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

berri

I believe you could get a 260 or 289 V8 on top of the 223 6 on the full sized 63 Ford's before moving up to the 352, etc. There may have been some restrictions though on which specific model could get which engine. I think by 63 all big Ford's were either a stick shift or 3 speed automatic Cruise-O-Matic. 63 and 64 were two years where I actually liked the Galaxie better than the Impala looks-wise. Overall, I leaned toward Impala's though.

kyfdx

andys120 said:

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.

We had an '03 325i Sport in Steel Blue... awesome color!

Our 2011 X3 is BlueWater Metallic and our son's '95 M3 is Montreal Blue (repaint..not a stock color for the E36 M3)

omarman

berri said:

I believe you could get a 260 or 289 V8 on top of the 223 6 on the full sized 63 Ford's before moving up to the 352, etc.

I think you're right. Here's a link to a Hemmings feature about the '63-'64 Galaxie which states that the F code 260 was offered in early '63 and later dumped for a C code 289.

uplanderguy

I just looked at the Old Car Manual project website and looked at the '63 full-size Ford and Chevy brochures. Unless Ford's 289 came out mid-year or something, there was no 289 in the brochure; the 260 put out 164 hp.

The 250 hp. 327 cost $83.95 extra over the 283, per the window sticker on the Lambrecht Chevy.

In '61-64 Chevys, I like the styling of each successive year less than the previous year, to where I just don't like the looks of the '64 at all. I do think they were pretty good cars from my memory of relatives and friends/neighbors having them. I like the '61 sport coupes best and could still enjoy owning a '62 Bel Air sport coupe, with the roofline like the '61.

I thought the fastback roof of the '63 1/2 Galaxie 500 was a styling improvement over the first-issue hardtop. I always thought the '64 Ford must've been a good car as I would see many of them still in use even in rusty NE Ohio until maybe fifteen or so years ago.

bhill2

berri said:

I believe you could get a 260 or 289 V8 on top of the 223 6 on the full sized 63 Ford's before moving up to the 352, etc. There may have been some restrictions though on which specific model could get which engine. I think by 63 all big Ford's were either a stick shift or 3 speed automatic Cruise-O-Matic. 63 and 64 were two years where I actually liked the Galaxie better than the Impala looks-wise. Overall, I leaned toward Impala's though.

I don't think that you could get a 260 in the full-sized Ford. That engine, along with the smaller 221 V-8, were created for the mid-sized Fairlane, and were also optional in the Falcon and, briefly, the Mustang.

ab348

andre1969 said:

For '69, I think GM gave in and made the 350 the standard big car V-8.

Our '69 Impala came with a 327 as standard equipment. Dunno if that was a Canada thing or not.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I just looked at the Old Car Manual project website and looked at the '63 full-size Ford and Chevy brochures. Unless Ford's 289 came out mid-year or something, there was no 289 in the brochure; the 260 put out 164 hp.

This page from a '63 Ford catalog says the 289 was available.

lemko

I think my wife's first car, which was a blue 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 sedan, had a 289.

fintail

I think the 289 came around in 63, it seems to exist in data Like this. I want to say it was phased out in 68, replaced by the 302. I remember my dad's 68 Fairlane had a 289, and a pretty blue 68 Montego in town had a 302.

352 was probably the mainstream choice. My dad's 60 Ford had one of those, and a 66 Galaxie we picked up for parts had a 352 (mine was a 390).

uplanderguy

The 283 was last used in '67; the 307 became standard on big Chevys in '68 and the 327 became standard in '69 on big Chevys. In '70, the 350 became standard on the big cars.

uplanderguy

Here's the '63 Galaxie brochure I looked at. The fastback hardtop isn't in it, and neither is a 289, so both must have been a mid-year thing.

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Ford/1963_Ford/1963-Ford-Galaxie/1963-Ford-Galaxie-28

berri

You may be right Uplander. I think the 63 fastback was introduced midyear in conjunction with the XL as a separate series. I think the XL was an option package on the 62.

