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

PF_Flyer

And to give the movie away... I have FLAMES on my car!

tifighter

Why yes, that is a dropped 911T with a roof rack and a cargo box. Is that strange?

roadburner

PF_Flyer said:

And to give the movie away... I have FLAMES on my car!

The In-Laws...

iluvmysephia1

I don't recall EVER seeing a 911 with roof racks and a cargo box anywhere!

xwesx

tifighter said:

Why yes, that is a dropped 911T with a roof rack and a cargo box. Is that strange?

I saw a TT with a similar setup several weeks ago. It seemed oddly out of place, but I guess those are AWD, so no harm in having a little fun on the way to the ski lifts!

berri

,,,but where is the wood look applique to go with that roof rack

fintail

Middle car looks like a 61 Mercury, virtually extinct now.

PF_Flyer said:

Why it's fun to watch movies made in the 70's

fintail

Flame BMWs relative in 2015:

fintail

19% inflation in a decade, can't imagine. But yeah, economies of scale makes sense, especially with a historically strong middle class, and virtually no competition in full sized cars.

andre1969 said:

<
Getting rid of DeSoto probably helped too, especially once Chrysler volume by itself started exceeding what DeSoto/Chrysler volume combined had been, back in the older days.

uplanderguy

RE.: '61 Mercury in that pic--they are virtually extinct now. I always liked the '60 Lincoln-style rear-end treatment on them. I wish they'd offered a Starliner-style glassy fastback roof on them, like concurrent Fords. But I can't remember when I've last seen one.

fintail

I've seen a black 61 Mercury 4 door HT on a couple of random weekday afternoons in my neighborhood, at least one survived. Maybe only one.

ab348

I am possibly a minority but I liked the styling of the '59-'62 Mercury. I find this car (a '61) very good-looking:

fintail

Now that I think about it, the local car could be a 62, it's been at least a year since I have seen it. A 62 doesn't seem to be as rare as a 61, but still a hen's tooth, with an unusual rear end:

PF_Flyer

Yep, '61 Mercury Monterey

fintail

Interesting car, same notched C-pillar design as a top of the line 60-61 Ford Galaxie "Town Victoria" (yes, I kind of like):

andre1969

ab348 said:

I am possibly a minority but I liked the styling of the '59-'62 Mercury. I find this car (a '61) very good-looking:

I'm a bit hit or miss with them. I LOVE the style of the '59, but the '60 doesn't really do anything for me. Same with the '61, but I do like the '62. For some reason, I like the tail lights of the '62. They make me think just a bit of the treatment of a 1961 Dodge, but more tasteful. The front-end of the '62 Mercury makes me think a bit of a Buick.

andre1969

roadburner said:

I liked our '93 SE just fine; I wanted something that could carry us through just about anything. When I bought the Wrangler as a parade car I fully intended to flip it after the election- but as it turned out the whole family really liked it so I sold the Pathfinder instead. Good thing too, as the Wrangler is being pressed into parade duty one final time...

I remember looking at small SUVs over the summer of 1993. I was just out of college, out in the working world, and I guess the "Champagne tastes on a beer pocketbook" mentality started to get ahold of me. I looked at the Pathfinder, 4Runner, Explorer, and S10 Blazer. I also looked at an Isuzu Trooper. I might have looked at some others, but I'm forgetting now.

I do remember liking the Pathfinder a lot. It had a rugged, truck-like feel to it, and seemed kind of youthful and sporty, whereas the 4Runner seemed more of an older people's rig, somehow. The only thing I didn't like about the Pathfinder was that, according to the salesman at least, they didn't offer a sliding sunroof, just a flip up. I think he said the way it was designed, there was some crossmember in the roof to strengthen it up, and that prevented a sliding sunroof?

I remember not liking the S10 Blazer at all. It just seemed cramped, crude, hated the interior, and expensive for what it was. I also remember the Ford Explorer, while it didn't exactly grab at me, seemed like a good value. Jack of all trades, master of none, I guess you could say...but isn't vanilla the most popular ice cream flavor? I also remember liking the Trooper a lot, but it was also a bit more expensive than the others. It had a huge sunroof, as I recall.

