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

andre1969

Out this morning, running errands, I spotted this in the parking lot at BJs...
There was a little car gathering going on at the other end of the lot. Looks like the mid-engined 'Vette is getting some good representation...

Oh, and at the local old folks home...

These last two make me think of the episode of "Mama's Family" where Mama becomes a contestant on Jeopardy. One of the recruiters says something like "Thank God, now we can get out of this hick town. I've never seen so many American made cars in my whole life!"

fintail

Early Equinox in the background there is getting rare too.

That reminds me, I saw a Pontiac Torrent last week. Spokane is a mecca for such material too.

sda

Ahh, that is a plain Vue, sorry couldn’t resist.. There are a couple of V6 Vues that wonder our streets and don’t look very loved. My neighbor has a 98 Regal 25th anniversary edition he bought new. Black, gray leather, sunroof, alloys. He rarely drives it and last I asked him had less than 50k on it. Sadly, in the last year it is no longer garaged and stays outside with his other vehicles that are well worn.

uplanderguy

What are those two little fastback cars that look like 'pocket rockets', behind the blue C8? I'm guessing Talons.

Man, I can't imagine a car get-together at a wholesale club parking lot. I gotta go to a place where I can get pizza, ice cream, and/or a beer!

I guess right in keeping with my moaning about fake chrome vents and scoops and such, I can't stand the optional striping on C8's, or even (or maybe especially) the two little hashmark stripes that are optional for above the front wheel openings. I hate all that stuff, including spoilers!

A white C8--I think the list earlier showed that was the second-most-popular color in 2022, but so bland on a car like that. But what do I know--I want the color that's a mile behind every other color they offer.

I went to the two nearest Chevy dealers yesterday, both within ten miles of me. Neither had a Corvette. I was going to see what ADP they were adding. One salesman came out and I told him what I was curious about. ADP? Even on a non-Z06: "Oh yeah". That's it. Makes me glad that so far, I'm dealing outside the normal way.

andre1969

Yeah, I thought about that, as I was taking the pic of the Vue, that the Equinox gave it a nice 2 for 1 shot! I kind of liked that era of Equinox, although from some angles they give off a bit of a minivan vibe. Also, IIRC, the 3.4 they used wasn't the same one as the Impala did, but rather some cheaper version they imported from China, and it tended to be troubleprone.

One of my coworkers has a 2nd-gen Equinox. I want to say a 2016, but I'm not sure. She replaced a '96 or so S-10 Blazer with it. She likes it, but says she misses the Blazer, as it felt more rugged and sturdy, like a "real" truck. She also swears the Equinox won't last as long, but to be fair that Blazer had over 400,000 miles on it, so statistically speaking, she's probably correct. MOST vehicles won't last that long!

I thought the '97-04 Century is an interesting study in how much paint has improved in more recent years. Once upon a time, it seemed like silver was one of the worst colors when it came to fading, crows-footing and such. Yet here, this car is still nice and shiny, even as rust holes come through on the rocker panels! And my '03 Regal is similar. The car is definitely showing its age in other respects, but the paint is nice and shiny.

uplanderguy

Where I live, the most-obvious paint problems seem to be with Honda products, dark blues especially, of maybe the last 10-20 years.

Second-gen Equinox--roomier inside than the third-gen, but the 2.4 is known for oil consumption once they get near 100K. My daughter's has 101K. I've told my son-in-law a few times about checking the oil between changes, but whoa, is he ever not a car guy.

Direct-injection on these resulted in some bigger problems, but I've read that most manufacturers had similar issues with their earliest direct-injection engines. Gee, the old low-tech 2.2 used in Cavaliers was sturdy as an anvil IMHO, despite my hearing about intake manifold gaskets. I never had that issue in either of my Cavaliers, combined mileage 241K, but then I changed the Dex-Cool when I was supposed to.

andre1969

I can't tell, but I think those two cars might be Talons, or one of the other clones. As for this parking lot, BJs shares it with other stores. However, the closest store to where they're parked is a Dollar Tree, so I don't know if that's much better! That was probably around 9:30 in the morning when I took that pic, so I don't think much would've been open, anyway.

