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

fintail

Speaking of Oldses, I went to the oddball auto auction today, to look at their obscure cars and revel in the patina. It was weird - several cars in the ad weren't there, several were there but not in the ad. Here's an Olds - 1984 98, 70K indicated miles and likely believable - very clean driver quality car, had a stock digital stereo and climate control:



Can't believe this is still on the road, 1985 model:



Pristine early cab forward Concorde, not many like this left - probably out of an estate:



A surprise not in the ad - 1971 250. Windshield says "turns over won't start" (probably a carb issue). Probably 150K on it (5 digit odo), many original books and papers, original radio, sold new here:



Another surprise, and one I kind of liked, 1989 190D 2.5 - I think the last year of diesel W201 for this continent, a rare car. 160K on it, tons of original documents including invoice, hangtags for HVAC and radio, Euro delivery documents, service log etc. Weirdo color combination. I almost wanted to start it up:





And some from the auction site:

Clean early (1993) modern style Grand Marq, likely an estate car:



Had 184K on it and looked it inside:



I wanted to see this, couldn't find it:



This was a hot mess:



I wanted to see this patina, didn't find it:



Didn't see this either:

ab348

@Fintail - that Olds 98 looks interesting. Massive compared to modern cars, but such a nice highway car. Interiors tended to not hold up well, sadly.

fintail

The interior was pretty immaculate, and the back seat was mint. I sat in it, it was very well kept. It did have some headliner sag though.

ab348 said:

@Fintail - that Olds 98 looks interesting. Massive compared to modern cars, but such a nice highway car. Interiors tended to not hold up well, sadly.

uplanderguy

What's wrong with this picture: Ninety-Eight with wire wheelcovers and blackwalls; Concorde with whitewalls!

I like that era Ninety-Eight. I think the coupe was a pretty car and not all-that-often seen either.

That Caprice Classic wagon is an '85. I like how they concealed the optional cornering lights down low into the molding at the bottom of the car. I'll have to double-check, but I think that's the year they removed all woodgrain trim from the instrument panel and replaced it with faux-brushed metal panels. At the time I thought "cool, like a stereo receiver", but in hindsight I liked the later, dark, non-shiny "wood" trim they put on the same panel, better.

ab348

I never had cornering lights until I got the '79 Park Avenue in 2002. They were awesome, almost like a sideways headlight when you signaled a turn. I wish all cars had them. IIRC the '02 Intrigue I had also had a less-effective version, but no car I have had since has been so equipped.

stickguy

I looked at their website. what a lot of scary junk.

didn't realize until I read around that they are mostly selling donation cars. which explains a lot.

fintail

Yep. LOTS of junk. Endless neglected 200K+ mile Camcords and Civrollas, worn out old 7-series, old SUVs on their last legs, etc. They had a couple of Allroads there today - one with failed suspension, and people were looking at it!

I kind of like the junk though, it's interesting to see how cars age, and there's always a little wheat in the chaff...maybe like the Olds or the 190D. And always some sad non-runners like the 250. It's kind of fun, not full of restored cars or lease returns like normal auctions.

Saw an odd car at the gas station - 71 Continental Mark III. Talked to the driver, grandson of original owner, 57K miles, all original. Looked cared for, with just a few imperfections for character.

andre1969

I could definitely see myself liking something like that Olds Ninety Eight. Back in the 1990's, I worked with a guy who had an '83 Ninety-Eight coupe he was trying to sell that was his father's. It was sort of a reddish champagne color. He only wanted $800 for it, and it was nice except for two things...a broken taillight and non-working heater. This was the winter of 1994, which went on record as being one of our worst winters in history. Some of you northerners will laugh at this, but we had a few nights in there where temps got down to negative 10-12F. No way in hell was I gonna drive a car with no heat in that mess!

In retrospect though, I should've bought it. A heater core, if that's what it needed, wouldn't have been *too* horrible of an expense. And the '82 Cutlass Supreme I was driving at the time pretty much crapped out a couple months later, when it lost its oil pressure.

