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

dieselone

I always remember them for their motorized seat belts.

I don't know what year they got the mice;) Our '85 didn't have them, I think that was a late 80's feature. I remember late '80's Escorts, Tempos, and Probes having the auto seat belts. Glad that didn't last.

Ford certainly wasn't alone in that regard. My wife's '92 Saturn had them. God they those were terrible. On subzero mornings they'd move so slow and they always sounded like they were about to break.

IIRC, wasn't it the late 80's to early 90's when some GM cars had the shoulder belt attached to the door frame? Another bad idea.

uplanderguy

Yeah, my '80 Beretta GT and I think my '90 Corsica had the belts mounted on the doors. Not the safest idea, but I think motorized belts would've driven me absolutely nuts. I don't think GM completely escaped that craze, as I think (accent on 'think') later Chevettes had motorized belts. Not sure as there was no way I seriously looked at new Chevettes (although when I married my wife she was driving a twelve-year old Chevette...in wintry northeastern OH no less).

dieselone

but I think motorized belts would've driven me absolutely nuts. I don't think GM completely escaped that craze, as I think (accent on 'think') later Chevettes had motorized belts.

Yes, they drove me nuts. We only had one car with them thankfully.

martian

A bit of a hijack-but the discussion reminded me of that "Seinfeld" episode-where the hapless George buys an old Chrysler K-car (thinking that it was owned by the actor Jon Vought). Of course, it was another Jon Vought-and the car is a piece of junk.
Its kinda like the weird obsession that Americans have with places "where George Washington slept".
Anyway, there are several "Hitler" M-B cars arond-one is at the Larz Anderson Museum (Brookline, MA). There is no proof that der fuhrer ever rode in it, however.
I do recall seeing Hitler riding in the prototype VW "beetle"-but he never drove it.

uplanderguy

Yeah, my '80 Beretta GT

Lest anyone think I've completely lost it (might be too late for that!), my Beretta was an '89, not an "'80"!

dieselone

Lest anyone think I've completely lost it (might be too late for that!), my Beretta was an '89, not an "'80"!

I figured it as a typo. Happens to the best of us;)

fintail

When I was in high school, in a small town where virtually no kids received new or late model cars from their parents, most drove malaise era cars, so the comparisons were easy. The Tempo, with its craptastic 3-speed performance, still seemed nicer than most others I knew. Build quality on smaller Fords then also was better than smaller other domestics. That thing stayed in the family until 1999 at 190K - I know I've told the story before, but the engine was never touched save for a valve cover gasket (although it had numerous computer/sensor issues as typical for period cars) and the transmission never needed repair. Ours was also an oddball, although it was an 85, it had a 9/85 production date, and had some weird things like a factory high mount stop light, and a 1986 steering wheel. It was "medium regatta blue" with a similar interior, and with the GLX trim, wasn't unpleasant for the time.

If anything though, such cars make us appreciate what we have now, for the same inflation adjusted money, you get a lot more.

fintail

Those belts were from the passive safety regulations for model year 1989, I think. You had to have those or an airbag, and as most makers were too cheap for airbags yet, those belts were common until the early 90s. I remember a high school friend who drove a Mitsubishi Precis (how many of those can be left?) with those, cumbersome.

The cool belts were on MB coupes, the belt assembly would be where the B-pillar would have been (these were all hardtop cars), a motorized arm would "hand you" the belt. Cool so long as it was working.

dieselone

When I was in high school, in a small town where virtually no kids received new or late model cars from their parents, most drove malaise era cars, so the comparisons were easy.

I attended a fairly large HS in an upper middle class town of 30k. So I saw it all. But yeah, there were a lot of oil stains in the parking lot;) The oil stains were from the crowed I hung around;)

A Tempo was certainly a step above many of the crappy domestic compacts at the time.

I remember the GLX model, it was certainly a step up from our GL. And like you said, our wasn't horrible regarding reliability, it really didn't have any issues until 80k miles or so.

I will say, that transmission always felt like it's next shift might be it's last, but it lasted until it blew a head gasket around 120k or so. My abuse didn't help it much.

If anything though, such cars make us appreciate what we have now, for the same inflation adjusted money, you get a lot more.

Not even close.

bhill2

Those belts were from the passive safety regulations for model year 1989, I think.

Well, our early-production '88 Cressida had them, but that may have been Toyota anticipating the regulation. Probably the only truly annoying aspect of a car that was otherwise inoffensive (albeit not even close to being exciting.) I have to say though, that the car was comfortable, borderline luxurious, impressively quick, and almost supernaturally reliable.

texases

Saw one of those convertible FWD Crapis Capris - hadn't seen one in a LONG time!

stickguy

My 1991 Mazda 626 (I loved that car) had rat belts. Primary reason I sold it.

speaking of the 80s, I was behind a Corsica the other day. Long time since I saw one of those.

dieselone

Saw one of those convertible FWD Crapis Capris - hadn't seen one in a LONG time!

