.
Found this pic though.
Posted a pic of my grandson in the Mustang a few days ago.
Here's one of his Mom in the same car 29 years ago when she wasn't quite 2.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

Up.

I think it looks decent with the top up. They tried to mimic the hardtop roofline. Unlike the Murano monstrosity.

stickguy

It was not bad, but it was also black paint so not much contrast.

andre1969

I vaguely remember someone at work, back in the 1990's, having one of those MT-5 Tauruses. I had to look it up, but yeah, the 2.5 was a longer-stroke version of the 2.3 4-cyl used in the Tempo. Which itself was essentially the old Falcon 6-cyl with two cylinders lopped off.

These days, it probably seems ludicrous to think of an engine like that in the Taurus, but in those days, it was still common for smaller midsized cars to offer a 4-cyl. The Celebrity et al all offered the 2.5 Iron Duke as standard. The closest Chrysler competition was probably the Dodge 600 and Plymouth Caravelle, and they only offered a 2.2, 2.6 "Hemi" (I get a kick out of calling it that ) and the 2.2 turbo. And even the outgoing LTD/Marquis offered a 2.3 as the standard engine, although I imagine most of them had the 3.8/232 V6.

I thought it was curious that Ford saw fit to use the old inline-6 tooling for the 2.3/2.5, rather than just use the existing OHC 2.3. According to Wikipedia though, there was just too much demand for the OHC version, so the pushrod 2.3 and 2.5 were introduced as an alternative. Maybe it was also an excuse to keep the plant that had made the old 200-6 cyl from going idle.

sda

The Ford 170 and 200 sixes were dogs. The 2.5 four in the Taurus had around 90hp. Regardless of transmission that car had to be a slug. The 3.0 Vulcan V6 was around 140hp, a huge difference.

andre1969

One of the worst 0-60 times I can remember seeing in recent memory was of an early Mercury Comet with the 144 and 2-speed automatic. I think it was around 26 seconds!

I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that tested a Mercury Topaz with the 2.3 and 3-speed automatic, and it did 0-60 in 15.9 seconds. It was one of the slowest cars in that auto issue, although I seem to recall something, like a 4-cyl Cherokee maybe, doing 17.3.

My stepdad had an '84 Tempo with the automatic, and I remember driving it, once. At the time, I had a 1980 Malibu with a 229 V6 that my Mom had given me. My stepdad took it for the day, because he said he wanted to go over it and see if it had any issues that I wasn't noticing. I was in high school, and it was summer vacation, but I still had to go to work, so he let me drive his Tempo. Good LORD what a dog!

That Malibu was anything but a musclecar, but compared to the Tempo, plus the cars most of my friends were driving at the time, it might as well have been a GTO. I'm sure I'd hate driving that Malibu nowadays, but at the time it didn't seem half bad.

My stepdad's Tempo was actually a fairly durable car, though. I know it had some issues, but can't remember what they were, now. But when they traded it on a '91 Stanza, it had about 160,000 miles on the original engine/transmission. It was a GL model, which I think was a mid-range at the time. From what I remember it wasn't half bad inside, when it came to material quality. It was just slow. And, in my opinion, ugly.

sda

I had forgotten about the weakling 140 six, and with a 2 speed auto, yuck. I preferred the looks of the Topaz over the Tempo. In 85 or 86 Ford introduced a Tempo Sport with a higher output 2.3 (100hp?), 5 speed manual, sport wheels, sport type bucket seats and other upgrades. I liked that one somewhat and it was modestly priced. It looked good in a medium silver-blue and lighter colored interior. I think my 84 Plymouth Horizon SE with the 2.2 and 5 speed would dust it.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

Also, how about "new breaks" in an ad?

Sheesh.

They're not wrong.... Inevitably, new always breaks.

xwesx

andre1969 said:

Thought y'all would get a kick out of this...

The '55 DeLorean was a rare beast, indeed!