Maybe it just seemed off in real life because the camber on front and rear wheels looks different.
I didn't notice the camber on the wheels until you mentioned it. Just from looking at that pic, I'd think the outer edge of the tire would get worn down prematurely.
Is he braking putting more weight onto the fronts push down on the spring and increasing the camber? I've been fooled by the tire's position relative to the surrounding sheet metal making camber look different. Only by getting down and sighting along the rear to the front could I tell there wasn't as much camber as it looked like.
Saw a nice Granada coupe out in the rain today, whatever model had the split rear side window. A weird but immaculate looking W126 came later, looked like a late run 300SE, but sounded like a V8 - however, no SWB V8 cars were sold here after 1985. Frankencar maybe. Also saw a white RR SCI or II out late yesterday, silently gliding along.
Saw a nice Granada coupe out in the rain today, whatever model had the split rear side window. A weird but immaculate looking W126 came later, looked like a late run 300SE, but sounded like a V8 - however, no SWB V8 cars were sold after 1985. Frankencar maybe. Also saw a white RR SCI or II out late yesterday, silently gliding along.
That is a nice shade of green...not sure what its official name would be, but I always called it "emerald" green, correct or not. I'm really not a big fan of the Granada, but I always thought the Monarch was comparatively tasteful. I think it's because they tended to finish off the rear of the car a bit better...never liked the exposed fuel filler on the Granada. The Granada's front-end seems more pretentious too, with the headlights set in small grilles of their own, flanking the main grille. The Monarch seems more toned down and tasteful to me.
That green interior, however, might take a bit getting used to.
**Edit: just found a color chart. I think that color is called "Dark Jade Poly"
I like the colors on that Monarch, and like the interior color. Beats today's ubiquitous basic black.
Granada/Monarch, the downsized 1980 T-Bird/Cougar, and even the 1st-gen Panther cars, all suffered from Ford's fat-hipped look in those days. The body at the rear axle was too wide for the rear tread it seemed. The slab of a rear bumper on the Fords didn't help the look either. Last days of Gene Bordinat design language I guess.
Hmm Andre likes green. I like the air cleaner intake hose.
Oh the Maytag Cold Air Intake? Worth 20 HP, easy.
A lot of cars started using those long intake hoses in the 70's, although they're usually plastic! For instance, here's what the '79-81 R-body looks like under the hood...
Is there any real advantage to drawing in the relatively cooler air from outside the engine bay? I know the theory is that colder air is more dense, and has more oxygen. But do those things really work, in real life?
According to Wikipedia, auto makers started going to those longer cold air intakes so that the crude emissions controls of the time could regulate engine temperature better, drawing in cooler air when the engine was too hot, and hotter air when the engine was too cool.
With something like that Monarch, or my New Yorkers, if that piece fell off, I wonder how much it would really hamper performance? Or, more likely, driveability and fuel economy?
The 302 was a weird engine in those days. I recall one year, 1979 I think, where it had something like four different horsepower ratings. But oddly, it went down as the cars went upscale. IIRC it had 140 hp in the Fairmont, a bit less in the Granada, a bit less still in the LTD-II, and 129 in the Panther LTD.
I would think it would be just the opposite, where a smaller car with a tighter engine bay may have a more restrictive intake and exhaust. For instance, when GM upped the HP on the 305 to 165 for 1985, they only did so in the full-sized cars and trucks. In midsized cars like the Monte Carlo, Bonneville-G, and Grand Prix, it stayed at 150. I think with the midsized cars, it was the exhaust that was the choke point. At one point, it actually goes sideways , as the muffler is parallel to the rear axle, just in front of the gas tank, so that puts in a couple of 90 degree angles. Yet, both the catalytic converter and exhaust tip are on the right side of the car, so that would mean at some point, the exhaust had to cross over to the left side to go into the muffler, to come out on the left.
I've heard that putting a dual exhaust on the '78-88 GM intermediates is a bit tricky because of the tight clearances. But, it can be done. After all, we had the Monte SS, Olds 4-4-2, and the Regal T-type/Grand National.
Neither rare nor classic but I saw a white Corsica the other day that looked almost new. Flashback time.
