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

explorerx4

I think their plan is to dig under the house until it falls into a sink hole.
Bad news for my 20 year old mustang. :sick:

explorerx4

is 9 model years old, but I still want to keep it (actually need it) for a few more years.
It has a 4.6 v8 which was introduced in 1992 or 1993, so we are talking kind of old.
Last year, i had to sink a bunch of money into repairs to keep the vehicle going, so now I am trying to do what I feel I need to, but no more.
For example, I needed to replace the tires. I had some great Michelin's on it, but some of the sidewalls started cracking and ended up replacing them with a tire that was much cheaper (about $350 less) for a set of 4.
These are a low rolling resistance design, and as soon as i started moving, I could tell the difference. Bottom line steering is much easier and around town fuel mileage is noticeably better.
Looking at my past maintenance records and the maintenance book, I decided I should buy some new windshield wipers, air filter and pcv valve.
Replacing wipers and air filter were easy, but the pcv was buried under a bunch of stuff.
The dealer gave me a schematic which showed where it was, so I was able to find and replace it.
It seems to be running a lot smoother now, not so abrupt on and off the throttle.
Anyways, I am pretty happy that doing some basic stuff can make 'old faithful' feel a bit younger.
I did finally find out where the COPs and fuel injectors are. There is a cowl that covers the whole top of the engine.

tjc78

You must have the first year of the 4.6 in your Explorer. IIRC up until 2001 they were still putting in the 5.0L. The 5.0L Explorer engines are popular swaps for the Panther platform (up till 91). They are the HO versions while the Panthers always had the more mild setup.

The 4.6 was introduced in the 1991 Town Car. I always thought that it was funny the TC was an all new design in 90 but still had the 5.0, I guess the 4.6 wasn't ready.

stickguy

saw a couple out and about town yesterday. 1st a '67ish Cougar with strange paint graphics on the side. Sitting on a trailer, with a for sale sign on it.

also a mid-late 60's Dodge. Not sure the model, but it seemed mid size. Bigger than a dart, but not a full size barge. And don't hold me to the year, since I can't always tell among the 65-70 range on some of those Mopar models. Looked OK, driver condition.

And weirdest of all, a 1975 or so Granada, 4 door. Red over red, sounded like a 6.
odd, because it was being driving by a couple of young guys (late teens/early 20s it looked like). Also had some serious engine knock, followed by a cloud of oil smoke. Engine did not seem long for this world, but the car actually looked (body wise) very clean.

Oh, engine issues did not stop the kid driving from flooring it going around an uphill turn leaving the parking lot we were in, and actually getting some rubber squeal!

stickguy

saw the black T bird again that I mentioned a few days ago. It had 3 taillights, so that made it a '60 I guess?

that think looked much less square in person than in pictures. and much smaller.

Mr_Shiftright

that's correct---3 tail lights is a 1960 model.

imidazol97

1960 Thunderbird. Today's picture!

imidazol97

stickguy

delahaye?

and that is the t bird I saw. other than being black, ratty and rotted, same car!

dieselone

I saw a '62 Studebaker over the weekend while driving through northern Indiana. I know that was the year, as it was on the license plate. I think it was a Hawk Grand Turismo as it had Grand Turismo on the door. It looked like it was in great shape.

fintail

I think that's one of the "TLC Talbo" replicars based on the design of a Talbot-Lago.

imidazol97

larger pictures:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/imidazol97/DSC07809.jpg
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/imidazol97/DSC07808.jpg
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/imidazol97/DSC07810.jpg

jljac

1962 was the first year of the GT Hawk, and all of them were Gran Turismo Hawks with the 289 V-8 motor and the roof that looked like it was from a Ford Thunderbird(which is a compliment). There were no more Golden, Silver, Power, Flight or Packard Hawks after that date and no more six-cylinder Hawks for the US market.

The GT Hawk was the first project given to designer Brooks Stevens and 1962 was the last good year that Studebaker had while it was in the auto business, despite a strike in January or February that reduced production. It is always nice to see them on the road and to hear about them. My friend owned the nice blue one that can be seen in the movie "That Thing You Do" which was actually shot in the City of Orange, California.

