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

Michaell

ab348 said:

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.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US they started a "0/0/0" promotion that cost them a lot of money. And, while they were ahead for a while on the SUV front - I swear, half of my wife's extended family drove a Montero at one point - they lost the plot on product planning.

But, it seems like they are starting to reestablish themselves. The Outlander is a nice vehicle - both gas and PHEV versions. The Eclipse Cross is a mess, however.

sda

Michaell said:

ab348 said:

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.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US they started a "0/0/0" promotion that cost them a lot of money. And, while they were ahead for a while on the SUV front - I swear, half of my wife's extended family drove a Montero at one point - they lost the plot on product planning.

But, it seems like they are starting to reestablish themselves. The Outlander is a nice vehicle - both gas and PHEV versions. The Eclipse Cross is a mess, however.

Doesn't Mitsu have Nissan and Renault as bed partners now? That can be good and bad.

kyfdx

ab348 said:

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.

The cross pollination with Chrysler kept them going. Once that ended, not enough volume.

Michaell

sda said:

Michaell said:

ab348 said:

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.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US they started a "0/0/0" promotion that cost them a lot of money. And, while they were ahead for a while on the SUV front - I swear, half of my wife's extended family drove a Montero at one point - they lost the plot on product planning.

But, it seems like they are starting to reestablish themselves. The Outlander is a nice vehicle - both gas and PHEV versions. The Eclipse Cross is a mess, however.

Doesn't Mitsu have Nissan and Renault as bed partners now? That can be good and bad.

Yes, since 2017.

Agree that there can be advantages and disadvantages to that relationship.

sda

https://youtu.be/46Ce1k8_gso

Here is a fun video of the 76 Sunbird. The first one shown I think is the color I had. The video has faded. Later it shows the 231 V6 and other options. Somewhere along the line they replaced the 100 mph speedometer with an 80 mph which I had. Also the interior door panels would be changed to a different style. The poster has a lot of Vega and H body clips which interest me as I had a 71 Vega GT and 76 Sunbird V6 5p.

sda

Digging through stuff today, it is raining cats and dogs and I have the day off, I found this of my 98 Millenia.

stickguy

good looking car. and 215/55 tires on a premium/sports sedan? You can tell this is an oldie!

uplanderguy

The Sunbird is nicely styled with a pretty luxe interior for the time, size, and price point.

kyfdx

Pontiac G8 GT. Ages since I’ve seen one.

tjc78

@kyfdx said:
Pontiac G8 GT. Ages since I’ve seen one.

Well they only made about a dozen of them 😎

fintail

From the Malaise Motors group - I like disco Birds, and this one has a lot going for it, what a stunner:

https://tricities.craigslist.org/cto/d/bluff-city-1979-ford-thunderbird-town/7606484593.html

Would be fun to see a Marti report on this spec.

sda

I may have overlooked it does it have the 302 or 351. I like.

ab348

sda said:

I may have overlooked it does it have the 302 or 351. I like.

The ad is silent on that point.

stickguy

sda said:

I may have overlooked it does it have the 302 or 351. I like.

in 1979 I doubt it mattered very much.

ab348

sda said:

I may have overlooked it does it have the 302 or 351. I like.

The ad is silent on that point.

texases

Depends on whether it’s a CA car (351), or rest of US (302).

andre1969

That white T-bird is nice. As fully-loaded as it is in every other regard, I'd imagine they splurged on the 351 as well. But, with fuel economy being such a concern by that time, anything's possible.

As for hp ratings, my old car book lists the T-bird's 302 at 133 hp. For the 351, they had "135/151" I guess the 135 would be the choked down CA version, while the 151 would be 49-state? Or, maybe that's for single/vs dual exhaust?

