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

Mr_Shiftright

I used to own that very model Toronado. Loved that car. What a beast. Who painted that Studebaker to look like a Zimmer?

Funny, I owned all three of those cars in the picture--the Olds, the Baker and the Jag. All neat cars in their own way--they all had strong personalities. Jumping from one to the other would be like going from one automotive universe to another. The Olds kind of "modern" and high-tech for the day, the Studie a throwback to the 1950s, low-tech, traditional RWD cruiser, the Jaguar an all-British piece of work---the good and the bad.

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

I used to own that very model Toronado. Loved that car. What a beast. Who painted that Studebaker to look like a Zimmer?

Consumer Reports, who usually relegated themselves to more plebian, mainstream cars in those days, tested a Toronado when it came out. They hated just about everything about the car (too fast, too big, too space-inefficient, too much of a beast in general), so because of that, I knew the car HAD to be awesome!

imidazol97

andre1969 said:

They hated just about everything about the car (too fast, too big, too space-inefficient, too much of a beast in general), so because of that, I knew the car HAD to be awesome!

...AND it was from GM, the company they hated in that era maybe more so than they do now.

Mr_Shiftright

It was a bad boy car. I used to off road with mine in Colorado. Once I ran into a Jeep club that was just congratulating themselves on their "summit", when I pulled up. LOL! They were not all that pleased to see me. They weren't serious rock climbers though.

roadburner

Here's a good one- I was at the local Barnes and Noble thumbing through a coffee table book entitled American Auto Legends: Classics of Style and Design. Up through the '60s I was pretty much in agreement with the selections: Duesenberg Model J, Cord L-29, '57 Chevrolet, '65 Mustang, '66 Toronado- although I thought that the inclusion of the Plymouth Superbird was debatable. However, when they reached the '70s, '80s, and '90s the wheels fell off(pun intended). The 1980-1985 bustle back Seville? The Buick Reatta? Smoke crack much? The authors did include the first generation Aurora, which I think was a very handsome car, so I'll cut them a bit of slack.

But still...

laurasdada

"The 1980-1985 bustle back Seville?"

The Cimarron of Sevilles!

fintail

For some odd reason, I like bustleback Sevilles. I don't know if I would like driving one, though.

That Toronado was on weird wheels, can't really see in the pic. I don't think they were stock. It's a driver quality car, very clean but not perfect. They want 22K for it, I think.

Good catch on the Jag, Shifty.

ab348

fintail said:

For some odd reason, I like bustleback Sevilles. I don't know if I would like driving one, though.

I drove one that was new around 1981 or so. It had the lightest power steering I ever experienced, even lighter than Mopars of the '60s. It was virtually feather-touch with zero road feel - felt like the wheel wasn't connected to anything.

andre1969

I have a thing for the '80-85 Seville, too. This is going to sound a bit blasphemous, but I think they're better, in many ways, than the '75-79. The '75-79 is a nice car in many ways except one...the driving position. It does a great job hiding its Nova underpinnings in just about every other respect, but the driving position is shared with the Nova and, if you're a taller driver, it sucks. Steering wheel too close, skimpy. legroom, windshield so close I can reach out and touch it, etc.

In contrast, the '80-85, for me at least, has a much more comfortable driving position. It feels more like a big car trying to act small, rather than a compact car pretending to be big, if that makes sense.

Interestingly, in 1980 at least, the Seville was quicker than the '75-79 generation. C&D or MT tested a 1980 with the Caddy 368, and 0-60 came up in about 10.6 seconds. For comparison, I've seen tests of the '75-79 that would put them at around 12-13. So, whatever GM did in 1980, they seemed to get it just right.

Of course, it wouldn't last. 1981 saw the introduction of the V-8-6-4, although at least that was salvageable, where if it went bad you could just deactivate the cylinder deactivation and let it run on 8 cylinders all the time. And then '82-85 saw those dreadful 4.1 aluminum V-8's that had all of 125 hp.

