Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

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

13994004024044051306

Comments

  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited September 2010
    The DTS is the first car I ever had with a sunroof. I rarely use it. I'm deathly afraid of it getting stuck open and a random rain shower occurs.

    So I can assume you never roll the windows down either? ;)

    I've had several vehicles with a moonroof. I've never had an issue with it being stuck open.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Most cars offer a manual emergency crank to close the roof if it fails. I'd be more concerned about leaks, since many people do not clear the sunroof drains often enough.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    -74 Catalina/400, Andre is welcome to that bloated ark, I'll take that sweet '61 Bubbletop w the 8 lug wheels.

    I trust me, I LOVE that beautiful beast, but the '61's price tag is just a bit too blue for my blood. My favorite 60's Pontiac is the '67. Even though they were getting a bit porky by that time, I just love the futuristic-looking front-end. I'd say the '61 is a close second though. I always loved that grille, although some people have said it's kind of inside-out, or upside-down, or something like that.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    By looking at the paperwork, I suspect the car is a 40 year old restoration and has sat around not driven for decades. Probably needs tens of thousands or more in work to bring it back up to speed, especially if it has missing bits. Seller has odd feedback too, buys a lot of vintage signs and WW2 themed items, maybe has a tourist trap style museum to match the background in the pics. I also didn't see the car listed in his feedback.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Recent local oddities - 2 BMW 8 series coupes, MB E55 wagon, W210 E55 sedan, late Lotus Esprit, maybe ca. 1970 911 in silver, nice looking Jeep Wagoneer, Cimarron, early 80s Volvo turbo wagon
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,280
    I like that '78 Caddy too. It reminds me a whole lot of my '79 Electra Park Avenue that I used to have. It is a nice color combo as well. I think I would prefer my Electra, though I would have to try it to be sure. Caddys of that era has Chrysler-numb power steering and a very soft suspension. I love the "group shot" of other GM cars outside the guy's house in the listing.

    As for that Civic, what could they have been thinking? $50 grand? That's nuts. Maybe Honda Canada should buy it and put it in their lobby. Those simply biodegraded here when they were new. Lots of people bought them initially and loved them until they rusted out from under them in a few short years.

    While I love the '61 Pontiac as a rule, this one bothers me due to the dialogue about the engine and transmission. I think it is overpriced given that. If you are going to drop that kind of money, find a Bonneville.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,670
    I see your point--as much as I like that '61, I think if I were to blow $40K on one it'd have to be a ragtop and letter-perfect but still that one seems to be nicely done and IIRC the THM was a much better tranny than the Slim Jim.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Sorry if I'm offending someone, but why would someone even pay $4,200 for that '74 Catalina if it has no collector value? If it has zero collector value, and no reasonable prospects for collector value, then you have to evaluate it from the utility standpoint. Yes it's just a used car, but compared with the vast majority of newer used cars that are available for around that price this one has a huge fuel economy disadvantage. I think '74 was the nadir for fuel economy. Further, since catalytic converters were introduced in the '75s, the '74s also ran poorly.

    Sorry to be so negative on this Catalina, but that's pretty much the way I see it. I'm hedging with "pretty much" because I'd assign it some "special interest" value. That would counter a little of the fuel economy deficit. Therefore, I could see myself paying $3,000 for it, max, but I'd shed no tears if the seller wouldn't accept my offer. I'd take it to a few car shows, then sell it after two years.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,341
    to me, collector value means more that there is an active collector market, and that the car might actually appreciate. Something along those lines.

    but, some people just have a particular fondness for certain "just an old car" cars. So, they might pay a little extra, just because they want it.

    and I don't consider it to be competing in the market with a 2001 malibu as Shifty said, That is a car that you could actually use as a DD, take trips, etc.

    the '74 pontiac? I don't think that is still practical for any regular car use.

    If you want to know more about this particular affliction, just ask Andre about his fleet of American iron.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    and I don't consider it to be competing in the market with a 2001 malibu as Shifty said, That is a car that you could actually use as a DD, take trips, etc.

    the '74 pontiac? I don't think that is still practical for any regular car use.