We have a guy in the neighborhood who has a black Accord in that generation that ended in 1997 and is frequently cited as the best Accord made. I'd take it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well, a Corsica that looks almost new might be a rare sight these days! I can't remember the last time I saw one, although they were pretty common for awhile. There's a guy at work who had a '96 Accord sedan with a stick shift. It was a good car. I forget how many miles it had on it when he got rid of it, but probably north of 200,000.
I remember either C&D or MT being a bit unimpressed with the '94-97 style of Accord when it first came out. In the past, whenever a new Accord came out, it always seemed like they totally threw away the old design and started with a clean sheet of paper, and created the right product at the right time. But the '94, they said, seemed more like it was just change for the sake of change. Perhaps all new, but nothing really ground-breaking.
They may have also been nonplussed with the Accord because by that time, the '92-96 Camry seemed to be everybody's darling. And I guess the Altima seemed like a pretty big deal at the time.
Hmm Andre likes green. I like the air cleaner intake hose.
Oh the Maytag Cold Air Intake? Worth 20 HP, easy.
A lot of cars started using those long intake hoses in the 70's, although they're usually plastic! For instance, here's what the '79-81 R-body looks like under the hood...
Is there any real advantage to drawing in the relatively cooler air from outside the engine bay? I know the theory is that colder air is more dense, and has more oxygen. But do those things really work, in real life?
They must - because pretty much all cars now are set up to draw outside air into their air cleaners. My 2011 Mercedes has twin air cleaners, and, both are fed outside air with scoops and fabric hoses from the front of the car.
I imagine in the summer they probably help quite a bit since it can get pretty warm underhood. I have heard of some cars with these having poorly-designed intake snouts that were getting clogged with snow in winter on certain cars though.
cars, all suffered from Ford's fat-hipped look in those days.
Funny, I drove by a Ford dealer today that had a row of new Mustangs with their back to the road. They all appeared to have wide hips.
Saw two oddities today. A blue 63 Imperial 4 dr HT and a VW pick up truck. Not real familiar with those, but it appeared from the Microbus it was built from to be a 60's. I think like the Corvair Rampside of that era, the VW pick up didn't hang around real long either.
cars, all suffered from Ford's fat-hipped look in those days.
Funny, I drove by a Ford dealer today that had a row of new Mustangs with their back to the road. They all appeared to have wide hips.
Saw two oddities today. A blue 63 Imperial 4 dr HT and a VW pick up truck. Not real familiar with those, but it appeared from the Microbus it was built from to be a 60's. I think like the Corvair Rampside of that era, the VW pick up didn't hang around real long either.
I'm think part of today's 'big hips' is hp-related. The size wheels/tires needed to put 400, 500, even 700 hp down to the road are huge. So we get big-hipped Corvettes, Camaros, Challengers, and Mustangs...
I imagine in the summer they probably help quite a bit since it can get pretty warm underhood. I have heard of some cars with these having poorly-designed intake snouts that were getting clogged with snow in winter on certain cars though.
Now that I think about it, emissions controls tended to demand that the engines run hotter compared to earlier engines, so maybe that's one thing that necessitated those fresh air intakes? And nowadays, I'm sure engines run even hotter than back in the 70's and 80's
Cold Air Intake ---rule of thumb is one 1% power gain for every 10 degrees drop in temperature. So if your ambient engine bay temperature is 100 degrees and your outside air temp is 75 degrees, you can expect 2.5% power increase. So for a 300 HP car, you're looking at 7.5 HP gain. You probably wouldn't even notice it.
Now for a drag car with 800 HP, and using ice to cool the fuel charge, you might gain 5%, so that's 40 horses practically for "free".
Yep, the Porsche joint venture. It was a boring "desert silver"/champagne color, but the fenders give it away. They've definitely hit the bottom of their depreciation curve, anyway.
Saw an immaculate red E30 sedan - with working turn signal!
Those 94-97 Accords were great little cars. I liked the previous generation with the flip up headlights, too.