Oh, the other day I saw a W-body Regal that had been pulled over by the cops. It was sort of a pale creamy white with a darker lower contrast...one of those Joseph Abboud Editions, perhaps?

I remember ages ago, here on Edmund's, someone asking who Joesph Abboud was, and I said something dumb like "He was the reigning shuffleboard champion for West Palm Beach Florida, three years in a row in the late 90's." I think he took me seriously at first

fintail

Even here, I see paint problems on dark colored Hondas of the 2000-10 era, and have seen it for years. Black cars show it worst, no surprise.


Behind the C8s I think at least one of the cars is a C6. The late 90s era Q45 in the background also catches my eye.

uplanderguy

andre, best anti-American comic comment I remember from TV is from 'Newhart', when Peter Scolari's obnoxious character's "Turbo Z" was in the shop and rich maid Stephanie had nothing to drive. Bob Newhart's character said, "Stephanie, you can borrow my car" (Oldsmobile). Stephanie pouted and looked at Peter Scolari. Newhart: "What's the matter?". Scolari: "Dick, your car is American", LOL.

uplanderguy

RE.: Morning cruise-in--I gotta say andre, I could like a morning cruise-in either after or during breakfast someplace! That never occurred to me.

ab348

You don't see these every day any more.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1971-plymouth-satellite-regent-9-passenger-wagon/

andre1969

One interesting tidbit about "Newhart"...there were several episodes where they actually showed Dick and Joanna with an Oldsmobile! But, it was a Cutlass Ciera. That '73 Delta 88 from the opening credits is actually B-roll footage that was shot for "On Golden Pond" but not used in that movie.

As for Michael's Z, I had always pictured it as a 300ZX, but there was one episode, I forget the circumstances behind it, where they showed just the door, and it was from an older 280Z style.

As for that cruise in by the BJ's, one of these days I'm going to try and check it out. It's just that normally on Sunday morning, a car show is the last thing on my mind. And, I hate grocery shopping with a passion, so I just try to get in and out of there as fast as possible.

stickguy

is that wagon faster than the speed of light?

uplanderguy

Boy, you don't see those. As soon as I saw the pic, I thought, "Bet it wasn't built with those wheels", which the ad detail later confirmed.

I remember that the Dodge Coronet woody version then was called the 'Crestwood', but I have no memory at all of the Satellite's being called the 'Regent'.

Nice seats.

ab348

I thought they were really handsome cars in those years.

My brother bought a used Coronet wagon around 1980 or so. I think it was a ‘73 or ‘74. It had the 400 V8. My memory of it was that it was a noisy car, not engine noise so much as just generally noisy. Tons of space though.

uplanderguy

I like the styling of the Coronet better than the Satellite in those years. Round wheel openings.

I could never stand the '72 Satellite Sebring--rear end, low and square wheel openings, primarily.

Michaell

Was there a shorter wheelbase version of that Mopar wagon? A neighbor down the street had one in white with the woody stickers on it. I carpooled in it for several years to elementary school.

I just don't remember the section behind the rear seats being so big.

andre1969

I never was a huge fan of the midsized '71-78 Mopars, but part of that, I think, is that I really like the '68-70 models a lot, so in my opinion, it was hard to follow after them. I guess the GM equivalent to that is how people tended to look down on the GM Colonades, but that's partly because the '68-72 models were a tough act to follow. Of course, coming out in 1973, versus 1971, stacked the deck against them as well.

But, that Satellite wagon is a nice one. I actually prefer the Satellite to the Coronet. I think for me, it's the loop bumper o the Coronet...it makes the car look a bit heavy, and nondescript, while I think the front end of the Satellite is more attractive. The turn signals seem a bit too big, though.

One definite advantage to the '71-78 B-body wagon is that they were one of the few (maybe the only) intermediate wagons that were able to pass the "4x8 test" (4x8 sheet of plywood, fully flat on the floor, tailgate closed). The Colonades couldn't do it. And Ford's '72-77 midsized wagons, while they had enough clearance between the wheel housings for it to lay flat, those cars seemed like they were too much hood, and not enough body, so there wasn't enough fore-aft room in the cargo area.