By the way, this is a great place to see old cars in movies, all makes and models. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=studebaker.

fintail

Replicar. Better than many, but everything is wrong with it (interior, wheels/tires, front proportions, rear end, the list is endless). A real 540K special roadster is worth several million.

fintail

I'm visiting in podunk this week, and there's an odd car in the driveway of the house next door - a Mercury Tracer wagon, first generation ca. 1989. It's a deluxe model with wheels and fancier trim. A rebadged Mazda 323 in essence, not a terrible design. It's looking the worse for wear though, as it is now driven by a teenager. Also have seen an early Civic, a first gen Datsun 810 sedan, a big ca. 73 LeSabre (I think) for sale, a 72 T-Bird, and there's a plain jane 64 Chevy sedan parked across the street.

Mr_Shiftright

A fake, and a bad one at that.

uplanderguy

I saw a '62 Studebaker over the weekend while driving through northern Indiana.

It wasn't far from "home" then. Studebaker's Corporate headquarters and sole U.S. assembly plant was in South Bend, IN. The Studebaker National Museum, built in 2005, has three floors of Studebaker products and tons of memorabilia, and also has an excellent archives building right next door (available by appointment).

dieselone

It wasn't far from "home" then.

Nope it wasn't. I saw it on route 149 just south of route 6, I guess that would be considered South Haven, IN. About 50 or so miles west of South Bend.

explorerx4

Had to pick up my mom from the airport today. Highway was all backed up on what would be the return trip , so I took the back roads.
Saw a mid 60's Dodge red long bed pickup. It had a piece of trim along the whole side it that looked like it came off a DeSoto. It took a big dip behind the rear wheel opening, then back up.
A ratty beige maverick.
Nice green/black Model A pickup parked out by the street. I was surprised it didn't have a 'For Sale' sign on it. Maybe it just got sold?
Something else that I can't remember, just yet.
I am still brain dead from driving my mom's Malibu for an hour and a half. :sick:

stickguy

outside a local gas station. Nice looking (restored) 1969-70ish Montego (I think it was a montego, a mid size 2 door fastback). Dark blue, hood scoop and front spoiler. Actually, 1 town over someone has a redish orange one just about like that in their driveway. along with a dark blue Maurauder (Again, I think). The full size 2 door.

explorerx4

1969 Cyclone

1970 Cyclone

explorerx4

Scroll down the link for some good comments about Mercury print advertising throughout the years.
My favorite ad is the one with 'Password for Action'.
I had it up on the wall in my room back when I was a bit younger than the guys in it.
illustrations to photos

fintail

Took a walk around the neighborhood...saw a Mach I badged 69-70 Mustang that looked pretty unrestored - hood paint was especially bad. Also saw a 66 Impala 2 door HT in a garage that looked like it had been there for at least 25 years, and an early Ford Courier.

Mr_Shiftright

My favorite "Car as Phallic Symbol" advertisement:

explorerx4

Too bad it wasn't a Pontiac with an Endura bumper.

andre1969

Dodge could get a little double-entendre-esque with their advertising back in the late 60's. For instance, this ad: I wonder what the chicks dig more...a big bore, or a long stroke?

stickguy

thanks. The blue one was a 70 and the red one a 69. I think they were both this model, so that was based on the front end.

oldcem

I bought a new 442 in 1969. Car was pretty quick and handled good for its time. Now, some of the grocery getters are as quick as this thing was.

Regards:
OldCEM

imidazol97

Here's grocery getter for you!
Some of the Muscle Car(t)s were essentially this: a motor and a frame.

Imagine the thrill of feeling the secondaries open up on this 305 V8!

Click on picture for larger photo then click on that picture for screen sized view of the Muscle Cart

omarman

Somebody went to all that trouble and didn't use a SBC 383 stroker? Pfft! :lemon:

Mr_Shiftright

Why it's the Little Yellow Death Wish!!

That ad is a hoot with the little "cannon" she's got there... I mean.....C'MON.....

bhill2

I bought a new 442 in 1969. Car was pretty quick and handled good for its time. Now, some of the grocery getters are as quick as this thing was.

