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

uplanderguy

I remember reading at the time that the Colonnade wagons did have a narrower load floor than other intermediate wagons.

This conversation reminds me that a sedan, and wagon, I thought were good-looking in a conservative way back then, were the '71 to whatever, Dodge Coronets. I always thought a Coronet Custom was a nice alternative to a Malibu for a family car of mid-size proportions. I do believe they were on a longer wheelbase than the GM's. The Coronet Brougham trim was nice, inside and out, too.

Funny, they sure differentiated a Coronet from a Satellite then. I absolutely detest '71 and '72, especially, Satellites! Even the coupes. To me, I didn't like the squared wheel openings (which BTW is where I always thought the name for that-era GM trucks, "Squarebody", originated--squared wheel openings), I hated the grille, and I hated the taillights! The front wheel openings seemed no bigger than the rear, with a lot of sheemetal over the fronts. Always a turnoff for me. I don't like the full wheelcovers shared with Valiants then--with the small circle of holes near the center of the wheelcover.

But again, the Coronets....sign me up!

uplanderguy

Apparently wagons are in vogue now. A few weeks ago a nice, authentic, but not perfect, '63 Lark Daytona Wagonaire sold on BaT for $32K, and this 1971 Kingswood (read that as 'Impala wagon') just sold for $20K:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/133921758331?mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&campid=5337851298&customid=487330&toolid=10001&mkevt=1

I'll say, I haven't seen one this original/authentic looking in a lonnnggg time, and that's a big thing for me.

I never liked blue interior, but realize, "What other color interior would that exterior color come in?!".

I always liked the full-length, wide rocker trim on '71 Impalas. I also like the clean sides. I'd say most '71's I remember were optioned with wheel opening moldings (OK by me) and body side moldings too (too many layers of horizontal trim on the side for me).

AM radio, no A/C car. Working clamshell tailgate though. Cracked dash pad.

I had forgotten that these were on a 125 inch wheelbase, 3 1/2 inches longer than Impala coupes and sedans.

Boy, look at the instrument panel of this car and you can see what I think shows that Chevy spent all their styling money on the outside and didn't have much leftover for the inside. A/C helped a lot IMHO; at least all the dash vents were plastichromed (there's that term again!) instead of just black plastic.

Although the car is gargantuan, it still seems more modern to me in styling than the non-GM competition at the time. Some people hate the clamshell, but as a teenager I was always impressed to see one in operation.

andre1969

Oh, on the subject of those '73-87 GM trucks (see, the term "Squarebody" still just doesn't flow off my tongue, or onto the keyboard so naturally ), that reminded me of something my Grandmom did, when Granddad bought his '85 Silverado.

Grandmom definitely was NOT a fan of downsizing, although I think that's because they went from a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop to an '82 Malibu wagon, and that was a pretty big jump. And, admittedly, Grandmom never got over those stationary rear door windows in the Malibu. Anyway, in her opinion, I think she just felt you were getting less car for your money.

So, when they went to buy that '85, Grandmom brought along a tape measure. They had a '76 GMC crew cab, and she measured the width of the seat cushion, and then she measured the '85 they wanted to buy. She was just so convinced that the '85 had been downsized, somehow, like they had been doing with the cars.

And, well I'll be damned, somehow the seat cushion on the '85 WAS a bit narrower! It took a lot of convincing, to make her realize the truck had NOT been downsized. I'm not sure why the seat on the '85 would be narrower than a '76, except that the '85 was a single cab, versus a crew cab for the '76. I don't remember, and I'm too lazy to look at pictures right now, but I think the base cushion on the '85 might have been tapered toward the back, to allow for the hardware that lets the backrest fold forward, so you can get to the little storage area behind the seat. The '76 would have had a fixed backrest. Still, she was not impressed. But, apparently Granddad won out, as they bought the truck and it stayed in the family for 32 years.

sda

I don't have a picture of the rear of mom's 76 Cutlass Supreme wagon, but I never liked the look. The tailgate opened like a hatchback. It was awkward and kind of heavy. Mom had a hard time reaching the handle to close it as she is a little over 5'. The modern self closing lids would have been a huge plus for her.

