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

michaellno

Leaving town today, the wife and I spotted a nice '70 or '71 Camaro. Olive (?) green with black vinyl roof and nice aftermarket rims. Sounded like the engine had been breathed on a bit.

Could have been a 'resto-mod'. Wife commented on how much she liked the looks.

A few moments later, we stopped at Starbucks and saw a new Camaro. She thought that visibility would be poor out of it ... I agreed.

ab348

She would be correct. You really can't see out of them at all. Combined with the Fisher-Price interior design and the cockpit is not a pleasant place.

michaellno

You really can't see out of them at all. Combined with the Fisher-Price interior design and the cockpit is not a pleasant place.

I've sat in the new Camaro ... and I agree.

Which is a shame, as I'd like to see GM build a nice coupe. The CTS coupe is a bit out of my price range.

andre1969

That '66 Caprice styling was really quite clean and attractive. I noticed it had what appeared to be vents at the base of the rear window. Were those functional or just chrome appliques?

I had never noticed them before, but googled a few pics and saw them on the cars. I don't know anything about them...I wonder if they're just a piece of trim. Maybe they're some kind of subtle badge indicating the car has a/c, or something?

I hope they're not an actual functioning vent! That would be an open invitation for rust and leaks, I'd imagine.

imidazol97

Are you sure it was a '66? I did find at least one example, though.

Here's an Ebay Caprice 4-door with no vents that I can see:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Original-and-beautiful-1966-Caprice-/140595929495- - ?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20bc2ba197

And here's a two-door where vents are visible:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/327-ENGINE-CLEAN-/260837252677?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&- - hash=item3cbb1c9e45#v4-35

I recall somewhere back then that there were vents for flow-through cabin ventilation beneath the rear windows. I believe those later moved to the rear doors for the suction to help pull air out from the trunk. But I'm not sure of the years.

andre1969

I recall somewhere back then that there were vents for flow-through cabin ventilation beneath the rear windows. I believe those later moved to the rear doors for the suction to help pull air out from the trunk. But I'm not sure of the years.

I remember GM coming out with "flow through" ventilation in their big cars in 1971, and making a big deal out of it. That first year, they had the vents in the trunk lid, but for '72 they moved them into the back of the doorjamb (rear doors for 4-door models).

But, I guess it's possible that they experimented with it on some earlier models.

imidazol97

I found this reference in Wiki about 1968 Caprices: 1968 Caprice coupes came standard with the new Astro Ventilation system, which included extra vents in the dash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Caprice

But that's not 1966...

fintail

Fintails - higher models anyway, have "flow through" ventilation - the chrome accent on the C-pillar hides a decent sized vent. The feature somehow fascinates people who aren't familiar with the car, they are always surprised to see the vent lurking behind the chrome. On those cars anyway, I don't think the area is a rust nest...where so much of the car (floors, trunk, rockers, headlights, door bottoms, and more) are rust magnets.

omarman

Based on the write up here, those vents are described as "twin simulated exhaust ports below Custom Coupe backlight..."

ab348

Yes, the one I saw resembled that ebay 2-door, except it didn't have those ridiculous wheels. I guess the "vents" beneath the rear window were someone in GM Design's idea of a cool feature. It was definitely a '66.

andre1969

I found this reference in Wiki about 1968 Caprices: 1968 Caprice coupes came standard with the new Astro Ventilation system, which included extra vents in the dash.


Interesting. I had never noticed before, that the Caprice coupe also did away with the vent windows in 1968. I wonder if that was some sort of test, to see how customers would react, before they did away with vent windows entirely for 1969 in the big cars?

