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

benjaminh

"Knudson's nose" or "Bunky's beak" I believe was the behind the scenes knick-name for the styling of Pontiacs in this era, although I don't know how much truth there is to that. I think I read it in a car magazine or book long ago....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semon_Knudsen

benjaminh

And with 1969 I'm think I'm going to stop....I owned the exact car on the last pic/page posted here. My first car I ever bought, back in 1986, was a green 1969 Pontiac Catalina Safari wagon.

ab348

You should continue for one more model year, if only to show how the disappointing 1968 refresh ("It looks like a turkey" was what one of the Pontiac engineers was quoted as calling it in one of the car magazines at the time) morphed into the cheapened-up 1969 (especially the dashboard), then into the baroque 1970 model.

ab348

benjaminh said:

"Knudson's nose" or "Bunky's beak" I believe was the behind the scenes knick-name for the styling of Pontiacs in this era, although I don't know how much truth there is to that. I think I read it in a car magazine or book long ago....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semon_Knudsen

And of course when he was recruited to run Ford he immediately put the beak on the Thunderbird. I actually kind of liked those.

Michaell

@benjaminh - don't stop, I'd love to see the brochures from the malaise era 70's and 80's.

I had a 1979 Pontiac Sunbird when I was in college. Be interesting to see how the marketing folks at Pontiac positioned that little sucker.

ab348

Some of the ads here I remember, but most I do not. From a different era. Back in the '70s I might have been persuaded to buy an Excalibur if what is shown in the ad is what resulted (and if I had the $$$).

http://blog.consumerguide.com/cars-in-cigarette-ads/

omarman

And now for something completely different.
Foster Brooks Roasts Ralph Nader.No really.
"I drove one car today and even the clock didn't work. It only had one hand on it and kept pointing to 130."

sda

Michaell said:

@benjaminh - don't stop, I'd love to see the brochures from the malaise era 70's and 80's.

I had a 1979 Pontiac Sunbird when I was in college. Be interesting to see how the marketing folks at Pontiac positioned that little sucker.

I second that request! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them.

stickguy

yesterday, a mid 70s Chevy Monza hatchback. I forgot how much they looked exotic back in the day. This one was on a trailer, probably going to Atco raceway, since it was obviously a drag car with monster rear tires.

uplanderguy

I know it had to do with required safety padding, etc., but what a shame what happened to Pontiac instrument panels after the magnificent (IMHO) '65 and '66 panels. I do like the '67 and '68 big Pontiacs though, but to me, the '69 was a big disappointment. I'm with ab348--the instrument panel disappoints big-time.

The Bonneville could still be had with bucket seats--but not with a floor shift or console. WTH? They couldn't have just used Chevy's, or Buick's, or Olds', console and floor shift?

The '69 Grand Prix was a winner for sure.

Concerning the '70 Pontiac--I used to hate it. But now, I kind-of like them, if I see a Ventura, Executive, or Bonneville Brougham. You just never see them at car shows!

explorerx4

@omarman,
Another Gem!

berri

67 seemed to be a bit of a controversial year for the big Pontiacs. Some really liked the look, some loathed it. That may a sign of creativity, although I sort of felt they weren't really sure where they were going with it. For me, that all makes it kind of an interesting model year. The Tempest/LeMans/GTO was pretty darn sharp though in 67 to my eye.

benjaminh

1970....

stickguy

I wouldn’t mind a 70 GTO. But since I have odd tastes, I really want a 74!

kyfdx

My uncle had a '70 Bonneville four door... ugly turd

roadburner

stickguy said:

yesterday, a mid 70s Chevy Monza hatchback. I forgot how much they looked exotic back in the day. This one was on a trailer, probably going to Atco raceway, since it was obviously a drag car with monster rear tires.

Before I bought my Monte Carlo my dad and I went to a Chevy dealer that had the first new Monza in Louisville; it had the beyond puny 262 V8 and was sitting in the showroom steaming; it had overheated on the first test drive...

texases

"My uncle had a '70 Bonneville four door... ugly turd "

The car, I assume...

stickguy

Compared to a 74 Corolla or gremlin, it was a space ship with massive power.

omarman

The uncle relationship can be a challenge sometimes.

berri

Always liked the 69/70 Grand Prix looks

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

Would someone explain the difference between the Bonneville, Grand Prix, and Catalina for '66? Seems like a lot of overlap.

