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

uplanderguy

They do have a great selection of models that aren't usually made into...well, models! I had to chuckle--the '74 Buick LeSabre Luxus convertible is listed as a "Le Sword"!

ab348

uplanderguy said:

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.

The grill was the same between '78 and '79. The '78 parking lights were all lens, while the '79 had 3 little horizontal chrome strakes over the lens. The model appears to be a '78 from what I can see.

I remember Car & Driver describing the '78 styling as a steaming pile when it was introduced.

andre1969

ab348 said:

The grill was the same between '78 and '79. The '78 parking lights were all lens, while the '79 had 3 little horizontal chrome strakes over the lens. The model appears to be a '78 from what I can see.

I remember Car & Driver describing the '78 styling as a steaming pile when it was introduced.

I think in general, GM didn't quite pull off the same magic when they downsized the intermediates for '78, as what they had in the full-sizers for '77. One thing I really hated was when they came out with those under-sized V-6es...the Chevy 200 and Buick 196. Although, to be fair, they were still probably an improvement over the big '77 models with a Chevy 250 or Buick 231. And a '78 with the 305 or 301 was an improvement, I'm sure, over a '77 model with a 350. And a 350 was the biggest engine you could get in a midsized Chevy or Buick in '77. Olds still offered a 403, and Pontiac offered a 400 (403 in CA/high altitude areas) in '77 though.

The '78 downsizing was more radical than the '77, though. While a Caprice lost 5.5" in wheelbase and about 9" in overall length when it downsized, the Malibu sedan lost 7.9" in wheelbase and about 20" in overall length.

And while a '77 Caprice was as big or bigger in most dimensions than its '76 counterpart, the midsized cars seemed like they gave up a bit more. At least, comparing my '76 Grand LeMans coupe to the '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass Supreme, and '86 Monte Carlo that I had, I can tell a difference. The LeMans is notably wider inside, and has more legroom up front. There's also less intrusion of the transmission hump, wheel wells, dashboard, etc. You lose a bit of headroom, and legroom in the back seat. But, the LeMans's seats are thicker and more supportive. One nice feature the downsized cars had, though, was the well on the side that held a compact spare tire, but was large enough to accommodate a full-size. On the '73-77 cars, the trunk was more sloped, and they put the spare right in the middle of the trunk, toward the front. Annoyingly enough, at the deepest part of the trunk. Whenever I take my LeMans to a car show, I have to position my beer cooler just right, and at an angle, to make sure the trunk closes.

fintail

Nope, no black one, I only saw that one and a light colored two tone model.

That R-body limo is pretty cool, I've never seen one of those before, not even in pics.

lemko said:

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

fintail

Yep, here's a first gen 626 coupe, a true hardtop:



I have a vivid memory of one of these. When I was a little kid, maybe in kindergarten at the oldest, a woman who lived next door or 2 doors down had a yellow Fox body Mustang fastback with T-tops. She was very chatty and I remember my dad talking to her (I think she was attractive too ) . I remember I admired that Mustang, and she said she'd take me for a ride in it. One day, the Mustang was gone, and a new 626 coupe was in its place. It didn't interest me as much. I remember it was badged "Luxus".

andre1969 said:

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?

stickguy

I looked at a used one of those many years ago. Probably late 80s. It was white. I remember there was something wrong with it that turned me off (though I really did want to like it!). Either smoked, or ran real rough. Something engine related.

uplanderguy

Re.: Car and Driver and the '78 Monte Carlo--I seem to remember something like the "steaming pile" comment too, but I also remember them tempering that with something to the effect of "Though we could be wrong, judging by the number of young executive-types stopped in their tracks by the dark blue one on a turntable at O'Hare airport".

I agree with andre--the '78 round of downsizing was more radical than the '77. I think the full-sizes were overall a more successful job too. That said, the GM midsize RWD's were really the last GM cars I can say that I liked a lot...cars in my market segment, anyway.

andre1969

I think one thing that hurt the downsized intermediates was that clunky "aeroback" styling that the Cutlass and Century models had. To this day, I don't know what they were thinking when they came out with that. It doesn't help any with aerodynamics. They're not hatchbacks, so it doesn't add any versatility. And, it actually cuts into trunk space a bit, compared to a Malibu, LeMans, or one of the personal luxury coupes. And, it's just awkward to look at!

