Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But, if I was looking for one, the first choice would be the '70 Coronet. I think that is by far the best-looking of the whole bunch. I love that double-loop front bumper.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
"Police Academy", which had a few odd old cars in it.
This may be a repost for many of you, but what an amazing collection of cars especially if you like 'land yachts".
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
What do I like most, hmm...the Eldo Brougham, SL74, the blue Firebirds are pretty cool, I don't mind the 80 Eldo as it is kind of the sport model (term used loosely), the Wagoneer is cool, and the 750iL, although not a great car (probably an hour shop time for every hour on the road), is probably the best survivor in the country.
The "past cars" page is fun to browse through, too...I appreciate the pics of the old window stickers and documents.
Out on foot today, saw a white bundt wheels R107 SL that reminded me of "Casino", a red Allante, and a gold Mark V.
I bet my whole basketball team could fit in the back seat, all 10 of the boys. LOL
For some odd reason, I also find myself liking that '96 Fleetwood. I think that pic was taken in about the most flattering angle I've ever seen. Usually, whenever I see these cars on the street, they have sort of an ungainly, chunky, disjointed look about them, but in that pic it looks sleeker and lower than they really are. I'd still take one, simply because it's big, RWD, and V-8, but I never was all that crazy about their styling.
Someone mentioned how roomy the backseat of a '76 or '78 Eldorado would be...my response is, 'you might be surprised at how it isn't!'.
That Firethorn (what I know the color as from knowing Chevys of that era best) Eldo convertible is a dead-ringer for one bought new by an eye doctor in my hometown who passed away less than a year ago. He traded in a very nice ice blue with white top '71 Eldo convertible for it. Probably three years ago I was back in town, stopped at an intersection and I saw a weathered '76 Eldo convertible also stopped, top down. It was the Doctor! He still had it. I wonder if the family has sold it since his passing. He was a white shoe and white belt kind of guy but well-liked around town by all.
Those last RWD Broughams...I do think they say "Cadillac", and I give them that, but boy they were chunky! A Studebaker buddy with excess garage space used to rent to a guy with a dark green one with dark green leather inside. I liked the color of the interior. A jeweler about two miles down the road has a gold daily-driver Brougham of that vintage, as well as a nice-weather maroon '68 Fleetwood Sixty Special and nice-weather white-over-light-yellow '55 Chrysler four-door sedan...either Windsor or Saratoga I think; sorry I can't remember.
Also an article about Avanti, Corvette, and Riviera for '63. Obviously I'm Avanti-biased, but I wish they'd have picked a nicer Avanti for the article. It has muddy tires, yellowed whitewalls, and doesn't have the off-white wheels visible behind the wheelcovers as was factory. Also lacking the neat little 'Supercharged' front fender emblem, so it's an R1.
I'm a big fan of Hagerty, overall, although I haven't had a claim. It just seems like they are really car buffs, not just an insurance company like J.C. Taylor or some of the others.
Sold the '87 325iS... they pick it up tomorrow...
So.. we've gone from four cars to two.. in about 6 weeks..
Shopping hard, now.....as the boy can't be without a car, you know...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yeah, it is pretty amazing how you'd think some of those old cars would be huge inside, but in many respects, they really weren't. When it came to shoulder room, those old full-sized cars were much wider than anything made today, but legroom and headroom wasn't always so generous.
For 1969, Chrysler redesigned the top mechanism in their full-sized cars, so that it no longer intruded into the back seat area. Their ads proclaimed that it gave something like 10" more shoulder room than the 1968 models. GM followed suit for their 1971 full-sized convertibles, but I don't know if the results were as epic. I've measured the shoulder room in my '67 Catalina, and IIRC, it's about 62.5" for the most part, but where the top cuts in, I think it's more like 56 or 56.5" I couldn't see them gaining an extra ten inches, as those big '71-76 GM cars only had like 64-65" max, anyway. I'm guessing that in the preceding generations, GM's setup was simply more efficient than Chrysler's.
Looks like Ford pretty much got rid of the convertible top intrusion for 1969 as well, even if the back seat cushion didn't go all the way across.
Oh, one other thing cool about those FWD Eldorados...the floor was completely flat. No crease whatsoever, not even to run the exhaust through.
I also like the "warehouse" this guy has some coin!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
too bad it's not a '63. I'm not so fond of the wedge styling either.
but it is collectible after a fashion.
Funny thing, I actually liked those little Falcon "Sports Coupe" models of '66 to the end! Not often seen today, that is for sure.