I wonder though, if an AMC Matador might have been able to do it? Those cars were pretty big inside, and while marketed as midsized cars, were actually rated as full-size, once the EPA started calculating interior volumes.

I think GM's wagons are more stylish (both the '68-72 and the Colonades), but these Mopar wagons do have a nice, clean, no-nonsense look about them.

stickguy

I still get a kick out of anyone calling that barge "mid sized". Of course, in that period, our family car was a Volvo 144.

Michaell

stickguy said:

I still get a kick out of anyone calling that barge "mid sized". Of course, in that period, our family car was a Volvo 144.

And ours was a '73 Corona sedan. By far the smallest car on the block, until our next door neighbors picked up a Corolla 2-door in the same poop brown color.

stickguy

Michaell said:

stickguy said:

I still get a kick out of anyone calling that barge "mid sized". Of course, in that period, our family car was a Volvo 144.

And ours was a '73 Corona sedan. By far the smallest car on the block, until our next door neighbors picked up a Corolla 2-door in the same poop brown color.

my 2 best friends families had a 74 or so boat of a Caprice (4 door) and the other had a Chevy van. Short wheelbase, and I think 3 rows of seats. They also had a Valiant his father used to commute into the city.

so we had the smallest family car by far!

andre1969

To be fair, some of those midsized cars of the 70's approached, or even exceeded, the length of some full-sized cars. I figured a Ford Torino/LTD-II wagon would have been the longest "intermediate" wagon, because of the 118" wb and the jutting, ill-fitting bumpers. But, looking up specs, I'm seeing 223.2", for a '76 Torino and '77 LTD-II. But, a '76 Coronet wagon, 225.6"!

For comparison, a '76 Impala wagon was 228.6". With regular sedans and coupes, I think your typical pre-downsized LTD/Impala/Gran Fury was around 221" or so.

GM's Colonade wagons, I believe, topped out at around 215". It was definitely a weird time. It was like, the big cars didn't get THAT much bigger, and the compacts didn't either, but the midsized cars REALLY swelled up.

The biggest car I ever had was a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop. Off the top of my head, it had a 125" wb, and was 225" overall. For all that bulk though, it was a lot more nimble than you'd expect.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think my Ram is on a 140.5" wb, and around 231" overall? In most driving it feels fine, but tight parking is a pain. And backing it into the garage is a joy. I always fold the passenger side mirror in, to give me a bit more leeway, although it will clear the door opening (barely) even with both mirrors out. The biggest problem with it isn't the bulk of it so much, but that the corners aren't all that visible. Especially up front, the way the fenders drop away in comparison to the hood, sort of like an old 40's or early 50's car.

andre1969

Michaell said:

Was there a shorter wheelbase version of that Mopar wagon? A neighbor down the street had one in white with the woody stickers on it. I carpooled in it for several years to elementary school.

I just don't remember the section behind the rear seats being so big.

I was about to say no, on the wheelbase, but then I looked in the sales brochures, just to be sure. I'd always thought these cars were 115" for the coupes and 117.5 for the sedan and wagon, for their entire run. But, in the earlier years at least, the Dodges were on a 118" wb and Plymouths were on a 117" for 4-door/wagon models!

Odd, that they'd even bother with a 1" difference. I'm guessing that there was enough clearance in the wheel wells and rear axle hump, so they accomplished it by simply moving the rear axle back one inch? I can't imagine that they'd actually work a 1 inch stretch into the actual body/subframe...that seems like an awful lot of work for something you'd barely notice.

But other than this little 1" discrepancy, they never did offer a version that was substantially shorter. However, I've seen a few custom jobs over the years.

texases

I remember my dad complaining about getting the wrong length exhaust system for his '63 Polara sedan, it was too short. Turns out the wagon version had a shorter wheelbase than the sedan, maybe that's what he got.

andre1969

For 1963-64, Dodge did bump up the wheelbase on those "plucked chickens" from 116" to 119", in a quick reversal of that ill-timed 1962 downsizing. They accomplished it by moving the rear axle backward, similar to how Pontiac did with a Star Chief/Executive/Bonneville, vs a Catalina. However, the wagons did stay on the shorter wheelbase. Most likely due to their lower volume, it would have been more expensive to offer the Dodge version on the 119" wb. Plymouths stayed on the same 116" wb for all models, though.