While GM's downsized big cars saw gains across the board in '77, with the possible exception of the Pontiac Catalina (buyers tended to opt for the Bonneville instead), the success of the midsized cars was much more mixed. The personal luxury models did pretty well across the board, although I believe the only one that saw an increase in sales was the Regal. But with the more everyday models, the Cutlass Salon and Century were down pretty far, and I think Malibu sales were off a bit. LeMans sales were up, selling around 120,000 units, compared to the previous year's dismal 80,000.

One reason the midsized cars didn't do quite as well is that they were shrunken down to compete in a market that had a lot more players in it. On the traditional midsized front, they were still competing with the likes of the LTD-II and Fury/Monaco, although those weren't strong sellers by that point. However, the T-bird and Cougar XR-7 were, and the Cordoba was still selling somewhat well. But on the smaller front, they had to go up against GM's own X-body, the Mopar Aspen/Volare and Diplomat/LeBaron, and Ford's Fairmont/Zephyr and Granada/Monarch. The Granada was pretty much obsolete the day it was born, but by '78 was still a fairly strong seller. And the Fairmont/Zephyr were off to a strong start in their debut year. All these competing cars were marketed as compacts, but the distinction between what was a compact and what was a midsize was definitely beginning to blur.

In fact, in 1978, Consumer Reports actually dropped their "midsize" classification. They classified the cars as either "subcompact", "compact", or "large". Eventually though, they would bring the "midsize" classification back.

lemko

Did you ever notice a lot of hot-rodders are now using the 1978-1983 GM intermediates now that the supply of 1968-77 Novas has dried up. I'd say the Nova and the 1977-83 A-bodies are about the same dimensions. I guess Car and Driver could consider me as one of those who would've been impressed by the 1978 Monte Carlo. I really liked the car when it came out. A lady a few blocks away got a really nice minty green one when they first came out. I thought the 1973-77 was way over the top and baroque. Of all the Monte Carlos, the first generation was the best. A guy I knew in high school had a really nice orange 1972 model.

uplanderguy

I have indeed noticed that rodders seem to like the '78-81 Malibu coupes. In fact, it's hard to find a clean original or authentically-restored one....seems like they're all 'stroker' engines with custom interiors, etc.

Regarding the 'aeros'--I agree, although I could enjoy a dark maroon '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham two-door, just because you don't see them.

A friend of mine's parents bought a new orangy-colored '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham four-door. It was luxurious inside I thought, and my friend and I drove it halfways across the country while still fairly new, to visit a high-school friend of ours who was going to college in St. Louis. I thought it seemed like a small big car, instead of a big small car (we've had this discussion here before). It was the 260 V8. My friend's parents drove it a LONG time and considered it a good car.

roadburner

I doubt I'll ever build a street machine again, but if I did it would mirror this car(minus the wretched t-tops): Chevrolet Performance Monte Carlo SS

ab348

andre1969 said:

While GM's downsized big cars saw gains across the board in '77, with the possible exception of the Pontiac Catalina (buyers tended to opt for the Bonneville instead), the success of the midsized cars was much more mixed. The personal luxury models did pretty well across the board, although I believe the only one that saw an increase in sales was the Regal. But with the more everyday models, the Cutlass Salon and Century were down pretty far, and I think Malibu sales were off a bit. LeMans sales were up, selling around 120,000 units, compared to the previous year's dismal 80,000.

It's funny looking back on it. When I had just gotten out of university and got my first job, dad had just traded in his '78 Grand LeMans Safari and once I made a little money I bought a '77 LeMans 2-door. The '77 was a much more substantial car. The '78 was nice enough but certainly felt very lightweight. And the measures were not always good ideas: the rear windows that didn't roll down even in sedans, the thin frames, the early TH200 transmissions.

His '78 was a quality disaster. My '77 was good by comparison. The frames on the downsized cars were the biggest mistake I think. Up here they rotted and broke within 4 or 5 years. GM had to catalog a rear frame repair kit for dealers. Funny that GM kept these body on frame instead of doing a unibody of some sort.

The styling wasn't bad IMO - I even liked the Aerobacks. Least favorites for me were the '78-'80 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix. They just looked odd. For '81 and up they all looked a lot better but I still didn't care for the Monte Carlo.

I remember C&D's columnist Gordon Baxter writing about how he bought an '84 or '85 Buick Regal new and how it always seemed uneasy on the road. I think it had some other problems too so he traded it for an Fox-body LTD which he liked a lot more and was mostly trouble-free.

andre1969

ab348 said:

I remember C&D's columnist Gordon Baxter writing about how he bought an '84 or '85 Buick Regal new and how it always seemed uneasy on the road. I think it had some other problems too so he traded it for an Fox-body LTD which he liked a lot more and was mostly trouble-free.

