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

gbatt

Went to visit my twin brother over at his place and stumbled on this car in the parking lot of his local market. Living in the Bay Area is expensive, but there are no shortage of interesting old cars to see... I had never seen this model Triumph before. Really a neat little guy. I would much rather see something like this than (yet another) mid 60s corvette, gen 1 camaro, or mustang...

gbatt

Speaking of old mustangs... just sold the wife's 1968 mustang... It was her grandfather's car, definitely a survivor car. He had a photocopy of the original window sticker from Gotham Ford (Holy Big Blocks Batman), his original order sheet from when he ordered the car, as well as the build sheet from under the seat. Pardon the photos, I took them with my phone...

uplanderguy

That is a nice, stock Mustang--the way I like old cars best.

The Triumph is interesting. I grew up thinking Chevys were the only cars out there, but I am so completely sick of Chevelle SS's, Camaros, and yes, '63-67 Corvettes at shows. I like the oddball stuff.

I always remember that some '68 Mustangs had a '3-D' (if you will) rear side-marker light, and some were flush, or actually recessed, into the rear quarter. One or the other must have been a 'running' change.

fintail

Ah Triumph Herald, makes me think of this:



Mustang looks like a winner, too.

gbatt said:

Went to visit my twin brother over at his place and stumbled on this car in the parking lot of his local market.

bhill2

lemko said:

andre1969 said:

Not like the old Falcon Rancheros that could carry the weight of a compressed Lincoln Continental in the bed! I read that the crushed Continental in "Goldfinger" was pretty much a shell making it a lot lighter than it otherwise would be.

Oh yeah. The first time I ever saw that scene I almost wet myself, not the least because in the day I drove a '60 Falcon (not a Ranchero but with the same drivetrain). The payload couldn't have been more than 500 lb, of which Oddjob had to represent half. A Continental of that era tipped the Toledos at 5000 lb or so.

Mr_Shiftright

Triumph Herald was a kind of bare-bones little car with very little in the way of performance 1200cc/39HP. Very basic automobile but kinda cute and fun up to 40 mph. I think the last models had about 50 hp and disc brakes. They were quite popular and you'll still see 'em in the UK being driven and enjoyed on small country roads.

Big plus--- had 4 seats and could keep out the rain, so it was an alternative to the typical British sports car of the day.

fintail

Saw a VW Phaeton and a late run E320 cabrio in the rain today.

fintail

This evening, in the downtown Bellevue rain, I saw a silver W111 fintail - it had those aftermarket side moldings, so likely a later car. It looked pretty nice, but rain can do that.

ab348

This is an interesting video - the first 18 minutes or so is a series of pieces about the 1979 model introductions by a correspondent with a Miami TV station, while from about 18:20 onward is a series of drive reports by the same fellow. The difference in quality between then and now is incredible! Andre will enjoy the '79 New Yorker review at the very end, especially some of the defects he found. That wasn't uncommon though - the '79 Mustang he reviewed was a quality disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I22dZzOcF1E

The same reporter is shown with other drive reports here, mixed in with news stories of the mid-70s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8JTP-Qd05Y

stickguy

less than 10K for a new Lincoln. the old days.

toomanyfumes

LOL at that T-bird in the slalom.

fintail

Fascinating stuff. The T-Bird brings back some memories, as my mother had one when I was a little kid. I distinctly recall the rocker style cruise control switch on the steering wheel, and the power seats. I am glad I was 2 in 1979, and am too young to remember malaise quality and engineering from when it was new. Too bad they didn't show the Rolls Camargue review - those are unique cars. The 79 Eldo is pretty sharp, the slushbox and AC late run 2002 is probably rare, and we get to see Andre's car when new. Too bad he didn't do any MBs.

The mention of an "average" 50K house makes me laugh too, although I know some areas down there aren't hugely more expensive now.

ab348 said:

This is an interesting video

andre1969

That '79 5th Avenue did better in the review than I thought it would...I was expecting the reviewer to really slam it. The electrical problems were interesting. I've never experienced those particular problems. However, every single R-body I've owned ('79 Newport, and the 5th Ave and base New Yorker I currently have) would occasionally have the idiot light for the coolant temperature come on, while the gauge itself was in the normal range. When it first started happening on my '79 Newport, I didn't know which one to trust...until the light would occasionally come on at times when it would be impossible for the car to be running hot, such as when it was warming up and such.

That water leakage spot in the back is common, as well. Both of my New Yorkers do it, although my Newport didn't. Interesting that they did it, even when brand new! One problem, I guess, is that these cars don't have rain gutters built into the side of the roof, but also, on the New Yorker, that thick opera window surround has a spot on the top that traps water, and it doesn't seal up very well. Also, I noticed that if I roll the back windows up all the way, it seems like they almost go up a little TOO far, and cause the whole assembly to push outward just a bit.

