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

imidazol97

andre1969 said:

benjaminh said:

@andre1969: Any chance you'd post a few pics of your 67 Catalina?

Sure! I need to get some new pics up at some point, but it looks about the same, as in these.


Good lord, my old '68 Dart is in one of those pics...and I got rid of that thing back in early 2009, I think!

That car is one I'd stop to inspect more close when I saw it at a car show. It's nice and original.

PF_Flyer

ab348 said:

The first car of ours that had seat belts I can recall was our '67 Pontiac. You are correct on the shoulder belt regulation. My '68 Cutlass was built in September of 1967 and it has only lap belts.

Our first was the 1966 Chrysler Newport. The 1965 Impala with the bad tranny that drove my Dad away from Chevy did not to the best of my recollection, but we only had that car for a few months.

kyfdx

Our '67 Pontiac had lap belts, plus shoulder belts that I wasn't allowed to touch, because it took 20 minutes to get them back where they belonged.

Not that we used the seat belts, either...

xwesx

andre1969 said:

I had always thought it was 1965 that seatbelts, lap belts at least, were required to be standard equipment, but according to Wikipedia it varied by state. Apparently, it was federalized in 1968, and that's when they also made shoulder belts up front standard in all cars. I think it was actually all cars manufactured after 1/1/1968 though, so some early '68 models might just have the lap belts.

I wonder if that varied for passenger vs. utility vehicles? Both of my 1969 models are lap belt only. Actually, my '69 Econoline had no belts of any kind; I added lap belts back in 1994.

andre1969

xwesx said:

I wonder if that varied for passenger vs. utility vehicles? Both of my 1969 models are lap belt only. Actually, my '69 Econoline had no belts of any kind; I added lap belts back in 1994.

I wouldn't be surprised. Trucks and utility vehicles got away with all sorts of things that would have been considered mortal sins on a passenger car, although I think they've been pretty much equalized today.

For instance, my Granddad's old '85 C-10 Silverado just had the bumpers mounted on rigid brackets, that connected to the frame. No shock absorbers or compression whatsoever. On the plus side, that mean that when I got rear-ended in it back in 2006, it cost $350 to fix, whereas the 2000 Infiniti I3X that hit it was probably totaled. But on the down-side, damn did it hurt when my head smacked against the rear window! Oh, and no headrests on that sucker, either...something that I think they started requiring on passenger cars on 1/1/69?

Now that I think about it, I believe a rear bumper, period, was actually optional equipment on trucks at that time. I believe that's one reason that whenever you see these articles that lament over how big pickups have grown over the past 30 years, and they compare the overall length, it seems so extreme. For instance, I think my Ram is around 231", and Granddad's Silverado was 212". Sounds like a pretty major pork-up. But, I've had that Silverado parked next to my '79 New Yorker, which is 221.3", and if there's a difference in length between the two, it's barely discernable. I'd guess the rear bumper added about 8", bumping it up to 220"...almost half of the bloating up.

Also, the Ram has a LOT more legroom, as the dash/cowl steering wheel is moved further forward. You have to be built like a T-rex almost to be comfy in the '85...I pretty much drove it with my elbows by my side, and thank God it had a tilt wheel! With the Ram, I can stretch out and get a lot more comfy, and it has good storage room behind the seat...plus a thicker padded seat, and headrests. So, considering that extra 19" gets you a rear bumper, headrests, storage room, and greater comfort, I think it's worth it!

berri

My dad's 54 DeSoto had seat belts while his 60 Ford did not. So, what does that mean - nothing

Say Andre, can't tell for sure from the picture, but is that 67 Pontiac a pale yellow? Just asking to determine whether you have a pair of white bucks with a matching belt and Sansabelt slacks in your closet with your golf clubs Seriously, I actually like the color, whether pale yellow or beige, on that convertible.

andre1969

Yeah, it's a pale, creamy yellow (at least that's how I always described it) that they called "Montego Cream". Chevy called it "Capri Cream"...odd that GM would use Mercury-sounding names for their colors! There was also a more common color that Chevy called "Butternut", and Pontiac called "Mayfair Maize"...it was a bit darker, and a bit more yellowish.