No kidding, those are only marginally more desirable than a Geo Metro convertible;)

fintail

I beat on our Tempo too, my favorite move was to rev it way up in neutral and drop it into gear. Didn't break anything, didn't really get it to move any faster either.

That car also shows the shortsighted mentality of domestic brand product planners - how many names like Tempo came and went while Civic and Corolla are older than I am.

fintail

Cressidas were cool - powerful (for the time) smooth I6 and available manual in a larger sedan? Hard to believe it was a Toyota, too bad it was sacrificed for Lexus beige boredom.

And on that subject, I actually saw 2 Cressidas today, along with a first gen 929, a ~65 Stingray, a big 70s swoopy fendered Monte Carlo, and a kind of ugly tan color MB W123.

bhill2

Cressidas were cool - powerful (for the time) smooth I6 and available manual in a larger sedan?

The stick wasn't available in '88. If it had been I might have tried to talk the ladyfriend into getting one. It probably wouldn't have worked, she wasn't all that enthusiastic about the stick in the VW diesel Rabbit I brought into the relationship. When we bought the Corvette, however, she became much more enthusiastic.

lemko

...aqua-colored 1965 Ford Thunderbird with a white top on the corner of Martins Mill Road and Bingham Street in NE Philly.

lemko

Oh oh! I see Aunt Bea's Studebaker's grille is dented! I wonder if she ran into the back of Andy's patrol car while parking it?

berri

Maybe Otis had a bad night!

uplanderguy

...light yellow '70 Chevrolet Impala Custom Coupe, black vinyl top, 350 engine, five-slot Rally Wheels. Some rust around the rear wheel opening on the driver's side. Interior original and excellent. Talked to the guy as I was leaving (he was on his way in) and said he recently bought it in Blairsville, PA for $1,200 (down from asking price of $1,475). It was the seller's grandmother's car, and he added the Rally Wheels when he got home. Said it drove the three hours back this way, excellently. Those were good cars overall and I was reminded how ubiquitous they were then, like Camrys today. What a choice then, though...two coupe rooflines available, a post four-door sedan, a 4-door hardtop, convertible, and station wagon models (called "Kingswood")--plus probably a choice of sixteen colors (seriously). I miss those days.

omarman

Spotted a car transporter this morning loaded with all late model vehicles except for a turquoise 1955(?) Buick loaded over the cab of the truck. It was a 2-door Special I think because it had 3 portholes instead of 4.

fintail

Saw a nice period light blue 64 T-Bird today.

Yesterday saw a nice example of a ~ 81 Corolla coupe, which was made in so many bodystyles, the one I saw was like this:

andre1969

No kidding, those are only marginally more desirable than a Geo Metro convertible;)

In a roundabout sort of way, I was responsible for a friend of mine buying one of those FWD Capri convertibles. Once upon a time, I was a member of the Maryland DeSoto owners club. I became friends with another member who only lived a few miles away, and was one of the few who wasn't three days older than God.

Well, he had bought a 1950 DeSoto Custom 4-door sedan. Nice car, and in great shape, but not exactly exciting. Something you'd expect Mr. Cunningham in "Happy Days" to drive. He was a bit envious when I got my '57 Firedome 2-door hardtop. Soon thereafter, he bought a '55 DeSoto Fireflite Coronado...one of the first triple-tone cars ever offered. Much more hip and swinging, but still, a 4-door sedan.

Then, I got my '67 Catalina convertible. And that made my friend get the convertible bug. His first dip into the water was an '83 or so LeBaron convertible with the 2.6 "Silent Shaft' Mistubhishi "Hemi" (I shudder to use that word, but technically, it did have a hemispherical combustion chamber). That didn't last long though, and before I knew it, he had one of those FWD Aussie Capris.

Honestly, I don't know if the Capri was a good car or not, as he didn't have it long. Last time I saw him, he got rid of the '55 DeSoto and the Capri, and bought a '72 Corvette. That was back around 1996 or so.

tjc78

'83 or so LeBaron convertible with the 2.6 "Silent Shaft' Mistubhishi "Hemi"

My Stepdad had an 83 E-class with that engine. I remember it being light years ahead of the 2.2 in my Mother's 85 Charger. The Charger was shot by 92, but the E kept on going until 95 when it was sold locally. I still saw it on the road until a few years ago.

andre1969

Those E-bodies (E-class, Caravelle, 600 sedan, New Yorker) were actually pretty nice cars, I thought. I didn't care for them when I was younger, but I drove my grandmother's cousin's '86 or so Dodge 600, and thought it was a decent car. Considering it was only a 3" stretch in wheelbase, I think they did a good job of making it feel like a more substantial, and roomier car than the Aries/Reliant and the LeBaron/400.

