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

andre1969

I knew a guy who had a '94 LH model. I'm forgetting which one, but it had the 3.5 V6, which was the more troublesome of the two engines. Well, he also once owned a Pinto and a Vega, and he said they were both more reliable cars! And, this was around 1997 or so, so his LH car wasn't all that old. I think it was a Concorde, and I'm picturing sort of a burgundy/wine color.

I've heard if you want an early LH car, to either get one with the 3.3, or if you want the 3.5, get a '96-97. The 3.3 was a pushrod engine, durable, but not torquey enough to strain the transmission too much. And by '96-97, the transmissions had improved, to where they weren't failing as often. I think early 3.5s had water pump issues too.

Thinking back, the real estate agent who helped me buy my condo back in 1994 had either an LHS or a New Yorker. It was only a few weeks old, but had already developed a water leak in the back seat!

sda

My BIL had two Eagle Visions as company cars. Both were nicely equipped. I think they both had the 3.3 V6. He really liked them and they only required normal maintenance. Not sure how many miles they had on them when they were replaced but 140k +. He then had two nicely equipped Crown Victorias back to back. Both traveled over 200k, and trouble free. He was an area market manager and traveled extensively. He bought the 2nd one when he left the company and kept it another 5 years or so.

fintail

I've also always thought the 08+ generation Malibu was the best looking of the series. To my eyes, it has strong influence from the 04+ Acura TL, which is probably the high water mark for 21st century Acura design:





Speaking of first gen LH cars, I remember my mom test drove a loaded Vision (TSi?) around the time the brand was being shuttered. It was a really nice car, but her mechanic told her to be leery of soon to be orphans, and I think even then maybe reliability wasn't perfect. I also remember a friend's dad had a 1st gen Concorde as a company car, it seemed pretty nice too (replacement was a 300M, which was really nice back in the day).

uplanderguy

A one-year thing I didn't like about the '08 Malibu was the placement of the front side marker light. Saab-like.

I'd never noticed it, but there is a styling similarity with that Acura.

sda

The Saturn Aura was nice as well. I liked that you could get saddle color leather seats in the XR trim.

texases

In the parking lot at Stonehenge today:

andre1969

I thought that '04 era of Acura TL was a really nice car, too. There was a guy at work, who was a die-hard Lincoln fan. He had bought two Mark VIIs. The first was an '87 that he had bought in '89. He traded it for a '92 that he bought in '94. He had a pretty long commute, and took each one up to around 160-180,000 miles before trading. Well, he traded the '94 on a new 2000 Lincoln LS, that ended up being so much trouble the dealer took it back and gave him a killer deal on a 2001. The 2000 was a V6 and the 2001 was a V8. I don't think he had any trouble with the 2001, but the first one made him leery of keeping cars for any extended period of time anymore, so he traded it around the time the warranty was up...for one of those TLs!

But, again, he was so leery of keeping anything long term anymore, that he started leasing them, so every few years he'd have a new one. Actually, now that I think back on it, I believe he got into a wreck with the first TL, so its life was cut short, anyway. I remember sitting in it, and thinking it was a nice car.

fintail

texases said:

In the parking lot at Stonehenge today:

Ooh, a 2005 registered Lancer wagon, rare car

You mean you can't park right beside it?

explorerx4

My kids are going to be in Scotland at the end of next week.
Not sure if Stonehendge is on the list.

fintail

If I go to "Stonehenge" I hope to see a Volvo 343, Cortina, or Austin Maxi with a damaged fender:

stickguy

over the weekend, an Alfa Spider with some younger dude in a tie driving home from work (Friday afternoon) with the top down. Engine rattled a lot. Later a tired looking 68-69 GTO. and yesterday someone pulled into the parking lot in an early looking (1970s) Range Rover. Not restored but not terrible looking. I was impressed that it seemed to run OK, and moved under it's own power.

