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

Mr_Shiftright

uplanderguy said:

One small good thing about kingpins--you never see a car with them with the tire and wheel broken off.

True enough--but you could get a type of wheel shimmy so violent that you'd want to change your underwear afterwards

uplanderguy

I had that in my old '63 Lark when the front end needed rebuilt.

Luckily, parts were readily available and I found a former Studebaker dealer an hour away who had all the manuals and three of his dealership mechanics still. This was in 1989.

Trucks seemed to stick with kingpins for a good while.

fintail

And when they and related components wear, you get terrible camber issues. That's what prompted me to have the kingpins in my car replaced around the year 2000, bad tire life, it was like a precursor to the flamboyant "stance" movement.

texases

uplanderguy said:

I had that in my old '63 Lark when the front end needed rebuilt.

Luckily, parts were readily available and I found a former Studebaker dealer an hour away who had all the manuals and three of his dealership mechanics still. This was in 1989.

Trucks seemed to stick with kingpins for a good while.

Didn't the "Twin I-Beam" Ford trucks have kingpins?

ab348

texases said:

Didn't the "Twin I-Beam" Ford trucks have kingpins?

Yes, I believe so. Of course Ford seemed to stick to old tech back then. Every time I see a '60s Ford with that linkage assist hydraulic ram power steering I shake my head. We had it on our '74 Maverick and it worked OK, but just seemed less elegant than the GM solution. I guess they kept it until the early '80s on some models.

uplanderguy

Not sure about those Fords, texases.

xwesx

ab348 said:

texases said:

Didn't the "Twin I-Beam" Ford trucks have kingpins?

Yes, I believe so. Of course Ford seemed to stick to old tech back then. Every time I see a '60s Ford with that linkage assist hydraulic ram power steering I shake my head. We had it on our '74 Maverick and it worked OK, but just seemed less elegant than the GM solution. I guess they kept it until the early '80s on some models.

True enough! My '76 F250 Explorer XLT has that.

uplanderguy

Speaking of Ford trucks, leafed through a hardback factory-photo book of Ford trucks at Cracker Barrel tonight. My favorite Ford pickups: 1956 and 1961-63 unibody models.

uplanderguy

ab348, you mentioned a Maverick. I'm not sure how they compared price-wise, but I always wondered what would make someone pick a Maverick, or a Hornet, over a Nova or a Valiant in the early seventies...other than being a Ford guy or an AMC guy or anti-GM or anti-Mopar guy. They were all positioned at the same place in their manufacturers' lineups, but to the eye a Nova or Valiant is larger.

iluvmysephia1

They might be like me, to me, smaller is better in cars.  

roadburner

iluvmysephia1 said:

They might be like me, to me, smaller is better in cars.  

Agreed- except that compared to the Nova the Maverick was garbage. I drove a 1974 Maverick LDO in high school for a while; what a hopeless piece of machinery. On the Nova you could get a decent engine, suspension(F41), and even a hatchback.

iluvmysephia1

I love the first batch of Nova's. '62-'65-ers.

uplanderguy

A friend forwarded me this. Yes, it's a Chevrolet Impala, best-selling car in America at the time, but I cannot remember when I've seen one so stock and so original. Car shows make one think that only Impala SS convertibles were built then, LOL.

I know someone on here has said their '69 was a bad car, but I still like this one. Up until '71, I liked the Sport Coupe roofline better than the formal Custom Coupe, too. At least this car isn't the ubiquitous urine-like 1969 Frost Green!

https://www.proxibid.com/aspr/1969-Chevrolet-Impala-2-Door-Coupe-327-V-8-Gas-Engine-Automatic-42-000-Original-Miles-All-Origin/39196102/LotDetail.asp?lid=39196102

My opinion only, but back then I think the Impala was actually nicer-finished in and out than the Pontiac Catalina.

kyfdx

uplanderguy

Other photos of the car in the link.

uplanderguy

I love the first batch of Nova's. '62-'65-ers.

