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

lemko

...I just saw an orange 1972 Plymouth Scamp with a black vinyl top at lunchtime today. The body looked solid, but the top was starting to deteriorate.

jrosasmc

Being a semi-obscure car, why would Mr. John DeLorean choose to build his ill-fated sports car in, of all places, Northern Ireland, where much political/religious turmoil was going on at the time? (late '70s/early '80s)

oregonboy

Built in Ireland because of available labor (high unemployment) and government subsidies... due to the high unemployment. Mostly "it's the money, Honey"

lemko

...about the DeLorean debacle on the History Channel in their "History's Greatest Blunders" series. I recall Canada experienced a similar debacle with the Bricklin sports car in the 1970s.

Mr_Shiftright

Remarkable parallels, lemko, between Mr D. and Bricklin. Both governments got ripped pretty badly on subsidizing very shakey ventures for what I guess were political reasons.

Obscure Car of the Day:
Drove a 1957 Lancia Appia 4 door sedan today. What a lovely little car it was. Narrow angle V-4 engine, 4 speed, aluminum body panels, pillarless suicide doors (so much for Mazda and Saturn "innovation"). Only 1100cc but I got it up to 75 mph and it was humming as if it liked it. Nicely built, too. It had the detail and materials refinement of a car costing much more, as you might expect from a 50s Packard or Cadillac. I would have bought it on the spot at the right price. Unfortunately, it was for sale at the wrong price. Oh, well.

jrosasmc

Gee, you sure are getting a lot of time with Lancias these days? Have you ever driven one of those Scorpions from the late '70s? One made an appearance in the movie "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo."

andys120

a guy at my college had an Appia, I thought it looked very classy for a little (VW Bug-sized) car.

How do you determine value on such a rare bird?

checkme

Do they have the VW Pointer in Brazil? It's for sale in Mexico. Pretty nice car; it looks like a low-budget Golf, which it probably is. It has basically the same lines as a Golf but adds cheap-looking plastic front and rear bumpers.

The fit and finish is extremely impressive. No other economy car looks nearly as good.

fintail

That Lancia sounds awesome, Shifty. Full length sunroof too I bet...i like. I have seen a few of those in British classic punlications...lovely car. Zero market here though I am sure.

Someone at work today drove up in a 66 Olds F-85...that has to be an oddball model, most I have seen are earlier. Not a mint car, but a fairly sound original.

Mr_Shiftright

Well once you meet one Lancia freak they all come out of the woods like zombies who have been summoned. Funny owner group. They hoard parts like they were gold and they never sell anything....but they pretend that they are psychologically ABLE to sell something by putting a ridiculous price on it and then going tsk tsk when no one buys one of their babies...LOL!

How to value an Appia? I haven't a clue. Obscure 4-door cars are generally worthless but this Appia has such obvious curb appeal compared to say a Morris Minor, which honestly looks in fit and finish like an industrial waste container parked next to this jewel-like Lancia...and YET, you probably could get as much for a Morris.

Life isn't fair, I know.

Probably $6,000 is all the money for a really nice one. This one was really nice...strong #2 car.

If it were a Fulvia coupe, a little newer, more modern, faster, sportier, you could get more money.

I'd pay $5K for this one, but not the $9K they were asking. I could buy a restored 50s Benz ponton for that price. Not as charming, but very usable and sturdy.

fintail

Very neat and charming...would make a perfect companion to a ponton

ateixeira

Yeah, they had the Pointer in Brazil for a couple of years.

They also had a clone of the Seat Ibiza (I think?).

-juice

Mr_Shiftright

Anyone remember a car called a Fairlane Cobra?

andys120

but I don't recall what the heck it was. I remember a Torino Cobra which was the hot version of that intermediate sedan, the successor to the Fairlane.

stickguy

my C&D car of the day desk calander just had (or soon will, I tend to "read" ahead) a shot of the hood scoop on a yellow Fairlane on the "guess the model" page. I believe you could read the Cobra Jet script. I thought it was a Torino, but the answer said Fairlane, either a '68 or '69 IIRC.

