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

sda

Great pics @andre1969! I especially like the 67 Catalina convert! Too many to mention, but good showing of X cars. I dig the 78 blue Olds Starfire GT and white Buick Skyhawk.

andre1969

Thanks SDA...yeah, that blue Starfire really caught my eye. It actually gave me a newfound respect for them! Plus, I can't remember the last time I even saw one. They were doing a special this year, with it being the 50th year of the introduction of the Vega, so they had a pretty good showing of Vegas and all of their offshoots.

stickguy

Imo C.F. Means less than how the trunk is shaped.

fintail

Cool pics Andre, I wonder what's the most obscure - maybe the "SportOmega".

On foot in the oven-like heat today, spotted a 5 door Aspire, something finned sleeping under a cover - maybe a GM flat top sedan, and a K-car E-class/600/Caravelle.

jpp75

Great pics @andre1969 appreciate you taking time to upload and share them!

uplanderguy

Great pics, thanks for sharing!

I like bone-stock, so what jumped out at me among those pics was that bright turquoise metallic '74 Monte Carlo. One-year color; wasn't crazy about it then but sure didn't see a whole lot of them (well, for a Chevy). I can't spy an emblem, wheel, nameplate, anything like that out of order on that car.

I was going to say the same about the Evening Orchid '65 Corvair, but it has later-year seats.

I like that silver '66 Grand Prix, and I can take Cragar wheels as they look sharp and are easily changed!

uplanderguy

Regarding perception of trunk space--our '74 Impala Sport Coupe had a somewhat smallish opening, and I'm pretty sure (too lazy to look) that it was advertised as 18.9 cubic feet. The Custom Coupe had a large opening, almost the size of the entire trunk. When opened, it looked like a bigger trunk, but I feel fairly sure it was rated at 18.1 cu. ft.

uplanderguy

I seem to remember the '73 Chevelle trunk advertised at 15.3 cu.ft., versus 12.9 for the '72, so that is a significant increase. Of course every other dimension on the '73 (except wheelbase) seemed like a significant increase too!

uplanderguy

I gotta say, that yellow '71 Vega looks bone-stock, and needless to say I don't think I've seen one that looks that good since probably 1976!

So much promise, sigh. If the '76 had been the '71, things might've changed. The car mags sure liked them, and did well on owner's surveys too IIRC, at least the first maybe three years.

MHO only, but GM tended to be first with new markets of cars then (other than Ford beating them with the Mustang), and tended to be bold about introducing new technology before others, but of course not unusual to have bit them in the *** a few years later. I can think of a few GM products where the product a few years in is a better choice than the first year.

sda

Premature rust and the propensity to overheat and burn oil early ruined the Vega's reputation. I thought it was a good looking small car and the GT with its extras along with opting for the upgraded interior (and AC, though expensive) made a very nice car. 4 speed of course.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I like bone-stock, so what jumped out at me among those pics was that bright turquoise metallic '74 Monte Carlo. One-year color; wasn't crazy about it then but sure didn't see a whole lot of them (well, for a Chevy). I can't spy an emblem, wheel, nameplate, anything like that out of order on that car.

I like that silver '66 Grand Prix, and I can take Cragar wheels as they look sharp and are easily changed!

Yeah, I'm not even really a fan of the Colonade Monte Carlo, but that color just lured me in! It almost looks too tasteful for something from 1974! And I know I've said in the past that in my opinion, silver can be a toss of the dice on older cars, because it often clashes with the chrome trim, but that Grand Prix really caught my eye. I don't mind Cragars...to me they look a lot like an all-chrome Pontiac Rally 2 wheel.

sda

The Vega shown in @andre1969 car show was the same color as my 71 Vega GT I had in 77-78, Sunflower yellow. Not my favorite color, but for less the $500 it was mine.

sda

I know I've shown this before, but I didn't stray far from the Vega when I bought the Sunbird for $2900 in Sept 78. I got $200 for the Vega. $2700 tax/tag. 1976 Sunbird, 231 V6, PS, PB, AC, 5sp, luxury interior, sport wheels.

xwesx

Whoa! Look at that handbrake! That's raw machine, there!

uplanderguy

Very nice interior on your Sunbird. It's all what you're used to of course, but I think in that period, GM did door panels the best.

