Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm starting to lean towards something like a Ford Granada Estate? Or whatever they called it in the UK? At first I thought it had round quad headlights, but now I'm thinking they're composites, and it's just a combination of reflections and poor picture quality that make them look a bit like quads? And the way they tend to stretch the image these days to make it fit modern wide-screen tvs, that might make it look longer and lower than it really is?
Here's a UK Granada, for comparison...
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
OK, too easy, but how can I know it's a six-cylinder?
Funniest line I can remember: Girl looks at Benny and says "I believe in giving [non-permissible content removed] for tat". Benny: "Tat! Tat!"
I hadn't seen Benny Hill since the 90's, until Antenna TV started showing it on Saturday nights recently. One particular skit that has always stuck with me had the lyrics...
When we set sail from France the waves were higher than a tree.
An Englishman who was feeling sick had the bunk right over me.
He yelled out in a voice you could hear from London to Berlin...
He said "Look out"
So I looked out.
I wish he'd said "Look IN!"
Strange, the stuff that sticks with you over the years. Also, I think one reason I was thinking that wagon I saw was low-slung, is look how it comes to roughly, umm, chest-level to the actress who's starting to bend down to get into it
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
At the time, never met a guy who didn't think he was hilarious, and never met a girl who thought he was.
Bingo!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
In '59, with the Impala name on virtually every body style Chevy offered, a six was not all that unusual.
But for 1958, all it says is 592,000 Bel Airs, TOTAL were made, with a footnote that reads "To nearest 100. Impalas approximately 60,000. I googled around, and saw some optimistic numbers, like one site saying the '58 Impala was a smash and sold about 180,000 units. I think that's doubtful, given it was a recession year and it was only offered as a hardtop coupe and convertible. But then I looked up on Wikipedia, and found this...
"In total, 55,989 Impala convertibles and 125,480 coupes were built representing 15% of Chevrolet production. The 1958 Chevrolet Bel Air Impala helped Chevrolet regain the number-one production spot in this recession year.[9]"
In the bottom of the footnotes, that [9] references the editors of Consumer Guide. As in, the same people who put out the auto encyclopedia that I usually reference. Which itself said "approximately 60,000."
Anyway, Hagerty estimated that around 17,000 '58 Impala convertibles were built ( https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/1958-chevrolet-impala-convertible/ ) which would then imply around 43,000 hardtop coupes.
I'm sure that very few 6-cyl Impalas were built in 1958. I've looked around online, and seen estimates of 300 to 6000, but these are just people throwing out wild guesses. Just going from personal experience at car shows, if I see a 6-cyl '58 Chevy, or Ford, or Plymouth, it's almost always been a low-end model, like a Biscayne or equivalent. But, with the higher-end cars, it's also possible that when they've been restored, they'd have bigger engines swapped in.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
In '58 it was longer, with a longer roof, and wider body in the rear to accomodate the three taillights. It shared the added length, roof length, and wider body with no other Chevy--unlike later Impalas. It was a specialty coupe and convertible only and priced premium. It was made much-more like other regular Chevys in '59.
That reminds me of the one-year-only '62 Bel Air Sport Coupe ('62 body with the '61 bubbletop). I could enjoy one. But I swear, every single one extant has been converted to a 409 and dog-dish caps, LOL. Some years back I saw a pic online of a light green metallic six-cylinder one with whitewalls and full wheel covers. I'd like one like that, except a 327. But I believe there simply aren't any around anymore, LOL.
For '59, the Impala went full-range, adding a 4-door sedan and 4-door hardtop, although not a 2-door sedan. Pricing on the Impala hardtop and convertible actually went up slightly, compared to '58, so while the '58 Impala, specifically, did vault Chevy into a slightly higher price class, it stayed there, and the 4-door models joined it.
Although, Ford was doing the same thing with its Galaxie range of cars for '59, and Plymouth did the same thing, making the Fury more of a full-range. Wherever one of them led in those days, the others certainly followed!
Although I always thought it was the '57 Ford, to a degree, that started taking low-priced cars upscale, when the Fairlane range was on a slightly longer wheelbase than the cheaper models. That, plus the 4-door sedan had more graceful proportions (IMO at least), while the 2-door Fairlane "sedan", despite still having a B-pillar and door frame, had more of a coupe-like grace about it.