Here's a weird one...for 1979, the 302 has four different hp ratings:
129 LTD
133 LTD II/T-bird
137 Granada
140 Fairmont/Mustang

I can understand more restrictive exhaust systems cutting hp a bit, but it seems to me the smaller cars should be more restrictive, not the larger ones. It's also interesting that Ford was still listing numbers like that. In 1979 Chrysler's were ending in either 0 or 5. GM was as well for the most part, although the optional Chevette engine is listed at 74, and the Malibu's 200 is listed at 94. Once they started ending in 0 or 5, I figured they were actually rounding off. Although, even in more recent years, I've seen horsepower ratings in other numbers. For instance, in the 2000 Intrepid, my 2.7 V6 had 200 hp. If you bought the ES, it had 202 hp. It sounds inconsequential, but I think it also gave you a much broader hp and torque curve, so more of that power was available, over a wider rpm range. From the 0-60 times I've seen, I think it cut it from around 9.5 to 8.8 seconds.

andre1969

**Edit:
On that '79 T-bird, I just looked up the specs on automobile catalog.
They list the 351W (Windsor) at 135 hp, and the 351M (Modified) at 151. For California, they list a 351M, at 149 hp. I'm a bit surprised that California emissions only took away 2 hp. For the Chevy 350, I'm thinking the CA emissions dropped it from 170 to 155 hp? For the Mopar 360 in 1979, they didn't even offer the 2-bbl in 1979, instead opting for a 318-4bbl. For the 360 4bbl, there was a 170 hp California version that they offered elsewhere, or the 195 hp version, which was essentially a copcar engine. In civilian cars, they pushed it as a "trailering package" I think.

stickguy

must be the spring weather finally arriving. Today someone visiting a house I walk by had a nice dark red Crossfire convertible out and about. Don't see those very often.

sda

I am a little surprised at the low hp figures for the 351 especially compared to the 302. The Olds 350 of the same year was 170hp, 275 ft/lb torque which was still not great. The Olds had a 4bbl. If the 351 had a 4 bbl or venturi in Ford lingo, perhaps that would add another 15-20hp?

andre1969

I'm not sure, but I think Ford's engines had trouble adapting to emissions controls in the 70's, similar to how Buick and Pontiac also didn't do too well in that regard. The Buick 350-4bbl, for example, only had 155 hp in '79. It is kind of curious, that Ford didn't use 4-bbl carbs with any of these engines in the later years.

Looking through my auto encyclopedia, it looks like the last really powerful 351 was in 1973. It shows a 246 hp version being offered in the Torino/Montego coupes, and a 264 hp version in the Cougar, with "CJ" in parenthesis for the entry. I'd imagine the Cougar offered it, so did the Mustang, but this book doesn't list it for the Mustang. Probably a typo, I'm guessing. For 1974, it lists the 246/264 version for Montego coupes and the Cougar, again with "CJ" in parenthesis. But, not for the Torino that year, so these discrepancies make me think this book is missing something.

I found a Mercury brochure online, that does indeed mention the 351 CJ engine as an option for Montego coupes and the Cougar. The Ford brochure however, was a bit sparse on engine info, only saying the Torino had a 301-2bbl standard, with a 351-2bbl in California.

Despite the low hp, I think the 351 was still pretty torquey, so performance might not have been as bad as those low hp numbers suggest. I've also heard that even the 400-2bbl, which was down to 159 hp in 1979, and used in the Lincoln Continentals and Mark Vs, still had enough torque to move those cars with a bit of dignity. Of course, I usually hear that from fans of the cars. Detractors, naturally, tend to have less nice things to say.

To be fair, the Chevy 350-2bbl was pretty low on hp in its final few years, as well. I believe it got cut to 145 hp for 1973, and according the full-sized brochure, was still 145 in 1976. And banned in CA, where a 4-bbl with 165 was standard. I think the Pontiac 350-2bbl had 160 hp in 1976. I've seen the 4-bbl quoted at either 165 (Consumer Guide) or 175 (Motor's Repair Manual for 1976), but the '76 Pontiac brochure doesn't list hp. I think the Buick 350-2bbl was also down to 145 hp towards the end, as well. Dunno about Olds, but didn't they go to 4-bbl only for their 350 a bit sooner than the other divisions?

sda

IIRC Olds no longer used a 2bbl on the 350 after 1972. 1973 and newer had 4bbl. Of course Cadillac used the 350 Olds in the Seville and later the 79 Eldo but used fuel injection instead of a carburetor.

