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

explorerx4

Not a huge fan of these but this one is pretty cool.
From the 2023 LCOC meet. TJC78 needs to buy something to take it to the next one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0RBWUggmGM

I like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zfyj2hFcTA

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Dealer messaged that my C8 came in this morning. He sent me a video of it coming off the truck, and some pics here. We are taking delivery Saturday. I'm excited, and scared some too, as this is real 'wild hair' for me!

Congrats, BP, and good luck getting in and out of it. Might want to take up yoga…

imidazol97

Congratulations on a beautiful car. That's one I would enjoy myself. Great colors.

uplanderguy

Some of those Mark VI's I remember seeing had a round headlight visible in the retractable headlight doors, although the one above doesn't look like that. I think we discussed that here once but I can't recall what that was about.

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

Some of those Mark VI's I remember seeing had a round headlight visible in the retractable headlight doors, although the one above doesn't look like that. I think we discussed that here once but I can't recall what that was about.

I always thought that was a "custom repair", once the vacuum doors gave out?

texases

kyfdx said:

uplanderguy said:

Some of those Mark VI's I remember seeing had a round headlight visible in the retractable headlight doors, although the one above doesn't look like that. I think we discussed that here once but I can't recall what that was about.

I always thought that was a "custom repair", once the vacuum doors gave out?

Nope, factory:

tjc78

Yeah I haven’t seen> @explorerx4 said:

Not a huge fan of these but this one is pretty cool.
From the 2023 LCOC meet. TJC78 needs to buy something to take it to the next one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0RBWUggmGM

I like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zfyj2hFcTA

That’s one of the rarest Panthers ever made. Not usually a huge Mark VI fan, but I’d take that one. Very nice

kyfdx

@texases That's unfortunate.. lol

explorerx4

I'm not really a fan of the VI, the wheelbase seems too short.

roadburner

My favorites were the III, IV, and VII (LSC only).

uplanderguy

Met my friend with the Allante for dinner in his hometown of Geneva, OH and he showed me this. I had heard that Olds was born there. Old closed auto store where Olds was born now.

uplanderguy

Seen outside a small shop in Geneva, OH yesterday. Now THESE are my favorite 'Mark'! Simple styling, long hood/short deck before it was a thing; simple but luxurious interior. Too bad the frame is shot. Also there was this '57 Mercury Commuter two-door hardtop wagon.

tjc78

@explorerx4 said:
I'm not really a fan of the VI, the wheelbase seems too short.

It was actually a shorter wheelbase than a Town Car.

kyfdx

Those Mark IIs are amazing. That one needs about $100K of work, though..

andre1969

The Mark VI and 1980-81 Town Coupe were on a 114.3" wheelbase., which was the same as the LTD and Marquis. The 4-door Lincolns were on a longer 117.3" wheelbase. My auto encyclopedia lists the 1981 Town Coupe on a 117.3" wheelbase, but I'm sure that's a typo. I can't imagine they'd make a change like that for such a low-volume model.

I don't know if putting the coupes on the longer wheelbase would have helped, though. That extra 3" all went into moving the rear axle further back, whereas a personal luxury coupe tends to be all about the long hood, so a longer wheelbase might have made them look a bit more awkward. I think the biggest problem is that technically, the 2-door Panthers were not coupes, but sedans. In the LTD/Marquis range, the 2- and 4-door models share the same A-pillars, roof stamping, windshield, rear window (except for those more formal models where they put in the fiberglass roof extension) , etc. For the 2-door models, they simply eliminated the back doors, moved the B-pillar back, and made the front door longer.

On the plus side, this made the 2-doors as roomy as the 4-door models. But, it did make the 2-doors seem a bit more awkward and upright, compared to say, GM's downsized B/C bodies, where the windshield was a bit more rakish, the roof a little lower, and the passenger cabin itself a touch shorter. The GM cars have more of a traditional coupe-like grace about them, but the tradeoff was you sacrificed a bit of headroom, and in the back, legroom, compared to the 4-door models.