I think I remember that writeup. IIRC, the writer started it off with a little poem. I don't remember much about it, except the final verse was "I've come home to General Mammy"...something that's probably politically incorrect nowadays!

I kind of remember him saying that a colleague had recently gotten a Bonneville G, with an optional handling suspension and full gauges, and he really liked it. But he ended up buying a Regal sedan with, I think, the 4.1 V-6, and wasn't too crazy about it. I remember him commenting on the idiot lights and the handling that wasn't as good as the Bonneville's.

Oh, as for build quality on the '73-77 GM cars, I think my '76 LeMans is decent, for the most part. The biggest annoyance is that the back of the hood, the part that faces the windshield, flutters at higher speeds because it lacks enough bracing. And sometimes I can hear something rattling in the driver's door. The body gaps are all pretty wide, but they're even, at least. On my '79 New Yorkers, the gaps are tighter, but much more uneven.

The frameless doors don't exactly impart a quality feel when you close them with a window down. And if the windows are up all the way, whoever closes their door last has to really slam it to make it close all the way. Sometimes I'm scared I'm going to break a window!

uplanderguy

Re.: Gordon Baxter's '84 Regal sedan in C&D--for some reason, I'm thinking (although could well be wrong) that it was his mother's car. Maybe he wrote that it was like something his mother could own.

I remember he thought it was using oil. The dealer did a consumption test and Gordon found out they had deliberately overfilled it. That made him crazy (as it should have).

Back then, I traded in three years, so can't speak of long-term durability, but in styling, inside and out, and ride and 'quality feel', I much-prefer the GM RWD midsizes to the Ford cars that were sold against them. I've mentioned this here before, but when my '81 Monte Carlo was stolen in Oct. '82, the rental car given me was an '81 Mercury Cougar--not XR-7, so it looked like a Granada. I hated it--and not just for the usual rental car reasons. There was a horizontal seam on the "C" pillar, right at eye-level, that was covered with a wide piece of plastic or fiberglass, and the wheels had four lug nuts. I know because one wheel cover was misssing and in fact, one of the four lug nuts on that wheel was missing. I thought the interior was lacking too compared to my Monte Carlo, which might not be a fair comparison, I know.

ab348

The early-80s Fox derivatives were pretty cheap-feeling. I remember when they turned the Fox-based Granada into the LTD in '84, they significantly upgraded the trim and the feel of the car.

uplanderguy

It's all what you were used to I guess, but I never liked those Fox-based LTD's either. Ford always did that vent-window-in-a-rear-door-next-to-vent-window-in-the-C-pillar-thing, and I never liked the instrument panels. But I've not heard bad things about them mechanically or anything.

andre1969

My grandparents went from an '81 Granada coupe (well, a 2-door sedan, technically, as upright as it was) to an '85 LTD sedan. They preferred the Granada, but then they were also an older demographic. Actually, I liked that Granada as well. It was a two tone beige/brown, and wore that formal styling pretty well I thought. It actually got a lot of attention when it was new. I still remember them going to a Hot Shoppes at a local plaza that was in the process of going south, and in the parking lot some of the hood-rats who were most likely skipping school started pointing and shouting "LOOK!! It's the NEW GRANADA!!"

Seems laughable in retrospect, but hey, it was a recession year!

I was only 15 when they traded that car for the LTD, so I never got a chance to drive it. I did, however, log a lot of driving time on the LTD when I had my learner's permit. I remember when I practiced parallel parking, it was easier to park than my Mom's '80 Malibu coupe...even though the Malibu was a few inches shorter. The LTD had a shorter wheelbase, so that no doubt helped. The LTD also handled a bit better, and had stronger acceleration. Still, I preferred the Malibu, because it managed to feel more substantial. And, it was bigger where it counted...shoulder room, legroom, less intrusion of the transmission hump, wheel wells, etc.

I think those Fox cars were decent in general. Earlier versions had a lot of recalls. And the "Essex" 232 V-6 tended to blow the head gasket around 90,000 miles or so. But otherwise they weren't bad.