They called it "Neoclassic" in those days, but I think the '80-85 Seville might also be one of the earliest adopters of what we now call "retro" style.

Oh, as for the Cimarron of Sevilles? That would be the '86-91. They're actually not bad looking cars, IMO, and if gasoline had become rare and expensive as had been predicted when they were in the design phase, they would have been good sellers. But, they just lack an air of dignity about them. They look too much like the 4-door versions of the N-body Grand Am, Calais, and Skylark.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually I'm even better identifying the underside of any British car.

fintail said:

For some odd reason, I like bustleback Sevilles. I don't know if I would like driving one, though.

That Toronado was on weird wheels, can't really see in the pic. I don't think they were stock. It's a driver quality car, very clean but not perfect. They want 22K for it, I think.

Good catch on the Jag, Shifty.

fintail

I seem to recall my 66 Galaxie was similar, pinky finger steering. Unless it was cold and stalled, then became alarmingly heavy.

I suppose for a bustleback, an 80 is the only one to get, unless it has an engine swap/.

ab348 said:

I drove one that was new around 1981 or so. It had the lightest power steering I ever experienced, even lighter than Mopars of the '60s. It was virtually feather-touch with zero road feel - felt like the wheel wasn't connected to anything.

roadburner

Worst was the power steering in my father's miserable 1973 Bronco; Ford didn't change the gearing so not only did you have typically numb Ford power steering but you also had SIX turns lock to lock...

berri

Saw an 80-ish otherwise pristine Buick Skylark on a flat bed tow truck with a smashed in front end. Weren't those GM X cars notorious for brakes???

stickguy

they were notorious for a lot of things. Pretty much all bad .

stever

Datsun Z yesterday. Sure looked like the 240Z a college friend had in the early 70s but what do I know. The driver looked to be my age, so that fits....

kyfdx

stever said:

Datsun Z yesterday. Sure looked like the 240Z a college friend had in the early 70s but what do I know. The driver looked to be my age, so that fits....

Character on a new TV show is driving a 240Z. "Scorpion". It's funny... the first time I saw it was an interior shot, and I'm usually lousy at identifying interiors.. but, I said to my wife, "I think that's a 240Z". Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn, occasionally..

fintail

Saw a remarkably nice 1984-85 190E 2.3 today, also saw a Buick Somerset the other day, and a clean early 80s Olds Delta 88 coupe last night.

ab348

Today is a cold, wet, gray day in Nova Scotia with temps hovering around freezing and snow in some parts, rain elsewhere that may change to wet snow later. As I was out taking care of an errand today I saw 3 old cars running around in the span of a few minutes - a '68 Buick Gran Sport, a '57 Ford Ranch Wagon, and a '63 Fairlane 2-door. All were really nice, and it was odd they were out in this stuff. Maybe a last ride to winter storage.

fintail

Old car, new car, Lotus Esprit, seems like a normal trio.

stickguy

would make an excellent trio to have in your 3 car garage. And a PU outside for dirty duty.

explorerx4

A black Saab 9000, see those every so often.
But the coup de grace, an MGB-GT, pretty rare nowadays. On top of that, it was RHD!

Mr_Shiftright

Don't park too close to an Esprit. Your car could catch something.

fintail

My Sirius radio has acted funky a couple times (known issue among many recent models), maybe British electrics are contagious. As long as the wiring harness isn't smoking, I should be safe.

If I was to have a trio with an old British mess entering my garage, I'd probably go for a Rolls.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, you want the entire enchilada of suffering then.

fintail

The guy I know who rents spaces alongside my car has a very nice early (1967) Silver Shadow - prior owner had the hydraulics completely redone, he has no problems with it as a sunny Sunday driver. I like the car.

Mr_Shiftright

They weren't too bad in the 1960s---expensive to fix, to be sure (brutally expensive) and not terribly reliable, but not too bad if you get on top of them and stay on top of them. It would be a nice Sunday driver. But you know, $6000 brake jobs is a bit much.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

They weren't too bad in the 1960s---expensive to fix, to be sure (brutally expensive) and not terribly reliable, but not too bad if you get on top of them and stay on top of them. It would be a nice Sunday driver. But you know, $6000 brake jobs is a bit much.

