Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It was probably a pretty car back in its day. I always thought the '75 era Nova was the best looking among compacts at that time. While I still liked the Dart better overall, it was really looking dated by that time, and the styling was getting pretty fussy. Similarly, the Aspen/Volare were a bit too pretentious in their styling, while the Granada re-wrote the book on pretense! In contrast to any of those cars, this Nova looks downright sporty!
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
Yeah, the Granada was marketed as a poor man's Mercedes at the time. It's funny though, I've always considered "Euro style" to mean clean, smooth, and uncluttered, perhaps a bit minimalistic. In my eye at least, the Granada was anything but. In contrast, I think that actually describes the '75 Nova pretty well. That generation is actually commonly referred to as the "European Nova". Now, neither one is going to be mistaken for a Benz anytime soon, but I always thought the Nova captured "Euro" better than the Granada.
One thing the Nova also did right was in handling. The suspension had a lot in common with the Camaro of the time, that was definitely a bonus. In contrast, Ford tried to give the Granada a "big car" ride. Unfortunately, when you do that with a small-ish car, the results usually aren't too successful. A lot of road tests of the time said the Granada handled more like a 20 year old car than a new car!
The Granada was definitely a marketing success, though. Ford sold tons of them. A lot of buyers really went for that pretentious "upscale" look, and the Granada helped open up the market for more luxurious small cars. Prior to the Granada, compacts were mainly considered just cheap, basic transportation. Chrysler actually did offer upscale Dart S/E and Valiant Brougham trim levels starting in 1974, which had enough shag and crushed velour and ploodgrain to rival a Caddy or Lincoln of the time, but the vast majority of Darts and Valiants sold were still just the more basic models.
Truth be told, I like the Aspen/Volare, too. They're actually not bad cars if you stick to later 1977 or the 1978-80 models. Earlier models were very rustprone. I had an '89 Gran Fury ex police car, which really isn't that different from an Aspen/Volare. Now by 1989 standards, it was an anachronism. But it wasn't a bad car.
Oddly enough, the Aspen/Volare sort of paved the way to the future for the domestic car. They were one of the first domestic examples of the return to taller, more upright cars that were easier to get into and out of, with more headroom and a higher seating position. Now compared to a modern car, it probably wouldn't be noticeable, but compared to most other 1976 era cars it sure was. Although I guess the Granada was a bit of a predictor of the future as well, with its high beltline and small-ish window area. :P
This old idea is popular again
Cooler than a new one too (not saying much, I know), even if it is made from pop cans
This has to be the best one of these remaining...amazing
Wagons get some bids
"European Sport Coupe"....mmhmmm
Admirable preservation
I thought all of these were wrecked in Dukes of Hazzard
Never seen one of these in this color
Can't be common with that powertrain combo
I bet this is fun to drive
Pretty and pricey
An unusual thing to preserve...has to be the best remaining
And in actual oddball spottings today...a white Rolls SCI or II with whites silently gliding down the street, and a pristine black W116 450SEL.
I thought all of these were wrecked in Dukes of Hazzard
Nah, just the ones that didn't get trashed in The Blue Brothers.
-'62 Bonnie Convertible.....pricey but oh so tasty!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
62 Bonnie -- it's worth the money, or so it seems from the photos, but the top fit sucks--that'll need attention. Seems like a solid #2 car although the instrument bezels look a little funkier than i'd like to see. also no shots of underneath. I might change my mind if i saw it in person. Too bad it's not a 4-speed tri-power.
Factory AC is worth $2,500 at least.
Down side? You'll get about 8 -10 mpg if you're lucky. So that's .50 cents a mile. That's gonna hurt.
They should have rated these cars in gallons per hour.
Mighty good lookin' car though. Nothing in '62 is that handsome IMO.
As for fuel economy, did that old 4-speed hydramatic use more gas than the later 3-speed THM400? Or was the 400 V-8 somehow more efficient than the 389? Reason I'm asking is because I never thought of my '67 Catalina as being that much of a guzzler. Okay, so there have been times when I've gotten fuel economy down into the single digits, but I've also done the same with much less powerful, smaller-displacement cars. I'd usually get around 9-11 around town with my 400-4bbl, but have been able to hit 17-18 on the highway, which is really about all you can ask for something of that size and vintage.
