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

andre1969

Interesting video. I wonder what was up with the drivetrain, that it took 13.4 seconds to get from 0-60? Even though 265 gross hp isn't all that powerful, I'd still think that car should do better than that. Maybe it was geared really tall, or something?

CR tested a 1968 Impala with a 307 and 2-speed Powerglide, and got 0-60 in 14.5 seconds. That's not a very good time, but when you factor in a small engine with only 200 hp, and the hinderance of a 2-speed automatic, in a full-sized car, that 14.5 sounds just about right. I would've thought the 396, even just with the 2-bbl, should have been good for around 11-11.5?

uplanderguy

I never knew they made a 2-barrel 396, although I remember the 2-barrel 400 starting in '70. I think the car sure is pretty though. I grew up around Chevys, but I think the styling, in and out, is prettier than the same year Ford or Plymouth. It's all based on whatever you saw first, I guess.

andre1969

For some reason, I remember one of our Edmund's members mentioning he once had a '68 or '69 Camaro with a 396-2bbl, THM transmission, and a tall rear-end, and could get 20 mpg on the highway?

I think Popular Mechanics tested a 1971 Impala or Caprice with the 170 hp 400, and they got 0-60 in around 11.8 seconds. Consumer Guide tested a 1972 Impala with the 165 hp 350, and 0-60 was 12.0 seconds.

Weren't all of those smallblock 400's 2-bbl, or did they make a few 4-bbl models as well?

I agree with you, and prefer the '69 Chevy to the Ford and Plymouth, too. The Ford just has sort of a generic, non-descript look to it. And with that year's Fury, it looks like they tried to take the style of the '68-69 intermediates and apply it to the big cars, and it just doesn't quite work. It does have a bit of a sporty look to it from some angles, but the '69 Impala has a more impressive, upscale, expensive look to it.

stickguy

not sure where i saw it (maybe here), but wasn't there what was effectviely an early "FE" package like that? Big engine/small carb/long gears?

ab348

We owned a '69 Impala from new and although the styling was OK it was a terrible car. The suspension was way too soft and floaty. Plus the '69 refresh looked OK on the outside but the '69-'70 dash and steering wheel was a step backwards from the '68 and especially the '67. I much preferred the '69 Ford at the time they were introduced, with its swept-away dash design, but couldn't convince my parents to go that route back then. Although I like the fuselage Mopars nowadays, in '69 I didn't care for the Plymouth or Dodge styling that much, though I liked the big Chryslers. 1970 was when the fuselage cars got better.

lemko

It's pretty hard to top the '67 dashboard. My Grandpop had a 1967 Bel Air and that dashboard had these big aggressive round gauges and looked like it went all the way to the floor.

uplanderguy

My grandparents had a new plum-colored '67 Impala Sport Coupe and I loved the instrument panel. The gauges were huge and behind a clear cover. I can plainly remember the first new '67 Chevy I ever saw, a light green Bel Air wagon tucked way out back of our little local Chevy dealer's in late summer '66. Even then I was smitten by the instrument panel.

My grandparents sold the '67 outright in the fall of '70, after Grandpa retired and the granddaughter they raised got married, and proceeded to buy the first Vega our dealer got in...a cheap sedan with rubber on the floor and 3-speed trans. What a change from the Impala!

The '69 Ford dash, I didn't "get", with the radio to the left of the driver and the very short (in height) glove compartment.

lemko

Grandpop's '67 was a goldish brown with a black vinyl and cloth interior. He kept it until he replaced it with a new dark green 1974 Impala.

My Grandmom had a very nice black 1964 Biscayne with a red and white interior. She traded it for a new mustard-yellow 1973 Vega that was a total POS. Even as an 8 year-old, I could tell that car was nowhere remotely as nice as her Biscayne. There wasn't even enough room for me and my six year-old little brother in the back seat. It was cramped, full of cheap plastic bits, and even the headliner was a warped piece of perforated particle board. Heck, even the dome light looked cheap.

uplanderguy

My grandparents' Vega was dark, dark green metallic with what I call "pumpkin" color interior. I remember as plain as day that the bottom of the sticker was $2,257. Two options: white stripes tires and AM radio.

My grandfather bought blackwall snow tires immediately and just left them on, clashing with the white-stripe front tires. He drove the car 'til around '78 and it had 3,108 miles when my aunt bought it. You read that right. Their '67 Impala had only 6,000-odd miles when they sold it.

My aunt's husband had to change the Vega's fuel filter twice to get it the fifty or so miles to their home after buying it.

The Vega was such an early serial number, that the quarter window surround was just black rubber. Not too long in, they put a metal surround around the sedan quarter windows, which was then body-colored. Vegas were built only maybe 35 or so miles away from our hometown and there were people from our town who worked at the Lordstown plant.

