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

tjc78

I always thought that the late 80s/early 90s Grand Marquis had nice velour. Plenty plush without being over the top.

fintail

No material is more late 70s/80s (and I guess into the 90s) than velour. I remember most models even had numerous velour possibilities depending on trim level (I recall for our Tempo, the GLX velour was different from a GL which was different from an L - I think the same held true on Taurus too) and most of it seemed to age well. I remember Honda had a nice velour in the 86-89 Accord. I wonder if it will make a comeback, or if people care anymore. Most modern leather doesn't feel particularly luxurious. The key would be not using a lowest bidder material, which may be tough in this era of cutting corners and thinking of nothing beyond next quarter's financials when most new cloth feels like poverty spec mouse fur.

M-B even got in the act - although this style goes back to the 50s, it could be ordered on USDM S-class as a no cost option in place of leather - this is 1983:



And another:

uplanderguy

The first velour interior that just stopped me in my tracks, in person, anyway, was the first time I saw a new '77 Caprice Classic coupe tucked out back of Bob Mayberry Chevrolet, pre-introduction-date, in Sharon, PA. He also had a Caprice Estate out back. There were a dozen people looking at them. The coupe was two-tone gray outside with the red Custom Interior velour 50/50 split front seat with dual center armrests, and the thick carpeting. Nice door panels with velour insert with bright outlining, pull strap, and the all-important chromed escutcheons around the door handles.

I remember saying to my buddy, "That looks like a Buick inside!".

EDIT: Now that I think harder, a bail bondsman in our town bought a new '74 Fleetwood Talisman, dark blue with white vinyl top and blue heavy-velour interior--seating for four in a Cadillac. It was over-the-top opulent. He's still around and well-regarded in our town. I asked one of his employees to please forward to him a message I typed, briefly, about that car and if he had any memories of it. Never heard anything back.

uplanderguy

I always loved the rarely-seen 1963 Studebaker Cruiser optional broadcloth seating. People say that's wool, but it's velour-y IMHO. Nice for a domestic compact then:

ab348

Unfortunately the luxe velour found in automotive upholstery in the ‘70s and ‘80s devolved into gray or tan mouse fur fabric in the ‘90s and beyond.

fintail

uplanderguy said:

I always loved the rarely-seen 1963 Studebaker Cruiser optional broadcloth seating. People say that's wool, but it's velour-y IMHO. Nice for a domestic compact then:


I suspect in real life that flatter texture on that Stude velour is like the flatter texture on the MBs pictured. I've heard the MB cloth is quite expensive to replace properly.

andre1969

One thing I hate about modern fabrics, is that most of them look like what you'd see on outdoor/poolside type furniture. The most recent fabric-interior car I had that I'd consider nice (for its price point at least) was my old 2000 Intrepid. Even for a base model, the seats were kind of nice, and it also had matching fabric on the door inserts. Around 2002 they did some cost-cutting, and made the door inserts vinyl, so they could use it with leather, and also not worry about having to match different fabrics. The base Intrepid and the ES had different fabric patterns. At least, in 2000 they did. Perhaps that changed for 2002?

My 2000 Park Ave was leather, but not a very high quality leather. The driver's seat ripped pretty badly. I'd say its leather was definitely a step down from my '79 5th Ave. My Dad's '03 Regal LS had this material that, at a quick glance, made me think of a burlap sack. But it was a lot smoother to the touch than it looked.

My 2012 Ram's seats make me think a bit of lawn furniture, although to its credit, it was also a cheap truck, nothing fancy. My 2023 Charger R/T's seats aren't bad, but they're also upgraded. It's something called "Nappa/Alacantra Performance", which the saleswoman said it leather, but I'm skeptical. It has sort of a suede type feel too it, with what looks like little specks of glitter in it. I've seen base level R/Ts though, and their seat fabrics remind me of what I have out by the pool. On one hand, I'm thinking no car that expensive should have seats like that, but then, I guess it does help keep the base price down (and give you some incentive to pay even more money, as I think the upgrade seats were only available as part of some extra cost package)

uplanderguy

Did I read some time back that the 300 and Charger are done? Although, I think I saw a pic or two on FB about a two-door Charger that's in development, or am I high?