It makes me think a bit of the Dodge Custom 880, which used a roofline dating to 1960. It didn't look *too* bad in 1962, as it was essentially a '62 Newport with a '61 Dodge front clip, but as the sheetmetal of the lower body got more squared off, it did look a bit out of place, especially by '64.
I think the Dodge still had just enough curviness to it, to make that type of roof work though...
The Impala might have been a bit too angular by then...
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
"A 283 cu in (4,640 cc) engine was the standard V8, with ratings of 185 hp (138 kW), 230 hp (170 kW), and 250 hp (190 kW) with optional Rochester Ramjet fuel injection. Two versions of Chevrolet's 348 cu in (5,700 cc) V8, its first big-block, were also optional, producing 250 hp (190 kW) with a single four-barrel carburetor and 280 hp (210 kW) with three two-barrels.[16]"
Then, in the footnotes...
"16. ^ "1958 Chevrolet Engineering Features-073". The Old Car Manual Project."
Part of that was a clickable link, that goes to this
In the text below that engine chart, it mentions the "Turbo Fire" as standard in "series 1200, 1600, and 1800 cars". However, "Series 1200" refers to the V8 Delray (and Yeoman wagons). "1600" refers to the V8 Biscayne (and equivalent Brookwood wagons) and "1800" refers to V8 Bel Airs, Impalas, and the Nomad wagon (a Bel Air equivalent this year).
The 6-cyl Impalas were a "Series 1700". 1747 for the Impala hardtop, and 1757 for the Impala convertible. These numbers might have been a part of the code in the VIN.
"Standard six or V8"....yeah, but both have different base prices....you'd look at the top of the sticker and it'd say "Impala Sport Coupe L6" or "Impala Sport Coupe V8", etc.
The worst offender was Nova...."standard 4, 6, or 8". All three had different base prices.
Even in record-setting 1957, Plymouth only sold 9866 Belvedere convertibles.
For comparison, Chevy sold 47,562 Bel Air convertibles. Ford did even better, knocking out 77,726 Fairlane 500 Sunliner convertibles, plus another 20,766 Fairlane 500 Skyliner retractable hardtops. Now the Skyliner came standard with a V8, probably because of its greater heft. Also, perhaps making the V8 standard really didn't make it that much more to produce, but made it seem like a greater value to the buyer, and help soften the blow of the cost.
Considering what a technological marvel it was for the time though, the Skyliner doesn't seem all that expensive to me. $2,942 base price. The regular Sunliner convertible was $2505. $437 was a lot of money back then. But, I think adding a/c to a car around that timeframe added about $475-500 to the price, so in that perspective, it seems like a good deal to me. When it was working, that is...
http://oldcarbrochures.org/United States/Chevrolet/1958-Chevrolet/1958-Chevrolet-Full-Line-Brochure/1958_Chevrolet-12-13.jpg
On paper the 230 hp 283 V8 with 3sp overdrive would be my choice.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
The 79-82 LTD-S. Basically meant for fleet sales, or were very lowly optioned. There is a local guy here who posts on the Panther forums. I see his from time to time, but couldn’t tell you the last time I’ve seen another.
They were available as a wagon too.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
On paper the 230 hp 283 V8 with 3sp overdrive would be my choice.
When I was a kid, I remember hearing from a couple guys that the 348 was "the truck motor". Can't vouch for the veracity of that statement, LOL.
andre, re.: the Skyliner--I'm always impressed seeing one in operation, but after all these years, I no longer like what they had to do, styling-wise, to make the car--particularly the raised decklid area. I understand why they had to do it, of course. I think their Fairlane 500 Club Victorias in the '57-58 years are handsome cars. The '59 Fords, I don't care for at all. I know it's not a reasonable comparison, but I have a Studebaker video for salesmen where they show an Avanti merging into Chicago traffic. It is right next to an entry-level '59 Ford four-door sedan, and I can't think of two cars that look more different, right next to each other. Like or hate the Avanti, it looked fifteen years newer than that Ford sedan, just for the second or two it was next to it in that video. Of course the same could've been said for probably any other specialty domestic coupe at the time.