Totally different subject, but I recently watched the final episode of season 7 of "The Andy Griffith Show", called "Goober's Contest". Floyd drives a '66 or '67 Mercury Comet convertible in it, which is almost comical in itself that Floyd would drive a nice car like that! It's the last episode Floyd was in and you can see and hear he is not well in it. His character is (normally) hilarious I think.

Last night I watched the episode called "Floyd's Barber Shop", where the building is sold and Howard buys it and is going to raise the rent. It's actually somewhat poignant in places.

uplanderguy

Did you order that Sunbird? I wouldn't have expected a well-equipped car like that, coupled to a five-speed, in dealer stock around where I lived.

sda

<I bought it used from a Pontiac dealer. It had 18k mi and was like new. I was told the owner traded it for a new Bonneville.

andre1969

That's gotta be a culture shock, going from a 231/5-speed Sunbird to a Bonneville! I wonder if the original owner was someone who bought it as a knee-jerk reaction to the high gas prices and economic turmoil a few years earlier, but then decided it really wasn't for them, after all?

Although, if they bought a new Bonneville in September of '78, I think their timing might have been bad, again. I think the second oil embargo started around January 1979?

uplanderguy

Maybe their Bonneville was a '79 350, no optional moldings or pinstripes or vinyl top, snowflake wheels, and buckets and console! The sixties GP concept all over again!

andre1969

Actually, that thought did pop into my mind, that it was a coupe with the buckets and console shift. Unfortunately though, the 350, for most of us at least, was a choked down Buick 350-4bbl, with something like 155 hp. In California/high altitude areas, they substituted in an Olds 350-4bbl that had 170 hp. It might have found its way into some 49-state cars, as well.

Years ago, when I used to deliver pizzas, there was a white '79 Bonneville 4-door that I used to see fairly regularly. One day, the owner was out in his yard, and I stopped by and asked if he'd ever be interested in selling it. He said he was planning to donate it! I asked him if I could come by sometime and drive it, and make him an offer, if I liked it and he said sure. So, I did. It had the Buick 350. Fairly basic model. Crank windows, light blue vinyl interior. The body was in good shape. The interior wasn't *horrible* but the headliner had failed at one point, and he simply cut it into pieces and glued it to the ceiling. He was also starting to use it as a truck, hauling bags of topsoil, potting soil, and other yard supplies with it.

Driving it, was a bit of a letdown. Just going by feel, I'd say it was a bit slower than my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, that we still had at the time. To be fair though, the LeSabre was a bit lighter, and probably benefitted from its transmission/gearing. The LeSabre had the 4-speed automatic, and I think first was something like 2.74:1, whereas the Bonneville most likely had the heavier, but more durable, THM350, which I think used a 2.52:1 first gear? The LeSabre also had a 2.73:1 axle ratio, whereas I think GM was in the bad habit of slipping 2.41:1 ratios behind some of their bigger engines in '79. This was before I bought my 2000 Intrepid, but it was also definitely slower than the '89 Gran Fury ex police car that was my daily driver at the time.

I told the guy thanks, but I think I'm going to pass. And he said he was glad I did, because, with its age, he said he'd feel bad selling it to me, and then for me to have trouble with it.

Oh, and to tie in, somewhat, with SDA's Sunbird-to-Bonneville story, this was sort of the opposite. The guy was older, in his 60's I guess, maybe a bit older. Doesn't seem so old now that I'm 51, but I was only 29 back then! Anyway, he also had a Fiero! I want to say it was an '88, but I'm not positive. I do remember it was the fastback, and had a stick. I'm thinking '88, because I seem to remember having the conversation with the guy about how GM has the habit of discontinuing something about five minutes after they finally get it right!

sda

andre1969 said:

That's gotta be a culture shock, going from a 231/5-speed Sunbird to a Bonneville! I wonder if the original owner was someone who bought it as a knee-jerk reaction to the high gas prices and economic turmoil a few years earlier, but then decided it really wasn't for them, after all?