The LTD gave way to an '89 Taurus LX. Grandmom and Granddad didn't like that car as much as the LTD, as they were more conservative, and didn't like the way cars were going. But, they were of the trade it before it needs new tires mindset, and were Ford loyalists, so they took whatever was available. Once the kids had grown, they had a preference for two-door models, but by 1985, the LTD didn't give you that option. I guess they could have gone with a Thunderbird, but being more conservative, I'd imagine they didn't like that rounded, bathtub style. And, by the time they got the Taurus, I really could NOT see Grandmom taking Granddad to the foot doctor in one of those final-gen T-birds!

roadburner

I ran a 1985 T-Bird Turbo Coupe with the five speed manual from1993 to 1998 as my work beater. It was a really good car. Ford advertising pitched it as a competitor to the BMW 6 Series that I owned at the same time, and-while it clearly wasn't in the same league-it was a very pleasant and reliable car that was fun to drive. Except for it's penchant for snapping the intermediate clutch cable every 5,000 miles or so. I learned to change it in less than 5 minutes and finally resigned myself to proactively replacing it at every oil change- At less than $10 it wasn't worth the hassle.

Mr_Shiftright

There used to be a T-Bird turbo coupe in my neighborhood---jet black, lowered, nice wheels, wonderful exhaust sound, impeccable condition inside and out. It was an impressive car to look at because it was so incredibly "tidy".

andre1969

This afternoon, while running an errand after work, I spotted this 1980 Malibu coupe...


Looks like a work in progress, and also appears to have been modded a bit.

Oh, about two minutes later, I saw a black '70-72 Monte Carlo, but it was coming from the other direction, and I wasn't able to get a pic.

uplanderguy

I always liked the '78's taillights the best...with that diagonal cut on the wrap-around portion.

With some exceptions, I've long-thought that generally, the first year of a new design is the best, as it's styled as a whole. Details of subsequent years were usually changed for the sake of change.

An exception to my rule, for me, is that I like the '56 Ford a lot better than the similar '55.

ab348

I always thought that the '78-up Malibu had the least attractive styling of any of that generation of GM intermediates. The miserly wheel openings, the front end styling, and the generally plain looks just didn't work for me very well. I thought Pontiac won that year after year with that body design. Even when they changed up to the Firebird-like nose in '81 (?) it still looked good, although I will concede that later years were less successful.

explorerx4

Entertaining story:
jalopnik.com/here-s-how-i-once-bought-a-rare-mercedes-for-half-its-v-1672812142

berri

With some exceptions, I've long-thought that generally, the first year of a new design is the best, as it's styled as a whole. Details of subsequent years were usually changed for the sake of change.

An exception to my rule, for me, is that I like the '56 Ford a lot better than the similar '55.

I think that can often tend to be true. But then the latter model years can lead to product improvements (but sometimes cost cutting!). What I liked about the 56 Ford was the nice dash for a low priced car. You're a GM man - I think some of the 62's cleaned up the 61's fairly nicely.

fintail

If only I could be so lucky. They'd want book +80% for it here.

explorerx4 said:

Entertaining story:
jalopnik.com/here-s-how-i-once-bought-a-rare-mercedes-for-half-its-v-1672812142

andre1969

Style-wise, I thought the GM intermediates improved in later years. I really wasn't that crazy about any of the personal luxury coupes, and thought they all improved greatly with the 1981 re-skin. Among the more mainstream cars, I liked the Malibu the best. Of '78-80, I like the front-end of the '79 the best, and the taillights of the '80 the best.

With the LeMans, I remember hating them as a kid, mainly because of that front-end, but as I've gotten older, I've grown to like it more. Part of my feelings, however, probably stem from the fact that I really like the style of the '76-77 LeMans, and in contrast, its replacement seemed like a letdown. In general, I thought that going from quad headlights to single headlights seemed like a loss of status. However, all the midsized cars, with the exception of the Grand Prix, did that. But, I never liked the stacked headlights on the Chevies and Buicks, so I guess because of that, the Malibu going back to single headlights didn't bother me so much.

Pontiac had also reduced the beak to almost nothing by '76-77, yet it still blended in well with the creases of the hood. But for '78, it seemed like it was back with a vengeance. Flattened, yet still coming off as swollen, somehow. Plus, I thought it beared too strong of a resemblance to the Cutlass that year...except the Cutlass's center piece didn't stick out as prominently.

One detail I did like about the LeMans though, is how the beltline of the coupe kicks up a bit at the rear quarter window, a faint nod to the old "Coke-bottle" shape of yesteryear. I don't think it worked quite as well with the sedan, as it was just the little vent window in the C-pillar that kicked up, but at least they tried to differentiate it from the Malibu.