The Mark VI was essentially the result of trying to force Mark V styling cues onto an LTD 2-door sedan, and the end result was a bit less than savory. I think the '80-82 T-bird and Cougar XR-7 suffer the same problem. They just tried too hard to force the '79 styling cues onto what was essentially a Fairmont/Zephyr.

fintail

uplanderguy said:

Seen outside a small shop in Geneva, OH yesterday. Now THESE are my favorite 'Mark'! Simple styling, long hood/short deck before it was a thing; simple but luxurious interior. Too bad the frame is shot. Also there was this '57 Mercury Commuter two-door hardtop wagon.

That wagon is quite cool too. Maybe 80K to bring it back to a state where you could sell it for 25K.

fintail

tjc78 said:

@explorerx4 said:

I'm not really a fan of the VI, the wheelbase seems too short.

It was actually a shorter wheelbase than a Town Car.

I kind of don't mind those Mark VI and similar coupes, but it's malaise kitsch value, and if it was back in the day would be a hard sell vs an Eldo (unless a diesel). The sedans wore it much better, although even when I was young I noticed the doors were very similar to a Crown Vic.

uplanderguy

Picked it up today. So far so good. Wife is loving it and took off with the top down to show her brother.

This is a small, rural dealer 30 miles from us. One-family owned since 1928. Two salesman: the owner, and his son. Wife is the office manager.

What a delightful purchase experience. Quiet, no pressure, low-key, sell C8's at MSRP and charges only $73.70 as doc fees. Son ran through all the technical features with us, and was not only thorough but patient with us old-timers. I can't say good enough about Stratton Chevrolet. In fact, I told them they could put a license plate frame with their name on it on the car, and I NEVER say that.

uplanderguy

andre, re.: good coupe rear legroom in the Panthers--I never knew the differences in dimensions between the Ford and GM full-size coupes of that era, but I always remember this ad. Our '77 Impala coupe was more pleasant in the back seat for sure, than our '74 had been; at least in every other way except seat width. The '77 was taller and you sat up straighter.

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

Picked it up today. So far so good. Wife is loving it and took off with the top down to show her brother.

This is a small, rural dealer 30 miles from us. One-family owned since 1928. Two salesman: the owner, and his son. Wife is the office manager.

What a delightful purchase experience. Quiet, no pressure, low-key, sell C8's at MSRP and charges only $73.70 as doc fees. Son ran through all the technical features with us, and was not only thorough but patient with us old-timers. I can't say good enough about Stratton Chevrolet. In fact, I told them they could put a license plate frame with their name on it on the car, and I NEVER say that.

Congrats on the C8! Nice ride, sure looks like you'll enjoy it.

Will it get driven in the winter?

uplanderguy

No, won't see snow or slop or wet salt if I can help it.

uplanderguy

Came up in my FB memories today, from a year ago. Beautiful ‘62 Corvette at Hershey in the preservation class.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Picked it up today. So far so good. Wife is loving it and took off with the top down to show her brother.

This is a small, rural dealer 30 miles from us. One-family owned since 1928. Two salesman: the owner, and his son. Wife is the office manager.

You both look many years younger all of a sudden! Congratulations!

stickguy

nice car, but those don't look like New Balances.

uplanderguy

Kiziks

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

Kiziks

I've got like 6 pairs of those in my closet.

sda

Not classic, but most have been junked. A clean, silver Chevy Captiva V6. It had dual exhaust tips instead of the single on the 4.

ab348

The other (lovely summer-like) day, saw one of these trundling along in traffic - it could have been this exact one given the age of the driver and the identical paint color. It looked absolutely fresh and pristine. I almost never see these around here, although in the late ‘80s I worked with a fellow who owned one. Always liked their look.

stickguy

well, I can guarantee you will be the only one on your block or at cars and coffee with one of these.

https://carsandbids.com/auctions/9AqN7p2P/1989-nissan-president-hearse

explorerx4

Yesterday, a pristine El Camino. 396 badge on the fender, Willwood brakes. Sounded healthy.
Not a great picture.

ab348

Also in traffic in a lane waiting to make a left turn late last week, a '70 Dodge Challenger that looked bone-stock. No R/T badging or stripes, but painted Plum Crazy purple metallic. Such a nice body design.

kyfdx

@explorerx4

Looks like a resto-mod, with those wheels.

andre1969

Congratulations on the new C8, Uplander! I know you'll enjoy it!

Oh, as for that '77 Caprice ad? Well, those actors are pygmies, and that front seat is moved up as far as it will go All joking aside though, they were definitely roomy for a coupe. As for back seat legroom in general, here's what my 1985 Consumer Guide lists for the big cars it tested...

Ford Crown Vic 4-door: 39.3" (I'm pretty sure the 2-door would be the same)
Grand Marquis LS 4-door: 39.3"
Buick LeSabre Limited coupe: 38.1"
Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 4-door: 41.2"
Chevy Caprice Classic 4-door: 39.1" (note: they actually list 29.1", but that HAS to be a typo!)
Olds Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS 4-door: 38.5"
Pontiac Parisienne Brougham 4-door: 39.1"

Oddly, Consumer Guide gives the Panthers a "4" (out of 5) for overall interior room, while they give the GM cars a "5"...even the LeSabre coupe. Yet, in the accompanying text, they find more to whine about with the GM cars. For the Panthers, the only thing they complain about is how the floor board is higher on the passenger side, for the catalytic converter (yet, GM did that too), and how 3-across seating up front is snug.

With the GM cars, they complain about back seat headroom in the Parisienne, yet say it's generous, both front and rear, on the Delta 88!

It's been ages since I've been in one of those boxier Panthers, but I seem to remember the seating position seemed more upright, higher off the floor, than the GM cars. One of my grandmother's old lady friends, who had a '75 Monte Carlo, used to complain about the passenger front seat on Grandmom's '85 LeSabre being too low. None of these cars are exactly comfortable in the center seating position, but I think GM had a slight edge, as their transmission hump and driveshaft tunnel seemed a bit smaller than Ford's.

When the Panther's went for the aero redesign for 1992, they seemed a bit smaller inside to me, although I'm pretty sure the key published dimensions stayed the same.

tjc78

You have a good memory on the comparison of the box Panthers to the GM cars. Way back when I had my 89 Grand Marquis. I drove a late run Lesabre coupe and distinctly remember it sitting lower than my Marquis.

Another thing I remember is my car felt so much quicker at the time.

explorerx4

@kyfdx,
Yes, it was a restro-mod and nicely done.
Just remembered, it had some ghost flames on the front fenders.
You can see the front is slightly blueish compared to the back, which is black.

sda

I seem to remember the back seat of dad’s 85 Grand Marquis LS being roomier and more comfortable than mom’s 78 Olds 98 Regency coupe. The higher or more upright seat in the Marquis maybe the reason. The 302 in the Marquis was noisier and seemed taxed to move the car with any ease compared to the 403 in the Olds. I think the Marquis got a nice bump in power in 86 by getting fuel injection.

andre1969

Interestingly, Consumer Guide didn't have any complaints about the 307. For the LeSabre, they said the 307 gave "More than adequate performance" and said the Delta 88's acceleration was "Surprisingly brisk" and that it seemed "much livelier" than the LeSabre. For 0-60, they clocked it at 12.0 seconds, and gave it a 4/5.

For the Parisienne with the 305, they said off-the-line acceleration was "only adequate" but passing ability was "very good". They didn't show a 0-60 time, but gave it the same rating of 4/5.

For the Grand Marquis, which had the 2.73:1 axle, they said "Passing power is ample but it's not very lively at the low end". No 0-60 time, but they gave it a 4/5.

Now the Crown Vic had a 3.55:1 axle. It also had 215/70/R15 tires, the handling suspension, and Traction-Loc. Consumer Guide didn't comment much on its performance other than saying the "The V8's ample torque was complemented by the crisp-shifting overdrive automatic that responded readily to the throttle for downshifts." Its 0-60 time was 10.5 seconds, but it still got a 4/5 rating.

Most of Consumer Guide's criticism seemed to be aimed at GM's automatic transmission, which was often reluctant to disengage from overdrive, and just didn't respond as quickly in general to throttle demands like the Ford transmission did.

I can remember that, from my Grandmom's LeSabre as well. It seemed like it shifted into the higher gears too quickly on acceleration, almost like it wanted to keep you away from peak performance. And at one point, it had to go in for repairs because it wouldn't always downshift as you slowed down and would sometimes stall out. But thinking back, that might have been the torque converter not unlocking, rather than the car getting stuck in overdrive.

I've noticed that nowadays, in some of those groups on Facebook such as Malaise Motors, Brougham Society, etc, the 307 tends to get ragged on for being a dog. But, my guess is that, by 1985 it was still pretty competent. But, as the 80's marched on, the 305 and Ford's 302 improved, while the 307 just got left in the past.

It also seemed a lot more common for Panther's to get those quicker axle ratios, as well as dual exhaust, where as the GM cars were more likely to be stuck with their standard axles.

sda

I don’t recall the exact tire size, the 85 Grand Marquis had 14 inch tires. Most of dad’s driving was in town 30-45 mph. He got annoyed by the transmission constantly shifting with a bump into 4th overdrive and then would downshift down with a bump back to 3. He learned to leave the selector in D and only use OD on the interstate.

tjc78

@sda said:
I don’t recall the exact tire size, the 85 Grand Marquis had 14 inch tires. Most of dad’s driving was in town 30-45 mph. He got annoyed by the transmission constantly shifting with a bump into 4th overdrive and then would downshift down with a bump back to 3. He learned to leave the selector in D and only use OD on the interstate.

That was a common complaint with the Panthers. Mine did it too, but not as extreme as the 85 and down models.

85 was fuel injection too, but it was throttle body. In 1986 they went to sequential injection which was much better in every way. It was still speed density based and aside from 90/91 California models box Panthers never got mass air sensors.

sda

tjc78 said:

@sda said:

I don’t recall the exact tire size, the 85 Grand Marquis had 14 inch tires. Most of dad’s driving was in town 30-45 mph. He got annoyed by the transmission constantly shifting with a bump into 4th overdrive and then would downshift down with a bump back to 3. He learned to leave the selector in D and only use OD on the interstate.

That was a common complaint with the Panthers. Mine did it too, but not as extreme as the 85 and down models.

85 was fuel injection too, but it was throttle body. In 1986 they went to sequential injection which was much better in every way. It was still speed density based and aside from 90/91 California models box Panthers never got mass air sensors.

I forgot the 85 had FI but do remember the 86 getting a nice increase in hp, which dad would have liked as he felt the 85 was underpowered which I find amusing. The Marquis replaced his 79 Eldorado diesel. The 79 diesel had 120hp. The 80 and newer diesels had 105hp.

andre1969

I just checked my 1985 Consumer Guide. They list 215/75/R14 as the standard tire size on a Grand Marquis. So, I'll give them some credit, even though it was a small-ish rim, at least they compensated with a larger tire. Grandmom's '85 LeSabre had 205/75/R15s.

stickguy

I can’t really imagine having a 2 door car with a tight back seat that is a foot longer than my truck.

andre1969

stickguy said:

I can’t really imagine having a 2 door car with a tight back seat that is a foot longer than my truck.

