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

uplanderguy

I like the '61 Olds in two-door hardtop style. I was never a fan of the '59 and '60 GM flat-tops.

I always thought Brooks Stevens was influenced by the rear of the '60 Olds when he did the '64-65 Studebaker taillights--similar concept but on a car not nearly as wide.

One can call it 'planned obsolescence', but anyone who lived through the time of the new-car unveilings in the fall will, I think, recall them fondly. It certainly built excitement, more than I can say I've had for the industry in general for the past probably thirty-five or so years.

tjc78

Only real hope for a Panther at this point is to find a low mileage Town Car that was owned by Grandpa. Vics and Marquis as mentioned were pushed into livery service (even the civilian models) or just beaten to death.

stickguy

Or just get a modern car!

Why not a charger? That basically a full sized 20 year old machine with some modern tech slapped on top.

explorerx4

Specialty Motor Cars usually has low mile older Cadi's and Lincoln TC's for sale.

kyfdx

@andre1969 I lust after some late '60s, early '70s stuff. Enough that I actually consider buying something. But, last month, a friend that winters out of town, asked me to swing by his house and take his 1998 model car out for a drive, so it wouldn't sit for three months.

No problem. 20 miles, half an hour later.. Geez, I don't even want to drive a 25 year old car. Maybe I should give up on getting a 50-55 year old model.

stickguy

I would probably think the same if I tried one out. I want somethin fun to drive around the country roads, but a newer Miata or BRZ would probably be a lot nicer than an antique.

andre1969

I like the '61 big Oldsmobiles, but do agree that the rear end is a bit of a weak point in the car. There's a pale, lavender-ish Ninety-Eight 4-door hardtop I see every once in awhile at various car shows, that always catches my eye. I think I like them because they have a light, airy look about them. However, I've heard they weren't that popular when new, and one reason was because they just didn't look substantial enough, and have the presence a car in that league should have. I think this might actually be the car...

Someone took this pic in Hershey, PA, so it could very well be the same car. How many lavender '61 Ninety-Eights can there still be around?

I don't think that wraparound rear window works all that well on the '61 Cadillacs...they just scream out for a more formal C-pillar. But I think it works better on the Ninety Eight and Electra. From some angles it looks odd, though.

uplanderguy

I thought the four-door hardtops had the formal top that Impala Sport Sedans had that year. Maybe the Ninety-Eight and Cadillacs had the wraparound rear-window styling. I'm thinking that's it.

andre1969

I'd never really thought about it before, but it does seem a bit odd that the B-body 4-door hardtops had a more formal, upscale looking roof than the more expensive, upscale, C-bodies in '61. The C-body actually had two different 4-door hardtop roofs. One had that wraparound rear window, but the other, called the 6-window, had small quarter windows in the C-pillar.

In 1962, the 4-window style on the C-body did away with that wraparound rear window, and went for a more formal roofline. I forget when the 6W was phased out. I'm pretty sure it was still around in '63, perhaps maybe '64?

uplanderguy

On the C-bodies, I'm almost certain the six-window style was still around in '64. Almost certain.

That Chevy looks pretty original to me, or at least authentic, so far as whitewall width and no outside mirror. I know the latter would be a PITA but I like the looks of cars without them.

fintail

Thinking of cars that seemed like big design leaps in my (sometimes young at the time) memory - first that comes to mind is no surprise, Taurus, wagon especially seemed like a spaceship when I was maybe 10 years old. I remember the period Audi 5000 wagon also seemed very modern to me. MB W140 seemed modern at the time, Chrysler LH cars, dustbuster vans, Lexus SC - I guess stuff intended to be kind of futuristic.

uplanderguy

Yes, the six-window hardtop sedan was available in '64. There are pics of it online with the four-window style too. And they offered a six-window pillared sedan on C-bodies in '64 too....like the two '64 Electra 225's in my favorite movie, "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte".

uplanderguy

For huge styling changes within the same model names, I always think the '52 vs. '53 Studebaker, the '64 vs. '65 full-size GM cars, the '62 vs. '63 Corvette, the '64 vs. '65 Chrysler. In later cars, I think of the '90 vs. '91 Chevrolet Caprice. After that, I think I largely stopped paying much attention.

ab348

Another interesting roofline curiosity is that former GM designer Chuck Jordan, who was in the Cadillac studios for the 1963 models, said in a interview years ago that they/he was looking for the right roofline for the ‘63 Cadillac coupes. He saw the ‘63 Chevy model of the approved Impala 4-door hardtop and thought it would make a nice Cadillac coupe upper section. The bosses liked it when they mocked one up, especially since it involved no new tooling costs. So that’s what they did.

