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

explorerx4

Saw a pretty original looking red Shelby GT500 on a local highway, blue cali plate read 'GT500CJ'.
Also, after the graduation ceremony, a beautifully done black 57 chevy 2 door.
Had the little fuel tank in front of the grille, skinny front tires, big back tires, and wheelie bars out the back.
You could hear it, but it was not obnoxiously loud.
It was like something out of American Graffiti.

ab348

Back in the '70s, the Olds version of almost any GM platform was usually the best engineered and the best value. Those Olds V-8 engines were the best GM made.

My brother had a "76 Buick Skylark 2-door for a while as a company car. Painted that pale yellow GM used back then with a saddle interior and the 231 V-6. Better than a Nova inside for sure, and not bad-looking on the outside. But even as a Buick, it was still quite obviously a cheap car.

I did like the Nova LN quite a bit, but those were not very common.

stickguy

I don't actually know what it was, but I saw it driving on public roads.

appeared to be a barrel car. Something like a very early century racer, with a fully open cabin, and the front end (hood/fenders) pretty much looked like a barrel. Truly a bizarre thing to see driving around suburban roads.

kyfdx

Something like a Mercer Raceabout? Or, older than that?

uplanderguy

As close as the X-bodies (Nova, et al) and the mid-size cars were in size, I always felt the X-bodies felt like a large small car, and the mid-sizes felt like a smaller big car.

Still, I'd take a '75 X-body, well-equipped, today. Like the size, styling, and packaging. As far as Novas go, I feel the styling and interiors got progressively mucked-up more after that.

andre1969

I can't remember the last time I drove an X-body, but I like the way my '76 LeMans handles. To me at least, it feels more nimble than its size would suggest. It's 208" long on a 112" wb, whereas those 111" X-bodies were around 197-200" long, I guess.

The A-bodies did waste a lot of space, though. My '68 Dart, at 196" long and a 111" wb, had more useable space. The LeMans is more comfortable by virtue of having a power seat that has a wider range of motion. But I've sat in A-bodies with manual seats, and the Dart had more legroom. Both front and rear. The Dart also had a bigger trunk, around 17 cubic feet, while I think my LeMans is around 15 cubic feet.

Now to be fair, the '68 Dart didn't have 5 mph bumpers. Throwing a '75 Dart into the mix, it would probably be around 205-206" long, thanks to those protruding bumpers. And the sloped-off rear that the Dart started using in '70 cut trunk space to around 15 cubic feet.

In contrast though, the X-bodies feel really tight to me, in terms of legroom. And the windshield is close enough I can easily touch it, even sitting all the way back in the seat. And unfortunately, a power seat didn't help. I sat in a first-gen Seville a few years ago, and couldn't get the seat to go far enough back to be comfortable for me.

The only 70's compacts I really felt comfortable driving for a long distance were the Dart/Valiant and Aspen/Volare. Anything else was just too tight on legroom. The only problem with the Mopars though, was the steering wheel being too close for comfort.

stickguy

roughly like that, but I swear it had a barrel for the hood (even my wife called it the barrel car), and I don't recall if it had fenders. But the size/shape and cockpit were similar to that.

fintail

Early Franklins had a barrel nose

uplanderguy

Andre, you must be a tall guy. I'm only 5'8" but I'm pretty big around (unfortunately).

My comment about the "X" cars feeling like a big small car and the mid-sizes feeling like a small big car, mostly was about ride quality, quietness, and overall feeling of quality. The "X"'s to me did not feel as nice-riding and as quiet as the mid-size GM's of the same time ('73-77).

Your 'good handling' comment about your LeMans reminds me that when the '73 mid-size GM's came out, supposedly the suspension and steering geometry was all-new, and I remember all the magazines, even Consumer Reports, commenting on it (CR said "The Chevelle inspires driver confidence"). All said it was a big improvement over the '72 mid-size cars.

andre1969

I'm 6'3" tall, and have around a 35-36" inseam. I also like to put the seat back and stretch out some, so that might make a difference. I notice some other drivers about my height who don't mind a tighter seating position, and will even move the seat up some.

As I recall, GM's X-cars were pretty heavy for their size class at the time. That might have come from them being designed to handle the Camaro/Firebird platform as well, and being beefed up for bigger, stronger engines. So maybe that extra weight gave them a more solid feeling? Hmm, maybe there was something to those old ads touting the benefit of that "extra road-hugging weight" after all! (even if that was a Ford slogan!)