    Yeah, I agree. Nobody who just wants a cheap used car for daily transportation is going to seek out one of the biggest dreadnaughts ever to wear the Pontiac arrowhead.

    For one thing, if you have any kind of commute, the fuel costs are going to kill you. The 400, and the earlier 389, were surprisingly economical back in the 1960's. As long as you just stuck with the generic passenger-car version with tall gearing and stayed away from the multi-carbs and other hot setups, you could break 20 mpg on the highway yet still have a car that hit 0-60 in about 10 seconds. In comparison, your typical Galaxie, Fury, or Impala with the smaller V-8's could do neither. You'd have to go big-block on the Fury to get that kind of acceleration, and with the Impalas, opt for at least the step-up 327, which was usually a 275-300 hp 4-bbl.

    All that changed in the 1970's though. The Pontiac engines didn't adapt too well to emissions controls, so you had an engine that wasn't all that fast, but also a bit on the piggy side. By 1974, I'm sure you could kiss that 20 mpg highway goodbye. Now, I did manage almost 18 mpg, once, out of my '76 LeMans,with its smaller 350-4bbl, but I imagine you'd be lucky to see 15 out of that '74, and around town, expect single digits.

    A car like that is actually not THAT hard to pilot around, though. Basically, if you could do your commute in a modern, full-sized pickup with the regular bed/8-foot bed configuration, you could do it in that car. Parallel parking would be a pain, unless the spaces are clearly marked out and of generous size. And so would manuevering in tight quarters.

    It's a car I would be perfectly fine with, as I have plenty of room to park it, both at home and at work. And my commute is all of 4 miles. Would I want to drive into DC or Baltimore? Hell no, unless I knew I was going someplace with adequate parking. But, it's not a car for most people.

    Personally, I think the three things that kill this particular car are as follows, in no particular order:
    1) It's a 1974. Like Hpmctorque mentioned, that was about the WORST year for emissions controls. 1975 cars ran better and tended to get better fuel economy and were more driveable in general. Less sputtering and stalling, easier to start, etc. All the really hot engines were pretty much history by then, so performance was dead. But, if you're just comparing generic bread-and butter engines, then a 1975+ 400 probably ran and performed better than the 1974, and so did the 1973 and earlier.

    2) the color. I LOVE green for the most part, but most people don't. And even I'm not all that crazy about that particular shade of green.

    3) the trim/option level. There IS a market for these big 70's battlecruisers, but by and large, those buyers want the biggest, most expensive, most optioned up, opulent Love Boat they can find. So, those people seek out Cadillacs, Lincolns, and to a lesser degree Electras, Ninety-Eights, or Chrysler New Yorkers. Pontiac is just off most people's radar when it comes to this type of car. Maybe if it was a Grand Ville convertible, or even a loaded Bonneville or Grand Ville in another configuration. Or, even a Catalina, but optioned up with a 455, power windows/locks/etc

    Still, even if the car was a fully-loaded 1972 Grand Ville convertible with the top 455 in a drop-dead gorgeouls color combination, obviously it ain't gonna bring Hemi-Cuda money anytime soon.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,341
    probably the best around, if you just have to have one.

    Now up to $6,600 bid, but still not enough to meet reserve. Must be close, since the BIN is ~$7,400

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    Re.: '74 Catalina--we had a '74 Impala Sport Coupe (true hardtop) in that same green with a white painted top. I hated that green! The dealer had the same car, same sticker price, in dark maroon with the white top and the black-and-white herringbone pattern cloth interior, and I begged my Dad to get it instead...to no avail!

    The big GM cars of that period had very durable, attractive vinyl interiors and that Pontiac is a good example of that. I love the white seats and colored dash and trim. Reminds me of the older gents who used to frequent our little country club and wear white belts and shoes! So '70's!

    I didn't remember that by '74 the Catalina had no trim above the glovebox at all. I always seems to remember the Grand Villes I guess, that had that "plood" that looked like the stock of a toy air rifle all over the interior! I like that Catalina's interior.

    Hey, not every purchase is a sensible one; that might make someone very happy, and there's nothing wrong with that!

