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

explorerx4

Since your brought up the Nautilus submarine, a while back I watched some kind of review of the history of the Nautilus.
If I recall correctly, on the famous under the North Pole expedition, the reactor cooling system had a leak they could not figure out.
They stopped in either Washington state or Alaska and bought out the whole supply of Bars Stop Leak in whatever city they stopped in and poured it into the cooling system.
It worked, and history was made. :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

I remember the 60s Fords with very rough automatic transmissions, very crude 6 cylinder engines, balky carburetors, horrific gas mileage and pretty poor performance numbers. I mean really how can you beat a small block Chevy engine and a hydramatic? I mean, is there a '65 T-Bird alive today that doesn't stall in hot weather? Doubt it.

Mr_Shiftright

Gee I don't know...it seems like most automakers put out a pretty decent product, with a few notable exceptions (does anyone really want a Nissan Versa?) As for the difference between Ford and GM today, I'd have to give the edge to Ford.

andre1969

I think Chrysler's problem was that they gave you a decent car on the low end of the scale, but then as you moved upward, the more prestigious cars just didn't seem all that much more upscale. Often a Dodge just seemed like a different trim level compared to a Plymouth, rather than a car that was truly a step up.

I think Chrysler might have also messed up by making the Newport and New Yorker the same car, rather than having one be longer than the other, as Buick and Olds did with the LeSabre/Electra and 88/98. On one hand, if interior room was your priority, a Newport would win hands-down compared to a LeSabre or 88, but then that seemed to cheapen the New Yorker, since it was really just the same car with a nicer interior, bigger engine, and different trim. In contrast, an Electra or 98 really seemed like a huge step up.

hpmctorque

Good observations and analogies! It seems to me that Ford Motor Co. took the middle road with Ford and Mercury, betwwen Chrysler Corp and GM. How do you see that?

jrosasmc

Got a question for you - I was watching an episode of The Dukes of Hazzard the other night and I noticed that some of the patrol cars were different. In one scene, they appear to be Monacos or Gran Furys from about '74 or '75, but in the next, they're Matadors from the same era. Did the show's producers purposely buy both AMCs and Mopars for the sole purpose of disposing with them afterwards?

As for the General Lee, I think that was a '68 - I believe that was the first year they had concealed headlights. And they used Hemis in those Chargers, right?

andre1969

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Mercury did a better job than Mopar in most years, but not as good as GM. IMO, the only Mercurys that seemed really unique were the '49-51 and '57-60 models. From '61 onward, they just seemed like dressed-up Fords, although there were some years I'd prefer the Mercury to its Ford counterpart.

lemko

As for the difference between Ford and GM today, I'd have to give the edge to Ford.

Ask the man who has both. I'd give any of our GM cars a wide margin over my Mercury Grand Marquis.

lemko

When the fuselage Imperials debuted, one critic remarked, "It somehow smells like a Plymouth!"

tjc78

Ask the man who has both. I'd give any of our GM cars a wide margin over my Mercury Grand Marquis

Well, you are comparing a car that has its roots in 1992 and then as far back as 1979....

As for the Ford/GM debate. In the "large" car class I recently sprung for a LaCrosse over the Taurus. The LaCrosse IMHO is a much more refined car and is larger inside.

In the mid/small size class I think Ford has an edge over GM at the moment.

andre1969

"It somehow smells like a Plymouth!"

Yeah, that was part of the problem. Now, I think a '69-73 Imperial is a beautifully styled car, but it just doesn't seem like a huge step above a Plymouth. It also didn't help that Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler, and Imperial all had very similar, if not identical rooflines, and the side sculpting, while clean, had a sort of generic look to it. And the fact that all four brands offered hidden headlights and loop bumpers at one time or another, also muddled their identities.

andre1969

As for the Ford/GM debate. In the "large" car class I recently sprung for a LaCrosse over the Taurus. The LaCrosse IMHO is a much more refined car and is larger inside.

I'm really not all that impressed with the new Taurus. In some ways, it sort of reminds me of your typical 70's car, where it might be big on the outside, but that doesn't really translate into a whole lot of interior room. It does have a big trunk though, if that's important to you.

