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

uplanderguy

I would comfortably wager that the 210 hp. 400 is a four-barrel. If you ask me why, I couldn't say other than the over-200 hp rating, but who knows.

The brochure I looked at online was the Jan. '72 revision, to include the new lower-priced Caprice 4-door sedan (not hardtop). I just noticed for the first time that the 250 six is not listed anywhere. I thought it was available on Bel Air sedan and Impala Sport Coupe and sedan. I know I've seen a '73 Bel Air with the six-cylinder. I'll admit it would have to be a miserable driving experience. I can remember not many years back seeing a pretty low-mileage '71 Impala Sport Coupe, six with three-speed and the '71-only small hubcaps with silver painted wheels, which looks nicer to me than body-colored wheels like most dog-dish caps got you, even at Chevy.

I just saw a video of a red '71 Impala Custom Coupe with black top and interior online. I was thinking how it looked like a three-year-old used car, very original/authentic. I looked down in the comments and saw I had commented on it three years ago, LOL.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

It's not that they didn't age well, it's that this car has an amateurish reupholstery job. But of course, that's probably due to the original upholstery not aging well, LOL.

As you noted, the brochure says that in '72 you could get (as an option to the brocade cloth) knit nylon upholstery - probably what they used to call "panty cloth" at Ford - in either black or green. And the stitching pattern on that car's seats is a replica of what the factory did. I doubt that the factory did 2 different shades of green, but you never know I suppose.

The reason I asked about the 210hp Turbo-Jet engine was that I remembered years ago seeing Bud Lindeman do a "Car & Track" road test of a '69 Chevy with the 396-2bbl engine (which he thought was a bit of a slug). The brochure that year listed it at 265 gross hp.

uplanderguy

I've seen scores of '72 Caprice interiors in green since, well, fall of '71. The factory didn't do them two-tone. The '72 was the last year GM green interiors were somewhat of an olive or pea green. The '73 green interiors were a nicer shade IMHO but some of the materials weren't as nice as the '72 I think.

ab348

So on the Caprice in the ad I would guess the more vibrant green upholstery on the upper seatbacks is the original material (plus it matches the color of the door panels), while the muted gray-green cloth on the bottom cushions and lower seatbacks is more modern stuff. Too bad because the original shade is quite attractive.

andre1969

I just looked up some stats in one of those big blue MOTORs Repair Manuals from 1976 that I got from my Grandmom's garage. The 402 was a 4-bbl. It lists a 240 hp version of the 402 as well, also a 4-bbl.

At first I was thinking that maybe the 240 hp 402 was the dual exhaust version, but the full-sized brochure mentions "dual exhaust (210 hp V8 only). I looked up the '72 Chevelle brochure, and they show a "400 Turbo Jet" (the 402) with 240 hp, so I guess that was a slightly hotter version of 402, more of a musclecar engine.

Interestingly, there was a 175 hp 350-4bbl, listed as a Chevelle option, but not in the full-sized Chevies.

The MOTORs manual also lists a 200 hp and 255 hp version of the 350. Looking at sales brochures, it appears the 200 hp was for the Nova and Camaro SS, while the 255 hp version was for the Camaro Z-28. I couldn't find a sales brochure for the Corvette, but looking in my old car encyclopedia, they're showing the 200 hp 350 being standard in the Corvette, with the 255 being optional.

By today's standards, it seems odd thinking of the Corvette as using the same engines as the Nova and Camaro. But, in those days, the car wasn't quite the exotic that it is today. While still not a car for the masses, it was much more attainable back then.

**Edit: And yeah, the 170 hp 400 was a 2-bbl.

uplanderguy

Looking at the Caprice ad of the car for sale, the entire facings of the seat were reupholstered, although effort was made to look like the factory pattern. The upper-panel cloth was knit in those cars, not velour like in the car for sale. The cloth inserts in the door panels have been reupholstered too. The head restraints and lower door panel colors are factory.

andre1969

Here's that '69 Impala road test, with the 396-2bbl. 0-60 in 13.7 seconds. In the narration, he joked at the car accelerated, that they didn't know if it could go that fast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbGK7lSmP28

I didn't watch the whole video yet; just sped through to the 0-60 part, but I wonder if they mention which axle ratio this car had? According to Automobile Catalog, a 2.56 was standard, with a 2.29, 3.07, or 3.31 optional.