The window glass is also pretty thin, and I've noticed that if I roll down a front window at too high of a speed, the air flow sucks it out a bit, so it won't roll back up correctly, and will get stuck on the outside of the little guide at the top. Interesting that the test car was so squeak and rattle free. Give it time, though! One thing I'll say for them though, is that they were pretty well insulated, so the squeaks and rattles, while still present, are muffled.

One little tidbit I caught in the LTD review that I thought was interesting, was how the reviewer said Ford did GM one better when it downsized. While GM increased leg and headroom, Ford also increased shoulder room when they downsized. IIRC, the Panthers were a bit wider inside than GM's B- and C-bodies. Nothing huge...maybe 1/2 inch. However, that makes me wonder...were those big '73-78 Ford and Mercurys a bit small on the inside, compared to their Ford and Mopar rivals? Other than my buddy's '78 Mark V, it's been ages since I've been in one of those big Ford products. And, the main reason GM's big cars lost some shoulder room, is that the '71-76 models had so much of it to begin with. I think the roomiest ones had around 64-65", although plusher models, with the thicker padded inserts on the door panels, had less. IIRC, when GM's big cars downsized, shoulder room dropped a bit to around 61". When the rounded-off models started coming out in the 90's though, I think shoulder room went back up to around 64", although they were notably "fuselaged", where the door panels tapered inward toward the bottom.

Thanks for posting that video, AB348!

uplanderguy

Thanks for posting, very interesting! I watched the Eldorado, LTD, and New Yorker segments. To this day, I still like those Eldorados. Maybe 'timeless' isn't the right word, but I think they lean that way. They remind me of the '67-70 and that was probably no accident on Caddy's part. I can remember admiring a new '79 parked on Main St. in little Clarion, PA, where I went to college. This was near Cook Forest State Park. The owner came out and we spoke a little. I told him where I was from and he asked if I'd ever heard of Barrett Cadillac in Youngstown, OH. I told him I'd seen their ads in the Youngstown Sunday paper we'd get at home. I found out he was Mr. Barrett. He told me to stop in anytime! I never did.

I seem to remember a good number of beige '79 New Yorkers; in fact, a girl I knew in college whom I'm still friends with (her husband, too)--her parents bought a new one back then.

fintail

First nice day here in a week, nothing odd on the road save for a Mercury Milan Hybrid - that has to be a rare bird. Might go to the oddball car auction tomorrow morning, which promises a few things to look at.

uplanderguy

They also look tall because of the vertical angles of the side windows, upright.

True, and I think some of it, too, is that all Larks had 15" wheels versus 13" for about everything else.

uplanderguy

The difference in quality between then and now is incredible

True, but I could deal with some of that minor stuff (and did). Seems like today, although it isn't commonplace, it doesn't take much looking to see the occasional vehicle that needs the engine opened or trans fixed, while still in the warranty period--and recalls for fire risks, etc.--seems like we didn't deal with that major stuff back then. I so-much miss the variance in styling among manufacturers, the long list of exterior and interior colors, the wide option lists virtually guaranteering you never saw an exact clone of your car. Those days are gone forever I'm afraid. For full-disclosure purposes, I'm 56 and remember the late '60's and '70's cars as new cars.

andre1969

At the gas station yesterday, while I was filling up, this '64 GTO pulled up beside me...


I struck up a conversation with the owner. He said he'd had it since 1978, and paid $300 for it back then. He mentioned that it was "getting old", but I just commented with "aren't we all..." It wasn't perfect, but looked pretty nice.

uplanderguy

When I was a kid, there was a girl in our neighborhood with a '64 GTO coupe (not hardtop), in the one-year-only salmon color they offered which I liked. I still think it's the best-styled GTO, period, although it seems the '65-67 models are more plentiful at shows. Not sure what they called that salmon color on '64 Pontiacs, but I've long-thought that I'd really enjoy a Catalina 2+2 in that color with white painted top, and the optional wheelcovers that sort-of look like chrome-reverse wheels.

imidazol97

andre1969 said:

At the gas station yesterday, while I was filling up, this '64 GTO pulled up beside me...

Nice. That's the good ones before they got larger and rounder. I also like the 442s in that era.

Nice looking PA beside it, too.

andre1969

I think my favorite GTO is the '66-67 style, although I like the '64 as well...nice, rugged, muscular look to it. There's something about the '65 that I'm not too crazy about. It just looks too "pretty", if that makes sense, to be a musclecar, whereas I thought the '66-67 style was a better balance of pretty and muscular.

Oh, as for that Park Ave...it's getting on my nerves again. The other day it had some little electrical glitch, and all the trip computer stuff reset...trip odometer, average MPG, fuel used, and so on. And, the fuel gauge pointer spun all the way around again, and is on the wrong side of that little peg by the "E". Time to get out the magnets again and coax the thing around...