And when Consumer Reports did their car tests back then, they'd usually pit a Catalina with a 389 or 400 up against a Fury/Polara with a 318, a Galaxie with the 289, and an Impala with a 283. The Catalina would consistently blow the doors off the other three, but then at highway speeds, thanks to the tall gearing, would usually get the best fuel economy! Now these were just run-of-the-mill 2-bbl 389's and 400's, and possibly even the de-tuned credit-option version that could run on low-octane. So I'm sure the high-output models would guzzle. But then, wouldn't any high-output engine from back then?
If it was my car I think I'd alternate between putting the skirts on and removing them to show off the gorgeous 8-lug wheels. I like the '61 and '63 too Andre but then I like all the early '60s Pontiacs including the `1960. IMO their star started to fade in '65 when the cars took on plumper proportions.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
1960: this style is okay I guess, but just never did anything for me.
1961: probably my favorite 60's Pontiac. There's just something about the grille shape I always loved. My Dad used to say that it looked "upside down" somehow, but I thought it was cool.
1962: handsome, but I guess I just didn't care so much for the little beak that was starting to form.
1963: beautiful. Love the stacked headlights, with their forward thrust.
1964: while not much different from the '63, the headlights were more vertical, giving the car kind of a flat-faced look.
1965: getting plump but still gorgeous IMO. Went back to the more aggressive, forward thrusting headlights
1966: still a looker, but I didn't like the way the headlights went more vertical again.
1967: plumper still, but there's something about the front-end on these that I always liked. Almost has a futuristic look about it, with the low grille, and lower headlight in the grille, upper headlight above it. When I was a little kid, the front on these made me think of the Batmobile. The Grand Prix, with its hidden headlights, was especially striking this year.
1968: Probably my least favorite 60's Pontiac. While not very different from the '67, it just seemed like their styling took a 180. While the '67 looked futuristic to me, sleek and sporty in spite of its heft, the '68 just seemed to age the car somehow. The facelift came off as heavy-handed and clunky looking IMO, with too much of a beak. And the rear-end, with its exaggerated taillights that get pulled down too far at the edges, just looks like they were running out of ideas. To be fair though, I think a lot of big car style was starting to head south by '68, and they seemed to be trading sport for more of an upscale aura.
1969: Funny, but while the '68 was just a facelift of the '67 and the '69 more substantially altered, I always thought the '68-69 shared more of a common style. The '69 got bigger still, but just seemed smoother and cleaner than the '68. Definitely looked better in the rear, as the "hockey stick" taillights seemed better proportioned. And up front they toned down the beak a bit, also making it body color.
1970: I'm only including this one because it's the last year of the 1965 era design. Didn't really care for this one, either. I didn't like the front-end, with its neoclassic, thin, tall grille, and widely spaced headlights with those inner assemblies that were either horn ports or turn signals. They gave it a cluttered "6 headlight" look. Also didn't care for the rear-end, although these cars do look nice when viewed from the side.
Overall though, with 60's Pontiacs, I think even my least favorites of them are still pretty cool.
Local car collector.. just got it.. Said he wants something to "tool around in" this summer.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It's amazing how right GM was able to get it, and how wrong they were able to get it later.
Gas mileage -- yeah, the 389 is a gas hog par excellence. And it gets worse-- my friend's 421 tri-power gets about 6 mpg. (1966 Catalina 2+2).
Of course, if you inflate the tires to 40 lbs., drive like a baby, turn off the ignition downhill, swap for a 2 bbl carburetor, blah blah, you might get "respectable" mileage for 1962---but really, who's going to drive cars like that in this manner? Might as well kill yourself rather than get into "fuel economy mindset" with a big 60s American V8 convertible. :mad:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This car's design strikes me as "hasty" at best.
Although I know some do not care for them
I like the bubble-tops from '61
One thing I think is interesting, is to compared a '62 Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth. The Chevy was just so perfect that year (okay, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder, but I've only cracked one open so far today. :P ) And I think the '62 Ford is decent looking, if a bit conservative. But then look at what a disjointed mess the Plymouth was! I think it's a miracle anybody even bought a standard-sized '62 Plymouth!