Bhill - I do recall the 260 on the Fairlanes for awhile. Maybe the 260 was for fleet or lower Custom level big Ford's? I think Ford was shuffling engines around during that era. However, as I recall, the Ford big 6 was a decent engine, so I'm not sure what a 260 V8 would really add.

andre1969

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that fastback hardtop roof on the '63 Galaxie was a midyear thing as well. I seem to recall seeing it referred to as a "1963.5". As far as some of the engine data I've quoted, I lifted it from one of my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedias. So, take it with a grain of salt!

Actually, looking back at the book, it shows for the 1963 260 "S-Falcon Sprint, O-Others", so it looks like it may have been an option for the big cars. The only 289 the book lists for '63 is the 271 hp version, which it says was optional for the Fairlane.

As for the big Chevies that year, I think my tastes follow Uplander's. From '61-64, I like each passing year less and less. And I like the more open '59-62 style hardtop roof better than the more formal '62-64. However, I guess as the cars got more angular, that older roof would look more out of place.

With the Fords, my favorite is the '63. The styling just seems "right", to me. Not as conservative as the '61-62, but not as over-styled as the '64. We had a '64 Ford Galaxie 4-door when I was a little kid. My Granddad bought it for something like $75 in the early 70's, so my Mom and Dad would have a spare car to use. As a little kid I hated it, I think mainly because my Dad hated Fords, and that was an influence on me. My Granddad (Mom's Dad) also hated Fords, but he must have recognized some redeeming qualities of this '64, in order to buy it for us.

Oh, $83 and change for an optional engine doesn't seem like a lot of money. But, adjust for inflation, that's probably about $650-700 today. Probably enough to sway a lot of buyers toward the smaller engine.

**Edit: on the smallblock V-8 Fords, just found this from Wikipedia (again, take with a grain of salt; Wikipedia's not perfect, either): "At the beginning of the 1963 model run, the 292 Y-Block V8 was replaced as the base V8 engine with the new small block 260. The 260 proved under-powered for the heavy full size Ford and was replaced midyear (coincident with the introduction of the 63 & 1/2 models) with the 289 V8."

uplanderguy

I like the '63 1/2 Ford hardtop styling too, and a friend of mine who wrenched back then says they were good cars. I'm curious if the formal hardtop was discontinued when the fastback came out, or if they were built at the same time for the rest of the model year. In '64, there was only a fastback. Odd to have such a major change in the middle of a model year back then. I seem to remember something about NASCAR having something to do with Ford's decision to make the fastback.

andre1969

I wonder if Ford used that same formal roof for all of their body styles for a few years...2/4-door sedan, and 2/4-door hardtop. Normally, hardtops are a bit more low-slung, but at a quick glance, they all look about the same to me.

I've heard that those '61-64 Fords were very roomy inside, as well. I seem to recall Consumer Reports comparing a Galaxie to a Cadillac Sedan DeVille, and noting that the Ford had more legroom in the back. I think that was '61 or '62. I can't comment from my experience, as we got rid of our '64 Galaxie when I was about 7 or 8. As for quality, I imagine they were a bit more solid than the Chevies, which would've had the X-frame. And probably less prone to rust damage than the Mopars, which were unit body.

I think it's really amazing that those '61-64 Fords can actually be traced back to 1957! Even though they look totally different, and the bodies WERE different, they still used a version of the old 1957 frame. If you ever look inside the trunk of one, it's really apparent in the forward area above the rear axle. I guess that's why the later Fords had such shallow trunks, too, because even though the bodies and decklids got lower, they couldn't lower the frame itself.

IIRC, Ford did a similar thing with the '55-56 Ford. Even though they looked all-new, they were heavily based on the '52-54 style.