You're right. I was looking in a book on muscle cars of the '60s and they gave 0-60 times reported in road tests at the time. For the most part they were pretty pathetic by today's standards; GTOs and their counterparts were typically good for 6-7 seconds, some dipping into the 5's but not by much. Only a few total commitment ones were faster. My BMW 335i puts down better numbers than almost any of them. I always wondered, however, how much better they would have done with modern rubber on them.

Mr_Shiftright

Rubber is one factor and also computerized engine management, fuel injection, and way better automatic transmissions and manual clutches.

andys120

I can tell by the wire wheel on the trunk that it's a replica. Also the car is a tad too small for a 1930s Benz Roadster, it's probably built on a Corvette. Also the dash doesn't look quite right. Back then, IIRC, the Germans didn't use much wood on the dash but favored painted metal, machine-turned aluminum, chrome etc. That doesn't look anything like a Mercedes steering wheel, notwithstanding the emblem, where's the horn ring?

All that said, that's a lot better than some of the trashy replicas I've seen from Excalibur, Panther and Zimmer; it has the general style and shape of a 500K/540K without copying any specific car and it's lines are pleasing.

\

explorerx4

sorry to reply to myself, but I did remember the other car I saw. It was a mid sixties T'Bird landau coupe. White with a black roof.
The '03 Malibu syndrome has worn off

kyfdx

Acura NSX.. undetermined year.... newer, I think..

'61 Impala .. In really, really nice shape... light blue..

oldcem

Back in the day I owned a couple of these cars brand new - a 67 Plymouth Barracuda and the 442 I mentioned. The quickest car I ever owned is sitting in my garage - a red Jaguar S-Type with a 4.2 Liter V8. It's about 1.5 - 2 seconds faster to 60 than the Olds was.

Regards:
OldCEM

lemko

A V-6 Accord could probably beat most muscle cars. However, I believe 1960s muscle cars got their legendary reputation due to the pathetic cars that immediately followed them. We went through a protracted automotive dark age from about 1973 through about 1987.

dieselone

A V-6 Accord could probably beat most muscle cars. However, I believe 1960s muscle cars got their legendary reputation due to the pathetic cars that immediately followed them. We went through a protracted automotive dark age from about 1973 through about 1987.

Another thing that made the muscle car area legendary is how you could order cars with crazy powertrain options. Making grandma's grocery getter into a super sleeper.

I doubt the '75 Buick Regal I had with a 350 could outrun a Prius:( I also had a 71 Mustang convertible with a 351C and C6 auto that really wasn't very quick. Tons of torque for good smokey burn outs, but I'd be surprised if its 0-60 times were under 9 seconds.

Mr_Shiftright

Very astute observation Lem. In fact, the entire "classic car boom" really relates to this contrast between the glamour of the 50s, the muscle of the 60s and the Decline and Fall of Detroit in the 70s and 80s.

Having nothing in front of them, car enthusiasts in the 80s looked back a decade or two and liked what they saw.

texases

Yes, that's why I got a huge laugh out of this quote from a recent CandD article on 'Nineties Collectibles':

"Give it another 20 years, and the 1990s may well be remembered as fondly as the 1960s, automotively speaking."

Really!?! I kinda doubt it! Their two nominees: the '93 Mustang Cobra and the MR2 Turbo. Hmmm - the Cobra would be little, if any faster than the latest V6 Mustang, and forget about the 5.0, while the MR2 is an 'aquired taste', in my opinion...

Mr_Shiftright

Well the MR2 Turbo best hurry up if it wants immortality. At the current rate of appreciation, this car won't be worth serious money until sometime around the year 2250 AD.

It's possible that the Cobra R will become a serious collectible, as it has the elements necessary----very low production numbers, very strong performance, and the Mustang mythology behind it. But a regular Cobra? Not much chance of that.

duff333

Yeah, a V-6 Accord or Camry could beat a 60's muscle car 0-60 but the experience is so much different. I can remember my buddy's '68 Chrysler 300 with a 440 - - you's stomp on the gas at 25 mph and the rear tires would scream like crazy and the thing would then take off like a rocket ship. Try singing the wheels on an Accord at 25 mph - -ain't gonna happen. Another friend had a 454 Chevelle - - mash on it from the start and it would get from 0-60 --- SIDEWAYS!!! Heck of alot more "fun" (as a tenager) and a much more feeling of raw power than being able to go .5 seconds faster from 0-60 in a 2010 Camry - - yawn...

omarman

"Another thing that made the muscle car area legendary is how you could order cars with crazy powertrain options. Making grandma's grocery getter into a super sleeper."

