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

oregonboy

Obviously a labor of love. I would prefer it without the yellow accents in the interior.

A nice piece of work, but all things considered, I would rather have a Miata. :P

Mr_Shiftright

Yes he did a good job, but I doubt he could get more than $20,000 for it.

lemko

...white 1969 Plymouth Road Runner.

kyfdx

'75 BMW 2002.. silver, and very nicely re-done..

fintail

Good preservation

Unusual wagon

Supra survivor

Another odd wagon

Fun window sticker

Good use of resources

Project car

I could see Andre or Lemko in this

Or this

Fun to drive on rough roads

Decent fintail survivor

Nice slobmodel

High desert survivor

Unusual hearse

imidazol97

The 1958 Pontiac high desert survivor is great!

andys120

"Great" is not a word I would use for any 1958 model from the Big 3. "Slobmobile" works for me.

andre1969

Nice color combo on that '58 Pontiac. One styling feature that always bugged me about the '58 Pontiac is how the quad headlight assembly seemed to jut out. It's not as bad as the bug-eyed look of a '57 Ford, but I think it would look better if it was a bit more recessed.

Still, compared to a '58 Buick or Olds, I think the Pontiac was the best looking of that trio. Heck, if I had money to burn, I'd take it! Seems like it sold for a fairly reasonable price, too.

I know '58 is considered a low point for Detroit styling, but in the GM lineup, I think the only real offenders are Olds and Buick. The Pontiac seems reasonable to me, and I find the '58 Chevy and Cadillac to be attractive.

fintail

It hadn't sold at the buy it now when I posted the link. It wasn't dirt cheap, but it seems like a fair price for a car that with a little detailing you could proudly take to any local show. It's also very 50s looking and it is uncommon...there is some appeal. It is a photogenic old beast too, nice colors...that blue is maybe a shade lighter than my fintail.

Speaking of obscure cars, I received an excited call from a friend about 0730 this morning - he was driving through Olympia WA and claimed he was driving beside a Tucker. I know the LeMay museum in Tacoma has a Tucker, a blue one...my friend said the one he saw was a light yellow. He said it had collector plates, so I guess it shouldn't be a fake. Seeing a Tucker on the road has to be pretty unusual.

Mr_Shiftright

I think something got into the drinking water in Detroit in 1958, maybe LSD.

andre1969

Well, considering the lead time, it would've had to have been around 1956... :P

Although, maybe some GM or Ford spies spiked the water coolers at the Chrysler design studios around that time. That might explain the 1961 Mopars. I always looked at 1961 to Chrysler as what 1959 was to everybody else.

Mr_Shiftright

You can get big bucks though for a '58 Bonnie convertible. I haven't a clue why someone would want one, but the demand is there.

andre1969

Well in '58, the Bonneville, like the Impala, was kind of a high-spec, somewhat limited production car. So that might be part of it. Oddly though, the Bonneville wasn't really that powerful that year, at least not to my way of thinking.

Standard engine was a 370 V-8, that put out 255 hp wit the manual shift, 285 with the automatic. Next up was 300 hp, but it took Tri-Power to get there. And it took fuel injection to get to 310. That just doesn't sound that impressive to me, for a brand that was supposed to be transforming into GM's performance division. Heck, DeSoto was getting 280/295 hp out of the 350-2/350-4bbl, and 295/305 out of the 361-2/361-4bbls. And with the hotter engines, it was 345 with dual quads and 355 with fuel injection. Not trying to build DeSoto up here, but I just happened to know those numbers, without having to look 'em up, so I figure it's as good of a reference point as any.

Just out of curiosity, what is usually a better setup...three two barrels or dual quads?

texases

I think I saw a '58 Bonnie converible go for $150k on one of those televised autions last week :surprise: :surprise: :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

Well allowing for the auction lunacy, real market value is probably about $120K for the best of the best. The other $30K is just down the toilet money.

I don't see 2-4s as very practical. a 3 X 2 setup can be very nice if you dial it in right, for everyday driving. I can't see 2 X 4 unless you have a really radical engine that can consume that level of fuel all at once.

lemko

I'd say those GM and Ford spies probably spiked the Plymouth designers' water cooler first. How do you explain the 1960 Plymouth styling? I'd say Plymouth designers had a bad trip that lasted through the 1962 model year and didn't recover until '63 or '64.

fintail

I parked by this unfortunately hued old beast today, in a failed attempt to create a vintage parking lot

lemko

Spotted a red Mercedes 190SL with a white interior in the parking lot of the Philadelphia National Guard Armory at a gun show yesterday. The car was really sharp, but I don't know what year it was. I believe M-B built these cars from the mid 1950s through the early 60s.

fintail

Yep, 1955-63, not much cosmetic difference between those years.