Not sure about the '67, but most Impalas I remember being at our local dealer were built in Wilmington, DE. Our '74 Impala Sport Coupe was built there, but our '77 was built in Janesville, WI.

The car that preceded my grandparents' '67 Impala was a light green '63 Bel Air wagon, 283, Powerglide, positraction (or "positive traction" as Grandpa called it). He ordered a Biscayne and it came in a Bel Air. He got the difference for free after threatening to not buy the car, he used to say.

stickguy

In the same driveway, a mid 70s 2 door Granada, and a very early Honda civic (so also mid 70s most likely). Even an older house that looked like it was last painted in the mid 80s! Truly a time warp scene right out of my youth.

andre1969

The first car I can remember my Mom owning was a 1968 Impala 4-door hardtop in sort of an aqua/light greenish blue color. My grandparents had actually bought it brand-new, but in 1972, gave it to my Mom, in exchange for her '66 Catalina convertible, and used the Catalina as a trade on a new '72 Impala 4-door hardtop.

In 1975, Mom traded it on a new LeMans coupe, in sort of a persimmon/bronze color. I'm not sure what color it actually was, because I've looked up the paint charts, and Pontiac offered a persimmon AND a bronze that year!

A couple years ago, I asked Mom about that '68, why she traded it, if it had any issues, rust, etc. She said that it had been a good car, but the rear-end was starting to go out, so that's why she traded it. No rust issues, that she remembers.

In retrospect, I wonder if she would've been better off just getting the rear-end fixed on that '68, than buying the LeMans? The Impala had a 327, while the LeMans had a Pontiac 350-2bbl.

The LeMans was pretty tired by 1980, when Mom traded it on a new Malibu coupe. I think it only had about 60,000 miles on it, but Mom was getting sick of the 15 mpg, at best, that it was getting. And, the styles changed so fast back then that by 1980, the car just felt old. Admittedly, my Dad didn't help things much, when it came to that car. He ran it into a tree in 1977, and Mom said that it never ran right after that.

I guess by 1975, a '68 Impala probably seemed like an old car. And, being a 4-door, Mom probably felt like she was driving her parents' car...which, she was!

ab348

Aside from the safety improvements, I have to think the '68 Impala would have been a better car than the '75 Lemans, though it depends partly on how the Impala was equipped.

berri

I think most anything in the mid 70's is a risk because of all the EPA and safety contraptions they had to quickly put into them. I also felt that GM's best cars were their full sized ones.

andre1969

I have to think the '68 Impala would have been a better car than the '75 Lemans, though it depends partly on how the Impala was equipped.

Well, the Impala had a 327, and I'm pretty sure it was just the base 250 gross hp one. IIRC, Chevy was still only offering 2-speed automatics with their smallblocks in '68, as I don't think the THM350 tranny came out until 1969. It also had a/c, power steering, brakes, probably just an AM-only radio. Crank windows, etc. Probably equipped about how most of them left the showroom.

The LeMans had a Pontiac 350-2bbl, which put out 155 net hp that year. THM350 transmission, a/c, power steering/brakes, crank windows, etc.

I just looked up the weights in my old car book. Looks like a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop with the base V-8 started at 3715 lb. It doesn't break out 6 versus V-8 weights for the LeMans coupe, but rather averages them, and the result is 3766 lb. So, it's a safe bet that LeMans weighed more than the Impala did!

It's amazing how quickly those midsized cars bulked up in the 70's. And once they started putting on the 5 mph bumpers, some intermediates actually ended up being longer than some full-sized cars! For instance, I believe the mid-70's intermediate Ford and Mopar wagons ended up slightly longer than some of the smaller full-sized cars, such as the '71-76 Impala/Caprice coupes and sedans.

Mr_Shiftright

practically every car ever made gets bigger as it evolves....kinda like us :P

fintail

That makes me think, cars did seem to get older a lot faster back in the olden days, and maybe not even terribly long ago. Maybe shows how much better designs and materials age today. I am sure my parents ~75 T-Bird felt pretty ancient by the time it was let go around 1984 - even though it wasn't a cheap car when new. I know my dad's 85 S-10 Blazer easily seemed to have its best days behind it by 1990. The Ciera seemed to age pretty fast too, even though it didn't turn to crap, the design just looked old all of a sudden. The best aging cars in my family fleet were a Taurus, and strangely enough, a Tempo, which didn't seem to get old until well into the 90s anyway.

kyfdx

That's it...

I'm not getting fatter.. I'm evolving....

Mr_Shiftright

an ever-expanding universe of billions and billions of chains of amino acids, as Carl Sagan might have said... :P

Which, ironically, might explain why cars marketed to older buyers DO get bigger (at least inside).

fintail

The guy not far from me who I consider to be one of Andre's long lost relatives due to the amount of cars he owns just picked up something different for the snow we have today - a blue early 80s Subaru wagon. It's sitting in front of his house right now with all the doors open :confuse: ...appears to be in decent condition.

texases

"It's sitting in front of his house right now with all the doors open ...appears to be in decent condition. "

Except for the residue of its days with the 'skunk rescue mission'....

