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

isellhondas

No such thing as a 64 1/2 Mustang. Those are called " Early 65's" by the true Mustang people. I owned one. It was the 334th one ever built and it had the plaque on the dash the first 500 came with with the original owner's name on it.

Of course, it was a 260 V-8 with a generator and not an alternator.

Mr_Shiftright

That's correct. All Mustang VIN #s are 1965s. There is no 1964 VIN number.

andre1969

I wonder if that "1964 1/2" thing sticks in people's minds, because a few years later, Ford actually did that with the Falcon nameplate.

I forget the details behind it, but I think some new safety standard (side impact, maybe?) came out for 1970. However, safety regs tended to get phased in on January 1 of the calendar year, not the start of the model year. Anyway, the current Falcon didn't meet those standards, and its replacement, the Maverick 4-door, wasn't quite ready yet.

So, Ford built a handful of carryover 1969 Falcons badged as 1970's. And then, once 1970 proper rolled around, issued a stripped-down version of the Fairlane/Torino called the "1970 1/2" Falcon to get them through the rest of the year, until the 4-door Maverick was ready.

The Maverick itself was an early release, coming out in April of 1969, even though they were all 1970 models.

Volkwagen had a "2001.5" Passat. A friend of mine had one. And I remember them being marketed like that. But I'm pretty sure it was still considered a 2001, according to the serial number.

stickguy

I think that was the year VW came out with the new model mid stream, and instead of just calling it a 2002, they went with that nomenclature. Pretty confusing to have 2 distinct cars though with the same name and model year.

jljac

I don't remember a thing about the introduction of the Maverick, but I remember the publicity blitz about the Mustang and going to a small Ford dealer that was selling their only one (a white one) by an auction. They had that first one soon after the announcement, but not many more for quite a while after that.

I also remember radio commercials saying that a secretary making $90.00 a week could afford a new Mustang, and they weren't talking about Warren Buffett's secretary either.

robr2

Volkwagen had a "2001.5" Passat.

IIRC, that's when they did a facelift of the B5 platform. I have a 2005 and the enthusiasts call it the B5.5.

ab348

The 1970 Maverick was introduced on April 17, 1969, 5 years to the day after the introduction of the Mustang. There was significant hoopla regarding the Maverick, largely undeserved IMO, as the early Mavericks were pretty miserable cars. Its biggest claim to fame at the time was the $1995 sticker price for the base model.

andre1969

Its biggest claim to fame at the time was the $1995 sticker price for the base model.

For comparison, in 1969 the cheapest Valiant was the stripper 100 2-door sedan, at $2,094, $99 more.

Now, $99 doesn't sound like a whole lot of money, especially today. But, it was probably enough to make a difference. And, it would be like comparing a $19,950 car to a $20,940 car today. A 5% difference, basically.

And, for 1970 proper, when the Duster came out, replacing the Valiant 2-door sedan, it started at $2,172, almost 9% more than the base Maverick.

For comparison, the cheapest Falcon in 1969/70 was the base 2-door sedan. It was $2283 in 1969, $2390 in 1970. The "1970.5" Falcon, which was a lot more substantial car, started at $2460 for the 2-door sedan.

Looking back, I'm kinda surprised that the Valiant was that cheap, compared to a Falcon. I always considered the Valiant to be a more substantial car. Now granted, a base Valiant is hardly the lap of luxury, but the same can be said for any stripper (and even some uplevel) compacts of that era.

As for the Maverick, didn't the early ones lack a glovebox door? Or is that the Hornet I was thinking of? I remember one of them cutting a lot of corners to come in at a really cheap base price.

I wonder what, if anything, Plymouth had to cut out of the Valiant to keep it so cheap? For awhile they'd do things like making 13" wheels standard, while just about everybody had 14. But I don't think upgrading to the 14" added much to the cost. And even going from the base 170 slant six to the 225 only added around $45 to the cost. And, Ford did a similar thing, making a 170 standard on the Maverick, and a 200 optional.

Looking back, I think the Mustang is much more fondly remembered because it busted open a whole new genre. Suddenly, domestic compacts didn't have to be cheap and boring anymore. They could be exciting.

But, when the Maverick came out, I think was touted as an import fighter, and with that low $1995 base price, suddenly cheap and boring was returning to the compact field.

Another interesting tidbit is that the Maverick broke a record set by the Mustang. Roughly 578,000 Mavericks were sold in that extra long 1970 introductory model year, and all of them were just one model, the 2-door. The previous record for a single model introduction had been set by the Mustang, when 502,000 hardtop coupes were built in its extra long introductory year.