I wonder if the 2.29:1 could have hobbled it like that? I also wonder, with an axle ratio that tall, how long would it hold first gear?! My '67 Catalina has a 2.56:1, and if you stomp it, holds first til around 55-60, and will sometimes chirp a tire on the 1-2 upshift. Back when I had the old 215/75/R-14's on it, sometimes it even chirped on the 2-3!

uplanderguy

I remember watching that. I remember thinking, "Why would anyone want a two-barrel on a 396?". I later learned some GM 455's had two barrels!

When the 400 came out in '70, I seem to remember it being marketed as a economy larger-displacement engine. In my mind, the 396 since its introduction had been a performance engine. The two-barrel seems to make no sense.

andre1969

I was sort of the impression that the 400 smallblock was intended for towing a trailer. Not much more hp than the 350, but it had 325 ft-lb of torque, at 2000 rpm, versus 280 @ 2400 for the 350. So maybe it was intended for moving a lot of weight without straining too much, but just not moving it too quickly?

Sometimes, those big engines with low hp, but still gobs of torque, have sort of an "effortless" feel to them. You basically give them the slightest tap of the pedal and they take off, instead of having to stomp on it some. And, they don't have to rev quite as fast either, so I'd think that would make them a bit quieter. And by the late 60's/70's, I think a quiet, isolated passenger cabin was what a lot of buyers were starting to want.

roadburner

I was sentenced to a 1972 Caprice sedan from 1973 to 1974; 400 2V and all. My dad mercifully helped out and let me trade it on the 1974 Monte Carlo I later converted into a Q-Ship.

uplanderguy

One last thing about the '58 Fairlane 500--most I saw online had chrome around the headlights, unlike the car I saw the other day. Here's a brochure photo that shows that they were indeed painted:


Even before I looked at a brochure, I sent the pic to a Ford friend of mine, who sent it to a '58 Ford big-time fan. Here is his response about the headlight frames:

"All 1958 Ford headlight doors were painted, across all series. Fact, not opinion. They were pot metal and indeed aftermarket supplier such as JC Whitney had chrome ones available."

andre1969

I never noticed that about the '58 Fords before. Looking at pics though, I swear it seems like every single one has been converted to chrome. Here's a pic I took at the Ford show in Carlisle back in 2010...those chrome bezels even infested Canada
I notice though, that the chrome usually seems pick up a reflection. For instance, in this picture, most of it is reflecting the green of the grass on the show field. Plus, it usually seems like it's in the shadow of the headlight "brows", so perhaps that often helps mute the chrominess of it.

uplanderguy

I know the Fairlanes were longer, but proportionally they're so much prettier IMHO. I know, that's the opposite of my feelings about four-door Star Chiefs and Bonnevilles, LOL!

I think I mentioned this, but I find the '66 Star Chief Executive interesting for a few reasons, despite the added length and the 'stars' decoration on the quarters. Last year of the long-traditional 'Star Chief' name, and addition of the 'Executive' name. Funny to think people at Pontiac apparently had meetings about the Star Chief, LOL. First year for a two-door hardtop one. In the current "Collectible Automobile" which I don't subscribe to, there's a two-door hardtop with those beautiful optional full wheelcovers that year, and a 421. The car is black with red interior. I'd love to have that car. Compared to Catalina, Bonneville, and even Grand Prix, the Star Chief Executive seems so rare....although I saw there were about 10K two-door hardtops made that year, so they weren't exactly rare.

Just a bit 'under the radar', I think....like how I also like the (far-rarer) '67 2+2 even though it has fake vents on the front fenders!

Sadly, the nice cloth seating available in Star Chief Executive (and Ventura Custom option on Catalina) sedans, was not available on two-door hardtops; only all-vinyl.

Here are the '66 wheel covers I love:

uplanderguy

I've probably asked you this before, andre, but did you know bucket seats were available in '69 on the Catalina and Bonneville? We're talking two-door hardtops and convertibles only.

From what I've gathered, a console and floor shift was not available, which would certainly have limited the appeal. Why they wouldn't have just offered the full-size Chevy console is a mystery to me. Perhaps if there was woodgrain on the Chevy console it wouldn't have matched the woodgrain above the glovebox on '69 Pontiacs, who knows.

I've never seen a '69 big Pontiac with bucket seats.

Perhaps with the new '69 Grand Prix, which came standard with buckets and console, it was a concern of cannibalization of sales, who knows?

uplanderguy

Just noticed how similar to my eyes anyway, the '69 Bonneville Brougham sedan seating is to the '70 Caprice sedan seating. The Caprice's center armrest doesn't have that filligree-y design on the armrest though (from other pics I've seen).