Mr_Shiftright

nasty little things.

texases

Re: old Subies - friend had one, I was always surprised at how rough/coarse the engine was, given its 'perfect balance'... :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

They drove and sounded like an old CJ Jeep.

bhill2

IIRC, Chevy was still only offering 2-speed automatics with their smallblocks in '68

Actually, you could get the Turbo-Hydramatic in the full size with anything 327 c.i. or up. I don't know how may people actually put it behind the small block however.

andys120

A couple of pretty rare ones that "I saw today:

-1st Gen VW Scirocco. This one was slightly modified with light gray paint, a big front air dam and no bumpers in front or rear. I haven't seen an original Scirocco in over a decade.

-de Tomaso Deauville. That's the four door Berlina. I doubt I've ever seen one before since less than 250 were ever made.

-

Mr_Shiftright

Deauville--an unloved car

texases

I had a '79 Scirocco for several years - loved it, the looks were just 'right' to me. 2nd gen, not so much...

robr2

I saw a mid 70's Jeep Wagoneer. Deep Forest Green with hints of Rusty Rogue.

fintail

Was the deTomaso running and driving?

There are still a few early Sciroccos on the road here, even a couple 2nd gen cars.

jdshifty1

I love those old sciroccos. I had an 87 16v for a long times with a few mods.
of course it's a joke compared to a newer car. it was tornado red.

andys120

Yup, the Deauville was running four-up.

texases

Saw a '68 Fury III convertible today in Houston, like this but nicely restomodded, disk brakes, alloy wheels (but similar to factory, not 20s with 40 series tires).

fintail

Saw an early 70s Blazer and a 90s Audi 100 out in the snow.

explorerx4

I still remember that movie with a few shivers.
'Is it safe?' My teeth have never felt safe since then.

fintail

Be sure to know the history of your dentist

In the snow this afternoon - an early Bronco, looked in mint condition, no fender flares

Mr_Shiftright

Those early Broncos are getting pricey! :surprise:

fintail

Hard to find one that hasn't been chopped up or left to rot on the bottom of a lake.

Mr_Shiftright

And they had a 3-speed column shifter for the longest time (or automatic).

fintail

A real SUV rather than a mommy-mobile. 1966 design pretty much unchanged through 1977 or so...who did they think they were, VW or Rolls?

Mr_Shiftright

They didn't break down enough to be Rolls Royce or VW. :P

fintail

You could get a few roadworthy Beetles today for the price of a brake overhaul on a Shadow, no doubt

Mr_Shiftright

Last I heard, brake overhaul on a Shadow was $6,000 to $8000.

ab348

This is a really handsome and solid-looking car:

Red '69 Newport Convertible

I like it, but the white interior strikes me as a bit odd. It has black door panels which seems wrong to me. The black and white steering wheel also seems strange. I know Mopar did white steering wheels back then for their CHP fleet cars but I have never seen one like this.

Regardless, I like it.

Mr_Shiftright

It's a car you'd want to look at before you bought it. The underside/chassis looks pretty tired up front (hardly "mint"!) and it looks like the differential is leaking. Might be a 'cosmetic resto", that is, new paint and upholstery over a tired car. Hard to say.

At any rate, the current bid is more than fair already. A stunning show car would be worth no more than $15000. Looks like somebody forgot to look at the price guides. But to be fair, I'd have to see this one in person.

Rare car, but does anyone care? It was thought to be too big and too boring in styling at the time--which is probably why they only made 2169 of them.

I'd pay about $8000 based on the photos I've seen.

stickguy

outside a repair shop in NJ, a few oldies including an early rabbit vab, and a Volvo 120 wagon that actually looked to be in pretty nice shape.

lemko

There's a real ratty looking silver-blue 1970 Shadow that passes through my neighborhood from time to time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a FrankenRolls with a Chevy 350 under the hood

fintail

If the the complex hydraulic brake network was also replaced, that would be the way to go. But at least it has a GM transmission!

Whenever I see a Shadow I think of Clarkson driving one into a pool. I don't mind the old Corniche cabrios though, such an 80s status symbol.

Mr_Shiftright

Shoot, a Shadow would probably be worth MORE with a GM engine, trans and brake system. But alas, I don't think modifying the brake system would be a very easy task, as it ties into the suspension as well.

fintail

Not worth the hassle. If I wanted an old Rolls I'd get a later Corniche, a Spur/Spirit (yeah I know they aren't great but I liked them a lot when I was a kid), or maybe a late Cloud. Maybe a Camargue too as they are so odd and homely. I think the short run Seraph is getting cheap too, as similar year Arnage can be found for under 40K now.

Mr_Shiftright

better choice but you'd still have the devil to pay.