My total experience in a Corsica was renting one for a week in Florida. Were there ever a perfectly generic car this would have been it. It did everything OK without anything that you'd notice as being really clever and had the oddest knobs and such. That said the little sucker got me a speeding ticket on Route 98 in the panhandle. I tried to convince the cop that I mistaken the route number for the speed limit sign but he wasn't buying it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think the 90-93 generation was the pinnacle of the Accord, with 94-97 coming a close second. Those 90-93 cars still look good, like a Honda BMW - it has a kink. Huge build quality, great visibility with the tall greenhouse, thin pillars, and low dash. The wagons are cool, too. I think Hondas of that era can rust in some areas though.
I remember we had a Corsica rental once, I was maybe 19, got to drive it a bit. I recall it was dark red on dark red, reasonably equipped, I think it had the 3.1 - actually relatively quick, in that 0-40 way GM seemed to focus on back then.
I had a '90 Corsica 4-cyl. 5-speed I bought new for my wife. She was upgrading from a '78 Chevette four-door 4-speed so was enthused. It was a good car. I never did anything to it in 108K miles, and it sat outside all the time, except I did replace a lost plastic wheelcover, maybe two.
My parents had a new '90 Corsica V6. It had column shift which my Dad preferred for some reason, even with bucket seats. I can't think of any other car in that class that could be had with a column shift. My Dad ended up putting his own aftermarket storage thingy in the middle. Theirs was the ubiquitous maroon over silver two-tone, but it did have the blood-red cloth interior which I found more elegant than the same interior in mousy gray that ours had.
At the same time I had a red Beretta GT, but with the beige interior instead of gray like every other one did. I actually thought the Corsica was better-styled. I never liked how they cantilevered (is that the right word?) the taillights on the '91 and later Corsicas, and I never liked that '91-and-later instrument panel either.
The Corsica/Beretta was considered one line of car and I'm pretty sure that they reached best-selling car in the U.S. status at some point, perhaps briefly.
My Dad was a big fan of the open compartment in the instrument panel to the left of the steering column, that you could pretty much stick your arm in halfways to your elbow.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As mentioned, getting them to high speed was certainly not a problem. The instrument panel had that look of earlry 90s GMs that was kind of unfortunate. The whole dash was a touch quirky but overall it did everything it was supposed to do. Not what I'd have run to in a showroom but a competent car,
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think the 90-93 generation was the pinnacle of the Accord, with 94-97 coming a close second. Those 90-93 cars still look good, like a Honda BMW - it has a kink. Huge build quality, great visibility with the tall greenhouse, thin pillars, and low dash. The wagons are cool, too. I think Hondas of that era can rust in some areas though.
I remember we had a Corsica rental once, I was maybe 19, got to drive it a bit. I recall it was dark red on dark red, reasonably equipped, I think it had the 3.1 - actually relatively quick, in that 0-40 way GM seemed to focus on back then.
I owned a couple of those Accords, one an immaculate wagon, the other a sedan. Both had over 300km on them (200k+ miles), and gave me no issues whatsoever. I sold the wagon for twice more than what I paid for it, and I sold the sedan for same money I paid for it after driving it for a year.
They're built very well, and they're a perfect size for more, very airy with their large greenhouse, and since mine were both the EXR models, they had all the options for the years including sunroofs, a/c, and power windows and locks.
Funny thing too my wagon had factory keyless entry which used same technology as Mercedes at the time. You had to point the fob at the door like a TV remote control to unlock it as it was an infrared type system.
I know it's a factor of my age and what I was used to at the time, but I hated the looks of those Accord wagons. I was reminded of just building a roof over the decklid of a sedan.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think the Accord wagons are okay, although yeah, it's apparent they were done a bit on the quick and easy. The one that really bothers me though, is the '92-96 Camry wagon. It looks like they stuck three different designs together, IMO. From the B-pillar forward, it looks like the sedan...so far so good. But then in the back seat area, it makes me think of the '87-91. And then aft of the C-pillar, it turns into God-only-knows.
In its defense though, the Camry wagon had more cargo volume than the Accord. Here are some EPA specs from back in the day... 1990-93 Accord wagon: 34 cubic feet 1994-96 Accord wagon: 26 cubic feet 1987-91 Camry wagon: 34 cubic feet 1992-96 Camry wagon: 40 cubic feet 1982-94 Cavalier et al wagon: 34 cubic feet 1982-96 Century/et al wagon: 41 cubic feet
These will differ from the published brochure specs, because the EPA rates them with the back seat up, while other sources rate them with the back seat folded down.
