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

imidazol97

They are mentioned in the Ford brochures along with the reflectors. But I only have seen them one time on a real car at a cruise in. I don't find any pictures where Ford showed them on a car in the brochures; same for the reflectors.

ab348

texases said:

The bumper guards?

Yep. Both look a bit awkward to me, especially the rear set. Neither looks like they would be particularly useful either.

explorerx4

The black one has been debadged.

uplanderguy

I'm pretty sure that the convertible only had "Sunliner" scripts on the front fenders, and "Galaxie" on the decklid, so that blue one has been changed.

EDIT: I just noticed the blue one is RHD; I know with Studebaker, there was some local variations in things in cars assembled outside the U.S., versus U.S.

uplanderguy

Yep. Both look a bit awkward to me, especially the rear set. Neither looks like they would be particularly useful either.

That always struck me on the optional bumper guards on full-size GM cars of the early seventies. You got a Caprice that's gargantuan, and there's these delicately thin bumper guards that are supposed to help avert damage, LOL.

stickguy

a friend of mine in HS (late 70s) used his family car. A 1974ish Caprice 4 door (I think it had the 5 MPH front bumper?) Anyway, one day a late 70's "small" Monte Carlo lost control on the Whitestone bridge and went sideways in front of us (driving like a fool). We T boned him, and darn near caved in the side of his car. Guy took off, car driving like a crab. We eventually inspected the mighty Caprice, and I think there was a small dent in the chrome bumper, one of the plastic grill slats broke, and maybe a small crack on the turn signal lens. Basically unnoticeable (I don't think his father ever even knew about it).

What a tank that beast was

explorerx4

Did anyone notice the shift position in the blue one in the pic with the convertibles side by side?

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Yep. Both look a bit awkward to me, especially the rear set. Neither looks like they would be particularly useful either.

That always struck me on the optional bumper guards on full-size GM cars of the early seventies. You got a Caprice that's gargantuan, and there's these delicately thin bumper guards that are supposed to help avert damage, LOL.

You often see pictures of ‘70s NYC streets where civilian cars are fitted with gargantuan taxicab-style aftermarket bumper guards. I guess if you were driving/parking on Manhattan streets they could be useful, albeit ugly.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

RE.: The '61 Lincolns being smaller; apparently Cadillac took note by introducing its short-deck models from '61 to '63. I only vaguely remember a '62 "Park Avenue" one in my hometown. But, I can't recall when I've last-seen one, anywhere. They do look stubby when you're accustomed to typical Cadillac proportions.

I've seen a '61 or '62 short-deck Cadillac a few times at the Hershey car show. The owner is actually somewhat local to me, as I've seen the car in Maryland. They actually don't look that small to me, at a quick glance, until you see a proper-length one...then they look weird! Off the top of my head, I think the '60 was 225" long, while the regular '61's were 222", and the short-decks were 215".

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I always thought that in the age of 'expensive' gasoline, the '77 slogan was all about admitting that size had gotten way outta hand, and they could downsize for economy, driving enjoyment, and still increase some important interior dimensions.

Here's the 1977 EPA fuel economy guide, in pdf form...

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG1977.pdf

Sure enough, just like Jerry Ohrbach said, the '77 Chevy had five cubic feet more passenger volume than its closest competitor, which would've been the Ford LTD I guess. At least, they're showing the Caprice/Impala having 108 cubic feet of passenger volume, versus 103 for the LTD. In '77 they averaged the interior volume for the 2- and 4-door models, though.

For '78, they broke them out a bit better. The Chevy was 107 cubic feet for the coupe, 111 for the sedan. The LTD was only 100 cubic feet for the coupe, 106 for the sedan. That surprises me, that the LTD coupe was that small inside. I know those big mastodons weren't all that space efficient, and coupes tend to be smaller inside than sedans, thanks to less headroom and usually less rear legroom. Still, that seems awfully small, for a car that size!

fintail

Fun doc there, cool to see the MB 6.9, and that Rolls-Royce/Bentley were classified as compacts.

uplanderguy

I've seen a '61 or '62 short-deck Cadillac a few times at the Hershey car show.