However, unlike Pontiac, it looks like the 119" wb Dodges actually did have more interior room than the 116" wb. At least, according to this press photo...

texases

Yep, the specs from the '63 brochure showed more leg room in the back seat for the sedan vs. the wagon.

sda

The 63 Dodge has a nice hardtop profile. Sales for 63 surely benefited.

texases

I agree (ours was the 4 door hardtop). Also, I always thought the tail lights were clean for a '63 design:

andre1969

The Polara definitely saw a sales boost for '63. In 1962, the hardtop sedan sold a paltry 3,345 units, compared to 9,312 in 1963. It did even better for '64, with 13,229 built.

So the larger, more cleanly styled models were definitely more popular. However, the economy in general was better in 1963 and 1964, than it had been in '61-62. Also, the '63 Polara was a bit cheaper. The 4-door hardtop started at $2,781, vs $2,960 in 1962. Part of that price reduction was the standard engine...a 305 hp 361 Wedge in 1962, compared to a 230 hp 318 poly-head for 1963.

Also, in 1962, you could get a Dart 440 hardtop sedan, with the 318, for $2,763. 7,715 of those were built. For 1963, the Dart name was applied to the compact cars, and the lower-end Dodges were now just "330" and "440", rather than "Dart 330" and "Dart 440". And the hardtop sedan was only offered as a Polara for '63.

For 1962, the Polara was actually "Polara 500" and only offered as a hardtop coupe, hardtop sedan, or convertible, so it was a bit upscale. For 1963, the plain Polara offered a hardtop coupe, hardtop sedan, convertible, and 4-door sedan, while the Polara 500 came in just hardtop coupe and convertible.

So I guess depending on how you look at it, maybe the 4-door hardtop didn't do so great in '63. Even though the Polara-badged ones sold better, total 4-door hardtop production was down.

Kind of a shame, because it's a nice looking car. I'll confess to having a fondness for the '62 Dodges as well...they're weird, no doubt about that, but for some reason that weirdness appeals to me. But the toned down '63 is pretty nice. And a reasonable size, too.

uplanderguy

Mopar seemed to be always shuffling around model names in the '60's and '70's; I had trouble keeping track.

My favorite Mopar of that era (through '64) is the Dodge Custom 880. Our elderly neighbors at the time had a deep metallic turquoise one I thought was handsome. I also rather like the '64 Fury two-door hardtop, and I liked the simple instrument panel with the four round pods. No 'Googie' shapes.

The '63 and '64 Chryslers, I always thought seemed really out there.

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

Mopar seemed to be always shuffling around model names in the '60's and '70's; I had trouble keeping track.

My favorite Mopar of that era (through '64) is the Dodge Custom 880. Our elderly neighbors at the time had a deep metallic turquoise one I thought was handsome. I also rather like the '64 Fury two-door hardtop, and I liked the simple instrument panel with the four round pods. No 'Googie' shapes.

The '63 and '64 Chryslers, I always thought seemed really out there.

There is a white 880, owned by a senior citizen, that I've seen parked locally in a few locations, as he has moved around.

sda

Our neighbors in St Pete had a dark navy blue with lighter blue interior 62 Dodge Dart 4dr. I seem to remember it was a hardtop with a/c. I rode in it a few times as our neighbor took her daughter and me to the YMCA pool. I don't know if they sold it or traded it but their next car was a beautiful 66 red on red, fully loaded including electric windows, a/c, 428, Ford Galaxie XL coupe. I visited our neighbor about 3 years ago when my wife and I visited St Pete. She is doing well, just spoke to my parents 2 weeks ago, is 90 and still driving. She had a Nissan Rogue when I last saw her. Funny thing, her house built in 1962 still looks the same inside and out but beautifully kept.

andre1969

Same here, actually. If I was buying a Mopar in that era, for '61 I think it would be a DeSoto! While the front-end is a bit out there, I prefer it to that trapezoidal grille of the Chrysler. But for '62-64, I'd go with a Dodge 880.