I'm actually impressed that CR said something nice about the '73 A-body! The only thing I really remember about one of their tests was them getting a '73 Chevelle that had NONE of the windows roll all the way down! The back windows went down all but about 4-5 inches, just like they're supposed to, but even the front windows were still sticking up about an inch.

Didn't a Monte Carlo win Motortrend's Car of the Year award in '73?

ab348

While driving on a country road today I spotted a '79-'86 (?) style Mercury Marquis or Grand Marquis 2-door in a driveway with a for sale sign on it. From 100 feet away at 50 mph it didn't look too bad - considering how bad those looked even when they were in the showroom!

Seriously, if that was a GM full-sizer of that era, it would have interested me. This one did nothing to grab me despite it being ages since I last saw one in the flesh.

tjc78

I like just about anything based on the Panther platform, so a two door CV/GM is pretty nice in my book! They certainly didn't make many of them in the later years.

andre1969

I always thought the coupe roofline seemed a bit bulky and upright. I'm guessing that's because it shared most of its structure with the 4-door, so it was really more of a 2-door sedan and a coupe. Still, I wouldn't mind having one.

I think the only Panther I really don't care for is the first year or two of the base LTD, that just had the single headlights.

uplanderguy

My GM bias-of-that-time is showing, as I thought those were a poor imitation of the wildly successful GM B-bodies of '77-79. Even the wheelbase of the Ford was shorter. I chuckle when I think of their ads in '77-'78, touting their advantage of "road-hugging weight" over the GM's!

tjc78

I think the only Panther I really don't care for is the first year or two of the base LTD, that just had the single headlights.

Yeah, they are at the bottom in terms of looks for sure. They also were no picnic to drive since many had that anemic 255 V8, talk about slow.

uplanderguy

I always liked '65 big Chevys, and the Caprice is unusual that year since it wasn't introduced until after the beginning of the model year. This is the first '65 Chevy I've ever seen with Turbo-Hydramatic...particularly on the column.

I am about 99% certain that on cars with full wheelcovers, GM painted the wheels black, so I believe this car has been repainted (including wheels). His price is ridiculous, but I still like the car. Too bad he doesn't show more exterior photos.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Caprice-65-CAPRICE-396-ORIGINAL-DEALER-- - CAR-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem27baf9ac43QQitemZ170640649283QQptZUSQ5fCarsQ5fTr- - ucks

fintail

That reminds me of a car I saw in my youth - in the mid 90s a local small town Chevy dealer had a Caprice sedan - something like 50K miles on it I think, 396, loaded, silver and black with a fancy (brocade?) interior and hubcaps just like on that car. It was pristine. I think they wanted something like 5-6K for it - I knew at the time it was a bargain, but had no time, place, or funds for something like that when I was 18.

Mr_Shiftright

Basically it's just a highly trimmed Impala 4D HT (first year for the Caprice).

These were good cars and the 396 is a definite plus, but gee, that price is pretty unrealistic. I'm thinking $12,5K is all the money here if it's really really nice.

uplanderguy

The only thing I really remember negative about the '65's was that they were the first to have the motor mount issue--biggest recall in history up until that time--and a Studebaker friend who worked in a gas station then likes to tell the story about how a family friend brought his new '65 Bel Air company car in for an oil change--the first since turning in his '64 Chevy. My friend says he couldn't believe how thinner everything was underneath on a '65, compared to a '64. That may be, but I have always loved the '65 Chevy styling, and to me, a '64 looks like a battering ram by comparison. I bet it was hard to sell leftover '64 Chevys once the '65's hit the lots. Other than the changes from a '52 to '53 Studebaker, I can't think of another car that changed more from one model year to the next.

fintail

54-55 Chevy. I wouldn't want to be the man in charge of getting rid of leftover 54s.

Mr_Shiftright

67-68 Mercedes is another huge transition year (for U.S. models).

I don't know if the "attack of the killer motor mounts" referred also to 396 engines or not. Good question.

Did they ever make such a thing as a Caprice convertible in '65 or thereabouts?

wevk

"My friend says he couldn't believe how thinner everything was underneath on a '65, compared to a '64. "

Our family had a new 4 door 65 Caprice 327 powerglide. One of the upgrades was the use of the convertible frame for added stiffness. Perhaps they found out that everything was too thin.

andre1969

Did they ever make such a thing as a Caprice convertible in '65 or thereabouts?

