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

explorerx4

slowww

fintail

$4K in 1906 would have bought a very comfortable house in most locations. That thing is priced between a Rolls and a Bentley today.

It's crazy how quickly things changed in the past. A 10 year old car today can look and drive like a brand new car. In the past, a 10 year old car looked like something from the stone age. And a revolutionary design like a Mercedes Simplex or 1912 Caddy trickled down quickly, given the information sharing technology of the time. Within a few years everyone saw the influence.

fintail

Malaise was drawing to a zenith...cars with 100hp V8s and performance that could barely beat my fintail. I am glad that was before my time :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

Technology developed in wartime, both WWI and WWII, accelerated car development tremendously, if not in the actual mechanism, certainly in production methods.

One big problem in pre WWI cars was body strength. They wanted to give people more room and a better ride but lengthening the wheelbase made the cars very heavy, clumsy and slow. And stopping them? Forget it.

It takes guts to drive a 1915 car at 70 mph.

imidazol97

I saw a Mercedes-Benz something like this one Saturday. It sagged on its springs some. I could swear there was chrome trim on the fin. The model number on the rear was unreadable for me from the Shell gas pump but I am sure it had three letters after the number.

There aren't many Mercedes for sale on Ebay to try to find a closer match.

EBay listing



I am sure it did not have amber parking lights on the front. There wasn't really rust showing.
The car came out of a dead end road from a light industrial area at 11:30 on Saturday morn along with other cars looking like workers leaving a short work day. I'm tempted to make time tomorrow and drive around the few streets and see if I spot it in the parking lots.

andre1969

on the big-car front, the following year MT tested a Caprice, Gran Fury, and LTD. I don't know if the actual test is on line (probably is, somewhere), but here are the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times...

Caprice 400: 0-60 in 12.8 seconds, 1/4 mile in 17.0
LTD 460: 0-60 in 11.3 seconds, 1/4 mile in 18.2
Gran Fury 400: 0-60 in 12.2 seconds, 1/4 mile in 18.2

I forget now which car they picked as the winner. IIRC, they might have just been purposefully vague about it and said that each of the cars had its strengths and weaknesses, and that the "best car" would vary depending on what your needs were.

In 1973, someone tested a Caprice with the 454, and it managed 0-60 in 8.7 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 17.0. So, if you picked the right engine, cars could still be kinda fast. I'm sure a '76 454 would've been slower, though; a combination of lower hp and those disgustingly tall axle ratios they started using.

I also remember Consumer Reports testing a 1972 Impala with a 350-2bbl, and got 0-60 in 12 seconds. Next year they tested a 1973 Mailbu with a 350-2bbl, and got 0-60 in 12.5 seconds. I guess that's an indication of how the engines were getting strangled, if a lighter, smaller 1973 car ended up being slower than the larger, heavier 1972.

fintail

If it had fins, it was a fintail...chrome on top the fins means it was a higher line W111 or W112 car. It could have been a 220S/SE, 230S, or a 300SE. If the chrome was only on the back of the fin, it was likely a W111 220 - an odd but not desirable model. The rear ends can get a little saggy, they have an odd swing axle setup with a compensator spring that can fail.

The key to what you saw is the headlights. 2 round lights makes it a W110, 4 lights or large flush lights makes it a W111/112. No models usually had three letters after the number, but I think some of the late LWB W112 300SE cars were badged that way (300SEL), that would be an extremely rare car, and fairly sought after, although not worth a fortune.

That auction car is also an oddball, it's a lowline platform car with a 6cyl engine. That's a "second series" fintail made from 1965-8.

fintail

Was fuel injection a wartime development? IMO it's one of the key revolutions in automotive tech.

Body strength is also hampered by a wooden structure, and wooden wheels make driving at any higher speed a game of Russian roulette.

fintail

I saw a few oddities this afternoon - obviously restored 65 GTO, MG Midget, a couple 70s Porsches, 62 Galaxie 2 door HT, 60s VW bus, restored 60s Beetle, Buick Grand National driving with t-tops off, and something that would have made lemko and maybe Andre drool...a pristine 68 Caddy Fleetwood sedan, kind of a blue green with black vinyl top. In gorgeous condition, wearing year of manufacture plates.

texases

I don't know if no cars had it, but Daimler had fuel injection on their V12 aero engine used in the Bf-109. Direct injection was used in WWII, too, both sides.