and for sale on the side of the road, a 1950s vintage IH pickup (or 1 size up) with a stake bed. Either primered or "patina'd"

sda

That is the style Cortina dad had as a company car when we were in England. Dad’s office was located in Wimbledon. His first Cortina was a GXL 4 Sp manual in a similar dark metallic brown with black vinyl top. It was a 72 with tag ending in K. He later got a Cortina E. The GXL and E were top trims for their respective year. The E was a 74 automatic with tag ending in M. Both had the 2 liter engine.

ab348

Hope the Maxi didn’t run into the stone henges to cause that.

fintail

Oopsie with a Fiat 124 Estate (probably extinct now), what happens when you're on the wrong side of the road on the wrong side of the car:

andre1969

"You hang onto it. Take it back to New York as a souvenir!"

uplanderguy

Spotted in German Village in Columbus today, en route to brunch at Lindey's--bone-stock-appearing dove gray Studebaker 2R pickup, 1949-53, parked on the street. That area is 19th century homes on postage-stamp lots and often only street parking, but has become very gentrified over the decades. The truck was beautiful.

uplanderguy

Seen on FB today....not-often-seen first-year, midyear-introduction '65 Caprice Custom sedan, which was an option package then only on the Impala Sport Sedan. I love the '65 styling and this is the one-year-only Evening Orchid paint...AND it's a stick!



It's funny, I don't care for the '66 Caprice at all, and it's probably the one model year that has shown up the most on eBay.

The only thing I like about the '66 is that you could buy the strato-bench front seat (stylish, but hard and thin backs) which gave the Caprice Custom sedan, front and rear center armrests, the only year until the Brougham in the late '80's.

andre1969

That '65 looks just about perfect, from every angle. And it's funny, but I'm not a huge fan of the '66 either. Most of my beef with it though, is in the front end. It has more of a heavy, blunt, less detailed look about it. Still attractive enough overall, but the '65 just seems so, well, perfect!

1965 was definitely a great year, for full-sized GM cars, in general.

Michaell

I spotted something pretty rare today. Baby blue Chevy Caprice coupe - late 70’s vintage, the one with the 3 piece rear window. Beautiful condition. Nice burble from the exhaust as it idled past.

ab348

That ‘65 Caprice is lovely but I don’t get nor like the 3 on the tree.

fintail

ab348 said:

That ‘65 Caprice is lovely but I don’t get nor like the 3 on the tree.

I was going to say, why order a fancy model with the transmission option that I suspect was more associated stripped models? I wonder if even then people ordered cars weirdly just to have something rare.

stickguy

some people just really like manual transmissions.

ask me how I know.

uplanderguy

Someone pointed out that it appears to also have overdrive; I'll guess a lever is visible although I can't positively identify that. Maybe what looks like a second lever near the parking brake release; I don't know.

Even a Powerglide then was probably about a couple hundred bucks, so there could be cost-savings involved too, although the overdrive would've been an option.

uplanderguy

I always put a big divide in my head, between '64 and '65 cars. It's sort-of like the '60's really began in '65.

I know '65's were on the drawing board before JFK's assassination, but I always felt a whole lot changed then, and not just history, but styles and such. Same with the Beatles showing up in Feb. '64, just when we needed something fun. Mustang came out in April. And for me, it's sad that Studebaker shut down production of cars and trucks in South Bend after 111 years in business there, within a month of JFK's assassination. Some have said that the timing chosen by the Board was in part to take advantage that because of the JFK news, most-likely nothing would be done by the government to attempt to bolster South Bend up. The Corporation was making money on the other divisions.

ab348

Different strokes, I guess. While the '65 Chevys were a big step forward from the stodgy older style, they had their own problems. The recall for engine mounts, overmatched brakes, slow steering, lots of rust issues, especially with the frames, and of course the underwhelming Powerglide. I remember that the assembly plants struggled to get the pancake hood to fir properly too. Of course GM built over 1.6 million copies that year (imagine that!) so buyers didn't seem to mind. I'd rather have a Pontiac of that year.

