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

tjc78

@sda said:
It reminds me a little of the 2005 Chrysler 300 if the greenhouse wasn’t as tall. Looking at the slab sides you can almost see the 300 bumper/grille up front.

I can see that. If the hood was shorter even more.

andre1969

I'd never thought about it, but yeah I can see a bit of Chrysler 300 in it, as well. I actually seem to recall some road tester at the time saying it reminded them of a Japanese Crown Victoria! From some angles, and some styling cues, I guess I can see that a bit, as well.

I just noticed...looks like Infiniti has almost gotten out of the car business, like so many others. I went to their website, and it seems like it's mostly crossovers and an Armada-looking SUV. There's a Q50 sedan and a Q60 coupe, but that's it. And this Q doesn't look like it's anywhere near the status level of the Q45 of days gone by.

stickguy

yeah, that was the style. The hood shape and nose always seemed odd to me.

stickguy

one thing I did notice the other day was how low cars were, and not all that long ago. I saw a later Sebring convertible (probably 2nd to last generation) park next to a Versa sedan, and the Nissan towered over the Chrysler which looked as low as a Miata parked next to current cars.

sda

fintail said:

Those were the JDM Nissan Cedric, I think they were sent to this market on a whim, a design originally intended only for the home market I think, and it has that look - barely modified for this market. A little exotic, and I think one variant (V8 probably) had some kind of mechanical Achilles heel, as I swear I read something about them, and you never see them anymore. The 2005+ style sold much better, IMO more Americanized.

andre1969 said:

stickguy said:

driving around, a 1st gen Infinity M35 or 45. Have not seen one in years. weird shape on those.

Was it this style?

I always found these kind of appealing, in a weird sort of way. It seems like a Japanese interpretation of an American style. To my eye at least, it has sort of a long, low look to it...even though it's 57.6" tall, according to the specs on Edmund's.

This was an M series. I only remember seeing a few of these when they were new. The later M series were very nice cars.

andre1969

I looked up the specs on the first-gen M45, and I'm surprised at how small it is. I forget the exact details, but it was something like 110.2" in wheelbase, around 197" long, and about 69-70" wide. Maybe it's the proportioning that makes it look bigger, to me. Its hood is a bit long-ish, as is the rear deck, with a somewhat small passenger compartment. And the somewhat narrow width probably gives it proportioning that I'd normally associate with a larger car.

I understand it's debatable whether 197" constitutes a "small" car, though. I guess it's just one of those instances where it looks like a bigger car, if you see it by itself, but when you see it around other cars and get a frame of reference, then you notice it's not that big.

I wonder what one of those old M45's would be like, as a hobby car? Or a Q45...I like the original, grille-less design. I know Japanese luxury cars tend to be more reliable than European ones, but I don't get the perception that Infinitis hold up as well as Lexuses (Lexi?). Doesn't the leather in old Japanese luxury cars tend to be less durable, though?

stickguy

it is full sized to me (based on length). But I have noticed that in the not too distant past, cars used to be narrower. To me, extra width is more of an issue for usability (and absurdly long/high hoods, especially on trucks. Just being a little longer is not a big deal. Never bothered me piloting the minivans since the front end at least was "compact" and easy to see. An extra foot or two out the back was fine!

tjc78

I haven’t looked at specs, but our Volvos feel wider than other cars we’ve owned.

fintail

The leather on early 90s Japanese cars tended to have issues it seems, especially on Lexus and Acura I have noticed. They maybe cured the issue by 1995 or so.

