By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Well, I guess you could argue that the extra length adds crush space. Instead of having everything crammed together under the hood, with things a bit more spaced out, in an impact you're less likely to have things under the hood smashing up against each other.
And in the case of the NYer, for being a 70's car with lots of sloppy wiring, hoses, etc, it's surprisingly easy to work on. The distributor, which is in back, is easy to get to with plenty of room. When I had my '89 Gran Fury, the space up under there was so tight that they had to build a notch into the firewall for the distributor to fit!
As for the Pontiac, one thing I always hated about them was placement of the battery. They put it in the front part of the fender, ahead of the wheel opening, but between the radiator and its bracket, which overhangs the battery a bit, the wheel well, and the fender, it's wedged in tight and just a pain to get to. My '69 Bonneville was that way, too. I can't remember how my '76 LeMans is, but the thing that always gets me about the LeMans is how much of a mess it looks under the hood compared to the NYer.
Plus, I think a lot of it is simply a styling thing. If you chopped a foot off of the front of my New Yorker, it just wouldn't look right proportionally. I think one of the most extreme cases of too much overhang is the 1977-79 Mark V...~230 inches of length with a relatively short 120.4" wheelbase. But even here, if you simply chopped a foot off the front, I don't think the car would look right.
Personally, I think the '59 Chevy is a mess compared to the 1958. However, with just a little cleaning up and squaring off, the '59 Chevy, as well as the rest of GM's lineup that year, was really the first glimpse of the 60's. I think the basic body shell looks nice, but the ugliness comes in many of the details. One thing I never liked was those big "nostrils" above the headlights. Although I thought that looked cool on the trucks.
I think the biggest change that made cars look more modern back then was moving the headlights to where they were even with the grille, instead of having them above the grille. A 1959 Pontiac or Oldsmobile especially had a clean, modern look to them.
The '61 bubbletop is nice though, and surprise, surprise, that's the one everyone wants.
Well, someone finally mentioned my favorite American car design of my pre-adolescent era. Make mine white with a red spear.
james
The hint of tailfins in the shape of the 58 without the actual gaudy tailfins of previous cars was great (57 Ford, 57/58 Plymouth and other Chryslers) is what I like. But I understand the comments about a diagonal line. But that's what I like because it sets the tailfin presence.
Almost bought a used 60 Chev 2-dr hardtop. REally sleek styling, but I don't like the angular tailfin line.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The wasp-waisted X-frame also seems like it would make for an overly large hump down the middle of the Chevy, but looking inside, it doesn't seem all that intrusive. I guess the body itself still sat high enough above it.
I remember Consumer Reports saying in 1957 that they liked the generous horizontal dimensions of the Plymouth, but they also liked the higher seating position of the Chevy. I think they rated the Ford the worst, because it had a low seating position, coupled with not-so generous horizontal dimensions (legroom, shoulder room) and their testers tended to bang their knees on the steering wheel.
I can't remember what CR said about the '58 Chevy, though. One thing that was kinda interesting about the Ford though, is that there were two different styles of 4-door sedan. The cheaper models rode a 116" wb, while the pricier models rode a 118" wb. But the pricier models ended up being SMALLER inside, because they had a more low-slung roof! I think they had to move the back seat up a few inches to maintain headroom.
Doesn't it remind you of when you let the kids decorate the birthday cake? :P
RE: "crush space" -- I don't think 2 extra feel of Detroit tin are going to keep that motor out of your lap, but let's hope so....
Well yeah, if it's a strong enough hit, the motor and the driver will still become as one. But in some cases, it might be enough to make a difference. And in more minor accidents, that extra crush space will mean the difference between just replacing the plastic crap up front and picking pieces of the fan out of your radiator. It can also mean the difference between just replacing the plastic header panel, or having to replace the hood and fenders too (since on a car like this, the actual hood and fenders don't go all the way out to the end of the car)
What I'm saying is that that extra space isn't TOTALLY useless. Sure, it may not be worth much, but there's some small value there.
I'd love to have this car. With the nice pumpin duals and chromies, this car is bad.
On the subject of overhang, my first car was a 73 Charger:
There was a big enough gap between the grill and radiator to carry to overstuffed bags of groceries. There was a pretty wide chasm between the radiator and the engine as well.
