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

andys120

Tradition-schmadition, the first Corvette (which I saw @ the GM Motorama before it was first sold), was a slug that could barely get out of it's own way. The 'Vette didn't really happen until the V8 was introduced in '55 and IIRC the signature color was red-orange with white coves by then.

Mr_Shiftright

You, above all, dissing tradition. Is this the sign of the apocalypse? :P

euphonium

"Tradition - a thing of the past."

Mr_Shiftright

If the truth be known, I'm not much attached to it myself. :shades:

kyfdx

'69 Camaro SS Indy Pace Car.. White w/orange stripes... Looked pretty good..

explorerx4

back in august 1991 i bought a mustang gt convertible.
it was dark green with titanium lower accent paint and a tan convertible top.
the interior was a tan with a dark gray weave in the seats.
that night, i had a nightmare that i would hate that combination after a while.
parked behind the car i bought, was a white gt with black top and interior.
i called the salesman back an split the difference between the 2 cars, which cost me some more, but i have never regretted buying my oxford white mustang.
the colors are just classic.

fintail

Spotted an Audi 200 Quattro wagon today, not many of those survived.

stickguy

I was at target today, and heard a nice rumbling a few aisles over (in the parking lot, not the store).

Of course I drove out that way. Turned out to be a nice looking '67 Camaro SS. White with black double stripes. Seemed to have aftermarket oversized (wider) wheels and tires, but it was hard to get a look at it parked in a slot. Also, from the lumpy (and loud) idle, I don't think it was quite stock. Definiately sounded like a big block, but I didn't see the badging.

uplanderguy

...'71 Caprice Coupe. The first year Chevy really looked Caddy-like to me...although I think the interiors were dumbed-down compared to '70 (lots of black trim; black steering wheel, etc.).

I think this car is a stunner, though...and I know enough about those cars from back then that I totally believe the mileage.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Time-Capsule-Immaculate-4-670-original-mi_W0QQite- mZ160393648096QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item255834d7e0

Bill

andre1969

That '71 Caprice is a gorgeous car. I agree, that it does have a strong Cadillac resemblance up front, which helps make it look a step above something like a competing Ford LTD or Fury VIP. And yeah, the interiors were cheapened a bit compared to the 1970 models, but I think that was the case across the board...even with Cadillac.

One thing that I thought was a step down was when they went to those two-piece door panels where you had the vinyl upper and plastic lower. Probably cheaper to manufacture, since the armrest is built into the plastic, and easy to dress up for the nicer models by gluing the carpeting to the lower part, and insterting the fabric into the upper. But I just thought the older styles, where the whole door panel was one vinyl piece, and then the nicer models would add carpeting at the bottom, fabric at the top,etc. It just had a less plasticky look.

I wonder if GM took any flak for those generic black steering columns? At some point, they did start matching them to the interior again, as my '76 Grand LeMans has a burgundy column, and my 1980 Malibu had a blue one. My '85 Silverado, though, has a black column and a burgundy interior. I guess people didn't care as much, with trucks?

fintail

Wow, that's an impressive piece of preservation. The first thing I noticed was those dual striped bias ply tires. Nice color too....but that rock chip should be touched up.

uplanderguy

The car does not have A/C. I think the auction writeup and photos are excellent, but I would hope those bidding on this car realize there's no A/C. If I wrote the ad, I think I'd have included 'no A/C'.

Too bad the original owner didn't order the Custom Deluxe Seat Belt option. Color-keyed belts with brushed-metal, small buckles.

The '73 Caprice had a color-keyed wheel and column. The '75 and later Impalas and Caprices had a color-keyed cluster.

There is also a '73 light yellow Caprice convertible on eBay with 3,270 miles. But I dislike the '73's bumpers, and that they ran the bodyside molding up over the front wheel opening that year ('74 too). Plus, for some reason, Caprice convertibles had Impala seats and door trim. Not sure why, because Caprice coupes and sedans could be had with vinyl Caprice seat trim...just not the convertibles.

I think this '71 is beautiful.

Bill

berri

That '71 Caprice is a gorgeous car

That was a good year for sure, but I actually preferrerd the less formal Impala coupe roofline.

uplanderguy

To each his own, I guess. You sure saw fewer Sport Coupes in those years. I always felt the Sport Coupe's roof looked too small for the rest of the body.