Back in 2009, I saw a '67 Olds convertible that was in that more yellowish cream. Olds called it "Saffron". Here's a pic of it, with my '67 poking through in the lower corner.



They actually look close...until you see them in the same picture. In fact, my mechanic kept calling my Catalina "Butternut" and said he was going to order me a small can of touch up paint. He can be a bit insistent. I just told him it's NOT Butternut...and if he ordered it I ain't paying for it! He dropped it

Oh, and no Sansabelts here, although I'll confess I do have a pair of white loafers, somewhere. They're Skechers, but my friends call them my "Cousin Eddies"...

Y'know, something I just noticed, from that pic above...considering all the creases and lines that carried over from the hood to the header panel on my car, it showed that GM actually could do a good job with their fit and finish, when they put their mind to it...

xwesx

andre1969 said:

Also, the Ram has a LOT more legroom, as the dash/cowl steering wheel is moved further forward. You have to be built like a T-rex almost to be comfy in the '85...I pretty much drove it with my elbows by my side, and thank God it had a tilt wheel! With the Ram, I can stretch out and get a lot more comfy, and it has good storage room behind the seat...plus a thicker padded seat, and headrests. So, considering that extra 19" gets you a rear bumper, headrests, storage room, and greater comfort, I think it's worth it!

I about spit my tea into my monitor reading that, Andre! It is so true, though. One of the reasons I'm probably so comfortable sitting relatively close to the steering wheel is from having driven a lot of tractors and old pickups as a kid. In contrast, my van's seat is quite a ways back from the wheel, and I generally sit forward on the edge of the seat when I have to maneuver it through twists and turns.

andre1969

Funny thing is, I used to drive Granddad's '85 Silverado all the time when I was a teenager, and through my 20's, and it seemed just fine. A few years after Granddad passed away, Grandmom gave it to my Mom, and then in late 2002 she asked me if I wanted it. I said yes, and she sold it to me. Would have given it to me, but she had put some money into it. And even back then, it didn't seem *that* bad. I would've been 32 when I got it. But, over time, I guess as I aged, I just realized I my body didn't like to go into certain positions like it used to. I started noticing it with the Catalina as well, especially on longer trips.

I guess if I drove stuff like that on a regular basis, I'd still be used to it, but I just got accustomed to cars where you could stretch out more. I have a feeling when I get my DeSoto back, that's gonna be an adjustment...especially with that typically 50's-oversized steering wheel.

As for vans, I got my first experience driving one last summer. A friend of a friend rented a Ford moving van, but once she got it, she tried driving it around in the parking lot and it intimidated her. None of her other friends wanted to touch it, either. So, I got roped into driving. I said I couldn't guarantee anything, but I'd give it a try. Admittedly, I was nervous. But, once behind the wheel it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It was actually pretty comfortable, even. The only thing I didn't like was not having a rear view mirror, and having to rely solely on the mirror to see what was on the right side. If I had to get over to the right, for instance, into a combination exit/merge lane, it was a bit hairy.

sda

andre1969 said:

benjaminh said:

@andre1969: Any chance you'd post a few pics of your 67 Catalina?

Sure! I need to get some new pics up at some point, but it looks about the same, as in these.





Good lord, my old '68 Dart is in one of those pics...and I got rid of that thing back in early 2009, I think!

I love the 'batman' front end. Very nice looking Catalina. The Rallye II wheels give it a bit of sportiness, yet looks original.

andre1969

benjaminh said:

Here's a somewhat older car I actually saw myself, a c.1986 Cadillac Seville that's been parked about a block away from where my parents live in Seattle for the whole 19 years they've been here. Since I don't consider the Catera to really be a Cadillac, and with the Cimarron just being "by Cadillac" rather than actually a Caddy, I think this might be the smallest Cadillac made since....the 1920s? Before that? Anyway, there's grass growing up around this car, and I have never seen it actually in motion....

That generation of Seville actually made sense at the time it was initially conceived...around 1982-83, predictions were calling for a Mad-Max-esque future of $3+ gasoline that was often in short supply, and rationed. Only problem is, by the time it was launched, the stuff was flowing cheap and easy again. I can even remember a "Bloom County" comic strip of the era joking about it where an old man said to his wife something like "No more milk, Irma! The cat only drinks Ehtyl from here on out!".