I thought the lack of a V-6 engine might have hurt their competitiveness a bit, but if you wanted more power, there was always the turbo 2.2.

A year or so ago, there was an '83 or so New Yorker at the Mopar show in Carlisle, in the same "nightwatch" midnight blue of my '79 New Yorker. While the car didn't have the presence of the older, bigger, "real" New Yorkers, or even the Volare-based M-body New Yorker/5th Ave, it certainly made up for it in interior materials. It was a very ritzy, plush car. Made my New Yorker, and even my 5th Ave edition, look a bit cheap in comparison.

Mr_Shiftright

Well Mitsubishi licensed that "silent shaft" tech to companies like Porsche, so it wasn't all bad.

texases

For a while it seemed like Mitsubishi was the 'other' high-tech Japanese company, along with Honda. Silent shaft, twin-stick, turbos, they were pretty adventurous back then. Now, not so much...

omarman

If somebody is in the market for the presence of the older, bigger, "real" New Yorkers try this one!

Mr_Shiftright

Nice old boat indeed, priced about 2X what it's worth however. Geez, look at those door and panel gaps....built by blind men?

tjc78

I wouldn't throw that out of my driveway! Great color combo, and amazing all original condition especially considering the miles.

fintail

That's a very nice car and has attracted a bit of attention - striking color combo and who can dislike a hardtop wagon? But, it's still a little dear in this economy.

Mr_Shiftright

maybe a trust fund surfer will buy it or something.

fintail

I bet they all drive Range Rovers and X6s now :sick:

andre1969

If somebody is in the market for the presence of the older, bigger, "real" New Yorkers try this one!

Funny thing is, I tend to turn my nose up a bit at the '63-64 as a "real" New Yorker, too! They were yet another victim of Chrysler's downsizing campaign, which kicked off about 15 years too early. While the shrinkage here wasn't nearly as drastic as it had been with the '62 Plymouths and Dodges, I always thought that having the New Yorker move down to the 122" Newport platform lost it a lot of prestige.

IIRC, the Newports and 300 series actually sold pretty well in those years, but I don't think the New Yorker was a very hot seller. And compared to the Electra and Ninety-Eight with which it was supposed to compete, it looked downright diminutive.

Actually, I don't think the New Yorker ever did truly return to its former glory after that. While the 1965 model was much bigger and more substantial, on a more appropriate 124" wheelbase, it shared it with the much cheaper Newport, and they mainly only changed the easy-swap stuff to differentiate the cars. At least at Buick and Olds, if you went to a 98 or Electra, you got a bigger car than a LeSabre or 88, and the styling through the body and rear was enough to set them apart more.

berri

I recall that in the mid 60's in the Chicago suburbs both the Newport and the LeSabre and 88 sold pretty well. One factor may have been that they were advetised as selling at similar prices to the upper level Chevy and Fords...and they were all pretty nice cars really.

fintail

Saw a yellow Vehicross today

uplanderguy

Obviously, styling is subjective, but I think those '63 and '64 Chryslers seem so dated..proportions, shapes, size of nameplates, etc. I much-prefer the '65. That said, that is probably the most beautiful example of one of those wagons I have probably ever seen. Although I think the exterior and instrument panel look right out of the late '50's, those seats seem more modern than the rest of the car. Very nice.

andre1969

Obviously, styling is subjective, but I think those '63 and '64 Chryslers seem so dated..proportions, shapes, size of nameplates, etc. I much-prefer the '65.

Well, I always thought that 1961 was to Chrysler what 1958-59 was to GM, and less so Ford. Just as it took GM a few years to shake off some of those styling excesses and faux pas, the same would hold true for Chrysler.

By the time we get into 1963-64, I prefer the looks of the Dodge 880 to the Chryslers. In its case, the roofline was even more dated than the Chrysler's. At least Chrysler squared its roof and C-pillar area off for '63, in keeping with the trends of the time. In contrast, the Dodge 880 kept the same roofline that was introduced for the 1960 UniBody models, and which really wasn't that different in style from the 1957-59 cars. But, I thought the body sheetmetal, front-end, etc, was a bit more tastefully done than the Chryslers. And, if you got the Custom 880, it was pretty nice and upscale inside.

I do prefer the '64 Chryslers to the '63. They seemed to bulk up the front of the car a bit, and fill it out a little better for '64.

tjc78

Saw a mid 80s Toyota Van in seemingly good condition. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw one. Did they have a name or was it just "Van". I know the Previa was the 90s model.

uplanderguy

By the time we get into 1963-64, I prefer the looks of the Dodge 880 to the Chryslers.