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-reviews-1965-chevrolet-impala-sport-coupe-three-ways-to-powerglide/

uplanderguy

I love the interiors of the ‘65 Grand Prix and Bonneville, but even the Impala’s seat trim bettered the other big Pontiacs that year IMHO, and I didn’t like how anything below a Bonneville got a panel-wide big swath of black crinkle-cut vinyl, no matter the color of the interior.

Of course, Impala owners were loyal then, as it was America’s best-seller for about 15 years. They always bragged up the repeat ownership. I always felt at that time that Chevy put their money where you could see it. Powerglide was reliable but Turbo-Hydramatic was available on the 396—if not in ‘65, that, and wider in ‘66. All the Big Three dragged their feet on disc brakes and dual master cylinders, that is for sure.

I did like how Chevys then usually didn’t have fake vents, hash marks, other chrome fillips, to show how luxurious the design was. 😀

Rust was a problem in general then. My first college roommate got his parents' '68 Bonneville Brougham four-door hardtop when they bought their new '74 Monte Carlo. At the time, he had to mud-up the dog leg(s) on at least one side of the car, and the skirts no longer fit.

uplanderguy

I watched this episode yesterday, of ol' Lou talking to a guy with his grandmother's '66 Wildcat Sport Coupe with 10K miles. I love original, low-mileage old cars, no matter the make. I even like the color, even though it's not a dazzler. Same color as our '67 Chevelle.

I gotta say, I was surprised at how this thing sounds running, for 10K miles. Go to 3:49:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7a8Ug6J7mE

imidazol97

The page claims the 1965 Chev sold for $16850.

I can see a 3-speed with overdrive as being a very good car for the driving patterns of many people. Lighter with no heavy auto tranny. Good gas mileage compared to no Overdrive. Many in the country where I grew up had that type of car in 60's.

And the auto transmissions were looked at as needing rebuilds at 75K or so. If they made it that long.
So this original owner ordered what they wanted.

andre1969

I'm confused at some of the test results in that comparison test AB348 posted. For instance, when they talk about "observed mph per 1000 rpm in top gear", that would mean that, for the Chevy for instance, at 3000 rpm you'd be doing 57.6 mph? And 60 would be 3125 rpm?

I know a 2-speed needs a quicker axle to compensate, but doesn't that seem a little high, for a 3.36:1 axle? As a rough comparison my old 2000 Intrepid had a 3.89:1 differential, and the overdrive gear was 0.667:1. It did around 2000 rpm@60, but if you stomped it and it downshifted, it would bump up to 3,000.

At first I was thinking that maybe the Chevy's tires had a smaller diameter, and that could account for the difference, but I looked it up. An 8.25-14 tire is 27.58" (from Coker Tire), while a 225/60/R16 is 26.6" (Google search). So the Chevy's tires were slightly larger-diameter, which should reduce the rpms a bit more, compared to my old Intrepid.

Similarly, the Fury, listed at 20 mph per 1000 rpm, would put it at 3,000 rpm at 60. They're showing a 3.55:1 axle listed as "standard", but I checked the brochure, and that's for the slant six and 3 on the tree. The 318/Torqueflite had a 2.93:1 standard.

So, either I'm getting 'fused by the math, or that statistic is something different from what I think it is?

uplanderguy

All good questions Andre, but you’re a lot more analytical than I!

texases

I'm not surprised that a car with a two-speed auto is running high rpms at highway speeds. Is that what you're asking? That one of the reasons their mpgs were poor. Put a 10-speed AT in there and watch out!

andre1969

I'm just thinking that a car with a 3.36:1 axle shouldn't be turning 3125 rpm @60 mph! But if they're talking about 19.2 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear, that's what it would be.

If I'm doing the math correctly, that Chevy should be doing around 2457 rpm at 60 mph. Which I think would come out to around 24.42 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear.