Pontiac:


Chevy:
alt="1970 Chevrolet Full Size-08"/>

andre1969

I never knew that, about the big '69 Pontiacs. I'm sure I've never seen one with bucket seats. Bucket seats without a console/floor shift just seems odd to me, but plenty of manufacturers did it. My '69 Dart GT was like that.

There certainly is a strong resemblance between that Bonneville Brougham and Caprice interior! I gotta confess, I don't like it. Not that it's unattractive, but I guess it ruins the mystique of the Bonneville Brougham a bit for me. Although, if GM is basically giving Pontiac's last-year hand-me-downs to Chevy, maybe that's not too bad!

sda

All of those metal seat belt buckles to deal with! Left in the sun or general summer weather, they could burn you! I remember mom trying on the shoulder belt once in her 69 Olds 98 after we first got it. She is only 5'2" and they didn't fit well at all. There was no retractor for the shoulder belt and as such she couldn't reach the controls on the dash. Needless to say they were never again worn.

uplanderguy

Funny, the Bonneville buckets are in the brochure, but the Catalina's are not. The Catalina's are shown in the color and interiors brochure. They look like the same seats to me, interesting.

tjc78

This is so childish (and dangerous) but I’d love to snap a shot of one those old sweep speedometers above at triple digit speeds

No idea what top speed would be on them but I’d assume they would hit 100

My 79 Continental would bury the 85 with no problems

kyfdx

I've been 110 in a '65 Impala with a Powerglide transmission.

I'm sure any other 3-speed automatic V-8 would probably do 120

uplanderguy

Although, if GM is basically giving Pontiac's last-year hand-me-downs to Chevy, maybe that's not too bad!


The '86 Caprice Classic Brougham got the '85 Delta 88 Royale Brougham's seating--they are a drop-dead match.

tjc78

Here is one you guys will like.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTd5h4hvU/

uplanderguy

I always appreciate bone-stock, and that Catalina is definitely that. Thanks for sharing.

andre1969

That Catalina is pretty sweet. And, it just goes to show, that even weapons of mass destruction (i.e., TikTok) can be used for good!

For some reason though, watching that video, the first thing I noticed I was looking out for on that Catalina were the plastic trim pieces on top of the door panels that Uplander pointed out awhile back. One little "feature" that the Catalina, Delta 88, and LeSabre, I believe had, but the Impala did not.

uplanderguy

The wheel opening moldings (optional) which this car has are an inexpensive thing which adds a lot IMHO.

I’m not sure about the Delta 88 but I know somewhere I saw a pic of a LeSabre with the hard plastic on the top of the door panels. The Bel Air had those too.

Pretty unusual to have no A/C in that car I think.

Some years back at a show I saw a very plain light blue ‘71 Catalina 2 door hardtop, blackwalls, dog dish caps, zero optional moldings of any kind, that showed a 350 and Powerglide on its original window sticker. Well, it was definitely a two-speed per the quadrant but it might’ve just said “Automatic transmission” on the window sticker. It was built in Canada but delivered to a U.S. dealer. I was surprised by the transmission. I’ll guess it was built early in the run when a 3-speed manual was still standard.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Some years back at a show I saw a very plain light blue ‘71 Catalina 2 door hardtop, blackwalls, dog dish caps, zero optional moldings of any kind, that showed a 350 and Powerglide on its original window sticker. Well, it was definitely a two-speed per the quadrant but it might’ve just said “Automatic transmission” on the window sticker. It was built in Canada but delivered to a U.S. dealer. I was surprised by the transmission. I’ll guess it was built early in the run when a 3-speed manual was still standard.

That is curious. Given that it was produced in Canada, and given that Powerglide was a Chevy transmission with a Chevy bolt pattern that would not fit a B-O-P engine, I wonder if it was like other Canadian Pontiacs at the time and was an Impala under the skin? I didn't think those were ever sold in the US.

uplanderguy

It looked just like a U.S. Pontiac Catalina, and it was delivered to a U.S. dealer per the Monroney sticker displayed with the car.

I think if I were buying a '71 or '72 big Pontiac, I'd have probably chosen the Catalina Brougham (replacing the Ventura of '70). Slight but noticeable interior upgrade; door panels, and thicker pleating on the seats. Same interior as Bonneville without the added length.