Y'know, it's funny...I think most of these rigs were in the $26-28K price range, while the Trooper broke the $30K barrier...yet in 1993 I was actually considering getting into that kind of debt! Yet now, almost 25 years later, the idea of spending that much on another car (heck, even in raw dollars; don't even want to think inflation-adjusted!) gives me the shakes!

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

RE.: Car prices and inflation--I remember new Impala Sport Coupes, whitewalls, wheelcovers, AM radio, V8, AT, PS, PB stickering for around $3,500-$3,600 from 1967 through '70 (I wasn't looking at them before that, LOL). There was a big price increase with the new, larger '71's--what was $3,600 in '70 became $3,900 for '71. But boy, the big jump in car prices in my memory was in the mid-and-late seventies--say, '75 through '79. First $5K Chevy I saw (outside of Corvette) was a '70 Caprice and first $10K Chevy I saw was a '79 Caprice.

I'm not sure what its base price would've been, but my grandparents' 1972 Impala 4-door hardtop was around $5,000. I don't know if that was sticker, or out the door, though. It was equipped probably about average for the time...165 hp 350 V-8, automatic, ps/pb, am/fm radio, air conditioning, whitewalls, vinyl roof. It was "Sequoia" green with a white vinyl top...very attractive, when it was newer. It still had crank windows, manual locks, etc.

But, then inflation started creeping in. My Mom bought a new '75 LeMans coupe, and it was around $5,000. Equipped around "average"...350-2bbl Pontiac V-8, auto/ps/pb, a/c, am/fm radio, vinyl seats, etc. I think its base price was around $3590. My grandparents (Dad's side of the family) bought a new '75 Dart Swinger that year, and was around $5000. Just a 225 slant six, but it had a/c.

I vaguely remember my Mom's 1980 Malibu coupe, with a 229/automatic, a/c, being around $6700.

imidazol97

ab348 said:

I find this car (a '61) very good-looking:



I have never seen one of that year at a show or cruise in in this area, let alone a convertible.
Thanks for posting that.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I'm a bit hit or miss with them. I LOVE the style of the '59, but the '60 doesn't really do anything for me. Same with the '61, but I do like the '62. For some reason, I like the tail lights of the '62. They make me think just a bit of the treatment of a 1961 Dodge, but more tasteful. The front-end of the '62 Mercury makes me think a bit of a Buick.

When I was a little kid I called the '62 Merc tail lenses "Popsicle taillights". They must have sold OK because I remember seeing them fairly often around here back then. The '60 is of its time I guess, a carryover from the late-'50s barges that were rather overdone. Some of the body detail is a bit much but they did what they could with what they had to work with I suppose. The big taillight housings are certainly distinctive if nothing else. 1961 and '62 are an improvement.

One of the things that always struck me was that the late-'50s/early-'60s Mercs used the same kind of hidden column shift linkage that GM had done for years while if you chintzed out and bought a Ford, they still used a linkage that had a shift tube exposed on top of the steering column. That just looked awful.

uplanderguy

That black '61 Merc looks great to my eyes. I wonder if they really didn't put a wheel opening molding around the front but did on the rears, or if this car is just missing the fronts. I'd love to own that car. I'm glad the Merc didn't have the exposed shift linkage. I hated that on Fords.

When I was a kid, a friend of my Mom's, named Marie Fox, very nice older lady, had a light yellow with black top and black interior '62 Monterey convertible. I remember riding in it once with the top down. I think the '62's seemed to sell better than the '61, at least in our town. Plus, two friends of mine since recall their parents having a '62.

Probably TMI, but the '62 taillights reminded me of a dog. That's all I'll say.

I think there were only Montereys in '61, and maybe '62 too.

andre1969

One thing I'll say for the '60 Mercury, is that for the longest time, I thought it was a 1-year only body. I had always thought the '57-59 was one generation, the '60 was 1-year only, and then they simply went Ford-based for '61 onward. But, apparently the '57-58 and '59-60 Mercurys were separate bodies. They might have used the same frame, though.

The '60 looks so different to me though, that it almost looks like a totally different car, whereas the '59 just looks like a cleaned-up, more attractive '57-58 to me.