You can see them side by side here:

imidazol97

ab348 said:

Another interesting roofline curiosity is that former GM designer Chuck Jordan, who was in the Cadillac studios for the 1963 models, said in a interview years ago that they/he was looking for the right roofline for the ‘63 Cadillac coupes. He saw the ‘63 Chevy model of the approved Impala 4-door hardtop and thought it would make a nice Cadillac coupe upper section. The bosses liked it when they mocked one up, especially since it involved no new tooling costs. So that’s what they did.

You can see them side by side here:

Wow

andre1969

Wow, what's up with all these bland gray interiors on modern cars? Gimme the "good old days" anytime
1958 DeSoto Firedome on BAT

xwesx

andre1969 said:

Wow, what's up with all these bland gray interiors on modern cars? Gimme the "good old days" anytime
1958 DeSoto Firedome on BAT

Yes! Now that is grey done right!

tjc78

Exterior color with the gray looks great!

Michaell

I know there is some love for the second generation Camaro, so imagine this...

andre1969

Yeah, I'll admit, I actually kind of like it, myself! It's at least a bright, cheery gray, and mixed with silver and white, so it's not drab like a lot of modern colors, at least.

One thing I'm not so crazy about, is how the fabric part is inset, so that the outer edges, top, and front of the seating areas are still vinyl. So on hot days there's still enough to burn you! In '57, the seating surfaces were mostly fabric, although there's a vinyl strip down the center. The center passenger might still get burned, but at least the outboard occupants are okay!

I kind of have mixed feelings about the '58 vs the '57. On one hand, I notice that the '58's in general seem to have more attractive colors, to me at least. For instance, this one looks to me like what I'd call a true "blood" red. I think they call it holly. In contrast, my '57's red seems to have just a hint or orange in it.

And, ever since Uplander mentioned how he doesn't like it when the body side accents go above the front wheel opening, I notice that more, too. And the '58 does that, whereas the '57 is lower, and stops just behind the front wheel opening.

The '58 Firedome had a 361 2-bbl wedge with 295 hp, whereas mine has a 341-2bbl Hemi with 270. I've seen one road test of each...a '57 convertible and '58 hardtop coupe. Test weights were close: 4100 lb for the '57, 4030 for the '58. The '57 used a 3.31:1 axle, and the '58 used a 3.15:1.

0-60 times were 9.7 seconds for the '57 and 10.8 for the '58. I know with Chrysler, there was a lot of griping about whether the 392 Hemi or the 413 wedge was the better engine, but I don't know if there were similar arguments about the DeSoto engines. If there were internet chat rooms back then, I'm sure there would have been! And, I imagine once DeSoto got canned, nobody cared.

Supposedly, the '58's were better built than the '57's, but not much. In '59, however, I've heard they substantially improved the rust resistance and water/air leaks issues.

Gorgeous car overall, though. If I was in the mood for another DeSoto, I'd be tempted.

stickguy

Michaell said:

I know there is some love for the second generation Camaro, so imagine this...

that, is interesting.

uplanderguy

That DeSoto has garnered some strong bidding right out of the box.

Pardon the dumb question, but did these cars have springs or was the Torsion Bar era already in place?

I was thinking in a couple pics it looked like it could use new front springs, but then it occurred to me there might not be springs!

andre1969

At some angles, that DeSoto does look a bit low in front. The torsion bars came out for 1957, so this was the second year for them. As far as I know, torsion bars aren't really known for getting weak over time and sagging, in the normal sense, like a spring would. But, they can sometimes go out of adjustment I guess. I think usually what happens, is the area back under the passenger cabin, where they fasten to the frame, rusts out. Or, the torsion bar just flat-out cracks.