However, if you count the entire lineup, and not just an individual model, the Mustang still won, as it also had around 102,000 convertibles and 77,000 fastbacks, for a total of around 680,000 units.

I think that Maverick record might actually still stand, even today. The next really big first-year introduction was the 1980 Citation, another car that came out in April of the year before. The Citation sold an impressive 811,000 units that year, but there were four different body styles: coupe (43K sold), 2-door hatchback (210K), 2-door club coupe (100K, and I don't know what the difference was between it and the plain coupe), and 4-door hatchback (458K).

And, since then, I seriously doubt there have been any new nameplates that have broken 458K units, let alone 578K, in their introductory year, with just one single model.

uplanderguy

I bugged my Dad to take me to the Maverick's introduction night at the Ford dealer, even though Dad was turned off of Fords by then by our lousy '62 Fairlane that got traded in on a new '67 Chevelle.

I remember the $1,995 base price, funky color names ("Thanks Vermilion"), and lack of a glovebox; only a shelf under the main panel...similar to Hornets.

Andre, are you remembering the mid-year introduction of the '70 Camaros and Corvettes, or are you talking about actual new-model introductions?

Regarding the Citation "Coupe", I'll have to look at the original brochure on the "Old Car Manual Project" page (best source, rather than subsequent books that are usually error-ridden), but I seem to remember the "Coupe" being available with only a stick shift and 4-cyl, and missing the side window frame trim that was standard on the Club Coupe. I actually liked the proportions of the Club Coupe. Chevy did some weird things in the early '80's; after being discontinued for a year or two, the Club Coupe was reintroduced, then dropped again. Similarly, the Caprice Coupe was dropped for the '83 model year but reintroduced for '84, and bucket seats and console for Monte Carlos were dropped for '83 (maybe '82 also) but reintroduced for '84.

stickguy

and odd cars in general, I spent some time this weekend watching the broadcast of the Mecum indy auction. Some cool stuff, but man, the prices.

Last night, a '69 (I think) Boss 429 sold. All documented, totally original, with only a out 5K on the clock. Went for a cool 250K (that one appreciated!)

even scarier was a Nova selling for $475,000! Yes, it was a very nice Yenko, but still, it's a Nova!

jljac

Its [the Maverick’s] biggest claim to fame at the time was the $1995 sticker price for the base model.

The 1969 model year was the last year for the traditional domestic low price leader [the Rambler American] and the 1970 model year was the first for the AMC Hornet. As you can see competition was very tight, but it appears that the Hornet may have beat the Maverick by one dollar.
====================================================

With its manufacturers suggested retail price (MSRP) of US$1,994 for the base model, the Hornet was an economical small family car. However, it took design cues from the popular Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro, and the company's own Javelin with a long hood, short rear deck and sporty looks.[7] The Hornet's 108-inch (2,743 mm) wheelbase platform (two inches or 5.08 centimeters longer than its predecessor the Rambler American) evolved into a number of other models (including the four-wheel-drive Eagle) and was produced through 1988. The Hornet was initially available in a choice of two thrifty straight-six engines or a 304 cu in (5.0 L) V8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Hornet

ab348

At the time of introduction, the Maverick was unlike the Mustang in one key aspect - the availability of options. While you could option a Mustang up the yazoo, the Maverick had limited option availability at the start. You couldn't even get power steering or power brakes at first. The manual steering was very slow and felt heavy by standards of the day. It hit the price point by having 13" wheels standard (14" optional), no glovebox (added a few years later) and Ford parts-bin engineering. It was much like a 1960 Falcon under the skin.

To their credit, Ford did add equipment over time, but the underpinnings were still a pretty obsolete platform by the mid-70s.

bhill2

the Maverick had limited option availability at the start. You couldn't even get power steering or power brakes at first.

One unusual option that was offered on the Maverick at the introduction (and during at least part of the 1970 model year) was a semi-automatic transmission. It was essentially the fully automatic SelectShift sans the shift body. It had a quadrant similar to the full auto, but you had to physically move the shifter to move between gears. It was available only with the 170 cid engine. Oddly enough, Chevy offered a similar transmission (based on the Powerglide) at the same time on the six-cylinder Chevy II and Camaro. They called theirs 'Torque-Drive'. I haven't been able to find out whether Chrysler and/or AMC offered such an option. Does anyone know?

hpmctorque

Neither Chrysler nor AMC offered a semi-automatic equivalent to Torque-Drive. By the way, this was not a popular option on Mavericks or Novas. Didn't know Camaro offered this too.

I wonder what brilliant marketing mind at Chevy came up with the name "Torque-Drive?"

hpmctorque

"I always considered the Valiant to be a more substantial car."