Mr_Shiftright

I sorta miss those big old boats. I can still remember how you closed the hoods on them. First you made sure everyone was out of the way---something like "clear the prop" before starting an airplane---and then you reached way up on your toes to grap that virtual 4 X8 sheet of steel. Then, bending your knees slightly, you hung off the edge of the hood, like a gorilla pulling down a branch to grap the fruit, and slowly, it started to cave towards you, like a wall of rock avalanching off a mountain. Gingerly you stepped back, lest you be decapitated, and usually you, and most of the neighbors, flinched as the sharp KAH-LUNK! reverberated down the block.

Sometimes, you would mistakenly leave some item in the engine bay, like a plastic funnel or the dipstick, and it would be smashed as if Godzilla were stepping on a car.

andre1969

That was a good year for sure, but I actually preferrerd the less formal Impala coupe roofline.

I actually like both of the rooflines, so with me it would be hard to pick a favorite. I think my favorite of that generation is the 1972 Impala. Probably partly because my grandparents had one when I was a kid and I really liked it, but I just like the clean, smooth front-end that year. Not as pretentious and wanna-be-Caddy as the 1971 (although I can see the appeal of that, too), but not as fussy as the '73, which was also a bit marred by the big front bumper.

andre1969

but this '72 Electra looks like a nice battlecruiser.

berri

...and its 70's brown too!

berri

I always felt the Sport Coupe's roof looked too small for the rest of the body.

Yeah, that observation is probably valid, but I just liked something about its C-pillar and the backseat windows. I was never as keen on the formal coupe look GM did starting in the mid to late 60's. Maybe I'm just prejudiced because I thought the 66 Caprice ruined the fastback 65 Impala coupe lines! I think Chevy was smart though, because more buyers liked the formal, vinyl roofline on the coupe which did make it look a tad more upscale. Hek, I wouldn't kick it out of the garage!

fintail

The color combination does a lot for that car. If it was brown on brown, it wouldn't look so nice. Being a small bumper variant of that general design helps too - small bumpers almost always look worlds better. The brocade cloth adds something too.

An interesting design feature is the vents on the trunklid. Did these have an actual purpose? They look like something that could be related to a prehistoric 40s-50s AC system.

imidazol97

>interesting design feature is the vents on the trunklid.

I don't see the vents on the trunk lid. I see a CB antenna type mount in the middle of the front edge of the lid.

fintail

These things...they do have their own coolness, especially in combination with the curved glass. Nice to see a relatively normal and average car still trying to be interesting.

andre1969

Yeah, those vents are functional...that's how GM did their flow-through ventilation that year. However, people complained that it made the cars feel too drafty, so for 1972 they moved the vents into the doorjamb.

andre1969

Well for comparison, here's a '72 Impala sport coupe, with the faster roof...


I certainly wouldn't kick it out of the garage! BTW, did the Impala Custom give you any kind of interior upgrades, or just the different C-pillar?

I can see the point about the sport coupe's roof looking a bit too small for the overall body, but I think that's because I'm used to seeing the Custom coupe. I guess by 1971-73, it was the more common of the two roofs? For some reason though, when I see that roof on an even bigger car, like a Delta 88, LeSabre, Catalina, or Bonneville, it just doesn't seem out of place to me...


The Bonneville was on a lanky 126" wb that year, compared to the Impala's 121.5, and overall length was something like 226.2" versus 221".

Here's a 1972 LeSabre sporting that same roof...


Now that I look at those three pics above, I think I see why the Impala is a bit awkward. The beltline under the rear quarter windows kicks up a bit to meet the C-pillar on the Impala, while it comes back more level on the other cars, before kicking back forward. Maybe that gives the illusion of more length?

oregonboy

Such strange, silly cars... let's all sent a small "thank you" to the automotive gods that those dark times are behind us. :P

andys120

Such strange, silly cars... let's all sent a small "thank you" to the automotive gods that those dark times are behind us.

Amen brotha!

uplanderguy

Those 'strange, silly cars' were far-and-away America's best-selling automobiles that year...although it's the lesser Impala model that was the best-selling nameplate, in 1971, back to 1960, and probably into the late '70's if not later. They were ubiquitous--like today's snoozemobile Accords and Camrys, only with more character.

I'm old enough to remember riding in one on a long trip...and not feeling cramped or exhausted when you got there. And the center seating position was for real people, not preschoolers.

Personally, although I liked our '77 Impala better than our '74, I miss those days.
'

andre1969

I'm old enough to remember riding in one on a long trip...and not feeling cramped or exhausted when you got there. And the center seating position was for real people, not preschoolers.