By gosh, the 'automatic' is listed in the '71 brochure. I absolutely have to assume the Powerglide would have been offered on the '71 big Chevys too, although I have never seen one (that I recall). I'll have to look at that brochure too.

stickguy

Really seems like much heavier GM fan base here over ford. Was that the case in the old days too? TJC seems like the only ford guy.

uplanderguy

The Powerglide is shown in the '71 full-size Chevrolet brochure as well.

uplanderguy

I know the feeling. I can remember being the only pro-GM guy on a 'GM Fans' forum here.

People who detested GM posting regularly on a fan forum. Calling Dr. Phil!

tjc78

@stickguy said:
Really seems like much heavier GM fan base here over ford. Was that the case in the old days too? TJC seems like the only ford guy.

Yep me and @explorerx4 are about it.

I think @andre1969 could be persuaded into a Panther or something like a Mark V.

andre1969

stickguy said:

Really seems like much heavier GM fan base here over ford. Was that the case in the old days too? TJC seems like the only ford guy.

Well, you have a Maverick pickup, so we could throw you in there, too! As for me, I do admit to a GM and Chrysler bias, but there are still plenty of Ford products that I like.

Oh, I saw a Maverick pickup the other day in the parking lot at the local Gabes (sort of like a Ross or TJ Maxx). It was what I'd call an "electric blue". Pretty nice looking.

uplanderguy

You all saw me drooling over that '58 Fairlane 500.

andre1969

I seem to recall Pontiac got some new head honcho in 1970, who was more focused on cost-cutting than performance. As a result, 1970 Catalinas started using a Pontiac 350 with a 2-speed automatic, as a step below the 400 with the 3-speed THM400. I'm not sure where this 2-speed came from, but I do seem to recall that B-O-P did use a 2-speed that was different from the Powerglide. At least, I remember Consumer Reports testing a '68 or '69 Buick Special or Skylark sedan with a 350 and 2-speed.

Up until that point, Pontiac in the 60's used big engines even on their most basic large cars...a 389 and then a 400. But Olds and Buick used smaller base engines with their big cars, and with those, there probably was some demand for a 2-speed automatic.

The Catalina used a 350 again for '71, although if you got the Catalina Brougham, you got the 400-2, with 265 hp gross/185 net. For '72 they went back to a 400 as the standard engine, according to the brochure. My auto encyclopedia, which has proven itself wrong in the past, lists a 350 still being offered in '72 and '73.

Consumer Reports did a big-car comparison in 1972, and I remember them testing an Impala with the 165 hp 350-2bbl and a Catalina with a 175 hp 400-2bbl. The Impala was slightly quicker...0-60 in 12.0 seconds, vs 12.5 for the Catalina. So it's probably a good idea that Pontiac went back to a standard 400...the 350 might not have had enough guts to move it with much dignity that year!

ab348

uplanderguy said:

It looked just like a U.S. Pontiac Catalina, and it was delivered to a U.S. dealer per the Monroney sticker displayed with the car.

I think if I were buying a '71 or '72 big Pontiac, I'd have probably chosen the Catalina Brougham (replacing the Ventura of '70). Slight but noticeable interior upgrade; door panels, and thicker pleating on the seats. Same interior as Bonneville without the added length.

By gosh, the 'automatic' is listed in the '71 brochure. I absolutely have to assume the Powerglide would have been offered on the '71 big Chevys too, although I have never seen one (that I recall). I'll have to look at that brochure too.

According to the Canadian Pontiac brochure there were 2 different 350 engines offered in '71:




Some of those 350s were a SBC and the other was I presume the Pontiac 350. I don't know which is which. I believe 1971 was the first year in which GM Canada built and/or offered the Catalina and Bonneville models. They still were also building the Cheviacs, the Laurentian and the Parisienne.

Interesting to see in that brochure that if you wanted the 350-2bbl engine in a full-size Pontiac you could not get AC with it. Makes me wonder how awful the Laurentian was with the standard 250-6.

andre1969

The 350 listed with the 4.00 x 3.48 bore/stroke is the Chevy 350 and the 3.875 x 3.75 is the Pontiac 350.

I'd imagine that 0-60 for the 6-cyl was in the lower 20 second range?

explorerx4

Haven't seen one of these in a long time. It was in very good condition.

fintail

From another forum I frequent, this was spotted today, something about the way this car looks makes me think it could pass for a vintage photo if not for the cars in the background:

stickguy

makes you realize how low cars in general used to be, and especially the beltline and trunk lid. So much better for visibility.

roadburner

stickguy said:

makes you realize how low cars in general used to be, and especially the beltline and trunk lid. So much better for visibility.