Unlike earlier Falcons, the third generation Falcon, which was introduced for the '66 model year, shared its platform with the Fairlane, so it was larger and heavier than earlier Falcons. Whether that made it substantial is debatable, however.

berri

Ford's back then always had a cheapo dashboard and steering wheel. Even a nice LTD interior seat was wrecked by cheapness elsewhere inside.

berri

Neither Chrysler nor AMC offered a semi-automatic equivalent to Torque-Drive

Didn't Chrysler have some kind of funky 2 speed shift without a clutch set up in the early to mid 50's (small "h" shift pattern)? I guess I thought Rambler also offered some sort of thing like that in its multitude of transmission choices, maybe on the American? I think VW also had something like that for awhile (at least on the Beetle)?

berri

No such thing as a 64 1/2 Mustang. Those are called " Early 65's" by the true Mustang people. I owned one. It was the 334th one ever built and it had the plaque on the dash the first 500 came with with the original owner's name on it.

From a Mustang to a CRV - we're aging buddy!

hpmctorque

I think you may be confusing two entirely different transmissions offered on certain Chrysler Corp cars. The earlier one was the Fluid Drive semi-automatic(and variations on it) in the '40s and early '50s, with the "H" pattern. These transmissions had a clutch pedal, which was used to shift the lever.

The other Chrysler transmission was the fully automatic 2-speed Power-Flyte. I believe the earliest ones ('52 or '53 and '54, maybe) employed a column shifter. The '55s and '56s had a short shift lever coming out of the dash. From '57 until they discontinued the 2-speed, the shifting mechanism was by push buttons on the dash, to the left of the steering wheel. This transmission was offered concurrently with the newer 3-speed Torque-Flyte on certain Chrysler Corp. models.

I didn't think AMC offered a transmission such as you described, but you could be right.

VW offered an optional semi-automatic on the Beetle in the late '60s and early '70s.

To add to the trivia, Renault offered an odd semi-automatic on the Dauphine, but I'm too lazy to research this at this time. Incidentally, the Dauphine outsold the Beetle in the U.S. in '58.

fintail

MB had a semi-automatic too, the "Hydrak", which was somewhat awkward for users and usually became troublesome due to misuse. It is mostly seen in 1957+ ponton cars, but is known to exist in some fintails up to 1961.

Here's a piece of US market lit with a South Bend contact address...main illustration is a ponton cabrio but dash light illustration is from a fintail

bhill2

I didn't think AMC offered a transmission such as you described, but you could be right.

My memory has been jogged by berri. AMC indeed offered a transmission called 'E-Stick' in the early '60s. I believe that it was a conventional manual transmission with an electronic clutch, rather than a torque converter automatic that was shifted manually, but still qualifies as a 'semi-automatic' as defined as a transmission that is manually shifted but has no clutch.

Incidentally, regarding an earlier post, if you go to the brochures in the Old Car Manual Project and choose the 1969 Camaro brochure you can see the Torque-Drive listed as an option on the six cylinder engine. I didn't see it in the 1970 brochure. However, a jump over to the American Car Brochures site yields a 1970 Nova brochure that lists it.

hpmctorque

Thanks for the clarification.

hpmctorque

Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of reading about this MB transmission, but not its name. I'm guessing that Hydrak (another interesting name) preceded the introduction of the 4-speed automatic. Hydrak was really behind the times, given what was offered by domestic brands in '57.

fintail

That's right, MB was late to the automatic game. The 4-speed introduced ~1962 was the first in-house MB automatic (and it is unusual, without a torque converter). There was a Borg-Warner unit before that, but only found in Adenauers from 1955 on. The Hydrak looks like something that might have existed right before the war in the US.

Mr_Shiftright

The Renault semi-automatic was called the Ferlac and I think it used some kind of electronically charged magnetized metal filings to form or break a connection between clutch and flywheel every time you touched (or released) the shift lever. WIKI says that it was operated by buttons on the dash but I remember a gearshift much like the VW auto-stick. Perhaps I'm confusing (or WIKI is confusing) two separate types of transmission here.

bhill2

No, Shifty, I think you're right about the gearshift at least in the Renault. One of my father's co-workers had a 4CV with a Ferlac. I never saw it, but he drove it once and him saying that every time you touched the shifter it de-clutched. Drove him nuts.

hpmctorque

A few years back we discussed how MB's 4-speed automatic may have been a copy of GM's pre-mid-'50s Hydra-Matic. I mentioned that GM used Hydra-Matics in some of their army trucks that saw action in Europe. These were probably beefed up versions of the ones used in pre-war Oldsmobiles. Regardless, it's highly probable that some of these GM trucks never made back across the Atlantic.