I was not a fan of the instrument panel on those first Chevy II's, but I do like the minor revisions made to the exterior of the '65. I don't like the '66 and '67 at all. Other than I see them too often (LOL), I think the '68 and later redesign was a good one.

uplanderguy

Even the background of that photo of the '69 Impala shows you how middle-America the Impala was then.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

A friend forwarded me this. Yes, it's a Chevrolet Impala, best-selling car in America at the time, but I cannot remember when I've seen one so stock and so original. Car shows make one think that only Impala SS convertibles were built then, LOL.

I know someone on here has said their '69 was a bad car, but I still like this one. Up until '71, I liked the Sport Coupe roofline better than the formal Custom Coupe, too. At least this car isn't the ubiquitous urine-like 1969 Frost Green!

https://www.proxibid.com/aspr/1969-Chevrolet-Impala-2-Door-Coupe-327-V-8-Gas-Engine-Automatic-42-000-Original-Miles-All-Origin/39196102/LotDetail.asp?lid=39196102

My opinion only, but back then I think the Impala was actually nicer-finished in and out than the Pontiac Catalina.

I think that someone was me.

Dad bought one of these in 1970, a '69 Sport Coupe like this in Butternut Yellow with the same interior as this. 327/Powerglide, PS, PB, radio, wheel covers and whitewalls. It wasn't particularly unreliable but the suspension was just awful, way too soft and wallowy. You could get carsick in the front passenger seat on a country road. The narrow track (exacerbated in appearance by the pontoon fenders) probably didn't help, but I never was in a car that needed a heavy-duty suspension so badly. The dashboard was also a step backwards from the '67 and '68. He only kept it a year or so and traded it in n a new '71 Monaco 4-door HT (with HD suspension) that was a great car.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

ab348, you mentioned a Maverick. I'm not sure how they compared price-wise, but I always wondered what would make someone pick a Maverick, or a Hornet, over a Nova or a Valiant in the early seventies...other than being a Ford guy or an AMC guy or anti-GM or anti-Mopar guy. They were all positioned at the same place in their manufacturers' lineups, but to the eye a Nova or Valiant is larger.

Well, to make matters worse, while we had the Maverick (a '74 LDO 4-door), Dad bought a '75 Hornet Sportabout.

Why the Maverick? I'm not totally sure. I remember the buying experience - his '68 Volvo 144, which had given him several years of faithful service and which he loved, suddenly started falling apart. Everything seemed to fail at once in fact, it was bizarre. He had bought a '73 144 the year before which was supposed to replace it, but it turned out he liked his '68 better and kept driving it, so I got to drive the '73 to college for a year. That car had loads of woes too, but that's another story.

So when the '68 suddenly started falling apart he was in a bit of a rush to replace it. Another new Volvo was either deemed too expensive or he was turned off by the bad taste of the '73, I don't recall exactly. I do remember that it was in the fall of '74 at the end of the model year so selection was limited. I think that they wanted something nice inside and that all the other dealers had left in stock were plain-jane models, though I don't remember visits to any GM or Chrysler dealers that would confirm that. I do know that they loved the LDO interior on the Maverick, and that it was a dealer demo, so they felt like they got a good deal on it.

You're quite right though, it was an awful, awful car. Rust holes (actual holes, not just on the surface) in the body within 18 months, water leaks everywhere, unsteady on the road, bad brakes, you name it. I never saw a car rust out so quickly. It was really junky. I remember we sold it privately around 1979 or so. Probably wasn't on the road much longer afterwards.

uplanderguy

Agree on the '69 panel being a letdown after the '67 and '68 panel (mostly '67). But have you seen a full-size '69 Pontiac panel? The fake woodgrain above the glovebox doesn't even have a bright surround around it, and the model lettering on it is printed on in white so a strong cleaner would make it disappear, LOL!