Although, if they bought a new Bonneville in September of '78, I think their timing might have been bad, again. I think the second oil embargo started around January 1979?

I suspect you are correct, they bought the Sunbird to save fuel only to find they didn't like a small car. It had a CB and CB antenna on it which was removed with no damage to the car. The Sunbird got a consistent 28-30mpg at around 62mph with a/c on during interstate driving. The 55 mph limit was still in force. As I've probable shared before the Sunbird was bought at the beginning of my freshman year at UT/Knoxville and served me well through my college years and first year of 'real' employment. It was traded in 83 with 82k for a used 80 Mazda 626 coupe. And, yes, GM is famous for just getting the car 'right' and then discontinues it.

The dealer I bought if from was Delmar Haynes Pontiac in Alcoa, TN which was about 8 miles from my parent's house. At the time my parents lived just off of Alcoa Hwy and about 10 minutes from UT campus. I remember the salesman, Sonny Young. He was probably 50, heavy, cigar smoker, a great guy. He treated me (I was 19) nicely, let me take the Sunbird out on my own even though I drove up in an ugly yellow Vega that blew blue smoke all the time. As years went by he didn't hesitate to let me test drive any car on the lot. That dealer was closed when GM axed Pontiac.

fintail

Out in the cool 95F weather (cooler than 112F the other day) saw a 54-55 Ford pickup, very original, definitely no AC there.

uplanderguy

andre, what was the Chevy 350 rated at, for hp, in '79, do you know? The brochure doesn't say. I know in '77, it was 170 hp (the 305 was 145).

andre1969

Every source I've ever seen puts the 350 at 170 hp for 1979, as well. The 305-2bbl, however, dropped from 145 hp to 130. I think the feds tightened up emissions controls, fuel economy standards, or perhaps both, for '79, because power on a lot of engines dropped, although some more than others. The Mopar 318-2bbl dropped from 140 to 135 I think. I don't believe the Ford 302 dropped too bad, but it had gotten hobbled a few years earlier.

ab348

It's funny what you say about the 305 dropping in HP for '79. The reason I say that is because I remember reading just the opposite in MT or another car magazine in an article about the GM 1979 model introductions, claiming it increased by 5 or 10HP (I can't recall exactly). The reason I remember that is because Dad was buying an Impala with the 305 and had a choice of a '78 or '79 model. I wanted him to get the '79 because it was slightly more powerful.

andre1969

I wonder if the Canadian version was less restrictive, when it came to emissions controls, so you guys had better hp up there than what we got out of those engines? But, if it was Motortend that said it, I'm presuming they were talking about U.S. engines?

I remember Consumer Reports testing a '77 full-sized Chevy with a 305-2bbl, and 0-60 was in the 12-13 second range. They threw it up against and LTD-II with a 302, a Fury or Monaco with a 318, and a Cutlass with a 260, of all things. The LTD-II and Fury/Monaco were also in the 12-13 second range as I recall...not bad, because they were heavier than the downsized B-body Chevy. But the poor Cutlass didn't have a chance. 0-60 was something like 21.6 seconds!

They probably tested a '78 as well, but I don't remember. I do remember a '79 test where they had a Chevy (I think it was a Caprice) with the 305, a newly-downsized LTD with the 302, and a Dodge St. Regis with a 318. Going from memory, the Caprice had 130 hp, the LTD 129, and the St. Regis 135. With 0-60, I think the LTD was 13.9, the Caprice was 15.4, and the St. Regis was a horrible 15.9!