Yeah, I get it, that a 2-speed automatic is going to need a quicker axle to compensate for lack of a third gear, and that's going to increase the rpm's on the highway, and give it worse gas mileage. I just don't understand their math, to get that 19.2 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear calculation.

FWIW, to get that 2457 calculation, I just divided 5280 feet (one mile) by 7.22 feet (the approximate circumference of an 8.25-14 tire), and then multiplied by 3.36 (the axle ratio)

texases

What are the ratios in the Powerglide?

edit-top gear is 1:1, but there's going to be some slip, no lock-up in these transmissions, so your calculation would need some 'slip' factor. Who know what that would be...

edit2-I'm seeing 10-20% slip values so this is a bit higher that 20%.

xwesx

andre1969 said:

I'm just thinking that a car with a 3.36:1 axle shouldn't be turning 3125 rpm @60 mph! But if they're talking about 19.2 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear, that's what it would be.

I would imagine cars would be more long-legged than my pickup from the era, but I would estimate that is not far off for 60 when in 4th gear.

andre1969

xwesx said:

I would imagine cars would be more long-legged than my pickup from the era, but I would estimate that is not far off for 60 when in 4th gear.

Yeah, wasn't it common back in those days for trucks to be geared really short, like 3.5-4.00:1, maybe even shorter? Especially since trucks tended to be more about doing actual work in those days, rather than sitting pretty in a parking lot?

My uncle had a '76 Jeep pickup, "Honcho" or whatever they called it. It had an AMC 360 and a 4-speed. I drove it a few times, and remembered you really didn't need first gear. First was mostly for chaining it to tree stumps and pulling them out!

As for automatics back then, I knew there would be some slippage because of the torque converter. And I think transmissions that used a fluid coupling were even worse. But wow, 10-20%? I had no idea it was that bad!

I also remember my uncle mentioning an old 60's GM pickup that Granddad had, that was a 1-ton, but it had a small engine, a stick shift, and really short axle. So, it really wasn't something you wanted to take out on the interstate! I get them mixed up, but I do remember Granddad having a GMC, with that 60-degree V6 they used for awhile, and a Chevy, that I think only had a straight six!

That was before my time, though. The earliest pickup I can remember Granddad having was an early 70's Chevy, sort of a mustard color with white roof and contrast. My mind is picturing a '73, but I could be wrong. The truck I remember most was a '76 GMC 3/4-ton crew cab, that we did a lot of camping with. It was kind of a burnt-orange/copper color, with a white roof and bodyside contrast. I can still remember it stalling and sputtering going up the long grade to the campground at Mount Whitney in California, but Granddad pulled off to the side of the road, and had the part he needed in the glovebox, and swapped it out right there. I think it was a ballast resistor or something.

explorerx4

Even in modern vehicles losses are in the 10% to 15% range(from flywheel to tires).

xwesx

andre1969 said:

Yeah, wasn't it common back in those days for trucks to be geared really short, like 3.5-4.00:1, maybe even shorter? Especially since trucks tended to be more about doing actual work in those days, rather than sitting pretty in a parking lot?

My uncle had a '76 Jeep pickup, "Honcho" or whatever they called it. It had an AMC 360 and a 4-speed. I drove it a few times, and remembered you really didn't need first gear. First was mostly for chaining it to tree stumps and pulling them out!

That's the truth on that first gear! It is a rare thing that I ever use mine, and you have to be at a complete stand-still in order to slip it into that gear (there's no downshifting to it!). First gear is all the way up nearly touching the dash, and reverse goes straight into the lap of anyone unfortunate enough to get stuck in the middle of the bench seat....

kyfdx

My '76 CJ-5 only had three gears. You definitely had to use 1st. (but, 258 6 cyl.)

stickguy

same drivetrain my Gremlin had. And my Hornet!

fintail

Got behind a pristine late run Tempo coupe in the rain this morning, driven slowly by a guy wearing a cowboy hat - can't make this up. Also spotted a 70s VW van "Cal look" (lowered, Porsche style wheels), clean 87-88 Ciera.

stickguy

a Jeep Comanche PU. Looked decent, and original. rare sighting at this point up here where rust never sleeps.

andre1969

I made a trip out to a local animal rescue/sanctuary place this morning, and on the property, I could see they were giving sanctuary to this fishy Plymouth...
I'm guessing it's a '67 Barracuda, judging from no apparent round side marker ('68) or rectangular reflector ('69).

