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

uplanderguy

sandman, nice story about the '67 Cutlass Supreme. Even as a kid, and now, I like the '66-67 GM mid-sizes better than the '68-72, although I think the market may have disagreed, I dunno.

We had a '67 Chevelle. I plainly remember going to '68 introduction night at the Chevy dealer's and saying to my Dad about the new Chevelles, "these are smaller than our car" and other than the four-door's wheelbase, they were.

My sister had a '69 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupe. At age 12 or so, I could barely fold myself into the backseat, I remember that. I also remember the dumb horn buttons--one on each side of the center bar. I think '71 was the year Chevy (not sure about the other divisions; probably the same) started making the horn blow from anywhere you pushed on the center bar, much wiser IMHO.

I remember when horn rings were considered passe, but boy they are convenient to use. I'm trying to think when Chevy may have stopped using them. In the big cars I'll guess '63 but only a guess.

andre1969

It's been ages since I've seen the original "Gremlins". I just read up on the filming locations, and it looks like it was shot at both Universal Studios and the Warner Brothers Ranch (I don't know if it was being called the Warner Bros Ranch yet in 1984, though).

In this pic, that looks like the Dennis the Menace/Donna Reed house to me, just modified somewhat...

Here's the website: https://rtrlocations.blogspot.com/2016/06/gremlins-1984.html

Hopping back over to Universal, I know this particular row of buildings seems to have been around forever:

Some of the earliest movies I remember seeing it in were such "classics" as "Tarantula" and "The Monolith Monsters". I guess it was an excellent stand-in for any time they needed to show some small town. It was also used in 1977's "The Car".

Here's a shot from 1958's "Earth Versus the Spider"

You can just see the courthouse from "Back to the Future" peeking in to the right...or at least whatever that building was supposed to represent back in the 50's.

Most of "The Twilight Zone" was filmed at MGM, and that land was sold off and developed years ago I believe. But the first episode "Where is Everybody?" was shot at Universal, and a good deal of it took place on the Courthouse Square area.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

sandman, nice story about the '67 Cutlass Supreme. Even as a kid, and now, I like the '66-67 GM mid-sizes better than the '68-72, although I think the market may have disagreed, I dunno.

We had a '67 Chevelle. I plainly remember going to '68 introduction night at the Chevy dealer's and saying to my Dad about the new Chevelles, "these are smaller than our car" and other than the four-door's wheelbase, they were.

My sister had a '69 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupe. At age 12 or so, I could barely fold myself into the backseat, I remember that. I also remember the dumb horn buttons--one on each side of the center bar. I think '71 was the year Chevy (not sure about the other divisions; probably the same) started making the horn blow from anywhere you pushed on the center bar, much wiser IMHO.

I remember when horn rings were considered passe, but boy they are convenient to use. I'm trying to think when Chevy may have stopped using them. In the big cars I'll guess '63 but only a guess.

The '64-'67 A-bodies were fairly large cars. Not only a 115" WB but a rather long rear end and overhang. The second-gen in '68 and up went for the contemporary style of a longer hood and a shorter deck, and as you say, the 2-doors were not very comfortable in back. I find all of them in that generation fairly tight inside, even the longer WB 4-door models, at least up front.

GM and some other makes went to individual horn buttons on the steering wheel spokes in '68. Part of that was due to their seeming uncertainty about the new-for-68 safety standards, I'm pretty sure. My Cutlass had a similar horn setup to what you describe. It (and the other '68 Olds models) also had one-year-only designs for all the dash knobs, with somewhat difficult to use recessed controls which were changed the next year and then changed again in the refresh for 1970. Of course with GM we always need to consider the impact of the bean counters on design and I think that played a role in the demise of horn rings although likely safety standards also played a role. The most obvious example to me was the interior finish of the A-pillar. In pre-'68 models they were either chrome-plated metal overlays or painted to match the interior color. In '68 and '69 those were replaced with padded vinyl-covered pieces. In '70 they were again a metal overlay, but without padding and painted to match the interior. I can only assume the safety overlords told them at some point that they didn't need to be padded, but had to have a non-glare finish.

uplanderguy

Where I always really noticed GM's change in instrument panels, which I always assumed was for safety reasons, was from '66 to '67....in the redesigned big cars, anyway. Now, the big Chevy's panel in '67 is nicer to me than the '66, but Pontiac's, and Cadillac's, '66 panels had bright metal pieces, and real wood for Pontiac, and that changed markedly for both in '67 with what seems to be more padding.