That's the thing...back in those days, these big cars had to be a jack-of-all-trades. A car, minivan, SUV, and half-ton pickup all rolled into one. Those things had to be able to carry 6 people and their luggage, plus pull a trailer. Nowadays, it's much more common to have a multiple-car family so you can buy a variety of vehicles to fit assorted niches, but in those days, often one car had to do everything.

Personally, although I liked our '77 Impala better than our '74, I miss those days.

One problem with downsizing was that it often increased the measurements they use to calculate interior volume, but it caused other problems where it really counts...intrusion of the driveshaft/transmission hump, which can render the center spot useless. Less foot room under the seats for back seat passengers. How far the wheel wells cut into the car. How badly the sides curve in, the dash juts out, etc. All those things affect how you fit in the car, but don't have any bearing on shoulder room, headroom, or legroom...the components they use to calculate interior room.

Plus, these days a lot of cars get a good deal of their volume from the headroom measurement. In fact, that's how the Taurus became a "full sized" car back in 2000. In that restyle, car gained about an inch of headroom up front, a few inches in back, and a foot of trunk space. I think it was just enough to bump interior volume from 101 cubic feet to 105, and trunk space from 16 to 17. Well, if a car has more than 120 cubic feet combined, it gets classified as full-sized. So even though the Taurus didn't get any more shoulder room, for better 3-across seating, or more legroom, the EPA still ended up putting it in the same league as some of the biggest battlecruisers to ever roam the streets. And that headroom increase? Well, personally I didn't have a problem in the front seat of the 1996-99 Taurus to begin with. And in back, the sides curve in so bad I have to lean inward or else the my head hits, so they must have taken that headroom measurement in some useless spot!

I guess it can be argued that 3-across seating isn't really that critical these days. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I had 3 people across in any one of my cars. I did it in my 2000 Intrepid years ago for a family get-together, and I remember everybody remarking at how roomy it felt. And these days, I'd really rather just take two cars instead of jamming everyone into one car. But still, I do miss the stretch-out room of those older cars, and the nice, soft fabrics and vinyls and such they used. Frankly, some people may not give a damn, but it's sorta like having your own personal Tara on wheels! :P

**Edit: As for sales back in those days, Chevy combined sales of all their full-sized models, under the heading of simply "Chevy". So in that sense, the big Chevies were the most popular cars in the early 1970's. If you go just by individual models and trim levels, I think the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe took top honors. I think the Cutlass lineup (everything from Salon to Supreme in coupes, sedans, and wagons) was the top seller for 1975-76, but the big Chevies took over again for 1977-79. The Citation got it for 1980, the Cutlass lineup again for 1981, and then I think it was the Escort for 1982.

The big Chevies outsold the big Fords (which were also combined under "Ford") usually by a pretty big margin, and the Plymouth Fury lineup by an even bigger one. I think the Impala became the most popular big Chevy back in 1960, when it surpassed the Bel Air. It would remain so through 1976, although in 1977 the Caprice started outselling the Impala, and would increase that margin over the years, especially once the Impala started dropping some body styles. In final-year 1985, it was down to just a 4-door sedan, probably sold mainly as police cars and taxis, and moved about 55,000 units. In contrast, the Caprice, a full lineup, probably moved around 200K plus.

andre1969

I notice that in my previous post, the Impala sport coupe isn't showing up (at least, not for me). So here's another picture, of a 1972 Impala Sport Coupe. It's a big pic, so be warned! It also shows how the beltine kicks up under the rear quarter window, better than my other pic did, as it was more pixellated. I think that little kick-up makes the car look a bit fatter than the other cars, where the beltline is level back to the C-pillar.

imidazol97

>These things

I though the post was about the Buick!

EBay

andys120

They were ubiquitous--like today's snoozemobile Accords and Camrys, only with more character.

I don't think they had much character, they were as bland as the product designers could possibly make them and they weren't all that relaxing to drive IMO. I found it quite tiring on a trip to deal with the marshmallow ride and the willowy steering.

As for "riding the hump", on anything but a short hop, it was awful. Six people can ride more comfortably in a Minivan than they ever could in a '70s Impala. I never could understand the rational for only two doors on a supposedly six-passenger car.

stickguy

well, from what you described as the "mission" of the battlecruisers, it sounds liek the people justifying oversized SUVs. Other than the fact that for the vast majority of people (the ones that don't tow large trailers) a Minivan is way more functional.

an Odyssey or Sienna can haul 6 people + a ton of stuff in great comfort, or carry as much stuff as a pick up.