Yeesh, that's usually what happens to me. Things I like, gone. Cars--Studebaker (didn't like 'til after they were gone, of course), Monte Carlo, Impala. Restaurants: Steak and Ale, regional chain 'The Cooker'. TV shows, too numerous to mention. My best high-school friend and his wife had a Grand Prix, followed by a Cutlass Supreme, followed by two of the last Impalas, LOL. They have a '23 Traverse now, but joke if they buy it, it's going away.

My C8, I think, has nice seats, somewhat luxurious in red leather. Since I traditionally buy rather low-priced cars, the last car I can think I owned with what I'd call a luxurious velour, was my '82 Monte Carlo. It had that turquoise-y color interior which became called the 'CL' in '83. Except for color, looked like this one on the left:

ab348

On leather interiors: it seems the majority of leather upholstery in mainstream vehicles it pretty utilitarian, being rather stiff and not always all that durable. One thing I liked about my ‘09 Buick Lacrosse was the leather they used on the seats. GM called it “Nuance” leather and used it not just on Buicks but most of their makes for a couple of decades, though I don’t know if they still do. The Nuance leather was treated to give it a specific scent, which seemed to me to be a mix of leather scent and new-car smell. I was OK with that, but what I really liked was how soft it felt. Combined with the generously padded Buick seats, it was a lovely place to sit.

fintail

Yep, I believe Charger/Challenger/300 production ended by the end of 2023. Some people I read in a rental car group were not displeased lol.

uplanderguy said:

Did I read some time back that the 300 and Charger are done? Although, I think I saw a pic or two on FB about a two-door Charger that's in development, or am I high?

Yeesh, that's usually what happens to me. Things I like, gone. Cars--Studebaker (didn't like 'til after they were gone, of course), Monte Carlo, Impala. Restaurants: Steak and Ale, regional chain 'The Cooker'. TV shows, too numerous to mention. My best high-school friend and his wife had a Grand Prix, followed by a Cutlass Supreme, followed by two of the last Impalas, LOL. They have a '23 Traverse now, but joke if they buy it, it's going away.

My C8, I think, has nice seats, somewhat luxurious in red leather. Since I traditionally buy rather low-priced cars, the last car I can think I owned with what I'd call a luxurious velour, was my '82 Monte Carlo. It had that turquoise-y color interior which became called the 'CL' in '83. Except for color, looked like this one on the left:

stickguy

based on a video I saw the other day about cars in stock, you should be able to hit up the local Dodge dealer and pick one up at least through the end of this year.

andre1969

Yep, 2023 was the last model year for the 300 and Charger, although they might have extended production a bit extra late. On the Charger at least, V8 models have a plaque under the hood that says "Last Call" to commemorate it.

The Hemi itself was supposed to be dropped after 2023, but apparently there's been such a backlash against EVs, especially in trucks/SUVs, that it was given a reprieve of at least one year. I'm not sure if it was just the mass-market 5.7 Hemi they were dropping, or the 6.2 and 6.4 versions as well, but I think they're all still in production. I think the big Jeep Grand Wagoneer comes with a 6.4 standard, so getting rid of that engine and replacing it with something small and turbocharged would probably upset their customer base. But then, maybe not? Doesn't the Ford Expedition make do with just a 3.5 these days?

I've seen pics of a black EV coupe that they're calling a 2025 Charger, and it's actually not too bad looking in my opinion. But, I haven't heard anything about it lately.

As for availability, I just did a search on Cars.com. Within 30 miles of me, as the crow flies, there's 237 brand new Chargers at the dealers. 55 of them are V8 models. So, probably not exactly a scarcity.

FWIW, 9 of those V8s were blue, and all but one were priced higher than mine. The one less expensive model had something called a Daytona package, whereas mine has an R/T Plus package. The Daytona package was a more expensive option. The one downside to this cheaper one: No sunroof.

explorerx4

An Expedition and Charger R/T are just about even 0-60.

andre1969

I just looked it up, and apparently there's an Expedition trim level called Timberline that's good for 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, per C&D, and then a Stealth Performance that's 0.2 seconds quicker!

Motortrend mentions 5.3 seconds with the Timberline, and says it's slightly quicker than the Jeep Wagoneer L Series 2 4wd with its 420 hp Hurricane turbo inline 6, which still managed 5.5.

