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

explorerx4

@PF_Flyer,
My wife hates it that I like that movie.

Michaell

For some odd reason, this appeals to me.

boomchek

fintail said:

Euro lights and bumpers (although the latter could be because of the aftermarket style), I wonder if it is a Japan import.

boomchek said:

Someone in my neigbourhood has this old 560SEC. I see it every day. Maybe not so obscure but it does have period correct mods makes it unique.

That's what I'm thinking too. Most of the older luxury cars in nice condition are usually from Japan.

ab348

How slow would a 300 turbo diesel/automatic be? Looks nice cosmetically but I suspect this is going to be another car that someone overpays for.

omarman

The BaT 300CD link looks like the non-turbo OM617 engine. Wiki claims "Power originally was 80 hp (59 kW) @ 4000 rpm, torque 172 Nm(126 lb/ft.) @ 2400 rpm."

Mr_Shiftright

Michaell said:

For some odd reason, this appeals to me.

Well if you aren't in a hurry and you don't mind s-l-o-w and the smell of diesel fuel, might be perfect!

0-60 is about 20 seconds.

boomchek

Funny enough I rewatched Christine first time in a decade earlier this years and then saw 2 of the movie cars this year, one at LeMay car museum in Tacoma and one in Petersen in LA.

stickguy

I want this one for some reason. Shocked it is up this high already with 5 days to go.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1982-volvo-245-glt/

I also liked these back in the day. Very much true to the period!

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1985-nissan-silvia/

fintail

Yep, pre-1981 (IIRC) cars are non-turbo. Performance will be leisurely, I suspect you could coax 0-60 out of it in mid to high teens depending on how it is running. A 240D automatic will be in the 25 second range, I think.

boomchek

My parents had a 240D few years ago. It was fun to put around in during summer but was slow. Their gauge cluster malfunctioned and didn't warn them of oil levels and the engine seized up due to an oil leak.

Michaell

boomchek said:

My parents had a 240D few years ago. It was fun to put around in during summer but was slow. Their gauge cluster malfunctioned and didn't warn them of oil levels and the engine seized up due to an oil leak.

And my folks had a 1972 220D when I was in HS. I think it had a whopping 65 HP.

I obtained a vanity plate for them one year, as a Christmas gift - "REAL SLO"

Solid as a bank vault, however.

kyfdx

Solid as a bank vault, however.

Same acceleration, better seats...

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

andre, thanks for confirming my memory.

While windows going the whole way down is a good thing, I always hated that 'double vent glass' look and Ford seemed to use it on a lot of cars, for a lot of years.

Yeah, I guess when you have too many windows, it can make the car look cluttered. Now that I think about it, off the top of my head I can't think of any GM cars that went for that look, with the exception of the '85-88 Chevy Nova. But that one doesn't really count

One car they SHOULD have done it on, though, was the 1991-96 Caprice! It might have made it look a bit more ungainly, but that rear door window was just too tall, and wide, to have much range of motion at all. Heck, they probably could have just made it flip out and get better ventilation, although I guess they learned their lesson on that with the '78-87 intermediates.

In retrospect, I wonder if making those rear door windows stationary cost GM much in the way of sales, or image. Chrysler tried doing the same thing with the 1981 K-cars, but in mid-1982, they switched. From what I heard, across the large volume of cars they were selling, there really was no cost savings in making the windows stationary, versus roll-down. However, in 1982 they also launched the LeBaron/400, and I believe these had roll-down rear windows from the start. So, it might have been cheaper to just make ALL of the K's have roll-down windows, rather than some of each.

But, with GM, the stationary window cars still managed to sell well. The Aerobacks were poor sellers, but that was because of their shape and style...once they went notchback for 1980, sales took off. You would think that, if the customers had that much of a backlash to the stationary windows, GM would have made a running change, but those cars went on to live out a normal model cycle, perhaps even over-staying their welcome in some respects. With Pontiac it stayed on, as the Bonneville-G, through '86, and the Cutlass sedan made it through '87.

ab348

I always wondered why GM never tried to upsell people on power windows by making the rear door windows roll down if you ordered that, at appropriately high pricing of course.

andre1969

If you got the power windows on those cars, they gave you a choice. You could get power front windows only, and it was the same price as power windows on a coupe. If you ordered power for the back though, it operated the vent windows in back. I want to say that the pricing for that was the same as a normal car, with four roll-down windows. I don't remember seeing too many Malibus or LeManses with the power vents in back, but it was a bit more common with the Bonneville-G, Cutlass Supreme sedan, and '82-84 Regal.