Personally, I miss vent windows. Even if they did provide more opportunity for wind and water leaks, blocked visibility a bit, and cluttered up the look of the car.

ab348

I suspect the main selling points were from Design (It will look so much cleaner!) and from the cost accountants, since if you've ever seen a door with a vent window disassembled, they added quite a bit of complexity and cost, especially the crank or power-operated ones.

uplanderguy

Here's the first year (and last!) for Studebaker's flow-through ventilation system, utilized only in the '66 model year. They called it "Refreshaire" and there are supposed to be ventilation slots in the rear package shelf (the light green car in this link is my new one but the shelf has been replaced with a non-original one). The chrome louvers above the taillights are the extractor vents.

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?54011-Finally-PIX-Bill-Pre- ssler-s-new-66-Daytona

fintail

Today's oldies: 75-78 or so Nova, Sunbeam Tiger, peach colored MB W113, weird Corvette that was like a current style but crossed with a 63 Stingray - not pretty, 69 Cougar convertible, and that old Buick I showed last week pulling out of the garage in my building - was missing a little, sounded like it needed a tune up.

duff333

Was taking my normal walk/jog yesterday through my neighborhood and noticed (or not noticed) two things:

1st, a 1963 Impala station wagon that had been sitting on the street (never moved) for the 10 years I've lived in my current house was gone. It was straight although lots of surface rust on the exterior but the inside looked rather ripped apart. Wonder if the owner is getting it redone although i a severely doubt it.

2nd, I also go by a 1969 Pontiac GTO (well, it had GTO stenciled on the front fenders but not sure if it was a GTO or LeMans) convertible. Again, this vehicle had never been moved in my 10 years and in fact was exposed to the elements - -back window was gone. I had oftern thought that if it was a GTO it might be worth something and what a sin to see it slowly rust away....well, today it had a cover on it!! Maybe to protect against Irene.??..At any rate, probably a few years late to save her.

Mr_Shiftright

Those cars might be worth something but there is a point at which they become only good for parts, A real GTO '69 Convertible is fairly rare but its the Ram Air options that bring serious money. By '69 the GTO name had lost some lustre. It should have a GTO nameplate on the lower front grille, white letters GTO on the fender mounted on a bar with the same color as the car, and GTO lettering on the trunk, etc. Also the GTO style bumper not the Tempest bumper.

The '63 Impala wagon is probably lost already and is a parts car. Old wagons are valuable for parts because many of the trim pieces are unique to the wagon.

As they sit, they sound like a couple thousand apiece unless there's something special under the hoods.

uplanderguy

http://significantcars.com/cars/1964studebaker/

I guesstimated a month ago that the dealer would want $45K for this car. I emailed them, but they never responded.

I was wrong. It's listed in this month's Hemmings Motor News.

They are asking $55,900 for it!

kyfdx

Inka orange BMW 2002 tii... Looked freshly restored... very, very nice..

Mr_Shiftright

2002 Tii is a very cool car to have, but dealing with antiquated mechanical injection is tricky. It's not a car you'd want to have to 'sort out' piece by piece, but, on the other hand, probably the only 2002 coupe worth going full tilt on.

kyfdx

Asking prices are crazy, though.... in the teens..

fintail

I love the MFI on my fintail - needs little maintenance, especially compared to carbs, just keeps going and going.

Speaking of restored cars, saw an odd one - an 83-87 or so Toyota 4x4 wagon. It was pristine, looked brand new, it had to have been restored - they just didn't age this well. Not long after saw the 88-92 or so style 4x4 wagon too.

andys120

I was surprised to see one still running but I saw a Jaguar Mark IX, blue-gray over light beige. It appeared to be in very good condition and it was moving under it's own power.

I used to think they were kind of frumpy and a little pretentious but seeing one now evokes a certain elegance that no modern car seems to have.

Mr_Shiftright

BMW 2002Tii---If they are clean and sorted, that's what you'll have to pay...they can even bust $20K but that would be a very special example.

You know, there are "drivers" for a lot less, but they have needs.

Jaguar MK IX -- these are "pretend" Rolls Royces with none of the quality and all of the problems. The only really good thing about finding an old Mark IX is that you can strip the engine and brakes and use it on an XK150 restoration.

ab348

A full-size Chrysler R/T? Not really, but take a look at this one.