I just realized something...today is the 5th anniversary of the day I brought that car home from the dealer...12/14/09. Hard to believe it's been FIVE years already!

fintail

13", just like most MBs of the day. It's not easy finding a good 13" tire these days.

uplanderguy said:

They also look tall because of the vertical angles of the side windows, upright.

True, and I think some of it, too, is that all Larks had 15" wheels versus 13" for about everything else.

roadburner

fintail said:

13", just like most MBs of the day. It's not easy finding a good 13" tire these days.

uplanderguy said:

They also look tall because of the vertical angles of the side windows, upright.

True, and I think some of it, too, is that all Larks had 15" wheels versus 13" for about everything else.

Tell me about it, finding 185/70-13 tires for the '02 is a real pain...

stever

I saw a slammed Crown Vic a couple of days ago that looked to be riding on 13s or worse.

Still, better than 22s....

stickguy

Andre, by my standards, it is time to move on from the Buick. I know you have the truck too, and obviously have a problem getting rid of anything. But it really sounds like it is time. Don't even have to replace it immediately. But hassles, not worth it.

fintail

I want to say the fintail is 175/18R13. Got the wide whites for about $200/tire, which was a fair price, I think - they look good, and will last a long time. But I can't go down to Discount Tire and find those.

hpmctorque

uplanderguy said:

They also look tall because of the vertical angles of the side windows, upright.

True, and I think some of it, too, is that all Larks had 15" wheels versus 13" for about everything else.

Fifteen inch wheels were far better than those roller skate 13" that other compacts had.

uplanderguy

The closest-sized radials to the Firestone 500's that my white Lark was built with, was 195-75-15's which I bought in around 2003 (on the car in the photo I posted earlier). I liked the 'original' look but I had a couple buddies who said they looked too small. Not sure about Firestone 500's, but most brochure photos of '63 Larks show a narrow whitewall right up to the wheel. I have never seen those around now, although I like the look. I was fussy to get a whitewall that wasn't too wide for the car...I never liked wide whitewalls on a car that didn't have them when new.

Anyway, I believe 195-75-15's are hard to find now.

fintail

I don't like wide whites on cars that never had them originally, either. There's a Toronado XS in my area that has them - kind of works on the pimpy "excess" style of the car, but still not right. I see them on late 60s-70s Continentals and T-Birds, too.

Back in the 90s my dad had a 68 Fairlane, and the prior/original (I think) owner had about 2" whitewalls on it. The car was white, and somehow, those tires worked - they weren't *too* wide, but they set off the car and made it look kind of fancy. Still incorrect, of course.

lemko

fintail said:

I don't like wide whites on cars that never had them originally, either. There's a Toronado XS in my area that has them - kind of works on the pimpy "excess" style of the car, but still not right. I see them on late 60s-70s Continentals and T-Birds, too.

Back in the 90s my dad had a 68 Fairlane, and the prior/original (I think) owner had about 2" whitewalls on it. The car was white, and somehow, those tires worked - they weren't *too* wide, but they set off the car and made it look kind of fancy. Still incorrect, of course.

I have a neighbor who has a nice 1993 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, but it sports the big gangster whitewalls on it. It looks kind of weird.

stickguy

well, given where you live, he probably is one.

roadburner

Malaise-Era Scale Models

uplanderguy

I like the Jeep pickup best, followed by the Eldorado. The Caprice looks the worst IMHO.

fintail

I've seen some of those in person - don't need to ship them from Germany, NA sellers have them too. The Caprice does look off, greenhouse looks like an R-body. I've seen the Seville in person, it's pretty decent.

There's a small scale line called "Fresh Cherries" making some oddball stuff too:

andre1969

Funny you'd mention that, Fintail...I thought something about the Caprice looked a bit R-body-ish as well. The roof seems a bit low and flat, and the windshield a bit more raked back than what the real B-body sedans had. I wonder if that company used the same part for the windshield for the Bonneville coupe and the Caprice sedan? In real life, the B-body coupes had lower roofs and a more rakish windshield than the sedan. Not a huge difference, but it's noticeable if you see them side by side. So if the company tried to use that same windshield on the Caprice model, they may have had to make the roof lower to compensate.

As for that company "Fresh Cherries", I've heard of them. I have a '77 or so LeBaron Town & Country wagon that they put out, that I won as a door prize a few years ago. It's hardly Danbury Mint quality, but still a neat little model.

roadburner

Ugh, that Tempo brings back memories of having to drive my mother's 1984 Topaz. What a steaming pile...

fintail

I think the Fresh Cherries line also had a K-Car, Pinto, etc.

Here's a link to the full NEO line


They do make some oddball models, and some look decent:













This greenhouse looks more accurate:



I see why these exist now, NEO is apparently from the Netherlands. The Dutch have a thing for malaise barges.