sda

As an aside, when we lived in VA, a friend of my parents visited us from France. She was a lovely lady that had taken mom under her wing when we lived near Paris. Mom said when her friend got behind the wheel of her Renault 4 she became a different person. Instead of friendly and helpful, she was all hands in the air expressing frustration about other drivers. Anyhow when mom picked her up at the Richmond airport in the Cutlass, mom's friend just marveled over the comfort of the car. My parents kept in touch with her all these years until sadly she passed recently.

sda

The revised door panels GM started using in a lot of their full size cars in 71 always looked cheap, especially compared to previous years. And they look even worse as they age. The plastic GM used for years did not age well, especially in sun filled warmer climates.

uplanderguy

The only thing I can say that I liked about them, was the integrated armrests instead of the screw-on ones the others used. I really can't say I remember the discoloring until the late '70's cars. I'm not sure where this car was from but I'd guess the south, by the body condition. Although it's not convenient, those lower panels can be painted.

I gotta wonder how those lower panels got so filthy dirty too.

I'd have preferred this car with black interior. More than likely, the fading wouldn't have happened (based on others I've seen, anyway, maybe not a representative sample), but an entirely-black interior would also mean at least that the instrument panel cluster and steering wheel matched the rest of the interior, LOL!

What's even worse is the Bel Air, Catalina, and I think base LeSabre door panels. They basically look like this, but are plastic at the very top.

ab348

GM began cheapening up their cars in earnest with the '71 B & C-body cars, followed by even more of that with the '73 A-bodies and it only got worse from there. If you look at some of the videos on Adam's Rare Classic Cars YouTube channel he talks about the changes that happened from '70 to '71 with the big cars. He notes the door panels, dashes and interior trim as one area but also the way the bodies mount to the frames and the ways some divisions tried to stiffen up what became a more flexible structure.

sda

ab348 said:

GM began cheapening up their cars in earnest with the '71 B & C-body cars, followed by even more of that with the '73 A-bodies and it only got worse from there. If you look at some of the videos on Adam's Rare Classic Cars YouTube channel he talks about the changes that happened from '70 to '71 with the big cars. He notes the door panels, dashes and interior trim as one area but also the way the bodies mount to the frames and the ways some divisions tried to stiffen up what became a more flexible structure.

I found Adam's explanation around the frame changes and how they were not as strong caused the ride to be 'jiggly' very interesting as GM did make changes to the suspension to improve handling. I would have thought a more rigid frame would have been instrumental in providing better handling.

andre1969

I wonder if they improved the suspension for better handling, but then "softened" the frame a bit, for a smoother ride? When a car is designed to flex a bit, I think it absorbs some of the road imperfections, and keeps some of the bumps and vibrations out of the passenger cabin.

Back when I bought my 2012 Ram, I took it on a test drive with the salesman. My uncle went with me to the dealership, but didn't go on the drive. When we got back, the sales manager said something like "Wasn't that a SMOOOOOOOTH ride?" I don't think he was ready for my answer. I told him it actually felt rough to me. And then my uncle blurted out "That's because you're used to a Chevy!"

Well, I don't think it was that, specifically. But I had gotten used to the way my old '85 Silverado felt. I remember Dodge advertising bragging about how stiff the Ram's design was, and I do notice that when I go over a bump, that I don't notice any flex from the bed, in relation to the cab. With the Silverado, it was noticeable. But, I'm thinking that stiffness passes the bumps into the cab, whereas if the frame twists and flexes a bit, that absorbs some of that impact. I'd imagine that the '85 Silverado feeling smoother was more a product of its age, than being a Chevy though...I'd imagine a modern Ford, GM, Tundra, etc is going to be stiffer than their predecessors.

So maybe GM thought this was a good idea at the time, to soften the '71's a bit. But then it had those unintended consequences of squeaks, rattles, body panels perhaps flexing a bit too much, etc.

xwesx

I started hearing the term "squarebody" in high school... so that would have been the first half of the 1990s. It makes sense, to be honest, because both the trucks before and after that generation (73-88*) had a much less angular profile than it did.

I had a friend who was a couple years older than me and was infatuated with them. His grandfather gave him an '85 farm truck in 1992, and he completely rebuilt it, souped it up, gave it a loud exhaust, repainted it, etc., and drove it for at least several years. These days, he has his own auto body shop where he does custom builds for folks all over the country... from his family's farm (ex-farm?) shop in the middle of Nowhere, Oregon.

*In 1988, GM sold both the '73-88 body style and the newly released 88-98 body style as "1988" models.

uplanderguy

This '72 Kingswood Estate was bid to $19.5K last year and didn't make reserve, but the interior is nicer to my eyes, including the door panel condition.