I'm going from memory here, but I always thought it was unusual that I believe the '66 and '67 Buick panels were about the same, despite the new '67 exterior styling. I think the '65 Buick panel might've gotten some negative pushback about the round instrument pods being at the bottom of the panel. That reminds me of a review I remember reading about the '53 Studebaker Commander panel. It had four hooded pods in metal housings that were painted gold on the underside, but were "....placed down around your knees where you won't have to look at them", LOL.

ab348

That '65 Buick dash was somewhat bizarre. I can only assume it worked OK, but it looked really odd. I can only assume it wasn't well-received by dealers or customers since they changed it quickly for '66. I think the same designer was responsible for the dashboards on the '66/'67 Chevelles too, though those were not quite as extreme.

andre1969

My guess is the '68 models with the "split wheelbase" were a result of shifting buyer preferences, and marketing department reactions. Midsized cars were conceived in a somewhat recessionary environment, where there was a public backlash against bigger cars, and many buyers wanted something smaller, less expensive, and more fuel efficient. But then the concept of turning these smaller cars into sporty cars, muscle cars, youthful cars, etc started to catch on, and by the time the '68's rolled out, they were probably pushing the coupes to young buyers who mainly cared about a cool image, and couldn't care less about a somewhat functional back seat, while the sedans and wagons were marketed more towards the practical buyers. And that shorter wheelbase, where they took it all out of the back seat area, definitely gave the cars more of that long hood/short deck ponycar look.

And, I guess that split-wheelbase concept was popular enough, since Mopar, Ford, and eventually even AMC, decided to copy it.

uplanderguy

The '66/67 Chevelle panel did look odd, with the switches above the speedometer, but the speedometer was tilted upward.

My Dad was a big fan of the looks of the two-door 1971 and 1972 Chevelles. He doddled so long that he didn't buy a car until the fall of '72. Despite my best attempts, he hated the new '73 Chevelles. Bought a new '73 Nova instead.

I did like the wheel opening trim, and full wheelcover styling, and round taillights, of the '71 and 72 Malibus, but I liked the five-slot Rally Wheels and exterior color choices (like a turquoise, and 'Black Cherry') on the '70 better than the '71 and '72. Seems like GM discovered 'earth tones' for '71 and '72, and yeesh how I didn't like the pea green interiors in '71 and '72.

fintail

Fun stuff. Definitely that's the Dennis the Menace house, I didn't realize it (and look at those cars!):

andre1969 said:

It's been ages since I've seen the original "Gremlins". I just read up on the filming locations, and it looks like it was shot at both Universal Studios and the Warner Brothers Ranch (I don't know if it was being called the Warner Bros Ranch yet in 1984, though).

In this pic, that looks like the Dennis the Menace/Donna Reed house to me, just modified somewhat...

Here's the website: https://rtrlocations.blogspot.com/2016/06/gremlins-1984.html

Hopping back over to Universal, I know this particular row of buildings seems to have been around forever:
Some of the earliest movies I remember seeing it in were such "classics" as "Tarantula" and "The Monolith Monsters". I guess it was an excellent stand-in for any time they needed to show some small town. It was also used in 1977's "The Car".

Here's a shot from 1958's "Earth Versus the Spider"
You can just see the courthouse from "Back to the Future" peeking in to the right...or at least whatever that building was supposed to represent back in the 50's.

Most of "The Twilight Zone" was filmed at MGM, and that land was sold off and developed years ago I believe. But the first episode "Where is Everybody?" was shot at Universal, and a good deal of it took place on the Courthouse Square area.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

My Dad was a big fan of the looks of the two-door 1971 and 1972 Chevelles. He doddled so long that he didn't buy a car until the fall of '72. Despite my best attempts, he hated the new '73 Chevelles. Bought a new '73 Nova instead.

