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

kyfdx

'74 Impala was our Drivers Ed car.

stickguy

I had a late 70s caprice.

andre1969

I just looked up the specs for the '76 Impala. It was 79.5" wide. So trimming it down to 75.4" was pretty significant, at the time. For comparison, I looked up the specs on my '76 LeMans: 77.4." And my '79 New Yorker, which was also "downsized", but based on the old midsized car platform: 77.1".

I suspect that some of the LeMan's width is thanks to that body sculpting in the front and rear fenders, that probably bulks it up more than it really needs to be. GM probably could have shaved off a few inches of width with simply restyling the car, without having to come out with a whole new design. The Chevelle was marginally narrower, at 76.9"

Looking at these widths shows me just how space-inefficient GM's colonades really were. Only around 2-2.5" narrower than the big mastodons. Yet shoulder room was narrower, by around 4.5". Off the top of my head, shoulder room in my LeMans is 59.6" up front, whereas in something like a '76 Impala, it was over 64". I think the downsized '77 cars had around 61".

To me, with the way modern cars have porked up, these downsized cars don't seem so big. A Corolla is around 70" wide, and the Civic is around 71". So the '77 Caprice sort of splits the difference between a modern compact, and the biggest domestic cars of all time.

Although, the Civic and Corolla aren't exactly petite these days. Looks like a current Corolla has about 54" which is a bit tight, still what I'd consider to be "compact". But the Civic has 57", which I think is about what GM's downsized '78 midsized cars had!

Funny thing about "midsized" pickups...I actually have trouble driving them, because I'm used to the proportions and reference points of a bigger one! My uncle recently passed away, and I've been driving his 2016 Colorado occasionally, so it doesn't sit too long. When I look out the front, the thick A-pillars are set in more than a bigger vehicle, so they restrict my field of vision a bit. It has suicide doors in back, so it doesn't have a B-pillar in the strictest sense of the word, I guess. But, where I have the seat, I'm actually behind that B-pillar a bit, and my shoulder rubs against it. According the the specs, it has 57.5" of shoulder room, but I'm pretty sure they're taking that measurement at the door panel, rather than the B-pillar. Surprisingly, the truck is 74.3" wide. I swear, it feels a lot narrower than that. But it does taper in the front, like most vehicles these days, so that helps tone down the bulkiness, I guess.

For comparison though, a 1982 Chevy S-10 was only 67.9" wide, so that shows how much these smaller trucks really have bulked up. I couldn't find the shoulder room spec for an '82 S10, though. I have a feeling that, if I sat in an old S-10, I'd notice how small it really is, and suddenly the Colorado would feel bigger. And overall, it's not a bad truck. I'm not as comfortable as I am in the Ram, but it's still decent.

I'm supposed to inherit it, although I think it's going to have to go through probate. I'm sort of on the fence, as to whether I want to keep it or not. Logic says no, I don't need it, and even a free vehicle is going to cost money. But, it's 4WD, which is kinda cool. It saved my Ram one day, when I got it stuck pretty deep in some soft ground in the yard, when I used it to take some brush back to dump in the woods. My uncle and I just used a tow strap, and that Colorado pulled my truck out of the muck with ease.

andre1969

On the subject of dimensions, and how they can fool you, I was surprised to find out my 2023 Charger is only something like 198.4" long. The wheelbase is 120"; I knew that much, but I figured it would be more like 205" or so. In mid 70's terms, that's like combining the wheelbase of a full-sized car, and the overall length of a compact!

sda

I’m glad you went ahead and bought the Charger. So cool and fun, yet not totally unpractical. And to have 3 Hemis, you dog. I rented a loaded 300C when our Pilot was being repaired. It performed well with the V6. I can only imagine how much more I would have liked it if it had the Hemi. I half jokingly told the rental agent I was going to buy it but he said it was already spoken for.

ab348

andre1969 said:

Now that I think about it, the big Electras didn't look too bad with them, in my opinion...

But I think it helps that the Electra's sculpting makes it seem a bit slimmer in general, for a car that size. And the skirts don't jut out like they do on the Olds. And it may be the angle, but the Electra looks like it shows off a bit more of the wheel.

It's weird, but I always thought of the Electra of this generation as a bit more youthful and sporty (well, as much as a car this size can be) than the Ninety-Eight, which I think of as more conservative, and aimed towards an older crowd. But I seem to recall some of the magazine testers of the period preferred the handling of the Ninety-Eight! Maybe it's like comparing the Titanic to the Andrea Doria but I'm pretty sure I remember them saying it handled rather well for a car its size, whereas the Electra was typical 70's Love Boat.

