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

toomanyfumes

I kinda like the Bat\sphinx thing too. Not that I'd buy it or drive it, but... At least it's only a "82 Camaro he trashed.

Gotta love the description of the '51 Bristol Frankencar.

Mr_Shiftright

The Bristol. Oh, the humanity! I'm still sick thinking about it. Okay a Bristol may not be a Bugatti or anything, but still---a Chrysler 6 cylinder drivetrain with an automatic?

Some cars are okay to chop up or modify, because there are so MANY of them, or because nobody really cares what you do with them.

uplanderguy

You know, I could actually enjoy a '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe, in the fastback coupe body. The four-door...meh. Those '78 A-bodies were the last GM cars I liked quite a bit. They were very smooth and quiet for a car that size...and IIRC they were more expensive than a Fairmont/Zephyr but were nice-driving cars. Smallest cars with a full-frame at the time.

andre1969

You know, I could actually enjoy a '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe, in the fastback coupe body. The four-door...meh.

I kinda like the Century fastback coupe, too. That turbocharged model they offered a couple years looked really nice in a black-over-silver two-tone. I'm with you on the 4-doors though. I would still tolerate one if it was equipped nicely, a decent color, and had a good engine though.

Come to think of it, none of the 4-door A-bodies were really that great looking, IMO at least. The Century and Cutlass Salon Aerobacks were the worst offenders, but I thought the Malibu and LeMans 4-doors were a bit awkward as well. The passenger cabins just seemed too big in relation to the bodies, especially towards the back, where they just seemed to extend too far out beyond the rear axle. It did make for a roomy car inside, though. In terms of space efficiency, those A-bodies were about the best of their time, and actually better than a lot of today's midsized cars. I thought in 1980, when they re-did the Century/Cutlass and then the Malibu/LeMans for 1981, it improved their looks a ton. Those more formal rooflines didn't take away any interior room, at least the way the EPA measures it, but did make the back seat feel more closed in, with the vent windows getting moved to the doors and the base of the rear window moving forward about 5 or 6 inches.

I thought the 1981 LeMans in particular looked really good, with its pseudo-Trans Am front-end. Unfortunately by that time, the engines were emasculated to a Buick 231 or 252 V-6 or Pontiac 265 V-8. You could get the 301, but only in the wagon.

The 231 and 252 V-6 engines were pretty bad in those days, but I've heard the 265 actually isn't that bad. Even though the 301 wasn't all that durable, supposedly the 265 offshoot was a lot better. I remember one reviewer sayin that the main reason was that it didn't have enough power to hurt itself! :P

I guess those A-bodies were the smallest car to use a full frame in a long, long time. Just about every compact and intermediate car was unit-body from the beginning, although GM intermediates went full-frame for '64, and Fords from '72-79. And in the old days before all the size classes, most cars had a wheelbase longer than 108.1"

ab348

Those A-bodies were full-frame, but just like GM did all the way back to '64, it was billed as a sort of unibody-on-frame. I dunno how true this was, but when they introduced the '64 A-bodies, GM touted the fact that the body structure added to the stiffness and worked in conjunction with the frame. My '68 Cutlass does feel pretty tight for a body-on-frame car, but it is nowhere near as tight as some of todays cars of course.

I remember that when the downsized '78 A-bodies were introduced, one of the car magazines commented on a display that GM had at the long-lead showing the lightweight frame. They said that you could see it quiver when you kicked one end of it, so it was a pretty flexy piece and obviously not very strong. That is partly what led to the rust-out problem later on.

Our '78 Grand Lemans Safari was a nice car when it was new but it was a very poor quality car and had lots of problems. It did ride very well, had lots of room, and aside from the tailgate rattles, was pretty quiet. I remember we drove a Fairmont before buying and that was like a tin can by comparison. I remember the magazines compared it to a Volvo, and we had owned a pair of Volvo 144s, so we thought it would be similar. It didn't even come close, and was a noisy, cheap-feeling car to drive.