Now that I think about it, I saw a short-deck '62 in the car corral at Hershey a few years back. I even took a pic of it. I'm thinking it was turquoise, but I often see through color on an old car when I'm trying to remember it later.

I probably would not have bought one new if I were shopping Cadillac, but now, I appreciate the offbeat and under-the-radar. My guess is a lot of people now never knew they made them.

uplanderguy

RE.: NYC huge bumper guards.

My mother's sister and her husband lived in Howard Beach section of Queens. Their '71 Duster had those enormous guards. They looked ridiculous.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I've seen a '61 or '62 short-deck Cadillac a few times at the Hershey car show.

Now that I think about it, I saw a short-deck '62 in the car corral at Hershey a few years back. I even took a pic of it. I'm thinking it was turquoise, but I often see through color on an old car when I'm trying to remember it later.

I probably would not have bought one new if I were shopping Cadillac, but now, I appreciate the offbeat and under-the-radar. My guess is a lot of people now never knew they made them.

This one was sort of a generic light color, like white or beige. I'll have to look through my old car show pics and see if I ever took a pic of it. I usually don't take that many pics at the Hershey show, mainly because it tends to be pretty crowded, and there's a lot to see, so it just takes too much time trying to line up a good shot.

If it's a color I really like, I'll usually remember it. A '61-62 Caddy is on my list of cars I'd like to own one day, and my top color choice would be a tasteful shade of green/blue/turquoise. I don't think a short-deck model would be my top choice, though. I just prefer the full-fledged models.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I've seen a '61 or '62 short-deck Cadillac a few times at the Hershey car show.

Now that I think about it, I saw a short-deck '62 in the car corral at Hershey a few years back. I even took a pic of it. I'm thinking it was turquoise, but I often see through color on an old car when I'm trying to remember it later.

Must have looked like this:

tjc78

andre1969 said:

uplanderguy said:

I always thought that in the age of 'expensive' gasoline, the '77 slogan was all about admitting that size had gotten way outta hand, and they could downsize for economy, driving enjoyment, and still increase some important interior dimensions.

Here's the 1977 EPA fuel economy guide, in pdf form...

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG1977.pdf

Sure enough, just like Jerry Ohrbach said, the '77 Chevy had five cubic feet more passenger volume than its closest competitor, which would've been the Ford LTD I guess. At least, they're showing the Caprice/Impala having 108 cubic feet of passenger volume, versus 103 for the LTD. In '77 they averaged the interior volume for the 2- and 4-door models, though.

For '78, they broke them out a bit better. The Chevy was 107 cubic feet for the coupe, 111 for the sedan. The LTD was only 100 cubic feet for the coupe, 106 for the sedan. That surprises me, that the LTD coupe was that small inside. I know those big mastodons weren't all that space efficient, and coupes tend to be smaller inside than sedans, thanks to less headroom and usually less rear legroom. Still, that seems awfully small, for a car that size!

Aside from width, my 79 Town Coupe wasn’t huge inside. I’m 6’ and my seat was always all the back and my knees hit the front seat if I sat in the back. They really get a lot of their volume from the width. I couldn’t reach the passenger door without leaning way over.

I’d think a Panther has the same or more room.

uplanderguy

The Park Avenue actually looks like the pic might've been taken at Hershey. Thanks.

kyfdx

Our '72 and '76 Lincoln coupes were huge... Also, you could put six people in the trunk.

stickguy

considering the amount of touch parking that went on, especially in the days before BU cameras and parking sensors, you needed something for battering rams. Look less ridiculous than the rubber mats hanging out of the trunk that some people use now.

stickguy

kyfdx said:

Our '72 and '76 Lincoln coupes were huge... Also, you could put six people in the trunk.

that always came in handy when going to the drive in movies.

andre1969

You guys weren't kidding when you said that Bring a Trailer was turning into eBay! This happened to pop up in my facebook feed...