I guess you really had to be a Mopar diehard to stick with Plymouth that year. Although while it was an ugly car, I guess it did have some redeeming features. It was smaller and lighter than a full-sized Chevy/Ford, but gave up very little interior room to those bigger cars. In fact, with these cars Chrysler actually stumbled accidentally into the midsized car market, which was in its infancy that year.
They also had good engines. The slant six was a good, durable, fairly modern engine. In contrast, wasn't Ford's 223 of that era pretty ancient? Chevy was still using the 235 stovebolt 6, which was a good engine, but very heavy and not that powerful. They'd replace it with a much more modern, lighter 230 CID unit for 1963. I don't think big Fords got a "modern" 6-cyl until the 240 unit of 1965, which went on to spawn the 250/300 CID units, which rivaled the slant six in their legendary durability.
And further up the line, the 318 was a good engine. Weren't the big Ford V-8's, stuff like the 292 and 352, fairly clunky and outdated by that time? And with Chevy, you really had to bypass the 283 and go for the 250 hp 327 if you wanted to match the 318. And even then, I wonder if the 3-speed torqueflite might still give the Plymouth an advantage over the Powerglide?
So, overall, I guess the '62 Plymouth did have potential. As long as you kept your eyes shut and didn't have to look at it. :P
I don't care for the fender skirts many have added to these cars
Looking at my book, Chevy was only getting 170 hp out of the 283 that year. I guess they dropped all the higher-output versions of it to make way for the 327, which had 250 or 300 hp, depending on the carb. They'd get the 283 back up to 195 hp for 1963 though, and in later years there were 220-230 hp versions, which I guess had 4-bbls.
So, maybe the Ford engines weren't TOO uncompetitive. According to my book, the 289 came out in 1963, offered only on the Fairlane. That year the 292 was also dropped, leaving the 352 as the base big car V-8. For '64 though, they started putting 289's in the big cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I guess they just tuned that engine down on purpose, to get people to go for the bigger 352's and 390's?
The 301 actually put out competitive hp for the era. Usually 135-140 with the 2-bbl, and maybe 145-150 with the 4-bbl. There was a turbo in the Trans Ams that put out up to 210 hp. And according to Wikipedia, there was a slightly hopped up version offered in 1980-81 with a 4-bbl and electronic controls that put out 170 hp. I've never heard of it before though, and my old car book never listed in the tables.
Since I got my '76 LeMans in 2005, I've chatted with a lot of other Pontiac owners, and most of them say that the 301 actually isn't a bad engine, as long as you take care of it, and as long as you're not getting brutal with it. It can't take abuse and neglect like the Pontiac 350 could though. And I think, even among Pontiac owners, that engine has a bad rap. On several occasions I'd run into someone with a '77 or so Pontiac, and we'd start talking, and I'd say something like "cool car; what engine does it have?" Almost every time, the owner would look a bit embarrassed and say "the 301". There was a '77 Grand LeMans sedan at the GM show in Carlisle last year with a 301. I guess if you find one that's been well taken care of, and you continue to do so, it can be a good motor.
I couldn't imagine a 1977 Grand Prix with a 301 being much of a performer, though. Heck, my '76 LeMans, with its 350-4bbl and a shift kit in the tranny isn't exactly a powerhouse. It's rated at 170 hp, but I swear the 150 hp 360-2bbl that both of my '79 New Yorkers use is faster from a standstill. The LeMans actually has some kick to it at higher speeds though, probably because of the 4-bbl and that shift kit.
Something else I just thought of...I wonder if, in something like a '77 Grand Prix, perhaps Pontiac put a quicker axle ratio in the car if you got the 301? In 1976 they used a 2.41:1 axle standard with the bigger engines, although I'm sure something small like the Chevy 250 6-cyl or the Olds 260 V-8 used a quicker ratio. So I guess it's possible that for 1977, they put a quicker axle behind the Grand Prix 301, or at least made one optional. That might've helped them perform a bit better.