Mr_Shiftright

Fuel injection was used in diesel engines way back in the 1920s and a few race cars tried direct gasoline injection in the 1940s (both electronic and mechanicao), but the first production gasoline injection system was used on the Goliath in 1952 and of course the first truly successful system was the Mercedes Gullwing in 1955 or so.

lemko

Ugh! I lived it! My Dad had a 1981 Ford Thunderbird Town Landau with a puny 255 cid V-8 with all of 115 hp. I had to floor it to get it up a hill!

lemko

Spotted a very rusty 1970 Chevrolet Malibu two-door hardtop and an extremely rusty 1970 Chevrolet El Camino side by side outside a garage on Rte 309 outside Montgomeryville, PA. There was barely anything left of the El Camino. It looked like it sat at the bottom of a river for 30 years. Both these heaps had "For Sale" signs on them.

fintail

We can be thankful technology and innovation was able to overcome those days, and that we have had a new performance era. I am sure the vision people had in 1981 of cars in 2010 was not positive.

Mr_Shiftright

My recollection was that in the early 1980s Americans reacted in two ways: 1) they started collecting 60s cars because they were *so* much more interesting and fun and 2) they looked to foreign manufacturers to save them from utter boredom and depression. Most of we car nuts at the time took some heart with the BMW 635 CSi and the Buick Regal Turbo, but a few years earlier in time was grim.....*very* grim.

fintail

So maybe ca. 1975-76 was kind of a pinnacle of lameness?

lemko

In the early 1980s, I drove a 1968 Buick, so I guess you can put me in the first category. Who knows? Maybe the fact that early '80s cars were so awful so many '60s cars survived?

lemko

Pinnacle? I'd say more the nadir of lameness, though I'd pinpoint 1981-82 as that point.

stickguy

Both outside repair shops, but with plates.

a 1972ish challenger. Looked nice and clean. Dark brown/gold,with a"power" hood with the ci #s on it in red (could not read them). Maybe a 383 still at that point.

And a later road runner (maybe a '75?) with the smooth painted rear bumper. In neon yellow. Only saw this one from the back.

And alongside the belt parkway (in front of a shop that was practically on the shoulder) was a 1971 or 72 mustang fastback with a custom flamey paint job. I alwayalways like those.

fintail

At least in 1981-2 I could buy a nice W126 or a good BMW etc...although most couldn't afford those rides and would be saddled with a K car or a Citation, or if they were lucky a LTD or Caprice. Around 1976 the domestic barges put out no power, and the Euros too were stuck with horrible matings of low tech emissions equipment to engines that didn't want it, and in the case of MB, ridiculous huge bumpers. My real large-scale attention given to the new car world didn't develop until around 1985-86...and by then things were slowly looking up. Lucky me...although the late 80s and early 90s were pretty dull.

andre1969

So maybe ca. 1975-76 was kind of a pinnacle of lameness?

I'd expand that period to more like '73-76, with a momentary bright spot from '77-79, only to crash again in '80-82.

Performance did start dying out in 1971-72, but for the most part this first wave was at the top end with the highest performance models. If you were looking for more everyday cars, like something with a Mopar 318 or a Chevy 350-2bbl, performance wasn't really any different whether the 318 had 230 hp gross or 150 net, or the Chevy engine had 255 gross or 165 net. Although in cases where they started playing around with gearing, adding weight, etc, that would cause some performance drop.

But then in 1973-74, they really started choking off the cars and you saw an hp drop, in just about ALL cars, not just the most powerful. And this was when weight really started going up, with the heavy crash bumpers, bulky new styles like GM's '73 intermediates or Ford's '73 full-sizers, etc. Still, there were some pretty potent engines around. Pontiac had a Super Duty 455 in 1973 that put out 290-310 hp, depending on the car. I think Olds was still making a 300 hp 455, and Chevy's 454 still had around 275 hp I think. And Mopar still had some obscenely powerful big-blocks.

In 1975, with the advent of the catalytic converter, supposedly cars started improving again. Driveability was better, they were easier to start, less prone to stalling out and sputtering, and they got better fuel economy and a bit better performance. Unfortunately, at the same time, the really big high-power engines were history. Most big-blocks were just torquey boat-anchor lumps with around 180-220 hp. Good for moving a heavy car or towing a trailer, but not good for moving anything very fast.

In 1977, there was a bit of a reprieve, with downsizing, which took a lot of weight off the cars, yet in many cases you could still get a fairly big engine.

Unfortunately, for 1980, they started dropping a lot of the bigger engines, and tightening emissions/fuel economy standards meant a drop in power again. And the rudimentary computer systems of the era only added to the mess.