1980 Ford Thunderbird

Fairly basic model, and only the 4.2 V8. It says it only has 19,000 miles, and actually looks good on the interior, and at a quick glance of the exterior. But, in some of the close up shots it looks like it's showing its age...a sloppy looking seam around the trunk opening, rusty stuff here and there, mainly underneath, etc. Bidding is already up to around $9,000! So I guess there's some demand for it. Or a shill.

sda

That is one base T-Bird. After market cruise, what an engineering job to add the cassette! Those plain, cheap door panels are an insult to a T-bird. Otherwise fairly clean.

ab348

sda said:

That is one base T-Bird. After market cruise, what an engineering job to add the cassette! Those plain, cheap door panels are an insult to a T-bird. Otherwise fairly clean.

The 1980-82 T-bird is in itself an insult to all T-birds. What an awful design and powertrain.

andre1969

One thing I'll say for the '77-79 T-bird, is that even in base form, it still seemed like a nice car. But the '80 looked downright bleak, in base form. I just looked at the '80 brochure, and it looks like they offered something like six different seat patterns. The Silver Anniversary was downright luxurious, and even the Luxury decor group was pretty nice. But those bucket seats look cheap. And the cheapest seat was a cloth and vinyl solid bench that had a fabric that looked like it came from a burlap sack. Like something you'd cover an old worn out seat on a farm truck with! But, to show its luxury pretentions, it had a fold-down armrest.

One thing that impresses me about the 1980 T-bird, is that it was an early adopter of the 4-speed automatic overdrive. GM came out with their overdrive in 1981, but initially, only on the bigger cars. I don't think they offered it in the midsized cars until 1983, and then it was sparse. You could get it with the Olds 307 in a Cutlass Supreme, or with the Buick 231 Turbo, but it didn't get wider availability until 1984. And Chrysler sent their RWD cars to the grave with a 3-speed automatic.

sda

andre1969 said:

One thing I'll say for the '77-79 T-bird, is that even in base form, it still seemed like a nice car. But the '80 looked downright bleak, in base form. I just looked at the '80 brochure, and it looks like they offered something like six different seat patterns. The Silver Anniversary was downright luxurious, and even the Luxury decor group was pretty nice. But those bucket seats look cheap. And the cheapest seat was a cloth and vinyl solid bench that had a fabric that looked like it came from a burlap sack. Like something you'd cover an old worn out seat on a farm truck with! But, to show its luxury pretentions, it had a fold-down armrest.

Ford went too downmarket with that series, a boxier Ford Fairmont. The only thing unique was the hidden lamps and tail light treatment.

texases

The '80 T-Bird seemed small, friend bought one new at work, not impressed. I was surprised that the next gen was actually shorter, but seemed larger. Maybe I just liked it.

andre1969

The '83 was a little shorter, but it wasn't a huge amount, 197.6" versus 200.4." I had heard that the '89 was even shorter, but when I looked it up, I found out that, it was and it wasn't.

I know that doesn't make sense at first. But, the T-bird had a slight restyle for 1987-88, that increased its length to 202.1". The '89 was 198.7". I was actually a bit surprised that the '89 was as small as it was. To me, that one looked a bit bulkier and a lot more muscular than the '83-88.

sda

When out west rented an 83 T-Bird. It was nicely equipped and had the V8. Nice car to explore Lake Tahoe and Napa valley. It seemed modern at the time.

explorerx4

The 87-88 T-birds had a bit of a beak which probably accounted for additional length.

xwesx

explorerx4 said:

The 87-88 T-birds had a bit of a beak which probably accounted for additional length.

For sure. And, some of those "beak" cars added not insubstantial length to the car!

uplanderguy

I worked with a guy who had a new '80 Thunderbird. It was silver with blue interior, a combo I'd hate on any car, and it was a 200 six-cylinder. I liked my '81 Monte Carlo much better.

That car for sale reminds me that I never got Ford's long habit (not always though) of putting bucket seats in a car, AND a console, but having a column shift. Heck, even the '61 and later big Thunderbirds were like that. I never got that.

fintail

We were just joking about big changes from year to year that might leave the prior year customer disappointed - I bet the 80 Birds left a lot of 79 Bird customers quite pleased.

