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

texases

I'm thinking it was a 1600 Cabrio. And there were 2002 Baur cabrios:

explorerx4

In the rain this morning, a last gen silver Supra Turbo. Didn't see any mods.

Michaell

$15K or $35K for a classic?

http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/35020/ford/mustang/which-to-purchase#latest

uplanderguy

I'm a 'bachelor' tonight (wife and daughter out-of-town; other daughter at work) so I drove about twelve or so miles to eat at Cracker Barrel (hey, I'm a simple guy! LOL). En route home through Ravenna, OH, one town east of us, saw a bathroom-pastel light green '59 Studebaker Lark 4-door sedan on white mag-like wheels. Now, I first saw this car about five years ago at a nearby Wal-Mart and a friend of my daughter's actually took a pic a year or so ago of it parked somewhere. I met the owner once, probably a year or two ago, forties probably, son of the original owner. Nice enough guy but he didn't seem to have any particular interest in joining our regional Studebaker Drivers' Club or going to our big annual show nearby.

The car sits nice and level, has all its exterior trim, and scoots, but I did notice that although the turn signals worked tonight, the brake lights did not.

I'm not a big fan of the styling (I like the later ones better), but I can see why they sold well. It's pretty clean styling by 1959 standards.

andre1969

Uplander, your post got me thinking about what kind of car I would have bought, if I had been a new car buyer in 1959. Looking back through modern eyes, my favorites of that year are DeSoto, Pontiac, and Mercury, in no particular order. DeSoto is a bit heavy-handed compared to the '57-58 models, but I think it manages to wear it well...and the twin nostrils in the bumper/grille make me think a bit of a Pontiac! The Pontiac almost looks like it could shake off some of its excess trim, the fins, the wraparound windshield, and become your typical 60's car. And the Mercury, which was precisely the wrong car at the wrong time (bigger than '58, with bigger engines), still comes off as handsome looking in my eye.

But, styling doesn't always sell cars. And what's attractive to my eyes isn't always attractive to everyone else. I wonder, if I was buying a car back then, if I would have shyed away from DeSoto, because of the rumors of its impending demise? And if I was worried about fuel economy and saving money (the country was coming out of a recession, after all), I might shy away from the Mercury.

I guess if I was doing fairly well in my job, not worried about being laid off, etc, I'd go for one of those middle priced cars. But, if I wasn't so well off financially, or focused on saving money, I could see the appeal of a compact, like the Lark. Or a Rambler. It's hard to really say what I would have done back in those days, if I was in the market for a new car.

Sometimes I wonder, if I had been alive in those days, if I would have rushed out and bought a '57 DeSoto when it first came out, only to be disillusioned by the build quality issues and, like many others at the time, ultimately swearing off Chrysler forever? Who knows, maybe if that had happened, today I'd be a crotchety old man driving a foreign car, and still holding a grudge against Chrysler? But then, maybe not. The people I bought my DeSoto from had owned it since 1959, and they loved it so much that they held onto it for 31 years. In fact, they liked it enough that when they bought a used '64 Catalina in 1966, they kept it around as a backup car. Maybe it ended up being one of the good ones?

Looking at it through a modern perspective, I don't think I would have rushed out to buy a new car based on just how much I liked its looks. After all, I really liked the 2002 Altima when it first came out. Never bought one. Liked the new 300 when it debuted in early 2004 a lot, as well. When I was getting my condo fixed up and ready to sell back in 2004, when the real estate agent told me what it could fetch, I thought about splurging on a 300C once the condo sold. But then the market shot up and I cleared even more, I got a bit more tightwad, er, I mean sensible, with the proceeds, and invested it. I liked the 2006 Charger when it came out, and loved the 2011 restyle.

But, here it is, 2015, and I'm in possession of none of those cars. So apparently, just because a new car really turns me on, doesn't mean I go out and buy it. Still, that's a more modern perspective. Back in those days, it was a whole 'nother world, and everybody had to have the latest and greatest. I drive a 40 year old car to work today, and people think it's cool. Back then, if I drove a 5 year old car to work, people probably would have laughed.