By 1983 though, I think things were really starting to improve. GM finally realized that those tiny 260, 265, and 267 V-8's were pointless, and just went with 305's and 307's. The Ford Mustang GT's 302 only had something like 175 hp, but that was probably more than it had been allowed to have in over a decade. Ford and GM were also starting to get the kinks worked out of their 4-speed automatics, and even in cases where hp didn't go up, often performance still did, simply because the emissions controls, transmissions, and such, were beginning to work like they should.

And ever since then, I think things have generally improved...although it was quite common for a new product to be troublesome its first year or so out (1985 Electra/98/DeVille, 1986 Taurus/Sable, 1993 Intrepid/Concorde/Vision, and plenty of other examples)

andys120

I spotted a very sweet 1956 Ford Victoria, Turquoise over White with fender skirts and dual rear fender antennae in restored condition. This was a pillarless hardtop Victoria, not the Crown Vic with the b-post and chrome band going over the roof.

ghulet

but any '68 Buick, even any with lesser engines, were *way* better than anything built in '75. The cars themselves, and the running gear, were superior.

ghulet

those are super-pretty cars, IMO.

fintail

Must have been a tough time to be an enthusiast...luckily 60s cars were plentiful, I guess.

How many hp did the average Caddy 500 put out? Or a mid 70s Ford 460, like in the bloated T-Bird my mother drove back in the day?

I know 75-76 MB V8s are generally to be avoided for numerous reasons...I think nobody was exempt from the malaise.

tjc78

On a 76 Mark IV with a 460 it was 212 HP and 356 T. A 1976 Eldorado with the 500 was 190/400.

andre1969

When the 500 first came out, for 1971 I think, in the Eldorado, it had 365 hp gross. I forget what that turned into when the net ratings came out, but by 1976 that engine was down to 190 hp with a 4-bbl, and 215 with fuel injection. I wonder how reliable Caddy's fuel injection was in those days...would you have been better off with just the 4-bbl?

I think the Ford 460 actually remained somewhat powerful up through the end. I think it also had 365 hp gross when it came out, which translated to 235 net. By 1978, I think it was down to 210-215, but I don't think it ever dipped below 200.

Mopar still had a pretty powerful 440 big-block out in 1978, but I think it was only available in police cars. It had 245 hp, and would move a Fury or Monaco from 0-60 in about 9.2 seconds, with the somewhat conservative testing methods the Michigan State Police used (average of a 2-way run to compensate for wind, two cops in the car, and just normal taking off...no holding the brake, revving up the engine, and then letting 'er rip, etc) I'm sure if you threw that engine in a Magnum or Cordoba and gave it to Motortrend or C&D, they would've gotten a better time out of it.

boomchek

I'm surprised the scammers are still pulling the same scam years after it's been exposed. Are there idiots out there who still fall for that?

Strong bids on some of your selections. The "superhero" armored car is interesting.

fintail

Oh yeah, torque. It saved the day!

fintail

The scams must work or the scammers would give up. I have noticed an uptick in 419-style scam emails lately.

garv214

Yeah, I pretty much remember it as Andre did. My high school hot rod was a 1968 Olds Cutlass (350 4bbl) which ran rings around anything from the mid 70s early 80s. It wasn't terribly fast, by today's standards though (1/4 mile = 16.5 at 85 mph).

I remember things started to turn around in 1982 with the redesigned Mustang and the New Camaro coming out (although you could get the Camaro with a 4 cyl...ugh...). The 1984 corvette came out in 1983, and the fun started to return again.

I am often amazed at how unimpressed the magazine writers are about modern performance. Most modern 4 cyls would have embarrassed my 68 Olds, I don't think my fragile 18 year-old male ego would have handled it too well running neck and neck with a Scion Xd down the 1/4... :mad:

kyfdx

Changed from gross to net in '72....

460 Lincoln..
'71 = 335 hp
'72 = 230 hp

Same output, though.. that's mostly from memory..

302 V-8 2 bbl, in a '77 Cobra II? 135 hp..

I'd put the pinnacle of crappiness from '75-'77... For domestics, that might extend a little farther... the imports starting really coming on in the late '70s.