'70 New Yorker "R/T"

Normally this wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I really like this one. Seems to be very nicely done.

Mr_Shiftright

That's a lot of heavy metal to push around, even for a 440.

texases

Sounds like the seller has had problem bidders in the past - don't cross him :surprise:

lemko

...drop dead gorgeous black 1966 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty-Special on Terwood Road in Montgomery County, PA.

fintail

I like his indignation. Note to seller - use ebay as a venue, expect game players and time wasters. It's no different from craigslist. If you can't take it, stick to club publications and the like.

Today's oddities - Saab 9000, same raspy W113 SL I see now and then, 55 Chevy convertible,

explorerx4

At least the seller admits there is no such thing a New Yorker R/T.

fintail

Tested out an old camera today, and took pics of my own obscure daily driver. It's coming up on a birthday of sorts - next month it will technically be 10 years old, as it was built in October. I think time has been pretty kind to this beast:

fintail

And something completely different - on a toy car forum I belong to, a Norwegian member has just bought another old American beast, this one local to me. A one family owner 1972 Brookwood, factory 454:



Cars hold up well in this climate if they are simply garaged. He will have it tuned up and cleaned up here, and then ship it back...Norwegians are another European group who have a big liking for old Detroit iron.

andre1969

I always thought the style of the big '72 Chevies was just about perfect. Hulky and prominent, without appearing fat. Clean-cut, no frumpy excess, and downright sporty, for such a big car. It also manages to have sort of an expensive-looking aura about it, but without appearing ostentatious or over-wrought.

Oh, if only GM had that sort of magic today. They are defintely on the mend, but still have a ways to go.

Mr_Shiftright

The 71s would be better--72s suffered a big HP chop. How bad? A '71 454 could have up to 365 HP. A '72 454.......270 max.

andre1969

The 71s would be better--72s suffered a big HP chop. How bad? A '71 454 could have up to 365 HP. A '72 454.......270 max.

How much of that was a paper, gross-to-net loss, though? FWIW, the most common full-sized Chevy, the 350-2bbl, went from 255 gross in '71 to 165 net in 1972.

Consumer Reports, or some other rag, tested an Impala or Caprice of that vintage with a 454 and managed 0-60 in something like 8.7 seconds. When you're dealing with ~2.5 tons o' fun, and what passed for "brakes" of that era, do you really want something that big and unruly to go much faster?

FWIW, I think the big '71 Chevies are handsome, too, but I think they tweaked some details, like the front and rear treatment, that made the '72 just about perfect...only to muddle it up a bit for '73.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't really know how much was "on paper" but the engines were certainly engineered differently, like in the cylinder heads, timing, etc., so they were more sluggish.

But you're right, 365 HP on an American car of that vintage is pretty scary---well if you had disk brakes up front, had radial tires, and kept in a straight line you'd probably be okay, even on modern roads.

andre1969

In 1971, GM started publishing both gross and net hp numbers, side-by-side. Here's a page from the 1971 big Chevy brochure.

Looks like the 250-6 went from 145 gross to 110 net (FWIW, Mopar's 225 slant six went from 145 gross in '71 to 110 net in '72, so I guess that was a reasonable correlation).

The 350 went from 245 gross to 165 net. I think it was a 2-bbl, but could be wrong. Chevy had a habit of making some 4-bbls that were pretty tame, on par with what a 2-bbl would put out on a similar-displacement Ford or Mopar V-8.

The 400 went from 255 gross to 170 net. The 402 (they called it a "Turbo-Jet 400" and for a year or two they also called it "396") went from 300 gross to 205 net. The 454 went from 365 gross to 285 net.

So, from '71 to '72, there was a real loss on the 454, of 15 net, from 285 to 270.