Now that I think about it, all the '69 big GM panels were more padded but far-less-expensive looking than previous years.

The pontoon fenders do exacerbate the look of narrow track on the Chevys. I always notice this when I see pics of '60's Canadian Pontiacs, which were on the Chevy chassis.

fintail

I drove my rental Jaaag out to the MB factory/customer delivery center, and saw an obscure Jag in the parking lot:

Michaell

fintail said:

I drove my rental Jaaag out to the MB factory/customer delivery center, and saw an obscure Jag in the parking lot:

6-cyl or V12?

fintail

I didn't look. I think the wheels are from the 80s. It was RHD.

Michaell said:

6-cyl or V12?

uplanderguy

RE.: That '69 Impala--my friend who sent it was a service writer at a Chevy-Olds dealership in suburban Indianapolis in 1969. He said he remembers a billboard by Indy airport that summer with a closeup of the front end of a '69 full-size Chevy with the wording, "America's Favorite Outdoor Grille". Clever....unlike Chevy's current ads. Don't get me going on that.

texases

Here's a web site dedicated to the XJC:
http://www.xjc.com.au/story.htm

fintail

When I was a kid, there was an XJ6C in town, it seemed very elegant to my young eyes, and I knew it was rare. Silver with a black top.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Agree on the '69 panel being a letdown after the '67 and '68 panel (mostly '67). But have you seen a full-size '69 Pontiac panel? The fake woodgrain above the glovebox doesn't even have a bright surround around it, and the model lettering on it is printed on in white so a strong cleaner would make it disappear, LOL!

Now that I think about it, all the '69 big GM panels were more padded but far-less-expensive looking than previous years.

The pontoon fenders do exacerbate the look of narrow track on the Chevys. I always notice this when I see pics of '60's Canadian Pontiacs, which were on the Chevy chassis.

I remember Mom (the final arbiter of all of Dad's car purchases) didn't like the nose of the'69 Pontiac, so it was never in the running. I do know what you mean about their dashboard though. That seemed an odd design choice. However, the '69 Impala had a mostly metal dash except for the pad on the top which has a metal strip with fake woodgrain in it, which would probably hurt you if your chin hit it in a crash. So who knows.

I still regret my failure to convince them to buy the car I really wanted them to get prior to the Chevy. Late winter/early spring of 1970 the Chev-Olds dealer had a new 1970 Delta 88 2-dr HT advertised in the paper for what seemed like a screaming deal. We went to look at it on their overflow lot, so no pesky salespeople. Astro Blue metallic (medium blue), blue cloth interior 350 Rocket, 3-speed automatic, AM radio, PS/PB/wheel covers/whitewalls. Pretty basic for an Olds, but a much nicer dash and upholstery. I really liked it. I think Mom thought it was either too big or too expensive, but regardless, we didn't get it to my chagrin. Those were really nice cars. Looked like this, sans vinyl roof:

uplanderguy

That is nice, although I know that particular car is a Royale.

Our neighbor had a '72 Delta 88 Royale two-door hardtop in that exact color scheme (I know it's a totally different body style), but it was always clean as a whistle. Very nice car inside too.

I could do without those louvers they put on the Royale, but still, beautiful car. I know the Delta 88 like you're talking about didn't have them. The Delta Custom was sort-of unusual in those years. I'm thinking it never said "Custom" anywhere outside (may have on the interior door panels).

omarman

uplanderguy said:

A friend forwarded me this. Yes, it's a Chevrolet Impala, best-selling car in America at the time, but I cannot remember when I've seen one so stock and so original. Car shows make one think that only Impala SS convertibles were built then, LOL.

I know someone on here has said their '69 was a bad car, but I still like this one. Up until '71, I liked the Sport Coupe roofline better than the formal Custom Coupe, too. At least this car isn't the ubiquitous urine-like 1969 Frost Green!

https://www.proxibid.com/aspr/1969-Chevrolet-Impala-2-Door-Coupe-327-V-8-Gas-Engine-Automatic-42-000-Original-Miles-All-Origin/39196102/LotDetail.asp?lid=39196102

My opinion only, but back then I think the Impala was actually nicer-finished in and out than the Pontiac Catalina.