I can remember in '64, my Dad was deciding between a two-year old Falcon or a two-year old Fairlane. I was six and my sister was 13. Even then we were like "Don't get the Falcon!". LOL
BTW, that Fairlane was my Dad's last Ford product.
But you know, it was the 60s and America's first 'compacts' were finding their way.
Corvair stole the show in 1965--now that's a well-styled compact car! Clean n' Classic--just the way I like 'em.
RE: SPRINT -- still getting info on which engine/trans it has. Nope, no rust, I know the collector, and he would never have such a thing.
If it were a 4-speed I'd be interested, but an automatic, less so.
Styling is, of course, subjective, and of course I know that.
I will take the disc brakes, blower, full gauges, and PRND21 quadrant, too, though.
The '65 Corvair drum brakes were outstanding. GM put the Chevelle brake shoes on the car. 60-0 in about 140 feet. For comparison, a modern Miata did it in about 128 feet.
of course a lot about braking distance is about tires.
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/studebaker/daytona/1484212.html#- PhotoSwipe1363101507636
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1964_Rambler_American_440_convertible-red- _NJ.JPG
The '64 American's headlights reminded me of concurrent Dodge Darts.
What's your take on the two in the marketplace...convertible for convertible?
I know that virtually every piece of sheetmetal is still available NOS for the Stude, as well as things like bumpers. A ton of trim has been reproduced for them too. For my '63, one piece of side trim specific to Daytonas was the only piece of trim I couldn't find out of a catalog, NOS or reproduced, but was lucky enough to find a NOS piece from a guy who knew a guy I knew.
I thought Studebaker cleaned up really nicely for 1964.
I like the '63 and '64 Studes best of all, but I'd pick the '64 over a '63 in all body styles except the four-door sedan, which I like the '63 better...the rear door is similar in cut to a '77 GM B-body or '75 Seville. I do like the sunroof on the '63 which wasn't available on the '64 though.
With 15 inch wheels and bigger wheel openings, they did seem more like intermediates than compacts.
In Chevy II's, I liked the '65's best, but I never liked that instrument panel.
Isn't the '65 Ford Fairlane an odd duck? I used to like them, but talk about chunky! I like that they're rarely seen...that means a lot in my book though.
I thought it was odd that the '62-64 Fairlanes did a great job of mimicking the full-sized Fords, but for '65 they just seemed to lose it completely. I guess you could argue that it might have been hard to work vertical headlights onto that midsized platform. But, wait! The Comet, a compact, did just that for '65!
So, while the big Fords had stacked headlights and the midsized were horizontal, at Mercury, the big ones had horizontal headlights, while the compact (there was no midsize Mercury in '65, as the Meteor was gone and the Comet was still on the smaller Falcon body) Mercury had stacked headlights.
BTW, I always thought the '65 Comet was a good looking car. The stacked headlights and little split in the grille actually make me think a bit of a Pontiac. Probably not what Ford would want to hear, though!
In market value, the Lark convertible should be worth half again as much as the Rambler. I think the V-8 is one reason, and also it's not so tinny. The American really was a cheap car.
A Rambler American convertible with a bored out Ford 302, 4-speed, frame stiffeners, larger wheels, Jag diff, disk brakes, Konis, rack and pinion--that'd be a nice rod.
In other words if it was a different car/ :P :P
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
You can see how the 1965 Fairlane tried to ape the Galaxie with the squared-off lines.
On some cars, you need to start with a clean sheet of paper on the inside!
I mean, how many 6 cylinder automatic 1967 Camaros are left unmolested?
Was the Comet in '65 still on the Falcon chassis? There never seemed to me to be much visual difference, size-wise that is, between Falcons/Fairlanes/Comets/Meteors back then.
A '63 Meteor Hardtop is a good looking car (IMO) that you just NEVER see anymore! My aunt had a powder blue 4-door '63 Meteor Custom 'til about '70.
The Caddy brought back a memory...a childhood friend of mine's grandparents bought one new, and I remember it vividly as I saw it all the time, they lived a few houses away from me. It was an 88, that light yellow that Caddy used then, with a matching interior. It was completely pimped out - wire wheels, aftermarket grille, etc. I remember my friend bragging about the cost, something north of 40K. All I could think was that a MB 300E could be had for less.
Yeah, they tried, but it just didn't come off very well, IMO.
Yeah, from '60-65 the Falcon and Comet were on the compact platform, while the '62-65 Fairlane, and '62-63 Meteor were on the midsize.