So, it ended up being the right car, but for an alternate timeline that never came to be, as buyers flocked back to the big battlecruisers...and when the auto makers tried to wean them, they simply jumped to pickups and utility vehicles!

Personally, I hated that Seville when it was new, because it was simply too diminutive. But, I think it at least still LOOKS like a Cadillac. It has nice proportions, too. Alas, so does a Skylark or Calais, and for probably less than half the price, and that probably torpedoed sales of these, as well.

stickguy

Andre, I find it funny about the van. I can drive a Ford Transit anywhere, no issues. And have a few K miles on a full sized 26' box diesel Freightliner Ryder truck. Including city driving.

but I might have a nervous breakdown trying to drive something like your Catalina in any kind of traffic.

sda

I briefly had a '89 Seville. It was a one owner trade for a Lexus. It was fairly basic, but had leather. Overall a nice car, real wood on the dash, center console, 4.5 was peppy, smooth and sounded good and got 26 mpg on trips. I will need to find pictures and post later. I got grief from my friends when I had it as I was single and 35 in '94. About a week after I bought it a '89 STS was traded at the same dealer for a Lexus, and the STS was really more to my liking.

xwesx

andre1969 said:

As for vans, I got my first experience driving one last summer. A friend of a friend rented a Ford moving van, but once she got it, she tried driving it around in the parking lot and it intimidated her. None of her other friends wanted to touch it, either. So, I got roped into driving. I said I couldn't guarantee anything, but I'd give it a try. Admittedly, I was nervous. But, once behind the wheel it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It was actually pretty comfortable, even. The only thing I didn't like was not having a rear view mirror, and having to rely solely on the mirror to see what was on the right side. If I had to get over to the right, for instance, into a combination exit/merge lane, it was a bit hairy.

I can see how a cargo van might be intimidating! My first vehicle had no windows other than the front three (front doors and windshield), so I became very comfortable with using mirrors and measuring up my vehicle size/perspective. My wife regularly chastises me for loading up the cargo area of the car all the way to the roof when we're going on long trips. She wants to see out the back! I keep telling her that such things are luxury, and that she only needs her mirrors....

Some times I wonder how she's remained with me this long when she so rarely finds me amusing....!

texases

That Seville was the poster boy for how Caddy lost its way back then. The WSJ used a profile of it and an Olds to show how similar they were, meaning the Seville wasn't special enough.

roadburner

texases said:

That Seville was the poster boy for how Caddy lost its way back then. The WSJ used a profile of it and an Olds to show how similar they were, meaning the Seville wasn't special enough.

Lincoln ran this ad- much to GM's chagrin. I even heard Roger Smith begged Ford to quit running the ad.

berri

...and with those U-Haul trucks you can park with the semi's in the rest stop areas

andre1969

berri said:

...and with those U-Haul trucks you can park with the semi's in the rest stop areas

Ooh, yay, Lot Lizards!!!!

andre1969

Cadillac actually came up with a pretty good response to that Lincoln commercial, but I can't find it. But, I remember it had two guys at the country club or whatever, one asks for his Town Car, the other asks for his Brougham. Lincoln guy sneers "Cadillac, huh? Too bad Cadillac doesn't make a BIG car anymore".

Caddy guy responds, "Oh, it's big". And when the Brougham pulls up, the Lincoln guy starts to get embarrassed and stutters..."Well...it's...pretty big". Caddy guy simply smiles and responds "It's bigger than yours".

I can't find it that one online, but I'm sure this one, was put out in response to some of those Lincoln jabs... 1986 Brougham ad

ab348

I remember that Lincoln commercial well. Probably the most memorable Lincoln ad prior to the McConaughey ones recently (and those may not be remembered positively). Some truth in that '80s ad too, sadly.