As for the '61, I think my biggest beef with the style is the front-end. From the side and rear, I find it attractive. That black convertible posted above, I find really good looking, from that angle. With the front-end, I think it's mainly the widely-space headlights, and the way the hood slopes down toward the center...just seems a bit over-done. Not as over-the-top as a '61 Plymouth, but it does make me think a bit of post-stroke Exner styling.

uplanderguy

andre, $5k for a '72 Impala Sport Sedan was pretty dear. Our '74 Impala Sport Coupe, no air but 350 2-barrel, THM, PS, PB, full wheelcovers, whitewalls, painted top, optional vinyl-insert side moldings and wheel opening moldings, color-keyed seat belts, rear seat speaker, bumper guards, was $4,408 at the bottom of the sticker. I'm thinking A/C was something like $363 at that time.

Our '77, similarly-equipped but with no rear seat speaker and no painted top, was $5,503 at the bottom of the sticker.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

That black '61 Merc looks great to my eyes. I wonder if they really didn't put a wheel opening molding around the front but did on the rears, or if this car is just missing the fronts.

Every pic of a '61 I could find online was the same, with a rear wheel opening molding and none up front. I'd say that was how the factory did it. Odd.

uplanderguy

Looks like the '62 had them. I'd have to install them on the '61 even if not factory, LOL. Seems that the wheel opening is the same on '61 and '62.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

Probably TMI, but the '62 taillights reminded me of a dog. That's all I'll say.

I think there were only Montereys in '61, and maybe '62 too.

Thank you, and now I can't UN-see that, lol! Monterey was the only name I could think of for '61, but then I looked up a brochure online. Looks like they had a Meteor 600 and Meteor 800, with Monterey at the top.

The 600 was just 2- and 4-door sedans. The 800 gave you those two, plus 2- and 4-door hardtops. The Monterey offered a 4-door sedan, 2/4-door hardtops, and a convertible.

Now in '62, with the Meteor going midsized, it looks like the big cars were all called Monterey.

I don't know why this is popping into my head, but isn't Monterey where Alice was trying to get to in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore"? I haven't seen that movie in probably a good 30 years, but for some reason that's sticking in my mind.

Also, useless trivia. If I type Monterey, spellcheck doesn't like it. But, for some reason, if I type Monterrey, it thinks its okay. Weird...

berri

IIRC the 60 Merc was the last model that had an unique platform. Went all Ford in 61. I liked the unique looking roofline on the 59 coupe.

uplanderguy

I think the Meteor models in '61 didn't have the cool round taillights. Thanks for the reminder, andre.

uplanderguy

If anyone gets Hemmings Classic Car magazine, in the June issue which I recently received in the mail, check out Bob Palma's column, "Remembering Dad". His Dad had been a Packard and Studebaker dealer, then Ford and Mercury later. Bob's a good friend who inspected my '66 Studebaker for me and delivered it the several hours to my home.

I had met Bob's Dad a couple times over the years--nice guy and a 'jack of all trades'.

The article is not only interesting but as usual for Bob, well-written.

imidazol97

Read it. The issue also has a section on fabulous cars of the 50s.

andre1969

I always thought Ford did a pretty good job in the 50's and 60's at getting the most mileage out of a platform. For instance, I used to think the '52-54 and '55-56 Fords were totally different cars, but apparently they used the same frame. Same with '57-59 and '60-64 (plus '61-64 full sized Mercury).

I've also heard rumors that Mopar actually used the same '49-54 frame for the '55-56 models, but that might just be a myth.

Anyway, maybe it's really no big deal dropping a new body down on an old frame. And, I guess a '52 Ford does have the advantage of being a bit more modern than a '52 Chevy or Plymouth, which would both date back to 1949. Still, the '56 Ford managed to compete well.

Similarly, I think the '64 Ford still stood up pretty well, looking modern in relation to the competition, although there were some cheap details, like the exposed shift linkage on the steering column. And, I think using the old '57 frame was starting to show some disadvantages. For instance, the cars got lower overall, but the frame height was the same...as a result, the trunks on the later models were a bit shallow.

But, I guess maybe I'm giving them too much credit for getting the most out of an old platform? After all, a 2011 Crown Vic doesn't really look out of date, even though the platform dates back to 1979. Although I think with the Panther, that's sort of like claiming you have George Washington's original hatchet, nevermind the fact that the blade has been replaced three times and the handle, four!

fintail

I used to think the same thing - a 52-54 Ford was different from a 55-56, 57-59 were different, 60-64, 65-67, etc.