    Andre, you have mentioned several times your '67 Pontiac Catalina. I'm a big fan of '60's large Pontiacs. In '67 the choices were almost ridiculous--which is nice! Catalina, Catalina w/ Ventura trim, 2+2, Executive, Bonneville, Bonneville Brougham, Grand Prix in coupe and convertible...what a delightful dilemma! There was no Bonneville Brougham convertible that year, but was reinstated in '68. Going through the brochure and options list to choose an ordered car would have been a great deal of fun I think...unlike today's appliances.

    I would love a '65 Bonneville Sport Coupe with buckets and console, or a '62 Bonneville Sport Coupe with buckets and console although I'm not certain they were available in '62 on the coupe as I know they were on the convertible. I've heard folks say both.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    That price seems mighty high in my world, but the market is the final arbiter.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    One sale doesn't make a market. When I see *lots* of '74 Catalinas selling at that price, I'd be convinced that the current buyer didn't pay way too much for it. I've upped the value on plenty of cars once I saw an active uptick in the market. I don't see that for this car, other than its a) old b) doesn't look like a modern car and c) might have some nostaglic value for the bidder.

    "special interest" is just a polite way of saying that someone, somewhere, likes these cars---not that there is an active market for them, with clubs, aftermarket parts, club meets and tours, and constantly escalating value.

    You can show a '74 Catalina at the local show and shine but nobody's going to spend more than 10 seconds walking past it.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2010
    Speaking of car shows I went to the local Kiwanis affair yesterday and I don't recall
    seeing many '70s cars except a couple of 'Vettes, a blimpy looking 4-dr T-Bird, some nice Buick 'verts and a BMW 2002.

    There were about a hundred cars there and a few that I found interesting. For some reason at least five 50s cars showed up wearing white over turquoise 2-tones and I must say they all looked good especially a restored '55 Olds '88 convertible w matching upholstery. Another two or three cars had blue/turquoise paint.

    There was a King Midget. I didn't know these came with automatic trannies (1 or 2 speeds, no differential -only one rear wheel was powered!).

    A near duplicate of my '66 TR-4A showed, except that car looked better than mine did the day I bought it in '67. Same spec as mine red/black interior, steel disc wheels and no IRS. It even had rust blisters starting to form on the rear fender tops (there's no inner fender lining to keep water out. :sick: ).

    Several MG TFs and TCs but nt TDs made the show as did a rarely seen anymore Alpine.

    One guy had a SAAB 96 with the three on the tree and the big cloth sunroof, non-stock Minilite style wheels.

    Lots and lots of Mustangs including plenty of '65-66 cars but no notchbacks, you'd think they only sold convertibles and fastbacks but the notchbacks outnumbered then back in the day by about 3-1.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    edited September 2010
    I went to a car show in Greenville, PA and I saw something I had never seen before.

    There was a low-mileage, light blue metallic '71 Pontiac Catalina 2-door hardtop (and Shifty, I spent more than ten seconds looking at it), that I could tell was a pretty basic car. The bodyside molding was aftermarket; it had Pontiac Rally II wheels, but other than that, the car was basic. I got talking to the owner and she had the window sticker for the car (not a reproduction). It was delivered to a western PA dealer and was built in Ste. Therese, Quebec. The sticker on the driver's door showed it was built in June '71. This was far enough into the model year that the Turbo-Hydramatic was standard equipment (I remember this being a mid-year change on '71 big Chevys too). I was stunned to see on the sticker, "Powerglide Transmission, -$31.68". I looked inside, and by God, it was a Powerglide! It was a 350-2 barrel V8. I've never even seen a '71 big Chevy with 350 and Powerglide...and I was looking at them when they were new cars too. I didn't know they were available, so I learned something today. It was a credit option.