I guess if the shocks go bad, it could sag, as well.

I was also thinking that maybe the tires were a bit small for the car, but in one of the pics I was able to blow it up, and it's a 9.00x14 bias ply. My '57 only had something like an 8.55x14, so it's actually beefed up from that. I have those retro style radials on it now...225/75R-14, with the wide whitewall so it at least looks period correct at a quick glance.

andre1969

mmkay, this is a bit disturbing...
I stumbled across it on facebook. It's the engine bay of a '75 Gran Fury, with a slant six that has a supercharger slapped on!

So, take an engine with a long stroke, that doesn't like to rev, and slap on a supercharger. Wonder what could go wrong?

stickguy

I thought a supercharger was for Low end torque. A turbo would be scary though.

tjc78

Would be a great burnout machine.

andre1969

Maybe a supercharger wouldn't be so bad, then. I've heard that a slant six can be made into a high performance engine. It's just that you have to do so much work to it, that it's easier to just start with a V8. I guess the same was true about any domestic 6-cyl engine back then, though.

In the early years, there was something called a "hyper-pak". It was a 4-bbl carb and, I believe, a hotter cam and maybe dual exhaust. On the little 170 engine, it bumped hp from something like 101 to 148. On the larger 225, it jumped from 145 to around 197. It was pretty rare on the 170, but almost non-existent on the 225, as I recall.

texases

On Engine Masters one of the guys wanted to see if they could get a turbo slant six to put out the same HP as a NA 383. The got the 6 up to 300 hp on the dyno, then the head gasket let loose. Pretty impressive, none the less.

Clifford has performance part for several 6 cylinders, 225 included:
https://cliffordperformance.net/store/ols/categories/mopar-225

fintail

Wouldn't a slant 6 in something the size of that Fury be quite slow in stock form? Was that engine offered in that car, or did anyone actually buy one like that?

stickguy

not going to be fast but was probably pretty normal by standards of the day.

andre1969

By '75, I think a 360-2bbl was standard, with a 318 being a credit option. The Big Three had gotten rid of 6-cyl engines in all of their big cars by this time, although Buick did try to make a go of putting the 231 V6 in a '76 LeSabre.

uplanderguy

I've said this before, but that 231 in my sister's new '75 Century Special was miserable. It idled so roughly.

fintail

That makes me wonder, what is considered the absolute nadir of performance? Is there a year, or just a short range? 1980-83 era has to be it, with so many low output V8s, diesels, etc. Even MB got in on it, offering a single V8 option in the USDM from 81-83, the 3.8, while Europe got a powerful 5 liter - this got the grey market going and eventually led to our moronic 25 year import rule.

kyfdx

fintail said:

That makes me wonder, what is considered the absolute nadir of performance? Is there a year, or just a short range? 1980-83 era has to be it, with so many low output V8s, diesels, etc. Even MB got in on it, offering a single V8 option in the USDM from 81-83, the 3.8, while Europe got a powerful 5 liter - this got the grey market going and eventually led to our moronic 25 year import rule.

'75-'77 is pretty rough. 160 HP for a Corvette V8. 135 HP for a 302 V-8 in a Mustang II.

fintail

kyfdx said:

fintail said:

That makes me wonder, what is considered the absolute nadir of performance? Is there a year, or just a short range? 1980-83 era has to be it, with so many low output V8s, diesels, etc. Even MB got in on it, offering a single V8 option in the USDM from 81-83, the 3.8, while Europe got a powerful 5 liter - this got the grey market going and eventually led to our moronic 25 year import rule.

'75-'77 is pretty rough. 160 HP for a Corvette V8. 135 HP for a 302 V-8 in a Mustang II.

Oh yeah, and the early catalytic converter cars had drivability issues. That's a fun extra. not just underpowered/slow, but not running well on top of it.

sda

To boot many of the first cars with catalytic converters let off a rotten egg smell. 😷

uplanderguy

I'll say this, I thought generally, '75 cars with the catalytic converter were better than the '73 and '74 cars, at least GM's. MPG was up, driveability was up in '75. My Dad bought a new '74 Impala on Aug. 27, 1974, solely because he didn't want to have to use unleaded gas.