I don't think it would have been that easy to to convert those back doors to roll-down windows, anyway. GM took advantage of it to hollow out the door panels, and recess the armrests back there. The result was elbow room, and hip room (but obviously not shoulder room) that was on par with most big cars. If they made the windows roll down, they'd have to re-do the door panels.

Plus, on models that didn't have the vent window in the door, such as the '78-80 Malibu/LeMans sedans and the '78-79 Aerobacks, there just wasn't much room at all for those big windows to roll down. One of my friends had a '78 Malibu, and snagged guardrail edge with his back door. I helped him put on one we got from a '79 LeMans in the junkyard. We took off the interior trim from the Malibu door and put it on the LeMans, so it would match, and I remember, just out of curiosity, pulling the door apart and getting the window glass out there, just to see how much room there was for it to roll down. Not much, at all, especially considering you need the window glass to extend a few inches below the belt line, for the lift mechanism to attach to.

Now on wagon models, and the sedans with the more formal roofline, I imagine they might have been able to get the window to roll down about half way.

omarman

My dad bought a new 1966 Chevelle Malibu station wagon and the rear windows rolled about 3/4 of the way down. The back wheel wells intruded far enough into the back doors to make it impossible to roll those big windows all the way down. The front door windows were much smaller, but they had the wing vent windows.

ab348

The additional elbow room was nice in those downsized A-bodies but without similar added shoulder and hip room, not particularly useful. So they would have had to fabricate a traditional door card like the fronts had and screw on an armrest. Doesn't strike me as a huge deal-breaker and a nice trade-off for fresh air, especially back then when a lot more people were smokers.

ab348

I was just looking at this. If I didn't already have the Cutlass, I could see myself with a nice one like this, even though I've never been a Ford guy. I always liked these, especially in an understated color like this.




https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1985-ford-mustang-gt-5-0-6/

stickguy

I love that mustang.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

I love that mustang.

Ditto

texases

I'd wait a year for fuel injection.

texases

Talk about 'bank vault' acceleration:
https://jalopnik.com/this-mercedes-190d-camper-for-sale-on-craigslist-may-be-1830024785

fintail

Best part:

“This Mercedes camper is cool enough and done well enough that most people are gonna think that Mercedes built it,”

Uh no.

I have some doubts it could even hit 60.

It's cheap though, which is nice.

andre1969

ab348 said:

The additional elbow room was nice in those downsized A-bodies but without similar added shoulder and hip room, not particularly useful. So they would have had to fabricate a traditional door card like the fronts had and screw on an armrest. Doesn't strike me as a huge deal-breaker and a nice trade-off for fresh air, especially back then when a lot more people were smokers.

It would have come in handy if you squeezed three people in the back seat, as you wouldn't have the armrest cutting into you as much, and your elbow wouldn't be right at your side. But, then again, as far back as they pushed those seats between the wheel wells, the recessed areas might not have been all that convenient. And, as it was, the downsized A-bodies had more shoulder room than competing cars, at least after downsizing, so it's not like they really needed it. Technically though, Ford and Chrysler didn't offer a truly new downsized intermediate until the 1986 Taurus. Everything else that tried to compete with the A-body in the meantime was either a pre-downsized intermediate (LTD-II/Cougar, Monaco/Fury), or had originally been designed, and marketed, as a compact. Ford's attempts at a "downsized" car sprang from the compact Fairmont, while Mopar looked to the Aspen/Volare and then the K-cars for their source material. To be fair though, a lot of those other cars were close in many respects to "intermediate", anyway.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the hiproom measurements for GM in 1982, and got this...
Celebrity 4 door back seat: 52.7"
Malibu 4 door back seat: 55.6"
Impala/Caprice 4 door back seat: 55.3" (might have been 55.1, the print was fuzzy)

stickguy

Interesting. I suppose if you had too much time and money on your hands, and a weird sense of humor, this conversion with an engine swap (what fits easily in there?) might be cool. Eventually.