Although admittedly, the roofline of the 880, especially by '64, looks out of place, I think. The body is all squared up like a good 60's car should be, but the roofline is from 1960. And actually bears a strong resemblance to the '57-59 cars! The 4-door hardtop especially looks close to the '57-59 4-door hardtops, while the pillared sedan just looks like the hardtop with a B-pillar and window frames. Meanwhile, the 2-door's roofline makes me think of the '57-59 Plymouth/Dodge.
Something about the '63-64 Chrysler styling makes the cars look smaller than they really are to me, as well. A Dodge 880/Custom 880, even though it's the same wheelbase, and about the same length, just looks like a bigger car to me. Having the New Yorker on the shorter 122" wb just seems odd to me as well, as this car was supposed to compete with the Buick Electra and Olds Ninety Eight. It might have still been a decent car in its own right, but in my opinion, just didn't have the presence of those GM cars.

Mercury, in my opinion, had been beaten back down to pretty much Pontiac/Dodge territory in '61, although for '63 it seemed like they started bulking up a bit, and getting a bit more presence about them, taking on some Lincolnesque cues. Still, Mercury had nothing anywhere near a New Yorker, when it comes to price. I don't think it was until 1969, with the Marquis Brougham, that they started getting back into NY'er/Ninety-Eight/Electra territory.

The '63-64 Chryslers were fairly popular, but it was mostly the Newport and non-letter 300s carrying most of weight. Although, the '63 NYer was good for about 28,000 units, up from around 20,000 in 1962. Granted, with Olds and Buick it was always the cheaper, smaller big cars that carried most of the sales, but the Electra and Ninety Eight still had a good showing. In '63, about 58,000 Electras were sold, and Olds was good for about 70,000 Ninety Eights.

fintail

I never noticed that similarity between the roof/rear quarter window opening on the 64 style car and the 57-59 HTs. Amazing what removing fins and (most) chrome trim can do.

Oldies today: clean enough ~70 Ford pickup in a nice sky blue and white two tone, ~86 (CHMSL) "old style" Cutlass sedan followed by a first gen 4 Runner moments later (80s time warp), the very clean 90-91 Taurus I spotted a couple weeks ago doesn't appear to have moved since, ~90 Topaz on my jogging route got a new registration sticker, so it's still on the road.

uplanderguy

Saw that same white '64 Chevelle Malibu SS hardtop parked in the same spot yesterday, but with all four windows down. I do miss hardtops for that very reason.

andre, re.: Mopar using roofline features from the '50's--how about the '64-66 Imperial? I gotta say though, on that car it doesn't bother me a bit. I'd rather have a '66 Imperial LeBaron than the same year Caddy or Lincoln--you heard it here!

I never saw an Imperial LeBaron ('60's) when I was a kid, only the 'Crown'. So when I'd see an ad or brochure, that name 'LeBaron' seemed mystical to me. Much less so in the '80's for obvious reasons!

I always thought it was notable that on those Custom 880's, it had a 'DODGE' nameplate on the side. GM and Ford always put model names on the side and brand names on the rear or front.

andre1969

On the Imperial, at least, they squared off what they could of the roofline by 1964-66, so most of it looked pretty modern. It's just the wraparound windshield and A-pillars that betray it as an older design.

But with the '64 Dodge 880, that whole roof just screams "Suddenly it's 1957!"

For luxury cars in 1966, I could see the case for the Imperial. Going just on style, the '63-64, and '65-66 Cadillacs just don't excite me. They're certainly nice enough cars, though. I much prefer the '61-62, or '67-68. I do think the '66 Lincoln is a handsome car, but I always thought of Lincolns from that era as overly complex and potentially troublesome.

ab348

While the styling of the '62 Dodge was a well-documented mistake, I am not a big fan of the '63 or '64 either although both were improvements over the ill-advised '62. The exterior styling was certainly cleaned up and the longer wheelbase made them more competitive, but I never understood why the front end styling clung to the 2-headlight look when the competition had gone to 4 sealed beams. They did a better job on the rear panel styling. Also the '64 dashboard was as dull as dishwater with its flat-as-a-board look.