I forget the exact measurements, but one day I measured the distance from the front of the radiator to the front of the car on both my '76 LeMans (112" wb, 208" long) and my '68 Dart (111" wb, 196" long) I remember the distance on the LeMans was something like 12 inches more!
So I guess that might provide some insight as to why many 70's midsizers didn't seem any bigger inside than some 60's compacts! I forget the published measurements, but when I sit in the cars, I think the only reason the LeMans has more room up front than the Dart is because it has a power seat and I can put it into some contorted positions. I've been in these cars without a power seat though, and they don't feel any roomier. And the trunk on the Dart is bigger, too! IIRC, the Dart's trunk is about 17 cubic feet, compared to 15 for the LeMans.
To be fair though, the Dart was about as big as compact cars got. Comparing 4-door models, a '68 Dart has more front and rear legroom than a full-sized '68 Impala!
That '73 Charger does have a lot of front-end overhang, but I still think it's a decent looking car. I think it's more aggressive and muscular looking than the '73 GM and Ford midsizers. I still think the Charger hit its peak with the '68-70 models, though.
there was a fruit of the loom commercial that had the fruit guys rolling in a 61 impala convertible.
gadds, i must be a closet '61 impala fan.
http://www.oldride.com/classic_cars/285755.html
$75,000?
One thing that really blows my mind about 1961, is that with such a good looking Chevy, and even a decent looking Ford, why the heck would anybody buy a Plymouth?!
I've heard it said that the 1961 Plymouth is what sparked a whole generation of Japanese movie monsters.
I guess from a mechanical standpoint, the Plymouth would've had an advantage over the Chevy in powertrains, at least in the more everyday cars. 3-speed Torqueflite, in contrast to the 2-speed Powerglide in the Chevies. The Plymouth probably had an advantage in 6-cylinder engines and in base V-8's. Still, I'd imagine that even the most die-hard Mopar fan had a hard time picking a Plymouth in '61!
58s are controversial but handsome IMO:
I like the move towards sleekness but the 59s front doesn't thrill me:
60 is a nice evolution over the 59:
Even more cleaned up and more handsome for 61:
62 produces are more cleaned up but possibly less distinctive model
It's great to see how much the car changed from year to year back then. Of course, with the major revisions every year, not every model will do it for everyone. After the 62s the changes were much more subtle until the 65s which don't seem to be very loved:
I think that this lineup shows that any of the cars can be pretty sharp with the right treatment. Could you imagine any manufacturer of today making such significant revisions from year to year????
As far as the classic Chevies, this is the one that absolutely does it for me:
What a great color combo on this one
Then look at a side view of the '58----everything collides into one another, the grille's too heavy, the rear window shape is bizarre and the fins are off another make of car and were glued on?
On the '61 note how the windshield frame urges the car on, whereas the '58 the windshield pulls back...once again driving the eye DOWN.
'62 has an unfortunate rear deck (which you can't really see)and the grille is once again blockier...on the '61 they cleverly broke up the massive front of the grille with that little kick-up bar.
A big problem with 57 style was most of the cars I saw didn't look like the 2-door hard because they were sedans. Not nearly as good looking, and that's true for many years of most cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's definitely true. The 4-door Chevy really was a clunky looking thing, although the 4-door hardtop's not bad. With Plymouth, I think the shape of the 4-door sedan roof is attractive, but the problem is that it was shared across the line. So while it looks proportionate on a 218" DeSoto or Chrysler, or even a 214" Dodge, IMO it just looks too BIG on a ~206" Plymouth.
The '57 Plymouth 4-door hardtop also used the same roof as its bigger sisters. However, that hardtop roof was also the same as what was used on the DeSoto and Chrysler hardtop COUPES, so it gave them a much sleeker, coupe-like look. On the down side, it also robbed you of about 4 inches of back seat legroom, as they moved the back seat forward about 4 inches on the hardtops.
As ugly as the 1957 Ford is, I think they actually did a wonderful job with the roof on the Fairlane and Fairlane 500 4-door sedan:
I couldn't find a pic of a '57 Ford 4-door hardtop, but I did find this artwork for a 1958:
I don't think it looks that bad in this angle, but IIRC, the 4-door hardtops had kind of an odd C-pillar. I think the beltline kicked up, crossed the C-pillar, and became the top edge of the rear window, while the top of the window line cut down to become the bottom of the rear window, and the result was a C-pillar that had a strange X-shape to it.