So it looks like these big rigs will get along just fine once the V8 goes away for good. Although the perception of needing a V8 will probably hang around. One thing that does concern me though, is long-term reliability of these smaller, tech-laden, high-output engines as they age, and their repair costs. Although these days, I imagine even the relatively "low-tech" stuff is still expensive to fix, when it breaks.

ab348

I saw a preview video of the soon to be introduced new Chevy Traverse SUV yesterday. They have ditched the GM 3.6L V-6 in favor of a new turbo 2.5L 4-cylinder, different from the 2.7 4-banger turbo they use in the Silverado. The 2.5 puts out just over 300HP.

texases

Saw a final-gen Viper headed east on I-30 yesterday, first I've seen for several years.

stickguy

Our RDX is not exactly a lightweight but zips along plenty quick when you want it to with the little 2.0T

explorerx4

V8's with MDS or AFM/DFM are pretty complicated, too.
My last Explorer had a 2.3 4 cyl turbo rated at 300 HP/310 TQ.
It had plenty of power and was pretty fuel efficient.
I just felt it was it too high a gear for the driving I did most of the time.

Yesterday I saw a Contour SVT and a Gen 1 MR2.

texases

On a different site a guy who makes his living servicing fleet vehicles said the variable cylinder management GM V8's (5.3 L and 6.2 L, I think) suffer high failure rates once they reach 100k or so. Disappointing to hear that the 'simple' V8 engines are not any more reliable than the 'complex' turbo engines. Maybe less reliable in this case.

sda

andre1969 said:

Yep, 2023 was the last model year for the 300 and Charger, although they might have extended production a bit extra late. On the Charger at least, V8 models have a plaque under the hood that says "Last Call" to commemorate it.

The Hemi itself was supposed to be dropped after 2023, but apparently there's been such a backlash against EVs, especially in trucks/SUVs, that it was given a reprieve of at least one year. I'm not sure if it was just the mass-market 5.7 Hemi they were dropping, or the 6.2 and 6.4 versions as well, but I think they're all still in production. I think the big Jeep Grand Wagoneer comes with a 6.4 standard, so getting rid of that engine and replacing it with something small and turbocharged would probably upset their customer base. But then, maybe not? Doesn't the Ford Expedition make do with just a 3.5 these days?

I've seen pics of a black EV coupe that they're calling a 2025 Charger, and it's actually not too bad looking in my opinion. But, I haven't heard anything about it lately.

As for availability, I just did a search on Cars.com. Within 30 miles of me, as the crow flies, there's 237 brand new Chargers at the dealers. 55 of them are V8 models. So, probably not exactly a scarcity.

FWIW, 9 of those V8s were blue, and all but one were priced higher than mine. The one less expensive model had something called a Daytona package, whereas mine has an R/T Plus package. The Daytona package was a more expensive option. The one downside to this cheaper one: No sunroof.

Cool limited tag.

stickguy

@texases said:
On a different site a guy who makes his living servicing fleet vehicles said the variable cylinder management GM V8's (5.3 L and 6.2 L, I think) suffer high failure rates once they reach 100k or so. Disappointing to hear that the 'simple' V8 engines are not any more reliable than the 'complex' turbo engines. Maybe less reliable in this case.

Similar to many a turbo motor, it’s not the engine itself that causes any problems it’s the ancillary component they hang off of it. AFM has caused problems in most every application of it I think. I know the recent GM V8s suffered from problems, carrying on the tradition started with the 4-6-8 motors. Honda had problems with it on the V6 (piston ring failures IIRC). Basically seems like way too much complexity for relatively little MPG gain. Also why in the GM and Honda it’s very common to defeat the system. Parts still there, just not activating!

I think a big issue with these cases (along with turbo failures, VVT issues, etc.) is that the design is heavily dependent on keeping on top of the oil. Never let it get low, or worn out. And considering the change interval recommendations (and how many owners can’t even be bothered to follow them), no wonder many engines die an early death.

andre1969

My 2012 Ram has cylinder deactivation, and while I hadn't heard of any issues with the engine itself, I have read that it puts a strain on the transmission when it goes from 4 to 8 cylinders. Evidently, it's common to deactivate it. I didn't realize it until just now, when I googled it, but apparently just about all 5.7 Hemi engines have cylinder deactivation. The few exceptions were manual transmissions, and truck engines, before fuel economy concerns became more strict, I guess.