That's the truth! One could argue that the whole muscle car era was created by an option list. Order a $295 performance option on a boring 1964 Tempest and tada! GTO excitement is born. Chevy may have offered "Super Sport" trim on Grandpa's 283/powerglide Impala, but at least the muscle options were available too.

The 70s malaise would offer the same tape stripes and trim without the Detroit muscle options under all the flab. :sick:

Even specialty new car builders such as Joel Rosen were fined and then restricted to 'EXPORT ONLY" muscle cars. (Around 1975 or so I read an article detailing the new build of a Motion Performance big block Camaro tagged export only and headed for Saudi.)

Now the technology and performance is better than ever across the board. But only in cookie cutter packaging where colors, options, and "personality" is mostly Bar-O-Soap variety. Makes the outrageous but slower, less-efficient muscle car era seem all the more exotic in contrast.

tjc78

you's stomp on the gas at 25 mph and the rear tires would scream like crazy and the thing would then take off like a rocket ship. Try singing the wheels on an Accord at 25 mph - -ain't gonna happen.

While I agree the 0 - 60 "experience" is probably better in a 60s muscle car, I wouldn't be so quick to say the Accord wouldn't smoke the tires. My 06 Avalon (hardly a sports car by any definition) with a similar engine had no trouble spinning the tires (or causing the traction control to do its job) when stomping on it at low speeds.

bhill2

Rubber is one factor and also computerized engine management, fuel injection, and way better automatic transmissions and manual clutches.

Oh I know that the technology has improved greatly. I meant to note that the limiting factor in the acceleration of many (most?) muscle cars was traction. Hit the throttle too hard, and the tires just burned rather than the power being translated into forward thrust. I was wondering how much better the 0-60 times would have been with tires that gave better traction.

andre1969

I have a feeling that the better tires of today are probably the biggest factor in acceleration. They could make cars in the 60's and early 70's that were brutally fast from 0-60 or the quarter mile. The only problem is, they had to put such short axle ratios in them, that you were pretty much done by 100-110 mph.

The main advantage the modern transmissions gives you is more gears, so you can have a car that's both quick off the line AND has a high top speed (unless it's governed)

stickguy

I actually like the idea of some of the resto mods on less desirable (plain jane) muscle cars. Stick some modern brakes underneath, better suspension parts, a modern tranny (OD) and wider radials, and probably increase performance substantially.

and if you want real drivability, convert to FI and modern electronics, or just drop a nice FI crate motor in.

Mr_Shiftright

I like resto mods, too, especially for plentiful, common cars like 60s Chevelles, etc. Not sure I'd carve up a '57 Chevy fuelie.

One problem with modern tires on an old car is that it puts enormous stress on the chassis and drivetrain. These old 60s cars were not torsionally very rigid. You could bend the frame on some of them, no problem, just with the factory stock HP. I have seen differential housings wind up and just fall right out the car.

Getting the resto mod "just right" is a bit harder than it looks. If you use poly bushings that are too rigid, or alter the car's geometry or steering too much in the wrong direction, you could end up with a very unpleasant ride indeed. You might get a decent flat-tracker, but then you'd pogo-stick every time you hit a bump in the road.

andre1969

One problem with modern tires on an old car is that it puts enormous stress on the chassis and drivetrain. These old 60s cars were not torsionally very rigid. You could bend the frame on some of them, no problem, just with the factory stock HP. I have seen differential housings wind up and just fall right out the car.

Also, in those days, the suspensions were a bit firmer, to take into account the fact that the bias-ply tires were softer. When the radial tires came out, they actually made the suspensions a bit softer, to compensate. So, put radial tires on a car designed for bias-ply, and you can get a rough ride. My '67 Catalina used to chuck hubcaps on a regular basis, and my old mechanic said it was because of the radial tires. Dunno how much truth there is to that, as my Darts never threw them.

I wonder what kind of sloppy mess you'd end up with if you put bias-ply tires on a car designed for radials?