Now that I think about it, back in 1992, I came pretty close to buying a black Olds Ninety-Eight coupe, with a 350 engine. I had just totaled my '69 Dart GT, and found a few potential cars to replace it, all around the $1700-2000 mark. The one I ultimately bought was a '68 Dart 270, but I also found a 1980 Mirada with a 318 V-8, but it was pretty trashed. Also found the Olds Ninety-Eight, and it was in really nice shape. Another one I probably should've bought, but I went with the Dart.

berri

I wonder if that unique Olds 98 look was in response to complaints that in the 80's the 98's looked too much like the 88's?

hpmctorque

berri said:

I wonder if that unique Olds 98 look was in response to complaints that in the 80's the 98's looked too much like the 88's?

I don't know the answer to your question, but since the mechanicals of GM's mass market FWD large bodies (eg. 88, LeSabre) and its near-luxury and luxury ones (eg. 98, Park Avenue, Cadillac) were very similar, the idea of achieving greater styling differentiation for the more upscale models makes perfect sense.

From experience, I can tell you that the '91-'96 premium sedans were notably improved over the '85- '90 generation. As I mentioned in a recent posting, I owned a '85 '98 Brougham sedan at the time a relative bought a new '91 or '92 equivalent. Other than my need to pay for two failed transmission in ~153,000 miles (the first was replaced at ~24,000 under warranty), I was very pleased with my car's size and styling, luxury, comfort, space efficiency, performance, fuel economy and driving dynamics. I would only have preferred it if the suspension had been more sport-sedan like than luxury sedan. However, that's more of a personal preference than a complaint because I knew that GM's priority at that time was to imbue its then-new downsized FWD premium models with the same comfort and luxury attributes that buyers' valued in its highly successful earlier RWD equivalents. Overall, having previously owned a '92 98 4-door hardtop, GM exceeded my expectations. I actually preferred the '85 to my '72, and the better fuel economy, plus the benefits associated with trimmer dimensions and fuel economy were net positives.

That said, my relative's next generation 98 was better than mine in every way. It was quieter, smoother, quicker, a little roomier and generally more refined. In addition, the body was noticeably tighter, as it eliminated the flexing exhibited by my '85 when turning from my street into my driveway. While it would be an exaggeration to say that the improvements were huge, it's accurate to say that GM did an excellent job of improving the '91-'96 models over its predecessor.

In early ''99 I replaced my Olds with a new 99 Acura 'TL. It's been outstanding and remains my wife's daily driver. It currently has 154,000 on the odometer, so we could justify replacing it based on age and mileage, My wife isn't ready to do that yet.

One of our other cars is a '07 Audi A4 2.0T Quattro automatic, with 77,000 miles. It had a few problems. The most serious one required a complete tear down of the engine, due to excessive oil consumption. I had to push Audi to cover that under the warranty. The dealer service manager verified my claim, then kicked the can down the road two more times over the next several months. Maybe he hoped that I'd finally accept Audi's claim that burning one quart of oil every 1,000-1,200 miles fell within normal parameters for this new direct injection, turbocharged design. I remained convinced that Audi's arguments were weak, and they ultimately relented. By that time, though, the warranty had been exceeded by about three months and 2,000 miles, but Audi covered the entire cost.

Although I never threatened during our negotiations, I had decided that I'd trade our A4 for another brand if Audi hadn't satisfied our request. This story has a happy ending, though, because we love our A4 and would consider a new or newer one when we're ready to trade.

My take away: Be your own advocate, but always negotiate in a business-like, respectful manner. Accept the outcome, even if it's not what you'd hoped for, and move on.

Mr_Shiftright

Spotten on highway 101 north of San Fran---a Citroen CX "Prestige". I guess they are old enough to get into the country now. Still needs to pass smog, though.

fintail

Some of those were privately imported/grey market in the mid-late 80s - there was a firm, east coast I think, who specialized in them. I bet it is one of those.

Sounds like a really old/pre smog or pre cat car is the way to go there.

Mr_Shiftright said:

Spotten on highway 101 north of San Fran---a Citroen CX "Prestige". I guess they are old enough to get into the country now. Still needs to pass smog, though.

stever

Mazda Protégé - pristine. Looked showroom, at least from 30' away driving behind it on a four lane surface street.

Mr_Shiftright

Not easy. They only started making the Citroen CX in 1974, and '75 is the cutoff date for smog in CAL. Or pre 1997 diesels.

fintail said:

Some of those were privately imported/grey market in the mid-late 80s - there was a firm, east coast I think, who specialized in them. I bet it is one of those.