Something to ponder, I guess. Or not...maybe I'm just rambling on...

uplanderguy

I always say I'd have bought a new 1964 Studebaker, but a friend of mine, eight years older and who loves Studebakers now too, smiles and says "No you wouldn't--for the same reason most people didn't--too many rumors of them going out of business!". He may have a point. As a kid I was solidly Chevy as my grandfather bought nice new ones every four years or so and my Dad felt betrayed by the '62 Fairlane we had and bought only Chevys after that car. I grew up hanging around our local Chevy dealer, and they were good folks. I bought my first two new cars there even though I lived an hour-and-a-half away by then.

In '59, I'd have probably bought an Impala Sport Coupe, honestly, then, although now I'd take a well-equipped Silver Hawk over it. In '57, I don't know--I've liked the Fords that year for as long as I can remember and for as long as I can remember, think the Chevys that year are overrated.

Friends of our family had a '58 Dodge Coronet 4-door which I can remember--gold and black. If I can remember it, it was older. I think maybe subconsciously because of it, I like '57 and '58 Dodges best of the Mopars of that era. I have always liked the DeSoto's tall taillight fixtures with round lights in them too though.

lemko

There can't be too many of these single headlight two-door 1979 Ford LTDs. Spotted this one in Glenside, PA.

fintail

And a coupe, no less. That's a rare bird these days.

Today I saw another Thunderbird Super Coupe, a 70s Duster, a souped up Vanagon with Audi wheels, a black late run brick Volvo with very fast turn signals, and a red R107 SL.

Hmm...to have been a car buyer in 1959. Fintails didn't hit the assembly line til later in the year, so those are out. Is there a price limit?

andre1969

fintail said:

Hmm...to have been a car buyer in 1959. Fintails didn't hit the assembly line til later in the year, so those are out. Is there a price limit?

Well, for me I was trying to look at it in the perspective of where I'm at financially today, and trying to equate it to 1959, and what kind of car I would have been comfortable buying. And trying to put myself into a mindset I could conceivably have in 1959.

Thinking back on it, my grandparents on my Mom's side of the family bought a '55 Pontiac 4-door sedan in 1958, and it was replaced with a Chevy wagon...but nobody who's still alive can remember if it was a '60 or '61. On my Dad's side, they bought a new '57 Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop, and replaced it with a '61 Galaxie 500 4-door hardtop. So none of them actually hit 1959 for a new car, but they were within a couple years. Oh, and on my Mom's side, Granddad always bought pickups as well, but for some reason the family never really kept track of them like they did the cars. I know his first pickup was a 1939 Plymouth that he bought used, cut off the back, and built a wooden bed, before the Beverly Hillbillies made it fashionable.

andre1969

lemko said:

There can't be too many of these single headlight two-door 1979 Ford LTDs. Spotted this one in Glenside, PA.

I can't recall now, but in 1979, was the 2-headlight model just called "LTD" and the 4-headlight was "LTD Landau"? If so, then Ford made 54,005 of those. Interestingly, the LTD outsold the Landau that year, so it looks like the 2-headlight models outsold the 4-headlight.

But, I think the 2-headight was a 1979-only thing, so that's why in the overall scheme of things, they're pretty rare. That looks like a nice one you found too, Lemko. It appears like it was lovingly maintained over the years.

sda

andre1969 said:

I like that Jetstar, but for some reason, I always have trouble keeping track of the various Oldsmobile models over the years. They made sense to me in 1956 when it was simply 88, Super 88, and Ninety-Eight. But then they had to throw "Golden Rocket" onto the front of both 88 names for '57, and tack on a "Starfire" to the Ninety-Eight.

Then for '58 it was Dynamic 88, Super 88, and Ninety-Eight. But then as the 60's rolled on, the Starfire came back as its own model. There was a Jetstar 88 in there at some point. Also a Jetstar 1. Then Delta 88, and Delmont 88. I end up losing track on which ones were available which years, and where they all fell in the hierarchy.

For some reason I was thinking that Jetstar 88 was essentially a cheap big car with a big engine...but maybe that was the Jetstar 1?

I think the big '64 Olds models were handsome looking cars. They have a muscular look to them, even in the more sedate variations.