fintail

I'd imagine that Bird could be "woken up" a little with mild carb or exhaust tuning. Wouldn't need to be fast, but anything helps. If that thing had T-tops and was local, it would almost be tempting to look at just for kicks. Malaise material has been growing on me for awhile, and the real nice MBs from that era are already getting too expensive.

fintail

Today spotted the same ~80 Fleetwood Brougham I saw a couple weeks ago, and a mid 70s Ranchero with kind of (but not exactly) a Starsky and Hutch color scheme. Also saw a brand new looking 4Runner decked out with tough looking trim and a slight lift and wearing Lyft and Uber stickers - doesn't seem like the ideal vehicle for that.

andre1969

Out running errands today I spotted a '73 Caprice convertible, sort of a medium blue that looked too bright to be stock, but looked good. It was in a parking lot, top down.

And, as I turned into my driveway, an orange C8 was behind me.

fintail

Also out doing errands and a quick fintail drive - immaculate white Continental Mark V, 58-60 Ford pickup, ~70 Chevy pickup.

Michaell

Spotted an immaculate yellow Opel Manta the other day

sda

Michaell said:

Spotted an immaculate yellow Opel Manta the other day

Now that’s rare.

uplanderguy

I liked those last-gen Manta Luxus models, although like everything else they didn't wear the bumpers gracefully. I liked the wheels, dark exterior colors, and dark corduroy seating.

Our hometown Buick dealer didn't carry Opel but the dealer in even a smaller town 15 miles south did, go figure.

stickguy

not much in 1975 carried the bumpers well.

uplanderguy

Seems like sometimes foreign cars handled them even worse. Not an attempt to slant the sheetmetal to cover some of the bulge, as was done on, for example, Camaros and Vegas.

sda

I saw a near stock early model orange Datsun 240 Z today. Looked very nice. I was struck by how small it is.

fintail

Are you telling me these bumpers stick out?



Saw a 64 (I think) T-Bird this morning, very clean original looking car, driver could have bought it new.

texases

I'll see your '64 TBird and raise a '57, saw it this morning in the grocery store parking lot. Very nice, yellow with a white top.

sda

This is my neighbor's 98 Regal LS 25th anniversary edition, sunroof, gray leather. I like the color matched grille similar to the GS.

fintail

sda said:

This is my neighbor's 98 Regal LS 25th anniversary edition, sunroof, gray leather. I like the color matched grille similar to the GS.

Are those supercharged, or at least a 3.8?

tjc78

@fintail said:
Are you telling me these bumpers stick out?

Saw a 64 (I think) T-Bird this morning, very clean original looking car, driver could have bought it new.

Great color on that Benz

stickguy

2 today. both being used, parked in store parking lots.

at Bjs, a 57 Bel Air, turquoise with silver accents and roof (I think silver!) Looked nice and shiny. Some mods, at least suggested by the cragers on it! the odd part, it was a 4 door that someone did that restoring to.

and later at a strip mall, a fairly clean but somewhat original 79ish camaro Z28. Dark blue. I liked that one!

fintail

tjc78 said:

@fintail said:

Are you telling me these bumpers stick out?

Saw a 64 (I think) T-Bird this morning, very clean original looking car, driver could have bought it new.

Great color on that Benz

Looks like a beautiful combo, perhaps light grey or parchment interior. Lovely car, and if you are on a trip and want to pull over and have a picnic, the car comes with a nice bench for seating

They can probably also take a slow speed bump with minimal to no damage.

sda

fintail said:

sda said:

This is my neighbor's 98 Regal LS 25th anniversary edition, sunroof, gray leather. I like the color matched grille similar to the GS.

Are those supercharged, or at least a 3.8?

fintail said:

sda said:

This is my neighbor's 98 Regal LS 25th anniversary edition, sunroof, gray leather. I like the color matched grille similar to the GS.

Are those supercharged, or at least a 3.8?