FWIW, my old '69 Bonneville, which should have had a 455 with 360 hp (although my cousin who sold it to me said it had a 400) had disc brakes up front, and by the time I got ahold of it, had radial tires on it, and was a great handler, considering the bulk of the thing. It handled, accelerated, and braked better than my '67 Catalina, which is lighter but only has a 400-4bbl, and drum brakes all around. That Bonneville felt a lot more nimble than its 125" wb and 225" of overall length would suggest.

And again, IMO, that shows how much magic GM had back in those days. They could make 225" of bulk feel downright nimble. But fast forward to 2000, and I swear, after owning it for almost two years, I swear I could parallel park one of my '79 NY'ers more easily than I could my '00 Park Ave.

uplanderguy

You are absolutely correct Andre, in that most of the horsepower changes from '71 to '72 were nothing more than the change in standard horsepower reporting in the industry, from gross to net.

jljac

It’s a shame that the horsepower ratings changed during the early 1970s (before catalatic converters) when engines were losing power because of pollution controls. My parents had a 1967 Chevy V-8 with the 283 engine and later a new 1974 Chevy with the 400 cu.in. V-8. I expected the newer 400 to be much stronger, but it wasn’t. I remember being disappointed in its
power at the time and we did not keep that car long. Is there a factor where you can convert gross to net horsepower with any reliability?

andre1969

My parents had a 1967 Chevy V-8 with the 283 engine and later a new 1974 Chevy with the 400 cu.in. V-8. I expected the newer 400 to be much stronger, but it wasn’t. I remember being disappointed in its
power at the time and we did not keep that car long.

I just looked up the stats in my old car book, and the '67 283 had 195 hp gross, while there were two 400's in '74. One had 150 hp and the other had 180.

One big factor might have been weight. The base weight of a V-8 '67 Impala 4-door sedan was 3575 lb, while the base weight of a '74 V-8 Impala sedan was 4205 lb.

I don't know how much of a role transmissions and gearing would have played. If it had an automatic, the '67 283 would have had a 2-speed Powerglide, while I'd imagine the '74 with a 400 would have had a 3-speed THM350 or 400. First gear on the Powerglide, I think, was only around 1.76:1, while it was something like 2.52:1 on the THM350 and 2.48:1 on the THM400. However, the '67 would have had a much shorter axle ratio to compensate. I dunno if they would've used something as short as a ~3.73:1 in a passenger car, but it's possible. In contrast, that '74 probably had a 2.56:1, in a none-too-successful attempt to boost fuel economy. It would get worse in '76, when they started slipping 2.41:1 axles in there.

I've also heard that 1974 was about the absolute worst year when it came to emissions controls and performance. I'd imagine that even though the net ratings were more realistic than gross, a lot of those emissions controls probably choked the cars back more than those numbers would suggest, or the gearing, camshafts, or whatever, ensured that the peak power bands of those engines were very small.

As for converting from gross to net, I've heard that 75% is a good rule of thumb. On the Mopar slant six, for example, it went from 145 gross to 110 net in in the 1971-72 jump. 75% of 145 would be 108.75 hp. I've noticed that most cases, net hp in '72 was usually around 65-75% of the gross figure published in '71. Some smaller engines took less of a hit. For example, the Vega's base 140 went from 90 hp in '71 to 80 in '72, so it retained about 89%. A few larger engines also took a fairly small hit, such as the Mopar 340, which only dropped from 275 hp to 240, retaining about 87%.

FWIW, the 307, which replaced the 283, went from 200 hp gross to 130 net. So, I'd imagine that the 283, with 195 hp gross, might have had around 130-140 hp.