The interesting thing was that for a time, we had the Grand Lemans and a '79 Impala simultaneously. They both drove very well, but the Impala was just much more of a car in terms of ride, quiet and general comfort. The one thing the Lemans had was a bit more zip, as both cars had the Chevy 305 under the hood. Those downsized GM B-bodies were great cars.

Also for a time we had the '78 Lemans simultaneously with the first car I bought, a used '77 Lemans sport coupe. It also had the 305 and was 4 years old when I got it. It was a lot less efficient in its use of space and was a much bigger car of course, even though it had less rear seat room and a small trunk. But again, it was a better-driving car in terms of comfort than the '78, though not as big a difference as the Impala was. As time goes on the more I wish I had kept that '77. It was such a cool-looking car because of the colors - white painted roof over a light metallic blue body and a white interior with a blue instrument panel and trim pieces. A real summery car. Too bad Detroit doesn't offer color combos like that any more.

andre1969

I'm probably off base here, but I was under the impression that the downsized '77+ B-bodies used the same frame as the '73-77 A-bodies, and that the 78+ A-bodies were the same frame, just with 8 inches removed from the wheelbase?

One day at the junkyard, I saw them put a late 70's Impala or similar wagon in the crusher, and put a '75 or so A-body (I think it was a Century wagon, but this has been years now) on top of it, and flattened them both at once. I remember seeing the two cars sitting there, and the frames were readily visible, and I swear every bolt, hole, bend, weld, etc seemed identical.

Also, it seems like with all three cars, the frame rails are the same distance apart, so the main difference in interior room is how far the body overhangs the frame rails. The area of the floor that was dropped a bit between the rails seemed about the same, but the downsized B-body seemed like it had more raised area, sitting on top of the frame rails. With the '73-77 A-body and '78+, the area on top of the frame rails seemed similar, but the door panels seemed to bow outward giving you more room the further up you went.

And with the downsized '78 models, the transmission hump seemed larger, I'm guessing because they had to move the body further forward, closer to the engine, to get similar legroom measurements.

GM's '73-77 4-door models, on the 116" wheelbase, were actually fairly roomy for the time, although the low-slung, swoopy styling cut into headroom, and the sloped-off rumps robbed trunk space. So, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to take a car that already had good basics, and give it a taller, boxier body, to maximize space efficiency.

Chrysler sort of did the same thing with the 1979 R-body, which was a heavily modified 1971-79 intermediate. However, Chrysler focused too much on a long, low style (a 1979 R-body is only 54.5" tall, whereas the B-body 4-doors were 56.7"), which robbed a bit of interior room. And they had to stretch out the wheelbase to 118.5" in order to make it feel like a big car. They also had shallow trunks, which would give me issues every time I'd try to put the beer cooler in my '79 New Yorker for the Carlisle Mopar show! I had to position that cooler at just the right spot in the trunk, and even angle it slightly, to make it fit. It's not as bad now, since I replaced the full-sized, copcar spare with a compact, though. The full-size stowed at the front of the trunk, similar to the GM B-body, where it took a lot of space, but the compact stows upright, in the area where the floor drops off, by the right quarter panel. It's somewhat similar to the downsized '78+ GM A-bodies, except it's all the way at the edge, completely upright, and doesn't have enough room to accommodate a full-sized spare.

FWIW, that same beer cooler is a bit of an annoyance when I put it in my '76 LeMans, too. I have to position it at just the right spot, angle it slightly, and put a towel over it so it doesn't scuff up the underside of the trunk lid.

andre1969

**Edit: talk about coincidence! I just went to put a few things away in an attempt to straighten up (hard when you're a bit of a packrat) and damn if I didn't find a 1980 Malibu and 1979 Impala brochure. Each one had a side view cutaway diagram of their respective cars, and you could see the frame rails from the side.