Mr_Shiftright

There is an amazing amount of wasted space on these big coupes. Styling is but one aspect of what we might call "good design". Compared to what came later in the 70s, and the Dreadful Eighties, they weren't bad on styling at all IMO, but in terms of allocation of resources, sensible planning, and handling and braking competence, they were pretty mediocre pieces of work.

They are in a sense, a perfect example of what happens when your products have no real competition. You get lazy and stupid.

fintail

Yeah the Buick lost most of the Impala's coolness...retaining a brocade interior might be one of its few remaining pieces of interest.

That blue Chevy has some of the last vestiges of late 60s modernism, which was lost when things really bloated up and got pretentious as the 70s wore on.

imidazol97

Now that I've figured out which air vents were meant...

I always wondered how they handled the water draining into those vents.

ghulet

.....those goofy 'air vents' didn't handle water well at all (I had a '71 Electra), which is why that 'feature' was phased out after its first year. They rusted almost immediately, causing lots of warranty work for GM.

boomchek

That's the best hood closing story I ever read. Thanks!

fintail

Yesterday I attended a little modern European car gathering. There weren't many cars, a couple dozen perhaps, but a few oddities. There were 3 190E 2.3-16s, including one which was really pristine, along with a late 190E Sportline. There were also 2 W124 500Es, my W210 E55, another W210 E55, an oddball W124 260E with a driver who wants a W210 E55 and a 1997 E420 sport which is kind of unusual too. Other oddballs were a red Saab 900 Turbo, an Audi turbo quattro, an insane custom turbo M6, and a customized VW Rabbit. There were also cars which were "normal" - slightly modified M3s and Audis. and I was surprised that a few people really liked my car, and also that the W210 has some younger enthusiasts - as it isn't known to be MB's brightest day.

dieselone

That's the thing...back in those days, these big cars had to be a jack-of-all-trades. A car, minivan, SUV, and half-ton pickup all rolled into one. Those things had to be able to carry 6 people and their luggage, plus pull a trailer. Nowadays, it's much more common to have a multiple-car family so you can buy a variety of vehicles to fit assorted niches, but in those days, often one car had to do everything.

That is definitely true. My grandpa always had a boat and a camper and he never owned anything but large coupes and or sedans. He towed a 22' camper numerous times from Indiana to Florida with a '75 Buick Regal. He had to add air shocks, a trans cooler, and a good Reese weight distributing hitch with sway control.

When he wore out the Regal and replaced it with an '83 Olds 88, he sold the camper and the boat. I don't think that Olds really could have handled a 23' camper weighing nearly 5k with the 307 v8 and tall gearing. Plus I don't think he wanted to ruin the ride of the Olds either. By that time he was pretty much done camping and boating.

Today, I have a 25' camper and a 21' boat to haul around. A 1/2 ton truck/SUV is the minimum to tow the camper today. It's about 6klbs loaded. Then add people and gear to the tow vehicle and you really need something with 7k lbs+ tow capacity to safely haul it. My boat is about 4,500lbs and can be towed with most midsize SUVs and some crossovers.

A minivan certainly has the most usable layout and is the way to go for family duty. But for those of us that tow a lot, a 1/2 ton truck/SUV is really needed. Another thing that greatly impacts towing ability is wheelbase. My Expedition is rated to tow 9k lbs, but in no way can it safely tow a 32' 8k lb travel trailer. With that kind of trailer length you need something with a wheel base well over 130" to safely tow. The 119" of my Expedition is marginal for my camper.

Just like many vehicles, boats and campers have gotten bigger and heavier too. Back in the 70's the average boat was 18' at best, had a much lighter outboard engine and might have weighed 2,500lbs max. Today the average boat sold is probably 21'-23' with an iron block/head v8 i/o (engine and drive of a 305 or 350v8 and outdrive is a 1,000lbs alone) and easily weighs 4-5,000lbs. These weights include the trailer.

Same with campers. During the 60's & 70's you rarely saw campers over 23' or so. Most people had pop-ups or a conventional camper of 20-23' max that didn't have slide-outs which add a lot of weight. How many 5th wheel trailers did you see on the road during the 70's? Very few. Now, in the spring and fall when the snow birds head to and from the South, it's nothing to see several 35' plus 5th wheels being towed with a 3/4 or 1 ton crew cab diesel p/u.