The Malibu and LeMans coupes both had nice proportions, I thought, but the sedans seemed a bit awkward. Not as bad as the Aerobacks, but the roof just seemed too large, in comparison to the rest of the car. The C-pillar extended too far beyond the rear axle, for my tastes. It's the norm for most cars nowadays, but back then, it seemed odd. I thought the more formal roofline, adopted for '80 on the Buick/Olds, and '81 on the Malibu/LeMans, was a big improvement. It also helped make the car look longer, I thought, because the rear deck was longer. On the '78-80 Malibu/LeMans, the rear window came right down to the trunk lid, but on the '81+ models, it came down about 4-5 inches ahead of the trunk lid, just like on the coupes, and they put a spacer panel in between.

I like the front-end of the '81 LeMans, although I guess that slicker front-end did seem a bit odd with the more formal roofline. It looked really sharp as a coupe though, I thought. And, I'll confess I like the '82-86 Bonneville as well.

Unfortunately, I think '81 was about the worst when it came to engines...not just for the LeMans, but all the midsized cars. IIRC, they limited 301/305/307 availability to only the wagons. So for the LeMans coupe/sedan, I think that limited you to the Buick 231 or the Pontiac 265 V-8. I've seen an '81 LeMans with the Buick 252 V-6, but I don't know if that was stock or not. It's not listed as a choice on the EPA's website.

uplanderguy

You know what, you reminded me, andre, that I broke my own 'first year is best' theory in that the '81 Monte Carlo, first new car I owned, I thought was a vast styling improvement over the '80. I liked that the rear styling resembled earlier Montes, pre-downsizing. I guess that I consider the '81 more than just the usual grille/taillight/trim shuffling that usually happened in the second or third year of a body design.

I agree with berri on the '56 Ford instrument panel. A model of tasteful, readable simplicity IMHO. Some of the later fifties dashes by everybody were just so full of overkill in shapes, sizes, and brightwork, the '56 Ford is the opposite. Only MHO of course.

andre1969

I had to google some pics to jog my memory, but yeah, I agree the '56 Ford dash looks a LOT better than the '55. The '55 dash looks bad to me because it looks like they just stuck the speedometer housing on it as an afterthought.

And yeah, I guess the '81 Monte Carlo, versus a '78-80, is a bit more than just a minor trim shuffle. But, it was probably more on par with the way they used to do annual styling changes. For instance, GM probably changed as much on the 55, 56, and '57 Chevies from year to year as they did going from the '80 to '81 Monte.

But, by the 1980's, sometimes you were lucky if they even changed a grille insert. That '81 restyle was pretty significant with respect to aerodynamics, as well. IIRC, the drag coefficient of the personal luxury coupes dropped from around the mid 0.5 range to the low 0.4. That was quickly forgotten once the '83 T-bird and Cougar came out, but still pretty significant for the time.

fintail

Today spotted a white Audi coupe GT with white wheels - Quattro wannabe, a neglected looking W123 with classic plates, and a ~70 Chevelle with SS trim.

uplanderguy

Andre, re: your comment about the '65 GTO being too 'pretty' for a performance car--I hesitatingly have come to that conclusion about the '67 and '68 Camaro. I like them better than the blockier minor facelift done for the '69 Camaro, with its Nova instrument panel, but on the other hand I think the '67 and '68 are pretty curvy and 'feminine'. I could still enjoy a nice, original or authentically-restored '67...just not in the ubiquitous Marina Blue or Butternut Yellow, or whatever they called the red that year.

andre1969

I have a preference for the '67-68 Camaro as well, at least in non-RS trim. I don't care for the headlight treatment on the '69. They seem inset too far from the sides of the car, and also a bit bug-eyed. Of course, the hidden-headlight RS fixes that problem.

I like the rear treatment of the '69 Camaro the best, though. The '67-68 just seems a bit unfinished back there, IMO.

fintail

Oldest taxi in Berlin

stickguy

There are worse looking taxis in Philly, I know that much!

andys120

I saw what appeared to be a mid-50s Porsche 356A Speedster and it was quite nice in maroon. I say "appeared to be" because like Shelby Cobras the real ones have become too valuable to be driven on the street but there are some very convincing replicas out there.