Now, I don't know how accurate and to-scale those drawings were, but it definitely looked like the frame rails on the Malibu were different. They had indentations on the side under the passenger cabin that the Impala didn't, various holes were in different spots, and the Malibu's frame did look a bit smaller.

So, I guess there goes my theory that GM simply took 8" out of the B-body frame to make the Malibu! Maybe it would have been a better car if they did, though!

Oh, I also found a 1978 Pontiac full-line brochure. For the LeMans, they were bragging about the all-new recessed armrests in the back seat, and the flip-out vents windows on the 4-door, which could be ordered with power. Of course, no mention whatsoever that those back door windows were no longer roll-down. :P

ab348

I can't say whether the '77+ B=bodies and the ''73='77 A-bodies used the same frame. but I know a lot of chassis items were identical.

I know my '77 Lemans was not at all roomy except for up front. The back seat was snug and the trunk was very oddly shaped - due to the swoopy body style as you note. The boxy '77 B-bodies had a huge trunk by comparison.

andre1969

I know my '77 Lemans was not at all roomy except for up front. The back seat was snug and the trunk was very oddly shaped - due to the swoopy body style as you note. The boxy '77 B-bodies had a huge trunk by comparison.

This would probably be considered blasphemy to the originality sticklers, but I've considered trying to find a compact spare that would fit my '76 LeMans, and taking the full-sized spare out. Annoyingly, the full-size spare is stowed dead center, at the front of the trunk, and occupies the spot where the trunk is deepest.

If it had a compact spare, stowed off to the side, it would definitely open up some usable space. But, it's probably not worth it, considering it's not like I take that car on long trips and need maximum luggage capacity, or anything. The biggest thing that ever goes in it is my beer cooler. And if I really had to, I guess I could always just buy a cooler that's not as tall!

Your '77 LeMans didn't have a power seat, did it? My '76 does, and some of the positions it can contort to are amazing. I can actually put it so far back, and at enough of an angle, that I can barely reach the pedals! It can also adjust high enough that my head hits the ceiling, but I don't know if that's exactly a bragging point!

Definitely has a wider range of motion than my '79 New Yorkers.

lemko

Mr_Shiftright

I wouldn't mind having this one!

http://www.russoandsteele.com/collector-car/1949-Dodge-Wayfarer-Street-Rod/10411-

fintail

Some pics from the local Mercedes-Benz Club meet held today

You'll spot my old beast in several pics. Some interesting cars - a pristine 220SE ponton cabrio, a very nice W111 220SE coupe, a red AMG trim C126 with 500K+ miles on it, 2x 5 speed W113 280SLs, a couple engine swap frankencars, among others. I was the only fintail there once again.

magnette

Just passed two nice cars in about 500 yards - first a Sunbeam Talbot 90 Drophead - looked in good restored condition,and the driver looked contemporary with the car.

Then something even rarer - an Alfasud - white, immaculate and about the last version of the standard 4-door version they made RHD, so early 80's.

explorerx4

The first thing I thought of when seeing the wheels, was does it have a Hemi?
Affirmative.

Mr_Shiftright

And a modern Hemi at that.

andre1969

Would the frame and suspension of an old car like that need much beefing up to accommodate something like that Pentroof "hemi". Those old cars had to be beefy in some respects, to handle the heavy engines and inferior roads of the era. But a powerful, torquey engine is going to put a different type of stress on a car than an engine that's simply heavy.