Our '64 Catalina 4 door h/t (389 2V IIRC) was good for about 9mpg.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
And this little thing too (not to mention what's in the background)
here's the link
I'm an admitted Jag fan (and these Daimler relatives) but what the heck?!?!?!?
I can think of no other explanation!
I'd figure the car might be worth $12,000 in England. Here I doubt you could get $6,500 for it.
I doubt it's an eBay appraisal stunt because that requires that you start with a low bid but put a huge reserve on it. The way he has it, he'll get 0 bids.
"Honey, I put it up for sale just like you wanted. Not my fault nobody's bidding..."
The highlight of the car-spotting took place at an estate sale. Out in the garage was a 61 Chrysler New Yorker 4-door post - the slanty-eyed last of the huge fins model. It was an off-white with a blue cloth interior, which was in excellent condition. The odo read 20K, but I am sure it was 120K as it was a regular driver by the old lady owner for nearly 40 years. It had been off the road since 2000. The car was very clean and perfectly straight. I couldn't figure out how to open the hood...the lever was weird, so I don't know what was there. I suspect the car could have been bought for a couple grand.
I haven't seen much of interest over the past couple days, with the exception of a nice looking '62 Chevy 4-door pillared sedan. It was black with red trim on the side. I think it was an Impala, but I didn't see the taillights, so I guess it could've been a Bel Air or Biscayne.
On the obscure car subject, another oddball I spotted recently was a Nissan NX from the early 90s, the odd little t-topped thing. A girl I knew in high school had a NX2000, it was unusual even when new.
The 383 first came out for 1959, and for some strange reason, Chrysler actually had TWO versions of it for a couple years! The wedge-head V-8 actually came out the year before in 1958, in 350/361 CID configurations. HP ranged from around 280 in a Dodge or DeSoto Firesweep 350 2-bbl on up to 355 in a DeSoto Adventurer with fuel injection. Chrysler stayed with its older poly head 354's and Hemi 392's for 1958.
For 1959, the 350 was dropped, and the wedge was offered in 361/383 CID configurations. That year Chrysler switched to wedgeheads as well. They issued a raised-deck version that was offered in 383 CID for the Windsor/Saratoga and 413 for the NYer, 300E, and Imperial. If you did the math, I think the 383 raised-deck actually rounded off to 382.
I dunno why they did that. Maybe for exclusivity or something? So they could claim that Chrysler didn't share an engine with the lesser divisions?
I think they only had the two 383's for 1959-60. In 1961, the mid-range Saratoga was dropped. The Windsor used a 383-2bbl that year, but I think it switched to the lower-deck version. That was the Newport's first year, and it was priced to undercut the remnants of DeSoto, and I think was about the same price as a Dodge Polara. It used a watered-down 265 hp 361-2bbl.
I wonder what kind of economy a '61 NYer with the 413 would reasonably get? Back when I drove my DeSoto fairly regularly, I was a bit shocked that it actually managed 13-14 mpg in mostly local driving. Maybe 16 on the highway. But there's a huge difference between a 341-2bbl Hemi and a 413-4bbl wedge monster.
Oddly, the DeSoto would get about the same economy around town as my '68 Dart 318! I wonder if that's because of the small carb it uses? The opening for the carb on the 341 looks about the same size as the one on the 318. My '79 Newport, which had a 318, also had a really small opening. The 360-2bbl opening in my '79 New Yorkers looks like it can suck down about twice as much volume.
I'll admit if I had a place to store that thing, and a way to move it, it would have been kind of cool to buy that finned beast. I am afraid it will fall into some kind of rat-rodder hands, and its very original patina will be ruined. It really didn't need much to be a driver. Oh, and I remember it had a power seat..drivers anyway, I didn't look on the other side.
I am actually pretty happy I know almost nothing about carbs :P
The one I knew back in the day was yellow. I don't know if the girl it was given to really cared for it - the trendy car for spoiled high school girls back then was a Prelude. Another girl I barely knew had a 4WS Prelude, that was interesting in a pointless way.
One thing that set them apart... the availability of a V-6.. There is one that lives about two blocks from me...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator