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

sda

tjc78 said:

ab348 said:

These wheels look similar to (but are not identical, I don't think) to the ones we discussed on that '79 Town Coupe. Seller says they are 15"?

https://www.hemmings.com/parts/item/20626.html

I could swear they are 14” but now I’m not sure. I’ll have to dig around more. The 78 brochure I Googled up didn’t have the size of the wheels

They were H or L 78 15s on the Grand Marquis. The Firestone 500s that were recalled for belt separation.

roadburner

tjc78 said:

roadburner said:

andre1969 said:

Interesting, that the Caprice started off as the biggest dog, in 0-60, but redeemed itself in the quarter mile. I wonder if that's a result of those small primary/big secondary 4-bbl carbs that I've heard GM was famous for in those days? I used to hear people preferred the 4-bbl to the 2-bbl, because you could get better economy if you drove it gently.

The GM Quadrajet was a brilliant piece of engineering. You can precisely tune the power and cruise mixtures as well as adjust when the power circuit cuts in. It has mechanical secondaries but there is a spring tensioned air valve above them that can be adjusted to open exactly when needed. Solex essentially copied it when they designed their 4V carburetor.

Yes it is... but it’s amazing how many people hate them.

It's because some people won't take the time to understand how they work. On a Holley, you basically have a handful of adjustments that you can make- jets, power valve, accelerator pump cams and nozzles, and the secondary spring on cars with vacuum secondaries. On a Q-Jet you have dozens and dozens of jet and metering rod combinations alone.

stickguy

I heard the same thing about the old Volvo (and others) carbs. SUs? something that was really good, but just required someone that knew what they were doing to get them set up in the first place.

roadburner

stickguy said:

I heard the same thing about the old Volvo (and others) carbs. SUs? something that was really good, but just required someone that knew what they were doing to get them set up in the first place.

SUs are likewise different; those too lazy to understand how they work like to blame the carbs for their own ignorance.

stickguy

I remember an older WheelerDealers where Edd cleaned up and rebalanced a set of SUs that was way out of whack. It was really quite an interesting process. Actually simple process (and tools), just required a little bit of patience and understanding what to do. Definitely more of "feel" thing as opposed to high tech.

roadburner

I used to balance SU by Hitachi carbs using two methods:
Measuring the RPM drop when you lifted the air valve on one carb(essentially shutting it off)
Listening to each carb throat using a length of rubber hose

stickguy

out driving tonight was a VW 4 door crew cab van/PU Only got a quick look, but it looked like a late run rear engine. Not something I was expecting to see out and about. Like this, but obviously not an ornament.

andre1969

tjc78 said:

ab348 said:

These wheels look similar to (but are not identical, I don't think) to the ones we discussed on that '79 Town Coupe. Seller says they are 15"?

https://www.hemmings.com/parts/item/20626.html

I could swear they are 14” but now I’m not sure. I’ll have to dig around more. The 78 brochure I Googled up didn’t have the size of the wheels

I have a feeling those are 15" wheels. But, because so much of the outer part is plain and smooth, with most of the detail concentrated on the center, it might trick the eye into thinking it's a smaller rim. Some of it might be tire size, as well. I think of those turbine style rims as more of a sporty thing, and more likely to have a 70-series tire, whereas I could see a 75-series being more common with the polished aluminum wheels.

Would Ford have put a 14" rim on something as big as a '79 Lincoln? I know when the Panther came out, the Fords and Mercurys, at least, had a 14" rim standard. Not sure about the '80 Lincolns, though. I wouldn't think they'd only put a 14" rim on a pre-downsized full-sizer.

As for those polished rims in the Hemmings ad, even though it says "Ford Thunderbird, Torino, Elite, Lincoln Continental 15" " I have a feeling they're not going to fit anything based on the '72-79 Ford midsized platform. A '72-76 Thunderbird, or a Mark IV/Mark V, and the big pre-downsized Continentals, yes. I have a feeling those midsized cars were on the 4.5" bolt pattern, and all the big'uns were on the 5".

kyfdx

Yesterday, late '70s Impala wagon.

Noticed some Holley stickers on it, so looked a little closer.

Manual floor shift, and a vanity plate that suggested it had an LSX swap.

Pretty cool. Plenty of patina. Didn't have my phone, or I would have taken a picture.

uplanderguy

All are dog slow by today’s standards and 10mpg to boot.

But more interesting to some of us and far-more-able to be individually tailored to buyer's tastes.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

All are dog slow by today’s standards and 10mpg to boot.

But more interesting to some of us and far-more-able to be individually tailored to buyer's tastes.

Looking at it through the old rose-tinted glasses, it seems like buying a new car was more fun in those days, because there was more variety to choose from. In contrast, nowadays all I have to do is think about shopping for a car, and I get a headache!

I wonder if the typical new-car buyer back in 1976 had that same attitude, though? Hating the new choices, and reminiscing about the "good old days". Maybe it's just a rite of passage we go through, as we get older? I could see a new car buyer in '76, trying to choose the Caprice, Gran Fury, or LTD, being annoyed that there were fewer choices. For example, nobody offered a convertible anymore. The LTD also had no hardtops at all. The Caprice didn't offer a hardtop coupe. The Gran Fury didn't offer a hardtop sedan. They were probably also griping about the relative lack of engine choices, but to be fair, by this time, you really didn't want a 6-cyl or a 302/305/318 in a car this massive.

Depending on what type of vehicle you're looking for, the choices might be better these days. Especially if you want an SUV, crossover, etc. Now, if you want a full-sized sedan or a personal luxury coupe, you're kinda screwed!

fintail

Out in the snow yesterday spotted a 2 door hatch Citation, looked to be in decent condition, I guess it was using the FWD advertised as such a big capability at the time. I always thought those cars had kind of a "football" shape to the rear especially.

Regarding new cars, there's definitely a "good old days" syndrome. I remember reading something about MBs and customer complaints, as apparently they hold on to such data. Going back at least to when fintails replaced pontons, people complained about the old cars being better than their replacement, happens with every generation.

andre1969

I remember a 1959 issue of Consumer Reports, where they had printed some letters that subscribers had sent in, one of them asked if it was possible for GM to roll their sheetmetal any thinner. So even back then, people had the "don't build 'em the way they used to" mentality. I can also remember an episode of "Speed Racer" where an old man driving a Model T was griping about new cars and how it just wasn't the same...although in this case I think he was mainly griping about automatic transmissions, but then changed his tune when Speed told him the Mach 5 had a stick.

fintail

I bet many gripes today are about simple lack of choice, either in bodystyle, trim, or colors. I suspect even the diehard somewhat whiny Luddite types know modern cars have generally high build quality, are easier to live with, and can rack up miles at least as good as anything in the past. But color choices have sharply declined, trims and option choices have often been pared down (for 2021 can't get a formal grille/hood ornament on a MB E-class in this market, and the idea of non-tuned BMW with a manual here is laughable), and as mentioned, if you want a larger sedan or coupe and don't have Scrooge McDuck's vault, it's tough. But if you want a dull CUV, fancy compensator pickup, or upper lux car, these are the days.

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 Joe Oldham's 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 definitely on the slow side of average for performance cars these days. 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. My M235i returns similar fuel economy but runs the 1/4 mile in 12.9 seconds. Even my wife's X1 runs the quarter in 14.6(equivalent to a stock 1988 M6 or or 1968 383 Road Runner). That said, I love the musclecars from that era; if I had the money and garage space I'd have a Boss 302, an XR7-G, an AAR Cuda, a GSX, and a Ram Air IV Judge- but I still definitely believe that "the good old days" are NOW.

fintail

Today I can drive a 4300 lb station wagon that can pull a comfortably sub-5 second 0-60 yet still obtain ~30 mpg in highway cruising. That's some progress.

stickguy

an X1 might run the same 1/4 miles time as a Boss 302, but it will never be as cool, sound as good, or smell as bad.

ab348

sda said:

All are dog slow by today’s standards and 10mpg to boot.

Yet people go ga-ga over a vehicle like a Crosstrek, which is close to that level of slowness and handles about as well too. Of course it does get good gas mileage.

stickguy

a Crosstrek is like a Porsche on the racetrack compared to one of those barges. And still more than fast enough to keep up with traffic.

ab348

It's a distinction without a difference.

uplanderguy

I think an old cranky buyer in the sixties or seventies at least couldn't whine that there weren't as many choices of product models, or colors, than in the 'old days'--unless he was lamenting the lack of independent makers then.