IIRC, the wheelbase of the Falcons was 109.5", the Comet was 114", and the Meteor/Fairlane were 115.5. Or maybe it was 116.5"
The Meteor, was not a very hot seller, partly because, even though it was a midsized car, it wasn't that much bigger than a Comet. But it was notably more expensive. As a result, it was dropped after '63.
For 1966, the Fairlane was redesigned, to a 117" wheelbase, IIRC. The Comet moved to this platform, becoming a "true" midsized car, rather than simply an elongated compact. The Falcon was on a shortened version of this platform, with a wheelbase still around 109.5" I believe. While still marketed as a compact, I think sharing the platform with the Comet/Fairlane gave the Falcon an advantage in shoulder room over something like a Chevy II or Dart/Valiant. Also, starting in 1966, wagons were on a 113"wheelbase, regardless of whether they were sold as Comets, Fairlanes, or Falcons.
And I agree, the '63 Meteor is a great looking car! Back when I was in high school, I used to see one driving around on occasion. It was a 2-door, but I can't remember now if it was a hardtop or post.
I also thought the '63 Fairlane was a nice looking car. I thought they got the styling that year nailed down perfectly. I didn't like the '62 or '64 quite as much. Now that I think of it, my opinion on the big Fords is similar. I love the '63, but not as crazy about the '62 or '64.
I like side trim on the 64 Fairlane, that faux scoop kind of thing is cool, very jet-age, the last gasp of that styling direction before clean mid 60s modernism took over.
I know, why put skirts on a car with nearly skirted rear wheel openings as it is?
I like 'bone stock' in an old car. My '63 had Pertronix ignition underhood and a non-original (of course) battery, but it had the original brushed-metal R1 air cleaner and outside I went so far as to even find 195-75-15 tires, closest in size to original. Those are now virtually impossible to find. I'm a real fussbutt about emblem location being authentic, etc.
It bugs me to see R1 Studes at shows with air cleaners that look like a mirror, as they weren't like that at all.
I am lucky that correct size tires for my car are being made again. Regarding chrome air cleaners, it seems few cars actually offered these when new, tacky aftermarket stuff.
195/75/R15 was the base size tire on the 1979 Newport and St. Regis, although the New Yorker got a slightly larger 205/75/R15. Right now, on my 5th Ave, I'm running 225/70/R15's up front and 235/70/R15 in the back. I think my base NY'er has 225/75/R15's on it. If not that, it's something grossly over-sized, and the speedo is off enough that when it reads 70 mph, you're really somewhere in the low 80's.
My '67 Catalina originally had bias ply tires, but I think the closest radial equivalent was 215/75/R14, something that's almost impossible to find these days. But now, with the 15x7 Rally 2 wheels, I'm running 225/75/r15's.
As it was, I liked the 'brochure' look that 195-75-15's gave the car. The build sheet showed the car was ordered with Firestone 500's, which I'm told was considered a performance tire back then.
I like how they put whitewalls and wheelcovers on the Lark Custom, next to the top-of-the-line four-door, but pick a bottom-line Falcon with dog-dishes and blackwalls!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlRvkGmUUds
And, a bit disturbing, considering just what a little firebomb a Falcon could be, when tapped from behind.
Frankly, was anything with a rear-end gas fill very safe? The Lark also had that.
With the Falcon, it wasn't just fuel filler in the rear that made it so dangerous, but the "drop in" fuel tank, where they simply cut a hole in the trunk floor, and dropped in a gas tank with a flat top that doubled as the trunk floor. It wouldn't take much of a hit to the rear to make the trunk floor/gas tank buckle, which would then slosh fuel up into the trunk, over the axle hump, and into the passenger cabin.
Early Falcons were also very small and lightweight, smaller than that 109.5" wheelbase would suggest. I think they were only about 181" long, didn't have a whole lot of rear overhang, and the fuel tank was very close to the end of the car. And, the bumpers looked like fragile little things, there more for decoration than any sort of protection.
I think the Falcon started at something like 2200-2300 lb.
With the more conventional gas tanks where they strap it on underneath the trunk, which is what just about everybody other than Ford did, even if the tank ruptured, it wouldn't spill inside the car.
The gas tank on my '67 Catalina seems perilously close to the rear of the car, as well. However, I've seen these body-on-frame cars get rear-ended over the years, and usually they first start to buckle over the rear axle By the time it gets to the point that the gas tank is getting breached, we're talking about a pretty serious impact.
Fin - is the connecting hose rubber and in the trunk for your Fintail?