I suspect parts availability for an early Q or one of those Ms is getting to be difficult. The no-grille Q is pretty rare today as well, few saved them.

explorerx4

I've always thought this was one one of the better looking Lexus designs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tFn5RSGjI

stickguy

Nice Camry!

tjc78

I love the Motorweek retro reviews on YT. Wasted plenty of time watching them.

andre1969

It's funny how, at the time, I thought Lexus did a really good job at making the ES look different from the Camry. That slicked back front seemed kind of exotic to me at the time, and the "pillared hardtop" look was nice. But now when I look at it, it just screams "Camry". I still like it, though. And, in defense of the Camry, they were pretty nice back then. It seemed like the '92-96 especially, was almost "too" nice, so they seemed to cheapen it a bit for '97.

texases

I had an ES300 for 15 years, thought it was great. Yes, it's heavily Camry-based, but start with a good car (the Camry V6), then make lots of it a bit better (ride, noise, interior, audio system, etc.), and you end up with a really good car. I still think the styling was outstanding, compared to most any sedan of that era. I went from a GTI to the ES300, and the ES's handling was fine. No GTI, but it was firm and controlled.

sda

texases said:

I had an ES300 for 15 years, thought it was great. Yes, it's heavily Camry-based, but start with a good car (the Camry V6), then make lots of it a bit better (ride, noise, interior, audio system, etc.), and you end up with a really good car. I still think the styling was outstanding, compared to most any sedan of that era. I went from a GTI to the ES300, and the ES's handling was fine. No GTI, but it was firm and controlled.

My sister had a 95 ES300. I drove it several times and liked it, though I liked my 96 Mazda Millenia L better. Both nice cars. They kept it for 10+ years as well. Never an issue, but kept outside, was looking a bit tired.

andre1969

A few years ago, my uncle wanted to get a used vehicle, for a spare. His daily driver is a 2016 Chevy Colorado. It's an extended cab, but the back seat is essentially an upholstered package shelf. One time, he took two of our relatives to see another relative who was in the hospital. The smaller one, a petite 94 year old woman, shoehorned herself in the back seat, and they moved the front seat as far forward as possible, for my cousin, who was probably mid-70's.

Well, after that little incident, my uncle said he really wanted to get another vehicle so that he could "drive the family around" if needed. I asked him, what family? We're either dying off, or moving away! Or both! That was the summer of 2019. The one in the hospital was 96, and died a few months later. The 94 year old made it to 95, but her funeral was the first weekend in 2020. The one in her mid-70's moved to Florida.

Anyway, I digress (sorry about that, I know I have a habit of it). He talked me into going used car shopping, around late August/early September of 2019. One used car lot we went to had a couple of Cadillac STSes, but they were kind of junky. They looked good at a quick glance, but the interiors just felt like things were coming lose, and about to fall apart.

The guy who owned the place had an ES300 that he used for his own personal use. I forget which generation it was, but it was one of the frameless-window styles. I forget how many miles he said it had, but I think it was over 300,000. It had a little rust around the rear wheel opening, but otherwise, still looked remarkably solid, including the interior. He said that in his experience with used cars, when it came to luxury models, the domestics just don't seem to hold up, long term. Even if the mechanicals last, it just seemed like interior components like the seats, power adjusts, switchgear, etc would give out. And they'd squeak and rattle, and such.

We looked at a few crossovers that this dealer also had, but none of them wowed me. My uncle was using me as sort of a litmus test, where I'd sit in the front, get the seat comfortable, and then see if I could fit in the back. I told him that was pretty useless, because he's most likely not going to run into a situation where you have two 6'3" men sitting one behind the other. But, anyway, I didn't like any of the crossovers they had. The back seats tended to be low, thinly padded, and in some cases the backrest was also too upright and uncomfortable. I told him what he really wanted was, God forbit, a minivan. They had this 2006 Sienna that we sat in, and I hate to say it, but I kind of liked it. He took it for a test drive, and liked it.

Well, we went to a few other dealers, looked at some other cars, but in the price range he wanted to pay, they were all pretty crappy. One of them was a 2006 or so Town Car that I was kind of rooting for, but when we saw it in person, crap. There was also a 2006 Lucerne, but I saw it had been repainted, in sort of a cheap, overly sparkly metallic. Made me wonder what sins that paint was hiding.

So, a few days later, he went back to that first dealer, and bought the Sienna. It's a bit miled up...I think it had around 160,000 miles on it when he bought it. And he's had some issues with the suspension, I think. But, the driveline still seems fine, and there's no squeaks or rattles. The glovebox is messed up, where you have to close it just right, or it falls open. But, it feels like it still has plenty of life left in it. At the end of the day, it was still a waste of money. There was one time that my uncle, my housemate, and I went somewhere in it, but other than that, it's never had more than one or two people in it at any one time. But, he's happy with it, and I'm the last person who needs to complain about someone having too many vehicles!

xwesx

andre1969 said:

But, he's happy with it, and I'm the last person who needs to complain about someone having too many vehicles!