I guess though, it's really not that different from something like, say, a '91-96 Caprice, which looks totally different, but is still based on the '77-90 frame. Or the final Ford Panthers, which could be traced to 1979, but looked nothing like their '79 counterparts.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I like the '63 1/2 Ford hardtop styling too, and a friend of mine who wrenched back then says they were good cars. I'm curious if the formal hardtop was discontinued when the fastback came out, or if they were built at the same time for the rest of the model year. In '64, there was only a fastback. Odd to have such a major change in the middle of a model year back then. I seem to remember something about NASCAR having something to do with Ford's decision to make the fastback.

I seem to recall that Ford tried to get a fastback hardtop roof for the convertible approved by NASCAR for better aerodynamics than the formal roof hardtop had. When they didn't go their way they adapted it and produced it as a regular hardtop model.

I like the '63 and '64 Fords more than any other Ford from that decade. The '64 is my favorite of the two. Like Andre, I really never liked the '64 Chevy styling at all and by contrast the Ford that year was a great-looking car. The '63 is a bit cleaner in design but I prefer the '64. The earlier models looked too round and bulbous, and every one I ever saw looked like its springs were sagging. When the all-new '65 came out I was really disappointed with the boxy styling, though they improved it a lot for '66.

uplanderguy

I've always been a sucker for the '61 Ford Starliner...as long as it wasn't Ford's tomato red with tomato red interior! Give me a nice blue or green one and I'd be a happy guy.

laurasdada

BMW does a nice blue. I actually wanted my XF in blue, but buying on New Year's Eve, kinda limited my choice. But, the Platinum is easier on my desire to have a clean (at least clean looking) car.

berri

It's funny, I also thought the 66 Galaxie/LTD was a noticeable improvement over the 65, but the 66 Impala was a step back with it's boxier look compared to the 65.

uplanderguy

IMHO, the '66 Impala exemplified what I think about generally, the first year of a style looks best as it's styled in an integrated manner--versus the trim shuffling done in later years just for the sake of change. The '66 is a nice-looking car, but the '65 is an absolute styling knockout IMHO!

Funny, I like the '65 Ford better than the '66. I always thought the '66 looked like the '65, but 'puffed up'--noticeable from the width of the taillights.

It's all what you're used to, but I always thought that about the interior things, GM bettered Ford back then--looks of the instrument panel, seat trim, door panels, etc.

berri

Totally agree on interiors - too much Ford was just cheapo and chintzy in my book.

andre1969

I think the only thing I prefer about the '66 Impala to the '65 is the taillights. They just seem a bit more upscale, and well thought-out, whereas the '65's are more stuck-on, and sort of a final leftover from that era of rocket and spaceship styling. But other than that, I think the '65 is perfect. The '66, while still attractive; I just don't like the slightly more blunt front-end.

With Fords, I don't really have a preference...I like both the '65 and '66. I like the '67 as well. I don't like the '68, although the hidden headlight models redeem themselves, somewhat. Even though it's the same design, somehow the '68 looks smaller to me. At a quick glance, I tend to mistake them for a '68-69 Fairlane.

uplanderguy

I like the '65 Chevy's bullet taillights, an Impala tradition by then. The thing I like least about the '66 is that side molding just stuck right down the middle of the body side. I know it's practical, but I like the bare-side look better, with the molding along the rockers.

ab348

Back in the 1960s I don't know what Ford was thinking in terms of interior design. Even as a little kid I noted things like how it took Ford YEARS to hide the column shift rod on the steering column, whereas GM designed the bowl to hide all that. Dash design, no contest; things like armrests, no contest; Ford's door panels always looked cheap too. I remember when we bought our '74 Maverick how it still had painted metal on the interior doors and cheap clear plastic trim rings on the door lock knobs. A cheapo Nova would still have had upholstered door panels and metal lock knob rings.

bhill2

uplanderguy said:

Here's the '63 Galaxie brochure I looked at. The fastback hardtop isn't in it, and neither is a 289, so both must have been a mid-year thing.