I remember the exposed shift linkage on my dad's 60, when I first saw the car, I thought it was a 3 on the tree, because of that.

andre1969

Another generation of Ford that always threw me off was the 1969-72, versus 73-78. I used to think the '73 was an all-new design, but apparently it was just a heavy restyle. And the '68 always confused me, when I was younger, as it looked substantially different from the '65-57, but didn't look like the '69 either.

Then, on the flip side, you have Mopar, who redesigned everything except Imperial for 1960. But I swear, look at a '62 Chrysler compared to a '57, and I swear it just looks like a de-finned facelift, especially from the side. But, there is very little between them that's interchangeable. One is body-on-frame and the other is unitized, for one thing. And even all the window glass is different. It's not that noticeable, unless you actually see them side by side, which is something you don't often have the opportunity to do these days, outside of an all-Mopar car show. Or at my mechanic, who specializes in that era. Oh, and on that subject, no update on the DeSoto.

I guess Chrysler did sort of the same thing for '60, that GM did with their B/C bodies for '57...while they were all-new, they just didn't look "new" enough. Well that, plus Chrysler went the extra mile to do weird things to Plymouth...

ab348

andre1969 said:

Another generation of Ford that always threw me off was the 1969-72, versus 73-78. I used to think the '73 was an all-new design, but apparently it was just a heavy restyle. And the '68 always confused me, when I was younger, as it looked substantially different from the '65-57, but didn't look like the '69 either.

I dunno much about Ford in those years but I do remember that the '65 was all-new. So I wonder if that carried through all the way to the end in '78? 13 years sounds possible when you consider they carried the basic Falcon platform from 1959 into the early '80s.

fintail

Thinking of it, long-lived platforms weren't only a domestic thing. MB R107 lived from 1972-89. W126 was 1979-92. W111 1959-71 (ended as coupes) but W108-9 was W111-based, and lived until 1972/3. R129 1990-2002. W124 1985-95. W201 1982-93.

tifighter

Not to mention the Volvo 240...

kyfdx

Short span platforms are more of an Asian car thing... Domestics and Euros have always been rather long.

tjc78

I think Ford owns the title for longest run with the Panther  1979 through 2011

Even if you wanna be picky you could claim 1979-2002 then a pretty major upgrade in 2003 to rack and pinion steering.  That first run is still really long. 

uplanderguy

I like Studebakers, so I'm used to long production runs, LOL.

andre1969

tjc78 said:

I think Ford owns the title for longest run with the Panther  1979 through 2011

Even if you wanna be picky you could claim 1979-2002 then a pretty major upgrade in 2003 to rack and pinion steering.  That first run is still really long. 

Heck, when you think about it, the Ford Panther lasted as long as the DeSoto! (1979-2011, 1929-1961).

My buddy with the 2009 Grand Marquis (his third Panther...first was a '95 Grand Marquis GS and then an '04 Crown Vic LX) is starting to get up there in miles. I think he's around 185,000. I have no idea what he'll get, when the time comes to replace it, and he's trying to drive it as long as he can. It still looks good and sounds good, thankfully.

He bought the '95 used in 1999, with about 55,000 miles on it. Traded in in 2004 with about 175,000 on it, at CarMax, for the Crown Vic, which had about 10,000 miles on it. Admittedly, at that point the '95 was getting a bit tired. The engine sounded a bit rough on acceleration and it was smoking a bit. It was also just starting to rust around that exposed seam where the top of the C-pillar meets the roof panel. It probably would've gone on for awhile, though.

He took the 2004 up to around 230,000 miles. Mechanically, it still sounded great, although it had some kind of short in the HVAC controls that would make the system shut off intermittently. I think they wanted over $1000 to fix it. My attitude was heck, all four windows still roll down, so just keep going, but he traded it. That was in 2012. The body still looked good, paint shiny, but the front and rear bumper fascias were peeling. I suspected they had been repainted perhaps, just before he bought the car, and over time the car had been bumped into in parking lots, and that made them crack and peel?

He got a whopping $300 in trade, for that '04. I was a bit miffed and told him heck, I would've given him more than that for it! Not that I needed it, but I figured it would make a decent spare car....plus I've always kinda liked the Panther. But, he said that he'd rather not do business with a friend, because if it broke down on me he'd feel guilty. Which, I can understand, but I figured for that price I'd take the chance!