I'm ready for ridicule (LOL), but for looks, I thought the Celebrity/Century/6000/ Ciera wagons looked nice. Once in a while, you'd see a Eurosport with the big blackwall tires and aluminum wheels and it looked nice to my admittedly old-fashioned eyes. I liked them a lot better than the sedans.
The '96-whatever Taurus wagons looked goofy to my eyes too, not that the sedans looked much greater.
The Camry wagons that did the Rambler thing with the third side-window looked goofy to me, andre.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh, there was nothing wrong with the A-body cars IMO, when it came to style, I thought. Although, I never was crazy about the 2-door models, which were upright and really more of a 2-door sedan than a coupe.
The A-body just became sort of obsolete once the Taurus hit the scene, though. Although in retrospect, I wonder if in the long run, something like a late 80's Celebrity would have been a better car than a late 80's Taurus? The Taurus got a lot of praise when it first came out, but the transmissions were troublesome, and the 3.8 V-6es would blow head gaskets. As I recall, they were rated pretty bad by CR.
In contrast by the late 80's, I don't think the A-bodies were too bad. I know the 2.8 and later 3.1 V-6es would develop head gasket issues of their own, but it seemed like when the Chevy V-6 blew a head gasket, it was repairable, but when the Ford blew it, you needed to replace the engine. At least, that's from my limited database of anecdotes. I knew two people with Windstars and someone with a T-bird with the 3.8, and when they blew, the engine was shot. I also knew two people with Chevy 2.8's...'87 and '89 Cavalier Z-24's. When the '87 blew, my friend's Dad, who was a metro bus mechanic, replaced the head gasket. When my college buddy's '89 blew, though, the car was about 8 or 9 years old, pushing 100,000 miles, had other issues, and they just didn't want to bother with fixing it.
I thought the '96+ Taurus wagon (and sedan) was a bit too weird for my tastes, as well, although the Mercury Sable didn't bother me as much. I thought they both cleaned up quite nicely for their 2000 restyle, though. I remember taking my Granddad shopping for new cars. He had a '94 Taurus, and was normally used to trading every 3-4 years, so by the time the '00 Taurus was out, he thought his car was "old". But, he didn't like the new Taurus at all. The salesman had to literally beg him to sit in it, and he refused to drive it.
I'm ready for ridicule (LOL), but for looks, I thought the Celebrity/Century/6000/ Ciera wagons looked nice. Once in a while, you'd see a Eurosport with the big blackwall tires and aluminum wheels and it looked nice to my admittedly old-fashioned eyes. I liked them a lot better than the sedans.
The '96-whatever Taurus wagons looked goofy to my eyes too, not that the sedans looked much greater.
The Camry wagons that did the Rambler thing with the third side-window looked goofy to me, andre.
I actually liked them too for their looks. They had nice lines to them, and yes, much better looking than the sedans. I always liked the Taurus wagon's looks. Very nice lines as well, very futuristic when they came out in the 80s.
And speaking of GM wagons, I learned to drive on this thing: 1989 Caprice Classic. It was dark blue and had the same one piece headlights like this one in the photo. Huge car but tons of room. We bought it in 1992 or so, and other than a couple trannies, it lasted my parents about 7 years. It had the rear 3rd row rear facing seat so it could seat 8.
The original Taurus wagon looks more futuristic than the sedan - that rear window does something. The 92-96 Camry wagon is most notable for dual rear wipers, still quite a few on the road here. The Cavalier wagon actually pulled it off pretty well, too.
Now, not many wagons left, but MB, BMW, and Audi will put you in one for a price.
Those big GM RWD wagons were great cars. The 1981-up squareriggers were all underpowered unfortunately. The ones to get were the '77-'80 models which still offered a 350 V-8 and in the Olds and Buick models through '79, a 403. I looked for a long time for a late-'70s Olds Custom Cruiser with the 403. Found one once but it slipped thru my fingers.
Funny thing about these is they used same side mirrors as Camaros and Firebirds at the time. I always thought the aero mirrors looked a bit out of place on such a squarish vehicle.
On the '77-'79 Models there were 3 types of pedestal mirrors offered: non-remote chrome, remote chrome, and body-color sport mirrors like the ones GM used all through the '70s on almost all their cars. .
The original Taurus wagon looks more futuristic than the sedan - that rear window does something. The 92-96 Camry wagon is most notable for dual rear wipers, still quite a few on the road here. The Cavalier wagon actually pulled it off pretty well, too.
Now, not many wagons left, but MB, BMW, and Audi will put you in one for a price.
And the VW Golf comes in a "sportwagon"... a lot cheaper.
Looking online for Celebrity Eurosport wagons, I came across this photo of an '86 sedan in the same color and wheels and tires my '85 coupe had, except mine was the solid dark plum color with no silver on the bottom. A friend of mine called the two-tone in the pic the 'Truck Two-Tone', and I know what he meant.
Sorry, the link will not post here when I hit "Save Comment".
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh yeah. At least at one time, they had "W" VINs, too. Also, the nice looking but relatively uncommon new Volvo V60.
Speaking of Volvos, I saw an Amazon/122 wagon today - completely different from the one I recently spotted. Also saw a nice 61-63 T-Bird convertible, silver blue with white top, factory/period correct looking wire wheels, parked in downtown Bellevue. A BMW E32 rounded out the spotting.
Sorry, the link will not post here when I hit "Save Comment".
Check the link's extension to be sure it's a picture (e.g., .jpg). I have had trouble finding pictures in google which are like flash images or something and won't copy. I click on the flash image which often takes me to a real picture of the same thing which one I can copy for a link.
I think those '77-90 GM B-body wagons have aged very nicely over the years. The Ford Panthers, IMO, just seemed a bit too boxy and upright. I know you want that in a wagon, for interior volume, but I think the GM cars look a bit slicker and more modern. The Panthers did have a bit more cargo volume...53 cubic feet behind the back seat versus 50 for the B-body.
The '91-96 aero/suppository style B-body wagons had 55 cubic feet. But, I don't think that rounded style has aged very well, especially since styles have reverted in more recent years to angular, blocky styles.
The EPA's tables only go back to 1978 on their website, which is a shame...wish they went back just a few more years, to see how the older cars compared. Didn't the EPA start doing their testing in 1976?
Anyway, going back to '78, the wagon with the most cargo volume was the Country Squire/Colony Park, the last of the pre-downsized mastodons. They're rated at 56 cubic feet. In '78, the B-body wagons were rated at 51 cubic feet, so they lost a foot, somehow, between then and '89, which was where I found the 50 figure.
I'd be curious to see how the old Mopar Town & Country et al wagons, and especially GM's clamshell wagons compared. I know in sales brochure specs at least, they were both pretty big in comparison to the Fords. I want to say the Clamshells were around 107 cubic feet, 104 for the Mopars and around 92 for the Fords? That would be with the back seat down though, and might include under-floor storage.
Comments
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
https://books.google.com/books?id=6uEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=granada+twindow&source=bl&ots=JQh2nt9-E2&sig=fZPYD62hSbldKzec9CTJYmv0zOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TjEGVavLKsvEggSf14DYCw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=granada twindow&f=false
vancouver.craigslist.ca/van/cto/4915838160.html
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That green interior, however, might take a bit getting used to.
**Edit: just found a color chart. I think that color is called "Dark Jade Poly"
Granada/Monarch, the downsized 1980 T-Bird/Cougar, and even the 1st-gen Panther cars, all suffered from Ford's fat-hipped look in those days. The body at the rear axle was too wide for the rear tread it seemed. The slab of a rear bumper on the Fords didn't help the look either. Last days of Gene Bordinat design language I guess.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Is there any real advantage to drawing in the relatively cooler air from outside the engine bay? I know the theory is that colder air is more dense, and has more oxygen. But do those things really work, in real life?
According to Wikipedia, auto makers started going to those longer cold air intakes so that the crude emissions controls of the time could regulate engine temperature better, drawing in cooler air when the engine was too hot, and hotter air when the engine was too cool.
With something like that Monarch, or my New Yorkers, if that piece fell off, I wonder how much it would really hamper performance? Or, more likely, driveability and fuel economy?
The 302 was a weird engine in those days. I recall one year, 1979 I think, where it had something like four different horsepower ratings. But oddly, it went down as the cars went upscale. IIRC it had 140 hp in the Fairmont, a bit less in the Granada, a bit less still in the LTD-II, and 129 in the Panther LTD.
I would think it would be just the opposite, where a smaller car with a tighter engine bay may have a more restrictive intake and exhaust. For instance, when GM upped the HP on the 305 to 165 for 1985, they only did so in the full-sized cars and trucks. In midsized cars like the Monte Carlo, Bonneville-G, and Grand Prix, it stayed at 150. I think with the midsized cars, it was the exhaust that was the choke point. At one point, it actually goes sideways , as the muffler is parallel to the rear axle, just in front of the gas tank, so that puts in a couple of 90 degree angles. Yet, both the catalytic converter and exhaust tip are on the right side of the car, so that would mean at some point, the exhaust had to cross over to the left side to go into the muffler, to come out on the left.
I've heard that putting a dual exhaust on the '78-88 GM intermediates is a bit tricky because of the tight clearances. But, it can be done. After all, we had the Monte SS, Olds 4-4-2, and the Regal T-type/Grand National.
We have a guy in the neighborhood who has a black Accord in that generation that ended in 1997 and is frequently cited as the best Accord made. I'd take it.
I remember either C&D or MT being a bit unimpressed with the '94-97 style of Accord when it first came out. In the past, whenever a new Accord came out, it always seemed like they totally threw away the old design and started with a clean sheet of paper, and created the right product at the right time. But the '94, they said, seemed more like it was just change for the sake of change. Perhaps all new, but nothing really ground-breaking.
They may have also been nonplussed with the Accord because by that time, the '92-96 Camry seemed to be everybody's darling. And I guess the Altima seemed like a pretty big deal at the time.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Funny, I drove by a Ford dealer today that had a row of new Mustangs with their back to the road. They all appeared to have wide hips.
Saw two oddities today. A blue 63 Imperial 4 dr HT and a VW pick up truck. Not real familiar with those, but it appeared from the Microbus it was built from to be a 60's. I think like the Corvair Rampside of that era, the VW pick up didn't hang around real long either.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Now for a drag car with 800 HP, and using ice to cool the fuel charge, you might gain 5%, so that's 40 horses practically for "free".
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Saw an immaculate red E30 sedan - with working turn signal!
My total experience in a Corsica was renting one for a week in Florida. Were there ever a perfectly generic car this would have been it. It did everything OK without anything that you'd notice as being really clever and had the oddest knobs and such. That said the little sucker got me a speeding ticket on Route 98 in the panhandle. I tried to convince the cop that I mistaken the route number for the speed limit sign but he wasn't buying it.
I remember we had a Corsica rental once, I was maybe 19, got to drive it a bit. I recall it was dark red on dark red, reasonably equipped, I think it had the 3.1 - actually relatively quick, in that 0-40 way GM seemed to focus on back then.
My parents had a new '90 Corsica V6. It had column shift which my Dad preferred for some reason, even with bucket seats. I can't think of any other car in that class that could be had with a column shift. My Dad ended up putting his own aftermarket storage thingy in the middle. Theirs was the ubiquitous maroon over silver two-tone, but it did have the blood-red cloth interior which I found more elegant than the same interior in mousy gray that ours had.
At the same time I had a red Beretta GT, but with the beige interior instead of gray like every other one did. I actually thought the Corsica was better-styled. I never liked how they cantilevered (is that the right word?) the taillights on the '91 and later Corsicas, and I never liked that '91-and-later instrument panel either.
The Corsica/Beretta was considered one line of car and I'm pretty sure that they reached best-selling car in the U.S. status at some point, perhaps briefly.
My Dad was a big fan of the open compartment in the instrument panel to the left of the steering column, that you could pretty much stick your arm in halfways to your elbow.
As mentioned, getting them to high speed was certainly not a problem. The instrument panel had that look of earlry 90s GMs that was kind of unfortunate. The whole dash was a touch quirky but overall it did everything it was supposed to do. Not what I'd have run to in a showroom but a competent car,
They're built very well, and they're a perfect size for more, very airy with their large greenhouse, and since mine were both the EXR models, they had all the options for the years including sunroofs, a/c, and power windows and locks.