Though, I have to say, I like the '71 exterior better and woodgrain outside doesn't wow me.



I don't really remember reading/hearing anything about the '71 big cars handling or riding better than the '70. But this I do remember--reading that the '73 midsize GM cars drove and rode better than the '72 ones, and that I believe from experience. I partly learned to drive on a new '73 Chevelle Deluxe wagon six-cylinder (yes, it's true), and it rode smoothly and was easy to drive, despite its size. The steering was nice and GM's power steering at the time was variable ratio. You felt some of the road, as opposed to the steering being totally numb. We had a new '74 Impala. Friends' parents had a new '74 Monte Carlo and a '76 Malibu Classic, and both rode better and were quieter than our Impala in my opinion.

There always seem to be more '72 big GM cars for sale online than '71's. I can only possibly attribute that to the strike at the beginning of the '71 model year.

ab348

I would agree with that, Bill. My '77 LeMans rode, steered and braked very well, far better than my previous-gen Cutlass did. GM got that part of the equation right with those. Unfortunately trim got even cheaper and more plasticky, they were somewhat rust-prone, and were not particularly well-built (such as with the saggy door hinges and rattly door windows on 2-door cars).

We had a '74 Impala for a time but it was such a barge it is hard to remember how it handled and steered other than that it wasn't exactly nimble given its size.

andre1969

My memory is really dim on it, but I seem to recall Popular Mechanics doing a review of a 1971 full-sized Chevy. I can't remember if it was an Impala or Caprice, but I remember it having a 400. I do remember they were saying that something was improved about it, but can't remember if it was ride, handling, that solid feel, or what? Anyway, it was around 1989 or 1990, most likely, that I was reading this, in the college library, but even back then, I was thinking it was odd that they'd praise something about the '71, versus the '70. Another detail I remember, was a picture of one of the testers sitting in the driver's seat of the Chevy, but positioning his hands where he felt the steering wheel should be, and feeling that it was too close for the driver's comfort.

With regards to improved handling, I can't vouch for the '71-76 models, although years ago I test drove a '76 LeSabre 4-door hardtop that was on a used car lot. I remember it felt a lot more nimble than its massive size would suggest. However, I have noticed that the '69 Bonneville I had was a huge improvement in handling over my '67 Catalina convertible. I used to think part of it was the Bonneville's larger wheels and tires, but then when I upgraded my Catalina to 225/70/R15's on 15x7 Rally wheels, it didn't change much. It handled a bit better but still felt like an "old" car, if that makes sense? The Bonneville's steering felt like it was quicker, and more direct. The Bonneville also had a smaller, more modern-sized feeling steering wheel, so that might have helped a bit, too. But, even though the '65-70 big cars were the same basic design, I have the feeling GM did some major revisions to the steering/suspension for '69?

Oh, and here's a weird one. I have an old Road & Track packed away somewhere, where they did a comparison test of a '73 Cutlass Salon and a Benz. I forget which Benz, though. In the test, they referenced a '72 Cutlass, and a '72 Benz they had tested the previous year, and said that in both cases, the '72's had better handling! That seemed odd to me, because I was always under the impression that GM's '73 midsized cars were improved, when it came to handling. I'll have to see if I can find that old R&T now, and see what they actually said.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

This conversation reminds me that a sedan, and wagon, I thought were good-looking in a conservative way back then, were the '71 to whatever, Dodge Coronets. I always thought a Coronet Custom was a nice alternative to a Malibu for a family car of mid-size proportions. I do believe they were on a longer wheelbase than the GM's. The Coronet Brougham trim was nice, inside and out, too.

My brother bought a used Coronet wagon in the late '70s as he had 3 young kids and needed the room. He bought it from a Mercury dealer's used car lot and it was very nicely kept up. I think it was a '73. It had the 400 engine (he thought it was a 440 but eventually discovered that it wasn't available in the Coronet wagon) and was nice enough inside and out, though it wasn't the top-end (Crestwood?) model with woodgrain. Some things I noticed with it though, were that it was (a) not as quiet as the GM cars I was used to and (b) rode rougher, probably because of the load capacity it had to have. It sucked down gas at a prodigious rate too, which is why he eventually got rid of it.

uplanderguy

Spoiler
*In 1988, GM sold both the '73-88 body style and the newly released 88-98 body style as "1988" models.