My family had a Tempo that was actually relatively reliable, especially for a 1985 American car. Maybe the 1 out of 100 that was built somewhat right.

andre1969

NEO definitely did a better job with that '86 Caprice than they did with the '87-90. The burgundy one seems to have longer proportions overall...again, a bit more like an R-body.

ab348

Geez, that model makes the 626 look really old-fashioned and dowdy.

texases

Something funny about that Monte Carlo - rear 1/3 almost looks like a Riviera...

uplanderguy

That Monte looks pretty accurate to me. My parents had an '80 (although this one is a '78 I believe--can't see enough of the taillight for sure). The Caprice sure looks more accurate than the earlier one. Geez, I remember looking at those dirty-brown ones in the late '80's--this model even has those icky (IMHO only) plastic slotted wheelcovers they used then! LOL

That Prelude reminds me of a young, blow-dry stylish guy (a couple years younger than me) who had one at work. Navy blue with light beige interior. It was the first car I saw where the driver's seat actually touched the rear seat bottom cushion...and the guy wasn't even all that tall.

I'm trying to picture that Tempo on that hoidy-toidy base, being in some executive's office.

uplanderguy

Just thought of a couple more things that were done better (or smarter) even into the late seventies than now. My wife's Malibu had a parking light out and under warranty it was replaced...by having to remove the front bumper fascia. Ridiculous. And a friend said the dealer quoted him $1,200 to replace the headlight in his sister's Acura. Beyond ridiculous.

ab348

My former 2002 Olds Intrigue had the easiest headlight bulb replacement ever. Open the hood and the headlight assemblies came out by pulling up on two plastic retainers. twist off the sockets and replace bulbs. Really only a couple of minutes. Not sure why they have made this so tough.

fintail

I thought those 626s were kind of dowdy.

Maybe the closest thing they make to Andre's Chryslers:

lemko

The ultimate R-body Andre-mobile!

lemko

fintail said:

I think the Fresh Cherries line also had a K-Car, Pinto, etc.

Here's a link to the full NEO line


They do make some oddball models, and some look decent:













This greenhouse looks more accurate:



I see why these exist now, NEO is apparently from the Netherlands. The Dutch have a thing for malaise barges.

My family had a Tempo that was actually relatively reliable, especially for a 1985 American car. Maybe the 1 out of 100 that was built somewhat right.

That Monte Carlo looks nice and do they have that Caprice in all black?

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

That Monte looks pretty accurate to me. My parents had an '80 (although this one is a '78 I believe--can't see enough of the taillight for sure).

I can't remember...did the Monte Carlo's grille change between '78 and '79? The only thing I remember is that the '80 had quad headlights, and then they went to the more aerodynamic style for '81.

andre1969

ab348 said:

My former 2002 Olds Intrigue had the easiest headlight bulb replacement ever. Open the hood and the headlight assemblies came out by pulling up on two plastic retainers. twist off the sockets and replace bulbs. Really only a couple of minutes. Not sure why they have made this so tough.

Back in 2004, one of my friends bought a new headlight assembly for his '95 Grand Marquis, as the old one was disintegrating...not only hazing over, but actually cracking along the bottom, and having small pieces flake off. He thought I would be able to figure out how to put it on, but damned if I could...I may work for NASA, but I ain't no rocket scientist! I remember the headlight cluster was around $225, and a local shop charged $75 to put it in. So, $300, total. And then, he turned around and traded the danged thing about a month later, and only got $600 trade! Which I'm sure he would have gotten, new headlight or not.

Eventually though, a headlight bulb burned out on my 2000 Intrepid, and I finally got some experience in dealing with modern headlights. It was actually pretty easy...just undo two really, REALLY long bolts, and the whole cluster would pop out, and you could pull the bulb holders out of the back.

I have a feeling that '95 Grand Marquis was similar, but for whatever reason, I just couldn't figure it out at the time.

andre1969

That Mazda 626 is a bit dull, but IIRC, didn't they have an attractive little hardtop coupe based on that platform? Or maybe it was the previous generation?

uplanderguy

I can't remember...did the Monte Carlo's grille change between '78 and '79? The only thing I remember is that the '80 had quad headlights, and then they went to the more aerodynamic style for '81.

I believe the texture of the mesh changed, but I can't tell that from the pic. The '79 and '80 had wraparound taillights; the '78 did not but had its own rear side marker lamp.

I hated the '78 Monte Carlo when it came out (although I liked the Malibu Classic Coupe as long as it had those 'honeycomb' wheelcovers, the optional round Monte Carlo instrument gauges, and the 50/50 split front seat with individual center armrests. And oh yes, a 305 and F41 suspension. )

The '78 Monte has grown on me since, though.