And, from googling around, it looks like the Hemi's cylinder deactivation isn't exactly troublefree, either. From what I could find, the most common culprit is when contaminants get in the oil, and it messes with it.

explorerx4

Lots of sarcasm in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chgLpfvAhJE

stickguy

Gee, I wonder who produced that commercial?

uplanderguy

Note how the Ford has dog dish caps and the Chevy, full wheel covers. An image thing.

Studebaker made a commercial that year about its disc brakes. They show a Lark Custom with whitewalls and full wheel covers, and compare it to a base Falcon with blackwalls and dog dish caps. The Falcon crashes through a straw wall where of course the Stude stopped before hitting it. But the Falcon looked absolutely dumpy in comparison with its base trim, dog dish caps, and blackwalls. To my biased eyes, the 13-inch wheels and droopy rear wheel openings don't help either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYW7YkVLBDw

uplanderguy

My earlier 'churlish dolt' comments apply to a comment or two below that Chevy vs. Ford commercial. A guy is saying "they should have tested a '63 Dodge Dart with the 413". No such thing, but of course the guy clings to his statement, sigh.

I believe you could only get a 273 in a '63 Dart, and I'm thinking (though not certain) that wasn't even at the beginning of the model year.

andre1969

He's technically wrong about the "1963 Dart", but I know what he's trying to say. When the Dart lineup came out for 1960, it was a 3-tier Seneca/Pioneer/Phoenix lineup that competed against Ford, Chevy, and they even mentioned Plymouth in some of the ads! They kept that same Dart structure for 1961.

However, in 1962, the Dart became a 4-model lineup... Dart Fleet Special, Dart, Dart 330, and Dart 440. And then, the Polara 500, which had a standard 305 hp 361 and was more upscale, but still on that newly downsized "plucked chicken" body.

For 1963, the Dart name transferred to the compact. The "plucked chicken" cars were now just called 330 Fleet Special, 330, 440, Polara, and Polara 500. So while that commenter is inaccurately calling it a "Dart", he's most likely thinking of one of those more intermediate-sized 330/440 models, which had dropped the "Dart" part of the name for '63. However, according to my old car book, he's STILL wrong, about the 413. In 1962, you could get a 413 with the plucked chickens, both at Plymouth and Dodge. But for '63, top choice was the 426 Wedge, that had either 370 hp or 426 (cross ram). The only mention of a 413 my old car book shows for 1963 for Dodge is with the full-sized 880.

The compact Dart wouldn't get a V8 until 1964, and I think it was a late '64 addition, at that. It was a 273-2bbl, rated at 180 hp

I'd imagine a '63 Dodge 330/440, or the Plymouth equivalent, with a 426, would give either of these two cars a run for their money. And, matching them engine-for-engine, the Mopars were probably quicker, thanks to their lighter weight. Plus, with smaller engines if you went automatic, I think Mopar was completely devoted to the 3-speed Torqueflite by then, where Chevy made you go 2-speed with the small blocks. I think Ford tended to go with 2-speeds as well, but may have offered a 3-speed as an option? But I seriously doubt Chevy or Ford was considering these shrunken Mopars as serious competition by '63. The folks at Ford were probably comparing them to the Fairlane and Meteor rather than a full-sized car, while GM figured they'd fight them more directly for '64, with the new intermediates.

For 1964, the car this commenter is thinking of would become somewhat famous, as the "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" car. Although oddly, if you google that car, some pics of a '63 Dart do pop up.

https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/saturday-morning-cartune-the-little-old-lady-from-pasadena/

Apparently, it was a local ad campaign in California, but Jan & Dean picked up on it, reimagined the car as a "Brand New Shiny Red Super Stock Dodge" and ran with it.

fintail

Although both are not bad looking for what they are, I will take the Ford - 63 Fords have a nice looking rear end and overall detailing is finer, at least on a Galaxie. Maybe I skipped it, exactly which engine was in each car, or did the unbiased neutral comparison test not say?

explorerx4

Ford had a 406 (3x2 carbs) and Chevy had a 409(2x4 carbs).

uplanderguy

Andre, thanks for the Mopar details. Would it kill somebody to say “I think…”. Apparently, yes, lol.