The LaCrosse seems like it makes much better use of space, with the exception of the trunk. And, while I didn't find the Taurus's interior to be horrible, the LaCrosse definitely feels more luxurious, as if Buick is finally putting some effort into making their cars what they used to be... "near luxury".

Mr_Shiftright

Chrysler lost its luxury market in the 1930s, the last time it actually competed well in that segment. But back then, even Lincoln was a worthy competitor to Cadillac, Pierce, Packard, etc. Chrysler did really well in the 60s with "bread and butter" cars and of course with MUSCLE

tjc78

You hit the nail on head there. The Taurus for it's outside dimensions is very small inside. The center console takes up way too much real estate, and the leg room in the back seat is non-existent with the front seat all the way back.

The LaCrosse is certainly roomier, and at the price point offers a very upscale interior. The only car that can match it at a similar price point would be the Genesis (my previous car).

At lunch today I saw a late 70s Aspen wagon w/ woodgrain and wire wheel hubcaps. Looked ratty, but putting along.

hoosiergrandad

Andre, I seem to remember that 69 -73 or thereabouts Imperials were a favorite in demolition derby competition...lots of radiator protection. Is that right?

andre1969

I'm not sure about the '69-73 Imperials, but I've heard that '60-66 Imperlals were often banned from demolition derbies, because they were over-built. Most of Chrysler's lineup went to Unibody for 1960, but the Imperials stayed Body-on-frame. They used the basic 1957-59 design, but beefed it up with some of the Unibody techniques they were using on the other cars, so for lack of a better phrase, it was "doubled" up, sort of a Unibody car with a full frame shoved underneath.

The '69-73 Imperial was on a 3" longer wheelbase than the Chryslers of that era (127" versus 124") and all that length was ahead of the cowl area. Maybe that additional length required a lot more beefing up in the front, and that made them sturdier? The Imperial might also have had more overhang up front, which helped protect the radiator a bit better.

hoosiergrandad

Thanks, Andre. I was a little vague about the years. I do remember there was a lot of room between the grill and the radiator. Someone should offer you a paid position as an automotive historian

uplanderguy

I've heard the Imperial rumor and demo derbies, about the '64-66 version. I did see one at a demo derby at a rural fair in the late '70's and it was one of the very last cars running!

fintail

I remember going to my first demo derby, 1985, and there was a fuselage Chrysler of some kind that destroyed much of the competition. There was also a flat top 60 Caddy in the mix, sadly it didn't last long. I won't forget that.

andre1969

I saw some pics recently in another forum of a demolition derby. Winner was a 1975-76 Buick LeSabre 4-door hardtop with Pontiac Rally 2 wheels on it. The cars consisted mainly of Ford Panthers, maybe a couple of downsized GM B-bodies, a few of the outsized '71-76 GM B-bodies and, oddly, a '71 or so Dodge Monaco/Polara hardtop coupe!

I had commented on the fuselage Mopar being in that derby, and my friend who posted the pics said that the other cars tended to keep a safe distance from it, as if they knew to be afraid, and what ultimately did it in was that it got mired down in the mud!

I still remember, back in 7th or 8th grade (so '82-83) going to a demolition derby, and of all the cars of varying sizes in there, the final two ended up being an early 70's Cadillac DeVille and a '66-67 Coronet 4-door sedan. And in the end, the Coronet was the winner! So, I guess it's not always size and bulk that matters, but it comes down to skill and luck.

I also remember someone putting what appeared to be a pre-1949 Chevy and a '53 or so Chevy, and initially thinking that those cars would do well, figuring they were old and sturdy. But they got smeared pretty early on. I guess that while the sheetmetal might have been a lot thicker on those cars, the underlying structure simply wasn't as sturdy. Plus, those really weren't very big, heavy cars. In mid 60's terms they would have been intermediates, and by the mid 70's, probably more like compact in size and weight.

stickguy

not that old though.

a later looking 944. Nice shiny red. Interesting part, it had on the back RS turbo. Not quite sure what that means (wel, the turbo part I do!). But it did look nice.

fintail

That would be an odd frankencar engine swap

fintail

I think that Caddy was the oldest car I had seen in derbys, but I saw early 60s stuff up through the late 90s, last time I saw a derby. I remember around the turn of the century seeing a 65 or so Imperial that seemed like a shame to waste.