Me, too! I always remember a deep turquoise '64 Dodge Custom 880 up the street from us, always clean, and I thought it was a good-looking car for the most part, with those long, horizontal taillights.

omarman

I remember some kind of fuss from VW when Toyota first referred to it as the VanWagon and after that it was just the Toyota Van here. But in their home market it was the MasterAce.

texases

I have to say, I never remember seeing an 880 until it got mentioned here at some point. Almost thought about posting one as a mystery pic:

omarman

Same here and at first glance I'd even mistake it for a Rambler 880!

ab348

I agree that the cycle of Chrysler model styling went upward from 55 through '60, then dipped downward until '65. The all-new '65s were boxy but very nice, especially the early higher-end models with the glass covers over the headlights. The '67 & '68 were less good. Then you got into the fuselage era, which is a whole different kettle of either good or bad fish, depending upon your point of view.

There is a pale yellow '65 (I think) Town & Country wagon that makes occasional appearances at car shows locally that is just gorgeous.

andre1969

For some reason, the '62-64 Dodge 880 seems to have a fairly good survival rate, at least enough that I see them fairly regularly at classic car shows. They didn't make very many. The car came out in mid 1962, when it was becoming apparent that the downsized '62 Polara was going to be a flop. I think they sold about 17,000 880's in '62, which was better than the 13,000 or so Polaras they sold. But, IIRC, it was priced the same as a Newport. I think they held the price for both the 880 and the Newport at something like $2964 for the 4-door sedan, through 1964.

The 880 did sell better in '63 and '64, but still, the Newport outsold it by a wide margin. The 880 name did persist through 1965, but that year the Polara returned to a proper full-sized platform, and the more upscale Monaco was introduced. Initially, it was just a hardtop coupe intended to compete with the likes of the Grand Prix, Starfire, etc, but for '66 it became a full lineup and replaced the 880. And still, I think the Chrysler Newport tended to outsell the big Dodges, as it was still similarly priced. Plus, the Fury returned to full-sized status for '65 as well, and undercut the big Dodges in price. I always thought the Fury had a bolder identity to it. You could just look at it and it seemed to scream "Plymouth", whereas the Dodges were somewhat nondescript.

I guess, just like DeSoto before, if given the choice, for a similar price people would flock to the prestige of the Chrysler nameplate. Actually, with DeSoto it was even worse, as the Newport undercut the DeSoto by around $150 or so when it was introduced for 1961.

Although, I always ask the question...if the nameplate keeps getting applied to cheaper and cheaper cars, when does it stop being prestigious?

texases

While it's probably because I grew up with one in the family, I prefer the '63 Polara's looks over the 880, particularly the rear view:



And wasn't the Polara more of a fullsize car after the '62 disaster?

andre1969

Yeah, they did stretch the Polara out for 1963-64. Another thing that might have helped the Polara was that in '63, the Dart became a compact, so that may have helped the Polara to establish its identity a bit better. For '62, the Dart and Polara were the same basic car, on the same 116" wb.

For '63-64, the Polara was stretched out to a 119" wheelbase, although to me, it still had sort of a midsized style to it, and you could tell at a quick glance it was a smaller car than a full-sized Chevy or Ford. But, that wasn't a bad thing. It had sort of a musclecar look to it. And with the right engine, it was, even though GM had yet to coin that term.

Supposedly though, those ill-timed '62-64 Mopars were very space efficient, and really didn't give up much interior room compared to a Ford or Chevy. They were bigger inside than "proper" intermediates such as the '62 Fairlane/Meteor, or GM's '64 Chevelle/Tempest/F-85/Special.

berri

Dodge is kind of an interesting brand. In the sixties it didn't seem to have much individual identity during the first half of the decade, you either went Plymouth or Chrysler unless you were looking for a truck. Dodge did have a lot of special edition sales that brought in some customers. Then the Coronet kind of took off in the mid 60's as an intermediate (ironic because I think a lot of its basis was carried over from the unsuccesful 62 downsizing). That led to the popular later 60's muscle cars they put out which kind of gave Dodge an image of good cars with good drivetrains. Trucks took off in the 80's and Plymouth thus ended up the loser.

berri

Supposedly though, those ill-timed '62-64 Mopars were very space efficient, and really didn't give up much interior room compared to a Ford or Chevy

I think that's true, In a way it was a small scale predecessor to the 77 GM big car downsizing, except no fuel crisis to drive demand. Those Mopars cut more in areas like trunk, underhood space and overhang than interior other than being a bit narrower I think.

lemko

The 1963-64 Chryslers are a strange blend of Exner-Engel styling. You can easily see they are transition models.