Spark plug life was extended considerably in '75 too--22.5K miles on GM cars.

uplanderguy

'75-'77 is pretty rough. 160 HP for a Corvette V8.

Per the '75 brochure, 165 hp standard; 205 optional.

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

'75-'77 is pretty rough. 160 HP for a Corvette V8.

Per the '75 brochure, 165 hp standard; 205 optional.

I was close.. A friend had a '75 convertible. No way that one had 205 HP. It was a pitiful excuse for a Corvette. (but, she owned a liquor store, so there is that).

uplanderguy

I was never a fan of C3 styling, although maybe in the past few years if I see one that looks original I'll actually walk over to look at it, LOL.

A friend from work had a '77, a chamois-like color. Two things I mostly remember are how the bucket seats were very flat and thin, and the view from inside the car, out over the hood....those huge front fenders blocked most of the view.

texases

Unusual sighting-a car transporter with 4 2000-2010 cars and one 1966 Buick, maybe a Lesabre.

tjc78

@sda said:
To boot many of the first cars with catalytic converters let off a rotten egg smell. 😷

Modern cars can do that too. My 2006 Avalon and more so my 2012 LaCrosse would smell if you drove it hard.

tjc78

Just after typing that ….I realized 2006 and 2012 aren’t quite “modern”. Time flies

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

I was never a fan of C3 styling, although maybe in the past few years if I see one that looks original I'll actually walk over to look at it, LOL.

A friend from work had a '77, a chamois-like color. Two things I mostly remember are how the bucket seats were very flat and thin, and the view from inside the car, out over the hood....those huge front fenders blocked most of the view.

I always liked the early ones. '68-'73. After that, no thanks. But, not a joy to drive, with terrible visibility.

I loved the C2s, and then C5 and C6. A friend let me drive his '06 C6 Z06 for about an hour, one day. I could definitely live with that one.

uplanderguy

I love me a '62 Corvette first of all, subdued color like Fawn Beige or Honduras Maroon, has to have the hardtop, and I'd be delirious even with the 250 hp engine and Powerglide. I know it's got 1949 Chevy front-end parts numbers, but I don't care.

The C2--I know the chassis was much-improved, but I actually dislike the split-window styling. Who thought that was a good idea? In silver, those cars look to me like they could be in a 1959 B-movie about outer space. I probably like the '67 best, as some of the fake scoops and such had been removed, and I like the five-slot Rally Wheels, but I wish Chevy hadn't offered them on everything else in the entire line except Corvair. That watered down the appeal I think.

C3--none really I'd want to own.

C4--I'll admit to thinking at the time....fifteen years since an all-new 'Vette--what an improvement. I can't stand in '86 when they tacked the CHMSL up top in back.

C5--don't like the looks, fat-*** behind. A friend with one will rattle off why they're better than a C6, but I'm not convinced.

C6--I like the styling--seems 'trimmed down' a bit to me, a good thing. I like that metallic orange that was on them.

C7--I like them, but it took me awhile to get past no round taillights. Seems like I've seen too many with orange peel in the paint.

C8--I love the engineering at the price point. In profile, the mid-engine thing is a bit awkward but my favorite one would be the now-discontinued 'Caffeine' (dark brown) paint, silver wheels, and none of the extra spoilers et al. The Camaro seems superfluous when they offer the C8. I want to like the Camaro but I just cannot get past the styling.

fintail

tjc78 said:

Just after typing that ….I realized 2006 and 2012 aren’t quite “modern”. Time flies

andre1969

When it comes to performance of that malaise era, I tend to think of it as a bit like a double-dip recession. The first hit came in maybe '73-75, and then I think of the second as 1979-82.

For that first one, I'd think '74 would be the absolute worst. Some people might group '71-72 in there as well, but for the most part, those were just gross-to-net "paper" losses. Some high-output engines did get cut at the same time, but as far as I know, there's really no difference between a 1971 350-2bbl with 255 hp, or a 1972 350-2bbl with 165 hp. Or, at Mopar, a 230 hp '71 318, vs a 150 hp '72.