Those old time cars also weren't especially powerful, not able to get out of their own way, which wouldn't help.

Mr_Shiftright

A friend of mine had an Olds Vista Cruiser in demo derby and he used to smash just about everything to bits. It's not the strength of the chassis that matters, it's how far the radiator is from the grille and how easy/hard it is to pin the fenders against the tires (or so I'm told). Also, I think the massive tailgate of a wagon might help in smashing cars while in reverse.

berri

There was also a flat top 60 Caddy in the mix, sadly it didn't last long.

I always had mixed feelings about demo derby's. I liked the smash ups, but hated seeing the old beasts wrecked.

That 60 Caddy doesn't surprise me. A year or two ago they crashed a new Malibu into a 59 Chevy 4dr sedan. The 59 didn't come out too well, and the flat top probably had less structural integrity yet.

fintail

Today I can deal with 80s stuff in those competitions, even 70s stuff...but 60s stuff is hard to take. But with much of it worthless and not in demand (and scrap values still being high), that's how it goes.

The 59 Chevy test was interesting - no crumple zones then. I also wonder how structurally sound the metal might be in a 50 year old car, especially if it lived in a harsher climate.

Mr_Shiftright

my neighborhood is full of dead 60s and 70s cars. In walking distance is a 60 Chev. 4D, a 65 Falcon convertible, a 61 Buick 2D, a 60 Cad CdV, 72 Ford wagon. They are all in horrible shape and will never see the road again. They aren't worth fixing up and I suspect won't be in another 50 years either. Too far gone.

These days, if you see a rusty, dented but complete car with torn up interior, broken glass, and a dirty old engine inside, unless that car is worth $80K--$100K, you're just dreaming.

kyfdx

So.. that E28 parked in the weeds at my local mechanic? I should just let that go? :P

Mr_Shiftright

ANYTHING parked in the weeds that doesn't say Ferrari on it... :P

fintail

Even up here, where the rain eventually makes rust, old metal isn't hard to find. Just off the top of my head, I see a very sad 61 Buick convertible each time I take my old car on its cruising route - the old boat has no top and doesn't look complete. There's a red 63 Impala hardtop that has been languishing in a driveway near my grandmother's house for at least 25 years - it's must be a lost cause too. I guess going out in a blaze of glory demo derby could beat rusting away in the woods.

fintail

Good bids for one of these - too bad it's not an earlier model

"Magnificent"...that schnozz is magnificently huge anyway

Buy a collection of cars that were popular a couple generations ago

Pretty clamshell

Odd turbo

Speaking of flat tops - probably one of the best out there

Be the only one

"Classic" (might even be a hemi, too)

Tin can survivor

I don't remember these

They all end up on ebay

New version of this would weigh 4500lbs

Nice seats to burn your butt

Surprising bids here too

Fancy Studebaker

"Mercedes tuff" save for the metallurgy maybe

Charming early model

Patina by the ton

Send it home

Probably wouldn't bring that much at home either

Mr_Shiftright

some of these people with 0 bids need to put away the crack pipe when they type in their starting bids. I mean, they are sooooo out of touch with reality here.

An auction means you start low, and get people to bid against each other. Just announcing a retail ++ price as the starting bid accomplishes nothing more than clearing the room quicker than a skunk jumping in the window.

GEEZ! :surprise:

POWER WAGONS--- PWs are pretty *hot* especially pre 80s. Not surprised by the bidding.

Some surprises here -- the '73 buick station wagon has strong bids

the '79 Pacer, thats good money there...

77 Matador wagon -- also strong money showing

the 59 Cadillac, though as hideous a thing as ever touched down on this planet, looks to be in really great shape---you couldn't restore this car for twice the money bid.

hpmctorque

"I also wonder how structurally sound the metal might be in a 50 year old car, especially if it lived in a harsher climate."

Good point!

andre1969

That 60 Caddy doesn't surprise me. A year or two ago they crashed a new Malibu into a 59 Chevy 4dr sedan. The 59 didn't come out too well, and the flat top probably had less structural integrity yet.