Would there be sufficient demand worldwide to justify building a '60s Silver Shadow look-alike (proportionally and cosmetically correct exterior and interior) on a Toyota Avalon or 2015 Chevy Impala drivetrain? I'm guessing something like that could be profitably sold for no more than $100,000 (just to throw out a number). That's still a lot of money, but far less than a new Roller. The big advantages would be reliability, plus reasonable maintenance and repair costs. A turbo or twin turbo version of the Toyota or GM V6 or V8 could be used, to differentiate it from its humble origin.

stickguy

that sounds odd. Not sure how you would get the proportions right. might have to stick with a RWD chassis, like a bathtub Impala from the end of that run.

Probably easier is to take a clean Shadow, and basically gut the mechanical, and rebuild it with a simpler set of mechanicals, and a normal suspension set-up. Basically stick a Chevy V8 and trans in there, redo the electrics with something reliable, and but on standard springs, brakes, etc.

still brutally expensive, but you keep the essence of the Roller (body and interior), maintain a premium driving experience, but have something you can trust to drive, and that won't be brutally expensive when it frequently breaks!

hpmctorque

stickguy said:

that sounds odd. Not sure how you would get the proportions right. might have to stick with a RWD chassis, like a bathtub Impala from the end of that run.

Probably easier is to take a clean Shadow, and basically gut the mechanical, and rebuild it with a simpler set of mechanicals, and a normal suspension set-up. Basically stick a Chevy V8 and trans in there, redo the electrics with something reliable, and but on standard springs, brakes, etc.

still brutally expensive, but you keep the essence of the Roller (body and interior), maintain a premium driving experience, but have something you can trust to drive, and that won't be brutally expensive when it frequently breaks!

Okay, then why not use a body-on-frame domestic pickup chassis, and re-engineer the suspension for a luxury-car ride and driving dynamics? That shouldn't be too difficult. Elegant, comfortable, luxurious, rugged, low maintenance, at a price that isn't exorbitant. Call it the Cadillac, Lincoln or Imperial Platinum Shadow Edition. Bingo! That should sell in decent numbers to heads of state, oligarchs and wealthy status seekers around the world, while still being rare enough to be exclusive.

It sounds like a wild idea, even to me. Of course, it would have to be evaluated from a business case perspective, but sometimes out-of-the-box ideas score big.

Mr_Shiftright

There might be some demand but you'd have to do something about body structure. I"m not sure an old Rolls is up to the demands of modern horsepower.

Quite a few people have converted the equally demonic XJ6 Jaguars using Chevrolet V8s and GM transmissions (which are no stranger to Rolls, as they used Hydra-matics), and some of these FrankenJags did suffer frame failure. In that case, it's not really all that smart a thing to do, because the conversion eliminates one of the few good parts of the XJ6---the engine. It's everything bolted to it that's the problem.

But yeah, if you could rehab some of these (now nearly worthless) 70s Rolls and sell them in say the $60,000 range, you might make a living at it.

I think there is a firm in Canada that rehabs Jaguar MkII sedans with more modern Jaguar entrails and they get a pretty penny for them, too.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

There might be some demand but you'd have to do something about body structure. I"m not sure an old Rolls is up to the demands of modern horsepower.

Quite a few people have converted the equally demonic XJ6 Jaguars using Chevrolet V8s and GM transmissions (which are no stranger to Rolls, as they used Hydra-matics), and some of these FrankenJags did suffer frame failure. In that case, it's not really all that smart a thing to do, because the conversion eliminates one of the few good parts of the XJ6---the engine. It's everything bolted to it that's the problem. Well, in case of the early XJ6s, it was also the monstrously awful Borg Warner transmission that was used for a time. The transmission got better with time, and the last XJ6 with all the improvements was actually tolerable as is.