Mr_Shiftright

I'd tend to extend the Crappiness Era to about 1982.

explorerx4

last week motor trend, then car and driver started posting mustang/camaro (plus others occasionally) comparison articles from their archives. i read a few of them and really enjoyed it.

ghulet

(though I was born in the '60s, barely)....first car was a '71 Buick Electra (455, 315hp) and that thing would move out pretty well (almost 5000 pounds, but smoke the tires; unfortunately, ~6mpg-ish). Sat eight teenagers comfortably, though.

explorerx4

back in 1980, i looked at a mustang but bought a vw scirocco. by 1983, i swapped the vw for a tbird turbo coupe, then an 86 mustang gt.

ghulet

my dad bought an '81 Scriocco S brand new....about four years later he tried to teach me to drive stick on it (I-57, on the way home from grandparents') and he biyotched me out so bad I pulled over and never tried again til my friend's mom's '85 Civic. That was a snap to drive. Did that make sense?

Strange you mention the T-Bird turbo, my brother's first, um, girlfriend had one (I think an '85, though, gray/gray leather, 5-speed), I LOVED that car.

andre1969

I am often amazed at how unimpressed the magazine writers are about modern performance. Most modern 4 cyls would have embarrassed my 68 Olds, I don't think my fragile 18 year-old male ego would have handled it too well running neck and neck with a Scion Xd down the 1/4..

Yeah, I know the feeling. These days, I think about the slowest full-sized car out there would be a Dodge Charger or Chrysler 300 with the 2.7 V-6. I think 0-60 comes up around 10.5-11 seconds. I had a 2000 Intrepid with that engine, and it was good for around 9.5 seconds.

I wouldn't even consider a 2.7 Charger/300 because they're too slow, yet they're probably still faster than the majority of mid- and full-sized cars that were sold in the 1970's!

I think one difference though, is that these days if you just tap the gas pedal on a car, often you get nothing, and you have to rev the snot out of it to really get that peak performance. Back in the 70's, you could just tap the pedal and it would lunge ahead like an angry jungle cat ready to pounce. The difference though, is that if you then floored it, you really didn't get much more out of it.

garv214

I think one difference though, is that these days if you just tap the gas pedal on a car, often you get nothing, and you have to rev the snot out of it to really get that peak performance. Back in the 70's, you could just tap the pedal and it would lunge ahead like an angry jungle cat ready to pounce. The difference though, is that if you then floored it, you really didn't get much more out of it.

True, but you could physically see the gas gauge move towards E when you did it... :P I raced a fellow employee who had an early 80s VW Scirroco, he gave me a pretty good run to around 60 mph, then he had to shift... it was all over after that, I definitely learned that torque is your friend...

oregonboy

Sat eight teenagers comfortably, though.

Only if half of them were girls.

lemko

I'm not sure, but my then-girlfriend's 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham had a 472 cid V-8 rated at 375 hp.

The best police car of all time was the 1969 Dodge Polara used by the CHP.

andre1969

The best police car of all time was the 1969 Dodge Polara used by the CHP.

I think the LT-1 Caprice of 1994-96 vintage finally got up to most of the '69 Polara's specs. It would have certainly handled better, with 25+ years of improvements in the suspension, not to mention tire technology. I think the LT-1 Caprice had a slightly higher top speed than the 1969 Polara, but the Polara might still have been faster in 0-60. Still, it took 25 years, fuel injection, and a 4-speed automatic to do it.

However, once the Caprice was retired, police cars took a step down. Even today, I think the only one that can beat the '69 Polara for acceleration and top speed would be the Hemi version of the Charger. And those are fairly uncommon, as they're on the expensive side, and the 3.5 V-6 is actually a close match to the FWD Impala and the Crown Vic.

I wonder how this new Taurus police pursuit package that's coming out will stack up?

lemko

The Philadelphia Police Dept. has a couple of those Hemi Chargers for highway patrol duty.

By the way, here's a pic of a PPD "red car" from back in the day!

lemko

Here's a rare survivor. A Philadelphia Police Dept. Ford Falcon "red car." The PPD tried using Falcons in the early 1960s as cruisers, but they didn't hold up well to the rigors of urban police duty:

omarman

I found a link to a 1969 Polara Pursuit picture and read the following description:

The 1969 Polara Pursuit had a 375 bhp 440 wedge engine, a standard 3.23 axle, could do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, the quarter mile in 14.3 seconds (at over 99 mph), and run out to a top speed of 147 mph.

Really? Did Nascar know about this car in 1969? The page didn't list a source for the information so I don't know who published those numbers originally.

Car & Driver tested a 427/435hp Corvette with 3 X 2bbl carbs, 3.70 gearing, and 4-speed in September 1969. They reported zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds, 13.8 @ 106.8 in the quarter mile and an estimated 138 mph top speed.