Nah, the Caprice convertible didn't come out until 1973, when the convertible was transferred from the Impala line to the Caprice line. IIRC, it still used Impala interiors though, minus the little antelope badges, so the convertible's interior was actually a step down from the other Caprices!

In '65, it would've just been the Impala convertible, or the Impala SS convertible. I'd imagine most of them were SS'es, although that still meant they could have anything from a 6-cyl on up to a big-block.

Mr_Shiftright

The only way American automakers knew how to make frames stronger while still building body-on-frame cars, was to make everything heavier. After a while, this weight got out of hand. Not until unibody did they more or less solve this problem of weight vs. strength becoming an inverse ratio.

andre1969

54-55 Chevy. I wouldn't want to be the man in charge of getting rid of leftover 54s

I'd imagine it was pretty hard to get rid of a 1954-anything, once the '55 models came out. Maybe it wasn't as hard with Olds, Buick, and Cadillac, as GM's B/C bodies were new for '54, but even they seemed outdated once the restyled '55's came out.

Mr_Shiftright

'54 Buicks were pretty cool.

Some companies did really well for '55, like Chevy, Pontiac, Studebaker, Chrysler, ...some kinda broke even style-wise (I don't mean sales-wise) IMO like Cadillac, Olds, Buick, Ford and some did worse, like Hudson, Packard, etc. Studebaker did the best of the indies in trying to keep up with powerhouse GM.

The Big Three really went after the Independents with a vengeance in the late 50s and early 60s. They smelled blood.

uplanderguy

54-55 Chevy. I wouldn't want to be the man in charge of getting rid of leftover 54s.

Ooh...good example. I agree totally!

ab348

I know that on the new for '64 intermediate A-bodies, GM touted the design as being a composite, having a frame but also a partly unitized body, which let them use a lighter frame underneath. I think the big cars for '65 did the same thing, which would explain the "everything is lighter/thinner" comment.

ab348

Yes, the price is ridiculous. I wonder where the air cleaner is?

One thing I have never noticed before is that on A/C cars, GM used a rather inelegant looking blockoff plate for the absent floor cowl vents. I presume those controls hung under the dash are for the A/C, which also surprises me.

bhill2

I think those controls under the dash are something else. Another photo taken of the under dash shows that the panel with the knobs are the front of a box of some type. Maybe a CB radio or something.

Another thing is, regarding what uplander said in the original post, not only was this the first year for Turbohydramatic in Chevies, you had to order at least the 327 to get it. You couldn't have it on the six or the 283 V-8.

jwilliams2

I think those controls under the dash are something else. Another photo taken of the under dash shows that the panel with the knobs are the front of a box of some type. Maybe a CB radio or something.

You are close. That is a factory option called "Stereo Multiplex". Had controls for volume, tone, front/rear fade, and balance. I had a friend who bought one new '65 when they came out. He loved that option.

We used to kid him, and called his Caprice a "family" or "old mans" car. All the younger guys bought Chevelles, GTO's, 442's, or their Mopar or Ford counterparts. No one younger than 30 or so bought full size cars. :shades:

andre1969

Another thing is, regarding what uplander said in the original post, not only was this the first year for Turbohydramatic in Chevies, you had to order at least the 327 to get it. You couldn't have it on the six or the 283 V-8.

I didn't realize you could get it with the 327. I thought you could only get it with the 396, and that it wasn't until the lighter-weight THM350 came out, that you could get it with a smallblock? And even then, only the bigger smallblocks...327 or 350, but not the 283 or 307?

When did they finally start offering the THM350 on the inline-6? I think it was the only automatic offered by 1971 on the big cars, but I'm guessing they might have started offering it earlier on, with the 6-cyl?

fintail

One one block today I saw the same 67 Camaro convertible I saw several days ago, a white mid 90s Supra not too douched out, and a nice grey 635CSi.

hpmctorque

"Other than the changes from a '52 to '53 Studebaker, I can't think of another car that changed more from one model year to the next."

How about Plymouth from '54 to '55, or Lincoln from '60 to '61?

hpmctorque

I think the '71 6 still had Powerglide.

uplanderguy

I didn't realize you could get it with the 327.

That's what I thought, too...that only the 396 had Turbo-Hydramatic...at least until '69 or so. Chevy, as popular as they were, was late in adapting a 3-speed automatic across their line.