Sounds like a really old/pre smog or pre cat car is the way to go there.

Mr_Shiftright said:

Spotten on highway 101 north of San Fran---a Citroen CX "Prestige". I guess they are old enough to get into the country now. Still needs to pass smog, though.

fintail

I wonder if the original federalized grey market imports were also Californiastan-compliant. Might make things easier.

It looks like there were a few private importers - kind of surprised there was that much demand. But the 80s were a different time.

Mr_Shiftright said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Spotten on highway 101 north of San Fran---a Citroen CX "Prestige". I guess they are old enough to get into the country now. Still needs to pass smog, though.

berri

Californiastan

This from someone living near the Peoples Republic of Seattle

fintail

I blame the Californicators for that, they've imported it, along with their traffic, housing prices, and lately, their weather

berri said:

Californiastan

This from someone living near the Peoples Republic of Seattle

berri

You think the Californian transplants have issues in Seattle; it is quite the adjustment for the indigenous population in Salt Lake City I believe

sda

hpmctorque said:

berri said:

I wonder if that unique Olds 98 look was in response to complaints that in the 80's the 98's looked too much like the 88's?

I don't know the answer to your question, but since the mechanicals of GM's mass market FWD large bodies (eg. 88, LeSabre) and its near-luxury and luxury ones (eg. 98, Park Avenue, Cadillac) were very similar, the idea of achieving greater styling differentiation for the more upscale models makes perfect sense.

From experience, I can tell you that the '91-'96 premium sedans were notably improved over the '85- '90 generation. As I mentioned in a recent posting, I owned a '85 '98 Brougham sedan at the time a relative bought a new '91 or '92 equivalent. Other than my need to pay for two failed transmission in ~153,000 miles (the first was replaced at ~24,000 under warranty), I was very pleased with my car's size and styling, luxury, comfort, space efficiency, performance, fuel economy and driving dynamics. I would only have preferred it if the suspension had been more sport-sedan like than luxury sedan. However, that's more of a personal preference than a complaint because I knew that GM's priority at that time was to imbue its then-new downsized FWD premium models with the same comfort and luxury attributes that buyers' valued in its highly successful earlier RWD equivalents. Overall, having previously owned a '92 98 4-door hardtop, GM exceeded my expectations. I actually preferred the '85 to my '72,

Did you have a 72 98? Gas mileage around 10 mpg, and not particularly quick, though smooth and quiet? Reason I ask is that in 82 I bought a 71 98 coupe that was in decent shape for $200. I cleaned it up, tune up, nothing major. It ran and drove nicely but I was underwhelmed that it wasn't a fast as I thought it should be with a 455. On the other hand the car was deceiving in the sense that if I didn't pay attention on the interstate I'd find myself driving at 80 with little effort at all. Quiet and smooth. I bought it to flip and was fortunate to make some money from it, a plus for a college student!

sda

ab348 said:

When that Cutlass style appeared, I thought it looked like a Saturn, at least in the roof/greenhouse.

That Olds 98 looked odd but I gather they were nice cars. I remember a story about them when introduced that said the GM people were comparing it to the Audi 5000. Uh, no.

I liked the International Series, which replaced the 'Salon', somewhat sporty with a european influence.

fintail

I can't even imagine. This is a unique place for sure, but one that seems to be doing OK right now.

Sightings - R33 Skyline - too new to legally import, might have had Canuckian plates, I couldn't tell. Extremely clean looking fox body LTD, reminded me that when I was young, the older couple across the street had the Mercury version.

berri said:

You think the Californian transplants have issues in Seattle; it is quite the adjustment for the indigenous population in Salt Lake City I believe

fintail

Forgot to comment on this. I am pretty sure the NA market Audi 5000 became the 200 for model year 1989 - funny that the Olds would be compared with a model name out of production for a few years, but maybe typical of GM of that time.

ab348 said:

When that Cutlass style appeared, I thought it looked like a Saturn, at least in the roof/greenhouse.

That Olds 98 looked odd but I gather they were nice cars. I remember a story about them when introduced that said the GM people were comparing it to the Audi 5000. Uh, no.

hpmctorque

sda said:

hpmctorque said:

berri said:

I wonder if that unique Olds 98 look was in response to complaints that in the 80's the 98's looked too much like the 88's?

I don't know the answer to your question, but since the mechanicals of GM's mass market FWD large bodies (eg. 88, LeSabre) and its near-luxury and luxury ones (eg. 98, Park Avenue, Cadillac) were very similar, the idea of achieving greater styling differentiation for the more upscale models makes perfect sense.

From experience, I can tell you that the '91-'96 premium sedans were notably improved over the '85- '90 generation. As I mentioned in a recent posting, I owned a '85 '98 Brougham sedan at the time a relative bought a new '91 or '92 equivalent. Other than my need to pay for two failed transmission in ~153,000 miles (the first was replaced at ~24,000 under warranty), I was very pleased with my car's size and styling, luxury, comfort, space efficiency, performance, fuel economy and driving dynamics. I would only have preferred it if the suspension had been more sport-sedan like than luxury sedan. However, that's more of a personal preference than a complaint because I knew that GM's priority at that time was to imbue its then-new downsized FWD premium models with the same comfort and luxury attributes that buyers' valued in its highly successful earlier RWD equivalents. Overall, having previously owned a '92 98 4-door hardtop, GM exceeded my expectations. I actually preferred the '85 to my '72,

Did you have a 72 98? Gas mileage around 10 mpg, and not particularly quick, though smooth and quiet? Reason I ask is that in 82 I bought a 71 98 coupe that was in decent shape for $200. I cleaned it up, tune up, nothing major. It ran and drove nicely but I was underwhelmed that it wasn't a fast as I thought it should be with a 455. On the other hand the car was deceiving in the sense that if I didn't pay attention on the interstate I'd find myself driving at 80 with little effort at all. Quiet and smooth. I bought it to flip and was fortunate to make some money from it, a plus for a college student!

Yes, mine was a yellow '72 98 4-door hardtop with a color matching vinyl roof. It shared its platform with the Buick Electra and Cadillac, so its positioning in the marketplace was equivalent to a near-luxury Cadillac, if such a model had existed. Because of its size and weight it wasn't really fast, and certainly far from hotrod fast, but it accelerated quickly enough to never feel underpowered to me. My father's '57 Chrysler New Yorker, with its standard 394 c.i hemi, was definitely quicker, and more economical. He bought that new in early 1957, and eventually traded it for a 1963 Olds Dynamic 88 4-door hardtop, with the 394 c.i. high compression 2-barrel Rocket V8.

Yes, the 1972 98 was great on the interstate, including sweeping curves and hills. Excellent automatic. As for fuel economy, if such as term can even be applied to the 455, my experience was better than what you described, maybe because I accelerated and braked moderately. I never hypermiled, though, or compromised safety for mpg. On the highway I usually drove between 65-80 mph, depending on conditions, and on trips with 4 people and luggage I'd get around 14 mpg, without the A/C on. Mileage suffered in traffic and or with the A/C on, of course, but I usually managed to not drop below 10 mpg.

I bought my 98 from a Cadillac dealer in 1975, with 31,500 miles on the odometer, for a little less than 50% of the price of a new one, and traded it for the '85 98 Broughham in 1988. The '85 also happened to have 31,??? miles on it, and I paid a similar price compared with a new car. I actually found the '85 to be a little more comfortable than the '72 on long drives. Overall, I was pleased with the ownership experience of both of my Oldsmobiles.

andre1969

hpmctorque said:

I bought my 98 from a Cadillac dealer in 1975, with 31,500 miles on the odometer, for a little less than 50% of the price of a new one, and traded it for the '85 98 Broughham in 1988. The '85 also happened to have 31,??? miles on it, and I paid a similar price compared with a new car. I actually found the '85 to be a little more comfortable than the '72 on long drives. Overall, I was pleased with the ownership experience of both of my Oldsmobiles.

Even though it was a lot smaller, I could actually see the '85 being a more comfortable long distance car. I've been in a few of those '71-76 B/C bodies, and the seating position seems a bit low to me. In contrast, I remember sitting in Lemko's '88 Park Avenue, and thought it was pretty comfortable. Legroom wasn't overly abundant up front, but it had a high seating position, and the seats were thick, but well padded and pretty supportive. With the '71-76 styles, I remember that the thick, plush looking seats were actually a bit mushy feeling when you sat in them, and not as supportive.

hpmctorque

andre1969 said:

hpmctorque said:

I bought my 98 from a Cadillac dealer in 1975, with 31,500 miles on the odometer, for a little less than 50% of the price of a new one, and traded it for the '85 98 Broughham in 1988. The '85 also happened to have 31,??? miles on it, and I paid a similar price compared with a new car. I actually found the '85 to be a little more comfortable than the '72 on long drives. Overall, I was pleased with the ownership experience of both of my Oldsmobiles.

Even though it was a lot smaller, I could actually see the '85 being a more comfortable long distance car. I've been in a few of those '71-76 B/C bodies, and the seating position seems a bit low to me. In contrast, I remember sitting in Lemko's '88 Park Avenue, and thought it was pretty comfortable. Legroom wasn't overly abundant up front, but it had a high seating position, and the seats were thick, but well padded and pretty supportive. With the '71-76 styles, I remember that the thick, plush looking seats were actually a bit mushy feeling when you sat in them, and not as supportive.

Yes, you listed the reasons for the greater comfort of the downsized FWDs vs. the mastadons. Enhancements in the possibilities for front seating adjustments also made it possible to travel in greater comfort over long distances. The comfort factor became especially evident during non stop trips from Maryland to Chicago. Overall, the '85 was more pleasant to drive on the interstates than the '72.

There's been further progress. Our '99 TL is more comfortable than the '85 98, and our '07 A4 tops the TL, The A4's firmer seats are terrific for road trips, as are the drivetrain and suspension.

robr2

Today I saw a Lotus Evora and an 80's Fiat Spyder Qudrafiliglio.

sda

hpmctorque said:

andre1969 said:

hpmctorque said:

I bought my 98 from a Cadillac dealer in 1975, with 31,500 miles on the odometer, for a little less than 50% of the price of a new one, and traded it for the '85 98 Broughham in 1988. The '85 also happened to have 31,??? miles on it, and I paid a similar price compared with a new car. I actually found the '85 to be a little more comfortable than the '72 on long drives. Overall, I was pleased with the ownership experience of both of my Oldsmobiles.

Even though it was a lot smaller, I could actually see the '85 being a more comfortable long distance car. I've been in a few of those '71-76 B/C bodies, and the seating position seems a bit low to me. In contrast, I remember sitting in Lemko's '88 Park Avenue, and thought it was pretty comfortable. Legroom wasn't overly abundant up front, but it had a high seating position, and the seats were thick, but well padded and pretty supportive. With the '71-76 styles, I remember that the thick, plush looking seats were actually a bit mushy feeling when you sat in them, and not as supportive.

Yes, you listed the reasons for the greater comfort of the downsized FWDs vs. the mastadons. Enhancements in the possibilities for front seating adjustments also made it possible to travel in greater comfort over long distances. The comfort factor became especially evident during non stop trips from Maryland to Chicago. Overall, the '85 was more pleasant to drive on the interstates than the '72.

There's been further progress. Our '99 TL is more comfortable than the '85 98, and our '07 A4 tops the TL, The A4's firmer seats are terrific for road trips, as are the drivetrain and suspension.

It is amazing how far cars have come in the last 20 years. Faster, more economical, last longer, 200k is no longer an exception, safer, just better all around. And when you look at pricing, and yes they seem expensive, have not really gone up that much relatively speaking. I have fond memories of many of the cars that I've had from the 60s,70s,80s, etc. and don't think I would be overly satisfied with them now compared to current cars. My folks had a 63 Dynamic 88 Holiday coupe with the 394 2bbl that you mentioned in an earlier post. Dad never liked that car because the seats didn't fit him but was a good car overall. It was always cold natured and leaked oil, I guess typical for the time.

sda

sda said:

hpmctorque said:

andre1969 said:

hpmctorque said:

I bought my 98 from a Cadillac dealer in 1975, with 31,500 miles on the odometer, for a little less than 50% of the price of a new one, and traded it for the '85 98 Broughham in 1988. The '85 also happened to have 31,??? miles on it, and I paid a similar price compared with a new car. I actually found the '85 to be a little more comfortable than the '72 on long drives. Overall, I was pleased with the ownership experience of both of my Oldsmobiles.

Even though it was a lot smaller, I could actually see the '85 being a more comfortable long distance car. I've been in a few of those '71-76 B/C bodies, and the seating position seems a bit low to me. In contrast, I remember sitting in Lemko's '88 Park Avenue, and thought it was pretty comfortable. Legroom wasn't overly abundant up front, but it had a high seating position, and the seats were thick, but well padded and pretty supportive. With the '71-76 styles, I remember that the thick, plush looking seats were actually a bit mushy feeling when you sat in them, and not as supportive.

Yes, you listed the reasons for the greater comfort of the downsized FWDs vs. the mastadons. Enhancements in the possibilities for front seating adjustments also made it possible to travel in greater comfort over long distances. The comfort factor became especially evident during non stop trips from Maryland to Chicago. Overall, the '85 was more pleasant to drive on the interstates than the '72.

There's been further progress. Our '99 TL is more comfortable than the '85 98, and our '07 A4 tops the TL, The A4's firmer seats are terrific for road trips, as are the drivetrain and suspension.

It is amazing how far cars have come in the last 20 years. Faster, more economical, last longer, 200k is no longer an exception, safer, just better all around. And when you look at pricing, and yes they seem expensive, have not really gone up that much relatively speaking. I have fond memories of many of the cars that I've had from the 60s,70s,80s, etc. and don't think I would be overly satisfied with them now compared to current cars. My folks had a 63 Dynamic 88 Holiday coupe with the 394 2bbl that you mentioned in an earlier post. Dad never liked that car because the seats didn't fit him but was a good car overall. It was always cold natured and leaked oil, I guess typical for the time. I always got a thrill watching the green COLD light flicker just before it would go out.

fintail

In a small town this weekend, have seen 2x K cars, Tempo coupe, early Escort, kind of cool rat rodd-ish 66-67 Fairlane 2 door HT.

andre1969

I had a few sightings today while out running errands, but alas, was only able to get poor quality pics. First up is this '71-73 Mustang convertible, spotted in College Park, Md...


Then, in Laurel, MD, this early 80's Delta 88 sedan. Unfortunately I took the pic while moving, and my reflexes were too slow, so only got the back half...


The Delta's in pretty good shape, except for the valance panel between the rear bumper and body of the car, which is cracked. Just noticed that there's a '92-99 88 in the driveway, so apparently this is an Olds family. Depending on their age, I wonder if they might've had some cool Oldsmobiles back in the 1950's, 60's, or 70's?

I also spotted two 450/560 SL-type Mercedes roadsters. One was burgundy, the other a pearly white. Both looked like they were in good shape. Both had the tops up, so no fun in the sun, but it's a bit hot and muggy here today. Wasn't able to get pics of either, unfortunately, because they appeared too quickly. I was actually on foot when I took the Mustang pic, and I knew I was going to be passing that Delta, so I had the phone ready, in case it was there.

fintail

Saw a few today - stock looking 57 Ford 2 door post, 55 Chevy hot rod, nice ~71 Camaro, Suzuki Samurai, a cigar T-Bird sitting in a yard with a 380SL and a likely 380SEC - none of which appeared to have been driven recently, and 2 rare highlights coincidentally of the same brand - a 1960 Mercury 2 door HT, and a 1954 Mercury Monterey Sun Valley - yes, a glasstop.

Mr_Shiftright

A 1964 Datsun SPL 310 "1500" roadster. I'm half thinking about buying it.

stever

So you fit in it okay?

Mr_Shiftright

That remains to be seen. I'm not overweight so the problem is not the width. It's the legs. That's why I never owned a Miata---leg obstruction and visibility over the windshield. But perhaps I can perform a "foamectomy" as the Miata guys call it. Being a rather rare car, I'm hesitant to modify it with welding or cutting into the back bulkhead.

stever

You could buy it and let your fair lady drive it.

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

A 1964 Datsun SPL 310 "1500" roadster. I'm half thinking about buying it.

I had a 1600.

Mr_Shiftright

Never owned one. Sort of an MGB knock-off seems to me. It even has the non-synchro first gear and negative earth electrics! The 1500 has the G15 engine and the 1600 uses an R16. My understanding is that they are similar but the R16 has 5 mains instead of 3, and that this might not have been a good idea in this particular case. They only made 1100 Left Hand Drive 1500s.

stickguy

on the highway today, an original vintage Toyota land Cruiser. SWB, 2 door hardtop. Looked pretty original.

and a Sundance. Looked pretty crappy.

roadburner

The Fairlady was actually introduced before the B.

hpmctorque

stickguy said:

on the highway today, an original vintage Toyota land Cruiser. SWB, 2 door hardtop. Looked pretty original.

and a Sundance. Looked pretty crappy.

I also saw a Plymouth Sundance in a parking garage this week, and a dark blue Corsica driving about 45 mph in the right lane. The Sundance looked to be in good shape for an old, low-end mass market car, while the same couldn't be said of the Corsica.

It's more common, of course, for owners to maintain and repair old luxury cars, so I'm especially impressed when I spot a well preserved low-end mass market one. Do you make this distinction?

imidazol97

Spotted a perfect 1980 Cutlass Supreme at a tire store. Yellow and good wheels from the era. Interior was white leather and trim except for the dash which is a medium leather color, a rich tan brown.

stickguy

and you didn't even notice the steroid bloated C3 Vette sitting next to it?

fintail

Definitely. A minty MB W126 isn't terribly rare, relative to the amount sold. A mint Plymouth Horizon or 84 Corolla etc is a hen's tooth when compared to original sales volume. The ownership base combined with materials quality makes it happen.

hpmctorque said:

It's more common, of course, for owners to maintain and repair old luxury cars, so I'm especially impressed when I spot a well preserved low-end mass market one. Do you make this distinction?

fintail

What year is the Vette? I notice side pipes, early big block car?

imidazol97 said:

Spotted a perfect 1980 Cutlass Supreme at a tire store. Yellow and good wheels from the era. Interior was white leather and trim except for the dash which is a medium leather color, a rich tan brown.

stickguy

somewhere between 68-72 from the bumpers. Considering it has added wheel flares, i doubt the hood is original, so it could be anything under it, and probably not what came there originally.

I always wanted a Vette convertible of that generation. Nothing fancy needed. a nice small block 327 or 350, with a 4 speed. Plenty for me!

actually, to save a bundle, a later urethane bumper car with a crate 350 mild tune (to get rid of all the emissions crap) and some modest upgrades underneath. and of course, a refreshed interior.

Hmmmm,,,,,,

omarman

andre1969 said:

I had a few sightings today while out running errands, but alas, was only able to get poor quality pics. First up is this '71-73 Mustang convertible, spotted in College Park, Md...

That's probably either a '71 or '72 Mustang because I think the '73 models had front parking lights mounted in the grill. In high school I drove a '71 which had MUSTANG spelled out in block letters across the bottom of the trunk lid but the '72 models had a smaller Mustang script above the right rear tail light. Both the '71and '72 look the same at the front though.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes there was a SPL 212 introduced in 1960 called a "Fair Lady". It didn't look anything like the SPL 310, which reminds me so much of the MGB. So the SPL precedes the B, but the B precedes its look-alike SPL 310.

roadburner said:

The Fairlady was actually introduced before the B.

andre1969

I wonder what engine that '80 Cutlass Supreme has? That year the choices were a Buick 231 V-6, Olds 260-2bbl, Chevy 305-4bbl, or the 350 Olds Diesel. Even though Olds debuted their 307 V-8 in 1980, it was only offered in the Delta 88, Ninety-Eight, and Toronado that year.

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yes there was a SPL 212 introduced in 1960 called a "Fair Lady". It didn't look anything like the SPL 310, which reminds me so much of the MGB. So the SPL precedes the B, but the B precedes its look-alike SPL 310.

roadburner said:

The Fairlady was actually introduced before the B.

The SPL 310 and MGB were both introduced in 1962; the Datsun could not have been a knock-off of the B- unless Datsun had an extremely fast R & D/production team.

Mr_Shiftright

They are just too similar to be a total coincidence IMO. Keep in mind that many British cars were built under license in Japan for decades, so maybe the DNA just got mixed up unintentionally.