The market for those things has been pretty solid, too.

Mr_Shiftright

190SLs are very strong right now, with cost no object restorations pushing 100K--but the average-looking "clean driver" probably sells for around $35K-40K and the nice, sane correct restoration maybe $75K. Of course, a cost no object restoration would cost you more than you could sell the car for, easily busting 6 figures in restoration expenses.

fintail

I wonder what has brought that on. W113s also seem to be up a bit, but nothing like the 190SL.

I'm happy with my old fintail...cheap vintage motoring with the same basic looks and workmanship as those pricer models.

Mr_Shiftright

Probably that the 190SL looks like the 300SL roadster but for 1/4 the money; also the 190SL is a very pleasant, comfortable, well-built, low speed touring car for vintage events. It won't beat you up like most old two-seaters will and if you take off the old carbs and throw them over a fence and put on Webers, it's a very reliable car, too. Not many foreign two seaters from the 50s/early 60s that you can drive all day long in total comfort.

fintail

I guess the whole two seater thing has never wooed me - maybe as I have never owned one. I've ridden in an MGB....didn't blow me over.

Seems like not more than a few years ago a very nice 190SL might have been 20-25K and a decent W113 could be had for maybe 10-15K. Then prices suddenly doubled. Maybe the weak dollar is part of it too. I'm certain a number of these cars are destined for the continent...as even fintails are making it back there.

andre1969

I guess the whole two seater thing has never wooed me - maybe as I have never owned one. I've ridden in an MGB....didn't blow me over.

I've never been in an older 2-seat roadster, but the newer ones really make me feel hemmed in. With the high beltlines, the way the windshield and A-pillars practically curve up over you, and the tall headrests, it really doesn't matter if the top goes down. I swear I have a more open-air feeling driving a pickup truck!

fintail

At my pseudo-tall height of 6'1", the windshield top can be a bother too...cuts into eye level so one has to slouch. I sat in a MG Midget once...it was comical.

If I was to have a roadster it would need to be a large one...and most large ones today aren't very roadsterish...they have an area behind the rear seats. I know I can fit OK in the current SL and in the previous version. I could live with a 300SL if someone was just giving one away, though.

For my comfortable open MB picks, it would have to be a W111/108/112 cabrio or a ponton cabrio, or maybe some crazy prewar car.

Mr_Shiftright

An Alfa Romeo from the 60s is a pleasant and fairly spacious car to drive. No stinkin' headrests and you don't have the door sills at ear level.

For real open air fun, get an AC Cobra 289 or fakey-doo replica.

andre1969

I saw a few old cars. At one point, a nice looking '55 Chevy 2-door sedan drove past my house. Also, and old AMC Hornet or Eagle wagon. I didn't get a good enough look at it, but I think it belongs to a guy up the street. When I was a kid, he had a few Hudsons he was always playing with. When I first moved back into the neighborhood, I drove down to that end of the street and saw he had "graduated" to a flock of AMC wagons. Wonder what would possess someone to make a switch like that? I mean, that would be like me ditching my DeSoto, or even my R-bodies, and suddenly developing a K-car fetish!

On Saturday, a guy stopped by, asking about my Dart, and while we were talking a decent looking gray Benz sedan drove past. Forget the nomenclature, but the style that came immediately after the fintail.

On Sunday, I drove my New Yorker around the block, and while out, a '74 or later Corvette passed me going the other way. It was red, and in nice shape. The driver looked to be about 3 days older than God, and he looked over at me as we passed...probably did a double-take, seeing someone so young driving a car like that.

fintail

The cars that followed the fintails are W108/109....they don't really have a name but some call them the "new generation".

An old lady my mom knows had a very nice Hornet wagon up until a few years ago. My mother actually drove it for her once, for some bizarre reason. She said it wasn't very comfortable.

Today's odd car was a BMW Z8...not too old, but unusual no less.

fintail

Italian cars seem to have low enough seats for tall-ish people yeah. The old Italian position of being on the floor with arms and legs stretched can be useful for some people.