I think I mentioned this before, but I saw a '71 Pontiac Catalina with 350 and Powerglide at a car show last summer...and the owner had the window sticker for the car showing it was built with Powerglide (not a reproduction). The car was built in Quebec but was sold new in western PA. Had I not seen it myself, I'd have said someone was BS'ing if they told me that.

I'm thinking that with the 307 V8, Novas and Chevelles used Powerglide through the '72 model year. I'm not sure about sixes...would be at least the same.

texases

Compared to most, that is - 2 '65 Mustangs, one a #3, the other a #4 or so; a '67 Toronado, looked good from a distance, and a '70ish XKE roadster. The good weather must have got them out...

wevk

"Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, one of the most loved cars in the world, is going up for auction in Los Angeles."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13405700

omarman

It is amazing how many power train options were available back then -- compared to now anyway. Here's a link to a 1967 Chevy brochure page showing a power train chart and text describing the availability of the 327/275 hp engine with a turbo 400 automatic. (I think '67 is the first year for that combo.) There's a note stating: Caprice and Impala only. In the text of that brochure there's even a description of an optional overdrive for the standard V8 or 6. Probably not many of those ever got built.

I also found a nice looking restored '67 Impala SS on youtube. The seller states it's got the original 327/turbo 400 combo. An under car shot also reveals what looks like the factory 12 bolt rear end which would go along with that trans option.

The video alone can't guarantee how "original" or well put together the car may actually be in person, but it's still a great year for that particular car. Nice overall shape, dash/interior, and with the turbo 400 trans I'd be happy with the 327 small block too.

lemko

Funny. I drove a taxi like that back in the day:

lemko

I think those Fords also only had 14" wheels versus 15" on GM cars.

lemko

Yeah, my Dad had a 1981 Ford Thunderbird with that 255 V-8. You had to floor it to get it up a hill.

stickguy

at Lowes 9so it ran) a slightly tired but overall sound mid-70's town car. Silver, black vinyl roof. Snazzy oval C pillar windows. Not sure what year, but big bumpers and before a hint of downsizing. man, was that thing long.

kyfdx

Sounds like my Mom's '76... except her's was a 2 door...

tjc78

Stick, by any chance was this at the Deptford Lowes? I have a seen a silver/black TC there. I actually stopped to look at it, as I like those boats.

bhill2

After a little more research I now think that you and andre1969 are right, in '65 Chevies you could get Tubohydramatic only with the 396 engine. I had gotten my original info that it was also available on the 327 from the Standard Catalog of American Cars but think that it is in error.

andre1969

I just dug through the Chevy brochures at www.tocmp.com, and here's what I found...

1965: THM offered only with the 325 hp 396.
1966: Available with the 325 hp 396, or the 390 hp 427.
1967: Available on the 275 hp 327, but ONLY in Caprice and Impala models. So I guess the Biscayne/Bel Air had to still put up with the Powerglide? THM was also offered on the 325 hp 396 and 385 hp 427 V-8.
1968: THM was offered with the 250 and 275 hp 327, the 325 hp 396, and 385 hp 427. It was also offered on the 200 hp 307, but only in the Caprice models or Impala coupes and convertibles. So again, I guess lesser models with the 307 only offered the Powerglide?
1969: THM finally offered with every engine that the full-sized Chevy offered, from the 155 hp 250-6cyl on up to the 390 hp 427.
1970: THM again offered in all engines.
1971: oddly, they stopped offering the THM with the 6-cyl, leaving the Powerglide as the only automatic transmission choice.
1972: THM all the way, no more Powerglide in the big Chevies. The sales brochure also doesn't list the 6-cyl anymore...did the big Chevies drop the 6-cyl totally that year? The 6-cyl does show up in the 1973 brochure, and only offered with a manual shift.

stickguy

that would be the one. Small world.

I keep looking for a Burgandy (you have that color, right?) Genny figuring it would be you! I do see a nice dark blue one quite often (could of course be more than one though) in a few parking lots in Voo and Lawnside.

lemko

...blue 1965 Falcon convertible with a white top at Martins Mill Road and Bingham Street in NE Philly.

uplanderguy

I thought for sure that still, in '72, the six could be had in the Biscayne, Bel Air, and Impala 4-door sedan and sport coupe only. Maybe I'm wrong.

Those "Standard Catalog..." books are frequently wrong. I sure wouldn't place a bet using them. That kind of thing always drives me nuts.