I think the Griswold's Truckster shows shots of the burlap fabric in the movie:

andre1969 said:

One thing I'll say for the '77-79 T-bird, is that even in base form, it still seemed like a nice car. But the '80 looked downright bleak, in base form. I just looked at the '80 brochure, and it looks like they offered something like six different seat patterns. The Silver Anniversary was downright luxurious, and even the Luxury decor group was pretty nice. But those bucket seats look cheap. And the cheapest seat was a cloth and vinyl solid bench that had a fabric that looked like it came from a burlap sack. Like something you'd cover an old worn out seat on a farm truck with! But, to show its luxury pretentions, it had a fold-down armrest.

One thing that impresses me about the 1980 T-bird, is that it was an early adopter of the 4-speed automatic overdrive. GM came out with their overdrive in 1981, but initially, only on the bigger cars. I don't think they offered it in the midsized cars until 1983, and then it was sparse. You could get it with the Olds 307 in a Cutlass Supreme, or with the Buick 231 Turbo, but it didn't get wider availability until 1984. And Chrysler sent their RWD cars to the grave with a 3-speed automatic.

fintail

50s and 60s era MBs are like that too.

uplanderguy said:

I worked with a guy who had a new '80 Thunderbird. It was silver with blue interior, a combo I'd hate on any car, and it was a 200 six-cylinder. I liked my '81 Monte Carlo much better.

That car for sale reminds me that I never got Ford's long habit (not always though) of putting bucket seats in a car, AND a console, but having a column shift. Heck, even the '61 and later big Thunderbirds were like that. I never got that.

fintail

I think those were well-regarded when new. I recall my mom wanted an 83-86 style Bird when new, but they were a little too much for the budget. I recall looking at a loaded Topaz coupe with my dad, and he exclaimed "it's like a smaller T-Bird" or something, either trying to convince me or himself.

sda said:

When out west rented an 83 T-Bird. It was nicely equipped and had the V8. Nice car to explore Lake Tahoe and Napa valley. It seemed modern at the time.

fintail

What would the non-BaT price be, maybe half that?

andre1969 said:

You guys weren't kidding when you said that Bring a Trailer was turning into eBay! This happened to pop up in my facebook feed...

1980 Ford Thunderbird

Fairly basic model, and only the 4.2 V8. It says it only has 19,000 miles, and actually looks good on the interior, and at a quick glance of the exterior. But, in some of the close up shots it looks like it's showing its age...a sloppy looking seam around the trunk opening, rusty stuff here and there, mainly underneath, etc. Bidding is already up to around $9,000! So I guess there's some demand for it. Or a shill.

uplanderguy

Even I thought the '83 Thunderbird was a good-looking car. I especially liked the rear styling of the car, and I think the styling improved for '87-88. The concept of packaging a roomy interior in a smaller exterior kind of got thrown out the window with that car though, for a midsize coupe. The '89 was much better in that regard I'm told but the styling never did a thing for me.

A longtime friend of mine had a new '87 Turbo Thunderbird in a medium to dark slate blue metallic, with navy blue cloth interior....really striking.

andre1969

While I didn't like the '83-86 T-bird when they were new, looking at them through modern eyes, I definitely appreciate them more, now. I thought the '87-88 was a big improvement, though. As for the space efficiency, part of the problem might have been the stubby wheelbase. According to my 1985 Consumer Guide, the T-bird they tested only had a 104.0" wb. And throwing RWD into the mix, the fact that it had as much legroom as it did might actually be a testament to its space efficiency, after all! They were also pretty low-slung, 53.2" according to my book. In comparison, the '85 Cutlass Supreme coupe they tested was on a 108.1" wb, and 54.9" tall.

The EPA lists the passenger volume of the '88 T-bird at 92 cubic feet, versus 101 for the '89. I knew the '89 was bigger inside, but I didn't realize it was that much bigger!

tjc78

I’m sure I’ve said it before but I really like those T-birds. As a kid in the 80s they were cool cars, especially the loaded digi dash and EQ stereo models.

kyfdx

My aunt had the similar '85 Mark VII LSC with the 5.0 V8 (160 HP!!).