It does seem like people have longer memories now. I don't remember hearing, for example, someone saying they wouldn't buy a new '70 Mopar because their '41 was bad, but there was a guy on an old Edmunds forum I used to be on who couldn't post a single thing not complaining how his Neon wasn't 1/10 the car his new Audi is, SMH. I don't imagine price point and a quarter-century of engineering updates might have contributed a small thing or two to that, either? LOL

sda

Today’s cars are better in every way. I do miss not having a greater selection of exterior and interior colors. I do not miss vinyl tops, heavy trim moldings, continental kits. I think it would have been fun to special order a car with the exact options, color that I wanted. My grandmother special ordered her 68 Cutlass S. I remember her being very excited as she waited for it to be built. It couldn’t arrive soon enough.

uplanderguy

It does seem to me, just listening to people for the past decade or so, that when a problem does arrive in today's vehicles, it leans more catastrophic ($$)--e.g., modules, etc.--than in those old days, I guess because the cars were so much simpler mechanically then.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

It does seem to me, just listening to people for the past decade or so, that when a problem does arrive in today's vehicles, it leans more catastrophic ($$)--e.g., modules, etc.--than in those old days, I guess because the cars were so much simpler mechanically then.

That's definitely true. For instance, whenever the MAF sensor in my 2003 Regal fails, it's about $630, parts and labor, to replace. I've had to have it replace three times, and I've only had possession of the car since June of 2017! Luckily, one time it failed was within a warranty period. My mechanic had to fight with the supplier, but he was able to get it done for free. I asked him why they fail so often, and he said it's because the only place you can get stuff like that anymore is aftermarket, which usually means overseas, manufactured on the cheap, and with spotty quality.

Wanna know how many times the MAF sensor has failed in my '57 DeSoto, in the 29 years that I've owned it? Three guesses, but you'll probably only need one

Cars are so complex these days, that they have components that can fail, and total out a car if it's old enough. Components that didn't even exist in older cars.

Now that I think about it, the MAF sensor went out on my 2000 Park Avenue, as well.

One of my relatives had a '91 Park Ave that had electrical issues. It ran, but could be troublesome. I remember him saying it would cost about $4,000 to fix, and this was back around 2003! I don't know what exactly happened to that car, as this is a distant relative that I'm not really that close to.

tjc78

I'm sure these days there are many a running/driving car that meets it's demise due to some emissions equipment failing or body control module, etc

Sometimes it's just not worth fixing.

roadburner

stickguy said:

an X1 might run the same 1/4 miles time as a Boss 302, but it will never be as cool, sound as good, or smell as bad.

My point was that even relatively pedestrian CUVs are faster than many of the hot cars of the past.
Me, I'd take my M6 over most any '60s musclecar.

roadburner

sda said:

Today’s cars are better in every way. I do miss not having a greater selection of exterior and interior colors. I do not miss vinyl tops, heavy trim moldings, continental kits. I think it would have been fun to special order a car with the exact options, color that I wanted. My grandmother special ordered her 68 Cutlass S. I remember her being very excited as she waited for it to be built. It couldn’t arrive soon enough.

I did order my Club Sport; I only had three options(LSD, sunroof and Premium Sound) and two colors(Black or Bright Red) to choose from. Munich attempted to force me to take the sunroof, but my salesperson went to bat for me and my car was built without a hole in the roof. I ordered it in August 1995 as it was a limited production model(200) and I had to reserve a spot. SOP wasn't until October; mine was built 10/10/95 and I picked it up in Chicago on 11/18/95.

When I worked at BMW we could order any SUV built by BMW Manufacturing at Greer, SC and have it on the lot in 2-3 weeks. Any other car or SUV took about 90 days. If a client wanted a custom paint or upholstery from BMW Individual an extra 90 days had to be added on.
When I looked into ordering a new Wrangler the dealer I spoke with wasn't especially enthusiastic at the prospect.

andre1969

roadburner said:

stickguy said:

an X1 might run the same 1/4 miles time as a Boss 302, but it will never be as cool, sound as good, or smell as bad.

My point was that even relatively pedestrian CUVs are faster than many of the hot cars of the past.
Me, I'd take my M6 over most any '60s musclecar.

I think older cars have a certain sense of adventure, and danger, even, to them, that might make them more exciting and intriguing than the modern cars that are out there. And, they'd jerk you around, so you felt like you were going faster than you really were.