When I would get in my 2002 the difference in visibility was amazing.

stickguy

last car I had with that kind of visibility was my 2000 Acura TL. So easy to see behind you. The RDX, might as well be a box truck with the size of those blind spots.

uplanderguy

That '77 Caprice Classic has such good basic lines IMHO. I thought at first this was an original car but the 'Caprice Classic' nameplate up on the C-pillar is gone, which makes me think it's been painted. Still, not often seen these days. But boy, those big wheel openings need the 15-inch wheels iMHO.

There's a gold one with matching vinyl top and correct-width whitewalls around here that I see some old lady driving, and it looks like a three-year-old car.

andre1969

I always liked those 90's ES300s. Sometimes it takes me awhile to warm up to a new design, but I kinda liked those, even when they're new. The front-end looks like it belongs on something sportier than a 4-door sedan. And the somewhat low-slung roof with the frameless windows, makes it look like a 4-door hardtop at a quick glance.

texases

I enjoyed 15 years with a '96 ES300. Some consider it a rebadged Camry, but just about everything was tweaked to make it a bit better.

andre1969

For anyone feeling nostalgic, Curbside Classic posted this vintage R&T road test of a 1973 Cutlass Salon.

In one of the charts, they compare it to a Grand Am and a BMW Bavaria. I don't know what the Bavaria's specs were, but the Grand Am used a 170 hp 400-2bbl mated to a THM400 transmission and a 3.08:1 axle.

The Cutlass Salon's performance figures seem reasonable to me, considering it's just a 350-4bbl with 180 hp, and a test weight of 4610 lb. But the Grand Am seems a bit optimistic to me, being quicker in every regard. Sure, it has a bigger engine, with more torque, but I was thinking that the Olds 350, with its 4bbl, would sort of catch a second wind at higher speeds, whereas the Pontiac 400 might be better at lower speeds, but then start to lose out because of its 2bbl carb? Or does the 2-bbl vs 4-bbl thing really only come into play at higher speeds? FWIW, the Olds did 0-100 in 41.2 seconds, vs 33.7 seconds for the Grand Am.

Here's the Grand Am test, for comparison.

andre1969

texases said:

I enjoyed 15 years with a '96 ES300. Some consider it a rebadged Camry, but just about everything was tweaked to make it a bit better.

Back in 2019, my uncle got this wild idea of getting a second vehicle. His sole transportation was a 2016 Colorado with the extended cab. One day, he had to take two of our relatives to visit another relative who was sick in the hospital. One of the relatives was almost 95 years old, but thankfully small in stature, so she got into the back seat without too much trouble. After that, my uncle said he wanted to get another vehicle just in case he had to "drive the family" around. I asked him what family? Our family is either dying out or moving away! And sure enough, by the end of 2019, the relative in the hospital had died. The one who was almost 95 did make it to 95, died at the end of the year, and I think her funeral was the first week in January 2020. And the other relative moved to Florida.

Anyway, back to the original story My uncle got me to go with him to look at used cars one Saturday. One of the first places we went to, the owner had this ES300 that he was using as his own personal transportation. I forget how many miles he said it had on it, but it was over 300,000. I remember it did have a little rust on the rockers, but the doors still had a good sounding thud when you closed them. Considering the frameless windows, that made it even more impressive. The interior still looked good as well, which I thought was surprising, as I'd heard the leather in earlier Lexuses really didn't hold up well.

This lot had a couple of Cadillacs on the lot. STS or SLS or something like that...basically the RWD models that were around 9-10 years old at the time. Sadly, neither one looked like it was holding up well, interior-wise. There were pieces coming apart, and the driver's seat in both cars just felt loose, and overly reclined, like it had been the personal transportation of Little Lotta or something! This guy said that, in his experience, domestic luxury car interiors just don't hold up, but you can't top a Lexus.

We checked out a few vehicles on that lot. For some reason, my uncle was using me as kind of a litmus test for interior room. He had me get behind the wheel, put the seat where I'm comfortable, and then see if I could fit in the back. I told him that was kind of pointless, because chances are, I won't be driving it. And off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone in the somewhat immediate family that's as tall as I am. But anyway, doing that pretty much left any smaller crossovers off the list. Most of them didn't have a back seat that I found to be comfortable. It was usually too cramped, too thinly padded, backrest too erect, too low to the floor, etc. I told him what he really needs is a minivan. So we checked out this 2006 Sienna. Ugly to look at, but I have to admit, it was comfortable.