I did like the wheel opening trim, and full wheelcover styling, and round taillights, of the '71 and 72 Malibus, but I liked the five-slot Rally Wheels and exterior color choices (like a turquoise, and 'Black Cherry') on the '70 better than the '71 and '72. Seems like GM discovered 'earth tones' for '71 and '72, and yeesh how I didn't like the pea green interiors in '71 and '72.

I didn't like the '71/'72 Chevelles because of the switch to single headlights. More GM bean-countering.

uplanderguy

Grand Prix went to singles also, and I didn't like that nearly as well as the '69-70.

andre1969

I didn't care for the switch to single lights on the '71-72 Chevelle, either, although I still find the cars attractive. I think it's the '70 that most people like the best, with the '68-72 generation of Chevelle, and my guess is because I believe that was the year it hit its peak hp, with the top engine. Style-wise though, my favorite is the '68-69. I just like the way the front has that forward slant to it, rather than being more upright like the '70.

With the Grand Prix, the switch to single headlights didn't bother me. The car was going for sort of a neoclassic look in the first place, in my opinion, and I think single headlights just fit that bill a bit better. With the '69-70, I think those quad headlights, in the heavy square chrome bezels and widely spaced, overpower the front a bit, especially with a narrow grille. I think the single headlights on the '71-72 help balance out that narrow grille a bit better.

Since the Monte Carlo started off with single headlights, that one never really bothered me. I do remember those being somewhat confusing times, as a kid though, as I didn't really understand "neoclassic" and was more accustomed to the idea of single headlights belonging on cheaper cars, and old cars. So for a nicer car (like a Grand Prix) to have single lights, but a cheaper car (like a LeMans) only had singles, didn't make sense to me at the time.

andre1969

I know Uplanderguy would hate it...but I wonder how the '71-72 Grand Prix would have looked with hidden headlights?

uplanderguy

Any mid-size or larger GM car in the ‘70’s had to have chrome around the wheel wells for me. On cars it was optional I’d have absolutely had to have them. You couldn’t get them on any non-SS ‘70 Chevelle at any cost which bugs me despite the other ‘70 styling advantages.

On the GP, my general theory of “the first year is usually the best” holds for me. I didn’t care for the chiseled deck lid addition in ‘71. I’m a simple guy. No need to say “obviously” lol!

‘70 was the last year in a while you could get leather inside a GP. I remember the brochure photo. That said, the standard GP buckets looked nicer starting in ‘71 IMHO.

andre1969

I had to look at the rear ends of the two to refresh my memory. Interestingly, neither the '70 nor the '71 Grand Prix rear exactly screams "Pontiac" to me. The '70 rear end gives me a bit of a Mopar vibe, whereas the '71 looks Buickish, with just a splash of Cadillac.

It's interesting though, the contradiction going on there...in my mind at least, the '71 Grand Prix looks like it's trying to be a more upscale, expensive car...yet at the same time they stop offering leather. Odd. But, maybe it just wasn't a very common option.

uplanderguy

I remember looking at a new '73 GP SJ in the local dealer's showroom....it was a maroon color, black vinyl top, red/maroon cloth buckets. I was totally smitten with the interior. Still am. Don't like the exterior nearly as much as the previous car, but the interior really shines in those cars I think. I hated how in a couple or so years, they put those flimsy door pull straps from the Monte Carlo right over top of that woodgrain door panel (nice woodgrain, I might add). But that instrument panel returned some of the glamour of the '65 panel I liked so much.

ab348

I like the '71-'72 GP the best of all. I agree that the '69 front end is overpowered by the chrome headlight bezels, while the rear styling is clean but a bit nondescript. The '71-'72 rear end is distinctive if a bit baroque, and I like the front end styling better. However the '73 just takes the '72 and amps the styling up, for better and for worse. While the '73 likely rides and handles better thanks to the new chassis under it and is probably quieter for the same reason, its Colonnade roots bring with it the shortcomings of that design too, and the typical GM cheapening of content and build quality.

sda

The front big bumpers on the 73 Pontiacs hurt the styling. I do like the instrument cluster design, especially if it had the full gage package. I don't recall if the GP had real wood veneer like the Grand Am had, it looked great when new but had the propensity to peel and crack as it aged. At least that's what we experienced with our 73 Grand Am.

uplanderguy

The '73 Grand Prix, per the brochure and my memory, had real "African Crossfire Mahogany" inside, instead of vinyl woodgrain like the '72. Later years looked the same but I don't remember the brochure touting it, so don't know if they changed from 'real' or not.