I've always questioned the '79 test results, though. I had a '79 Newport, equipped the same way as that St. Regis, and it was nowhere near that slow. Even in 1997, with 230,000+ miles on it. So I'm wondering if there was something wrong with their test samples, or what? Or, if the quality was so spotty back then there really would be that much variance? Anyway, I figured if the Mopar R-body could be quicker than that CR test, there's a good chance the Chevy, and Ford were as well. I think the Ford's comparatively good showing, compared to the other two, was partly thanks to a quicker axle ratio. I'm not sure what the Ford had, but I believe Chevy tended to go for a 2.56:1, while the St. Regis would've been a 2.45:1.

sda

The Olds 260 was always a mystery to me. It was the same size and weight of the much better 350 yet woefully weak. Perhaps it offered better gas mileage but not by much. I remember driving a 75 Olds Omega hatchback before I bought the Sunbird and was really disappointed by how slow it was. The Omega was fairly plain, no ac or power accessories, auto, ps, pb. Smooth, quiet, yes, turtle slow. I guess Olds finally came to their senses when it offered the 307 Olds V8. A much better compromise between power and economy.

andre1969

GM seemed a bit behind the times in the 70's, with offering an engine in the ~5 liter range. Ford kept their 302 for the duration, although at some point it got so weak that even in car like the midsized Torino, you got a 351 standard. Mopar kept the 318 for the whole timeframe as well.

But with GM, any smaller engines they had in the 60's grew to a 350 CID displacement pretty quickly. The Pontiac "350" if you do the math, is actually a 354! Chevy did keep the 307 around through '73, but apparently it did not take to emissions controls well at all. It was down to 115 hp that last year.

I guess the Olds 260 was one of those stopgap measures, sort of like the Buick 231 V6, and that little Chevy 262 V8 they had for a couple years. And I guess maybe it was comparable to the likes of the Chevy 267 and Pontiac 265 that came out later?

The 260 was fairly economical, at least according to EPA standards. Here's the various engine choices for the 1978 Delta 88, for example:

231 V6: 17/25/20 (city/highway/combined) mpg.
260 V8: 18/25/21
350 V8: 16/23/19 (Olds 350-4bbl...if you were lucky enough to get that version, in the engine roulette game)
350 Diesel: 21/30/24
403 V8: 14/20/16.

I'm surprised there's no listing in between the 260 and the 350. In that timeframe, I could have sworn there was a Chevy 305 offered for a bit, and then they switched to a Pontiac 301. Or, vice versa. The Olds 307 came out for 1980, so that would have filled the need for that size of engine by then.

texases

I wonder if the smaller engines helped on the emissions side, in addition to mpgs.

sda

Dad's 79 Eldorado diesel consistently got 30mpg hwy, around 20 mpg city. I don't have a good picture of it but it was the same color combination as this, though it had the typical heavy wire wheel covers.

You can kind of see it in behind the Sunbird if you expand the picture. I was in the process of repainting the Sunbird.

ab348

The Olds 260 never made any sense at all to me. They actually had to spend quite a few resources on redesigning (or maybe "de-designing" more accurately) the 350 which itself came out of the '64-'67 330. The 260 had much more restrictive heads with smaller ports, a different, less free-flowing intake, low-lift cam, and smaller carb. I could never see the point.

The other thing about GM in those years was that their V8s were all based on smaller, older designs, so I never understood why they just didn't go back to one or two of those. The SBC started out life as a 265 and then a 283. The Buick V8 started life as a 300, the Olds as a 330, and Pontiac as a 326.

Michaell

ab348 said:

The Olds 260 never made any sense at all to me. They actually had to spend quite a few resources on redesigning (or maybe "de-designing" more accurately) the 350 which itself came out of the '64-'67 330. The 260 had much more restrictive heads with smaller ports, a different, less free-flowing intake, low-lift cam, and smaller carb. I could never see the point.

The other thing about GM in those years was that their V8s were all based on smaller, older designs, so I never understood why they just didn't go back to one or two of those. The SBC started out life as a 265 and then a 283. The Buick V8 started life as a 300, the Olds as a 330, and Pontiac as a 326.