The whole story, I kept thinking, "why doesn't he just borrow one of yours in the rare instances he might need it?"

andre1969

xwesx said:

andre1969 said:

But, he's happy with it, and I'm the last person who needs to complain about someone having too many vehicles!

The whole story, I kept thinking, "why doesn't he just borrow one of yours in the rare instances he might need it?"

That would've made more sense. I even suggested that at the time, but he was just like "Well I don't want to bother you". I think it's some kind of independence thing, where he'd rather go out and tie up the money in a second vehicle, rather than depend on me to borrow a car.

And, who knows? Maybe one day it will get to the point that I'm too old and inflexible to climb down into a car, or up into a pickup, so a minivan might just be the perfect compromise!

uplanderguy

Spotted in tiny Edison, OH yesterday, en route home from our visit to the Warren G. Harding Presidential Sites, a '74 Buick Electra 225 two-door hardtop and more interestingly, a 1961 Mercury four-door sedan. Couldn't tell the model from the road, but I think the only models then were Meteor and Monterey.

These were at a tiny, sketchy-looking used car place.

andre1969

I had to look it up but yeah, there was just a Meteor and Monterey among the full-sized cars. However, Meteor did come in a cheaper 600 and slightly pricier 800 series, so I guess that gave a bit of an illusion of a 3-model lineup that seemed common across bigger cars back then.

The 600 was 2/4-door sedan only. The 800 added hardtop coupe/sedan. Monterey offered 4-door sedan, hardtop coupe/sedan, and convertible. Mercury moved considerably downscale for '61, essentially abandoning their upscale '57-60 aspirations, and basically replacing the '59-60 Edsels, and the Ford-based '58 Edsels. So basically, back to their '56 era roots, I guess.

They did start moving upscale again a few years later.

uplanderguy

Funny, as much I don't like '58-60 Lincolns, I've always been intrigued by '61 Mercurys, because it seems like I really don't remember seeing many of them over the years. I do like the Lincoln-like rear treatment; round lights in a chromed-up panel and small fins.

You know me....I saw a really nice black '61 convertible online a couple years ago. They deliberately built them with a rear wheel opening molding, but not a front. It looks like somebody left the front ones off! LOL

andre1969

A couple weeks ago, I mentioned it was the 22nd anniversary of when I bought my Intrepid. Well, alas, today's a darker anniversary. 12 years ago, on this day, it was turned into this...


I know it doesn't look like much damage, but being 10 years old, and having about 150,000 miles on it, it was enough to total it. I think what really did the car in was that Mopar, in their infinite wisdom, ran a very significant looking wiring harness just behind that headlight and the fascia, where it was nice and vulnerable. It got torn, and that triggered a few idiot lights, plus as I recall, wiped out some of the exterior lighting. I was going to try splicing it back together, and seemed to be making some progress, but then gave up when I got notice that it was totaled. At first I thought about just buying it back for the salvage, but these days, in Maryland at least, the requirement for that was that I had to get it fixed within a certain amount of time, and then inspected, and a salvage title would be issued. So I just said screw it, and let them take the car.

andre1969

Re: '58-60 Lincolns. I don't care for the '58 at all, but I think the '59 is an improvement, and actually like the '60. It's mostly in the details. I don't like the way the headlights were in those oblong pods for '58, and separate from the recessed grille. I think the '59 looks a lot better, with the headlights better-integrated. It makes me think of a '61 DeSoto, minus the upper grille. And the '60, with its larger grille (thanks to a dropped center part of the bumper) and finer grille texture, I find downright handsome, even though it's still a hulking brute.