The Catalina and Grand Prix were on the shorter of the two full-size Pontiac wheelbases. The Star Chief/Executive and Bonneville were on a three-inch-longer wheelbase.

Catalina was the entry-level car. It had hardtops and a convertible like a Chevy Impala, but through '68 also had a two-door sedan like Chevy's Biscayne and Bel Air. Trim-wise, it was better than Impala in some ways, but seat trim always struck me as more Bel Air-like.

Grand Prix was a luxury/sport model, almost always (but not always) with bucket seats and console; custom grillework and taillights, on the shorter wheelbase.

Star Chief/Executive had the interior trim of the Ventura Custom option on the Catalina, but on the longer wheelbase--same wheelbase as Bonneville.

Bonneville was their luxury leader, on the longer wheelbase. There was also a Brougham option on the Bonneville.

I find the Ventura and Executive models interesting because they seemed to be the poorest-sellers in the lineup.

I almost forgot the 2+2 model option, on the Catalina--a sort-of budget Grand Prix. It may have been its own model in '66.

That's a really good rundown. A few things I'd add...

The Catalina used a 2-bbl 389 in 1966, and I believe the Star Chief/Executive did, as well. The Bonneville used a 389-4bbl as standard, and I believe the Grand Prix also had a standard 389-4, but it was a bit more powerful. I think '66 was also the last year they used the "Star Chief" name. For '67-70 I believe it was just "Executive", and then when Pontiac brought the Grand Ville to the party in '71, the Bonneville was demoted to about where the Executive had been.

The Ventura was technically a trim package for the Catalina, rather than a separate model. As a result, I don't think production figures are readily available. I didn't realize it used the same interior as the Star Chief Executive...interesting. I wonder if the two still shared interior trim in '69? I used to work with a guy years ago who had a '69 Catalina with the Ventura trim package, and it definitely seemed pretty ritzy inside. Off the top of my head, the only thing I think the Bonneville really had over it was those full-length, integrated armrests, kind of like what you'd expect in a C-body...the kind that looked nice when new, but tended to crack when they age.

Also, while they were still on the B-body, Pontiac stretched the Star Chief Executive and Bonneville out to roughly C-body length. In addition to the 3" stretch in wheelbase (which was all in back, and didn't give you any more legroom, but did give you a longer trunk...mostly that useless area above and ahead of the rear axle), they also stretched out the rear about 5-6", maybe even more, which made the trunks positively huge.

IIRC, the 2+2 actually had a 421 standard. I always thought of it as Pontiac's response to the Impala SS. Although while the SS could be had with any engine in the Chevy lineup, the 2+2 started you off at maximum displacement.

There was definitely a lot of overlap, by today's standards, but back then, they found a way to make it work. Pontiac's overlap might have seemed worse than Buick or Olds though, because Pontiac based all of their full-sized cars off of the B-body, whereas Buick and Olds made use of the B- and the C-. So, Pontiac tried to have a wide range of cars on the shorter 121" wheelbase, as well as the 124".

Now that I think about it, didn't Buick do something similar to the Executive/Bonneville with the Wildcat for a few years? IIRC, it was still the B-body, but they stretched it out to where it was longer than a LeSabre or the various Olds 88 models.

andre1969

kyfdx said:

We had a '67 Bonneville Coupe.. White on white.

It looked like a spaceship, compared to most full-size cars in 1967.
My aunt bought a 4-door sedan Bonneville at the same time.

I know I probably don't have to say what my opinion is, of the '67 Pontiacs

I was fascinated with them ever since I was a little kid, because the front-end made me think of the Batmobile! And yeah, they did look pretty futuristic compared to other cars of that era.

I can still remember when I bought my '67 Catalina, one of my friends commented on how futuristic it looked. By that point, he was used to other cars I had, like my '68 Dart, '57 DeSoto, and to a lesser degree, my '69 Bonneville (when it ran). To him, those all seemed like old cars, and their style showed it, but he thought the Catalina looked downright futuristic.

Someone else I knew, who had only seen my '68 Dart and the Catalina, said sort of the same thing. To him, the Dart just seemed like an old car, but the Catalina seemed "modern".

andre1969

I think '67 was also the last year that I really got turned on by a full-sized Pontiac. Even though they were getting chunkier, just like everything else that year, they still managed to impart a youthful, sporty, futuristic feel. But then the '68, to me, has the look of an old man's car. I think the problem is that, in earlier years, the big cars tended to set the styling pace, and they'd try to make the smaller cars emulate the style, with '67 being the exception. But then for '68, they tried to make the big cars ape the smaller cars, and it just didn't work.