Was this during the time when GM started to consolidate their engineering resources? I know that for most of GM's history, each brand was completely independent - their own marketing, sales, engineering, etc. teams. Was design even decentralized?

andre1969

The other thing about GM in those years was that their V8s were all based on smaller, older designs, so I never understood why they just didn't go back to one or two of those. The SBC started out life as a 265 and then a 283. The Buick V8 started life as a 300, the Olds as a 330, and Pontiac as a 326.

I've wondered that, too; what was to stop them from just going back to a smaller displacement from the past? Even if the older engines had been updated from their original versions, I don't see what was to stop them from going to a smaller displacement...but not necessarily all the way down to a 260?

I remember reading that when Buick bought their V-6 tooling back from AMC, they increased the bore slightly to 3.80, so that it could use the same pistons as a Buick 350. The previous bore of the old 225 V-6 had been 3.75.

The 260 has the same stroke as a 307, 350, and 403: 3.385" Sometimes these engines get rounded to 3.38 or 3.39, depending on your source (my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia even mixes and matches them!). So they're saving money on keeping the same stroke. But why did they take it all the way down to 260?

Maybe it was a marketing ploy? Get a V8 with comparable gas mileage as many existing 6-cylinders, and just pray that nobody pays attention to the horsepower?

ab348

Michaell said:

Was this during the time when GM started to consolidate their engineering resources? I know that for most of GM's history, each brand was completely independent - their own marketing, sales, engineering, etc. teams. Was design even decentralized?

Some consolidation took place as far back as the late 1950s - for example the 1959 full-size cars all shared the same door skin and roof stamping on certain styles. GM Design (styling) still maintained divisional groups that were separate from each other, and in fact designers assigned to one group could not even visit the other studios. In the '60s they shared body types but divisions still had their own chassis and engine development engineers. In the '70s they started to have different divisions design different subsets of things (like front suspensions) for all divisional models of a new car. Engines were still divisionally unique until that started getting diluted in the late '70s with things like the Chevy V8s in Oldsmobiles and having the Olds Diesel and Buick V6 offered in other division's models. Through the early '80s the Buick and Pontiac V8s went away as GM corporate engines became the norm and the Roger Smith bean-counting caused rot to set in.

texases

One reason to downsize a current engine is, again, pollution controls. They've already been designed into the larger engine, so it was easier to shrink it (which was just a matter of bore and/or stroke), than bring back an old small design.

Michaell

ab348 said:

Michaell said:

Was this during the time when GM started to consolidate their engineering resources? I know that for most of GM's history, each brand was completely independent - their own marketing, sales, engineering, etc. teams. Was design even decentralized?

Some consolidation took place as far back as the late 1950s - for example the 1959 full-size cars all shared the same door skin and roof stamping on certain styles. GM Design (styling) still maintained divisional groups that were separate from each other, and in fact designers assigned to one group could not even visit the other studios. In the '60s they shared body types but divisions still had their own chassis and engine development engineers. In the '70s they started to have different divisions design different subsets of things (like front suspensions) for all divisional models of a new car. Engines were still divisionally unique until that started getting diluted in the late '70s with things like the Chevy V8s in Oldsmobiles and having the Olds Diesel and Buick V6 offered in other division's models. Through the early '80s the Buick and Pontiac V8s went away as GM corporate engines became the norm and the Roger Smith bean-counting caused rot to set in.

Thank you!

fintail

I've never seen/noticed those disc wheelcovers before, weird - apparently they are stock at least for 79. Base model thing? Although to my eyes, the wire covers look cheaper.

These wheels look good on that car:

sda said:

Dad's 79 Eldorado diesel consistently got 30mpg hwy, around 20 mpg city. I don't have a good picture of it but it was the same color combination as this, though it had the typical heavy wire wheel covers.

andre1969

I think that blue one has the Biarritz trim package. I wonder if those alloys came standard with it?