But then in '73, the stricter emissions controls seemed to start taking their toll on all engines. I think the 350-2bbl dropped to 145 hp that year. In '74 it only got worse. The 350-2bbl had the same hp rating, so that might not be the best point to cherry-pick. But, they may have also done things like mess around with the rpm it gets that hp, how broad the hp curve is, etc. Or, just because that engine still tops out at 145 hp on a dyno, doesn't mean it's not going to stutter, buck, and stall out.

When the catalytic converter came out, it seemed like an improvement. HP ratings didn't go up, but I think the cars were more driveable in general, and got better economy. So, the catalytic converter was a blessing. When it worked, that is!

In '76-78, I think there was a bit of improvement, but by today's standards, or even the 60's cars that were still fresh in people's minds, they definitely weren't out of the woods. But, if you got the right car, with the right engine, and right axle ratio, you could still get a pleasant ride. And, of course, shedding a few hundred extra pounds through downsizing helped a bit.

But then, in '79 it seemed like the emissions controls started getting the better of the auto makers again. GM started pushing 4-bbl carbs with their V8s a bit more. 1979 was also the year they stopped offering 403s in the B-O-P B-bodies, although it may have still been offered in wagons. Chrysler eradicated its 400/440 engines from passenger cars, and over at Ford, the only big-ish engine left was a choked down 400-2bbl in the Lincolns. I tend to think of '81-82 as the worst of the worst, mostly because of those under-sized V8s that were in GM's midsized cars, and the ~5 liter range engines being limited to the wagons, and some CA models I believe.

But then, 1983 came around, and the cars seemed to improve. They had a long way to go, but there was at least the smell of optimism in the air, that things were getting better.

uplanderguy

The '83 RWD GM's got much-more likeable to me, with the addition of the 305 4-barrel and some minor but appealing-to-me trim refinement, mostly inside.

In my memory, some of the teething issues of "Computer Command Control" in '81 and '82 were gone by '83.

andre1969

Yeah, I think that CCC sent alot of '81-82 GM cars to an early grave. That's the thing that failed twice in my grandparents' '82 Malibu wagon, and the second time was what got Granddad fed up enough to trade it for their '85 LeSabre.

This may be an old wive's tale, but I heard the one engine that did adapt well to the CCC was Pontiac's 301-4bbl. The only HP rating I can find for it in various reference books/sites is 150 hp. However, I heard it really put out more like 170. Unfortunately, by then it was only offered in the Firebird, or the LeMans wagons. The Catalina/Bonneville had switched over to Olds 307s, and the 301 was dropped from the LeMans coupe/sedan, and Grand Prix.

There's also a footnote in the brochure saying that Pontiac V8s were scheduled to end production around 1/1/1981, so check with your dealer for availability.

Oddly, my auto encyclopedia, which is known for errors, lists a 135 hp and 150 hp version of the 301, which to me would imply 2- or 4-bbl carb. But, the Pontiac brochure, as well as the EPA website, only show a 301-4bbl. Plus the turbo, for the Firebird.

I wonder the 301-4bbl put out 170 hp in the Firebird, and 150 in the wagons? That would make more sense to me. 170 hp in an '81 LeMans Safari wagon seems too good to be true.

One consolation for the Pontiac V8s...the CCC got them cleaned up enough that they were no longer banned in California.

I think "Lean Burn" is the equivalent dirty word for Chrysler products of that era. Supposedly it's not hard to retrofit them with older parts, though. I don't know if you can bypass the CCC on a GM car...at least not easily.

uplanderguy

I only had my '81 with 267 for 35K miles. I remember at one time on the Ohio Turnpike, the 'Check Engine' light came on for a few minutes, then went out, never to come back on. That car did get a new catalytic converter under warranty as it was bogging down.

My '82 I drove for I'm thinking in the 50's. It was a 229. That car was super-slow with the A/C on. One dealer told me it needed the carb rebuilt. I didn't bite. I traded it for the '85 Celebrity 2.8MFI I ordered in May '85.

My parents' '80 (prior to CCC) needed a flywheel--I think. I was out of the house by then but the story my Dad relayed, was that it was not the right part no. He took it in to the dealer because of a louder-than-normal sound ('rumble') in his opinion. It was out-of-warranty but the district guy OK'd it as a free repair. Sorry for lack of detail, LOL.