explorerx4

@ab348,
That looks just the 86 GT I had, except missing the sunroof. First year FI car.

andre1969

That Mustang is pretty cool. And at $12,144 MSRP, seems like that was a lot of performance for the money at the time.

stickguy

It was a lot of money in those days though. For a fresh college grad.

texases

That's equal to about $29,000 today, about right for a base Mustang with much better performance. Not a GT, of course. But I did find some heavily-discounted new 2018 GT's in Houston for less than $29k.

explorerx4

My 86 listed for 14,2xx with a sunroof.
Kept it about 2 years and traded it on an 18k TBird Sport.
I remember the loan balance went up less than 6k.
Back then, people were still on the fence about the styling of the 87 and 88.
I'm pretty sure they had it sold immediately.

ab348

Never having had any first-hand experience with Mustangs like that, do they handle at all? I only ever heard that they were a handful in slippery or snowy conditions because of a light rear end and that lump of an engine under the hood.

stickguy

I test drove one in about 1987. I think it was a hatch. definitely an LX 5.0 5 speed. Man that was fun. No clue if it handled at all, but you could certainly steer with the rear tires if you wanted.

tjc78

I wouldn’t want to drive any 80s Fox body in the Snow. Only worse would be a 2WD pickup.

explorerx4

Well, it is a Mustang. You have to kind of harness them.

Mr_Shiftright

You could make them handle with some mods, sure. I bet a few thousand bucks would sharpen that car up nicely (without doing it on the cheap where you just brutalize the ride).

"Hello. Summit Racing. May I help you?"

Mr_Shiftright

Appraised a '66 Chevelle resto-mod today. 454, Super T-10 close ratio, coil overs, Wilwood disks all around, tubular control arms, B-Cool radiator, staggered 18" tires on American racing rims. Certainly handles better than stock, and really, just looking at it, not radical at all.

kyfdx

tjc78 said:

I wouldn’t want to drive any 80s Fox body in the Snow. Only worse would be a 2WD pickup.

Or, any ‘80s BMW.

roadburner

kyfdx said:

stickguy said:

I love that mustang.

Ditto

Back in 1992 I was looking at a 1991 GT or LX 5.0 convertible to use as a parade car. I couldn't find a used 5 speed so I tried an automatic; what a slug- I had beat a couple of Mustang 5.0 coupes at the Stoplight Grand Prix with my wife's 1991 Volvo 740 Turbo and I though that it was because they were poorly driven, but I realized they were both probably automatics.

boomchek

omarman said:

My dad bought a new 1966 Chevelle Malibu station wagon and the rear windows rolled about 3/4 of the way down. The back wheel wells intruded far enough into the back doors to make it impossible to roll those big windows all the way down. The front door windows were much smaller, but they had the wing vent windows.

The 2nd and 3rd gen Integra 4 doors had the same problems so the window rolled down on a wierd angle, making it seem like it fell off the track. I never liked that look and the first time I saw it I really did think the window fell off the track. I guess other than putting in a small fixed vent window and messing up the car's design, this was the only other solution. I still think it looks odd.





The Mercedes E class coupe has the same problem hence the small extra window in the rear.

andre1969

I think the Subaru Legacys with frameless door windows also had a rear window that went down at an angle like that. It sort of reminds me of GM's '71-76 B/C-body 4-door hardtops, where the rear window rolled down like that in order to go down fully. On the models where the back corner of the window was squared off, rather than rounded, I think it even stuck up a bit, like maybe one inch. I know the C-bodies did this, but I think the '74-76 B-bodies, which had a revised roofline, did as well. The '71-73 B-bodies had a roof that was a bit more rounded, and I think that corner was able to clear the beltline.

I agree, the Integra does look a bit odd, with the window all the way down. But, I appreciate the fact that they went through the effort to make it go down as far as it did. And putting in a spacer window might have ruined the looks of the car. The '80-85 Seville, and '79-81 Mopar R-body used frameless windows, but had a spacer window in back, and they don't look too bad in my opinion (although the NYer/5th Ave turned it into an opera window, which was a bit much, and it was too big in relation to the roll-down part), but on a cleaner style like the Integra, might not work.