Confronted by a fact, and they just dig deeper in, not giving in a millimeter, sigh.

uplanderguy

I like the ‘63 Ford. Not enough that I’d want to buy one. The ‘63 Chevy doesn’t do anything for me. In the ‘61-64 era, I think each succeeding year Chevy doesn’t look as good as the year before.

I’ve always wondered if Ford continued to build the Galaxie 500 square tops after the fastback was introduced mid-year ‘63. I’ve not seen or heard anything definitive.

andre1969

I've always been a fan of the '63 Ford, and it's my favorite, of the '61-64 style. There's just something about that front end that I like. Meanwhile, with Chevy, for me it's a tossup between '61-62. But, seeing the two of them side by side in that comparison, and in 4-door form, I'll admit the Ford seems a bit clunky, and also gives me the impression that it's still trying to shake off a bit of the 1950s. Meanwhile the Chevy just seems so much more modern. I think part of it is the way the Impala's C-pillar seems to taper inward a bit, whereas the Galaxie's is thicker and more formal, so from certain angles the car just looks more top-heavy.

I think the way some of the Ford's features still have some roundness to them might make it look older to me, as well. By the early 60's, the trend was going for more crisp, angular lines, which the Chevy has.

andre1969

I stumbled across this old road test of a 1980 Cutlass Supreme sedan, by Bob Mayer. Probably notable in that this is probably the first time in history I've ever heard anyone bestow praise upon the Olds 260 V8...
https://youtu.be/iQZFM7A7zKU
He called it "One of the most responsive and efficient V8s offered in a midsized car"
Although, I guess "responsive" doesn't mean quick. It just means it was less likely to sputter and stall out than the other V8s of the time

And, is it just me, or does it look like it's sitting kind of high? In some shots, it makes me think of how cars look in the junkyard sometimes, once the engine has been pulled out!

texases

Too bad he didn't do a Cutlass/Audi comparison.
15.1 mpg! Wow! And yes, it looks like it has 300 lbs in the trunk, nose is up.

sda

uplanderguy said:

I like the ‘63 Ford. Not enough that I’d want to buy one. The ‘63 Chevy doesn’t do anything for me. In the ‘61-64 era, I think each succeeding year Chevy doesn’t look as good as the year before.

I’ve always wondered if Ford continued to build the Galaxie 500 square tops after the fastback was introduced mid-year ‘63. I’ve not seen or heard anything definitive.

For the longest time I did not care for the styling of the 60 Ford Galaxie but now prefer it over the 61 and 62, which lack something. My first car was a 62 Galaxie base 2dr sedan. Ford did great with the 65-68 models.

uplanderguy

$9410, yikes. Our ‘80 Monte Carlo was $7070 including destination. It had all the optional exterior moldings and Rally Wheels, but was a V6 with no air nor power windows.

andre1969

I remember my Mom saying her Malibu was "about $7,000", but that might have been with tax and everything, and she might have been a bit broad with her rounding. It had the 229 V6, and did have a/c. Looking at base MSRPs, it looks like in 1980 a base Malibu coupe started at around $5500, while a Monte was around $6500.

I believe the Monte Carlo had the automatic standard by 1980, whereas it was still optional on the Malibu, so that was probably a good chunk of the price difference, right there. Would both of them have had power brakes/steering standard by then?

fintail

explorerx4 said:

Ford had a 406 (3x2 carbs) and Chevy had a 409(2x4 carbs).

Ah I missed that. Guess it was too early in the model year for the 427.

fintail

Speaking of Mayer, his Fox Bird review paints it in a positive light - seems to be a higher quality product than the 76 he tested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGqS8UrsF9Q

It appears paint quirks were an issue then, maybe something solved by clearcoat.

uplanderguy

I detested the '80-82 Thunderbird. I know 'the Deuce' liked blunt and blocky styling, but this was the epitome.

andre, I looked at the '80 Malibu and Monte Carlo brochures, because I couldn't remember for sure....power brakes were standard on both, but power steering was standard only on Monte Carlo, and Monte Carlo also had the automatic transmission standard. Monte Carlo also had the 205-70 tires and 'Sport Suspension' standard.