It was a pretty nice car. She was t-boned in 1992, and it was totaled. That made her very, very sad. (under 40K miles)

tjc78

Your family liked their Lincolns! Shame she didn’t wait one more year. The 86+ received SEFI for a bump to 200 HP onward to 225!

I wouldn’t mind owning a late run Mark VII. Great cars.

tjc78

I always thought it was strange the Mark VII didn’t get the stereo upgrade with the EQ like the Cougar and T-bird did. Maybe Ford thought the older buyer of the Mark wouldn’t care.

kyfdx

tjc78 said:

Your family liked their Lincolns! Shame she didn’t wait one more year. The 86+ received SEFI for a bump to 200 HP onward to 225!

I wouldn’t mind owning a late run Mark VII. Great cars.

It was an exec car. 18K miles on it. $28K sticker. They bought it for $18K. Pretty sure the HP was okay for her 3 mile commute at 30 mph limit.
Great car for the mid-80s.

She replaced it with the ‘92 Acura Legend that became my son’s first car in 2010.

tjc78

You summed it up well. Great car for the mid 80s!

stickguy

surprised after it rained overnight, but a couple of oldies about driving around today. a 75ish Corvette (enduro bumpers front and rear, but old school flat rear window). Burgundy. Looked pretty clean. Later, a tan 68 or so Buick Skylark coupe. That one looked a bit tired, but pretty original.

andre1969

Here's a kind of off-the-wall question. Did Buick make anything in 1974 that still had the name "Special" on it? Reason I'm asking, is I just saw an episode of Maude, where they mentioned Walter having a "1974 Buick Special".

That little inconsistency always bugged me, every time I caught that episode. As far as I know, the Special's last year was '69, as they consolidated all the midsized cars under the Skylark name for '70. In '73, the midsized cars were renamed Century, and the compact introduced that year was Apollo.

I think they started using the Special name again in '75, to denote the V6 version of the Century, which had been V8-only for '73-74.

uplanderguy

They did make a '75 Century Special. That was the first the name was used since 1969, I'm nearly certain. My sister and B-I-L bought a new, maroon one with maroon vinyl top. Even then I could hardly believe how rough that thing ran and idled, in an otherwise-nice car. I also remember the grille was completely silver or gray plastic, no brightwork. My B-I-L bought the chrome Buick road wheels through the dealership for them; it was delivered with just the full wheelcovers.

I was looking at the car with my B-I-L when he pushed on the smallish "BUICK" nameplate on the decklid and it broke in half.

It had the nice, optional interior in a good grade of vinyl with fold-down center armrest, in maroon.

uplanderguy

Forty years ago today, 1/17/81, I bought my first new car, an '81 Monte Carlo in Light Jade over Dark Jade two-tone, 267 V8, no air, positraction, AM-FM, tilt wheel, intermittent wipers, tinted glass. Here's the only pic I can find of it, with three friends in front of it as we were leaving for a trip to Utah to visit another college friend. It was stolen in late 1982 and never recovered. I liked the wide trim along the bottom.

Funny how I always remember that purchase date. I guess you always remember your first time, LOL.

uplanderguy

...and while looking for a pic of it, I came across this of me in front of the Playmobile, where I'd play for hours. We were talking about this not too long ago.

fintail

Nice color combo. Nice tatts

It was 7 years 11 months ago today when I bought/leased my first new car, the E350 Bluetec, already a fairly uncommon model (pic taken delivery day):

uplanderguy said:

Forty years ago today, 1/17/81, I bought my first new car, an '81 Monte Carlo in Light Jade over Dark Jade two-tone, 267 V8, no air, positraction, AM-FM, tilt wheel, tinted glass. Here's the only pic I can find of it, with three friends in front of it as we were leaving for a trip to Utah to visit another college friend. It was stolen in late 1982 and never recovered.

Funny how I always remember that purchase date. I guess you always remember your first time, LOL.

uplanderguy

Oh, that's not me! I took the pic.

That guy sort-of glommed along for the ride. I didn't even know him all that well. He wore a hat constantly as he was already mostly-bald at early twenty-something. His first name was Leland.

The gal on the right, I still keep in touch with--and her husband. She turned 60 last August.