I need to get a life.

andys120

here's a '69 Fairlane Cobra--

http://www.cars-on-line.com/69ford8039.html

Had I seen this sucker on the road I'd have thought "Torino". Perhaps Andre or someone can tell us what the difference is.

andys120

a road test of the second series Lancia Appia-

http://www.viva-lancia.com/appia/rtabs2.htm

It resembles the one I saw on campus. Check out those suicide doors and how 'bout that 0-60 time of 22.3 sec.

Definitely not fast but interesting and different.

andre1969

Ford just started using the name "Torino" to designate the higher-end versions of their intermediate platform. More basic models were just called "Fairlane", but the nicer ones were Torinos. Just like at Chevy, where the cheaper midsizers were Chevelle 300's or whatever, and the nicer ones were Malibus (or LeMans to Tempest)

I think the Fairlane nameplate was phased out totally for 1970. That year, all the midsizers were Torinos, except for the "1970 1/2" Falcon, which was a strippo model.

I'm guessing the Fairlane Cobra would be kinda like a Plymouth Roadrunner...basically an inexpensive, no frills, all-business musclecar, whereas a Torino would be a bit more luxed up.

andre1969

That Lancia sure wasn't a cheap car, by any means! 3000 bucks! That's about where most middle-priced cars, like Buick, Olds, DeSoto, and Mercury started off!

Hell, 7 years later, my Mom only paid $3200 for a brand-new '66 Catalina!

And wow, it actually does the quarter mile quicker than it does 0-60 ;-)

andys120

High prices definitely limited the sales of Lancias. Did you catch the photo caption refering to the $6000 Lancia Flaminia GT?

Six large was all the money in the world back then--
it would buy an E-type Jag or a 'Vette with every option they made. Needless to say either was a tad faster than any Lancia.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, no chance of competing with US cars of the day on price or performance, but you did get your $3,000 money's worth in quality construction. The car is really a little jewel inside and out. American cars of the day, while infinitely flashier, are crude in construction in comparison. Lots of HP to push big heavy steel.

 You know, different worlds require different machines. A '56 Lancia on an American freeway was ridiculous and a '56 Oldsmobile on Italian mountain roads with Italian fuel prices was ridiculous.

I guess the only thing worth mentioining is that this is not a Fiat--it's a nicely built car, perhaps more like a Volvo 122 in quality, or a Benz 220 of the day.

I didn't get up to 81 mph though, only 78 indicated on the speedo. Still, for most driving, it's not too bad. The trick is "anticipation" when you drive an old car of this vintage.

Frankly, I wouldn't be so worried about keeping up with traffic as being able to stop in time. Even the lowiest Kia can outperform most sports cars of the 50s in braking and acceleration.

BTW, the V-4 in the Lancia was *much* smoother than the one in the Saab 96, the German Ford Taunus engine.

Can't recall other V-4s offhand.

andys120

I couldn't recall any other V-4s either but I'll point out that the Saab 96 and the Ford Taunus used the same (Ford) V-4. It was Saab's first 4-stroker but you knew that, Shifty :^)

Anyone with seat time in a VW Bug knows all about
anticipation (0-60 in 29 sec!)

andre1969

with that kind of acceleration! Back in college my buddy's 1980 Accord, with 3 people on board, would do 0-60 in about 30 seconds. It was pretty scary when trying to do anything that required sudden merging!

From what I've read in Consumer Reports tests, these cars would do 0-60 in about 15 seconds, with a stick shift. No doubt the automatic slowed things down, not to mention 2 passengers in addition to the driver!

I wonder how slow something like that Lancia would be with a full load of passengers (they listed its test weight at about 300 lb more than its base weight, which is either two lightweight passengers on board, or a driver and some test equipment).

andys120

0-60 in about 3 weeks with two or three aboard.

Funny thing is the Bug would do 0-20 as fast as anything, then you had to shift out of first (redline was about 4k IIRC).

jrosasmc

I wonder if those Saab V-4s were durable to last for many miles...