It seems like they held the line on prices pretty well with these cars, too. I seem to remember the '95 was around $13,500, in '99, with about 55K miles. The '04, in summer of '04, was around $16,000, with 10K (and a bit more upgraded, with leather). The '09, which I think it actually an LS Ultimate, I believe was also around $13-14K, with around 54K miles. Heck, inflation would take the price of that '95 up to around $20K, in today's dollars!

uplanderguy

I think the domestic, anyway, king of longevity for a vehicle was the Dodge Power Wagon, military style that could be bought by the public. 1939-68. I know the Panther goes back to '79, but I always think the '92 was a new car (OK, underneath it wasn't).

The Studebaker coupes, later Hawks, were built from 1953-64. Squinting, you could tell, although I'm told there are only a handful of part nos. that will work on both a '53 and a '64.

fintail

The hint on Studes, to me, is the A-pillar/windshield area.

omarman

uplanderguy said:

I think the domestic, anyway, king of longevity for a vehicle was the Dodge Power Wagon, military style that could be bought by the public. 1939-68. I know the Panther goes back to '79, but I always think the '92 was a new car (OK, underneath it wasn't).

The Studebaker coupes, later Hawks, were built from 1953-64. Squinting, you could tell, although I'm told there are only a handful of part nos. that will work on both a '53 and a '64.

There's a vintage power wagon site which claims that the Type D old style flat fender Power Wagon continued to be built and sold as an export-only truck from 1969 to 1978!

I've seen pics (maybe on a different site) of a restored 1972 M601 Power Wagon which is located in Saudi. Presumably it was used in the oil fields back in the day. Long time ago I read a history of the Power Wagon and the writer claimed that by the late 60's when the company planned to shut down production, they'd get another large order for Power Wagons from an oil company and go back to building more!

berri

The biggest issue I heard about Panther platform cars was that some of the earlier OHCV8 engines burned oil. I don't know how the platform the last RWD Buick Roadmasters rode on existed, but I think it was quite durable also.

andre1969

From what I've heard, the transmission on the RWD Roadmaster/Caprice/Fleetwood could be a trouble spot. I think was called the 700R4, sort of an updated version of the old THM350, but with an overdrive gear? It was more rugged than the old THM200-R4, which was the overdrive version of the lightweight THM200 from the late 70's. But, the 700R4 was being tasked to deal with heavier, higher-power applications.

In truck/SUV applications, I think the 4L60-E was another evolution of it, it got a pretty bad reputation. My uncle had a '97 Silverado with the 4.3 V-6 that ate two of them. Although, like anything, there's good and bad in every bunch, and I've heard some people swear by them. Still, I can remember the local transmission shop owner saying that those transmission, along with Mopar minivans and Ford Explorers, kept him a steady business. This was probably about 8-10 years ago, though.

For the most part though, I think those '91-96 GM big cars were pretty durable. I think Consumer Reports tended to rate them a bit low, but there's a difference between "reliable" and "durable". I always thought of "reliable" as "low-defect", but "durable" as you can abuse it and it keeps going. I wouldn't mind having one, although I think I'd want the Roadmaster or Fleetwood, instead of the Caprice. Impala SSes are nice, but a bit common, and pricey.

kyfdx

Aurora 4.0 today. Between the Intrigue and the Aurora, Olds had some decent looking sedans, in the ‘90s

PF_Flyer

You know how the internet is. One thing led to another and I wound up at vintage photos from San Diego and came across this. Now that front end has some character!

fintail

Second car is a 60 Ford, I assume a Sunliner.

andre1969

It's amazing what a difference some minor trim details can make. I never liked the '58 Lincoln...something about the way the headlights seemed to jut out, and separate from the grille, which looked punched in. but, I like the '59 and especially the 60. the '59 head the headlights and grille connected, and then the '60 enlarged the grille a bit, and gave it, in my opinion at least, a more pleasing texture.

I see them every once in awhile at car shows and swap meets. They are hulking, imposing beasts...definitely have a presence to them.

uplanderguy

Reminds me of some of those Barris 'kustoms' you'd see in model-car kits from AMT in the sixties. I guess the Lincoln came first though.