As a daily driver though, most old musclecars would be a pain to live with on a regular basis. They tend to run hot, they're loud, the short gearing always makes them sound like they're going faster than they are, etc. They go out of tune every 15 minutes. Chances are, they're not going to have air conditioning. The brakes are going to fade after 2 or 3 hard stops. They're going to squeak and rattle, and if they have leaf springs in the rear you're going to get some serious axle hop on rough roads. And even the other types of suspension aren't going to give you that "riding on rails" feeling. Unless you're talking a 1920's wooden roller coaster.

uplanderguy

I wish the improved tech wasn't offset by so many things that made shopping for a car so much-more fun for me though.

stickguy

I know I might be on an island of one here (in this group) but IMO there are very few cars these days that are not easily under the threshold of being fast enough. Is more HP and/or a little faster nice? maybe, in vacuum. But at some point it's probably just bragging rights, or something that will almost never come close to being used.

and in reality, it isn't really free. $ up front, more gas used, higher maintenance costs all come into play. So you have to make a decision on how important it is to you.

stickguy

andre1969 said:

roadburner said:

stickguy said:

an X1 might run the same 1/4 miles time as a Boss 302, but it will never be as cool, sound as good, or smell as bad.

My point was that even relatively pedestrian CUVs are faster than many of the hot cars of the past.
Me, I'd take my M6 over most any '60s musclecar.

I think older cars have a certain sense of adventure, and danger, even, to them, that might make them more exciting and intriguing than the modern cars that are out there. And, they'd jerk you around, so you felt like you were going faster than you really were.

As a daily driver though, most old musclecars would be a pain to live with on a regular basis. They tend to run hot, they're loud, the short gearing always makes them sound like they're going faster than they are, etc. They go out of tune every 15 minutes. Chances are, they're not going to have air conditioning. The brakes are going to fade after 2 or 3 hard stops. They're going to squeak and rattle, and if they have leaf springs in the rear you're going to get some serious axle hop on rough roads. And even the other types of suspension aren't going to give you that "riding on rails" feeling. Unless you're talking a 1920's wooden roller coaster.

all true statements. Which is why if I had the money to blow on something like that, I would want to use it, so a subtle resto mod is the way I would go. A nice crate motor with EFI, a nice 6 speed stick, modern brakes/steering/suspension, upgraded electrics, better seats. All the cool style, but reliable and suitable for modern driving.

stickguy

both out driving yesterday. A Model A of some vintage, and an 80's Regal 2 door. The Grand National style. But just a plain Jane one.

roadburner

Speaking of '70s V8s, this months issue of Thoroughbred and Classic Cars celebrates the 50th birthday of the Triumph Stag. It's another British example of a car that was fundamentally sound but let down by cost-cutting and a rush to bring it to market. Today the major problems are easily rectified and it's a unique junior GT. BaT has a very nice one, but I'm hoping to resist the bid button:
1973 Triumph Stag

fintail

Went for a long walk today, spotted this out in the snow:



Getting harder to find these out in the wild, as they seem to be an up and coming affordable classic of sorts.

fintail

I think some irritating design flaws can turn buyers off, too, if not properly addressed. My mom had a 3.8 Taurus with the head gasket flaw, it went around 80K - wasn't worth fixing. I am almost certain that was her last Ford. Some 80s/90s cars with weak transmissions (earlier Taurus come to mind) might have turned people off, GM Dexcool issues, Toyota sludge etc. Honda had that generation of V6 cars with fragile transmissions, but I think usually handled it in a way to please the owner - maybe a lesson for others.

uplanderguy said:

It does seem to me, just listening to people for the past decade or so, that when a problem does arrive in today's vehicles, it leans more catastrophic ($$)--e.g., modules, etc.--than in those old days, I guess because the cars were so much simpler mechanically then.

fintail

That's the problem with even the CUVs that drive competently - you gotta look at em! And I think they'll eventually get the uber-cool image station wagons had in the 80s - just get another generation of suburban hoverparents behind the wheel, and it'll happen.

stickguy said:

an X1 might run the same 1/4 miles time as a Boss 302, but it will never be as cool, sound as good, or smell as bad.

xwesx

ab348 said:

sda said:

All are dog slow by today’s standards and 10mpg to boot.

Yet people go ga-ga over a vehicle like a Crosstrek, which is close to that level of slowness and handles about as well too. Of course it does get good gas mileage.