I swear, I believe I remember seeing my first 'new style' '88 Chevy pickup at a dealer in Dec. '86, which seems insane. It seemed insane to me at the time.

I liked that style Chevy pickup, with the four square headlights, more than any Chevy pickup since.

fintail

Funny thing, I was reviewing some data at work the other day (I work for an ag-related finance company), and saw a file from Helix, OR.

I think the 1988 squarebodies might have been the 1/2 ton or heavier trucks? And the squarebody Suburban lived on through MY 1991.

xwesx said:

I started hearing the term "squarebody" in high school... so that
would have been the first half of the 1990s. It makes sense, to be honest, because both the trucks before and after that generation (73-88*) had a much less angular profile than it did.

I had a friend who was a couple years older than me and was infatuated with them. His grandfather gave him an '85 farm truck in 1992, and he completely rebuilt it, souped it up, gave it a loud exhaust, repainted it, etc., and drove it for at least several years. These days, he has his own auto body shop where he does custom builds for folks all over the country... from his family's farm (ex-farm?) shop in the middle of Nowhere, Oregon.

*In 1988, GM sold both the '73-88 body style and the newly released 88-98 body style as "1988" models.

xwesx

fintail said:

Funny thing, I was reviewing some data at work the other day (I work for an ag-related finance company), and saw a file from Helix, OR.

Nice! That's some rare air there....

uplanderguy

I agree that I believe the only ‘88 trucks that weren’t the new style were the larger ones, maybe 1 ton and larger. Not sure about the 3/4 tons without looking at a brochure and too lazy to do that. It was the first time that the Suburban and also K Blazers weren’t updated at the same time as the pickups.

uplanderguy

Something nice GM did on their big ‘71 convertibles was widen the back seat. I’m thinking there weren’t big Mercury convertibles in ‘71 or later, or any big Mopar convertibles in ‘71 or later.

A friend has a ‘72 LeSabre Custom convertible. It’s a nice, solid car and I think the styling beats a ‘70.

andre1969

For some reason I'm thinking that for 1988, I'm thinking the squarebody was only offered as a 3/4-ton and larger model. They had called them the C/K (2wd/4wd), but for '88 I think they changed that to R/V?

Initially, I don't think a crew-cab was offered for the new '88 style, although an extended cab was, and that might have been the main reason they kept the squarebody around. The crew cab shared much of its structure with the Suburban, and back then the Suburban was the only game in town if you wanted something like that, so GM probably felt no pressure to update. They also used that squarebody cab as the basis for medium-duty trucks, so there was still some demand for it. Actually, I don't know what the cutoff is for a medium-duty vs heavy-duty truck, but here's a 1990 Chevrolet Kodiak tandem-axle dump truck, so they were used in some pretty big applications...


They must have been mixing and matching the old and new style cab in larger trucks by that time, because if I google "1990 Chevrolet Kodiak", it brings up pics of both styles. But for 1991, it looks like only the newer style.

I wonder if they finally dropped the regular cab after 1990? I think the crew cab stayed around through 1991, like the Suburban, though.

sda

uplanderguy said:

Something nice GM did on their big ‘71 convertibles was widen the back seat. I’m thinking there weren’t big Mercury convertibles in ‘71 or later, or any big Mopar convertibles in ‘71 or later.

A friend has a ‘72 LeSabre Custom convertible. It’s a nice, solid car and I think the styling beats a ‘70.

I believe GM went with a more complicated scissors type folding mechanism that took up less space that allowed adding a wider back seat. I remember my 70 DeVille convertible having a fairly narrow back seat as the folding mechanism of the roof intruded at the torso level on each side. It was fine for two passengers, tight for three.

explorerx4

How about a 63 Galaxie and Impala drag racing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chgLpfvAhJE

andre1969

Ford and Mopar made some effort to widen the back seats of their convertibles with their 1969 redesigns. I don't know if they did anything out-of-the-ordinary with the top mechanism, but they were able to get rid of those boxed-in areas at the corners, where part of the top folded down into.

From the pics I've seen, it looks like Mopar actually did a pretty good job, but with the Fords, the backrest looked rather thin, and too vertical to really be comfortable. And the base cushion looked narrow, as well. I can't find any really good pics online, but here's one of a Ford. It's distorted, but should at least give some idea...


Here's a '69 Newport:

The sides do taper inward in the Newport, toward the backrest, so it's still not "full width" in my opinion, but at least an improvement over the old style with the boxed-in corners.

Here's a '67 Catalina, for comparison. Not the best shot, but it shows the boxed-in corners that cut into the backrest.

andre1969

Another anniversary rolled around today. It was on this day, November 6, 1999, that I brought this home...

Now that I think about it, it was even a Saturday. I swear it doesn't seem that long ago...where the hell did the time go?!

tjc78

Both generations of the LH cars were such good looking designs IMO.

sda

andre1969 said:

Another anniversary rolled around today. It was on this day, November 6, 1999, that I brought this home...

Now that I think about it, it was even a Saturday. I swear it doesn't seem that long ago...where the hell did the time go?!

Exactly. I see the Catalina in the background. When did you buy it?

fintail

I recall there was an SS version of that turn of the century Impala/Biscayne, I assume with a 3800. I remember seeing one at the local dealer, IIRC MSRP was over 30K, I think I just shook my head. I recall when those debuted, the little old lady across the street from my mom bought one, a loaded model with wheels, roof, etc.

I think all of those LH cars retired to eastern WA, I am amazed at how many I see.

fintail

That was the 2006+ version. There was a short run SS of the 00-05 style too, V6 only.

explorerx4 said:

The SS version of that Impala had a 5.3 v8.

tjc78

@fintail said:
I recall there was an SS version of that turn of the century Impala/Biscayne, I assume with a 3800. I remember seeing one at the local dealer, IIRC MSRP was over 30K, I think I just shook my head. I recall when those debuted, the little old lady across the street from my mom bought one, a loaded model with wheels, roof, etc.

I think all of those LH cars retired to eastern WA, I am amazed at how many I see.

04/05 SS had the 3800 Supercharged that was in all the “sporty” GM models at the time.

It was a good power train for the time. My buddy had an early 2000s Grand Prix coupe with the SC 3800. It was pretty quick, always felt faster than my V6 Solara.

uplanderguy

I remember liking the looks of the Intrepid when introduced. I liked that dark green that many were.

I never noticed, andre, that your Catalina has power windows, power door locks, and the radio with tape deck, all of which would strike me as unusual in a Catalina. Nice options!

ab348

Adam’s latest YT video is a review of his ‘72 Chrysler New Yorker 4-door sedan. Odd car which he says he’s owned for 9 years. To me, it is strangely unimpressive for a New Yorker in terms of both its colours and trim. He explains how it was priced almost identically to an Olds 98 or a Mercury Marquis. Even though I like the fuselage Chrysler’s, I would take either of those over this if I was buying new back in the day.

https://youtu.be/GFI90HWJTsw

uplanderguy

A good high school friend of mine, had parents with a '72 Chrysler Town and Country. I was not impressed. It just seemed like a bloated mess to me. The interior didn't strike me as that great, and I never got a wagon with fender skirts (I know the Olds Custom Cruiser did too). They traded it on a new '77 Caprice Classic sedan.

Your mention of an Olds Ninety-Eight in the same model year ('72) reminds me of the hubbub it made when the Regency was introduced as a special 75th anniversary model that year. First car I can remember with 'pillow' seats. I've heard Cadillac staff was miffed....seriously. Although, the pillow idea sure got watered down and all over the place, over the years and with all the other makers.

Something about that New Yorker--I get that people like the solidity of a 'regular' sedan, but that bodystyle doesn't do the New Yorker any favors IMHO. Of course, that bodystyle was not available on a Ninety-Eight that year, and a pillared hardtop sedan I think was available in the Marquis but that sure looked better IMHO.

I'm not a fan of the fussy (MHO only) Marquis interior that year, but I do like the looks of the '71 and '72 Mercurys better than the later big ones.

uplanderguy

Am I not seeing a center armrest in tht New Yorker? I'm rather shocked at that. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

My friend's parents T&C had 50/50 front seats with individual center armrests. The car was non-metallic beige outside, woodgrain, green cloth and vinyl inside.

I remember the factory radio having both knobs to the left of the dial.

EDIT: At 11:00 in the video, I can see the small loop at the top of the center armrest, with which to pull it down. I also saw in the brochure that that seat trim included one.

I can remember mid-year '72, when they introduced a Caprice sedan, and in '68 when a Bonneville sedan was introduced. In my kid's mind even then, that seemed to be a 'cheap out', LOL, although some people preferred the less wind noise, etc., and those sedans were always priced less than the four-door hardtop.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I remember liking the looks of the Intrepid when introduced. I liked that dark green that many were.

I never noticed, andre, that your Catalina has power windows, power door locks, and the radio with tape deck, all of which would strike me as unusual in a Catalina. Nice options!

Oh, the interior pic I posted wasn't of my Catalina. I was too lazy to go out to the garage and take a fresh picture, so I just found one on the web. I WISH mine had power windows! I didn't even think about power windows when I bought the car when I was 24, back in 1994. However, back then the power top didn't work, either. So when I'd put the top down I had to get out of the car, and once out, it was easy to just walk around, reach in, and roll down all the windows. But now, when I put the top down, I have to just sit there, with my finger on the lever, until the top drops, and then get the windows down. And the car is big enough that it's not really easy to reach the cranks for the back windows, or the passenger side, from the driver's seat. I thought it would be really cool to be able to just put one hand on the power top lever, another on the power windows, and drop them all at once.

I liked the dark green they offered on the Intrepid, too. That was actually the color I wanted. I had the dealer do a search, but the only green ones they could find were sort of a light, sage green, that to me looked more gray than green. I thought about holding out, and seeing if I could find one on that dark green, but then the sales manager asked what it would take to get me to drive that car home today, and I said throw in 12-disc cd changer. And, they did!

andre1969

I always thought Chrysler did a disservice to the New Yorker, when they put it on the same wheelbase as the Newport for 1963. No matter how nicely trimmed out it was, it just didn't have the presence of something like a Ninety-Eight or Electra. Mercury didn't really have anything in this league at that time, as they had been pushed back down to roughly Pontiac/Dodge status in '61, and wouldn't really move seriously upscale again until later in the 1960's.

I think the New Yorker made a comeback for '65. Even though its wheelbase only went from 122 to 124", it just seemed to be a more impressive, noticeable car. Although its length didn't go up as much as I thought...from 215.5" to 218.2". In contrast, a '65 LeSabre was 216.8" and an Electra was 224.1, so it was still sized closer to a LeSabre. But it still had more presence about it. Only thing is, so did the Newport, and they were still too similar in style.

The New Yorker didn't really start seeming distinctive and luxurious to me, until they gave it the Imperial treatment for '76.

To a degree, the Mercury Marquis always suffered from that same perception, in my mind. Even in years when it was priced into New Yorker/Ninety-Eight/Electra territory, in my opinion it just didn't have quite the status. Part of that though, might just be old-fashioned thinking on my part. For the most part, I tended to pigeonhole Mercury as a Pontiac/Dodge competitor, even though by the 70's it was really spanning the whole cap between Ford and Lincoln. Once the Monterey went away and they called all the big cars "Marquis", that might have diluted the name a bit in my opinion, which I'll admit is unfair, because they upper trim levels were really nice cars. And nowadays, whenever I see one of those big Marquises at a car show, they definitely attract my attention, so I have come to appreciate them more, later in life.

sda

andre1969 said:

I always thought Chrysler did a disservice to the New Yorker, when they put it on the same wheelbase as the Newport for 1963. No matter how nicely trimmed out it was, it just didn't have the presence of something like a Ninety-Eight or Electra. Mercury didn't really have anything in this league at that time, as they had been pushed back down to roughly Pontiac/Dodge status in '61, and wouldn't really move seriously upscale again until later in the 1960's.

I think the New Yorker made a comeback for '65. Even though its wheelbase only went from 122 to 124", it just seemed to be a more impressive, noticeable car. Although its length didn't go up as much as I thought...from 215.5" to 218.2". In contrast, a '65 LeSabre was 216.8" and an Electra was 224.1, so it was still sized closer to a LeSabre. But it still had more presence about it. Only thing is, so did the Newport, and they were still too similar in style.

The New Yorker didn't really start seeming distinctive and luxurious to me, until they gave it the Imperial treatment for '76.

To a degree, the Mercury Marquis always suffered from that same perception, in my mind. Even in years when it was priced into New Yorker/Ninety-Eight/Electra territory, in my opinion it just didn't have quite the status. Part of that though, might just be old-fashioned thinking on my part. For the most part, I tended to pigeonhole Mercury as a Pontiac/Dodge competitor, even though by the 70's it was really spanning the whole cap between Ford and Lincoln. Once the Monterey went away and they called all the big cars "Marquis", that might have diluted the name a bit in my opinion, which I'll admit is unfair, because they upper trim levels were really nice cars. And nowadays, whenever I see one of those big Marquises at a car show, they definitely attract my attention, so I have come to appreciate them more, later in life.