Compare the Camaros from the 60s to those of the 90s:
The 60s
The 90s:
The last is a 99 which is notably different because of the flush headlights but the 94 to 98s are virtually identical. How do you tell the difference between a 94 and a 98?
The 67-69 is basically the same car but you can recongize the differences between them from a mile away. This is probably a huge reason why the older cars carry more appeal as collectibles than the later cars ever will
Actually, I always had trouble distinguishing the '67 and '68 Camaro at a quick glance. The only way I know to tell for sure is that the '68 has side marker lights and the '67 doesn't. But yeah, they're much more distinct from year to year than modern cars.
I actually learned with my Intrepid, how to tell the difference between my 2000 and any other year, but the differences are so minor that you can't do it at a quick glance. Anyway, the 1998-99 models had smaller 15" wheels standard with a different wheelcover pattern, while the 2000 had 16" wheels. In 2001, they started calling the base model "SE", and they put that badge on the little black plastic spacer for the rear door window. Then for 2002, they changed the hubcaps again, decontented the interior, discontinued the standard rear sway bar, and moved the "SE" badge to the trunk.
But when the differences are that minor, who really cares?
Another, fairly obscure example that I was always good at was distinguishing the 1982 and 1983 Malibu. They're literally the same damn car, with one minor exception. In 1982, they called them all "Malibu Classic". In 1983, they called them all "Malibu" :P
With my '85 Silverado, I think the grille was changed from 1984, but then I don't know if it was changed again for 1986 or 1987, the half-ton's final year.
The differences between my '76 LeMans and a 1977 are extremely minor. In fact, my car has '77 grille inserts. They changed the bumper guards, too. Big whoop.
Identifying the year of a car is harder than it used to be, but it sure isn't as much fun!
If all you wanted was a go fast special, there are some really good deals on them used now. I see a pristine look late 90s model with the 5.7 and a stick (I think a 6 sp) with 100k on it. I think the ask was 5 grand firm.
There was a guy here at work who had a final-gen Camaro, but he didn't keep it long. He kept switching all over the map, but stuck it out with GM. I know I saw him with an '00 Impala, then a Camaro after that, then a Corvette, and somewhere in there, a Trailblazer. And that was all in the space of just a few years!
One would think it would be redundant to ruin a 1981 Corvette...but they did it anyway
70s GM Aussie style
Could be a useful tin can to have around
Not many of these survived like this
Project car
Andre-mobile
Or maybe this "luxury" car
Rebuildable?
Back when domestics were status cars overseas...I would think this would be worth more at home
Nice looking highline Euro W126, I love the primitive and extremely rare onboard computer
Good looking cruiser
GM's styling took a quantum leap forward in '61. It's interesting to compare with the year earlier>
'60 Impala 4dr h/t>
'61 Impala 4dr h/t>
Oh yeah, the 1970 Malibu SS was the best-looking Chevrolet ever! It's also the most highly prized by collectors.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
xmas present
I kinda like that '73 LeMans too. I like the bucket seats and the console. I think it's kind of a sham that they called the upper trim level "Luxury LeMans" though. It doesn't look like much of a step up from a regular LeMans to me except maybe for that pull strap on the door. When they renamed it "Grand LeMans" around 1975, it seemed like a much more noble attempt, as they started using the more expensive looking Grand Prix dashboard in them, more supple vinyls, carpeted lower door panels, etc.
Shame about that '75 LeSabre convertible. I wonder what hit it? Looks kinda like it got sandwiched in between a car and a telephone pole!
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
not being a shopper, it was the highlight of the day, other than getting some presents.
speaking of obscure cars, i saw an original firebird, a light metallic green coupe. why am i starting to like that color?
today, i saw a dark grey mgb-gt on the street between the main road and my street.
lightning
mach 1
Red
Wrecked
A Crying Shame
Things it is not:
Rebuildable
Only 399 of them made (well, plus one more for charity event).
Yesterday I saw a Maybach 57 (parked outside a MB dealer), an Audi S6 wagon, and a pristine looking Acura Legend sedan, it looked brand new.
My client with the F430 was thinking about buying a used one when he bought his F430.
Decided to buy two F430s, one for him one for his wife, and a Z06 instead.
I saw one of those today too, or it was a F360.
She has done both on road and off road driving schools.