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

sda

This was of interest to me, deja vu. Mom had a 71 Audi 100 LS when we lived in France in the mid 70s. https://youtu.be/CJQUsGdIAmE?si=u-hFH_Tj-HynqXJa

fintail

Fun soundtracks on those, I guess it was a German thing of the era. Reminds me of the music in this video that must be MB promo material:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTZMBr_lmg

roadburner

sda said:

This was of interest to me, deja vu. Mom had a 71 Audi 100 LS when we lived in France in the mid 70s. https://youtu.be/CJQUsGdIAmE?si=u-hFH_Tj-HynqXJa

Some people thought my Bavaria was a 100 LS.

sda

roadburner said:

sda said:

This was of interest to me, deja vu. Mom had a 71 Audi 100 LS when we lived in France in the mid 70s. https://youtu.be/CJQUsGdIAmE?si=u-hFH_Tj-HynqXJa

Some people thought my Bavaria was a 100 LS.

Just no.

sda

Mom's 71 Audi 100 LS. Chavenay, France 1975-76. Its roof line and side profile reminds me a bit of a MB.

andre1969

The Audi 100 coupe is kind of an interesting looking little beast. From the front, it almost looks a bit exotic...

But from the rear, it makes me think of a first-gen Datsun 200SX, or perhaps a bit of Plymouth Arrow.

texases

Or, if you squint really hard, a bit like a Ghibli:

ab348

Or a Lancia Fulvia Zagato:



Or a Fiat Dino:

sda

The early model Audi100 LS had inboard front disc brakes, which the 71 had. This was to lessen unsprung weight at the wheels to improve ride and handling. The downside to this was the 100 LS required front brake replacement every 8k/kms or about every 5k/mi. The carb was also a trouble spot on these and ours was no exception. Later models would have conventional front disc brakes and fuel injection.

texases

The 100LS - why Audi had to change the name of its successor to the 5000 in the US.

andre1969

What did the Audi Fox morph into? Was that the 4000, and perhaps the VW Quantum?

explorerx4

US Audi 5000 = Audi 100 x 50 States

texases

It went Audi 80/Fox/4000/80/A4 in the US, I think. In Europe it was the 80/A4. At times the upmarket versions were called the 90. You can try and untangle it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_80

Edit - special models of the US 4000 include the 5+5, Coupe, and Quattro.

sda

I bought a used 86 Audi 4000 S in 90. I traded it on a 92 Ford Ranger, black XLT, which is seen in the background of this picture as I was picking it up and transferring the license plate. I thought I would get good use out of a small pick up at the time. Should have kept the Audi.

kyfdx

I was thisclose to buying the same car in '87. But, it had been in a deer collision, and a used car dealer bought it through auction. I think I dodged a bullet on that one.

Main reason for interest: manual transmission.

texases

I liked the GT, kind of a 5/4 scale Gen 1 Scirocco.

Michaell

As a kid, my next door neighbor had an Audi 4000 - 7-up can green. It was the 5+5 model, meaning 5 cylinders and 5 speeds.

sda

@ab348 , @stickguy , I believe this is for you. https://youtu.be/zqjZlhL41kU?si=dj4QVxcyQk0rwwXx

fintail

sda said:

Mom's 71 Audi 100 LS. Chavenay, France 1975-76. Its roof line and side profile reminds me a bit of a MB.

Definitely some MB W114 and maybe even W108 influence in that roofline/greenhouse.

re: Audi 4000, when I was a kid my mom had a friend who drove a 4000 2 door - more of a 2 door sedan than a coupe to my eyes, has to be nearly extinct now.

stickguy

I wish I spoke German! that did bring back fond memories. We had a 144S from when I was about 7, until I was a senior in HS (still had it when I learned to drive, so junior year). Ours was that light blue so common on Volvos of that era. Blue interior, with cloth seats.

that must have been a real early car. No headrests was odd to see. and ours did not have a tach mounted on the dash. I remember all those features. the little slider to mark how fast you should go. Hand brake on the left of the driver's seat. That huge trunk. I actually still have someplace in the house that shift knob (the threads broke so had to get a new one, and I inherited the old one).