The 283 also had a shorter stroke than the 400 smallblock, so that probably allowed it to rev up and take off a bit better, provided it wasn't weighed down too much. But stick it with an extra 600 lb or so, I'm sure it would've been every bit the dog that the 400 was.

ab348

To my eye, the '71 was the best-looking big Chevy of that era, almost Cadillac-like. The '72 front end always looked awkward to me with that oversized bumper, what was I think the first of the safety bumpers a year ahead of being mandated.

berri

To my eye, the '71 was the best-looking big Chevy of that era

I liked that one too. I'll take the 2dr Ht sports roof!

uplanderguy

I like the '72 grille, and seat trim, but I disliked how the Impalas and Caprices and Kingswood wagons had no rocker trim whatsoever.

omarman

In 1972 my brother bought a new Maverick Grabber with the 302/2bbl V8 which performed pretty well for a compact car back then. After I got my license in '75 I bought a used 1971 Mustang with the "same" 302 but it was noticeably stronger. My brother was puzzled by the better driveability, response, and acceleration even though the Mustang was heavier. When we looked up the factory advertised ratings the subtle difference between the 1972 "net" and 1971 "gross" rating was RPM. The 1971 engine made its peak power at a higher RPM suggesting cam profile or induction and timing changes were made to the 1972 engine along with applying the SAE net rating. Plus there are other variables such as weight, gearing and other optional equipment. No two cars from that era ever felt the "same" to me even if they shared 90% of the same bits and pieces.

GM de-tuned their 1970 engines to run on low-lead fuel for 1971. Have a look at the web site brochure for the 1970 full sized Chevy engine options. Even the 250 six lost 10 hp from 1970 to 1971 using the same "gross hp" rating. With a 6 cylinder car those 10 lost ponies can make a difference!

kyfdx

Coincidentally, just got back from buying propane for the grill... parked outside the convenient store? Ford Maverick..

Probably haven't seen on in six months...

Mr_Shiftright

Both of those 454s are Gen IV blocks so both are good for building into performance motors. But you know, with all that weight in the body, every bit of HP is important. Perhaps we could say that '72 marks not so much a loss of HP as a loss of prestige.

andre1969

To my eye, the '71 was the best-looking big Chevy of that era, almost Cadillac-like.

I think that might be one reason I preferred the '72. The '71 just seemed to try too hard to be a baby Cadillac, where the '72, with its lower, cleaner, blacked-out grille, just seemed less pretentious and a bit sportier.

I like the whole '71-76 generation though with the possible exception of the '73. I think the grille on the '73 is a bit too over-done, fussy, and I didn't care for the widely-spaced headlights. I also didn't care for the later 2-door models, when they did away with the hardtops and went to the long fixed windows. They were probably better from a visibility standpoint, but I just prefer a roll-down window.

uplanderguy

I learned something from looking at those '70 and '71 full-size Chevy brochures someone posted earlier. I don't ever recall seeing a single '69 or later full-size Chevy on our dealer's lot with Powerglide. Chevelles and Novas, sure. I know in mid'71, Turbo-Hydramatic, power steering and brakes were made standard on big Chevys...with an over $300 increase in the base price!

Last year I saw a '71 Pontiac Catalina with Powerglide and the guy had the window sticker documenting it. It was built in Quebec, which made me think it was produced when GM--U.S. was on strike.

Anyway, I trust the brochures way more than any general info book. I just don't remember seeing them, but I believe that was the base "automatic" on those cars now that I see it in the brochure.

uplanderguy

drop dead gorgeous black 1966 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty-Special on Terwood Road in Montgomery County, PA.

Lemko, as a Caddy guy, would you say that was the best, last Fleetwood interior ever put in a Caddy? I think after that, the interiors were never quite as nice again.

berri

I also didn't care for the later 2-door models, when they did away with the hardtops and went to the long fixed windows.

What was with that bit of mid seventies ugliness anyway. It was like the greenhouse was built by a carpenter. It looked even worse on more upscale models like Oldsmobile.

uplanderguy

There was supposedly a rollover standard brewing at that time...hence, the end of convertibles and pillarless hardtops. It never happened though. Strangly, GM never stopped offering four-door hardtops in the full-size lines at that same time.