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Ford/1963_Ford/1963-Ford-Galaxie/1963-Ford-Galaxie-28

Yes, this looks like an early '63 brochure and does indeed show that Ford put the 260 in the full-size models (you learn something new every day). The other thing I noted is that early in the year you could still get a Fordomatic. I thought they had stopped fitting the Fordomatic in the full-size after 1962.

andre1969

For some reason, I always looked at the Maverick as a major step down from something like a Nova, Dart, or Valiant. But, price-wise, they were actually pretty close. Here's a few 1974 base prices I've found, for the 4-door sedans:

Maverick: $2824
Nova: $2841
Valiant: $2942
Dart: $2961

Actually, in that lineup, IMO the Nova seems like a screaming bargain. For some reason, I just perceive the Maverick to be a lot smaller than the others, even though there's really not a huge size difference. For instance, the 4-door Maverick is on a 109.9" wb, versus 111 for the Nova and Dart/Valiant (the '73 and earlier Valiant sedans were actually on a shorter 108" wb). As for overall length, I found a Maverick brochure for '74 that lists it at 193.9" I'm not sure how big the Dart/Valiant got...I think maybe 205-206", by the time they put on those protruding bumpers and the thick black rubber blocks? I know my '68 and '69 Darts were only around 196" long, and visually, I thought they looked longer than the 70's models, most likely because of the shorter, sloping decks of the newer models.

And, I don't think the Nova ever got any bigger than 197-198" overall.

If anything, I'm a bit surprised at the price disparity between the Nova and the Dart/Valiant. Personally, I'd still go with the Dart/Valiant, because they were bigger inside where it mattered for me...legroom. But the Nova definitely felt a lot more modern. I never really liked the '68-72 style of Nova, but I like the '73 restyle.

uplanderguy

We had a '73 Nova new (well, my parents). It was a six, three-speed on the floor ($26 option), Rally Wheels, whitewalls, AM radio, and "Exterior Decor Group" (bodyside moldings and bright-metal trim around the door glass and rear-quarter-windows). Bottom of the sticker, including freight: $2,625.00. For real. A great bargain. We took delivery on 10/6/72--I always remember that. It was probably the poorest-assembled new Chevy we ever had, though--water leaks in the trunk, gap where the right side of the instrument panel met the A pillar inside, a small dent on the rain gutter above the LR quarter window; trans had a ring of some sort missing which resulted in a grinding condition between gears. Still, a great value and I think a fairly-nice-looking car. At 12K miles it was involved in a pretty-heavy side hit (no injuries, thankfully), and we traded on a new '74 Impala Sport Coupe--the '75's were already arriving at the dealership but Dad did not want to have to put unleaded gas in.

andre1969

$2625 does seem like a bargain, even for a basic car. That car was a coupe, right? My old car book lists the base price of a Nova coupe at $2377, and for the sedan it was $2407. I'd imagine the Rally wheels, whitewall tires, and bright trim dressed up an otherwise cheap car very nicely.

GM did a pretty good job holding the line on Nova prices, at least through '73. The '68, for comparison, was $2284 for a 6-cyl coupe, $2314 for a 6-cyl sedan. So, less than a $100 increase, over the course of five years.

I guess inflation really didn't hit hard until 1974 though. Suddenly, those Nova prices went up by about $440, in just one year!

kyfdx

andre1969 said:

$2625 does seem like a bargain, even for a basic car. That car was a coupe, right? My old car book lists the base price of a Nova coupe at $2377, and for the sedan it was $2407. I'd imagine the Rally wheels, whitewall tires, and bright trim dressed up an otherwise cheap car very nicely.

GM did a pretty good job holding the line on Nova prices, at least through '73. The '68, for comparison, was $2284 for a 6-cyl coupe, $2314 for a 6-cyl sedan. So, less than a $100 increase, over the course of five years.

I guess inflation really didn't hit hard until 1974 though. Suddenly, those Nova prices went up by about $440, in just one year!