This past summer, at the Ford Nationals in Carlisle PA, they had some new Ford models on display that you could sit in. They had a Maverick next to an F-150 crew cab. I sat in them both, and was pleasantly surprised at how roomy the Maverick seemed, both front and rear. I didn't really see much of an advantage to the F-150. While I was sitting in the back of the F-150, a sales rep came by and asked what I thought of it. When I said that I was surprised that it really doesn't feel much roomier than the Maverick, I think it caught him off guard, as he seemed a bit perplexed, like he didn't know how to answer. He just said "yeah, you don't look too comfortable back there." It actually wasn't too bad, but the problem is the seat was low to the floor, so that leaves you with no thigh support, unless you can really stretch your legs out. And in most back seats, you can't do that.

The F150 also had a short bed, so it didn't look like it had much more cargo capacity than the Maverick, either. It just seemed like a really odd contrast, the much bigger F150 beside that Maverick, yet for the majority of the population, the F150 probably gives them no additional function. Now I'm sure if you have to tow something heavy, haul more weight in the bed, or really needed 3 across seating, the F150 would be better. I'm sure it had better ground clearance as well. But, overall, the Maverick seemed really impressive, and probably as much truck as most people need.

Even with things that I use my Ram for, you could still probably do with a Maverick, just with a bit more preparation. For example, my lawn tractor probably wouldn't fit in the bed of a Maverick with the tailgate closed, but I guess you could just leave the tailgate down, and tie it in place. And I'm sure a 4x8 sheet of plywood wouldn't fit between the wheel housings, but it would probably still fit on top of them. So again, you'd just have to secure the load.

stickguy

The 150 is certainly wider. But since maverick is unibody much more efficient cab space utilization. And even the small bed holds quite a bit of stuff

The bed is about a foot shorter than a small box 150. And payload is fine (I think 1,200#s). Plywood is assigned to lay on top of the wheel wells and the tailgate can be put 1/2 way down which makes it even with the top of the wheels. So it lays flat. I think it is rated for 18 sheets.

Mine tows 2k. There is a 4k tow package available.

So yeah. For many people it is really more than enough truck.

fintail

I think fb is listening in to what I read - Speaking of odd malaise 2 door Lincolns, this just came up in my marketplace feed - maybe I posted it some time ago as it seems familiar, but seems like a heck of a coincidence.

andre1969

fintail said:

I think fb is listening in to what I read - Speaking of odd malaise 2 door Lincolns, this just came up in my marketplace feed - maybe I posted it some time ago as it seems familiar, but seems like a heck of a coincidence.

I think you're right. I just popped over on Facebook, and this '79 Marquis 2-door was waiting for me. In green, even!

Oh, as for evidence that the 2-door was actually a sedan, check out the back seat...
I swear that back seat is lifted right out of the 4-door. They usually don't round off the corners on the bottom cushion like that on a coupe.

As far as I know, Ford never put armrests in the back seat of the 2-door Ford/Mercury Panthers...even the ritzier models. Seems a bit odd to me. I've seen some low-line economy cars do this to save a couple bucks, but it just seems odd on a larger car.

Oh, looking at that '81 Lincoln, and just trying to eyeball it compared to the '79 Marquis, I'm wondering if the 2-door was actually on the 117.3" wb, and my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia was right, after all. At least, the distance between the back edge of the door and the rear wheel opening looks a bit greater on the Lincoln.

tjc78

@fintail said:
I think fb is listening in to what I read - Speaking of odd malaise 2 door Lincolns, this just came up in my marketplace feed - maybe I posted it some time ago as it seems familiar, but seems like a heck of a coincidence.

Those coupes were rare when new, not sure why you would ever want one over a Mark.

imidazol97

explorerx4 said:

I really like those cars, but I'd like different wheels on it than what it has now....

uplanderguy

That's a '68, incidentally.

texases

I didn't realize so many of them came with the vinyl roof. I'd pass on that. And I agree, Chevy's Rally wheels would be much better looking to me.