3.8. He bought it new.

uplanderguy

On '70's imports with really big bumpers, I guess it's understandable as the car wasn't styled with only the U.S. market in mind, and the bumpers were added because they had to have them. I do understand that.

stickguy

also saw out driving an Olds convertible. I think one of the 90-95 vintage Cutlasses with the big hoop "rollbar'.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

On '70's imports with really big bumpers, I guess it's understandable as the car wasn't styled with only the U.S. market in mind, and the bumpers were added because they had to have them. I do understand that.

On the BMWs of that era a lot of owners drilled out the hydraulic cylinders and retracted the bumpers. More adventurous owners fitted the European bumper assemblies.

andre1969

There was some kind of bumper loophole for 1973, and possibly 1974, where if the car was a convertible or a coupe with no B-pillar, and had a wheelbase of 115" or less, that it was exempt from those bulky crash bumpers. This loophole was meant to help out import car makers, but Chrysler took advantage of it, with the 1973 Satellite Sebring coupe. Most likely the Charger, as well, but I do remember Consumer Reports criticizing a '73 Sebring hardtop coupe that they tested, for using this loophole.

Did the Manta get those bulkier bumpers for '74, or '75? I've tried looking up pics online, but it gets confusing. Some '74s show a bulky bumper, while some don't. I guess it's possible that what I'm seeing is Euro spec cars, vs US-spec? Or, US cars that were converted to the earlier bumpers?

It's also possible that the bumper loophole went away at the start of a calendar year, rather than a model year. So, if it went away on 1/1/74, for example, then some '74's might have the earlier bumper, and some would have the later.

With the Manta, I think those back windows flipped out, rather than roll down, so it wasn't a hardtop in the strictest sense, I guess. But considering that strip at the B-point is really just a place for the rear window to hinge to, and probably doesn't offer any structural support, I imagine it was considered pillarless by government standards.

stickguy

my 75 had bumpers that stuck out but IIRC not badly. just normal looking for the day.

The rear windows did not roll down. But it has been so long I honestly have no recollection if they popped out or not, but it sounds likely!

andre1969

I think a lot of stuff that we took for granted back in the past, sometimes looks out of place, when viewed from a modern perspective. For instance, for most of my life, I liked the '73 Chevelle. But nowadays, whenever I see one, either in person or in pics, that front bumper just bothers me. Not the bumper itself, but the way it juts out. I notice things like that a lot more with cars from that battering ram era these days. Perhaps because they're not so common, the flaws suddenly stick out more? Seems to me that Fords tended to be the worst.

With the Mantas and those crash bumpers, I think sometimes it's the angle that you view it from, that makes it look worse. For instance, in this view, I think it looks a bit awkward... With the way the fender slopes upward, and doesn't really meet the bumper, it leaves a triangular void that just doesn't look right. I wonder if they could have corrected this by simply extending the bumper backward at the edges, and slanting the back edge of it, to fill in that void?

imidazol97

I saw a Ford Probe at a local restaurant. I couldn't figure out what it was from the profile at first, then
I saw the name on the back.

uplanderguy

andre, I like the '73 Chevelle. I like the simple grille, and the headlight tunnelling. But that chrome bumper is a railroad tie! Even worse IMHO, the first half of the model year when the filler panel was silver no matter the color of the car. Midyear this filler became body color, which helped some.

I like the Laguna front end, but honestly don't care for the body-colored rear bumper.

uplanderguy

Who ever thought 'Probe' was a good name for a car? LOL

ab348

andre1969 said:

There was some kind of bumper loophole for 1973, and possibly 1974, where if the car was a convertible or a coupe with no B-pillar, and had a wheelbase of 115" or less, that it was exempt from those bulky crash bumpers. This loophole was meant to help out import car makers, but Chrysler took advantage of it, with the 1973 Satellite Sebring coupe. Most likely the Charger, as well, but I do remember Consumer Reports criticizing a '73 Sebring hardtop coupe that they tested, for using this loophole.

I think it was only '73. Our '74 Maverick had a WB of less than 115" yet it had the awful Ford "railroad tie" bumpers front and rear. For that matter, so did the '74 Pinto. I remember the '73 had smaller bumpers.