Some GM city buses also featured Hydra-Matic transmissions.

In 1937 or '38 (not sure of the year(s)), shortly before Oldsmobile introduced the fully automatic Hydra-Matic, it briefly offered a semi-automatic. Does here anyone know about this transmission?

hpmctorque

From the Internet...

"The Automatic Safety Transmission (AST) was a tangent outgrowth of this work. The AST was a semi-automatic transmission using planetary gears and a conventional friction clutch, requiring the driver to use the clutch to shift into or out of gear, but not between the two forward gears. Oldsmobile offered the AST from 1937-1939, while Buick offered it only in 1938."

jljac

It was the 334th one ever built and it had the plaque on the dash the first 500 came with the original owner's name on it.

I don’t see how Ford could have had the original owner's name on the first 500 Mustangs. I remember the first one I saw in the dealers showroom window and it was being sold by an auction. This book confirms that demand was greater than supply by a ratio of 15 to 1 and that
some of the early ones were sold at auctions.
http://www.amazon.com/50-Years-American-Automobiles-1939-1989/dp/0881765929

These plaques may have been supplied to owners after the cars were sold, but I don’t see how so many people could have placed orders in advance of the car’s official announcement. Studebaker offered individual plaques for the Golden Hawk 400 in 1958. (I think the Chrysler 300 offered that option before Studebaker did) was the Some of the Hawks came from the factory with the owner’s name on the plaque, but it could also be ordered later and the dealer would attach it. Ford may have offered that option for the Mustang.

fintail

I wouldn't doubt if there was some reverse engineering. If GM can usually make something right, it's an automatic. How durable were those old transmissions? One thing MB did right was that early automatic - although it is clunky and sometimes doesn't shift when you want it (but easily overridden), it virtually never fails, I am pretty sure I have literally never seen a fintail with a dead automatic.

hpmctorque

fintail

Spotted this morning - 87+ LeBaron cabrio, amazingly nice condition angular Tercel 4x4 wagon, obviously unrestored white 2002 with big bumpers, mint looking rootbeer brown ca. 1980 911 with a whale tail.

isellhondas

" we're aging buddy"

Yes, we are but I would have been too young to have bought that Mustang new....barely!

ab348

There's nothing that makes me feel so old as when someone comes up to me at a car show when I'm with my '68 Cutlass and asks me if I'm the original owner.

"Yeah, I bought it new when I was 11 years old..."

isellhondas

I'm sure those plaques were given to the owners after they bought the cars. Buick Riviera owners were sent plaques too after they bought the cars. I think 63-65 Rivieras all were given plaques although I'm sure a lot of owners never installed them.

I remember the plaque on my Mustang said something like "Original Edition". The name was Garrison Ruby.

Funny how I can remember that but not what I had for dinner last night!

isellhondas

A few years ago, I had a pristine 45,000 mile 1953 Buick Super that was like new.

One night we took it out to a nice restaurant with another couple and I was asked that same question.

My answer was..." Yes, I am and it was a [non-permissible content removed] trying to reach the pedels when I was three years old!

andre1969

I think the old 4-speed hydramatic did have some teething problems in its first year, but GM worked the bugs out pretty quickly. It was a durable, rugged transmission, but it was also physically large, heavy, complex, and expensive to build.

The large/heavy aspect wasn't too much of a concern at first. However, as the cars became lower, and had floors that were sunk between the frame rails rather than sitting on top of them, it became much more noticeable. Oldsmobiles and the Pontiac Catalina/Grand Prix started using a new, more compact unit called the roto-hydramatic for 1961 (also known as the slim jim). Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs, and Cadillacs still used the older 4-speed hydramatic.

In the '61-64 Pontiacs that used the older hydramatics, you can really see a difference in the size of the transmission hump.

Despite having four forward gears, compared to three that Chrysler's Torqueflite had, and GM's later THM transmissions, I don't think the Hydramatic was quite as efficient. IIRC, it would take longer to shift, although it had the advantage of of shifting more smoothly, than a 3-speed auto with a torque converter. And, not that it was as much of a concern in those days, but I believe the old Hydramatic sapped more power from the engine, and caused it to use more gas, than competing 3-speed/torque converter transmissions.

fintail

I've got just the opposite in my fintail. I have to be among the youngest owners of the cars (even though I am well into my 30s), and I was maybe the youngest when I bought it at 18. More than once I have been asked if I inherited it, or if my grandfather gave it to me.