I thought the '69 was actually an improvement, and I did own a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop for a few years. Bought it from my cousin for $400 and, well, you get what you pay for...

For '70, I guess they were trying to carry the Grand Prix styling across the whole big car lineup, but again, I wasn't crazy about it. The grille was too narrow, and the fake horn ports were a bit much. I think they called it "neoclassic" in those days, but today it would be called "retro". So, in that sense, maybe Pontiac was ahead of the times?

For '71-76, the big Pontiacs really don't excite me. In many cases, I think a Delta 88 or LeSabre is a much more tasteful car than the Catalina, and the Grand Ville/Bonneville Brougham was never in the same league as a Ninety-Eight or Electra, no matter how hard Pontiac tried.

It really wasn't until 1977 that the big Pontiacs really started turning me on again. And there, it was mainly the Catalina. I thought the front-end, with it's cross-hair grille that vaguely recalled the '76 LeMans, or even '64 GTO, looked really good. "Sporty" was a dirty word among big cars by 1977, but I think the Catalina that year was about as "sporty" as a big'un could get.

kyfdx

My mom traded her '67 for a '71 Grand Ville. That only lasted one year, and was traded for a Lincoln Coupe in '72, and that was it for Pontiac, in our family.

My aunt and uncle drove their '67 and '70 Pontiacs for quite a few years, though. I might be forgetting something in-between, but I think they had them until '78 (traded '67 for a Coupe DeVille), and '79 (traded '70 for a Corolla wagon).

andre1969

Wow, only one year? Was the '71 Grand Ville that bad, or did they just not like it for some reason?

My Mom's first new car was a '66 Catalina convertible that she bought when she was 17. She worked as a waitress at Hot Shoppes, saved up half the price of the car, and borrowed the other half from an aunt. She had it until '72. Once she got married, my Dad started driving it a lot, and he was rough on it. Plus, my Mom didn't like the idea of driving around in a convertible with a baby (me). So, she swapped cars with my grandparents, who had a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop, and they traded the Catalina for a new '72 Impala 4-door hardtop.

Our neighbors had a '70 Executive 4 door sedan. It was green, I remember that much. I don't know how long it ultimately lasted, but they still had it around 1981-82 when they sold their house here in Maryland and moved away to Pennsylvania.

benjaminh

Hmmmm....





(PS After 1970 Pontiac brochures no longer had "car art"—just photos. Not very interesting imho....I don't think I have the heart to post pix of them. Apologies to fans of malaise days Pontiacs.)

xwesx

I sort of like the orchid look on that Ford. I don't like that it has been "de-trucked," as so many classics have. That aspect, at least, can be undone if some future owner comes to their senses and appreciates it for what it actually was.

texases

Saw a nice 1965-ish Chevy pickup this morning, restored with a good looking two tone paint job.

andre1969

Not the most flattering in the world, but here's the first pics of my DeSoto, "out in the wild", so to speak...




It made it about 5 miles from the shop, and started bucking, finally stalled, and I rolled to the side of the road. It re-started, but made it maybe a mile, died again, and this time I didn't react quickly enough to get it fully out of the road.

The culprit? The sumbitch was out of gas! Apparently, the gas gauge lies, and tells you it's half-full right until it runs dry. I don't remember it doing that in the past, but it has a new gas tank, and I forget now what all else he replaced in the fuel line, so I guess it might just need to be calibrated, or something? Ironically, someone I know, who has a '59 Dodge Coronet, happened to drive by and pulled over (in his Ram, not his Coronet). My friend who was following me got behind the wheel, and me and the other guy pushed it as far off the road as we could. Not an easy task, with something that size, going uphill... And with the freshly-chromed bumpers, I didn't want anything pushing it, or trying to tow it...

Anyway, the mechanic sent out a guy with a can of gas, it fired up, and got me home. Oh, and I also learned one reason why these Forward Look cars rusted out so quickly back in the day. The ground was a bit damp, and soft, so when I got going again, the right rear wheel spun out. I sprayed it off real good the moment I got it home, but it was amazing how much mud, grass, etc got stuck up in the wheel well, under the trunk floor, and inside the bumper, just with that one quick wheel-spin. All sorts of places for crap to accumulate. And I'm sure people weren't that religious about washing real good under their cars, back in the day.

kyfdx

andre1969 said:

Wow, only one year? Was the '71 Grand Ville that bad, or did they just not like it for some reason?