Very few of those "battlecruisers" from the 60's & 70's could safely tow a 6,000lb camper. The big block isn't the problem, but the tall gear ratio and super soft suspension isn't going to cut it.

Now today, you do see a lot of light weight pop-ups being marketed to sell to the midsize SUV/ minivan crowd. Still, a family of 5 plus gear really limits what most minivans can tow. Even a minivan with a 3,500-4,000lb tow rating can only safely tow 2,500-3,000lbs max after you deduct the weight of the people and gear from the GCWR (gross combined vehicle weight rating) of the van.

Mr_Shiftright

Probably the *only* closing hood story you'll ever hear. :P

The most dangerous hoods are actually older Mercedes.

andre1969

well, from what you described as the "mission" of the battlecruisers, it sounds liek the people justifying oversized SUVs. Other than the fact that for the vast majority of people (the ones that don't tow large trailers) a Minivan is way more functional.

Well, one problem I've always had with minivans, and SUV's for that matter, is since those 2nd and 3rd row seats are meant to be removed, folded, stowed, or wheatever, they compromise comfort considerably. It might still be better than cramming three people across, but still far from perfect IMO. And I tend to find the front seat comfort of minivans to be a bit lacking. I know they've improved over the years, but still too van-like for my tastes, where you might sit up high, but the seat just doesn't go back far enough.

But yeah, for the most part, I'd say a minivan IS more practical than your typical 70's battlecruiser of days gone by. Just be careful though, because they're easier to overload since you DO have more volume. The GVWR on a 2010 Sienna, for example, is 5690 lb. Curb weight is 4295, for a spread of 1395 lb. In comparison, the GVWR of my '76 LeMans, a midsize coupe, is 5622 lb. Base weight is something like 3870 lb, although I'm sure optioned up the way it is, and with a/c, it's easily 4,000 lb.

A minivan probably is the most versatile vehicle today, though. While SUVs have that rugged, macho image, often they end up with a lower cargo rating than a minivan!

andre1969

The most dangerous hoods are actually older Mercedes.

Back over the summer, when my mechanic had my '76 LeMans in for about a week, he smacked his head on the hood latch enough times that he ended up taking it off! On this car, the sharp part of the latch is on the underside of the hood, and the part where it latches into is on the header. I think most cars were like that back then, but every other old car I've owned had a hood that opened up higher, so it wasn't an issue.

andre1969

Very few of those "battlecruisers" from the 60's & 70's could safely tow a 6,000lb camper. The big block isn't the problem, but the tall gear ratio and super soft suspension isn't going to cut it.


Oh yeah, they couldn't do it stock...even in those days you really had to order a towing package that got you quicker gearing, the tranny and oil cooler, etc. I don't know about the older 60's car, but the '71-76 GM full-sizers and the '74-78 Mopar C-bodies could be equipped to tow up to 7,000 lb. I had a great-uncle who had a 1974 Impala coupe (can't remember now if it was the hardtop or the one with the stationary windows that came out that year) with a 400, and he regularly towed a 30-foot Terry trailer with it. I dunno how much something like that would've weighed back then...maybe 4-5,000 lb?

I think GM's '73-77 intermediates could be equipped to tow up to 4,000 lb. I want to say the downsized '77-90 models could tow up to 5,000 lb, but I wonder if that was the earlier ones? Once the 350's 400's, and 403's were purged, and Caddy went to that little aluminum thing, I can't imagine these cars were good for towing much. Same with the big Fords. Could a 302 with 129-150 hp, depending on the year, really tow anything? Chrysler's towing package on the 1979-80 R-body consisted of the 195 hp copcar engine, Torqueflite 727 transmission, and 9 1/4 rear-end with a 3.23:1 axle ratio. Once that engine went away, I couldn't see the 318 being good for much, although I guess if they put a 727 tranny and the big rear-end with short gearing, it might do okay, just wouldn't get you there too fast.

With most FWD cars, isn't towing capacity usually limited to about 1000-2000 lb?

fintail

A lot of FWD cars around here seem barely able to haul around their own bodywork.

What are the dangerous MB hoods, Shifty? For the radiator shell sticking down, inviting you to slam your head into it over and over?

toomanyfumes

I can't remember which car, either my '73 Impala or '69 Buick, the hood springs were rusty and tight, and if you weren't careful to pull down on the middle of the hood, the hood was actually bending in half because it was so long.

uplanderguy

So in that sense, the big Chevies were the most popular cars in the early 1970's. If you go just by individual models and trim levels, I think the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe took top honors.