but man, that guy beat the snot out of the poor thing. I don't think we drove ours that hard, but I did enjoy winding it out in 2nd gear on occasion.

uplanderguy

The still frame of the 'Kanal 7' dude reminds me of Allan Melvin, the guy who played 'Sgt. Hacker' on Gomer Pyle USMC, as well as 'Sam the Butcher' on The Brady Bunch and an assortment of bad guys on The Andy Griffith Show. Oh, also 'Barney Hefner' on Archie Bunker's Place.

explorerx4

I wonder how a modern sedan would do on that rough pavement test?

ab348

sda said:

@ab348 , @stickguy , I believe this is for you. https://youtu.be/zqjZlhL41kU?si=dj4QVxcyQk0rwwXx

That was quite the comprehensive review! Not every day you see the reviewer wearing a jacket and tie and cufflinks. I loved the production values in the piece, with fancy graphics, driving through a water bath and the cold room test. The camera made it look like it was almost on its rocker panels when it that long cornering test. I wish it had English subtitles.

It brought back some memories. Dad bought his (a '68 144 automatic) in 1972 IIRC after finding his '71 Monaco just too big in city traffic. It was pretty slow, but he loved it after he had it for a while because it was so tough. As a real estate agent he was often on rough dirt roads and the like and it just shrugged them off, like the test car did on the Belgian blocks. Ours didn't have the adjustable pointer on the speedometer - maybe it fell off. Nor did it have the tach on the dash. But as the review noted, for a car that size it has lots of room and the trunk was huge. Seeing those scenes of it in mid-'60s West German traffic was like watching a spy movie from that era. I remember our engine compartment looked exactly like the test car, and this made me recall the unique receptacle between the front seats for the shoulder harnesses. The Volvo collapsible steering column was ingenious, with a 2-piece column having an upper tubular member with a bend in it where it mated with the shaft coming from the steering box, so that the curved tube would bend in an impact.

One thing those early 144s failed at was of all things, the vent window design. They were set into the opening at an angle, and it you tried to open them more than about 30 degrees, the front part of the glass moving towards the interior fouled on the door trim inside. It had another design flaw too. The bottom pivot for the vent pane was attached to the glass using an early superglue. Between those two problems the vents always became detached at that pivot. Later models solved the problem with a lowered section of interior door trim there and a screw attachment for the pivot.

After that video finished playing, YT served me up the same program testing a Fintail (attention @fintail ) and an early Porsche 911.

sda

ab348 said:

sda said:

@ab348 , @stickguy , I believe this is for you. https://youtu.be/zqjZlhL41kU?si=dj4QVxcyQk0rwwXx

That was quite the comprehensive review! Not every day you see the reviewer wearing a jacket and tie and cufflinks. I loved the production values in the piece, with fancy graphics, driving through a water bath and the cold room test. The camera made it look like it was almost on its rocker panels when it that long cornering test. I wish it had English subtitles.

It brought back some memories. Dad bought his (a '68 144 automatic) in 1972 IIRC after finding his '71 Monaco just too big in city traffic. It was pretty slow, but he loved it after he had it for a while because it was so tough. As a real estate agent he was often on rough dirt roads and the like and it just shrugged them off, like the test car did on the Belgian blocks. Ours didn't have the adjustable pointer on the speedometer - maybe it fell off. Nor did it have the tach on the dash. But as the review noted, for a car that size it has lots of room and the trunk was huge. Seeing those scenes of it in mid-'60s West German traffic was like watching a spy movie from that era. I remember our engine compartment looked exactly like the test car, and this made me recall the unique receptacle between the front seats for the shoulder harnesses. The Volvo collapsible steering column was ingenious, with a 2-piece column having an upper tubular member with a bend in it where it mated with the shaft coming from the steering box, so that the curved tube would bend in an impact.