By the '77 model year, a modestly equipped Nova was in the $4500 MSRP range..

jwm40517

A 1963 1/2 fastback style Galaxie 500XL was my first car. I think those names are correct. It had the 390 engine , bucket seats and 4-speed. Bought it in late 1965 for $1500. I remember another 63 in the early style with a 406 engine owned by a guy I knew. Always thought the 63 & 64 Fords looked much better than the same Chevys.

In May of 1967 I found a 66 Chevy II Super Sport with the 327-350 horse engine. No one called them a L-79 engine then. The father of a drafted son had driven it to work and had a "For Sale" sign on for $1900. I made a deal on it and drove the 63 Ford to the local Ford dealer and wholesaled it to them for $750 and bought the Chevy II that day.

My father had a more obscure 1963 Mercury S-55 with bucket seats 390 and auto. Basically same trim as 500 XL Ford . The Mercury had the odd sloping power operated rear glass found in several Mercurys of the time.

ab348

kyfdx said:

andre1969 said:

$2625 does seem like a bargain, even for a basic car. That car was a coupe, right? My old car book lists the base price of a Nova coupe at $2377, and for the sedan it was $2407. I'd imagine the Rally wheels, whitewall tires, and bright trim dressed up an otherwise cheap car very nicely.

GM did a pretty good job holding the line on Nova prices, at least through '73. The '68, for comparison, was $2284 for a 6-cyl coupe, $2314 for a 6-cyl sedan. So, less than a $100 increase, over the course of five years.

I guess inflation really didn't hit hard until 1974 though. Suddenly, those Nova prices went up by about $440, in just one year!

By the '77 model year, a modestly equipped Nova was in the $4500 MSRP range..

I remember our '74 Maverick 4-door was $4552 here in Canada. It was "loaded" though: Luxury Decor Option, 250 inch "big six", automatic transmission, AM radio, power steering. Loaded indeed!

uplanderguy

When '73 models came out, there was a price freeze going on in the 'States. I remember that the Malibu coupe still began at $2,949, like the '72, but seemed decontented compared to the '72 and I think that's how the manufacturers got around that issue. The floor shift on our Nova was $26; the Rally Wheels were either $44 or $56 I think, and the Exterior Decor Group was $51. Not sure what the whitewalls or AM radio were. It was a coupe.

The Nova was significantly cheaper than the Chevelle, and in coupes, the wheelbase was only one inch different. In fact, rear-seat legroom in the Nova coupe was half-an-inch more than in the '73 Chevelle coupe, and the trunk room was .6 cu. ft. less in the Nova. The downside, IMHO, was that the Nova still had leaf springs, drum brakes, and that sub-frame compared to the full-frame of the Chevelle. I was a weirdo and liked the '73 Chevelle immediately, hoping it would replace our '67 Chevelle. Dad didn't like the '73 Chevelle at all and liked the looks of the Nova and was enticed by the low price. He thought it was too small when he owned it though, and went up to an Impala after the accident, our first.

I remember the Nova feeling like a bigger small car, but the Chevelle felt like a smaller big car.

uplanderguy

Using Google, I don't see a price freeze in the fall of '72, but earlier. I usually have a good memory about those things. I was totally immersed in Chevrolet car culture, to the exclusion of sports or band in school! LOL I do remember the $2,949 '73 Malibu coupe base price when they first came out, raising to $3,010 later in the year. Going solely from memory though. I do know the $2,625 Nova price. Dad found it hard to believe it was stickered so cheaply. It looked dressy with the optional moldings and Rally Wheels, but again, it had no power steering, it had manual drum brakes, the 250 1-barrel six and 3-speed trans, and rubber floor covering.

hpmctorque

uplanderguy said:

Using Google, I don't see a price freeze in the fall of '72, but earlier. I usually have a good memory about those things. I was totally immersed in Chevrolet car culture, to the exclusion of sports or band in school! LOL I do remember the $2,949 '73 Malibu coupe base price when they first came out, raising to $3,010 later in the year. Going solely from memory though. I do know the $2,625 Nova price. Dad found it hard to believe it was stickered so cheaply. It looked dressy with the optional moldings and Rally Wheels, but again, it had no power steering, it had manual drum brakes, the 250 1-barrel six and 3-speed trans, and rubber floor covering.