Overall I find the '63 and '64 Plymouth a more appealing offering.

andre1969

I think Dodge was trying to go for that turbine car look a little bit too hard in '62, and they just couldn't break themselves fully from it in '63-64.

The Plymouths definitely seem more conservative, and less controversial. I never was a huge fan of the '63 front-end, with the inset headlights. It seems a bit Ford-ish to me, probably because of the '60 Ford. But, the '64-66 Imperial has those inset headlights too, although in this case I think it works a bit better, on a larger, wider car.

I think the '64 Plymouth is pretty attractive. The front-end makes me think a bit of a '63 Chevy. When the Fury went back to a true full-sized platform for '65, and these cars were rebranded as midsized, I thought the '65 Belvedere/Satellite were nice. Although again, for some reason, the front end makes me think of a Ford. I can also see the family resemblance to the full-sized Fury.

uplanderguy

In a '66 Cadillac, I do think the Fleetwood Brougham is one of the last great Cadillacs, with those tall seat backs, and that instrument panel that went away for '67 (as did Pontiac's neat panel) due I think to new safety standards in '67--lots less metal and more soft vinyl inside.

I fully realize I am opening myself to ridicule here, but there are two styling features shared, I think, on a '64 Imperial Crown Coupe and a '64 Studebaker Daytona Hardtop, that remind me of each other. Both have front-end styling that sticks out farther at the top than the bottom, and the quarter window shapes are similar. Both have a 'sitting on their haunches' look I think. I love 'em both, but for largely different reasons. At 2,414 Daytona Hardtops made, they're probably even lower-production than the Imperial although am too lazy to look.

uplanderguy

RE.: '65 Satellite--I remember as a kid, thinking the '65 Belvedere line looked more like the '63 Plymouth than the '64. Took me awhile to figure out why!

When I was in sixth grade (1969-70), my one teacher drove a '65 Satellite convertible, which I admired. Don't think I wasn't flabbergasted to see it in my hometown's car show a few years back--still owned by her! Here it is. She grew up in Long Island and got it new as a college graduation gift!

andre1969

Oh I can definitely see a passing similarity between the Daytona and the Imperial. With the Imperial having that forward thrust, and the rear sloping on a similar plane, it that "looks like it's moving, even when it's standing still" vibe about it. I'd hate to rear end somebody with it, though!

Oh, and speaking of Caddies, I had almost forgotten about the '66 Fleetwood. I know I've mentioned it before, but back in college I found one for sale at a used car lot in College Park, MD, that specialized in foreign cars, but somehow they got ahold of this Caddy. They only wanted $2500 for it. Even though I said previously that the Cadillacs from '64-66 don't really get my heart racing, that Fleetwood was just so...majestic, that sometimes I wish I had bought it! One thing that really caught my eye was the master control for the power window switches on the driver's armrest. Eight of those little suckers! One for each of the four windows, and one for each of the four vent windows. And in the back seat, IIRC, it also had these little tray tables that would drop down, and also had little foot rests.

I like the '67-68 Cadillacs, mainly because of that forward thrust it has to the front, but definitely appreciate the higher quality interior of the '66.

Your old school teacher's '65 Satellite is one sweet looking car, too. Even though I tend to think of single headlights as being "downscale", on that car I think it works well. And, even though I still see a bit of Ford in its DNA, I think overall the style has a good tie-in to the bigger Furys that year.