By the way, was a Volvo B18 or B20 engine able to rev up to really high rpms? (5500 or above)

andys120

I doubt it but I imagine they'd handle 5500 rpm.
No doubt power and torque peaked before or near 5000 so it'd be sound and fury with little effect.

Mr_Shiftright

Since the stock camshaft lobes worn down very quickly on those engines, I think 5,500 rpms would be a waste of time in a stock B18 or B20 that has any miles on it. But if you rebuilt it with really serious, quality parts, like IPD cams, Mahle pistons, Vandervell bearings, steel timing gears, a B20E head, a rebuilt distributor, and did some porting and polishing, well you could get a fair amount of higher end power out of it. But stock it's pretty timid---sturdy sucker, though. I never ever saw a B18 or B20 throw a rod.

I bet it would whip an 1100 cc Lancia though, even with a flat camshaft.

Another peculiar thing a B18/20 engine can do is give you excellent compression readings even when the engine is completely worn out. Apparently the top rings won't quit even after the oil rings have given up. It's amazing how well ( if weakly) a totally worn out B18/20 will run.

Another weird thing is that they absolutely hate Champion spark plugs. They would hardly run on them. But they loved NGKs.

ateixeira

Andy: really, you could reach 60? LOL

Try an alcohol-fueled Chevette when it's cold. About zero horsepower if you round it off.

It's funny, it had a manual choke that mixed a little gas with the ethanol that was popular in Brazil. This is circa 1990!

-juice

jlawrence01

hit 65 mph for the first time .... going down a mountain in West Virgina - the one and only time.

ateixeira

I thought you'd need a cliff for that kind of speed...

-juice

Mr_Shiftright

Can you imagine that car at 10,000 feet?

On another obscure topic:

What were those fancy 50s GM pickups called? Was it "Cameo" or something like that? Did Chrysler Corp have one also? I NEVER see those on the road anymore.

andre1969

the Chevy was called the Cameo Carrier. GMC's was called, oddly, the Suburban! They both had fiberglass rear fenders attached to a standard-width pickup bed, and both rode a 114" wheelbase. Both the Cameo Carrier and Suburban came out for '55. I dunno what their last year was, but the book I'm getting this info from is called "Cars of 1957" and shows pics, so they both lasted at least 3 years.

Dodge's approach was a little different. They took a set of rear quarter panels from the 2-door station wagon, fins and all, and welded them to the bed. My book says that they used a long-wheelbase, 1/2 ton truck to create this model, called the "Sweptside", but in the pic the end result still looks pretty stubby. They also used a rear bumper off the station wagon to complete the look.

As for pricing, my book mentions that the Cameo Carrier started at $2273. Sounds cheap when you consider a basic Plymouth, Ford, or Chevy car at the time started around $2,000, but this was still about $500 more than a standard, fender-side Chevy pickup.

Chevy build 2273 (according to this book...kinda weird since that was also the base price!) of the '57 Cameo Carriers. I dunno about the GMC or Dodge models, though.

Ford didn't have a direct competitor to any of these models, but they did have something called the Styleside box, which was just a conventional, full pickup box (as opposed to the more common fender-side, smaller boxes of the time). It wasn't a "special" model though, retailing for the same price as the fender-side models. Oh yeah, that year Ford introduced the Ranchero, so maybe that's why they didn't try to go directly after stuff like the Cameo Carrier, Suburban, and Sweptside.

fintail

I like the Sweptside...fins are just too cool. My dad had a chance to pick up a sound one about 10 years ago for a couple grand. Of course, he passed on it.

andre1969

I think they're all pretty cool, but I think my favorite is the GMC model! GMC made a really good looking truck that year, with a front-end that actually bore a strong resemblance to Cadillac! The Chevy version was ok, but the grille just made it kind of clunky looking in comparison. I guess back then, GMC really was a step up!

I love the Dodge version's bed treatment, but I just never cared too much for the cab/front-end of Dodge trucks from that era. Kinda flat-faced, and the "dogleg" A-pillar isn't as extreme as Chevy/GMC. That's better from a practicality standpoint, but just looks kinda dowdy, style-wise. I guess with the Dodge, it just doesn't seem like that sleek bed really matches the rest of the truck.