Anything GM made with an X-frame would do bad in a crash. Supposedly the bodies themselves were beefed up to compensate for the lack of side rails, but I believe they still did poorly in side impacts. And in a frontal impact, since essentially you just had one big frame rail running under the center of the passenger cabin, rather than two down each side, if the impact was offset ever so slightly from center, it would cause the whole front-end to twist in.

And, if you look under the hood of a '59 Chevy, there's really not much in the way of beefing up under the fenders.

IIRC, Chevies used the X-frame from '58-64, while Buick used it from '59-64 (and '65 Riviera). I believe Cadillac used it from '57-64, Pontiac from '59-60, and I think Olds only used it one year, 1959 maybe?

If you did a similar test running a '59 Galaxie into a Fusion or a '59 Fury into a Chrysler 200 or Dodge Avenger, I think the results would have been different. The Galaxie or Fury would probably still have lost to the newer cars, but I'm convinced they would have come out better than that '59 Chevy did.

andre1969

I thought it was mainly those beefy old 3/4-ton military looking Power Wagons that were the hot items? I think they made them from 1946-68, but the name "Power Wagon" was used in other applications. I'm not sure, but by the 80's, I think "Power Wagon" was simply what Dodge called the 4wd version. That one's a 3/4 ton model though, and looks pretty nice, so I can see why it's getting good bids.

ab348

I have seen that '76 Royal Monaco on ebay previously. Not surprising it is still for sale, given the starting price, the fact it isn't a particularly attractive car, and the reality that it really isn't a car anyone would want to drive, other than as a curiosity. It is hard to believe that 35 years ago these were the cars our parents drove. It brings home how much the world has changed in that time - mom, dad and the kids piling into one of these to go out to dinner; dad sold TV sets made in Indiana while mom kept house. The most "ethnic" kind of restaurant they would go to would be a Chinese place but most likely they would pick a place that offered "good home-cooked food"; the adults might have a few drinks with dinner, then they would all pile back into this thing and dad would shakily pilot this thing home while mom in the passenger seat would inhale some of the 2 packs of Winston 100s a day she consumed (good thing she had her own ashtray on the dash!), maybe even leting the kids smoke too if they were old enough. Nobody would wear a seatbelt and dad would make sure he didn't exceed 55 MPH on the interstate, but still couldn't squeeze much more than 10 mpg out of the thing. It's a really different world now, and this car helps bring that home.

uplanderguy

I have two friends (they are brothers) who own several of the military Dodge Power Wagons. Those are the only ones I'm aware of that have any special value. You are right, Andre, post-those a Power Wagon is only a 4WD Dodge pickup.

uplanderguy

Even by '76, if "nobody wore a seat belt", that damn chime would be ringing constantly.

andre1969

Even by '76, if "nobody wore a seat belt", that damn chime would be ringing constantly.

I wonder if the buzzer in my '76 LeMans has been tampered with, or has simply started to die? It'll buzz for a few seconds when you first turn the car on, and if you leave the key in the ignition, but it won't start buzzing again if you take your seatbelt off.

As for that '76 Monaco, I like it, except for being too red. At least it's a darker metallic red, rather than a fire engine red. I think it would be better if it at least had a white roof. The car has a massive, hulking look to it though. I mean, that thing looks heavy even compared to your typical 70's full-sizer! Probably one reason they sold poorly.

I think another problem though, is that for the kind of car it's trying to portray, it just doesn't seem ritzy enough inside. The front-end is nice and upscale looking, like it could compete with upper-end Buicks, Oldsmobiles, and Mercurys, but then you look inside and it has sort of an industrial, rubbermaid sort of look to it. Those seats, door panels, and dash have sort of a sturdy look to them, but just don't look all that appealing. And the rear of the car just screams "copcar" to me.

For 1976-77, I think most of the Dodge and Plymouth C-bodies were intended for police and taxi use, so that might explain why the interiors were pretty spartan, even on the civilian models. I've seen these in the ritzier trim levels (Brougham or whatever) and even there, they don't seem all that classy. Nowhere in the league of a top-end LeSabre or Delta 88, or even a Caprice. Kind of a shame though, because the sibling Newports and New Yorkers could be decked out really nice. Equipped correctly, a New Yorker looked every bit as pimpy ritzy inside as a Cadillac or Lincoln, and even a Newport could impart a really luxurious feel.

texases

"I'm convinced they would have come out better than that '59 Chevy did."