I also think the little spacer window in the Benz looks odd. Shame they couldn't find a way to make it pivot down out of the way, like what Mopar did with their '56 hardtop sedans. Still, I love the fact Benz goes through the effort to make a true hardtop.

ab348

I seem to have a vague memory of a car - maybe '50s or '60s vintage? - where the door glass was 2 pieces that articulated separately when rolled down to make it disappear into the door. But I can't recall what car, much less find a pic. Anyone?

stickguy

can't say I have ever seen one of these before. Or even heard of it. Looks like a rat though. Good luck finding parts!

https://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/d/miura-targa/6733897676.html

omarman

When my sister bought a new 1979 Malibu station wagon she found that the rear door windows were fixed but had little rain catcher swing out window vents behind them. My BIL also bought a new Malibu Classic coupe at the same time which also had fixed rear glass but no rain catchers.

Both cars had the same power train: 267 V8 with automatic. And they both seemed "decontented" in a way that didn't seem to be an issue with the downsized GM full size cars.

Dad's old Malibu wagon just seemed "better" when compared to my sister's downsized Malibu wagon.
The '66 wagon hand crank windows but it still had a power rear tailgate window. The hatch lift design of the '79 wagon may have been simpler and cost effective but...

The old style station wagon was great for going to the drive in movies where you put the tailgate window down and sit on the top of the tailgate for a clear view of the big screen with plenty of room for your soda and popcorn on the roof.

fintail

Solution to the E coupe soft pillar is just to aim high and get an S coupe - all it takes is hard work, right?



It's a big car:



MB has had at least one true hardtop coupe on the market since the 1961 model year, 1958 if you count the hardtop Adenauer.

Mr_Shiftright

kyfdx said:

tjc78 said:

I wouldn’t want to drive any 80s Fox body in the Snow. Only worse would be a 2WD pickup.

Or, any ‘80s BMW.

All you need is 4 dedicated snow tires. Makes a big difference.

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

kyfdx said:

tjc78 said:

I wouldn’t want to drive any 80s Fox body in the Snow. Only worse would be a 2WD pickup.

Or, any ‘80s BMW.

All you need is 4 dedicated snow tires. Makes a big difference.

Precisely.

ab348

ab348 said:

I seem to have a vague memory of a car - maybe '50s or '60s vintage? - where the door glass was 2 pieces that articulated separately when rolled down to make it disappear into the door. But I can't recall what car, much less find a pic. Anyone?

Got it! Though not a great picture of it. It was the '56 Imperial 4-door HT, the '55 as well I think. Here is a pic of the car (this one is at Gesswein in South Dakota):



Here's a shot of a different example where you can see the window setup:



And another different one with windows down:

uplanderguy

Looking through my Hershey '18 pics again, and came across this. This was during the drive onto the show field, which is a very long parade of cars as they require you to drive the car onto the field. This lady didn't look quite as enthusiastic as her husband, LOL. When he took off, her right hand was a blur trying to grab the assist bar on the panel.

andre1969

All '56 Mopar hardtop sedans - Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler, and Imperial, used that same type of rear door setup. They didn't have the money to come up with an all-new body for the 4-door hardtop, so they simply took the 4-door sedan and eliminated the B-pillar and window frames. However, because the pillared sedan had a spacer window in the rear door, they had to come up with a fix, if they really wanted that open-air feeling all the way back to the C-pillar. So that's when they came up with those windows. As you roll down the main window, the smaller window pivots down with it.

It was a bit of a rush act, and some might consider it a bit ungainly, compared to the GM hardtops. But, on the plus side, the Mopar hardtop sedans had just as much interior room as their pillared counterparts, and were every bit as easy to get into and out of. The GM cars gave up a bit of interior room.

boomchek

fintail said:

Solution to the E coupe soft pillar is just to aim high and get an S coupe - all it takes is hard work, right?



It's a big car:



MB has had at least one true hardtop coupe on the market since the 1961 model year, 1958 if you count the hardtop Adenauer.

These are gorgeous. One of my favourite looking cars on the market right now.