And I agree, those plain hubcaps look more tasteful to me, than wire wheelcovers.

fintail

I think a bustleback (one would need an 80 or 81 I guess) would look good in that color with those wheels.

I never warmed up to fake wire wheel covers, they always seemed like something one would get at K-Mart for $25 a set.

tjc78

The wire wheel covers were sooooo popular back then. On something like a Town Car the base option on a Signature Series was wire caps. Even then many people sprung for the turbine or lacy spoke wheels. Lincoln had a true wire wheel then. Those look good.

sda

For several years dad wouldn’t consider buying a car without factory wire wheel covers or a vinyl roof. He even had whitewalls put on mom’s 87 Taurus LX when the tires were replaced. I remember exclaiming “really dad??”

tjc78

If you think about it the Taurus was one of the first family cars from the mid 80s that typically didn’t have whitewalls

fintail

I recall specifically telling my mom to not put whitewalls on the Tempo back in the day, as I know she would have otherwise.

This was in my YT feed last night, pretty interesting, and the reviewer appears to have a collection of interesting unusual cars of this era:

https://youtu.be/ofYSQiuiGIE

sda

fintail said:

I recall specifically telling my mom to not put whitewalls on the Tempo back in the day, as I know she would have otherwise.

This was in my YT feed last night, pretty interesting, and the reviewer appears to have a collection of interesting unusual cars of this era:

https://youtu.be/ofYSQiuiGIE

I’ve been watching his videos as well. Very enjoyable. He has some really nice clean cars that are mostly stock room condition, which I prefer.

andre1969

Funny you'd post that video, fintail. For some reason, I stumbled across that same video this morning! I can't even what I was searching for, but it came up and I watched it. Pretty interesting.

stickguy

out driving, a Continental Mark VI sedan. Black. Looked pretty clean.

ab348

fintail said:

This was in my YT feed last night, pretty interesting, and the reviewer appears to have a collection of interesting unusual cars of this era:

https://youtu.be/ofYSQiuiGIE

He does indeed have an interesting collection. He seems to be in Warren, MI and lives in a tract development of modest but very nicely kept 1950s bungalows. His tastes are unusual, with a fondness for fullsize late '60s/early '70s Fords and Mercs but seemingly a preference for GM cars of the late '60s. Check out his '66 Pontiac Catalina review.

https://youtu.be/_eiuSfwZOKE

tjc78

@stickguy said:
out driving, a Continental Mark VI sedan. Black. Looked pretty clean.

It wasn’t me lol.

That’s one car I never understood. Why was it needed? So much overlap with the Town Car. Was it an interim solution to have a slightly smaller sedan until the Fox based Continental was out?

andre1969

Was the Mark VI sedan smaller than the regular Continental? I thought it was on the same 117.3" wb as the Continental coupe/sedan? I know the Mark VI coupe was a bit shorter, on the 114.3" wb shared with the LTD/Marquis, but I thought the sedans were the same?

It actually sold better than I had thought. My old car book doesn't break out '80 production figures to compare, but for '81 they sold 27,904 Town Car sedans, and 17,958 Mark VI sedans.

Price-wise, the Town Car sedan started at $14,068, versus $17,303 for the Mark VI, and $22,838 for the Mark VI Signature. So, despite the fuel crisis and economic turmoil back then, I guess the "Let 'em Eat Cake" crowd wasn't doing too bad.

One model from that era I haven't seen in ages is the 2-door version of the Town Car. They weren't too popular when new though; I think most buyers just splurged on a Mark VI if they wanted a coupe. I know the Mark VI takes a lot of criticism for being too squared off, but it makes the regular Town Coupe look like the box the VI came in!

Here's a Curbside Classic article on the 2-door. Boxy as heck, but it looks like a luxurious, comfortable, well-built car.

stickguy

oh, don't quote me on continental vs. sedan. I just meant the 4 door!