    It was a late '71 so had the fewer trunklid louvers than earlier in the year.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Saw a ton of interesting vehicles at the local concours, I put some pics up in the show thread. Easily the largest assortment of GT40s and Cobras I've ever seen before, some beautiful prewar cars too.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,280
    You reminded me of something I hadn't recalled in years. My dad bought a '74 Impala 4-door sedan when I was in university. It was that same maroon metallic as the one you mentioned, but without the white top. It also had the same black and gray herringbone cloth interior you talked about. It had the worst driveability of any car I have ever driven. When you first started the 350-2bbl and it was still on the choke, it would run OK. But once the choke opened up when it was warm, it would stumble and hesitate from a standing start -- you would lean into the accelerator and it would lurch, almost stall out, then shoot forward. The dealer said they all did it, due to emissions. Who knows if that was actually true. I drove it a few times and it was really like piloting a boat. It was just too big, even by the standards of the day. I will say this for it, though, it was quiet and comfortable on the highway, and on a country road it handled surprisingly well. I liked the looks of it too. But it was not a car I remembered fondly.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    I can't say I recall our '74 Impala behaving like that, but then the car we traded for it was a '73 Nova six-cylinder, and THAT car was terrible in the morning...several times it'd stall before you could leave the driveway.

    We traded the '74 Impala on a '77 Impala coupe and I liked that car in every way better than the '74. Quicker, quieter, Seville-like styling here and there, way less floaty on the highway, and better MPG.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 53,341
    hmm, I had an assortment of domestic iron from the time, and don't remember any big driveability issues. But I also did not have any V8s. or GM or Ford for that matter (yes, I have always been an auto oddball).

    In there, I had a duster ('74? '73?), hornet (maybe 75), gremlin ('74), And that was before I got to the weird stuff.

    all ran fine IIRC. occasional fussy choke maybe, but other than that, they just drove OK. Of course, they were all sticks, so maybe that helped.

    A friend had a barge Caprice (big bumper, so 74 or 75). We called it the mighty caprice. I don't recall it ever doing anything but driving fine, without stalling.

    Also T boned a monte Carlo with it, and bent the bumper slightly, and cracked a turn signal lens. The Monte looked like a male dog taking a leak.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,280
    Actually, he traded the Impala for a Hornet Sportabout. It ran nicely and handled great -- 258 6-cyl, Torqueflite (Shift Command, I think AMC called it), PS, PB and radio. Pretty stark inside. But he got good service out of it before trading for a '79 Impala which was a great car. That downsized GM B and C body platform introduced for '77 was maybe the best thing they ever designed.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    The 1967 Grand Prix looks very futuristic, but the 1968 is a mess.

    image
    1967

    image
    1968

    Thank God we didn't see this 1969 proposal see the light of day! Yuck!

    image
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Heck, I used a 1975 Cadillac Deville as a commuter back in the day and it killed me with fuel costs when gas was relatively cheap.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    My Grandpop had a 1974 Impala four door sedan in a dark green metallic finish w/o the vinyl roof. It had a dark green brocade/vinyl interior.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    That proposed '69 GP looks a lot like the Packard Predictor concept car's front end
    image

    If that's what Packard was "predicting", no wonder they were soon dead.
    :
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    At the same show I saw the '71 Catalina hardtop powerglide at, there was also an Iris Mist '65 Grand Prix, no vinyl top, eight lug wheels, dark plum interior, that absolutely made me weak in the knees. I wish I could post a photo of the instrument panel--magnificent (and it had no air so it didn't have the big 'bump' at the top of the center of the dash which I can't stand!). Only negative was two tiny gauges added to the vertical portion of the console headed up towards the dash, right below the ash tray. Owner said he took first in class at the Pontiac Nationals this year, and I could believe it.

    Next to it was a '67 Grand Prix, that ubiquitous gold color, black vinyl top, cornering lights, and bench seat with folding armrest--unusual on a Grand Prix. Beautiful car, but to my eyes no Pontiac afterwards can match the magnificence of a '65 Grand Prix or Bonneville instrument panel, with buckets and console.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,558
    If you really want to see futuristic, take a look at a '67 Bonneville 2-door..

    As far as the front-end on that '69 prototype? It doesn't look that far off of the front end of the '70 Bonneville (ugly in production, as well..)

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    1954 Ford Crestline 2 door in black roof over light, light green bottom. Pretty good shape.