If Chevy had only offered the LN (Luxury Nova) and Concours trim levels beginning in 1968, plus 4-on-the-floor and 3-speed automatics with all engine options, the Nova would have been much more appealing. The interiors of all Novas, except for the LN and Concours, always looked cheap to me. Sure, the LNs and Concours would have been more expensive, but those Novas would have been considered keepers instead of bottom feeder throwaways.

uplanderguy

Nova offered a "Custom Interior" option from '68-72, but it was rarely seen in my experience. In '73 they offered a separate "Nova Custom" model. At the time, I very-much was impressed with the '75 Nova LN, although seems they were rarely seen in our parts. The Concours was similar but seemed a bit pimped-up in exterior trim IMHO. I could enjoy a '75 Nova Custom or LN--even the Custom had a nice quality-look seat trim and pattern I think. I'm not as crazy about that wide "B" pillar on the coupes anymore, but the four-door roofline has hints of BMW in it IMHO and I think was a handsome sedan. Conversely, I never liked the four-door Colonnade roofline of Chevelles, LeMans models, Centurys, and Cutlasses.

uplanderguy

I always liked this brochure and advertising photo of the '75 Nova LN sedan:

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1975_Chevrolet/1975_Chevrolet_Nova_Brochure/1975 Chevrolet Nova-02.html

roadburner

Back in the '70s my law partner's son had a 1975 Nova LN with buckets, floor shift(slushbox, unfortunately) and optional full instrumentation. He totaled it, of course...

andre1969

I think one thing that made the compact offerings start feeling cheap was when they started dropping the hardtop/convertible body styles to eliminate in-house competition to the ponycars. Those tended to be the more nicely trimmed styles, anyway, but it just seemed like even the 2- and 4-door sedans got cheapened.

Maybe it was just a sign of the times, though. The '68 Chevy II/Nova seemed downgraded a bit compared to the '67 counterpart. However, the Ford Falcon seemed to cheap out with the '66 model. And, I've heard that the '67+ Dart/Valiant were cheapened out in some respects, compared to the '66 and earlier models. They were better styled, IMO, but in some respects the interiors seemed a bit cheaper.

Part of it might have been safety advances. Shiny painted and chromed metal looks nice, but it's not so impact-friendly. In contrast, plastic looks low-rent, and often doesn't age well as it fades, cracks, and the fake chrome peels off. But plastic, even hard plastic, is a bit easier on the human body when it smashes against it.

I guess over the years, the auto makers had to cheap out a bit here and there, in order to maintain prices. And, as some features started becoming standard equipment, like dual master cylinders, collapsible steering columns, standard heaters, seatbelts, headrests...minor things we take for granted these days, they probably had to find ways to cut costs in other areas.

uplanderguy

It's funny you mentioned the '68 Chevy II (last year they were called 'Chevy II'). I had just been looking at the brochure online. I just never liked at all the '66 or '67, but that said, they came in hardtop and wagon variants, which were both gone for '68. Here's the '68 Nova SS. To be equipped like most anyone ever saw, you'd have to get the SS with the Custom Exterior package to get the blacked-out and chrome rocker trim and side window reveal moldings. Apparently, appearance-wise, getting the SS only got you grille and rear panel SS emblems, rear panel ribbed trim, and the hood trim.