But yeah, if you could rehab some of these (now nearly worthless) 70s Rolls and sell them in say the $60,000 range, you might make a living at it.

I think there is a firm in Canada that rehabs Jaguar MkII sedans with more modern Jaguar entrails and they get a pretty penny for them, too.

I was referring to designing and building a new retro Rolls, not about converting a circa 50 year old one. Instead of a Escalade or Navigator you'd have a new car. Of course, it wouldn't be a Rolls (it would be called something else), but it would have a similar, dignified appearance, very reminiscent of the RR, plus reliability and readily available parts. Aerodynamics could probably be improved without affecting the image.

However, your idea is also intriguing. Buy up Rollers from the '60s and '70s from around the world that are still in decent condition, ship them to a factory in the U.S., Mexico, Brazil or wherever, and rehab them. If the Escalade or Navigator drivetrains are too powerful for these old frames, use smaller displacement V8s, such as the Chevy 305 or Ford 4.6, or a Volvo I-6. Or, if it can be done reasonably, reinforce the frames.

The idea would be to build or rehab a lower cost competitor the the ultra expensive one that BMW now builds. This concept worked for Lexus in the 1990s and for Hyundai more recently.

I'm thinking it could work, but I'd substitute a solid business plan for my instincts before committing money to the idea.

Are we on to something, or not?

Mr_Shiftright

I don't see why you couldn't call it a Rolls if you used the original body. Of course it would have the problem of smog and safety regulations, so it'd have to be registered as a '65 or whatever.

Otherwise you end up with yet another Zimmer or Clenet and you're doomed.

What you need to do is standardize your conversions, build a few mules, make all the custom conversion parts and off you go.

Of course, you will have to bear the wrath of the Rolls and Bentley Clubs who will cry sacrilege---to them you might say that the alternative for most of these 70s Rolls is the junkyard.

texases

I don't know how many folks would spend new MB money ($100k) for a 'Faux-Rolls'. So much of the 'value' of a Rolls is just in the name, they don't do much else that much better than other real luxury cars.

Mr_Shiftright

But it's a real Rolls---just one that doesn't break down every 100 miles.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

But it's a real Rolls---just one that doesn't break down every 100 miles.

Weren't RRs (1920s and 1930s) once renowned for their reliability, longevity and build quality?

fintail

I don't think anyone is going to shell out 100K for a remade Silver Shadow. I think they are nice looking cars, and I like the Corniche even more, but it is far too subtle in these days of bling and ostentation. There seems to be a point on the price scale where good taste starts becoming scarce - maybe 100-125K or so. Buyers in that range might have more dollars than sense, not to mention taste or accountability or anything else. Crass cars sell in the upper ranges - it's what makes the Anglo-Teutono hybrids sell.

Now, put modern guts in something like a Silver Cloud or earlier car, or any Phantom, and you might get somewhere - some would sell, although probably not enough to make it a going concern. I suspect most companies resto-modding Jag Mk IIs don't run much in the black,either - it's a labor of love. Old Phantoms have more positive presence than a new one - but that might not do it either.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes they were indeed, and then Rolls sat back and rested on their laurels while America, Germany, France and Italy blasted past them into the postwar era of the 20th century.

So Rolls had to borrow tech from other countries (notably France for suspension and the USA for transmissions) and naturally with all that leather and wood and Old World production habits, they were no doubt a very inefficient automaker within the postwar global market.

you know, being very British worked well for Morgan, because they were such a small company, but Rolls just started bleeding money.

Their aviation division did ok though---the Brits didn't sell that to anyone far as I know.

hpmctorque

texases said:

I don't know how many folks would spend new MB money ($100k) for a 'Faux-Rolls'. So much of the 'value' of a Rolls is just in the name, they don't do much else that much better than other real luxury cars.

Most of us, me included, wouldn't pay $100,000 for either a S-Class or a faux Rolls. However, there are enough wealthy people and poseurs on this planet who do or could buy them. Some might be bought by rental companies, for special occasions or ceremonies, or by livery services.