The '86 Brougham was a real old-school Caddy except for the engine, which was the Olds 307 and badly undersized for such a big car.

fintail

I was thinking, the Fleetwood was still alive and well, and being made in some volume in the 1985-86 era. Lincoln took some liberties - it maybe should have been Fox Continental vs downsized DeVille, and TC vs Fleetwood. Both makes had some high points and low points of the era. The downsized Seville/Eldo and Taurinental don't seem to warm many hearts today.

omarman

That 1986 Lincoln spot seemed like a SNL sketch. There's a reason why it's hard to find a link to the GM "answer" to that first punch. What was Dan Quayle's reply when hit with "Senator you're no Jack Kennedy!" Who cares?

Roger Smith aimed to modernize GM with a $40B spending spree but wound up orchestrating a decline from which they have never recovered. Big investment = big market share loss on his watch.

Roger was never shy about speaking with the press and I did admire that about him. An interviewer asked Roger what he thought went wrong the the GM10 project. "I don't know," was his reply. Can't fault the guy for honesty and plain speaking. If anything the economy of scale at GM may have simply been beyond Roger's abilities. Smith was not Darth Roger.

With the voluntary restraints of Japanese cars ending soon and the cost of union benefits rising fast, GM faced a real crisis with or without Roger. It appeared that he was trying to stop and turn the General on a dime when there truly was no way to make that happen.

I think Roger Smith drove one of the first Saturn cars a day or two before he retired from GM.

Big fat Cadillac? Or downsized Cinnabon? The General had bigger problems than that in 1986. And that Lincoln ad gleefully pointed it out. Is that my Cadillac? No that's an Oldsmobile. No! That's a Buick!

andre1969

Heck, by 1986 I think Cadillac was looking bad on just about all fronts, since the diminutive Seville was supposed to go up against the Continental, the tiny Eldorado had to compete with the almost musclecar-like Mark VII, and the Town Car competed against the DeVille/FWD Fleetwood, in price, although the Brougham was kept around as a holdover to appease the more traditional buyers.

I think the Town Car was actually a fairly good performer for the time. Even though the 302 put out similar hp/torque figures to the Olds 307, Ford tended to use more aggressive gearing than GM with their big cars. Ford was more dependent on smaller, economical cars for their sales in those days, so they could get by with a few big cars sinking their CAFE numbers a bit. But GM was more weighted toward bigger cars, and the result was they had to eke out every 1/10 of an mpg that they could from them.

I believe the Brougham with the 307 used a 2.73:1 axle...same powertrain that my grandmother's '85 LeSabre used. That car was good for 0-60 in about 12 seconds. But, a Brougham is probably a good 600 or so lb heavier, so I'm sure that's going to drag down the time.

I think Ford would often slip a 3.27:1 or 3.55:1 axle and a dual exhaust under some of those cars...at least that was common with the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, so I'd guess the Town Car did it, too?

berri

During that time period it seemed like quality and reliability issues were increasing for GM, while improving at Ford, so that may have played into things too I suppose.

tjc78

andre1969 said:

Heck, by 1986 I think Cadillac was looking bad on just about all fronts, since the diminutive Seville was supposed to go up against the Continental, the tiny Eldorado had to compete with the almost musclecar-like Mark VII, and the Town Car competed against the DeVille/FWD Fleetwood, in price, although the Brougham was kept around as a holdover to appease the more traditional buyers. I think the Town Car was actually a fairly good performer for the time. Even though the 302 put out similar hp/torque figures to the Olds 307, Ford tended to use more aggressive gearing than GM with their big cars. Ford was more dependent on smaller, economical cars for their sales in those days, so they could get by with a few big cars sinking their CAFE numbers a bit. But GM was more weighted toward bigger cars, and the result was they had to eke out every 1/10 of an mpg that they could from them. I believe the Brougham with the 307 used a 2.73:1 axle...same powertrain that my grandmother's '85 LeSabre used. That car was good for 0-60 in about 12 seconds. But, a Brougham is probably a good 600 or so lb heavier, so I'm sure that's going to drag down the time. I think Ford would often slip a 3.27:1 or 3.55:1 axle and a dual exhaust under some of those cars...at least that was common with the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, so I'd guess the Town Car did it, too?