    This is the color of the green:

    image
    1950 Studentbaker Champion 2 door in the normal mode--not the wrap-around rear window style. Black roof over a heavy cream color bottom. The cream is essentially the color of butter coagulating out of rich fresh cream from the cow as it's churned into butter.

    this is the yellow:

    image

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I always liked those "Caribbean" colors of 50s cars---the blue pastels, the corals, the turquoise---I find the machine-like metallics of today rather dreary.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    The Studebakers and certain other cars were making bold steps with some of the "brighter" colors. Packard was outstanding in the 50s. At the beginning of that era most people's cars were black.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "lean into the accelerator and it would lurch, almost stall out, then shoot forward"

    Our 73 Ford Country Squire did the same until I removed the emission delay valve between the carb port and vacuum advance & running a new hose between the two.

    The "20 second delay" valve was a disc colored Black & Green. After removal, gas mileage went from 17 to 20 mpg.

    I've never respected the socialistic Environmental Movement. :P
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Chrysler even had Tri-color paint schemes! (a bit much if you ask me).

    But the bright colors were consistent with the vitality of mid 50s design. Not all the designs were attractive but they were certainly all trying new things in all directions.

    Just spotted a very nice two-tone '55 Chevy Belair the other day, and this reminded me:

    Certainly, the '55 Chevy strikes me as the first "modern car" after World War II, in terms of *all* factors combined....engine, body weight, body style, colors, options, size, performance. The '55 Chev put it all together, even if other cars had some of the items beforehand.

    Brilliant car. One of the most significant cars in automotive history, certainly postwar history.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I still like to think of the people who bought 1954 models and must have been pretty upset at the quantum leap that took place for 55.

    Today's oddity - late (probably 26-27) Model T roadster on a car hauler with a new Transit Connect. Weird pairing. Also saw a beautiful ~2006 SL65 in what I think was steel grey.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,860
    I like '55 Chevys a lot...then '56's, and '57's the last of the three years....but it is tiresome to see so many of them at every single car show one goes to. They're like a Model T or Model A, just a few decades newer. But I do like them.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The abundance speaks to how many were preserved because they are so much admired.

    What we call "rare" today may have more to do with most being discarded, or left to die in new car showrooms, than with actual production numbers.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,670
    What we call "rare" today may have more to do with most being discarded, or left to die in new car showrooms, than with actual production numbers.

    You're absolutely right. Most people don't realize that Ford outsold Chevy in 1957 but it's the Chevies that got saved because the Ford was basically a 1952 car with a new, and not very attractive, suit.

    As per my comments about Gen I Mustangs, it's hard to realize that the notchbacks were one of the biggest sellers in automotive history but people didn't save them. What they thought worth keeping and/or fixing up were the 'verts and fastbacks and that's what you see at the shows.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Most Mustang coupes I see from 64-66 are real rats or are heavily modified, and not very nicely either.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    You're absolutely right. Most people don't realize that Ford outsold Chevy in 1957 but it's the Chevies that got saved because the Ford was basically a 1952 car with a new, and not very attractive, suit.

    If you back to that point in time its funny how the somewhat revolutionary 55 Chevy became somewhat old looking by 57 already.

    I think another thing that kept the 57 popular down the road was that they were rather light and well built for the time, as well as pretty easily modified, so they became popular used cars for younger buyers down the road. That may also explain their still current popularity. While you always see coupes, convertibles and an occasional Nomad, I thought the 4dr HT was actually a rather nice look on 55-57 GM makes.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    Chrysler even had Tri-color paint schemes! (a bit much if you ask me).

    I knew someone back in the '90's who had a 1955 DeSoto Fireflite Coronado, which was DeSoto's first (and only, as far as I know) triple-tone car. His was turquoise with a black spear and a white roof. There's one in a junkyard about 90 miles from here that's turquoise with a black roof and white spearl

    I'd always wondered if the main color was always turquoise, but, a quick search on the web shows that it wasn't. Personally, I don't think it looks so hot in white.

    I think it looks pretty sharp in turqoise with the white spear and black roof. The white on the side, helps to slim the car down a bit, I think. With the black spear, I think it looks bulkier. (warning, this one is a HUGE picture!)'

    I can't remember now, did any of the other Mopar divisions offer a triple-tone? For some reason i'm thinking Dodge did.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    57s had a lot of groovy options that 55 didn't, so that helped. Also more chrome, fins and even fuel injection for goodness sake.