My Mom's first new car was a '66 Catalina convertible that she bought when she was 17. She worked as a waitress at Hot Shoppes, saved up half the price of the car, and borrowed the other half from an aunt. She had it until '72. Once she got married, my Dad started driving it a lot, and he was rough on it. Plus, my Mom didn't like the idea of driving around in a convertible with a baby (me). So, she swapped cars with my grandparents, who had a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop, and they traded the Catalina for a new '72 Impala 4-door hardtop.

Our neighbors had a '70 Executive 4 door sedan. It was green, I remember that much. I don't know how long it ultimately lasted, but they still had it around 1981-82 when they sold their house here in Maryland and moved away to Pennsylvania.

I don't remember the exact reason... just that she hated it.
She loved the Lincoln, though. That's the car I learned to drive on.

Mr_Shiftright

@andre1969 : A fairly typical "shake-down cruise". I always use the Shiftright "5-50-500" rule after a major repair or a restoration. Drive 5 miles and be prepared with tools and fluids. If it makes it 5, or you've fixed what broke, then shoot for a 50 mile round trip (no more, no matter what) and see what happens. If it does 5 and does 50, you're ready to hit the road on a tour or other destination, with some confidence.

ab348

@andre1969 nice to finally see the DeSoto out in the real world! Too bad about the incident but glad it was something fairly simple. I didn't realize you weren't having it painted while it was in the shop?

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

@andre1969 : A fairly typical "shake-down cruise". I always use the Shiftright "5-50-500" rule after a major repair or a restoration. Drive 5 miles and be prepared with tools and fluids. If it makes it 5, or you've fixed what broke, then shoot for a 50 mile round trip (no more, no matter what) and see what happens. If it does 5 and does 50, you're ready to hit the road on a tour or other destination, with some confidence.

Yeah, that definitely makes sense. However, the mechanic actually took the car home with him last night, and drove it back to work this morning. So he's actually been "shaking it down"...supposedly.

Where I really ran into problems was when I made a right turn from one road onto another, and I gunned it to see how well it took the corner. It took the corner beautifully...although when a car corners this flat, but the seats have no bolstering, you do tend to slide. Around 50 mph it started to buck just a little, and then it got worse, although feathering the gas pedal helped. But, after about a mile it gave out. After re-starting, it made it another mile, and I guess at that point it was bone dry. After sitting a bit, I tried it, got it to almost catch once, but that was it, until it got gas in it.

andre1969

ab348 said:

@andre1969 nice to finally see the DeSoto out in the real world! Too bad about the incident but glad it was something fairly simple. I didn't realize you weren't having it painted while it was in the shop?

Thanks...yeah, I want to get it painted eventually, but this guy is just too expensive, and with all the other stuff that need doing, I just didn't have the budget. The final kicker was when the transmission went out.

I'm not overly thrilled with the primer here and there, but that's a result of him tearing into the rust on the lower quarters. The front fender on the driver's side was replaced, too, so it doesn't match.

thebean

It still looks great, even with the primer. That era of car really makes a statement.

stickguy

once you get the new house settled, can save up to do the body. Sell off some of the rest of the fleet to pay for it, and make space!

and now, at least you will know that your gas is fresh.

andre1969

stickguy said:

once you get the new house settled, can save up to do the body. Sell off some of the rest of the fleet to pay for it, and make space!

and now, at least you will know that your gas is fresh.

Oh, on the subject of pruning the fleet...the other day, I hooked one of those portable jump start things up to my 2000 Park Ave. The car had not been run in about two years, and was as dead as could be. It was a bit hesitant at first, but then suddenly it fired right up...and sounded like a brand new car! Well, a brand-new car with a 90-degree pushrod V6, that is. I know I won't get much for it, because it needs a ton of other work, but at least, knowing that it will start and move under its own power, I guess it'll be worth a litlte bit more.

berri

That DeSoto looks clean and modern today. When I saw the hood up I thought of my dad's 54 - except it wasn't out of gas. It had a collapsed gas tank. Those dual rear antennas take me back to my days of model cars.

berri

Ben - If you are into art and styling, some books come to mind like The Art of the Automobile" or "Boulevard Automotive" that you might enjoy. Also, there are books on some of the more famous stylists back then.

omarman

I wonder how many people saw this on the road today (or even the side of the road) and uploaded a pic from their phone to FB. "Lookit what I saw on the road!"

andre1969

berri said:

That DeSoto looks clean and modern today. When I saw the hood up I thought of my dad's 54 - except it wasn't out of gas. It had a collapsed gas tank. Those dual rear antennas take me back to my days of model cars.