However, according to Wiki at least, it looks like the 348 debuted for '58, in both trucks and cars. Chevy had been using 265s for trucks and then the 283 when it came out. For bigger needs, they actually used the Buick 322 in 1956-57, but I think this was mostly for medium duty/big rigs. I don't think it went in regular pickups.
But, there was a growing need for bigger truck engines, just like car engines, so my guess is Chevy was developing the 348, initially for trucks, but then the horsepower race in cars took off so fast, that they decided at the last minute to use it in cars, as well.
The 283 was fine, by 1957 standards, and competed well against the Ford and Plymouth offerings. I remember a couple of old Consumer Reports tests, where they tested a low-level Chevy/Ford/Plymouth with the smaller V8s and automatic, and another test where they tested them with the bigger engines/automatic. The Chevy was the quickest performer in both cases.
But by '58, Ford was offering the new "F/E" big-block in 332 or 352 configurations. Plymouth made the 318 the standard V8, with the new 350 Wedge being optional, so Chevy had to do something to compete. Although, from what I've heard, the 283 still held its own pretty well, despite the smaller displacement, while the 348 was kind of a dog.
Tom McCahill tested a '59 Impala with a 280 hp 348 (3-2bbl), and 3-speed Turboglide, and 0-60 was only 13.1 seconds. Here's that test: http://www.xframechevy.com/mechanix-illustrated-a-road-test-of-the-1959-chevrolet-impala/
The specs say a 3.08:1 axle was standard. I'd presume that this is what the test car was using, as there's no mention of anything different, but I guess it's possible the test car didn't have the standard ratio? The text also mentions that a '58 Impala did 0-60 in 10.4 seconds, but I can't find that actual test, so I don't know which engine/transmission/ratio it used.
The 250 hp rating of the 4-bbl version always seemed a bit low to me, given the displacement of the engine. But I wonder if that's because it was designed, first and foremost, to be a truck engine, and its passenger car use was more of an afterthought? For instance, maybe it was designed to give a fairly broad torque curve (not necessarily a high peak torque that looks good in a sales brochure, but rather a good amount of torque over a broad rpm range)? Sometimes that will sacrifice hp. Basically, it might have been well-suited to towing a heavy trailer, but at the cost of being able launch a car quickly down the drag strip?
The whole "truck engine" was probably a slur at the time, but mostly thrown around by Ford and Mopar enthusiasts. But it was probably forgotten pretty quickly, especially once the 409 version came out.
I wonder though, why Chevy waited so long to enlarge the 283? When they finally brought out the 327 for 1962, it essentially replaced the 348. And I'd imagine the 327 probably gave a better balance of lighter weight for handling, and good hp for performance, than the 348 did.
That got me thinking, about how my priorities have changed in the past few years. Back in late 2019, I saw a used 2018 Impala at the Nissan dealer that I liked. It was nothing special, but the price didn't seem bad. Well, to paraphrase Benny Hill, I figured used cars were like buses...miss one and another comes along. At the time, the Regal had about 94,000 miles on it.
As 100K crept closer, I started thinking that, once it made it to that point, I'd unload it and treat myself to something newer. At the rate I was going, I was figuring that would be around May or June of 2020. Then the whole COVID thing hit, and the day I got sent home to start working remotely, in March, I was up to around 97,800.
I didn't hit 100K until February of 2021. And even today, as of the emissions test this morning, it's only at 103,196. And, as far as used cars, well it looks like I missed that bus, and there ain't another one coming along anytime soon! And equivalent to that 2018 Impala would probably be an easy $10K more, and be a lot more miled up. I just think it's interesting though, how my mind has gone from "can't wait to treat myself to a newer car" to "I hope I can make this one last a couple more years"
(Oh, and the whole Benny Hill line was something like "Women are like buses. You miss one and another one comes along. There ain't as many after midnight, but they're faster!" )
The fuselage era Mopars have always been a bit hit or miss with me. One one hand, the styling was usually very clean, but sometimes they just seemed a bit too "Corporate". Wasn't it Tom McCahill that said something along the lines of a 1969 Imperial "Smells like a Plymouth!" ? Some iterations of them looked kind of fat, too. But, for the most part, I tended to like the Dodge fuselages the best, and especially like this '69!