The '65, and '66, panels I so drool over, with real wood, tended to do the same as you're mentioning, I recall.

Outside, I think I liked the '73 Grand Prix the least of all four of the similar cars.

But hey…even the bucket seat cars got a glovebox for ‘73!

andre1969

I think the '73 Grand Prix definitely loses something in the transition to the Colonade era, as does the Monte Carlo. One thing I like about the '69-72 Grand Prix, and the '70-72 Monte Carlo, is that at a quick glance, I don't think it's all that obvious that they're based on the more mainstream LeMans/Chevelle/et al. GM did a really good job of disguising the origins. And, I don't think the GP and Monte even look that much like each other.

But, for '73, they all just seemed so much more "corporate," and it seemed like a bit of the illusion was lost. Still, I think Pontiac did the best they could with the Grand Prix, given the constraints they most likely had to work with. The unique dash was a nice touch (although it was shared with the Grand Am, but at least the Grand Am was also a more upscale car), and so were the door panels. While the GP still had those two-piece panels with the lower part being plastic, it wasn't shared with any of the other cars. And I always liked the way the lower part swooped up, toward the front.

kyfdx

Needs help with old car identification

uplanderguy

Back to Chevelles for a minute--I can plainly remember a new '69 Chevelle in stock at our local dealer's, and my Dad looking at it a few times. It was a turquoise metallic 300 Deluxe two-door pillared coupe, 230 six with 3-speed on the column, AM radio, blackwall tires....and the five-slot Rally Wheels. It looked really sharp. I'm thinking the sticker was $2,600-something. But what a 'looks' pick-me-up the Rally Wheels were on a basic car like that.

I like the '68 Chevelle's smaller taillights better than the '69, but I like that the '69 has round instrument pods inside instead of square like the '68.

sda

uplanderguy said:

The '73 Grand Prix, per the brochure and my memory, had real "African Crossfire Mahogany" inside, instead of vinyl woodgrain like the '72. Later years looked the same but I don't remember the brochure touting it, so don't know if they changed from 'real' or not.

The '65, and '66, panels I so drool over, with real wood, tended to do the same as you're mentioning, I recall.

Outside, I think I liked the '73 Grand Prix the least of all four of the similar cars.

But hey…even the bucket seat cars got a glovebox for ‘73!

This cover makes the color pop and looks rich on the GP.

uplanderguy

The GP I remember looking at was that same color combo but was an SJ and had body side moldings. That brochure is another example of GM photographing the cars without the optional side moldings, admitting they look better without them!

andre1969

One Colonade I hardly ever see these days is the Century/Regal. Seems like the Cutlass and Chevelle/Monte Carlo are everywhere, relatively speaking, but to be fair they were popular when new. The Grand Prix also seems to have good representation, but then again, it was popular as well, especially in '76-77. With the LeMans, I think the only year it sold fairly well was 1973. The oil embargo took care of that in '74-75, but it never rebounded the way the other cars did. I think they only sold about 96,000 in '76 and 80,000 in '77. But there were enough special-interest models, I guess, like the '73 GTO, the Grand Am, and the '77.5 Can Am that it maintains a presence at classic car shows.

But the Century and Regal seems to have all but disappeared. I can think of one, in recent memory that I've seen...a nice medium blue one with a white vinyl interior, either a '76 or '77, that shows up pretty regularly at the Das Awkscht Fescht car show in Macungie, PA I usually go to every August.