If this was a replica it was a very good one with no trick wheels or anything else to detract from the original look.. Seeing it in everyday traffic was like seeing a ghost from the past.

laurasdada

While running the mean streets of Pacific Palisades, in a driveway, a restored, or well taken care of BMW 2002tii. Strange color, though, like a powder or Robin's Nest blue.

roadburner

Probably Fjord Blue; mine is Atlantikblau

laurasdada

Aye, I believe it was Fjord. And, why would BMW name another color after a so-so Ford sedan?

lemko

Maybe they could've called it "Fjord Blue?"

roadburner

Because BMW used the name first; my dream would be an Inka 1973 2002 tii...

andys120

Mine would be a Golf Yellow 2000tii Touring.

andre1969

lemko said:

Maybe they could've called it "Fjord Blue?"

GM had a bit of a Ford fetish as well, at least in '67. My Catalina is painted up in "Montego Cream". If you got a Chevy in that color, it was called "Capri".

As for the BMW 2002, make mine "Turkis"


I never knew the 2002 came in such a wide variety of colors. I always tend to picture them in orange, for some reason.

uplanderguy

A friend just sent me this link of one of the Lambrecht auction Chevys, after it's been cleaned up and actually run. I'm typically not a huge fan of '63 Chevys, and there were hundreds of thousands of them made I'm sure, but the 250 hp 327 makes this one more interesting...as well as the 11 miles, even less than the 28 miles on the last South Bend Studebaker I posted photos of in the postwar Stude thread:

http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/blogs/under-the-hood/ex-lambrecht-1963-impala?et_mid=707506&rid=244303492

Guy paid $97K for it.

It did clean up very nicely.

laurasdada

I'll go for a Malaga or Riviera.

ab348

The Lambrecht car is OK I guess but I never understand these big prices for "never driven" cars. If you ever drive them to enjoy your purchase, the value disappears. Like all of those Lambrecht cars, the condition is really not jaw-dropping since they were stored so poorly. Lots of surface rust underneath, etc.

uplanderguy

Looking at that '63 Impala, I'm reminded that the Impala was all things to most people back then; I understand how they sold so well, year-in, year-out. You could get them in a four-door sedan, two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop, convertible, and station wagon...and also SS models in two-door hardtop and convertible versions. Five years later, you could even choose between a fastback or formal roof on the coupes. Ah, choice.

You're right that the storage wasn't particular careful, even on this Lambrecht car which had been stored inside the dealership. I think the last South Bend Studebaker was stored better from new, although I've heard some old-timers from South Bend saying it was once stored in an old building at the City of South Bend Water Department, after Studebaker left but before the Stude Museum was built.

fintail

At least that Impala cleaned up well. That was the volume model, maybe moreso if it had a 283. Too bad it wasn't an SS, with the fancier trim. Time warp is cool, but like many say, what's the use if you'll never drive it.

uplanderguy

A fairly-educated guess on my part is that the 1963 Impala Sport Coupe was the single best-selling car in the States that year, and you're right, most had the 195-hp 283 and two-speed Powerglide. I can remember as a kid my grandparents trading in their '58 Chevy wagon for a new '63 Bel Air wagon, 283, Powerglide, and "Positive Traction" as my grandfather called it. I do think they were good cars.

andre1969

I can't remember...what would the standard V-8 have been in a full-sized Ford for 1963? I had a co-worker who once had a '62 Galaxie with a 292, but I think that engine was gone for '63. And I don't think the 289 was offered in the big cars yet. I'm sure the tiny 260 wasn't offered in a big car. So would that have made the 352 the standard V-8?

It almost seems like an unfair match, to put a 283 Impala up against a 352 Galaxie and a 318 Fury. Especially with the Impala only having a 2-speed automatic. The Fury would've had a 3-speed, and I'd presume the Ford would have, as well? I think my co-worker's '62 only had a 2-speed, but IIRC, Ford phased out their 2-speeds quicker than GM, if not as fast as Mopar.

But then, on the flip side, variety is the spice of life, so it was nice of GM to offer that 283 as a bridge between the 6-cyl and the 327 V-8's. And in '63, the Impala was probably still light enough that the 283 was adequate. I know by '68, the 307/2-speed was getting a bit strained, as CR tested one and got 0-60 in about 14.5 seconds. For '69, I think GM gave in and made the 350 the standard big car V-8.

I wonder what the cost difference was between the 283 and the 250 hp 327 V-8 in 1963?

roadburner

laurasdada said:

I'll go for a Malaga or Riviera.

My 1973 Bavaria was Riviera Blue:

andys120

BMWs have been painted every conceivable shade of blue. I once tried to make a list but stopped at around 20. My 528i is Steel Blue Metallic.