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1968_Chevrolet/1968_Chevrolet_Chevy_II_Nova_Brochure/1968 Chevrolet Chevy II Nova-02.html

With the shrinking of the Chevelle coupe wheelbase for '68, the Nova did seem like a cheaper alternative, although I honestly got tired of them by '72 and am still tired of them today; they have a high survival rate it seems. I remember a fair amount of older folks owning them in our town.

uplanderguy

Re.: Maverick...I remember being at our Ford dealer on introduction night for the Maverick. I was not a fan.

An adorable redheaded cheerleader in my high school class was the granddaughter of the Ford dealer and had a '73 or '74 Maverick LDO with 302. Having her in a Maverick was the only way I'd have wanted one. LOL

roadburner

I had to drive an LDO off and on from 1974-1980. Miserable car.

ab348

I remember test-driving a '77 or '78 Nova sedan with the police package that came in to the local Chevy dealer as a used car. It wasn't ex-police AFAIK but was ordered in by a customer as a sleeper of sorts. I was astounded at the cheapness of the interior - bench seats with this shiny plaid cloth upholstery and not even armrests on the front doors! I couldn't stand it even though it drove well for the times. That wasn't worth the spartan interior.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

An adorable redheaded cheerleader in my high school class was the granddaughter of the Ford dealer and had a '73 or '74 Maverick LDO with 302. Having her in a Maverick was the only way I'd have wanted one. LOL

Yes, those fully reclining Euro Capri seats were the best part of the car. Especially in that case.

roadburner

The seats were comfortable at least- but the car was a dog otherwise.
-

andre1969

Wow...I've seen cars stripped down so far that they don't have armrests in back...both 2 and 4-door models. But deleting the front seat armrests? I think that's taking it a little *too* far!

Back in the late 90's, I remember a local park and sell lot having a 1976 or so Olds Omega Brougham 4-door for sale, for $800. It was silver with a light blue velour interior. It was trimmed out really nicely I thought, almost like a little luxury car. It's amazing how much a trim level just a couple hundred bucks more could spruce these cars up.

hpmctorque

uplanderguy said:

Re.: Maverick...I remember being at our Ford dealer on introduction night for the Maverick. I was not a fan.

An adorable redheaded cheerleader in my high school class was the granddaughter of the Ford dealer and had a '73 or '74 Maverick LDO with 302. Having her in a Maverick was the only way I'd have wanted one. LOL

I liked the styling of the 4-door Maverick better than the 2-door, and the LDO trim dressed up the outside appearance considerably. As for the inside, well, the LDO was better than the standard trim, but the improvement didn't quite measure up to the outside improvement of the top trim level, in my opinion. Now, the cheerleader could have changed the whole equation, but that might have made the LDO more expensive than a fully loaded Thunderbird.

fintail

Spent the holiday in podunk, saw some old cars - 3 Tempos, Suzuki X90 (I see it every time I am there, belongs to the radio station) ~70 Olds non-Vista Cruiser wagon, and the highlight, a Datsun B210 sedan, fairly immaculate, somewhat LLCing on a lightly traveled state highway. Younger guy driving it, he was obviously into it, as those things didn't survive so nicely by themselves.

lemko

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

An adorable redheaded cheerleader in my high school class was the granddaughter of the Ford dealer and had a '73 or '74 Maverick LDO with 302. Having her in a Maverick was the only way I'd have wanted one. LOL

Yes, those fully reclining Euro Capri seats were the best part of the car. Especially in that case.

"It has Nash seats! They're great for necking!"

hpmctorque

Passed a middle aged woman today behind the wheel of a red Ferrari, driving 45 mph in a 55. No passenger.

stever

You might be seeing more of that.

"Ferrari Chairman Sergio Marchionne wants to expand production, arguing a surge in emerging-market wealth justifies higher output. Mr. Marchionne has hinted that yearly production could go to 10,000 vehicles without denting the $250,000 average sale price for Ferrari cars or the company’s bottom line.

“Let’s not fool ourselves here. We are in business to supply cars to people,” he said.

Will Ferrari Keep Its Scarcity Premium? (WSJ - may be a registration link)