I think part of my preference towards the Dodges is how they opened up the rear wheel openings, and it made them seem less chunky.
The 327 wasn't even available in a Chevelle at introduction time.
Growing up, seems like I heard a consensus of "the 327's a good choice". I think it was better than a 283 for power, but not necessarily a high-performance engine like a 396. I think they started at 250 hp, a nice bump up from the 283's 195 (220 with 4-barrel). Plus, it got you that all-important crossed-flags above the 'vee' on the front fenders. LOL
RE.: Fuselage Dodge--I'm all for open rear wheel openings too. It's gotten to where I usually can't stand droopy ones.
This conversation somehow gets me thinking about that navy blue '64 Chevelle two-door wagon with 283/220 and factory 4-speed that sold for I think $30K a few years back. Probably the Chevelle I would like to own more now than any other. In '64 you really had to squint to tell a 300 from a Malibu from outside, and even the interiors weren't all that different. The two-door wagon was 300 only, and that's fine with me.
I like the fuselage cars design generally, though I think for both Dodge and Plymouth the '69s were the worst of the 3 with fairly plain and generic flat front ends and long rear quarters. For '70 and '71 they shortened the rear and did loop bumpers up front, which helped both of them a lot in the looks dept. In '72 and '73 they diverged again. The Chryslers really didn't change their design much until '73. From '69 to '72 I thought they were quite handsome. Unfortunately none of the fuselage cars were built very well and used rather shoddy materials inside, which have not stood up well over time.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Something my buddy and I, both GM brats, used to comment on, is that some Mopars had almost a flat ledge to rest your arm on, out the window.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1967-riley-elf-mkiii/
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cohort/cohort-pick-of-the-day-1964-plymouth-fury-sedan-engelization-in-progress/
I was reminded, as a kid, how I thought, "Why does the '65 (Belvedere) look more like the '63 than the '64?". Then I found out why!
I did always think a '64 Fury two-door hardtop was nice-looking, and I always liked the instrument panel with four round instrument pods. Similarly, I liked the Chevy's optional gauges which they put in four round pods, from '77 to '84 even though their optional gauges were pretty sucky--temp and 'econominder' gauge.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/automotive-design-history-1962-plymouth-dodge-brilliant-blunder-or-suddenly-its-1977/
The cancelled 1962 big cars have long fascinated me. Some of them like the Super Sport intrigued me, but I have to say that I suspect if they had gone into production, most of them likely would have flopped about as badly as the "plucked chicken" models.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
My favorite Mopar of all would be a '66 Imperial LeBaron 4-door hardtop. Still has a wraparound windshield but for some reason, on that car it doesn't bother me a bit.
I can picture "Mr. Drysdale" in one.
As it stands, in 1961, Dodge sold about 183,000 Darts, which were the equivalent to a full-size Plymouth that year. The Dart wouldn't become a compact until 1963, when it took over for the Lancer. The Polara, which was the last vestiges of the "traditional" bigger Dodge, only sold 14,032 units. Plymouth sold about 204,000 of its Savoy/Belvedere/Fury/Suburban lineup.
For 1962, the Plymouth fell, to only around 183,000 of those shrunken cars. Dodge slumped to around 138,000 units...around 126K Darts, and another 12K of the Polara, which was now shrunken down to that same 116" wheelbase. Around mid-1962, Dodge release the Custom 880, and it managed around 17,000 units, which probably isn't too bad, considering the abbreviated model year. It outsold the similar-sized 1961 Polara, despite that car having a full year to run.
For '61, the wheelbase had been 118" for all Dart and full-sized Plymouths except for the wagons, which were on a 122". The Polara was on the 122" as well.
Dodge reacted almost immediately, extending the wheelbase to 119", although wagons stayed on the 116". They did this the same way Pontiac stretched out the Bonneville/Star Chief vs the Catalina...use the same body, but move the rear axle back a bit. Plymouth, however, was stuck with the short wheelbase through '64, but then came back with a vengeance, with the new '65 Fury.