I am not certain, but pretty certain, that the Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe didn't really just take off like a jet until the '73 model year (opera window and all). I feel certain that the Impala 4-door sedan (pillared) was most-likely the best-selling single-model American car from 1960 through 1974 or 1975. Besides being the family-car choice of middle-America, it was a fleet 'darling' too and I doubt the Supreme coupe was. I do remember the Cutlass Supreme series taking over the Number 1 spot in 1976; then the excellent full-size Chevys taking over again in '77.

One other great thing about cars back then: Choice. It used to be that you would NEVER see an exact duplicate of a car. Fifteen or more color choices were the norm, with five or six interior colors. Options weren't sold in packages so you could really 'custom tailor' a car. There were usually three trim levels in whatever car you were looking at. Starting around the mid or late '80's is when I first saw identical cars in every way, priced identically, parked next to each other on local new-car lots. I hate that.

Bill

dieselone

I dunno how much something like that would've weighed back then...maybe 4-5,000 lb?

I'd have to say more than that, maybe closer to 6k-7k lbs. My 25 footer with two slides and a/c etc is about 5,600 empty.

I think GM's '73-77 intermediates could be equipped to tow up to 4,000 lb. I want to say the downsized '77-90 models could tow up to 5,000 lb, but I wonder if that was the earlier ones? Once the 350's 400's, and 403's were purged, and Caddy went to that little aluminum thing, I can't imagine these cars were good for towing much. Same with the big Fords. Could a 302 with 129-150 hp, depending on the year, really tow anything? Chrysler's towing package on the 1979-80 R-body consisted of the 195 hp copcar engine, Torqueflite 727 transmission, and 9 1/4 rear-end with a 3.23:1 axle ratio. Once that engine went away, I couldn't see the 318 being good for much, although I guess if they put a 727 tranny and the big rear-end with short gearing, it might do okay, just wouldn't get you there too fast.

Most of those cars could probably handle 3k-4klbs OK as they at least had a decent amount of torque. I know the '92 to maybe '05 CrownVic could be equipt to tow 5klbs. I think that included a higher gear ratio, rear air suspension, dual exhaust, h/d cooling etc, but I think that package was discontinued around '05 or so.

IIRC, the last car that could really tow would have been the last of the full-size D platform Fleetwood. I think those could be equipt to tow near 6-7lbs with the 350 LT1 and tow package. The B-Body Caprice/Roadmaster could do some decent towing too. Particularly with the 5.7.

I don't think the 318 was much good for anything other than being durable. My FIL had a 318 in a late 80's 3/4 ton Ram van. Man, that is probably one of the most gutless vehicles I've ever driven. It was painfully slow towing his bass boat that might have weighed 3k lbs.

I'm sure with EPA regulations etc, it's about impossible to have a car that can tow anything. I don't think any car today is rated to tow more than a 1k lbs.

dieselone

One other great thing about cars back then: Choice. It used to be that you would NEVER see an exact duplicate of a car. Fifteen or more color choices were the norm, with five or six interior colors. Options weren't sold in packages so you could really 'custom tailor' a car. There were usually three trim levels in whatever car you were looking at. Starting around the mid or late '80's is when I first saw identical cars in every way, priced identically, parked next to each other on local new-car lots. I hate that.

Yeah, can't do that with to many cars these days unless it's a very expensive one. But you can do it with full-size trucks. The option list on them is a mile long. Probably can't get as many colors as back in the 70's, but you still have multiple choices for engines, wheel base, cab layout, and then misc. features. Still even with the trucks, lots of things grouped into packages, you certainly can't order much ala cart these days.

bhill2

Options weren't sold in packages so you could really 'custom tailor' a car.

Oh yeah, you sometimes came across some really interesting combinations. At one point my childhood best friend had a late '60s Dodge wagon with a 383, automatic, air, and various other options, but without power steering or brakes.

What was the most useful thing about the options back then, however, was that you would have your choice of five or more engines (if you included carburetor options), at least three transmissions (3-speed with or without overdrive, an automatic or two, and maybe a 4-speed), and about six available axle ratios. It really gave you a chance to tailor your car to your intended use.

dieselone

How many people actually ordered a car? I guess it goes both ways, if your not paying attention you could end up with a " '60s Dodge wagon with a 383, automatic, air, and various other options, but without power steering or brakes. "

I imagine most people bought what the dealer ordered and they probably ordered inventory with standard options they new most people would want and be willing to pay for.