The '61 Meteor/Monterey's not bad looking. I think they're a definite improvement over the bigger '60 models. But, I just don't care for the front-end. But then, I find the '62 big Mercury appealing. The front is nice, although a bit Buick-ish. It's a bit odd out in the back, but in a weird sort of way I like it.

sda

andre1969 said:

A couple weeks ago, I mentioned it was the 22nd anniversary of when I bought my Intrepid. Well, alas, today's a darker anniversary. 12 years ago, on this day, it was turned into this...


I know it doesn't look like much damage, but being 10 years old, and having about 150,000 miles on it, it was enough to total it. I think what really did the car in was that Mopar, in their infinite wisdom, ran a very significant looking wiring harness just behind that headlight and the fascia, where it was nice and vulnerable. It got torn, and that triggered a few idiot lights, plus as I recall, wiped out some of the exterior lighting. I was going to try splicing it back together, and seemed to be making some progress, but then gave up when I got notice that it was totaled. At first I thought about just buying it back for the salvage, but these days, in Maryland at least, the requirement for that was that I had to get it fixed within a certain amount of time, and then inspected, and a salvage title would be issued. So I just said screw it, and let them take the car.

IIRC you were on borrowed time at 150k and the 2.7 V6. My BIL had two of the LHs , and Eagle then a Chrysler as company cars and loved them. Both had the 3.3.

andre1969

sda said:

IIRC you were on borrowed time at 150k and the 2.7 V6. My BIL had two of the LHs , and Eagle then a Chrysler as company cars and loved them. Both had the 3.3.

Admittedly, that thought had crossed my mind, as well. With my luck, I would have put a lot of effort into fixing it up, and soon after either the transmissions would have failed on me, or the engine would have crapped out. From what I remember, while the transmission was just a 4-speed automatic, it was more expensive to rebuild/replace than, say, the 4-speed automatics that GM was using in its FWD cars. And the 2.7, I've heard, could be so expensive that it was actually more cost-effective to throw in a 3.2 or 3.5 when they failed!

The older, pushrod 3.3 V6 was supposed to be a good, durable engine. IIRC, it was designed by the same guy who designed the original slant six. I knew someone who had a '94 Eagle Vision with that engine, and it got to around 160,000 miles, before she gave it to her son. She never had any engine or transmission issues, but she still complained about it a lot. I forget what, exactly, was giving her the fits, but I remember at one time she was so mad at her car that she wanted me to put a sign in my Intrepid that said something along the lines of "Chrysler Sucks," to stand in solidarity with her!

uplanderguy

Just saw this '65 Grand Prix on Facebook--Iris Mist exterior (love it) with whatever color they called this interior. Since I was a kid and the guy who became my first brother-in-law would bring his parents' '65 Grand Prix with the same color interior, I've been smitten. I'm hard-pressed to think of another panel at that time that looked more expensive.

Compared to our Chevelle 300 Deluxe with rubber floor covering, wow...just wow.

xwesx

andre1969 said:

The older, pushrod 3.3 V6 was supposed to be a good, durable engine. IIRC, it was designed by the same guy who designed the original slant six. I knew someone who had a '94 Eagle Vision with that engine, and it got to around 160,000 miles, before she gave it to her son. She never had any engine or transmission issues, but she still complained about it a lot. I forget what, exactly, was giving her the fits, but I remember at one time she was so mad at her car that she wanted me to put a sign in my Intrepid that said something along the lines of "Chrysler Sucks," to stand in solidarity with her!

Our '98 DGC had the 3.3L V6. It was, indeed, a good engine. Even at 215,000 miles when we parted with it, the engine sounded like it was brand new and didn't leak a drop.

roadburner

I took delivery of my Club Sport 26 years ago today:

uplanderguy

The most chronic issues I see on the vast majority of the below models, on the roadway:

1) GM big pickups of the early '00's with a running light out

2) Camrys of about the same era with exhaust hanging so low it looks like a modest speed bump would take it out.

Virtually every unit of these two I see are like this. I lose track of them, almost every day.

I remain stunned at how many cars I see in twilight, dawn/dusk, and even pitch black, with zero lights on. WTH? This morning a large, fairly-recent I'd say, Infiniti sedan blew by me. Zero lights.