Hey, you don't have to pick THAT example. Thanks a lot.

jwm40517

My trusted indie mechanic showed me his 66Chevelle with a crate 350-350HP and a modern automatic trans that does not have anywhere for an old speedometer cable to connect. He just installed a GPS speedometer, I had never heard of the technology. When I looked it up , I was shocked at how little they cost, $30 or so. He is adding front discs soon at around $500 for the parts.
He has put a few thousand miles on it and plans a trip to Kansas from Central KY soon. He has made that trip in several cars of 50's and 60's vintage. Of course he can fix anything beside the road short of total engine failure out of his tool box. I would have to call "the guy".

kyfdx

Last time I bought a Garmin. (10 yrs ago?), it had a speed readout, that was always within 1 mph of my actual speedometer.

uplanderguy

I haven't seen a Celica like that in these rusty parts in decades. It'd be flapping in the wind here.

andre1969

I think the last time I saw a Celica like that was when I watched the pilot episode of "The Incredible Hulk!" It's kinda cool, seeing it parked out at the curb like that, probably a sign that it still gets used regularly.

stickguy

I bought a Celica of that generation (hatch) up in NJ, back in roughly 1989. even then, it was rusted horribly.

fintail

No salt on the roads here, so even with the winters rust is slow. But even here, those cars are rare, surprised it was outside. It didn't appear to be 100% rust free (a couple spots), but probably like many looked in the rust belt before 1980.

I just realized that save for the modern plate, I could say that pic is from December 1977, and it could pass.

ab348

Interesting discovery for me today - in the discussion of the new Escape-based Bronco Sport on one of the other forums here, I did a wiki search on the Escape. I suddenly realized that I had totally forgotten about the early 2000s Gen 1 Escape, mostly because they have quite literally all disappeared up here. I cannot recall the last time I saw one, but it has been quite a while. You still occasionally (but not often) see the boxy second-gen one with the big plastichrome grill. Not sure if the high casualty rate is due to rust, mechanical maladies, or both.

fintail

Still a few of the early Escape here, no doubt to unsalted roads and relatively gentle climate. The real oddity is the Mazda Tribute, see those now and then too.

uplanderguy

My wife's cousin, late twenties, who lives about 15 miles away, drives a 2004 (I think) Mazda Tribute. The "ute" somehow broke or was broken off the nameplate on the tailgate, and I learned from her and also my B-I-L (younger than me) that the remaining letters have a negative connotation so she took the rest off too, LOL.

It's charcoal gray--shocker.

stickguy

near me is a house with a bunch of beat up old cars (and 4 or so "classics" on the driveway lined up under covers). 2 of the drivers are a Tribute, and the Mercury version of an Explorer. I guess they like knockoffs!

And I just learned that the 1st Escape was really a Ford name on a rebadged Mazda (it was based on the 626 platform).

Oh, the Classics (all of which seem to be in somewhat sad shape) are a73ish Cuda, a squarebird, and a late 50's Mopar. And something else stuck up in a shed that I can't tell what it is. and a later 70s C3 vette (with the bubble hatch) which actually is a driver, but quite rough looking. and both the SUVs are really beat up.

sadly the house matches. not exactly the highlight of that little neighborhood!

roadburner

With Louisville being a “Ford Town” there are more than a few of the older Escapes around. In fact, two of the other judges drove them to get UAW brownie points.

andre1969

I had forgotten that the Escape was a joint venture with Mazda. How much of it, I wonder, was Ford content, versus Mazda? The Escape shows, too, how out of touch GM was getting by then. They didn't really have competition to it until what? The 2005 Equinox? I guess you could argue that the 4-door Tracker, and maybe even the 4-door Blazer, that was still around for a bit, sort of competed, but they were more rugged and trucky.

Unless they were, God forbid, trying to pass of the Aztek as a sort of Escape competitor?! Or, is there something I'm forgetting?

I guess Chrysler kinda got caught with their pants down as well, although the PT Cruiser sort of filled that niche.

fintail

I want to say the Aztek predates the Escape/Tribute, if not by very much. Aztek seems to have been marketed as more of a lifestyle/activity vehicle rather than a plainer small 4WD transportation pod like the Ford. I see the first Escape being maybe a just slightly larger competitor for the period CRV/RAV4 - Toyota and Honda made strong inroads for the turn of the century soft roader movement.

Early Equinox seem to be really rare in my area anyway, never see them anymore.