My 89 LTC had dual exhaust and a TracLoc 3.27 and was quicker than 307 GM full size 

I remember driving an 86 LeSabre at the same time I owned the Lincoln and the difference was night and day. 

One of the web sites has an 89 LTC at 10.2 seconds but who knows how it was equipped.  Many had duals, but not nearly as many had the 3.27

andre1969

I have an old 1985 Consumer Guide somewhere that had a test of an '85 Crown Vic that had some package that, for around $225, gave you dual exhaust, 3.55:1 axle, a rear sway bar, traction-lok, and the bigger alloy road wheels. And ironically, it ended up getting better fuel economy than the Grand Marquis they tested in the same issue, that just had single exhaust, 2.73:1 axle, etc.

Thinking back on it, that $225 or so sounds like a screaming deal, even back then, for all those upgrades. I seem to recall even CG mentioned that. It's a shame that GM didn't seem fit to offer a similar package for their cars at the time. I know they offered the F41, but I think all that was, was a sway bar in back. For the most part they still forced you to take tall, loafy rear-ends, and about the only way you were getting bigger wheels or dual exhaust was if you put them on yourself, or bought an ex-police car.

As for the Brougham, I heard that once they started using the 305 instead of the 307, it helped performance a lot. The 305 used a 3.08:1 axle though, compared to the 2.73:1 for the 307. I wonder how much of a difference just the axle made? The 305 had TBI and 170 hp, versus a small 4-bbl and 140 hp for the 307. I think the 307 still had a bit more torque though. Still, you had to get the 350 TBI, which had 185 hp and tons of torque, to get a 0-60 time below 10 seconds. Once they started throwing the LT-1 350 in for 1994, the things were downright fun

tjc78

The Panthers always had those options pretty much up until the last years. It was marketed differently in the box years, but from 92 on up to 02 it was known as the "Handling and Performance Package". You can tell if a 92-02 has it because these 16" wheels came with the package.



The 03+ had it for awhile too, and also 5 passenger versions w/ console known as the LX Sport or Grand Marquis LSE.

kyfdx

tjc78 said:

The Panthers always had those options pretty much up until the last years. It was marketed differently in the box years, but from 92 on up to 02 it was known as the "Handling and Performance Package". You can tell if a 92-02 has it because these 16" wheels came with the package.



The 03+ had it for awhile too, and also 5 passenger versions w/ console known as the LX Sport or Grand Marquis LSE.

Those wheels could have come off of a late '80s BMW 3-Series (if 14" or 15").

ab348

Saw this on Hemmings this morning. Be the only one on your block most likely.

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/gmc/suburban/2023068.html





Price seems optimistic but looks like much work has already been done.

andre1969

I brought my '79 5th Ave back from the shop today, and lo and behold, what did I see? Another flagship from a time long ago, that's now a mere shadow of its former glory...




I tried to get a bit artistic, getting a pic of it in the rearview mirror. In the one shot, you can see how badly the rear end is sagging! Oh, and I also snapped this...something you don't see every day...

ab348

A friend had one of those downsized DeVilles in that same color. His had the 4.9 engine and he loved it. I rode in it a few times and it was nice for what it was. He traded it in when the piping on the driver's seat upholstery began to fray. Probably a couple of hundred bucks to fix but noooo...

fintail

I like the old Suburban, price may be dear given the cosmetic needs, but I am surprised those haven't taken off, as the model is an icon to so much of the country.

Those upsized-downsized DeVilles make me think of a now-classic movie (with a bit of car spotting, think Plymouth GTX):



Also makes me think of the short run smaller Fleetwood, with the skirted rear wheelarches:

roadburner

I would love to have this 1970 Oldsmobile Rallye 350. The Rallye 350 was my favorite "junior musclecar"- meaning a lower powered model that could usually run the quarter in the high fifteen second range or better. The Rebel Machine and Cyclone GT also fit that description, as did the GS 350. The Rallye 350 and the Machine were the wildest from a styling/graphics standpoint.

texases

Given how peppy our 'regular' '69 Cutlass 350 was, I'd love a chance to drive that Rallye 350. We had a '72 Maserati Indy (A/T, unfortunately) at the same time, and the Cutlass was much more responsive at 'legal' speeds.

stickguy

RB, I love that olds. Even in screaming yellow!

ab348

The Rallye 350 only came in that bright yellow and apparently back in the day dealers had trouble selling them because of the look. It was fairly common for dealers to replace the urethane-covered yellow bumpers with regular chrome ones and also to add a set of trim rings to the wheels to make them look more conventional in attempts to move the metal.