Why on earth wouldn't everybody just leave their light switch set to "Auto"?

We've all driven behind people texting while driving--you know, driving five under the limit and weaving left-to-right in the lane. I'd say driving without lights is the next-most-dangerous thing.

andre1969

roadburner said:

I took delivery of my Club Sport 26 years ago today:

Happy anniversary, Roadburner! Glad to see I'm not the only "buy and hold it forever" member here!

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

The most chronic issues I see on the vast majority of the below models, on the roadway:

1) GM big pickups of the early '00's with a running light out

2) Camrys of about the same era with exhaust hanging so low it looks like a modest speed bump would take it out.

Virtually every unit of these two I see are like this. I lose track of them, almost every day.

I remain stunned at how many cars I see in twilight, dawn/dusk, and even pitch black, with zero lights on. WTH? This morning a large, fairly-recent I'd say, Infiniti sedan blew by me. Zero lights.

Why on earth wouldn't everybody just leave their light switch set to "Auto"?

We've all driven behind people texting while driving--you know, driving five under the limit and weaving left-to-right in the lane. I'd say driving without lights is the next-most-dangerous thing.

LOL, I remember back in the day, both of those issues used to get talked about pretty often, here on Edmund's. The GM trucks with one DRL out seemed to be a factory feature!

I remember the Camry exhaust, too. There was a bend in the pipe that was readily visible, and definitely looked like it would catch on something. However, I think that bend was right between the rear wheels, so in theory if you're going over a speed bump, the whole car would raise up. However, I could see a situation where if the car was loaded down, and you hit a bump fast enough that the rear wheels bounced up more than the rest of the car. Or definitely if you tried to straddle a piece of road debris.

It was mainly the '02-06 Camry, but as I recall, the '97-01 hung down a bit, as well.

As for headlights, my Ram's lights have a setting for "auto", but I don't use it. I just never got out of the habit of physically turning headlights on and off, I guess. There have been times when I would forget to turn the lights on when it was somewhat dark, but it would usually be in well-lit areas, and it wouldn't take long for the realization to hit me, that the lights weren't on.

uplanderguy

I wish everyone had your memory!

ab348

Since 2002 my daily driver's headlights have never been in anything other than the "Auto" position. The GM system where they come on via a light sensor in the top of the dash has been flawless.

kyfdx

I never used auto headlights, until my current vehicle.

Since I was unfamiliar with it, when picking it up, I put it on auto headlights for the 1200 mile trip home. And, I've never taken it off that. That's been almost two years.

fintail

That GM running light issue was so prevalent I thought it was dopes buying in to the old myth that having one light on makes one invisible to speed enforcement radar or something similar.

What gets me is modern cars I see on the road that I know have auto lights, but the semi-sentient thing behind the wheel has apparently switched them off manually. I see this in cars with LED DRLs a lot, along with what seems to be a lot of Toyolex products. I've also had auto lights in my cars for years, I always let them do their job, aside from correcting the adaptive high beam now and then, or manually flashing.

uplanderguy said:

The most chronic issues I see on the vast majority of the below models, on the roadway:

1) GM big pickups of the early '00's with a running light out

2) Camrys of about the same era with exhaust hanging so low it looks like a modest speed bump would take it out.

Virtually every unit of these two I see are like this. I lose track of them, almost every day.

I remain stunned at how many cars I see in twilight, dawn/dusk, and even pitch black, with zero lights on. WTH? This morning a large, fairly-recent I'd say, Infiniti sedan blew by me. Zero lights.

Why on earth wouldn't everybody just leave their light switch set to "Auto"?

We've all driven behind people texting while driving--you know, driving five under the limit and weaving left-to-right in the lane. I'd say driving without lights is the next-most-dangerous thing.

sda

I have made it a mental point after having a car serviced to confirm the headlight switch is in Auto. Frequently it has been put in the OFF position. It doesn't help the dash is backlit when the lights are off.

tjc78

Pretty sure that all new cars have to have a green indicator in the dash so you know if the exterior lights are on or off. Like mentioned the always lit up and digital dashboards make it easy to not know.