Mr_Shiftright

Well those old cars have heavy frames which *appear* strong but torsionally I rather doubt they can handle this kind of power. So I would hope that someone engineered the car properly. It's certainly not the type of car I would just buy and then go out and tromp on the gas without some careful examination of how the install was done. I've seen big blocks literally twist old frames.

lemmer

Would skinny tires help by just spinning in place when you "tromp on it" thereby releasing some of the load on the frame?

fintail

This morning I saw an Audi 5000 and a VW Quantum...must be a labor of love to keep those things going.

wevk

Spotted one of these for the first time the other day, no wonder only 125 were sold in July.

texases

Saw a 1st-gen RX-7 in my mirror this morning - those stand out 2 blocks away. A design I've always liked (except I couldn't fit )

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe the word's out that they actually burn coal, and are no cleaner in emissions than a hybrid in that regard.

au1994

A couple of years ago Top Gear did a little blurb on the supply chain of the Prius battery. It went something like this: raw material mined in Canada, shipped to Europe for processing into a battery, shipped to Japan for production into car.

Total up all of the fossil fuels used in transport and the point was "Is this really a green car?"

Of course this should be taken with a large grain of salt as they hate the Prius almost as much as the Beetle or Austin Marina.

Mr_Shiftright

Fact is, 50% of US energy for power plants comes from coal, and if you consider that alternative energy sources, like nuclear and solar/wind/whatever, are generally applied ALL THE TIME, then that means that off-peak charging for your Volt or Leaf is going to be supplied by coal or natural gas.

In some areas of the country, your electric car may actually cause *more* pollution than a hybrid (Midwest, South) ----but both electrics and hybrids produce fewer emissions than a standard gas car, regardless of the energy source.

Is the Volt "green"? Yeah, but not as green as people think, not by a long shot.

lemko

The only thing that's truly green about hybrids is the more "green" you'll have to shell out for one.

texases

"In some areas of the country, your electric car may actually cause more pollution than a hybrid"

Exactly. Scientific American published a detailed study comparing hybrids to plug in hybrids to full EVs, and for the areas of the coutry dependent on coal the plain hybrids emitted less CO2 overall. This is without considering the huge costs associated with big battery packs.

I got into a long discussion on IL's long-term Leaf board about it's 'greeness'. Folks don't realize that CA gets about 42% of its electricity from gas-fired generators, and about 24% from coal (lots of electricity is 'imported' from AZ, etc.). So a plain hybrid is really the 'sweet spot' in most cases if one is worried about CO2 emissions.
Leaf CO2 discussion on IL

bhill2

Scientific American published a detailed study comparing hybrids to plug in hybrids to full EVs, and for the areas of the coutry dependent on coal the plain hybrids emitted less CO2 overall. This is without considering the huge costs associated with big battery packs.

It is also without considering the horrific amount of pollution that coal-fired plants produce. They are truly foul.

texases

Along with the mountain-top removal for mining, etc, etc...

bhill2

Along with the dangers and problems endured by the miners and coal workers (my wife grew up in a coal mining town). The etc.'s really add up.

andys120

It's exactly a classic but it certainly is obscure. I saw a Subaru GL convertible/cabriolet parked in a store lot with the top down. The folded top did not have a big VW style hump on the back and was covered by a nice vinyl cover so it looked as if it were factory made. It was black but similar to this photo I found>



The one I saw did not have TURBO written on it.

I, not sure why someone would go to the expense of these conversions, it'd be easier to just buy a Saab.

Mr_Shiftright

Have any of you ever seen an electric car called the Zenn? I see one buzzing around occasionally. They are limited to urban use, 25 mph I think. Canadian firm, now struggling to survive. Apparently there's some "secret" technology they were counting on, that has yet to materialize.

http://www.evsroll.com/Zenn_electric_car.html

texases

Nope, not a bad looking EV compared to many of those odd-looking creations. But top speed of 25 would make it a 'hood ornament' pretty quickly around here :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

Yes it is good-looking (or was). The range is 40 miles, charges up in 4 hours. It's meant for shopping around town. I can sometimes hit 25 mph on a bicycle and that's certainly fast enough for city streets. But really, for $10,000 bucks you can buy a pretty nice, and pretty economical, used car. I paid about that for my 2003 Mini Cooper S (less tax).

texases

Well, 25 mph would be a rolling road block on city (suburban) streets here (DFW). If I do 35 (the speed limit) on my drive to work I'm blocking traffic...