One thing I never could figure out, is why Ford didn't do a similar thing with the '65 Fairlane, tying it in more with the bigger cars. The '62-64 Fairlanes looked like a nice, scaled-down version of the big cars, and so did the '66-67, but the '65 just seems like they didn't try. I guess you could argue that they didn't want to give it stacked headlights, for the last year of that generation, since a new car was in the works for '66. But, for some odd reason, Mercury saw fit to give the '65 Comet stacked headlights for its last year. I thought that was a bit odd, since the big Mercurys had side-by-side headlights. Seems to me it would have made more sense to make the '65 Comet side-by-side, and the Fairlane stacked, to tie in the styling to the bigger cars. Although, I do think a '65 Comet is a good looking car in it's own right. With that little vertical badge in the center of the grille though, it makes me think a bit of a Pontiac at a quick glance.

fintail

Speaking of Imperial, I saw this today and see it often, as it is just down the street from me, anchored in front of a 1940s bungalow that reminds me of something from Florida. Image is from last September's Google Street View, and it wasn't there in the 2019 view, so it must be mobile. Paint has some patina but it looks straight and fairly decent otherwise.

uplanderguy

I never noticed the cut of the rear door on an Imperial until the pic fintail posted. I think I'd leave the door edge guards off of mine!

andre, I like the '65 Comet, at least the hardtops, too. Seems to me they cleaned up some of the various lines of the '64 nicely.

For years I liked the '65 Fairlane as sort of a one-year design. Not so much anymore. I like the front end, but from the windshield back, I don't think the styling has aged very well. In '66 is when Ford upsized the Fairlane some to make it a closer match to the Chevelle, and in '67 Ford moved the Ranchero from the Falcon to the Fairlane, to make it more like the Chevy.

explorerx4

A great looking 1940 Packard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qqwQwGULE

uplanderguy

Check out the leather and tray tables in this '66 Fleetwood Brougham, magnificent

uplanderguy

andre, re.: '67 and '68 Cadillacs--I always liked the '68's grille with the prominent center section, but I hate how they did it from the '67--the seams where the '67's grille was, are visible on the outer sides of the '68's hood! It's a Caddy; come on, hide the seams! LOL

RE.: Instrument panels--I think the only GM instrument panel I like better in '67 than '66 is the full-size Chevrolet's. That must speak for how 'meh' the '66 Chevy panel was.

andre1969

Don't laugh too hard, but this little obscurity showed up in my yard the other day...My house mate's 2017 Murano got into a minor accident last year, and the parts for it finally, FINALLY came in, so it's in the shop, and this is what he got as a rental.

He hates it with a passion! Unfortunately at the time, the only cars they had were this Mitsubishi Mirage and a Nissan Leaf. He didn't want to try messing around with an EV, so he reluctantly took the Mirage. He said his co-workers teased him when he took it to work, and I think I've annoyed him by humming that circus/clown theme music (forget what the actual score is called). He started calling it his clown car.

Although, I'll admit it does have its strong points. I rode in it last night, and the passenger seating position isn't half bad. However, the driver's side, where you have to take the pedals into account, it is cramped. I could drive it if I had to though. It also rode better than I thought it would, and when you close a door, it sounds surprisingly solid. The glove box is pretty big. One thing I noticed though, is that it definitely feels like it's going faster than it really is. Or as I put it, "Never did going so slow, feel so fast!"

In a twisted sort of way, I have to admit a sort of respect for this little car. It's built to a low price point, so you can only expect so much. And, I've tended to root for Mitsubishi over the years, as sort of the underdog of the Japanese auto industry. Actually, I wonder, is this thing even Japanese? Or did Mitsubishi source it from somewhere else and just put their name on it? I almost forgot Mitsubishi was still hanging on!

Still, my housemate hates it, and made an appointment to swap it out for something better. I think his rental car coverage qualifies him for something Corolla/Jetta-sized.

roadburner

I remember one Brit magazine absolutely torched it.When it mentioned cars to also consider it suggested "Walking."

sda

I have long rooted for Mitsu and Mazda. Though I haven't had a Mitsu, my SIL has and it was a good vehicle. I enjoyed the four Mazdas I've owned and they were trouble free. Five if you count the 93 Mercury Tracer LTS with the Mazda sourced DOHC 1.8. That was a fun ride and surprisingly comfortable.

ab348

Mitsu is a curious case. Back in the '70s through the '90s they seemed to make good cars, even somewhat exciting ones, and were not bad in terms of quality. Then it seems some disease set in and their cars became undesirable. No idea why that happened.