I find I'm starting to like them more and more. The earlier models are a bit extravagant, going for that baroque, French-curve look reminiscent of the Monte Carlo, but at the same time, toned down a bit. I'm not so crazy about the 4-door/wagon models with the stacked headlights though. For me, the stacked headlights can be a bit hit or miss, depending on their location. For instance, I don't like them on the LTD-II because they seem like they're mounted too far inward. But then on the Century/Regal, they seem like they're mounted too far outboard! With the likes of the Monte Carlo, Chevelle, Cordoba, and Fury/Monaco, they seem positioned just about right to me.

One thing that might have hurt the Century/Regal though, is engine choices in the later years. I think Buick stopped offering its 455 in these cars somewhat early on, and its 350 didn't adapt well to emissions controls, so it was seriously strangled. And I don't think Buick ever used Pontiac 400s or Olds 403s in the Century/Regal (although they certainly used the 403 in the downsized B/C-bodies).

uplanderguy

I really disliked the four-door Centurys in the Colonnade years, especially the stacked-headlight ones. For whatever reason, the Chevys handled those better IMHO.

I always thought it was odd that the Cutlass and Century/Regal got a facelift on the lower body for '76, but only the coupes.

That said, I thought the Century and Regal became much prettier.

I don't know if it's available, but I always thought I'd like a '76 Century with the triangular window, wheel opening moldings, and no side striping, and of course the chrome Buick road wheels (I think that's the name). I don't think I've ever seen one with the wheel opening moldings or without the funky upper-body side striping though.

The '73 Regal ("Century Regal") had really nice seating, in my memory. Remember there was also a "Century Luxus", same formal top but slightly less luxurious.

In '74 Buick had a "LeSabre Luxus", which just became "LeSabre Custom" again, the next year.

andre1969

The Century offered the big triangular windows through '77. At least, when I googled, a few pics came up, notably a dark green one with a light interior (and a V6!) Here's a link to that one: https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2017/01/30/found-in-a-car-corral-1977-buick-century

If you click on the pic at the top of the page, it lets you cycle through several more pics. I definitely would NOT want the V6, and I'd want the wheels to be put back to stock, but otherwise, I do find myself liking this car. One thing I notice that seems odd, though, the lower door panel looks like it has what I call the "upscale" panel, which is identifiable by that little "spear" just under the window crank. This panel has the spot where they glue the carpeting on. The "cheaper" lower door panel, like what you'd see in a base LeMans, or Malibu (even a Malibu Classic) is a little different, doesn't have that "spear", and also has no spot to glue the carpet as I recall. But, this one doesn't look like it has carpet in that spot.


I also find the overall style of the Century/Regal's dashboard/gauge cluster to be attractive. But, in base form like this, it does seem a bit too plasticky.

stickguy

one for Fin. A somewhat tatty, and appearing to list to port a bit, beige Fintail. Driving on the NY Thruway today, and apparently keeping up with traffic, at least in the right lane!

uplanderguy

Thanks, andre, that pic does make it seem like that windowed-roofline could be bought with the wheel opening moldings and no upper-side striping in the '76-77 model years.

That hard, black, crinkle plastic all around the instruments is off-putting. I've never seen one like that. I'd take fake woodgrain over that all day long.

My B-I-L bought a new '75 Century Special. That V6 was like a Vega or Pinto engine. Noisy, rough. I think they sorted that out in later years. I also remember the grille was just gray plastic--no brightwork anywhere, not even in outline.

Boy, the cr*p emanating out of the comments below that article as solid fact, LOL. I wish more people would concede online that their opinions, or memories, might not be fact. I won't hold my breath for that.

andre1969

I think one of the best comments below that Century article was, and I quote...

There is absolutely no reason that I should have any interest in this car.



And yet. . .

That's kind of how I feel...it's like realistically, there is very little redeeming about that car, yet I still like it. I think for me, the color is part of the attraction. I love that deep, dark green, and even like the lighter green they use on the interior. And still having the large triangular windows that late in the run is a bonus feature for me. I also like the fact it has a few extra gauges. Maybe not FULL gauges, but the temp and oil gauges are a nice plus.