After that, we went around to a few other dealers, but most of what was in his price range was crap. There was this one Lincoln Town car that I sort of had high hopes for, but its interior was falling apart. Anyway, I told him that none of them really did anything for me, but of the bunch, if someone held a gun to my head, I'd take the Sienna.

Unfortunately, my uncle is the impulsive type, and sometimes a little TOO open to suggestion. Before I knew it, he bought that Sienna. It's actually not a bad little rig, just well, it's a minivan! It was also a bit too high-mileage for my tastes. I think it had around 160,000 miles on it at the time. But, here we are about 2 1/2 years later, and it's been fairly reliable. I think he did have to get some suspension work done on it. And the glovebox is messed up, where you have to close it just right, and then send prayers and wished that it doesn't pop open on a bump. But other than that, it feels solid. No bad engine/mechanical noises, no squeaks, rattles, etc.

texases

The only issue we had with the ES300 leather was when my son drove it with a screwdriver in his rear pocket, tore the leather. I got one of those leather repair kits with the polymer you mix to match the color. It worked out fine, not like I was too concerned with it at 15+ years. We then drove it down to Laredo and used it for when we flew down to visit granddad. Worked great for another 4 years, then sold it.

sda

I was a little surprised that the Cutlass Salon was not reviewed more favorably. I always remember the Salon being a revelation in how it rode and drove, more balanced european than american. The 350 4bbl Olds engine in our 76 Cutlass wagon seemed to run out of breath quickly. The 2:73 axle probably didn't help. It was a smooth running engine without driveablity issues. As I shared before we had a 73 GrandAm 4dr with the 400 2bbl single exhaust. That car felt pretty peppy overall but acceleration did flatten out at higher revs. I was surprised how composed and good riding that car was. It had over 80k on it when we bought it and still had the original shocks. Gas mileage was poor, more like 9-10mpg.

andre1969

Did Buick ever have a serious equivalent to the Grand Am or Cutlass Salon? I know they had the Gran Sport for a bit, but as far as I know, it was just on the Century coupe. I don't think they ever offered it with the sedan? Personally, I like the idea of the Cutlass Salon, in giving you a more firm-riding, better-handling car, but without some of the more in-your-face styling of the Grand Am or the Laguna S-3.

roadburner

andre1969 said:

For anyone feeling nostalgic, Curbside Classic posted this vintage R&T road test of a 1973 Cutlass Salon.

In one of the charts, they compare it to a Grand Am and a BMW Bavaria. I don't know what the Bavaria's specs were, but the Grand Am used a 170 hp 400-2bbl mated to a THM400 transmission and a 3.08:1 axle.

The Cutlass Salon's performance figures seem reasonable to me, considering it's just a 350-4bbl with 180 hp, and a test weight of 4610 lb. But the Grand Am seems a bit optimistic to me, being quicker in every regard. Sure, it has a bigger engine, with more torque, but I was thinking that the Olds 350, with its 4bbl, would sort of catch a second wind at higher speeds, whereas the Pontiac 400 might be better at lower speeds, but then start to lose out because of its 2bbl carb? Or does the 2-bbl vs 4-bbl thing really only come into play at higher speeds? FWIW, the Olds did 0-100 in 41.2 seconds, vs 33.7 seconds for the Grand Am.

Here's the Grand Am test, for comparison.

As I've mentioned before, a Bavaria was my first BMW; the seed was planted in 1971 when I ran across this ad while thumbing through my latest issue of Car and Driver:

A six cylinder sedan that cruises at 120 mph. Yeah, I NEEDED one. And I verified a 1973 Bavaria will cruise for at least two hours at over 100 mph; in 1984 I averaged that driving through Pennsylvania one rainy Sunday morning on my way home from my first BMW CCA Oktoberfest.

As for the Salon test, that had to be an automatic Bavaria; a four speed would easily run the quarter in the mid sixteens- or better. The Bavaria's 3.0 liter SOHC inline six had an aluminum cylinder head with triple hemispherical combustion chambers and dual downdraft Zenith Solex 2 bbl carbs- making better than 1 hp per cubic inch. Mine averaged around 18 mpg. The car's suspension was fully independent and it had disc brakes at all four corners. Not bad for a car introduced in 1969.