    First mass produced american car to get 1 HP out of 1 cubic inch....at least that is what GM claims to this day.

    It's debatable but it's in the history books, so resistance is futile. :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    You're absolutely right. Most people don't realize that Ford outsold Chevy in 1957 but it's the Chevies that got saved because the Ford was basically a 1952 car with a new, and not very attractive, suit.

    Actually, the 1957 Ford was all-new and radically different from the 1956, although it still had a strong enough family resemblance that it really didn't look all that "all-new". I think the '55-56 was basically a rebodied '52-54, although personally, I think they did a good job hiding that fact.

    I've always heard that the '57 Ford was total crap. Serious rustbucket, and a very flimsy body, and engines and transmissions that weren't the most reliable things in the world. Supposedly on a rough enough road, the body would twist enough that the doors could pop open, although that could have been an urban legend. I guess if it happened, the4-door hardtop would be the most likely body style to do it.

    Ford started learning some bad habits with space inefficiency with the '57, too. Unlike Plymouth and Chevy, Ford actually launched two different bodies: the shorter, more upright Custom/Custom 300 and the sleeker, longer, lower, and much more popular Fairlane/Fairlane 500. In this case, the longer Fairlane ended up being smaller inside, because of the lower body, shorter passenger cabin, and correspondingly longer rear deck. But it looked a lot better...practicality and good looks rarely go together!

    The '57 Chevy was probably viewed as outdated and clunky by a lot of the new-car buyers at that point, although it was a good performer. Engine-for-engine, it would usually beat out Ford or Plymouth.

    However, because Ford and Plymouth were so popular in '57, I think a few years later, they tended to be looked at by the younger set as the type of car your parents bought, and that's one thing that made the smaller '57 Chevy more desireable.

    Truth be told, there isn't really a HUGE difference between a '57 Chevy and Plymouth. 115" wb versus 118, and I think the Plymouth was around 205" long, while the Chevy was stretched out to an even 200. But, something about the Plymouth's styling made it look much more massive. Ditto the Ford.

    I always wondered how history would have went down if Mopar had waited until 1958 to launch their new cars, instead of rushing them out for 1957? The '55-56 body was still modern enough that it really didn't look outdated compared to the typical '57 GM or Ford car, so it might have still sold fairly well. And even though 1958 was a recession year, if Mopar had launched the new cars that year, at least they wouldn't have started that year with a bad rap, which the '57 cars had. And, if they had another year, perhaps they would have gotten most of the rust issues worked out.

    So, Mopar probably would have had a worse 1957, but a better 1958? They also would have had a better performance reputation, as the Plymouth's 318 was pretty competitive that year, whereas the older 301, 277, and smaller engines really weren't so hot.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I always felt the '55 Mopars were nice looking cars. The only thing I don't like is the chrome that hangs over the top of the windshield. Very unaerodynamic.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    First mass produced american car to get 1 HP out of 1 cubic inch....at least that is what GM claims to this day.

    It's debatable but it's in the history books, so resistance is futile.


    I've always wondered how many 283 hp 283 Chevies actually left the showroom that year? It was something like a $400+ option IIRC, and only available with the stick shift. There was a 250 hp version, which I think could be had with the automatic.

    The vast majority of them were just 283's that had 185 hp with a 2-bbl, 220 with a 4-bbl.

    Chrysler's 300B actually broke that barrier in 1956, with an optional 355 hp 354. A 340 hp unit was standard. The 300B was an awfully expensive car though.

    Technically, the 1957 DeSoto Adventurer was the first car to offer 1 hp per cubic inch as STANDARD. It was optional in the 300B, and optional in the '57 Chevy, but every single 1957 Adventurerer left the factory with a 345 hp 345 Hemi. All 1950 of them.

    For some odd reason, DeSoto never bothered to capitalize on that 1 hp per cubic inch thing. It was never mentioned in their advertising, and I think the Adventurer was a late entry, so initially, there weren't even any sales brochures for it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    The only thing I don't like is the chrome that hangs over the top of the windshield. Very unaerodynamic.