Funny thing too my wagon had factory keyless entry which used same technology as Mercedes at the time. You had to point the fob at the door like a TV remote control to unlock it as it was an infrared type system.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
In its defense though, the Camry wagon had more cargo volume than the Accord. Here are some EPA specs from back in the day...
1990-93 Accord wagon: 34 cubic feet
1994-96 Accord wagon: 26 cubic feet
1987-91 Camry wagon: 34 cubic feet
1992-96 Camry wagon: 40 cubic feet
1982-94 Cavalier et al wagon: 34 cubic feet
1982-96 Century/et al wagon: 41 cubic feet
These will differ from the published brochure specs, because the EPA rates them with the back seat up, while other sources rate them with the back seat folded down.
The '96-whatever Taurus wagons looked goofy to my eyes too, not that the sedans looked much greater.
The Camry wagons that did the Rambler thing with the third side-window looked goofy to me, andre.
The A-body just became sort of obsolete once the Taurus hit the scene, though. Although in retrospect, I wonder if in the long run, something like a late 80's Celebrity would have been a better car than a late 80's Taurus? The Taurus got a lot of praise when it first came out, but the transmissions were troublesome, and the 3.8 V-6es would blow head gaskets. As I recall, they were rated pretty bad by CR.
In contrast by the late 80's, I don't think the A-bodies were too bad. I know the 2.8 and later 3.1 V-6es would develop head gasket issues of their own, but it seemed like when the Chevy V-6 blew a head gasket, it was repairable, but when the Ford blew it, you needed to replace the engine. At least, that's from my limited database of anecdotes. I knew two people with Windstars and someone with a T-bird with the 3.8, and when they blew, the engine was shot. I also knew two people with Chevy 2.8's...'87 and '89 Cavalier Z-24's. When the '87 blew, my friend's Dad, who was a metro bus mechanic, replaced the head gasket. When my college buddy's '89 blew, though, the car was about 8 or 9 years old, pushing 100,000 miles, had other issues, and they just didn't want to bother with fixing it.
I thought the '96+ Taurus wagon (and sedan) was a bit too weird for my tastes, as well, although the Mercury Sable didn't bother me as much. I thought they both cleaned up quite nicely for their 2000 restyle, though. I remember taking my Granddad shopping for new cars. He had a '94 Taurus, and was normally used to trading every 3-4 years, so by the time the '00 Taurus was out, he thought his car was "old". But, he didn't like the new Taurus at all. The salesman had to literally beg him to sit in it, and he refused to drive it.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Now, not many wagons left, but MB, BMW, and Audi will put you in one for a price.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Sorry, the link will not post here when I hit "Save Comment".
Speaking of Volvos, I saw an Amazon/122 wagon today - completely different from the one I recently spotted. Also saw a nice 61-63 T-Bird convertible, silver blue with white top, factory/period correct looking wire wheels, parked in downtown Bellevue. A BMW E32 rounded out the spotting.
had trouble finding pictures in google which are like flash images or
something and won't copy. I click on the flash image which often takes
me to a real picture of the same thing which one I can copy for a link.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The '91-96 aero/suppository style B-body wagons had 55 cubic feet. But, I don't think that rounded style has aged very well, especially since styles have reverted in more recent years to angular, blocky styles.
The EPA's tables only go back to 1978 on their website, which is a shame...wish they went back just a few more years, to see how the older cars compared. Didn't the EPA start doing their testing in 1976?
Anyway, going back to '78, the wagon with the most cargo volume was the Country Squire/Colony Park, the last of the pre-downsized mastodons. They're rated at 56 cubic feet. In '78, the B-body wagons were rated at 51 cubic feet, so they lost a foot, somehow, between then and '89, which was where I found the 50 figure.
I'd be curious to see how the old Mopar Town & Country et al wagons, and especially GM's clamshell wagons compared. I know in sales brochure specs at least, they were both pretty big in comparison to the Fords. I want to say the Clamshells were around 107 cubic feet, 104 for the Mopars and around 92 for the Fords? That would be with the back seat down though, and might include under-floor storage.