For a barge of that era, the Electra Limited for '76 is pretty handsome if you can get past the size of the thing. Look at that cool rear bumper design. Most of these were ordered with bumper guards which kind of wrecked the looks unfortunately, but this one escaped that.

uplanderguy

In the earlier '70's, the body side molding was optional on most every Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, or Buick. I have long-felt the styling is cleaner without the side moldings, although I'd guesstimate that 90% of production cars had that option. GM almost always showed the cars in the brochures without them, IMHO to accentuate the styling. I had the '72 Buick brochure when I was a kid, and looked at it here again. Not a single Buick I see where that molding was optional, is photographed in the brochure with the molding, LOL.

https://xr793.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1972-Buick-Prestige.pdf

andre1969

Oh, the '76 Electra is on my list of cars that I'd love to own, if space and money were no object. While I like the '72, for its cleaner look, and no doubt better performance, the '76 just seems to me to be the ultimate in "tasteful hedonism" for lack of a better word. I'd definitely want the 4-door hardtop though. I didn't really care for the coupes, once they went to the fixed windows. Part of it is that I'd rather have a true hardtop, but I also just don't like the way these coupes just don't seem to line up correctly at the B-pillar.

As for the Charger, I'm glad I went ahead and did it, when I did. I have a feeling that the longer I waited, it would have been more difficult to find one that I really liked. Pricing on them seems to have gotten funny, as well. For instance, I found an R/T equipped like mine, but in a light gray color that didn't wow me. It was about the same price as mine...but then I noticed it was a 2022! And then I found one or two with the 6.4 Hemi, for not much more than mine, but they'd be lacking a sunroof, have the cheaper seats, a color I don't like, etc.

And yeah, the 3.6 V6 is perfectly fine in these cars, and still faster than anything else I've ever owned. But these cars just seem to SCREAM for the V8! Plus, Lemko said that if I got a V6 model, he'd say "So Miss Hathaway, how do the other gals in the secretarial pool like it?"

uplanderguy

andre: Re. that '73 Electra 225 in Consumer Reports:

I knew an obnoxious kid in high school. He never let me forget in his opinion, how superior and better-built any Buick was than any similar Chevy. I mean, here there is room for all opinions, and no one is rude about it. Of course, I was 15 then, LOL.

I seem to recall that it was typical at the time for a car to have thirty or so 'defects' found by CR in their test. That '73 Electra had 46, and I remember that opening the RF door resulted in a dent in the hood or front fender. And that made it not only out of the plant, but through the dealer's new-car inspection. Since then, I've noticed well, noticeable gaps at that 'intersection' on those Buicks.

When I showed the article to that kid, he about blew a gasket, LOL.

roadburner

When my dad ordered his 1981 Caprice I did talk him into the 4V, but he thought that the F41 suspension might be too stiff. After he drove the car he conceded that he should have gone with the F41.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

In the earlier '70's, the body side molding was optional on most every Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, or Buick. I have long-felt the styling is cleaner without the side moldings, although I'd guesstimate that 90% of production cars had that option. GM almost always showed the cars in the brochures without them, IMHO to accentuate the styling. I had the '72 Buick brochure when I was a kid, and looked at it here again. Not a single Buick I see where that molding was optional, is photographed in the brochure with the molding, LOL.

https://xr793.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1972-Buick-Prestige.pdf

On the white ‘76 Electra coupe pictured above, the side mouldings it’s sporting are not the usual GM “protective body side mouldings” they offered, which were mounted lower on the body, pretty much at the top of the rear wheel opening/skirt. It is some sort of optional wide accent moulding I don’t see mentioned in the brochure. Speaking of which, the ‘75 Buick brochure shows the protective side mouldings in just about every picture. Maybe the accountants told them to flog the things.

andre1969

Wanna see some overkill on those rub strips? I was watching "Kingdom of the Spiders" last night. The mayor of the town rolled up in this '77 Monaco...

I think the silver and burgundy is a nice color combo, but that strip is a bit much. And, I think it looks even worse in the brochure!

Funny story about "Kingdom of the Spiders." I had never seen it, as a kid, or any point in my younger life, although I had heard about it. And I tend to love those types of movies. Well, my housemate is deathly afraid of spiders. Awhile back, we got it on Netflix, and he said he'd watch it with me. His thinking was, it's a low-budget 70's movie, how scary can it really be? However, one little detail he had forgotten...they didn't have CGI in the 70's, so they used real spiders, for just about every scene! Crawling on the furniture, floors, animals, people. Pouring out of the HVAC ducts. Spilling through broken windows.