I thought the 63-64 were clean looking cars. We had a 63 Dynamic 88 Holiday 2 door. Too bad they had the lumpy shifting slim jim transmission. I remember mom driving conservatively and it hanging onto 1st gear for a long time and then a lumpy shift to 2nd where the engine seemed to bog like you shifted a manual transmission too soon or without finesse, 2-3 was always smooth.

sda

andre1969 said:

Uplander, your post got me thinking about what kind of car I would have bought, if I had been a new car buyer in 1959. Looking back through modern eyes, my favorites of that year are DeSoto, Pontiac, and Mercury, in no particular order. DeSoto is a bit heavy-handed compared to the '57-58 models, but I think it manages to wear it well...and the twin nostrils in the bumper/grille make me think a bit of a Pontiac! The Pontiac almost looks like it could shake off some of its excess trim, the fins, the wraparound windshield, and become your typical 60's car. And the Mercury, which was precisely the wrong car at the wrong time (bigger than '58, with bigger engines), still comes off as handsome looking in my eye.

But, styling doesn't always sell cars. And what's attractive to my eyes isn't always attractive to everyone else. I wonder, if I was buying a car back then, if I would have shyed away from DeSoto, because of the rumors of its impending demise? And if I was worried about fuel economy and saving money (the country was coming out of a recession, after all), I might shy away from the Mercury.

I guess if I was doing fairly well in my job, not worried about being laid off, etc, I'd go for one of those middle priced cars. But, if I wasn't so well off financially, or focused on saving money, I could see the appeal of a compact, like the Lark. Or a Rambler. It's hard to really say what I would have done back in those days, if I was in the market for a new car.

Sometimes I wonder, if I had been alive in those days, if I would have rushed out and bought a '57 DeSoto when it first came out, only to be disillusioned by the build quality issues and, like many others at the time, ultimately swearing off Chrysler forever? Who knows, maybe if that had happened, today I'd be a crotchety old man driving a foreign car, and still holding a grudge against Chrysler? But then, maybe not. The people I bought my DeSoto from had owned it since 1959, and they loved it so much that they held onto it for 31 years. In fact, they liked it enough that when they bought a used '64 Catalina in 1966, they kept it around as a backup car. Maybe it ended up being one of the good ones?

Looking at it through a modern perspective, I don't think I would have rushed out to buy a new car based on just how much I liked its looks. After all, I really liked the 2002 Altima when it first came out. Never bought one. Liked the new 300 when it debuted in early 2004 a lot, as well. When I was getting my condo fixed up and ready to sell back in 2004, when the real estate agent told me what it could fetch, I thought about splurging on a 300C once the condo sold. But then the market shot up and I cleared even more, I got a bit more tightwad, er, I mean sensible, with the proceeds, and invested it. I liked the 2006 Charger when it came out, and loved the 2011 restyle.

But, here it is, 2015, and I'm in possession of none of those cars. So apparently, just because a new car really turns me on, doesn't mean I go out and buy it. Still, that's a more modern perspective. Back in those days, it was a whole 'nother world, and everybody had to have the latest and greatest. I drive a 40 year old car to work today, and people think it's cool. Back then, if I drove a 5 year old car to work, people probably would have laughed.

Something to ponder, I guess. Or not...maybe I'm just rambling on...

1959 was a good year, I was born the Saturday before Mother's Day! I am thinking of 4 cars: 59 Corvette, Electra 2 door coupe, Imperial coupe, and square bird Thunderbird. All with biggest engines and maxed out with options, of course.

fintail

It's a tough choice. 1959 was a weirdo year for most brands, Something like a 59 Ford was actually considered tasteful and restrained, I think. For the flamboyant cars, 59 Buicks are cool. Pontiacs can be nice - maybe take a flat top or hardtop model of either. I've never embraced the 59 Ford, although it doesn't offend me. Most European cars were offbeat or too expensive. MB Ponton looked old fashioned and a hardtop Adenauer would be too expensive.

I am not sure what my paternal grandparents had then. I know my maternal grandparents had a 57 or 58 Ford, some debate about which, as I haven't been able to find a pic (my mother claims to not remember the car, but my uncle and grandmother do). I am pretty sure my dad had a 56 Crown Victoria that year.

andre1969 said:

Well, for me I was trying to look at it in the perspective of where I'm at financially today, and trying to equate it to 1959, and what kind of car I would have been comfortable buying. And trying to put myself into a mindset I could conceivably have in 1959.

berri

1959: Strictly as an enthusiast, I'd probably go with an in your face 59 Caddy or Impala. As a buyer back in those days with a similar economic status, it would have likely been something mid-priced, maybe an Oldsmobile. I do recall as a kid that when the 59 Galaxie came out it stirred a bit of interest, even in GM dominated Chicago, because of it's Squarebird influences, both exterior and interior touches. But you still saw a fair number of Chevy's that year. I think Ford had a good year in the Chicago market, but I don't really know which brand won the local sales crown for '59. Maybe like the national title, it depended on whether you used the model year annual sales or the calendar year sales.

berri

Today I passed a two toned red and white '62 (I think) Comet. Just like the Edsel I drove by a few months ago, it was a 2 door sedan, but upscale with lots of chrome trim on the side and around the windows. I thought that was kind of ironic, because initially I believe the Comet was supposed to be added to the Edsel brand line-up. I'm thinking that seeing a running old Comet is probably pretty unusual, let alone a loaded up one. I wonder if the same owner has both of them?

stickguy

1959? I might have to walk. I doubt I could have dealt with a FS domestic. So, maybe a Corvette! Though a MB 190 SL would have worked too.

fintail

I suppose a 190SL wasn't horribly expensive. Does it have to be a new car? A used gullwing would be interesting. And at that time, big prewar cars like Bugattis, supercharged MBs and Duesies, etc were usually worth no more than a few grand I think.

bhill2

stickguy said:

1959? I might have to walk. I doubt I could have dealt with a FS domestic. So, maybe a Corvette! Though a MB 190 SL would have worked too.

Actually, I would have had the same problem. But there was an alternative, which I would have seriously considered. The Rambler Ambassador was a half size smaller than the full-sized offerings but was trimmed similarly to a mid-level make such as a Pontiac. It also was available with up to 270 horsepower, which was similar to a Catalina. In the lighter Ambassador, I would expect it was quite spritely.

andre1969

In 1959, Ford outsold Chevy. That was the last time they would do so, until sometime in the 1980's, after the Taurus debuted. Ford actually stumbled pretty badly in the early 1980's. There was a few years that it dropped to #3 behind both Chevy and Oldsmobile, and one year, 1983 I think, even Buick outsold it!

And, thinking back again to 1959, yeah, that might have been a good year to buy used!

andre1969

I know I've mentioned before about seeing a pristine white '80-84 Pontiac Phoenix coupe on occasion. Never had a chance to take a pic of it, but today, the elusive little beastie showed up, and we were both stopped at a light. I managed to snap this pic of it, just before a Mustang pulled up between us, which would have blocked the shot.


There's a crease in the door, but other than that, it looks like a really nice little car. Turns out it's an LJ trim level, so it's a bit upmarket. I'd always figured it was, because of the landau roof and wire hubcaps, but I'd never actually had a chance to read the badging on it.

stickguy

Sucker looks new. Odd.

kyfdx

The only thing I'd want from 1959 would be a wagon..

roadburner

My wife had a 1984 Skylark T-Type when we married. Despite all the abuse heaped on the X-Body cars, by 1984 they had actually become decent cars. It did have a few problems that I thought shouldn't have surfaced on a car prior to 100k miles, but I really liked it. The High Output(for 1984) V6 had adequate grunt and a cool exhaust note, and the LED tach was fun to watch, if useless. It looked exactly like this one:

andre1969

I think the Skylark was the best-executed of the X-car bunch. It had nice, clean lines, and IMO, the more attractive body styles...notchback coupe and sedan. And it LOOKED like a little Buick...although at a quick glance, that front-end bears a passing resemblance to my old '80 Malibu coupe. But I can also see a bit of '80-81 Century in it, which is probably what Buick was going for.

The Olds Omega also used the same body styles, but I don't think it came off quite as well. On the coupe, they tried to put some creases in the rear quarters, reminiscent of the Cutlass Supreme coupe, but on these cars it seemed a bit awkward. And the front-end makes me think of a '78-80 Pontiac LeMans, although I guess it could be argued that the '78-80 LeMans looks a bit Oldsmobile-ish, itself!

The Phoenix got the notchback coupe, but the 4-door was the hatchback with that football-shaped roof, and I wasn't so crazy about it. I don't think it was bad on the Citation, but I think the Phoenix would've worked better as a notchback.

I've heard that these cars in general weren't bad at all by 1983. But by that time, they had a bad reputation, and the competition was passing them by. The Skylark name came out of it relatively untarnished though, as it was used through 1998. In contrast, Citation, Phoenix, and Omega were all banished to the history files.

uplanderguy

The Skylark was handsome IMHO--it looked like a little big car. Great instrument panel that mocked the bigger Buicks I think, too. And the Limited had a great interior (for the time).

I ordered a new '85 Celebrity Eurosport coupe. I thought long and hard about getting a Citation X-11--same chassis, wheelbase even the same. I didn't like the graphics, but I liked the one-year-only new instrument panel. They were a good bit less than a Celebrity and could be had with a stick. Back then I was a bachelor and traded every three years or so, so I thought I'd take a hit at trade-in time. This was after GM had already announced they were doing away with the X-bodies after that model year.

I liked the Citation in 'club coupe' form, not often seen, but they did away with it (for the second time!) in '85.

uplanderguy

Very clean Phoenix, for sure.

I never liked the instrument panel of those cars--how the center section stuck out further than either side. Although, now that I think of it, the '77 and later RWD Caddies were like that too but pulled it off better I think.

andre1969

I had to look up the Phoenix dash to refresh my memory and yeah, not the most attractive thing. I do like the rest of the interior though, with some details such as the armrests, that have a strong resemblance to the Grand Prix.

berri

I would have seriously considered. The Rambler Ambassador

Those were pretty plush inside, but I don't think they sold a lot of them. The late 50's Ramblers did very well though. I think it may have been a combination of extreme Big 3 late fifties styling, a major recession in 1958 and consumer upset at deteriorating Big 3 quality at that point in time. Plus Old Man Romney was a pretty sharp businessman.

berri

In 1959, Ford outsold Chevy

Either that year or in '57 there was some gaming going on with Ford and Chevy. Both made claims about being the best seller, but one was on the model year basis and the other was on a calendar year basis (e.g. Jan 59-Dec 59).

berri

I always thought that the Buick Skylark version of the X car had a nice interior and instrument panel for a compact.

andre1969

berri said:

In 1959, Ford outsold Chevy

Either that year or in '57 there was some gaming going on with Ford and Chevy. Both made claims about being the best seller, but one was on the model year basis and the other was on a calendar year basis (e.g. Jan 59-Dec 59).

I believe that was 1957. In calendar year sales, I think Chevy DID beat out Ford by about 100 units. But in model year sales, Ford beat them by a pretty wide margin: 1,676,449 to 1,505,997.

In 1959 though, the margin was closer, 1,462,143 Fords versus 1,455,953 Chevies.

FWIW, here's where I'm getting those stats from: http://www.motorera.com/cadillac/index.htm

It's a site that's devoted to Cadillac, and has a lot of great history, pics, etc, but for each year it also lists production figures for all domestic brands, not just Cadillac.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I think the Skylark was the best-executed of the X-car bunch. It had nice, clean lines, and IMO, the more attractive body styles...notchback coupe and sedan. And it LOOKED like a little Buick...although at a quick glance, that front-end bears a passing resemblance to my old '80 Malibu coupe. But I can also see a bit of '80-81 Century in it, which is probably what Buick was going for.

The Olds Omega also used the same body styles, but I don't think it came off quite as well. On the coupe, they tried to put some creases in the rear quarters, reminiscent of the Cutlass Supreme coupe, but on these cars it seemed a bit awkward. And the front-end makes me think of a '78-80 Pontiac LeMans, although I guess it could be argued that the '78-80 LeMans looks a bit Oldsmobile-ish, itself!

The Phoenix got the notchback coupe, but the 4-door was the hatchback with that football-shaped roof, and I wasn't so crazy about it. I don't think it was bad on the Citation, but I think the Phoenix would've worked better as a notchback.

I've heard that these cars in general weren't bad at all by 1983. But by that time, they had a bad reputation, and the competition was passing them by. The Skylark name came out of it relatively untarnished though, as it was used through 1998. In contrast, Citation, Phoenix, and Omega were all banished to the history files.

Dad had an Omega coupe, whatever the top of the line was called, dealer demo, that he bought in 1982. It was a really nice car and surprisingly roomy inside. Posh seats, pretty quiet (though I never cared for the 2.8 V6 that the magazines all seemed to love, thought it sounded like a sewing machine and was fairly gutless), very space efficient for a smallish car. I drove it a few tines on road trips and it was pretty nice overall. He didn't have any problems with his until he stopped it using a telephone pole one night when someone crossed the center line.

berri

I'm always curious on those close sales competition years how it came out in indivual large markets like Chicago, New York, LA, etc. Whether it mirrored the national result or not. But I've never been able to find that level of detail on auto sales volume breakdown.

berri

I rented a lot of X cars back in those days and given the competition, they weren't really that bad of a drive for their price point to me at least. Personally, preferred them to the K cars and Fairmont's I'd end up with instead sometimes. Probably like the Vega, once they got the teething kinks fixed, a decent car for the time?

uplanderguy

I despised getting two cars in particular for rentals, back then when I travelled every week: Reliant or Aries, and Renault Alliance/Encore. I despised the looks and 'image' of both, and the Renaults I remember being particularly slow when I needed 'oomph' in New Jersey traffic. The Citation or Phoenix looked sexy next to a Reliant...MHO only! LOL

Amazingly, I didn't mind Omnis or Horizons at all. My friend was a zone service rep for Chrysler at the time and he said that in the mid-eighties the body dies were wearing out, and they were getting more wind and water leak complaints with those cars, but I never noticed.

uplanderguy

He also said that AMC built Fifth Avenues better than Chrysler did.

uplanderguy

Concerning the Rambler Ambassador above...it might not be logical since I tend to love a lot of Studebakers, but I just do not like Ramblers, period! The '63 Classic is probably my favorite "Rambler", but you couldn't even get a two-door hardtop, or a V8 of any size until mid-year. I do think the styling is a LOT better than that Eastern-European look of the '62!

I'll say this, I knew two people who owned '64 Ramblers (one an American, the other a Classic) for several years and they both liked them.

bhill2

uplanderguy said:

I'll say this, I knew two people who owned '64 Ramblers (one an American, the other a Classic) for several years and they both liked them.

My parents owned a '64 Classic V-8 that I learned to drive on. It was, indeed, a nice car. Comfortable, and with the V-8 and 3-speed auto not a bad performer. I once had it over 100 mph (I was young and dumb and incredibly lucky.)

berri

Rambler's, particularly station wagons, were a fairly common sight in the late 50's and first half or so of the 60's growing up in the Chicago suburbs. Heck, Kenosha, WI was not a very long trek up I-94. I always admired AMC and Studebaker as companies that had to innovate and work around tight cash flows, but kept going as long as they did. By the 70's though I think weaker styling and government regulations were driving AMC under and they were only keeping their head above water thanks to Jeep. Unfortunately, both AMC and Studebaker also had a greedy, short term focused UAW pushing them under as well. Today, Detroit is sometimes hamstrung by greedy, short term focused Wall Street.

uplanderguy

About militant labor, I've heard a story that a Studebaker worker was killed in a car accident in southern Michigan and he was clocked in at work at South Bend that day!

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Amazingly, I didn't mind Omnis or Horizons at all. My friend was a zone service rep for Chrysler at the time and he said that in the mid-eighties the body dies were wearing out, and they were getting more wind and water leak complaints with those cars, but I never noticed.

In '84 I rented a car after flying into Detroit and drove around the midwest for a week - Chicago, Cincinnati and Indianapolis. I got a Horizon wth the Chrysler 2.2L engine. I loved driving it. The engine was peppy and it was fine on the Interstates. I did find the interior appointments not all that much to my liking, not the materials as much as the design/layout, but no complaints really. No idea what it would have been like to live with one long-term, but that week did nothing to suggest it would be a bad choice.

andre1969

I was just looking through some old pics we had taken back in 2012, when we did a road trip to Canada. This was among them...


I remember seeing it, and thinking Uplanderguy would get a kick out of it. I think this was in New York, either on our way to Canada, or on our way back from it.

fintail

Mmm, Cracker Barrel. Nearest one to me is in Montana, I think.

Oh yeah, nice Stude too.

uplanderguy

Thanks andre! You can see the sliding back window on that pickup, which nobody else had at the time.

uplanderguy

I met the last head of the Studebaker Truck Engineering department maybe twenty years ago at a meet in South Bend. His name was Otis Romine and he was also involved in the Avanti body project (Avantis and pickups were built in the same building). He told terrific stories. He said that by the early '60's the entire truck engineering department consisted of himself and "a Cherokee Indian named Al Weatherman" and that they were always being pushed by the dealer organization to grain-proof their beds--so that grain wouldn't leak out, a daunting task I'm sure.

Otis was a tall, big man with a big personality, not unlike Willard Scott. I approached him and he wasn't finished in a conversation with another person and I apologized. He said to me, "Don't apologize! Never apologize!" and smiled. I appreciated that.

He also said that Sherwood Egbert, the president of Studebaker and a tall man, came in to sit in the Avanti's seating buck during development and promptly konked his head. He said, "It needs more headroom". They made the windshield straighter and put the seats nearly on the floor.

stickguy

something maybe only Andre could love. A K car 4 door Imperial (I think they were called imperials?) The version with the rear that looked like the angled off seville, with the faux spare tire molded into the trunk lid. White with a 1/2 vinyl roof (also white). street parked, and actually looked in pretty good shape.

bugs me I can't find a picture

explorerx4

K car Imperial

andre1969

I'm trying to picture a 4-door K-car anything that had a faux spare tire stamping. The only Imperial I can think of is the 1990-93 generation, which, along with the 5th Avenue, was effectively replaced with the LH-based New Yorker/LHS for 1994. Here's the Imperial I'm thinking of...


That generation of K-car, referred to as the C-body, actually wasn't too bad, with the exception of the 4-speed "Ultradrive" transmission. And some of them used the Mitsubishi 3.0 V-6, which tended to start burning oil around 70,000 miles. This body family initially included the Dynasty and New Yorker, but then a cheaper New Yorker Salon was added. At first, it looked like the New Yorker, but in later years they used a modified Dynasty front clip, that made it look cheaper. These models were on a 104.3" wheelbase. For 1990, the 5th Avenue was added, which had a wheelbase stretched to 109.3", all of it in the rear door area. The Imperial was also added...essentially the 5th Avenue, but with a longer, more sloping nose more evocative of the 1981-83 Imperial, and the rear treatment that had those horizontal taillights, rather than vertical like the New Yorker/5th Ave.

These things were okay as midsized cars...replacements for the old M-body Gran Fury/Diplomat/5th Avenue. But, when they tried to be marketed against larger cars, they just didn't have the shoulder room for it. It doesn't take much effort to take an existing platform and make it longer, but to make it wider requires a lot more engineering.

While it was hardly a sales success, the '90-93 Imperial didn't sell *too* badly. For 1990, they sold 14,968 units, and it had a base price of 24,995. For comparison though, the 1990 Sedan DeVille, which base priced at $27,540, sold 131,717 units. By 1993, the Imperial was down to 7,064 units. I don't know what kind of sales figures they were hoping for, but considering how thinly disguised it really was, I don't think it did *too* badly. It was probably pretty cheap to manufacture as well, as most of the unique stuff was most likely an easy swap-out compared to the New Yorker and 5th Ave, and maybe even the Dynasty.

I'll see these FWD C-bodies at the Carlisle Mopar show, and other swap meets, from time to time. I kinda like them. If I was in the market for a second car, and found one in nice shape, I'd consider it. Dunno if I'd exactly lust over it though.

ab348

I didn't care for those upmarket K-car derivatives. My first experience with one was in 1990 when I was visiting Florida. I had a rental Taurus from Budget that was OK until it developed a problem and they had to replace it. The replacement was a Dynasty. The difference was night and day in terms of driving dynamics. The Taurus handled like a sports car in comparison to the Dynasty, which was wallowy and overly soft. It had a lot less room as well. A year or so later, my Dad got one - his last car in fact. I got to drive it a bit and it was similar to the rental, just soft and numb-feeling. Didn't like it at all.

berri

Fin, Don't think you can find a Cracker Barrel much west of Colorado. I like them too. So what's with the lack of fast food joints in the Pacific Northwest. They are putting In and Out Burgers near Dallas, but none in Seattle or Portland. I don't get it. Seems to me that the PNW has lots of overweight people and smokers too. That athletic stereotype appears more in the small, higher income techie areas. Now don't laugh down in SoCal, never seen a Winchell's donut shop that wasn't busy. Seattle does have Ivar's on the Piers or at Sea-Tac. But Jack In The Box seems like the only fast food joint that isn't a big national chain, and I'm sorry, but that's sad (although maybe good for the legal weed) .