My main concern would be that 231 V6...the earlier ones tended to be pretty fragile, and had oil passages that were easily clogged. But, I guess if it was well taken care of, and whomever buys it continues to keep up on it, hopefully it would be fine. I don't know if I'd be able to put up with the acceleration, though, which I'd guess took north of 20 seconds to hit 60 mph. I'm sure that's actually fine for most driving, but if you ever had merge into high speed traffic on a short ramp, that could be a nail biting experience!

sda

I had a friend in college that had a 76 Regal with the V6. It was a fully loaded car with buckets, full power, white with red quarter vinyl top, red cloth interior. It was a sharp car, except it was gutless. Full throttle was required a lot of the time just to keep up with traffic. It was quiet but brutally slow. Dad's 79 Eldorado diesel was speedy quick in comparison!

uplanderguy

OK, I think this thing is ugly. But I'm also weirdly intrigued. I don't really remember seeing many of these, although at 14K production, not particularly rare except by Chevy/GM standards. Curious to see how high it will go.

https://barnfinds.com/field-find-project-1960-chevrolet-brookwood/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Newsletter+(Daily)

stickguy

might look nice fixed up. Though I assume parts are going to be hard to come by (especially the wagon specific stuff). And in that condition, it really shows that it was just a 2 door with a wagon rear welded on. Looks more like one of those old MB Fintail wagon conversions.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

OK, I think this thing is ugly. But I'm also weirdly intrigued. I don't really remember seeing many of these, although at 14K production, not particularly rare except by Chevy/GM standards. Curious to see how high it will go.

https://barnfinds.com/field-find-project-1960-chevrolet-brookwood/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Newsletter+(Daily)

Some cars are too expensive even if they're free.

explorerx4

Not much to be had as far as old car spotting in the Cleveland OH area this time of year.
I did see this in Lakewood.

stickguy

I am not of fan of huge cars like that, but for the day, I always thought that GTO and the similar Can Am where really good looking.

uplanderguy

it really shows that it was just a 2 door with a wagon rear welded on.

Although, the quarter windows are totally unique to this bodystyle, and not shared with the two-door sedans.

I always felt the first Accord wagons just had a roof attached to where the trunk was on a sedan.

andre1969

For that '60 Chevy 2 door wagon, I think what they did is used the 4-door sedan, as the basis for the 4-door wagon, simply grafting the wagon rear onto the sedan body. But then they modified that to make the 2-door version...basically just using the doors from a 2-door sedan, moving the B-pillar back, and replacing the back doors with quarter panel.

I guess it was '61-64 that they used an outside supplier to build these? At least, in those years, they look more like they were designed as wagons, from the get-go.

uplanderguy

Yes, the '61-64 wagon bodies were done by an outside supplier, Ionia. I always thought that for GM, that seemed unusual.

My whole life, I never liked how those cars' rear doors were just a total square (rectangle, I guess). Front and rear edges were a perfect 90 degrees straight up, and no break of any kind in the glass.

My local grandparents traded in their two-tone green '58 Brookwood 4-door wagon on a new '63 Bel Air wagon in light metallic green. I remember that styling point on their car. Grandpa said later he ordered a Biscayne but it came in a Bel Air.

I loved the big, blue tint band at the top of that tall windshield.

One of my earliest memories was riding with my mother, sister, and 19-year-old aunt in the '58 when my aunt (driver) dropped a cigarette in her lap and we grazed a telephone pole. Nobody hurt, but the '63 was ordered at or after that point.

I remember seeing a very nice '63 Impala wagon at Hershey in the show, some years back. He had an order form for the car and I saw how someone filling it out could check one model higher pretty easily.

uplanderguy

Talking about the Ionia-body wagons reminded me that this past summer I went with a buddy to an all-Olds show about an hour east of me. I saw a real nice, authentic/original '62 Olds 88 wagon, still called "Fiesta" I think. Not often seen then or now it seems.

uplanderguy

I am not of fan of huge cars like that

Come on, that's a midsize! At least, then.

fintail

For that era Chevy wagon, 2 things have caught my eye - the "D" pillar is not parallel, and there's a little upkick notch at the end of the beltline/window line:



Not bad looking cars, but the Fords of the era with their wraparound rear windows or the Mopar hardtop wagons (which I guess also have wraparound rear windows) push my buttons a lot more.

uplanderguy

Yeah, to my eyes, everybody else's wagons had a little more styling to the rear door; some rake in the rear cut of the door or something. When those GM wagons' rear doors are open, it looks kinda dorky to me. MHO only.