One thing those early 144s failed at was of all things, the vent window design. They were set into the opening at an angle, and it you tried to open them more than about 30 degrees, the front part of the glass moving towards the interior fouled on the door trim inside. It had another design flaw too. The bottom pivot for the vent pane was attached to the glass using an early superglue. Between those two problems the vents always became detached at that pivot. Later models solved the problem with a lowered section of interior door trim there and a screw attachment for the pivot.

After that video finished playing, YT served me up the same program testing a Fintail (attention @fintail ) and an early Porsche 911.

Glad you enjoyed. You can't just watch one!

ab348

sda said:

Glad you enjoyed. You can't just watch one!

I’ve been binging them all afternoon. I love the ‘60s movie music score! Along with the army surplus Russian Front lambswool coats used in the cold room segments. 😆

I failed to mention the main reason Dad loved his 144. I think I told the story before about how it saved him when a shipping container full of cases of scotch fell off its trailer on a curve and landed on the roof of the 144 before bouncing off and landing in a ditch. Unbelievable.

fintail

Must be this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eApr3ik4ed4

Kind of an unusual fintail, this is a second series car, a single light/smaller/less fancy fintail (W110) with a 6 cyl - 6cyl is otherwise only found in W111. By 1965 when the 230 launched, I suspect that bodystyle was looking a little dated.

ab348 said:

That was quite the comprehensive review! Not every day you see the reviewer wearing a jacket and tie and cufflinks. I loved the production values in the piece, with fancy graphics, driving through a water bath and the cold room test. The camera made it look like it was almost on its rocker panels when it that long cornering test. I wish it had English subtitles.

It brought back some memories. Dad bought his (a '68 144 automatic) in 1972 IIRC after finding his '71 Monaco just too big in city traffic. It was pretty slow, but he loved it after he had it for a while because it was so tough. As a real estate agent he was often on rough dirt roads and the like and it just shrugged them off, like the test car did on the Belgian blocks. Ours didn't have the adjustable pointer on the speedometer - maybe it fell off. Nor did it have the tach on the dash. But as the review noted, for a car that size it has lots of room and the trunk was huge. Seeing those scenes of it in mid-'60s West German traffic was like watching a spy movie from that era. I remember our engine compartment looked exactly like the test car, and this made me recall the unique receptacle between the front seats for the shoulder harnesses. The Volvo collapsible steering column was ingenious, with a 2-piece column having an upper tubular member with a bend in it where it mated with the shaft coming from the steering box, so that the curved tube would bend in an impact.

One thing those early 144s failed at was of all things, the vent window design. They were set into the opening at an angle, and it you tried to open them more than about 30 degrees, the front part of the glass moving towards the interior fouled on the door trim inside. It had another design flaw too. The bottom pivot for the vent pane was attached to the glass using an early superglue. Between those two problems the vents always became detached at that pivot. Later models solved the problem with a lowered section of interior door trim there and a screw attachment for the pivot.

After that video finished playing, YT served me up the same program testing a Fintail (attention @fintail ) and an early Porsche 911.

ab348

fintail said:

Must be this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eApr3ik4ed4

Kind of an unusual fintail, this is a second series car, a single light/smaller/less fancy fintail (W110) with a 6 cyl - 6cyl is otherwise only found in W111. By 1965 when the 230 launched, I suspect that bodystyle was looking a little dated.

Yes, that’s it. Wish I could understand the commentary. He also tested its successor in a later episode and also the 350SL I think he liked that but can’t say for certain.

It was amusing to watch his review of the Rover 2000TC, which R&T and C&D both raved about at the time. I remember our local BL dealer had a maroon one in the showroom and I convinced Dad to look at it. He had the same sort of lukewarm reaction to it that Rainer did I think. Watching it I wondered how he felt about a British car trying to be sold in Germany just 2 decades after defeating them in WWII. It had the worst reaction to their crosswind test than any I’ve seen, and I made myself laugh when they put it in the cold box and he went in to try to start it. “It’s British, it’s not going to start,” I yelled at the screen. Of course it would barely turn over and I laughed and laughed as they pushed it out of the freezer. All it needed was a sad trombone.

fintail

I can understand a little if German if one speaks slow (he does not). At the end I caught him mentioning the car is roomy, safe, and quick (relative to many Euro cars of the era, perhaps). He also said something about the gearshift, but I couldn't tell if it was negative or positive, I would need to listen several times.

I suspect the reaction of the German consumer to a car like the Rover said it all. I will have to catch that one.

ab348 said:

Yes, that’s it. Wish I could understand the commentary. He also tested its successor in a later episode and also the 350SL I think he liked that but can’t say for certain.

It was amusing to watch his review of the Rover 2000TC, which R&T and C&D both raved about at the time. I remember our local BL dealer had a maroon one in the showroom and I convinced Dad to look at it. He had the same sort of lukewarm reaction to it that Rainer did I think. Watching it I wondered how he felt about a British car trying to be sold in Germany just 2 decades after defeating them in WWII. It had the worst reaction to their crosswind test than any I’ve seen, and I made myself laugh when they put it in the cold box and he went in to try to start it. “It’s British, it’s not going to start,” I yelled at the screen. Of course it would barely turn over and I laughed and laughed as they pushed it out of the freezer. All it needed was a sad trombone.

stickguy

I remember the shifter. Very long throws, but precise snicking into gears. The advantage of a shifter right into the gearbox, instead of moving cables around!

ab348

On further viewing, in their crosswind test there were at least 2 even worse than the Rover. An Opel Manta, which seemed very capable otherwise if a bit slow even for the times, and a NSU Prinz TT, which got blown completely into the opposite lane even before it cleared all of the fans. The Prinz was interesting in that it was pretty fast for such a little car, hitting nearly 100mph on the Autobahn with its hopped-up air-cooled rear engine, but their water bath test (which was like driving along the length of a small river) left quite a bit of water in the footwell. I bet you could get yourself in a lot of trouble driving that car enthusiastically.

sda

The VW 1500 beetle was pushed into the other lane and cones went flying. No real surprise as the beetles were known for being blown around on the interstate and other blustery conditions.

texases

For the Beetle, something to do with the center of pressure being in front of the center of gravity. This causes the car to steer away from the wind, compounding the problem, unlike a front engine car, where a wind gust make the car steer into the wind, reducing the problem.

ab348

sda said:

The VW 1500 beetle was pushed into the other lane and cones went flying. No real surprise as the beetles were known for being blown around on the interstate and other blustery conditions.

Didn’t get to that one yet. The Prinz likely suffered from the same issues that tended to plague many rear-engined vehicles.

uplanderguy

Some months back, we were commenting on a '78 Malibu Classic Landau coupe (light blue metallic; white Landau roof; white interior) shown on "The Price Is Right". I know those cars from looking a LOT at them back then, and this was a $7,000 sticker car. Power windows, split front seat, A/C, etc. etc. The verbal description of the car just said "Malibu", not "Classic", and listed very few options. There was no way the car shown was the car to be given away, as they listed the price at either $5K or slightly below, absolutely impossible for the car shown.

Just stumbled on this "Price Is Right" prize Nova, described as a "Six-Cylinder Nova". The car pictured has a "350" emblem on the side. That's kinda cheesy IMHO, LOL. Wonder if Chevy would've provided a Cosworth for the show if the gift was a regular Vega hatchback.

Bob always pointed, saying, "You're bidding on this!". Shame on Chevy for sending different cars, and/or shame on CBS for thinking that was OK.

https://www.facebook.com/mark.grady.351/videos/753516419580336?idorvanity=1912967222208516

andre1969

According to my auto encyclopedia, a 6-cyl Nova coupe started at $2351. The V8 was $2441, but that was the 307. So, throw in the Powerglide and a few other options, $2647 seems reasonable.

But yeah, that just seems like a major scam, trotting out a 350 car, but having you bid on, and receive if you win, a 6-cyl.

Even so, $2647 seems like a lot of car for the money in '72, I think my old '69 Dodge Dart GT hardtop stickered for around $3600, and that was 3 years earlier. Now, it was a hardtop, which would add a bit more cost in, plus it had a/c and air conditioning, and probably a few other odds and ends that '72 Nova didn't have. But still, it's amazing how fast you could inflate the price of these cars.

I wish more of the young'uns today could understand that, too. Without that knowledge, I can see this video ending up as Tik-Tok fodder for Gen-Z whining about how good the Boomers had it because you could get a new car for $2600!

Apparently there's one of those videos going around saying the Boomers could buy a brand new Cadillac convertible and a 4-br house on a $30K/yr salary. Nevermind the fact that Cadillac stopped building convertibles around the time the oldest Boomers turned 30, and it probably started at around $12,000. I don't think too many 30 year olds were buying brand-new '76 Cadillacs. My Dad turned 30 in 1976, and he was mostly driving Mom's '75 LeMans!

uplanderguy

Our '73 Nova coupe, Rally Wheels, whitewalls, six, 3-speed with optional floor shift, Exterior Decor Package (body side moldings and bright metal around the side windows), and AM radio, stickered with destination charges at $2,625.00. It was routine to see Vegas sticker for more.

Although I got tired of seeing them, I thought that general era of Nova was good-looking, and seemed a bit bigger than some other compacts. The wheelbase was only an inch shorter than a Chevelle coupe. And even in the coupes, the back windows rolled down.

Of course, you were still getting drum brakes all around, a sub-frame underneath, and leaf springs in the back.

I see memes of the type you're talking about, and I believe that no one who lived in those times could've come up with them, LOL. Most people I knew, the mom was at home, Dad worked in a factory with decent pay, they may have owned a one-bathroom home, and usually had an inexpensive single car bought new, and occasionally I knew a dad who had something like a '52 Chevy as a work car, in the late sixties, LOL.

andre1969

Around these parts, for the most part if you had a 4-bedroom house, you were living large. They weren't all that common until the 1980s, I'd say, and most of them were in communities where all of the homes were rather large, luxurious, 4-bedroom models, so they were all roughly on par with price.

One of the earliest "mixed" developments I can think of (with regards to housing sizes) was when Levitt and Sons came in and put Bowie, MD on the map in the early 1960's. Most of the models were 3-bedroom, but they did have 4-br models. Oddly, the smallest one was a 4-br, a cape cod style with 2 bedrooms upstairs and 2 down. It also had 2 bathrooms, one up and one down. It was around 1400 square feet total. The largest was also a cape cod, a sprawling model called the Country Clubber, at around 2400 square feet, maybe a bit more. It also had 2 bedrooms upstairs and 2 down, but they were all huge. It also had 3 full bathrooms, with one of them being a master bath. Upstairs, one of the bedrooms was so large that owners often split it in two, and later builds of this model even included that as an option. The "middle" 4-bedroom was a colonial, but it wasn't all that grandiose. It was basically the same layout as the 3-bedroom colonial, with the second level overhanging a bit. And they shrunk the master bedroom to get a 4th bedroom in. In the early 60's, these houses ranged from around $14K for the cheapest cape cod to around $24K for the Country clubber. They were mass produced, with slab floors (no basement or crawl space) and truss roofs (so attics were compromised), and considered cheap construction at the time. However, developers only learned to cut corners even more in later years (much like automobiles) so these days people look at them through the proverbial rose tinted glasses.

Nowadays, whenever there's new construction around here, if you want a single family home, an imposing 4br McMansion squeezed up against its neighbor seems to be the default. If you want anything smaller, you get a townhouse. If you want a starter home, you get a condo, although I have a feeling the typical "starter home" these days is renting a room from someone! But, just to show that there's nothing new, my grandparents started off renting the front bedroom in a Sears & Roebuck home, shortly after they got married in 1946.

andre1969

I'm probably in the minority, but for some reason I actually prefer the '73-74 Nova to the '68-72. Style-wise, at least. Performance-wise, I know they'd be a step down. And, having the rear windows in the coupes still roll down most of the way was definitely a nice touch. I always thought of making the back windows in coupes stationary as a cost cutting move, but I wonder if it was simply because of air conditioning become much more common? And, most people buying coupes weren't using the back seat all that much, anyway.

It probably did make sense to keep roll-down windows in the Nova, though, as it was less likely to be ordered with a/c than a Malibu.

uplanderguy

I've told this story before but my Dad really liked the '71-72 Chevelle coupes. He dilly-dallied and when the '73's came out, he didn't like the Chevelle at all, no matter what I said.

The Nova was a good value, but ours was the worst-assembled new Chevy we'd had before or since, LOL.

Some things I remember: A big gap between the dash on the right side and the A-pillar there; there was a dent in the roof drip rail on the left side, just above the quarter window, that was painted over; water leaks in the trunk from around the taillights; and a ring of some kind was missing in the 3-speed trans that would cause it to grind between 1 and 2 every so often. That was corrected under warranty.

I did like the looks of the car though.

The car was built in Ypsilanti, MI, along with all the other N-O-V-A cars from the other divisions.

In August '74, it took a hard hit from a '71 Delta 88 pulling out of a parking space, and Dad took the insurance check and bought a new '74 Impala Sport Coupe.

We actually got a few bucks more than the car cost new, as six-cylinder Novas became desirable in between Oct. 6, 1972, when we took delivery, and August '74.

fintail

andre1969 said:

Around these parts, for the most part if you had a 4-bedroom house, you were living large. They weren't all that common until the 1980s, I'd say, and most of them were in communities where all of the homes were rather large, luxurious, 4-bedroom models, so they were all roughly on par with price.

One of the earliest "mixed" developments I can think of (with regards to housing sizes) was when Levitt and Sons came in and put Bowie, MD on the map in the early 1960's. Most of the models were 3-bedroom, but they did have 4-br models. Oddly, the smallest one was a 4-br, a cape cod style with 2 bedrooms upstairs and 2 down. It also had 2 bathrooms, one up and one down. It was around 1400 square feet total. The largest was also a cape cod, a sprawling model called the Country Clubber, at around 2400 square feet, maybe a bit more. It also had 2 bedrooms upstairs and 2 down, but they were all huge. It also had 3 full bathrooms, with one of them being a master bath. Upstairs, one of the bedrooms was so large that owners often split it in two, and later builds of this model even included that as an option. The "middle" 4-bedroom was a colonial, but it wasn't all that grandiose. It was basically the same layout as the 3-bedroom colonial, with the second level overhanging a bit. And they shrunk the master bedroom to get a 4th bedroom in. In the early 60's, these houses ranged from around $14K for the cheapest cape cod to around $24K for the Country clubber. They were mass produced, with slab floors (no basement or crawl space) and truss roofs (so attics were compromised), and considered cheap construction at the time. However, developers only learned to cut corners even more in later years (much like automobiles) so these days people look at them through the proverbial rose tinted glasses.

Nowadays, whenever there's new construction around here, if you want a single family home, an imposing 4br McMansion squeezed up against its neighbor seems to be the default. If you want anything smaller, you get a townhouse. If you want a starter home, you get a condo, although I have a feeling the typical "starter home" these days is renting a room from someone! But, just to show that there's nothing new, my grandparents started off renting the front bedroom in a Sears & Roebuck home, shortly after they got married in 1946.

I live in a 1954 spec house - I have the original building permit, value was $13K. 3/1 with an attached garage, just under 1500 sq ft. The house was on a large lot that was subdivided twice before I bought it (now on ~8000 sq ft). Not a truss roof - the roof angle is pretty low, perhaps a style of the time, and it is on a slab as one encounters solid rock (if not a ledge) if they dig down several feet. I think it was considered a nice enough modern house - my city archives old permits, and it appears the garage was converted to a bedroom and small family room shortly after being built, and a detached garage was built. The garage was replaced in 1976 by a new ~600 ft structure - permit price was something like $2800, not a bad deal. Only drawback is being on a slab, adding a bathroom would be an enormous PITA. The house seems to be built fine, knock on wood - inspector found no huge issues, and it's still here after 70 years - I think it was maintained. I found an ad from the early 70s when I think the house was for sale around 28K - not enormous appreciation compared to modern times. Someone I know in the business joked that one should be careful with covid year houses, and a lot of 70s onward lower end builds around here seem possibly suspect too. New houses may be sealed tighter, but I wonder about material quality on affordable builds. Maybe the big plus is that you virtually always get 2 bathrooms.

In 1965, my grandparents bought a new 3/2/2 on a quarter acre maybe 15 mins from Seattle for 18-19K. It aged very well and even as a middle class house had trim (large fireplace/hearth, slate entry, hardwood throughout) that is not found on mass market houses today, and had a real bidding war when it sold after my grandma passed away. That house had a crawlspace, and another low roof angle. They started out renting an apartment on Capitol Hill, before it was a hip area, and their first house was a new postwar bungalow just north of Seattle in the Lake City/Shoreline area, for something like 10K at most. Even in today's stagnant market I bet it is at least 600K.

fintail

uplanderguy said:

I've told this story before but my Dad really liked the '71-72 Chevelle coupes. He dilly-dallied and when the '73's came out, he didn't like the Chevelle at all, no matter what I said.

The Nova was a good value, but ours was the worst-assembled new Chevy we'd had before or since, LOL.

Some things I remember: A big gap between the dash on the right side and the A-pillar there; there was a dent in the roof drip rail on the left side, just above the quarter window, that was painted over; water leaks in the trunk from around the taillights; and a ring of some kind was missing in the 3-speed trans that would cause it to grind between 1 and 2 every so often. That was corrected under warranty.

I did like the looks of the car though.

The car was built in Ypsilanti, MI, along with all the other N-O-V-A cars from the other divisions.

In August '74, it took a hard hit from a '71 Delta 88 pulling out of a parking space, and Dad took the insurance check and bought a new '74 Impala Sport Coupe.

We actually got a few bucks more than the car cost new, as six-cylinder Novas became desirable in between Oct. 6, 1972, when we took delivery, and August '74.

Gas crunch made a 6cyl Nova become a "compact" according to some dealer ad copy I bet.

I wonder if inflation was ramping up enough by then to have an impact as well. I have 1976 copies of KBB and NADA, and some imported car prices are crazy, probably due to exchange rates impacting new models as well - a 280SL was worth more used at 6 years old than it cost new.

andre1969

Funny, I was just watching an episode of Maude, where they were having a New Year's Eve party to ring in 1975, and they were griping about how bad 1974 was. Walter called it "The worst year of his life." They were griping about inflation, watergate, the recession, and "those disgusting movies." However, the movies they mentioned were "The Green Door" and "The Devil in Miss Jones." I'd heard of the second one, and it was actually 1973. I had to look up the first one, and it looks like it was actually "Behind the Green Door" and was actually filmed in 1972. But, perhaps they were still showing in theaters in 1974? I guess they could have started off as underground type movies that nobody really heard of, but then by 1974 they were scandalous and sensationalized?

Or, maybe "Maude" just got sloppy. I seem to recall on episode where they mentioned a 1974 Buick Special. Which as far as I know, never existed, unless it was a trim level on a Century, or something?

They were also hoping 1975 would be better. It wouldn't be. IIRC, with regards to the auto industry, I think '74 sales were inflated a bit, because buyers were simply switching to smaller cars in droves. But that probably pulled a lot of sales forward, so 1975 was even worse, and I think just about all car sales suffered on the domestic front, except for the Granada/Monarch, which popularized the concept of the more upscale, luxurious domestic compact, with big-car aspirations. Even the Mustang II, which was a hit for '74, saw sales dry up in '75, as everybody who wanted one probably already bought one, and anybody else who might have wanted one was either too cash-strapped, laid off, or both!

xwesx

And, shockingly, that was basically fifty years ago! HOW?!

fintail

1975 was the catalytic converter year, right? Maybe people knew to keep away because of emissions/driveability issues, too. I don't know if it is emissions or otherwise, but I have been told more than once that 1975-76 V8 MBs are years to avoid.

andre1969

I've tended to hear that with domestic cars, 1974 was usually the worst year. Supposedly, catalytic converters were actually an improvement! I think what happened though, is that in 1974, there were still a handful of high performance engines around, although they were rarely ordered. But by 1975, they were gone. Sometimes looking in an old car book, you might find a reference to a Mopar 440 with 245 hp or more, but from 1975 onward, that would've only been a police car engine, I'm sure.

I do remember my paternal grandparents saying that their '75 Dart Swinger, with its 225 slant six, was the worst car they ever owned. Grandmom had a co-worker who had a '74, and Grandmom really liked it alot. So based on that, they traded their '71 Tempest in on it. It tended to stall out at random, and the dealer couldn't get it sorted out, so they traded on a '77 Granada. The Granada needed a new transmission within a year, but that was at least fixed under warranty, and I don't think the car gave them any other issues.

I think '75 was also the year of the infamous 72 hp Ford 250 inline 6. IIRC, Ford worked the engine, for just that one year, to make it fully compliant with some kind of proposed future emissions regulations, and that's why it was so bad. But, either those regulations were relaxed by the time the future rolled around, or Ford found a better way to be compliant, or both, perhaps. Most other years, I think that engine was around 95-98 hp. That's a little below the typical Chevy 250, or Mopar 225, but not hugely so.

Wasn't '75 also the year of the Chevy Monza with the 125 hp 350? I think it was California-only, and really choked down.

andre1969

xwesx said:

And, shockingly, that was basically fifty years ago! HOW?!

I know, right? Oddly, I can still remember when that made for tv killer bee movie came on ABC in 1974, the one with Kate Jackson and Gloria Swanson. I would've only been around 4 years old, and that's pushing 50 years now, but I still remember it somewhat vividly. Mom and Dad let me stay up to watch the first few minutes of it, and it scared the hell out of me! I know I've posted it before, but here's a clip from early on in the movie, and about the time they made me go to bed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ePmdG8ReBU

Even now when I watch it, it still creeps me out a bit. I think part of it is the music, that gives it some atmosphere. And the fact that, despite the cheesy superimposition of the bees flying around, it looks like they used real bees inside the car. Still, you gotta love the continuity, how it looks like it was shot on two different days, and in two separate locations. The area with the winery and gas station attendant looks a lot more remote, and it's cloudy/hazy, but some of the other scenes, including the crash scene, is a bit more suburban, and looks like it was shot on a sunny winter afternoon.

And much respect to the car crash and explosion. Mother Jones and Dateline NBC couldn't have done it better, themselves!

uplanderguy

In my experience, '73 and '74 were worst for driveability, and improved for '75 with the catalytic converter and electronic ignition.

Our '73 Nova six could never leave the driveway in the morning without at least one stall. Our '74 Impala 350 2-barrel was a lot better, but on the other hand, we were excited one time when we hit 15 mpg on a trip, LOL.

Yes, the California-only Monza could be had with a 350, but it was choked down to 125 hp. Still pretty good for a car that size, although I have no idea what Ford got out of the 302 in the Mustang II.

fintail

When did driveability issues start? That makes me think of stories I have heard about my grandpa's fuselage Newport (maybe a 71?) that apparently was hard to start and liked to stall. I am sure I mentioned it before, an instance my grandma loved to retell was how the car wouldn't start on the morning of the start a long-planned Hawaiian vacation, and they had to ask a neighbor to drive them to the airport (I think that car irked her a bit as IIRC my grandpa bought it without telling her first - just came home with it one day, apparently he loved the style). I am pretty sure my uncle said it was a 383, and that spark plugs were hard to reach.

texases

Carbs never were great, but things got worse as soon as pollution controls were added. So ‘71 on, getting worse for the next 5-7 years.

I remember Car and Driver did a comparison test of muscle cars in ‘71 or so, they complained about the drivability of them all.

ab348

Adam of Rare Classic Cars would tell you that the ‘71 Chrysler no-start was due to the crappy Champion spark plugs the factory used.