To your point, some people (small in percentage but significant in numbers, worldwide) assign a lot of value to the name alone. RR has a long history, a unique heritage and, yes, mystique (not to be confused with the Mercury Mystique). If it were a rehab, using the original body, as Shifty suggests, you could leave the original name and model references on the car.

We can agree that a $100,000 new or near-new MB is a far more capable car than a RR, but the RR is a cut above the MB in terms of status and exclusivity. How many MB owners ever use the full driving potential of their cars? A good number of them buy them mainly for status, and probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between the ride of an S-Class and, say, an Avalon or a LaCrosse, if they were blindfolded.

berri

RR ended up doing alright in jet engines once they got over all of the early issues with their L1011 Tri-Star power plant engines. They had a habit of disintegrating turbo blades.

Mr_Shiftright

yes but they had good legroom, so that's some compensation

Rolls is a trump card on a Benz, and Bentley maybe trumps Rolls. A Bentley is sort of "rich with class".

Teslas and Maseratis are for upstarts.

An Equus---you get to park it yourself.

pretty hard to compete with Rolls and Bentley---remember the Maybach debacle?

fintail

I don't know, in my eyes, Bentleys aren't too classy, they and Maserati scream "dbag"...and don't ask where the money comes from. Teslas are much more invisible, at least in this area. Equus are rare, but I see one now and then.

New S-class is maybe 85% as nice as a Bentley inside, for half the money, the coupe is especially posh. But, as it is for the entire high end if not cars in general, badges mean a lot.

Mr_Shiftright said:

yes but they had good legroom, so that's some compensation

Rolls is a trump card on a Benz, and Bentley maybe trumps Rolls. A Bentley is sort of "rich with class".

Teslas and Maseratis are for upstarts.

An Equus---you get to park it yourself.

pretty hard to compete with Rolls and Bentley---remember the Maybach debacle?

stever

"Mercedes-Benz is reviving the Maybach name as part of a larger renaming strategy designed to provide customers and dealers with a simple way of navigating a growing portfolio of models."

Mercedes-Benz Revives Maybach as Part of New Naming Strategy

berri

L-1011 was a great aircraft. Beat the pants off of a DC-10 in my book.

ab348

berri said:

L-1011 was a great aircraft. Beat the pants off of a DC-10 in my book.

I was about to post the same thing. It even looked better. I understand pilots loved flying it too.

berri

Right off the top, it's hydraulic lines were separated so if that United jet at Sioux falls had been a L-1011 the outcome may have been much better (not taking anything away from that outstanding piloting those guys did in the cockpit that day!). Might have also made a difference for the American DC-10 that lost it's engine at O'Hare some years back.

fintail

Forgot to mention I saw a decent looking Datsun 710 hardtop yesterday - this is one of the few places in the world those can survive. Saw a Ford Festiva on pizza delivery duty this evening.

stevedebi

berri said:

Right off the top, it's hydraulic lines were separated so if that United jet at Sioux falls had been a L-1011 the outcome may have been much better (not taking anything away from that outstanding piloting those guys did in the cockpit that day!). Might have also made a difference for the American DC-10 that lost it's engine at O'Hare some years back.

A bit off topic, but that pilot had studied the DC-10 and one of the first things he noticed was that the two control cables were right under the floor, side by side. He specifically made simulator runs without the rear controls in case both cables broke. Six months later, it did happen, and he landed at Sioux falls - without rear control surfaces.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topics...

omarman

Monday afternoon out in the wind/snow/cold, I spotted a last gen (80's?) Chevy El Camino in traffic. Black with silver stripes, big tires and rumbling exhaust note. Later on google I found the very obscure Astro El Camino:

stickguy

Someone near me used to have a first gen caravan converted like that. Plywood bulkhead I think. Odd duck. Probably very flexible too!

ab348

Back when I was a kid it was quite common to see sedans converted like that into trucks. Usually they had a plywood back on what was left of the car body and a wooden platform/box mounted to the rear frame.