This looks like it could be fun

Mr_Shiftright

Ah yes, the old "3 feet from 1st to 2nd" MB floorshift from those days. It's like moving an oar around in a barrel

fintail

I'd prefer that to the column shift anyway....the 4 on the tree would annoy me.

I have never embraced the column shift manual....came about in the late 30s as some kind of advancement, but was phased out in the late 60s/early 70s. It's just not intuitive for some people.

I don't mind the slushbox in the fintail either, really. It's clunky, but it's durable, and it doesn't mind when you shift for it.

british_rover

Wow that first right turn looked good. I can just see someone trying that in a period GM or Ford car with the understeering then oversteering into the ditch.

Mr_Shiftright

oh I think a few days with the typical MB floor shift of that era, and you'd love to have your column shifter back. At least that has been my experience. One simply cannot feel the gears at all, and the lever is so thin you are almost afraid of breaking it, while trying to jam the shifter into some general area where a gear might be hiding :P I suppose there are clever ways to tighten all this up, but the MB engineers never seem to have found them. They are even worse than the shifters on Porsche 912s and 914s, and that's BAD.

fintail

I am sure that lever is good German steel, and is very strong :P

I wonder how the later manuals are...I see Euro spec W126 with a manual, and I am somehow intrigued.

bhill2

Oh yeah! And whatever they spiked the Plymouth designers' water cooler with in 1960 had long term effects. The 1961 Plymouth may have been the ugliest car that the big 3 came up with during that entire period, and that's saying something given some of the other stuff that came out.

texases

What's not to like????

andre1969

I've always had a theory that they made the Plymouth ugly in 1960 and 1961 so that people would pay a few bucks more and buy a Dodge Dart! It worked in 1960, when the Dart outsold the big Plymouths by a wide margin. I forget how many big Plymouths were sold, but Dodge ran off around 330,000 Darts that year. However, because of the compact Valiant, Plymouth as a whole still outsold Dodge.

On a similar note, I thought they did the same thing with DeSoto in 1961. Make it ugly enough, and nobody would whine about the division going away...they'd just shut up and buy a Chrysler! They even priced the 1961 DeSoto about $100 higher than equivalent Chrysler Newports, probably as further enticement to get people into a Chrysler. I guess it's a miracle that they even sold 3,000 '61 DeSotos in like 2-3 months. I wonder if they had to offer deep discounts on them?

bhill2

Interesting idea, this 'deliberately ugly' theory. With regard to the '61 Plymouth, however, I wonder even more if the designers at Chevrolet and/or Ford didn't bribe their Plymouth counterparts to do it. The '61 Chevy was no beauty (although it looked good compared to the '60) nor was the '61 Ford (although, well, the same statement applies) but they were howling beauties compared to that Plymouth (kindly but nauseatingly provided by texases above).

texases

Sorry, didn't mean to spoil your lunch :P If you dare, take one more look at it, and imagine the headlights as taillights, and the grille replaced by sheetmetal - it would make a less ugly tail section, it would seem!

andre1969

Actually, I think the '61 Chevy and Ford are pretty attractive. The Chevy has a sporty, flashy sort of flair to it, while the Ford is handsome, in a conservative sort of way. I guess anybody who ended up buying a 1961 Plymouth must have been a true Mopar die-hard! Although in their defense, they did have good engines and transmissions, were decent performers, good handlers (for the time), and fairly roomy. If only you didn't have to look at them!

I just added up the figures real quick, from my old car book. Looks like Plymouth sold about 205K standard-sized cars for 1961, while Dodge sold about 195K Darts. So that year, the Plymouth did pull ahead, but not by much. Truth be told, the Dart was kinda dumpy that year too, but I think the Plymouth was by far the worst offender. But to put it in perspective, Chevy sold about 1.2 million full-sized cars, and Ford was good for around 800,000.

So the big Ford outsold the big Plymouth by about 4:1, while the Chevy's ratio was more like 6:1. That shows how far Plymouth had fallen from their 15 minutes of fame in 1957, where that ratio was only 2:1, probably their best ever.

bhill2

Actually, I think the '61 Chevy and Ford are pretty attractive. The Chevy has a sporty, flashy sort of flair to it, while the Ford is handsome, in a conservative sort of way.