So, needless to say, it was pretty un-nerving to him!

sda

I think Ford introduced those thick body strips in 74 or 75. Remember the Ford Elite?

sda

My daughter hates spiders! I am called to her rescue when she spots one. She would not watch that movie, no sir.

fintail

Elite was the first thing that came to mind when reading Andre's post. Makes me think of my friend, who's dad had a 76 Elite that became something of an embarrassment by later in the 80s (I think it was replaced by a year old Celebrity wagon around 1988). He always described the car as "diarrhea brown with a brown burlap interior and white vinyl stripe".

That is a wide piece of trim:

sda said:

I think Ford introduced those thick body strips in 74 or 75. Remember the Ford Elite?

stickguy

I like the wheels. Magnum 500s? Make the car look much better.

and in those days, the side pieces served an actual purpose with those monster sized 2 door car doors.

fintail

Yeah those wheels are very flattering. Some wire caps might be more correct for what was seen on the cars when new:



Maybe a wider trim piece with flat section was less prone to showing damage than a thinner peaked style?

uplanderguy

When the Elite was introduced, I thought it was a poor attempt at a Monte Carlo-style car. The Cordoba was far-more successful to my eyes. The Gran Torino DNA was clearly evident (first model year was actually called 'Gran Torino Elite'); those wide side moldings and the addition of those wide wheel opening moldings to a vehicle I was used to seeing with the narrow moldings looked awkward; those dual opera windows; and....could they have gotten any more pieces of trim on those taillights? No thanks, then or now. I have no bad to say about their quality as a car.

In the last year or two, I think, of Colonnade Grand Prix models, you could get wide side moldings that picked up again behind the rear wheel opening. Yuck.

andre1969

Somehow, I think that wide molding works better on the Elite than it does on the Monaco. I think maybe it's because the Elite's sheetmetal on the sides is rather smooth, with the exception of that lower bodyline crease. And the molding seems to line up in parallel with that lower crease. But with the Monaco, it has that upper crease that flares upwards, and the lower crease that slopes downwards, so putting that thick strip just adds clutter.

Uplander, is this the one you're thinking of on the Colonade Grand Prix?

I could do without it, but don't mind it. Heck, it's downright tasteful, compared to the Elite and Monaco!

When I was a kid, we lived in Southern Maryland for a year, from 1979-80. Our neighbors two doors down had a dark brown Elite. I sort of remember the whole thing being brown, roof and everything, but my memory could be vague. I thought it was kind of cool, but then I was only like 9 or 10! Their other car, which the husband used to drive to work, was a red VW Rabbit! That was quite a contrast in their driveway!

stickguy

I saw a Grand Prix of that vintage last weekend. Rare sighting.

uplanderguy

andre, that is what I'm thinking of, although the molding is downright svelte compared to the others.

I've seen that car advertised for sale before. Who in their right mind would want that color combo? I'm usually open to others' tastes--but not that! LOL

uplanderguy

andre, compare that midsize Dodge sedan, to a brochure photo of a '71 Coronet Brougham. I think the basic body is handsome, but hanging too much trim should be criminal.

A Chevy that's guilty of that, IMHO, is the '76-77 Concours model of Nova, with optional wide wheel opening moldings AND wide body side moldings. I so-much prefer the '75 Nova LN, but as is so often the case, looks like the public disagreed.

andre1969

Yeah, I've seen that Grand Prix before, too. I actually picked that one intentionally, because I wanted to show off a color combo that's already a bit clashy, to bring out that molding more. I have to admit, in some colors, like that copper/burnt orange, with a white roof and molding, it's not bad. Or dark blue with white.

Here's the thing in its full glory. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/12/177-mile-1977-pontiac-grand-prix-is-looking-for-a-new-home/

Now that I think about it, the molding on my Mom's '80 Malibu was pretty thick. But it was mounted low on the car, and just under a body crease, so I remember it blending pretty well:
Alas, it was also too low on the door to do much good. I remember that car picking up a good number of door dings over the years.

imidazol97

It's 1970 all over again.

imidazol97

And a Buick across the street at the auto parts store.

stickguy

My favorite vintage nova! A 350 SS 4 speed.

imidazol97

I told the owner (of the dealership), when she was test sitting in the car, that car made me smile everytime I looked at it because I remembered those from 1970. LOL

I also said the only negative is that it's a 3-speed auto rather than 4-speed manual. She understood. But the car is perfectly detailed. Other fans will love the auto.

The Camaro and the Nova in the showroom made my visit for tire rotation fun!

texases

I'm partial to the prior gen, guy at the gas station I worked at had one, not nearly as nice as this:

uplanderguy

Andre, I’m loving that Malibu Classic. That’s an ‘80. I always say this but I don’t think there’s an inch of wasted space in that design.

andre1969

The '66-67 Chevy II is my favorite of the compacts, as well. I didn't care for the '68-72, because it just seemed cheapened, somehow. Although I think a lot of that is because my memory of them is mostly as cheap, basic transportation. But, they were designed to accommodate a big block, and being Camaro-based, they were probably the best handling of the domestic compacts at the time.

Nowadays, I tend to see them hopped up, customized, bigger/better rims and tires. And, I'd imagine more of them have big-blocks in them now, than when new!

I think doing away with the hardtop coupe is also what made me think of them as cheapened. Although by '68, the only compact hardtop left was the Dart. Ford had gotten rid of the hardtop Falcon, to make way for the Mustang, and Plymouth did the same in '67, to get rid of internal competition for the Barracuda.

Although now that I think about it, the Rambler Rogue was still around.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I think doing away with the hardtop coupe is also what made me think of them as cheapened. Although by '68, the only compact hardtop left was the Dart. Ford had gotten rid of the hardtop Falcon, to make way for the Mustang, and Plymouth did the same in '67, to get rid of internal competition for the Barracuda.

I’m sure GM did the same with the Nova hardtop once the Camaro was a success.

andre1969

Yep, that was definitely GM's reasoning for axing the Chevy II/Nova hardtop. I always thought it was a bit curious that they dropped the Chevy II convertible so early on, though. I think it was only offered in 1962-63? Maybe since they had the Corvair convertible, they figured it wasn't needed?

I imagine if Dodge had entered the ponycar market earlier, they would have dropped the Dart hardtop/convertible for '67, like Plymouth did with the Valiant.

With GM though, I wonder if the "split wheelbase" intermediates might have been another reason for dropping the Nova hardtop? Moving the A-body coupes down to a 112" wb, perhaps GM's marketing felt a Nova hardtop would also be too close to a Chevelle hardtop?

explorerx4

Summer's over but it still sounds good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNtGEKNhlC4

fintail

The side trim thing got me thinking of Tempo/Topaz which for some years also had a wide strip. But it was the 80s and black trim = modern, so I guess it was fine:

uplanderguy

Yep, that was definitely GM's reasoning for axing the Chevy II/Nova hardtop. I always thought it was a bit curious that they dropped the Chevy II convertible so early on, though. I think it was only offered in 1962-63? Maybe since they had the Corvair convertible, they figured it wasn't needed?

I think when Chevelle was introduced, the thinking was "Let's not make it clash with Chevy II". At the beginning of the '64 model year, Chevy had also discontinued the Chevy II hardtop and with it went the SS option. They had a Nova two-door sedan then, but no hardtop. The hardtop and SS option reappeared mid-year, an odd thing at the time so either Falcon was hitting Chevy II hard, or dealers were screaming.

uplanderguy

Other than I got tired of seeing them, and still do (!), I thought the '68 Chevy II redesign was a good one. Smooth, and long-hood/short-deck. I like the '68 best of that design, with the "Nova" nameplate on the rear quarters instead of front fenders, no fake vents on front fenders in upper-exterior trim models, and that it was still called a "Chevy II".

I think the '66-69 Falcon two-doors look good. In fact, I like them much-better than the '64-65 in any body style.

uplanderguy

For sale last week in Spartanburg, SC. '87 Caprice Classic coupe--the last full-size RWD two-door GM model available. Discontinued before the end of the '87 model year.

This car is begging for the bigger tires with pinstripe whitewalls (F41 package), and had I ordered one then I'd have left the body side moldings and bumper guards off and instead gotten the Sport wheel covers, and also I'd have entertained the thought of the 4.3 FI V6.




This car looks pretty honestly described, at least.

I'm reminded what one of the magazines said when this bodystyle came out in '80: "The car has lost the crisp, chiseled look it had when introduced". Agreed.

Rest of the ad here:

https://greenville.craigslist.org/cto/d/spartanburg-87-caprice-classic-coupe/7683177432.html

uplanderguy

Well, huge red flag! At least one of the interior pics of the Spartanburg car were taken from a Mecum ad in 2015 of a 167-mile '87 Caprice Classic Landau:

https://www.mecum.com/lots/209330/

andre1969

The engine bay pic, as well as the closeup of the hood ornament and the "CHEVROLET" badge in the grille also look recycled. Oopsie!

uplanderguy

You are right! Who’da thunk a Craigslist ad might not be on the up-and-up?!

uplanderguy

‘73 El Camino SS454 at our local Stude club potluck meet this past Sunday. Solid body but missing wheel opening moldings. Not often seen.