Mr_Shiftright

fintail

Yeah those GMCs did have a nice futuristic front, with the modern bumper/grille design and wrap around windshield...must have been very modern for standard conservative truck buyers...it was a gamble I am sure. I think those Dodge's had odd headlights, if I remember right...they just weren't special. Fins on a pickup were cool though.

andre1969

This is actually the same truck that's in my "Cars of 1957" book. I guess the editors of that book just took the easy way out and went to this "57 Heaven" museum and took pics of all the cars there!

Here's the GMC Suburban...

andre1969

even International tried to get in on that "glamour pickup" trend in '57!



Even though it won't win any beauty contests, I think this is actually the most "modern" looking of them all, thanks mainly to the generous amount of glass area, wider-looking cab, and the hood that's not much higher than the fenders.

andre1969

here's a Ford...

Actually, I think this might be the most modern looking of them all. This sucker could almost pass for a '60's truck, with a full-width cab, flat hood, etc.

andys120

Those were gone after 1960.

andre1969

that would look a little dated in the 60's! Still, in Googling around, it looks like Chevy/GMC actually had wraparound windshields through 1963! I couldn't find a pic of a '61 Ford pickup, so I don't know what one looks like, but a '60 looked like the same windshield as the '57, and the '62-66 had what I guess you could call a "semi-wraparound" windshield, similar to a '57-62 Mopar car. Basically, a little wrap around the edges, but nowhere near the "dogleg" just waiting to groin ya! Although I gotta admit, the rear door of my Intrepid did that to me...once. Ouch!!

Mr_Shiftright

Ever see a Hudson pickup?



Yep, they made 'em like that.

lancerfixer

I don't know if it's the camera angle or what, but that Hudson appears to sag in the middle. Oh, and it's uglier than sin, too.

andre1969

at classic car shows. To me, it looks like they just took a passenger car, truncated the cabin, and stuck a pickup bed on it. Considering that Hudson didn't have the resources that Mopar, GM, and Ford had, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they did!

fintail

It's certainly looks like a passenger car front end...wouldn't be surprised if it is just an axed car. Like those "utes" they used to make in Australia

andys120

if it's not parked next to a typical pickup opf it's era (late 40s), then it looks quite good.

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like the bed is not on straight is the problem.

Or it could be an older restoration. Cars restored in the 1950s and 60s weren't done to the fussy standards of restored cars today.

Nowadays a restored American car looks way way better than the factory ever made them. There are stories of totally original cars having points deducted for "defects" in car shows. Kinda funny.

jrosasmc

Just curious to know: In your opinion, which domestic and imported car maker, respectively, had the best build quality in the 1960's?

andys120

but I'd like to get my $.02 on this one. In the 60s GM had the best reputation for quality of the domestics, with Cadillac being their leading brand. VW lead the imports with Volvo not far behind.

Mr_Shiftright

Well if I might be candid here I don't think the terms 1960s and "build quality" go together at all in the case of the domestics, at least if you measure them against what we do today in the US. I'd prefer to answer the question if it were phrased "which domestic automaker made the fewest errors in slamming their cars together?". And then I'd vote for GM products by a long shot, and as all being equal, that is, a Chevy was built as well as a Cadillac as a Buick as a Pontiac as an Oldsmobile,IMO. The only difference with Cadillac is that they used MORE of everything.

As for foreign cars, Mercedes stands out over all in the 60s. This is why they were so expensive, if you check the MSRPs vs. domestics.

By "build quality", I prefer the definition of "how they are bolted together and the quality of the materials used on them".

It has nothing to do with reliability. Lots of beautiful things don't work.

In terms of day to day reliability, I think American cars were the best in the world in the 1960s.

By "reliability" I don't mean "durability"--that's a THIRD characteristic separate in many respects from reliability and from build quality.

I'd define "durability" as a kind of "bull-dog toughness" associated with sheer weight of iron, simplicity and even crudity. Think Dodge Power Wagon.

Sorry to be so long-winded and a bit off topic. Interesting question.