Found an original window sticker for an '80 Monte Carlo. Base price was $6,162.69, but in those days, I could see price increases throughout the model year.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/314270067474

We had an '80, and for a long time I liked it better than the '78-79. I don't anymore. I prefer the '78 taillights, hate that they tacked on that big yellow turn signal on the front fenders, and the '78 pinstriping started on the hood and followed the top of the body sides, instead of being on the 'humps' as on the '79 and '80, which made those stand out even more. I also like the '78 and '79's lack of just terrible fake woodgrain on the dash which the '80 had.

I loved the GM downsized big cars for '77, but I can remember the first '78 midsizers I'd seen...a two-tone gold '78 Malibu Classic four-door and a light green '78 Grand Prix. I was pretty shocked. But as usual, volume normalizes bad or 'meh' styling, LOL. The downsizing was drastic.

Despite even more bad instrument panel woodgrain, I certainly thought the '81 restyle was a good one. I always liked how the taillights reminded me of the '74. I don't believe I ever saw a single magazine or TV ad for a Monte Carlo after 1981--maybe for the SS, but not the regular models.

The bad woodgrain got toned down considerably for '83, now being dark and almost flat, and the bright outline was replaced by gold, which I liked.

uplanderguy

RE.: Early '60's Fords--for whatever reason, since I was a kid, I've always really liked the '61 Starliner. I think it takes the Ford round taillight tradition and smallish fin from the '57 a little bit. I have grown to like the '60 Starliner as well. I could really enjoy a '60 Edsel two-door hardtop too. The '60 Mercury, bleccch! Sometimes, the stuff the manufacturers used to do to 'upmarket' a line resulted in the loss of good styling that the low-priced line had.

On the XL models of '62-64, it always struck me that the vinyl bucket seats were of a high quality. I don't think I've ever seen one torn up inside. They still look like new, even when old.

andre1969

fintail said:

explorerx4 said:

Ford had a 406 (3x2 carbs) and Chevy had a 409(2x4 carbs).

Ah I missed that. Guess it was too early in the model year for the 427.

I only knew about the 427 that was produced from 1966-69, that was based on the later 396/402/454 big block. But apparently there was a race-only 427 in 1963. According to Wikipedia, only 50 were built.

uplanderguy

I thought fintail was talking about Ford's 427. But, I have no idea when that began.

andre1969

I was fascinated by the '80 Thunderbird when they were new. I can still remember seeing the commercials, as a 9 year old kid, and being wowed by the digital dash display. And, I've always liked hidden headlights.

But, once I was a bit older, and these were just fairly common used cars, I used to rag on them. Now, that I usually only see one at a car show, I kinda like them again! I always liked the Cougar XR-7 better, though.

My biggest complaint with these '80-82 models, is that the quarter panel area looks a bit too bulky to me, and they seem to have a really narrow track. The taillights also seem oversized for the car. One other thing I just noticed too, from the side view: I always knew the T-bird/Cougar XR-7 were on a slightly longer wheelbase than the Fairmont and its more direct variations....something like 108.4" vs 105.7" However, I think that extra length was in the rear. Personal luxury coupes are supposed to have a long hood, short passenger cabin, and comparatively short rear deck. But the T-bird/XR-7 end up looking like they have too much rear deck, and not enough hood.

Ford had actually done a pretty good job mimicking a downsized T-bird with the Fairmont Futura coupe, which had a roofline similar to the '77-79 T-bird: They probably could have slapped a 1980 T-bird front clip on this, and it would have looked more like a T-bird than what the final result looked like. Actually, if you took that extra ~2.7" of wheelbase, but put it ahead of the cowl, that would have really helped give these cars more of a long hood/short deck proportioning. But, with the Futura coupe already in production, Ford had to do something different with the T-bird.

Mopar faced a somewhat similar problem with its personal luxury coupes. The 1977-79 Diplomat/LeBaron coupes already did a pretty good job at filling in for a downsized personal luxury coupe. So when it came time to downsize the Cordoba/Magnum for 1980, there would have been some potential overlap. To eliminate that, they moved the Diplomat/LeBaron coupes from the 112.7" wb to the same 108.7" wb that the Aspen/Volare coupes used, and all of that was taken from the rear. You'd think that chopping 4" out of a car's wheelbase like that would really hurt the back seat area, but apparently they were about the same. I think the '77-79 were just pretty space-inefficient to begin with.

I guess GM kind of lucked out, in the sense that they downsized the Monte Carlo two years earlier. And the compact cars, while they could be trimmed out very nicely, never really did adopt what I'd think of as that personal luxury coupe look. So while there might have been some overlap between a '78 Malibu coupe/sedan, vs a Nova coupe/sedan, I never really though of an overlap with the Monte Carlo. Now that I think about it, didn't the Nova even lose the Concours model for '78, so that it wouldn't overlap so much with the Malibu?

ab348

andre1969 said:

I was fascinated by the '80 Thunderbird when they were new. I can still remember seeing the commercials, as a 9 year old kid, and being wowed by the digital dash display. And, I've always liked hidden headlights.

But, once I was a bit older, and these were just fairly common used cars, I used to rag on them. Now, that I usually only see one at a car show, I kinda like them again! I always liked the Cougar XR-7 better, though.

My biggest complaint with these '80-82 models, is that the quarter panel area looks a bit too bulky to me, and they seem to have a really narrow track. The taillights also seem oversized for the car.

Yes, the '80-'82 T-Bird suffered from a badly fat-hipped look in the rear which was especially apparent from certain angles. That was a problem with a lot of Ford vehicles back then in the final Gene Bordinat years of Ford Styling. I don't know if it was Bordinat who liked that look or HFII, but few others seemed to agree. The '75-up 1st-gen Granada/Monarch had the same problem. The other thing that surely impacted sales aside from the awkward styling was the extent of the change, going from a big, floaty, quiet body-on-frame design to a unibody car with challenges in controlling NVH and ride quality. Ford had built unibodies for decades but they were all the same Falcon-based car under the skin and were never renowned for ride. The Fox platform was new but in its original form did not give the impression of being robust and wasn't particularly quiet. Translating the T-Bird to that would have been a challenge regardless, but adding that unattractive styling job resulted in sales falling off a cliff. Ford took a while to learn that lesson too, as the early '80s 2nd-gen Granada/Monarch sold even worse though that was in part due to anemic powertrains.

uplanderguy

A friend and former coworker had a '79 Zephyr Z-7, in a color that GM would call 'Firethorn'. It was a 302 4-speed. Interesting, and I agree that the styling really was better than the '80 Thunderbird and Cougar.

I know the '78 GM mid-sizes were more expensive than similar Ford products, but I rented tons of them into the '80's. I always thought the GM's felt like small big cars, while the Fords felt like big small cars.

uplanderguy

andre, yes, the Concours was gone in '78. I didn't miss it; too pimped-out in the details for me.

Plus, I think that's a dumb name. I guess you're supposed to pronounce it as if it didn't end with an 's', but I and most people I think, said it like there was an 's' at the end. Plus, Chevy moved it all over the place. It started as the Malibu wagon with woodgrain in '67, then was used as the luxury trim level of Chevelle coupes and sedans in '68, then sedans in '69, on top of being used as Chevelle wagon names from '68-72, then of course, the top-line Nova. And even Cadillac used it later.

uplanderguy

I noticed (didn't recall) that the T-Bird had metal frames around the door glass in '80. I remember thinking even at the time, I was surprised the '78 GM midsize coupes had frameless door glass, considering that that went away in the big cars the year before.

I'll admit I always liked the look and feel of frameless door glass when completely down....nice to open the door and not duck around the frames.

fintail

uplanderguy said:

I thought fintail was talking about Ford's 427. But, I have no idea when that began.

Yeah, Ford 427. I have seen 63-64s for sale with it - a rare high spec engine, but so was a 409. I think it might have coincided with the Nascar-related half year fastback.

For 80, that would be tough, I am not a big fan of the 78-80 Monte as to me it looks too busy and like a squished 73-77 - I might actually go for the also-awkward Bird. 81+ Monte was a vast improvement, although by 83 I would be Bird again (although an SS is cool for what it is), as that car was a mild styling landmark of its time, and aged well.

roadburner

I had no interest in the Ford or GM downsized intermediate s until the 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and the Monte Carlo SS. I liked the 5 speed 1984 Turbo Coupe I used for my commuter car for several years.