One thing that struck me about the DeSoto is just how low-slung it really is. I know they were considered low for the time, and remember the phrase "four feet, seven and a half inches" being thrown around a lot. I can't remember if that was for the 4-door sedan or the hardtop, though. Anyway, I know my '79 5th Ave is 54.5" tall, according to specs I've seen. I think my '76 LeMans is 52.9". But, when I pulled the DeSoto into the garage, it was nose-to-nose with the LeMans, and beside the 5th Ave, and I swear it looks more low-slung than either of them.

Now some of that might be the tires. It doesn't have the old 8.55x14 or whatever they called it bias-ply. It has modern radials with a wide whitewall. I want to say they're a 225/75/R14, so while tall by modern standards, they're still probably lower than the stock tires.

Another thing that surprised me was how well the car actually drives and handles. I haven't actually driven it since 2006. It was towed away in 2009. After being that far removed from the experience of it, I was actually dreading the day I had to bring it home. But, it fired right up, and in giving it some gas, it's actually pretty quick off the line. It probably wouldn't be hard to chirp a rear tire, but those suckers aren't cheap, so there won't be much of that.

The steering is typical 50's car vague when it comes to road feel, but it's actually pretty quick and responsive. You can barely feel it shift. I'm not overly fond of the braking though, and it needs some adjustment, I'm sure. It was converted to disc brakes up front, and they are power, but it seemed like I still had to put a bit of extra effort to get it to stop. In contrast, with my '67 Catalina, if you hit the pedal too quick it'll try to throw you through the windshield.

For something this size, it's also fairly nimble. It's around 218" long, and on a 126" wb, and probably about as wide as a car can be before they have to classify it as a medium dury truck in some jurisdictions. And that 218" is pretty much all car too...not inflated by jutting, prow-shaped bumpers with guards that actually make a car technically longer, but don't always make it "feel" bigger. I guess 5 mph bumpers, 70's style, would've probably added another 8-10". But, with the low hood, and the way the fenders peak, it makes it really easy to guide. Backing up is a cinch too, because the tailfins help you to aim.

It's really not a very comfortable car though, by modern standards. The seat is low, flat, not well supported, and no side bolstering. And the pedals are a bit too close for comfort. I'd say my '67 Catalina is slightly more comfortable, and my '76 LeMans and 5th Ave blow it away. As bad as cars got in many respects in the 1970's, in some ways, they actually DID improve!

berri

Mopar even put the rearview mirror on the dash to emphasize the low, sporty styling of those 57's I believe. Chryslers torsion bar suspension was tighter in handling than the pillow comfort suspensions used on its competitors. So 1957 did offer consumers a choice based on their personal preferences. Throw out 73, 74 and maybe 75 and I'll agree with you Andre. Some god awful issues in those years with drivability.

PS - If you read some of the reviews of the 57/58 Mopars, many criticized the power steering as way too light with no feedback. But I imagine without PS they were a land barge to drive. My parents had a friend who drove a 57 Chrysler and it was hell on wheels in the Chicago snow and ice with a seemingly mind of its own (hmm, Christine or its aunt!).

xwesx

Mr_Shiftright said:

@andre1969 : A fairly typical "shake-down cruise". I always use the Shiftright "5-50-500" rule after a major repair or a restoration. Drive 5 miles and be prepared with tools and fluids. If it makes it 5, or you've fixed what broke, then shoot for a 50 mile round trip (no more, no matter what) and see what happens. If it does 5 and does 50, you're ready to hit the road on a tour or other destination, with some confidence.

I agree on the 500, too. You're not out of the woods until you pass that 500 mark! I mentioned this to my brother way back in 1998 shortly after we got my mother's 1974 Pinto wagon on the road again. He wanted to take it to school (Linfield College in McMinnville, Oregon) with him. But, we only had about 250 miles on it since getting it running, and I told him we needed at least 500 before it would be "worthy" of a trip like that (about 250 miles). Well, he made it about fifteen miles short of school when the car threw a rod!