When I was in school, I had a few car enthusiast professors who would eventually run into me when I was out in the car. They could never believe I drove that thing.

fintail

I don't know if the MB unit is terribly heavy, but the hump doesn't seem too large, although it is pretty big right at the spot in front of between the front seats. It's also not the smoothest...upshifts are pretty good, but downshifts are really clunky. It also gets into 4th by 30mph at the latest, which has always seemed odd to me.

I remember a childhood friend of mine had a 69 Nova around 1996 - 307 with a 2 speed powerglide. The shift in that thing was neck snapping.

isellhondas

Andre, I think all of the 61-64 Pontiacs used the Roto Hydramatics if I'm not mistaken. They were really lousy transmissions.

The Jetaways that cam out in 1956 weren't much better.

The old 4 speed iron Hydramatics were tough, strong transmissions. When they shifted gears, you knew it!

uplanderguy

Re.: trans humps..that is one thing I appreciated after a lifetime of Chevys, when I bought my first Studebaker as a hobby car. The center hump is very small in comparison. I also liked the seating position...my elderly mother could turn right around and sit, chair-high, in the car, where she'd drop down into my daily Chevy or be unable to climb up into our Chevy van. Which reminds me, Stude four-doors never utilized that funky rear-door cut where you'd crack your head climbing into the back seat. I've done that in the back of a '56 Packard Patrician, and I seem to remember most other cars having rear doors cut similarly at the time.

I've never experienced this myself, but I've been hearing for 40 years how getting into the front seat of a car with a severe wraparound windshield ('59 GM's; '57-58 Fords, etc.) was always a knee-cracking experience. I have short legs though.

andre1969

I've never experienced this myself, but I've been hearing for 40 years how getting into the front seat of a car with a severe wraparound windshield ('59 GM's; '57-58 Fords, etc.) was always a knee-cracking experience. I have short legs though.

I can tell you from experience, that those "dog legs" can be a real knee cracker. Although I actually have the same issue to a lesser degree with the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis nowadays. Both have dashboards that jut out, and when you open the door, they intrude into the door opening area...


I've smacked my knee a couple times getting into these cars.

As for ease of entry/exit, one thing that surprised me about my '76 LeMans, is that for a low-slung coupe, it's actually quite easy to get into and out of...front seat, at least. I sometimes have to take my 88 year old grandmother to doctors visits and such, and usually have to help her getting into and out of the car. She's ridden in the LeMans a few times, and I've noticed she has an easier time with it. She's even remarked at how easy it is to get in and out of.

In contrast, she's complained about one of her old lady friend's cars, and how hard it is to get into and out of. And that car is...drumroll please...a Grand Marquis! The very type of car that old people flock to!

One thing I've noticed, with regards to driveshaft/transmission humps, and other intrusions, in that 70's and 80's era at least, it seems like Mopars usually had the least intrusion, Fords were the worst, and GM was somewhere in the middle.

tjc78

That one highly modified Vic. Manual conversion and a huge tach. I like it!

My LaCrosse is a knee buster if you aren't careful. I sit with the seat really far back so it doesn't bother me. My Fiance OTOH occasionally hits her knee (and then blames me :mad: ).

Here is an example from the web:

andre1969

Wow, that looks like the kind of dash that can get your knee, both getting in and getting out, because of the way it curves! With the Panther body, I'd usually only have a problem getting in, and then just with the outer leg (left if I'm the driver, right if I'm the passenger)

fintail

No knee room worries here :shades: I guess the hump isn't that bad either.

tjc78

Visibility in that thing must be awesome.

fintail

Probably the best of any car I have ever driven. You don't sit high, but the beltline isn't too high, the glass is curved, and the C-pillar is the thickest one - still not very thick:

andre1969

Here's a pic I have of the interior of my '76 LeMans. It comes in pretty big, so I figured I'd better just link it instead. I didn't take this pic...the seller did. It looks like the dash would really interfere with the center seating position, but I think the seat was moved pretty far forward in this picture. He was fairly short.

I'm impressed with how much range of motion that seat has. I can actually get it into angles where I can't even reach the pedals anymore, but then I have a problem with my head touching the ceiling!

Oh, and here's the '79 New Yorker transmission hump...

tjc78

Its amazing how different today's dashboards are. In your Lemans everything is focused toward the driver. In today's cars things are mostly symetrical so the passenger can adjust the radio, etc.

fintail

You're tall, so if you can fit, that's a seal of approval. In the fintail, I don't have the seat all the way back either - tons of headroom too, I think those cars were made for men who wear fedoras. But, lots of difference between cars introduced in 1959 and those from 1979.

Least roomy MB I've had was my C43 - knees were annoyingly close to the dash, had me worry about crashes - and with the seat all the way back, it was effectively a 3 seater car.