OK, you have a point with the Chevy, although it wasn't my favorite year. With regard to the Ford, I would consider 'handsome, in a conservative sort of way' to be very kind; I think that the looks improved fairly dramatically in '62 and arguably in '63. However, that is a matter of taste. The '61 Plymouth is beyond taste; there isn't anything that approaches (or would want to approach) that one in looks.

andre1969

I always have trouble telling a '61 and '62 Ford apart, although I have a feeling if I saw them both side-by-side, the difference would be noticeable. Didn't the '61 still have a faint vestige of tailfin, but it was totally gone for '62? I think my biggest problem with the '61-62 Ford style is that it just seemed like the greenhouses were too big for the car. The roofs seemed really tall and boxy...too tall. That made the window area huge, but the cars just seemed ill-proportioned. And the 2-door hardtop, with the formal roof, almost looked like a sedan rather than a coupe! Although that fastback style wasn't bad.

I always thought the '63 Ford was a looker though. I liked that concave grille and just a hint of forward thrust. But then, I really didn't care for the fussier style of the '64 as much. We had a '64 Galaxie 4-door sedan when I was a little kid. Granddad got it for us for like $70. I hated it as a kid, but nowadays I'd probably think it was kinda cool.

fintail

Yep, the 61 has small fins and a script in front of the front wheel well.

I like the 63 more than the 64, and I like the oddball 60 too.

explorerx4

i have always liked the '61 impala. i thought it was able to balance a tidy design with some flair(at least for the time). that plymouth looks like the designers had a 12am deadline, and took a few too many nips out of the bottle in their desks, and forgot if they were designing the front or the back. either that, or they lost a big time bet with their gm friday night poker buddies.

lemko

I find the 1961 Chevrolet an extremely attractive car - especially the two-door hardtop. It was easily more attractive than either the 1961 Ford or Plymouth.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm with you, Lem. Most '61 American cars are homely IMO, and those that aren't are not Fords or Chrysler products. It's the CHAOS of the designs that make them homely to my eyes, not any one particular feature---rather, it's the impression that the people who designed the front half of the car never met the people who designed the rest of it, or shared any ideas whatsoever. Lines, angles, curves going every which way, chrome stuck on here and there, badges, goo-gahs. They are like over-decorated birthday cakes.

andre1969

The mechanic that has my Intrepid called me today to let me know that he thinks it's ready, so come & get it. I did, but had to leave my '79 5th Ave there until I could get a ride back up there to get it. When I got back there, it was flanked by a couple of beauties...

1964 Chrysler 300K convertible

1981-83 Imperial.

As for the Intrepid, it made it home with no stalling or stumbling. So hopefully this time it's really fixed. He replaced the camshaft and crankshaft sensors, and also fixed a broken vacuum hose. I was actually surprised to find out that it still even had vacuum hoses...I figured just about everything would be electronic by that time?

andre1969

I always thought GM really had their act together by 1961. I think they're all good looking, but the Caddy and Pontiac are probably my faves.

With Dearborn, I think the Lincolns were beautiful. The Fords weren't bad, in a handsome, conservative sort of way. And even the Mercs weren't too bad, although I don't care for the widely spaced headlights.

Mopar was generally a mess though. I don't think the Chryslers came out too bad looking, although I always thought the slanty headlights were a bit much. And the Dodges weren't that bad, although the reverse-slant tailfins were odd, and helped make for awkward taillights. I've heard them referred to as ingrown toenails! DeSoto, Imperial, and especially Plymouth were a mess though! I think the Valiant/Lancer were okay though, probably the best looking of the bunch. Somehow that flamboyant styling worked on them. Where it didn't work, was on those hastily downsized '62 Plymouths and Dodges that were issued the following year. :sick:

Mr_Shiftright

Yes those Continental were very classic, clean, understated cars (mechanically atrocious, bu that's another story). But a '61 Ford is homely to me and always will be. You can't hardly give one away today either (for good reason IMO).

oregonboy

forgive me, but just for fun, I googled "beautiful 1961".
The following is a smattering of the results,
not necessarily all American cars, in fact, not all cars! :P

Italian:


American (woo-hoo!!)


British:


Italian again:


'merican again (gawd!)


'merican once more!


British x2


one more American


Harley Topper (!?)


British again!


1961 calendar art:


This 1961 American is often cited as "beautiful"


simplicity is beautiful


one more:


:shades: