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

kyfdx

Acura ZDX on the way to work, today. Canadian plates.

uplanderguy

It could be said with some validity, that a lot of people thought that the Ford RWD full-sizes were better-looking than GM's, but I always shook my head that it took Ford so many years to come off with a complete copy of an Impala SS in the Marauder.

berri

I was in Chicago and ended up taking several cabs downtown. Pretty much Toyota's have taken the market from the old Crown Vics. I was talking to one of the cabbies about the old Crown Vics and said I guessed they were pretty good cars based on all the cabs and cop cars using them. He responded they were "crap" compared to the Camry's because the Ford's broke down too much. One man's opinion I guess, but I was surprised by his assessment.

stever

Most of the cabs in LA are Prii. If you have a bigger group, they'll send you a Grand Caravan. The shuttle here to the airport (down in El Paso) uses miled up Crown Vics. One has 300k, the other over 500k.

fintail

Prius is the cab of choice here now, with a Camry or Corolla seen now and then. Easy to look out for.

robr2

Boston is mainly Camry, Prius, Altima - all hybrids.

Mr_Shiftright

That's what they do best---city driving

tjc78

texases said:

Another one worthy of the 'Lord Vader' line:

@fintail

I still want one of those.

fintail

Saw a ~85 Tercel 5 door today, along with an early 90s Porsche Targa.

Mr_Shiftright

International Scout--getting scarce on the road these days

roadburner

@fintail; you might want to pick up the January 2016 issue of Thoroughbred and Classic Cars; it contains an article about a Mercedes-Benz enthusiast who has 17 in his garage- including 190SL and 300 SL Roadsters, a 600 Grosser and a 300c Adenauer.
Not to mention an AMG SLS...

fintail

I'll keep an eye out for that. Fun collection - the SL roadsters have proven to be good investments, while the big sedans are good labors of love

roadburner said:

@fintail; you might want to pick up the January 2016 issue of Thoroughbred and Classic Cars; it contains an article about a Mercedes-Benz enthusiast who has 17 in his garage- including 190SL and 300 SL Roadsters, a 600 Grosser and a 300c Adenauer.
Not to mention an AMG SLS...

texases

Clean white '62 Belair 4-door sedan, in morning commute. Got to follow it for a couple of miles, no smoke, think it had the 6 in it.

ab348

tjc78 said:

texases said:

Another one worthy of the 'Lord Vader' line:

I still want one of those.

Weren't they generally considered pretty disappointing in terms of performance?

ETA: trying to get this forum software to properly attribute quotes and indent correctly to show who said what is simply an exercise in frustration. I have edited this post a half-dozen times and cannot get this thing to look correct.

roadburner

The Merc was a second slower 0-60(7.5 vs. 6.5) than the Impala SS, and 0.5 second slower(15.5 vs.15.0) in the quarter mile. Neither would be considered very quick today.

Mr_Shiftright

Geez, I could match those in a Mini Cooper. We've made amazing progress I must say in 20 years.

stickguy

I can beat either one with my RDX.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah but you won't look as cool.

stickguy

I don't think one of those barges is going to make me look the least bit cool

Mr_Shiftright

It's not how others see you, it's how you feel

kyfdx

Spotted a Saturn L300 wagon, today.. Early, base model. Not sure how Saturn lasted as long as it did.

andre1969

t

roadburner said:

The Merc was a second slower 0-60(7.5 vs. 6.5) than the Impala SS, and 0.5 second slower(15.5 vs.15.0) in the quarter mile. Neither would be considered very quick today.

I think timing was everything. In the Impala SS's heyday, 1994-96, 0-60 in 6.5 seconds was considered fast. About the only way you'd get that at an affordable price would be something sporty like a V-8 Mustang, Camaro, etc. I'm sure a Supra, Nissan 300Z, Mazda RX-7, etc would have no trouble beating that as well, but by that time those were becoming higher-priced, almost exotic. If you wanted a sedan that could do that, well there was the Taurus SHO and Dodge Spirit R/T, but they needed a stick shift and high-tech to do it. Or you went high-priced.

But, no mainstream midsized or full-sized sedan was going to pull those numbers. Hell, Honda had to modify the Accord just to get a V-6 to fit!

But, by the time the Marauder came out, a V-6 Accord or Altima would embarrass it. Any GM intermediate with the 200 hp 3.8 would make it work hard...throw a supercharger in there and it would walk it like a dog. Whereas an Impala SS was unique, and pretty powerful for its time, by the time the Marauder came out it was just a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Nowadays, a lot of 4-cyl cars would give that kind of performance. I think a 4-cyl Altima is good for 0-60 in 7.0 seconds. For comparison, the first car to be marketed as a musclecar, the '64 GTO, was good for 0-60 in about 7.8 seconds. That was with the stock 389-4bbl that was lifted from the bigger cars. It also took a stick shift, no air conditioning, and a scarcity of other weight-adding, power-sapping options, and most likely an axle ratio that made it scream like a banshee, to make it get that 7.8 second time.

omarman

andre1969 said:

For comparison, the first car to be marketed as a musclecar, the '64 GTO, was good for 0-60 in about 7.8 seconds. That was with the stock 389-4bbl that was lifted from the bigger cars. It also took a stick shift, no air conditioning, and a scarcity of other weight-adding, power-sapping options, and most likely an axle ratio that made it scream like a banshee, to make it get that 7.8 second time.

Good thing we no longer have to settle for 1964 tires. Or brakes. Handling, suspension, ignition, induction...LBJ

bhill2

omarman said:

andre1969 said:

For comparison, the first car to be marketed as a musclecar, the '64 GTO, was good for 0-60 in about 7.8 seconds. That was with the stock 389-4bbl that was lifted from the bigger cars. It also took a stick shift, no air conditioning, and a scarcity of other weight-adding, power-sapping options, and most likely an axle ratio that made it scream like a banshee, to make it get that 7.8 second time.

Good thing we no longer have to settle for 1964 tires. Or brakes. Handling, suspension, ignition, induction...LBJ

I have often wondered how cars from the '50s - '70s would perform (esp. accelerate) with modern tires and perhaps modern traction control. Would it be closer to the cars of today?

stickguy

for sure. plenty of power/weight ratio to work with!

andre1969

Tires might have helped the cars dig in a bit better, rather than just spin. I think one of the biggest factors though was the transmission. I think a GTO only had a 3-speed stick standard, with a 4-on-the-floor as an option. Or an automatic, but it would've just been a 2-speed "Triple Turbine 300" for '64. The GTO wouldn't get the THM-400 until 1967.

Even if those engines had the power, with the transmissions of the time, they could gear them for acceleration or top speed, but not both. Nowadays, they can put an ultra-short first gear, and an ultra-tall final gear, mate it with a quick axle ration, and you get a good blend of everything. The short lower gears with the quick axle give good acceleration, while the tall overdrive gears help offset the quick axle, to keep it from over-revving, giving a higher top speed. Plus, better economy at those higher speeds.

I do think the modern tires definitely help with handling, though. My first old car was a 1969 Dodge Dart GT that had mismatched tires on it. Some of them were bias ply, and some were 195/75/R-14's. I swapped them all out with 205/70/R14's, and it made a huge difference in handling. The only other car I had any experience in driving with bias ply tires was my '57 Desoto, and that was never anything I was ready to take auto-crossing, anyway. I'm not about to try pushing a car with no seatbelts and a non-collapsing steering column to its limits!

texases

Another big improvement is the fuel injection - perfect fueling over all rpms, no bogging, flat spots, etc. I remember a comparison test between the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger or Barracuda, '70 high power engines, and they all ran like cxxp.

tjc78

Little late back to the discussion, yes the Marauder wasn't that quick, but 300hp full size sedan in an all black package is pretty cool to me.  Lots of guys bolt on superchargers daily drive them and run 12s at the track.

The Impala SS is qiicker but the Marauder is probably the better car.  

roadburner

bhill2 said:

I have often wondered how cars from the '50s - '70s would perform (esp. accelerate) with modern tires and perhaps modern traction control. Would it be closer to the cars of today?

Last summer I took my buddy's 2007 Mercedes-AMG E63(fitted with the Weistec M156 Power Package 1) to the local 1/8 mile drag strip. My best run was 8.12 seconds- which is the fastest the car has gone. Beat a 1970 Buick GS Stage I with a built 455 running slicks and also dispatched a modified Lexus IS F.

fintail

IIRC my old school E55, almost bone stock save for an X-pipe, could do 0-60 around 5 flat, and 1/4 mile in the low 13s. I've always thought the 350hp-400lb/ft rating may have been understated a little.

berri

Those old cars also have the issue of weight and size (wind resistance), so I'm thinking even if you could update the drivetrains, tires and suspensions, they'd still be at a disadvantage. But those old cars have style and class...kind of like Ole' Blue Eyes Frank Sinatra versus one of todays performers. I could live with the tradeoff

uplanderguy

But those old cars have style and class...kind of like Ole' Blue Eyes Frank Sinatra versus one of todays performers. I could live with the tradeoff

x1000! I'll tell you, about the only current vehicle that turns my head is a C7 Corvette, and even it has to be one that's not a screaming color nor one with black wheels and all that cladding that some of the upper versions have. An Impala LTZ turns my head, but I still want to see a dark green one but haven't. Other than that, I yawn at everything else.

I'm really hamstrung by not being a mechanic, and finding local shops to do work on an old car is daunting around the suburbia I call home, but I sure hope to get back into a '60's Studebaker Lark Daytona or Hawk or even a second-gen Corvair again in my life. I just wrote one daughter's last tuition check and have three years on the second daughter to go yet.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

<

x1000! I'll tell you, about the only current vehicle that turns my head is a C7 Corvette, and even it has to be one that's not a screaming color or one with black wheels and all that cladding that some of the upper versions have. An Impala LTZ turns my head, but I still want to see a dark green one but haven't. Other than that, I yawn at everything else.

Is the color you're referring to called "Rainforest Green"? I just looked it up online, and it looks pretty nice IMO. Last summer, I saw a current-gen Dodge Ram pickup in a shade of green that was very close and was thinking that if I got another truck, it would be in that color!

Hate to say it, but I don't think there's anything out there that really excites me anymore. The car I'd be most likely to get is a Charger, but I lost a little bit of interest, with the 2015 restyle. If I was going GM, it would most likely be an Impala. But, neither one really gets me *that* excited.

I might be channeling my inner childhood Smokey and the Bandit, but the thought of a new truck does get me a bit excited...even though that's the LAST thing I need! And then, when I look at the prices of them, I get a bit disillusioned. I think getting my 2012 Ram at the end of the model year, at such a cheap price, spoiled me to the point that seeing them priced more "normally", they just seem too expensive.

iluvmysephia1

andre1969, I don't know why, but when I think of myself getting a truck, a 1964 Ford pickup comes to mind. Yeah, right!

andre1969

The '64 Ford was a good looking truck. There was one featured in one of my favorite childhood shows, the old NBC miniseries "V", from 1983:

iluvmysephia1

That's the one, there's something pleasing to its look. And simple, too. Yet built Ford tough!

uplanderguy

I like that era Ford cab, but I always liked the looks of the 'unibody' truck, '61-63. The rear wheel openings mimicked the fronts. I guess they didn't hold up that well and in '62 Ford started offering the old '57-60 wide bed on the newer cab. I believe the '64 was the first with that style bed, above.

iluvmysephia1

It's the cab and the front end and grille styling that does it to me, by the time my eyes look upon the bed it's pretty much "yeah, pretty standard stuff here." I have seen a few restored, some don't look all that bad in their faded original paint job, even.

uplanderguy

Here's a nice unibody. It looked like a lowline model to me; then I thought, "Odd for a low-line trim level to have a big back window", but then I see it says "Custom Cab" on the door. Seems like it would have chrome hub caps at least, but still a nice truck to my eyes:

http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/01/1962FordF100_02_700.jpg

Here's a '62 with the old '57-60 bed:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--4f7aOHDK--/18d3ue9z50tgrjpg.jpg

iluvmysephia1

I prefer the white one, yeah, throw some chrome hubcaps on it, though! The white one is a nice specimen, indeed.

andre1969

It does have a nice, pleasing shape to it overall. One styling detail I always liked is when a car or truck has that crease that comes up over the top of the wheel opening and extends to the front. That might be one detail that makes me like the '57-58 DeSoto and Chrysler so much. I think it helps give the car/truck a more slick, streamlined look.

texases

It surprised me how similar the '64 Chevy looks to the '64 Ford:

iluvmysephia1

It's that roll over the Ford fender that sets it's design apart, though. Note that crease over the rear wheel well, too. I see what you mean, though, texases, The Chevy's looks is good, too. Both come off very nice. I would punt the Ford's red-colored rim and make it white, instead, though.

berri

Years back after I first got married, my father in law had a pretty similar Chevy pickup in that very shade of green. I'm not sure if it was that specific year, but it was his work truck and had quite a few miles on it. He sent me into town one day in it to pick something up for him. I remember that at over 6ft tall, I still felt pretty small in that big truck with it's oh so long bench seat. It was pretty basic with a 3 on the tree.

I also remember as a kid that one nasty winter December Sunday our Desoto had a breakdown and wouldn't start in the church parking lot. One of the guys, who along with my father were both Elders in the church, let my dad use his 61 Ford pickup for a few days while the Desoto was over at the gas station getting repaired yet again. He was a contractor, so the Ford had automatic and custom trim. He didn't need the truck because he and his family were heading up to Minnesota for a week in their 60 Olds station wagon. Now there was a nice car, black exterior and totally loaded. Ironically, right after they had bought that Olds, all of it's electronic stuff locked up and they couldn't get it started in the church lot. My older cousin was staying with us and was very mechanical. He messed with it for a half hour or so and was able to get in and get the door locks and windows working again. I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise when he ended up spending a career in the Navy as a jet mechanic. People just seemed more neighborly and didn't let petty differences of opinion get in the way back in those days. It wasn't Mayberry, but it sure as heck seemed a nicer era in America.

andre1969

Some former neighbors of mine have a Chevy truck of that vintage, a '65 I think. It's blue and white. They actually bought it new, but sold it, and then years later bought it back, in a state of disrepair, and the husband restored it. He passed away a few years ago, but I think the wife gave it to her son, so it's still in the family. They live about an hour away...sadly, the last time I saw them was at the husband's funeral.

I think my Granddad had a GMC 3/4 ton truck of that vintage, as well. It was before my time, but I seem to recall my uncle mentioning it, and saying that it was bone-stock, 3-on-the-tree, and very slow.

uplanderguy

One styling detail I always liked is when a car or truck has that crease that comes up over the top of the wheel opening and extends to the front. That might be one detail that makes me like the '57-58 DeSoto and Chrysler so much. I think it helps give the car/truck a more slick, streamlined look.

I like that too. Studebaker Champions (cars) had that from '47-49, and base (Lark-type) cars had that for '64-66. Even though the Stude I owned the longest was a '63, a hardtop '64 would be my choice if I couldn't buy a Hawk.

About Chevy trucks of that era, above--of course, it's subjective, like anything--I never thought the '60-66 Chevy had any great styling chops, front, side, or rear. A friend's Dad who worked at Lordstown bought a new, basic '66 and it had the small rear window and it was all metal inside--I mean ALL metal--no headliner, and no upholstered door panels. I'd take a Ford, Dodge, I-H, or Studebaker over a Chevy truck of that era. Just me personally. And at the time, I was young Mr. "all Chevy"...LOL.

andre1969

Whenever I think of Studebakers with that swoop, the first ones to come to my mind are the '56-58 models (and '57-58 Packards). Not exactly the most-loved models the marque had to offer, but I do like that styling detail about them.

As for trucks, I always thought the Dodge and International trucks were kind of under-rated. The '61+ Dodges seemed really modern, but something about the front-end just seemed a bit weird. I like them better than the later single-headlight models with that "owl-eyed" look, though.

fintail

I like the 61 Fords with the wraparound/bubble rear window. I don't know if this was an option or trim level thing, it might have been 61 only, these are really rare it seems , I think I've maybe only seen one in person:

berri

Well, the 61 Dodge trucks were right out there along with most of Exner's latter stuff. I guess they were designed to look tough and rough, and the latter probably best applied. People seemed to either really like the front end because it was rugged looking, or thought it was rough on the eyes. I think that look lasted quite awhile and was carried over from pickups to some of the larger stuff, as well as school buses. As for the latter electric range burner single headlights, "owl-eyed" is an apt description, if perhaps a bit charitable.

I always liked the mid 50's Dodge and International pickups, as well as the Travelall (or however it was spelled).

uplanderguy

That's a great factory photo of a '61 unibody truck, my favorite Ford pickup along with the '56 with wraparound windshield.

I guess I'm so accustomed to seeing "STUDEBAKER" or "CHEVROLET" across the tailgate, that "FORD" looks weird to me, even though I really like that truck styling.

Speaking of pickups, has anyone seen the Idaho Potato Farmer's (lame) commercial featuring the pristine '55 red and white Studebaker pickup? I see it probably four or five times a week. The commercial's dumb but I love the truck.