This is all reminding me, again, of my grandparents' '63 wagon. It may have been the first car I saw with a day/night mirror. I always thought the shape, and cut, of those mirrors, was actually pretty if not stylish, compared to just a rectangular mirror. It's almost elegant. I want to find a Stude accessory day/night for my '66 as it's shaped the same. The day/night feature doesn't even figure into it for me.

fintail

Having the "C" pillar at an angle does seem to make it look a little more dynamic.

Fintail has a day/night mirror, in a frame, so the mirror pivots, but the frame does not move. The fintail's rear view mirror, a chrome unit attached to the roof just behind the windshield, is also a nice piece of design. This image from the internet appears to be the same unit:



Speaking of fintails and wagons, this just got posted to a fintail group - people went nuts, only one photo and they want to see more:



A W111 Universal is pretty much "incredibly rare" today.

uplanderguy

That is a nice-looking wagon!

uplanderguy

We talk every once in awhile about how people who post demonstrably-wrong information as hard fact tend to dig in and just....can't....admit it. This seems to me to be a bigger issue on Facebook car pages than marque-specific club pages; just my experience.

A guy in OH is selling a '66 Studebaker Commander, but advertising it as a 'Cruiser'. It's absolutely a Commander from exterior trim in a few places. No model nameplates on the car as the front fenders were replaced and nameplates not put back on. Interior pics also show Commander seats and door panels.

A Cruiser sells for more than a Commander, so the car is misrepresented to anyone who might not be that familiar with them.

I, and a couple others, politely posted such. This guy blew a gasket, said "You guys think you know more about the car than the seller"; when I posted the differences, he replied "LOL" and then asked me if I wanted to put my money where my mouth is. I said, "Post the body tag under the hood. If it says 'Y9' it's a Cruiser" (I know it wouldn't). He ended up making the listing so no one could comment on it. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a churlish dolt".

Big believer in that demonstrable BS should be called, particularly online where people go for information, and where people are looking to buy and sell. Anyone can make a mistake, but good grief, 'fess up. Stroking the guy about it only enables bad behavior. Ugh.

fintail

Like all MB wagons of the era, an aftermarket conversion, as MB didn't have an in-house wagon until around 1978. The Universal conversions are the most sought after of these conversions (these along with the W112 cars are the holy grail of fintails), and also have a rep for being rust magnets - that combined with low production (probably no more than a couple hundred units for W111) make them tough today, as some parts were bespoke and need to be remade for restoration.

The rear is kind of plain:



But the styling does a good job of matching the fintail basis car:



On the wagon note again, there was a Ponton wagon conversion in the Seattle area, and it sometimes showed up for the yearly MBCA gathering - something also super rare:

uplanderguy

Those could've fooled me as factory wagons.

explorerx4

The owner of that Fintail wagon wants to leave no doubt as to what it is.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I am not of fan of huge cars like that

Come on, that's a midsize! At least, then.

LOL...not just that, but even on the midsized car size spectrum, it was on the lower end.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

We talk every once in awhile about how people who post demonstrably-wrong information as hard fact tend to dig in and just....can't....admit it. This seems to me to be a bigger issue on Facebook car pages than marque-specific club pages; just my experience.

Ain't that the truth! I recently saw a post on Facebook discussing, of all things, a 1986 Celebrity, and some of the posts are making me think it must be that "Riding the Cotton Pony" time of month! Arguing, over what makes a 1986 Celebrity unique. Someone proudly proclaiming "I know what a 1985 looks like" when they thought they were challenged on something. And then some guy saying "is it 47K, or 147K? Or 247K miles?" Ooh, that one opened up a nice little can of worms!

Then there's "Cars of the Malaise Era" and constant arguing over what is, or isn't, "malaise". And in the Brougham society on Facebook, while it's not as bad, it's still fairly common for people to get their noses out of joint.