I don't know if their test Corvette really would hit 138 mph but it's incredible to expect that knife-edged Polara ran 147 mph! And the Polara came within a half second of the 427 Vette in the quarter mile? Incredible.

tjc78

However, once the Caprice was retired, police cars took a step down.

I never understood why Ford never dropped in the engine from the 03/04 Marauders into the P71 Crown Vics. The Marauder was pretty much a cop car with a more powerful engine (and a much nicer interior).

andre1969

The 1969 Polara Pursuit had a 375 bhp 440 wedge engine, a standard 3.23 axle, could do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, the quarter mile in 14.3 seconds (at over 99 mph), and run out to a top speed of 147 mph.

Really? Did Nascar know about this car in 1969? The page didn't list a source for the information so I don't know who published those numbers originally.

Now that I reflect back on it, I start to wonder about those numbers. Consumer Reports tested a 1969 Charger with that same 375 440, 3.23:1 axle, and the Torqueflite 727. I forget what they got for quarter mile and don't think they actually tested top speed, but I do remember 0-60 coming up in 7.0 seconds. So I'd think a heavier Polara with the same setup would be slower.

However, if you let Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, and the Michigan State Police or CHP all test the same car, you're going to get different results too.

The Michigan State Police tested a 1978 Plymouth Fury, with a 245 net hp 440. While 0-60 came in a bit slow at 9.2 seconds, top speed was 133 mph. I don't know what axle it had, but I'd guess a 2.94:1 So if that one could hit 133 mph, would it be conceivable the '69, with a 3.23:1, stronger engine, probably similar weight and aerodynamics, could make it to 147?

I'd be curious to know what the '69 440 would have put out when converted to net hp? I know it took a slight cut for 1971, reducing the gross hp from 375 to 370. And then for 1972, it put out 280 net.

Mr_Shiftright

Those top speeds are probably, almost certainly, mathematical calculations based on gear ratios, HP, etc. but they never took into account the CD of the car nor the road conditions. There is no way that "brick" is going 147 mph without about 500 real HP propelling it, and an extremely courageous person driving it.

As a car increases speed, the HP required to drive it rises exponentially, so to go "twice as fast" you really need 4X the HP---something like that.

andre1969

Those top speeds are probably, almost certainly, mathematical calculations based on gear ratios, HP, etc. but they never took into account the CD of the car nor the road conditions. There is no way that "brick" is going 147 mph without about 500 real HP propelling it, and an extremely courageous person driving it.

Well, in the case of the 1978 Fury, the Michigan State Police actually tested the car and got 133 mph. IIRC, they do their speed test going out and then coming back, and then take the average, to account for wind conditions. I don't think the cars had light bars on them, which would slow them down, but they would put two cops in the car to simulate added weight. They do the testing at the Chrysler Proving Grounds, which I think is in Chelsea, MI?

As for the exponential thing, that kind of math was never my strong suit. But, in the case of 147 mph versus 133, that's about a 10% increase. So that means you'd need 20% more hp, right? Well, if that Fury had 245 hp, a 20% increase would get you to 294 hp.

That's oversimplifying things I'm sure, but might be a good ballpark estimate. And 294 hp net is probably in range of 375 gross.

FWIW, here's the top speed of the 2010 crop of police cars the MSP tested:
Crown Vic 3.27:1 axle: 129 mph
Crown Vic 3.55:1 axle: 120 mph
Chevy Impala 3.9 V-6: 139 mph (!)
Dodge Charger 5.7 Hemi: 146 mph
Dodge Charger 3.5: 137 mph
Chevy Tahoe: 133 mph (and you wanna talk about a brick!)
Chevy Tahoe E85: 132 mph

dieselone

I never understood why Ford never dropped in the engine from the 03/04 Marauders into the P71 Crown Vics. The Marauder was pretty much a cop car with a more powerful engine (and a much nicer interior).

I'd imagine the 32v 4.6 V8 used in those Marauders were not cheap to build or repair, so I imagine it came down to money.

I'll be curious to see how many Taurus cop cars will be equipped with the Ecoboost v6. I imagine it will be very few as I don't think many police departments can justify the extra expense of the Ecoboost AWD option along with the potential extra expense of maintaining a fleet of turbocharged AWD vehicles.

Really, I don't think a police car needs 5 second 0-60 and 12-13 second quarter mile acceleration, with the advanced communications systems few can out run the "radio".