Nice that it has a TH350 automatic. My brother had a '69 Impala Custom with 327/powerglide and the trans was the first thing he had trouble with.

uplanderguy

Nice that it has a TH350 automatic. My brother had a '69 Impala Custom with 327/powerglide and the trans was the first thing he had trouble with

Funny you say that. I mentioned to the friend who sent it, I liked that it was a THM instead of a Powerglide. He said "In a car like that, now, I'd rather have Powerglide. Bulletproof and easy to repair".

He's the friend who inspected my '66 Studebaker Cruiser for me as it was an hour from his house. Great guy BTW.

I still prefer a THM in that Chevy.

Mr_Shiftright

texases said:

Here's a web site dedicated to the XJC:
http://www.xjc.com.au/story.htm

It's interesting that the market shows no appreciation for these cars. Some Jaguar enthusiasts find the 2D style awkward on the XJ platform. Part of the market indifference may be due more to the fact that it's an XJ rather than a coupe. You find the same phenomenon with the Mercedes coupes from the 70s and 80s---the sedans often outprice them, which is unusual. I see the point. The body looks stubby, as if it were a custom hack.

sda

uplanderguy said:

That is nice, although I know that particular car is a Royale.

Our neighbor had a '72 Delta 88 Royale two-door hardtop in that exact color scheme (I know it's a totally different body style), but it was always clean as a whistle. Very nice car inside too.

I could do without those louvers they put on the Royale, but still, beautiful car. I know the Delta 88 like you're talking about didn't have them. The Delta Custom was sort-of unusual in those years. I'm thinking it never said "Custom" anywhere outside (may have on the interior door panels).

For '72 Olds called that color Nordic blue. Mom's '72 Cutlass Supreme was that color with a black vinyl top and medium blue cloth interior. That color blue had a rich depth of color and a mirror like gloss. It was a sharp combination and was the car I learned to drive in '74. Yes, fond memories.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

Nice that it has a TH350 automatic. My brother had a '69 Impala Custom with 327/powerglide and the trans was the first thing he had trouble with

Funny you say that. I mentioned to the friend who sent it, I liked that it was a THM instead of a Powerglide. He said "In a car like that, now, I'd rather have Powerglide. Bulletproof and easy to repair".

He's the friend who inspected my '66 Studebaker Cruiser for me as it was an hour from his house. Great guy BTW.

I still prefer a THM in that Chevy.

I had a THM 350 in my 1974 Monte Carlo. I ran Ford ATF in it and installed a B&M shift kit; it would chirp the tires on the 1-2 shift at 40 mph as well as the 2-3 shift at 70. I never had a bit of trouble out of it.

kyfdx

Mr_Shiftright said:

texases said:

Here's a web site dedicated to the XJC:
http://www.xjc.com.au/story.htm

It's interesting that the market shows no appreciation for these cars. Some Jaguar enthusiasts find the 2D style awkward on the XJ platform. Part of the market indifference may be due more to the fact that it's an XJ rather than a coupe. You find the same phenomenon with the Mercedes coupes from the 70s and 80s---the sedans often outprice them, which is unusual. I see the point. The body looks stubby, as if it were a custom hack.

I love the XJC, but I get the proportion complaint.

But, I don't see that all with the '70s 280 coupes... to me, those are about perfect proportions.

kyfdx

kyfdx

stickguy

I always liked those. Sharp car

roadburner

My favorite European coupes from that era are the 3.0 CS and SLC:

Michaell

I saw this at the Denver Cars & Coffee last weekend:

PF_Flyer

I don't even think it's a particularly great film, but the dialog that goes with the cars cracks me up



So you like the DeVille? Fuggedaboutit

Yeah. I got the Fleetwood Brougham.