Mr_Shiftright

Just ignore them, or plaster "green" stickers all over the car as a self-defense mechanism. You have to sanctify the car and make it holy. :P

fintail

I have never seen a Subaru cabrio conversion before, that's really an oddity. Has to be a period job, I wonder who did it and who bought them new.

fintail

I remember seeing a story about that firm on a Canadian TV show some time ago. The local "Green Car Company" had one too, I think...but even here, 25mph is a tough one to defend, it would really need the 35mph update just to be usable.

Mr_Shiftright

Well you can "hot rod" a Zenn to go 35 mph apparently, but then you lose range.

I mean, it's just 72 volts or some such.

I'm not sure who was 'at the meeting" when they decided to market a $10,000 ++ car that only went 40 miles at 25 mph. Maybe they were aiming at retirement communities or some such.

kyfdx

This company is just down the road from me....

Amp Electric Vehicles

texases

Not clear to me how many conversions they've done, or how much it costs. To get 100 miles out of that Mercedes has to take a HUGE battery!

Is there still a Blue Ash airport? My dad flew out of there years ago.

kyfdx

Is there still a Blue Ash airport? My dad flew out of there years ago.

Yup.. just a small airfield... private planes and pilot instruction.

AMP just signed a contract with the government of Iceland.. Building two prototype vehicles, with a contingent contract for $100 MM (of course, you know how those things go...). If the Iceland thing happens, they'll probably make it.. if not, the future is cloudy..

bhill2

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea why they do both a Solstice and a Sky conversions? They are basically the same car.

texases

I think you answered your own question. It sounds like they'll modify your car, so once they figured out one, they had the kit for the other.

hpmctorque

" It was unreliable, slow, and a bit of a guzzler."

Any other desireable attributes?

hpmctorque

"Those '78 A-bodies were the last GM cars I liked quite a bit. They were very smooth and quiet for a car that size...and IIRC they were more expensive than a Fairmont/Zephyr but were nice-driving cars. Smallest cars with a full-frame at the time."

Yeah, nice cars. I had a '78 LeMans 4-door with the 305 and the upgraded suspension (forgot what they called it; Roadholding, maybe?). The weak component was the transmission, which was the same 3-speed automatic used in the Chevette. Overall, though, it drove well for its day, and was an excellent value.

hpmctorque

"Oh, I also found a 1978 Pontiac full-line brochure. For the LeMans, they were bragging about the all-new recessed armrests in the back seat, and the flip-out vents windows on the 4-door, which could be ordered with power. Of course, no mention whatsoever that those back door windows were no longer roll-down."

Roll-down back windows were probably incompatible with the recessed armrests for back seat passengers. I'm guessing the armrests won out because they gave rear passengers more room and comfort, and they were cheaper to build.

hpmctorque

Ah, but when that secret technology does materialize, watch out!

Mr_Shiftright

Invest NOW in secret electric car technology. Get in ON THE GROUND FLOOR! This secret technology will REVOLUTIONIZE electric cars and set the auto industry on its ear! For a brochure, please email: secretelectriccartechnology@santacruzmysteryspot.com :P

bhill2

It sounds like they'll modify your car, so once they figured out one, they had the kit for the other.

Your point is well taken, and if the gating item is the availability of donor cars that makes complete sense. However, it looks like they offer turn key cars rather than offering to convert your existing car. I was wondering why they didn't take the opportunity to offer, say, a small sedan like the Chevrolet Cobalt using a similar kit rather than two essentially identical roadsters using the same kit. This would provide a broader range of available products.

texases

"Roll-down back windows were probably incompatible with the recessed armrests for back seat passengers. I'm guessing the armrests won out because they gave rear passengers more room and comfort, and they were cheaper to build."

You're being much to generous to GM. I bet they ditched the roll down windows to save money, the recessed armrests were a no-cost modification once the windows didn't move.