When Ford no longer used the Galaxie name and all full size and the the fox sized cars were all LTDs, that diluted that name/hierarchy as well.

andre1969

sda said:

When Ford no longer used the Galaxie name and all full size and the the fox sized cars were all LTDs, that diluted that name/hierarchy as well.

At some point maybe 1969 or 1970, it seemed like the LTD started moving downscale. Where before, it had been a top-shelf Caprice-level car (the inspiration for the Caprice, even), suddenly it seemed like the LTD was more of an Impala-level car, and if you wanted Caprice aspirations, you had to go with the LTD Brougham.

I'd never really thought about it before, with regards to the Fox-based LTD/Marquis for '83, but I wonder if Ford management was considering dropping the larger Panther-based models? It does seem reminiscent of what Pontiac tried for '82 with the Bonneville-G, and then having to backpedal and bring out the full-sized Parisienne in 1983? I'm convinced GM was considering doing that across their full range, and that's why the Malibu, Cutlass, and Regal (formerly Century) all went for more upscale look for '82. But, for whatever reason, cooler heads prevailed at Chevy, Olds, and Buick, and they didn't follow Pontiac's dead-end lead.

It seems like Chrysler had the best success with putting a big car nameplate on a smaller model. When they turned the M-body LeBaron into the New Yorker for 1982, and then the 5th Avenue for '83-89, it sold fairly well.

uplanderguy

RE.: Your Catalina--duh, now I see that that pic is not of a white car. I zeroed right in that it was a '67 Catalina though.

I often see right through color on an old car. I can remember cars of classmates and neighbors and such from way back when, but it's not unusual for me to remember the year, make, and model and draw a complete blank on the color!

My favorite Mopar of all is a '65 or '66 Imperial LeBaron four-door hardtop, followed by a 1965 300-L. I also really like the '68 Satellite hardtop. Every detail just looks smooth and simple to me, even the nameplates and location of the emblems and such. To me, it's the '65 Impala of the Mopar world for perfect harmonious styling and proportions.

uplanderguy

Above I mentioned the pillow seating in the '72 Ninety-Eight Regency.

I read an article a few years back, that the fellow whose idea that interior was, was the same guy who came up with Evening Orchid (and I'll assume, Iris Mist for Pontiacs) in the '65 model year. His name was Blaine something. Supposedly he kept asking for more money for the interior of the '72 Ninety-Eight and did blow a lot of people away with that Regency seating and trim.

uplanderguy

I think the LTD started going downmarket around '69 or '70, too. In my memory anyway, it seems like the interiors were no nicer than Galaxie 500's for a few years, although the exterior trim was more luxurious on the LTD. It's almost like they decided to bury the Galaxie 500 in those '70 to maybe '74 model years.

ab348

Downgrading nameplates has been happening for a long time. BelAir used to be Chevy’s top line model and by its end it was the lowest line. Impala went similarly downscale. There is always a Brougham or Classic waiting to be added to a previously upscale model name to try to confuse buyers.

fintail

Regarding fuselage cars, I think I have mentioned my grandpa had a 71 Newport, 4 door HT, green with a green vinyl top and green interior. It was an impulse buy, per my grandma anyway, replacing their red 65 - apparently my grandpa was a fan of the styling and size, and he also liked a good value, so the "big and affordable" Newport market position appealed to him. It was a 383 and had dog dish wheelcovers in old pics. I've heard it wasn't as reliable as the 65 (there's a fun story about the 71 refusing to start as they were needing to drive to the airport for a long-planned trip to Hawaii, and they had to beg a neighbor for a ride as grandpa's company car was left at work), but the car ended up going to a family member who I think put some miles on it before it was retired.

I think the decontenting of names is a uniquely Detroit thing. On that note, I like Adam's black Galaxie hardtop with the blue interior.

explorerx4

The Galaxie name had kind of run its' course by the 70's. It is still used in Europe, as far as I know.
I remember seeing a billboard for a new year Fuselage Chrysler. It read only a $1.49 a pound.

andre1969

ab348 said:

Downgrading nameplates has been happening for a long time. BelAir used to be Chevy’s top line model and by its end it was the lowest line. Impala went similarly downscale. There is always a Brougham or Classic waiting to be added to a previously upscale model name to try to confuse buyers.