    My '57 Desoto has a big overhang at the top of the windshield, too. For 1958, I think all the hardtops and convertibles got a slightly bubble-shaped windshield that completely filled in that overhang.

    It never bothered me, but I remember the guy I bought the car from mentioning that he thought it was odd, that they'd make something so un-aerodynamic!
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    edited September 2010
    I thought that overhang in chrome was a sophisticated look imitating some of the Cadillacs earlier in that decade.

    Many cars had a metal sun visor that was added as an option. Later the cars had a tinted portion of the glass to stop sun glare through the top of the windshield.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2010
    "I've always heard that the '57 Ford was total crap..."

    As the cars got bigger, quality deteriorated. It wasn't a cause and effect phenomenon, but maybe the manufacturers felt they needed to compensate for the higher cost for materials. Just guessing. Maybe the deterioration in quality had more to do with the increasing arrogance of the UAW, as post-war prosperity gained momentum and memories of the depression faded. Of course, management was hardly blameless, as the influence of the bean counters increased relative to that of the engineers. Again, my opinion and perception.

    Yeah, the quality of the '57 Fords slipped, but, if anything, the Mopars were worse by '57. GM generally had the best quality among the domestic brands. What's sad about Chrysler Corp. is that they arguably had the best quality among the Big 3 through about '54. They were better than Ford, and about on a par with GM, in terms of reliability and durability. One difference between Mopar and GM was that there was less variance between Plymouth and Imperial than between Chevy and Cadillac.

    "Supposedly on a rough enough road, the body would twist enough that the doors could pop open, although that could have been an urban legend."

    I'd never heard that before. I'd guess that it's an urban legend. You know how these things get started. Someone who doesn't like Fords, or wants to exaggerate a story, says something like, "The bodies were so flimsy that I wouldn't be surprised if...", and before you know it it becomes fact.

    "Ford started learning some bad habits with space inefficiency with the '57..."

    Good point. I'm aware of that, but you're the first person I know to mention this.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited September 2010
    Well that's a case I think of "cars on paper" vs. cars in reality. On paper, you are absolutely right, the '57 Plymouth and '57 Chevy did match up pretty well. In reality, it wasn't that close, probably because Chevys could be so easily modified--you could also slip Corvette engines into them without much fuss.

    So on paper, yeah...close. In the actual "street wars", it was a massacre.

    Footnote: There was, however, one black on black '57 Plymouth, 3 on the tree, that was *very* fast. I never found out what he did to it, but he was a clever fellow as I recall. Louie Ferrari. Later bought a Chevy 409 and wrecked it (badly).

    I have to agree, with I hope no offense...I think 55--62 Fords were the worst cars built in America at that time.

    I actually won a '58 Ford sedan in a card game (not the only car I won in a card game, by the way---there was another). Now sure, it wasn't pristine by any means, but I vividly recall wanting to get rid of it as soon as possible. I longed so much for my 59 Chevy convertible (white, red interior--nice car). This was around 1964 I think. I sold it to a guy who wanted to drive it to Maine from New York. Never made it. :( The Chevy I drove all the way to Colorado and for about a year thereafter. Finally the camshaft broke and by that time I had gone to the Dark Side (furrin' cars).
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited September 2010
    My dad loved Fords of that era...probably because his first new car was a leftover 56 Crown Vic. He later bought a new 67 Galaxie convertible, and the family would have a few more Fords over the years. His favorite hobby car we had while I was growing up was a '60 Country Sedan - he kicked himself for selling it from the second it was gone, and it sold the same day he put it up for sale. We looked at a lot of 58-66 or so Fords when I was young, and one glaring defect comes to mind more than anything - rust. Even in this mild climate, Fords of that era seemed to rust with ferocity, much more than their domestic counterparts - I can't begin to count the amount of those cars I saw with rotten floors and rockers. They must have dissolved like Italian cars in harsher climates.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited September 2010
    Maybe Louie inherited one or two of Enzo's "go fast" genes. I think Enzo wrecked one or two cars too, and was also clever. Yup, no maybe about it; Louie and Enzo were distantly related.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Louie actually flipped a full size Chevy convertible. That's not easy to do.
This discussion has been closed.