Probably true, but another real-life accident was an eye-opener to me - some lady lost control of her Camry/whatever and plowed into the side of a '67 LeMans (I think). The Camry stopped about 2' into the Pontiac, the side was no barrier to the Camry. Luckily the LeMans was parked, nobody inside.

Mr_Shiftright

Well any 70s pickup truck is now gaining in collectibility, and 4X4s have a purely utilitarian purpose as well, so combining the two factors leads me to believe that 70s + pickup + 4X4 + legendary "name" of Power Wagon = higher interest than a 1982 Ford PU with 6 cylinder.

An old car might LOOK better after crashing into a modern car, but the occupants wouldn't. :P

andre1969

An old car might LOOK better after crashing into a modern car, but the occupants wouldn't.

I'd imagine that just about any old car was pretty dangerous in a crash, at least until they started putting seatbelts in them. But from what I remember of that head on crash of the '59 Chevy and '09 Malibu, the '59's passenger cabin was penetrated so far that I don't think a seatbelt would have made much difference. I also remember the whole front seat coming loose and sliding forward.

Back in those days, GM had a really bad habit of sticking the steering box ahead of the front axle, way up where it really wouldn't take much of an impact to drive the non-collapsible steering column back and into the driver's chest. It's bad enough that an unbelted driver is getting pitched forward anyway, but having the steering column joust backwards at the same time is just adding insult to injury!

Even on my '85 Silverado, the steering box is ahead of the front axle, but at least it has a collapsible steering column, so in an impact I might have some chance.

fintail

Was that this crash?



The car and driver met every stereotype imaginable :shades: :sick:

texases

Bingo! That Pontiac was MUCH the worse for wear...

andre1969

here's a link that shows a whole bunch of pics from that accident and yeah, hate to say it, but it does drive home a bad stereotype

http://jalopnik.com/5816178/lexus-attacks-two-classic-cars/gallery/1

While that LeMans really got torn up, honestly, considering that Lexus was airborne when it impacted, I have a feeling that it would do a serious number on ANY car, even a new one. The only thing that might save a passenger in that instance would be side airbags.

It looks like that Lexus almost tried to come in the open windows, and then hollowed out a hole. If it had hit more at a surface level, that LeMans would have fared much better and the Lexus much worse, although I still would NOT have wanted to be in the LeMans, at any rate, when it happened!

Mr_Shiftright

Well new cars are supposed to crumple up. I mean, a concrete bridge abutment would look pretty darn good after being hit by a car at 60 mph, but you, as the occupant of the car, would be absorbing *all* the energy. Bridges are stingy..they don't GIVE. :P

when a new car crumples up, that's GOOD for you. When an old car crumples up, that's very very BAD for you.

The mere fact that many 60s convertibles could have their doors pop open going over rough railroad tracks kind of tells you the story.

lemko

...1969 Chevrolet Caprice four door hardtop painted a ghastly shade of peach and wearing tacky wire wheel rims going west on Levick Street near Bingham. Also a white 1966 Mustang parked on Oxford Avenue near Princeton in NE Philly.

uplanderguy

Was that peach color any worse than 1969 Chevy "Frost Green"? (LOL)

A Studebaker friend was a Chevy Service Writer in Indianapolis in '69. He hates Frost Green as much as I do!

Although, we both admire the '69 Chevy lineup...even the Corvair. And he's a fan of the '69 full-size cars and thinks the detail changes for '70 ruined the car!

fintail

Yeah, the wheeled pile of beige with the incompetent driver hit that poor old LeMans in the perfect point for destruction - high on the side, with a hardtop. I doubt most modern cars would have fared better, although a comparison is tough due to the lack of hardtops.

andre1969

I doubt most modern cars would have fared better, although a comparison is tough due to the lack of hardtops.

I do think most newer cars would fare somewhat better than that LeMans, but that's not to say they would fare well. It might be one of those things where you'd get killed either way, but in the LeMans your body would be mangled, where in a newer car, you'd just die from a blunt trauma to the head. So the main difference would be open casket or closed. Now, if it was a well-designed car with side airbags, your chances of survival would be better, but I imagine there's still plenty of modern cars out there where an impact like that would kill you.