And if that's not enough, sometimes they can add other suffixes to make it sound even more special. I always get a kick out of it when they throw on a suffix across the whole line, so that even the basic model sounds like it's something special. For example, Electra 225. Now initially there was an Electra and an Electra 225. IIRC the Electra was offered as a 4-door sedan, hardtop coupe, and hardtop sedan, while the 225 was offered as a "Riviera" hardtop coupe/hardtop sedan, and convertible. But after a couple years, they just called the whole line "Electra 225".

Olds played that game with the Delta 88, too. I think for awhile the lineup was Delta 88 / Delta 88 Royale, but at some point they were all Royales, and the nicer one was now a Brougham. And for a year or two there was even a Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS.

And Ford did it with the Galaxie. For a couple years they had Galaxie, which I think was just 2- and 4-door sedans), whereas the Galaxie 500 had the full range of sedans, hardtops, convertible and wagon. At some point they called them all Galaxie 500, although I think there was still a Custom and a Custom 500 for the Biscayne/Bel Air price range of cars. I could see someone not in the know looking at a Galaxie 500 and thinking "It's not just a Galaxie...it's a Galaxie Five HUNDRED!"

My 2000 Intrepid was the base model, and it was simply "Intrepid" although I've seen it referenced in various publications as "STD." In 2001 though, they started calling the base model "Intrepid SE" which I thought was dumb, because in my mind the "SE" (Special Edition) should have been reserved for a top trim level, like the old Dodge Dart SE or Dodge Aspen SE.

Worse, the next trim level up was the Intrepid ES. Not fun, for those with lysdexia

andre1969

explorerx4 said:

The Galaxie name had kind of run its' course by the 70's. It is still used in Europe, as far as I know.
I remember seeing a billboard for a new year Fuselage Chrysler. It read only a $1.49 a pound.

Personally I like the name "Galaxie" but I guess it is a holdover from the 1950's and the space race era, and a bit out of touch with the 70's.

Useless trivia...thanks to Ford, and us having a '64 Galaxie when I was a kid, to this day, I tend to mis-spell the word "Galaxy". A bit embarrassing, since I work for NASA

Another word I tend to mis-spell is "tailor / tailored". I tend to spell it "taylor / taylored". I blame "The Andy Griffith Show" for that one

sda

My first car was a 62 Galaxie Club sedan, a base full size Ford. The Fairlane was no longer the low priced full size Ford as it became intermediate in size. This too watered down the Galaxie name as it now included a bare bones model. The Custom and Custom 500 models replaced the Galaxie as the base models in 64, but I think the damage was done to the prestige of the Galaxie name. For 62 the Galaxie 500, XL, Sunliner were the upper models. At least the Galaxie sported wall to wall loop pile carpet instead of textured rubber floor covering but otherwise had a no frills interior.

ab348

The Custom 500 lived on longer in Canada for retail buyers. According to Wiki:

From 1960 to 1963, the "Custom" and number-affixated variant nameplates were absent from the lineup, replaced by either Fairlane or base Galaxie models. Base 1963 Fords were badged "Ford 300."

...

The Custom was dropped after the 1972 model year,[11] while the Custom 500 continued. For 1975, all full-size Fords were consolidated around the LTD nameplate, but the Custom 500 was brought back a few months into the model year. From 1976 onward it was only available in the US for fleet customers.[10] The Custom 500 continued to be sold to retail customers in Canada and the nameplate was used there through 1981. In the United States, the Custom 500 was replaced on the new downsized Panther vehicles by the LTD "S."

The companion station wagon series sold with Custom and Custom 500 trim was the Ranch Wagon.[10] Like the coupe and sedan models, these cars were intended for fleet buyers.

I don't remember ever seeing a Custom 500 model of the Panther models, but that doesn't mean they didn't produce them.

I recall seeing a large number of new Custom 500 2-doors on a local dealer lot in 1976. They were nicely trimmed and not bad at all.

explorerx4

The good old days. HA HA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Kc5AKB6go

fintail

That gauge cluster lol, peak malaise. A panel of idiot lights, and to add salt to the wound, the outlined "55". Oh yeah, horn on the stalk is a chef's kiss for the package.