I drove over with my father's pickup and a car dolly to bring it home. Once I arrived at home, I parked the Pinto in the quonset hut and there it sat for the next 18 years until I finally let my brother sell it about two years ago.

andre1969

I was mainly thinking about seat comfort, and interior room, as improvements in the 70's. One problem that the '57 Mopars, and similar cars seemed to face was the race to make them lower and sleeker, but they were still using ladder type frames where the body sat on top. As a result, you didn't have much headroom, even though the seats were low to the floor. And when they'd lower the seat, you'd give up some legroom, too. Thanks to perimeter frames and unit bodies, and body designs in general that moved the seat further back from the cowl and steering wheel, I think a lot of 70's cars were a lot more comfortable than your typical late 50's car. The earlier 50's cars also had a seating position too close to the cowl, but at least sat up higher, in a bit more of a pickup truck like fashion, so they were probably a bit more comfortable.

But yeah, performance got really bad in the 70's. I saw a road test of a 1957 DeSoto Firedome convertible, same setup as mine, 341-2bbl, 270 gross hp, torqueflite, and I think 0-60 was around 9.7 seconds. By the time the 70's rolled around, there probably weren't too many cars with 2-bbl carb engines in the 340-360 CID range that could do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. I've even seen tests of 350 Novas and 351 Granadas, cars you'd think would be quick thanks to the large-ish displacement and light bodies, and they couldn't do it. I'm sure a lot of it had to do with gearing though, plus emissions equipment.

Mr_Shiftright

One tip. Never EVER slam those transmissions into reverse while moving forward. Snap! Rear servo.

fintail

Awesome to see the DeSoto back on the road, Christine's bigger brother. Somehow, the primer isn't too unsightly, as the rest of the car is so sharp and wild.

Funny thing, the fintail has a similar gas gauge issue - reads normal until 2/3-3/4 or so, then full all the time. The low fuel light still works though, and I just fill it up almost every time I drive it.

imidazol97

Mr_Shiftright said:

@andre1969 : A fairly typical "shake-down cruise". I always use the Shiftright "5-50-500" rule after a major repair or a restoration. Drive 5 miles and be prepared with tools and fluids. If it makes it 5, or you've fixed what broke, then shoot for a 50 mile round trip (no more, no matter what) and see what happens. If it does 5 and does 50, you're ready to hit the road on a tour or other destination, with some confidence.

That is a lotta truth in them there words. Reality is starting slow.

Mr_Shiftright

It makes sense to do it gradually because you don't want to ruin what you worked so hard to create.

imidazol97

andre1969 said:

Seeing a car of that era and that grandeur would have made my day, hood up or hood down.

Reminds me of about 8 weeks back seeing 3 63-64 Chevies stopped along I75 at edge of dayton. One of them had a flat tire, IIRC. Convertible. They were probably headed to a car show somewhere as a group. Beautiful. Reminded me of the automotive scenery during my youth.

andre1969

imidazol97 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

@andre1969 : A fairly typical "shake-down cruise". I always use the Shiftright "5-50-500" rule after a major repair or a restoration. Drive 5 miles and be prepared with tools and fluids. If it makes it 5, or you've fixed what broke, then shoot for a 50 mile round trip (no more, no matter what) and see what happens. If it does 5 and does 50, you're ready to hit the road on a tour or other destination, with some confidence.

That is a lotta truth in them there words. Reality is starting slow.

I just mapped it out on Google maps. Ironically enough, the DeSoto stalled out for the first time right around the 5 mile mark! After it re-started, it made it roughly another 9/10, to where it quit for good, and I had to call the mechanic. After I gassed it up, it got the rest of the way home without incident...about 10.5 miles total from the mechanic.

Today I started it up, just to back out of the garage to get something out, and then put it back in. Seemed to do just fine. One thing I have to get used to though, is that this sucker is quiet when it starts and fires up. Much more quiet than my other old cars...even the newer ones.

Tomorrow, first thing in the morning, I might take a chance and drive out and get it gassed up. Gas is expensive as hell out here, but if you drive a few miles, it's noticably cheaper. Closest station is less than two miles, but I think I'll be daring, and do one that's around 6 miles away