I have a feeling that if the Plymouth and Dodge hadn't been shrunken for '62, they definitely would have sold better. However, they wouldn't have been any kind of salvation for the brands. And in a way, having those cars might have helped Mopar get a bit of a jump on the intermediate market. And even though the Pontiac GTO tends to get credit for starting the musclecar trend, when you think about it, that's basically what Mopar was doing, when they were putting 383s and 413s in a '62 Plymouth, Dart or Polara.
So, if Mopar had released larger Plymouths and Dodges for '62, they probably would have taken longer to get an intermediate car to the market, so they may not had quite the presence in that field.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
With the '63 Dodge, it bugs me how they take a car with quad headlights and make it look like it has singles, at a quick glance. And one thing I've always wondered...are the inner and outer headlights different sizes, or is it just an optical illusion? If I focus on them long enough, they look the same size, but at a quick glance it looks like a mix & match of a larger single-type headlight on the outboard and a smaller quad-type on the inside.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Sometimes what's going through my mind doesn't always make it to what I type
The front-end of it makes me think a bit of a '63 Chevy, the way the grille is peaked, but with just a bit of Ford twist.
Here's a '63 Impala thrown in, just to compare...
Since there's enough time to edit, I figured I'd throw in a Galaxie, for comparison, to round out the low-priced Big Three...
The Plymouth looks better IMHO. You heard it here!
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the '63 Plymouth at all, so for that year based just on looks I'd probably jump at the Ford. Comparing '64's, I'm not so sure. Not a huge fan of the '64 Chevy. I don't hate it; it's just that there's other years I like better. I don't mind the '64 Plymouth, but it doesn't wow me either. When I was younger I kinda hated the '64 Ford, but I think I got that from my Dad. He hated Fords. And he hated the '64 Ford that my Granddad got us, so that he'd hopefully stop driving Mom's cars. But no, he still drove Mom's newer car (the '68 Impala and then the '75 LeMans) and Mom was stuck driving the Ford. And whenever Mom drove me anywhere, it was in the Ford. But, I got over that bias, and now I kinda like them.
Funny thing, my Dad's first car was a 1964 Galaxie hardtop coupe. I think it might have been an XL or something...I know it had a 390 at least. He got it cheap, from someone who just got drafted. He said he hated the car, and it wasn't long before he sold it and bought what he really wanted, a '63 Impala SS 409, with a 4-speed. But then, Dad himself got drafted, and then sold the car!
Years later, he said that '64 Galaxie actually WAS a good car. He just hated it. Partly because it was a Ford, and partly because he really wanted a '63 Impala. He also said, of his 2003 Buick Regal soon after he bought it, that if he had bought a car like that when he was younger, it would have kept him out of a LOT of trouble with the law!
I have a picture, somewhere, of Dad's '63 Impala. And his '64 Galaxie. I'll have to see if I can dig them up sometime and scan them in.
Out on foot, saw a decrepit but complete looking B210 fastback, 420SEL, mean sounding maybe 64 Plymouth full sized sedan, 1985 Subaru GL wagon, Suzuki Reno.
The vinyl upholstery used in the '63 and '64 XL's seems to wear like iron. Interiors in otherwise 'meh' cars look like new.
My friend who has wrenched for about 60 years has said he thinks both the Chevys and Fords of '63 and '64 were about the most durable they ever built, but he also really likes the '63 Ford, especially.
I can remember my Dad parking behind one and saying to me, "That's what a taillight should look like". They were big.
On that '63 Impala in the pic above, those two pieces of trim ahead of the front wheel openings add absolutely nothing to the styling; in fact they detract IMHO. GM seemed to be the king of that kind of stuff then.
Of the '61-64 years, quality notwithstanding, I like each successive year less than the one before, to where I think the '64 is the worst-looking big Chevy of the decade, followed by the '68 Impala Custom Coupe/Caprice coupe.
I think the '64 Fury two-door hardtop (similar to the Belvedere shown) is the best-looking big Plymouth of that decade.
The Ford, I'd probably pick a '65 two-door hardtop, even though at the time some magazine said it looked like the box the Chevy came in, LOL.
The '65 Fury looks nice but I never cared for the big square single-pod speedometer inside. The Dodge instrument panel reminds me to two double-D bra cups.