Also, heard they put a little image of Zora Arkus-Duntov on C8’s. Went to look and there it was—lower right windshield.

fintail

Caprice Coupe with the "Euro" front end, has to be almost unique today.

andre1969

I just looked it up...they made 3,110 Caprice Classic coupes in 1987, the last year. So yep, not exactly an everyday occurrence! The Crown Vic actually beat it out that year, with 5527 built, and then another 4904 Grand Marquis models. Incidentally, that was the last year for the 2-door Panthers, as well.

However, it looks like the Caprice coupe just came in the Classic trim level. No Brougham or Brougham LS, although maybe you could get a nicer interior as a stand-alone option? With Ford, they offered the Crown Vic in both base and LX. And the Grand Marquis only came in more upscale LS trim.

tjc78

Hmm… I was going to debate the GM coupe only coming in LS trim for 87 but that is accurate according to the brochure.

1986 you could get a base model.

uplanderguy

LS was not a Caprice Classic trim level; simply a landau-style vinyl top treatment on the Brougham sedan which carried the vinyl over the rearmost door glass.

Caprice Classic coupes in those years were only ever available in a single interior trim level.

In '87, I liked that cloth trim in this light color as shown in the brochure:

tjc78

When I said “GM” I was referring to Grand Marquis.

uplanderguy

Duh, I should've figured that out. Seeing "GM" means just one thing to me, LOL.

Funny how nearly-ubiquitous "LS" was for a while as a trim level or model name..almost like "Custom" had been.

UPDATE: Just saw a meme on my FB feed that said, "I hate when young people use abbrevations in messages. I just got one that said "GM to you". I said, "General Motors to you, too"! LOL

Had I read the post more clearly, I should've picked up on 'GM' as 'Grand Marquis'.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Funny how nearly-ubiquitous "LS" was for a while as a trim level or model name..almost like "Custom" had been.

Also odd how in the GM/Chevy hierarchy at least, LS gradually became the lowest-level model designation. GM was notorious for doing that over the years, moving a formerly prestige model level name downmarket.

andre1969

ab348 said:

Also odd how in the GM/Chevy hierarchy at least, LS gradually became the lowest-level model designation. GM was notorious for doing that over the years, moving a formerly prestige model level name downmarket.

They did a similar thing at Mopar. In 2000, for example, my Intrepid, which was a base model, was just an "Intrepid." Next up was the Intrepid ES, which probably sprang from "Euro Sedan." And at the top of the heap was the R/T which, true to its heritage, was the top performance model.

But then, for 2001, their marketing department felt the need to give the base model a trim name, and they went with "SE." I was accustomed to "SE" being "Special Edition," and it was usually a top line, luxurious trim package. Basically, a "Limited" or "Brougham" but without having to use those words. So seeing it applied to the cheapest model just bugged me.

One use of "LS" that I got a kick out of, was on the Delta 88. By 1985, they had a "Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS." At first glance, it sounds like a real king of the hill. But when you dissect it? Well, first off, ALL Delta 88s were Royales by that time. "Brougham" was the upscale trim level. I used to think "LS" was a trim level above the Brougham, but it turns out it's just the Brougham trim level, but standard 307/4-speed automatic, all the power stuff standard, and most likely an upgraded sound system. At first glance, it looked like a really expensive car because of its high base price. But, it you took a LeSabre Limited, and added all that stuff, you'd have a price about the same.

With the Caprice Classic Brougham LS, I have to admit, I'm a bit disappointed, that it only gave you that padded landau roof, over the Brougham. So basically, around 1300 bucks just to make it look kind of like a 5th Avenue! I mean, I still think it's handsome enough, but I was just hoping for something a bit more.

uplanderguy

I'm not a fan of the Caprice Classic Brougham LS. That look had already been done on the Fifth Avenue. I much-prefer the 'regular' Brougham, which in later years had loose-cushion seats, front and rear center armrests, and could be had in leather. The '86 Brougham had the '85 Delta 88 Royale Brougham's seats. Not just close, but exact! Later Caprice Broughams had a different interior.

I always liked the LeSabre's instrument panel, but the fake wood they used inside up through '85 was not very convincing, and I detest the big slab of it, hard, at the top of the door panels.

By '86-87, I didn't like some of the details of the Chevy instrument panel compared to the '77, but I did think the fake woodgrain used on dash and doors in those late-'80's model years was probably the best-looking ever used in a Chevy.

That interior shot I posted above, of the Spartanburg '87 Caprice Classic coupe, is not the Mecum car as that car has the optional instrumentation. I'll say that the interior has held up well for 91K miles.