I’ve had auto lights in just about everything I’ve owned, and always use them. What I miss from the older cars is the delay you could set after turning off the ignition. Cars today just turn off as soon as you open the door.

stickguy

My Acura lights stay on a while.

ab348

Another chronic problem I used to notice on early to late ‘00s Hyundai models was tail/brake/turn signal lamps failing prematurely. Either that, or it was bad light sockets/wiring.

uplanderguy

Funny you say that, ab. Almost always, when I see a car with a headlight or taillight out, it's a late-model Korean nameplate.

explorerx4

We keep the light on Auto, but the service department always turns them off.

sda

In the Acura, Audi, and VW, in the car settings is the ability to set the delay time to keep the lights on as one leaves the vehicle. I generally set it for 20-30 sec.

xwesx

One thing that always drives me nuts in non-Japanese cars is the lack of fully auto headlights. What I mean is this:

On Toyota, Subaru, and, I think, Nissan, I can turn the lights to the 'on' position and just never, ever, change that. If the key is in the ignition, the lights are on. When I take the key out, the lights turn off. As such, anyone with any of these brands should simply never be in a situation where they forget to turn their lights on... because they never need to turn them off!

However, for American and European brands, I have yet to drive one that allows me to do that. Instead, they have this annoying chime or buzzer that sounds if the lights are in the 'on' position. Drives me nuts since there's no excuse for not having a Toyota-like system given that even our 1985 Camry's lights operated in the auto fashion.

That said, while my Q7 does have an 'auto' position, this isn't the same as always on since it has a sensor that will turn on the lights when the overall brightness outside dims to a certain point. I prefer always on, but at least it has an LED surround that does stay on at all times. The location and shape of the light switch means that I will sometimes turn it off with my knee as I enter/exit the vehicle, though, so I do need to pay attention to it. Again, the Japanese system is so much better with a stalk-mounted location combined with the turn signal.

xwesx

As for the GM running lights and Camry exhaust....

GM running lights had a design flaw back then that was two-fold: 1., The housing was tiny, so the heat buildup tended to cause the lights to fail regularly; 2., there was a wiring issue that would cause the light to not power, so just changing the bulb was not enough. I had a friend who owned a 1998 pickup and, later, a 2003 Tahoe, and both of them suffered both of these problems. I don't remember how I fixed the Tahoe's wiring issue anymore, but it was pretty easy to do (otherwise, I'd remember the details!).

Camry exhaust hangers were metal on each end and had a rubber section in the middle. The rubber section was prone to fatigue and failure... particularly the back one that held the extra weight of the muffler (it was mounted before the muffler) and also was behind the rear wheels so there was lots of levering on it when going over bumps, etc. I think six or seven years was about all the time one of those would give you. I recall having to replace the one on my dad's 1992 Camry at one point in the later 1990s when I was home for the holiday break. 97 or 98.

stickguy

I like auto. I don’t want them on all the time. Plus there are DRLs for daytime.

ab348

xwesx said:

However, for American and European brands, I have yet to drive one that allows me to do that. Instead, they have this annoying chime or buzzer that sounds if the lights are in the 'on' position.

Every GM car I have had since 2002 has an Auto position on the light switch which does not result in a chime or buzzer. You get full automatic headlights which shut off when the key is switched off.

xwesx

True, but they will if you put them in the 'on' position (which is the annoying thing). Auto lights are okay, I guess, if you don't want the lights on when you're driving. I use the same position on my Q7 most of the time because the other option is just too damned annoying.

The point I made was that there's no good excuse for the car chiming when the switch is in the 'on' position instead of just turning them off when you pull the key out (or after delay, etc) considering the technology has been around for at least 35 years.

ab348

I cannot understand the point you’re trying to make. In Auto during the daytime you still have DRL headlights on. I see no reason to use anything but Auto.

fintail

Early-mid 00s VW products are also notorious for that.

uplanderguy said:

Funny you say that, ab. Almost always, when I see a car with a headlight or taillight out, it's a late-model Korean nameplate.

stickguy

On means On though. It is how you can turn the lights on without the car running. So you would not want them to just go off because the key was off.