Mr_Shiftright

kyfdx said:

tjc78 said:

The Panthers always had those options pretty much up until the last years. It was marketed differently in the box years, but from 92 on up to 02 it was known as the "Handling and Performance Package". You can tell if a 92-02 has it because these 16" wheels came with the package.



The 03+ had it for awhile too, and also 5 passenger versions w/ console known as the LX Sport or Grand Marquis LSE.

Those wheels could have come off of a late '80s BMW 3-Series (if 14" or 15").

Very similar although BMW was running metric tires at that time I think.

Mr_Shiftright

The 56 GMC Suburban can be a valuable vehicle but it has to be right. This one is "on its way" but it really needs a body lift and entire frame and suspension restoration--no small task. The price is high but I'd suspect that if it were negotiated down to around $19K, it'd be a sale. Owner probably will hold out for more, but he's got two barriers: One, it's a GMC and not a Chevy, and it's hard for "utility vehicles" to break the $20K barrier unless they are pretty spiff.

Mr_Shiftright

The question is: Are the low miles worth 2X the market value of this car?

https://www.rkmotors.com/vehicles/2975/1980-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-pace-car

stickguy

not to me. but if I finally get some sort of collector car/toy, I want to be able to drive it, not start a museum in my garage!

fintail

Only if you like to trailer it to a show then sit behind it on a lawn chair for 8 hours. If you want to drive it, no way.

Mr_Shiftright

You just know you'll take your 270-mile Firebird to a show and someone will show up with a 269-mile car.

texases

You'd think that Firebird might sell better at a live auction, after the liquor starts flowing...

Mr_Shiftright

I dunno--you'd have to be pretty far gone to punch it up that high, especially if you thought about what else you could buy for $50K.

xwesx

kyfdx said:

Those wheels could have come off of a late '80s BMW 3-Series (if 14" or 15").

Naw; wrong bolt pattern.

xwesx

Mr_Shiftright said:

The question is: Are the low miles worth 2X the market value of this car?

https://www.rkmotors.com/vehicles/2975/1980-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-pace-car

Hahaha... I love this statement in the ad copy:

"THERE'S NO STYLE LIKE 1980S STYLE"

My response? "Thank GOD!!!!"

Mr_Shiftright

xwesx said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The question is: Are the low miles worth 2X the market value of this car?

https://www.rkmotors.com/vehicles/2975/1980-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-pace-car

Hahaha... I love this statement in the ad copy:

"THERE'S NO STYLE LIKE 1980S STYLE"

My response? "Thank GOD!!!!"

And don't forget that whoppin' 210 HP turbo motor, and no bothersome manual transmission option.

roadburner

And the 301 ran so hot that it boiled the washer fluid in the tubing under the hood.

andre1969

Back in the 1990's, my supervisor had one of those Turbo Trans Ams. I'm pretty sure it was a Pace Car edition, but for some reason I keep thinking it was an '81. Did they maybe pace the Indy 500 in '80 and something else, like the Daytona 500 or something in '81, perhaps?

Anyway, I remember he got his nose out of joint when I bought my '67 Catalina, saying I should have bought his car. Yeah, because one is so much like the other...

I think he did finally sell it, a few years later, for around $3-4K. It wasn't some low-mileage time capsule though...just a used car at that time.

tjc78

xwesx said:

The question is: Are the low miles worth 2X the market value of this car? https://www.rkmotors.com/vehicles/2975/1980-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-pace-car

Hahaha... I love this statement in the ad copy: "THERE'S NO STYLE LIKE 1980S STYLE" My response? "Thank GOD!!!!"

I wouldn’t want that car. But have to say I don’t hate it. 

I think the undercarriage has a lot of patina for an essentially undriven car.  I suppose if you put it on a lift it would detail up nice with a little effort