Is that right? With the velour? - Fuggedaboutit

uplanderguy

When I was a kid, I almost-never saw Fleetwoods in our small town. When I did, it was like "la-de-freakin'-da", LOL.

That reminds me--in the '77-79 era, the way the center pillar on Fleetwoods tapered used to bug me. Now I think it's distinctive.

PF_Flyer

Off on another internet tangent

Um... NO



The pic came from an article I ran across titled, WHY THE PONTIAC AZTEC WAS THE BIGGEST FAILURE IN AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY

fintail

A 123 coupe is worth more than a sedan, but the 123 wagons appear to be the most valuable of the platform, as they have a cult following.

Not sure SLCs were ever two tone from the factory, I don't recall any other than maybe some final run 5.0 homologation versions. Still a pretty affordable car, even if pristine.

Today on the road I saw a dustbuster Lumina, and this parked near Lake Zurich:

stickguy

I love the looks of those BMW coupes. And man, what visibility all around! Compare that to a new 6 series, which is like trying to drive a closet.

Mr_Shiftright

kyfdx said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

texases said:

Here's a web site dedicated to the XJC:
http://www.xjc.com.au/story.htm

It's interesting that the market shows no appreciation for these cars. Some Jaguar enthusiasts find the 2D style awkward on the XJ platform. Part of the market indifference may be due more to the fact that it's an XJ rather than a coupe. You find the same phenomenon with the Mercedes coupes from the 70s and 80s---the sedans often outprice them, which is unusual. I see the point. The body looks stubby, as if it were a custom hack.

I love the XJC, but I get the proportion complaint.

But, I don't see that all with the '70s 280 coupes... to me, those are about perfect proportions.

The high roof and square quarter window doesn't work for me. It turns the Benz into a 3-Box, and to my eyes (and many buyers) it's clunky. The late 60s coupes got it right, and there's a reason a '69 280SE Coupe is worth 6X more than a 1975 280 Coupe.

Mr_Shiftright

PF_Flyer said:

Off on another internet tangent

Um... NO



The pic came from an article I ran across titled, WHY THE PONTIAC AZTEC WAS THE BIGGEST FAILURE IN AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY

Classic case of "groupthink". It's not really the fault of "design by committee" but rather nobody having the guts to disagree with the group--if they did I bet they were instantly marginalized for not "getting on board".

A deadly mistake in business or war--groupthink.

Michaell

Mr_Shiftright said:

kyfdx said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

texases said:

Here's a web site dedicated to the XJC:
http://www.xjc.com.au/story.htm

It's interesting that the market shows no appreciation for these cars. Some Jaguar enthusiasts find the 2D style awkward on the XJ platform. Part of the market indifference may be due more to the fact that it's an XJ rather than a coupe. You find the same phenomenon with the Mercedes coupes from the 70s and 80s---the sedans often outprice them, which is unusual. I see the point. The body looks stubby, as if it were a custom hack.

I love the XJC, but I get the proportion complaint.

But, I don't see that all with the '70s 280 coupes... to me, those are about perfect proportions.

The high roof and square quarter window doesn't work for me. It turns the Benz into a 3-Box, and to my eyes (and many buyers) it's clunky. The late 60s coupes got it right, and there's a reason a '69 280SE Coupe is worth 6X more than a 1975 280 Coupe.

I get what you're saying ....

fintail

That and of course a 280SE coupe was the equivalent of an S-class, with a very fancy interior, limited production, high priced "modern classic" hype, where the C/CE coupes were more like an E-class, a lot more spartan inside, and a lot more affordable when new. The C/CE coupes were kind of the start of a new age, making the hardtops more mass-market.

Mr_Shiftright

Not Mercedes best period by a long shot.

ab348

Dunno how true it is but I seem to recall Wayne Carini saying the 280SE was one of the last largely hand built Benzedrine in that range.