On the way back home, I spotted this '95-97 Grand Marquis, being pampered on a flatbed.Oh, and my reason for going out there was for a rabbit, but not the Volkswagen variety. On Monday I was doing some yardwork, and stumbled across a rabbit nest with three babies in it. I tried to put it back together the best I could, and left it. From what I read online, they said that human scent/contact won't scare the mother off. I checked on them Tuesday, and they were fine. But then Wednesday afternoon I checked, and two of them were dead. I thought the third one was too when I found it, but then noticed it was moving. I took it in the house and cleaned it up, tried to feed it some milk. It actually did drink a bit. But then I put it back out in its nest, on the off chance the mother came back.

This morning I went out and checked again, half-expecting to find it dead. But, it had crawled out onto the sidewalk, about 2 feet from its nest. I figure the mother had abandoned them completely, and it just didnt' know what to do. So, I found out about this sanctuary, not too far away, and took it there. So, here's the obligatory cute little baby bunny picture...

xwesx

That is cute! And, very, VERY young. I can't imagine they were more than a day old when you stumbled across them. With rabbits, and with first-time mothers especially, they often don't care for the litter, particularly if anything disturbs her or the nest in the first week or so. At least, that was my experience (I raised rabbits for about eighteen years).

When I had a doe that would abandon her first kits, I would give her a second chance with the next litter. If she did it again, she ended up in the stew pot. LOL

andre1969

xwesx said:

When I had a doe that would abandon her first kits, I would give her a second chance with the next litter. If she did it again, she ended up in the stew pot. LOL

Now I'm getting a flashback to one of those "Family" skits on the Carol Burnette show. Eunice had been whining about her pet bunny Fluffy who had run away from home years ago. By the end of the episode, everyone was arguing with everyone, as usual, and Ellen (Betty White) let it slip, saying something like "Toots, that wasn't fried chicken we had for dinner that night!" and sending Eunice into real hysterics!

**Edit: Here's the episode, if anyone wants to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boLSUW9ODX4&t=843s

uplanderguy

Cute.

I haven't seen a '67 Barracuda in a long time.

Your one pic is making me want Chick Fil A.

I'm always surprised where I live now, a city of 30K with a large state university, doesn't have one. We have Raising Cane's, where the help (sadly) knows me by name, but I'd probably dump them all for a Chick Fil A!

On a different note, I filled the C8 yesterday with gas. Three high school girls with backpacks came up to me and said, "We love your car! What color inside is it? We crossed the road just to see it".

No creepy overtones, but had I had it back when I was in school, that would have stroked my ego!

They did get to witness me climbing in side-saddle, then swinging both legs in while I ducked my head enough to not conk it on the roof.

stickguy

I mentioned a corvette to the wife last week as a possible option for her new car. She didn’t say no.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

I mentioned a corvette to the wife last week as a possible option for her new car. She didn’t say no.

Was she taking a nap, maybe?

stickguy

no, she was awake while we were driving (actually somewhat of a novelty). Was driving by a nice red convertible (I think it was a C7). Old bald guy driving of course.

ab348

stickguy said:

I mentioned a corvette to the wife last week as a possible option for her new car. She didn’t say no.

I hear they don’t handle upstate NY snowfalls very well.

ab348

Here's a random find I found online yesterday, from Nebraska. Can't remember the last time I saw one of these in the wild. Looks mostly original, right down to the failed paint on the trunklid.